In light of today’s corruption and dementia in Congress these days, I have
an exciting story for you. The story
begins with someone else, but I have a point at the end. It 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:
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 possible 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 –
institutionalized slavery – was eradicated from the British Empire, 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 help people in society that
need it the most.
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." 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. Wilberforce was well suited to the
life of a politician. 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. In 1784 Wilberforce took a
pleasure trip to France. 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, Wilberforce
was intellectually convinced of the truth of biblical Christianity. Wilberforce
received 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." 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]." 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.
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. 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. 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." He was convinced that
"Christianity's supreme political value is its direct hostility to
selfishness." In this, he merits the emulation of those of us today who
are involved in the entire scope of pro-life issues. 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.
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.
I need to change subjects—but I have a point. Let us consider our own days
before the Revolution from Britain in 1776. According to Scripture, Britain was
our government. Because what we should have been thinking at the time, was, it was
placed there by God, and we should have submitted
to it. Here’s an extensive explanation of how we should have behaved 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 resist 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, as a colony established by Britain, were to “be subject to”
government. Those who resist will “bring judgment on themselves,” from
God. And our governing authorities (Britain) were “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, by his appeal to God, that Jefferson was a Christian.
But I assure you that there is no doubt that Jefferson was NOT anywhere near a
Christian. To quote a biographer: “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. 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 above, 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. 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 that Jefferson
put forth.
You also might use the argument, what if Britain had wicked and evil laws?
If Christians could take power, 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 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.
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. Assuming that happened, 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: 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: 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 God’s punishment for disobeying Romans 13. Let’s
read verse 2 again:
2 Therefore
whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who
resist will bring judgment on themselves.
That judgment was higher due to 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” (i.e., people), so they could
continue to get free labor, and so they could continue to rape, to sell, to
whip. A great stain on our history. Let this make us humble before
God, realizing the great depths of our sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment