I want to take a brief side trip to look at disagreement among Christians which bear  the “mark of intellectual seriousness.”  As I read Origen’s description, I thought of the godly example of two men who “agreed to disagree” — George Whitefield and John Wesley.

Whitefield and Wesley were not minor men.  Both devoted their great intellect, great hearts and great energy to “preach the Word” (2 Tim 4:2).   They were men who “understood the times” (1 Chron 12:32), men whom God used in world-changing ways:  Whitefield preached over 18,000 sermons to upwards of 10 million people; Wesley traveled over 250,000 miles, delivered over 40,000 sermons, and composed over 6500 hymns.  Both were men of holiness and passionate about prayer and evangelism.  They were vigorous in proclaiming the Kingdom of God and the salvation of souls by grace through faith in Christ alone.  (To learn more about these amazing men, see the brief, excellent background articles on Wesley and Whitefield.)

Whitefield and Wesley were tireless in bringing the message of salvation to their hearers, but  In the course of their ministries, theological differences arose over the doctrines of predestination and perfection.  Each man was vigorous in communicating his understanding from Scripture about these important issues, and inevitably their respective followers took sides in the debate, the disagreement magnified by their “celebrity status” of the time.  Though they agreed on far more than they differed, it was opportunity for Satan to “devour and destroy” the Kingdom of God.   How did these men navigate the strong currents of disagreement with a friend and fellow worker?  They focused on the cross.

John Wesley spoke of what Christ did on the cross ‘for us’ but also what does ‘in us,’ as Christians experience the life by the Holy Spirit.”  Although imperfectly for sure, each man sought to reconcile with the other, empowered by the grace of Christ “in them.”

In response to Wesley’s sermons criticizing the Calvinist view of limited atonement, Whitefield replied in a letter in which he “looked forward to a time when they would be ‘closely united in principle and judgement as well as heart and affection.’  In a similar vein, Wesley hoped that ‘in the future God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind.  Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our course with joy.’  The significant note struck was the unity in ‘heart and affection’ of those who had known the power of the cross in their personal experience, despite theological differences over the extent of the atonement.”  [Randall, Ian M. What a Friend We Have in Jesus: The Evangelical Tradition. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2005. pp. 94-95]

Were they successful?  In reconciling their theological differences, no.  In maintaining their love for each other because of Christ’s love for them, yes.

“It is said that when Wesley and Whitefield were at odds on theology and ecclesiastical matters, one of Wesley’s adherents asked him, ”Do you think we shall see Mr. Whitefield in heaven?” “No,” he answered, “I do not. I think he will be so near the Throne, and you and I so far away, that we shall not get within sight of him.”  [Willcox, Gilbert. The Pastor Amidst His Flock. Kindle. Archive.org: American Tract Society, 1890. https://archive.org/details/pastoramidsthis00willgoog]

At the end of his life, George Whitefield asked that his funeral sermon be preached by John Wesley.  Whitefield’s adherents asked him repeatedly if he was sure of his choice, but he was resolute.  His adherents feared that Wesley would use the occasion to “have the last word,” but John Wesley honored Christ by honoring the man Christ used so mightily, knowing that it is Christ alone who has the last word.

Here are just two sections from John Wesley’s sermon for the funeral of his friend George Whitefield to show the power of God at work in the hearts of both:

(II.4.) “Mention has already been made of his unparalleled zeal, his indefatigable activity, his tender-heartedness to the afflicted, and charitableness toward the poor. But should we not likewise mention his deep gratitude to all whom God had used as instruments of good to him — of whom he did not cease to speak in the most respectful manner, even to his dying day. Should we not mention, that he had a heart susceptible of the most generous and the most tender friendship?  I have frequently thought that this, of all others, was the distinguishing part of his character. How few have we known of so kind a temper, of such large and flowing affections! Was it not principally by this, that the hearts of others were so strangely drawn and knit to him? Can anything but love beget love?  This shone in his very countenance, and continually breathed in all his words, whether in public or private. Was it not this, which, quick and penetrating as lightning, flew from heart to heart which gave that life to his sermons, his conversations, his letters?  Ye are witnesses!”

(II.8.) “If it be inquired what was the foundation of this integrity, or of his sincerity, courage, patience, and every other valuable and amiable quality; it is easy to give the answer. It was not the excellence of his natural temper, not the strength of his understanding; it was not the force of education; no, nor the advice of his friends: it was no other than faith in a bleeding Lord; “faith of the operation of God.” It was “a lively hope of an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” It was “the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which was given unto him,” filling his soul with tender, disinterested love to every child of man. From this source arose that torrent of eloquence which frequently bore down all before it; from this, that astonishing force of persuasion which the most hardened sinners could not resist. This it was which often made his “head as waters, and his eyes a fountain of tears.” This it was which enabled him to pour out his soul in prayer, in a manner peculiar to himself, with such fullness and ease united together, with such strength and variety both of sentiment and expression.”   [Excerpted from: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-53-on-the-death-of-the-rev-mr-george-whitefield/]

In concluding the funeral sermon for Whitefield, Wesley urged on his hearers “Let us keep close to the grand scriptural doctrines which he everywhere delivered. There are many doctrines of a less essential nature, with regard to which even the sincere children of God (such is the present weakness of human understanding) are and have been divided for many ages. In these we may think and let think; we may “agree to disagree.” But, meantime, let us hold fast the essentials of “the faith which was once delivered to the saints;” and which this champion of God so strongly insisted on, at all times, and in all places! … His fundamental point was, “Give God all the glory of whatever is good in man;” and, “In the business of salvation, set Christ as high and man as low as possible.”

By the way, it was this sermon in which we find the first appearance in print of the now familiar phrase “agree to disagree.”  It was a expression, John wrote to his brother Charles that he had learned from their friend, George Whitefield.

Developing a habit of a daily quiet time is a struggle for many believers, but appears easier for others, even those with full schedules. Either way, it takes discipline.

William Wilberforce lamented that his busy schedule sometimes resulted in an inadequate spiritual life when he had “but a hurried half hour in the morning to myself.” The demands on his time, he felt, required far more nourishment for his soul through prayer and Scripture reading so he looked forward to periods of slower pace to refuel.  In 1802 he remarked, “Surely in the summer recess [of Parliament] I ought to read Scripture an hour or two every day, besides prayer, devotional reading, and meditation. God will prosper me better if I wait on Him.” History would support that statement.

When I read how great saints spent long hours in prayer, though, it’s easy to get discouraged.

I was comforted to learn that the discipline of daily quiet time wasn’t always easy, even for the superstars, despite their best intentions. Charles Simeon, for example, was known to rise at 4 a.m.and spend the first 4 hours of the day in prayer and study. There were occasions, though, when he overslept, especially on winter mornings. “He once decided to pay a fine of half a crown to his college servant when he overslept. A few days later, lying comfortably in bed, he re-considered this plan. His next decision was that when he overslept he would throw a guinea into the river. This, apparently, he did, but only once — before deciding that he could not afford to pave the river-bed with gold.” [Randall, Ian M. What a Friend We Have in Jesus: The Evangelical Tradition. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2005.pp 78-79.]

Whether paying his servant or paving the river-bed, Simeon’s discipline of persevering in daily prayer and study revealed the heart of a man whose treasure was in heaven.