act thus, to have all things in common, seeing we do not read of any
Good News to the Poor 9. In order clearly to see how they [the Christians at Pentecost] were already saved, we need only observe the short account of them which is recorded in the latter part of the second and in fourth chapter. "They continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and in the fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers:" That is, they were daily taught by the Apostles, and had all things common, and daily received the Lord's supper, and attended all the public service. (ii. 42) "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (ii. 44, 45)
And again: "The multitude of them that believed," now greatly increased, "were of one heart and of one soul: Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." (iv. 32) And yet again: "Great grace was upon them all. Neither was there among them that lacked: For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the Apostles' feet: And distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Verses 33-35)
10. But here a question will naturally occur: "How came they to act thus, to have all things in common, seeing we do not read of any positive command to do this?" I answer, there needed no outward command: The command was written upon their hearts.
It naturally and necessarily resulted from the degree of love which they enjoyed. Observe! "They were of one heart, and of one soul:"
And not so much as one (so the words run) said, (they could not, while their hearts so overflowed with love,) "that any of the things which he possessed was his own." And wheresoever the same cause shall prevail, the same effect will naturally follow. ("The Mystery of Iniquity," V1:255-56) It was, of course, Wesley's intent to foment the "cause" that would have this effect.
This vision of Christian communalism had a strange history in Wesley's thought. In an explanation of his reasons for going to Georgia, Wesley speaks first, as was his wont in those early days, of the ways in which this would benefit his own soul. Among the benefits he expected to derive was the possibility of actualizing this vision by living among the Indians.
The same faithfulness I hope to show, through His grace, in dispensing the rest of my Master's goods, if it please him to send
Stewardship: The Redistribution of Wealth me to those [Native Americans] who, like his first followers, have all things common. What a guard is here against that root of evil, the love of money, and all the vile attractions that spring from it!
One in this glorious state, and perhaps none but he, may see the height and depth of the privilege of the first Christians, "as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things." (Letter to a Friend, Oct. 10, 1735, XII:39.)'
Despite the attraction this vision held for Wesley, it plays almost no role in his first series of sermons. It does come into play as the culmination of the description of "personal holiness" in the very important sermon "Scriptural Christianity" (V:41-42). It appears again for the first time in his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament and subsequently plays an important role in the later sermons. It may be that in the time in which he was launching the Methodist revival he was cautious about unnecessarily raising the charge of enthusiasm and so muted the radical vision of a Christian community of property." In any case, Wesley does come again to give this vision a place of importance in his social ethic as a natural consequence of the view of stewardship that he has developed.
Wesley supposes that the Methodist movement will not only produce a spread of the gospel throughout the earth but also, and therefore, bring in the kind of primitive commun(al)ist" society described in Acts 2 and 4. Therefore, speaking of the spread of the gospel by Methodism, he writes:
The natural, necessary consequence of this will be the same as it was in the beginning of the Christian Church: "None of them will say, that aught of the things which he possesses is his own; but they will have all things common. Neither will there be any among them that want: For as many as are possessed of lands or houses will sell them; and distribution will be made to every man, according as he has need." ("The General Spread of the Gospel," V1:284)
From this actualization of Christian identity would come the conversion of persons of other faiths to Christianity, for they would no longer have the excuse of Christian misconduct to prevent the reception of the gospel (see "The General Spread of
Good News to the Poor the Gospel," VI:285-87). It is noteworthy that Wesley believed that the adherents of other faiths would be converted by the Christian practice of a pentecostal community of property and redistribution of wealth. This is a mission strategy that may have been overlooked by denominational mission boards! It seems scarcely more likely to be adopted by so-called evangelical groups that are little more than apologists for the ethos of pious capitalism. For Wesley, in any case, scriptural holiness entails the immitation of the pentecostal community.
While there are other texts that are relevant here, the Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament provide important additional evidence of the importance of this view to Wesley."
He certainly does not share, for example, the view so dear to some of his commentators, that the example of the pentecostal community was either a failed experiment or one that was limited in applicability to the early Church."
