B. Early Tensions
3. Asbury, Wesley, and the Dynamics of Power
levied against Whatcoat’s appointment to the episcopacy was aimed strictly at Wesley. As evidence of that, Whatcoat was actually elected to the episcopacy in 1800.
Whatcoat was, in fact, a very uncontroversial minister. Born in Gloucestershire, England, he served as a band leader, class leader, steward, and local preacher in England, Ireland, and Wales prior to volunteering to accompany Thomas Coke to America in 1784. As previously noted, he was present at the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And, he served in large districts in America in the years following the Christmas Conference. He was known for being, “a man of the amiable temper, unassuming simplicity, and saintly piety.” He died in 1806 and was memorialized in the Minutes of that year. The author – presumably Asbury - wrote,
We will not use many words to describe this almost inimitable man. So deeply serious-who ever saw him light or trifling? Who ever heard him speak evil or any person? Who ever heard him speak an idle word? Dead to envy; pride, and praise; sober without sadness; cheerful without levity;
careful without covetousness, and decent without pride. 315
For many of the preachers in attendance at the General Conference of 1787, the key issue was not simply Wesley’s exercise of power. Many of the preachers resisted Wesley’s authority because they were concerned about the specific decisions Wesley might make. In particular, many of the preachers were concerned that if the Methodist Episcopal Church recognized the power of Wesley, it would enable him to recall Francis Asbury to England. Thomas Ware wrote, “There were also suspicions entertained by some of the preachers, and, perhaps, by Mr. Asbury himself, that, if Mr. Whatcoat were received as a superintendent, Mr. Asbury would be recalled. For this none of us were prepared.”316 Many of the American Methodist preachers held far greater affection for Asbury than loyalty to Wesley. And, thus, Wesley’s actions had to be stopped.
However, in the Conference of the 1787, the Methodist preachers sought to redefine, not completely sever the relationship between themselves and Wesley. Thomas Ware recorded, “As to Mr. Wesley, there were none of us disposed to accuse him of a desire to tyrannize over us, and, in consequence, to withdraw our love and confidence from him.”317 Instead, the Conference sought to assuage the decision to separate from Wesley’s authority by writing him “a long and loving letter.” The letter implored Wesley to understand the American Methodists to be his “spiritual children.”318
316 Ware, 131.
317 Ibid., 131.
318 Wesley, Letters 8: 24f.
Not surprisingly, Wesley was not pleased with the actions of the 1787 Conference or its attempt to assuage him. The chief target of his animosity, however, was Asbury. In his September 20, 1788 letter, Wesley rebuked the actions of Asbury and the American Methodists. He wrote,
There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists: I am under God the father of the whole [Methodist] family. Therefore I naturally care for you all in a manner no other person can do. Therefore I in a measure provide for you all, for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it not for me, were it not that I not only permit him to collect but also support him in so doing.319
Wesley was convinced that Asbury was attempting to exercise an undue amount of power in America. This notion was not formed simply out of personal experiences with Asbury; Wesley had also heard a variety of reports condemning Asbury from contemporaries. Throughout his career in ministry, his critics
accused Asbury of being a power-monger. In the late decades of the nineteenth century, his most notorious critics were James O’Kelly and his former partner in America, Thomas Rankin. Asbury firmly believed that Rankin, in particular, had perverted Wesley’s understanding of him. Utilizing the language of the Third Epistle of John, Asbury wrote,
I hope we shall live in peace, but you may be sure I have had it on all side and I believe Diotrephes has got the ear of old Daddy too. He sometimes prates against me with malicious words because I was bold to stay when he like a coward ran away, not only through fear, but hopes of gaining
preferment in the church or state.320
319 Asbury, 3: 64.
320 Ibid., 3: 63. In 3 John, the author is writing Gaius to warn him of Diotrephes.
The latter figure was, allegedly, seeking power in the church.
However, Wesley remained unhappy with Asbury until the end of his life.
In a letter written to an unknown recipient on October 31, 1789, Wesley wrote,
“I was a little surprised when I received some letters from Mr. Asbury affirming that no person in Europe knew how to direct those in America.” Wesley had also been informed by George Shadford that Asbury had stated, “Mr. Wesley and I are like Caesar and Pompey: he will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior.”
These remarks coupled with Asbury’s “friends” voting Wesley’s “names out of the American Minutes…completed the matter and showed that he had no connexion with me.” 321
And, while Asbury would persist in his claims to have simpler ambitions, it was abundantly clear that he had little interest in sharing substantial power in America with anyone else. He wrote, “For our old Daddy to appoint
Conferences when and where he pleased, to appoint a joint superintendent with me, were strokes of power we did not understand.” And, thus, Asbury wanted
“…union but no subordination, connexion but no subjection” between the Americans and British Methodists.322