In light of today’s corruption and dementia in Congress these days, I have an exciting story for you. Just because it’s Britain and “ancient” history, don’t consider it irrelevant. I have a point at the end of its serious relevance. It’s the story that begins with the great accomplishment of William Wilberforce, God’s “Congressional” hero in the U.K. Many thanks to Focus on the Family; most of the next several paragraphs were theirs:
Do ideas, beliefs, and conceptions of truth have a measurable impact upon the shape of culture and society? Can an individual – with the help of co-laborers and friends – actually change the times in which he or she lives? If you doubt it, consider William Wilberforce. It's arguable that Wilberforce was one of the three or four most influential figures of the past two centuries—yet he is unknown. As a result of his labors, one of the most heinous evils of all human history – the "execrable villainy" of institutionalized slavery – was eradicated from the British Empire at a time when her political power and prestige were at their height, an achievement that was directly attributable to his belief in the absolute truth of the Gospel. Wilberforce was a convinced Christian who held that the biblical principles of selflessness, sacrifice, and love must be actively applied to the needs and concerns of the human community at large. Wilberforce was born at Hull, Yorkshire, on August 4, 1759. His father, a well-to-do merchant, died when William was nine years old, and the boy was sent by his mother to live with his aunt and uncle, strong evangelical Christians and firm friends of the preachers George Whitefield and John Newton. Under their care, William quickly came to possess "a rare and pleasing character of piety." Of Newton, Wilberforce later wrote, "I reverenced him as a parent when I was a child." Wilberforce’s fashionable mother, alarmed to think that her son was becoming a religious "enthusiast," soon brought him back to Yorkshire, where he was quickly introduced to the social "gaieties of Hull." By the time he went off to St. John's College, Cambridge at the age of seventeen, Wilberforce had all but abandoned his earlier Christian beliefs.
While at the University, having inherited a large fortune from his uncle, Wilberforce was compelled to choose a career from among the three options most commonly allotted to young gentlemen of wealth and station: pleasure, business, or public service. He selected the last, and upon leaving Cambridge at the age of twenty stood for and won election to the House of Commons as representative for Hull in 1780. In 1784 he was reelected for Hull, and on April 6 of the same year he was elected for Yorkshire County. Wilberforce was well suited to the life of a politician. Naturally vivacious and gregarious, he was widely regarded as one of the wittiest and most charming men in England. A regular at all the fashionable London clubs, he rapidly became an important fixture in William Pitt's Tory government. He might even have succeeded Pitt as Prime Minister had events turned out differently.
But a "great change" was in the offing.1 In 1784 Wilberforce took a pleasure trip to France with his mother, his sister, a female cousin, and his friend and former teacher Isaac Milner. He had no idea what he was letting himself in for by inviting Milner, a Cambridge professor and an evangelical Christian, to join the party. During the course of their travels, Wilberforce and Milner read and discussed the Greek New Testament and Philip Doddridge's The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. By the time they arrived back in London on February 22, 1785, Wilberforce was intellectually convinced of the truth of biblical Christianity. Inwardly conflicted as to the practical implications of his newfound faith, he told Pitt that he intended to "withdraw from public life for a time." But the Prime Minister forcefully opposed this plan. "Surely the principles as well as the practice of Christianity are simple," he said, "and lead not to meditation only, but to action."2 Wilberforce received the same counsel from his childhood mentor, the Reverend John Newton, now vicar of St. Mary Woolnoth's church in London. "It is hoped and believed," said Newton, "that the Lord has raised you up for the good of His church and for the good of the nation."3 So Wilberforce decided to remain in politics.
