Methodism’s Alternative to Libertarianism & the Benedict Option

on July 13, 2015

Does the Methodist example of social engagement offer Christians and traditionalists a constructive alternative today to cultural withdrawal and/or cultural conformity? 

Some Christians despairing of America after the imposition of same sex marriage are tempted by the the so-called Benedict Option, which urges figurative withdrawal into walled monasteries, as during the so-called Dark Ages, where Christians can quietly rebuild an alternative godly culture. Others are succumbing to a form of pietistic separatism that holds the nation somewhat distastefully at arm’s length. Still others embrace a kind of casual Libertarianism that comfortably accepts laws and social mores starkly at odds with Christian teaching, while affirming orthodoxy and traditional morals inside the church. 

Theologian Tom Oden last year published a very helpful book on John Wesley’s social and political teachings.  But nearly as important as Wesley’s teachings is the Methodist example of social engagement for the century or so after he died, until Methodism was subsumed into liberalism and the Social Gospel.

Although there were apparently not great Methodist intellectuals who articulated a particular technique of social reform or theory of the state, there was a great example of Methodist perspective and action. This Methodist way of understanding Christian political responsibility deeply shaped America in ways still not fully chronicled. But their accomplishment is more instructive than ever.

The Calvinist perspective, ameliorated by the English Enlightenment, was the paradigm that shaped America’s Founders. It brilliantly created a nation of laws, protecting religious liberty, property, and civil society, overseen by Providence, mediated by Protestant inspired civil religion. Calvinism, as proposed especially by New England’s Puritans, envisioned society judiciously ruled by the Elect, with the non-Elect nominally affirming Christian faith and expected to abide by Christian ethics for the good of the commonwealth.  

America’s early republic immanantized the old Calvinist view, empowering all citizens to fully participate in governance that was not juridically theocratic but still assumed some level of common faith assumptions rooted in natural order. Britain’s Methodist social revolution spread throughout the new republic, carrying Protestant piety to the unreached frontier, perfectly adapted to and reinforcing popular democracy of the common man.  

Methodism offered the possibility of Election to all, while also popularizing both personal and social perfectionism, the later of which strayed somewhat from Wesleyan orthodoxy. Energized Methodists were perpetually summoned to social and political reform. They never had the historical baggage of ruling through a state church. But Methodism carried within it the strong memory of the authority and duties towards nation bequeathed by Wesley’s beloved Church of England. Methodism fast became America’s largest religious movement and easily accepted the social and political responsibilities that came with its size and influence. 

Methodists in their early days mostly identified with Jeffersonianism and Jacksonianism, as did most common people on the frontier. But Methodism was never strictly partisan, and eventually was divided between parties. Instead it broadly promoted civic engagement and the common good as part of America’s larger civil religion regime.

Early Methodists like the great Bishop Francis Asbury enthusiastically backed American democracy as God ordained and were devoted patriots. But they had no illusions about human sinfulness and the church’s duty to save and civilize, an unending project. America was both devilish and God blessed, from their perspective. This dual understanding created a vast dynamism that made Methodists tireless social reformers. Their causes included anti-slavery, women’s rights, anti-corruption, temperance, Sabbath keeping, labor laws, and opposition to vices like prostitution, bawdy theaters and salacious literature.  

The Methodist anthropology as Wesley first articulated assumed human dignity that laws and social mores were obligated to respect. It assumed individual rights rooted in conscience but also bound by collective responsibilities, both ecclesial and civic. Temperance was not just for devout Christians but a virtue for the protection for all. Laws were divine instruments for revealing His justice and for sustaining a righteous society that above all protected the vulnerable.

Prohibitionism was the apogee of Methodist social reform, seeking to protect the victims of alcohol abuse, especially women, children and laborers, in pursuit of a godly nation. It was a noble overreach, seeking to legislate what was better pursued through volunteerism, and opening a window to the Social Gospel’s coercive statism.  

But at its best, Methodist social engagement changed hearts, and social mores, and where possible, also laws, for especially the protection of the weak. Original Methodism was not utopian and had no illusions about human nature. But it also was hopeful about God’s purposes for America and assumed that Christians as they gained influence had a commensurate duty to reorder society for the good of all. Methodism had enemies: saloons, brothels, theaters, corrupt urban machines, sweat shops, slave traders, the arrogant, avaricious and atheistic.

