Chapter 13: A Love-Hate Relationship—Politics
Chapter Thirteen
A Love-Hate Relationship— Politics
“No, I didn’t even bother to vote. Everything in Washington is run by the lobbyists, anyway. No one cares about a little guy like me. Besides, I’m too busy.”
“Is the government the solution, or the problem?” That bumper sticker may sum up the feelings of most Americans about the government and political life in general. Does the government actually have the power to solve the problems of our society, or is it, in fact, the problem? How one answers that question determines almost everything else about one’s participation in the political process. I recently overhead a conversation in which one of the participants asked, rather wistfully, can’t we even agree on how much government we need?
“Can you really trust ________________?” (Put the name of your least favorite candidate here.)
In the 2004 Presidential race, faith and religion played a role larger than at any time since John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, met with the Houston, TX, Ministerial Alliance to convince them he would not allow the Pope to dictate United States policy. One candidate in the 2004 election was a “born-again” Christian who talked freely and easily about his faith. The other was a Roman Catholic, who was less comfortable talking about his faith publicly, but was serious about practicing it. All through the campaign, there were debates, essays, and editorials about the role of faith in politics, and the extent to which faith could be a marker in a nation that is committed, constitutionally, to a separation of church and state.
Which leads us to the question of religion and politics. How do they mix in our society? And does John Wesley have any words of wisdom for us on this topic?
It’s Another World
Wesley lived in a world far different from ours. England was ruled by a king. Parliament was growing in power, and England was becoming more and more a constitutional monarch, true. But there was still a strong strain in English politics, including in John Wesley, which believed in the divine right of kings. They believed that George III, for example, ruled by divine right, because God had chosen him King. To go against the King was to go against the will of God. You rightly suspect that the colonists in New England and Virginia had some different thoughts about the relationship between George III and God!
That was Wesley’s world. The King ruled through ministers, who were chosen by the dominant party in Parliament. Voting for members of Parliament was restricted to a minority of the population, and certainly not an option for the poor among whom Wesley ministered. In addition, Wesley was a Tory by birth and inclination. The Tories were the conservative party in English politics in the eighteenth century, just as they are today. Loyalty to the King and the King’s ministers were, for Wesley, an important part of his religion.
In Wesley’s day, there was a strong suspicion that the Tories were Jacobites, that is, that they wanted to restore the Stuart kings (Bonnie Prince Charlie, and all that crowd) to power. For most of his life, Wesley had to defend himself against charges of being a Jacobite.
Wesley said that he saw himself as having no political role. In 1782, he published an essay called “How Far Is It the Duty of a Christian Minister to Preach Politics?” One would think this would be a clear definition of the situation and solve the question of Wesley’s political involvement forever. Unfortunately, he confines the preaching of politics to defending the King, and the King’s ministers, against slanders and lies. Three times in this short essay (less than two pages), he says that the chief business of the clergy is to preach Christ, and Christ crucified. That seems to sum up Wesley’s attitude toward the political system. That attitude is almost a hands-off one. Don’t bother with politics, except to set the record straight when people lie about the King or the King’s ministers.
Wesley did advise Methodist voters about voting. He told them they should vote morally, that is, they should not accept bribes or other favors in return for their votes. In addition, he said, they should vote for the candidate that “loves God”. If there were no candidate who loves God, then they should vote for the one who supports King George. That’s a pretty direct statement, in terms of telling people how to vote! The first part, about voting for the candidate who loves God, raises more problems than it solves. How does one determine which candidate loves God? How much weight should campaign rhetoric bear in answering that question? How does one determine the relative weight of words and deeds?
In spite of denying any role in politics, Wesley felt free to intervene in politics for the sake of moral and political issues. One such intervention was the fight against slavery, as we saw in Chapter 12. From 1768 to 1778, he became increasingly involved in the American struggles over taxation and representation. As a staunch conservative, Wesley was not moved by calls for democracy and “the rights of Englishmen.” In theoretical terms, Wesley denied that government was somehow a “contract” with the people. The idea of contract, or covenant, was a key element of the Puritan Revolution in England, and found its way into both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. (Though not always in that language.) Wesley believed that people had never chosen their own rulers, but insisted that power was from God, and those to whom God gave it (i.e., the rightful king). In his “Calm Address to the American Colonies” (which was anything but calm!), Wesley argued against the idea that there could be no taxation without representation. After all, he said, that’s the situation for most Englishmen. This pamphlet caused all kinds of upheaval in the colonies, and forced all but one of the English Methodist preachers to return to England. (The exception was Francis Asbury, who was the “father” of American Methodism.)
All through his life, Wesley leaned on the biblical idea of obedience to the powers that be. See Romans 13 for an expression of this idea.
Now I’m More Confused Than Before
Would John Wesley want me, and other United Methodists, to just go along with whoever is in the White House and Congress and never say anything against them? What do I do if I think the President, or the Congress, is leading us down a wrong path? Can’t I protest against that, as a citizen?
Certainly Wesley would say to us that we should obey the government that is set over us. He would argue that on biblical grounds. We might argue it on the grounds of corporate calm, and the importance of peaceful transfers of power. Wesley would also say that we have the right, even the obligation, to work to influence the government, to work for changes in public policy that are for the common good. He would remind us how easy it is to confuse our own desires with the common good, and warn us to not be certain that we are doing God’s will in opposing the government (and we might add, in supporting it). He would want us to remember that we have the obligation to vote, without taking any bribes or other inducements, and that we should vote for the candidate whom we believe “loves God”. In our day, we have to do some serious thinking about what that means.
There are radical differences between our political situation and Wesley’s. We have universal suffrage, a vote not limited to a relative handful. We don’t have a king (or queen) who is the symbol of unity for our nation; rather we have two dominant political parties, and whichever one is in office is attacked by the party out of office. The head of our state changes every four to eight years. We live in a nation that is committed, by our Constitution, and by the common interpretations of that Constitution, to a separation of church and state. For Wesley, the King, the government, and the Church of England were one and the same.
So, in the political arena, we have to admit there are not many Wesleyan guidelines to follow. But we can learn from his deep sense of the need for morality in government, and morality in the way we vote. We can pray and seek to discern God’s will as we understand it and to use that discernment to vote and to seek to influence our politicians. We can learn from Wesley that we have the right to work to influence government. Wesley would warn us to be humble about confusing our own political opinions with the will of God. And, incredibly important for a time when only a small majority of eligible voters actually do vote, Wesley would urge us to get to the polls!
Questions for Reflection