Ethics and Public Policy Center
About EPPC Contact EPPC Support EPPC My EPPC
  Find:    
Home News & Updates Conferences & Events Programs Publications Fellows & Scholars

Home  >  Programs  > 
Evangelicals in Civic Life
Home
About
News & Updates
Conferences
Publications
Books
Center Conversations
Event Transcripts
Browse by:
- Author
- Title
- Type
- Date
Biographies
Links
Home  >  Publications  > 
American Independence, British Style
Churchill on July 4, 1918.
By Tim Montgomerie
Posted: Wednesday, July 5, 2006


ARTICLE
The Weekly Standard  
Publication Date: July 4, 2006

On July 4, 1918, Winston Churchill chaired a meeting of the Anglo-Saxon Fellowship, an annual gathering to mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. That year, though, they had a more pressing reason to celebrate: the arrival of a million American soldiers in Europe to revive the Allied cause against Germany.

Churchill, then serving as secretary of state for war, sought from the Declaration "inspiration and comfort to cheer our hearts and fortify and purify our resolution and our comradeship." He found what he needed, and then some. The British soldier-statesman identified the timeless moral insights of the American Declaration and applied them powerfully to the chaos of conflict -- and in a way that again speaks to a nation at war.

Always the historian as well as the politician, Churchill observed that the Declaration was not just an American document. It followed the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as "the third great title-deed" of Western democracy. It grew out of a long struggle to define and defend the rights of individuals against the state. The Declaration's affirmation of personal liberty, the rule of law, and love of country anchors all political constitutions that hope to avoid "the shame of despotism" as well as "the miseries of anarchy," he said.

In this sense, Churchill argued, the Allied cause to stop German aggression was consistent with the Anglo-American project in ordered freedom. Others would become utterly cynical about the purposes of the war, but not Churchill. (Having fought in the trenches at Flanders, he knew what the enemy was capable of.) "A great harmony exists," he said, "between the spirit and language of the Declaration of Independence and all we are fighting for now."

Throughout Churchill's address is a deep sense of the moral and spiritual consequences of the war. Nothing less than the survival of the universal principles of the Declaration, he implied, was at stake. Yet he viewed the danger not only in terms of a German victory -- but also in how the Allies prevailed and secured the peace.

There's a remarkable restraint in Churchill's message, even in the midst of such a brutal and costly conflict. As a result of trench warfare, a large portion of British manhood had perished violently or suffered the most grievous wounds imaginable. Their French allies were utterly demoralized, the Italians were in disarray, and the Russian army had collapsed. A few months earlier Churchill warned that the entire Allied cause was in peril. Now, buoyed by the support of "the great Republic of the West," he might have been tempted to demand the enemy's complete annihilation.

Churchill insisted that Germany must be beaten decisively. But he assured the German people that there would be no bloodlust, no lawless vengeance, none of the atrocities that had been meted out by the Kaiser against the Allies.

The reason, he suggested, was that the possession of natural rights carried the obligation to uphold and defend those rights in all circumstances--even for an enemy who ignored them. "We cannot treat them . . . as they would treat us all if they had the power," Churchill said. "We are bound by the principles for which we are fighting. Whatever the extent of our victory, the German people will be protected by these principles. The Declaration of Independence, and all that it implies, must cover them."

It is true that some people talk as if, in the pursuit of American objectives in Iraq, the principles of the Declaration need not apply. Others see nothing noble whatsoever in the effort because they can think only of Abu Ghraib. Yet to despise these democratic ideals because they are not fully met on the battlefield is the path to cynicism. As Churchill so well understood, this is not the spirit that gave America, and the world, a new birth of freedom.

NOTE: Co-author Tim Montgomerie has written an article about his respect and admiration for America for ConservativeHome.com -- God Bless America.

--Tim Montgomerie is editor of ConservativeHome.com and was chief of staff to a former Tory leader. Joseph Loconte, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a commentator for National Public Radio, is the editor of The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering Storm.
The Quotable Cromartie
Recent clippings of VP and Senior Fellow. Michael Cromartie

On the new generation of evangelicals: "This new generation has the same convictions but without the edge. They may believe all the same things, but ... they've learned how to present themselves." (Washington Post, 3/6/04)

On politics and religion: Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said that "too often, at least in religiously conservative communities ... there seems to be a concern that we must first of all get the whole culture converted to our theology before you can work for public good." Such a conversion is "not going to happen," he said, so that the question becomes: "How do you find a public grammar, a public language in order to work with people who actually agree with you on the policy but don't agree with you on the theology?" (Washington Post, 2/20/05)

On J. I. Packer's book Knowing God: "Conservative Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists could all look at it and say, 'This sums it all up for us.'" (Time, 2/7/05)

Michael Cromartie: "The large evangelical populace in this country will cut President Bush a lot of slack. It's the self-appointed leaders in the evangelical movement who won't. I think most evangelicals are more tolerant, and understand political reality more, than the heads of organizations who try to speak for these groups." (The Bakersfield Californian, 11/12/2004)

On politics and religion: "Sure, you have a lot of progressive religious people and, politically, they are going to vote for Kerry. Your problem is that you have a small but significant cohort in the Democratic Party that is really anti-religious and doesn't want to bring religious values and norms into the public arena. That makes it difficult for people from a more moderate to conservative bent religiously to be around the party. They feel excluded and unwanted." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/10/04)

On politics and religion: "Michael Cromartie, director of the evangelical studies project of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, said the religious left is preaching to the liberal choir, not religious swing voters. 'They already have this [liberal] vote,' he said. 'This National Council of Churches crowd is not about to vote for Bush, anyway." (Washington Post, 9/4/04, p. B9)

On natural law:  "Michael Cromartie, who directs projects involving evangelicals at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, invoked thinkers like John Calvin and concepts like 'common grace,' all with impeccable REformation credentials. 'A proper appropriation of the natural law tradition,' Mr. Cromartie wrote, 'can provide a public grammar for making appeals in the public arena to people who hold diverse philosophical worldviews and presuppositions." (New York Times, 8/21/04, p. A15)

Michael Cromartie: "The debate evangelicals are having among themselves today is not whether Christians should be concerned for justice, which we should, but what role and how large a role government should have in creating that justice. ... The debate we now need to have is whether certain policies have created more justice for the marginalized, or have they made matters worse? Many eminent social sicentists think the latter." (World, July 3/10, 2004)

Michael Cromartie: "People don't want a President to think that every important decision has a stamp of God's approval and that God is always on his side. ... [Americans] want their Presidents to be pious but not self-righteously so. So there's a paradox, isn't there? A President has to seem to be relying on God's wisdom but not acting like all his decisions are God's decisions." (Time, 6/21/04) 


Mark Noll
What is an "Evangelical"?
A thoughtful look at a complicated notion

Mark Noll, professor at Wheaton College, delivered a lecture on "Understanding American Evangelicals" at EPPC's 2003 conference in Key West, Florida. He provides the history of evangelical movements, discusses the number of American evangelicals, and takes the measure of evangelical hymns. An elegant and eloquent presentation for those curious about what it means to be an evangelical. 


 The views expressed by EPPC scholars in their work are their individual views only and are not to be imputed to EPPC as an institution.     
© 1974 - 2008 Ethics and Public Policy Center
      Comments on the website or technical problems? E-mail webmaster@eppc.org