John Wesley,Compassionate Entrepreneur: A Wesleyan View of Business and Entrepreneurship

God as Owner, Humanity as Steward

Wesley’s view of economics is not secular, but profoundly theological, grounded in God’s universal ownership. ² All his practical guidelines on the use of money are derived from his view of God as the owner of all properties in heaven and on earth. This point is clearly identifiable in his sermon, “On Worldly Folly,” when he states:

Thou no longer talkest of thy goods, or thy fruits, knowing they are not thine, but God’s. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: He is the Proprietor of heaven and earth. He cannot divest himself of his glory; he must be the Lord, the possessor, of all that is. Only he hath left a portion of his goods in thy hands, for such uses as he has specified. (Wesley, 1872b: 308–309; emphasis added)

Wesley derives a crucial implication from God’s universal ownership of all properties: human beings are not owners of properties, merely stewards (Jennings, 1990: 99). God has true ownership of all in the world. It is not human beings, but God who decides how to use their property. In other words, those who have money or other properties ought not to simply use them for what they will, but according to the will of God. God, the true owner of all in heaven and on earth, is the one who gives human beings the rules on how to use the property in their hands. As mentioned in his sermon “The Danger of Increasing Riches,” Wesley (1872b: 362) first applies this to himself as he states, “Nay, may I not do what I will with my own? Here lies the ground of your mistake. It is not your own. It cannot be, unless you are Lord of heaven and earth.”

Likewise, Wesley (1872c: 319) uses the same reasoning for others, as he points out in his journal on 28 October 1754:

As to yourself, you are not the proprietor of anything; no, not of one shilling in the world. You are only a steward of what another entrusts you with, to be laid out, not according to your will, but his.

From Wesley’s point of view, people ought to use their money and wealth as if a steward, according to the will and intention of the true owner, namely God. This point is obvious in Wesley’s sermon “The Good Steward,” in which he states:

It is not so with a steward; he is not at liberty to use what is lodged in his hands as he pleases, but as his Master pleases. He had no right to dispose of anything which is in his hands, but according to the will of his Lord. For he is not the proprietor of any of these things, but barely entrusted with them by another; and entrusted on express condition—that he shall dispose of all as his Master orders. . .And he entrusts us with them on this express condition—that we use them only as our Master’s goods, and according to the particular directions which he has given us in his word. (Wesley, 1872b: 137)

Wesley’s view of economics was far from “economic Deism,” in which

We are . . . free to do as we please with what is now ours—all the more so if we pay the ‘guilt tax’ of a tithe to the church. . . .[S]uch a view pretends that God has given no particular instructions about the use of these goods. (Jennings, 1990: 101) ³

Thus, as Jennings (1990: 102) states:

The image of the steward is not . . .a harmless homiletical device. It is a critical blow to the economic atheism and economic deism that legitimate the existing economic arrangements and protect them against the demands of the gospel.

Wesley’s view of money and wealth in the context of stewardship had far-reaching implications for economic activities, leading to the transformation of individuals’ economic lives. ⁴

Wealth’s Spiritual Influence on Its Possessor and Society

Another implication derived from the view of wealth in the context of stewardship is its influence on believers’ spirituality. Wesley did not equate wealth with evil or sin, ⁵ but warned of the potential destructive impact of wealth on both human possessors and societies when wealth was viewed as a personal possession alone rather than belonging to God. First of all, regarding the human possessors of wealth, in his sermon “On Riches,” Wesley (1872b: 220) states that a human possessor can easily become self-centered,

. . . as not only his domestic servants and immediate dependents are governed implicitly by his will, finding their account therein, but also most of his neighbours and acquaintances study to oblige him in all things: So his will being continually indulged, will of course be continually strengthened; till at length he will be ill able to submit to the will either of God or men.

More specifically, as Collins (2001: 10–11) observes, Wesley identified two harmful ways that wealth would influence its possessors: The danger of riches is that riches “displace the love of God with the love of the world,” ⁶ and, as a result, “consists in their being a great hindrance to the love of neighbor.” ⁷ In his sermon “The Danger of Riches,” Wesley (1986: 244) states regarding the spiritual status of the affluent:

You are so deeply hurt that you have wellnigh lost your zeal for works of mercy, as well as of piety. You once pushed on, through cold or rain, or whatever cross lay in your way, to see the poor, the sick, the distressed.

