Reflection on the Declaration of Independence
With America’s 250th anniversary approaching, it’s worth noting that the Declaration of Independence starts not with politics, but with claims about the fundamental nature of reality. Before discussing rights and government, it lays out an essential framework.
The rights mentioned in the Declaration stem not from social agreements or historical context but from the belief that humans were created by God.
This reference to “the laws of nature and the God of nature” forms the core of the Declaration’s argument. The Founders felt it necessary to explain why they were seeking independence, and that reasoning was rooted in divine authority.
The Declaration serves as a clear statement of independence. It’s not a creed, a catechism, or a constitution.
From here, we turn to the famous phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” While often seen as a declaration of moral principle, it is structured as a philosophical argument that unfolds in stages, each one relying on the previous.
First, it asserts that these truths are “self-evident.” They aren’t derived from deduction, tradition, or law, but rather from observations of the world. For people to take charge of their laws and lives, they need a grasp of the truth about God, human beings, and morality.
Discrediting the knowability of such truths doesn’t just alter political theory; it also challenges the foundation of moral responsibility.
Next, the declaration states a metaphysical claim. The idea that humans are created affirms certain qualities about them. Equality arises from creation, not as a preference but as an inherent truth based on our shared human nature endowed by God. Human equality makes sense only if there exists something intrinsic about our equal status.
Lastly, it draws ethical conclusions. If humans are created with certain attributes, then a just government must respect fundamental rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Saying that humans are divinely made implies a nature rooted in God’s intent, rather than mere happenstance or desire.
This series of arguments is both compelling and essential. Remove any part, and the whole structure collapses. If there’s no foundation of self-evident truth, notions of rights devolve into mere opinions. Without the premise of creation, equality becomes an abstract political idea rather than a fundamental truth. And without both elements, freedom risks becoming a mere permission slip for indulgence, undermining both justice and joy.
The American experience rests on the belief that creation makes sense, that God can be understood, and that people hold the responsibility to seek that understanding. It’s where coherence can either thrive or falter.
Some might argue that this declaration doesn’t delve deeply enough. While it references God as Creator, it lacks mention of Christ. It leans on natural theology, overlooking revealed religion. Does this lead to a somewhat deistic view of God and a weak moral framework?
Your concern is valid, particularly when contrasting it with documents like the Solemn League and Covenant that explicitly acknowledged Christ. Yet, this perspective seems to misunderstand the intent of the Declaration and the dynamics between natural and revealed religion.
The Declaration is indeed a statement of independence—not a professed faith or a constitution. Its purpose is distinct and specific: to justify breaking away from Britain by aligning with universal truths significant to all humanity. The absence of clear Christian language isn’t due to theological neglect but a concentration on the political situation at hand.
It’s also important to note that many Founders likely assumed Christian values would surface in other contexts. State constitutions from that era often included Christian references or mandates for officials to affirm particular Protestant beliefs.
This declaration wasn’t designed to carry the full theological weight of American society alone. It aimed to establish foundational commonality, not to replace the moral or religious convictions of those who supported it.
It’s akin to how Romans 1 illustrates universal sin and emphasizes the need for Christ through general revelation; this Declaration similarly proposes that knowability, God, and goodness open a path toward salvation.
Additionally, the Declaration’s use of natural theology doesn’t align with every belief system. Its affirmation of God as Creator rules out ideologies that reject this premise.
It presupposes God is distinct from His creation, that the world itself is made rather than eternal, and that humans possess an identifiable nature linked to their creation. Viewed this way, natural theology is substantial and rich, conveying much about God, human identity, and moral order.
However, natural theology doesn’t convey the full essence of salvation. The Bible doesn’t merely clarify innate truths or supplement moral guidance when rationality stumbles; it responds to a question that natural theology cannot address: How can a fair and holy God save those who have ignored the truth?
The Founders understood this difference. They frequently cited the Bible, assuming Christianity would address salvation questions. Still, they recognized that imposing this knowledge through governmental power could corrupt both church and state.
They weren’t looking to resolve disagreements among Protestants or between them and Catholics. The Declaration’s silence on these matters shows a reluctance about political authority rather than skepticism toward Christian truth.
Seen in this light, the appeal to natural theology is a thoughtful boundary. It confirms everything that reason ought to know about God and humanity while keeping the task of salvation where it belongs: within the Church and the Gospel’s message.
The integrity of the American project relies on respecting both kinds of truths. Blending them leads to a politicized religion, but if appropriately separated, church and state can pursue their respective missions freely. This serves as a reminder to American Christians that if they seek lasting change, their evangelical endeavors will be essential.
