The (not so) Great Awakening

DrHuk&Duck

DrHuk&Duck

Active member
Elect
Joined
Nov 5, 2024
Messages
182
Reaction score
91
Points
28
Location
Florida
I was always raised to believe that the Great Awakening was nothing short of a divine intervention by God on society. However, I’ve recently been reading about some of the religious leaders who were opposed to the movement, namely Charles Chauncey. In reviewing his rationale for his position, it seems to mesh nicely with how many modern fundamentalists oppose today’s Christian denominations, namely sensationalism and theatrics woven into church services and worship.

Thoughts?
https://people.smu.edu/mappingthega/stories/s4/
 
The First Great Awakening was very controversial at the time. I have no desire to try to settle the issue as to what extent it was of God. However, in considering Charles Chauncy's opposition, it should be taken into account that his theological views were not similar to those of today's fundamentalists. According to Wikipedia, he was a Universalist, believing that everyone would be saved in the end, and was suspected of holding to Unitarian and Anti-Trinitarian views. Anyone with such views would naturally tend to oppose the First Great Awakening, but not for the same reasons as today's fundamentalists.

en.wikipedia.org

Charles Chauncy (1705–1787) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Chauncy "affirmed the restoration of all souls, denied the Calvinistic doctrines about future punishment, and questioned the doctrine of the Trinity. Though he knew himself to be unorthodox on these points, he, nevertheless, felt himself in sympathy with the prevalent theology of his own age and neighborhood. Theologically, he was always a difficult man to classify. Academic in style and moderate in expression, he was never an extremist. His unconsciousness of the inevitable consequences of his convictions was typical of the early stages of the movement that ultimately became known as Unitarian."

Some of the leading figures in the First Great Awakening took things to extremes and went totally wacko, which tended to bring reproach on the movement as a whole - for instance, check out James Davenport:

James Davenport (clergyman) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"Davenport urged his followers to destroy immoral books and luxury items with fire. He often said that he could distinguish people who were saved versus people who were damned just by looking at them. . . .

"On March 7, 1743, Davenport exhibited perhaps his most bizarre behavior yet, in an incident which garnished him lasting fame—or infamy. The day before, he had led a crowd to burn a large pile of books; this day he called them to throw their expensive and fancy clothing onto the fire, so as to prove their full commitment to God. Davenport—leading by example—removed his pants and cast them into the bonfire. One woman in the crowd quickly grabbed his pants out of the blaze, and handed them back to Davenport, entreating him to get a hold of himself. 'This act broke Davenport's spell,' wrote historian Thomas Kidd. Davenport had gone too far, charisma or no, and the crowd quickly dispersed.

"After the bonfire ended, Davenport was charged with 'having the devil in him,' and he replied, 'He tho't so too', and added that he was under the Influence of an evil Spirit, and that God had left him.'"
 
illinoisguy said:
However, in considering Charles Chauncy's opposition, it should be taken into account that his theological views were not similar to those of today's fundamentalists. According to Wikipedia, he was a Universalist, believing that everyone would be saved in the end, and was suspected of holding to Unitarian and Anti-Trinitarian views. Anyone with such views would naturally tend to oppose the First Great Awakening, but not for the same reasons as today's fundamentalists
Click to expand...
I did notice this when doing some reading on Chauncey. I also discovered he later did become a Calvinist in viewpoint, but it didn’t change his stance regarding the Great Awakening. My linking his viewpoint (not just him), might be a stretch, but somehow it really seemed to resonate with what I’ve heard fundamentalists say, both in and out of the pulpit.

Anyway, thanks for the additional info. BTW, on a side note, Chauncey was a fervent supporter of the American Revolution, and probably had a much greater impact on the separation of the colonies from England than he is given credit for.
 
The Great Awakening was a pivotal point in our history which led to the Revolutionary War and the founding of this great country!

Yes, there were many who opposed the great awakenings and you need to do a little digging in order to understand their biases and reason for their criticism. Many of the players in the great awakenings thumbed their noses at so-called "establishment" Churches so this would be reason for much of the criticism.

The Second Great Awakening was more controversial than the first. You had certain Baptists and Methodists who were anti-creedal and anti-intellectual and took a more experiential, emotion-driven approach. You also had people like Finney who insisted that evangelistic results were "guaranteed" so long as you used the right methodology to coerce a "decision" out of someone.
 
