John Wesley and his theological contributions

John Wesley

Questions on the Wesleyan Ideology

From Wesley's perspective, that which was simply a matter of practicality and political feasibility would ultimately constitute the strongest argument against the example which he set. As a tireless advocate of the poor, he was nonetheless also a man fundamentally committed to the structural conditions of Victorian society, most probably as a product of being incapable of imagining another effective form of governance. Indeed, Jennings (1990) contends that "the study of Wesley's social ethics is frequently rendered difficult by the apparently reactionary character of Wesley's politics. Questions of political organization and institutional justice are those that many of us have on our minds when we ask about social ethics." (Jennings, 13)

For Wesley, allegations of injustice and abuse of the will of God only extended as far as those who could socially be considered subjects to his word. Those in the aristocracy remained somehow above these conditions in his perspective. This is, of course, inconsistent with the terms of his religious ideology but fully consistent with what might be termed survival instincts. To his view, the only possible way to achieve a greater permeation of his message was to cooperate to an extent with the existing establishment of the time. Therefore, the boldness of his stance on helping the poor and stepping outside the formal boundaries of the church to do so would be seen as radical enough in the face of vehement opposition.

To this point, Wesley would work to prove himself a valuable ally to the king, using his influence only to strengthen and never to weaken the kings position. In fact, this was an important part of his agenda, which generally did not allow political discourse to invade theology. However, "Wesley's prohibition against his preachers' addressing political topics allowed only one exception: exculpating and defending the king and his government. In the long run, this stance made the official representatives of Methodism uncritical supporters of a society that largely worked against the movement's dynamic, society-changing force or drove those motivated by it out of the newly emerging church." (Marquardt, 134)

Today, this remains an even more glaring failure on Wesley's part, even if it seems to bear some strategic sensibility to have remained so vocally on the side of the monarchy. In retrospect, the degree to which the activities of various churches seems to have served to strengthen the grasp of monarchies attempting to justify their own authority in the face of the industrial revolution discredits Wesley as a true agent for change. His emphasis on meeting at its surface the challenges posed by the misery of the poor would have a great value and today still serves as a positive example for Christians of every denomination. However, the active dismissal of so many of the core structural realities which had been at the root of the suffering of the poor is today justifiably regarded as impractical and irrational.

That said, these are perspectives which come with the luxury of hindsight and the in the face of myriad democratic reforms the world over. Moreover, most industrialized nations are no longer directly governed by the word of church and king. Perhaps mired in the structural conditions that were many centuries old, it can be reconciled that Wesley desired to help the poor at least to the extent that he viewed possible. Thus, to give him at least this benefit of the doubt, the argument may be posited that it is only in the aftermath of such ideological revolutions as Wesley's that we are able to reflect with such a greater ambition as to wish he had taken on the monarchy itself. In its time, Wesley's canon should be regarded as revolutionary, compassionate and practical given the limitations which were inevitable.

In spite of the critique which can be raised against Wesley for an inconsistency between his ideology and his policy, he most certainly provided in the former a blueprint by which future Christians could model their own behaviors and activities. Particularly, his work is the groundwork for the formation of the types of cross-cultural bonds that can be developed through the modern church. He also provides a moral imperative for this type of cross-cultural interaction by suggesting that those in wealthier and more secure church communities have an obligation to find ways to reach out to the poorest among them.

So says Wesley according to the Jennings text, which states of his philosophy that "those evangelicals who preach conversion that does not turn us toward the poor, that does not result in a redistribution of wealth, cannot plausibly claimer that there is any relation between saving persons and changing society. Rather they are offering individual salvation as a substitute for meaningful transformation either of persons or of society." (Jennings, 17) a collective and tangible attention to the needs of society must be achieved instead if the religious imperatives are to carry any meaning. Therefore, a socially responsible church made in the impression of John Wesley should by a matter of community extend its hand to other churches in order to create a freer flow of social good, collective acceptance and Christian brotherhood across lines which separate races, communities and socioeconomic classes.

By creating an open line of communication and invoking a sense of oneness between churches which may be of different racial contingents, for instance, leaders in their respective churches can help to erase the distinctions which cause rich and poor to view each other differently. The contempt which often arises from a lack of understanding is bred by ignorance and mutual isolation, which Wesley attempts to resolve by actively encouraging individuals to achieve direct contact with those whom they wish to help. It is not necessarily sufficient to act with remote charity but this must be reinforced by a demonstrated commitment to love one's fellow man. For Wesley, this would be emergent from observations of a destructive ignorance in the relationship between rich and poor.

According to the Marquardt (1992) text, this is a fundamental obstacle to proper Christian standing that caused Wesley to develop so strong an endorsement for cross-cultural interaction, especially between the rich and poor. The Marquardt text denotes that, in Wesley's view, "the property owner's egotism was so great that their charitable activities and humanitarian gifts were frequently exercises of religious obligation rather than actual help directed toward bringing about change for the needy. Because criminal acts resulting from poverty were better known than the misery of the poor, indignation tended to replace sympathy." (Marqardt, 21)

This is based on an inability or unwillingness to understand the plight of our fellow man which, if understood, would invoke sympathy and the desire for come to his aid in the true Christian. The modern church will play a significant role in helping Christians to realize this aspect of their commitment to God and cross-cultural activities, prayer groups and community programs are a direct route to creating organic sympathy and mutual love between Christians of markedly different life experiences.

3.

John Wesley's greatest distinction as a man of God was his righteous support of the poor. He believed it not only the duty of a Christian to address the suffering of his fellow man but that it is nothing less than a sin to fail in that duty. Wesley thus expresses a viewpoint suggesting that those of us walking in the light of God today must take that which has been given to us and use to help those in the greatest of need. For the wealthier congregation and its leaders this is especially true. Such is demonstrated in Wesley's own perspective on economics.

As Jennings (1990) tells, "Wesley does not start off with a theory of actual or ideal economic relations, which is then applied to the problem of unemployment. Rather he begins with the concrete reality of his hearers or readers. They are spending money on clothes, but their neighbor has none. This then opens the way to a demonstration of the incompatibility of this with the gospel." (Jennings, 15-16) This helps to provide a template for service as a pastor to a wealthy middle class congregation under Wesleyan priorities. Namely, the impetus to serve the poor is here pronounced as a responsibility which is inherently demanded of those who have the means.

Therefore, as the pastor to such a congregation, I would express the importance of charity and giving through voluntary service to the poor. John Wesley's ideology endorses the assumption of these as personal responsibilities in league with a commitment to God and country, making as a primary focus of his ideology the scriptural emphasis on reaching out and making face-to-face contact with the poor. It is thus that Wesley expressed a foremost desire to see the poor given greater opportunity, comfort and access to the grace of god. Therefore, to go out spread both the love and the word of the lord should be seen as an area of the utmost importance for the good and humble Christian.