|
 |
|
| Oliver Cromwell is not everyone's hero. The mere mention of his name can rouse some people to anger even three and a half centuries after his death. Yet, like it or not, he was way ahead of his time in his understanding and exercise of toleration. We are reminded of this by the three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the readmission of Jews to this country in 1656.
Since 1290 they had been legally excluded. Under Cromwell's rule that ban was lifted. Some might say that his motivation was economic. Others would recognise spiritual reasons. Speaking in the Council in 1655 he said, "Since there was a promise of their conversion, means must be used to that end, which was the preaching of the gospel, and that could not be done unless they were permitted to dwell where the gospel was preached".
Whatever our attitude may be towards the Lord Protector we can learn a lot from him and his times about our present circumstances. The mid seventeenth century saw political and religious tensions that had been increasing for decades finally break out in civil war. Among the problems that aroused such bitter antagonism were the nature of government, and the form the Protestant Church should take. The latter question was further complicated by the emergence of different groupings, including some of an extremist nature. Issues concerning toleration, freedom, and law had to be dealt with, just as they concern us today.
Church and State, before the Civil War, were bound together in a way that most people probably took for granted. The Stuart understanding of this was best summarised in the statement of James I, "No bishop, no king". That the Church of England could exist in any other form was unthinkable, nor could separate religious groupings be tolerated as independent entities.
With the Civil War, the execution of Charles I, and Puritan hostility to the Church of England in its then form, the nature of the religious establishment became an issue of supreme importance. The majority party in Parliament was Presbyterian in its convictions and therefore believed that this should provide the new establishment. Rome was out. Anglicanism was out. Independency in its differing forms was out as well. A new authoritarianism was in control. John Milton warned, "New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large" (On the New Forcers of Conscience under the Long Parliament).
Cromwell believed, though, that no one form of Christian understanding of Scripture had a right to exclusive domination in the state. He aimed at the broadest possible comprehension within the limits of the Protestant understanding of the gospel. At the same time, restrictions had to be imposed on those elements that could be politically subversive. Hence Romanism and Anglicanism were not officially included within the bounds of toleration.
The end of the Commonwealth saw the restoration of King Charles II and Anglicanism. The next three decades were hard for nonconformists, and the threat of Roman resurgence hung over the country despite the legal protections against it. Only the coming of William and Mary improved the situation, though without providing all the liberties to which we have become accustomed today.
What should be our attitude to these issues as they appear in our present circumstances? We have an established Church of which the constitutional monarch is the supreme governor. We have a Parliament that is widely diverse in its religious makeup, reflecting to some extent a society that contains many more faith groups than ever before. Among the adherents of Islam there are some, however small a minority, who are intent on stirring up a culture of violence. We also have a Roman Catholic Church that may be diminishing in number, as are most of the major denominations, but which is far more widely accepted and respected than a century, or even half a century ago. With regard to many of the traditional Christian social values it often appears to be the only body that speaks clearly in their defence.
No wonder that Christians are perplexed and possibly dismayed. Yet we ought not to be. God is still on the throne. He works all things together for the good of His people, and our business is to see what He wants us to learn. Perhaps the first, and in some respects the most important, lesson is that we have depended far too much and for too long on the arm of the flesh. We have been privileged to live in a country protected by laws based on Christian principles. We have grown to expect that this is not only how it should be but also how it would always be.
We have been greatly disillusioned. Our spiritual capital on which we have been living for decades has almost run out. We have not been looking to God as we should, and we need to remedy that. We must stop depending primarily upon the past or on legal safeguards to maintain our position. That spells inevitable failure. We must depend on Him alone, living by faith in obeying His Word, relying on the Holy Spirit to work in and through us in our society.
The second lesson is to accept that the responsibility of the Government is not to uphold and maintain any one form of religion at the expense of all others. The law should guarantee the freedom of all religions that do not threaten the political safety of the realm and the individual safety of its citizens. Christians obviously believe that the one true and living God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Bible is His inspired revelation to us of truth, and that there He has shown the way by which mankind can become right with Him and live as He wants. We believe that there are no valid religious alternatives. We have a responsibility to declare this and to live it out in a practical demonstration of godliness.
Though we can encourage our politicians to frame legislation based on Christian principles, we should not, at the same time, expect Christianity to be imposed by law on all others who live in our country. Without the internal work of the Spirit bringing about the new birth, evidenced in repentance and faith, and lived out in a consequent pursuit of holiness, others simply cannot understand what it means to be a Christian nor can they please God. Our witness, therefore, to be effective must be accompanied by the power of God working through it, and that is what we should be earnestly seeking. Our dependence is not to be on legal privilege but on prayer, preaching, personal witness, and holy living as the vital ingredients in fulfilling our calling.
We should use as much as we can the freedom we have at present, despite difficulties that may be put in our way and which may even increase. We must be prepared to argue in defence of that freedom, recognising that what we seek for ourselves we should also be prepared to share with others, however opposed we may be to their views. To retain our freedom of speech, however, we must use it responsibly and in ways that are peaceful, consistent with the teaching and example of our Saviour. Violence is not an option for us.
We need to examine our attitude towards the other faith groups in our country. At one time uniformity in religion was held to be a necessity, and nonconformity, whatever its form, was suppressed or limited in its expression by law. This is no longer the case, and toleration applies right across the religious board. Only where the Government believes a group threatens the lives of others or is a danger to the stability of the State is it recognised as necessary to exercise legal restraints.
Such toleration presents us with challenge and opportunity. There is no consensus on what is "the true religion". We face the challenge of presenting the gospel to a society in which many other versions of faith and non-faith are competing for adherents. We cannot take the hitherto predominance of Christianity for granted. It was wrong ever to do that. Each new generation has to be evangelised. Yet this is what we are here for. The Lord has given us a great opportunity along with that responsibility. The mission field is on our doorstep as well as overseas.
We must step out with faith and courage in obedience to the Lord's command. We must be the Christians we have been saved to become. If we really believe what we say we believe we should have no fear about the consequences. The truth has made us free. That same truth can set others free as well. |
|---|
|
| back to magazine page |
next article |
|
