Dealing with Disagreements: a lesson from George Whitefield

One of the greatest needs in the life of an Christian is discretion and discernment. Proverbs 16:20 says, “He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good: and whoso trusteth in the Lord, happy is he.” Arguably, the most desperate time for discretion and discernment is when there are disagreements with others. The decisions made during those times can make or break a Christian’s ministry. In these crucial moments, the same gifts of courage, boldness and passion that God longs to use as a Christian’s greatest strengths, may end up being his greatest weakness. James 1:5 encourages every Christian to ask God for the skill to make right decisions.

The relationship between George Whitefield and John Wesley provides a positive and negative example. The intent of bringing up this illustration is not to pick sides or to raise unnecessarily issues that cause division among preachers, but rather to learn and grow in our attitude and treatment of those with whom we disagree. Truly God must give grace to help Christians be more humble and loving in handling their disagreements.

It is important to note that both Wesley and Whitefield are just men who have weaknesses and struggles just like all men. Both are heroes of the faith who were faithful preachers of the gospel. There is no reason to gloss over the faults and failures of any preacher since all are sinners saved by grace. In this historic illustration, however, it may appear that Wesley was a bit reckless. Again, this does not diminish his influence in church history or undervalue his instruction in theology and church work. The story of how these two men handled their disagreements is to be a warning and instruction to the modern-day Christian on what to do and what not to do.

The friendship between George Whitefield and John Wesley was a special one going back to the unique bond they developed in the Holy Club at Oxford. They had much in common. Both had great passion and power in their preaching. Each one developed an intense burden to spread the gospel. Both were heavily involved in mission’s efforts, and both were ordained as ministers in the Church of England. They mutually encouraged one another. Wesley being the more gifted theologically influenced Whitefield’s intellectual training while Whitefield being the more gifted speaker influenced Wesley in the practice of preaching. It was ultimately Whitefield’s encouragement that led both John and Charles Wesley into the open-air preaching method which was greatly used in the rest of their ministries.

There arose a significant doctrinal disagreement between these two friends. The division came as Whitefield emphasized what he called the “doctrines of grace.” Wesley took great offense at his friends teaching especially on predestination since he had accepted the opposite position, Arminianism. On the other side Whitefield had some significant problems with the ministry methods of Wesley as well as his teaching on “Christian perfection.”¹ Additionally, in Wesley’s meetings some unusual experiences took place. Charles Wesley called these convulsions and attacks “the fits” and Whitefield expressed grave concern over these strange events. These disagreements between two heroes of the faith have been commonly accepted among church historians. Ian Murray in his book Revival and Revivalism states the difference well. He says:

“Both Calvinistic and Arminian schools of belief held to the message of salvation as the gift of God through Christ crucified, and both taught the necessity of rebirth, faith, and holiness of life. Disagreement entered over the interpretation of these biblical truths. Both sides — as exemplified in the ministries of Wesley and Whitefield — believed that God commands all men to repent and believe the gospel; both showed that Christ is to be preached with compassion to all men; both taught human responsibility and insisted that sin alone is the cause of man’s ruin; both knew that God is longsuffering towards all, ‘not willing that any should perish’.”²

So, in essence, Ian Murray states that the disagreement is primarily over the interpretation and application of the specific nuances of each view. This is precisely the reason Whitefield pleaded with Wesley to not enter into any disputes concerning predestination. During the time that this disagreement came up, Whitefield invited Wesley to preach in London, and he prayed for Wesley saying, “The Lord give him ten thousand times more success than He has given me.”³

Exactly four weeks after Whitefield had introduced him to his Bristol congregation Wesley decided that he would go public in a statement concerning predestination. He preached a sermon entitled “Free Grace” and in it he mischaracterized Whitefield’s view of predestination. “When Whitefield heard of his sermon he wrote to him saying, “I hear, Honoured Sir, that you are about to print a sermon against predestination. It shocks me to think of it! What will be the consequences but controversy? … Silence on both sides will be best.”⁴ Wesley did not take the good advice from his friend but instead printed the sermon and propagated it throughout the country. Whitefield chose to overlook Wesley’s divisive actions and still allowed Wesley to lead the congregation in Bristol while he set the second time to America.

While laboring in American during the Great Awakening, Whitefield was still receiving letters from Wesley to provoke more discussion concerning their differences. It was during this time that a story took place which would be misrepresented 80 years later in a biography of Wesley by Robert Southey. A young man whom Whitefield referred to as “young W —” was converted during one of his meetings and would write and dispute with Whitefield concerning his doctrine. Whitefield wrote the man and said “What mean you by disputing in all your letters? May God give you to know yourself, and then you will not plead for absolute perfection or call the doctrine of election a ‘doctrine of devils.’ … remember you are but a babe in Christ, if so much. Be humble, talk little, think and pray much.”⁵ This letter was assumed by the biographer to have been written to Wesley from Whitefield to prove that Whitefield mistreated Wesley and thought he was superior. Yet, this attitude was not ever seen in Whitefield’s correspondence with Wesley. He always stood firm on his convictions; he was kind and courteous and not contentious.

