Gaining all we can: Relation to the Neighbor

Having grown up in the UMC, I have heard the mantra of "gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can" repeated ad nausea but rarely have I seen people go beyond the first step in their personal dealings. I was pleasantly surprised to find that in the sermon that this mantra originates, most of the "gain" portion focused on the negative ways to gain. Beginning with gain at the expense of bodily health, then mental health, and then finally focusing very heavily on gain on the back of the neighbor. Wesley focuses on the alcohol trade for condemnation, which was not surprising to me as temperance is something the Methodists used to focus very heavily on, but then moves on to some industries that I would not have expected.

He starts by focusing on Surgeons, Apothecaries, and Physicians, which is not an area I was expecting to be attacked. Though he definitely calls attention to an evil that these professions would be capable of, was this really a problem in his day?

Finally, he brings up the arts, stating "If these [arts] profit the souls of men, you are clear; your employment is good, and your gain innocent; but if they are either sinful in themselves, or natural inlets to sin of various kinds, then, it is to be feared, you have a sad account to make."(John Wesley, Sermon 50, I.6.) Would this be in the portrayal of themselves, and would no evil be allowed to be portrayed? If so, then wouldn't any morality play or other art form that brings morality into question, even if to condemn said practice, be suspect? Or does it require more from the client side of dealings, and what they take away from the encounter with the arts?

Breaking: Wesley stresses uniformity and no one is surprised...

Wesley’s appeal to methodical practice was so great as to earn the movement its name and is readily apparent in his works that we studied this week. In his Calm Address to our American Colonies in Sandoz, Wesley urges uniformity between the rule of the colonies and Great Britain: “Let us not bite and devour one another, lest we be consumed one of another! O let us follow after peace! Let us put away our sins; the real ground of all our calamities! Which never will or can be thoroughly removed, till we fear God and honour the king.” Wesley’s general prescription to “fear God and honour the king” comes from his basic argument that the colonists have the same rights as he, and because they work for him, they should work for the colonists. He is also extremely particular in controlling the narrative of Methodist doctrine in A Short History of Methodism, asserting that men are all by nature "dead in sin," and, consequently, "children of wrath,” they are "justified by faith alone,” and that faith produces inward and outward holiness. Beyond this, Wesley is comfortable saying who are (those who ascribe to the aforementioned doctrine) and who are not (predestinarians, antinomians) Methodist- even though they were only a movement, not a church… definitely not a church. Wesley’s call for uniformity reaches even into the pockets of movement members, directing how they should and should not spend their money in The Use of Money, where his gaining/saving/giving model provides questions to ask that should regulate spending habits.

Other than using religion as a means of maintaining dutiful taxpayers/almsgivers, was it typical for church leaders to regulate finances of laypeople? More broadly, was it Wesley’s obsession with uniformity that actually pushed the movement to become its own faith tradition?

What are we gaining?

In John Wesley's sermon "Use of Money," he articulates the idea that you should gain all you can without harming others in order to give all you can.  Economically, capitalism was functioning both in England and the colonies (right?).  So in light of the social/economic context, how was this received by hearers of this sermon?  To worship God, not money, is clearly in line with biblical teachings, but the idea of gaining to give seems to be the new thing, the thing which would be up for debate.

A Short History of the Non-Denomination That Is Absolutely Still Church of England, Stop Asking

Belying the instruction to disregard descriptors in sermon titles, John Wesley's "Short History of Methodism" is actually quite short.  It is the third such attempt to tackle a definition or boundary line for this denomination-that-isn't-a-denomination and JW seems to have abandoned all hope of speaking of the Methodists as though they are no different at all.  (This is not to say that he speaks of them as though they are separate from the Mother Church, however.)

This brief narrative is presented as a "bare relations of a series of naked facts," which is of course neither bare nor naked.  Much is hidden--why JW left Georgia, how the scuffles between JW and Whitefield fell out, and how much the Methodist name meant beyond the university are just some of the things JW conveniently leaves out.  And facts are never naked, shown here in the self-justifying clothing of JW's emergence from every recounting of disagreement as though he is not only correct but much wronged by the other's false witness.

