Review of Mark Tooley's Methodism and Politics in the 20th Century (ISI, Jan 2012) ISBN: 978-1885224712. Hardcover, 406 pages; $24.95.

Methodism was once the largest denomination in America. The faith grew rapidly from America's beginning and has traditionally been characterized by aggressive evangelism and revival. It has carried a vibrant social witness, too. Methodist Church pronouncements once garnered front page headlines in theNew York Times. Its high water mark undoubtedly came during prohibition, the greatest modern political cause of the denomination. Methodists even built and staffed a lobbying building next to Capitol Hill, believing a dry country could remake society.

In Methodism and Politics in the 20th Century, Mark Tooley has chronicled Methodism's denominational political pronouncements from William McKinley, America's first Methodist president, to 9-11. Tooley has unearthed a staggering amount of official and unofficial Methodist declarations and musings on everything from economics, war, civil rights, the Cold War, abortion, marriage, and politics.

Tooley, who is also the author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church, offers very little of his mentary on the issues in Methodism and Politics, instead allowing Methodism's voice for over a century to speak for itself. Ultimately what emerges is a denomination that begins to recede in significance, perhaps because of the sheer saturation of their witness in the public square. But its leadership often trades in a prophetic voice for a partisan political one, and sadly at times, even a treasonous voice.

Methodists not only led on prohibition, but were out in front on issues like women's suffrage, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Movement. While they did not always carry a unified voice on these issues, even many Southern annual conferences and bishops broke with the popular political position of defending segregation in their home states.

While support for the New Deal and greater federal intervention in the economy was not rubber stamped by all Methodists, an emerging and often biting anti-free market voice would dominate official pronouncements. This continues to this day with declarations calling to support greater government regulations, single payer health care, and a host of measures calling for government wage and price controls. Way back in 1936, one Oklahoma Methodist pastor offered his own advice to some of his brethren:

Why do [these Methodist Reds] not get passports, emigrate to Russia where they can prostrate themselves daily before the sacred mummy of Lenin and submit themselves to mands of Joseph Stalin?

Tooley chronicles the pacifist sentiment that begins to overtake the denomination. This amounted to the equivocating of a denomination that once was harsh in its critique munism to one where mittee of bishops would pronounce by the 1980s, that "actions which are seen as 'Marxist-Leninist' by one group are seen as the core of the Christian message by others."

Perhaps most shameful was the action of several bishops during the American hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran, from 1979 - 1981. United Methodist Bishop Dale White said of the new Islamic fundamentalist regime, "I know there are individuals in the Iranian power structure who do trust The United Methodist Church." White offered assessments of the new regime being "democratic." The General conference sent a message to Ayatollah Khomeni declaring that it hears the "cries of freedom from foreign domination, from cultural imperialism, from economic exploitation." Methodist officials participated in pro-Khomeni student demonstrations in Washington D.C. and met with and offered praise for officials in the new Iranian government. One former hostage recalled:

Some of the people who came over, especially the clergy, were hypocrites because they came to aid fort the hostages but ended up giving aid fort to the Iranians and actually making it worse for us.

The election of President Ronald Reagan naturally sent many United Methodist Church officials into a tizzy. "People voted their self interest instead of the Social Principles of the church. It looks like United Methodists with everybody else forsook their Christian idealism at the ballot box," said Bishop James Armstrong. Some United Methodist Bishops had already declared their denomination much more aligned with the Democratic Party. It was downhill from there for many Methodist leaders, as they coddled the Sandinistas and "Brother Ortega" in Nicaragua and dove head first into the nuclear freeze movement. While Reagan was strengthening the NATO alliance with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and deployment of Pershing II missiles to Europe, Board of Church and Society Haviland Houston declared that the church needs "to tell the boys with their nuclear toys" 'that it's time to' "come inside." As the Cold War began to wind down and new freedoms emerged, a few United Methodist Bishops seemed to lament the seeming triumph of the free market as an economic structure. Bishop Rüdiger Rainer Minor noted, "As critics, I think Marxists are still relevant. Marxism has insights into power that we can learn from," such as capitalism's "competition structures." The bishop declared, "Most United Methodists in this country would give you an unreserved negative verdict on Marxism. I guess I'm an outsider."

In the 1990s, one General Board of Global Ministry official bewailed the Republican Congress by saying, "White, male supremacists now wear suits. They talk states' rights and anti-taxes. The climate of hate and violence is a challenge to us." General Board of Church and Society official Robert McLean declared that the GOP Contract with America effectively "cancels" the Sermon on the Mount.

Hyperventilating over partisan politics would continue in The United Methodist Church and continues to this day by American officials. Most recently, many have joined forces with the "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign. But because Methodism is a connectional denomination, the growing African influence is counter balancing what Methodist progressives and political liberals can plish. They have already reached the pinnacle of their power, which has been shrinking for decades. Because progressives have made so many predictable pronouncements, they no longer speak with the weighty spiritual authority they once held. It is a lesson for all churches and those that wish to bring their faith into the public square. At the 1934 Illinois Annual Conference, one lay delegate offered what can be seen only as prophetic now when he declared, "It is time for churches to stop adopting resolutions and then finding out what they mean afterward."

Just over a month ago, The United Methodist Church's General Board of Church & Society heaped praise on President Obama's HHS mandate with no mention of the measure's threat to religious liberty, deciding to only view it as a partisan measure to defend for furthering the role of government in health care.

At the conclusion of the book, after reading through 100 years of political pronouncements, Tooley finally offers just a hint of his own assessment,

American Methodism in 1900 was growing, confident, largely unified, and politically formidable. One hundred years later, it had already endured several decades of steep membership decline and panying political marginalization as church officials were no longer presumed to speak for most church members.

Tooley, through the myriad of voices that he has chronicled over such a lengthy period, understands those voices only need to speak for themselves to make his point.

In the 1920s Calvin Coolidge once said of Francis Asbury, one of the first two Methodist Bishops in early America, that "he did e [to America] for political motives," but came to bear "the testimony of truth." One wishes Methodist denominational officials would not only follow more of Asbury's doctrine, but his praxis as well.