Wesley was prepared to allow the fact that some of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (like speaking in tongues) characterized the experience of only the first-century community. But this could not apply to the example of the economic practices of the pentecostal community, since those practices were not an expression of the extraordinary, but the ordinary working of the Spirit. He writes:
And if the whole church had continued in this spirit, this usage must have continued through all the ages. To affirm, therefore, that Christ did not design it should continue, is neither more nor less than to affirm that Christ did not design this measure of love should continue. (Explanatory Notes, Note to Acts 2:45)
Indeed the affirmation that Christ did not intend a full measure of love to continue in his church would be to reject Wesleyan doctrine root and branch.
Wesley repeats this insistence on the continuing pertinence of the pentecostal example in his note to Acts 4:32: "So long as that truly Christian love continued, they could not but have all things im common." And again, noting the connection between the presence of grace and the abolition of want through the practice
Stewardship: The Redistribution of Wealth of community of property and redistribution of wealth, Wesley insists:
And it [the abolition of want through the practice of commun(al)ism] was the immediate, necessary consequence of it
[grace]; yea, and must be, to the end of the world. In all ages and nations, the same cause, the same degree of grace, could not but, in like circumstances, produce the same effect.
"In all ages and nations"—thus does Wesley dismiss the idea of the limited relevance of the example of the pentecostal community.
If any doubt remained that Wesley understood that what is at stake here is something utterly opposed to the idea of private property, this is dispelled by his comment on the story of Ananias and Sapphira. We have already seen that for Wesley this story functions in relation to the church in the same way as the story of Adam and Eve functions in relation to humanity in general: It is the story of the Fall. Here in his Notes Wesley shows that this has to do precisely with the introduction of private property: "This was the first attempt to bring propriety of goods into the Christian church" (Acts 5:3). Wesley goes so far as to defend this hypothesis by insisting that Ananias and Sapphira were, at the time, only candidates for church membership.
Accordingly, Peter's remark that they were free not to sell or not to donate all the proceeds of the sale (Acts 5:4) was the same as saying that they were still free not to be Christians. Contradiction only arises when they profess to be Christians while refusing to participate fully in the pentecostal community of goods. Thus Wesley comments on Acts 5:1: "But a certain man named Ananias.—It is certain, not a believer; for all that believed
'were of one heart and of one soul.' Probably not baptized; but intending now to offer himself for baptism." And on Acts 5:4 he comments:
It is true, "whosoever" among the Christians, not one excepted, "had houses or lands sold them, and laid the price at the feet of the apostles:" but it was in his own choice to be a Christian or not, and consequently, either to sell his land or keep it. And when it was sold
Good News to the Poor was it not in thy power.
. For it does not appear that he [professed himself a Christian when he sold it."
And finally, in his note to Acts 5:12-3, he writes: "None of the rest—No formalists or hypocrites. Durst join themselves—In outward show only, like Ananias and Sapphira." Wesley was clearly already aware of the evasion of the example of the pentecostal community made possible by a different reading of Acts, and he took steps to counter it. The attempt on the part of some interpreters to suppress Wesley's radicalism at this point can only be described as disingenuous."
CONCLUSION
We have seen that Wesley's understanding of stewardship is a frontal assault on the principles of capitalism and the ethos of accumulation and consumption of wealth. He believed that the gospel entailed such a radical change of behavior that its spread would result in the actualization of a new society in which injustice was abolished.
If we take seriously the primitive communist, or communalist, ideal as one way of characterizing the aim of the spread of scriptural holiness, then we can also see that Wesley had a rather sophisticated strategy to accomplish that end. He realized that the rich were not promising candidates for such a message. They felt they had too much to lose, were too caught in the snare of riches. Therefore, the message must be directed to the poor, the dispossessed, the marginalized. And these would be organized as disciplined cadres, steeped in the point of view (ideology) that entailed these values and held together by strict discipline. The privileged classes, meanwhile, would be confronted with a relentless call to repentance of their complicity in the snares of wealth and the practice of injustice, in the hope that some of these at least would respond. In this way would be launched an international movement whose aim would be the realization within a relatively short period of time of a transformed social, economic, and world order.
