John Wesley’s teachings about money and riches are nearly as popular today as they were in his day — which means not much at all.
Actor Mark Topping has an excellent re-enactment of a portion of Wesley’s eighth sermon on the Sermon of the Mount.
We hear this sermon with as much discomfort and outrage as people did in Wesley’s day. Wesley’s own journals and writings indicate he was driven almost to despair by the way even the people called Methodists would not obey the plain, Scriptural teaching about money and wealth.
From the sermon above:
“Lay not up for” thyself “treasures upon earth.” This is a flat, positive command; full as clear as “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” How then is it possible for a rich man to grow richer without denying the Lord that bought him? Yea, how can any man who has already the necessaries of life gain or aim at more, and be guiltless? “Lay not up,” saith our Lord, “treasures upon earth.” If, in spite of this, you do and will lay up money or goods, which “moth or rust may corrupt, or thieves break through and steal;” if you will add house to house, or field to field, — why do you call yourself a Christian? You do not obey Jesus Christ. You do not design it. Why do you name yourself by his name? “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord,” saith he himself, “and do not the things which I say?”
Our denomination’s own Social Principles fall well short of Wesley’s words on this account. We speak quite a bit about economic systems and social structures, but always with an eye toward piling up treasure by honest means. An attitude that Wesley, again, took head on in his sermon.
In what Christian city do you find one man of five hundred who makes the least scruple of laying up just as much treasure as he can? — of increasing his goods just as far as he is able? There are indeed those who would not do this unjustly; there are many who will neither rob nor steal; and some who will not defraud their neighbour; nay, who will not gain either by his ignorance or necessity. But this is quite another point. Even these do not scruple the thing, but the manner of it. They do not scruple the “laying up treasures upon earth,” but the laying them up by dishonesty. They do not start at disobeying Christ, but at a breach of heathen morality. So that even these honest men do no more obey this command than a highwayman or a house-breaker. Nay, they never designed to obey it. From their youth up it never entered into their thoughts. They were bred up by their Christian parents, masters, and friends, without any instruction at all concerning it; unless it were this, — to break it as soon and as much as they could, and to continue breaking it to their lives’ end.
Now, it is clear that we United Methodists have made a choice to ignore this rather consistent and strong theme in John Wesley’s ministry.
So far as I can tell, we have not rejected his teaching by arguing Scripture with him. We have no theological justification for buying into and even celebrating the pursuit of wealth for the purpose of piling up piles of money for ourselves and our children. We seem to live a prosperity gospel without going so far as preaching what the TV preachers say: God wants you to be rich and if you are rich it is a sign of God’s favor.
Here is a summary of Wesley’s preaching, and his own practice, about earning and using money.
Everyone should work diligently and honestly in work that does not damage the body, mind, or soul of themselves or others. They should work to earn all they can without doing harm to themselves or their duties to God and neighbor.
They should save all they can by avoiding all expenses that are not necessary to sustain life, care for the needs of family, and provide the necessities for our own work and setting up our children so they can work productively when they reach the proper age. In this, we should strive to owe nothing to anyone (Romans 13:8).
And we should with everything that is left over after our necessary and prudent expenses give it away or employ it to do good for the bodies, minds, and souls of others. So, for instance, funding a school or hospital would be a good use of money on Wesley’s account.
Wesley never taught the tithe but set a much higher standard. Since everything we have and are belongs to God, it should be used as God would use it and not be horded up for ourselves, especially while there are those who could be benefited by the use of God’s gifts.
By our practice, we reject Wesley’s teachings in this area. We read the Bible he read and come to completely different conclusions — although I am not familiar with us putting our disagreements in the form of an argument. We simply ignore him.
We do not need to reflexively adopt Wesley’s position on everything. I’m not in favor, for instance, of electrocuting myself to heal ailments, and I do not accept Bishop Ussher’s calculation of a 7,000-year-old Earth. But as Methodists, we should at least have reasons for rejecting our own tradition.
So, help me understand this, how do you interpret what Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:19-34?
Reblogged this on teddy ray and commented:
The proper Christian use of money (for both individuals and the Church) has long been one of my primary interests. John Meunier’s post here is a great prod. Scripture’s teaching about money – and Wesley’s constant reminders from it – have been a constant challenge and conviction in my life.