Here are lessons from Methodist social engagement for today’s Christians worried about America and unsure about the future. First, Methodism saw reforming society as an unending theological imperative, as spiritual warfare, and as a very longterm project. Separatism, cultural withdrawal or laissez faire attitudes towards social vice were mostly inconceivable to traditional early Methodism. Second, Methodism had deep attachment to the nation, which was sinful, but to be loved and served. It was where God had placed them. They were ardently patriotic and their love of America was an extension of their love for God, which electrified their passion for improving society.  

Methodism saw social reform and full engagement with political society as a moral and spiritual obligation to exemplify God’s love, to establish His justice, to protect the vulnerable, and to save sinners from their worst impulses. Their battles were not that different from our own, their obstacles and opposition even more imposing, their victories a constant warning against today’s despair or temptation for cultural withdrawal.

  1. Comment by Sordello De Goit on July 13, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Could it not be a distaste for the excesses of Methodism (First and Second Great Awakenings, the Temperance Movement) that is leading many to turn away from social Christianity in America today?
    Perhaps what America needs is not more moral crusades but a demonstration of the beauty of holiness seen in authentically Christian lives and Christian communities.
    We need communities where children are loved for themselves, not merely as another consumer product chosen by their parents where and when they want them. We need communities where the elderly are provided for surrounded by their family members, not warehoused away until they die. We need Christian communities where the Gospel message is _not_ seen as countercultural and where morality and the truth are not treated as a social protest. We need to provide safe spaces for the vulnerable and wounded even as we continue to fight the culture wars.
    We need a Christianity that extends beyond the Sunday service and moralism and quiet times during the week. Our children need more than this if they are to resist the allure of the world. Christian culture is bigger than mere moralism and we need to show our children and our country that.
    I would argue (from rather limited knowledge) that that is what the Methodists who revived England did and what the Methodist revivals in America left undone.

  2. Comment by Arbuthnaught on July 14, 2015 at 2:34 am

    Lets revisit your first paragraph. First and Second Great Awakenings were not “excesses.” Temperance per se is not bad as long as it is a voluntary appeal. I think you conflated temperance and prohibition.

  3. Comment by Arbuthnaught on July 14, 2015 at 2:39 am

    Outstanding article as usual. I think the historical perspective of the Methodist reform movement is lacking today and this article is a good corrective. The Reformed tradition also has an answer, Niebuhr’s Christ the Transformer of Culture motif.

  4. Comment by RCPreader on July 14, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Interesting article, but this strikes me as the opposite of a “Benedict Option,” more than an “alternative” to it. That is, this level of political engagement and nationalism seems to be precisely what the “Benedict Option” is offered against. (That doesn’t make it wrong, per se.)

  5. Comment by katy on July 14, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    considering that methodism is disappearing (or threatening schism) at alarming rates in america, perhaps mr. dreher’s prescriptions for safe spaces to defend faith are more needed than are acknowledged here. this article has done an excellent job of explaining how methodism engaged a society largely friendly to its worldview–even when fighting for social causes out of step with popular culture–but it fails to wrestle with the truth that western society is now fundamentally post-Christian. arguing against the need to protect faith in a fundamentally hostile culture without bringing up the reality that our culture is now fundamentally hostile to Christianity is somewhat disingenuous.

  6. Comment by Orter T. on July 15, 2015 at 10:00 am

    The difference between then and now is that then Methodism had something to “tell to the nations”: a robust teaching about the triune God of holy love and his story of creation, sin and redemption. No such consistent teaching currently exists within the UMC. I know because at age 59, after a lifetime of being a “good Methodist”, I distanced myself from all things church and discovered the existence of a God worth worshiping; the triune God of holy love who is most definitely way more verb than noun; the unfathomable God of mystery who is determined to love us, even me, more than you or I could ever think about loving ourselves. Too bad it took several Calvinists and the Calvinist leaning Heidelberg Catechism to get me there! I only embraced the Heidelberg and the three modern books about it after a diligent search did not produce any comparable teaching within the UMC. Which is very ironic, since I have gone on to learn that Wesley’s Priority #1, from which he never wavered, was connecting individuals to the triune God of holy love and then to each other!
    The UMC needs to retreat, reclaim its message and method and then we will be prepared to go forth into the world with something solid to offer!

  7. Comment by K_E_Griswold on July 24, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    Spoken like a true conservative social gospel evangelist; one who thinks the State is an instrument of God.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.