When I taught United Methodist History last semester, I asked my students to search either the internet or denominational publications for articles which specifically interacted with John Wesley and appealed to him in order to make a point about the contemporary United Methodist Church. The assignment was for the students to research in depth what Wesley actually said about whatever the article addressed and determine whether the article had faithfully appropriated Wesley. The assignment ended up succeeding beyond my expectations for it. There were several students who found what they were looking for, or did not dive as deep as they could have into the Wesleyan corpus. However, there were many papers that reflected systematic investigation into what Wesley wrote about a particular topic. And best of all, there were a few instances of students who read Wesley so carefully and conscientiously that they allowed themselves to be surprised by him.
One of the motivations for the assignment was that popular writing about Wesley often reflects a shallow engagement with Wesley’s own writing and is a foil for saying what the person would have said if they were simply stating their opinion. I am not aiming this at a particular group or theological spectrum. I have seen too many instances all across the theological spectrum of prooftexting Wesley. Everyone who goes to seminary is taught not to prooftext the Bible (prooftexting means pulling a passage out of its context and using it to prove something that does not follow from the context it is found within). Most seminarians make a real effort to avoid doing this, and are happy to call others on it when they prooftext. And yet, prooftexting Wesley seems to be a beloved pastime.
The most recent example of this has been in response to comments by Glen Beck that suggested people should flee from churches that promote social justice. (I want to be clear, at this point, that this is not a disguised attempt to defend Beck. In fact, though this post is prompted by the response of others to Glen Beck, this post is not about Glen Beck at all. It is about John Wesley, whose thought I would rather spend my time and energy interacting with.) The main reason I became aware of the recent prooftext is because I actually quoted the passage that has been used in the discussion, so that my post has twice been linked to in relation to these conversations. Jeremy Smith, using good blogging etiquette, linked to my original post (which is nothing more than the quote from Wesley that Smith uses). However, a post by BaptistPlanet padded their argument by suggesting that I agreed with them, when – again – my original post was not making an argument, it was literally just the quote from Wesley. Here is what they attributed to me: “As Kevin Watson observed last year, their denominational devotion to social justice extends unbroken all the way back to John Wesley:” Please read my original post, and see if you think you can get that out of my original post.
At this point, some of you are probably wondering if I am going to actually mention the quote from Wesley that is the source of this. Here it is:
“Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. ‘Holy solitaries’ is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness but social holiness.”
The move that Jeremy made in his initial post on this, which seems to be a frequent move, is to equate social holiness with social justice. I think this is questionable on its own merits (see for example this post and this post by Andrew Thompson – a Th.D. student at Duke who is studying with Randy Maddox and Richard Heitzenrater). However, what I think is indisputable is that it is not a valid move to make when interacting with the passage mentioned above, which Jeremy explicitly cites on his blog. (In fairness, my guess is that Jeremy googled something like “no holiness but social holiness” and came up with my post, which cites the single passage, and not the entire Preface. I will remedy that below by citing the entire Preface. Though I do think it is incumbent on all who appeal to Wesley to do this sort of investigation.)
The quote from Wesley comes from the 1739 Preface to his “Hymns and Sacred Poems”. As I mentioned, I am going to quote the Preface in its entirety at the end of this post. I urge you to read Wesley’s comments in their entirety, to put this quote back in its context. The passage is not that long, and if we are not willing to take the time to read Wesley in some depth, we should probably stop appealing to him.
As a student of Wesley and the history of Methodism, I think it is worth getting this right for its own sake. And as a pastor in The United Methodist Church, I think the rest of the Preface goes a long way towards explaining why there is apparent disagreement about conflating social justice and social holiness. I have never met a Christian (at least as far as I can remember) who has said, I don’t believe that Christians should help other people. I have met many Christians who are concerned that the desire to help other people has replaced the importance of faith in Jesus Christ. Christians are right to insist that only Christ can save us. Salvation is not something that we can earn by our effort. Thus, a few paragraphs before Wesley says “no holiness but social holiness” he writes, “Other foundation therefore can no man lay, without being an adversary to Christ and his gospel, than faith alone; faith, though necessarily producing both, yet not including either good works, or holiness.” Faith is prior, it is the foundation. Wesley wants us always to be explicit about this.
