John Bunyan's Example

 

Government and Religion have had a love/hate relationship for centuries. One does not have to look far to see that Government and Religion are intertwined when they both deal with ideals, morals, laws, and power. The debate is – Who is in charge of who, who has more influence over society, and which one determines and best represents the hearts of the people? The game of this inscrutable affair is not easy to referee, especially when one more player is added to this mix; Media. John Bunyan was not an innocent bystander who was imprisoned merely for his faith, he was imprisoned because he and his rapidly spreading beliefs were a thread to the crown of King Charles II.

King's Divine Right

Unfortunately, influence is overshadowed by two evils - greed and power. If the people believed that God had divinely placed the monarch in their ruling seat, then how dare anyone attempt to rebel against, disagree with, or turn away from God’s chosen? During the Restoration and the 18^th century, the power struggle was great mainly between the Catholic and Protestant churches and Kings were determined to devoutly adhere to one or the other. To get the blessing from the King, was to get it directly from God. But, guess who also had to bless the King? The church leaders. One was not placed on the throne without the church’s involvement.

It was the beginning of the Enlightenment period. A religious reformation was occurring around the world, in most English-speaking civilizations, most of who questioned this very tradition. Deism seemed to be practiced by a small section of people during a smaller span of time; those who held this philosophy was considered a “minority within a minority.” During the English Revolution of the mid-seventeenth century radical groups like the Ranters, the Diggers, the Levellers, and others rose in opposition to the protestant ethic with its ideology of the propertied class.

The Thinker

Soon afterward, there was a sweeping motion of evangelical churches rising up in many forms which quickly overtook the Anglican, Quakers, and Congregationalists.  This Awakening was perpetuated by Protestants, Baptists, and Methodists. Deism emphasized morality and denied the divinity of Christ. This fusion of beliefs epitomizes the revolutionary postulation of truth, what it is, and figuring out who is the final authority on morality.

In Religion and the Founding of the American People: Religion in Eighteenth-Century America, an article found on the Library of Congress’s website, it gives examples of religious thoughts and philosophies and names of thinkers, writers, and preachers who shared their faith and views, men like John Locke who “argued for the ‘reasonableness’ of Christianity but rejected the efforts of Toland and other deists to claim him as their spiritual mentor,” and George Whitefield who’s flamboyance has been compared to modern televangelists.

George Whitfield

Organized religions were in upheaval for centuries and were not confined to Mainland England. Whether John Bunyan had a direct effect on the movements in the American colonies the article does not state, but I am convinced that where there is a spark of questioning ‘the known,’ the fire quickly flares and spreads with repercussions that last much longer than the one who sparked it. Whitfield’s main message was about the ‘New Birth’ which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about. Though Bunyan would have been an opponent of Deism, he would have been encouraged by the fact that 75-80% of the colonists attended or were members of a local church.

Jonathan Edwards

The article also includes information about Jonathan Edwards which it calls “was the most important American preacher during the Great Awakening.” It goes on the say that “He was the principal intellectual interpreter of, and apologist for, the Awakening.” Unlike Bunyan who’s writing “Pilgrim’s Progress” which focused more on the walk of man pushing toward a beautiful and divine God who is loving enough to send helpers while on your journey, Edwards emphasized hell and damnation as a fear tactic to terrorize people into recognizing their sinful state and from that fear, come to God for their cleansing. This is proven in his most well-known writing, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

Christopher Hill, in The World Turned Upside Down, introduces many mindsets that were quarreling over religious freedom, freedom from religion, and traditional religion. Mingled into these arguments were statements about the rich ruling the poor, and how ‘rich’ was often synonymous with the leaders of the Church and of Government. The aristocrats vetted against the working class, which some people were considered even lower than that. On page 282-3, His states that the ‘rich’ ungodly landlords persuaded their tenants not to go out and hear the Word (of the Lord,) which John Bunyan thinks is a way of manipulating and controlling the poor to remain without hope and continue to be in full reliance of the landlord for security. During the Restoration everything that is traditional is suspect. Bunyan was most tempted by the Ranter’s philosophy, but in the end, decided that they lacked conviction and therefore liked their reasoning but abhorred their actions. It is not wrong to question the existence of God and Christ, it is, however, to walk through life chained to those above you, never realizing that God plays more the role of a friend than the great punisher.

