Whitefield's Hierarchy

Whitefield's words bely a stark sense of doom along with a redemptive quality, a duality that reinforces his idea of hierarchy among his followers. It strikes me as odd that he so delineates the difference between the Elect and the damned. His antagonistic stance against his opposition and hypocrites indicates that there is certainly one way to go about finding redemption. (This too is underscored by his dislike for "false preachers".) This redemption, too, shows a contrast between the saved and the damned with his description of the physical redemption of the body along with the soul; it seems to be the tangible nugget with which to catch the audience's ear and anchor the sermon into reality. I felt reading these that there was something particularly sinister about his preaching to masses and to the general people but still focusing on the idea of an Elect and dividing the devout from the false. I'm interested in further understanding the difference between his ideas of hierarchy (considering he uses a ladder formation as his guide) against Wesley's lack of hierarchy. It already suggests a different understanding of sanctification in that Wesley considered it a constant action and work of the soul rather than something that produces justification, as Whitefield. His rhetoric creates a sense of an imminent coming, which is not a sense I necessarily received from Wesley's sermons, and I think I would like to further compare the underlying tensions between the two preachers' words.

Contents of George Whitefield's sermons: What about laypeople of the Bible and the church?

It is a widely known fact that most of audience of Whitefield's sermons were the laity or even laypeople who do not know about the Bible and the church at all: mine workers, laborers, the poor, and so forth. Since these people were not able to reach out to the church, Whitefield tried to preach for them in the open air. However, terms and the logic Whitefield employed in his sermons seem to be a bit difficult for those people. Not only that, these do not seem to be sympathetic, as well, for laypeople.  For instance, Whitefield said that "if you do not believe this (religion to be an inward thing), though you have got your Bibles in your hand, you hate the Lord Jesus Christ in your heart; for religion is everywhere represented in Scripture as the work of God in the heart" and " Christ's whole personal righteousness is made over to, and accounted theirs. They (we) are enabled to lay hold on Christ by faith, and God the Father blots out their (our) transgressions, as with a thick cloud...they (we) are made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus."

Some parts of the sermons were not even easy for me to grasp. Therefore, I was wondering whether audiences fully understood his sermons or not, and did contents of his sermons indeed change people? not his physical or external abilities: speech, deliverance or power of persuasion?

Arminianism vs. Arianism and the Church of England

Whitefield vehemently argues against Arminianism in his sermons, particularly in "The Lord our Righteousness" sermon. Wesley staunchly argues against Arianism in his sermons. Both of these men are Anglican clergy and preach within the Anglican tradition. This doctrinal dispute exists within the walls of Anglicanism, which leads me to my question(s): What is the role of the Anglican Church in this debate? Is there record of other church leaders weighing in? Does the Anglican Church have an official stance supporting one doctrinal belief over another at this point in history? Do the conflicting perspectives between Whitefield and Wesley reflect a larger historical tension within Anglicanism? It seems this doctrinal difference among Anglicans is significant enough to lead those leading toward Arminianism to start a new church (Methodism). Since it was such an important difference, I'm just wondering if the Anglican church had an "official" doctrinal stance towards it (I'm not that familiar with Anglican doctrine, so forgive me if there is an obvious answer to this question).

Whitefield's Low View of Humanity

Whitefield seems quite often in these sermons to reiterate the point that humanity is wretched, sinful, and utterly unable to do any good apart from God. This reminds me of earlier church fathers who were quite concerned with Pelagius and Pelagianism, and thus emphasized the idea that humanity was wholly dependent on God for salvation as well as any sort of morality or good works. Whitefield speaks frequently about the need for a personal salvation moment, and for a sort of world-changing understanding of one's own depravity and utter dependence on God. With this sort of rhetoric (as well as the Moravians) it's no wonder that John Wesley obsessed over his own salvation and whether or not he had actually "felt" it.
Similarly, I was also struck by how Whitefield seems to assume that the majority of his audience have not reached this level of understanding their salvation, and so are not Christians. I wonder if this was just a rhetorical device employed in order to heighten the stakes and make his audience carefully examine their own salvation experience (or lack thereof) or if he truly believed that most of them were unsaved, despite his acknowledgment that most of them were regular church attendees who read the Bible, etc. Along this line, I suppose his introduction to "The Method of Grace" makes more sense, implying that all of their pastors were false prophets who had not properly emphasized the salvation process that Whitefield thought was necessary.

