JOHN WESLEY, THE METHODISTS, AND SOCIAL
REFORM IN ENGLAND
by
Luke L. Keefer
In a conference devoted to the theme of Methodist's
impact upon the American social conscience, it might be well to look at the record of
English Methodism in the same area. This means primarily a look at John Wesley's movement
in the eighteenth century. Secondarily, this also involves some attention to subsequent
Methodist developments in the century and a half after Wesley's death.
In pursuing this objective I have had to impose certain
restrictions upon the subject. First, only the most cursory attention can be devoted to
the detailed record of Wesley and Methodism's acts and attitudes. Those with interest in
such detailed studies can pursue them in the writings of Maldwyn Edwards, Robert
Wearmouth, Wellman J. Warner, John W. Bready, J. H. Whiteley,1 and other recent studies.2
Secondly, I am pursuing the subject with the specific
purpose of analyzing various interpretations that have been offered to assess the social
impact of John Wesley and his people upon English social history. A major portion of this
paper is lifted from the concluding section of an extensive study undertaken for a course
in eighteenth century English history during my doctoral studies at Temple University.3
While the various theories can be analyzed apart from the concrete data upon which they
are based, one might be at a 1099 to assess my critical review of them apart from that
data. I can only direct the curious to that larger study.
Since that study was conducted nearly fifteen years ago,
I have attempted to update it somewhat by giving attention to four of the papers presented
at Emory University during the bicentennial celebrations of American Methodism4 and to the
edited papers of the Sixth Oxford Institute on Methodist Theological Studies held at
Lincoln College in the summer of 1977.5 Of particular interest to that conference was the
attempt to assess Wesley from the perspective of liberation theology.
Thirdly, and most regrettably, I will not be able to
trace out lines of influence between English Methodism and its American counterpart in
regard to social ethics. I am not aware of any studies in depth on this topic analogous to
those which Robert Chiles did on Methodism's theology in general and John Peters did on
its doctrine of Christian perfection.6 What would emerge if one were to try to connect the
studies of the British situation done by Edwards, Wearmouth, Warner, and others with that
of Timothy Smith's significant analysis of the American scene7 is an intriguing question.
I. An Overview of the Record of Wesley and
Methodism's Social Activity
Wesley's personal record of philanthropy is outstanding
judged against any measure, especially when compared to a comparable person in any given
age. One would be hard put to find many examples of people who gave away more of their
adult resources of time and money than Wesley did. His charity and his concern were
directed toward the poor, the unemployed, the debtors, the sick, the imprisoned, the
uneducated, the widows and the orphans. From his student days at Oxford until his last
illness nearly seventy years he sustained a constant attention to the needy.
His aid was intentional, taking definite structures that
involved others in its execution and providing for its continuance beyond the scope of his
life. His life was a model for all Methodists; he wanted them to see how they might apply
themselves to similar projects within their sphere of ministry. Thus his concern for doing
good was multiplied many times over in the lives of those influenced by his work.
Wesley did address issues that went beyond individual
cases of need. He decried miscarriages of justice in the court systems, corrupt election
practices, and government policies that adversely affected the nation, especially the
poor. He wrote vigorously in behalf of better prison conditions. He boldly called for the
elimination of slavery and the slave trade. Generally, he gets good marks in these areas.
Many social analysts fault him, however, for some of his written stances regarding the
civil liberties of Roman Catholics, the status of the American revolutionaries, and
republican forms of government in general.
His pluses and minuses stand together in his record and
call for comprehensive analysis. He is best understood as an informed preacher who acts
not so much from fixed political strategy and social theory as from an ethical vision
shaped by Scripture and Christian history. It is hard to be severe with him at this point,
when one realizes that Locke's treatises at the threshold of his century and Adam Smith's
writing in the last quarter of the same had really only broken ground in such disciplines
as political science and economics. Nor can Wesley be discredited by a Tory label, because
the label itself is too imprecise as an eighteenth century social judgment, and Wesley
often was at variance with the Tory caricature assigned to his time.
The Methodists after Wesley are a variegated study of
comparisons and contrasts. Their record for personal philanthropy and corporate charities
is a noble one. This is most clearly reflected in diaries and journals and the biographies
of Methodist people, the sources from which Leslie Church drew his material about the
early Methodist.8 Each tradition has its notable people whose lives of social service
stand out precisely because they are so far above the norm. What is fascinating about
these early Methodist people, however, is how typical their journals are. Charity was a
fixed pattern in the society. It was something to which all were committed. To read
Methodist diaries is to uncover behavior that was quite common and not singular instances
of a socially concerned individual.