To actually ask a question, then:  how secure was JW as leader of the Methodists that he could claim to write a narrative of the movement-that-surely-isn't-a-denomination?  What push-back was there, if any, against the obvious bias?  And is this what we as United Methodists turn to when speaking of our history in a nutshell or are we pulling together many other sources to build a composite narrative?

JW: Not a Fan of Colonial Independence...

As we read John Wesley’s address to “our” American colonies I was struck by how little it sounded like good ole’ John Wesley. JW always writes in a very organized manner with a clear thesis, and supports his argument by alluding to countless scriptures One could expect the use of Romans 13.1 but it is never used. However Wesley wades into this political divorce without scriptural evidence. We are taught to see Wesley as interacting with the social issues of the day through his pragmatic theology, but here we see a biased Wesley not being informed by much else other than his English biased.

But in seeing a Wesley who didn’t support the idea of the colonies becoming independent, we can also understand a Wesley who never wanted his “Methodists” to become a separate independent Church either. We can probably also see why Wesley’s missions is Georgia never worked if he entered the colonies with this elitist mindset, and I would be interested to hear George Whitefield’s opinion on the American colonies to see is his colonial-view was why he succeeded stateside more than JW.

A Bit of Theology: Wesley's Rules on Money

John Wesley has been often criticized for his lack of a developed, systematic theological doctrine. However, in analyzing the works of Wesley, one can find theological arguments for certain things, at least.  In reading his fiftieth sermon, "The Use of Money," John Wesley presents three rules of Christian prudence:  "Having, First, gained all you can, and, secondly saved all you can, then 'give all you can.'"  In regards to the first two rules, Wesley does not seem to have any real theological basis for "gaining all you can" and "saving all you can," at least when considered exclusively. 

Wesley does, however, present a theological argument to "give all you can."  Wesley said, when the Possessor of heaven and earth brought you into being, and placed you in this world, he placed you here not as a proprietor, but a steward."He continues, "And he has told you, in the most clear and express terms, how you are to employ it for him, in such a manner, that it may be all an holy sacrifice, acceptable through Christ Jesus."  The act of "giving all you can" is sacrificial in nature and ultimately being a good steward for God and God's Kingdom.  Consequently, God "has promised to reward with an eternal weight of glory."  From a theological perspective, "giving all you can" is part of God's will for us, and also (at least in part) how we are able to receive eternal glory.

My question is then, with a pretty solid theological argument for the third rule of Christian prudence, is there any theological basis for the first two rule in and of themselves?  Or are they truly only able to work as God intended as a collective set of rules?  In another light, I ask who was intended to hear this sermon?  Is this a refutation of the prosperity gospel?  What motivated Wesley to write this specific sermon?

Questions about JW's "Predestination Calmly Considered"

In JW’s “Predestination Calmly Considered”, I think he disagrees with Calvin’s understanding of double predestination. To JW, the atonement is universal in scope. Christ’s death was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, not only an elect few. To him, human beings work together with God towards salvation. In other words, prevenient grace and human free will (to certain extent) are the two important factors in salvation. God has more glory saving human beings as a free agent, instead of saving human beings irresistibly.

I have two questions on this reading. The first one is JW mentioned in his article that there are two types of divine election: a divine appointment of some particular men to do some particular work (he explicitly mentions that this does not equals to eternal happiness), and a divine appointment of some men to eternal happiness. However, he didn’t really explain these two types in detail. So I was wondering what does he mean by these two types of election and what are the differences between these two types? My other question is that JW mentions that the gentiles are part of the great salvation, but many Jews fall short of it since they could not receive it through faith. I was wondering what’s JW’s perspective on God’s covenant to the Jews? And what is his general opinion on Judaism?

