Whitfield and Wesley on Confronting Error

I stumbled upon this terrific piece from Candyinsierras at Shook Foil.  It's a discussion of the great divide between Whitfield and Wesley.  I'll let you read the whole thing at her blog but I'll excerpt one passage, where she quotes Ian Murray.  What I like the best about this passage is the distinction between judgment and affection and between public cooperation and personal affection. 

Some evangelical writers have sought to minimize the division between Whitefield and Wesley by referring to their "minor differences." An impression is given that Whitefield abandoned the strong conviction he had about Arminianism in 1741; in proof of this we are referred to the fact that in 1742 their personal friendship was in measure resumed and that ultimately Wesley even preached Whitefield's funeral sermon. But all this is misleading. The truth is that Whitefield rightly made a distinction between a difference in judgement and a difference in affection; it was in the former sense that he differed from the Wesleys, and that difference was such that, as Tyerman writes, it "led them to build separate chapels, form separate societies, and pursue, to the end of life, separate lines of action . . . the gulf between Wesley and Whitefield was immense."[9] But while their public cooperation was thus seriously disturbed, his personal affection for the Wesleys as Christians was preserved to the last.[10] In this respect Whitefield teaches us a needful lesson. Doctrinal differences between believers should never lead to personal antagonism. Error must be opposed even when held by fellow members of Christ, but if that opposition cannot co-exist with a true love for all saints and a longing for their spiritual prosperity then it does not glorify God nor promote the edification of the Church.

I think this hits two important matters.  We ought to cultivate and express affection for those we disagree with.  Yet, we ought not assume that personal affection necessarily leads to public cooperation and ought not to assume that there are malice, hatred, or other such sinful motives involved when we speak against what we perceive to be doctrinal error and/or refuse to publicly cooperate with some.

HT - Rebecca Writes

Comments

[Andrew Wheatley]

There's a spelling error in the title.

[JackONeill]

I know we have a duty to love one another, and to treat one another kindly, but to express affection where there is none is disingenuous. We need to be courteous to one we don't like, which is not the same as expressing affection. For someone we dislike, we need also to pray, that he get what he needs, not what he deserves.