Some general patterns of Methodist theory and practice
can be traced across large blocks of time. With the exceptions of laudable records in
regard to slavery and education, the Methodists in the first fifty years after Wesley were
socially more conservative than he was. As a body, they do not respond well to the social
causes, especially in regard to organized labor. The next century finds them more involved
at the political level of social change. They are more attuned to the social theories and
programs of the time. At the same time, they are less conscious of a distinctively
Wesleyan theology to inform the social change. They have become part of the larger social
consciousness of the English nation. The pluses and minuses have shifted around a bit, but
the record remains mixed.
II. An Assessment of the Wesleyan Social Influence on
England
Needless to say there are various interpretations of the
impact John Wesley had on England socially. I have reduced the assessments to broad
groupings: (1) those who say that Methodism had very little influence on the social
development of England, (2) those who say that Methodism had a profound influence on the
social development of England, and (3) those who take a position between these two
evaluations.
One would be hard put to find traditional Methodist
authorities who would take the position that Wesley's moment was of little social
consequence. There are writers outside Methodism, however, who hold such a position.
Leslie Stephen's assessment of Wesley could hardly be called flattering.9 He sees British
Methodism as a movement that had no profound social impact upon England because it
diverted discontent into religious exercises rather than into political action,10 and
because it made no important intellectual contribution to England as earlier Reformation
movements had.11 Max Weber sees the Methodists as primarily concerned about the salvation
of the soul. Thus he maintains that any social consequences were purely incidental to this
main purpose.12 In his view, the Methodists were in the general stream of the "
Protestant ethic,"13 which means that their movement was generally inimical to social
reform, particularly in industrialized England.
H. Richard Niebuhr also believes that Wesleyanism failed
to create permanent social change because it was a religious revolution of the
disinherited which failed to become a popular movement.14 He maintains that it was too
individualistic in its approach and failed to grasp the ideal of the Kingdom of God which
had fired the revolutionaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.15 Thus, when
real social change came to England in the last half of the nineteenth century, it was
secular in character rather than religious. He implies that the English people by that
time had come to doubt that religion wag a positive force for social betterment.
One could argue specifically with each of these writers.
However, they all seem to share several general weaknesses. They do not give sufficient
credit to Methodist accomplishments. For Weber any social consequences of Methodism were
simply incidental to its religious ideology, while Stephen considers the Wesleyan record
on slavery (the one point at which he must admit that it made a difference on purpose) as
a mere exception to its overall record. Weber and Stephen make no attempt to discover to
what extent Methodist philanthropy not only improved the lot of thousands but also
provided a new social climate in which care of the unfortunate became a political ideal.
Instead of seeing Methodism as a developmental stage between the Puritan Revolt of the
seventeenth century and the Socialist Revolution of the later nineteenth century, they see
it at its best as an interlude and at its worst as an actual interruption of positive
social change.
They, like most radical historians, overlook the fact
that the Puritan revolt was a political failure (as was also the French Revolution) and
contained some elements that were reactionary in nature. It could be argued that though
Methodism slowed the rate of social change, it ultimately assured its success by providing
a method for peaceful change which was in keeping with the British mind.16 These authors
give little recognition to the development within Methodism itself, a development which
found it decidedly liberal in outlook by the time that dramatic social change occurred in
the later half of the nineteenth century.17 Most seriously of all, they are not
sufficiently immersed in the primary data of Methodism. One can hardly be thoroughly
acquainted with the Wesleyan sources and be unimpressed with Methodist social
achievements. If one compares the Methodist record from 1725-1850 (which some see as its
preliberal days) to that of any other organized group of the period, sacred or secular,
one cannot help but conclude that no other group can match it at the point of social
service. Until a writer can empirically demonstrate Methodist ineffectiveness in creating
social change, he has little or no case for minimizing the social influence of Wesley and
his people.
On the other hand, those who say that Methodism had a
profound social influence upon England tend to exaggerate the magnitude of that influence.
Curiously there are two rival camps which argue from this basic premise and they come to
opposite conclusions. One group says the influence was largely a positive one, while the
other says the influence was a negative factor in England's social development.