Will and Slavery

The three readings in concert with one another create an interesting connection between the two topics on liberty. We analyze liberty of the slave and liberty of the soul. It is interesting to see predestination in reference to slavery, as it is in a sense the same definition as which is given to a lack of will within predestination. Wesley sets up a system of predestination wherein God "in his unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave them in common misery." Similarly, Wesley notes that one of the precepts of slavery is "an obligation of perpetual service, which only the consent of the master can dissolve." The master in these cases has no obligation of kindness to the person in question. The situations in both cases lead to death, either an earthly or a spiritual death, but both in misery. It is interesting, then, to look at the treatise on Will during a time and which slavery persisted.   I am curious about the motivations of the author and if he ever considered using his argument in response to the problem of slavery, or if  he simultaneously supported it.  Was the doctrine of predestination used in favor of slavery? And was its opposition a call to end slavery? How far did Wesley go on his attack on slavery?  How urgently was the problem of slavery considered within Wesley's time?

John Wesley's Vocabulary on Slaves

In Wesley's "Thoughts Upon Slavery," he refers to Africans as "heathens" without seeming to intend a negative tone, but also later criticizes those takings slaves for considering the Africans to be "brute beasts". He also asks if such treatment of people can be justified even under "heathen honesty". Did "heathen" have a different connotation in Wesley's day, or is this evidence that he considers himself superior to Africans?
How unique was it to take a stance against slavery as incompatible with justice and mercy in Wesley's context? I wonder this, because today it seems that it is almost the more popular stance to be against Trump--and plenty of people are writing their views against him--but that does not prevent his policies from being in place and harmful to others. Was this the same with slavery, or was it the popular opinion to justify slavery?

Who's Fight is This?

Edwards goes to great length to define and clarify prominent terms used in the Arian/Arminian debate. What is the purpose behind such detailed clarification? Was there wide-spread confusion surrounding these terms or was Edwards merely using it as groundwork for his argument? Furthermore, as I was reading Edward's and Wesley's arguments for and against Arminianism, I questioned who was actually reading these documents during this time? How readily available were these documents to the average lay person? How prominent was this Arian/Arminianism discussion among laity? Were they avidly arguing about free will and predestination as these clergy members did?

John Wesley and Social Issues

     As we have been learned about the history of Wesley and his theology, Wesley's focus was primarily on his personal faith (original sin, faith, justification, assurance, salvation, sanctification, and so forth) and on how to reach Christian perfection.
     However, in his article, "Thought Upon Slavery," Wesley's focus was not on his personal faith, but he strongly criticizes about the social issue, Slavery. For me, it looked like his theological concern has extended from his personal issues to social and national issues. In other words, it seems that Wesley strived not only to reform himself but also to reform the nation.
     In this regard, is it possible to understand this Wesley's concern as another way of sanctification, more specifically social sanctification? Are there any other social issues that Wesley was interested in? If so, did Wesley influence the Methodist church to emphasize social justice?

Arguments For and Against Predestination

In “Predestination Calmly Considered” Wesley focuses on Scripture in his arguments, citing example after example to support his points.  Interestingly, several times Wesley seems to say that he might not even fully understand how a certain idea is true, but he believes it because it is spoken clearly in Scripture. Despite this admission, Wesley does make quite a detailed effort to support his doctrine with reason. Another important factor of Wesley’s work is that he appeals to the character of God. He does this first by declaring that God’s sovereignty cannot ever supersede God’s justice (which he believes must follow when one accepts predestination), and later describing how God’s love is another chief characteristic. In general, Wesley seems to be coming from a pastoral position.

To me, Wesley stood in stark contrast to Edwards who does not cite any Scripture, but rather uses some sort of system in making his argument, beginning by defining the words and ideas he will use, and then basing his arguments on these definitions and following them out to their (logical?) conclusions. I had trouble following or agreeing with a few of his points, but in general it seems to be a quite different approach to the issue than Wesley. Edwards generally seems to be coming from a philosophical or academic perspective, rather than Wesley’s pastoral role. 

So my question is, what led these two writers to use such different styles to make their arguments, and how were they received based on this? I also found it amusing that Wesley, after writing so passionately and in-depth on the dangers and evil of predestination, ends with an appeal to unity, with “our agreement is greater than our difference.”

