If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty

by Eric Metaxas

From the #1 New York Times bestselling author Eric Metaxas comes If You Can Keep It, a new book that is part history and part manifesto, steeped in a critical analysis of our founding fathers' original intentions for America. Two hundred and forty years after the Declaration of Independence, it examines how we as a nation are living up to our founders' lofty vision for liberty and justice.

If You Can Keep It is at once a thrilling review of America's uniqueness, and a sobering reminder that America's greatness cannot continue unless we truly understand what our founding fathers meant for us to be.  The book includes a stirring call-to-action for every American to understand the ideals behind the "noble experiment in ordered liberty" that is America. It also paints a vivid picture of the tremendous fragility of that experiment and explains why that fragility has been dangerously forgotten—and in doing so it lays out our own responsibility to live those ideals and carry on those freedoms. Metaxas believes America is not a nation bounded by ethnic identity or geography, but rather by a radical and unprecedented idea, based upon liberty and freedom. It's time to reconnect to that idea before America loses the very foundation for what made it exceptional in the first place.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Christian, Audiobook, Philosophy

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2016

About the author

In a decidedly eclectic career, Eric Metaxas has written for VeggieTales, Chuck Colson, Rabbit Ears Productions and the New York Times, four things not ordinarily in the same sentence. He is a best-selling author whose biographies, children’s books, and works of popular apologetics have been translated into more than 25 languages.

Reviews

[David Huff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I listened to the Audible version of this fine book on a road trip to Virginia (coincidentally, a state filled with American history) and back. Metaxas makes a compelling and clear case in explaining why we as Americans should love our country. He begins with the famous title story, wherein Benjamin Franklin was asked by a Mrs. Powell whether, in drafting the Constitution, the authors had created a monarchy or a republic. His answer to her -- " a Republic .. if you can keep it!"

Then comes a very interesting and motivating tour through many important vignettes of American history -- as he dealt at length with fascinating topics that are too seldom remembered, or noted for their importance. In no particular order, the ones which especially struck me included: the stories of Nathan Hale and William Wilberforce; Franklin's amazing speech, during the writing of the Constitution, concerning prayer; the incredible, Providential story of Squanto; the story of Paul Revere and the old North church in Boston; the remarkable reach of George Whitefield's influence; Os Guinness' Triangle of Freedom (freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom...) and much more.

This should be a book, in my view, that is required reading -- not only in high school or college, but by everyone seeking citizenship in America. Highly recommended!

[Jessica · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unfortunately, past the initial quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, this book ceased to meet my expectations.

I found Eric Metaxas to be quite partisan, devoutly religious (there is a conclusion that all Sunday school teachers have sterling character and moral judgment) and convinced of the concept of American Exceptionalism. Let's start there. He says that we should "love America" and that "the cynicism we often have about life in general and about our country was nowhere to be found in these countless immigrants." He even mentions how America is the only place of true free speech and how nobody in America is above the law. This sort of idealistic generalization made me put the book down for a moment several times as I was reading. I believe in optimism but implying that America is basically the permanent centerpiece of the world and some sort of utopian safe haven is taking it a little bit too far. Believing that one is the best is provides hope, true, but it's not the best to hold that belief as the incontrovertible truth. Some would call it arrogance. Some would call it dangerous overconfidence. Anyways the title of the book itself ("The Forgotten Promise") implies that America has some work to do. I was really confused as to why Metaxas seemed to disagree with the very claim in his title throughout his book.

Metaxas relates a story of Benjamin Franklin early on where Franklin spoke to a woman and implied that America will exist as a republic only as long as the people uphold the promise of America (aka what is outlined in the Constitution). He says that this was a start of the idea that an entire society would be responsible for the stability of a nation. I think he was forgetting about all of the social contract philosophers, but he does mention them himself later in the book so who knows.

As for the religious aspect, some of the time I felt like I was reading a missionary's mission statement rather than an analysis of the Constitution. Metaxas tries to argue that the maintenance of America as a republic is not "for our own sake" but rather for other countries' sakes. He claims that we are a "nation with a mission to the rest of the world," following up with the statement that that "is a big idea, not often heard." Really? That is an idea that is more than prevalent and not just for America and not just in the modern day. Just think of the era of imperialism (which by the way, the mission statement of the US Department of State is eerily similar to).

Metaxas also goes on long tangents where he devotes time—and a substantial amount of his book—to what he is personally interested in and not necessarily what actually contributes to the subject of the book. For example, there are 35 pages on George Whitefield alone. Metaxas paints Whitefield as a unifying force, treating all, including slaves and women, equally. I think Metaxas forgot the part where Whitefield campaigned to legalize slavery for two years until it finally was (Whitefield called the "legalization of slavery as part personal victory and part divine will"). Perhaps Whitefield did think that slaves had souls as well or that they should be treated fairly, but that doesn't exactly make him the picture of equality for all. Metaxas's fixation with Whitefield seems to be more personal. After all, he does think that Americans are basically "the chosen people." Over another 8 pages, Metaxas shares his personal analysis of Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride" (Metaxas, your degree in English is showing). Honestly, those things didn't really add to the book for me. Rather, they detracted from the more relevant message.

