Sermon

Nature’s God

The Rev. Jack D. Bryant

Hope Unitarian Church

July 4, 2004

First Reading: Joshua 1:1-11

After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord spoke to Joshua son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, saying, “My servant Moses is dead. Now proceed to cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the Israelites. Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and the Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, to the Great Sea in the west shall be your territory. No one shall be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous; for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or the left, so that you may be successful whever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful. I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go."

Second Reading: From the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sermon

I turned on the television the other night and found myself listening to a fellow minister - I don’t know his denomination - who was speaking about the need to tear down the wall of separation between church and state that Jefferson proclaimed. He said words to the effect that, “Our very way of life is at stake.” It was a pointed reminder of the hot debate in recent years over the role of religion in the public square and the question of separation of church and state. On the one hand we have those who say the founding fathers never intended for any separation of church and state and that the United States is a Christian nation. At the other extreme are the secularist who say the Founding Fathers rejected any connection with religion in general and Christianity in particular. Both sides are wrong in the answers they give. The religious beliefs of those responsible for creating our country - through our two foundational documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - are much more complicated and, I must add, much more interesting than either of the extremes will accept. And the answer to the question about separation of church and state is not the either/or solutions offered by either side, but something more subtle. But those are questions I want to address in a few weeks in another sermon. Today I am content to concern myself with just two words, “Nature’s God,” the most interesting words - to my ears - in the Declaration of Independence. Those are words written by Thomas Jefferson, the same man who spoke of a wall of separation between church and state. How is it that of all men Jefferson should invoke “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence? The question is given strength in my mind by my belief that Jefferson knew he was writing a document creating a country. For that purpose he deliberately invoked Nature’s God. So what did he mean by it?

It’s not unusual to invoke God’s name or to claim God’s endorsement of nation building - or nation ruling. Our own President Bush made such a claim a few days ago when he said he didn’t go to his father, the first George, for advice, but went instead to his higher Father. And our first reading this morning is an ancient example of the same practice in somewhat different form. God is supposed to have given the followers of Moses the land that the Israelis and the Palestinians are fighting over today. Later in Joshua and other books of the bible there are explicit claims that God authorizes war in general and genocide in particular as a means of claiming the land he gives in the first verses of Joshua.

Move forward about fourteen hundred years to the fourth century of the common era and you will see Constantine invoking Christianity as warrant for his claim to be the rightful emperor of the Roman Empire. Constantine’s invocation of Christianity was actually less Christian and more Roman than you might think, because Rome had traditionally understood its imperial dominance of the world as flowing from its worship of all the Gods. Rome, to put it bluntly, was triumphant - in the mind of the Romans - because the Romans worshiped all the Gods - which is another way of saying all the Gods endorsed Rome.

And much the same attitude is found throughout history. For centuries European Kings legitimized their rule by claiming the Divine Right of Kings. I hear the same sort of claims today - somewhat different in form, but based on the same kind of theology- from those in the Middle East who want to have Islamic governments. Religion is used to justify civil rule. That’s the traditional use of religion in its intersection with government, whether it’s God talking to Moses, Constantine conquering under the banner of Christianity, or President Bush accepting direction from his “higher Father.” Religion in general and God in particular are used to justify the exercise of power. Don’t question what I do, God told me to do it. God has given me special power and special privilege. Don’t question me. If you do, I will imprison or kill you in God’s name.

But that’s not what Jefferson does. Instead of claiming God gives him the special power to rule, he speaks of a God, of a Creator, who endows people “with certain unalienable Rights,” and says that they include, “life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And that governments are created to secure those rights - governments which derive their powers not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” Nature’s God, therefore, is not - in Jefferson’s mind - a God that creates governments, but a God that holds governments accountable - governments that have no authority accept as granted by consent of those governed. Was this an accident? Did Jefferson understand he was speaking of God in a radically different way? Let me tell you a story.

It’s said that a traveler in the early 1800’s stopped for the night at an inn in Virginia. Over dinner he struck up a conversation with a stranger - whose name he did not hear - who was also spending the night. At first they spoke of farming and he assumed, from the man’s encyclopedic knowledge of the subject that he was a successful planter who had spent his life in agricultural pursuits. Then the conversation turned to the latest developments in engineering and mechanics and architecture and he soon realized that his original conclusion was wrong: the stranger was obviously an engineer or architect of great renown. Then they began to speak of philosophy and government and theology. And again the man realized he had been mistaken. The stranger had to be a professor of philosophy and theology. The next morning he arose to find his conversation partner had already left. He asked the inn’s proprietor if he knew the man’s name. You don’t know, replied the inn keeper? That was Thomas Jefferson.