John Bunyan

John Bunyan

John Bunyan was an English non-conformist, (a member of a Protestant church in England that dissented from the established Anglican Church.) His views did not conform to the prevailing ideas of the established church, and though he worked hard at remaining out of political entanglement, he was considered a threat to the crown, for those who question the authority of the church, are accused of questioning the King, who was a head of the church. Bunyan was imprisoned in Bedford, England from 1660-1672 from where it is believed that he wrote “Pilgrim’s Progress” during his captivity for his religious beliefs and practices.

When religion is not controlled by an all-governing force such as the monarchy of England, or its imposed national church, the danger is for any person to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine they so choose. When so many people are right, is there a wrong? What is the standard? The other danger that can and does occur is that the followers of any faith can idolize or ridicule their leaders. Leaders can become corrupt, and the people are again left to either fear God or fall under the dictatorial hand of the church itself, which was the very thing Bunyan was standing against merely a generation earlier.

The first book to be printed by the printing press was the Latin Language Bible in 1455. Almost a century later Miles Coverdale printed the English Bible in 1535 was translated into English by William Tyndale who the next year was martyred for his heresies. Just over a century after that, in 1677, John Bunyan wrote and published The Pilgrim’s Progress.  Though he purposefully stayed out of politics, he was thrown in jail over spreading his beliefs that every person was able to have a personal relationship with God the Father. During his first 12 years of persecution, Bunyan took to writing, and it was then that he penned his most famous book. One could wonder if the separation from his beloved family led him to this incredible task, therefore we could conclude that prison produced the exact opposite results than what England’s leaders had hoped for. 

His writings were most likely influenced by his time spent in prison as they proved his spiritual heart was steadfast as he was given the opportunity for release if he agreed to stop preaching that anyone could have a personal relationship with God which he refused. Kathleen Lynch, writer for the Huntington Library quarterly, claims that Bunyan considered his time in confinement “liberating.” In the article, Into Jail and into Print: John Bunyan Writes the Godly Self, the very first sentence on Page 273 sums up John Bunyan perfectly, “John Bunyan’s Twelve years of imprisonment in the Bedford county jail is the very foundation of his lasting reputation as a principled victim of religious persecution.”  The part of his story that “might surprise us is that Bunyan’s writing readily found its way to the press without censorship … He was not a person of interest to the guardians of the London press, nor was the circulation of his writings in London … of concern to the Bedford authorities” (Page 274.)

In regard to prison being liberating, Bunyan, in Grace Abounding writes “I never had in all my life so great an inlet into the Word of God as now.” Not all his writing was inspired by his time in “gaol” (jail,) as a great deal of his time was spent modeling being a member of a local church and he was “a model of encouragement to others” (Page 275.) Bunyan did not have the profession of being a preacher, he had a calling to preach. Lynch explains how his language, meant to be a confession of faith was considered in court as his profession of guilt. His rhetoric was heard as a rebellion of the establishment and was esteemed as “spoken within the affirming rituals of separatist devotional practices.”

Lynch further explains how Bunyan upset the “Church of England and reimpose(s) all the codes of uniformity of worship, including the requirements to use the Book of Common Prayer, maintain Episcopal hierarchy, and support an ordained clergy with tithes” (Page 276.) Religious conformity statutes were passed during the reign of King Charles II and this rhetoric seemed as if this new belief structure was direct defiance to them. The church and government foresaw an insurrection of the people and in efforts to cut it off, they thought that if they could cut off the head, the rest of the body would fall. The exact opposite occurred.

An article in Christianity Today’s website states that John Bunyan is a man who came from nothing and claims he aspired for nothing. Nothing, that is, save that he spends the rest of his days despite any and all persecution, in the service of his God. When he married his wife he was ‘nearly penniless’ and she came only with two Puritan books as her dowry. He puts their union like this, “We came together as poor as poor might be," Bunyan wrote, "not having so much household-stuff as a dish or spoon betwixt us both." It was these books that began the conversion of John Bunyan. Despite the temptation to “sell him,” Bunyan was continually drawn towards Christ not away from him. The article includes that he met a Separatist preacher named John Gifford in Bedfordshire. After his conversion, he became a lay preacher who continually spent his days helping free others from their chains. During this time, the Restoration of Charles II quickly ended the freedom of worship the Separatists had enjoyed until that time.

