Okay, I admit this doesn’t have the same existential or rhetorical import of Luther’s 95 theses, but it might prove interesting, nonetheless.
The above are some of the reasons I left the group. Below is a more sustained reflection on the self-limitations of Covenanter thought.
There is much good in the Covenanter tradition, and this post will pain many (myself most of all). But if they want an intellectual (Or even better, political) future then they need to own up to some challenges. I honor and admire Richard Cameron and Alexander Peden (hey, they received extra-scriptural prophecy. Anybody want to take up that one?). I do not think, however, that the entire Covenanting tradition was able to hold the strings together. And that’s not just my take on it. I think Moore argues the same thing (Our Covenant Heritage). These challenges are not simply my making up because people started slandering Christ’s elders in his church on Facebook (like Stonewall Jackson). They point to deeper issues.
While the problems in the Covenanter tradition can easily point back to the Battle of Bothwell Bridge (cf Maurice Grant’s biographies of both Cameron
and Cargill; excellent reads
), I was alerted to some of the tensions by T. Harris
. Again, I am writing this so Covenanters can work out the difficulties now instead of having to make hard and fast choices on the field of battle later. You can be angry with me, but I am your best friend.
1. The Hatred of the South
This is myopic and almost unhealthy. Modern covenanting talks about how evil the South is and never once tries to work through the sticky issues of how best to help freed slaves. Or slaves who didn’t want to be freed. As evil as slavery might have been, simply throwing the blacks out on the street without resources only it makes it worse. The slave-owners (and many slaves) knew this.
And it really comes back to the question: is the relation between master and slave sinful? This is a very specific question. This is why Freshman atheists have a field day with us. But I know the response: buying stolen property, especially human property, is sinful. Perhaps it is, but didn’t Paul know this when he outlined healthy parameters for both masters and slaves? How do you think the ancient Romans got slaves in the first place? Democratic vote? They were often prisoners of war, babies of raped women, and worse. And does Paul say, in good John Brown fashion, “Rise up slaves and kill your masters” (though to be fair John Brown actually killed white Northerners)?
Northern Covenanters love to boast on how they “deny communion to man-stealers.” Harris notes in response,
Athenagoras, defending the church against the pagan charge of cannibalism said, “moreover, we have slaves: some of us more, some fewer. We cannot hide anything from them; yet not one of them has made up such tall stories against us.” (Early Church Fathers, ed. C.C. Richardson, p. 338). But Alexander McLeod says to the slaveholder, “you cannot be in the church,” (p. 25) and this posture was eventually ratified by the entire covenanter church. On this point, their righteousness exceeded even that of our Lord and the apostles. And that is heady stuff.
Am I saying we should have slaves today? Of course not. But we need to seriously think through these issues instead of giving non-answers like “Christianity provided for civilization to move forward without slavery.” To which I say, “early Medieval Russia.”
2. The strange love-affair with Lincoln
This is odd, too. Lincoln really didn’t care for Christianity and he routinely made racist jokes. He was the biggest white supremacist of the 19th century. He ran on the platform, in essence, that he would not free a single slave. My Covenanter friends–you are being deceived.
Someone could respond, “You’re just angry that the South lost.” Perhaps, perhaps not. That brings up another point
3. Consistently outmaneuvered politically and militarily
Why is it that the Covenanters who have such a heroic (and rightly earned) reputation for godly resistance during the Killing Times have routinely been outmaneuvered in the public square? I’ll give three examples: Bothwell Bridge, Cromwell, and The War Between the States.
The Covenanters had already proved themselves at Drumclog. Further, Bothwell Bridge forced the Royalists into a chokepoint. While the ultimate cause for the covenanters defeat was lack of artillery and ammo, the outcome was in the air for a while. The problem was whether to allow Indulged parties to participate. Granted, the Indulged sinned and were under God’s judgment. Cameron and others were right to resist elsewhere, but Bothwell was not an ecclesiastical act. It was a military one. Indulged ammunition wasn’t sinful per se.
Covenanters call Cromwell the Usurper. It is somewhat ironic given that these Covenanters had fought a war of defiance (rightly so) against the very same king. I have to ask, though, precisely what did you expect when rallying behind the (well-known) debauched papal pervert Charles II? Granted, he vowed the covenants. Granted, he should have owned up to them. Still, anyone could have seen how this was going to end.
How else was Cromwell to interpret this? He knew the Covenanters were militarily capable, so he is seeing an armed host rallying behind the dynasty against which both had recently fought a war. But even then, the Covenanters could have held him off and forced a peace. Their actions at Dunbar as as unbelievable as they are inexplicable. They had the advantage of both place and time. Ignoring that, they decided to meet Cromwell on equal footing. In response, Cromwell executed one of the most perfect maneuvers in military history
(that was still studied and practiced in the 20th century by America, England, and Germany) and in effect subdued Scotland.
To make it worse, Grant notes that Cromwell’s subjugation of Scotland allowed the kirk to flourish spiritually. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Interpreting Providence is dangerous, but this might mean that the Covenanters didn’t even deserve political independence.
I must quote Harris in detail for full affect.
“Most of its members were enthusiastically for the war and anxious to participate in it as far as they could without violating their principle of dissent from the government.” (p. 58) This despite the fact that Lincoln himself constantly said the war was not about slavery. We now know Lincoln was a pathological liar; the covenanters must have known this in their bones as well, and gave vent to their approval of the “real reason,” concealed by Lincoln. At any rate, it is hard to imagine them getting so excited about a war that was about enforced union. In view of their history, that would be ironic indeed.
However, they exhibited a certain naiveté in two ways which may go part way to explain the madness. At one point, they concocted an oath to propose to the US as a basis for enlisting in the army, an oath that would be consistent with continued resistance to full submission. “I do swear by the living God, that I will be faithful to the United States, and will aid and defend them against the armies of the Confederate States, yielding all due obedience to military orders.” (p. 58) The charming bit here is the notion of defendingagainst the armies of the CSA — armies which were purely defensive, and which would have been glad to disperse and go home, if it weren’t for the invading and marauding union armies. Somehow, they had built up a mythic view of an aggressive South, gobbling up adjacent lands by force of arms.
Covenanting on the Ground
This is open for discussion. How exactly is National Covenanting going to work today? Surely it means more than strong-arming congress in rejecting the First Amendment.
Note Bene: Harris’s quotations are from David M. Carson. Transplanted to America: A Popular History of the American Covenanters to 1871. (Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant Publications, n/d).