John said: *The blessing seeking posture and duly instituted "Christian
government" of the British Empire and most of Northern Europe and early
America did seem to make them what they are today as opposed to most other
nations that still developing*
As a generaly matter, it is extraordinarily dangerous, IMHO, to project the
covenant promises God made to Israel onto any contemporary nation. After
Christ, there is a new covenant that includes Israel as well as any gentile
who trusts in Christ, and the blessings and obligations of that covenant are
experienced in and through the life of the Church. Nation-states continue
to be given authority by God to restrain evil and do justice (Rom. 13), but
there is no longer a chosen nation-state, politically, genetically, or
otherwise.
More particularly, the "Christian government" idea is a gross
oversimplification of history. In the British Empire, society was highly
stratified by class and was governed only by wealthy white males.
Government monopolies such as the East India Tea Company consipired with the
crown to colonize and repress native people in countries such as India in
order to increase revenues on tea and other products consumed by the
wealthy. I don't think most of those folks were wearing "WWJD" bracelets.
In 1619, the first black slaves in America were sold at Jamestown. In 1641,
that Christian "city on a hill," Massachusetts, legalized black slavery.
By 1787, the charter of our liberty, the Constitution, applied fully only to
white males. Women were not given the right to vote, and blacks were not
considered people who could be "citizens." In 1857, the Supreme Court
decided the Dred Scott case, in which it affirmed that blacks are not
"citizens" entitled to any rights under the Constitution. The Court noted
that the framers of the Constitution considered blacks "beings of an
inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race,
either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had
no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Blacks continued to
suffer the effects of segregation for more than a century. Again, I don't
see how this reflects "Christian" principles of government.
On Dec 19, 2007 6:53 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David,
>
>
>
> Herein lies one of the thorny problems of TE or any kind of "E". Whether
> you believe we started out East of Eden or from a small population out of
> Africa, at one time all humanity had a level playing field, How then do we
> explain the vast divergence we see now where some cultures are literally
> awash with al the benefits of modern wealth and technology yet most of the
> world lives in poverty? In my mind, the only explanation that is not racist
> has to be spiritual.
>
>
>
> We learn from the OT that God instituted some unique and seemingly unfair
> inheritance patterns with the Jews to make sure the oldest son got half of
> the family wealth and the all the other siblings split the other half. The
> interesting twist on this pattern is that it does facilitate the
> accumulation of capital and most would consider this the historic roots of
> modern capitalism. In addition, there are many promises in the OT whereby
> blessings can be attained and curses avoided and there has been a
> correlation between the nations that historically followed those teachings
> and the wealth/technology disparity above.
>
>
>
> The blessing seeking posture and duly instituted "Christian government" of
> the British Empire and most of Northern Europe and early America did seem
> to make them what they are today as opposed to most other nations that still
> developing. But granted in America the Great American Dream was not all
> inclusive and was a nightmare for the Native Americans or slaves and America
> is reaping its judgment for this now, but in general women and minorities
> fared no better in other non-Christian cultures either. War and genocide and
> religious aggression appear to be common to human nature and not just
> Christian nations.
>
>
>
> So when you speak of opportunity below I am curious to what you atttribute
> as being the source of this opportunity to and whether you are lamenting the
> lack of this opportunity as some kind of faliure?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:08 AM
> *To:* John Walley
> *Cc:* Clarke Morledge; AmericanScientificAffiliation
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Samuel F. B. Morse as model or detractor for
> evangelical faith??
>
>
>
> Well, until relatively recently it's only been rich white men who've had
> the opportunity, education and leisure to do so. Pretty hard to "contribute
> technology and science to the world" when you're a slave, a peasant, or
> effectively the property of another gender.
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 10:51 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But in fairness, it has been "rich white men" that have contributed the
> most of technology and science to the world of which we are all benefactors.
>
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:51 PM
> *To:* Clarke Morledge
> *Cc:* AmericanScientificAffiliation
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Samuel F. B. Morse as model or detractor for
> evangelical faith??
>
>
>
> Fascinating. You can find his anti-Catholic book on Google books -- it
> seems bizarre from our perspective today, though there are still groups out
> there that spout the same rhetoric. Below are some of his writings on
> slavery. Both his rabid anti-Catholic conspiracy theorizing and his support
> for slavery seem consistent with the views held by many American Calvinist
> evangelicals at the time. The original "Christian America" probably wasn't
> much fun if you weren't a white male Calvinist.
>
> Samuel F. B. Morse (1863).
>
> *An Argument on the Ethical Position of Slavery *(NY: Society for the
>
> Diffusion of Political Knowledge, no. 12).
>
> 1. "Slavery or the servile relation is proved to be one of the
> indispensable regulators of the social
>
> system, divinely ordained for the discipline of the human race in this
> world, and that it is in perfect
>
> harmony . . . with the great declared object of the Savior's mission to
> earth" (10).