Bunyan’s time in prison and how he was offered release if only he was to give up preaching, which he denied. Then, “Charles II eventually relented in 1672, issuing the Declaration of Indulgence. Bunyan was freed, licensed as a Congregational minister, and called to be pastor of the Bedford church.” But this freedom did not last long, and he was again jailed for 6 more months. After this time, “Pilgrim’s Progress” was printed. Whether his fame rose because of his imprisonment and his refusal to relent, or on the merits of him being a dynamic preacher we will never know. It is worth noting though, that the very thing they used to shut him up, was the very thing that gave Bunyan a platform to speak from.

Nicholas Seager approaches his article, John Bunyan and Socinianism, with the objective of taking a look specifically at a theology held by Socinians, which Bunyan uses when referencing an ideology, not a group of theologians. He saves that criticism for the “anti-Trinitarian tendencies” of the Quakers and the Latitudinarians. Bunyan would also write against the Familists and the Ranters, though he admittedly was tempted to believe like the latter. Seager notes that Bunyan “believed that justification came through faith in Jesus, not works or worship, conduct or conscience; he believed that original sin necessitated Christ's expiatory sacrifice and propitiatory atonement; he believed that Christ was a co-equal and consubstantial part of a triune godhead; and he believed that free grace and imputed righteousness were offered to an elect number of believers.” The author argues that Bunyan’s responses are more imaginative than intellectual and claims that if it were not for these groups that Bunyan opposed, his writings would not have been as filled with proofs or stories about Christ’s divinity.

Patricia Bauer wrote a summary of Pilgrim’s Progress, in which she claims the two parts of the story were published in 1678 and 1684 stating that this book’s popularity was second only the Bible. Bauer tells us one reason the Anglican church was upset by Bunyan’s preaching when she writes, “its Puritan author was imprisoned for offenses against the Conventicle Act of 1593 (which prohibited the conducting of religious services outside the bailiwick of the Church of England).”

But Why All the Fuss?

The Church of England was intimidated by Bunyan. Although he did try to remain out of governmental politics, the politics of the church was another matter. “Pilgrim’s Progress” has been translated into 200 languages so far, and its reach is not only into the hearts of its time, but to miles around the world, and centuries into the present-day 21^st Century. This Puritan preacher’s allegory of redemption and salvation has relevance to any person searching for faith in God and not any particular mandate. Perhaps it was Bunyan’s boldness to share his message in the front yard of the Church of England that began their frantic attempts to stop his ministry?

With this in mind, it is no wonder Bunyan ended up in prison, as he seemed to have no issue with calling out other faiths for their lack of, well, faith in Jesus not only as the Christ but as the Son of God, equal in all aspects with Him. This exposing of a lesser belief was a catalyst for his message that permeates his writings. This bold broadcasting of their lesser beliefs was bound to anger some people, especially to the point of throwing him in prison. If he were merely a loudmouth, they could probably have shut him up more easily. I believe it was his writings that sent them over the edge. When his words were in print, they were easily passed around and were able to make a greater impact on his readers.

Bunyan claimed that “the Trinity was inextricable from other necessary doctrines,” a belief that was being challenged and even left behind or excused fully by many theologians. It was at this failure to accept Christ’s divinity that Bunyan took his calling from God to correct the lies that were spreading at an alarming rate. Every person needs a catalyst, a stirring, and there is one point in time they can look at and realize that That is the moment God called them to serve Him. Bunyan was willing to give his very life to this cause.  Now, Bunyan was a man of honor with steadfastness in his heart, and someone to be admired and was seen as an example for others to follow Christ despite persecution.

Trouble with Translations

Antique 1890 Dutch version
of Pilgrim's Progress

In Pilgrim’s in Print, Stephanie Fitzgerald starts by telling a story about Benjamin Franklin saving a man from drowning by pulling him back in the boat by his hair. As a thank you gift the man gives him a prized treasure, a copy of John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” translated into Dutch. John Bunyan’s story had reached across Europe and into the Americas where it had been printed onto both fine paper with copper cuts (like Franklin’s gift) and “humble fustian” from woodcuts which indicated a less affluent clientele. Fitzgerald also suggests that what Franklin underestimated “was the critical role Bunyan's book would play in European colonization, especially among the Protestant missionaries who fanned out across the globe in the nineteenth century.” 80 translations eventually circulated most of colonized Africa. It was probably the storytelling aspect of the book that helped the missionaries during their efforts of converting the indigenous people because it was closely related to a style they already recognized. Having new translations of the book also brought a good price in the book trade back in Europe.

