Saturday, September 20, 2008

Henry Clay Morrison

My mother brought me a copy of article by William Kostlevy that appeared in October 2001 in the God's Revivalist magazine. Henry Clay Morrison was the founder of Asbury Seminary (David McKenna's "preaching president"). He was a lifetime Methodist preacher from Kentucky... and unfortunately, I guess, notoriously racist (that's from the Asbury Seminary coffee houses, not the article).

I thought this paragraph was very interesting:

"As a Bryan Democrat, Morrison was deeply concerned about the economic plight of farmers and workers. He supported Prohibition and Sunday blue laws and opposed the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Although committed to traditional holiness teaching, Morrison formed coalitions easily with non-Wesleyans, such as Keswick holiness advocates, non-holiness Methodist Fundamentalists and national Fundamentalist leaders, such as William Jennings Bryan."

It would be hard to know what groups he would belong to today. These words and groups still exist, but they are hardly the same.


Angie Van De Merwe said...

But, did he form a coalition with liberals? Or is the gap too wide, because of the basic premises on how the two understand reality?
Could these ever agree, even though they would want to work toward a unified view?

I find that the worldviews are too different between the Republicans, who want self-responsible citizens, and Democrats, who want to care for everyone and his brother from government's resources. The differences on most every concern to reach across the aisles are too wide to bridge. The only coalition that should bring unity (but is improbable in politics) is the ethical behavior of those in their position.

Ken Schenck said...

My sense is that the "moral lines" between Republicans and Democrats were much different back then. It's hard for me to imagine the world before Roe vs. Wade, but my hunch is that there wasn't the clear issue to separate the two in terms of the current conservative point of view.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I forget the details of the little political history I know, but you're right as to the Democrat/Republican. Ronald Reagan, I believe was a Democrat when he was California's governor.

As to Roe vs. Wade, I don't think that is the only issue that divides the two parties. There are so many differences. The Republicans view on the free market and the Democrats view on the responsibility of government...I think this is the biggest divide that defines the two parties. But, of course, there are variances of viewpoints even within the two parties, as well...

So, why are you pointing out the Roe vs. Wade decision as so specific in dividing the two?

Ken Schenck said...

I would say that in Wesleyan circles, this is the issue that you would find people bring up as the reason why a Christian could not vote for a Democratic candidate for president. I've heard people that I think of as fairly "progressive" Wesleyans mention this issue as the sole reason they could never vote for a Democrat.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

So, are all Wesleyans social conservatives, then? Are Wesleyans only concerned about social issues, then? Are they interested in foreign policy?

How have they viewed Palin's candidacy, as far as her not keeping her daughter "under wraps", so that she wouldn't get pregnant? Do they view her as a good mother? If not, does this prevent them from supporting her? If not, then, why are they having a double standard when it comes to these do they justify their exception of their absolute universal for Palin? Doesn't this disqualify her, according to their own standard? Does getting married after getting pregnant, as Palin did, cover over her sin? How do they view being human, sin and failure? And Christian?

Do Wesleyans believe in the morning after pill for married couples? Do they believe in birth control at all, or do they believe that God's sovereignly "opens and closes" the womb, so everyone should "live by faith" and trust what "God allows" as His will? Do they believe that one should intervene in any affairs of life, then? such as politics?

Do they view man as responsible? If so, for what? If one is called to responsibility, then is one only responsible for what "happens" by default? Is there no undertaking of man to be responsible for his own life and those that he feels "called to"? I have understood that the history of the Wesleyan tradition is social activism or rivalism. So, are they undertaking that as their responsibility?

How do they view the IUD, which circumvents the egg from implantation? Is scientific understandings rejected in regards to man? How do they typically view new scientific discoveries?