Thread: The First Great Awakening: True or False Revival?

Hi everyone. It seems like in the Reformed community, the first great awakening is almost unanimously regarded as a "surpising work of the Spirit of God", or a genuine revival of true religion in the American colonies. I think the work of men like John Piper, Ian Murray, and the whole banner of truth crew have really augmented this monolithic approach to the first great awakening. Now I'm not pronouncing any kind of judgment. I've really profited from Piper's work on Edwards, Murray's work on New Light Presbyterianism, and other works in a similar vein. I just find it somewhat odd that in light of the widespread controversies during the first great awakening between Old Light's and New Light's (both Presbyterians and Congregationalist's), there is really nothing today that seems to reflect that kind of theological tension. I've read some stuff here and there. I think of Darryl Hart's critique of the first great awakening/new light calvinism in many of his works. Nevertheless, the bent seems to be almost entirely positive. I guess my question is this: are there any out there that have some kind of substantial reservations about the influence of the first great awakening? More specifically, did men like Edwards, Whitefield, or Tennet depart from historic Reformed orthodoxy in their revivalistic methodologies and emphasis on experience? Or did these men, and the awakening in general, only solidify and embody the Reformed and Puritan emphasis upon an experiential piety which manifests itself in genuine religious affection grounded in truth and measured by the Scriptures? These thoughts were sparked as I was reading some of Charles Chauncy's letters, a militant critic of Jonathan Edwards and the first great awakening. He says with respect to the awakening....

"For myself, I am among those who are clearly in the opinion
that there never with such a spirit of superstition and enthusiasm reigning in the land before; never such gross disorders and barefaced affronts to common decency; never such scandalous reproaches on the Blessed Spirit, making Him the author of the greatest irregularities and confusions." (A Letter from a gentleman in Boston to Mr. George Wishart)

Any thoughts would be helpful. Sorry if the questions were a little ambiguous. I'm just looking for any critical spin in an attempt to resolve some theological tension I've experienced as I've studied Edwards, the Awakening, and their critics. Thanks!

Not terribly helpful in answer to your questions, I know, but didn't Charles Chauncy wind up as a Unitarian? That could help explain why his criticisms have not gained widespread acceptance.

Interesting question given how fast unitarianism swept through New England not that many years later. I tend to think that the earlier portion of the Great Awakening, associated with Mr. Edward's congregation and the surrounding areas was a real revival in the sense of people coming to saving faith or greatly being renewed in their faith -- Mr. Eward's himself analyzed the situation carefully, in works such as Religious Affections.

I am uncomfortable with the situations where clergy would not allow Whitefield and others into their pulpits forcing the great outdoor meetings. In some situations, these pastors may have not a good motives. (Perhaps envy over speaking ability?) But in other cases, it seems they were genuinely trying to protect their congregations, a move that we should perhaps respect as we look back into history.

Whitefield has remained a question mark for me, although I can't really point to any reasoning other than what I've stated. Reading his sermons at face value, they certainly seem orthodox. His willingness to work outside the church bothers me -- I view a presbyterian form of government (and the congregational churches at the time in New England provided similar oversight in their ministerial associations) as providing the kind of checks and balances need to keep a single personality from getting out of hand.

I return to my original thought that unitarianism soon made great inroads. If the awakening had been entirely healthy, it doesn't seem like this should have happened. On the other hand, the Halfway Covenant had already weakened many churches, and eventually let to Mr. Edward's removal from Northampton, so perhaps the weakness was already systemic.

Excuse my rambling. I've been pondering some of these questions for a while ...

Chauncy did indeed wind up a staunch unitarian. At the time of the old light/new light controversy, I believe Chauncy was a pretty committed confessional congregationalist.

With respect to Whitefield, I definitely agree. Reading his sermons and journals seem to confirm the consensus of most Reformed scholarship. Nevertheless, I don't think its Whitefield's theology that presents a problem. I think significant criticism has been leveled at Whitefield for 1.) un-churchly methodology (itinerant preaching outside of the word and sacrament ministry of the local church) 2.) emotional manipulation (while Whitefield's orthodoxy is generally acknowledged, his emotionally manipulative homiletical methods are deemed dubious by some). Anyway, I agree that Whitefield is quite the confusing character.