On his way back to England Whitefield, knowing that the schism was imminent wrote this letter to his friends John and Charles Wesley:

My Dear, Dear Brethren,

Why did you throw out that bone of contention? Why did you print that sermon against predestination? Do you not think, my dear brethren, that I must be as much concerned for truth, or what I think truth, as you? God is my judge. I always was, and I hope I always shall be, desirous that you may be preferred before me. But I must preach the Gospel of Christ…O my dear brethren, my heart almost bleeds within me! Methinks I would be willing to tarry here on the waters forever, rather than come to England to oppose you. ((Dallimore, George Whitefield, 96.))

When he started preaching again in England, many of his former hearers were instructed by Wesley to walk by with their fingers in their ears so not to hear the heretical doctrine. The opposition of the Wesley brothers brought great sorrow to Whitefield and yet he still spoke of them as dear friends and brothers in the ministry. Because there was such great opposition based on misrepresented teachings, Whitefield felt it necessary to reply in written form. In his reply he said, “Numbers have been misled whom God has been pleased to work upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling upon me to show also my opinion.” His attitude toward the Wesleys was always characterized by respect and honor. When his congregation was upset at his kindness and forgiveness towards Wesley, Whitefield responded with a gracious reply of honor and humility. He said,

“My heart doth not reproach me for my kindness and friendship to those that differ from me … I cannot renounce those precious truths that I have felt the power of and which were taught me not of man, but of God. At the same time I would love all that love the Lord Jesus, though they differ with me in some points … I have not given way to any whom I thought in error, no not for an hour. But I think it best not to dispute when there is no probability of convincing.”⁶

Just a few years after returning to England. Whitefield had to make one of the most sacrificial decisions of his life. Methodism could not have divided leadership between Wesley and Whitefield, so he decided to renounce his leadership role in the rise of Methodism. “By this act Whitefield saved the revival from further discord and strife. And because of it, John Wesley, not George Whitefield, is known today as the ‘leader and founder of Methodism’.”⁷ Charles Wesley wrote about this selfless spirit when he said,

Though long by following multitudes admired,
No party for himself he e’er desired;
His one desire to make the Saviour known,
To magnify the name of Christ alone:
If others strove who should the greatest be,
No lover of preeminence was he,
Nor envied those his Lord vouchsafed to bless,
But joyed in theirs as in his own success.⁸

In 1753 John Wesley was so sick that he wrote his own epitaph. He did recover but on his way to London, Whitefield wrote what he thought might be his last letter to his dear friend.

A radiant throne awaits you, and ere long you will enter into your Master’s joy … If prayers can detain … even you, reverend and very dear Sir, shall not leave us yet … But if you must now fall asleep in Jesus, may … you die in the embrace of triumphant love … May underneath you be Christ’s everlasting arms! I commend you to his never-failing mercy …

George Whitefield went above and beyond to show the humility that a man of God should possess. His friendship never ended with John and Charles Wesley, but instead it was strengthened by mutual respect. This strengthening came primarily because of the attitudes and actions of a discerning Christian. Following Whitefield’s death one of Wesley’s most capable preachers said this about him.

While Mr. Whitefield lived he was glad to confirm his love to the members of Wesley’s Societies, by preaching in their chapels, sitting at their tables, lying in their beds, by conversing with them late and early, in the most friendly manner. When he preached in Mr. Wesley’s pulpits … multitudes can tell what expressions of the highest esteem he frequently made use of …

It is amazing to see the similarities to what takes place in the 21^st century. Today’s technology enables many new ways to be divisive and promote our opinions. The modern Christian can learn some powerful lessons about dealing with disagreements from the life of George Whitefield. It is safe to assume that these lessons are concerning issues that are not clearly defined or delineated in the scripture and issues on which good men can disagree.

1. Hold your convictions with grace and humility. (James 4:6)
2. Handle your disagreement Biblically with communication. (Prov 26:17)
3. Honor the people you differ from with respect. (1 Cor 1:10)
4. Never mistreat those who mistreat you. (Rom 12:17)
5. Do not bring up a disagreement to others just to prove that you are right. (Prov 17:14)
6. Do not misrepresent and exaggerate the positions of other preachers. (2 Tim 2:24)
7. Seek and sacrifice for unity when it is possible without compromise. (Rom 12:18; Eph 4:3)
8. Be humble enough and honest enough to admit you could be wrong in your thinking. (Phil 2:3)
9. Public statements or letters are not usually profitable. (Prov 3:30)
10. Guard your words whether written or spoken. (James 3:1-12)

Image used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

1. Wesley did not explain this teaching well. It could mean just a high state of maturity for a Christian, but it could also mean entire sinlessness, or perfectionism. It was the perfectionism part that caused the most controversy. [↩]
2. Iain Hamish Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism ; 1750 – 1858 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 178. [↩]
3. Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century (Crossway, 2010), 64. [↩]
4. Dallimore, George Whitefield, 64. [↩]
5. Dallimore, George Whitefield, 92. [↩]
6. Dallimore, George Whitefield, 101. [↩]
7. Dallimore, George Whitefield, 155. [↩]
8. Wesley, Charles, An Elegy on the Late Rev George Whitefield. [↩]