>
> 2. "If the servile relation is an essential and indispensable divinely
> arranged part of the Social System,
>
> is not the attempt to blot it out altogether by force in any community,
> under the plea that it is a sin, an
>
> evil, a wrong, or an outrage to humanity, or indeed in any other place,
> sacrilegious?" (10).
>
> 3. "Are there not in this relation [of master to slave], when faithfully
> carried out according to Divine
>
> directions, some of the most beautiful examples of domestic happiness and
> contentment that this fallen
>
> world knows? Protection and judicious guidance and careful provision on
> the one part; cheerful
>
> obedience, affection and confidence on the other" (13).
>
> 4. "Christianity has been most successfully propagated among a barbarous
> race, when they have been
>
> enslaved to a Christian race. Slavery to them has been Salvation, and
> Freedom, ruin" (16).
>
> 5. "When the relation of Master & Slave is left to its natural workings
> under the regulations divinely
>
> established, and unobstructed by outside fanatic busybodyism, the result,
> on the enslaved and on
>
> society at large, is salutory and benevolent. When resisted, as it is by
> the abolitionism of the day, we
>
> have only to look around us to see the horrible fruits, in every
> frightful, and disorganizing, and bloody
>
> shape" (17).
>
> B. Samuel F. B. Morse (1914).
>
> *Letters and Journals *(Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
>
> 1. "My creed on the subject of slavery is short. Slavery per se is not
> sin. It is a social condition
>
> ordained from the beginning of the world for the wisest purposes,
> benevolent and disciplinary, by
>
> Divine Wisdom. The mere holding of slaves, therefore, is a condition
> having per se nothing of moral
>
> character in it, any more than the being a parent, or employer, or ruler"
> (2: 331).
>
> 2. "Conscience in this matter has moved some Christians quite as strongly
> to view Abolitionism as a
>
> sin of the deepest dye, as it has other Christian minds to view Slavery as
> a sin . . . Who is to decide in a
>
> conflict of consciences? If the Bible is to be the umpire, as I hold it to
> be, then it is the Abolitionist that
>
> is denounced as worthy of excommunication; it is the Abolitionist from
> whom we are commanded to
>
> withdraw ourselves, while not a syllable of reproof do I find in the
> sacred volume administered to those
>
> who maintain, in the spirit of the gospel, the relation of Masters and
> Slaves"
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 2:27 PM, Clarke Morledge <chmorl@wm.edu> wrote:
>
> I recently finished reading David Bodanis' _Electric Universe_. Bodanis
>
> gives some biographical information about how Christian faith influenced
>
> some of the early electricity scientists/inventors in the 19th century.
>
> But one of the disturbing accounts he gives is about Samuel F. B. Morse,
>
> the talented painter who patented the telegraph and co-invented the Morse
>
> code. Several strikes are made against Morse:
>
> 1. He basically stole Joseph Henry's work on the underlying principles of
>
> the telegraph and patented it for himself.
>
> 2. He ran for mayor of New York on a "nativist" platform, the "Know
>
> Nothing" party, protesting against the immigration of non-Protestants to
>
> America. The implication is that not only was he anti-Catholic, he was
>
> also racist and anti-semitic. Furthermore, he had a peculiar conspiracy
>
> theory about how Catholic immigration was a papal/Jesuit plot threatening
>
> to undermine American society, and that he developed the telegraph as a
>
> means to subvert this threat (Morse's book, "Foreign Conspiracy Against
>
> the Liberties of the United States - The Numbers of Brutus").
>
> I also did a little more research on Morse and the Wikipeadia article
>
> suggests that Morse had more Unitarian leanings than his famous,
>
> staunchly-Calvinist preacher father, Jedidiah Morse. Samuel Morse was
>
> also staunchly pro-slavery, but it might be difficult to hold that against
>
> him since there were so many evangelicals during his time who agreed with
>
> him.
>
> In a number of evangelical "providentialist" approaches to American
>
> history, Morse is upheld as an evangelical role model; e.g. Stephen K.
>
> McDowell's _Building Godly Nations_, or on the AIG website:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/morse.asp
>
> And even this perhaps surprisingly positive portrait from the Christian
>
> History Glimpses that appear in many church Sunday bulletins:
>
> http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps099.shtml
>
> But the way Bodanis approaches Morse, holding up Morse as a model
>
> Christian is rather ill fitting.
>
> So which description is correct here: Morse the thief and conspiracy
>
> theorist as Bodanis portrays him, or Morse the humble Christian as the
>
> "providentialists" argue --- or perhaps somewhere in between?
>
> Clarke Morledge
>
> College of William and Mary
>
> Information Technology - Network Engineering
>
> Jones Hall (Room 18)
>
> Williamsburg VA 23187
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 19 08:35:29 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 19 2007 - 08:35:30 EST