Many of the Methodist historians, especially those who
wrote in the nineteenth century, belong to the camp that considers Methodism's influence
to have been profoundly beneficial. In the closing years of the eighteenth century and the
early years of the nineteenth century, Methodists had to defend themselves from government
suspicions that they harbored revolutionary sympathies. To do so they magnified their Tory
principles, especially their support of the Constitutional Monarchy. They emphasized their
intolerance for any and all groups that threatened the stability of the government through
agitation for radical reform. They particularly stood in total opposition to the French
Revolution and made every effort to assure that their members were not associated with any
group that supported the ideals of the French Revolution or advocated violence resembling
its reign of terror. As a result, Methodist apologists could tell the government that they
had helped to prevent a revolution in England like that which occurred across the Channel.
Later Methodists read these apologetic evaluations as statements of fact.
Thus the myth that Methodism saved England from
revolution came to be widely accepted among Methodist writers. This idea also gained some
credence outside of Methodist circles, for even William E. H. Lecky, who sought to be
rigorously empirical, sees the Methodists as playing a prominent role in preventing the
French Revolution from spreading to England.18
To say the least, this is a naive assessment. It fails
to recognize that the English people were not ripe for revolution as the French were,
primarily because of the Glorious Revolution in England in the previous century. Many
continental political writers saw England's Constitutional Monarchy as the ideal form of
government. British subjects enjoyed rights that no other European citizens enjoyed.
This assessment also fails to reckon with a British
temperament which magnified the way of compromise in settling conflicts. Thus, many
English who at first supported the French Revolution were to change their minds when the
horror of its methods was revealed. English reformists were more inclined to use the
existing political process to achieve their ends.
This naive view errs substantially in its estimate of
the possible effect the Methodists could have had upon the English populace of the day.
They were a very small minority in the whole nation and were particularly without power in
Ireland and Scotland. If the British people as a whole had favored revolution, the
Methodists could have done very little to frustrate their purpose.
These Methodist writers also overestimate the social
impact of Methodism in other areas. They tend to assume that the democratic practices of
the Society as well as its philanthropy were automatically translated into the larger
public sphere. Thus they point to specific cases of Methodist concern as the equivalent of
social reform in England. They interpret certain Methodist activities as indicative of a
liberal orientation in politics and economics. Obviously, for them, Wesley is a hero. They
find it difficult to give full recognition to his blind spots. There is a lack of
objectivity and sophistication in the reading of the events of the first half of the
nineteenth century. They undoubtedly know the Methodist sources well, but they are not as
well informed about the larger English social history of the period. They are often
religious authors who are unversed in the political and economic sciences. Hence, a better
record is claimed for Wesley's people than the facts allow.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are writers like Mr.
and Mrs. Hammond (The Town Laborer) and E. P. Thompson (The Making of the
English Working Class). They blame the Methodists for keeping England from
experiencing a revolution like that which occurred in France.19 The Wesleyan influence is
blamed for some of the bad effects of industrialization in England. Wesleyan teaching,
they believe, changed the psyche of the rebellious laborers into a servile docility which
played into the hands of the factory owners 20 For these authors Methodism was truly the
"opiate of the masses," because it used religion to inhibit the workers'
impulses toward social betterment. If this be true, one wants to ask, "Why did
Methodism grow so rapidly between 1792 and 1830 and attract so many working people into
its ranks?" Thompson explains this growth as a "Chiliasm of despair."21 By
that he means that the working class turned to religion for the comforting thought of
heaven when its efforts to improve its social lot were frustrated by the establishment.
Thus, Thompson argues that Methodist growth was not steady but came in spurts that
correlated positively with the years in which radical activity failed.
Both Thompson and the Hammonds work under severe
disabilities. Both try their hands at the dubious task of writing psychohistory. Now
psychoanalysis is imprecise enough when one has a living subject before him who can be
observed and interrogated. When one tries to analyze the psychology of a group, the
problem is even more complex. But to try to apply such a method to a movement removed by a
century and a half is a task involving gigantic complexities. It is understandable that
most historians refuse to give the same credence to psychohistory that they do to
empirical historical evidence.
These authors also operate from a commitment to a
Marxist philosophy of history. One could give greater weight to their criticisms if they
were not attempting to reconstruct history to fit into Marxist presuppositions. Thompson
himself admits that the stark outlines of his "intellectualized picture" were
not that harsh in the actual situation.22 There is the tendency to search
the sources for the bits of evidence that support their
views while ignoring the evidence which militates against their philosophy. To those who
know the sources well, it is obvious that they have constructed some generalizations from
what are exceptional incidents. This is particularly true when they try to depict the
psychological effect of Methodist religious experience. It is a tendency apparent already
in Leslie Stephen and William E. H. Lecky.