Nowadays we have debates about the nature of revival - what is true revival? Billy Graham Crusades, Promise Keepers, Toronto Revival, Asbury Revival - were these real moves of God, or just transitory excitements? What is the nature of revival - is it evidenced by mass stadium meetings, speaking in tongues, laughing, making animal noises, being slain in the spirit, lots of people coming forward, big numbers of baptisms, ecumenical unity, staying all night in a college chapel meeting? Is it genuine revival even if there are few or no lasting additions to the churches?

During the First Great Awakening, the 1741 Northampton Revival under Jonathan Edwards was hailed as a "surprising work of God" and a definite example of real revival. But by 1746 the revival had fizzled out, with few lasting results.

Jonathan Edwards 5: Analysing the Revival

The previous article in this series looked at the ‘considerable work of God’ in the revival in Northampton in 1740-1741.1 At the Yale commencement in 1741 Edwards was the preacher and used the occasion to give a spirited defence of the revival, while acknowledging that there had been some...
banneroftruth.org banneroftruth.org

"By 1746 it was clear that by no means all who, a few years earlier, appeared to be converts had experienced a saving change; many even of those who had appeared to be ’eminent saints’ had fallen away from their profession. . . .

"It was no new thing, [Edwards] pointed out. It had been so in Josiah’s time, and under the preaching of the Saviour, and at the Reformation. So when, during the Great Awakening, Edwards saw multitudes whom the devil had deceived about the state of their souls, he felt it necessary to distinguish clearly between the common and the saving operations of the Holy Spirit. It ought to be borne in mind that during an outpouring of the Spirit the non-saving effects are likely also to be more remarkable than at other times."

It seems like revivals, whether in the 18th Century or today, are often characterized by questions as to whether there are any lasting results to be seen several years later, as well as kooky and bizarre behavior (like the barking, rolling and jerks at the Cane Ridge Revival of 1801), and pressures on churches and believers to get on the ecumenical bandwagon and support the revival. Given these things, it is almost inevitable that revivals will generate controversy and opposition.
 
Last edited:
Baptist Renegade said:
The Great Awakening was a pivotal point in our history which led to the Revolutionary War and the founding of this great country!
Click to expand...
I accidentally stumbled onto this information recently. I don’t recall ever really being taught the correlation in school or college, but it’s definitely there.
 
Another interesting note is that I’d always heard of the influence of the Enlightenment on the Founders, which was always portrayed as being more pro agnostic/atheistic in nature, but what I’ve discovered is that there were actually multiple forms of the Enlightenment going on around the world, and one of the primary Enlightenment movements which impacted the Founders was the Scottish Enlightenment, which was primarily Christian oriented.
 
Skimmed through your mentor's sermon, A Caveat Against Enthusiasm, where he seems to treat the doctrines of the GA to the ecstatic abuses in Corinth...but he doesn't identify any of them.

Pray tell, which doctrines did he so enthusiastically resist?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
He’s not my “mentor.”
Click to expand...
Oh. It sounded like you'd found your Jimmy Carter of the Revolution.

DrHuk&Duck said:
Save me the time and tell me. I’m not your graduate research assistant.
Click to expand...
You asked for thoughts. You mean you linked us to a completely irrelevant document that you hadn't read yourself? But the question is posed to anyone who might know.

What are you saying reminds you of Fundamentalism? His take on the ecstatic gifts? which sounds right to me, but I only skimmed.

Are his points of disagreement itemized in the letter posted before the sermon? I started to read it. It struck me as, "You might think you're hearing God, but you're not," only with a lot more flow'ry words.

Are you attempting to surreptitiously chip away at the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and trying to say that they got it all wrong, that they were fomenting rebellion and that the really Christian thing to do was to suffer tyrants?
 
Ekklesian said:
Oh. It sounded like you'd found your Jimmy Carter of the Revolution.
Click to expand...
You’re sounding desperate.
Ekklesian said:
What are you saying reminds you of Fundamentalism?
Click to expand...
I made that very clear in my posts.
Ekklesian said:
You asked for thoughts.
Click to expand...
Emphasis on thoughts.
Ekklesian said:
Are you attempting to surreptitiously chip away at the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and trying to say that they got it all wrong, that they were fomenting rebellion and that the really Christian thing to do was to suffer tyrants?
Click to expand...
Again, you’re sounding desperate. If you had put that high reading comprehension level to work you might have noticed where I pointed out that he was one of the leading voices of the American Revolution and isn’t given enough credit for his role in calling out a tyrannical king…but then again, I think you’re just on this forum for picking fights and stirring the pot. Anyway, have fun stirring and mind the salt content. 😬
 
Last edited:
DrHuk&Duck said:
You’re sounding desperate.
Click to expand...
Only to the defensive.