This also might be of interest: Eric Metaxas's article in the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-meta...
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Maxwell Krauss comments: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/element...

Regardless of your religion, I think that there is a truth in America that disagree with Metaxas: one that is perhaps one of the most pressing issues today. We are not a nation of perfect religious freedom. Stereotypes and prejudice exist. Discrimination exists. We do not welcome all immigrants with open arms. We can be very suspicious, perhaps overly so. Anyways, it irks me that Metaxas presents a front of apparent religious freedom in America whilst he advocates for certain religions as the "unifying" ones.

Metaxas claims that we shouldn't "think of the ways America had failed to live up to her noble promises," but to think "instead of the promise." He quotes Ronald Reagan saying "There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit." No offense, but you're kidding yourself if America doesn't take credit. That would detract from the whole patriotic nationalism thing. And really, ignoring our mistakes doesn't make them go away. You can't erase history. Apologizing and taking responsibility for the ways we have failed may be a better course of action.

So, love America? Not quite. Love what America has the potential to be.

There's so much more I could say but that would take forever. Please feel free to correct me if you interpreted this book differently; I'd love to hear things from a different perspective.

Note: I received this book through the Goodreads Giveaway Program

**Edit 1/30/2018: Ordered a book online and got the wrong one in the mail. Which book did I get by mistake? None other than Eric Metaxas's newest book "Martin Luther." Still trying to decide whether I should read it or not.

[Bob O'Bannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recall my days in elementary school when I was taught that America was a place worth loving, and that to be a good citizen of this nation, there were certain responsibilities and expectations for how one should live. But those days seem long gone. Patriotism has been replaced by cynicism, and the whole notion of "love of country" seems outdated and naïve.

Eric Metaxas does an outstanding job reminding us of the uniqueness of the American experiment -- the idea that a responsible people could actually freely govern themselves, instead of being ruled by the tribe with the most power or the next heir to the throne.

The risk, of course, of allowing a people to govern themselves is that things can go sour very quickly if the people go morally astray. As Ben Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." (55). And as Tocqueville wrote: "Liberty cannot be established without morality." (60). And as John Adams asserted: "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." (61).

In light of this important qualification, Metaxas makes the case (Ch. 3) that it was the gospel-preaching ministry of George Whitefield in the mid 18th century that actually prepared the American people for the unprecedented responsibility of governing themselves. Whitefield's influence on America was so great that "we really should not think of anything that has happened since without first thinking of" his place in American history (90). Under the transforming power of Whitefield's gospel, Americans became a virtuous people and were willing to live for something beyond themselves. An important question for us to ask today is whether we have strayed so far from our roots that we are now unable to properly govern ourselves, at least in the way the founders envisioned.

One critique: early in the book, it is implied that if the American flame goes out, that the world will tragically and perhaps irreversibly descend into hopelessness (14). But certainly Metaxas knows, as a Christian himself, that the light of the gospel and the kingdom of God is what provides the most hope to the world. This is a light that will never be extinguished, even if America is.

Nevertheless, this is a book that is very much needed right now. Even with this nation's many grievous mistakes and errors (which Metaxas is not slow to acknowledge), there is still much to love about America.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

“True freedom must be an ‘ordered freedom’, at the center of which is what we call ‘self-government’.”

I was surprised by this book. In a pleasant way. It was much less political than I thought it was going to be, in fact there are no political references of any note that are more current than the Clinton presidency. I’m sure other modern presidents were mentioned, but the only two I can remember being mentioned were Clinton and Nixon.
The book was also just much better in general then I expected. I think Mr. Metaxas wants his book to be relevant long after the current political climate has passed away, so he wrote this book from a historical perspective, which will give it a much longer shelf life.

Especially good is chapter four where Mr. Metaxas examines the idea of Heroes, specifically heroes in American culture. His line-by-line examination of the Longfellow poem, “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” is just lovely. This respect for our past, despite its flaws, is just not what it was when I was a child. It's lacking in American culture currently (in sections of American culture) and it makes me sad. I for one am glad that Mr. Metaxas is defending it.
There is also a nice bit about Squanto, and the providential aspects of his life. If you don’t know who that was, I read books about him when I was a kid. Now he has all but disappeared from popular culture.
The book also includes an excellent examination of the timing, and miracle, of the drafting of the US Constitution. This section was especially stirring and thought provoking.

In IF YOU CAN KEEP IT, THE FORGOTTEN PROMISE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY Metaxas focuses on the idea of America, venerating heroes, the importance of moral leaders, loving America, and other concepts. It’s a positive book, but not sycophantic. It is a text that refuses to ignore the good just because there is also bad.
I end with this thought from the author as he concluded this work, “So go forth and love America, knowing that if your love is true it will be transmuted one way or another into a love of everything that is good beyond America, which is her golden promise to the world. And the promise that we, you and I, must keep.”