The other thing that is missed when Wesley’s words are pulled out of context is why he is writing this. The major contrast Wesley is making is “the manner of building up souls in Christ taught by St. Paul” from “that taught by the Mystics.” This is not explicit in the passage, but given what was going in the Fetter Lane Society, which Wesley was part of at the time, I think it seems likely that the target in his mind for these attacks was the Moravian quietists in Fetter Lane – the ones who said you should do nothing but wait for faith, by yourself without the means of grace. It is not hard to imagine this audience when Wesley writes, “For contemplation is, with them, the fulfilling of the law, even a contemplation that ‘consists in a cessation from all works.’”
It seems to me that when Wesley says “social holiness” what he means is that we do not grow in our relationship with God – we do not become holy – by ourselves. John Meunier’s comment on Jeremy’s original post comes closest to the point, “Wesley clearly meant by social holiness the idea that we have to be in connection and relationship with other Christians to be holy. You can’t sit in your closet and by holy. You have to be with other people to love them.” (This is comment #12. John frequently blogs here.)
Does this mean that Christians, particularly Methodists, should not care about helping others? Of course not! The Greatest Commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. The “General Rules” command Methodists to do no harm, do good, and practice the means of grace. But I am convinced that Wesley would be adamant that the foundation of our reaching out to help others has to be faith in Jesus Christ. I actually don’t think it is all that controversial amongst Methodists that Christians should help others. I have never heard a Methodist say they think we should stop going on mission trips to build houses or repair damaged churches. I have never heard the most conservative Christian say it is a bad idea to send food to starving people. They, rightly in my view, get impatient when they perceive that the church is becoming merely a social service agency. There is no holiness without social holiness. That is why Wesley created the society, class, and band structure. So Methodists could watch over one another in love and encourage each other to growth in holiness, of which good works are absolutely a part.
But social justice is not the same thing as social holiness. Our tendency to equate the two reflects just how impoverished our understanding of the holiness that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit invite us to is at the moment.
As promised, the entirety of Wesley’s Preface to the 1739 Hymns and Sacred Poems follows. I pulled this from the Duke Center for Studies in the Wesleyan Tradition, which is an excellent online resource, you should check it out.
——
1. Some verses, it may be observ’d, in the following
collection, were wrote upon the scheme of the mystic divines.
And these, ’tis own’d, we had once in great veneration, as the
best explainers of the gospel of Christ. But we are now
convinced that we therein “greatly err’d, not knowing the
Scriptures, neither the power of God.” And because this is an
error which many serious minds are sooner or later exposed to,
and which indeed most easily besets those who seek the Lord
Jesus in sincerity, we believe ourselves indispensably obliged, in
the presence of God, and angels, and men, to declare wherein
we apprehend those writers not to teach “the truth as it is in
Jesus.”
2. And first, we apprehend them to lay another foundation.
They are carefull, indeed, to pull down our own works, and to
prove that “by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
But why is this? Only “to establish our own righteousness” in
the place of our own works. They speak largely and well against
expecting to be accepted of God for our virtuous actions—and
then teach that we are to be accepted for our virtuous habits or
tempers. Still the ground of our acceptance is placed in
ourselves. The difference is only this: common writers suppose
we are to be justified for the sake of our outward righteousness.
These suppose we are to be justified for the sake of our inward
righteousness. Whereas in truth we are no more justified for the
sake of one than of the other. For neither our own inward nor
outward righteousness is the ground of our justification.
Holiness of heart, as well as holiness of life, is not the cause but
the effect ofit. The sole cause of our acceptance with God (or, that for the
sake of which, on the account of which we are accepted) is the
righteousness and the death of Christ, who fulfilled God’s law
and died in our stead. And even the condition of it is not (as they
suppose) our holiness either of heart or life, but our faith alone,
faith contradistinguish’d from holiness as well as from good
works. Other foundation therefore can no man lay, without being
an adversary to Christ and his gospel, than faith alone, faith,
though necessarily producing both, yet not including either good
works or holiness.