DrHuk&Duck said:
I made that very clear in my posts.
Click to expand...
No you didn't. You were very general. When I asked for specifics, you said, 'Save me the time and tell me. I’m not your graduate research assistant.'

So that makes me think you're just wanting to smack down a certain notion that is at the foundation of this nation, and of which Whitefield is a symbol. So exactly what was it about the preaching of Whitefield that you want to marginalize as sensational and theatrical?

DrHuk&Duck said:
Emphasis on thoughts.
Click to expand...
Questions are thoughts.

DrHuk&Duck said:
Again, you’re sounding desperate.
Click to expand...
Really? By asking questions? Wouldn't avoiding questions be the indication of desperation?

DrHuk&Duck said:
If you had put that high reading comprehension level to work you might have noticed where I pointed out that he was one of the leading voices of the American Revolution and isn’t given enough credit for his role in calling out a tyrannical king…but then again, I think you’re just on this forum for picking fights and stirring the pot. Anyway, have fun stirring and mind the salt content. 😬
Click to expand...
But you're point is that he opposed the Great Awakening, which is really the spirit of the Revolution.
 
Ekklesian said:
Only to the defensive.


No you didn't. You were very general. When I asked for specifics, you said, 'Save me the time and tell me. I’m not your graduate research assistant.'

So that makes me think you're just wanting to smack down a certain notion that is at the foundation of this nation, and of which Whitefield is a symbol. So exactly what was it about the preaching of Whitefield that you want to marginalize as sensational and theatrical?


Questions are thoughts.


Really? By asking questions? Wouldn't avoiding questions be the indication of desperation?


But your point is that he opposed the Great Awakening, which is really the spirit of the Revolution.
Click to expand...
You’re either a bad reader, suffer from vision impairment, or you’re a liar. My quote from post #3 above:

“Anyway, thanks for the additional info. BTW, on a side note, Chauncey was a fervent supporter of the American Revolution, and probably had a much greater impact on the separation of the colonies from England than he is given credit for.“
 
Here's a novel idea, maybe just answer the questions.

DrHuk&Duck said:
In reviewing his rationale for his position, it seems to mesh nicely with how many modern fundamentalists oppose today’s Christian denominations, namely sensationalism and theatrics woven into church services and worship.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, was it about the preaching of Whitefield [et al] that you would consider sensational and theatrical?


DrHuk&Duck said:
Chauncey was a fervent supporter of the American Revolution, and probably had a much greater impact on the separation of the colonies from England than he is given credit for.“
Click to expand...

In what way?
 
Ekklesian said:
What, specifically, was it about the preaching of Whitefield [et al] that you would consider sensational and theatrical?
Click to expand...
I never said me. I was talking about Chauncy. I’m not sure why you continue to make this personal when I was clearly referring to an author, other than your desperation is becoming evident.
Ekklesian said:
In what way?
Click to expand...
Feel free to peruse Civil Magistrates Must Be Just, Ruling in the Fear of God (1774). Again, I won’t do your homework for you.
 
Ekklesian said:
Skimmed through your mentor's sermon, A Caveat Against Enthusiasm, where he seems to treat the doctrines of the GA to the ecstatic abuses in Corinth...but he doesn't identify any of them.

Pray tell, which doctrines did he so enthusiastically resist?
Click to expand...

"Enthusiasm" in the day was roughly synonymous with "fanaticism," and referred to the intense emotionalism and other antics (for example, literal "holy rolling") that were associated with revivalism. I believe Chauncey was opposed to the more sensationalist aspects of the Great Awakening.

On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards discouraged religious enthusiasm in his meetings, and wrote at least three of his major works defending the Great Awakening as a genuine work of God—not because of the "signs and wonders," but because he saw people turning away from their sins and desiring to draw closer to God.
 
Ransom said:
"Enthusiasm" in the day was roughly synonymous with "fanaticism," and referred to the intense emotionalism and other antics (for example, literal "holy rolling") that were associated with revivalism. I believe Chauncey was opposed to the more sensationalist aspects of the Great Awakening.

On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards discouraged religious enthusiasm in his meetings, and wrote at least three of his major works defending the Great Awakening as a genuine work of God—not because of the "signs and wonders," but because he saw people turning away from their sins and desiring to draw closer to God.
Click to expand...
Thank you. So the central doctrines, which made the Awakening great, e.g. equality, individual conversion, new birth, devotion, etc. are not in view? Just the fringe elements?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top