Was the First Great Awakenring a genuine work of the Spirit of God or a movement bedeviled by enthusiastic excesses and pentecostal-like oddities?

Yes

If the Great Awakening was not a revival, then would someone please point me to one? (Besides the book of Acts)

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Was the First Great Awakenring a genuine work of the Spirit of God or a movement bedeviled by enthusiastic excesses and pentecostal-like oddities?

Yes

I haven't read it but I understand Religious Affections is concerned with discerning the difference between true and false religious experience.

I believe there were aspects of even the 2nd Great Awakening that were genuine, like Nettleton's ministry.

A lot of those converted in the First Great Awakening became Baptists. I can't remember the exact quote, but in referring to this development Whitefield exclaimed something to the effect that the sheep had become ducks!

False!
By its very nature, revivalism has proven false.
However, Phil.1:18.

(Not to discount so-called movements of God wherein many are led to true repentance by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. These, though, I would hesitate to associate with what have become known as revivals in the public mind.)

You asked

Originally Posted by KMK

If the Great Awakening was not a revival, then would someone please point me to one? (Besides the book of Acts)

Would the happenings in Acts be considered "revival"? A lot of men converted. They were vivified, but not revived. Both words come from the latin vivere, "to live," but the difference in meaning is obvious.

Just this evening I read a wonderful passage in D.G. Hart in which he argues that "revival" was not historically part of the Reformed vocabulary. Before the "revivalism" of the 18th century, the concern of the Reformed thinker was not whether a church was "alive" or "dead," rather "true" or "false." If the marks of a true church (preaching of the true gospel, administration of sacraments, and discipline) were evident, the church was true. In this way, the legitimacy of a church was determined by outward characteristics that could be measured against God's word (you shall know them by their fruits), not by the Spirit's invisible activity in the heart of a believer. This is consistent with our practice in other areas, such as examination for church membership. We cannot know how sincere the emotions of a person are; we know what he believes about God and salvation, and whether his profession is contradicted by gross immorality.

To leave aside the semantics of the question, then, a Confessional evaluation of the so-called Great Awakening would be based on the degree to which the marks of true churches were exhibited, not by an influx of personal zeal and enthusiastic piety in individuals, which, in my experience at least, is what people mean when they talk about revival.

Witsius,
I think that is what's keeping from entirely discarding the first great awakening as some sort of quasi-Pentecostal pre-cursor to the rank heresies of someone like Finney. The case can be made for the legitimacy of revival, in the old sense of course. Revivalism, on the other hand, is thoroughly Pelagian in its anthropological assumptions and methodology. For me, this is what's so different about the first and second great awakenings. While overlap may certainly exist between first and second awakenings, the theological center of the first couldn't have differed more from the second.

revival, again, i think most would agree, is poor terminology. Awakening is the best term. If Awakening bears fruit then perhaps vivification is occurring. And it appear much such vivification occurred during that period of history. If the Reformed had no terminology of revival then I am still sure they knew what regeneration and/or awakening was.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

revival, again, i think most would agree, is poor terminology. Awakening is the best term. If Awakening bears fruit then perhaps vivification is occurring. And it appear much such vivification occurred during that period of history. If the Reformed had no terminology of revival then I am still sure they knew what regeneration and/or awakening was.

The real issue is what is meant by the word. What is life? Is it wild emotional experiences and zealous fervency?

Emotions and fervency do often have a part. Many folks are truly converted and they respond dramatically at times. As long as those emotions stem from the truth and do not substitute for the truth.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

revival, again, i think most would agree, is poor terminology. Awakening is the best term. If Awakening bears fruit then perhaps vivification is occurring. And it appear much such vivification occurred during that period of history. If the Reformed had no terminology of revival then I am still sure they knew what regeneration and/or awakening was.

In addition, others who don't think the term revival is particularly helpful or accurate have suggested "evangelistic harvests" or perhaps other terminology.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Emotions and fervency do often have a part. Many folks are truly converted and they respond dramatically at times. As long as those emotions stem from the truth and do not substitute for the truth.

Amen! And so long as these experiences are not seen as normative to the point that a man is deemed unconverted unless he can name the time, date and place of his conversion. This is little different than a man placing his trust in coming down the aisle or some other action (even baptism) that is easily confused with conversion.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What is life? Is it wild emotional experiences and zealous fervency?

