The First Rise of Methodism began at Oxford in the 1720s when Charles Wesley assembled a small group of friends to attempt to grow in faith by strictly following the discipline of the University for academic and spiritual rigor. Charles was actually the first to be called a “Methodist” as others teased him for sticking so closely to the school’s “method.” Charles had felt a spiritual drought in his soul, and hoped that regular scripture, prayer, fasting, and communion would help him connect once more to God. Charles welcomed brother John’s organizational leadership, and several similar small groups formed across campus. They soaked up the scriptures and the spiritual classics. They were inspired to become a community that literally embodied Acts 2:42-47, not only through works of piety (devotional acts focused on loving God), but also through works or mercy, particularly giving their money to the poor, taking time to educate and provide for those in need, and thanks to one of their members, William Morgan, regularly visiting prisoners. Charles would later invite George Whitefield to their group, and though he was reluctant at first because of the derogatory treatment this Oxford Club met from peers and professors alike, Whitfield would become one of the groups most faithful and famous members.
It’s William Morgan’s contribution that I want to highlight. It was 1729 when John Wesley joined what Charles and William and others were up to, but it was Morgan who encouraged the group to follow him out of the private piety of personal devotion and constant communion, and into the poorhouses, debtor’s prisons and death row. Morgan had been deeply moved after preaching to a convict, and he bugged John and Charles to join him until they finally did. The group became so moved by their experience of God’s power at work among those most despised and forgotten by society that they made prison ministry a regular practice for Oxford Methodists. This ministry morphed to include regular care for the poor, the elderly, and the orphaned.
William Morgan died three years later from sickness, and many (including his father) blamed the rigorous fasting of the Methodists for Morgan’s death. Professors spoke out against Methodism as a group of “over-righteous much” Christians, going too far with their faith in ways that were unhealthy, unnecessary, and contradictory to the Gospel. But the Oxford Methodists only became more convinced, as John would say, “of the absolute impossibility of being a half a Christian.” Read more about William Morgan here.
I would never argue that Christians are more divided now than ever before. We’ve always been divided. But I will say that I unapologetically hope to become more like this young group of Oxford Methodists, who determined to live out the scripture until they were wholly holy, embodying the attitude of Christ with mind, body and soul. The body of Christ is not just a spirit, and the people on this earth that God created and for whom Christ died are not just spirits. We are spirit and body, and Christ put on flesh to redeem us wholly. Whatever we do unto the least of these, we have done to Christ. The means of grace are the ways God has promised to meet us when we live into them, and God has promised to meet us when we feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, when we welcome the stranger.
At my church, we have folks whose faith lead them to seek political change around these issues, and these actions have come to be called “social justice.” There is a long history in Methodism to change social structures to better reflect God’s kingdom values, from the abolition of slavery to the women’s suffrage movement. But there have also always been Methodists who pushed back, who wished to maintain the present social structures. When you talk about challenging political or social structures that harm the least of these, the go-to text is Romans 13:1, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
This text has categorically been misused by people with power over and over again in history to stifle the people without power. But it is still scripture, so understanding it is important. If you are a Christian who uses Romans 13 as your go to argument to support your political party’s decisions, I would strongly to encourage you to take a few hours out of your week to minister to the poor, the elderly, the orphaned, the immigrant, and the imprisoned…and I mean, you go and sit with them. Quote me Romans 13 from the border cages and from inside the detention centers. The problem is not that Romans 13 is in my Bible. The problem is that it’s being used as a foundational text for how people live their lives in contrast with such texts as Matthew 25:31-46, Acts 2:42-47, Luke 4:14-20, 1 John 3:16-18. I would argue from my understanding of John Wesley and a long line of Christian interpretation from the beginning that the whole tenor and scope of Scripture reveals that God defines love, and that definition helps us understand scripture like Romans 13 in the light it was meant to be understood. The Oxford Methodists sought to embody that love, a love that is defined like this:
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. -1 John 3:16-18