[Collin Huber · Rating 2 out of 5]

*My full review can be found here: https://christandpopculture.com/searc...

There is much I appreciate about Eric Metaxas. He's an engaging personality with a clever wit. On many subjects, he proves insightful and winsome. He's also a gifted writer, which makes reading his books enjoyable. However, "If You Can Keep It" turned out to be a disappointing product. From the opening pages, he determines to recover the original intentions of the Founders when crafting the Constitution of our country, but he does so in a way that ends up skewing the past, whitewashing iconic figures from history, and arranging poorly researched details to form a questionable conclusion, namely, that America was called by God for the purpose of distributing ordered liberties to the world (214).

Among the historical missteps present in the book: he claims John Adams was an orthodox Christian (56) despite the Founder's rejection of staple Christian doctrines like the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the eternality of hell (these are essential to being an "orthodox Christian"); he describes George Whitefield's preaching as a unifying force that brought all ethnicities and socio-economic classes together under the banner of the gospel (96, 111), even though Whitefield advocated for the legalization of slavery in Georgia (prior to its establishment) and owned slaves himself; he claims that religious freedom and tolerance have been singularly prized as American principles since the Massachusetts Bay Colony (70), despite the Puritans themselves having exiled members of their colony for religious dissent (see Anne Hutchison and Roger Williams). In addition to these obvious errors, he provides copious amounts of quotations, none of which are properly cited. He includes only 8 endnotes, all of them recommending further reading or offering brief peripheral discussion.

These problems cause the book to feel less like a serious historical study and more like a well-intended, but misguided attempt at inspiring patriotism. Again, I appreciate much of what Metaxas has to offer, but this book was sloppy and in many ways threatens to conflate the distribution of American liberties in the world with the Great Commission of Jesus Christ. The two are not one and the same and there is no biblical basis for making such sweeping claims about God's providential hand in establishing America for the expressed purpose of enlightening the world to the freedoms and liberties we enjoy. That was my biggest problem with the book. It veers towards co-opting the beauty of the gospel and runs the risk of reducing it to something less than what God truly desires for the world, as expressed in Scripture.

