What do you think?
Rate this book
In God We Don't Trust
David Bercot. Here is the compelling narrative of the founding of America, told from a perspective that few people have ever heard. That perspective is the kingdom of God. America's currency declares, "In God We Trust." But did the American colonists truly trust in God in the founding of the United States?
The product of nine years of research, this new work challenges much of what most of us learned in school about the founding of America and the American Revolution. Bercot's well-documented findings will surprise many people. At the same time, this timely work will strengthen the convictions of nonresistant, kingdom Christians.
In God We Don’t Trust takes a look at the founding of America—from Jamestown to the writing of the U. S. Constitution—in the light of Jesus’ kingdom teachings. It shows how from the very beginning, the colonists violated the commandments and teachings of Jesus. The book goes on to show that the colonists, although claiming to be Christians, violated Jesus’ direct commandments, as well as Romans 13, when they refused to pay their taxes and ended up overthrowing the government through an armed insurrection. However, this is not an anti-American book. It is a pro-kingdom book.
The product of nine years of research, this new work challenges much of what most of us learned in school about the founding of America and the American Revolution. Bercot's well-documented findings will surprise many people. At the same time, this timely work will strengthen the convictions of nonresistant, kingdom Christians.
In God We Don’t Trust takes a look at the founding of America—from Jamestown to the writing of the U. S. Constitution—in the light of Jesus’ kingdom teachings. It shows how from the very beginning, the colonists violated the commandments and teachings of Jesus. The book goes on to show that the colonists, although claiming to be Christians, violated Jesus’ direct commandments, as well as Romans 13, when they refused to pay their taxes and ended up overthrowing the government through an armed insurrection. However, this is not an anti-American book. It is a pro-kingdom book.
First published January 1, 2011
31 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
June 11, 2012
Bercot does what my college history professors cautioned against doing, making judgments about the morality, or in this case, the godliness of people in the past. In doing so Bercot makes a thought provoking case that much of the U.S. history we are taught is wrong. Bercot, a lawyer by training, reviews some of the key events and documents related to the founding of the United States and then asks the question, "Were these people being faithful to the message of Jesus and to Scripture?" In most of the cases, after examining the historical evidence and Scripture, Bercot says without a doubt, "no, they were not."
The one criticism I might have is that it doesn't always seem clear if Bercot is writing a history of colonial and revolutionary America, or if he is critiquing current American history textbooks, especially those printed by "Christian" publishers. At times the book is the first, a concise review of early American history, at other times it is a strong critique of current textbooks. I think it may have been better to be one or the other but still Bercot presents his case in a readable fashion and asks appropriate questions, particularly for those who try live out the ideas in the Sermon on the Mount, or as Bercot calls them, "kingdom Christians."
I imagine Bercot's book has caused a stir in home schooling circles since he strongly criticizes Bob Jones Publishing and A Beka Books two of the biggest publishers of home-school materials.
Berco't main argument is that the founders of the United States did not follow Biblical principles in establishing colonies, their relationships with Native Americans, and in rebelling against a legitimate government. As a teacher in a Mennonite high school, I have been criticized for suggesting similar arguments to Bercot's. I have come to the conclusion that most folks read their Bible's about as much as they read history, which is very little.
Bercot provides a valuable corrective to the idea that God ordained the founding of the United States. As Bercot documents, the atrocities committed by "Christians" including the treatment of Native Americans and slavery, are a betrayal of Jesus's gospel.
Bercot's call to live faithfully to the message of Jesus in spite of national boundaries and our romanticized history is refreshing.
The one criticism I might have is that it doesn't always seem clear if Bercot is writing a history of colonial and revolutionary America, or if he is critiquing current American history textbooks, especially those printed by "Christian" publishers. At times the book is the first, a concise review of early American history, at other times it is a strong critique of current textbooks. I think it may have been better to be one or the other but still Bercot presents his case in a readable fashion and asks appropriate questions, particularly for those who try live out the ideas in the Sermon on the Mount, or as Bercot calls them, "kingdom Christians."
I imagine Bercot's book has caused a stir in home schooling circles since he strongly criticizes Bob Jones Publishing and A Beka Books two of the biggest publishers of home-school materials.
Berco't main argument is that the founders of the United States did not follow Biblical principles in establishing colonies, their relationships with Native Americans, and in rebelling against a legitimate government. As a teacher in a Mennonite high school, I have been criticized for suggesting similar arguments to Bercot's. I have come to the conclusion that most folks read their Bible's about as much as they read history, which is very little.
Bercot provides a valuable corrective to the idea that God ordained the founding of the United States. As Bercot documents, the atrocities committed by "Christians" including the treatment of Native Americans and slavery, are a betrayal of Jesus's gospel.
Bercot's call to live faithfully to the message of Jesus in spite of national boundaries and our romanticized history is refreshing.
June 17, 2020
I have very mixed feelings about this book. I fully agree with the need for a book to challenge the idea that our founding fathers were all godly men only desiring to follow God’s will. But this book might just go too far the other way in holding people who made no claim of Biblical faith to a Biblical standard of behavior.
The author wishes us to see the historical and Biblical fallacies that have been promoted through such books as The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel and different Christian history textbooks. Rather than let the Pilgrims, colonists, or founding fathers speak for themselves through the historical record as to their faith or lack thereof, he operates as if they were all Bible Believing Christians and then judges their actions by a Biblical standard. I can understand this approach when I think of it as an attempt to make someone who has canonized early American heroes consider their flaws. But by itself, it is an extremely poor way to teach history as it leads to a great deal of supposition and moralizing.