Is it necessarily not emotional and fervent? How much do we tend to fall into the modernistic fetishizing of the head that we assume any demonstration of emotion is suspect?

It's no surprise, then, that Chauncey did end up Unitarian. So enamored with the "Enlightened" idea of logic that he couldn't get out of his own head. Ugh.

I've studied the American Awakenings at length. All four -- Edwards', Finney's, Moody's, and (supposedly) the Fourth that we're in now. I've been skeptical of Edwards in the past, but after reading his stuff, I'm willing to take him at his word that it was real. And, in fact, I would say it's the most "real" of the four.

To dismiss the First Awakening as simply emotional agitation is to read our own present-day conflicts back into a very different world. Agnostic historians do the same thing. Yikes!

C

Great thread.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Emotions and fervency do often have a part. Many folks are truly converted and they respond dramatically at times. As long as those emotions stem from the truth and do not substitute for the truth.

Amen! And so long as these experiences are not seen as normative to the point that a man is deemed unconverted unless he can name the time, date and place of his conversion. This is little different than a man placing his trust in coming down the aisle or some other action (even baptism) that is easily confused with conversion.

I agree. And I don't see that in Edwards -- at all. Awakening/Revival is one thing. RevivalISM makes me shudder.

C

Originally Posted by KMK

If the Great Awakening was not a revival, then would someone please point me to one? (Besides the book of Acts)

The Reformation would stand out to me as the clearest example of the time of a mighty and widespread work of the Spirit of God outside of the Biblical record. Certainly multitudes were brought to saving faith, and the church was awakened.

Originally Posted by queenknitter

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What is life? Is it wild emotional experiences and zealous fervency?

Is it necessarily not emotional and fervent? How much do we tend to fall into the modernistic fetishizing of the head that we assume any demonstration of emotion is suspect?

I clearly said wild emotional experiences, not emotion per se. See the other thread on the current revival in Florida and look for some links to video. The term "fervency" should make perfect sense within this context. What I mean is that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and that the stories I've heard about the awakening make it sound more like my old charismatic meetings.

It's no surprise, then, that Chauncey did end up Unitarian. So enamored with the "Enlightened" idea of logic that he couldn't get out of his own head. Ugh.

I've studied the American Awakenings at length. All four -- Edwards', Finney's, Moody's, and (supposedly) the Fourth that we're in now. I've been skeptical of Edwards in the past, but after reading his stuff, I'm willing to take him at his word that it was real. And, in fact, I would say it's the most "real" of the four.

To dismiss the First Awakening as simply emotional agitation is to read our own present-day conflicts back into a very different world. Agnostic historians do the same thing. Yikes!

C

I think the question is: what should we look for when determining the validity of a "revival"? The fruits of the work of the Spirit, according to scripture, are repentance and faith. Therefore these are the things we should look for, and it follows that high levels of emotion don't tell us anything accurately one way or the other. Furthermore, since this is a Reformed board I wanted to examine the question from a traditionally reformed paradigm, not one with which the pietists have infected us. To that end I shared D.G. Hart's view in "Recovering Mother Kirk" that the dichotomy before the revivalists was true/false, not alive/dead, thus voiding the whole terminology of revival. Apparently some came along and said that simple faith and trust in the means of grace was not enough, but that we needed to be "alive" on top of that (meaning some special display of emotion).

See this post on the Heidelblog (run by one of our members) for an interesting discussion on Edwards, the revivals, and Confessional reformed theology and piety. This is was also discussed on the most recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn, with particular references to George Whitefield and the "First Great Awakening."

Didn't intend to "twist your words." I was participating in the discussion. That was my second post here, and I obviously haven't picked up on the discursive norms.

Carry on. I'll bow out.

C

Originally Posted by Davidius

Originally Posted by KMK

If the Great Awakening was not a revival, then would someone please point me to one? (Besides the book of Acts)

Would the happenings in Acts be considered "revival"? A lot of men converted. They were vivified, but not revived. Both words come from the latin vivere, "to live," but the difference in meaning is obvious.