3. But supposing them to have laid the foundation right,
the manner of building thereon which they advise is quite
opposite to that prescribed by Christ. He commands to “build up
one another.” They advise, “To the desert, to the desert, and God
will build you up.” Numberless are the commendations that
occur in all their writings, not of retirement intermix’d with
conversation, but of an intire seclusion from men (perhaps for
months or years), in order to purify the soul. Whereas, according
to the judgment of our Lord and the writings of his apostles, it is
only when we are “knit together” that we “have nourishment
from him,” and “increase with the increase of God.” Neither is
there any time when the weakest member can say to the
strongest, or the strongest to the weakest, “I have no need of
thee.” Accordingly our blessed Lord, when his disciples were in
their weakest state, sent them forth, not alone but two by two.
When they were strengthened a little, not by solitude but by
abiding with him and one another, he commanded them to
“wait,” not separate but being assembled together, “for the
promise of the Father.” And “they were all with one accord in
one place” when they received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Express mention is made in the same chapter that when “there
were added unto them three thousand souls,” “all that believed
were together,” “and continued steadfastly” not only “in the
apostles” doctrine,” but also “in fellowship and in breaking of
bread,” and in praying “with one accord.”
Agreeable to which is the account the great Apostle gives of the
manner which he had been taught of God, “for the perfecting of
the saints,” “for the edifying of the body of Christ,” even to the
end of the world. And according to St. Paul, “all” who will ever
“come, in the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” must together
“grow up into him, from whom the whole body fitly join’d
together and compacted” (or strengthen’d) “by that which every
joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the
edifying of itself in love.” Ephesians iv. 15, 16.
4. So widely distant is the manner of building up souls in
Christ taught by St. Paul from that taught by the mysticks! Nor
do they differ as to the foundation, or the manner of building
thereon, more than they do with regard to the superstructure. For
the religion these authors wou’d edify us in is
3Ori., “love”; corrected in 5th edn. (1756).
solitary religion. If thou wilt be perfect, say they,
trouble not thyself about outward works. It is better to
work virtues in the will. He hath attain’d the true
resignation who hath estranged himself from all outward
works, that God may work inwardly in him, without any
turning to outward things. These are the true worshippers,
who worship God in spirit and in truth.
For contemplation is with them the fulfilling of the law, even a
contemplation that “consists in a cessation of all works.”
5. Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary
religion is not to be found there. “Holy solitaries” is a phrase no
more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel
of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social
holiness. “Faith working by love” is the length and breadth and
depth and height of Christian perfection. “This commandment
have we from Christ, that he who loveth3 God love his brother
also;” and that we manifest our love
“by doing good unto all men, especially to them that are of the
household of faith.” And in truth, whosoever loveth his brethren
not in word only, but as Christ loved him, cannot but be “zealous
of good works.” He feels in his soul a burning, restless desire, of
spending and being spent for them. “My father,” will he say,
“worketh hitherto, and I work.” And at all possible opportunities
he is, like his Master, “going about doing good.”
6. This then is the way. Walk ye in it, whosoever ye are
that have believed in his name. Ye know, “Other foundation can
no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.” Ye feel
that “by grace ye are saved through faith”; saved from sin by
Christ form’d “in your hearts,” and from fear by “his Spirit
bearing witness with your spirit, that ye are the sons of God.” Ye
are taught of God, “not to forsake the assembling of yourselves
together, as the manner of some is”; but to instruct, admonish,
exhort, reprove, comfort, confirm, and every way build up one
another. “Ye
have an unction from the Holy One” that teacheth you to
renounce any other or higher perfection than “faith working by
love,” faith “zealous of good works,” faith “as it hath
opportunity doing good unto all men.” “As ye have therefore
received Jesus Christ the Lord, so walk ye in him; rooted and
built up in him, and stablish’d in the faith, and abounding
therein” more and more. Only, “Beware lest any man spoil you
thro’ philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” For “ye are
complete in him.” “He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and
the ending, the first and the last.” Only “continue in” him,
“grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of
the gospel.” “And when Christ, who is our life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with him in glory!”