In time, he became convinced that God had placed before him "two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners [morals]."4 It is important to understand that these two aims were intimately interrelated. For Wilberforce's accomplishments in the public square were predicated on the principle that social reform must flow from genuine spiritual fervor. He was not primarily a moralizer or a "do-gooder," but a Christian who believed that the well-being of a nation is directly dependent upon the sincerity with which its citizens adhere to basic biblical truths. This was the theme of his best-selling book, A Practical View of Christianity (1797),5 in which he spoke powerfully against "the fatal habit of considering Christian morals as distinct from Christian doctrines." "If … a principle of true Religion should … gain ground," he wrote, "there is no estimating the effects on public morals, and the consequent influence on our political welfare."6 It was in the strength of this conviction that Wilberforce, together with a group of likeminded Christian political associates – the so-called "Clapham Community" – set out to tackle the evil of slavery. At the request of nobleman Sir Charles Middleton and with the encouragement of Pitt and Grenville, he took upon himself the charge of "giving notice of a motion on the slave trade" in the House of Commons, noting his resolve to do so in a journal entry of October 28, 1787. He made his first parliamentary speech on the subject on May 12, 1789, and introduced a bill to abolish the trade in 1791. That bill went down to defeat by a vote of 163 to 88. But Wilberforce was not to be so easily discouraged. He re-introduced his slave trade measure in Parliament the following year – and the next year, and the next. He persisted in the battle for almost twenty years, enduring storms of criticism, slander, and malicious opposition along the way. At last, after nearly two decades of unremitting toil, the Abolition of the Slave Trade bill passed the House of Lords by a vote of 41 to 20. 2 In Commons, where the victory was won by the stunning margin of 114 to 15, Wilberforce was accorded a standing ovation for his dedicated efforts. The bill became law on March 25, 1807. It was an incredible achievement; and yet, for Wilberforce and his associates, it was only the first step. From the beginning of the Anti-Slavery Movement they had proceeded on the assumption that their goal would not be achieved until abolition, the end of the slave trade, was followed by the emancipation of all slaves within the confines of the British Empire. The fight for this second part of their objective, which continued beyond Wilberforce's retirement from Parliament in 1825, did not reach its conclusion until July 26, 1833, when the Abolition of Slavery bill passed the House of Commons on its third reading. Three days later Wilberforce was dead. Wilberforce would have disclaimed credit for these earthshaking accomplishments; and yet, as biographer John Pollock assures us, "the essentials of his beliefs and of his conscience formed the foundation of the British character for the next two generations at least."7 He was convinced that "Christianity's supreme political value is its direct hostility to selfishness."8 In this, he merits the emulation of those of us today who are involved in the entire scope of pro-life issues – issues which, as Senator Mark Hatfield has observed, "flow from our present-day manifestation of the 'grand malady of selfishness.'"9 In death, Wilberforce was survived by his wife Barbara and six children – two daughters and four sons. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, where a statue now stands to commemorate his legacy of faith and freedom.
1 Garth Lean, God's Politician (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard Publishing, 1988); p.11. 2 Ibid., 38. 3 David J. Vaughan, Statesman and Saint: The Principled Politics of William Wilberforce (Nashville: Highland Books, 2002), 56. 4 From Wilberforce's Diary, 1787; cited in Vaughan, 61. 5 In full, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in This Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity. 6 William Wilberforce, A Practical View of Christianity, ed. Kevin Charles Belmonte (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 51. 7 Cited in Lean, 177. 8 Lean, Ch. 15. 9 Mark Hatfield, Introduction to Real Christianity (Regent College Publishing, 2003).
© 2006 Focus on the Family
A great story, and a great benefit for Britain, right? I mean, they got rid of slavery without a shot being fired. Well, that’s getting to my point.
To seemingly change subjects, Scripture points out our responsibility to our government, no matter how bad it is. We are to consider it is placed there by God, and we are to submit to it. Here’s an extensive explanation of how we are to behave in Romans 13:1-7:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resists will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
We are to “be subject to” government. Those who resist will “bring judgment on themselves,” from God. And our governing authorities are “God’s ministers” to us for good. Seems pretty clear that a coup, or a revolution, would not be Scriptural.
Now those of you who know Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration included a long list of grievances our colonies had, and you probably know of his argument that
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
Then you might assume (1) Jefferson was a Christian, or (2) if taxes or disrespect of colonies that goes to oppression prevail, then there is just cause for a revolution. But I would like to disabuse you of such mythical assumptions that foster in the “glorious” beginning of our nation’s history. First, there is no doubt that Jefferson was NOT anywhere near a Christian. To quote: Like other Founding Fathers, Jefferson was considered a Deist, subscribing to the liberal religious strand of Deism that values reason over revelation and rejects traditional Christian doctrines, including the Virgin Birth, original sin and the resurrection of Jesus.