In the end, "If You Can Keep It" fails to live up to its claims. Though well-written, it is poorly informed and ignores important historical nuance in order to defend its thesis. Such errors in minor detail should cause readers to question the bigger picture of the argument as it is ultimately built on an unsustainable foundation.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Several of my students recently participated in a writing competition where they answered a version of the prompt, "Should patriotism be taught as part of a liberal arts curriculum?"
It came as no surprise to me when they all answered, "Yes, but...."
(Actually, I guess that did surprise me some. I expected at least one of them to say no.)
Anyway, patriotism has been on my mind recently and I picked up If You Can Keep It as an interesting foil to the essays. The students all struggled the most with defining patriotism. "Love of country, but not nationalism or jingoism" came up a lot. One person described healthy patriotism as falling between "hot dogs and baseball" on the positive end and "Civil War Reenactment" on the negative.
Other students talked about their personal experiences being "indoctrinated" into the ways of patriotism. Reciting the pledge of allegiance and gathering around the flag definitely came up. Another wrote with pride about how she got detention in 2nd grade because she kept interrupting her teacher's Thanksgiving story to talk about how Europeans destroyed the Native American way of life. Her parents apparently praised her willingness to stand up for the truth when they found out. But even for my students with less vocal parents, there definitely was this sense that some love of country must be passed down, but that historically the United States has veered too far into the love and not far enough into self-criticism.
Although he takes an opposite view of America's current way of teaching patriotism (too much criticism, not enough love), Eric Metaxas's definition of patriotism surprisingly resembled my students's definitions. However, it took till Chapter 7 for the full meaning to really come forward. I think I'd loosely define his interpretation as "love of country and the values she stands for, but not to the point of nationalism or jingoism."
The addition of "values" is where he manages to hit on something my students missed and so struggled with in their definitions of patriotism. How do you love your country and not become a nationalist? What do you focus on? Baseball and hot dogs might represent "America" to some, but at the end of the day, a love of baseball and hot dogs really means a love of a specific sport and a specific food, not a country. And even if you could somehow prove the three things infallibly interlinked, what do you do when someone claims to love America and yet prefers soccer and kimchi ? Do you write off their patriotism because they do not share your preferences? Some might say yes, and yet it should also strike us as absurd because things might be inextricably American and still not the sole summary of our culture. Such a box presents too narrow a definition of patriotism. Even the most stereotypical of red, white, and blue hot dog lovers recognize that many cultures fed the melting pot that is America today. America is as much kimchi and tacos at hot dogs. Or to be more specific, America strives to tolerate kimchi, tacos, and hot dogs equally. You might love hot dogs and despise kimchi, or vice versa, but the fact that you can express your preference and then act on it, that is what it means to be American. Because by toleration I do not mean the false sense that you must accept my preference without question. I mean toleration as a virtue that allows people to vehemently disagree about their preferences and yet still live together.
This interpretation of patriotism also answers the opposite side of the spectrum: the one that praises multiculturalism so insistently that it ceases to truly praise anything. I mean the view that hot dogs and kimchi and tacos and really all food everywhere define America. And also, just about every other country. If patriotism means embracing all cultures, peoples, and food groups equally without any defining lines or common virtues, then what boundaries exist? Why should I love the United States when it is no different from any other country? Perhaps it is even worse than other countries, because it allowed white slave-owners to design its system of government. It permitted slavery. It only gave women the vote 100 years ago. Should the fact that I was born here really make that much of a difference? America did horrendous things; America perhaps did a few good things. In this it is no better or worse than any other country. I can feel the same emotions towards the place of my birth that I do towards China, or Chad, or Chile. And I can easily love those countries more because I do not live there and so do not have to deal with any of their flaws.
So, patriotism becomes more subjective. Love what your country does well, but hem it in on all sides with critique and complaints so that you never love your country too well. But by taking patriotism outside of its box altogether, any common interpretation of "love of country" becomes groundless and probably pointless. It is a matter of personal preference whether you love it or not. And if I don't love it, who are you to say that I should? You might as well say that I ought to love hot dogs.
But if the focus of patriotism shifts to the values that created this country, a slightly different pictures emerges. We can love America not for hot dogs but for toleration. Apple pie has nothing on freedom of religion. Free speech means I can criticize baseball as much as I desire and not fear the government telling me otherwise, even a government inextricably linked to the sport.
Of course, you might say a similar problem arises when it comes to defining values. What does liberty or freedom even mean? What are the boundaries of toleration? How far is free-speech beneficial? But those debates take depth and discourse. They begin to push us outside of the gut reaction of "that's different and I do not like it." It also pushes the debate outside of "does America always do the right thing?" Because the answer of course is no, and we need to acknowledge that America frequently messes up. But that shouldn't prevent us from still loving America as a place that strives for toleration or equality or freedom because though it often fails, it also often succeeds.
The consequence of this view, so Eric Metaxas presents, is not nationalism, but a love of virtue. We praise the virtues we find in our country. We can praise those same virtues in another country. But we at least have a foundation for our praise and a commonality that goes beyond personal preference.
It is a much more nuanced and affirming view of patriotism than we typically hear. Eric Metaxas spends a great deal of the book looking at how we nurture patriotism. He praises patriotic statutes, heroic stories, and sacred ceremonies. And I think to an extent he rightly does so. "How do you pass patriotism along" is a vital question.
But it jumps to the "how" a little too fast for my taste. I really didn't grasp his definition of "patriotism" till the end, and so any discussion of how fell flat for me while I remained stuck on the what.
The what needs more fleshing out. It is fine to point to Judeo-Christian values as a foundation, particularly since he aims this book at Christians. It is wise to say that values should come from faith or other social systems similarly equipped to teach morals to the young. (Which presents an interesting question about the role of religion in patriotism.) And I guess I can even see the merits of not "listing" the exact values that unite Americans (toleration, equality, rule of law, etc). A detailed list arguably falls outside the scope of this work. But I was still left hanging with a big question about what values defined America, or if values superseded America, and how to recognize those values.
At the end of the day, this is a popular text and not a political treatise. Nor is Metaxas strictly a political philosopher. This book really shines at its best when it falls squarely in the author's wheelhouse: namely, biographies for various figures around the American Revolution. It becomes okay but still interesting when describing Metaxas's own experience with patriotism. And finally, it becomes the least tangible when presenting the theory and foundation for Metaxas's view of patriotism. But the view still stands surprisingly strong and made this a book I definitely recommend picking up.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 Stars

If You Can Keep It is a fascinating look at America, both its past and present. I think it’s particularly relevant at a time that the country seems to be growing more divided on a daily basis.

Eric Metaxas is a Christian who would undoubtedly describe himself as a conservative. Both are labels that apply to me as well. This book is written from that perspective, and as such has the potential to be off putting to people who are not Christian or conservative. Despite that, I think there are several interesting ideas raised that are at least worthy of discussion even if one disagrees with the beliefs behind those ideas.

Metaxas pointed out the unique relationship in America between the people and their government. I strongly agree that a government that puts power in the hands of the people through a representative governing system also requires something from the people. He raises a concept called the Golden Triangle: Freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and faith requires freedom. Now I know that the non-religious probably lost interest as soon as faith came up but I found the concept very interesting.

The necessity of a moral people was strongly emphasized, and not just by Metaxas. Going back to the Founding Fathers, the concept of morality was a critical factor in their idea of the country they were creating. Here are a few quotes:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”
-Ben Franklin

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams

“I have always said, and will always say, that the studious perusal of the Bible will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Liberty cannot be established without morality.”
- Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville

“More states have perished because of a violation of their mores than because of a violation of their laws.”
- French philosopher Montesquieu

One of the things emphasized by the Founding Fathers was that as each citizen self-governs himself, the need for a strong government diminishes. I think most people would agree that it’s impossible to force morality on a populace through legislation. Metaxas also talked about the fact that unmitigated freedom is anarchy, and that true freedom is ordered freedom. I think a lot of people might disagree, but I agree that freedom does not equal wholly unrestricted license to do whatever you want.

