The Relationship between Wealth and Piety

Similar to ancient Israel, a dominant thread in current Christian thought is the belief that poverty is a result of sin, a doctrine known as prosperity theology. Whether a person possesses low socio-economic status due to slothfulness or an addiction to some vice such as alcohol, drugs, or gambling, Christians assume that growth in piety equals growth in the bank account. Although John Wesley’s followers fall into this problematic assumption, Theodore Jennings argues that Wesley’s theology denies this faulty premise.

Exploring Jennings’ book, Good News to the Poor, I will argue that Wesley opposes the increase of riches, proposes a preferential option for the poor, and suggests solidarity with the poor through wise stewardship. Then, I will question Wesley’s premises by asking if it is necessary to increase capital in order to optimally steward property for those in need.

The Danger of Wealth

Theodore Jennings’ appraisal of John Wesley’s evangelical economics begins with the premise that Wesley acutely understands the danger of wealth for a sanctified Christian life. In contrast to many Christians who believe that wealth and power signifies divine favor, Wesley finds that wealth and power possesses a corrosive force for individuals, institutions, and sovereign nations. Jennings notes,

“In sermon after sermon, Wesley hammers home the theme that the increase in possessions leads naturally to the death of religion” (35).

Combating the natural propensity for people to sensationalize the need for increased riches, Wesley demystifies the pursuit and warns Methodists that such quests lead to perilous eternal consequences for the soul.

A Preferential Option for the Poor

The demystification of wealth, then, couples with a preferential option for the poor (Jennings uses this language although Wesley would not). If the pursuit of wealth carries dangerous eternal ramifications, it follows that a life lived in relationship with the poor aligns with Wesley’s evangelical economics. More than a theoretical principle, the preferential option for the poor is a tangible deed for Wesley. Jennings writes,

“Wesley was, if nothing else, the theologian of experience. This did not mean for him a concentration upon isolated moments of interior religious excitement, but rather the immersion in lived experience, in the texture and duration of sensory involvement. If you want to know what love is, you live the life of love and reflect on the vicissitudes of this journey through time. Similarly, if one is to know something of poverty one must spend the time and energy to be with the poor and to appropriate what is encountered there” (53).

Aligning his theory with practice, Wesley actively participated in the lives of the poor. He visited the sick; he took a collection for the poor during his sermons; he developed a “lending stock” that functions similarly to modern-day micro-finance institutions; and he sold inexpensive versions of his writing targeting the poor specifically.

In all these ways, Wesley enlivened his critique of wealth and prosperity by acting with and on behalf of the poor.

A God-Given Right to Stewardship

Having bolstered his critique on wealth and power by acting in solidarity with the poor, Wesley confirms the stark contrast of his economic ethic from the status quo by affirming the notion of stewardship and the redistribution of wealth. Influenced heavily by the early Christian communities in Acts, Wesley rejects the popularized notion of private property developed by John Locke. Wesley believes that everything in creation is the sole property of God.

Wealth, then, is not a God-given product of labor, but a resource for stewardship. Jennings states,

“Wesley’s view of stewardship is a blow at the root of the 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” (116-117).

Under this premise, gaining riches equates to stealing God’s property.

To summarize, Jennings arranges Wesley’s theology in order to clarify that Wesley vividly believed in the danger of wealth and power. Therefore, Wesley actively aligns his economic ethic with the plight of the poor. Lastly, his view on riches and the poor leads him to reject private property believing that ownership resides with God alone and that humans possess the obligation of stewarding God’s resources wisely.

Give a Fish or Teach to Fish

Despite Jennings’ clear and concise rendering of Wesley’s evangelical economics, I question the practicality of the pursuit. Even though I find the arguments compelling, I wonder whether or not they provide optimal results. More precisely, does Wesley’s evangelical economic theory represent a method that lifts the poor out of poverty or does it merely recognize the plight of the poor? Clearly, Wesley wanted to actively participate in works of mercy that benefit the poor but did these deeds result in actions of charity or actions that solved the root issues of poverty?

This question, essentially, asks whether it is better to give a person a fish or to teach a person how to fish. If Wesley believed in the former, then his system encounters the danger of continual needs for assistance. If Wesley believed in the latter, his system suffers from tension because it requires capital in order to successfully alleviate poverty.

In fact, Wesley’s “lending stock” offers an excellent example of a scenario where the scalability of its success relies on increasing riches. Clearly, wealth and power is a dangerous pursuit. Life is littered with stories of Godly people losing their way as they climb the socio-economic ladder.

Capital is a necessary function of alleviating poverty; just look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. But, Wesley would condemn the wealth and affluence of Gates (and I, too, would certainly condemn some of Gate’s practices at Microsoft) despite the clear example his foundation provides in poverty alleviation.

Given Wesley’s premises, it almost seems like Christians ought to thank God for providing society with damned souls capable of gaining prodigious amounts of capital and a concern for poverty alleviation. I’m not sure if I’m willing to accept that scenario.

Clearly, John Wesley vehemently rejects the notion that wealth equals piety and poverty equals sin. Wesley recognizes the danger in increasing riches; he promotes an active relationship that takes the side of the poor; and he suggests that Christians steward God’s resources with the poor in mind. Nevertheless, the success of stewardship and active relationships with the poor requires a certain amount of capital.