Hear ye! Hear ye!

As I read through this weeks texts, I started wondering about distribution and the process of printing. Could Wesley (and Edwards) just take their manuscripts to a printer and say "print x number of copies of this"? Were there publishers involved/ was anyone helping to edit any of these texts? (As a modern reader, it seems like they could have used a editor to help with some of their never ending sentences...)

After it was printed, how were the pamphlets distributed? Given the developing (and growing) society structure of the Methodists, did they have a formal distribution method of their own materials in the late 1700s? Was there something like the Christian Science reading rooms? As part of the standardization of their theology, it seems reasonable that Wesley would want to make sure all of the Methodist societies had a copy of "Predestination Calmly Considered" (and not "Freedom of the Will").

Conversely, "Thoughts on Slavery" seems like something Wesley would have wanted to be shared with more than just the Methodists. How were pamphlets advertised to the general public? When people argued back and forth via pamphlet, how would people know when a new rebuttal had been published?

Global Christianity

In reading Wesley’s “Scriptural Christianity,” it is clear that his brand of Christianity is meant to be globally applied and communally lived. Wesley’s prescription for communal living manifests as an economic system where all possessions are given back to the community and divided evenly among all. Note that it is not just everyone’s excesses that are made communal, but everything: “Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own but they had all things common." Scriptural Christianity, Wesley concludes is also more than economic communality, but also applies to the metaphysical: “Which is the country, the inhabitants whereof are all thus filled with the Holy Ghost? --are all of one heart and of one soul?” Here, Wesley has mentioned the Christian ‘country’- though he also denies its existence- which we must reconcile with his stance that Christ was "crucified to the world, and the world crucified to him" and that those who spread this message are "men who thus turned the world upside down." Wesley switches back and forth between calling for a Christian world and a Christian country multiple times, seemingly maintaining that even with global Christianity realized, borders will still remain: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more […] no country or city divided against itself.” He also appeals to authorities of the state, calling them to lead according to scripture. My question is how Wesley, under the unjust conditions that he himself attests to in colonization, envisions a global Christianity that still aligns with conceptions of city, state, and country during his time? If we are called to live with all things in common, how does Wesley see this taking shape globally?

A Christian Country?

In John Wesley's fourth sermon, "Scriptural Christianity," he claims he is writing with a "plain, practical application."  Perhaps Wesley and I have different understandings of the connotation of the word "plain," but I would not generally call this sermon plain.  This sermon is a dense series of Scripture references and rhetorical questions asked to the reader/listener that not only challenge the individual, but but even the country.  Wesley asks the question, "Which is the country, the inhabitants whereof are all thus filled with the Holy Ghost?"  This is certainly an interesting question in understanding Wesley's own context, however it's also something we should ask today.  Some have called the United States a "Christian Country," but are we?  Are all of us really filled with the holy Spirit? We could even take this question down to the local church level.  I wonder what the true answer would be.

The Methodist "Society"

The Methodists as Wesley describe them were an intense bunch. I can't help but look around at our modern United Methodist Church and be disappointed in it when looking at this society. Each member spoke to Wesley at least once every three months, weekly meetings for the bands, hierarchy that demands more attention, separate sections for the children, and the list goes on. The leadership asks that they keep tabs on the bands, any differences, have societal trials, and coordinate with other leaders. Reading this text reminds me more of Calvinist Geneva rather than the UMC I grew up with, though part of me wishes that there was more of this in the modern Church.

There is a lot of structure here, which does make me question the parallel nature of this society. I know inevitably the society became a church proper, but this structure has much overlap with existing church hierarchy. It seems difficult to construe that this is in fact a society and not a new church, with the roles of deacons, lay leadership, ministers, preachers, children's schooling, all of which would be functions carried out by the Church of England. So why go through all this trouble to set this up if this is only meant to be a parallel institution?

