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?