Kevin M. Watson 
Bravo! Persons who support social justice positions and believe the church should be about the same business have made the case for such, and whether it convinces someone or not is up to the someone.
But the equation of our modern concept of social justice with Wesley’s “social holiness” phrase and the citation of the single sentence, taken from its roots, as proof that this man of the 18th century would unequivocally support the causes grouped together under the 21st century heading “social justice” is unwarranted without a great deal more exegetical work than I have ever seen used when I have seen the citation made.
Perhaps the equation is justified, and perhaps Wesley would agree with this understanding — although I doubt it, I don’t know for certain. All I do know is that simply saying it doesn’t make it so.
Kevin, thanks for this important contribution to the social justice/social holiness discussion. It is important for in-depth articles like yours to offer further study that “review” articles like mine can cite (and hopefully reflect your actual content, unlike BaptistPlanet apparently!). I’m glad my good blogging etiquette spurred this conversation as well.
I admit disappointment that you spent an entire post articulating social holiness (bravo!) without a single definition of social justice to compare it to. Further, your definitions of social holiness are (by my amateur reading) accurate and Wesleyan, but portrayed in such a way as to be different from social justice…which is not defined.
So help me with understanding what social justice is to you and why it is different from social holiness. I’m confused in the following two ways:
(1) your first pseudo-definition of social justice is “the desire to help other people” which has “replaced the importance of faith in Jesus Christ.” Is that the definition of social justice to you…a misplaced focus on helping people? And if so, can people who place their faith in Jesus Christ also place their gifts and energies into helping people? I suspect it is yes, and from Wesley it would be yes. As another Rev. Jeremy wrote on my blog (comment #24), Wesley preached 67 times the Gospel to the prisons (faith as a foundation) while simultaneously supporting prison reform advocates (care for others). Is it not unreasonable that people today do this very thing, with faith as a foundation?
*One note on this: “Faith is prior, it is the foundation.” In ecumenical contexts I can understand why social justice would be construed as placing human lives or values as the foundation. For UMs to sign onto declarations or statements seeking justice, the ballots likely do not reflect faith as a foundation. That’s why I support signing statements for organizations to declare what in their faith gives them the foundation to respond in this way.
(2) Your second pseudo-definition seems to be this (long quote): “the church is becoming merely a social service agency. There is no holiness without social holiness. That is why Wesley created the society, class, and band structure. So Methodists could watch over one another in love and encourage each other to growth in holiness, of which good works are absolutely a part.” Again, social justice is merely social services, or caring for people? And the reason why social justice is not social holiness is because social holiness requires an accountability structure focused on reflecting on individual holiness? This seems to imply that social justice is not self-critical on how it is fulfilling Christ’s call to care for others, nor focused on individual spiritual transformation of the participants of the social justice work…neither of which I would agree with in the slightest.
I hope you see my confusion. Without a definition of social justice, I’m unable to see how social holiness is different. And no, I won’t define it either…it’s your blog post, man! While defining social justice wasn’t the focus of your blog post, you do reference it and you do claim it is not social holiness…so it is a relevant question.
All that said, we are in some sort of agreement. Social justice and social holiness are not equivalent, regardless of your definition. However, I would argue that social justice is a facet of social holiness. You kick out the leg of social justice from social holiness, and you end up with a pseudo-quietist who is content caring for the bodies who float down the river but never go upstream to find out why. And yes, my faith is a foundation upon which seeking social justice is found.
Please realize I’m not arguing your definition of social holiness…you are the expert. What I am arguing is that even given your definition of social holiness, social justice is not shown to be antithetical to it. They are not equivalent but you haven’t shown how statements against social justice are not statements against social holiness as well.
I guess I should be thankful for Glenn Beck. Not only are people talking about social justice, but now we have an enlightening post on social holiness from you to better the conversation. Not a bad week!
We did in fact give you credit as the source of the quote.
It is clear in retrospect that we should have inferred no interpretation from you in that case, even if you subsequently agreed with us. That view of unbroken heritage is ours and, yes, the author in this case is a Methodist.
