Becoming Like Whitefield’s ‘rope of sand.’
It is probably not an understatement to say that most Methodist pastors of whatever tribe have heard the following quote at least once. It is attributed to George Whitefield, an Anglican Priest who, along with Charles and John Wesley, was one of the founders of the Methodist movement. Regarding John Wesley and comparing their methods of evangelism he is reported to have said, “My brother Wesley acted wisely — the souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in societies, and thus preserved the fruit of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.”
In his Thoughts Upon Methodism John Wesley later would write, “I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.”
Entering the second quarter of the 21st Century it is clear that Wesley’s fear has been realized. Every “mainline” Protestant Denomination has been in steady decline, with the United Methodist Church being the most recent collapse, fracturing in a split that led to the formation of the Global Methodist Church in May of 2022. Whereas many have earlier pointed to Whitefield’s remarks as a strength of the Wesleyan approach, we now see that it also became a rope of sand. This weakening of Methodist “structures of formation” (class meetings, societies, disciplined oversight, and rules of life) didn’t happen all at once; it unfolded in stages across roughly two centuries, as Methodism moved from a revivalist movement to a large, institutional church.
As we consider “what’s next” let’s review the following key dates and examples.
🕰️ I. Phase 1: The Strength of the Original Discipline (1738–1791)
Under John and Charles Wesley, the Methodist movement was intensely disciplined:
- Class meetings (12–15 people) met weekly for accountability, confession, and exhortation.
- Bands (3–5 people) met for deeper spiritual friendship and transparency.
- Societies gathered for instruction, hymns, and sacraments.
- Members were “examined” quarterly for continued participation — this was real spiritual oversight.
Formation structures were strong because Methodism was still a movement within Anglicanism, not a church itself. It depended on disciplined laity and itinerant preachers who functioned like spiritual directors.
⚖️ II. Phase 2: Institutional Expansion and Softening Discipline (1790s–1840s)
After Wesley’s death in 1791, the Methodist societies rapidly expanded — especially in America, where the Methodist Episcopal Church grew from 57,000 members (1784) to over a million by mid-century. But this success came with trade-offs:
| Factor | Impact on Formation |
| Explosion of new circuits | Less oversight from pastors; fewer opportunities for deep accountability. |
| Rise of camp meetings and revivalism | Emphasis shifted from formation to conversion; emotional experience often replaced sustained discipleship. |
| Ordained ministry structure | Clergy itinerancy became more administrative; lay class leaders were marginalized. |
| Cultural respectability | Methodists moved from the margins into the mainstream; discipline began to feel “rigid” or “old-fashioned.” |
By the 1840s, the class meeting system was already in decline in many regions — pastors reported decreasing attendance and resistance to accountability questions (“How is it with your soul?”).
🏛️ III. Phase 3: Respectability and Professionalization (1850s–1910s)
As Methodism became a leading Protestant denomination in the U.S. and Britain, it began to mirror the culture it had once challenged.
Key shifts:
- Middle-class respectability: Methodists sought to be seen as civic leaders rather than a revival sect. The class meeting, once intimate and penitential, felt “undignified” to upwardly mobile congregants.
- Sunday school movement: Christian education moved toward lecture-style instruction rather than relational discipleship.
- Institutional focus: Hospitals, schools, and universities flourished — admirable, but they absorbed energy once devoted to small-group formation.
- Lay leadership formalized: The early lay preacher system turned into boards and committees; bureaucratic function replaced spiritual oversight.
By 1900, even though membership was soaring, the spiritual infrastructure was thinning. Bishop Matthew Simpson lamented in the late 19th century that the movement’s “class system has nearly vanished.”
🕯️ IV. Phase 4: Modernism, Ecumenism, and Programmatic Church Life (1920s–1960s)
This period saw Methodism become a mainline Protestant denomination — socially engaged, intellectually vibrant, but spiritually diffused.
| Development | Effect on Formation |
| Social Gospel movement | Emphasis on social reform over personal holiness. |
| Modernist–fundamentalist debates | Doctrinal clarity blurred; emphasis shifted to ethics and civics. |
| Suburban expansion | Larger congregations, weaker personal accountability. |
| Educational model | Sunday school and confirmation replaced lifelong small-group discipleship. |
| 1968 merger (Methodist + Evangelical United Brethren → United Methodist Church) | Great ecumenical optimism, but structure grew bureaucratic; discipleship structures were secondary to administration. |
Formation, once organic and relational, was now largely programmatic — Sunday school, youth groups, committees, and short-term studies replaced the rhythm of “watching over one another in love.”
