Fortunately, the April riots in Baltimore eventually subsided, although the underlying causes no doubt persist. Much of the commentary in reaction, including Christian social witness, emphasized the victimhood of Baltimore’s poor, for which ongoing societal atonement is needed.
As one theologian at a United Methodist seminary opined:
The true violence to consider arises from challenges to the dominant culture’s grip on power. Such violence can be immediate or drawn out, as in the case of institutional violence, such as the economic forces that foster ghettos – where from the margins, tax money of black neighborhoods is extracted for the benefit of the center, where those privileged by race and class get to enjoy the Inner Harbor. Governments act violently when they maintain social structures that inflict prolonged harm or injury upon a segment of the population usually disenfranchised due to race or economic standing.
This rhetoric is common in secular and religious academia, espousing its own perspective from a position of tenured and subsidized privilege, typically far removed geographically and figuratively from real poor people. Instead of traditional beliefs about human sin, personal responsibility and redemption, it subscribes to postmodern narratives about inescapable and omnipresent dark social and spiritual forces of racism, classism, patriarchy and environmental apocalypse. This pseudo-religious narrative posits that humanity, both privileged and oppressed, is captive to demonic cosmic ghosts from which there’s no salvation, just permanent guilt and reparation. Depressing!
Christianity’s view of the human condition of course is more hopeful. John Wesley for example throughout his ministry confronted social pathologies similar to and far worse than Baltimore. Britain’s urban poor and laboring classes, who themselves often turned to rioting, were politically disenfranchised and had few advocates and fewer opportunities for uplift. Wesley did not see them as chronic victims but fellow sinners, who lacked his own access to advanced education and middle class security, but who could through faith and discipline prevail over despair and poverty.
Eighteenth century Methodism stressed accountability through small groups, self help through church clinics and micro finance lending, social reforms aimed against exploiters of the poor like gin houses, gambling dens, and brothels, and most of all, hard work, diligence, sobriety, chastity, self-denial and godliness. They who are reliable in little will be trusted with much, he preached.
The often unruly urban poor and laboring classes of Wesley’s era became the ascendant, church going, abstemious middle class of the Victorian era. Max Weber cited their example in his contested but still often cited The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Wesley himself, seeing the material fruits of his labors, worried that as the Gospel advanced, so too did prosperity, leading to materialism:
I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.
Wesley in his day did not have the welfare state, with all of its stupefying corruptions against churches, families and private initiative. But he knew the poor were dealt a raw deal, as in every society at all times, and that their spiritual and material advance could only proceed through the “industry and frugality” of self-empowerment. Grievance, resentment, rage, and entitlement were always tempting and even partly justified. But they were the self-defeating tools of the Devil, he knew, pointing to violence, despair and further poverty.
No doubt countless effective ministries in Baltimore and other cities practice what Wesley taught and lived. But too much of outspoken Christian social witness, looking for easy answers and alleviation of self-guilt, focusing on abstract forces instead of personal accountability, points at the “dominant culture’s grip on power.” These voices might consider that Wesley’s notion of “industry and frugality,” worked far better, against much greater and more entrenched poverty and social injustice, and was rooted in both Christian realism and hope about intrinsic human nature redeemed by God.
Comment by Ray Bannister on June 2, 2015 at 12:39 pm
Every movement runs its course. The Methodists of today bear almost no resemblance to the original Methodists of the 1700s. A name lingers on long after the reality has died.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 3, 2015 at 3:32 pm
Charles Dickens critique of religiously motivated policies on the poor probably had more impact than anything Wesley did, however laudable. The lions share can be attributed to lower rates of disease, better hygiene, increased food supply, expanding work opportunities, and an expanding industrial economy. In other words, the fruits of science and technology. Besides a rather skewed and myopic view of history I must point out the obvious. This is not Britain in the 19th century. The history of racism in America is unique and our present political and economic systems are unrelated to the 19th century or anything John Wesley ever encountered. When you are faced with unprecedented challenges, answers from the past are useless. Your theological arguments may still be relevant to personal epistemic problems but they will be of little use in solving the problems of Baltimore.
Comment by BJ on June 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm
“…answers from the past are useless.” It is bits of utter
ridiculousness such as this that keep the modern poor, enslaved and their interlocutors, employed. Disregard the past at your own expense.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 3, 2015 at 4:05 pm
“When you are faced with unprecedented challenges” means things that have never happened before. The past can’t give you answers to questions it was never asked.