Jeremy – The reason I focused on social holiness as opposed to social justice was due to the purpose of my post, which was to positively argue for what Wesley meant by social holiness within the context of the passage the “no holiness but social holiness” quote came from. The phrase social justice does not occur in this passage.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken that it is difficult to make a comparison between social holiness and social justice if one of the two is not defined. You are also correct that I did not provide a definition of social justice.
It seems to me that not many people are clear what exactly social justice is. A charitable definition, particularly within the context of contemporary United Methodism, would be: working to make the reality of the kingdom of God visible in the here and now, particularly for those who are often marginalized in society. Social justice, then, in a Christian context, is following Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39). Further, it is motivated by other passages from scripture, such as the sheep and the goats, where Jesus says the “King” will say “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40). [There are probably better passages to cite, these are the first two that came to mind.]
I think the most important point, based on your comment, is that I also do not see social justice as antithetical to social holiness. My point is that social holiness is prior and broader. In Wesley’s understanding, I think social justice would come out of social holiness. It would be one part of it, but not the entirety. Or, as we become more holy we become more just. In some ways it may help if we remove “social” and think about holiness and justice. I think most people would agree that these two are not the same thing. However, most people would also agree that a holy person would not be unjust. Likewise a holy society would be a just society.
I do think that talk about social holiness does sometimes move away from insistence on dependence on the Triune God for our ability to work for justice.
Here are some of the things that are left out when social holiness and social justice are conflated: acts of piety (particularly the instituted means of grace), watching over one another in love (which Wesley generally uses to mean growing in holiness), preaching the gospel, inviting people into a relationship with Jesus Christ, worship, the sacraments, etc.
I am not arguing that when people talk about social justice they are saying “social justice and not that other stuff.” I doubt any advocates of social justice would say that. I am saying that both are important, neither should be emphasized to the exclusion of the other.
Another way to put this would be to say that Jesus commanded us to love God and love our neighbor. Acts of piety bring us closer to God and acts of mercy bring us closer to our neighbor. These are not narrowly exclusive. The more we love God, the more we love our neighbor. Both acts of piety and acts of mercy are part of sanctification. If we neglect either, we neglect the riches of the Christian faith.
BaptistPlanet – Thank you for editing the original post. And I do appreciate that you originally recognized my post as the place where the quote was.
Pingback: Kevin Watson on Social Holiness « mattjudkins
Kevin,
Informative and insightful blog post. I am grateful for your reading, research, thinking, and relevant communications. Our utmost for His highest. I would like you and the family to visit our family, church, area, and to minister among us. Are you willing and available? If so, please suggest how, when, and what. God bless!
Dave
I happen to agree that the liberals are misusing this quote from Wesley. The “social holiness” that Wesley was talking about was in contrast to personal holiness. In the oft-quoted passage, he was thinking about putting faith into practice, as opposed to navel-gazing.
But, just because liberals are wrong in using this proof-text doesn’t mean that he didn’t emphasize social justice. Ronald Stone’s “John Wesley’s Life & Ethics” typifies his ethics as “rule-agapism.” (p.215)
“In the third sermon (in the series on the Sermon on the Mount), he asserts that as important as faith is, ‘Still it is only the handmaid of love. Love is the end of all the commandments of God.’ …The conclusion of the sermon is that the law of love is established: ‘So shall you continually go from faith to faith. So shall you daily increase in holy love, till faith is swallowed up in sight, and the law of love established to all eternity.'” (p.214)
“His morality is characterized by obedience to God’s will expressed in scripture and in moral principles….” (p.215)
“To love the neighbor is for Wesley to give the neighbor what the neighbor deserves…. Out of love for the poorest of the poor whom he had met, instructed, and baptized he used principled arguments to attack inhuman greed represented in the slave trade…. ‘Wesleyan social ethics is an ethic of love.’ …What matters is faith that works through love” (Gal. 5:6 TEV) ” (p.216)
Kevin,
In the main, I agree with the argument of your post. However, I think that perhaps you do separate Wesley’s use of the term “social holiness” too much from what we call “social justice.” In point #5, from which the quotation in question comes from, Wesley specifically mentions love of neighbor. I’ve included the relevant sentences below:
—-
This commandment
have we from Christ, that he who loveth3 God love his brother
also;” and that we manifest our love
“by doing good unto all men, especially to them that are of the
household of faith.” And in truth, whosoever loveth his brethren
not in word only, but as Christ loved him, cannot but be “zealous
of good works.” He feels in his soul a burning, restless desire, of
spending and being spent for them. “My father,” will he say,
“worketh hitherto, and I work.” And at all possible opportunities
he is, like his Master, “going about doing good.”