Second, as far as wealth’s influence on a society is concerned, Wesley was afraid that the accumulation of wealth would cause or increase economic inequities in a society, when wealth was regarded as personal and private possession (Brendlinger, 2006: 123; Warner, 1930: 209). As Brendlinger (2006: 122) sums up, “When wealth was viewed as a possession rather than in the context of stewardship, Wesley believed it was destructive both to the ‘possessor’ and to society.”

Wesley recognizes, however, the positive impact of wealth when its possessors use it in a spirit of stewardship. Then, the human possessors can fulfill what God intends them to do with what they have in their hands (Brendlinger, 2006: 123). In his sermon “The Good Steward,” Wesley (1872d: 139; emphasis added) says:

God has entrusted us . . . with a portion of worldly goods . . . he has committed to our charge that precious talent which contains all the rest, – money: indeed it is unspeakably precious, if we are wise and faithful stewards of it; if we employ every part of it for such purposes as our blessed Lord has commanded us to do.

According to Wesley, wealth can have either a positive or negative influence on its possessor and society. On the one hand, when wealth is viewed as personal and private property only, wealth has the potential to destroy the spirituality of their human possessors and also increase economic iniquity in a society. On the other hand, when wealth is regarded as belonging to God, wealth can be used for great good as humans use it to fulfill the purposes of God.

Money, Wealth, and the Poor

Regarding money and wealth, Wesley is known for his three economic principles: “gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.” ⁸ These three economic principles evince Wesley’s economic perspective, but they had particular applications in his ministry to the poor. The first two principles—gain all you can and save all you can—were suggested in order for the poor to live diligently and frugally. In his day, many people in England believed that the poor were made poor because they were idle and prodigal. Repudiating the typical judgment of the day on the unfortunate condition of the poor, Wesley (1991: 445) states, “So wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor only because they are idle.’” ⁹ Wesley believed that the poor could meet their economic needs by working hard and saving money. Brendlinger (2006: 121) states:

By following Wesley’s dictum, the poor reversed the habits of idleness and foolish spending and began to prosper. Their conservative living and retaining no more than the ‘necessities’ of life produced what they considered an excess, which they gave generously to others.

Of these three economic guidelines, the third one—give all you can—provides the ultimate purpose of the other two. For Wesley, gaining and saving are not an end in themselves; rather, they should lead to increased capacity for giving. As Brendlinger (2006: 121–122) points out:

Unquestionably, this was a teaching of social benevolence. Wesley’s perspective on material wealth was a simple matter of social concern, governed by love of neighbor and demonstrated by materially helping that neighbor. Gaining and saving could become evil when not connected to the goal of giving. Then riches became sinful. ¹⁰

Wesley witnessed that Methodists were getting wealthier, as they put into practice the first two economic principles, but he mourned that many failed to be faithful and generous benefactors. ¹¹

For Wesley, the way that Christians spend money is an essential part of Christian discipleship. More specifically, how Christians care for the poor is inseparably related to their faith. For this reason, Wesley condemned a life of luxury, a lifestyle of spending money for things other than necessities for living. In his sermon “On Worldly Folly,” Wesley (1872b: 20) says, “the more you lay out on your own apparel, the less you have left to clothe the naked.” ¹² Wesley’s view of money and wealth should be understood in relation to his concern for the economic affliction that the poor were facing in their everyday lives. Brendlinger (2006: 122) puts it this way: “Wesley’s teaching on money was inseparable from his comprehensive view of the church. . . . In essence, he attributes the ineffectiveness of the church to a lack of social concern: Christians not feeding and clothing the destitute.” ¹³ For Wesley, the essence of Christianity is a holy love for God and neighbor that changes the heart’s affections, manifested in a concern for the physical needs of the poor. ¹⁴ In this way, Wesley regarded the practice of loving neighbors, particularly of caring for the needy, as an essential demonstration of Christian faith and life. Brendlinger (2006: 122) summarizes:

Wesley’s principle [on the use of money] establishes the context from which he preached that Christians should not be involved in certain activities. Many were wrong, not in themselves, but because they prevented, or reduced, demonstrating love to one’s neighbours. ¹⁵

