Problematic Providentialism: Recognizing It When You See It

Last time, I touched on the topic of providential history and explained the problems it can cause, such as perpetuating a skewed view of God and of the United States. Because providentialism can be so problematic, it’s important that we be able to recognize it when we see it.

Sometimes spotting providentialist language is easy, but other times the cues can be subtle, so let’s take a closer look at the example mentioned last time—Peter Marshall and David Manuel’s The Light and the Glory.

Right off the bat, there’s a big red flag in the banner topping the cover, which reads “God’s Plan for America.” What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t God have a plan? Well, yes, but remember that we move from believing in God’s providence to espousing providentialism when we propose to identify that plan for a specific geopolitical entity, such as America.

At the end of what functions as the first preface, Marshall and Manuel write, “Almost two and a half centuries later, the key to the moral and spiritual crisis now plaguing this country remains: Did God have a plan for America? If He did, then the reason we are wandering in a moral wasteland, no longer knowing who we are, is that we have lost His plan” (12, emphasis original).

First of all, notice that the authors’ diagnosis for America’s rampant immorality is not that individuals do not have a personal, life-changing relationship with Jesus but that we have failed to fulfill God’s plan for us collectively and thus have lost sight of our [supposed] identity as God’s second chosen people. This is a common theme of providential history—a focus on corporate morality and virtue as both a means to and a measure of prosperity instead of on individual regeneration through Christ that leads to increased holiness through sanctification for the purpose of glorifying God. 

But there are other providentialist characteristics in the passage quoted above. Notice the use of the past tense “did” and the final phrase about losing God’s plan. The implication is that God’s purposes can be thwarted by human behavior, which of course is utterly false. While it is true that we can live in a way that is contrary to His will as revealed in Scripture, to suggest that our doing so somehow derails His divine plan for the course of human history is to suggest that God is not truly sovereign. Thus, in this instance, providentialism is directly counter to the doctrine of God’s providence.

Later, the authors suggest that “at times of great crisis God raised up great leaders to protect America from destruction so that His plan for us might have a chance of success” (24). Notice anything fishy here? How about the word “chance”? A theologically sound view of God’s providence includes the understanding that God’s plans will prevail no matter what. They don’t need a chance to succeed; they will succeed. Period.

Another red flag to watch for is selective memory, particularly when it comes to American history. Once again, Marshall and Manuel provide a prime example in a passage that I quoted in the previous post. They stated that “the first settlers consciously thought of themselves as a people called into a covenant relationship with God similar to the one He had established with ancient Israel” (17). The context of this quotation reveals that the authors are referring to the Pilgrims who arrived in America in 1620.

Admittedly, the Pilgrims did come to the New World for primarily religious reasons. But by the time the Pilgrims arrived, the settlement at Jamestown had been in existence for thirteen years and had produced a number of subsequent settlements along the James River (see Hatch 1957). These settlers, while they may or may not have been genuine believers, were certainly motivated by other factors than the desire to expand God’s kingdom on earth.

And that’s just the English settlers. If the Pilgrims were truly God’s chosen people to settle the New World, then what do we make of the Spaniards who settled St. Augustine half a century before? Similarly, Marshall and Manuel identify Columbus as “the person that [God] used to bring Europeans to the Americas,” saying nothing about the Vikings who predated Columbus’s voyage by hundreds of years (19). This kind of picking and choosing only those facts and sources that support their argument is bad history and is also highly frequent in providentialist writings.

In summary, here’s what to watch for: attempts to identify the specifics of God’s plan in the details of historic or current events (aside from those identified in Scripture, e.g. fulfillment of prophecies concerning the coming of Christ), disproportional mentions of morality instead of salvation, conditions placed on the fulfillment of God’s purposes, and selective acknowledgment or dismissal of historic facts and/or original sources.

If you encounter any of these characteristics in articles, books, sermons, television shows, or documentaries, there’s a good chance what you’re dealing with is providentialism.

Citations: Hatch, Charles E. Jr. The First Seventeen Years: Virginia, 1607-1624. Charlottesville, Vir.: University of Virginia Press, 1957. 

Marshall, Peter and David Manuel. The Light and the Glory: 1492-1793. Rev. and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Revell, 2009.