The last chapter takes this even a little farther and speculates on the blessings that the author claims must have followed if they had applied non-violent principles. Throughout the book, he refers to non-violent, non-political groups such as the Mennonites, Amish, and Quakers as ‘kingdom Christians’. It gave the impression that he thinks that if every Christian was only obedient enough we would see Christ’s kingdom on earth. One of his complaints about the Puritans is that they didn’t understand the kingdom of God. However, he never explains what he means by this.
Between the unusual style and the allusions to various theologies I still don’t know if I would recommend it. It is certainly good for starting conversations, but not a very balanced way to learn history. If you are interested in the debate over the founder’s beliefs, I would recommend Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction by John Fea as a more balanced scholarly historical account look at the actual beliefs of the founders.
The author wishes us to see the historical and Biblical fallacies that have been promoted through such books as The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel and different Christian history textbooks. Rather than let the Pilgrims, colonists, or founding fathers speak for themselves through the historical record as to their faith or lack thereof, he operates as if they were all Bible Believing Christians and then judges their actions by a Biblical standard. I can understand this approach when I think of it as an attempt to make someone who has canonized early American heroes consider their flaws. But by itself, it is an extremely poor way to teach history as it leads to a great deal of supposition and moralizing.
The last chapter takes this even a little farther and speculates on the blessings that the author claims must have followed if they had applied non-violent principles. Throughout the book, he refers to non-violent, non-political groups such as the Mennonites, Amish, and Quakers as ‘kingdom Christians’. It gave the impression that he thinks that if every Christian was only obedient enough we would see Christ’s kingdom on earth. One of his complaints about the Puritans is that they didn’t understand the kingdom of God. However, he never explains what he means by this.
Between the unusual style and the allusions to various theologies I still don’t know if I would recommend it. It is certainly good for starting conversations, but not a very balanced way to learn history. If you are interested in the debate over the founder’s beliefs, I would recommend Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction by John Fea as a more balanced scholarly historical account look at the actual beliefs of the founders.
September 21, 2025
Gave this book a quick relisten as I am working on teaching American history using Abeka's curriculum.
The several years since I read this book the first time must have softened its tone in my memory. I still appreciated the facts Bercot shared, but his tone seemed judgmental and almost like he was surprised that fallen humans did bad things. And yet this tone does make you evaluate the actions of the early Americans more harshly and provides an emphasis that might be necessary to combat the excessive praise we usually give them.
The several years since I read this book the first time must have softened its tone in my memory. I still appreciated the facts Bercot shared, but his tone seemed judgmental and almost like he was surprised that fallen humans did bad things. And yet this tone does make you evaluate the actions of the early Americans more harshly and provides an emphasis that might be necessary to combat the excessive praise we usually give them.
December 9, 2012
The concept of this book is quite needed with all the religious folks running around in the U.S. who think it is a "Christian Nation." This is a common pathology in the wake of the perpetually popular book: The Light And The Glory.
Bercot's book credibly blows the lid off that notion; however, it launches some of its own fallacies. Amidst this book, Bercot floats his version of the kingdom of God; or as he puts is "kingdom Christians." In his ideal, these are non-violent types who try and make the world a better place for their having been in it. Such a notion—while understandable and even commonly held in certain groups—utterly misses what the kingdom of God is all about according to the New Testament.
The second area where I think this book sells readers short is how it depicts the abuse of "kingdom Christians" by America's revolutionaries (Anglicans, Congregationalists and Presbyterians). Tacit in this presentation is that these "true” believers (kingdom Christians) should not have been treated this way. It gives the reader the notion that "right" should be rewarded and “wrong” will be punished all within a world run by the devil with a population who in large part does not know or serve God. In a word, Bercot's book feeds the idea that actual followers of Christ should be able to get along easily in this world.
This leads us to the third area, which I think encourages misunderstanding. The title uses an inclusive pronoun "We." Throughout the book, Bercot uses other inclusive pronouns to communicate belonging and identity with the non-believing world around us in the case of the United States. This is a colossal error. The New Testament goes to extraordinary lengths to describe believers, in terms of non-belonging and a disassociated identity from the world. Words like ambassador, alien, stranger, soldier, slave, bond-servant, and so forth were used by New Testament writers to depict believers. The drift in all these terms—occurring some 170 times—is that we do not belong to the society around us; that we are a society of our own, distinct in the presence and view of the world order to which we stand as an utter contrast.
Changes in the non-believing world can never abrogate Scripture. When Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” nothing is going to change that fact. We cannot allow ourselves the indulgence of thought that the world is ever going to be nice, easy, comfortable, or ours; even in a place founded upon alleged “religious freedom” or if an Edict of Toleration was decreed to a group of our predecessors.
Having given this background, I like the book in that it exposes the utter ruse of The Light And The Glory. Bercot's book is a little more honest about the dynamics that went into the American Revolution. It also calls into question some extremely unhealthy notions many “believers” have in this country.
Overall, I would only recommend this book in order to burst people’s mistaken trust in America as a "Christian Nation". The book is fairly well documented. It is easy to read, and it will conflict people who have been duped by the "Christian" revisionist history that so many believers buy into through home schooling and religious conservative polemics; however, this book continues to perpetuate some of the basis for which people adopted the Puritan/Calvinistic mindset of dominionism, namely Constantinianism. Bercot’s version of Constantinianism is just the other half of a false dichotomy people commonly ingest. Constantinianism is the notion that the State should make a place for the church to exist within the societal order and in return give the State certain characteristics that help make it more dynamic and inclusive. Such a notion is an anathema to the kingdom of God. The two kingdoms are insoluble, even though we’ve been given the charge to coexist and provide a testimony of God amidst a present evil age.
I like the book, but only for the fact that it could be used as a tool. I did not read the book in the deep fashion I usually do, such as marking it, extracting quotes, leaving bookmarks in it, etc. I already call into question American history of any sort as being substantive to me as a follower of Christ (even though I was born here). Secondly, I could see Bercot’s view was not objective from God’s point of view, just another religious perspective.
I am interested in Bercot’s work. Based upon the reading of this book, I purchased three more of his volumes because I think they will provide an excellent source material and thought about the kingdom of God.
Bercot's book credibly blows the lid off that notion; however, it launches some of its own fallacies. Amidst this book, Bercot floats his version of the kingdom of God; or as he puts is "kingdom Christians." In his ideal, these are non-violent types who try and make the world a better place for their having been in it. Such a notion—while understandable and even commonly held in certain groups—utterly misses what the kingdom of God is all about according to the New Testament.
The second area where I think this book sells readers short is how it depicts the abuse of "kingdom Christians" by America's revolutionaries (Anglicans, Congregationalists and Presbyterians). Tacit in this presentation is that these "true” believers (kingdom Christians) should not have been treated this way. It gives the reader the notion that "right" should be rewarded and “wrong” will be punished all within a world run by the devil with a population who in large part does not know or serve God. In a word, Bercot's book feeds the idea that actual followers of Christ should be able to get along easily in this world.
This leads us to the third area, which I think encourages misunderstanding. The title uses an inclusive pronoun "We." Throughout the book, Bercot uses other inclusive pronouns to communicate belonging and identity with the non-believing world around us in the case of the United States. This is a colossal error. The New Testament goes to extraordinary lengths to describe believers, in terms of non-belonging and a disassociated identity from the world. Words like ambassador, alien, stranger, soldier, slave, bond-servant, and so forth were used by New Testament writers to depict believers. The drift in all these terms—occurring some 170 times—is that we do not belong to the society around us; that we are a society of our own, distinct in the presence and view of the world order to which we stand as an utter contrast.
Changes in the non-believing world can never abrogate Scripture. When Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” nothing is going to change that fact. We cannot allow ourselves the indulgence of thought that the world is ever going to be nice, easy, comfortable, or ours; even in a place founded upon alleged “religious freedom” or if an Edict of Toleration was decreed to a group of our predecessors.
Having given this background, I like the book in that it exposes the utter ruse of The Light And The Glory. Bercot's book is a little more honest about the dynamics that went into the American Revolution. It also calls into question some extremely unhealthy notions many “believers” have in this country.
Overall, I would only recommend this book in order to burst people’s mistaken trust in America as a "Christian Nation". The book is fairly well documented. It is easy to read, and it will conflict people who have been duped by the "Christian" revisionist history that so many believers buy into through home schooling and religious conservative polemics; however, this book continues to perpetuate some of the basis for which people adopted the Puritan/Calvinistic mindset of dominionism, namely Constantinianism. Bercot’s version of Constantinianism is just the other half of a false dichotomy people commonly ingest. Constantinianism is the notion that the State should make a place for the church to exist within the societal order and in return give the State certain characteristics that help make it more dynamic and inclusive. Such a notion is an anathema to the kingdom of God. The two kingdoms are insoluble, even though we’ve been given the charge to coexist and provide a testimony of God amidst a present evil age.
I like the book, but only for the fact that it could be used as a tool. I did not read the book in the deep fashion I usually do, such as marking it, extracting quotes, leaving bookmarks in it, etc. I already call into question American history of any sort as being substantive to me as a follower of Christ (even though I was born here). Secondly, I could see Bercot’s view was not objective from God’s point of view, just another religious perspective.
I am interested in Bercot’s work. Based upon the reading of this book, I purchased three more of his volumes because I think they will provide an excellent source material and thought about the kingdom of God.
October 17, 2012
Bercot challenges the Christian to rethink faith and how it is applied to our lives in a very real and practical way. He does this by examining the events and actions leading to the American Revolution, applying the teaching of Christ to the historical record. This book is not just a look back, but a challenge to the Christian today to apply the teachings of Jesus to everyday life.
February 28, 2014
This book is a must read for Christians who are American citizens. The answer to many American Christian's question of, "How did it get so bad?" can probably be traced back to the nation's origins which Bercot shows were far from Christian. Bercot throws aside emotional rhetoric and asks a simple question of each of the key events in the founding of the United States, "Were the actions of these people in line with the Biblical teaching of how Christians should act, or not?" The answer in most cases is "no." Bercot does not seek to judge any of the founders for their individual faith, but rather critiques individual choices and actions as either Christ-like or unChrist-like. The sad truth is that the majority of the choices and actions the founders of the US took in creating this nation were most certainly unChrist-like.
October 9, 2022
This really took me by surprise. Rarely does a book make me really think differently about a subject at such a high level as this one did. You don't have to agree with everything he said, there was plenty there to agree with. I liked his focus on source documents (which is increasingly rare) and looking at history from a perspective of a Christ follower. Very good. Highly recommend. Some liberals will hate it, maybe moderates to conservatives will appreciate it.
April 23, 2024
After a deep study of the early church’s beliefs and practices, David Bercot joined the Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptists have historically taken a strong stance on Christian separation from government and taught that believers are called to nonviolence. As a result of his research, Bercot has written many fascinating and helpful books that urge Christians to follow the model of the early church, such as A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs and Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?
One of his more provocative books, especially for conservative and libertarian Christians, is In God We Don’t Trust. It takes a close look at America’s founding, examining patriotic claims that the United States began as a godly, Christian nation. In Bercot’s reading, the colonists’ grievances against England were illegitimate; but even if they had been legitimate, it would not have justified their rebellion. Bercot’s argument in this regard hinges upon traditional readings of two New Testament passages: Matthew 22:15-22 and Romans 13:1-7.