The book wasn’t perfect. The writing style felt a bit overwrought to me, and at times I wished Metaxas would scale back the almost poetic tone he took at times. That said, it’s a minor complaint and more preference than anything else.

One of his final points I thought was among the most important. There seem to be two camps that exist within America, those that seem incapable of recognizing her strengths and the good accomplished and those that refuse to tolerate any criticism of America whatsoever. The third perspective, the one that acknowledges the wrongs committed, both in the past and present, but chooses to focus instead on the promise that America represents and is capable of fulfilling, is the one that has the best chance at actually accomplishing the most good.

[Kris · Rating 5 out of 5]

An exploration of American identity and exhortation to rediscover and value the traditions of our country. I was especially intrigued by the idea of the triangle of freedom: freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith, faith requires freedom.

I look forward to reading more Metaxas in the future!

[Elsa K · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I love reading anything by Eric Metaxas. He is a great story teller and always makes me think. I loved hearing the stories about the beginning of our country and some amazing people like Paul Revere and George Whitefield. Why are kids not taught that stuff? I guess that is part of his purpose in writing. I think his gifting is story telling, so this book wasn't quite as griping as his biographies, but there were some really good points made. I love how intelligent he is, yet he makes everything so easy to comprehend. I thought this was a great and timely read especially with the election so close. I don't know if I agree with everything he says, but he brings up some great ideas.

[Matthew Huff · Rating 5 out of 5]

How appropriate to finish this book on the Fourth of July! Metaxas has a refreshingly clear writing style, and, coupled with his warm narrative voice in the audiobook, his treatise on American history, liberty, and virtue pulled me right in. I loved this book very much. It settled a great many questions I had about our founding. My dad recommended that it be required reading in American high schools, and I couldn't agree more.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love America. I love the idea of America. I love the story about how this country organized itself and won a war against the greatest military army in the world at that time. I do not believe as many progressives preach today that America is only a place of evil and there is no good in it and we should have anarchy. I believe that America has contributed certain good to the world and has been a blessing to some. But the truth is it hasn't been a blessing to everybody in the world, and especially some people that we dragged here against their will to profit off of and enslave. This book at times idolizes America and has to downplay certain truths about our history in order to gloss over the harsh realities of when America hasn't lived up to its ideal. It is not enough to say 'America hasn't lived up to its ideals' to try and dismiss serious sins against certain people groups.

Metaxas uses Os Guinness' 'Golden Triangle of Freedom' for his support. This basically states that freedom requires virtue and virtue requires faith and faith requires freedom. Metaxas tells personal antidotes of American heroes that he believes embody the virtue, freedom, and faith that we as Americans should strive towards. Metaxas wants Americans to keep the promise and idea of America but in order to do that we have to have virtuous citizens.

I truly am sympathetic to Metaxas' thesis but believe he at times downplays serious issues or even worse ends up not reporting the facts correctly to try and tell a good story. There is much good in this book. Metaxas is a great communicator. He is really good at telling stories. The problem is they are half truths at best and lies at worst. One reviewer of the book (Gregg Frazer) wrote, "The lack of endnotes makes reading more fluid and uninterrupted, but it sacrifices accountability to reliable sources and facts." This is terrible. For example, Metaxas states that the first settlers in America were seeking religious freedom. Truth: in 1607 the Jamestown settlement came for financial incentives, not religious freedom. Also, another myth that Metaxas perpetuates is that all the first colonies were about religious toleration. The sad truth is whole states were founded out of the persecution they received from Massachusetts Bay because they were nonconformists (Catholics for example). The irony that nonconformists left England and then persecute nonconformists in America is interesting to say the least. Other reviewers have pointed out how Metaxas claims President John Adams was an orthodox Christian but any real historian who has done even a cursory reading of Adams on his religious views will know he would never have even signed the Apostles Creed, let alone consider himself an orthodox Christian. I can't believe the publisher allowed these historical fallacies go into print.

There is much more I could say about this book but suffice it to say that I wanted to like this book. I did enjoy reading it until I found out how inaccurate some of Metaxas' claims were. Couldn't he have hired an amateur historian to read over his draft and point out these problems? While I do not agree with his proposal that America has a special calling like Israel, he is fine to hold that interpretation. My problem becomes when he clearly changes history for his own ends. This is a bad representation of 'Christian scholarship.'

[Amy · Rating 1 out of 5]

If You Can Keep It is a an admittedly well-written work of christian nationalist drivel: the US is unique because it's the first democracy (it wasn't, as even basic understanding of ancient Greece and Rome will show), the founders owed thier ideas for democracy to the bible and christian philosphy (they don't, they drew on Enlightenment ideas, philosophies, and ideas), and the US should keep in mind that it needs to honor its founding ideas to be successful (the false narrative of christian ideals that resulted from the supposedly christain founding, not the secular Enlightenment ideals on which the US was actually founded).