Comment by BJ on June 3, 2015 at 4:24 pm
I was under the impression that poverty, racism, police violence, and urban dysfunction had all taken place before. I also thought that there had been self-serving corrupt politicians and community agitators before. I guess we don’t need history after all.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 10:52 am
Everything happens in context. The current context is significantly different from the past. You can’t approach it in the simplified manner you outline if you really want to solve the problem. This is precisely were Mr. Tooleys argument fails. It only makes sense if you deny the overall complexity of historical events as well as present ones.
Comment by BJ on June 4, 2015 at 11:05 am
You really seem to be lost on this. Of course everything happens in context, but history shows us how to avoid making the same mistakes and provides a reasonable guide as to how people act in certain situations. To just say, “Well, different context” is to swipe away history in toto, which was my initial criticism of your post.
Plus, how is Baltimore “significantly different” than the past? As I said before, there is “poverty, racism, police violence, and urban dysfunction…self-serving corrupt politicians and community agitators” all of which have happened numerous times in history and was present during Wesley’s time, hence Tooley’s analysis.
Finally, Tooley’s analysis is anything but simplified. Did you even read it? He highlights much historical nuance, such as, “small groups, self help through church clinics and micro finance lending, social reforms aimed against exploiters of the poor like gin
houses, gambling dens, and brothels.” He later pointed out that Wesley, “did not have the welfare state,” as did I.
I am not even a Wesleyan theologically speaking, but if urban churches today would do what he did then, Baltimore would be a much better place.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 12:51 pm
I can’t take time to go over all the historic detail to answer all your arguments so I will just add some short points. Wesley was dealing with classism not racism. The kind of racial pluralism that the US has experienced since the civil war was not experienced in the old world until the 20th century. Also in reference to gin houses, as a result of Wesley and other reformers, one of the first alcohol prohibition laws was enacted in the UK. It was a disaster. It created more crime and poverty and was repealed. The Methodist temperance movement failed and the current war on drugs is failing for precisely the same reasons. A religious/moral approach to large scale social problems rarely works. That is the lesson you should take from history.
Comment by BJ on June 4, 2015 at 1:01 pm
“Wesley was dealing with classism.” Is Baltimore not dealing with classism (er, um…income inequality) now?
“The Methodist temperance movement failed and the current war on drugs is failing for precisely the same reasons.” If I am not mistaken, you just used history as guide to understanding problems now. I suppose your, “answers from the past are useless” quip has been abandoned.
Now, I would argue that you are using it wrongly here, but at least we can discuss it now, rather than swiping it away with “unprecedented”!
So let me ask you this, given your assertion (“A religious/moral approach to large scale social problems rarely works”), do you not think that moral failings play a role in the suffering of the poor? Or do you see them as all innocent victims of circumstances completely out of their control?
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 1:17 pm
I added more to my previous reply that answers your second point. Your describing oligarchy not class. In class societies social standing is tied to ancestry, not wealth. English Lords are sometimes poor. Your last point has nothing to do with my argument but I will oblige you. Poor suffer from being poor weather their moral or not. It’s possible to be innocent and immoral at the same time. It’s also possible be guilty and immoral and still be the victim of an unjust system that is beyond your control. I would also add that people with out moral failings are usually called saints. Personally, I’ve never met one.
Comment by BJ on June 4, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Okay, I followed your posts above with the changes. Points all well-taken, thank you. I really do appreciate this back-and-forth, btw.
Let me say that there are certainly differences between the classisim of Wesley’s day and the issues today, no doubt. Also, in Wesley’s day there were poor who were innocent victims of circumstance, as well as today. And I am sympathetic to their plight. I have personally preached from the pulpit against greed, materialism, and the health-wealth-and-prosperity-gospel. So this issue is important to me.
But Wesley’s approach is a good guide for us in this time of trouble, in this sense. If you tell these folks they are victims and to get angry at the system, you infantilize them and create very destructive results (riots, depression, hopelessness), and they are totally at the mercy of a system they don’t understand and they can’t control. But if you follow Wesley and lead these folks to control what they can and stem the destructive personal behavior (drinking, drugs, violence, personal financial mismanagement, etc) you help them find hope, and improve ever so slightly their day-to-day happiness. That leads to confidence, more money, more control over one’s life. I have seen it in my life personally and in others around me.
