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.