Ted Weber’s Wesleyan Political Theology

Mark Tooley

Hello! This is Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Here in Washington, DC. hosting an approximately 30 minute conversation with scholars and friends about the work of the late great Theodore Weber, who taught Christian ethics at Candler School of Theology at Emory University for many, many years and wrote what is possibly the most important book on Methodist political theology. Not that there’s a lot of competition. It’s a much under developed field, but 30 years ago he wrote Politics in the Order of Salvation:  Transforming Wesleyan Political Ethics, which I commend to everyone. The scholars who are part of this conversation include, if I can recall all of them, are Jim Thobaben at Asbury Seminary, Jason Vickers, also at Asbury Seminary, soon to be at Truett Seminary at Baylor University, Dale Coulter, down at Pentecostal Seminary in East Tennessee, our own Ryan Danker of the John Wesley Institute, and Stephen Rankin, the former chaplain at Southern Methodist University, now pastoring a church in Kansas, correct?  Five distinguished men who are familiar with the work of Ted Weber.

Jim Thobaben actually studied under Ted Weber. Jim, maybe we’ll start with you. What are your impressions and memories of Dr. Weber and what were his unique contributions, especially to a Wesleyan understanding of Christian political theology?

Jim Thobaben:

First of all, thanks for hosting this, Mark. I have two clear memories. They’re purely anecdotal. They don’t do anything; but as I say, they illustrate, so it’s worth mentioning them. I was really strongly influenced by Anabaptist thought because of where I grew up, and because of my own family background, and Ted was having none of that, I got to tell you so. I mean when I went to class and suggested something along the lines of what would not be called The Benedict Option, he said that simply isn’t an acceptable position for a Methodist to hold. We went back and forth a little bit. Ted always knew the material, that’s for sure. My other anecdote with Ted was when I presented my dissertation I had two advisors, one in ethics and one in sociology of religion, because of my topic.  And Ted’s first comment in my dissertation defense, he looked at me, and then he looked at the other advisor. I had a sociology advisor ahead, and said, why in the world should we even consider this for our religion Ph.D? And they argued for 20 minutes. Then, after they got tired,

I defended my dissertation for about 10 minutes, and everybody stood and congratulated me, and said I could call them by their first names now, and Ted was just as happy and as pleasant as he could be after that.

But I wondered when that conversation started off if he was going to let my dissertation go through. He was just a smidge of a curmudgeon.

Ryan Danker

Good for him!

Mark Tooley

Well, that’s a good memory of his personality. In terms of what he had as a unique insight on Wesley’s view, and a wider Wesleyan view, which I guess aren’t necessarily the same, of the political image of God, which has a tremendous impact on how Methodism affects society across the last 250 years. But the way Weber interprets this Wesleyan political image of God, it confers a political authority upon each individual, a political image corrupted by the fall, but not erased by the fall; and this response to this duty and responsibility conferred upon each individual ultimately has a very egalitarian and democratic influence on how Methodists operate in society, which Weber contrasts with Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, and even with Karl Barth, interestingly.  He says Karl Barth and his followers have a very narrowly Christocentric view of the political image of God that focuses on the Sermon on the Mount as the be all and end all of Christian, political and social witness. But the Wesleyan view is much more catholic, Trinitarian view of the political image of God, and much to fuller orbed in terms of how Christians operate in society. It’s my brief synopsis of his perspective. But your all’s thoughts?

Jim Thobaben

I think that’s accurate. I mean what one of the things that I do remember from class, and I just. I just reread his, his big tome, it is that he was a very good and honest analyst of Wesley, and what I mean by that is, he saw Wesley’s strength, but he admitted Wesley’s, I won’t say. weaknesses. I’ll call inconsistencies, and he absolutely believed that Wesley’s understanding of political engagement was a little off from his more as you put an egalitarian

theology, especially the notion of prevenient grace. Well, really, also, in this ecclesiology, with the with the way he elevated people out of the working class and into leadership.

Mark Tooley

And I think he makes the case that a Wesleyan political theology is in many ways more optimistic than the Lutheran or Reformed alternatives, in that Martin Luther would have seen government is grimly just to restrain the most gross forms of evil, whereas a Wesleyan perspective sees government more cheerfully, as Weber put it, “drawn from the knowledge of the work of God, and not from the problem that humankind has become.”

Jim Thobaben

I’ll throw in one thing, and then I’ll be quiet for a while, and let these better scholars reason. I’m speaking first is, I want to say my incorrect things for the few things I actually know, and get them out for anybody else to at least claim to them. Because these are all really better Wesleyan scholars than I. I agree with you. And I don’t remember Ted dealing with this particular issue when Methodism came to America. It was a sect inside of the state church, and then, because of the Revolution, the state church disappeared. So then a sectarian movement that was wrongly perfectionist, and I know Charles Wesley wasn’t technically a Methodist, but he was caught up in that same kind of argument, and then perfectionism merged with American notions of progress into an optimism that was excessive.

So that’s the only place I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just pushing back a little bit. I think Wesley needed to, and maybe he did. And these other folks can tell us he needed to have restraint on his optimism about what was actually ever going to be possible with perfection in society because it really did move toward a theocratic argument in Charles’s spinning.

Mark Tooley

Jason, your thoughts?

Jason Vickers

Yeah. So, I came, if I can. you know backtrack for just a moment I came to Weber while working on Wesley all around 2008, 2009 somewhere in there, and working on his politics, as they relate to his theology, his life, and trying to make sense out of how someone could say, you can’t love God if you don’t also love the king. You know that that kind of a move, it struck me as something about Wesley that in the American context today we don’t take very seriously, don’t think about. But I’ve wound up sort of backtracking a little bit to investigate how Wesley himself had been read in the past by over scholars. For a long time, he was sort of a High Church Tory, right. And then you kind of have two states theory develop that he goes from that into a more Whiggish kind of mode.

What I saw in Weber that made sense to me was, he said, well, no, he still was strong Tory, you know High Church sentiments. He still has divine right. It’s just not hereditary. And he’s a constitutionalist.  And what I really liked in Weber’s work was how much he pressed the constitutionalist aspect of Wesley’s political philosophy, as well as the concept of liberty rather than rights. A liberty that comes with responsibility to obey. So that then just sort of rounding this off I mean what I found in Weber was a vision of Wesley’s politics that wanted to avoid, got two things at least in terms of Wesley. Wesley wants to avoid two things at the same time.

At one end of the spectrum, the mob, anarchy. At the other end of the spectrum, absolute power, right? That’s not checked by the constitution. So you so, whoever gives you a sort of vision of Wesley, that that doesn’t give you a divine monarchy that is the form of absolute power that can turn against you, right. But, on the other hand, you’re not developing some kind of notion of natural rights that can evolve in a way that leads to a kind of mob situation. So, obedience is important, obedience to king and constitution. The king’s powers are limited by the constitution.

But you can forfeit your liberties. You can forfeit civil and religious liberties. If you don’t obey, these things are not unconditional. I thought all of that actually built well with what I kind of think of as his Covenantal Arminianism. You know the terms of salvation or covenant. There you have a role, if you will, you have a responsibility in terms of salvation where I’ll just say this round of my kind of intro marks where I found myself disagreeing or not, as convinced by Weber is, I think, when he gets to Wesley’s politics to Wesley’s theology, I think he has some reservations about whether Wesley’s understanding of the Trinity in particular is problematic.

And I actually think that Weber, if I could say so without you know being condescending at all, I think he gets a little out of his depth. At that point I don’t find Wesley’s Trinitarian theology in general to be a problem with respect to his particular political vision. I think they actually go together. Maybe we can get back to that.

Mark Tooley

But first I want to ask Dale Coulter. Weber, as I mentioned, contrasted the Wesleyan perspective with a Thomistic Natural Law tradition perspective that derives government from the social and rational character of human nature.

But according to Weber, Wesley’s idea of government is not so  anthropological, but it’s based more directly on Trinitarian divine agency, and through a notion of nature infused by divine grace. Now, Dale, you wrote a piece for our publication, Providence, on this very notion that the Wesleyan perspective on nature infused by divine grace has political ramifications. Could you explain?

Dale Coulter

As Jason said a few moments ago, with a little fear and trembling. Maybe with respect to all that Weber’s done, because I do have a tremendous respect for what he’s done in this book. I didn’t really agree with how he was reading Wesley on Natural Law, and that’s because generally speaking, people who don’t invest deep time in the Middle Ages go to Thomas for obvious reasons.

