Limits of Withdrawal and Participation of Methodists within Society

There are many signs of Wesley's particular experience that show up in these pieces, such as proving that Methodism was not breaking from the Anglican church by its nature of being a "society," engaging Calvinism through a rejection of predestination, and engaging the question of whether or not Methodism was truly Christian in belief and practice. Likewise, there is a running conversation that clarifies whether or not Methodism calls for members to withdraw from society, economically or politically. Wesley advocates for members not to withdraw, but to participate ethically within existing systems. In character of a Methodist, Wesley emphasizes the use of "common words," rejecting corrupt communication (any actions or words that do not increase the grace of one's neighbor), and an expansion on Christian doctrine to create a communal body of followers in "one body, one soul." These points convey Wesley's intent for Methodist spaces to operate outside of pre-existing class structures. In his Free Grace, through addressing the illegitimacy of predestination, Wesley confirms that the way we engage in community will influence our salvation- why else work to labor to save souls or preserve bodies? He also rejects that God operates through a system of tyranny that predestination would imply, where God would exercise oppressive power over heaven and hell.

Wesley seems to take a strange turn in his Nature, Design, and General Rules when advocating for the prioritization of Methodist goods and Methodist employees. This suggestion is not in and of itself what breaks from his consistency, but the statement with which he concludes this request: "the world will love its own and them only." What is implicated for Methodist relations with the rest of the world in light of this statement? Is this a call for Methodists to live differently in loving beyond their own, in what Wesley sees as contrary to the love offered by the rest of the world? Or is it an affirmation that, though we must seek live communally, that love need not be extended beyond the society? What historical circumstances may have brought Wesley to engage this conversation, specifically?