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?