One of the biggest beliefs of the “Enlightenment,“ so called, was the idea that God exists, but is impersonal. He created, then He checked out. Much of the Bible was rejected as fantasy (you have to give ”credit” to the great corruption of Catholicism, which they hated). Jefferson made up his own Bible, in which he scissored out all the supernatural stuff and the “dogma” that imprisons people’s minds, as he saw it. Not much of the New Testament was left when he came to what he believed. Christ was not a Savior, and was not God, he was sure.
As to his arguments in the Declaration, then, you must remember this was the writing of an unsaved man. How can we assume his arguments parallel Scripture in any way? Read those 7 verses in Romans again: was he suggesting submission to British authority, or was he willing to push off British authority, even if our own men, and British men, die? We cannot dismiss from our conscience how his influence led to the wreckage of many families, seeing as how they depended on men as breadwinner, and as protector from Indians or from bears or wolves, for the many that lived on the “frontier.” (At that time, the frontier was Kentucky or Michigan.) I cannot overemphasize the importance of losing a father or breadwinner. There were very few jobs for women in those days. She couldn’t carry on the enormous job of running a decent-sized farm. In many cases, the kids would have to be given to relatives, or the farm would have to be sold, and they would live somewhere else. Plus, each military man was trying to kill anyone—including Christians, from a false, un-Scriptural belief of Jefferson’s.
You also might use the argument (from verse 3), “what if a government thinks evil is good, and actually punishes good people, accusing them of being evil?” What if our government has wicked and evil laws? If Christians could take power, we could save babies’ lives by eliminating abortion, just as an example, and have all kinds of Scripture-based laws again—and prove that Christianity is not only good for the individual, but for the society as well. More people could become more easily evangelized to salvation with that kind of example and foundation.
Well, your argument has all kinds of logic, but God knows better. When Paul wrote that Scripture, think of what he lived under; THE most corrupt government known to man. Nero nailed Christians onto sticks and lit them aflame, as entertainment and lighting for his late night parties. Tacitus, who observed it, called it the “Roman Candle.” They were murdered in horribly creative ways in the Colosseum. The Crucifixion is considered the most terrible capital punishment in history. But did Paul (or God) write about rebelling against a government, even though under unendurable oppression? No. The only direction for Christians under persecution was “FLEE.” Never “take up arms.”
Now I would like to get to my main point. IF the majority of our founding fathers were true Christians, they would submit and remain under British rule. Then, the glory of Wilberforce would have spread to all the colonies—the North American colonies (us) would have eliminated the slave trade without a shot being fired. To quote the official document: on 25 March 1807, King George III signed into law the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, banning trading in enslaved people in the British Empire (that would have included us). Today, 23 August is known as the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition.
Uh, we have no such day, do we? Wait, you might argue, what about emancipation of slaves? To quote again: Britain's passage of the Slavery Abolition Act marked the start of freedom for 800,000 enslaved people in all its colonies on Aug. 1, 1834.
Which happens to be 26 years before the beginning of the Civil War. Now don’t give me any arguments about that War not being fought for slavery; it was fought for “State’s rights,” as a re-enactor once told me. What was the “right” they were claiming? The right to slavery, of course
So—if we obeyed Scripture—which God always claimed was for our benefit—then we would not have had the horrible slave ships, which killed Many black people; and we wouldn’t have killed over 600,000 men in the Civil War. Over 600,000! Think of what a difference that would have made in all those families! The Civil War was not just God’s punishment for our treating people as sub-humans—it was also God’s punishment for the incredible greed that incited men to murder one another instead of giving up their “property” so they could continue to get free labor, so they could continue to rape, to sell, to whip. A great stain on our history. We should not remove statues of Civil War generals—but let’s not think of their “glorious” military history. Instead, let them remind us of our unbelievable avarice. Let them make us humble before God, realizing the great depths of our sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment