Un-American Methodism

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 12, 1908

Un-American Methodism

THE aggressive campaign against the election of Speaker Joseph G. Cannon to Congress and to the speakership carried on by the Methodist Episcopal Church, through its board of bishops and its great temperance organization, has attracted considerable attention and called forth much comment, but the papers are somewhat divided in their view of the question. Thus the Springfield Republican says:—

The action of the bishops, or the church which they are authorized to represent, in entering politics as an organized ecclesiastical force, seems to be open to grave criticism.

In the opinion of Harper's Weekly it is “inexpedient for a church to be in politics as an organization.”

From these expressions of opinion a writer in Zion's Herald (Methodist) dissents, and in his defense of the action of the church he argues:—

Does history, as some fancy, contain a warning against such entering of a church into politics?—Not the slightest! Only note what the church in this instance is doing, and what she is not. She is not seeking any favors for Methodism. She is not asking for legislation because Methodists desire it. She is not attacking Mr. Cannon because he is un-Methodistic, but because he is un-American and hostile to liberties dear to every citizen. And they do this, not because they are Methodists, but because they are Christian men and American citizens. If the Methodist Episcopal Church helps toward such action, all the more praise to the church. But let no one obscure the matter by calling it a sectarian movement. It is a movement of enlightened citizenship.

Let no one be deceived by this juggling with terms. The members of the Methodist Church are American citizens, but they subordinate their citizenship to their Methodism when they call to their

aid the power of their church organization in order to accomplish their purpose. In this particular instance they are not seeking favors for Methodism; but when the precedent is once established that the church as an ecclesiastical organization can rightfully enter the political field, and use its power as a church in the election or the defeat of a candidate for office, it will be but a short step to the use of this same power for the advancement of denominational interests. He who does not find in the history of the fourth and fifth centuries a warning against the entrance of the church into politics has read that history in vain.