What Kept Whitefield Up at Night

If Antinomianism kept John Wesley up at night, it seems the covenant of works and original sin kept George Whitefield up at night. Original sin only comes up by name in "The Method of Grace" but its influence appears in "Christ, the Believer's Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption" and "The Lord Our Righteousness." Whitefield is deeply bothered by the covenant of works and any sort of idea that any (good) work a person does earns them any type of righteousness, justification, or sanctification. It seems the key to this understanding for Whitefield is his belief in original sin. Because humans are so tainted and separated from God from the start there is no way works righteousness could work- the cavern is too big. Even after conversion the affect of original sin means a person is still incapable of doing good works on their own. Good works, for Whitefield, come from God alone; even after being justified and counted as righteous a person cannot perform good works on their own. The fruits of the Spirit are God moving in/ through the believer (God is the agent and the believer is a vessel).

Given John Wesley's love of methods and of participating in the ordinances of the church (including good works) even before conversion, how do the two points of view blend? While Wesley agrees works do not gain one righteousness or salvation, he does still seem to think a person can perform good works themselves (they are the primary agent) and that good works are efficacious for the soul and conversion. My understanding is that this (Wesley's) view dominated the Methodist movement at this time. If that's correct, how did Whitefield's position on works fit in with the Methodist movement as whole?

Motivations behind "Free Grace"

Wesley lived in an interesting time in the Church. The Church of England had finally settled down after constant conflict over the doctrines and influences on the church. Yet Wesley at this time was still committed to the Anglican church, and as such was caught in the middle of the identity crisis over what the church should believe. I find it fascinating that the issues of predestination came up this early into his post Aldersgate ministry. Was this something that was coming up often while traveling as a revivalist? Was he trying to beat back the Calvinist influence, even though some level of free exercise was permissible outside the Church of England? How would this conversation come up? Was this sermon a counter to someone in particular, or a preemptive move? The context around this sermon is something we must exam going forward.

Limits of Withdrawal and Participation of Methodists within Society

There are many signs of Wesley's particular experience that show up in these pieces, such as proving that Methodism was not breaking from the Anglican church by its nature of being a "society," engaging Calvinism through a rejection of predestination, and engaging the question of whether or not Methodism was truly Christian in belief and practice. Likewise, there is a running conversation that clarifies whether or not Methodism calls for members to withdraw from society, economically or politically. Wesley advocates for members not to withdraw, but to participate ethically within existing systems. In character of a Methodist, Wesley emphasizes the use of "common words," rejecting corrupt communication (any actions or words that do not increase the grace of one's neighbor), and an expansion on Christian doctrine to create a communal body of followers in "one body, one soul." These points convey Wesley's intent for Methodist spaces to operate outside of pre-existing class structures. In his Free Grace, through addressing the illegitimacy of predestination, Wesley confirms that the way we engage in community will influence our salvation- why else work to labor to save souls or preserve bodies? He also rejects that God operates through a system of tyranny that predestination would imply, where God would exercise oppressive power over heaven and hell.

Wesley seems to take a strange turn in his Nature, Design, and General Rules when advocating for the prioritization of Methodist goods and Methodist employees. This suggestion is not in and of itself what breaks from his consistency, but the statement with which he concludes this request: "the world will love its own and them only." What is implicated for Methodist relations with the rest of the world in light of this statement? Is this a call for Methodists to live differently in loving beyond their own, in what Wesley sees as contrary to the love offered by the rest of the world? Or is it an affirmation that, though we must seek live communally, that love need not be extended beyond the society? What historical circumstances may have brought Wesley to engage this conversation, specifically?

Distinguishing Methodists from Turks, Catholics, and Calvinists

In 1740 John Wesley preached against the concept of predestination and its usurpation of God's ability to be both loving and sovereign, saying that anyone arguing for predestination is not only making God cruel but the whole exercise of preaching and reaching out to others a vain act.  ("[D]irectly does this doctrine tend to destroy several branches of holiness...This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity."  "Free Grace," para. 12, 13)  This stakes a firm theological claim.

However, two years later Wesley published a pamphlet insisting that those called Methodists may hold whatever theology is right to them provided they remain separate from the "Jews, Turks...Infidels...[and the] Romish Church" ("The Character of a Methodist, para. 1).  Does this lack of emphasis on predestination (and other finer theological points) represent an opening such that those who adhere to a belief in predetermination might count themselves Methodist despite Wesley's statements against that?  Is the recognition that the pamphlet is addressing a movement rather than the crowd of the sermon occasion for fewer restrictions on the parameters of belief?  Comparing the two documents, I am curious whether the pressure of organization was in some sense chasing out or watering down the earlier theology, insofar as we can understand the surroundings and motivations of the pair.