Wesley's view of stewardship is a blow at the root of the
Stewardship: The Redistribution of Wealth economics of greed, which continues to dominate our planet.
For Wesley, the only legitimate claim to the earth's resources is based not on industry or capital or enterprise or labor, but on the needs of our neighbor. This is the heart of evangelical economics.
{iy
=) te a Shag (ion oe
: ota.
_ a ' gat satan "
lar en OLA
ACTUALIZATION AND
CONTROVERSY
L: the previous chapter we saw that Wesley's view of stewardship leads him to a radical reversal of the values of private property and of the accumulation and consumption of wealth. This leads to a pentecostal "communism" or "communalism," which he believed to be the necessary result of scriptural holiness. But for Wesley it would not be appropriate to permit this to remain in the sphere of the abstract or visionary. It must be practiced. Indeed Wesley develops no theory at all except in the crucible of reflected practice. We must accordingly turn to examine some of the ways in which Wesley and (some of) his followers sought to practice this stewardship before considering the polemic of Wesley against those who failed to practice what he both preached and practiced.
PERSONAL EXAMPLE
One of the staples of Methodist hagiographic legend concerns the occasion when, in infancy, Wesley was rescued from the burning parsonage. While the legend dwells on the "brand plucked from burning" theme, Wesley himself offers another and more revealing clue to the meaning of this event. It is that the next day his father found in the smoldering rubble a leaf of a Bible with the legible line: "Go, sell all that thou hast; and take up thy cross, and follow me" ("Remarkable Providence," 1778,
Good News to the Poor XIII:518). Whatever we may think of this anecdote's historical objectivity, it is clear that Wesley did think that these words had particular relevance for his own life. Although we shall see that he sometimes failed to recognize the general applicability of the command to "sell all," it is clear that his own life-style was governed by the attempt to live without the snare of possessions, to give all to the poor, and so to follow the precepts of the gospel as he understood them.
The development at Oxford of a group determined to actualize the essentials of Christian life was always regarded by Wesley as the founding event of Methodism.' This attempt brought upon Wesley and his friends the charge of "singularity," especially with respect to their practice of solidarity with the poor and the style of stewardship that was concomitant thereto.
Thus Wesley argued that by letting his hair grow unfashionably long he was able to save money to give to the poor (Letter to Brother Samuel, Nov.
17, 1731, XII:21)! And in reply to university critics, Wesley and his friends developed a rebuttal in the form of a set of questions, which included the following points:
Whether we can be happy at all hereafter, unless we have, according to our power, "fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those that are sick, and in prison;" and made all these actions subservient to a higher purpose, even the saving of souls from death?
... Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are hungry, naked, or sick? In particular, whether, if we know any necessitous family, we may not give them a little food, clothes, or physic, as they want?
... Whether we may not contribute, what little we are able, toward having their children clothed and taught to read?
... Whether, upon the considerations above-mentioned, we may not try to do good to those that are in prison? In particular,
Whether we may not release such well-disposed persons as remain in prison for small sums?
Whether we may not lend smaller sums to those that are of any trade, that they may procure themselves tools and materials to work with? (Letter to Richard Morgan, 1732, used as the "Introductory Letter" to the first Abstract of the Journal, 1:9-10)
Actualization and Controversy As we can see, much of the agenda that subsequently was elaborated in Wesley's more mature thought and practice is already embryonically present at this stage. We have already noted that Wesley was drawn to America, at least in part, because of the prospect of practicing the primitive communalism of the Native Americans."