I don’t think Wesley is. You can’t even put him in the Aristotelian optimistic trajectory of natural law. I think he’s following Cicero. He read Cicero, let me say this. He quotes from Cicero regularly, when he writes the sermon on the “Use of the Law,” and it gives some of his definitions, their Ciceronian, in my view.  And it’s actually a way of connecting what Wesley is doing in the mid-1700s with what Samuel West does in his 1776 sermon where he calls for revolution in in the colonies, and he talks about natural law in terms of the eternal fittingness of things, uses the very same phraseology that Wesley had done, it’s Ciceronian. And that’s the same phraseology that James Wilson, who gives his lectures on law right at the end of the 1700, sort of sets the tone for the “Use of the Law.” So I think if you, if you put Wesley in a different trajectory, then his natural law position comes out. The other thing for me is.

I think I would disagree with Weber. I think it’s kind of a false dichotomy to talk about anthropology, and it’s not grounded there versus Trinity, because Wesley thinks that the human person is both christologically formed, and that’s where you have to read his natural law. Even his sermon “On Conscience” is also pneumatologically infused.

So from the moment we enter life, it’s both in, not either, or. And whoever doesn’t really develop that side. So, there’s a Trinitarian ground that to the image that in comes through natural law and flows into that. And the last thing I’ll just simply say is I found it interesting that Weber does so much with the political image at the end which I agree with. I think he’s right there.

But then he contrasts that with Thomas’s view of the Aristotelian view that humans are social animals. Well, Aristotle wasn’t the only one who said that, you know Augustine believes that I mean there’re so many in the patristic tradition that believe that. And it comes through the Middle Ages in a number of different ways. And so, I don’t see how you can unpack Wesley’s notion of humans in the political image, and not say the implication is that humans are social animals. God’s called them to govern. And I would call it the cultural mandate out of Genesis one and two. But that’s what Wesley’s rooting around and thinking through, especially because love is so crucial to Wesley’s notion of the image.

And let me say one more quick thing here. Weber at times will act as though Wesley’s strong Augustinianism on sin kind of holds in a way that I don’t think it holds. I mean Wesley is really strong on sin, but this is where I wish Weber would have developed more the Providential side because we’re fallen but restored immediately. We’re never outside of grace. There is no human person in the state of pure nature. Wesley says that.

So on the one hand, yeah, you can affirm that he has a strong Augustinian doctrine, saying: on the other hand, you have to say what that doesn’t matter as much, because the Spirit is already there, correcting humans from the outset and giving rise to conscience and conscience is not natural, but supernatural; that is to say, it’s grace from the outset.

So all of that is to say, I have really great appreciation, I think he’s absolutely correct about, we have to have a political language that binds us together, and I appreciate the deep historical dive. He did try and give us one. And I think the move that he makes in the last chapter on the political image is the right move, and then move into grace. But you know, having said that, then there’s just some things that I would differ with him on how to appropriate Wesley for us today. That’s where I’ll stop.

Mark Tooley

Thank you, Dale. Steve, your thoughts. I know you wrote a very important article about the Wesleyanism and just war teaching, how would you relate that to what Ted Weber has to say?

Steve Rankin

I think what Weber says about Wesley is consonant with my understanding of Wesley’s view of war. And you know what Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification corporately applied, and even cosmologically applied. Weber says that Wesley was not a pacifist, and I agree with that. Wesley said the closer we get to the image of God fully restored in us, the closer we are to pacifism, is kind of how I read Wesley on that point, and I think that fits with what Weber says.

I would like to raise a question that I had about Weber’s conclusions if it’s okay to go this direction for a moment. And, Mark, I don’t want to destroy your plan here. But in that last chapter Weber mentions, and I got kind of stuck on this quote, the concept of the political vocation of humankind corresponds to Wesley’s Armenian doctrine of universal grace, whereas his view of political authority corresponds to Calvinist doctrines of decrees and particular election.

This is one of the criticisms that Weber makes of Wesley. As I understood Weber, he’s saying Wesley didn’t fully grasp the political implications of his own theological convictions on this point. But I also don’t think it’s fair of Weber to say that Wesley, in in his view of hierarchy, for example, falls back on some sort of Calvinist doctrine of decrees. And I’m just wondering if it’s possible to see in Wesley’s commitment to a constitutional monarchy, even if that’s just, you know, according to the context in the period of time, and prudently adopted, and not necessarily a universal thing, that seeing the validity of hierarchy is a Wesleyan Arminian view of political authority worked out. This doesn’t seem as inconsistent to me as Weber took it to me, and I thought. I thought his conclusion about Wesley at this point, leaning toward Calvin, was overstated, and I’m just curious what other people thought.