Methodist being Conformist

In reading Wesley's sermon the Character of a Methodist, I am struck by the degree to which he seems to call out similarity with the Anglican church; there's nothing he identified as a mark of Methodism that seems contrary to what any Christian at that time would claim.  Additionally, he noted, and I'm paraphrasing, the opinions that aren't essential to Christianity may differ without detracting from another's faith.   I presume that his motivation for writing the text was to persuade the powers that be he isn't, in fact, intending to start a new religion, that he is not a non-conformist.  Given the penalty for being a non-conformist, that seems quite practical to make that argument.  I wonder what impact his words had in the immediate term.  Was anyone persuaded by this?  Was there another motivation for him to deliver this sermon in the time/space that he did?

Wesley Hated Being Called a Methodist

John Wesley’s The Character of a Methodist was written to give understanding of the principles and practice of the people called Methodists and the distinguishing marks of this sect.  Though Wesley accomplishes his goal of describing the distinguishing characteristics of Methodists, he also appears to be writing to reject the name “Methodists.”  He is ultimately claiming instead that the characteristics of a Methodist are distinguishing them by nothing other than the common principles of Christianity.  If Methodists were really just following the common principles of Christianity, I ask then, why did Wesley so vehemently reject the term “Methodist” or even care what he was called?

In this text, Wesley describes his lack of ambition to be the head of Methodism, or any sect, saying, “I should rejoice if the very name [Methodist] might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion.”  He really did not like being called a Methodist.  Wesley also mentions that “Methodist” is a term of derision.  Though Wesley describes a brief account of the origination of the term “Methodist,” (that did not appear to be inherently negative) how did the term become to be perceived in such a negative manner?

Wesley ultimately concludes this text by claiming that Methodists, or even other sects, should not labor to distinguish themselves from each other.  Instead, real Christians should distinguish themselves from unbelievers or “all those whose minds or lives are not according to the Gospel of Christ.”  Wesley did not want Christians to be distinguished from each other at all.  It seems he really has less of a problem with the name Methodist, but the fact that the people called Methodists were given a name or distinction at all from other Christians.  All of this considered in the context of his time, what other factors should be considered as to why Wesley rejected labels and being called a Methodist?

Wesley's Free Grace (Reaction to Calvinist Influence)

Wesley’s Free Grace should be re-titled “An Absolute Critique of Calvinist-Pre-Destination”. If we can understand Wesley as an Anglican Priest rather than being a prisoner to present-ism and the UMC-lens we all wear, than how do we understand his harsh rhetoric towards another Christian denomination?

In reading this sermon, I assume we are operating under the Elizabethan settlement which resulted in the return of refugees from Geneva, and their obvious Calvinist influence. I know we have mentioned how important it is to understand anti-Catholic sentiment in relation to these movements, but can we attempt to understand the anti-Calvinist sentiment behind Wesley’s movement as well? Is it easy to wrap our minds around Catholics versus Protestant binaries, but skip over the blatant protestant-on-protestant crime manifest in Wesley’s Free Grace?

Once again the issue revolves around the anxiety & assurance of faith. We have begun to see Wesley’s anxiety over his own personal assurance of salvation, and in many ways this was the anxiety of the time period. I have always understood Calvin’s theology to be a pastoral response to this growing anxiety. By reading into Wesley’s response to Calvin’s pastoral message of salvation can we learn how Wesley interacted with other pastors? Was John Wesley better at giving theology rather than receiving theology? However, Wesley seems to be obsessed with issues over double-pre-destination. From my understanding of Calvin’s Institutes, this obsession is a narrow interpretation. What was Wesley’s interaction with Calvin’s Institutes? Or is this Wesleyan judgment solely based off relations with the people called Calvinists?

Moravian Infulence?

When I was reading Wesley’s journal, I noticed that before Wesley’s Aldersgate experience, he seemed to have founded a society (or at least he was involved in it), which he called “our little society”, in obedience to the command of God by St. James together with Peter Bohler (p. 55). Then there is a footnote explaining that the society was heavily influenced by the tone and temper of Moravian quietism (p. 55). And the journal mentioned Moravian for a few times. So I was wondering if Wesley was at least involved in this society, how much and to what extend had he been influenced by the Moravians’ teaching? What happened to the “our little society”? Did the rules that the society established among themselves somehow became Methodist doctrine afterwards?