Wesley was especially scrupulous in his use of money when the Methodists became a popular movement, following his return from Georgia. He had to respond, in the early days, to critics who charged that this was somehow a scheme for the enrichment of Wesley himself. In one such response he wrote:
"I love money no more than I love the mire in the streets; that I seek it not. And I have it not, any more than suffices for food and raiment, for the plain conveniences of life" (Letter to the Rev. Mr. Downes, IX:108). And Wesley made clear that this was his attempt to live out the plain requirements of his own teaching regarding stewardship:
All that is contributed or collected in every place is both received and expended by others; nor have I so much as the "beholding thereof with my eyes." And so it will be, till I turn Turk or Pagan.
For I look upon all this revenue, be it what it may, as sacred to God and the poor; out of which, if I want anything, I am relieved, even as another poor man. (A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists,
VIII:268)
Thus Wesley attempts to demonstrate in his own life the meaning of solidarity ("even as another poor man") and of his view of property ("sacred to God and the poor").
A particularly striking instance of Wesley's attempt to employ personal example as a way of inculcating the precepts of his economic ethic is his attempt to encourage abstinence from the drinking of tea.* Wesley launched this ill-fated campaign on the presupposition that tea was injurious to the health of some people and with the knowledge that its consumption was injurious to the budgets of the poor.
If they used English herbs in its stead, (which would cost either nothing, or what is next to nothing,) with the same bread, butter, and milk, they would save just the price of the tea. And hereby they
Good News to the Poor might not only lessen their pain, but in some degree their poverty too. (Letter to a Friend Concerning Tea, Dec. 10, 1748, XI:505)
Rather than immediately launch a campaign to induce the poor to do what was good for them, Wesley and his friends tried giving up tea themselves, as an example. When, on the basis of this experiment, the plan seemed workable, Wesley turned his attention to those who could "afford" to drink tea. He tells them that whether or not it is prejudicial to their own health they may still gain by leaving off its use, since then "you may have the more wherewith to give bread to the hungry, and raiment to the naked" (Ibid., XI:508) He is able in this case as well to cite his own example:
I have been enabled hereby to assist, in one year, above fifty poor with food or raiment, whom I must otherwise have left (for I had before begged for them all I could) as hungry and naked as I found them. You may see the good effects in above thirty poor people just now before you, who have been restored to health, through the medicines bought by that money which a single person has saved in this article. (Ibid., X1:513)
He then encourages the Methodists to follow him in this, resolving:
I will compute this day what I have expended in tea, weekly or yearly. I will immediately enter on cheaper food: And whatever is saved hereby, I will put into the poor-box weekly, to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked. (Ibid., X1:506)
This is a particularly instructive example, since it helps to give concreteness to the social dimension of Wesley's piety. Wesley's interest in abstinence from tea was motivated by a concern for bodily health and for the welfare of the poor. It is linked to Christian duty by way of the evangelical theme of the good of the neighbor and solidarity with the poor. Unfortunately the distinguishing feature of later, non-Wesleyan piety is the disappearance of the principle of the welfare of the poor as the norm for the evaluation of personal practice.'
Actualization and Controversy The idea that Wesley actualized his conceptions of solidarity with the poor and of stewardship as stewardship for God and the poor should not require extensive proof. His own example is too well known. And it was precisely this lived experience with the implementation of these notions that persuaded Wesley, at least, that he was not asking anything impossible of those who joined themselves to him as Methodists. He did not suppose that Scripture placed before us a set of unattainable ideals or impracticable visions, but that it proposed a practical method of living that was suited to those beings who had been created by the same God who gave them instruction concerning how to live and, through grace, the power to live in that way. It was, of course, possible to misunderstand these instructions, so it was necessary to test them (or rather, our understanding of them) by experience. This is what Wesley intended to do with his economic practice. And it was for this reason that personal example could be viewed as a cogent argument.
Into this category falls not only Wesley's own example, but also that of others whom he commended to the attention of his readers. For example, in his Journal Wesley commends the example of persons like Mary Cheesebrook (Nov. 22, 1747,
II:74) and Sarah Peters (Nov.