I think Jefferson knew exactly what he was saying. Nature’s God was not a being who conferred power on Kings - or Presidents. Nature’s God was something entirely different. Nature’s God was not to be understood in the theological language of that day - nor in the manner that most speak of God today. And Nature’s God was not to be confused with any government - whether it be King George’s or that of the government the colonists would eventually organize.

Nature’s God was above and separate from all governments. No government can claim the endorsement of Nature’s God. And I think it follows that no person can claim the endorsement of Nature’s God. Most importantly, no government can use Nature’s God to justify its actions. And if you stop and think about it, no person can do so either.

The idea that Jefferson expressed is - I think - consistent with what H. Richard Niebuhr called radical monotheism. In simple terms it says the God that can be named is not God. In practical terms it says worship of God does not justify us, but calls us to a higher standard. In terms of the theology of governments it means that the nation Jefferson envisioned being created would not be one that justified itself with idolatrous thinking, but instead called itself to the highest of all standards - a standard so high that it could not be directly named except through his alliteration of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That’s why I said what I did three weeks ago about the possible use of torture by Americans. I was talking about the revelation that White House lawyers had advised the president that since there was no international treaty on point the government of the United States was free to use torture against certain individuals. To his credit President Bush turned down the option. But if you accept Jefferson’s theology, if you understand what he meant by Nature’s God, then torture in the name of America is impossible, because Nature’s God creates unalienable Rights - and among those rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. America, therefore, is not a nation whose existence and actions are justified by God, America is a nation called to a higher standard. Terrorists may kidnap and torture and murder, but Jefferson’s theology says America is supposed to be better. Jefferson’s theology says we are supposed to be better.

In 1845 the phrase manifest destiny - first used in a newspaper editorial - became popular. It said that America had the right to expand and fill the continent. Jefferson - by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark Expedition which he ordered - was responsible for the conditions that made Manifest Destiny possible. But I don’t think he would have agreed with the idea. He was, I am certain, in favor of the expansion of the country, but I don’t believe he would have seen it as divinely mandated. That’s an idea - Manifest Destiny - that is too much like those other ideas of God, those other justifications of empires and kings. If our country expanded in the nineteenth century it was the responsibility of the people from whom all powers of government are derived. We can’t blame God and we can’t use God as an excuse - whether it is Manifest Destiny in the nineteenth century or the Imperial Hubris of the new world order of the twenty-first century. As another President used to say, “The buck stops here.” It stops with us the people. We can’t use God.

I think that last is important. The traditional understanding of God is one that too often leads people to use God as a justification for human desires. It too easily makes God the servant of human ends, subordinating God to the desire for human power, and human needs, leading us into a form of worship that is not worshipful, merely idolatrous. Jefferson’s theology of Nature’s God suggests a different kind of religion. It is the kind of religion, that leads us as the great Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel, said, "to convert ends into needs, to convert the divine commandment into a human concern." Not a human justification, but a human concern.

Not everyone agrees with Jefferson’s understanding of Nature’s God. I think that’s what’s really behind the current debate over separation of church and state. I think it reveals a deeper divide about the nature of God. I think it reveals a struggle as old as our country. That’s why I think the minister I heard on television the other night was right. It really is a conflict that puts our way of life at risk.

Shall we be a nation that exists in the light of Nature’s God, the Creator that endows ever person with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - or shall we be a nation that believes God endorses us and gives us special privileges and license, a nation with a new Manifest Destiny to rule the world. Let me put it another way: Shall our civic religion be one that says we have special privileges, that our status as God’s chosen people, as some like to say, a civic religion that tells us we’re better than others, that we rule by right, that we have the right to the greatest empire, the greatest wealth, the greatest dominion over others, that if we so desire we can use torture because there are no rules against it? Or shall our civic religion say that Nature’s God gives us none of that; and that to the extent we are one nation under God, let us be a nation under Nature’s God - and therefore called to be better, to be the nation not of the greatest empire, but the nation of the greatest justice, to be the nation of the greatest compassion, to be the nation that holds up the flame of liberty to the world, the nation that responds to terror with courage, and that responds to those who tear down by building up? This is a debate that has been going on since our country was founded. We swing back and forth. But I know where I stand. I stand with Jefferson. To paraphrase John Winthrop, I believe the only way for our country to guarantee its future is to follow the Council of Micah, to do justice, to love, to walk humbly with Nature’s God, to delight in our differences, to rejoice together, to mourn together, to labor and suffer together that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all the world upon us that we shall be a story and a byword through the world - a story that calls the entire world, each and everyone of us, to be lights unto the world. Amen.