Question: might God’s church we call
United Methodist be rescued by Benjamin Franklin? During these gloomy days when
many of us are pondering the likelihood of an impending split in the denomination
we love, I’ve been reading Walter Isaacson’s fascinating biography of Franklin.
It had not occurred to me how his life paralleled John Wesley’s, born just two
years apart, and dying just one year apart, both pragmatic populizers of
complex thought, spanning a revolutionary century.
Isaacson reveals how we are mistaken if we
think of Franklin as a jolly, playful tinkerer. He was brilliant, friends with
and admired by the greatest minds of his day: Joseph Priestley, David Hume,
Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke; and in politics, he led and mentored the brightest
lights of early America: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and
Alexander Hamilton.
Here’s how he reaches out to us. When the
Constitutional Convention was at a total impasse, when none of the delegates would
budge on their irreconcilable differences over how to be a nation, or if to be a nation at all, Franklin tried
two last-ditch ploys to save the day. The first didn’t work; but the second
did.
First: he made the startling, wise
suggestion that they pray: “With this convention groping as it were in the dark
to find political truth, how has it happened that we have not hitherto once
thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings? If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is
it probably that an empire can rise without his aid?” Although many prize the
piety of the Founding Fathers so highly, the fact is that idea was quickly
shelved. Some offered testy rationales of why they should not have such prayer,
and then others pointed out they had no budget to pay a chaplain – as if they
could not pray themselves?
But second: the esteemed Franklin, older by
15 years than the next oldest delegate, his age double the average age of all
the others, rose to make an impassioned speech to the congress bent on going
home the next day with no consent to the proposed constitution: “I cannot help
expressing a wish that every member of the convention who may still have
objections would, with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own
infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this
instrument.”
Why should others doubt their own
infallibility? “I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution. But
having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by
better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on
important subject, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is
therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment
and pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men think themselves in
possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so
far error.” Then, with his usual wry humor, he told of “a certain French lady
who, in a little dispute with her sister, said: ‘I don’t know how it happens,
sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.’”
This humility, jocular and yet wise, could
conceive of voting for something flawed – which, of course, all human
institutions and arrangements, including our church, are. Interestingly, they were at loggerheads over whether you could have a large body (like a nation), yet with smaller, empowered decision-making entities (like states) within that larger body.
Franklin's motives intrigue me. Yes, he wanted to craft a unified nation for its own sake. But having served abroad in France and England as an ambassador for many years, he was grieved by the reaction failure and division would spark overseas: “I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.”
Franklin's motives intrigue me. Yes, he wanted to craft a unified nation for its own sake. But having served abroad in France and England as an ambassador for many years, he was grieved by the reaction failure and division would spark overseas: “I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats.”
Perhaps the trouble is that we have not
yet prayed. Yes, we’ve prayed for victory for our side, and we’ve prayed for
enlightenment to dawn on the others who are so very wrong. But have we prayed
as Jesus prayed, not seeking my will, but what will actually cause me
discomfort and even suffering? I wonder what would unfold if we could welcome a
time-travelling Franklin to the mic at General Conference to suggest we doubt
our infallibility and pray? Would he be shouted down or ruled out of order? Or might
we hear the wisdom, and pray, and surprise ourselves, as the Constitutional Convention did, with the birth of something new, unanticipated, and lovely?