John Wesley,
Slavery and the Failure of American Methodism
Larry
James
United
Methodist History HX 7365, Fall 2013
Professor
Tamara E. Lewis
In August, my master attended a
Methodist camp-meeting held in the Bay-side, Talbot county, and there experienced
religion. I indulged a faint hope that his
conversion would lead him to emancipate his slaves, and that, if he did not do
this, it would, at any rate, make him more kind and humane. I was disappointed in both these respects. It neither made him to be humane to his
slaves nor to emancipate them. If it had
any effect on his character, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his
ways; for I believe him to have been a much worse man after his conversion than
before.[1]
This
statement from Frederick Douglass presents in stark relief the juxtaposition of
John Wesley’s ethic and the troubling practice of the church which he helped
export to North America. Given the
teaching, personal conviction and activism of John Wesley regarding slavery,
how does one explain the failure of the movement he founded to embrace and
sustain those same values in its New World expression and experience?
John
Wesley’s views on human bondage combined clarity, passion, courage and an integrated
understanding of God’s creation of a common humanity. Wesley’s most definitive and comprehensive
teaching on slavery appears in his pamphlet, Thoughts Upon Slavery, first published in 1774.[2]
In the essay Wesley sketches slavery as an institution that creates capacity
and benefit for only the master, allowing slave owners to relate to their human
property “in the same manner as his cows and horses” (I.2). Wesley takes great pains to describe
geographically, politically and socially the delightful nature of the regions
in African from which slaves originated.
In his brief, but careful study of Africa, he effectively debunks the
pro-slavery notion that those captured and transported are being rescued from a
land “so remarkably horrid, dreary and barren, that it is a kindness to deliver
them out of it” (II. 1-11).
Wesley’s
evaluation of the African people encountered by European explorers and businessmen
presents an extremely positive, if idealized, view of the indigenous
population. His viewpoint is important
in light of the fact that as early as four decades earlier people began to
question the full humanity of Africans.[3]Again,
Wesley’s purpose is to counter the understanding that slavery brings great
benefit to Africans captured and transported to the New World for this
purpose. Speaking of the Fulis nation of
Senegal, Wesley observes,
The Fulis are governed by their chief men,
who rule with much moderation. Few of
them will drink anything stronger than water, being strict Mahometans. The Government is easy, because the people
are of a quiet and good disposition, and so well instructed in what is right,
that a man who wrongs another is the abomination of all. They desire no more land than they use, which
they cultivate with great care and industry.
If any of them are known to be made slaves by the white men, they all join
to redeem them. They not only support
all that are old, or blind, or lame among themselves, but have frequently
supplied the necessities of the Mandingos, when they were distressed by famine (II.
6).
Speaking
of natives of Benin,
. . . also very charitable, the Kind and
the great Lords taking care to employ all that are capable of any work. And those that are utterly helpless they keep
for God’s sake; so that here also are no beggars. . . . Upon the whole,
therefore, the Negroes who inhabit the coast of Africa, from the river Senegal
to the southern bounds of Angola, are so far from being the stupid, senseless,
brutish, lazy barbarians, the fierce, cruel, perfidious savages they have been
described, that, on the contrary, they are represented, by them who have no motive
to flatter them, as remarkable sensible, considering the few advantages they
have for improving their understanding; as industrious to the highest degree,
perhaps more so than any other natives of so warm a climate; as fair, just and
honest in all their dealings, unless where white men have taught them to be
otherwise; and as far more mild, friendly, and kind to strangers, than any of
our forefathers were. Our forefathers! Where shall we find at
this day, among the fair-faced natives of Europe, a nation generally practicing
the justice, mercy, and truth, which are found among these poor Africans (II.
11)?
Wesley makes clear the
scandalous manner in which slaves ended up in the colonies of North
America. By trickery and fraud, numerous
slaves were enticed to come on board ships where they were constrained and
carried away (III. 1.). Many other Africans entered the slave trade after their
European oppressors stirred up conflict and war among various tribes and
nations. The spoils of these unnatural
conflicts included prisoners who came to be sold as slaves to the traders
supplying a growing North American demand for laborers (III. 2.). Wesley also
documents the incredible loss of life during the passage to the New World (III.
5.), as well as the heart wrenching separation of families placed on the
auction block in the slave markets (III. 7.).
Clearly, John Wesley
adamantly opposed any form of human bondage as thoroughly unchristian and
terribly wrong. In 1788, Wesley used
much of the content of his pamphlet in a sermon he preached in Bristol, one of
the most active centers of slave trafficking.
The sermon caused a troubling stir in his audience that resulted in
something like a riot. [4] Given the realities of Wesley’s conviction
and the strength of his consistent message, as well as the extent of his
influence upon the preachers with whom he worked (including those sent to and
raised up in the colonies), how does one account for the manner in which these
teachings were so quickly compromised and ultimately set aside?
First, Wesley answered
the question, at least indirectly in his rather distressed sermon, Causes of the Inefficacy of
Christianity. Wesley feared that
personal holiness declined in direct proportion to the affluence of a disciple
of Christ. He mused in the sermon
whether or not,
. . . true scriptural Christianity has a
tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself? For wherever true Christianity spreads, it
must cause diligence and frugality, which in the natural course of things, must
beget riches. And riches naturally beget
pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity.