More important than the issue of methodology, however,
is the fact that their interpretation fails at several crucial points. It is a long step
from the demonstration that a religion like Methodism could have produced docile workers
to the proof that it actually did. When one tests their hypothesis at this point it fails
to make its case. Sidney Pollard's "Factory Discipline in the Industrial
Revolution"23 makes it evident that factory owners had a whole battery of tactics at
their disposal to fashion a working population during the industrial revolution. Almost
every institution of the day was at their disposal. Why then single out religion as the
prime culprit in subduing the workers? And the Methodists, of all people, since their
record in this regard is far superior to that of the Anglican Church? As Mr. Pollard
notes, factory owners did not care which form of worship the workers followed; all they
cared for was that it should make them good workers.24 John S. Kent says, "Any
respectable variety of religion would do; there is little evidence that manufacturers had
the enthusiasm for Methodism which one would expect on Mr.
Thompson's argument.25 Besides, what is Mr. Thompson to
do with all those Methodists who were involved with the labor unions if the Methodists are
the supreme example of a religion aptly suited to form passive workers? He is constrained
to make the concession that at least the Methodist sects that broke from the parent body
made a contribution to the later development of trade unionism and political radicalism.26
It would seem that Mr. Thompson singles out the
Methodism for his censure because he believes that it was the most influential religion of
the day. Now in some respects that may have been true, but it certainly will not bear the
burden of argument he imposes upon it. Gertrude Himmelfarb notes that Thompson speaks of
England's being on the verge of revolution from 1790 to 1832, and then asks: "If
Methodism prevailed so widely among the masses and penetrated so deeply into their
individual and collective psyche, where did the impulse and perennial threat of revolution
come from?"27
E. J. Hobsbawm questions the whole thesis of the extent
of Methodism's influence in retarding revolution.28 After comparing Methodist statistics
to the population census, he concludes: "It does not seem likely that a body of, say,
150,000 out of 10 million English and Welsh 1811 could have exercised decisive
importance." 29 The Methodist population was concentrated in certain areas,
"mainly in the North, Midlands, East Anglia, and the extreme Southwest."30 When
Hobsbawm examined the areas of Methodist strength, he found they had little or no
moderating effect on radicalism. Instead he found that both Methodism and radicalism were
strong in some cities and both were weak in some cities.31 He noted, too, that Methodism
and radicalism advanced at the same time and declined at the same time.32 The boom years
for Wesleyanism were 179394,181316,183134,183741, and 184850, the very years that radical
activity was at its peak.33 In addition, the great "revival years" normally did
not occur when economic conditions were coming to their worst.34
It seems that these facts refute Mr. Thompson in two
very important respects. First, they are convincing evidence that Methodism did not retard
reform even in the few places that it would have had sufficient influence to do so.
Secondly, the facts refute Thompson's theory that Methodist religion was a "Chiliasm
of despair." Methodist growth took place at the height of reform agitation, not in
the years immediately following the defeat of reform attempts. Hobsbawm believes that the
conservatism of official Methodism has often been exaggerated because "it is too
easily assumed" that workers turned to religion "as an alternative to
revolutionary or radical politics."35 He admits that such may have been the case
sometimes, but he believes that a better interpretation of the evidence is that people
"become Methodists and Radicals for the same reasons."36
Having refuted the argument that Methodism kept England
from having a revolution, Hobsbawm offers an alternative explanation to account for the
lateness of England's major social reforms. He appeals to Lenin, who had said that a
deterioration of the conditions of the masses and an increase
in their political activity was not enough to bring
about a revolution. What was also necessary was a "crisis in the affairs of the
ruling order" and a "body of revolutionaries capable of directing and leading
the movement."37 Hobsbawm argues that from 1790 to 1849 England had neither of these.
The Government kept control of the political situation by making intelligent compromises
when pressured by reforming parties. "As for the revolutionaries," he maintains,
"they were throughout the entire period inexperienced, unclear in their minds, badly
organized, and divided."38 Thus, to charge Methodism with retarding social reform is
not only to err in exaggerating the influence of the Methodists, but it is also to
misunderstand the social and political situation of the nation at the time.
If one rejects both of the positions which underestimate
the social influence of Methodism and those which overestimate its social impact, there is
only one alternative left that is a position that mediates between the extremes.
Essentially this is where many authors come out on the question.
