Writing a commentary for the United Methodist News Service, J. Richard Peck encourages readers to heed John Wesley’s advice on economic policy. “In short, Wesley called for higher taxes upon the wealthy and laws that would prohibit the wasting of natural products,” says Peck. He notes that the cure for economic troubles relating to the poor was to repress luxury.

While some of Wesley’s economc advice is certainly sound, especially his views on the danger of debt, his understanding of basic economic principles in a free economy is severely limited. Kenneth J. Collins, a premier scholar and admirer of Wesley in fact notes as much in his book The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace just how far Wesley actually misses the mark. Collins declares:

Arguing ostensibly from a larger theme of proper stewardship, Wesley posited a “zero sum” world in which the maxim, “if the poor have too little it must because the rich have too much,” by and large ruled the day. As such, not only did he fail to recognize how capitalism actually works in a growing economy, even in a mercantilist one, but also his concern for stewardship, of what he called robbing the poor,” often developed upon such petty matters as the size and shape of women’s bonnets (and he forgets that poor workers often made these accessories) or upon his favorite moral foibles of censure, the consumption of alcohol.

The Theology of John Wesley will be reviewed in the upcoming issue of Religion & Liberty.

Curiously, Peck also highlights Wesley’s advice for less reliance upon pharmaceuticals. However Peck does not add that Wesley was at war with some healers or physicians in his own time who were taking advantage of the poor with faulty and expensive cures. Wesley published Primitive Physic, or an Easy and Natural Method of Curing Most Diseases in 1747. He generously distributed copies for free for the poor to fight back against those taking advantage of them. In Wesley’s account there are certainly improvements in medical suggestions, and his tips on healthy living are fairly standard even today. Wesley did not pull these cures and suggestions from thin air, much of his tips came from doctors he trusted. Still there were suggestions like rubbing your head with raw onions for curing baldness and holding a live puppy on the abdomen as a recommendation for intestinal obstruction. The point is that we would not take medical advice from Wesley over more advanced modern medicine, nor should we take economic advice from somebody with little economic understanding. It’s important to note that Wesley’s passionate assistance to the poor is certainly an effort to emulate.

The best advice Methodists can take from Wesley is to be rooted in the Good News he so passionately preached and spread across the globe. When United Methodism as a whole fully recaptures Wesley’s chief suggestion to his followers which was to “preach Jesus Christ and him crucified,” his followers will then again be aligned with the ancient truths.


  • http://www.psonnets.org/ Michael

    A live puppy! I might need to remember that one. I have an older dog, a Jack Russell. I don’t think she’d take too kindly to me holding her on my tummy. She might kick and fight. Then again, that might do the trick! :-)

  • Tracy

    Although we think John Wesley’s views are funny and may be taken lightly on economics or natural medicine but so many influential pastors with good intentions support the same views today. A lot of Christians have excepted those views. I think many Christians still view the fundamental beliefs of John Wesley and applying to their lives. I am not saying that medicine cures everything but some take radical beliefs that natural means or spritual means will cure diseases or disorders. Same with taking economics without really throughly understanding the process of how economics works. I think Chritians really need to take the time to understand medicine or economics to make sound judgement for their lives.

  • joe b

    of course neither wesley nor his contemporaries would have saw exchange relations in terms of ‘free markets’ or ‘economic principles.’ the prevailing relationshp between government and exchange was interventionst at the most basic level–setting prices for necessities, which was expected on both sides of the british atlantic. his economic theory should not be thought of as distinct from his moral and eschatological teachings. ‘economy’ was fundamentally a moral matter–that is, a matter of responsibility–than what we might think of as free and open markets.

    not that there weren’t people starting to think about the problem of wealth, such as adam smith.

  • Rev. Rob

    John Wesley’s ethical concern highlights the overemphasis in free markets on the value of capital at the expense of labor. He followed the early church’s commitment that capital be redistributed according to need. (Acts 4:34) Unbridled capitalism as practiced in eighteenth century England was incredibly harsh, and without public restraint on the free market would have certainly led to revolution. Wesley was all too aware of the plight of the exploited work force in his day. Thus his concern for the value of labor and the development of the working class.

  • Pingback: Preachers and the Economy | Mitchell Lewis