For Wesley, the commitment to care for the poor is theologically derived from God’s ownership and human stewardship. Wesley insisted that care for the poor was God’s will regarding how a human steward of wealth ought to spend wealth, as indicated by his words below:

Perhaps you say you can now afford the expense. This is the quintessence of nonsense. Who gave you this addition to your fortune; or (to speak properly) lent it to you? To speak more properly still, who lodged it for a time in your hands as his stewards; informing you at the same time for what purposes he entrusted you with it? And can you afford to waste your Lord’s goods? . . .Away with this vile, diabolical cant! . . . This affording to rob God is the very cant of hell. Do not you know that God entrusted you with that money (all above what buys necessaries for your families) to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to help the stranger, the widow, the fatherless; and, indeed, as far as it will go. To relieve the wants of all mankind? (Wesley, 1872d: 360; emphasis added) ¹⁶

As Brendlinger (2006: 123; emphasis added) states, “Wesley saw all material possessions as a trust from God, to be shared with an open hand. When he encouraged industriousness, it was for the purpose of helping those in need. Stewardship meant sharing.” Therefore, in light of Wesley’s understanding of wealth in the context of stewardship, the issue of poverty is not merely left to the poor to overcome themselves; rather, it is a matter that the church should take responsibility by sharing and using its wealth. ¹⁷

Brendlinger (2006: 251n158) continues:

Most believed that poverty was the result of insufficient material goods, idleness of the poor due to their depravity, and Providence. Wesley contended that poverty was the responsibility of the entire community, not just the poor. There were sufficient goods but inequitable consumption by a few, produced poverty for the rest, and this was immoral because all goods belonged to God. ¹⁸

Hence, the link between wealth and care for the poor was theologically grounded. Maddox (2002: 62) summarizes this point with four principles of Wesley’s economic ethics:

(1) ultimately everything belongs to God; (2) resources are placed in our care to use as God sees fit; (3) God desires that we use these resources to meet our necessities, . . . then to help others in need; thus, (4) spending resources on luxuries for ourselves while others remain in need is robbing God! ¹⁹

This point clearly explains the reason why the poor were one of Wesley’s central concerns. For Wesley, God cares for and listens to the needy, like the poor. It also explains why Wesley was so eager to discuss the topic of money.

Wesley acknowledged that in his day, many Christians avoided discussing money, but he disagreed with their approach. He claimed that money and its proper use was “not sufficiently considered by those whom God hath chosen out of the world. These, generally, do not consider, as the importance of the subject requires, the use of this excellent talent” (Wesley, 1872k: 125). Wesley considered that money itself is neither good nor bad, but that it is a tool that can be used for either good or bad. He saw in money the potential to do the work of God in the world, as he delivered this grand and beautiful sentiment (alluding to Matthew 25 and Luke 4):

But, in the present state of mankind, it [money] is an excellent gift of God, answering the noblest ends. In the hands of his children, it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, raiment for the naked: It gives to the traveller and the stranger where to lay his head. By it we may supply the place of an husband to the widow, and of a father to the fatherless. We may be a defence for the oppressed, a means of health to the sick, of ease to them that are in pain; it may be as eyes to the blind, as feet to the lame; yea, a lifter up from the gates of death! (Wesley, 1872k: 126)

Wesley absolutely thought Christians should gain money. To Wesley, money is viewed as the means by which one can help others in need. When Wesley called money an “excellent gift from God,” though he is still mindful of its temptations, he seemed to be envisioning the revealing of the kingdom through the use of money.

Wesley, in general, believed that Christians should gain money and that money should be used as an “excellent gift” in order to be a “lifter up from the gates of death.” This shaped Wesley’s practice of business, including his own.

John Wesley’s Positive Attitude toward Business and Entrepreneurship

Wesley was positive about business and entrepreneurship in terms of their functional role in alleviation of poverty. ²⁰ This point is implicitly indicated by the fact that Wesley encouraged believers to be actively, even proactively, involved in economic activities (e.g. his first economic principle, “gain all you can”). It seems obvious that Wesley admitted the significant role of economic activities in the Christian life, and he highly valued the role of work for dignifying people.