Just this evening I read a wonderful passage in D.G. Hart in which he argues that "revival" was not historically part of the Reformed vocabulary. Before the "revivalism" of the 18th century, the concern of the Reformed thinker was not whether a church was "alive" or "dead," rather "true" or "false." If the marks of a true church (preaching of the true gospel, administration of sacraments, and discipline) were evident, the church was true. In this way, the legitimacy of a church was determined by outward characteristics that could be measured against God's word (you shall know them by their fruits), not by the Spirit's invisible activity in the heart of a believer. This is consistent with our practice in other areas, such as examination for church membership. We cannot know how sincere the emotions of a person are; we know what he believes about God and salvation, and whether his profession is contradicted by gross immorality.

To leave aside the semantics of the question, then, a Confessional evaluation of the so-called Great Awakening would be based on the degree to which the marks of true churches were exhibited, not by an influx of personal zeal and enthusiastic piety in individuals, which, in my experience at least, is what people mean when they talk about revival.

I had always pictured Acts 2 as a 'revival'. Perhaps that is not the correct term.

I could go along with your conclusion, as long as we understand that there may be a period of time between the 'Great Awakening' and the display of marks of a true church. After all, no one is regenerated to an immediate state of perfection. Sanctification can be a long, painful process. Because of this I would expect the periods during and immediately following the GA to display a great deal of confusion giving way eventually to the marks of true churches.

Davidus,
I didn't get the impression that queenknitter was twisting your words at all. He was merely taking part in the discussion, and answering a specific part of the question I asked. I didn't intend for this post to be a rhetorically explosive argument over who is right or wrong. Nor did I expect a newcomer to be accused of "pietistic emotionalism" simply because they might disagree with you. A bit of an overreaction maybe?

I believe R. Scott Clark has stated that church attendance actually declined during the so-called First Great Awakening.

This excerpt

What is perhaps most interesting to us in the times in which we live is that he was a powerful instrument in the hands of God to promote true revival Surely this must be so. James Packer says that as the Vicar of Kidderminster in 1647-61 he converted 'just about the whole town'. Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones could say this: 'Surely we must agree that in England in the case of Rogers of Dedham and Baxter at Kidderminster we are entitled to speak of revival'. Certainly these testimonies of modern writers and preachers is correct. Baxter's own testimony is this. He said that the Parish Church of his day held about a thousand persons but that in his time it was overflowing and no less than five galleries had to be erected in the church. Then he tells us this: 'On the Lord's days there was no disorder to be seen in the streets, but you might hear a hundred families singing psalms and repeating sermons as you passed through the streets. In a word, when I came thither [he means to Kidderminster] first, there was about one family in a street that worshipped God and called on his name. When I came away there were some streets where there was not more than one family in the side of a street that did not so'.

from this article may give us another instance of a mighty work of the Spirit of God.

I think I've heard Dr. Clark say the same thing. And its no oddity really. Whenever the power of the Holy Spirit is sought after apart from the ordinary means of Word and Sacrament, an ecclesiastical lethargy is bound to follow.

From what I've read on the subject(Johnathan Edwards : A Life by George Marsden and Mark Knoll : The Rise of Evangelicalism ) it seems that because of the Half-Way Covenant and other factors that I forget, the churches at the time were not emphasizing personal conversion and the Awakening was a return to preaching the need of personal conversion.

I just checked out three books from the library because I want to study up again on this topic and I hope to be able to reply soon and give some more info. But from the top of my head, it seems that the authors that I've mentioned saw the Awakening as a return to the Puritan emphasis on the importance of the affections and a reaction against the externalistic, almost sacramentalist view that was dominating the scene.

The three books I checked out, in case anyone wanted to read more on the topic, are as follows :

Johnathan Edwards : A Life by George Marsden
The Rise of Evangelicalism by Mark Noll
America's God by Mark Noll

Also, in the Edwards Biography Marsden quotes extensively from the 'Old Lights', the ones who were against the Revival and I thought it would be good to post their critiques with the Awakening.

Like the others have said, good thread.

Camille,
don't bow out, you were doing fine and I think my friend David got a bit confused - you were not twisting anyones words. Ease a bit David, step back and take a deep breath.

I had to look up 'discursive'.

1. passing aimlessly from one subject to another; digressive; rambling.
2. proceeding by reasoning or argument rather than intuition.

I was a bit confused because definition number 1 is my standard operating procedure, I just didn't know there was a name for it.

I'm thinking you intended definition number 2. Good word. I'm glad you're here Camille and I'm glad you're posting.