13, 1748, I1:120) and an unnamed former persecutor of Methodists (Sept. 6, 1757,
11:423). Wesley was a tireless gatherer and reporter of the testimonies of Methodists. Many of these had to do with peculiar experiences or with edifying deaths. But the actualization of Wesley's economic principles is not without its testimonies as well. For example, Wesley prints in his J ournala tong letter from an earnest Methodist. This excerpt will give the idea:
To be short, the expense for myself,—meat, drink, clothes, and washing, is not twenty-eight pounds per annum; so that I have near twenty pounds to return to God in the poor. Now, if every
Christian family, while in health, would thus far deny themselves, would twice a week dine on the cheapest food, drink in general herb-tea, faithfully calculate the money saved thereby, and give it to the poor over and above their usual donations, we should then hear no complaining in our streets, but the poor would eat and be satisfied. He that gathered much would have nothing over, and he that gathered little would have no lack. .
[mentioned this some i235
Good News to the Poor time ago in a meeting at London, when a brother said, "These are but little things," As I went home, I thought of his words: "Little things!" Is the want of fire, in frost and snow, a little thing? Or the want of food, in a distressed, helpless family? (Nov. 20, 1767,
III:306-7)
It is clear that at least one person had understood Wesley and found his advice to be practicable. The reaction of the other
Methodist shows quite well the difference in mentality. One thinks in terms of the addition of regulations concerning food and drink. But the Wesleyan thinks of the poor. From the first point of view, these are little things, adzaphora. But for the other they are a means of addressing concrete human affliction, both personally and socially. Both are speaking of the same thing, but they are not on the same planet. In Methodism the main arguments have been about the "little things," while the determining question of the poor has faded from center stage.'
Wesley sought to demonstrate by both his own example and that of others that the economic ethic he propounded was not an unworkable dream but the plain and practical consequence of "faith working by love." While some could see here nothing but a compulsive legalism, preoccupied with "little things," others clearly caught a truer vision and joined in the practice of solidarity.
COMMUNAL EXAMPLE
But Wesley did not imagine that Christianity was something that could be practiced by isolated individuals. It required community. That is why Wesley found it necessary to found societies in which Christians could "watch over one another in love." And the importance of communal example applied to the principles of Wesley's economic ethic as well. We have already seen that Wesley tried to organize his societies in such a way as to always take into account the priority of the poor.
In some cases this takes the form of joining with Wesley in his attempts to relieve the poor (see Journal, 1:309, 451, 458, and passim). More systematically, it takes the form of organizing the
Actualization and Controversy societies themselves so that they may be agents for the relief of the poor. Thus Wesley gives this account of the role of stewards:
They met together at six every Thursday morning; consulted on the business which came before them; sent relief to the sick, as every one had need; and gave the remainder of what had been contributed each week to those who appeared to be in the most pressing want. So that all was concluded within the week; what was brought on Tuesday being constantly expended on Thursday. (A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists, V111:262)
One can scarcely imagine that the principle business of church stewards, trustees, or treasurers would be the sending of relief to the poor, let alone their reaction to being told that nothing was to be saved, but all was to be sent out the same week it came in! Yet, the example was important for Wesley. For himself, for his hearers, and for his societies his rule was: "As it comes, daily or yearly, so let it go: Otherwise you 'lay up treasures upon earth.' And this our Lord as flatly forbids as murder and adultery" ("The More Excellent Way," VII:37).
Neither individuals nor communities were to "lay up for themselves treasures on earth" but give it all away to the poor and so (and only so) "lay up treasure in heaven." It is the task of the community of faith to demonstrate by its visible life that the gospel is not an idle dream but a truthful prescription for the transformation of reality.
Accordingly, Wesley was greatly encouraged by the existence of societies in which all the members together practiced the economic ethic he found to be mandated by the gospel. Of one such he writes: "I rode with Mr. Hodges to Neath. Here I found twelve young men, whom I could almost envy. They lived together in one house, and continually gave away whatever they earned above the necessaries of life" (Journal, Aug. 18, 1746,
EieZ1).
