George Whitefield and the Great Awakening: Implications of the Itinerancy Debate in Colonial America

Abstract

Following George Whitefield's 1739 New England tour, debate erupted among colonial clergy over the perceived threats and benefits of his itinerant preaching, continuing well into his 1744 return. This exchange is indicative of broader concerns among protestant clergy over waning influence in colonial America as well as a shift in colonists’ expectations about the form and function of public oratory. Questions of what constitutes good preaching, who is fit to preach, and suitable audiences demonstrate that itinerancy served as a powerful point of contention among ministers struggling to maintain power in the new nation. Focusing on Reverend Whitefield's efforts, this essay explores the competing conceptions and examines trends in form, function, and audiences for religious rhetoric that inform both our understanding of popular expectations of civic leaders’ discourse and emerging positions on the proper enactment of the rhetorical leadership within the new nation.

Notes

¹Reverend Timothy Cutler's 1743 letter to fellow clergy complained of Whitefield: “It would be an endless attempt to describe that scene of confusion and disturbance occasioned by him; the divisions of families, neighbourhoods, and towns, the contrariety of husbands and wives, the undutifulness of children and servants, the quarrels among the teachers, the disorders of the night, the intermission of labour and business, the neglect of husbandry, and of gathering the harvest. Our presses are for ever teeming with books, and our women with bastards; though Regeneration and Conversion is the whole cry” (Bridenbaugh 83–4).

²Daniel Dreisbach highlights the overlap of civic and religious discourse in the colonies, citing the prevalence of Micah 6:8 as a guiding biblical passage for the founding fathers. He argues “the Bible, more than any other text, informed the world of the founders and the society around them” (91), adding that its influence transcended personal and moral realms well into the public sphere. Mark Longaker similarly connects religious and secular participation, noting that New Side proponents endeavored to create “an informed citizenry capable of debating theology and participating in civic life through both religious and secular institutions” (181) as a result of the democratization encouraged by the Great Awakening.

³Harry Stout (“Religion”) argues that Whitefield's revivals constituted “an innovative style of communications that redefined the social context in which public address took place,” ushering in “a new model of social organization and public address … which could be applied to a broad range of social, political, and religious contexts” (520). Wade Williams expands Stout's claim, asserting that “Great Awakening preaching constituted a new mode of rhetorical address, one that responded more readily to the changing needs of religious audiences” and focused on the power of oratory to affect moral and social change (56). This essay contributes to the ongoing conversation in colonial rhetoric, which seeks to assess the impact of Great Awakening revivals on forms and functions of public oratory.

⁴Nathan Hatch argues that the print discourse produced by the enthusiasm debate “offers an unusual opportunity to enter minds unlike our own, to explore the assumptions, beliefs, and rhetorical strategies of obscure Americans who played significant roles in the religious affairs of the nation” (11).

⁵Williams suggests that Whitefield and his fellow revivalists’ reliance on the power and spontaneity of the spoken word within a predominantly oral culture enabled them to reach audiences who were thirsting for a new model of religious oratory (58–59).

⁶Anglicans were the obvious exception. As a result of Whitefield's attacks on church leadership at home, his own denomination closed their pulpits to him on his American tour (Stout Divine Dramatist 96.).

⁷In “Saul's Conversion,” Whitefield argues that an unconverted minister “though he could speak with the tongues of men and angels will be but as a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal to those whose senses are exercised to discern spiritual things. Ministers that are unconverted may talk and declaim of Christ, and prove from books that he is the son of God; but they cannot preach with the demonstration of the Spirit or with power, unless they preach from experience, and have had a proof of his divinity, by a work of grace wrought upon their own souls” (Whitefield Works 6: 156).

⁸Whitefield's 24 September 1740 journal entry criticizes both the size and staffing of Cambridge, adding “as far as I could gather from some who knew the state of it, not far superior to our Universities in piety. Discipline is at a low ebb. Bad books are becoming fashionable among the tutors and students … therefore, I chose to preach from these words,—“We are not as many, who corrupt the Word of God” (Whitefield Journals 426).

⁹Debate emerged in 1740, in response to Whitefield's style of field preaching as well as in the immediate replies to his criticism in Cambridge; however, the exchange reached a fevered pitch in 1744 with the publication of Harvard's response to his claims.

¹⁰A general understanding of enthusiasm can be gained from John Locke's discussion in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, associating the term with “a persuasion of an immediate intercourse with the Deity and frequent communication from the Divine Spirit” (London: William Tegg and Co., 1775), 591.

¹¹Whitefield's writings did little to alleviate the charges of enthusiasm due to his penchant for ascribing his success to divine intervention. He notes on 16 April 1740, “In the afternoon, I was much pressed in spirit to preach upon the blind beggar to whom the scribes and Pharisees said, ‘Dost thou teach us?'” followed by an entry for the next day stating “In the afternoon, I was particularly assisted in speaking from these words, ‘Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution'” (Whitefield Journal 407).

¹²Samuel Niles may be referencing a January 1 event, where after delivering a New Years sermon, Whitefield reflected: “My heart as well as the hearts of others were filled with praise. We looked upon it as a token for good that we should have a Happy New Year, and the road from the meeting-house to the place where I lodged being pretty solitary, we gave vent to our Joy in singing a solemn hymn of praise” (Whitefield Journal 538).

¹³Whitefield's journal supports the idea that he welcomed both native and slave audiences in addition to the less fortunate. In a 4 December 1744 entry, he recounts preaching in a Boston work house (Whitefield Journal 532). Almost a month later, on 3 January 1745 he recalls that after a sermon at Raynham, “five or six Negroes desired to speak to me. One seemed to be filled with the love of God, two had been Backsliders, and the other was slightly wounded. I was much helped in discoursing with them” (Whitefield Journal 539).