The Search for Faith

I am fascinated by Wesley's description of his crisis of faith and what creates faith within someone. What is it about instantaneous conversion that continues to interest us today? What is the psychology surrounding it? There are many people I have met who have said, "I wish I could have faith but simply don't." It seems as though Wesley asked the same question of himself, though today I would address whether spirituality comes as part of a personality rather than from a culmination of spiritual experiences. Wesley cries "Lord, help thou my unbelief!" and essentially asks for meaning, which is what we still look for within our own studies. I think that many congregational leaders would identify a talent and ability towards spiritual leadership, as Wesley did, without the "fire" that kindles it. How prevalent is this ebb and flow of spirituality amongst church leadership? Does it come from the daily existential crises surrounding the constant questioning of Why and How, or from the brokenness of others that they see in every fashion due to their role as spiritual leader? I identify the notion that Wesley speaks of when he says "I began to aim at, and pray for, inward holiness. So that now, doing so much and living so good a life, I doubted not but I was a good Christian" as his description for the rote life of performance in order to create belief. It is something to consider in light of, as the author described, less references to the experience as time went on. I wonder if Wesley identified later a pattern to his belief as recorded here.

The neglected role of Peter Böhler

     According to the text, the Aldersgate Experience, it is noticeable that John Wesley received advice from various people. The most influential person among them was Peter Böhler. Whenever John Wesley was counseled by Peter Böhler, he commented him on the documents (p. 53, 54, 56, 64, 65). These frequent mentions represent the critical impact of Peter affected on Wesley. The problem I have in mind is in regard to the role of Peter. Peter seems to be shaded and neglected by the work of Wesley. It is undeniable fact that, at least in this document, Wesley had been formed his theological and spiritual thoughts through Peter's advice. 
     On the one hand, this fact reminds the significance of the record. Hatch, in his article, points out that "Methodists were inveterate record keepers and journal writers, and they pioneered the widespread use of the religious press." John Wesley, in my opinion, was not only a great preacher but also a great recorder. This feature might have made him be received more attention.

Wesley's Role as Preacher

In reading Wesley's journal around his Aldersgate experience, I was especially struck by how often he mentioned preaching somewhere that he was "to preach no more" (56, 58, 59, 68). What was it about his preaching experiences that meant he was not to return? Who was he preaching to, and was the decision to end the relationship more his decision or theirs? If the culture of preaching was to travel to different churches and relationships were inherently shorter, why did Wesley make such a point to mention the end of each preaching experience? Do we have access to any writings from the members of these churches where Wesley felt he was to preach no more?

Grassroots Religion and Intellectual Religious History

Outler makes the assertion that the growth Methodism gets largely overlooked by religious historians of America. He argues that is due to the view of some that Methodism is the “bland” residue of Second Awakening that diminished the sophistication of religion. He also asserts that historians are more focused on “intellectual” aspects of religion (doctrine/dogma), instead of folk religion and Methodist historians may have “sanitized” their history.  My question as I read Hatch’s argument is: Could it be that Methodism doesn’t get much attention in American religious history because “grass roots, popular religion” that involves personal experience, emotions, etc. are much more difficult to “manage” and are “messier” in terms of quantifying their contributions to religious history? Intellectual aspects of religion (dogma, doctrinal theology) seem to be easier for scholars to grasp, measure, debate (using their training in reason). However, “grassroots” religion that emphasis personal relationship with God (that is dynamic, subjective) does not always easily “fit” into intellectual categories that historians in which historians are trained.  

Wesley's Psychology

In these journal entries I was struck by how Wesley seems to be thinking and acting in ways that seem quite out of the ordinary (from my perspective). His thought patterns when he wrote of constantly seeking assurance of salvation, and worrying over and over about his lack of joy bring to mind several psychiatric conditions that I am vaguely familiar with. He seems to obsess continually whether his salvation is legitimate, and Outler describes him as suffering from a "spiritual depression" in the months after Aldersgate.  I wonder if there has ever been a study done of Wesley's psychology/psyche and how this impacted his theology and various motivations. Another question is in regards to how similar Wesley's language and thought process is to other Christians at the time. Is there evidence that this way of thinking about salvation was common in Wesley's context? I imagine that a deeper historical knowledge of the religious norms in Wesley's time would help in understanding how and why he acted in the ways that he did.

History and Memory

          In class we started to talk about the relationship between history and memory. History can serve as our collective memory, but it also serves as a correction to our collective memory. We often remember things that aren't accurate. The importance of Wesley's Aldersgate experience is an example of this, according to Outler. Similarly, Hatch points to a hole in American religious history related to Methodism: it's too mundane for the intellectual historians and too mainstream for those doing outsider history, and so it's been largely ignored.
         Hatch suggests some reasons a deeper exploration American Methodism would be helpful. Do you see other ways in which it may impact our understanding/memory of: American history generally, the transition from the Revolution period to the Early Republic specifically, our current socio-religous landscape, and/or the history of outsider voices? More generally, what, if any, is the importance of studying the history of the middle/ the mainstream?