I give If You Can Keep some props for the writing alone. The author has a good style, and I until I got a good way into he book it wasn't obvious that the book was christian nationalist fiction, I just thought the author was being a bit heavy handed with religious examples (a hazard in pretty much all reading). However, it became obvious that he was deliberately misconstruing history, downplaying the effect of the Enlightenment here, not mentioning a century of blood-soaked religious wars there, focusing on deist tendencies here and implying that deism actually meant christianity throughout, etcetera. If I didn't come to If You Can Keep It with a relatively good knowledge of America's early history and founding, it would have been very convincing and I would not have caught the errors. However, the errors are so prevalent, widespread, and easily fact-checked that I can only conclude the writing is deliberate.

If You Can Keep It is a work of christian wishful thinking, a work of historical fiction dressed up and passed off as nonfiction, and should be ignored by anyone interested in learning about actual US history and suggestions for civic participation.

[Celia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the book. I enjoyed what I learned, especially about The Golden Triangle of Freedom.

I have read reviews, however, that say that fact checking in the book is lacking; not all things said are historically accurate; that Metaxas writes so well he lulls the reader into complacency.

Well, consider me lulled.

I have no guilt about my attitude. I feel the book is much more spiritual than it is a history. I understand, though, if it is advertised as historical, it should be accurate and not misleading.

So, be forewarned. If you concentrate on this book's spiritual aspects, you will probably not be as disappointed.

[Khari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Looks like I forgot to put this one in when I started listening to it. Ah, well.

This is a book that defies categories. It's not a story, neither is it a memoir, textbook, essay, or manifesto.

It's kind of a manual, a manual about what the nation of America is supposed to be, a manual woven out of the threads of many little narratives intertwining into almost a tapestry of philosophy and history.

I learned a lot in this book. I learned that Squanto had originally been sold as a slave in Spain, then sent to England in the hopes of returning to his home on a ship from there. And five years later he did! Mind-boggling. I didn't know that.

I learned a lot about Greek Orthodox rituals as well, some of them seem quite beautiful, I would like to participate in one of them some time. The candle-light greeting of the birth of Christ seems quite meaningful.

I learned that Abraham Lincoln was growing his beard because a little girl asked him to. Who knew that?!

This book was full of little tidbits of information that I had never heard before, like George Washington standing up to his officers and appealing to their honor to keep them from mutinying against the congress, and then pulling on their heartstrings by showing his weakness by putting on his glasses. There's some symbolism for you.

I enjoyed the book. I would have enjoyed it more if the reader had been better. I didn't like him. Although I enjoyed the book, I would have a hard time explaining it to anyone else. It's kind of like a memoir of America. The highlights, or at least what the author perceives to be the highlights, are explored through a lens that most people wouldn't use. But, really a lot of it wasn't really connected to itself. It was kind of random. I think it would have better presented as a series of short essays.

[Travis Bow · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty solid book designed to stir your patriotism and polish your tarnished hopes for the future. The book reads like a speech... a little flowery or repetitive at times, meant to inspire a sympathetic audience rather than to make a strong persuasive case. I find myself coming out of it feeling prouder of America and also a little chagrined for my cynicism.

An outline:
1) America was founded on an idea instead of common race, geography, or dictator, which is pretty incredible.
2) Liberty, virtue, and faith are codependent
3) A brief history of George Whitfield, and how he set the stage for America's cohesiveness before the Revolutionary war
4) Why we should start venerating our heroes again, with Nathan Hale and Paul Revere as case studies
5) Why the morality of our leaders - or our faith in their corruption - can either redeem or destroy us (with Washington's don't-overthrow-congress speech as an example).
6) How America's founding could have been guided by God as a way to help the world (with the 'miracles' of Squanto and the Constitution as evidence)
7) How loving America isn't corny, and it doesn't mean overlooking our faults, but it does mean loving what's good.

Favorite point #1: Corruption leads to cynicism which destroys democracy's efficacy:

So any perceived lack of virtue on the part of our leaders plays a decisive role in undermining the entire enterprise of self-government... in order for self-government to work, citizens must believe that the larger order to which they are giving themselves is essentially trustworthy and solid. They must believe that it's real, that the system works and that their efforts toward self-government matter. They must believe that they really are governing themselves through the leaders they have elected.

Once they think the system is corrupt, or that their leaders and representatives are corrupt, it's nearly impossible for the citizens to feel they are anymore part of an actual system of self-government. They will feel less good about paying their taxes, for fear that their money is being misused. it will also be difficult for them to want to give of themselves in military service, for fear that such service and sacrifice aren't worth the trouble. They will generally become cynical about the whole operation and will slowly pull back and make the end of self-government inevitable.