In the Americas, the book was there translated into local ‘Indian’ dialects and languages. This was useful for missionaries to once again use the avenue of storytelling to bring the gospel to these new people. The translations were useful tools for other purposes such as using themes of the book in daily life. In Hawaii, the book was difficult to translate into words that could compare with the original meaning. Words that would translate directly would hold connotations of very different meanings. The story had to be altered just enough to where the Hawaiian people could relate to the messages “Pilgrim’s Progress” contained.

Where Fitzgerald claims that the translations were often too irreconcilable such as in situations with the word ‘dream.’ Dream for the Hawaiians translated as ‘spirit sleep,’ a journey your soul takes while you are sleeping. Her argument is that since it was a pre-Christian belief previously held that it would not be an effective tool. I suggest that since they could already relate to it, the idea would easily transfer over to Pilgrim’s dream narrative. How far John Bunyan’s story had reached! The printed book was useful for the missionaries to be able to spread the gospel to various civilizations. The relevance of the story, the way in which it is written, and the relatability of Christian’s journey spans not only the Earth but Time itself.  

Church and State

There has been what some would consider good and bad actions committed in the names of both Religion and Government. Governments that have sought to control the people have either taken over the church or denied a God altogether. (Not that that is bad, but it does make a society easier to control.) When the church wanted to wield its power it would unfairly give special favors to the ones who had it. And those who stood in the way or presented roadblocks for either of them would get either killed or thrown in jail (like John Bunyan was.)

Christian authors who stood up for Salvation by Grace did not wither away. Even as persecution grew, and the popularity of the Christian faith seems to be waning, there seems to be an urgency held by 21st-century writers. While the history of the Christian church is known to be domineering through most of its existence, (in line with Bunyan’s theology,) Lynn Hiles wrote Unforced Rhythms of Grace, a book explaining how the theory of salvation through works is flawed. He gives example after example of how the Bible contradicts this philosophy. Without speaking too harshly about the modern church, he does call them out on placing believers under the heavy yoke of performance, (sounds like the church in Bunyan’s day.) The book is filled with scripture to back up his thoughts on grace and resting in God’s grace as alternatives to being bound by rules that we were never made to keep. Meaning, “Grace is not greasy. It is our helper…grace is a teacher.” (Pg 31.) Chapters are filled with stories of how Jesus came to bring life, not bondage. Grace in no way negates our attending church, memorizing scripture, sharing the gospel (good news,) or feeding the poor.

It simply means that we can do those things to get to know the heart of the One who loved us so much that He laid down His life for us. He did that because He loves us, we serve Him in response to that love. If anyone falls short, misses the mark, or sins, God is not a tyrant sitting in Heaven waiting to lower the gavel of judgment upon our heads, contrarily, He is a loving Father who lifts us up, dusts us off, and sets us upright to try again.

Hundreds of years after John Bunyan’s imprisonment for the same sentiments, Hiles does a wonderful job of explaining Grace vs. Works. In that process, believers are implored to walk in victory instead of defeat. They are encouraged to know God not only as Master but as Father and Jesus as friend. On page 2, Hiles gives a dreary picture of how many Christians walk around with their heads low and their countenance angry because of the frustration and disappointment that Religion has laid upon them. Like Bunyan, Hiles believes in a personal relationship with God, and reminds believers that ‘where the Spirit of Lord is, there is freedom.’ If unhappy, chained up, angry Christians were the only example of Christ, why would anyone ever want to convert? It is through the open arms of Jesus that brings sinners to repentance.

The argument still remains -
Should the church stay out of governmental affairs, and can government stay out of the churches?

Jacqueline Rose, a writer for Historical Research, believes that the long-standing English church-state institutional fact gave monarchs royal-supremacy over the Church of England causing the church to easily become manipulated in the hands of whichever king was currently crowned. In the abstract of the article she states, “It is therefore vital to contextualize Restoration arguments in Reformation debates.”  Charles II was fully convinced that he held ultimate supremacy over the church. The author establishes the tone of the article like this –

“‘I have the church and nothing will ever separate us.’  Charles II’s words to the Oxford parliament of 1681 reaffirmed the alliance of crown and miter so fundamental to the ecclesiastical stability of early modern England. The king’s statement encapsulates initial impressions of the Restoration: a revitalized monarchy and an adamantine episcopal establishment, marching in alliance against the forces of Whiggery, Presbyterianism and Dissent” (Page 324).