Either we praise God for those who increase riches at the expense of their soul for the sake of the poor, or we cut off the potential of alleviating poverty by merely resulting to charity from each family’s minimal surplus. Such a question, in my mind, points to tensions in Wesley’s premises. We ought to help the poor, but I contend that increasing riches could provide benefits for the poor.

Good News to the Poor provides ample food for thought for our current understanding of economics. I urge those interested in theology and economic theory to read this book despite its logical fallibilities.

Originally published at http://wherepenmeetspaper.blogspot.com ( )

Good News to the Poor
A Review by Joseph Esposito

Tracing the Thesis:
Where much of the Methodist tradition has “frequently sought to view Wesley in terms of the narrowest interpretation of evangelical concern for individual souls ”, Jennings argues that particular interpretation of both Wesley and the gospel is unsupported. He says, “they are offering individual salvation as a substitute for meaningful transformation either of persons or of society ”. Jennings instead argues that Wesley’s concern for the poor and oppressed, arising out of his ministry in and among them, was largely based upon a commitment that that “gospel was not irrelevant to the task of clarifying the nature of an appropriate participation in the economic reality of his own time…that is what it means to say that Wesley developed an evangelical economics ”.
Further, “while Wesley may have largely accepted the political status quo, this was not true of the economic one ”. He was critical toward the economic structures, relationships and attitudes prevalent in the status quo. Yet, Wesley “overcomes the danger of a merely sentimental turn toward the poor by means of an immersion in the concrete reality of the poor ”. It is out of this fundamental indentification with the poor that Wesley’s “protest against injustice ” arose.
It is through Wesley’s solidarity with the poor that he in turn “proposes a view of stewardship that breaks the spell of ‘private property’ and leads to a redistribution of wealth ”. Most notably, Wesley avoided the slippery slope of allowing persons to define wealth in terms of their rich neighbors, and instead rooted his own definition of wealth based on the criterion of the poor. Thus, Wesley would often say that anyone who has sufficient raiment and food and keep and accumulates anything over is “storing up treasure on earth”. It is this criterion and priority of the poor that is most fascinating throughout this study. It always keeps the plight of the absolute poor in focus and full view. Jennings elaborates:
“Wesley’s experience with the poor and his commitment to them makes it possible for him to see things in a new light…when the commitment to the poor takes on the status of a normative claim, then what appears to others as the common and self-evident practice of merchants, doctors, and lawyers appears instead as the practice of injustice and oppression. It is then not enough to seek relief for the poor in the form of free health clinics, for example. It is necessary to cry out publicly against injustice.”
Yet, in spite of his convictions, according to Jennings, Wesley perceives himself to have failed in convincing his fellow Methodists of the need to practice an ‘evangelical economics’. Why is this so? While there are many factors, most notable was Wesley’s own waffling on the issue in critical sermons and biblical interpretations with the net result of softening the proclamation itself. Indeed, Jennings argues that Wesley was so concerned with his critics, that he lost his prophetic voice by attempting to make the gospel palatable to his contemporaries. Additionally, he was convinced that his work needed to remain a part of the Anglican communion, and thus Wesley sought ways to soften his tone in order to remain consistent with the ‘dominant consciousness’ of the church.
In the end, it is clear that Jennings is arguing for a return to what he believes is the heart of Wesley’s message. Though Wesley failed to convince his followers that practicing this evangelical economics was necessary to faith, it is the hope of Jennings to convince us otherwise.
Personal Reflection:
Clearly, it must be noted from the outset that Jennings is admittedly using the filter of ‘liberation theology’ to interpret Wesley. While this sort of reading is helpful to uncover some of Wesley’s unsees convictions, it is problematic to use that filter to read Wesley. Rather, it is necessary to read Wesley out of his own context and to in turn allow Wesley to speak through that context to us today. To say that Wesley’s concern for the poor was his central one is certainly overstating the case. Having said that, it is clear that Wesley’s concern for the poor was great, regardless of whether it was his orientating concern or not. However, I would argue along with Randy Maddox that Wesley’s concern was “responsible grace” of which caring for the poor is certainly a part.
I did appreciate the fascinating study of Wesley’s evangelical economics that was presented by Jennings, and even though I cannot fully agree with his hermeneutic here, it is clear that for Wesley, faith manifested itself in many ways, of which caring for the poor through both charity and solidarity was a non-negotiable part. While not dismissing the importance and necessity of this study, I think we would do better to re-orient this concern for the poor into Wesley’s much larger program. That said, even Wesley’s program is not sufficiently ready to deal with the systemic realities of this evil. Precisely because of Wesley’s ardent commitment to his government, his practice of evangelical economics is doomed to continue at the level of individuals, and will not, nor cannot address the structural injustices of either his day or ours. It is therefore necessary to learn from Wesley’s charitable commitment to the poor and oppressed personally, as well as go beyond Wesley in order to address the issue of justice. For justice demands that we not only help our neighbors in times of need, but to fight against the systems and structures that both create and perpetuate the extreme oppression of our neighbors. This study is both enlightening with regards to Wesley’s own convictions and enormously important for the church as we wrestle w
( )