But Wesley's favorite example was the society of Tetney. An account of this society appears not only appears in his Journal, but also in the history of Methodism that he later prepared as a summary of the salient events recorded in the Journal proper.
Although the famous events of the night at Aldersgate do not
Good News to the Poor make the cut for inclusion in Wesley's Short History of the People
Called Methodists, the society at Tetney does:
On Tuesday I examined the little society at Tetney. I have not seen such another in England, no, not to this day [1781, referring to the events of 1747]. In the class-paper (which gives an account of the contribution for the poor), I observed one gave eightpence, often tenpence, a week; another, thirteen, fifteen, or eighteen pence; another, sometimes one, sometimes two shillings. I asked Micah
Ekmoor, the Leader, (an Israelite indeed, who now rests from his labour), "How is this? Are you the richest society in England?" He answered, "I suppose not; but as we are all single persons, we have agreed together to give ourselves, and all we have, to God. And we do it gladly, whereby we are able to entertain all the strangers that from time to time come to Tetney, who have often no food to eat, or any friend to give them a lodging. (A Short History of the People
Called Methodists, XII1:324-25; see also Journal, Feb. 24, 1747,
II1:45-46)
Here at least was an indication that the views of stewardship that Wesley propounded were practicable. But the more melancholy truth is that thirty-four years after encountering this society Wesley could still let stand the observation that he had not encountered another like it. Clearly there were quite impressive testimonies, both individual and communal, to the practice of a countereconomics of the gospel, an evangelical economics. But equally clearly this actualization was an uphill battle, one that Wesley finally lost—though not without a struggle.
COUNTERARGUMENTS
Despite the example of Wesley and some of the other Methodists, the practice of an evangelical economics was by no means widespread in the movement that Wesley led. It seems that many put forward what they thought of as arguments as to the impracticability of this project. Wesley attempted to answer these. Since some of these objections are still heard today, it may
Actualization and Controversy be well to rehearse briefly some of them, together with Wesley's responses.
We have already seen the way in which some responded to Wesley's strictures against becoming rich; they compared themselves to the wealthiest persons they knew or had heard of in order to conclude that they were not rich, and so were excused from the requirement to give to the poor or from the dangers that Wesley associated with the accumulation of wealth.
Wesley exploded this objection with his definition of wealth, which took the point of view, not of relative degrees of affluence, but of poverty itself. "Think of yourself as one among a certain number of indigent persons," he said ("The More
Excellent Way," VII:36). Other subterfuges of like kind were confronted by Wesley.
But many have found out a way never to be rich, though their substance increase ever so much. It is this: As fast as ever money comes in, they lay it out, either in land, or enlarging their business.
By this means, each of these, keeping himself bare of money, can still say, "I am not rich;" yea, though he has ten, twenty, a hundred times more substance than he had some years ago. ("The Danger of Increasing Riches," VII:357) But Wesley will have none of it. One whose "substance" increases, whether he or she has money or not, is convicted of laying up treasure on earth.
Others maintain that they will do more when they have more.
It seems that his fellows at Oxford had tried to persuade Wesley that he should improve his own financial condition before attempting to aid the poor. Wesley was not impressed then (see his letter to his father, June 13, 1733, XII:8), and his later experience with people showed him that it was vain to expect that one who was better off would do better.
How many have less will when they have more power! Now they have more money, they love it more; when they had little, they did their "diligence gladly to give of that little;" but since they have had much, they are so far from giving plenteously, that they can hardly afford to give at all. (Address to the Clergy [1756], X:496)
Good News to the Poor To be sure, the dominical counsel to take no thought for the morrow—even as modified by Wesley in the rule "as it comes in so let it go out"—has always seemed to many the counsel of folly.
