What Freedom Did Not Mean

[Bruce Carriker]

Rather than reply to Judy's post and start another fight within her thread, I'll just do this separately and invite those who are easily offended to move on to the next thread now...



















Okay, if you're still reading, either you don't believe you're easily offended, or you're looking for a fight.


Lest we fall into the "too easy" trap of sanctifying a National holiday and declaring it Holy, let us also consider what freedom DID NOT mean on July 4, 1776:

Freedom did not apply to the millions of slaves in the new United States.

Freedom did not apply to women in the new United States.

Freedom did not apply to anyone in the new United States who did not own property.

Freedom did not apply to the Native Americans who would continue to be pushed westward, out of their ancestral homelands.

For every Founding Father who discovered "the right to freedom" in the Scriptures, there were at least as many others who cared little for Scripture and found "the right to freedom" in the writings of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. The American Revolution was at least as much a product of the secular humanism of the Enlightenment as it was the product of Christianity in the American colonies.

And while Scripture and God may have valued slaves, women, non-property owners, and Native Americans, it is abundantly clear that the Founders did not; at least not nearly as much as they valued property-owning white males.

So, before we sancitfy Independence Day, let us remember that it was first and foremost a secular politcal act, and not a profound theological statement.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Okay, if you're still reading, either you don't believe you're easily offended, or you're looking for a fight.

...or perhaps that you're not the only one to think about or know about the things of which you wrote. But you're right, I'm not easiliy offended.

I know I've quoted this here probably several times now, but it still seems fitting:

"Our identification with that civilization [Western civilization] has been so complete that we have tended to forget that the church's future is not the future of 'western democracies.' There is, to be sure, much that is positive about these social systems that Christians should rightly value. But we must also remember that their liberty is not the liberty of God, nor is their justive the justive that we have come to know through being a member of God's people. Our task is not to make these nations the church, but rather to remind them that they are but nations. From the world's perspective, that may not seem like much, but the perspective of the people formed by the story of God's redemption shows us how important a task it is. For the idolatry most convenient to us all remains the presumed primacy of the nation-state."

Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character, page 110, bold and italics added by me.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

...

And while Scripture and God may have valued slaves, women, non-property owners, and Native Americans, it is abundantly clear that the Founders did not; at least not nearly as much as they valued property-owning white males.

So, before we sancitfy Independence Day, let us remember that it was first and foremost a secular politcal act, and not a profound theological statement.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were both Deists who believed in a creator but denied the Bible as God's revelation and that Jesus was divine. (The Jefferson Bible was Jefferson's attempt to preserve Jesus' moral teachings while eliminating anything supernatural...)

"... land of the free, and the home of the brave."

"Best-known as the author of the "Star-Spangled Banner," Francis Scott Key was also a founder of the American Colonization Society and a long-time member of its board of managers. Officially launched in 1817, the Society aimed to remove free blacks from the U.S. and resettle them in Africa; largely through its efforts, the colony of Liberia was established."

I find this so ironic. Key was personally a slave owner." This is the group who said we should get rid of free free blacks by sending them "back" to Africa. Never mind that many of them had been born and raised here.
(They had no interest in setting slaves free.) Besides Francis Scott Key, the society also included other early pillars of freedom like Senator Daniel Webster, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, and General Andrew Jackson.

Wilson

[Gary Swartzlander]

Since our son began attending school in Boston it renewed my interest in the revolution and the founding of our country. While it's taken a long time I've nearly finished reading the book "John Adams" and what I've found is that our founding fathers relied little on religion when it came to putting our country together. Infact if you think politics has taken a turn for the worse in recent history it has nothing compared to the politics of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, William Harrison, just to name a few. The behind the scenes scandles that took place would rank right up there with many of today, the difference was that with the time it took for news to travel things didn't balloon into instant news like they do now.

While our country has much to be proud of regarding our independance there is much not deserving of celebrating.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Further, I remember learning in AP US History that George Washington said that political parties would be the "death of this nation." I couldn't find that exact quote in a quick Google search, but did find this, stated in his farewell address:

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Who knew he was such a prophet? :basic05

[Jeremy D. Scott]

That's funny you mention him (John Adams). While I was searching through A Community of Character for the quote I already gave, I found this one from John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (page 79)

And yet it is the hope of so many today (followers of Christ) that the American government, through American law, would "set the standard" to show the world how to live.

I don't think we will see a government wholly set on the principles of Christ, yet I wish that his followers would believe that his Kingdom has the power to change people before human law does.

(Sorry, Bruce, that this is way off your topic.)

[Cindi Hammons]

So, before we sancitfy Independence Day, let us remember that it was first and foremost a secular politcal act, and not a profound theological statement.

You are right that our founding fathers were not the infallible people they are often set up to be. I won't go into detail here as I have in the past.

This year, we are without a pastor on July 2nd, so I am doing the order of service. This year, our church will display the flag, and probably place flags long our parking lot, but inside, we will be focusing on God and not the secular holiday. We will be singing "Holy, Holy Holy," "All Hail the Power of Jesus Name," "I See the Lord," "We Fall Down," instead of "My Country Tis of Thee." After the service, we will celebrate our nation's birthday by going to see fireworks and having a great time.