Mark Tooley

Ryan Danker, your response?

Ryan Danker

Yeah, I agree with Steve. I don’t think it’s necessary to go to Calvin or Calvinism for that. I think I’ll say this about Weber. I love the fact that he  was successful in not writing a book about his political thinking, and then attaching Wesley’s name to it, because we have others who have done that. And he also admits at the beginning that he’s an American. He doesn’t believe in monarchy and he’s trying to translate this into another context that doesn’t have a monarchy. But I but I think, Steve, you run into some of the problems that often those of us on this side of the pond run into, because we’re generally not monarchists. And Wesley’s political theology is built upon his monarchical views. but I think it’s not a Calvinism. It’s  the establishment of an Anglican, an Anglican establishment with the revolution of 1688, and Wesley’s intention to maintain that Protestant Episcopal liturgical heritage, even if it meant limiting monarchy. Some of us have just referred to it as constitutionalism. Steve, I agree with your critique that it does. It’s not Calvinism. It’s actually a mature Tory perspective. mainly from the reign of George the Third. And I think we need to take seriously the fact that Wesley’s political writings were predominantly all during the reign of George III.

When the Tories came back as a political force after the Whig junta of George I and II, and I think you present a really good argument for that High Church Tory political perspective. I’m not sure we need to go to Calvin. I think we can go to 1688, and refer to that as the Anglican Revolution and that helps us understand Wesley after the accessions of the Georges.

Dale Coulter

Let me say something real quick. Here I agree that it’s not Calvin. I think that’s right. But this goes to an exchange right. I have not figured out how Wesley thinks about divine power. He’s very clear power does not come from the people. Only God can authorize this, and God does. What he’s not clear about is actually how God does this.  He certainly has an understanding of the providential sweep of history, and he will differentiate between God as Creator and God, as Governor.

So he says you can’t be the one, the supreme Power who wields the sword without receiving the authority to do so. When that sword comes from God. The question is, again, how does God transmit that authority? And Wesley knows enough about history to know that William I, Duke of Normandy, comes across the Channel and takes control and establishes the new monarchy. He knows enough about history to know that monarchy shifts.

And how is God providentially now establishing a new monarch? And now that monarch, by virtue of the right of war, has supremacy, and is now ruling under God’s power and authority. I can’t find where he answers that question or the how. I do think this is where to me Weber’s move at the end, and the political image, is an important move, because it is certainly one way of answering the how at minimum we know that God has granted this power through the political image with respect to humanity. Now, from there we have to ask, how does that power translate from all humans to particular humans, right?

And I don’t know that Wesley answers that.  My way of getting a Wesleyan answer that is not distinctive to Wesley is to say, well, what happens in the 1760s when Mary Fletcher and Sarah, when they’re questioning whether women have been preach, and I think they’re doing so because of Fletcher’s Pentecostal move on Wesley, the unleashing of the laity, the extraordinary gifts of God. All of this moves Wesley in a direction of saying, well, God does supernaturally give these gifts to certain people, and they have to be exercised in particular ways.

And so, it may. This is why one of my questions to Ryan. Does Wesley believe in a sacramental understanding of kingship, where at the moment that the person is anointed from that anointing, just like holy orders. Now the power of God begins to flow in and through the King. Because that view is certainly there in British history even in recent history. And that would make sense, and that would align more with the idea of extraordinary gifts that Wesley eventually comes to accept later.

But you know, I think I don’t know about all of that. But that would be where I think I push back a little bit on Wesley and where his political theology is incomplete, and you just have to say with Ryan. Well, he’s a High Church Tory because he’s an Englishman. He wants to defend that settlement.

Ryan Danker

Well, but not everybody in England. Why don’t we defend it in the same way?  I think we can’t. We can’t say that everybody in England was a Tory or even if they should have been but yeah, I said that. We can’t underestimate the fact that the second, like king or queen dies, then the next king or queen is, in fact, the monarch, and that hereditary nature is a part of the political situation that Wesley embraced. I think we need to go back to something else that helps us understand British. So, what’s that?

Jim Thobaben

That’s your claim that Wesley embraced not just monarchy, but hereditary right?

