What should we think about William Wilberforce?
I think Wilberforce was sincere in his intentions and who
can doubt that his campaign resulted in some good? And yet it's not that
simple, certainly not as simple as his advocates would present it. His larger
campaign was with an eye to reform manners in society, and while the
entirety of the Victorian social project along with its gross hypocrisies and
failures cannot be laid at his feet, in many respects he helped to instigate
it.
Fear of what was happening in France also played a
significant role I think. The end result was a hypocrite-society, a culture
with a kind of counterfeit shell or veneer. It seemed Christian but was in fact
quite cruel and immoral - and rotten as the crises of the twentieth century
would reveal. When put to the test it was found to be a fake. The British
people survived the war but did not emerge godly. The society they had built
and the empire it had produced quickly collapsed. It had character but was directionless,
died, and was replaced by a new order.
The other thing that is often ignored is that the
anti-slavery campaign and the casting of moral government policy was within the
framework of a rapidly expanding British Empire- which was itself grossly
immoral as all empires are. It's one thing to speak of liberating slaves but
you have no moral standing when the same government and its larger system (supported
by Wilberforce) is lying, stealing, exploiting, and murdering with abandon.
Even the anti-slave trade actions of the Royal Navy during this period are but
a thinly-veiled attempt to assert imperial prerogative.
As Christians we need to speak up for the weak and for truth
and thus we will always be in a counter-cultural position - at war with the
world. Wilberforce was in a contrary position of sorts (and he certainly had
his enemies) but at the same time he was operating fully within the circle of
the British Empire and its Establishment. He didn't criticise 'it' per se
but rather sought to co-opt its power and gain a hold on the tiller of state.
Slavery was an evil that needed to be criticised but the real problem was (and
remains) mammonism. It was the heart of the British system (and certainly the
American as well) and the Church seeking political position and mastery is not
going to criticise mammonism - instead it wants to harness its power. And thus
it loses its way. It's more than a little ironic how history continues to
repeat itself isn't it?
We speak, warn, and exhort but the context of our words
should not be in the realm of politics. Once the Church enters that realm it
compromises New Testament ethics and quickly loses its way, its ethics, its
message - and ultimately its identity. It begins generating rival gospels which
undermine its calling. It's been a recurring theme throughout Church History.
We're living it right now in the United States and the latest iteration of this
Christo-socio-political paradigm has now been exported globally and will
continue to reap the whirlwind on the global Church. And as it has in the
past, when cast into other contexts it can produce some horrific results.
In the end, there is much about Wilberforce one might admire
but overall I think he was misguided and ultimately I think his project (while
certainly beneficial to the enslaved within the Empire) did more harm than
good.
He is a hero of sorts in terms of society and British
politics. I'm not so sure I would extend that label vis-à-vis the Church. I
understand fully that my First Reformation New Testament/Biblicist-oriented
position would be in the extreme minority but in the end I believe the dangers
of a Wilberforce to the Church far exceed the (supposed) esteem he brings to
it. Billy Graham once said that in order to save America you're going to have
to become a Christian. That kind of convoluted thinking regarding the Kingdom
of Christ did not originate with him. The same line could have been said by
Wilberforce in reference to Britain.