Throughout his journals, he often remarks on the people’s hard work and the state of business in the area after arriving in a new place. In one entry Wesley was surprised, after arriving in New Ebenezer, by how hard-working the people are (Wesley, 1872a: 53). He praised the quality and arrangement of their homes and seemed impressed by the degree of farming being done by this small town. He made similar observations after arriving in several other towns, such as Forglen, Stourport, Prosperous, Liverpool, and Banff. Wesley (1872j: 73) did this intentionally, noting: “In travelling . . . I diligently made two inquiries: The first was, concerning the increase or decrease of the people; the second, concerning the increase or decrease of trade.”

He commonly complimented people for their industriousness. ²¹ While several compliments were about how people worked hard in their jobs, many instances revolved around non-vocational activity or a general trait of industriousness, which could be called a strong work ethic. In one journal entry, he speaks of Thomas Jones, who had recently died. Wesley (1872i, 98) notes that “God raised from nothing, by a blessing on his unwearied diligence, to a plentiful fortune.” After here recognizing his diligence, ²² he also goes on to say that, even after retirement, Jones was “still fully employed in building and in doing good” (Wesley, 1872i: 98). In another entry during a visit to a town named Ballygarane where he preached to the remnants of the Palatines, who were German immigrants, Wesley (1872i: 280) states that the Palatines were “patterns of industry and frugality” wherever they went, noting that many had been scattered throughout the UK and the United States. Wesley (1872h: 281) was surprised by the industriousness of those who were poor and sick, possibly in a town named Hayes. They were ill, several could hardly walk, there was no heat in their place which was bitterly cold, and some did not have food, but they were still working. Though they did not have many things, Wesley (1872h: 281) admired their work, saying they were “not without that ‘meat which endureth to everlasting life.’”

It must be noted that Wesley did not simply think that industriousness or business success was inherently good. In one entry, Wesley reflects on a Mr. Bolton, who was a detailed and meticulous man with beautiful gardens and property, which allowed him to employ about five hundred people. Though obviously impressed with the state of things at Mr. Bolton’s estate, Wesley had a still higher criteria to be met, “If faith and love dwell here, then there maybe happiness too. Otherwise all these beautiful things are as unsatisfactory as straws and feathers” (Wesley, 1872j: 232). Wesley ordered faith and love above successful business and employment, even daring to compare Mr. Bolton’s estate which gainfully employed hundreds to worthless things. Though he placed high esteem on hard work, Wesley was aware of the potential trappings.

Wesley’s positive view of business and entrepreneurship finds its explicit expression in the fact that he used business methods to alleviate poverty in several ways. ²³ Alongside raising and distributing money for the poor, Wesley sought to find a long-term and sustainable solution for the welfare of the poor. Particular methods he tried included two business attempts. Wesley organized an “employment scheme” so that the poor can work to make money for living (Norris, 2017: 201). He hired 12 women for the work of carding and spinning of cotton in 1740 (Wesley, 1990: 173). ²⁴ In addition, Wesley used a business model to support the poor via lending stocks (Heitzenrater, 2002a: 34; 2002b: 233). He lent stocks to the poor (around 1748) so that they may buy the tools and materials to develop their own businesses. Wesley “made small short-term loans (up to £1 for a maximum of three months) to support businesses” (Norris, 2017: 202). As Norris (2017: 202n83) states, “Wesley’s lending stock had originated in a broader vision of the pooling of incomes by local society members.” This lending stock scheme struggled with defaults but continued for 20 years (Walsh, 1990). Wesley claimed that through this business model, 250 people were economically helped for its first one and half years (Norris, 2017: 203). ²⁵ These business methods presented Wesley not merely as a benefactor, but an entrepreneur who used business methods to support the poor. Wesley’s own example testifies to his commitment to entrepreneurship, as Wright (2012: 95) noted:

Wesley’s publishing enterprise was enormously successful. It made Wesley very wealthy. Some estimate he earned as much as 30,000 pounds (more than $6 million today) over his life from this highly successful entrepreneurial business. He kept none of this money for himself. All but the barest of necessities was reinvested in the work of the movement.