Render Unto Caesar
Matthew 22:15-22 gives an account of a trap set for Jesus by the Pharisees and Herodians. They asked Him in front of a crowd, “what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?��� Jesus’ previous teaching had obviously conflicted with loyalty to Caesar, but He hadn’t yet told His hearers to be outright disobedient or seditious to the Roman empire. If His opponents could corner Him into seditious speech, they could call Him a rebel and sicc the empire on Him. But if He backed down and said that Jews should obey Caesar, He would lose His sway with the crowd. So, He told them to take out a coin and asked whose likeness was on it. They admitted that it was Caesar’s. Jesus’ classic response followed: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Jesus had avoided their trap by not coming down on either side. Or had He?
Bercot’s tidy summary of the lesson of this passage is, “Jesus made it clear that His followers must even pay taxes that are unjust or oppressive.” In other words, Jesus fell right into their trap by siding with Caesar. This is largely in line with the traditional reading of this passage–that your spirit belongs to God but your body belongs to the state. Therefore, you cannot refuse any request the state makes of you, apart from perhaps certain commands which would require sin on your part. But it is surprisingly Augustine of Hippo, usually counted on to defend pro-government readings of Scripture, who gives the correct pushback:
“Caesar seeks his image; render it. God seeks his image; render it. Do not withhold from Caesar his coin. Do not keep from God his coin. To this they could not think of anything to answer. For they had been sent to slander him. And they went back saying: No one could answer him. Why? Because he had shattered their teeth in their mouth” (On the Psalms, 58.8).
In other words, Caesar minted the coin and gave it out. It belongs to him. So give it back. But humans are made in God’s image. Therefore we belong to God, not to Caesar. Caesar thus has no claim on our bodies, but only his property.
Established by God?
A more central text for Bercot is Romans 13:1-7. In it, Paul advises the Roman church “to be subject to the governing authorities.” Why? Because, “there is no authority except from God.” Since God has ordained all political authority, this means all authority is inherently good and always does what is just. Or as Paul wrote, “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.”
Here is Bercot’s conclusion about this passage:
“There it is in black and white. Christians do not have the right to resist or overthrow their government. That passage is so specific and clear that there’s no room to wiggle around it. Few commandments in the New Testament are as explicit. ”
There are three problems with Bercot’s conclusion:
If Paul was being serious–if there is truly no wiggle room in this text–then he was either crazy or a liar. He knew full well from personal experience and from the experiences of his people that rulers were a cause of fear for those who did good. The state often harmed those who were in the right and rewarded those who were evil. This should cause us to stop and wonder if Paul intended to use irony or sarcasm to make a subtle point that his Christian readers would understand but the Roman authorities might not–that the civil order claims to be righteous and that God even demands that it ought to do what is just, but that it often doesn’t actually do it. As a result, its rulers will be held accountable by God for this discrepancy. The fact that in the verses immediately prior Romans 13, Paul cites Deuteronomy 32, a passage wherein God promises to punish evil pagan nations like Rome for their wicked behavior, should clue us in to the reality that Paul does not actually believe that Rome is not a threat to Christians.
Bercot is not an absolutist about obedience to the state. As an Anabaptist, he opposes Christians fighting in wars even when explicitly commanded to by authorities. If there truly is no wiggle room in Romans 13, then he should abandon his Anabaptist convictions and serve the state since its commands actually come from God.
And finally, Bercot’s argument takes into account only one of the biblical claims about the origin of governments.
Bercot is quick to poo-poo Jefferson’s claim that humans institute government for their own protection, arguing that, “the Bible teaches that God is the ultimate authority for human governments… Governments do not derive ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ They derive their powers from God.”
For Bercot, there is only one source of human governments–God. But the Bible paints a more complicated picture. While God is seen as ultimately sovereign over all kingdoms and events, and Romans 13 seems to suggest that God at least ordains that there be a social order to maintain some semblance of peace and justice, there are two other factors that shape the political realm. One is human, and the other is demonic.
The first example of a political order in the Bible is the tower of Babel (Genesis 11). It emerged from the “mighty hunter” Nimrod and was intended to bring about a one world government that was so powerful it might even displace God. God apparently did not ordain this order because he confounded the purposes of its leaders, resulting in its dissolution. While the Bible speaks of empires rising and falling through the violence of conquerors, one doesn’t need to read Scripture to understand that government is essentially the violent rule of a few over a large mass. Order and civilization is sometimes stated to be the primary goal of these rulers, but just as often their motivations are primarily selfish. Despite the claims of Caesars to want to bring peace and order to the world through violent conquest, their actions often betrayed pride and avarice as their true inspirations. They achieve power not because God supports their violence and self-idolatry, but because they are willing to destroy their fellow man to gain authority over him.
Bercot seems confused on this point. He accuses conservative American Christians of adopting “medieval, superstitious thinking” when they claim that the colonists winning the war proved that God was on their side. “In short,” he reasons:
“victory in war does not equate with God’s approval. Obviously, nothing happens anywhere without God’s permissive will. But because God allows something to happen does not mean that He approves of it. Otherwise, we would have to say that God has approved of every murder, torture, theft, injustice, assault, crime, and massacre that has ever occurred. So let’s not resort to Dark Ages thinking.”
However, this is precisely what Bercot does when he says that Americans today must obey the God-ordained American government! The revolutionists won the war–a war which Bercot argues was unjust, immoral, and criminal–and thus we must obey the American government and not the British since it is the former who are the ministers of God in the American territory. Bercot engages in the very superstitious rationalization that he accuses his ideological opponents of.
