Blandon's Brogs

This is a paper I wrote for my United Methodist history class. We were instructed to find an article online which appeals to John Wesley to make an argument that gives instruction to the modern church. In part one, we are to summarize the article. Part two - investigate what Wesley actually said on the topic at hand, and part three was to evaluate the fittingness of the articles application of Wesley to today.

I chose this article:

http://blog.acton.org/archives/2526-Is-John-Wesleys-Economic-Advice-Sound.html

...which is actually an argument against this one:

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072519&ct=6110923

ARTICLE SUMMARY:

In his article, “Is John Wesley’s Economic Advice Sound?,” Ray Nothstine writes in response to an article entitled “John Wesley’s advice on the economy,” by J. Richard Peck.[1] According to Nothstine, Peck believes that people should follow the economic advice of John Wesley, which includes supporting higher taxes on the rich, laws that conserve natural resources, and addressing poverty by “repress[ing] luxury”.[2] Peck actually makes many specific claims in his article describing Wesley’s economic beliefs. Nothstine does not accuse Peck of misreading Wesley; but of misusing Wesley for economic advice when Wesley’s expertise really lies elsewhere: “While some of Wesley’s economic advice is certainly sound, especially his views on the danger of debt, his understanding of basic economic principles in a free economy is severely limited.”[3]

To support the point, Nothstine asks the reader to consider Wesley’s advice on medicine as written in Primitive Physick. Indicating how ridiculously some of Wesley’s medical advice reads when compared with modern medicine, Nothstine then asks why people would fail to acknowledge a paralleled sophistication to have occurred in the field of economics. According to Nothstine’s argument, Wesley’s economic advice is no more reliable than his advice to rub onions on your head to cure baldness.

Just before concluding, Nothstone makes a brief statement encouraging his readers to follow Wesley’s example of “passionate assistance to the poor.” In his final remarks, Nothstine affirms that Wesley’s best advice is not in medical or economic concerns, but in helping people spreading the gospel.[4]

WHAT DID JOHN WESLEY ACTUALLY SAY?

At this point, one may ask exactly what Nothstine understands to be the content of that gospel. In his final paragraph, he rightly points out that Wesley emphasizes preaching “Christ and him crucified,” but does Nothstine express any concern with what that means for John Wesley? When presented with the opportunity to bring Wesley’s grave concern over economic matters into conversation with today’s church, Nothstine cheapened those concerns to translate them as mere inspiration to imitate Wesley’s “passionate assistance to the poor.”[5] I will argue that, as a result of his argument to deny John Wesley’s influence over economics, Nothstine undervalues—if not altogether abandons—the spirit of Wesley’s preaching of “Christ and him crucified.”

Nothstine only uses the word “stewardship” once[6] and never makes any constructive suggestions as to how money should actually be spent. This contrasts greatly with John Wesley, for whom the importance of how to use money could never be overstated. By the time he published “The Use of Money” in his fourth volume of Sermons, Wesley had already preached the sermon at least 27 times.[7] He regarded the misuse of money as a consistent threat to Methodists, as he frequently returned to the topic in many sermons based on multiple scriptures. As Heitzenrater and Outler indicate, Wesley preached as emphatically on this specific issue (of using money properly) as on any other topic that may distinctly characterize his preaching: “On no other single point, save only faith alone and holy living, is Wesley more insistent, consistent, and out of step with the bourgeois spirit of his age.”[8]

The consistency he shows in many of these sermons is often still remembered for its three simple, but not easy, rules: “Gain all you can, Save all you can, and Give all you can.”[9] The first rule might not sound revolutionary or selfless, but Wesley does not believe money, per se, to be evil. Since money can be used for either good or for evil, it is appropriate that holy people acquire as much of it as possible for putting it to God’s good use. Nothstine (or a person whose politics might find his article favorable) may easily identify with this first rule to simply make lots of money. It sounds very capitalistic. Never without considerate reason, Wesley also uses this same rule to decisively condemn sloth, overwork, exploitation, physical and spiritual abuse of self and/or others. Even the first step requires strenuous care to be done correctly.

When Wesley gives the instruction to “Save all you can,” he means not to lose it. Do not spend wastefully. On this point, the image of taking up one’s cross is seen in the sacrifice of worldly materialism. “Despise delicacy and variety, and be content with what plain nature requires.”[10] Wesley warns against the satisfaction of vain sensual desires to surround oneself with beautiful property and décor, and indulgence in pride that is borne out of vain admiration from others. This is the dangerous place where sin can take control when one has a love of money.

While still on the topic of “saving all you can,” one may briefly consider another sermon, “The Danger of Riches,” in which Wesley speaks in detail on the temptations that naturally emerge from both desire for, and simple possession of riches. If these temptations—pride of life, desires of the flesh, or desires of the eyes—are satisfied, the net result is the guilt of sin, and the beginning of a cycle of temptation that grows stronger and stronger. “After this, sin was punished by sin; and this evil spirit was permitted to enter him.”[11] This is how Wesley accounts for the biblical witness that the love of money is the root of all evil. Perhaps money is not always directly involved in human sin, but it does provide a doorway of temptation for any and each kind of sin to enter the human.