John Wesley’s Cautious Attitude toward Business and Entrepreneurship

As much as Wesley valued industriousness, he recommended limits on the extent and nature of work. He believed that hard work was not good in and of itself; rather, it needed to conform to the will and purposes of God. In his sermon “The Use of Money,” Wesley (1872k: 135) advises his hearers to “[g]ain all you can, without hurting either yourself or your neighbour, in soul or body.” ²⁶ Wesley recommends boundaries related to the physical, social, and spiritual health of oneself and others. ²⁷

For instance, he explains several specific applications of the limits on work for it to be good. He suggests that although some areas of labor are inherently destructive to the body, there are also many fields that may be fine for someone but detrimental to the health of another, and it is up to the discernment of the individual to determine if they can continue in their work, saying “None, therefore, can here determine for another; but every man must judge for himself, and abstain from whatever he in particular finds to be hurtful to his soul” (Wesley, 1872k: 128).

Wesley also suggests avoiding any work that would hurt the mind, meaning any work that is sinful, illegal, or leads to temptations. In the same way that he suggested that some work could be acceptable for some but not for others, Wesley also acknowledges that some work that is innocent in itself and healthy for most may prove to be particularly tempting or harmful for others. Wesley (1872k: 128) himself admits that he cannot study any fields related to math without risking losing his faith!

For Wesley, these standards apply to the effects of one’s work on others as well. One should not work in such a way that another’s body, mind, or soul is harmed. Interestingly, Wesley adds further boundaries that outlaw business practices that would cause harm, such as high interest loans, taking property, pawn-broking, price fixing, deliberately delaying work, and recruiting a necessary worker away from where they are needed. If, after prayer and discernment, one were to find that their work and activities did not stand up to this standard, Wesley (1872k: 128) admonishes them to leave it and find something else, saying “if we are already engaged in such an employ, we should exchange it, as soon as possible, for some which, if it lessen our gain, will, however, not lessen our health.” So then, Wesley valued hard work, as long as the degree of the work was not harmful to oneself and as long as the nature of the work was not harmful to oneself or others.

Wesley’s use of business is related to his analysis of the causes of poverty. Wesley (1773) observed that the economic context caused poverty, not merely sloth. Heitzenrater (2002a: 32) states, “From his extensive traveling about the country, Wesley concluded that the problems of hunger and unemployment were caused by poor government policy, economic management, and societal choices, seen especially in three areas: distilling, taxes, and luxury.” For Wesley, the way that business ran in his days shaped the socioeconomic context that led people to economically struggle or flourish. Wesley believed that poverty resulted from the failure of economic stewardship. Poor business practice was one particular area in which economic stewardship failed to be fulfilled. As Jennings (1995: 23) states:

When Wesley speaks of stewardship, he is not talking about fundraising for a middle-class institution. He is talking about the redistribution of wealth from the prosperous to the poor. Now, much of this concerns what we would call personal ethics, but Wesley’s own reflections on these matters do not stay at the level of the personal and individual. His concern for the poor leads him into direct conflict with powerful sectors of his own society: the medical and legal professions. It leads him to denounce ordinary business practices as sheer robbery (emphasis added).

One particular example of a business practice that he considered robbery was the distilling business (to be discussed below).

Wesley’s perception of the causal relationship between poverty and poorly run business is clearly indicated by the fact that Wesley viewed unemployment and underemployment ²⁸ as causes of poverty. For instance, he bluntly stated, “The plain reason why they have no meat is, because they have no work” (Wesley, 1872e: 54).

Wesley finds a reason why people could afford only their basic needs was that some businesses showed favor not for the common people, but for the rich. He was critical of economic politics and luxury businesses in England, which were beneficial to rich people alone. These luxury businesses used a lot of resources needed for the common (or poor) people and increased the price of commodities. On the question “Why are so many thousand people . . . from one end of England to the other, utterly destitute of employment?” Wesley (1872e: 54) states, “Because the persons that used to employ them cannot afford to do it any longer. . . . They cannot, as they have no vent for their goods; food being so dear, that the generality of people are hardly able to buy anything else.” One particular case is Wesley’s opposition to the distilling business that produced income for the king (instead of making the grain available to feed people). Wesley (1872e: 55) rebukes those who show favor to this distilling business:

Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he then sell them for that sum, to be butchered by their own country men? ‘But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.’ Not unless they are fed with human flesh! Not unless they are fatted with human blood! O, tell it not in Constantinople, that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the flesh and blood of their countrymen!