Ryan Danker

The Anglican revolution of 1688, we have to keep that in mind in his view. If they stepped away from their role to defend the Church then they were essentially giving away their right to the throne.

Jim Thobaben

I only raised that because, you know, with respect to Weber, or my reading of him, and someone operating from memory here, which so, because this might be wrong, you know that he actually kind of challenges the idea that this so. He thinks that Wesley is a kind of a Tory. That’s it’s not tightly wet into hereditary succession. And so then he quotes Wesley, when he says, look, English, liberty really begins to thrive with the Glorious Revolution

So that’s evidence that you know it’s not hereditary succession. It’s not, you know, essential for Wesley what the maybe just one quick. Add on there that you know, part of it is the political parties and sensibilities shift and change. And so the question is whether or not there’s some fluidity to Tory identity or Whig identity in the eighteenth century. You know these labels get difficult to just paste on to Wesley. There’s some fluidity in that century, but that passage  stood out to me about the Glorious Revolution, Wesley saying that after the Glorious Revolution that Englishman enjoyed liberty.

Ryan Danker

Remember what he thought of Catholicism. He believed Catholicism to be anti-liberty. So, when he’s saying that he’s, saying finally, we have the Protestant establishment, that God intended and those who will defend that are in line with God. So I think we have to tie all this together because think of the ancient regime model of we’ve got the king. You have church, and you have gentry or Parliament. and essentially, he’s trying to hold those 3 together.

Jim Thobaben

But the reality is, he only sees their validity when they’re maintaining what he says, what God wants, which is a Protestant national church? Is it the fact that he doesn’t go with his mother, right? That’s what Weber sort of links to. He doesn’t hold a hereditary but transmission of the monarchy because he is, he would prefer a Protestant. So the Hanoverian line comes in, and that’s preferable because it’s Protestant, even though it’s a German elector who’s coming in to a Stuart line that would be Catholic, even though the Stuart line might have the better hereditary claim.

Ryan Danker

Both have a hereditary claim. The question is which one is valid.

Dale Coulter

Yeah. Well, I mean I, that’s what Weber says. Wesley doesn’t hold to hereditary monarchy in some strong sense, right? And in that case, I agree with Weber. I just think we can’t get rid of the term hereditary, because I think then we misunderstand Wesley. But the reality is wherever provided, something that was Wesley. And I think we need to keep that in mind, too. He wasn’t just talking about Wesley.

Mark Tooley

The way Weber portrays it, Wesleyan political theology is distinct from John Wesley, and takes us in directions that John Wesley would not have foreseen, and maybe not even have approved in terms of its ultimate egalitarian political impact. Do you agree with that interpretation?

Dale Coulter

Absolutely. And I don’t think there’s any choice. Because let’s assume Ryan is correct, which admittedly is a big assumption. What happens when the sect is no longer part of a state church? What I mean, and furthermore, what happens in our era, when at least it seems that there’s no longer Christ in them. How in the world can you function if you’re going to stick back with Wesley’s arguments in their narrow sense. So, you have to turn to his theology and look at either argument of prevenient grace, or maybe a vocational calling arising out of justified and sanctifying grace that leads Christians to participate in politics because you’re not getting it out of a Christianized society, because there isn’t a Christianized society. So, if his theological argument rests on that alone. if it really rests on the revolution of 1688. There’s a problem with them. We’re using them anywhere else. And Weber does say by the way that how Wesley understood politics was, it’s prima facie if I can use that phrase, it’s prima bishop, monarchy. It’s not necessarily monarchy.

It really depends upon the social circumstances of the of the nation state in which one lives. I think that’s what we’re doing. But if we don’t come up with a Wesleyan argument that’s independent of his actual application we’re going to be lost, because we don’t live under a king. I mean that’s that. And we don’t even live in Christendom anymore in the United States.

Mark Tooley

Moving towards conclusion. Why, when we discuss Western political theology, are we essentially almost confined to Ted Weber’s book? Why isn’t there more of a Wesleyan school of thought on this topic? Why is almost all Protestant political theology from the Reformed side of the equation, and not from the Wesleyan side? What’s lacking in our tradition that it hasn’t produced more resources?

Jim Thobaben

Let me toss one thing out real quickly, and then I’ll. I’ll back off and listen to these better scholars. But the historical move of Methodism was toward perfectionism in society. In the United States it was not just individual perfectionism. It really had this. We can perfect the nation state. And in your article, for instance, Mark, you did mention what was euphemistically called the Temperance Movement, the abstinence movement.