But not to Wesley:
"How then must we live? Must we not take care of ourselves and our families?" And this they imagine to be a sufficient reason for continuing in known, wilful sin. They say, and perhaps think, they would serve God now, were it not that they should, by and by, lose their bread. They would prepare for eternity; but they are afraid of wanting the necessaries of life. So they serve the devil for a morsel of bread; they rush into hell for fear of want; they throw away their poor souls, lest they should, some time or other, fall short of what is needful for their bodies! ("Sermon on the Mount,
Discourse IX," V:390) Whatever one may think of this sort of "hell fire and brimstone" as a persuasive device, it is clear that for Wesley the practice of evangelical economics was a matter of ultimate concern.
He was no more gentle to the suggestion that if people didn't consume, then the economy would falter. When this sort of objection was raised to his strictures against costly clothes,
Wesley replied:
I answer, God certainly considered this before ever he gave these commands, And he would never have given them, had he not seen, that, if they were universally observed, men in general would live better than they otherwise could; better in this world, as well as that to come....
If those who do observe them [give to the poor] then a part of what before only served to fat a few rich tradesmen for hell, will suffice to feed and clothe and employ many poor that seek the kingdom of heaven. ("Advice to Methodists, With Regard to Dress," XI:473) This is certainly a double-edged response. It reminds us that prosperity, as it is normally understood, is not an unmixed blessing. It is indeed the high road to hell. But true prosperity, that which assures that all have the "necessaries" of life, is precisely the aim of a polity that places the welfare of the poor in the place of test, norm, or criterion. Of course, the apologists for
Actualization and Controversy consumer capitalism today make much the same argument, only with the difference that they sometimes have the temerity to argue that capitalism is the way to generate so much prosperity that the hungry are fed. Perhaps it is regarded by them as testimony to the efficacy of this approach that only fifteen million children died of poverty last year.
There are inevitably those who will seek to find in the faults of the poor a reason for avoiding their own responsibility. Wesley did not imagine that the poor were perfect (although it was his mission to call them to perfection). But he had too much experience with the poor to believe that they were miserable by their own choice. We have already noted his response to those who claimed that the poor are only so because they are lazy. He well knew the back-breaking industry by which so many of them desperately, and often vainly, sought to keep starvation at bay.
Yet, he also encountered those who affirmed that it really did no good to the poor to try to alleviate their misery; it might only confirm them in their "vices," and in any case did not treat the true spiritual problem. He replied: "Whether they will finally be lost or saved, you are expressly commanded to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. If you can, and do not, whatever becomes of them, you shall go away into everlasting fire" ("Sermon on the Mount, Discourse IV," V:307).
But then as now, a pretended piety is adept at finding some way of wrapping its rebellion against God in the mantle of spirituality. So to those who maintained that the only thing that matters is conversion, that only God can do that, and that if the poor are converted God will supply them with abundant material blessings, Wesley replies:
Though it is God only changes hearts, yet he generally doeth it by man. It is our part to do all that in us lies, as diligently as if we could change them ourselves, and then to leave the event up to him. God, in answer to their prayers, builds up his children by each other.
(Ibid., V:307) Thus Wesley's synergism served to guard against the sort of pretended piety that, in the name of praising the omnipotence of God, sat on its hands.
Good News to the Poor ji!) 0 These examples of Wesley's attempt to answer objections to his evangelical economics show that he was vitally concerned to persuade his fellow Methodists their relationship to God depended on their practice of these principles. For Wesley, a matter of such ultimate concern was generally expressed in terms of ultimate judgment, of "hell fire and brimstone" as we now say. By this he sought to make clear that our final relation to God depends on our relation to the poor. In this he knew that he had the witness of the Bible on his side. Thus the question of solidarity with the poor was ultimately a question of the authenticity of the Christian's confession of faith.
But these responses to objections do more than provide insight into how seriously Wesley took these questions. They also exhibit specimens of objections that anyone may encounter today. It is true that much has changed in the two centuries that separate us from the time of Wesley, and our theological responses must take this into account. But it is also true that the demands of the gospel retain recognizable shape and that the desire on the part of Christians to say "Lord, Lord," but escape the doing of what is required, persists.
