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?