And that’s why that building is located there by the Capitol and by the Supreme Court, because those folks really thought they could change the society, and its roots are there, I mean, right down to its foundation, and that failed. And then what happened? What came into its place was an absurd concession to whatever the Zeitgeist was. They had the Board of Church and Society, at least in the United States, and it was utterly ineffective, and certainly didn’t speak for the people who were going, who were attending those churches that were called United Methodist.

So the reason we got to where we got to is because of the organizational failure. And that that’s not even counting the stunning organizational failure of Methodist Church in the South, in the early period that tolerated slavery.

So, I mean we failed a number of times, historically, and part of that we have got to get. We really do have to get back to, I think, Wesley’s theology, not his politics, if we’re going to have a Wesleyan political theology.

Mark Tooley

Steve, your final thoughts.

Steve Rankin

I think Methodists have been better at producing activists than theorists, and what Weber essentially says, he didn’t he didn’t talk about the legacy necessarily, but that’s still the kind of the issue that we face in Methodism. We have activists, not really theorists. And on the theological side where the political theology and the theory that could really germinate and develop. I think Methodism got caught up in historical movements, intellectual historical movements that led us away from Wesley, and I think in some ways we’re still trying to find our way back. There’s been a lot of good work on Wesley’s theology, but this is one of those areas where there just hasn’t been the attention given, because attention has been given elsewhere, and it really should be the next step.

And let me throw in one thought that may really seem like a left feel kind of thing. But I wonder if we don’t see more of Wesley’s political theology that could be worth looking at from this particular angle in the structures of Methodism. Right? It’s sort of political theology worked out in in the ecclesiology of the movement. Right?

Yeah. And that’s where the Evangelical egalitarian Arminianism really starts to show up with people being developed from within to take these leadership roles.

That looks a lot less Calvinist, you know, when we start looking at the people who take these roles and who exercise leadership in the movement, but back to the point. I think we know the Methodist activism on the one side, and just the historical circumstances our scholars, our thinkers about these kinds of things grew up in in generations already swept up by other larger intellectual forces, Liberalism, the Social Gospel movement, etc., that this aspect of Wesley’s thinking just hasn’t been looked at carefully yet.

Mark Tooley

Jason Vickers your final thoughts.

Jason Vickers

One possibility for why Weber is one of the only resources we’ve produced, why , Wesleyans haven’t been more engaged in political theology, has to do with the locus of divine action for most Wesleyans namely, it’s in the interior, in the human heart. It’s. This is our pietist heritage that is shared by conservatives and liberals alike.

So that the divine action that happens that takes place in the human heart. For the conservative wing of it, it can just be a matter of one’s personal salvation, right? The liberal side would tend to push it more in terms of advocacy for justice and society, and so on. What neither, I think, has been particularly good at is thinking about structures, political structures, offices, as being modes or locations of divine action.

So now I’m going to come back to Weber on Wesley. So, whatever we make of monarchy doesn’t matter, or the English Constitution. It doesn’t matter where it is. If you’re American, you’re not under these things, but the point here is that for Wesley these were given by God. They were locations of divine action, and in some sense I would argue, almost revelatory in very specific ways, not of saying Christ and salvation, but in terms of you know, positive law, and so on.

But the point is that they are of God. They are extensions of Divine Providence. So then, it’s not just the human heart. It’s the location of my action.

I think that might have something to do. Those are all big, broad strokes right, but that might have something to do with why we haven’t instinctively done much in political theology. We believe that you don’t change the world by getting, you know, to you know the levers of power, that sort of thing, but rather through conversion through, you know, hard purity, and I think there’s again, I think there’s a conservative and a liberal form of that.

It’s just left us as more often than not uninterested in politics. As such, Catholics are much better at this, by the way, right? There’s a reason why they have a super majority on the Supreme Court.

Listen: Evangelicals reform. Maybe Evangelicals get noisy. Other people get it noisy about, you know, controlling the White House right. Catholics are far savvier on this. They’re much more well thought out. They understand what the key structures are, and they are, and they’ve been at work for a very long time getting into position to let’s just say leverage those structures on behalf of the Catholic faith, and in their view for the good of the world.

Mark Tooley

Dale and Ryan, Your final thoughts.