—-
So, for Wesley, not only is it not possible to attain holiness alone without the assistance of others, nor be rightly so-called holy alone, but it is also not possible to claim holiness and not actively work for the good of one’s brothers and sisters.
What I took you to be saying in your post is that social justice does not precede but rather only comes out of holiness, which is an important and overlooked point in the United Methodist Church. You cannot have the Kingdom without disciples. At the same time, it is important that we always expect piety to bear practical fruit.
Great post, and keep up the good work!
Andrew – Thanks for your comment. I am confused because I agree with your conclusions, but do not see how they are in disagreement with my post. I am not sure I understand how my post or my response to Jeremy in a previous comment can either be taken to suggest that I argue that “it is possible to claim holiness and not actively work for the good of one’s brothers and sisters” or that I am implying that piety should not be expected to bear practical fruit. I do not want to defend either of those positions because I think they are both wrong, and I don’t think my post can be read to be arguing for love of God which is divorced from love of neighbor. In fact, I think the opposite is the case. I explicitly said in my previous comment that social justice is not antithetical to social holiness and that social just would come out of social holiness.
The point of my post, which I am still convinced is correct, is that one cannot use the “no holiness without social holiness” quote as a direct equivalent of social justice. The two are not the same thing. Saying they are not the same is not saying one is good and one is bad, or even that one does not come from the other. But they are not the same thing. Again, I suspect that it is the word social before holiness and justice that confuses the issue. I doubt very many Christians think that holiness and justice are identical terms.
Maybe another way of getting at what I am trying to say would be to use a different image. I think saying that social holiness is social justice would be similar to saying that prayer is discipleship. To me the two are obviously not the same thing, but that does not mean that they do not have any connection to each other. Prayer is a part of discipleship. Someone who is a disciple is someone who will pray.
That may just be further confusing things. In any event, thanks for your contribution to this discussion.
Kevin –
This is a great post. And one that is very needed in Wesleyan conversations – on both an academic and popular level!
I think the easiest way to put it is that ‘social holiness,’ to Wesley, is a concept having to do with the doctrine of sanctification and not with the systemic ordering of society. There are significant proto-social justice elements to Wesley’s thought (with the Thoughts upon Slavery and Thoughts upon the Present Scarcity of Provisions from the 1770s being the two most prominent examples). But it is absolutely false to conflate the two terms, which is something that even people you’d think would know better (e.g., bishops) do on a regular basis.
I appreciate you linking to the posts I’ve written on social holiness on my own site. I’m actually working on an academic paper on this very issue right now (which I had hoped to present at the AAR this November, except – curses! – I couldn’t orient it closely enough with the conference theme to get it accepted).
In the paper, I approach the question Jeremy Smith asks in his reply to you – about articulating a definition of ‘social justice’ to show its difference from ‘social holiness’ – by doing a genealogy of the former term. It turns out that ‘social justice’ is a term that finds its origin in the work of Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio, a nineteenth-century Catholic thinker whose economic concerns postdate Wesley’s own life and socio-economic milieu. And Taparelli’s historical location is significant, because the concept of social justice as it has been developed intellectually is not primarily theological but rather economic; in short, it needed capitalism and its effects on the urban poor to gain purchase in Western thought. So it makes complete sense that it is a 19th century development rather than an 18th century one.
There’s nothing that frustrates me more than laziness on the part of those who use Wesley for prooftexting purposes, when they could actually delve deeply into the rich sources of our tradition. Thank you for helping us do that more effectively.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Pingback: Wesley Didn’t Say It: “Personal and Social Holiness” | Vital Piety
Pingback: Wesley Didn’t Say It: “Personal and Social Holiness” | Kevin M. Watson