I have just returned from my local Methodist Church Council. Did I enjoy the meeting? Well, I certainly endured the meeting. It is hard sometimes to understand that meetings like these are amongst Wesley's legacy to humanity and an outgrowth of his doctrine of sanctification.
It is easy to be turned off by eighteenth century theology; all the complex words with nice meanings. It's like that because theology was controversial and all sides honed the language to give them the precision they needed. Wesley was different, not because he didn't argue (oh yes he did), but because for him theology was 'here and now'. Wesley understood, albeit sometimes reluctantly, that for the spirit to flow amongst the industrialised urban poor he needed structures. There was a lack of religious leadership, so Wesley organised the early Methodists in societies, bands and classes, where they helped each other along the way of perfection.
On page 115, Runyon writes:
Methodist preaching at typical open-air meetings ended not with an "altar call" and a count of the number of conversions, but with an announcement of where the local Methodist society met and an invitation to attend these meetings. ... Every member of the body is important because the Spirit ministers through each to each. It is undoubtedly true that it was by means of the Methodist organisational pattern that the fruits of the revival were conserved and multiplied.
It is said that Wesley was naturally conservative and resisted each of his innovations, from consenting to become more vile (field preaching) to his ordination of ministers for the American Methodist Church.
But perhaps most significant was the way he organised the poor. This enabled the faith to be passed from each to each and beyond. As people came in touch with the Methodists they learned how to organise and these skills were passed on. I am not aware that anyone has tried to trace a route from Wesley to other British working class movements. Did he also create trade unions, worker and retail co-operatives, building societies, penny banks, insurance schemes as well as numerous small mutual aid organisations?
If there is such a link it means most of the institutions we live and work with up to this day (including many I have not mentioned) were the products of organised working people, a legacy of Wesley's. Of course he would say it was the work of the spirit; that through sanctification all these were the spirit's gifts to the world. Through the poor the Spirit built so many of our modern institutions, through innovation not available to the wealthy.
Is this true? I will go some way to substantiate it in my next post, but it is a theory I would like to follow up at some stage; at present there is a limit to how far I can go to substantiate this argument.
Comments