In addition to the human and divine actors on the world’s geopolitical stage, the Bible also argues that there is an infernal order working behind the scenes. The Old Testament discusses the existence of high level spiritual beings called “sons of God.” These beings were placed over the nations when God adopted Israel as His special people (see Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in conjunction with Genesis 10-11). At some point, they became corrupted and chose to direct the nations in opposition to God’s purposes (Daniel 10). In Psalm 82, God promises that He will one day judge these beings for their wickedness.
In the New Testament, Satan is presented as the leader of the corrupted spiritual beings, referred to as “the god of this world” by Jesus, and affirmed to be the puppet master behind all political power on earth (Luke 4:5-7, John 12:31, Revelation 12-13). Paul’s terms for these corrupted sons of God are “powers and principalities” and he sees them as, in some important sense, defeated by Jesus (Colossians 2:15).
Since we can say with confidence that Paul did not believe that the government always does what’s right, and because as a dutiful student of Scripture he understood that governments also derived from human and demonic maneuvering, we cannot conclude with Bercot that, without qualification, “if we resist governmental authority, we are resisting ‘the ordinance of God.’”
In fact, even Bercot does not really believe this. Let’s follow his argument to its logical conclusion. If individual governments are instituted by God and only do what is good, as Paul claims in Romans 13, then the government should never be disobeyed. But Bercot doesn’t believe such poppycock. His Anabaptist heritage informs him that Christians should never, for instance, worship Caesar or kill for him as soldiers or executioners. If one were to resist an order from a corrupt state to become a soldier to rape, pillage, and kill, surely such a one would not be “resisting the ordinance of God!” Bercot knows this and acknowledges it, but his simplistic, unbiblical reading of Romans 13 prevents him from articulating it properly.
While Christians should seek to keep the peace in the country where they sojourn as exiles, and indeed should also obey just laws and even burdensome unjust laws where they can be borne, let us never pretend for even a moment that those who organized the gulags and concentration camps were simply executing the orders of our holy and righteous God.
Rebellion to Tyrants as Obedience to God?
Bercot raises many fine points in In God We Don’t Trust. As Christians, especially if we’re Americans, we need to wrestle with them. Would obedience to King George have been a more faithful route to take in order to keep the peace? Is violence and warfare ever an acceptable path for Christians? And perhaps most crucially Christians who want to take seriously what it means to be in “the Kingdom of God”, when is nonviolent disobedience to man’s systems actually obedience to God?
From a theological vantage point, where the book falls short is in its simplistic understanding of God’s sovereignty–an understanding that Scripture itself, read contextually, militates against. From a biblical perspective, our obedience to the state is not ideological, but strategic. We are not citizens of an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly one. We do not bear the mark of Caesar, but of our God. Nevertheless, we follow Jesus’ command to suffer faithfully in order to not cause unnecessary offense (Matthew 17:27) and to obey human rulers whenever possible because our God desires for there to be a just order (Romans 13:1). However, this also means disobeying when that order becomes evil–a concession that Bercot is willing to make in very limited circumstances, but does not give the proper theological foundation for.
Knowing that governments are also ordained by men and Satan should give us pause about obeying them always. We are called as Christians to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), but we can only make this distinction if we understand that rulers are sometimes in fact a cause of fear for those who do good.
(note: this review was also featured as an article for The Libertarian Christian Institute)
One of his more provocative books, especially for conservative and libertarian Christians, is In God We Don’t Trust. It takes a close look at America’s founding, examining patriotic claims that the United States began as a godly, Christian nation. In Bercot’s reading, the colonists’ grievances against England were illegitimate; but even if they had been legitimate, it would not have justified their rebellion. Bercot’s argument in this regard hinges upon traditional readings of two New Testament passages: Matthew 22:15-22 and Romans 13:1-7.
Render Unto Caesar
Matthew 22:15-22 gives an account of a trap set for Jesus by the Pharisees and Herodians. They asked Him in front of a crowd, “what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?��� Jesus’ previous teaching had obviously conflicted with loyalty to Caesar, but He hadn’t yet told His hearers to be outright disobedient or seditious to the Roman empire. If His opponents could corner Him into seditious speech, they could call Him a rebel and sicc the empire on Him. But if He backed down and said that Jews should obey Caesar, He would lose His sway with the crowd. So, He told them to take out a coin and asked whose likeness was on it. They admitted that it was Caesar’s. Jesus’ classic response followed: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Jesus had avoided their trap by not coming down on either side. Or had He?
Bercot’s tidy summary of the lesson of this passage is, “Jesus made it clear that His followers must even pay taxes that are unjust or oppressive.” In other words, Jesus fell right into their trap by siding with Caesar. This is largely in line with the traditional reading of this passage–that your spirit belongs to God but your body belongs to the state. Therefore, you cannot refuse any request the state makes of you, apart from perhaps certain commands which would require sin on your part. But it is surprisingly Augustine of Hippo, usually counted on to defend pro-government readings of Scripture, who gives the correct pushback:
“Caesar seeks his image; render it. God seeks his image; render it. Do not withhold from Caesar his coin. Do not keep from God his coin. To this they could not think of anything to answer. For they had been sent to slander him. And they went back saying: No one could answer him. Why? Because he had shattered their teeth in their mouth” (On the Psalms, 58.8).
In other words, Caesar minted the coin and gave it out. It belongs to him. So give it back. But humans are made in God’s image. Therefore we belong to God, not to Caesar. Caesar thus has no claim on our bodies, but only his property.
Established by God?
A more central text for Bercot is Romans 13:1-7. In it, Paul advises the Roman church “to be subject to the governing authorities.” Why? Because, “there is no authority except from God.” Since God has ordained all political authority, this means all authority is inherently good and always does what is just. Or as Paul wrote, “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.”
