Research On Religion » English Civil War

Curtis Freeman on Undomesticated Religious Dissent

tonygill — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 08:00:54 +0000

Religion and socio-political dissent have often been historically linked. Prof. Curtis Freeman, research professor of theology and Baptist studies at Duke University’s Divinity School, guides us along a journey of religious dissent in the British and American tradition, focusing on three notable authors/artists — John Bunyan, Daniel Defoe, and William Blake. This journey for Dr. Freeman began when the Wesley Chapel in London was closed and someone suggested that he travel to the cemetery across the street, a place known as Bunhill (Bone-hill) Fields and the resting place of these three historical figures. Fascinated by their prominence in this graveyard, filled with many other dissenters who couldn’t receive eternal rest amongst the official Church of England burial grounds, Curtis set out to write about these figures who spanned about two centuries of British history.

Our conversation begins with an explanation of religious dissent in England that dates back to the early 17th century, encompasses the turbulent times of the English Civil War, and then moves forward through the period of the Restoration monarchs and a wee bit further. Curtis explains that the Church of England had a stamp of approval on all things religious and a “polite culture” developed to keep a medieval status quo of economic classes in place despite the growing role of the urban workforce. Religious dissenters who chafed under this regime often married their spiritual protests with apocalyptic visions and covenant-type community that also served as socio-economic commentary.

We then move into the three main authors that Prof. Freeman uses to illustrate his points — John Bunyan (1628-88), Daniel Defoe (1660-1731), and William Blake (1757-1827). It is at this point that Tony notices that he has written “William Dafoe” (1955-present) in his notes and quickly corrects himself. Curtis reviews how Bunyan’s work, primarily A Pilgrim’s Progress, represents a “slumbering dissent” that turns attention inwards to reflect upon the spiritual journey we fight for salvation within during changing times. Themes of “church” (the institutional faith) and “chapel” (the congregation of religious people) figure into this narrative and provide the basis for the type of dissent that landed Bunyan in prison. Daniel Defoe’s work, principally Robinson Crusoe, is presented as “prosperous dissent” and an allegory for British economic culture at the time. While Tony remembers this work largely as secular, Prof. Freeman reminds him how the Bible — particularly Psalms, the story of the prodigal son, and Job — played an important role in the story. It is at this point that Tony realizes he was reading Defoe through the lens of Gilligan’s Island when growing up. Defoe’s work is also reminiscent of the Protestant work ethic notion of the age and Curtis notes the curious mix of Tory politics and support for the working class that permeated the author’s life. Finally, we move on to William Blake who was a poet but also an artist and printer. Again, we see the working class lifestyle of Blake that mirrored the other two figures we discussed. Blake’s work, Curtis argues, resembles an “apocalyptic dissent” with vivid imagery of end times, destruction, and redemption that comes across in his artwork and poetry. His fascination with the Albion Mills fire, an example of the inherent dangers of early industrialization, figures prominently in his poetic works such as Jerusalem. Our discussion then travels across the Atlantic and fast forwards in time to discuss how many of these dissenting and apocalyptic themes work their way into the thinking of colonial Americans, Abraham Lincoln, and even the rhetoric of Martin Luther King, Jr. Curtis notes that America is often viewed as a “Beulah land” of dissent and we ponder the rhythms of history that continually bring new forms of dissent to the fore.

The conversation finishes with Prof. Freeman’s reflection on his own intellectual journey, and he notes how “little steps across a street” (as he took to Bunhill Fields many years ago) can lead one to new adventures and the ability to tell untold stories. Recorded: June 11, 2018.

Should Christians Have Fought in the US War of Independence?

tonygill — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:00:08 +0000

Should Christians have picked up arms during the American War of Independence following the first salvos at Lexington & Concord in April, 1775? We pose that question to three Christian academics — Gregg Frazer, Jonathan den Hartog, and Mark David Hall — who offer different perspectives on this subject.

Prof. Gregg Frazer, professor of history and political studies at The Master’s College (Santa Clarita, CA), argues for the “no” position by noting that The Bible unequivocally teaches participation in any revolution are wrong. Prof. Frazer also notes that the situation of the colonists were hardly in a tyrannical situation in 1775, but even if it was tyrannical he clearly states that biblical teachings forbids rebellion against secular authority. Gregg cites Romans 13:1-2, John 19:11, and (later on) Acts 4 and Acts 5. Tony presses Gregg about whether or not the American War of Independence (a.k.a. The Revolutionary War) was a revolution or a war. Our discussion continues to explore whether or not there is a level of tyranny that could justify a rebellion against secular authority, and Prof. Frazer holds strong to his argument that there is no such instance. Gregg notes that you are to obey the government until the government asks you to disobey God, but then you rely upon a sovereign God to remove the authority and only engage in civil disobedience accepting the consequences. The discussion also encompasses issues of free will and what would history have looked like had he colonists never rebelled.