🌬️ V. Phase 5: Fragmentation and Revival Attempts (1970s–Present)
By the late 20th century, several renewal movements sought to recover Methodist formation:
- Discipleship ministries (1980s onward) attempted to restore intentional small groups.
- The Walk to Emmaus, Alpha, and Disciple Bible Study renewed some sense of accountability and depth.
- Scholars like Kevin Watson, Scott Kisker, and Randy Maddox have called for a return to “class meeting” spirituality — not nostalgia, but structure for grace.
However, many churches today remain shaped by:
- Programmatic busyness over spiritual depth
- Staff-driven ministry over lay-led fellowship
- Consumer spirituality over covenantal discipleship
In other words, the structures have been replaced by events, and formation has become optional, not communal.
📉 Summary Timeline
| Era | Approx. Period | Condition of Formation Structures | Key Dynamics |
| I. Wesleyan Movement | 1738–1791 | Strong, relational, covenantal | Class meetings, bands, societies |
| II. Early Expansion | 1791–1840s | Weakening begins | Rapid growth; revivalism replaces discipline |
| III. Respectability & Institutionalization | 1850–1910 | Major decline | Middle-class ascent, bureaucracy, Sunday school |
| IV. Mainline Modernism | 1920–1968 | Nearly collapsed | Social Gospel, suburbanization, merger |
| V. Renewal Attempts | 1970–present | Fragmented recovery | New discipleship models, some restoration efforts |
🕊️ VI. Theological and Cultural Causes
- Shift from communal to individual faith – personal piety replaced corporate holiness.
- Loss of accountability structures – class tickets and pastoral visitation faded.
- Cultural assimilation – Methodists ceased being “peculiar” and became “respectable.”
- Rationalization of grace – theology of grace remained, but its practical disciplines disappeared.
- Institutional gravity – the denomination became more about governance than formation.
🔁 VII. Modern Examples of Recovery
- Seedbed’s “New Room” movement – reintroduces class meetings and rules of life.
- Global Methodist Church initiatives – seeking to restore covenant membership and accountable discipleship.
- Local experiments – “bands,” covenant groups, and shared “rules of grace” reviving Wesley’s pattern.
Conclusion
These green shoots of recovery point to the kind of ordered grace Wesley envisioned. Coming after the division and polarization that we see all around us they are indeed hopeful signs. However, as Andrew Forrest notes in the introduction to his wonderful book Love Goes First, “Instead of talking about division, the more urgent and interesting question to ask is this: How are we going to reach people on the other side? The people who don’t agree with us, don’t like us, and in some cases hate us?”
That’s a good question for Christians of all tribes. For those who, like me, have planted themselves in the Global Methodist Church the question before us is what will we do now? I hope this brief overview of the deconstruction of the Methodist church in America helps set the stage as we seek to answer that question.
📚 Suggested Reading
- Abraham, William J. The Logic of Renewal (Eerdmans, 2003)
- Barnett, Ryan and Vickers, Jason. Profoundly Christian, Distinctly Methodist (Seedbed, 2025)
- Collins, Kenneth J. and Danker, Ryan editors. The Next Methodism: Theological, Social, and Missional Foundations for Global Methodism (Seedbed, 2022)
- Davis, Jim and Graham,Michael. The Great Dechurching (Zondervan, 2023)
- Forrest, Andrew. Love Goes First: Reaching Others in an Age of Anxiety and Division (Zondervan Reflective/Seedbed, 2025)
- Heitzenrater, Richard P. Wesley and the People Called Methodists (Abingdon, 1995)
- Kisker, Scott T. Mainline or Methodist? (Discipleship Resources, 2008)
- Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace (Kingswood, 1994)
- O’ Reilly, Matt. Free To Be Holy: A Biblical Theology of Sanctification (Seedbed, 2024)
- Thompson, Andrew C. The Means of Grace: Traditioned Practice in Today’s World (Seedbed, 2015)
- Watson, David F. Scripture and The Life of God: Why the Bible Matters Today More Than Ever (Seedbed 2017)
- Watson, David Lowes. The Early Methodist Class Meeting (Discipleship Resources, 1985)
- Watson, Kevin M. The Class Meeting (Seedbed, 2014)
© 2025 Neville Vanderburg. All rights reserved.
Used with permission. No part of this work may be reproduced without written consent of the author, except for brief quotations in reviews or educational use.
Opa's Haus 