Now if there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is consistent with itself,
and of consequence, cannot stand, cannot continue long among any people: since,
wherever it generally prevails, it saps its own foundation.[5]
Christians involved in
the slave trade found it to be lucrative.
As Methodism came to North America and co-existed alongside profitable
slave markets, many members of the movement, especially in the south, invested
in the business, often carried away by greed and its attendant benefits and
success. In Thoughts Upon Slavery, Wesley recognized the role of money and
greed as prime motivators in the slave enterprise. Of course, he railed against both in the
pamphlet.
It is far better to have no wealth, than
to gain wealth at the expense of virtue.
Better is honest poverty, than all the riches bought by the tears, and
sweat, and blood of our fellow-creatures (IV. 7.).
And
again,
Regard not money! All that a man hath will he give for hislife! Whatever you lose, lose not your soul: Nothing can countervail that loss. Immediately quit the horrid
trade: At all events, be an honest man
(V. 3.).
In
large part American Methodists were driven into support of slavery for strictly
economic
reasons.
Greed trumped faith.
Second, many argued simply that the
practice of slavery and the slave trade was
authorized by law. Slavery was legal. Not only was the peculiar
institution legal in secular law, a compelling argument could be made that
slavery was authorized in holy scripture as well. Clearly, many Christians in the New World
felt completely justified in supporting slavery thanks to the message of the
Bible itself.
Wesley seems to understand this reality. In Thoughts
Upon Slavery, Wesley argues in a most radical manner against the horror and
the evil of the slave trade. Setting
even scripture aside, he calls upon natural law and common sense:
I would now inquire, whether these
things can be defended, on the principles of even heathen honesty; whether they
can be reconciled (setting the Bible out of the question) with any degree of
justice or mercy. Notwithstanding ten thousand laws, right is right, and wrong
is wrong still. There must still remain
an essential difference between justice and injustice, cruelty and mercy. So that I still ask, Who can reconcile this
treatment of the Negroes, first and last, with either mercy or justice? (IV.
1., 2.)
Wesley’s hermeneutical instinct, leading to his “setting
the Bible out of the question,” begs a number of questions relating to social
and theological questions facing followers of Jesus today. Leaving that discussion for another day, it
is important to note a version of Methodism’s quadrilateral at work in Wesley’s
argument against slavery.
Third, American Methodists did not hold to Wesley’s views
on slavery, at least in part due to the thought and life practice of another
extremely important Methodist influence in and upon American colonists: George Whitefield.
If John Wesley influenced the clergy of England and to a
lesser degree those who first served the colonists, George Whitefield had a
larger influence on the American people.
Whitefield’s preaching during the Great Awakening commanded attention
and a following in the colonies. The
fact that Whitefield himself eventually owned slaves and argued that Georgia
make slavery legal surely had great influence on American Methodists. Whitefield’s support of slavery began as at
least a pragmatic consideration. His
efforts to begin and sustain a working orphanage in Georgia, led him to believe
that slaves would be needed to make the enterprise financially viable. He argued the same about the Georgia economy. Whitefield lobbied the trustees of the colony
to legalize slavery for economic reasons.
Citing the challenge of developing and operating his orphanage,
Whitefield argued, “Had a negroe [sic] been allowed, I should have had a
sufficiency to support a great many orphans, without expending above half the
sum which had been laid out.”[6]
One last thought concerning Whitefield: there remains much work to be done regarding his
position on slavery. Especially
important will be consideration of both his personal views on the importance of
evangelism and pietism, as well as his Calvinism and its effects on his views
of social reality and worldly justice. To
be sure, the observations of Frederick Douglas noted at the beginning of this
paper make very clear the irrelevance and hypocrisy of the prevailing faith
perspectives of growing numbers of Methodists from across the new nation.
[1] Frederick Douglass, Narrative
of the Life of Frederick Douglass, in The Classic Slave Narratives,
ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., (New York:
Mentor, 1987), 287 from a reference first discovered in Kyle Painter, “The Pro-Slavery Argument in the Development
of the American Methodist Church,” Constructing the Past: Vol. 2:
Iss. 1, Article 5.
[2] John Wesley, Thoughts Upon Slavery, 1774. Published by Global Ministries, The United
Methodist Church at www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/The-Wesleys-and-Their-Times/Thoughts-Upon-Slavery.
[3] Brycchan Carey, John Wesley’s “Thoughts Upon Slavery” and the language of the heart, in The
Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 85:2-3
(Summer/Autumn 2003), 272.
[4] Ibid, 277 which references
Wesley’s Letters vii, 359-360.
[5] Albert C. Outler and Richard P.
Heitzenrater, editors, John Wesley’s Sermons: An Anthology, 556.
[6] Kyle Painter, “The Pro-Slavery
Argument in the Development of the American Methodist Church,” in Constructing
the Past: Vol. 2: Iss 1, Article 5, 34-35
One should follow Christ and not John Wesley or George Whitfield.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the relevance of that comment? If Wesley or C.S. Lewis or my Aunt Sally can help me better uderstand Christ, I am not "following" that person, just getting some assistance. And are you arguing that Christ approved of slavery, so there would be a different outcome to this line of thought if we were "following Christ" and not Wesley?
ReplyDeleteGood article. The fact that Christians sitting in church pews every Sunday supported slavery should indeed be a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks the church or individual Christians are not influenced by many strong external forces today.
ReplyDelete