We then turn to Prof. Jonathan den Hartog, associate professor of history at Northwestern College in St. Paul, MN, who gives us the “yes” position by practicing the historian’s trade and getting into the head of the patriot colonists of the day. (It should be noted that Prof. den Hartog is not an unambiguous “yes” vote in this debate from his personal position.) We begin by noting the political imperative for rebellion in 1775 and Jonathan notes how the “squishy middle” disappeared quickly, specifically after John Jay’s Olive Branch Petition was rejected by King George shortly after Lexington & Concord. Jonathan then connects these political issues to the moral concerns of Christians at the time, noting that many pastors (e.g., Whitefield, Witherspoon) gave the issue of independence a great deal of thought and debate. Concern over the erosion of religious liberties was of major concern to many preachers of this era, and we explore whether this was a real concern or a threat merely whipped up to further a political agenda. Prof. den Hartog provides a telling anecdote of a colonial militiaman (Levi Preston) who noted his inspiration to fight came from The Bible and catechism. We talk about other justifications offered by Christians via “just war theory” wherein ministers like John Carmichael and David Jones conceive of the conflict as a defensive war to protect hearth and home.

The “squishy middle” position is then taken up by Prof. Mark David Hall of George Fox University in Newberg, OR. Prof. Hall first answers the specific question by examining a more abstract position of whether or not Christians can rise up in rebellion against secular authority, essentially examining what Romans 13:1-3 says and what “legitimate” government means in light of various Catholic and Protestant theologians such as John Knox. (It should be noted that Prof. Hall did not have knowledge of our discussion with Prof. Frazer, but these two have argued these points in the past.) Tony then prompts Mark to put this into the context of the American colonies of the middle-late 18th century, arguing that the level of tyranny experienced by the colonists really wasn’t all that tyrannical. Tax levels were low and the colonists did exercise a degree of self-governance that was not available to their peers in English towns. Mark responds by noting how the Reformed tradition, of which encompassed about 75% of all religious believers in the colonies at the time, is particularly sensitive to the possibility of tyranny. He then details the threats that the patriot forces perceived in the 1760s and ’70s, which makes Tony think that Mark would be quick to join the militia after Lexington & Concord. Thus, Tony prompts Mark about why he agreed to take a “wait-and-see” position. Prof. Hall responds that based upon hindsight regarding various “threats” during the Revolutionary era (e.g., the Quebec Act) there seems to have been much more room for reasoned negotiation. However, he also cautions against “presentism,” the intellectual tendency to view history from our current position. As such, Mark does argue that the colonists may have felt sufficiently threatened such that war may have been the most prudent option at the time. Tony finishes up the questioning by asking Mark what would have happened had the patriots not have picked up arms, whereupon Mark speculates that the commonwealth option that may have arisen, just as Gregg Frazer did earlier. Tony finishes off with his brief thoughts on the debate and listeners will have to get to the end of the podcast to see if he changed his position at all. Recorded: Mid-June 2012.

Visit our Facebook Fan Page and/or our Twitter feed for regular updates on what is coming up on the show!

Jason Jewell on John Locke & Religious Toleration

tonygill — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:00:16 +0000

John Locke is a name that comes up frequently on our podcast when discussing religious liberty and toleration. To find out more about this great philosopher and political economist, we invite Prof. Jason Jewell to our program to enlighten us as to the life, times, and philosophy of Locke. Jason is the chair of the Department of Humanities at Faulkner University (Alabama) and the creator of The Western Traditon, a blog that is devoted to all things Christian and Classical. We begin our chat by setting the historical table on which Locke was feasting, covering the important events occuring in England and Europe during the 17th century, including the English Civil War, Cromwell’s Commonwealth and the Glorious Revolution. We then discuss Locke’s general intellectual contributions to Western civilization and contrast him to another famed philosopher of the 1600s, Thomas Hobbes. Our discussion then leads to Locke’s (First) Letter Concerning Toleration, which Tony admits to being the longest “letter” he has ever read. Jason explains that since they didn’t have television or football back then, intellectuals usually spent their time writing. We look into Locke’s thoughts on whether or not individuals can be coerced into their faith and how this affects Locke’s view of church-state relations, followed by Locke’s views on religious toleration in an environment of increasing pluralism. Tony pushes Prof. Jewell on the issue of Locke’s toleration as it related to Catholics and how Locke may have viewed Mormons had he lived today. (Hat tip to Prof. Ruth Arnell, an avid listener, for suggesting that question on our Facebook page.) We wrap up by reviewing what Jason has been doing at Faulkner University and on his blog, The Western Tradition, as it pertains to the canonical readings of Western literature. Jason disappoints Tony by indicating that The Political Origins of Religious Liberty did not make the list of all-time classics. Listeners are encouarged to join Jason Jewell’s journey as he tackles several thousand pages of reading. Recorded: November 22, 2011.