In one form or another this reflects the evaluation of
Asa Briggs, J. H. Plumb, Elie Halevy, E. J. Hobsbawm, Bernard Semmel, Gertrude Himmelfarb,
Anthony Armstrong, Robert F. Wearmouth, Maldwyn Edwards, and Wellman J. Warner. Each of
these tries to give due credit to the strengths and the weaknesses of the Wesleyan
phenomenon.
This means, in the first place, the recognition of the
"two-souled" nature of Methodism. These authors recognize the extensive
influence that Wesley's religious revolution played in English history. It effectively
committed the English churches to an Arminian egalitarianism rather than a Calvinistic
particularism. Coupled with the Wesleyan ideal of the perfectibility of man, this theology
would seem to underlie, or at least to encourage, the development of effective democratic
government and the gradual improvement of the country's social conditions. Methodism's
achievements in philanthropy, in the extension of education, and in the abolition of
slavery are seen to be in line with this positive thrust.
These authors also recognize that Methodism's influence
had indirect results beyond the boundaries of the Methodist societies.39 Methodism roused
Dissent from the sleepy decline which had befallen it in the early part of the eighteenth
century. By means of the Evangelical Party it had somewhat the same effect upon the
Established Church. Thus Methodism had fostered a new religious climate in England that
made people more aware of fellow citizens and more responsive to their needs. Many see
this influence as the creative force behind the Victorian soul, and point out the
unconscious way in which this spirit aided the establishment of liberal reforms which seem
otherwise to be secular in origin.40 They argue that Methodism infused a new philanthropic
impulse into English society which made humanitarian concern resulting in social action a
unifying value for the whole nation.
On the other hand, these authors remind us that
Methodism had its darker side. One needs only to consider its obstructing actions
regarding relief for the Roman Catholics, its negative attitude toward the American
Revolution, and its resistance to reform agitation to know that Methodism also resisted
social change in England. As Methodism became more middle class in composition and more
Tory in outlook it lost its chance to fulfill its mission as the "Church of the
poor." From the standpoint of social history it seems that Methodism failed to live
up to its potential mainly because it did not translate its social ethic into concrete
political action.
These authors suggest several ways to account for this
curious paradox within Methodism. Warner and Semmel suggest that Wesley and his people
were part of the larger movement from the traditional England to the modern England.41
England itself was a curious blend of the old and the new, the reactionary and the
liberal. This affected all groups and classes, so that Tories sometimes acted like Whigs,
and Whigs sometimes acted like Tories. Conservatives were found at times to champion
legislation for social change while radicals were known on occasion to be liable to
reactionary views. It was the time of the embryonic development of economic theory. The
nation as a whole was moving philosophically from individualism to collectivism.42
Methodist social action followed this trend. Beginning with an outlook best characterized
as personal philanthropy, it developed a position that fostered collective political
activity in the last half of the nineteenth century. The intervening years of its history
are replete with events that demonstrate that the transition from the one to the other was
not always smooth. Politically the nation moved from a conservative Toryism to a
consistent democracy in the same period. Methodism also made the journey, demonstrating at
times the same paradoxical stances that showed up in public life.
Thus Warner and Semmel remind us that Methodism grew up
on English soil during more than a century of confusing social change. Its soul mirrors
that of the country and it can be understood on no other basis. Yet, at the same time,
Methodism worked dynamically within this situation and certainly had a part in the
nineteenth-century English social development. In many ways its approach was inadequate.
But we must remember Hobsbawm's point that not until the last half of the nineteenth
century was there a group of people capable of bringing about profound revolutionary
changes in England.43 Methodism could not wait until better methods were available. It
attacked social problems as it best knew how, that is, by religious methods. Looking back
one might adjudge those methods simplistic, but that does not mean they were without
effect.44 To criticize Wesley and his generation for not treating social ills by our
contemporary methods is akin to charging the physicians of his time with negligence
because they did not treat polio with Salk vaccine!
One must still ask what would have happened if Methodism
had not been on the scene? Would there have been a revolution like France had? It is not
likely. But even if there were a violent revolution at that time, would it have solved the
social ills of the day? The failure of the Puritan Revolt and of the Revolution in France
suggests that a violent revolution would not have ushered in a social utopia. Semmel
offers an alternative thesis that the Methodist revival prepared persons for a gradual
change from the traditional to the modern nation, and thus provided resolve for the forces
making for liberty and for order. As the only nation in Europe which successfully carried
out a social revolution in the period 17631914 without widespread violence, England was
admired by foreign observers for its unique blending of personal freedom and social
stability.45 Thus, Methodism, with its "two-souled" existence (i.e., liberal
impulses in tension with conservative ones), may have been uniquely suited to the needs of
nineteenth-century England. Had Wesleyanism been caught up in an advocacy of a violent
revolution, it would likely have jeopardized its own existence as the other radical groups
of the time did.46 But its humanitarian concern, balanced with its passion for order,
ensured its continuance. It was thus to make both its religious and its social
contribution to the English people.