Whatever we may think of Wesley's use of fire and brimstone or his particular way of asserting the authority of Scripture or his emphasis on the law, in one respect his responses are exemplary: They are theological responses. That is, they see and say that the question of what I have been calling an evangelical economics is a theological question, demanding a theological response. It is not adzaphora. We can no more leave
God out of our economics than we can leave God out of our liturgy.
WESLEY AGAINST THE METHODISTS
In a sense we can say that Wesley was writing essays on the history of Methodism almost before there was such a thing. In the early decades, these were written with the aim of countering the charges of critics "so that the good that is in you not be evil spoken of," as he liked to say (misapplying Rom. 14:16). But in
Actualization and Controversy the later years Wesley wrote such sketches as much for the benefit of the Methodists themselves as for the benefit of history. After all, in the later years of his ministry the majority of Methodists had not even been born when he began to preach in the fields and gather people into societies. These reflections on Methodist history are found in his later sermons and essays and provide insight into Wesley's own view of both the promise and the failure of Methodism.
Occasionally these sermonic histories have a_ slightly triumphalist ring, as in the sermon we have already cited on "The General Spread of the Gospel." In this sermon, Wesley supposed that the renewal of Christianity, launched in England some half century before, must spread throughout
Christendom and that the effect of this renewal would be the return to the practice of a pentecostal community of goods and redistribution of wealth, which would prove an irresistible argument for the truth of the gospel to the adherents of other faiths. This would then lead to an end to the dispute among nations, leading to the universal reign not only of justice but also of peace. Such was the scope of Wesley's vision of the :nevitable transformation of the social and world order by the grace of God through the instrumentality of the movement of Methodists.° Although this was the vision that Wesley hoped would be realized and committed his considerable energies to realizing, he was aware that this vision was threatened. The threat came not from declining membership or dwindling Sunday school enrollments, nor from diminished influence in the halls of power or groves of academe, nor from a falling off of church extension or shrinking budgets or any of the other things that spread existential angst amongst us.
It was, rather, that Methodism was suffering from a fatal illness for which no church-growth nostrums could avail. Methodists were entering the middle class and leaving the poor behind.
While this theme is a constant feature of Wesley's warnings concerning individual Methodists, from about 1760 on Wesley increasingly addresses himself to the problem among Methodists as such. Thus we find in 1760 this warning in the Journal:
Good News to the Poor On the three following days I spoke severally to the members of the society. As many of them increase in worldly goods, the great danger I apprehend now is, their relapsing into the spirit of the world: And then their religion is but a dream. (Journal, Oct. 12-21,
1760, III:23)
These warnings come with increasing frequency and urgency.
In 1764 we find, for example:
I gave all our brethren a solemn warning not to love the world, or the things of the world. This is one way whereby Satan will surely endeavour to overthrow the present work of God. Riches swiftly increase on many Methodists, so called: What, but the mighty power of God, can hinder their setting their hearts upon them?
And if so, the life of God vanishes away. (Journal, July 11, 1764, I11:187; see also Oct. 20, 1764, III:200; June 28, 1765, I11:227; and so on) There still remained a faithful remnant whose views Wesley cited with approval to drive home this warning. Thus we find in the Journal for 1767 Wesley's quotation of a letter he had received from one of these, together with his response to it:
"..I find one chief part of my striving must be, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to instruct the ignorant, to visit the sick and such as are in prison, bound in misery and iron.
' "But if you purge out all who scorn such practices, or at least are not found in them, how many will remain in your society? I fear scarce enough to carry your body to the grave! Alas, how many, even among those who are called believers, have plenty of all the necessaries of life, and yet complain of poverty! .
. How many have linen in plenty, with three or four suits of clothes, and can see the poor go naked! . .
. Pray, Sir, tell these, you cannot believe they are Christians, unless they imitate Christ in doing good to all men, and hate covetousness, which is idolatry."
[Wesley answers] I do tell them so: And I tell them it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them. I tell them, the Methodists that do not fulfil all righteousness will have the hottest place in the lake of fire!
( Journal, Nov. 20, 1767, I11:305)