Returning to “The Use of Money,” John Wesley moves on to speak on the dangers of not saving all you can. He speaks here with such conviction that he severely admonishes parents not to give more money to their own children than required for necessities, for the act of giving too much essentially causes children to sin and literally damns them to hell:

“How amazing then is the infatuation of those parents who think they can never leave their children enough! What! Cannot you leave them enough of arrows, firebrands, and death? Not enough of foolish and hurtful desires? Not enough of pride, lust, ambition, vanity? Not enough of everlasting burnings? Poor wretch! Thou fearest where no fear is, Surely both thou and they, when ye are lifting up your eyes in hell, will have enough both of the “worm that never dieth,” and of “the fire the never shall be quenched!”[12]

To use such dramatic language and imagery, Wesley must have considered the subject of handling money to be more central than peripheral in his radical message of practicing holiness; that is picking up the cross and denying the self. If his theology is to be respected, so also must his economic advice. For one to quickly dismiss his ideas about money, one should also hope to quickly dismiss much of his theology that leads to his assurance of their condemnation.

The third and final rule is to “Give all you can.” As the most difficult step, it is also the most important for Wesley. If you have made all you can and saved all you can, but are not able to give all that you can, then you may as well throw your money into the sea. Wesley believes that all things we perceive to be under human control are rightfully the possessions of God. Humans really only live to serve as stewards of everything God entrusts to them on earth. Wesley very carefully lays out a hierarchy of how one should allocate money, first according only to personal needs:

1. Food, clothing, and natural requirements for protecting personal health

2. The same for spouse, children, and all in one’s home

3. If money remains, use it to help members of one’s own faith community.

4. If money still remains, use it to help all people.

Do this until you “give all you can,” which means give everything that you have. Wesley then lists four questions for evaluating the appropriateness of any expense one may consider:

1. By spending like this, am I fulfilling my role as God’s steward?

2. Am I acting in accordance with the teachings of scripture?

3. Can I make this expense as an offering to God through Jesus Christ?

4. Could this very act be the one for which I am rewarded with resurrection?

Wesley concludes “The Use of Money” with gentleness and serenity as he closes his discussion of the third rule. His final words exhort the listener to selflessly imitate Christ in anticipation of eternal life.[13]

In “Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity,” his discussion of “giving all you can” takes a very different approach.

“You find that many observe the first rule [Gain]… You may find a few that observe the second [Save]…But how many have you found that observe the third rule [Give]? Have you reason to believe that that 500 of these are to be found among 50,000 Methodists? And yet nothing can be more plain than that all who observe the first two rules without the third will be twofold more the children of hell than ever they were before. …Many of your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat; they have not raiment to put on; they have not a place to lay their head. And why are they thus distressed? Because you impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from them what your Master and theirs lodges in your hands on purpose to supply their wants! …In the name of God, what are you doing?”[14]

Wesley became frustrated with the lack of progress in Christians during the span of his ministry. More than anything, he began to see Methodists grow closer and closer to the things of the world, rather than moving toward holy perfection. It’s a pattern that has continued to this day. Wesley once spoke with eternal concern about how to use money properly, and he warned about the self-enabling sins associated with improper use. Nothstine seems utterly unconcerned with what John Wesley actually says about money and waters the message down to a generic “great example” to follow.

IS WESLEY RIGHT? IS NOTHSTINE RIGHT?

Before evaluating Nothstine’s appeal to the historical Wesley, it is worth recalling the fact that Nothstine never disputes any of Peck’s appeals to Wesley in Wesley’s original context. Nothstine does not address any of Peck’s specific points on what Wesley supposedly says about healing an unstable economy; which include raising taxes on the rich to ‘repress luxury,’ and preservation of natural resources.[15] Nothstine only finds fault in Peck’s belief that Wesley’s economic ideas remain helpful in today’s increasingly complicated international market. Rather than making a defensive counter-appeal to Wesley, Nothstine introduces Wesley’s Primitive Physick to the conversation. He does not refer to John Wesley in order to illustrate Wesley’s relevance for today, but to depict Wesley as irrelevant to address any modern issues beyond “preaching.”

I realize that by now my political bias is likely showing. Environmentalism and tax-reform are hot-button political issues, and it would be inauthentic to deny the reality that the topic presented here is a very familiar fight now dressed in Wesley. I must finally admit that this debate, even specifically on John Wesley’s role, is not easily solved. If the ultimate question is about whether or not John Wesley could “save the economy,” I do not believe that his extreme suggestions would ever work on a national level. It would be impossible—even evil—to force legislation of Wesleyan discipline. Nothstine makes a fair point to indicate Wesley’s extremely limited knowledge on the intricacies of today’s global economy.

What would the historic John Wesley have to say in response to Nothstine’s depiction? I imagine on some level he would probably feel a sense of indignation over the personal attack for his deficient knowledge of science and economics. If Wesley could adjust to the passage of time and really study the many dynamics of modern American capitalism, I believe his most natural reaction would be one of disgust at the willingness of Christians to vow adherence to maintain such a system, rather than take seriously the call to increase in holiness, exercising love and compassion for all the poor. Wesley’s rule to “gain, save, and give all you can,” remains fundamental for a church that has always struggled in managing money, if my experience and Wesley’s lifelong anxiety are any indication. I will not claim to know exactly how Wesley would react to our current crises. It is fair to say that a good Wesleyan student could have made much better use of Wesley to counter my interpretation, but Nothstine never even tried. He refused to let Wesley have a real voice, and that is why his article contributes very little, if anything at all, to the conversations in our midst.

# posted by Brandog @ 12:18 PM