Here is Bercot’s conclusion about this passage:
“There it is in black and white. Christians do not have the right to resist or overthrow their government. That passage is so specific and clear that there’s no room to wiggle around it. Few commandments in the New Testament are as explicit. ”
There are three problems with Bercot’s conclusion:
If Paul was being serious–if there is truly no wiggle room in this text–then he was either crazy or a liar. He knew full well from personal experience and from the experiences of his people that rulers were a cause of fear for those who did good. The state often harmed those who were in the right and rewarded those who were evil. This should cause us to stop and wonder if Paul intended to use irony or sarcasm to make a subtle point that his Christian readers would understand but the Roman authorities might not–that the civil order claims to be righteous and that God even demands that it ought to do what is just, but that it often doesn’t actually do it. As a result, its rulers will be held accountable by God for this discrepancy. The fact that in the verses immediately prior Romans 13, Paul cites Deuteronomy 32, a passage wherein God promises to punish evil pagan nations like Rome for their wicked behavior, should clue us in to the reality that Paul does not actually believe that Rome is not a threat to Christians.
Bercot is not an absolutist about obedience to the state. As an Anabaptist, he opposes Christians fighting in wars even when explicitly commanded to by authorities. If there truly is no wiggle room in Romans 13, then he should abandon his Anabaptist convictions and serve the state since its commands actually come from God.
And finally, Bercot’s argument takes into account only one of the biblical claims about the origin of governments.
Bercot is quick to poo-poo Jefferson’s claim that humans institute government for their own protection, arguing that, “the Bible teaches that God is the ultimate authority for human governments… Governments do not derive ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ They derive their powers from God.”
For Bercot, there is only one source of human governments–God. But the Bible paints a more complicated picture. While God is seen as ultimately sovereign over all kingdoms and events, and Romans 13 seems to suggest that God at least ordains that there be a social order to maintain some semblance of peace and justice, there are two other factors that shape the political realm. One is human, and the other is demonic.
The first example of a political order in the Bible is the tower of Babel (Genesis 11). It emerged from the “mighty hunter” Nimrod and was intended to bring about a one world government that was so powerful it might even displace God. God apparently did not ordain this order because he confounded the purposes of its leaders, resulting in its dissolution. While the Bible speaks of empires rising and falling through the violence of conquerors, one doesn’t need to read Scripture to understand that government is essentially the violent rule of a few over a large mass. Order and civilization is sometimes stated to be the primary goal of these rulers, but just as often their motivations are primarily selfish. Despite the claims of Caesars to want to bring peace and order to the world through violent conquest, their actions often betrayed pride and avarice as their true inspirations. They achieve power not because God supports their violence and self-idolatry, but because they are willing to destroy their fellow man to gain authority over him.
Bercot seems confused on this point. He accuses conservative American Christians of adopting “medieval, superstitious thinking” when they claim that the colonists winning the war proved that God was on their side. “In short,” he reasons:
“victory in war does not equate with God’s approval. Obviously, nothing happens anywhere without God’s permissive will. But because God allows something to happen does not mean that He approves of it. Otherwise, we would have to say that God has approved of every murder, torture, theft, injustice, assault, crime, and massacre that has ever occurred. So let’s not resort to Dark Ages thinking.”
However, this is precisely what Bercot does when he says that Americans today must obey the God-ordained American government! The revolutionists won the war–a war which Bercot argues was unjust, immoral, and criminal–and thus we must obey the American government and not the British since it is the former who are the ministers of God in the American territory. Bercot engages in the very superstitious rationalization that he accuses his ideological opponents of.
In addition to the human and divine actors on the world’s geopolitical stage, the Bible also argues that there is an infernal order working behind the scenes. The Old Testament discusses the existence of high level spiritual beings called “sons of God.” These beings were placed over the nations when God adopted Israel as His special people (see Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in conjunction with Genesis 10-11). At some point, they became corrupted and chose to direct the nations in opposition to God’s purposes (Daniel 10). In Psalm 82, God promises that He will one day judge these beings for their wickedness.
In the New Testament, Satan is presented as the leader of the corrupted spiritual beings, referred to as “the god of this world” by Jesus, and affirmed to be the puppet master behind all political power on earth (Luke 4:5-7, John 12:31, Revelation 12-13). Paul’s terms for these corrupted sons of God are “powers and principalities” and he sees them as, in some important sense, defeated by Jesus (Colossians 2:15).
Since we can say with confidence that Paul did not believe that the government always does what’s right, and because as a dutiful student of Scripture he understood that governments also derived from human and demonic maneuvering, we cannot conclude with Bercot that, without qualification, “if we resist governmental authority, we are resisting ‘the ordinance of God.’”
In fact, even Bercot does not really believe this. Let’s follow his argument to its logical conclusion. If individual governments are instituted by God and only do what is good, as Paul claims in Romans 13, then the government should never be disobeyed. But Bercot doesn’t believe such poppycock. His Anabaptist heritage informs him that Christians should never, for instance, worship Caesar or kill for him as soldiers or executioners. If one were to resist an order from a corrupt state to become a soldier to rape, pillage, and kill, surely such a one would not be “resisting the ordinance of God!” Bercot knows this and acknowledges it, but his simplistic, unbiblical reading of Romans 13 prevents him from articulating it properly.
While Christians should seek to keep the peace in the country where they sojourn as exiles, and indeed should also obey just laws and even burdensome unjust laws where they can be borne, let us never pretend for even a moment that those who organized the gulags and concentration camps were simply executing the orders of our holy and righteous God.
Rebellion to Tyrants as Obedience to God?
Bercot raises many fine points in In God We Don’t Trust. As Christians, especially if we’re Americans, we need to wrestle with them. Would obedience to King George have been a more faithful route to take in order to keep the peace? Is violence and warfare ever an acceptable path for Christians? And perhaps most crucially Christians who want to take seriously what it means to be in “the Kingdom of God”, when is nonviolent disobedience to man’s systems actually obedience to God?