In the end, one is brought around to appreciate some
aspects of Halevy's thesis concerning Wesley's place in English social history.47 He does
not overestimate Wesley's place in the events of the time, for two thirds of his book is
devoted to the study of the political and economic factors in Britain which made for
gradual, orderly change. Neither does he underestimate Methodist influence, for he assigns
great importance to the weight of religious ideas. As Halevy sees it, it was a matter of
Methodism's acting in concert with other factors in the complex British scene which
produced the England of the nineteenth century.48 Wesley is assigned a constructive
position in that overall development. This interpretation may not sit well with Marxist
philosophy, but it fits very well with the historical data. We would do well to consider
carefully Gertrude Himmelfarb's question: "Will Halevy defeat Marx as the interpreter
of this crucial period in English history."49
III. Some Contemporary Footnotes
The assessment of Methodism's social influence has been
shifted to new grounds in our generation. The ensuing debate has raised more questions and
found fewer answers that have widespread agreement. For one thing, the Wesleyan movement
as a whole has become profoundly self-critical. Traditional assessments of Wesley and his
people are immediately suspect as unsophisticated, outdated, and too romantic.
Research continues to generate new data to be
considered. But the current situation is not so much due to additional historical material
as it is to new historical methods. The impact of the social sciences has affected the
entire historical enterprise. Sociological studies have yielded new interpretations of old
facts. Contemporary theories of social, economic, and political institutions are
increasingly the lenses through which historical matters are viewed.
Methodologies have their strengths and their weaknesses.
They also change, so we ought not to absolutize them. Certain factors of contemporary
methodologies have inherent dangers. For example, there is too much dependence upon the
criteria of political effectiveness. Too frequently evaluations are made on the basis of
how much good results for how many people in terms of concrete political advantages. In
terms of Methodism's influence, the question becomes a matter of how many Parliamentary
acts for the good of so many millions of people can be traced to direct Methodist
influence. The hidden assumption is that anything less than this does not count or cannot
be assessed quantitatively.
What ought to trouble us as Christians is the secular
bias that underlies some contemporary methodologies. For it leaves us with a very
uncomfortable dilemma. On the one hand the church is urged to become a political force
capable of affecting certain social changes. But this inevitably means that the church
must take on some type of Constantinian arrangement with the State. For even in a
democratic society, the Church must become a powerful block capable of changing the status
quo with a majority vote. Thus, even in that diluted sense, the Church has directed the
State in its task.
Now, on most issues of public policy that is precisely
what our modern societies do not want the church to achieve, unless of course the church
is putting its weight of blessing behind the reigning values of the culture in question.
In other words, the Church's agenda, according to this line of thinking, must be a
secularly defined one. Otherwise its influence is going to be interpreted as unwelcomed
meddling in the affairs of the age in terms of metaphysical commitments rejected by the
larger culture.
The dilemma for the Church then is either to engage in
Church-State arrangements of power and influence on secularly defined issues of common
good or be charged with being socially irrelevant. Many of the severe contemporary
assessments of earlier Methodist social influence reflect this state of mind. Methodism is
to be condemned because its methods and its agendas did not correspond to the proper
liberalizing issues of the respective periods. Any Christian movement, and not just
Methodism, which bases its ethics upon historical-grammatical exegesis of the received
canon of Scripture and traditional orthodox theology will get negative reviews from
practitioners of this world view, at least on certain social issues. This sounds more
defensive than I intend to be. But I believe more is at stake than merely a historical
assessment of the Wesleyan social influence. The real question is how we can act
responsibly as Christians with respect to the ethical problems of our age. We cannot allow
a secular mindset, however well intentioned and informed it may be, to define the issues
and dictate the methods by which we exercise a Christian conscience on the social issues
of the day.
The issue boils down to serving one's generation well by
the grace of God. We don't know how well Wesley would have served in situations since his
time. But then one might ask his critics how well they would have fared with the issues of
Wesley's day. One does not have to defend Wesley's failures nor the Methodist people after
him. Rather one looks to their models of faithfulness to a God-given task. We are not
bound to imitate them step for step. We are free to take different sides on some of the
questions than they did at times or to utilize different methods than they sometimes
employed. We are called, however, to the example of their conscience formed by Scripture
inflamed by experienced grace, and channeled through group fellowship, mission, and
discipline to reach out to our world in the name of Christ.
