If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.
February 21, 2007
Dear Concerned Citizen,
by Dr. Nigel M. de S. Cameron

side bar side bar side bar side bar I was just reading a brilliant book about Winston Churchill that looks at him in “40 ways” (by Gretchen Rubin, Random House). Churchill’s greatness – as the towering human being of his long generation - is beyond dispute, whatever the ambiguities of his faith. Yet greatness is a quality we do not often acknowledge, and we tend to overlook it especially in men and women of Christian conviction. In our eagerness to set events and achievements under the sovereignty of God we tend to assume they are “inevitable,” and in the process play down the vast human cost they represent.

So it is with William Wilberforce (1759-1833), a man of surpassing greatness – as Eric Metaxas makes so plain in his new biography, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery (HarperSanFrancisco). He gave God the glory, yet the glory of God was rarely manifested so plainly in a human life. A politician of genius and stature, tipped to be British Prime Minister and therefore leader of the greatest empire on earth, he opted instead for a long and often lonely campaign that had two special purposes (or “Great Objects,” as he put it): to reform the conduct of his (permissive) generation, and to abolish slavery.

It’s hard for us to imagine the world of the eighteenth century in which few had challenged the idea that certain human beings could be the property of others. One of the best ways to get its flavor here in the United States is to read what is almost universally agreed to be the worst ever judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott, a cold and evil affirmation of chattel slavery as late as 1857 from the highest court of the nation that had since its founding trumpeted human freedom. When two generations earlier Wilberforce committed himself to the cause of the slaves, his decision was not exactly popular.

One of the lessons of his life is that of persistence. He did not pursue abolition simply for one electoral cycle, or until he got interested in something else. It proved to be the work of his lifetime. He spent more than 40 years in parliament arguing year after year against slavery. And in 1807, in the first major blow against slavery, the slave trade was ended in the British Empire. It took another quarter-century, but when Wilberforce was dying the British parliament was in the act of passing the law that finally abolished slavery in all the vast tracts of the British Empire.

Another lesson is that of teamwork, as we would call it. The so-called “Clapham Sect” brought like-minded people together year after year to support each other and sustain their common efforts.

And another is that of strategy. Wilberforce was under no illusion that he could get everything he wanted in one shot. So he determined to move incrementally, and indeed the original name of the organization he founded to fight slavery was called “Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery.” First mitigate - in the process gaining allies who might not favor abolition, and drawing attention to particular evils (such as the distance between each slave as they lay shackled in the slave-ships). Then abolish. And note that abolition came in two steps, decades apart – the abolition of the trade, and then of slavery and the millions of slaves themselves.

As we face the vast moral challenges of the 21st century – from slavery itself, which continues in many lands and in the terrible guise of sex-trafficking in our own, to abortion, to the transhumanists who plan to remake human nature by blending us with computers – the lessons are there to be learned. William the Great laid them down in the closing years of the 18th century. Let us take them up in the 21st.



news hub

Responses to Even Hollywood Misses Romance:

After 30 years of marriage, I can attest to the pleasure of lasting - and growing - love through faithfulness. Some years are boring, some sizzle. Some just go by. But the chivalry of my husband includes caring for me in many ways that make me feel loved and cared for, including in the bedroom. With 4 kids in marriage years, we're watching them court and date and try to find others likeminded. Not the easiest process. It used to be "happy hunting" with encouragement towards marriage by parents of both guys and gals... but now, whom can you model your life after? Whom can you trust? Where have they been before you? And will they leave if you don't measure up. Sad when the user manual isn't followed. - Rosemarie

I'm a 73 year old grandmother of four, an artist and musician and many other things, including being a feminist spiritual warrior . I want you to know that I absolutely loved the article, until I got to the book--and the suggestion that modesty on the part of the woman was what would solve it all!! I can't believe it, once again it is all the woman's fault!! What ever happened to the MEN being responsible for what they are doing? How about HIS respecting her from the git-go and honoring who she is and where she came from , and maybe take a little time to get acquainted . . . . . and truly open his heart and be curious about who she is--(this is a dream for most women, seldom realized) and savor the moments together . . . And what is this " his OWN" . . . . . . . . sounds like you envision wife and children being property . You know, deep love is based on equality and respect from each person to the other. Rather than a dominator model (patriarchy) it is a partnership model--and human kind lived in that harmony, without war - - - - for thousands and thousands of years before the patriarchy came into being. Let us remember our past! - Oquawka


You've got to be kidding. Saying that Hollywood lack romance is like saying McDonald's lacks hamburgers. Romance feeds every screenplay you see...but maybe not the kind of romance where girl meets guy and guy finally gets it and falls in love. "The Lord of the Rings" was a big romantic tale of people being larger than life and doing the impossible. We go to see movies not for the reality but for the escape. So, there's plenty of romance in movies nowadays. It's just that it includes a good deal of sex as well. So did those old movies. They just didn't show it onscreen as much. And who is Hugh Grant to talk about too much celebrity sex on the silver screen anyway? Sheesh. But I thought the usual diatribe against sexual "freedom" to be pretty accurate nonetheless. The only thing I would add is that divorce has left a really bad taste in the mouths of young people about the idea of marriage. We have constructed a culture where marriage is for now and not forever. Relationships....what are they about anyway? I am, sadly, a divorced man myself. My kids have to deal with doubts about relationships that never entered into my head when I was their age. One of my children is really afraid of marriage because she doesn't want to see it end some day as her parents' marriage of 20 years did. But which came first, the loosening of sexual morals (something that started before the 60's...going back as far as the 20's at least) or was it the loosening of divorce restrictions? Which one happened to accommodate the other? More importantly, how do we reconstruct a new reality based on what we have and make something stronger of the broken bones in our social structure? - John White

I read your article with interest. While not holding any higher degree in science than a B.S. in Chemistry, and a Bible school graduate, I have followed the Bible-Science debate for most of my life. I hold to the position that Thomas Aquinas was correct in asserting that God has two books: the Book of "Revelation" and the Book of Nature. Furthermore, I believe that we have overwhelming scientific evidence of an old earth (read 4-5 billion years). I think that young-earth creationists are using selective evidence when they assert that our world is only 10,000 or so years old, and their use of Flood Geology is a hoax. I am an old-earth creationist, and I believe that Scientific Creationism is nothing more than an intellectual, if not scriptural, heresy. So I call myself a Progressive Creationist, for lack of a better word. I also believe that it is intellectually dishonest to obtain a degree under such conditions as described. The objective reality of one view over the other is paramount; that is, you must be consistent. Would you praise someone who received a theological doctorate based upon a thesis that denied Christ's virgin birth or his literal, bodily resurrection, only to use it to teach theology in an evangelical seminary ? I think not. Dr. Ross would probably find it difficult, if not impossible, to function in a secular environment as a teacher of paleontology surrounded by naturalistic and theological evolutionists. - Roy Olson, Chicago

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
Study guides for the movie Amazing Grace
Amazing Change: A campaign to carry on Wilberforce's vision of mercy and justice
Amazing Grace Sunday to be Celebrated Around the Globe
How Sweet the Sound: Publishers Hitch a Ride on Amazing Grace
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Dr. Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Nigel M. de S. Cameron is former dean of the Charles W. Colson's worldview think-tank the Wilberforce Forum. He speaks and writes on issues of public policy, health and ethics, and has given congressional testimony and represented the United States at meetings of the United Nations. His latest book is How to be a Christian in a Brave New World, co-written with Joni Eareckson Tada (Zondervan).
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

unique visitor counter