In short, Wesley felt that the King abandoned his subjects by diverting the grain meant to feed them in favor of using the grain for distilling.

Wesley as Liberator ³²

Most of, if not all, Wesleyan literature seems unbalanced in evaluating Wesley’s economic principles. His commitment to the poor has been well recognized, but his appreciation of economics as a necessary and essential means to alleviating the issue of poverty was less recognized. It was often argued that Wesley did not encourage believers to pursue the profits of their business for their own pleasure. Wesley was pictured as one who was optimistically cautious of capitalism since he emphasized certain biblical economic teachings, which highlight (1) the negative influence of wealth on its possessor’s Christian faith, and (2) the opportunity and obligation to care for the poor.

On the one hand, Wesley’s disposition on business and entrepreneurship was to liberate the poor from socioeconomic affliction. Wesley postulated that it was not purely the responsibility of the poor that they fell into a physically impoverished life. To Wesley, they ought to be redeemed from the socioeconomic captivity, which deprived them of their physical needs for daily living, ³³ not only through charity, but, more importantly, by attempting to empower them with a sustainable, economic means to egress the realities of a downtrodden life. As regards the Christian response to poverty, unlike liberationists, who focused more on the use of force to create structural change, Wesley focused on voluntary repentance from the individual sins of the rich, as his “economics” was fundamentally shaped by and derived from his theology of stewardship rather than his economic thought itself. ³⁴ Wesley blatantly exhorted believers not to accumulate material wealth, which could lead to its possessors’ failure to serve the will of God, the true owner of the whole created world and all in it, as a steward of God. It also could result in the loss of the very essential marks of be a Christian, namely loving God and neighbors.

Wesley as Entrepreneur

On the other hand, Wesley embraced the value of free market economics and the right to private property (Collins, 2001). ³⁵ As a grassroots businessman himself, he strongly encouraged Christians to gain and save all they can, while he emphasized the voluntary sharing of resources with the needy. He himself even became an entrepreneur as he developed business models (and encouraged others to do likewise) ³⁶ as sustainable ways to support the poor. Since he recognized that unemployment and underemployment were two of the major causes that make people poor, he provided the poor with an opportunity to work so that they can earn money for a living, and even supported the business of the poor by lending stocks. In this sense, he clearly affirmed the functional value of business and entrepreneurship in supporting the poor. Thus, any accurate and comprehensive characterization of Wesley’s view of and attitude toward business and entrepreneurship is neither purely liberationist, nor capitalist. At the very least, Wesley seems to have the compassion of a liberator with the practice of a capitalist as he integrates both.

Furthermore, our discussion on Wesley’s view of business and entrepreneurship shows that Wesley was an entrepreneur ³⁷ as clearly illustrated in his use of business models in his ministry to the poor. However, Wesley contended that business should not aim solely for the increase of its profit alone. In other words, the ultimate goal and primary motivation of economics cannot and must not be to seek profit alone but fulfill God’s will, which is to love neighbors, particularly to take care of the needy. He creatively devised and implemented an entrepreneurial ministry to support the poor. In this regard, Wesley can be viewed as a compassionate entrepreneur, since his affirmation and use of the value of the free-market economics was theologically grounded on God’s ownership of all properties and socially motivated by the love for neighbors, particularly for the needy. ³⁸

Wesley’s Solidarity with the Poor

Wesley mourned that many Christians often ignored the sufferings that the poor faced in their daily lives. How was Wesley able to continuously and radically be committed to the poor? How can Christians continue to missionally engage the issue of poverty through their economic lives such as business? One particular but significant lesson from Wesley is his continuous effort to maintain his relationship with the poor. One major factor that enabled Wesley to continuously maintain his concern for the poor was his efforts to keep his personal relationship with the poor, particularly through regular visitation. In this relationship, he saw with his own eyes and heard with his own ears the sufferings and pains that the poor faced in their daily lives. Jennings (1995: 21) states, “Wesley understood that the deep class divisions of his own society were largely based upon a studied ignorance of the life of the poor on the part of the prosperous.” On Wesley’s solidarity with the poor, Jennings (1990: 53) asks a general question, “How is an attachment to the poor transformed from sentiment to solidarity?” Jennings (1990: 53) answered this question in the case of Wesley by saying that “Wesley was . . . the theologian of experience.” This point is clearly indicated by the fact that Wesley’s own voice for the poor came from his own observation of the poor in his personal relationship with them. In his sermon “Heaviness Through Manifold Temptations,” Wesley (1872d: 96) states:

[H]ow many are there in this Christian country, that toil, and labour, and sweat, and have it not at last, but struggle with weariness and hunger together? Is it not worse for one, after a hard day’s labour, to come back to a poor, cold, dirty, uncomfortable lodging, and to find there not even the food which is needful to repair his wasted strength? You that live at ease in the earth, that want nothing but eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to understand how well God hath dealth with you, –is it not worse to seek bread day by day and find none? Perhaps to find the comfort also of five or six children crying for what he has not to give! Were it not that he is restrained by an unseen hand, would he not soon ‘curse God and die?’ O want of bread! Want of bread! Who can tell what this means, unless he hath felt it himself.

Wesley’s relationship with the poor went beyond his commitment to the poor, and he even found spiritual purity among them. Thus, in a letter he wrote, Wesley (1872f: 200) could say, “I love the poor; in many of them I find pure, genuine grace, unmixed with paint, folly and affectation.” Jennings (1990: 50) states, “It is not surprising . . . that Wesley should find the poor to be his favorite audience.”

The primary way that Wesley maintained his relationship with the poor was to visit them on a regular basis. As Jennings (1990: 53–54) observes, “The practice of visiting the destitute and marginalized of English society was a feature of Wesley’s own Methodist discipline from the early days at Oxford until the end of his long career.” On the one hand, his visitation was motivated by biblical teachings on the poor. In one of his letters in which he describes his lifestyle, Wesley (1872f: 304 [“Letter to a Member of the Society, December 10, 1777”]) states:

I find time to visit the sick and the poor; and I must do it, if I believe the Bible, if I believe these are the marks whereby the Shepherd of Israel will know and judge his sheep at the great day; therefore, when there is time and opportunity for it, who can doubt but this is matter of absolute duty?

Another motivation of his visitation was that visitation of the poor was, as written in his journal on 24 November 1760, “far more apt to soften our heart, and to make us naturally care for each other” (Wesley, 1872g: 28). In his sermon “On Visiting the Sick,” Wesley (1872b: 119) even viewed this practice as “an excellent means of increasing your sympathy with the afflicted, your benevolence, and all social affections.” In the sermon, Wesley (1872b: 210) asserted that without this personal engagement with the afflicted, “you could not gain that increase in lowliness, in patience, in tenderness of spirit, in sympathy with the afflicted, which you might have gained, if you had assisted them in person.” This point is clearly identifiable when in the same sermon he states, “One great reason why the rich, in general, have so little sympathy for the poor, is, because they so seldom visit them” (Wesley, 1872b: 119).

Wesley’s intentional visitation of the poor shaped his ministries at least in two ways. First, it helped him accurately understand the cause and life situation of the poor. ³⁹ Second, it continuously motivated him to be committed to the poor. ⁴⁰ Wesley’s personal commitment to the poor is not limited to his regular visitation; it is also found in his lifestyle which gives expression to his solidarity to the poor. Jennings (1995: 22) states:

One other aspect of preaching and practice that is critical to the evangelization of the poor is the style of life that corresponds to a commitment to the poor. For the days at Oxford, Wesley had sought to develop a lifestyle that would permit him to engage in solidarity with the poor. This includes not only visitation but also the disciplines of frugality.

This aspect of Christian lifestyle epitomized by Wesley is clearly presented in his teachings on economic stewardship, which, according to Wesley, is inconsistent with a luxurious lifestyle of the rich. Wesley’s commitment to the poor would not have been possible without his continuous striving for a personal relationship with the poor.

Use of Wesley’s Threefold Economic Rule as a Guiding Principle for the Church

Integrated with his theological foundations and approach to business and entrepreneurship, Wesley’s threefold economic principle—“earn all you can, save all you can, and give all you can”—has a potential to serve as a guiding principle for the church’s life and ministry as the church seeks to missionally engage poverty in its local community. A cyclical process based on Wesley’s threefold economic principle is suggested with five practical steps as listed below.