Corruption in leaders give citizens the sense that they are, in fact, not all in it together. They will get the positively fatal idea that there is indeed an "us" and a "them." At this point the unavoidably central idea that "we the people" are governing ourselves is doomed. The citizens will buy into the deeply pernicious idea that rather than ruling themselves, they are in fact being ruled by others - that all the talk of self-government and liberty is a sham. So they won't work with the government, but will see themselves as dupes of the government and will begin working against it, whether actively or passively. They may be more inclined to cheat on their taxes, or in being less involved in government service, or they may simply stop voting, because they have the idea that the whole thing is somehow rigged against them, so that their vote doesn't matter, and that voting is for suckers. or they may themselves become actively cynical and vote, but not for the best and noblest candidate, but for the candidate who will put the most money in their pockets - for the one who will get them what they want at the expense of the larger enterprise. They will care for themselves more than for the welfare of the country, because they have ceased to take pride in the country or to see it as a real extension of themselves - as indeed "their" country.

So democracy without real patriotism moves toward the destruction of the ordered liberty bequeathed to us by the founders.

Favorite point #2: Love is neither criticism or blindness, it's calling out the best in someone:

If I have a son or a daughter or a spouse or a parent or another relative or a friend, I will eventually see things in their behavior that I perhaps perceive as troubling, even as out-and-out wrong. How do I deal with that? There are a few typical ways.

One of them is to home in on those problems by constantly pointing them out and criticizing that person so that the person feels unloved. Another is to be unable to divorce the person from their behavior - to say, in effect, Whatever that person does is correct. If I love them I must accept them 'as they are'" We can hate the sin and hate the sinner or we can love the sin and love the sinner. Both are wrong. There is a third way....

What if we treat someone as though he were the way we wished him to be?... To love someone is to see the best in them and to act toward them as though they were that best. To call them higher. To treat them with respect and love is to call them to be worthy of that respect and that love. And we can say that to love someone is not to avoid seeing their flaws, but to avoid so focusing on them that the person gets a feeling of hopelessness about changing them.

[PennsyLady (Bev) · Rating 5 out of 5]

If You Can Keep It
The Forgotten Promise Of American Liberty
(Eric Metaxas) (2016)

.
Dr James McHenry (a Maryland delegate) reports that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a certain Mrs Powell of Philadelphia asked, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”.

Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
----
I read and reread sections, underlined, highlighted and am determined to bring this forward for discussion with friends.

Eric Metaxas enables us to understand, more fully, what the founders intended for America.

Explaining Os Guinness' concept of "The Golden Triangle of Freedom" was both basic and profound.
"Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; and faith requires freedom. If any of these three legs of the triangle is removed, the whole structure ceases to exist."
An in-depth look at each of the legs follows.

Please understand that the material in this book is much more expansive and thought provoking than I'm able to express here.
This is definitely a book I recommend you read and take seriously.

A quote from Eric Metaxas
"I still hope that perhaps those of us who call ourselves Americans might come to understand these vital ideas, to remember them again and to know what it means to be an American."

"It's time to reconnect to that idea before America loses the very foundation for what made it exceptional in the first place."
(publishers note)

4.5 ★

Goodreads giveaway

[Jan Hankinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book. Such an insightful look at the beginnings of America and how the vast majority of millennials really have no idea about even the basics of our government. Democracy is more fragile than we think - we all need to be educated on its history - so we can keep it going!

[Darla · Rating 5 out of 5]

A history primer for all Americans!! We should know and teach these facts about our country! Also a call for us to once again honor American's who have blazed a trail for liberty

[Crystal W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this book and how inspiring it was! I cried hopeful tears in many places. It was honest about Americats flaws, but hopeful in our many heroes and ideals. I don't re-read much, but I definitely want to go back to this one.

[Debra · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book to read in the aftermath of this 2016 election season. It helped to answer my question, which I have repeated to many people in this last year, why can't we have a civil discourse over conflicting ideas and still part friends.
I am going to present several quotes that I hope pique you interest:

"for many the idea of faith and freedom working together to bolster each other brings about cognitive dissonance -- that is because in America today we have stepped back to a cultural situation less like the earlier times in our country then like the France of DeTocqueville's day, in which freedom and religion were thought to be bitterest enemies." p. 67

On virtue is our leaders is important:

"When the founders were advocating for liberty... the second most quoted source was the French political philosopher Monte Esquiea who wrote that 'bad examples can be worse than crimes.' He continued: ' More stated have perished because of a violation of their mores[standards] than because of a violation of their Laws.'" p. 155

America as exceptional:

Quote from G.K Chesterton: "America is the only nation founded on a creed 'all men are created equal and that government exists only by the consent of the governed. It is not where you are from or one's race or beliefs. We are merit based society where anyone can rise as they please." p 184


I encourage or, even bolder, challenge you to read this book and chew on its thoughts.

[Christian Hamaker · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. I was looking forward to a vigorous defense of American exceptionalism - an idea that has fallen out of favor, but which, as Metaxas demonstrates, was heartily endorsed historically by those who weren't U.S. citizens. And I appreciated the author's stated reliance on a paradigm, the Golden Triangle of Freedom, from Os Guinness, a writer I've always admired.