The king was confidently in charge, while the church was secretly disregarding his supremacy. There can never be a peaceful union when two forces are vying for control. This is a perfect example of Restoration politics which scholars can agree was a catalyst for the Nonconformists that arose in droves during the latter 1600s. Fragile alliances and staunch enemies were formed between Latitudinarians, Puritans, free thinkers, and others which sparked “pamphlet debates over church government, rites and ceremonies, conscience and royal supremacy” (Page 326).

This article continues to prove that the printing press had not only grown into a useful tool but evolved into a weapon yielded by anyone who had a diverging thought or opinion which was in contrast or latest opposition to the traditions of England and the monarchial control which sought to manipulate the minds of their subjects into worshipping them in proxy of the all the All-Mighty God. Each new group that arose was targeted by other groups as evil, wrong, or insubordinate to their own.

The argument was continual - “Who supported, and who subverted, supremacy shifted with fluctuating royal policies. Divergent accounts of who wielded supremacy, and for what purpose, were not new, but the disruption caused to the theory of royal protection of the Church of England by the policies and predilections of Restoration monarchs crystallized and exposed such divisions” (Page 327). It is no wonder John Bunyan was both loved and hated and explains how his writing became popular and was printed with such ease despite the political battle he endured.

 In USA Today, Richard W. Garnett explains the Separation of Church and State in a way that opponents can maybe agree with and explains to the advocates the original intent. Confusing? It has been for two and a half centuries. He looks across the globe in China to help clear up some misconceptions about this overused, underappreciated, and abstract term. In the article, he writes about how keeping church opinion out of government, in turn, helps keep government interference out of the church. It is actually better for the church by doing things this way. Separation of Church and State (SCS) was created because the Founding Fathers did not want the government to mandate any particular religion or practice on its citizens. That was one of the major issues the colonizers had with England. The Church of England was sovereign, going as far as ordaining the King as the elect of God Himself, and no many could dare turn against the king or they were turning against God. Contrariwise, SCS was also not created to make God non-existent in the minds and daily lives of the people.

China continually seeks to do just that. The very first sentence states the objective of the article with “Although its government likes to claim otherwise, and apparently hopes people won't notice, meaningful religious freedom does not exist in China. Quite the contrary: As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stated in its report last year, ‘The Chinese government continues to engage in systematic and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief.’” Does the US church want to return to the very thing John Bunyan was fighting against 4 centuries ago? SCS is not the government exerting control, as it actually is in place to keep the government from having too much control. God is not to be “absent or banished,” nor is He to be controlled.

Married, Divorced, It’s Complicated.

The Church and the State have loved to hate each other since their infancy. The saying that ‘You can’t live with ‘em, you can’t live without ‘em,’ rings true in this relationship too. John Bunyan could have skipped jail time if he would have just kept his mouth closed. Speaking against the church equaled speaking against the King. Societies seem to be unable to have their cake and eat it too. Religious societies expect the rules of the nation to agree with the morals and values of the church, and they want that without the Governing parties to have any say so in the running of the church. A modern example is the topic of abortion. Those who hate abortion and believe it is the brutal murder of innocent life fight for the rights of the unborn child. Advocates for this heinous act want laws in place to force businesses to offer abortion to their employees as part of their healthcare packages. This goes against the standards of places like Hobby Lobby, a company owned by a Christian man.

Should the church have a say in the laws of the land? Probably not. But can those who have religious convictions vote according to their moral standards? Absolutely. Should the government be able to have a mandate that all businesses provide abortion funds for their employees? Probably not. But can laws be made where the churches cannot conflict bodily harm on others in society, (in regard to cults and eye for an eye tradition in some faiths.) In the United States, this is a big Yes!

As in the example in USA Today, the church is usually better off when the Government and Religion remain separated. If one can influence the other, there will always be a victor who stands on top, and that victor will Always be the government. Be careful what you wish for. Perhaps the separation is not a bad thing. If the church and the monarchy had remained out of the business of John Bunyan, would he ever have had the chance to write Pilgrim’s Progress? Would his influence have reached around the world? Would scholars still be talking about him hundreds of years after his death?

John Bunyan was not innocent in his convictions nor his actions. He stood against the Anglican church; He spoke in his actions against the ruling monarchy as the head of the church, and they took action responding the best way it can.  God will not be mocked. Whether their actions were useful or counterproductive remains to have a final count. (Kind of like the 2020 elections.)