John Wesley argued throughout his life against a complete separation  from the Church of England. This statue of him stands outside his house  in London. Photo by Kathleen Barry, United Methodist Communications 

Wesley had a deep attachment to the church that provided his father’s living as a parish priest and the foundation of his  and brother Charles' own spiritual development and ministry. However, he also had very practical reasons for wanting Methodism to remain within its fold, say Wesleyan scholars.

The Rev. Jason Vickers, United Methodist elder and past president of the Wesleyan Theological Society, pointed out that the Church of England as the established state church held a position alien to most Americans.

“The way I make this point to my students in seminary is to say that 18th century England has more in common with, say, 21st century Turkey than the 21st century United States,” said Vickers. He is professor of theology and site coordinator of the Asbury Theological Seminary’s Memphis campus.

Legally, in Wesley’s Britain you could be part of another church just as in today’s Turkey you can be something other than Sunni Muslim. But you needed to be prepared for second-class status. The church’s power came with teeth.

Under the Toleration Act of 1689, dissenting Protestants like Baptists and Congregationalists could not run for political office, serve in the military or attend Oxford or Cambridge. A 1711 law imposed fines on anyone who, after partaking Anglican Eucharist, was found worshipping in a dissenting tradition’s meetinghouse.

If anything, Catholics occupied an even more tenuous position in 1700s British society (just ask the Irish).

“A schism with the Church of England would have had dire consequences both financially and socially for the Methodists,” said Morris L. Davis, a professor of Christian history and Wesleyan Methodist studies at United Methodist Drew University Theological School.

Wesley also had strong theological and biblical reasons for preserving church unity, Davis said.

In his 1786 sermon “On Schism,” Wesley spoke of church splits in blunt terms.

“It is evil in itself,” he preached. “To separate ourselves from a body of living Christian, with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the law of love. … It is only when our love grows cold, that we can think of separating from our brethren.”

However, in the same sermon, he also argues for when a church separation is not only acceptable but demanded by conscience.

“Suppose you could not remain in the Church of England without doing something which the word of God forbids, or omitting something which the word of God positively commands; if this were the case, (but blessed be God it is not) you ought to separate from the Church of England,” he preached.

In that case, he said, the sin of separation would not be on the person who leaves but upon those who necessitated the departure.

He definitely had no interest in seeing the Church of England return to the Roman Catholic fold.

Wesley, in his writings, continued to oppose a general separation from the Church of England throughout his life.

Nevertheless, by 1784, he had established a U.S. denomination that eventually would become the multinational United Methodist Church.

In the wake of the American Revolution, the Church of England had basically ceased to function in a nation that was no longer part of England. The Episcopal Church would not be established until 1789.

In the interim, Wesley did not wait for permission. He ordained clergy and sent Thomas Coke as superintendent, even though he himself was no fan of the U.S. fight for independence.

It was a very deliberate move to separate from the Church of England,” said the Rev. Ted Campbell, a United Methodist elder and church history professor at Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology.

“John Wesley did some very specific things that I think if any United  Methodist clergyperson did, he would be out immediately or very soon,”  Campbell said. “If any elder in The United Methodist Church ordained  other clergy, we would not allow that.”

Campbell cautions against leaning too heavily on John Wesley’s  example in discussing the unity of today’s United Methodist Church.

“If John Wesley were here today, he wouldn’t be John Wesley,” Campbell said. “That’s the tough truth.”

Campbell said he personally thinks United Methodists should look at  what’s fundamental that binds the current church. In Campbell’s case, he  sees those fundamentals as the denomination’s Articles of Religion, the Confession of Faith and the General Rules. 

Ryan Danker,  a Methodist studies professor at United Methodist Wesley Theological  Seminary in Washington, stressed that for Wesley, the doctrines of  salvation were key.

“I think if we are going to find a way forward with Wesley then we  have to focus as he did on the core doctrines of salvation and  holiness,” he said. “If we find agreement there, then we will continue  to be in a Wesleyan way.”