That is the moral/religious approach. Only after you have your own life in reasonable order can you then hope to change the system’s flaws. Just like Wesley did. Have I gone wrong here?
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think you’ve gone wrong. If I didn’t think Christian values we’re still viable I wouldn’t work with my Church every week. I’m sure we might disagree on defining core values but be that as it may. I would add that we have a lot of recent insights into the causes of human behavior that don’t align with 18th century beliefs, including Wesley’s. I think these must be taken into account. Remember, Wesley often went against the various orthodoxies of his day. His “method” was a creative innovation that was perfectly suited for the emerging scientific age he lived in. Wesley’s success lay in his ability to change and adapt to changing circumstances. I think it’s folly to try and use his specific teachings as ready made formulas to solve current problems. I think his approach to religion, rather than the fruits of that approach, are more relevant to us now. That means a willingness to engage other sources of knowledge other than religious doctrine. I think we have more to gain in the present from following Wesley’s spirit rather than his methods.
Comment by BJ on June 4, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Whatever changes might take place through time, the fact is the human spirit at its essence does not change. People act and respond to certain circumstances in rather predictable ways. Of course knowledge grows and technology fundamentally changes the context, but people are still people. Wesley understood that what Christ showed us was not just a prescription for social ills, but a glimpse into the human heart. It is up to us to apply it to our generation. Our “methods” (to steal Wesley’s term) can change, but the heart does not. That is why I believe Wesley’s approach was correct, because I believe it to be in line with what Christ taught us. Again, I am not Wesleyan, theologically speaking, but I admire the way in which he applied Christ’s teaching to his world. We ought to do the same and not look disparagingly upon the past, merely because it is the past. There does not seem to me to be anything more arrogant than to look at our ancestors with pride in our ability to do it better. History has shown us that we usually do not.
Blessings to you, and thanks for the thoughts.
Under His Mercy,
BJ
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Thank you as well BJ.
Comment by James Stagg on June 3, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Please explain “personal epistemic problems”; perhaps you meant to use another word.
The personal problems evident in Baltimore today are the same as in 19th Century England….and therefore correctly addressed by Rev. Wesley: the lack of morality and personal responsibility. It would appear that these restraints on personal and mob indulgence will always be rejected by those who fail to be taught and held to account…….and that includes the politicians who inflicted this lack of morality on people whom they are supposed to represent.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 10:33 am
Everything happens in context. The current context is too significantly different from the past to approach it in the simplified manner you outline. This is precisely were Mr. Tooleys argument fails. It only makes sense if you deny the overall complexity of historical events as well as present ones.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 10:50 am
I was referring to the personal search for meaning, including of course moral meaning. I do think religion has a role to play in making individuals better human beings. However the protestant work ethic that Mr. Tooley is implying by referring to the work of Weber, even if correct, won’t work in our current social environment. Weber’s theory was based on the strong Calvinism prevalent in his era. I don’t see most Christians conforming to Weber’s Calvinism, much less the population of the United States as a whole. Purely in pragmatic terms, theological beliefs aside, it simply won’t work.
Comment by Beau Jackson on June 4, 2015 at 10:30 am
Wesley and Dickens were not even alive at the same time. Wesley died in 1791, Dickens wasn’t even born till 1812.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on June 4, 2015 at 12:31 pm
You are correct. Mr. Tooley was arguing that the work of Wesley in the 18th century set the stage for the 19th century rise of the middle class that Max Weber writing in the early part of the 20th century attributed to a widespread “protestant work ethic”.
Comment by BJ on June 3, 2015 at 3:42 pm
“Wesley in his day did not have the welfare state, with all of its stupefying corruptions against churches, families and private initiative.” Perhaps you explain to me why his ecclesiastical posterity has bought into it so unrestrainedly.
Comment by John S. on June 4, 2015 at 7:17 am
The UMC uses Wesley’s name, image and select portions of his writings, It does not use his theology. This most illustrated by the Wesley Seminary in DC.
Comment by James Stagg on June 3, 2015 at 10:18 pm
Excellent confrontation of emotional opinion with facts.
Comment by Ben Welliver on June 4, 2015 at 10:40 am
The Christian solution to social problems is to change individual hearts. The New Testament says Jesus came to save us – US, not other people – from sins – OUR sins. There is no Christian mandate to change “the system,” because the root of the world’s evils is the individual human heart. Obviously the churches of Wesley’s day were not doing their duty in that area, and that’s true for ours as well.