This five-step cycle is expected to be a self-sustaining process that not only lifts people out of poverty, but also equips them as transformative agents who participate in alleviating poverty themselves. As more people are empowered, more are also able to flourish. This process does not aim merely at the welfare of the poor, but at restoring dignity to the poor, who are then able to work and help others. As a result, this process builds a community with a safety net, as the poor who come to work and earn through this process are able to help others who fall into poverty. It is also possible that this ministry replenishes its own expenses, as the poor are not only its beneficiaries, but its contributors.

This model is challenging, but simple, and can be implemented in diverse contexts and church structures. However, there is one particular aspect that this cycle absolutely cannot do without: the presence of the poor. The church who wants to adopt this model needs to intentionally identify the poor in its local community. The presence of the poor is not enough because the presence of the poor does not automatically lead the church into being committed to the poor. As Jesus says, “The poor you will always have with you” (Matt. 26:11[NIV]), there are always those in need in a local community where the church is. This point leads to the next practical insight Wesley offers.

The Church’s Real and Intimate Relationship with the Poor

Wesley mourned the fact that Methodists were eager to practice the first two instructions—“gain all you can” and “save all you can” —of his threefold economic principle, but were hesitant to practice the third one, namely “give all you can.” In time, the Methodists became rich, but failed to use their wealth to care for the needy. This leads to a practical question of how the church can be a compassionate community who faithfully loves neighbors, particularly the needy. Wesley’s solution is for the church to maintain an intimate and continuous relationship with the needy.

Wesley strove to intentionally create time to visit the poor on a regular basis. He not only learned that his relationship with the poor profoundly shaped his heart toward loving neighbors, particularly the poor, but also helped him accurately understand the degree and cause of the affliction the poor faced in daily life. For the church to be a compassionate community, particularly among the needy, the church must develop and maintain its intimate relationship with the needy; otherwise, the church will end up being a community which fails to practice loving neighbors, particularly the poor, since it may be a church that earns and saves but it fails to give.

Holistic Missional Practice of Business and Entrepreneurship

Wesley’s view of business and entrepreneurship does not support the dichotomy between spirituality and economics in Christian life and ministry. Rather, they are inseparably intertwined and integrated, forming a holistic way of Christian life and ministry. In fact, Wesley’s deep spiritual passion for the holy love of God and neighbor guides his approach to work. Instead of regarding work and business as a necessary evil, Wesley sees this as a means of spiritual formation and an approach to mission. For Wesley, Christian business and entrepreneurship should be theologically grounded, shaped by the relationship between God as the owner and humans as His stewards, and the commitment of the very essence of Christian faith, namely, the love of God and neighbors. This means that Christian economic life, including business and entrepreneurship, should be viewed as a visible expression of the essence of their faith in God. Furthermore, since, as Wesley identified, their economic activities have profound impact on their spiritual life and ministry in loving God and neighbors, the dichotomy between spirituality and economics in Christian life and ministry is debunked. Two implications are noteworthy of brief mention.

First, Wesley’s economic advice—particularly to earn, save, and give—serves as a means of grace to spiritually form the one following the advice. The goal is not merely hard work and charity but should include spiritual growth. Collins (2001: 17) notes that “Wesley ’s economic ethic is remarkably distinctive in that it expresses pastoral concern for the latter as well.” A proper understanding and application of Wesley’s economic advice must not then neglect to care for the spiritual formation of the ones who serve and give, lest their work and charity become divorced from the love of God and neighbor.

Second, Christians’ beneficial economic activities among and to the poor should not be complacent with the physical well-being of the poor, but should be viewed, planned, and implemented as a means of holistic transformation of the poor, that is, caring both for the body and the soul. This is an integral part of Wesley’s missional strategy. For instance, in his sermon “On Visiting the Sick,” Wesley (1986: 393) urges:

While you are eyes to the blind and feet to the lame, a husband to the widow and a father to the fatherless, see that you still keep a higher end in view, even the saving of souls from death, and that you labour to make all you say and do subservient to that great end.