Are these teachings good and true? If so, how do we more fully live them?
It seems to me that this text needs to be read with an eschatological lens. If one believes that the end of the world is coming soon, then there is no reason to organize, maintain, or support an institution or establish a legacy. If the end of the world is coming then, “laying up treasure on earth” becomes foolish.
This text is also applicable to those who are called to be reformers of established institutions (as John Wesley was). Pastors who receive a paycheck from a congregation are not in a position to be reformers. Rather they are being paid to gather, create, and maintain a community (and an institution). So pastors who take this text seriously are in an awkward position. Perhaps the best thing to do is to simply dress up like John Wesley as Mark Topping did and pretend to be John Wesley rather than claim to be a person who lives according to the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps reading the Sermon on the Mount or quoting John Wesley is the best a pastor can do with integrity.
On the other hand, I believe that God still calls some to be reformers. The call to seek first the kingdom of God and God’s righteousness still inspires some to step outside of the comfortable arena of paychecks, pensions, and health insurance to follow Jesus in obedience.
My own experience is that God is faithful when I seek His kingdom first. I have stepped out of the comfortable institutional comfort zone and I no longer receive a paycheck from the church. I am sometimes anxious about how I will pay my bills, but so far my needs have been met–sometimes in miraculous ways. This text has become a cornerstone of my faith. God is faithful when I obediently follow Jesus and seek God’s kingdom.
I do not think we can read this as anti-institutional to the degree you seem to be, Holly. Wesley set up schools and other ongoing institutions. I don’t think he lived as if the world were going to end soon, and he clearly saw the Methodist movement as enduring well beyond his lifetime. I believe he even set up a system for paying “worn out preachers” a kind of retirement.
That said, clergy careerism and chasing after bigger salaries for the sake of bigger salaries and living in luxury would all come squarely under critique by this sermon.
Perhaps Wesley did not read this with an eschatological lens, but I think Jesus preached it in the context of an eschatological world view. Ever since, we have been wrestling with how to deal with the delay of the parousia. (Did I spell that right–spell check doesn’t recognize ‘escatological” or “parousia” ?)
I’d agree that receiving a paycheck is not necessarily the problem here. Wesley himself received a great deal of money from the faithful, but it all flowed back out again. It is the storing up that he is attacking here, desiring money for its own sake, or trusting it to provide security and health and happiness. And I don’t know that the imminence of the end of the world makes too much of a difference to my eyes: I think it was Luther who said (though this may be apocryphal) that if he knew for certain that the world would end tomorrow he would still plant a tree today. I certainly struggle with the many pastors I know (starting with my own grandfather) who own multiple homes, though they are otherwise incredibly faithful. But this is not the sort of thing that requires merely a shift in the way we think about it (though it also requires that): it requires an active discipline and witness on our part who are pastors.
Yes. And setting that example would be a true cross-bearing experience for us.
Pingback: Money Squirming | Hopeful
I tried to comment earlier that I am posting a link to this fine post, with these comments:
John Meunier had us all squirming about money and social principles yesterday. I think that is good for us, so I’m pointing in that direction this week. I’m thanking John too.
Here is a link to his blog on Methodism and Money.
So here I am, trying that again.
Thank you for the link, Tom.
I was thinking of De’Amon, from our congregation, who is starting to be recognized for his good work in recognizing the power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people that others see as only without money (i.e. “poor”). This past month he’s been in an urban school district in New Jersey talking with them about how to see and recognize the gifts of their students and their families. They offered him $26,000. He said – “I’ll take $10,000 – but only if you’ll put the other $16,000 in the hands of the parents of the students you are most concerned about [not $16,000 in services, the actual dollars].” He went on to say that one of the school principals there was complaining to him that the state Board of Education was requiring them to take 4 million dollars to buy IPads for all his students. He railed against this requirement…saying that he wanted that 4 million dollars for the parents of his students, but that the state was acting like “custodians of poverty.” Which we in the church often act like ourselves. The working out of Wesley’s challenges in practices requires diligence in our every day lives and work as he so often pointed out. Thanks for sharing this.