Our age abounds in information and technology, but it
lacks godly conscience, Christ-like compassion, and Spirit-enabled commitment. These were
the things in which Wesley and his people excelled. And I think they were the key to their
social influence. If we are to be faithful to our age, then we must bring the riches of
our heritage to our social responsibility, using what ever tools our age affords us that
have moral integrity. The in-groups of our culture will not always approve of our agendas
nor our choice of methods. And for that we will suffer their censure, as did Jesus in His
day and Wesley in his. Yet both served many well by serving God most of all. That is what
faithfulness to one's age meant then, and it is what it means now. And by the eternal
standard, that is the ultimate assessment of social influence.
Notes
1 One can locate the specific sources in a helpful
bibliography in Theodore Runyon, Ed., Sanctification and Liberation (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1981), pp.245251.
2 Runyon cites the recent works of Schneeberger and
Marquardt. Ibid, pp.19,249,250.
3 Luke L. Keefer, Jr., "An Assessment of John
Wesley's Social Impact on England." Unpublished paper. Temple University, Spring
1975.
4 Theodore Runyon, ed., Wesleyan Theology Today: A
Bicentennial Theological Consultation (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 1985~. Most
pertinent to this essay are the following chapters: Walter George Muelder, "The
Methodist Social Creed and Ecumenical Ethics"; James C. Logan, "Toward a
Wesleyan Social Ethic"; Leon 0. Hynson, "Implications of Wesley's Biblical
Method and Political Thought"; and J. Philip Wogaman, "The Wesleyan Tradition
and the Social Challenges of the Next Century." Especially significant in regard to
social ethics is the contention that the theological roots of Wesley's ethics and the
trajectories we can derive from them for our own praxis are more instructive than the
specific record of Wesley and the Methodists who immediately followed him. (Cf.
specifically Logan, pp. 36162, and Wogaman, p. 389.
5 Cf. n1 supra.
6 Leon 0. Hynson, To Reform the Nation: Theological
Foundations of Wesley's Ethics (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan,
1984), is excellent in grasping fundamental concerns in Wesley's ethics. It is a
theological analysis, however, rather than a historical one. And it seldom attempts to
bridge the Atlantic. Also cf Robert Chiles, Theological Transition in American
Methodism: 1790-1935 (Nashville: Abingdon Press,1965) and John L. Peters, Christian
Perfection and American Methodism (Reprint: Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press of
Zondervan, 1985; Nashville: Pierce and Washabaugh; New York: Abingdon Press, 1956).
7 Cf. Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform
(Reprint: Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Brown, 1976; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1957).
8 Leslie F. Church, The Early Methodist People
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1949); and More about the early Methodist People
(London: Epworth press, 1949).
9Leslie Stephen, A History of English Thought in the
Eighteenth Century (London: Smith and Elder, 1902), II, pp.409435.
10 Ibid, p. 432.
11 Ibid, p. 433.
12 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), pp.8990.
l3 Ibid, pp. 14243. Thomas Madron, "John Wesley on
Economics," in Runyon, ed., Sanctification and Liberation, p. 109, offers this
critique of Weber's association of Wesley with the Protestant work ethic: "Any
interpretation of Wesley to the effect that the 'presence of success indicates a state of
moral soundness' is impossible to maintain, in the context of the totality of his
writings. In this sense Wesley represents an exception to the general Protestant ethic of
Calvinism, which influenced the eighteenth century so greatly." Earlier in the same
article (p. 104), Madron asserted: "In a very real sense, Wesley recovered the reform
tradition of England. His was the approach of Wycliff, rather than that of the continental
Reformation, and he brought it to some measure of fulfillment in the disinherited classes
of England." More generally, Madron makes several noteworthy points: (1) Wesley did
not follow Locke's assumptions regarding property as an inalienable right (p. 107); (2)
Wesley saw, as most of his time did not, the social reasons behind poverty (pp. 110113);
and (3) Wesley opposed unbridled competition and advocated governmental intervention in
economic crises; he did not follow Adam Smith's economic philosophy of laissezfaire. Leon
Hynson, "Implications of Wesley's Ethical Method and Political Thought," in
Runyon, ed. Wesleyan Theology Today, pp.37677, in analyzing Wesley's view regarding
property agrees with Madron: "If the Protestant ethic flows in any sense from
Wesley's sermon ["The Use of Money"], as Max Weber believes, it represents a
misuse of his intention."
