Report Template - Jubilee Centre

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY MODERN BRITAIN: word more to Mr. Thomas Edwards (1646), Walwyn exclaims that “for of all liberty liberty of Conscience is the greatest and where that is not: a true Christian findeth none.” 340 Again, in A helpe to the right understanding of a discourse concerning independency (1645), Walwyn states that men must not be “compelled by fines, imprisonments, or other punishments, to worship contrary to our consciences,” and instead, “beare with one anothers infirmitie.” None can claim to “have an infallibility of judgement”; instead, “everyone ought to be fully perswaded in his owne minde of the lawfullness of the way wherein he serveth God.” 341 Richard Overton’s Vox plebis, or, The peoples out-cry against oppression, injustice, and tyranny (1646) emphasises the image of God as the basis for liberty of conscience. “The conscience,” he claims, “is a Divine impression, or illumination, in the soule of man, . . . the ingraven Character of the mind & wil of God,” and “therefore it is not to bee constrained, or inforced to submit to any other rule, then what the Creator, by his revealed will, according to the Scriptures, hath imprinted in it: And for that cause is onely to bee accountable to him, whose image it is; as being the onely competent Judge of his owne will.” 342 In The araignement of Mr. Persecution (1645), Overton initiates an entire section on “Libertyof-Conscience,” and resorts to Christ’s parable in Matthew 13.50 which warns against plucking up the wheat with the tares; “PERSECUTION destroyeth the Innocent with the wicked, contrary to the command of Christ.” 343 Concluding Comments The three Leveller Agreements, though concise, are packed with detailed distillations of constitutional principles and government organisation familiar to the modern reader. The authors use the word ‘agreement’ to engage and enjoin the people to consider their constitutional proposals. They consistently promote republican governments via successive parliaments freely elected by a broad-based franchise. Popular prerogative was to prevail over kingly, and the people could only part with their authority via consent and delegation. Their other key political pillars, largely reasoned from the created nature of mankind, are limited government, liberty of conscience, separation of civil powers, separation between church and state, popular sovereignty and consent, as well as unalienable rights and reserved powers. Each was conducive to achieving liberty, the greatest political good, and not economic or social levelling as some characterised their programme. Their reading of James’s admonition in chapters 1:22-27 is a unique extension of religious service to incorporate commonwealth as well as community. Christianity is a practical and relational religion which consists not only of moral duties to care for the economic welfare of one’s neighbour, but the liberty-welfare of one’s neighbour and country too! As for their application of the ‘golden rule,’ what better service can there be than to craft a commonwealth to promote and protect liberty as opposed to tyranny? This was an expression of neighbourly love! What a marked difference between the political principles of the Levellers and Royalists relative to writing politics out of the creation of the first couple, and the relationship between Cain and Abel. The Levellers stressed a ‘birthright’ of liberty based in the created natures of men and women as divine image bearers, who originally related equally under a sovereign God. This is a critical Leveller narrative, as they do not typically associate specific texts with constitutional design. Rather, their model appears reasoned from the greater creation story in an attempt to tease out principles of government for all human relationships, especially that of civil government. They were also quite unique in their demand for a written constitution to hold magistrates perpetually accountable. 340 William Walwyn, A word more to Mr. Thomas Edwards, minister, concerning the nationall covenant (London, 1646), 5. 341 William Walwyn, A helpe to the right understanding of a discourse concerning independency (London, 1645), 4. 342 Richard Overton’s Vox plebis, or, The peoples out-cry against oppression, injustice, and tyranny (London, 1646), 4. 343 Richard Overton, The araignement of Mr. Persecution (London, April 8, 1645), 22. The entire argument continues to p. 45. 66
THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY MODERN BRITAIN: Prospects for Political Hermeneutics Biblical political ideas are expressed through the description of the institutions, events, and prophesies connected with the government of ancient Israel. Less formally articulated than Greek political thought, the biblical political teaching must be discovered in the same manner that all biblical knowledge must emerge, by careful examination and analysis of the text with careful attention to recurring words and patterns and the reconciliation of apparent contradictions. Daniel J. Elazar, Covenant & Polity in Biblical Israel (1995), 12. 344 As indicated previously, many seventeenth-century British political thinkers reflected purposefully upon the Bible for timeless political truths, and convinced it consisted of normative God-given civil commands and ideals for constitutional design. Nevertheless, as these four representative categories demonstrate, they did not read the Bible politically and constitutionally the same way, or draw significantly from the same passages, genres, figures or Canons for that matter. Furthermore, they also differed on their understanding of the relationship between Nature and Grace, which influenced why they prioritised biblical passages over classical ones for their political ideas. Not all concluded a republic either, as some believed God’s highest civil order for man was a monarchy; a mirror polity of His own supposed model of governance traceable through patriarchal lines. Political use is even trickier to tease out if diverse polities prioritise the same scriptural passage. Unfortunately, such a mixture of early modern biblical readings and interpretive approaches has emboldened some scholars to relegate their political contributions to either mystical inspirations, or clever literary constructs consisting of a dash of scriptural window dressing to gain an audience, all the while subversively emphasising pagan classical political models. Principalising and Paradigmatic Approaches Elazar’s perspective above is a simple yet refreshing reminder that the interpretive approach of extracting ‘political ideas’ from the Scriptures should follow the same methodology when mining its meaning for life 344 Daniel J. Elazar, Covenant & Polity in Biblical Israel; Biblical Foundations & Jewish Expressions, vol. 1, Covenant Tradition in Politics (New Brunswick, NJ; London: Transaction Publishers, 1995), 12. application in other fields. This approach assumes the author and text are superior to the reader’s response, that the author’s intended meaning for his first audience is the same for subsequent ones, that the original languages take priority over translations, that grammatical and syntactical constructs are fundamental conventions of communication, that literary types and figures of speech come packaged with principles of interpretation unique to them, and that the various levels of context, whether historical, social, ethical, or political all bear interpretive weight. This process of establishing meaning is further augmented by the attempt at significance, or life and relational application, such as governance and political relationships. This approach demands serious scrutiny of textual, contextual, and historical particulars. Nevertheless, this entire interpretive process is complicated by the tendency to prefer the New Testament over the Old Testament, or to prioritise elaborate schemes of substance modification and repetition. 345 The “repealed unless repeated” or “mandatory unless modified” perspective will prevent us from determining God’s relational expectations for governance or the relationship between rulers and ruled, and in large part, because these interpretive notions subject the Old Testament Law particularly, which includes civil-political mandates, to a level of historical interest only. Despite the need to investigate all layers of the Scriptural text, deriving a coherent governmental/civil model from the Scriptures based upon a consistent hermeneutical approach is challenging, doubly so given the necessity to concentrate upon the Old Testament and the polity of Israel. Not only must the nature of that polity be determined, but its continued relevance and applicability resolved, despite its neglected mentioning in the New Testament. There must be due consideration to teasing out the inspired principles and normative commands, as well as that form and structure, or model which reflected those dynamic, internal requisites. The principalising and paradigmatic approaches covet and incorporate each of these interpretive particulars despite some rather nuanced, though not unbridgeable differences. Given their slight methodological disparities summarised below, they share critical assumptions in regards to the ethical use of the Old Testament for contemporary application; one focuses upon the primacy of principles which reflect the righteous and 345 Walter Kaiser Jr., Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 147. 67
Page 1:
T h e P o l i t i c a l U s e o f t
Page 4 and 5:
Copyright © Jubilee Centre 2013 Th
Page 6 and 7:
Editorial Method and Style All cite
Page 8 and 9:
scholarly precision with accessibil
Page 10 and 11:
THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN E
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25: THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN E
show all

Report Template - Jubilee Centre

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?