Ryan Danker

I agree that the pietistic nature of Methodism has kept it away from political theology. I think it’s also difficult to translate Wesley into the contemporary situation. Methodism doesn’t seem to produce a lot of ethicists. We have one of the very few on this call. For some reason, despite being a holiness movement, we haven’t produced a lot of ethics which is really kind of strange. But I think Wesley does provide us with something that’s really helpful. In his own historical context he says your politics needs to be based on your theology, not the other way around. and we can take that message to today very easily without getting entangled. It is monarchism.

Dale Coulter

I like the theological connections Jason was making there. You know the moment Methodism kind of gets to the place where it could have power, the American Revolution happens, and it can’t right. So I mean, I think the historical events that required Methodism to become disestablishment and nonconformist meant that it was going to take a long time.  And global Methodism, by and large, is shaped more by the nonconformist. It’s not British Methodism going in. A lot of Methodism in Africa is AME. It’s coming from the U.S. In other words, moving into Africa. If you look at the missions and things like that, it’s nonconformity, and trying to square that with what we’ve been talking about here.

Number two, Methodism or Wesleyanism, I should say, has never been in a situation after Wesley that we’re connected to a state church, and we’re concerned about what it means to govern that way. Catholicism from the moment Constantine steps on the scene, they’re concerned with this, right. You got centuries of trying to figure that out. They’re concerned with this and with the development of Europe. Right? You’ve got centuries. We don’t have anything like that.

The Reformed wing, Scotland, the Netherlands. South Africa. Sometimes. one of the things I always want to point out to my Reformed brothers and sisters is that South Africa is a pretty bad experiment for Reformed theology. But we never had a situation where we are concerned about a state church and we got to figure out a political theology.

The third thing I would say is, you don’t have a Wesleyan movement outside of Methodism, Really, until about the 1940s fully where you can talk robustly about a Wesleyan movement beyond Methodism, where Pentecostalism is large enough that could it be robust, where the Holiness churches that come out in between 1,880 and 1,900 are robust.

I think the one place where Methodism, the Methodist Episcopal Church could have done something, but it didn’t, because historical factors were working against. It was in the 1890s where you finally have a Methodist in the White House, and you can begin to think maybe we’re sort of in this position of establishment.

But at that moment, everything is fracturing and fragmenting, and liberalism is taking root and personalism, you know, and all those sorts of things, all that’s unfolding, You know the last thing I’ll say is this. You can’t talk about a robust Wesleyan movement until around 1940. You can’t even begin to talk about any of us thinking consciously of ourselves as Wesleyan first before, let’s say, 1980.

I need to get the Pentecostals to have a conversation with the Holiness folks because they’re the same, and I need to get the Methodists involved, and I need to do this through the Wesleyan Theological Society, and study for the cost of studies in the early seventies, when they don’t, even when they don’t want to talk to each other or even be in the same room together, because we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation, if it weren’t for Don Dayton, and trying to push, pull, prod in the 1970s to get us all together, so that we can even begin to think of ourselves in a common way, I mean. Certainly for us in the Pentecostal side, we flirted too often with Reformed paradigms because we were not in touch with our Wesleyans beyond the entire sanctification, which wasn’t even Wesley. Those are the historical reasons I think you could give for why we have not articulated a full orbed political theology.

Jason Vickers

Mark, do I have time to jump in real quick on what he just said on what they said.  Okay, it’s not as though there’s a lack of at least in the American context, there’s not a lack of Methodists on school boards. Okay, so let’s start there.

I think a maybe a slightly different argument or something to add to this is that perhaps Methodists in the American context had bought into somewhere along the way the privatization of religion.

Right? So, we’re not interested in foisting our Methodism upon the world. Right? Our Methodism is what we do in Sunday school. We’ll be on the school board, but we’re not going to tell people what they should believe, or how they should think about God or any of the rest.

Contrast that with something like Catholic Integralism.  In other words, what if Methodists were interested in running the world? We just want to save people’s souls.

Mark Tooley

On that note. Jason Vickers, Jim Thobaben, Steven Rankin, Dale Coulter and Ryan Danker, thank you.  Thank you for this very interesting conversation. Clearly a new book on transforming Western political ethics needs to be written. Maybe the five of you can do it in the coming year. This is not the end, but the beginning of this conversation and Wesleyan political theology. Thank you so much until next time.