14 H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of
Denominationalism (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1929), p.72.
15 Ibid, pp. 5976.
16 This is the line of argument followed by Bernard
Semmel, The Methodist Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 1973).
17 Ibid, p. 182.
18 William E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the
Eighteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1921), III, p. 146.
19 "Methodism: The French Revolution: The
Industrial Revolution," The Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society XV
(192526),218; E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York:
Pantheon Books 1964), pp. 38182.
20 Gertrude Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf 1969), pp. 29395; Semmel, ibid., p. 3; Thompson, ibid,
pp. 354!68, 375.
21 Thompson, ibid., pp. 38182, 388.
22 ibid, p. 380.
23 Sidney Pollard, "Factory Discipline in the
Industrial Revolution," The Economic History Review XVI (Second series),
Number 2 (December 1963) 254271.
24 ibid., p. 270
25 John H. S. Kent, "Book Notices," The
Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society XXXIV (December 1964), 189.
26 Thompson, ibid., p 397.
27 Himmelfarb, ibid, pp. 29495.
28 E. J. Hobsbawm, "Methodism and the Threat of
Revolution in Britain," History Today VII:2 (February 1957), 115124.
29 Ibid., p. 120.
30 ibid, p. 119.
31 ibid, pp. 12023.
32 ibid, p. 124
33 ibid
34 ibid
35 ibid, p. 123
36 ibid, p. 124
37 ibid, p. 116
38 ibid.
39 Elie Halevy, A History of the English People in
1815 (trs. E. I. Watkin and D. A. Barker; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company,
1924), pp. 35255, 36577, 38182; Maldwyn Edwards, After Wesley: A Study of the Social
and Political Influence of Methodism in the Aqiddle Period 19711849 (London: Epworth
Press, 1935), p. 123; Robert F. Wearmouth, Methodism and the Common People of
the Eighteenth Century (London: Epworth Press, 1945), pp. 168268; Anthony Armstrong, The
Church of England the Methodists and Society, 1700-1850 (Totowa, NJ: Roman and
Littlefield, 1973), p. 131; Asa Briggs, The Making of Modern England 17831867 (New
York: Harper and Row, 1951), pp. 6974.
40 Wearmouth, ibid, pp. 166, 216, 231, 26267;
Wellman J. Warner, The Wesleyan Movement in the Industrial Revolution (New York
Russell and Russell, 1930), pp.279281; Maldwyn Edwards, John Wesley and the Eighteenth
Century: A Study of His Social and Political Influence (New York: Abingdon Press,
1983), pp. 14647, 15758, 168, 191, 19596, 20102; Himmelfarb, ibid., 27885, 29192;
Semmel, ibid, 121, 171; Onva K. Boshears, Jr., John Wesley, The Boohman. A Study
of His Reading Interests in the Eighteenth Century (unpubl. dissertation, University
of Michigan,1972), p.191; Frederick C. Gill, Charles Wesley: The First Methodist
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1964), p. 84.
41 Warner, ibid., pp. 27477; Semmel, ibid,
p. 171.
42 Maldwyn Edwards, Methodism and England A Study of
Methodism in Its Social and Political Aspects During the Period 1850-1932 (London:
Epworth Press, 1943).
43 Hobsbawm, ibid, p. 116.
44 Church, More About the Early Methodist People, p.
187. Also see J. Philip Wogaman, ibid, pp. 3931, 396, who describes Wesley's
approach as "pragmatic reformism," noting that it was one of reaction to
perceived needs rather than one operating from a systematic program of theological ethics.
Yet, says Wogaman, this approach often had great potency when faced with certain practical
issues.
45 Semmel, ibid, vii and pp. 49, 80, 8793, 12526,
136, 171, 192, 19495.
46 Robert Wearmouth, Methodism and the WorkingClass
Movement of England (London: Epworth Press, 1937), pp. 19294.
47 Halevy, ibid, pp. 341401. Note, however, the
critical evaluation of Halevy's thesis by Theodore Runyon, "Introduction: Wesley and
the Theologies of Liberation," Sanctification and Liberation, pp. 1519.
48 Himmelfarb, ibid, pp. 282, 29899. Warner, ibid,
p. 12, concurs with this evaluation.
49 Himmelfarb, ibid., p. 299.
Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology
Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the
horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any
kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at
Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to
report errors.
|
