The Shadow Side of Wesley's World Parish

It was on this day (March 28) in 1739 that John Wesley wrote John Clayton a letter that would give Methodism one of its enduring slogans: "The world is my parish."

It's a slogan that has both blessed and plagued the Methodist movement and the Christian Church. While recognizing all the good that issued from the Wesleyan movement and the birth of Methodism, I would also like to acknowledge the shadow side of Wesley's self-confident proclamation.

First, some background. John Wesley was a priest in the Church of England. In the 18th century, the Church of England was not simply one church among many. Although other sects existed, the Church of England was established by the crown as the official church of the realm.

A parish, in the Church of England, was not just a church building; it was an area on a map and the people who lived there. Just as England was divided politically into counties and various other political sub-divisions, the church was divided into episcopal dioceses and parishes. Each diocese and parish had defined geographical boundaries, and each bishop and priest was responsible for the care of souls within their parish. I imagine that the ecclesiastical boundaries also affected the tax revenues parishes received.

Wesley was a priest, but not a parish pastor. He was instead a fellow at Oxford where he was nominally responsible for studying and teaching. When Wesley's movement began to receive resistance from some bishops and parish pastors, Wesley decided to bypass them and - like George Whitfield - preach outside. If the local parish pastor wouldn't allow him to preach in his church, Wesley would just set up a preaching place wherever he could find room.

The pastors understandably objected that their authority extended not only to their buildings, but to the territory over which they had been given responsibility. Wesley had no authority to preach without permission in a parish not his own.

Even today, the United Methodist Book of Discipline prohibits clergy from "relationships and/or behavior that undermines the ministry of another pastor" and from conducting certain activities in a church without the permission of the pastor. If you can imagine how a pastor might feel if another clergyperson invaded his or her pulpit without permission and preached a different version of the truth, you can begin to imagine how Anglican priests felt when Wesley intruded in their parishes and ignored their wishes. It was in this context that Wesley wrote his friend John Clayton, explaining his actions.

“I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right and my bounden duty to declare, unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God has called me to; and sure I am that His blessing attends it.”

When Mr. Wesley declared the world was his parish, he didn't simply mean that his concerns extended beyond the local congregation into all the globe. He meant, rather, that he had the "right" and "duty" to preach wherever God sent him, even if it was within the bounds of another pastor's assigned parish and without their permission.

Wesley's famous dictum was a defense of his ministry against the charge that he had exceeded his authority and had meddled where he did not belong. God had called him to this ministry, "and his blessing attends it." Wesley could not envision any harm coming from his actions. The Methodist societies, classes, and bands Wesley established through his preaching and organizing were, after all, never meant to supplant the role of the local church. Wesley's ministry was good for the parishes and the greater work of God; the clergy who objected to his presence should just take his word for it.

Now if one assumes that all the Anglican clergy who objected to Wesley's unsolicited assistance were godless heathen, then the rightness of Wesley's actions is clear. I'm not sure that I want to make that assumption. And even if the Anglican clergy were mostly wrong to stand in the way of Wesley's preaching in their parishes, the Methodist patriarch's actions still cast an unintended shadow. Although Wesley always resisted Methodist separation from the Church of England, the roots of eventual schism were planted in Wesley's unwillingness to live within his church's institutional boundaries.

How many divisions have occurred because self-assured individuals believed God gave them authority to run the whole church as their parish?  Would-be reformers always believe that God called them and blessed them, so anybody who sees things differently is simply standing in God's way. With such confidence, it is difficult to respect the boundaries that define an institution, to see any value in the opposition or its viewpoint, or to find a consensus in which all can live together. There is a fine line between Wesley's assurance that "the world is my parish" and the belief "God called me, so I can do whatever I want. The rest of the church be damned."

And even though I would judge that many of history's church reformers were right and the divisions unavoidable, it still a sad situation. As Joni Mitchell lamented, "Something's lost, but something's gained, in living every day." There are very few actions in this world that are unalloyed goods unstained by unintended consequences. Church reform is rarely one of them.