Chrisitan View Of The American Revolution--论文代写范文精选

51due论文代写网精选代写范文:“Chrisitan View Of The American Revolution”。在美国还是英国的殖民地时期的后期，美国对英国的殖民已经越来越反抗了。而当美国要发动革命之时，基督教又是如何看待这一事件的呢？

As the American colonies grew more resistant to the English Parliament, pieces of Scripture began to convict the Christian colonists, which had an effect on the willingness to fight for liberty. In Romans 13:1-7, it begins by stating “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities,” (RSV). The passage continues to address the topic of obeying the authorities placed by God, and to pay taxes, revenue, and give respect to the authorities that it is due. I Peter 2:13-17 tells that people need to honor the authority, for they are there to punish the wrongdoers and praise those doing right.Christian colonists took different perspectives on the Scriptures, many opposing fighting, while many supported going to war.

In the collection of documents analyzed, I will first analyze the excerpts of those who preached about opposing the fighting of England. Probably the strongest argument for opposition (in the collection analyzed) was given by John Wesley, from A Calm Address to Our American Colonies. his piece of writing presents the most controversial question about the means for fighting, which is: “Has the English Parliament power to tax the American colonies'” This question stands in front of several of years of the oppression of taxation by Parliament with no representation of the American colonies.

Wesley continues to talk about the reason that the defenders of the revolution hold, and why he objects it. He states, “But I object to the very foundation of your plea. That ‘every freeman is governed by laws to which he has consented,’ as confidently as it has been asserted, it is absolutely false… When [electors] are near equally divided, almost half of them must be governed, not only without, but even against their own consent.” Wesley does in fact make a good point here, in that no matter where one stands under a set of laws, they may not agree, but are obliged to follow, because it is their governing authority. Wesley makes a statement in the seeking of peace, as well as understanding that it may take a bit of sacrifice to follow, but it is the duty of all citizens.

Another man that presented opposition to this fighting was Jonathan Boucher, for which he wrote Reminiscences of An American Loyalist. The excerpt analyzed appeared to have been intended for the Congress of the American Colonies, meaning to get them to foresee the undesirable effects of fighting this war. He tells that it would not only be unjustifiable to fight for moral reasons, but that there are already civil disturbances within the colonies and that Great Britain would not have trouble destroying the colonies due to her power. However strong this may been, it did not seem to address the morality according to Scripture as much as the fear that seemed present. Alongside these oppositions, though, were several of men who defended fighting for liberty of the colonies. There were different reasons used for the purpose of defending the war, some of which seemed most justifiable. The Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission, by Jonathan Mayhew directly addressed several of questions that were probably in the minds of colonists at this time, no matter what side they took on supporting the revolution. Mayhew says, “But then, if unlimited submission and passive obedience to the higher powers, in all possible cases, be not a duty, it will be asked. ‘How far are we obliged to submit' If we may innocently disobey and resist in some cases, why not in all' Where shall we stop' What is the measure of our duty' This doctrine tends to the total dissolution of civil government; and to introduce such scenes of wild anarchy and confusion as are more fatal to society than the worst of tyranny.’” This was a very strong piece by Mayhew in that well supported his defense. At first this may seem like some sort of reverse psychology to understand what he is getting at, but as this writing continues, he explains the parallel of the effects on the colonies if they were to just always give in and continue to give in to this cruelty. He then explains that this kind of oppression over the colonies leads to justification, with power for defense from God. Another defender of the revolution was Samuel Sherwood, with his excerpt from The Church’s Flight into the Wilderness. This was a particularly interesting writing, in which Sherwood delves into the understanding that this land and opportunity was given by God, and the “Liberty was planted here.” This comes off as almost a pep talk for the colonists, encouraging them to not give this land up to corruption and ruin. What seems most powerful about this writing is that he basically tells colonists to stand up for what is right, live on faith in God, and do not give up to the oppressor. He makes a very strong statement in which he compares England to Babylon: “The time is coming and hastening on, when Babylon the great shall fall to rise no more; when all wicked tyrants and oppressors shall be destroyed forever.”

He finishes off with words of encouragement that God is on their side. I chose to discuss Samuel West lastly, for is ties more closely into my personal beliefs about the revolution. The excerpt given is from A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council. From the beginning of the excerpt, West immediately brings up the Biblical reference I Peter 2:13-14, which speaks of submission to government. This often was used in opposing the war by Christian colonists, but West sought to use it for his defense. He made reference to a few men of the Bible, namely King David and Moses. West states, “David, the man after God’s own heart, makes piety a necessary qualification in a ruler: ‘He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.’”

He uses Moses as an example that people are not to speak evil of the rulers over them, but instead encourage them to be strong leaders. West continues on to say that all men should respect and honor their authority, as rulers need to grow through this, not through pride. He goes on to speak that this situation with England is in controversy and that the colonists must not be ignorant. He concludes the sermon by telling them that while they are fighting, they need to keep in mind that they are seeking to be released from corruption and oppression.

In the book of Exodus, we find the story of Moses and how God sent him to free His people from the bondage of the Pharaoh of Egypt. Although this event in history and the history of the movement towards the American Revolution are very different in many ways, there are also many important principles that can be used in parallel in justifying the revolution. First off, there was one main ruler in England, the King, and the Parliament as government. The people in the American colonies felt oppressed by the fact that they were being taxed for things in which they had no say. Not only this, but there was no government established in the colonies, just demands made from over seas. In Egypt, Pharaoh was ruling the land, making God’s people slave for his demands. He would not step foot out by them, or live in their shoes, but just demand more and more from them.

England was similar in that they would levy a tax or set of taxes, but would not represent them, or even tax the English colonies in the same ways. This caused further threat to the colonies as being merely “slaves” for the mother country, and succumbing to ruin, as Samuel Sherwood preached. God led Moses to free His people, and cause harm to Egypt because of their resistance to release the oppression they had laid upon them. This was not considered revolution; however, the God’s people were being oppressed by their governing authority. There was certainly enough reason for the colonies to begin a revolution, but the biggest controversy lied on the grounds of moral justification, along with the Biblical references mentioned initially.

I believe that God inspired every word of His Bible, but to take His words out of context to either allow our actions to be permissible or to justify a means, is not following His Will. Both references in Romans and I Peter speak of following governing authorities, but also speak to rulers in that they need to follow Him (in the Romans passage, the ruler is even referred to as “God’s servant”).God tells that he has ordained the authorities, but does that mean that even the most evil rulers are to be followed' I believe through these God is telling warning rulers that if they do not follow Him, they may set grounds for punishment to themselves, or in this case, revolution. We have seen that several Christian colonists were in support of the revolution due to corrupt practice by the governing authority.

I do not believe any of these words were intended for revenge, but that they wanted to establish their own government, their own governing authority, in which it people may be more satisfied and be able to grow into a nation under the Lord’s authority. If I were in the place of an American colonist, I would have fought for the liberty of the American colonies. I truly believe God had His hand in the lives of these people, especially those who foremost chose to follow Him.-H

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。