Religion And Religious Piety In The First Great Awakening

Many historians would define “The First Great Awakening” as the regeneration of religion and religious piety that rose through the colonies of America in the 1700s. The revitalization was much bigger then just religion it could be considered a broad movement. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean an evangelical upsurge was taking place. In protestant cultures during the middle decades of the eighteenth century a new faith began to grow that would encounter the age of enlightenment it confirmed the correctness that in order to truly be religious it meant trusting the heart instead of the head. Treasuring feeling rather than actual thinking. It was basically relying more on biblical revelation instead of human thinking or human reason. American
religious history should be taught from more than one direction or one person’s point of view. When learning about a certain period in history it is very crucial to keep all of the important pieces in the story to fully understand and grasp meaning of what really happened. Learning history coming from one person’s morals and beliefs can be completely biased and something that could change the moral of the story could be left out. “Diversity has become an important organizing and disorganizing principle in the studies of American religion, past and present (Carroll, Brett E.)” During the First great awakening there was many religions rising but two completely different preachers really stand out; Evangelical preacher Jonathan Edwards and Anglican preacher George Whitfield, when learning about this period of time it is very important to consider multidirectionality, cultural differences, and religious diversity.
During the religious revival being swept through the British American colonies, Jonathan Edwards who was Yale educated was upset with licentiousness and worldliness.
He refused to convert to the Church of England and would be concerned with New Englanders becoming too concerned with worldly matters (Ushistory.org.) In fact, to him it seemed as if the people found the pursuit of wealth more important than John Calvin’s religious principles (Ushistory.org.) People would begin to think that predestination was wrong and good works might save a soul. Jonathan Edwards would preach in such a manner that people would flock to listen. He spoke with so much fury and conviction, he declared, “ God was an angry judge, and humans were sinners!”(Ushistory.org.) Growing ideas of emotionalism over intellectualism was key in Jonathan Edwards’s beliefs. Learning religious history coming from only Edwards point of view emphasizes on the idea that true religion is rooted in affections not reason (Heyrman, Christine Leigh.). But is this idea the only way? If history is taught from only Edwards approach it could be assumed that yes this is the only way therefore it must be correct. But if history is taught from Edwards’s point of view and opposing views the concepts of what was assumed to be correct could potentially change for many. Learning American religion history from Whitefield’s point of view implies something different than Edwards’s
beliefs.
The Great Itinerant or most commonly know by George Whitefield was an Angelician minister from Britain.
George Whitefield would bring very much controversy and religious issues to the table. George became allied with Anglican clergymen who shared the same evangelical bent, with most notably Charles (Heyrman, Christine Leigh.).These people together would begin and a lead a movement to reform the Church of England and this movement resulted in the founding of the Methodist Church (Heyrman, Christine Leigh.) He converted some slaves and even some Native Americans. Even Ben Franklin who was a religious skeptic would empty his coin purse upon hearing George Whitefield speak (Ushistory.org.) When he came to the colonies his style of preaching was much different and some traditional clergy were bothered by it, because of his shouting and circumvolution, many ecclesiastic closed the doors of respectable English churches to Whitefield (Ushistory.org.). Due to this he took his messages outside. He would often preach in meadows at the edges of cities and was considered nothing less than sacrilege to the "proper" church folks of his day (Ushistory.org. ) Whitefield presented his message in novel ways and would preach nothing more than what Calvinists had been asserting for centuries now- that sinful men and women were completely dependent for salvation on the mercy of a pure, all-powerful God (Heyrman, Christine Leigh.). He had sensational crowds, as he would shout the word of God. He
would travel to deliver his preaching’s through out the American colonies and would deliver his sermons as he wept with sorrow and trembled with passion (Ushistory.org. ) This would make him a well-known and recognized figure during colonial America. Learning history coming from George Whitefield’s point of view emphasizes on the ideas of church separation, sentimentalism, and emotionalism. In comparison to Edward’s points of view and beliefs these two individuals had completely different minds.
When learning the American religious experience like the First Great Awakening for example, one cannot just view one person’s side of the story. It is important to view all sides. When learning religious history direction plays an important role in order to be able to interpret what really happened. Prior to any research, reading, or lectures I was only educated on the traditional history one is taught in high school. If I became an American religion history teacher I would make sure to incorporate the most important movements that truly changed the world coming from different important figures. Certain things of importance are lost in religious history when learning it in one direction. I would teach this history in a perspective similar to Maffly –Kipp’s. “ Ignoring other movements – northward from Mexico, southward from Canada, and especially eastward from Asia- as well as the history of the prior presence of those who never wanted to move at all, furnishes us not simply with an incomplete historical narrative but with unsatisfying accounts of religious experience (Maffly-Kipp, Laurie F.)” In doing this the one learning can then create an unbiased opinion about the over all situation. American Religious history is not just one story or just one perspective, t is many stories and many perspectives and that is how it should be taught.