John Wesley, Social Activist and Witch-Hunter

What? Did he actually think of what he was doing as practicing witchcraft?

Interesting post.

Preface: I’ve studied Wesley intensively and read all the major authorities on Wesley’s life and ministry. Not that it makes me an expert myself, but I’m not just grasping at straws either.

You’re right about a few things, to be sure:

Wesley was into the “Pentecostal,” as you put it, even though that’s a bit anachronistic. However, the frequency and extent to which those things happened throughout his ministry is hotly debated among Wesley scholars. Some scholars would argue that these types of events are isolated and infrequent, while others would argue they were a regular part of his ministry.

“Most of the men of learning in Europe have given up all account of witches and apparitions as old wives’ fables…. The giving up of witchcraft is the giving up of the Bible. With my last breath I will bear testimony against giving up to infidels one great proof of the invisible world, witchcraft … confirmed by the testimony of the ages,” he famously wrote.

John believed in witchcraft because he practiced it himself, unlike most of those accused, tortured and killed before him. Stephen Tomkins wrote that John believed in his own powers to perform miraculous healings, and was certain he had at least once raised a man from the dead! He also exorcised “demons.” All of this hocus-pocus began when John was young, and was certain a poltergeist was haunting the rectory. The demon was named Old Jeffery.

On the one hand, you’re absolutely right. There’s no question that Wesley believed in the supernatural.

On the other hand, it’s a bit more nuanced than your presentation suggests.

There are two ways to think about “witchcraft.” From our modern, secular perspective or from Wesley’s older, “spiritual” (for lack of a better term) perspective.

From our perspective, Wesley casting out demons, for example, looks a lot like witchcraft. Moreover, the quote you give seems to support this case as well.

However, from Wesley’s perspective, there’s more going on. Witchcraft, from his perspective, would be some form of devil-worship, which would employ the powers of evil (devil and demons) for one’s own good. He never practiced this nor did he advocate for it (again, from his perspective).

His quote about giving up witchcraft means giving up the bible should not be taken to mean that he practiced or advocated for witchcraft; instead, it should be taken to mean that he believed in that spiritual reality and that abandoning such belief was tantamount to abandoning the Bible.

So, from our perspective, the differentiation between casting out demons (fighting evil from John’s) and employing demons to do one’s bidding (or practicing witchcraft from John’s perspective) is largely irrelevant. However, from his perspective, that differentiation was hugely important. In my opinion, we should at least acknowledge that differentiation before we accuse him of practicing witchcraft himself — or at least explicitly define what we mean when we use the word.

Perhaps we should not judge another for his contradictions. But in 1766, as an old man, John wrote, “I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen…!” Even in today’s progressive climate, it’s still difficult to address doubt honestly, and impossible to address it without repercussion.

I’m not sure how exactly you are trying to use this quote… maybe you could elaborate?

I think I probably agree with you about at least some of your intent, but I’m not quite sure.

It’s worth noting that throughout his life, Wesley doubted himself, his own faith, and consequently his own “salvation.” In other words, this moment of self-doubt is not at all unique, and by itself, it should not be taken as a definitive statement about Wesley’s life. Moreover, such moments of doubt are almost always countered in Wesley’s life by moments of assurance — such as the vivid description of his conversion at Aldersgate. To abstract this one isolated quotation from the end of his life without putting it in the context of his bigger struggles with faith doesn’t give the complete picture — and it certainly doesn’t prove he was a walking contradiction (which I think you are implying?).

Anyway, a mostly fair post, but for the sake of balance, I thought I would highlight some things from a slightly different perspective.

“But in 1766, as an old man, John wrote, “I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen…!””

If it was true, he said something many will not acknowlage
in today’s churches, casting of demons. healing the sick, raising the death, those things of the gospels in the churches, his admission by his conscience a little late one like to think to disgress, but by today’s standard, not so.

Hi
You seem to have mixed up witchcraft and deliverance. There is no way that Wesley was either a witch or a sorceror.

Wesley said that to give up believing in witchcraft is to give up believing in the Bible simply because it is prohibited and censured in the Bible, and if you look at, say, Mark 16 verses 15-18 you will see that Jesus’ followers are commanded to both heal and cast out demons in His name.

Jesus was also said by people in His generation to cast out demons by the power of the devil, which He denied completely, telling them they had got it all wrong. He, like Wesley, healed and cast out by the power of God which is totally different.

Hope this is of some use. Come back to me if you want to.

Regards

J Davies

Nice.

lol – better be a little quicker next time Miguel !!

Of course not. He would have seen himself as the opponent of witchcraft.

Love your handle Mr. Wrath of Khan!!! he he he!

Cold fingers.

I think it is clear explanation. I have known a few people who see it that way.

I learned a few things from this and am glad you posted it.

If I was unclear, the point I was trying to make was not that Wesley was really practicing ‘witchcraft’ but that he did exactly what he accused other blasphemers of doing.

To be fair, where do you demonstrate that he “accused other blasphemers” of practicing withcraft?

You’ve claimed that he was quite “Pentecostal,” which I pointed out is debatable, but at least accurate to an extant.

You also showed that he thought Calvinistic predestination was “blasphemy” (although you didn’t mention that by his own admission he comes “within a hair’s breadth” of it himself). But that’s different from damning other practitioners of witchcraft, isn’t it?

To my knowledge, Wesley never condemns anyone for being “Pentecostal.” Perhaps he wrote something in terms of guidelines for how those behaviors should be practiced, but critiquing a behavior and condemning a person are two different things.

In other words, I understand you to be saying that Wesley is a hypocrite, because he does the very thing he condemns. You haven’t shown anywhere that he condemns the “Pentecostal” behavior in which he did participate.

Differentiating between good and evil witchcraft should not be relevant, my friend, when determining intent. The thousands who burned at the stake for views that Wesley and his predecessors espoused burned for the superstitions of the church, not for actually practicing witchcraft.

About the latter, “Thousands burned at the stake…” I would probably agree. Definitely, many innocents were slaughtered because of the superstition of the church, and many of them never even engaged in the behavior.

My point about differentiation of intent does matter, I think, when it comes to evaluating historical figures.

For example, if Wesley were putting hexes on people in hopes of bringing them pain, we would have an inclination as to what his intent was — obviously, to do harm to others.

Alternatively, if he were “casting out demons” in order to liberate a person from the evil controlling them, then we would at least know that his intentions were to help, not harm, someone else.

From our perspective, both will seem superstitious, and if your argument is that we move from exorcisms to therapy when it comes to treating troubled people, then I’m with you 100%.

But my impression that one of the byproducts of your analysis makes him into an unintelligent hypocrite in the process, and I don’t think that’s a fair assessment.

Those who shout first do so to annoy. So, I chose to just ignore them, and any threads in response to them.