On Wednesday June 17, Dr. Kenneth Collins, Professor of Historical Theology and John Wesley Studies at Asbury Theology Seminary, delivered a lecture entitled, “The Soteriology of John Wesley’s Ministry to the Poor.” Collins presented Wesley’s theory that wealth, when properly employed, is a means of grace both to the poor and those who minister to them.
An IRD board member and ordained United Methodist, Collins was speaking at the annual Acton University hosted by the pro-free market Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Collins calls Wesley “homo theologicus”, a person whose faith has consequence for all of his thinking, and “homo spiritualist”, a person who understands all human beings as made in the image of God, the Imago Dei. It is in light of this spiritual core of man that Wesley explains the potential spiritual repercussions of wealth and poverty. As a Homo Spiritualist, Wesley’s soteriology begins with the question of what a human being is. Wesley says that the most important element of man is the Imago Dei, meaning that he is made for a relationship with God.
Wesley defines the problem of humanity’s tension with God as stemming from man’s unbelief, from which emerge all sorts of evils such as greed and avarice. While rejecting any equation of class standing with soteriological status, Wesley teaches that both the rich and the poor have their own temptations. In keeping with his theology of all of humanity’s standing before God, Wesley does not romanticize the poor, knowing that some are so overwhelmed with despair that they fail to bear spiritual fruit. Defining riches as “…anything more than will procure the sufficiencies of life”, Wesley believes that, generally speaking, the poor have the opportunity of meekness and humility, but that the rich are likely to stumble over pride in the form of desire misdirected from God.
In his lecture, Collins summarizes Wesley’s zero sum theory of economics and with it some historical background on the theologian. Wesley, whose writing predates Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, believed that wealth was a limited entity – the “pie” doesn’t grow and those who have more of it leave less for others. Thus Wesley blames poverty on scarcity of provisions caused by irresponsible use of goods, which in turn led to lack of employment and idleness among England’s working class in the later part of 18th century England. According to Collins, however, it may be that Wesley references Smith as both of them break out of the idea that the rich are necessarily evil and that the rich cannot be moral.
Wesley’s three councils to the Church are that her members, (1) work diligently, (2) provide for themselves and their families, (3) and give generously of what they have left over.
Traversing the British Isles and actively immersed himself in the lives of the poor, Wesley gaining a personal understanding of their circumstances. Due to his knowledge of England’s working class, Wesley was able to see the poor as equally sinful and given to vice as the rich. Wesley recognized that identifying the poor as sinners is a kindness because it signifies that they were made to find a restored relationship with God, along with the rest of humanity.
Collins finds Wesley’s belief in the sinful status of the poor striking, because he cannot see many liberation theologians saying the same thing. As an example, Collins cites Theodore Jennings, a Neo-Marxist who puts a distorted spin on Wesley’s theology. Jennings denies the right of private property under the guise of Wesley, but in reality Wesley emphasized the duty of a Christian to accumulate goods, including property, for the preservation of himself and his family. It was Wesley’s fear that Christians would allow wealth to displace the love of God with the love of things which led him to discourage excess of material gain.
Essential to Wesley’s theory is that poverty is not merely economic, but that a wide range of material and spiritual deficiencies are included. Since poverty is a circumstance of both man’s temporal and eternal needs, Wesley teaches that simply giving money is not ministry to the poor, but that it is necessary to go in among them. Such ministry becomes a dynamic exchange of spiritual goods when those who minister receive ministry.
No comments yet