But much of the prose here struck me as pedestrian. That's not a huge failing, but I wanted the book to "sing" more than it does in extolling the ideas expressed.

Worse, I just can't shake Metaxas' Trump love, which manifested after this book was published, but which I read into his earlier writing. As a longtime GOP voter who feels homeless these days, I can't help but be baffled that those who believe in the things expressed in this book went all in for Trump's candidacy and his presidency. I wish the president well - or, I try to (it's easy to forget that he's due honor when he so often acts and speaks dishonorably) - but he's tainted a lot of right-leaning "thought leaders" who, it turns out, don't really have the same ideas in practice as I do about how American ideals should manifest themselves in our politics. This is an ongoing disappointment. I should be used to it by now, but I find myself regularly surprised at the level to which the political Right has sunk.

[Anna LeBaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eric Metaxas, "If You Can Keep It" is a bold, patriotic reminder about what our country once was, the state it currently is in, and what it can be once again, if we each do our part to love our country. He explains the Golden Triangle of Freedom, which is: freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and faith requires freedom.

He reminds the reader about how the stories of the heroes of our nation inspire others to greatness and warns us about abandoning the "vital tradition of venerating heroes".

He makes a case for loving America, an idea that is increasingly backward, and even offensive to some because of certain historical realities, which he enumerates. Heroism and ignominy are both a part of the historical record. We must rejoice and be inspired by the former, and repent of of the latter.

"For a nation is a partnership between the people who have died, the people who are alive now, and the people who have not yet been born."
- Edmund Burke

"We are a great country and our song has not yet been sung."
- Daniel Hannan, speaking of Great Britain, but that can also be said about America.

I received an Advance Reader Copy in exchange for my honest review.

[Jack Barsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be required reading for all high school seniors. If we forget our roots that means we have none. Without roots the tree will eventually wither away. As a German, an communist and secret agent in the employ of the KGB I have a somewhat unusual perspective on this matter. In my view, many Americans do not have an understanding of what LIBERTY acually means. If we do know what we have we are unable to treasure it. If we cannot treasure and protect it, we will eventually lose it. And then we want it back. But this is the point the author is making: At that point it might be too late - be concerned Americans! A great book and an eye opener for folks who dig into the origins of American history for the firs time, and a good refresher for those who are history buffs. And last but not least: It may be a surprise to many, but this country was founded by Christians and based on Christian principles. To reject Christianity is to reject o

[Zach · Rating 5 out of 5]

Metaxas has established himself as an author who can shine a light on exemplary lives in history and help readers apply the principles of those figures to our present culture. This book redirects focus from the individual to America as a whole, wipes the tarnish from several somewhat-forgotten heroes and events in American history, and implores us to reclaim the pride of our forefathers and the mission of serving our less fortunate neighbors beyond our borders.

"If You Can Keep It" is both a reminder of our country's miraculous beginnings and a call-to-arms to strengthen our mission-oriented attitude to the rest of the world.

[Lynne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that probably should be read by anyone who is concerned about where our country is headed in the future. It outlines what the founders faced as they set up a government that was truly revolutionary. Up to this point all countries had been led by despots or monarchs. Deciding that people could rule themselves was a totally new concept. The founders knew that freedom and virtue went hand-in-hand. If we become less than virtuous, can we still keep our liberty? The author is concerned about what kind of a future there is for our descendants if we no longer uphold moral standards.

[Nancy Head · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book offers insights even people my age might have missed in school--and that young people today don't get to hear at all. A very important discussion about the exceptionalism of America. But it's not a sappy gloss over of our flaws through the years either.

Metaxas strikes the right balance of America's amazing story while acknowledging our wrongs along the way.

A must read, especially for homeschool parents and teachers of all levels.

[Holli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very inspiring. Great reminder of what America is and what we need to do to keep it strong. America is not perfect but the principles it was founded on are right and good. At such a time as this, with so much anger and hostility and fighting, we need to remember the foundations this country was built on and how far it has been able to come in extending freedom to those who didn’t have it when we started. I love America.

[Alex Etheridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Through this book I learned much about the foundation of America that was helpful and, as Metaxas encourages, I was spurred on to have a more historically-informed view of America and her intended purposes going forward. We've lost our others-centered country foundation--a place where all people can come and find freedom and liberty, and from there be a blessing to others. Overall, this book was eye-opening and challenging.

[♥emma ۪۪۫۫ ༄ؘ ˑ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rating: 3.75/4 stars

I was required to read this book for a history course, and it was generally interesting and well-written but definitely not my choice of reading material. I did respect and agree with the concepts presented in this book however, and I would recommend it to those who are interested in American government and the intentions of the founding fathers for our nation.

[Josh · Rating 1 out of 5]

The final sentence of this book should read: "And that's when it dawned on me that it wasn't America I was in love with, but statues."