Bonus Historical Context for Scriptural Christianity

Note:  when possible, I read JW's sermons out of an edited anthology that also provides context around the sermons.  Part of my response includes portions of that commentary.  The source is: Albert C. Outler, John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991).  Page references are provided. 

_____________________________________

Albert Outler and Richard Heitzenrater point out in the introductory note of this sermon in John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology, that this sermon was preached while Wesley was teaching at Oxford in 1744 (97).  While Wesley never intended to publish this sermon, he notes in his own introduction to the sermon that it is only because the response to his words was so untoward he felt it necessary to provide the full context such that people could discern for themselves what was true (97). 

I raise this note because I think the context of this sermon matters greatly in the hearing of it.  He is in an academic setting at a time when the community was apparently celebrating the exile of nonconformists and Methodist revivals were increasing in popularity.  It’s an incredibly bold move to preach this at the time, but I’m wondering what Wesley’s end game actually was.  Outler identifies Wesley’s reaction as that of a clean conscience; that Wesley believed he said what was necessary in the moment and if the academic community rebuked him, so be it (97).  But speaking this truth in this manner doesn’t seem to jive with Wesley’s overarching claim that he isn’t trying to start a new church, he’s trying to improve what existed at the time.  It strikes me as incredibly incendiary given the context, which is why his motives interest me.  

I also find it interesting that Wesley, in his description of scriptural Christianity specifically references the fruits of the spirit and essentially said there isn’t scriptural Christianity at work if the Oxford community doesn’t exhibit the fruits of the spirit. Originally, the tone seemed so combative in the fourth section that it was counteracting the characteristics about which he was preaching, but in a second read, I think it was a solid rhetorical move to say these are the things we’re called according to scripture to be; let me show you how to do that.  Again, I’m not clear on what his end game is, but I do find the context around this sermon to be somewhat helpful in understanding parts of why Wesley approached this in the way he did.  

Scriptural Christianity: Lacking Pastoral Awareness

I dove into John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity. This sermon is clearly calling out a community for not living up to the standards of Scriptural Christianity and/or early Church. He cites countless scriptures describing the standard of the early Church. Then he imagines and dreams of what the Church should be. Followed by quickly pointing out how far they are falling from those standards and dreams. I think it is a great sermon. I think it is a great reminder to the community of faith or where they come from, question where they currently are, and think about where they are going.

However, I question the setting and audience behind John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity. Is this a sermon you can hand out in a pamphlet or preach to different crowds as you travel preaching revivals? While I think it is a needed sermon for communities, I think it is a sermon which needs to come from a pastor who is relation with his/her community. A certain level of congregational relationship is needed to preach this message constructively. How do you call out people in public settings, and you don’t even know their names? It may be great homiletics, it may be great theology, but is it good pastoral care/leadership? How did a message like this succeed, and become constructive rather than un-relationally- destructive 

The World Is Always Ending

Wesley's sermon on "Scriptural Christianity" feels like a lot of things other people have said before and since--the original Church was good and true and had things figured out until Blame Outside Force Here disturbed their community, the current world is coming to an end and prophecies will soon be fulfilled, believers are pale imitations now of what they are meant to be.  This sermon has been preached in every generation sermons have been preached, and not just in Christianity.

Given this reality of rehashing concepts, how are we to understand and appreciate the impact of Wesley's particular critiques?   The English audience that heard this sermon was only a few years removed from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," had just seen Robert Walpole step down from being prime minister after 20 years, was newly introduced to Handel's Messiah, and presumably had seen the Great Comet of 1744--in other words, the English audience was living in a world that was changing and moving and being, as it had before and has since.  When Wesley tells them, "suppose now the fullness of time to be come, and the prophecies to be accomplished," to what end is he calling them?  When he accuses people of being "a generation of triflers," how is that viewpoint seen in his slow shaping of the methodical church?  And how do we as modern readers understand such themes as we study the ways in which the early Church was not perfect, the world trundles on, and people have always been rather awful at faithfulness?  Why, in short, does a sermon like this still matter, it having been done so many times before?