I’m researching Oliver Cromwell, a figure who is both daunting and inspiring, to inform a presentation on what he did for the Waldensians or Vaudois in 1655, which was admirable. Cromwell’s reputation has been so undermined by his massacres of Catholics in Ireland that defending Cromwell on any front can seem a bit of a challenge!
I am also seeking to answer:
why Cromwell’s republican “Commonwealth” was so heavily rejected at the Restoration by the British in 1660
why Cromwell behaved as he did in Ireland - slaughtering large numbers
what the Puritans did - and did not do- for this country.
Starting with the last question, Oliver Cromwell is an inspiration for Christian rights and freedoms. He was a surprisingly warm and passionate man who wrote very loving letters to his wife. He was interested in people and moved to defend those on the receiving end. He was also an avid reader of the Bible, if not a devoted member of any local church. He was an Independent rather than a Presbyterian. A man of action, he restrained the power of unwise, unelected rulers for hundreds of years. It was quite an massive achievement, when France was oppressed under the thumb of Louis XIV.
Second, we must not confuse Cromwell’s profound commitment to:
the right of free speech
the right to worship God according to the Bible
the right of religious conscience
the cause of European Protestantism
with the modern secular notion of “freedom” - which is freedom from all social rules and God’s law. He would not have fought the Civil War for the latter concept. When Parliament today applauds Cromwell, it must appreciate that Cromwell did not fight for freedom from the rules of God - the notion of freedom and rights today. Freedom in the Christian sense comes with restraints and rules: Christian freedom is freedom issuing from obedience to God.
The Commonwealth and Republic failed because it was not Christian in practice, following The Civil War. Being Puritan, the leaders wanted a purer, cleaner way of life for all people. Instead of bringing about an improvement in public morality and behaviour by conversion to Christ, they passed severe Acts on:
punishing adultery and all sex outside marriage by death
branding prostitutes with a “B” for “Bawd” and death for their ongoing activity
fines for swearing
prohibiting public entertainments.
They even tried to pass a law against wearing cosmetics, but that failed at the second attempt. The various death sentences were not acted upon, but they must have been a heavy yoke on the neck of the people.
Clearly, these Puritan intentions were unChristian: they are not warranted by Scripture. The Bible teaches Christians not to engage in these activities themselves - but they cannot force non-believers to do the same. Majority Christian rule may seek to inhibit sin by law, in some way, but it cannot force obedience. Cromwell may have been more moderate. He says he was surrounded by men who took delight, as he noted, in putting their fingers of the conscience of others and pinching them - which is vindictive bullying.
As for Ireland, Cromwell was probably influenced by misinformation about a so-called massacre which took place on “hundreds of thousands” of second and third generation English living in Ireland in 1640. They were turned out in their shirts and many were ruined and exiled, but there is no evidence of mass slaughter, by the Irish.
Though untrue, this story was so often repeated and put into print that Cromwell was clearly influenced by a widespread belief in Irish “barbarism” - and he acted accordingly. Though this does not excuse his brutality, it sets it in context.
Reference:
Our Chief of Men by Antonia Fraser
No comments:
Post a Comment