Originally Posted by queenknitter

Didn't intend to "twist your words." I was participating in the discussion. That was my second post here, and I obviously haven't picked up on the discursive norms.

Carry on. I'll bow out.

C

I clearly said "wild emotional experiences" and you made it sound as if I were speaking of any kind of emotional expression whatsoever, then accused me of positing an idea that led to one man's descent into Unitarianism. It may not have been purposeful, but it was a stark misrepresentation.

Thank you for making it clear that you weren't twisting my words purposefully. I apologize for not responding kindly to what appeared to be an unfair representation of my position, and have modified my original post accordingly.

For those of you who haven't read it, Religious Affections is an extremely useful book both for personal edification and to understand the era we are discussing. Mr. Edwards repeatedly comes back to the need to validate what we are seeing with what scripture clearly reveals -- I think that is the primary difference between the awakening seen around Northampton and what happened elsewhere and later with revivalism when one was permitted to judge a situation based on the emotions experienced.

In the modern era, it seems difficult to recapture the sense of deep communion with God that was stressed by the puritans. Mr. Edwards went so far as to say fainting and other events might very well be a reasonable response to a sense of God in his glory -- but he would never have allowed this to disrupt worship or to give validity to a person's experience.

(BTW, I've seen the Marsden biography quoted a lot and would like to get my hands on it too.)

Marsen's biography is an absolute masterpiece. Definitely get your hands on it!

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Camille,
don't bow out, you were doing fine and I think my friend David got a bit confused - you were not twisting anyones words. Ease a bit David, step back and take a deep breath.

I had to look up 'discursive'.

1. passing aimlessly from one subject to another; digressive; rambling.
2. proceeding by reasoning or argument rather than intuition.

I was a bit confused because definition number 1 is my standard operating procedure, I just didn't know there was a name for it.

I'm thinking you intended definition number 2. Good word. I'm glad you're here Camille and I'm glad you're posting.

Yeah, I meant the second one. You know, communication habits -- the way we talk about stuff.

Anyway, thanks. I am a big fan of the Awakening(s). "Fan" may be a bad word too. I've conducted 5 graduate seminars on them -- Edwards, Whitefield, Finney, Moody, and whatever it is we're supposed to be going through right now. My shelves are chock full of books about them. My interest is as much a personal and spiritual "hobby" as an academic discipline (I have a Ph.D. minor in American religious history).

I started that seminar series rather skeptical about the whole thing. But of all the men we read, Edwards was the most convincing. I don't care for Butler's take when he says the whole First Awakening was a figment of Edwards' imaginations. Perry Miller is irritating.

So again, I'm going to take Edwards' at his word when he says it was a true revival. I think he's credible. That's really all I was (awkwardly) trying to say.

C

Originally Posted by Davidius

then accused me of positing an idea that led to one man's descent into Unitarianism. It may not have been purposeful, but it was a stark misrepresentation.

Well. . . . let me try again. Because you're reading an "accusation" that simply wasn't, at the very least, intended.

All I was trying to say was that Chauncey's criticisms of the Awakening have to be taken in the larger whole. He was too "rational" and oh-so-typical of the "Enlightened" people of that time. Unitarianism makes perfect sense in Modernity. Thomas Jefferson said as much. Trinitarianism is NOT rational. It takes faith to believe in the Trinity.

So an emotional outburst seen by a "rational" sort will always be judged as a negative.

C

Scholars like Mr. Miller seemed to viewed Puritan theology as quaint-old-fashioned belief rather than a living faith. Reading him, I had the feeling that he just didn't get it. "Irritating" is way too charitable.

Originally Posted by jwithnell

"Irritating" is way too charitable.

"Irritating" around here means I threw the book across the room.

C

Originally Posted by jwithnell

For those of you who haven't read it, Religious Affections is an extremely useful book both for personal edification and to understand the era we are discussing. Mr. Edwards repeatedly comes back to the need to validate what we are seeing with what scripture clearly reveals -- I think that is the primary difference between the awakening seen around Northampton and what happened elsewhere and later with revivalism when one was permitted to judge a situation based on the emotions experienced.

It is available in audio format here: http://christianaudio.com/product_in...roducts_id=519

I'm listening to Marsden's lectures on Jonathan Edwards now. (trying to remember where I got them???)

Marsden Lectures!

If you remember where you got them please post the link, that would be awesome to listen to.