Theodore W. Jennings, Jr.

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… (plus d'informations)

While the first part of the book does devote itself to speculation on the identity of the 'man Jesus loved' in the Gospel of John, and to the nature of their relationship, the rest of the book is also a study of the attitudes revealed in the gospels and other New Testament texts toward sexuality that deviates from the presumed norm of heterosexual marriage and family life. The author suggests that the traditional assignment of 'the man Jesus loved' as the apostle John is incorrect, and that Andrew or Lazarus are more likely candidates. His reading of the text does not rule out an erotically mediated relationship, and suggests that such a reading is a less tortuous one than those that only see the relationship on a platonic or spiritual level. Other texts that are treated in this work include the centurion and his boyfriend, the 'naked youth' in Mark, and eunuchs. More generally, the attitude of Jesus towards (biological) family, marriage, and wedding are examinied.… (plus d'informations)

This man's writing style is brilliant. He injects a healthy dose of humor into his arguments through creative turns of phrase and anachronistic adaptation of modern terminology. There are numerous passages in the book that make there point quite clearly but are also laugh out loud and get weird looks in the library funny. On a more somber note, there is also a repetition of a sort of sigh throughout the text, a repeated plea of "will we not, at least, consider this to be plausible?"

Jennings' main premise is that much of the narrative content of the Old Testament can be read in queer affirming ways, and has not been because the overwhelming emphasis placed on prohibitions of homosexuality in the law codes have blinded generations of readers to that possibility. The majority of the text is an elaboration on Jennings reading narratives in the Bible all of which are quite fascinating. And, while some venture into territory that is rather disturbing (one character trait of YHWH in certain narrative is "phallic aggression"), the vast majority if not all of Jennings readings are plausible, and frankly, some of the stories make much better sense with a homoerotic element. Lights snapped on inside my skull much as they did when I heard that feet is frequently used in the Bible as a euphemism for genitals, and what was going on with Ruth and Boaz suddenly made a heck of a lot more sense.

What's quite interesting to me is the discussion of homoeroticism as a facet of monotheism. YHWH's loner status causes him to interact almost exclusive with humans (in contrast with the Greek gods who interact with each other), and the androcentricism of the texts means that the object of YHWH's interaction is the male population of Israel. Since YHWH's interaction with humans is often of an erotic character (and I dare anyone who has read the prophets or Song of Songs to try and tell me it isn't) then these interactions will necessarily be homoerotic in character. This argument is particularly salient in Jennings discussion of the prophets and the "transgendering" of Israel in the prophetic books.… (plus d'informations)