I think in the greater scheme of things, we are doing the right thing...then again, I may be tarred and feathered after church! :eek: I'll report back later! :)

Cindi H.

[Bruce Carriker]

I will be preaching from the lectionary next Sunday (July 2), from the Gospel of Mark. On July 4th, I will host a chaplain's prayer breakfast, where we will use a modified Morning Prayer order of service, with intercessory prayer for the country and our leaders, and thanksgiving for the freedoms we enjoy. We will not sing any patriotic songs on July 2. That's probably all we'll sing on July 4. Except we'll close with Song of Peace:

This is my song, O God of all the nations;
A song of peace, for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is.
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine.
But other hearts in other lands are beating,
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on cloverleaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
O hear my song, thou God of all the nations,
A Song of Peace for their land and for mine.

(Note: Not sure I like that "holy shrine" wording, but I don't know what to change it to. Any suggestions?)

[Stan Hall]

It's true that the founders were not perfect. But their establishment of a governmental system based on limited central power, personal responsibility and individual freedom, especially after being amended to include all races and both genders and to abolish slavery, is the best system ever devised in history.

Remember that slavery was not peculiar to the U.S. Slavery has been the accepted norm in all nations and cultures. We tend to forget that it was Britain and the United States that were formost in abolishing slavery around the world. And who would deny that the descendants of slaves here in the U.S. are far better off than their counterparts in Africa.
Our founders gave us the best system the world has ever seen and, sadly, we're allowing it to degenerate.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

It's true that the founders were not perfect. But their establishment of a governmental system .... is the best system ever devised in history.
....

Our founders gave us the best system the world has ever seen and, sadly, we're allowing it to degenerate.

Stan,

I agree. It's been said that chess are lost when a player makes a great move when a better move exsists. Whenever I complain about the government, (and Nazarenedom), it's not that I don't think it's great. I just think that even though it is great that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better.

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

What constitutes "degeneration"? I'm guessing what that really means is that the government is moving in directions we don't like.

The processes seem to work pretty much like they always have, albeit significantly more partisan than has been true in most of our lifetimes. The three branches still function pretty much as the founders envisioned. The military has not attempted a coup.

The people still vote and elect their representatives, although those representatives don't represent their constituents nearly as well as they represent their big donors. But again, if the truth were known, that's probably not much different either. Certainly big business, beginning with farmers, shipping interests, then railroads, have always disproportionately influenced our political process, at the expense of the will and best interest of the people.

I agree with Wilson. "Good" doesn't mean its time to stop working for "better". I think it was Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

[Cindi Hammons]

Stan,

True regarding slavery. The Spanish and Portuguese "imported" 10 times the amount of Africans to South American than the British/Americans did to North America. The actual number of slaves in America pales dramatically when compared to Central/South America and the Caribbean region.

Also, the descendants of American slaves are much, much better off than a large majority of blacks now living in the Caribbean and Central/South America. I'm not saying that to diminish the history of slavery or to make it more palitable...it was horrible.

Cindi H.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Time only to scan and provide a sketchy hit and run reply.


Every era has its cultural reprehensions. Remember that Jesus also
lived in a time of slavery and ruler oppression.

Some people accept some things as true about our founding fathers based on
new writings. They may be true, and they many not be true. Is it not better
to judge a person by his own writings than the writings of people 200 years
hence?

George Washington may indeed have eschewed political parties, I don't know.
However, I have observed a phenomenon about how scale necessitates change
in behavior. A fledgling country needs less structure than the government of
300 million people. I am not a fan of the influence that the poilitical parties
wield, effectively shutting out many who don't come up through their ranks,
but I understand the necessity of organization to meet the needs of the
scale that they are dealing with.


Mark

[Billy Cox]

Time only to scan and provide a sketchy hit and run reply.


Every era has its cultural reprehensions. Remember that Jesus also
lived in a time of slavery and ruler oppression.

Some people accept some things as true about our founding fathers based on
new writings. They may be true, and they many not be true. Is it not better
to judge a person by his own writings than the writings of people 200 years
hence?

George Washington may indeed have eschewed political parties, I don't know.
However, I have observed a phenomenon about how scale necessitates change
in behavior. A fledgling country needs less structure than the government of
300 million people. I am not a fan of the influence that the poilitical parties
wield, effectively shutting out many who don't come up through their ranks,
but I understand the necessity of organization to meet the needs of the
scale that they are dealing with.


Mark


People of all political persuasions like to proof-text the writings of the Founding Fathers to support sometimes contradictory conclusions. Because most people are not likely to read the original source material, the selective quoters get away with it.

It sounds vaguely similar to another authoritative Document that we talk about more than we read and apply.

[Mark Metcalfe]

People of all political persuasions like to proof-text the writings of the Founding Fathers to support sometimes contradictory conclusions. Because most people are not likely to read the original source material, the selective quoters get away with it.

It sounds vaguely similar to another authoritative Document that we talk about more than we read and apply.

Amen. The Da Vinci Code is contemporary evidence.

Mark