From a theological vantage point, where the book falls short is in its simplistic understanding of God’s sovereignty–an understanding that Scripture itself, read contextually, militates against. From a biblical perspective, our obedience to the state is not ideological, but strategic. We are not citizens of an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly one. We do not bear the mark of Caesar, but of our God. Nevertheless, we follow Jesus’ command to suffer faithfully in order to not cause unnecessary offense (Matthew 17:27) and to obey human rulers whenever possible because our God desires for there to be a just order (Romans 13:1). However, this also means disobeying when that order becomes evil–a concession that Bercot is willing to make in very limited circumstances, but does not give the proper theological foundation for.
Knowing that governments are also ordained by men and Satan should give us pause about obeying them always. We are called as Christians to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), but we can only make this distinction if we understand that rulers are sometimes in fact a cause of fear for those who do good.
(note: this review was also featured as an article for The Libertarian Christian Institute)
April 18, 2016
Opinionated
Two stars instead of one primarily because the author himself deserves credit for writing.
His opinion concerning America and christianity on the other hand?
Deserves no stars at all.
One example -- the author mentions John Wesley and his time in America as a missionary. I can only guess his inclusion of Wesley is to show the unchristian results of the War of Independence?
Had Mr. Bercot researched this period in Wesley's life, he would've found that Wesley was in miserable spiritual condition during this time, under conviction of the Holy Spirit, and a hypocrite. Mr. Wesley was no christian at this time and so his opinion concerning christianity in America holds no weight.
I'm sure Mr. Bercot would be pleasant to speak with.... but his opinion concerning our Country and Christianity?
Not relevant.
Far too much of our Founding Fathers thoughts, ideas, and Godly living has been recorded to even consider the idea of Mr. Bercot's book as anything other than the opinion of a man who refuses to see the obvious --
In God We Trust.
Two stars instead of one primarily because the author himself deserves credit for writing.
His opinion concerning America and christianity on the other hand?
Deserves no stars at all.
One example -- the author mentions John Wesley and his time in America as a missionary. I can only guess his inclusion of Wesley is to show the unchristian results of the War of Independence?
Had Mr. Bercot researched this period in Wesley's life, he would've found that Wesley was in miserable spiritual condition during this time, under conviction of the Holy Spirit, and a hypocrite. Mr. Wesley was no christian at this time and so his opinion concerning christianity in America holds no weight.
I'm sure Mr. Bercot would be pleasant to speak with.... but his opinion concerning our Country and Christianity?
Not relevant.
Far too much of our Founding Fathers thoughts, ideas, and Godly living has been recorded to even consider the idea of Mr. Bercot's book as anything other than the opinion of a man who refuses to see the obvious --
In God We Trust.
May 22, 2013
This book poses an excellent perspective. The one thing I would disagree with Marcus (previous comment) about is that the actions of the "Christian" Colonists and founding fathers is proof enough of their "morality" and disconnect with the actual teachings of Christ. That was the point of the book. It is ok to judge as a Christian if we are judging a person's supposed Christian actions, if they don't match up to what Christ taught. Not being able to judge our country's roots, sold to us as "Christian" roots, is like saying we can't judge, from a Christian perspective, the Crusaders who oversaw forced "conversions" or death. That was immoral, anti-Christian, and should be judged as such. Just like our founders and colonists who did a lot of things wrong, and anti -Christian, whom we laud as these great, "godly" founders. Balderdash.
January 19, 2024
An excellent and rational perspective on the history of American independence and Kingdom theory. It's true, as Bercot alleges, that most Americans then as well as today are nominal in their spirit and therefore practice. It has manifested in one of the most consistently violent, sinful, and hypocritical civilizations that has ever existed. The bottom line is one that every person must embrace: America never was and is not now a Christian nation neither by name nor declaration nor behavior. Bercot is simply the messenger of provable, factual data; don't shoot him.
February 13, 2017
I wish I could give a copy to every teacher in Christian education.
September 26, 2022
First, the good: On the events leading to the founding of the United States, Bercot offers a refreshing perspective, an alternative to the all-too-prevalent jingoistic portrayals found in many sources, both secular and religious. It's a counter to the once more rising tide of Christian nationalism and its insistence that the country was intentionally structured as a 'Christian nation'. I enjoyed the use of original writings from the period that demonstrate something far more ambiguous than what Christian nationalists proclaim about U.S. history.
Second, the debatable: Bercot's text is very readable and conversational. That's probably what he's going for. That said, though, at times it made me question the rigorousness of the historical presentation, despite the fact that he conducted thorough research.
Third, the bad: I am a Christian myself, which at least partly explains my interest in the book. But I found Bercot's value judgements throughout to be curious. While showing that the country doesn't have the glorious Christian history that many assume, that it is not, in fact, a 'Christian nation', he seems to think that it should be. He harps upon many of the same tropes that Christian nationalists themselves decry - the loss of prayer in schools and legalised abortion, for example. And his insistence that if everyone in America's history simply trusted God and followed Sermon on the Mount principles, everything would work out wonderfully for the country struck me as more than a little trite.
Again, as a Christian myself, and someone committed to pursuing the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, I see Jesus making no such promise.
Second, the debatable: Bercot's text is very readable and conversational. That's probably what he's going for. That said, though, at times it made me question the rigorousness of the historical presentation, despite the fact that he conducted thorough research.
Third, the bad: I am a Christian myself, which at least partly explains my interest in the book. But I found Bercot's value judgements throughout to be curious. While showing that the country doesn't have the glorious Christian history that many assume, that it is not, in fact, a 'Christian nation', he seems to think that it should be. He harps upon many of the same tropes that Christian nationalists themselves decry - the loss of prayer in schools and legalised abortion, for example. And his insistence that if everyone in America's history simply trusted God and followed Sermon on the Mount principles, everything would work out wonderfully for the country struck me as more than a little trite.
Again, as a Christian myself, and someone committed to pursuing the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, I see Jesus making no such promise.
October 28, 2025
First book down for the winter. I own a copy now. Someone was kind enough to give me one.
I find it funny how much tea the irish drank.
This is a highly relevant book. Especially and extremely in light of the Charlie Kirk assassination. I spent two weeks listening to Charlie Kirk content, all day long. And this book is claiming quite the opposite of everything that Charlie Kirk claimed. About the founding of America and the founding fathers.
So what do I make of this? That you can twist a situation in any way you wish, if you're persuasive or good with words. But then there is the truth, requiring no special words, simply itself.
Is America a Christian nation? Meaning the America since 1776 to now. Right now, with the content that I have so far and the deductions I've made so far, I am going to say no. It is a nation of strong support and encouragement of the Christian faith, but not a nation stemming from said faith. And this is not what Charlie Kirk portrayed.
I am thankful for Charlie Kirk and his motivations for the youth of America. But he is a controversial topic, as would be most who are not neutral in this life.
I was astonished with what I learned about the Indians in this book. I've known that their history in America was very bad and absolutely shameful (or at least should be for us americans) but I've never known details or specific stories. I am very very saddened to learn how these people were treated, how entitled and self righteous the "civilized" were in the history of America.
As always, history is far more interesting and gruesome than any fiction.
I find it funny how much tea the irish drank.
This is a highly relevant book. Especially and extremely in light of the Charlie Kirk assassination. I spent two weeks listening to Charlie Kirk content, all day long. And this book is claiming quite the opposite of everything that Charlie Kirk claimed. About the founding of America and the founding fathers.
So what do I make of this? That you can twist a situation in any way you wish, if you're persuasive or good with words. But then there is the truth, requiring no special words, simply itself.
Is America a Christian nation? Meaning the America since 1776 to now. Right now, with the content that I have so far and the deductions I've made so far, I am going to say no. It is a nation of strong support and encouragement of the Christian faith, but not a nation stemming from said faith. And this is not what Charlie Kirk portrayed.
I am thankful for Charlie Kirk and his motivations for the youth of America. But he is a controversial topic, as would be most who are not neutral in this life.
I was astonished with what I learned about the Indians in this book. I've known that their history in America was very bad and absolutely shameful (or at least should be for us americans) but I've never known details or specific stories. I am very very saddened to learn how these people were treated, how entitled and self righteous the "civilized" were in the history of America.
As always, history is far more interesting and gruesome than any fiction.
July 3, 2019
This book presents and interesting concept about the beliefs that the United States was founded by Christians and is a nation that should be ad-hearing to Christian beliefs. Bercot uses scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ to analyze many events from Jamestown to the Revolutionary war to show that although it is claimed, the United States was certainly not founded by following Christian views.
A lawyer by trade Bercot can be quite convincing at times when presenting how the colonists should have responded to issues if they were actually following the teachings of Jesus. He also delves a bit into the religious beliefs of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin although I would have liked to see this expanded upon more. He makes a case for how William Penn was the only colonist to truly follow biblical teachings and how his colony had none of the issues that the others were facing between the Indians and England.
Bottom line, not a lot new here to think on but an interesting alternative perspective.
A lawyer by trade Bercot can be quite convincing at times when presenting how the colonists should have responded to issues if they were actually following the teachings of Jesus. He also delves a bit into the religious beliefs of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin although I would have liked to see this expanded upon more. He makes a case for how William Penn was the only colonist to truly follow biblical teachings and how his colony had none of the issues that the others were facing between the Indians and England.
Bottom line, not a lot new here to think on but an interesting alternative perspective.
August 12, 2021
Really Made Me Think What Jesus Would Say
In God We Don't Trust was a very interesting and thought provoking book. I remember reading about he American colonists in school and reviews of their history when I started homeschooling. How different our country would be if only the colonists trusting God instead of fighting amongst themselves and stealing land from the American Indians.
In God We Don't Trust was a very interesting and thought provoking book. I remember reading about he American colonists in school and reviews of their history when I started homeschooling. How different our country would be if only the colonists trusting God instead of fighting amongst themselves and stealing land from the American Indians.
July 10, 2020
This is a pretty good book with a great perspective. It was pleasant to see a different side to the revolution, and was rather eye opening. Be prepared, however, to become slightly offended at least somewhere in the book. Though I agreed with the book, it would have been nice to hear more of the colonial arguments rather than just the British perspective.
July 27, 2020
Eye Opening!
Rich history and hard truths, but ones we need as much today as ever before. Where is our citizenship? In an earthly government that Jesus was offered control of if only He would bow and worship Satan? Or do we place our hope in a Kingdom that is not of this world? The choice is ours.
Rich history and hard truths, but ones we need as much today as ever before. Where is our citizenship? In an earthly government that Jesus was offered control of if only He would bow and worship Satan? Or do we place our hope in a Kingdom that is not of this world? The choice is ours.
November 16, 2020
A must read
A great read for Christians dealing with today's highly charged political environment. Great insight into how we have arrived at the current convincing of Christianity and politics.
A great read for Christians dealing with today's highly charged political environment. Great insight into how we have arrived at the current convincing of Christianity and politics.
December 31, 2022
An unapologetic look at our nation's history: with this addition to his work, David Bercot proves to be a commendable scholar of not only the early church but also colonial America.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews