American Church History
Research Paper
Submitted to: Professor Rodney Nickens (Mark)
CHHI300: Survey of the History of Christianity (B02)
by
James Brown Jr.
September 28, 2025
Introduction
The First Great Awakening (c. 1730s–1740s) was a watershed moment in colonial
American religious history. It reoriented Christian piety away from formalism and toward
personal experiential faith, set the stage for a broader evangelical movement, and
reshaped denominational and social boundaries. Key men to this Awakening were
Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. Their preaching styles and theological focuses
demonstrated continuity and contrast. Other figures such as Gilbert Tennent, Samuel
Davies, and Theodore Frelinghuysen were essential in supporting the movement.
Biographies of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield
On October 5, 1703, Jonathan Edwards was born into a deeply pious Puritan
family in East Windsor, Connecticut.1 He was intellectually gifted, entering Yale at age 13
and graduating in 1720, continuing his studies, earning a Master of Arts. After
ordination, Edwards became pastor of Northampton, Massachusetts, in 1727.² His
pastoral ministry was marked by a serious intellectual rigor, deep Reformed theology,
and a concern for assuring the reality of conversion. ³ He believed true Christianity could
not be inherited or practiced outwardly. Edwards engaged in theological controversies
on the nature of revival, the affections, and predestination. In 1734–35, his parish
experienced a revival, or an unusual work of the Spirit, which he documented in A
1 Mark Nickens, A Survey of the History of Global Christianity, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic,
2020), 303–304.
² R. D. Rossel, “The Great Awakening: An Historical Analysis,” History 59, no. 212 (1970): 106–7. ³ K. R.
T. Quirion, “The First Great Awakening: Revival and the Birth of a Nation,” Liberty Journal of History
(2016), 2–3.
Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God. 4 His careful record validated the revival
of his contemporaries and provided a framework for assessing genuine spiritual
awakening. He later served as president of Princeton (formerly College of New Jersey)
before dying from a smallpox inoculation in 1758.⁵
Edwards’s influence came as much through his pen as his pulpit. His treatises—
Religious Affections and The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God—
analyzed revival phenomena, urging discernment and depth. He worried that superficial
enthusiasm could substitute for true conversion and taught that genuine faith produces
lasting moral transformation. His intellectual synthesis of theology and spiritual
experience made him a revivalist and a theologian of enduring importance.
George Whitefield was born in Gloucester, England, on December 27, 1714.⁶ He
studied at Oxford under John and Charles Wesley, experiencing a personal evangelical
conversion and an intense call to preach. Whitefield was ordained in the Church of
England. In 1738–39, he began itinerant preaching in England and visited the American
colonies in 1739.⁷ Over his lifetime, he made seven or more transatlantic journeys,
preaching thousands of sermons across Britain and America.⁸ Whitefield was known for
open-air preaching and for attracting enormous outdoor crowds. He died September 30,
44 “The First Great Awakening,” Battlefields.org, updated March 21, 2025.
⁵ Süleyman Uzunköprü, “The Primary Role of the First Great Awakening (American Revivalism) in the
Shaping of American Identity,” International Journal of Social Research 13, no. 70 (April 2020): 145.
⁶ K. R. T. Quirion, “The First Great Awakening,” 5.
⁷ “Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and Revival,” Oxford Academic (OUP).
⁸ Mark Nickens, A Survey, 305.
1770, in Newburyport, Massachusetts, and was buried beneath the church’s pulpit
where he last preached.9
Whitefield’s ministry helped unite the scattered revivals of the 1730s and 1740s
into a recognizable movement. He crossed denominational lines, partnering with
Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists. His organizational skills—
promoting printed sermons, journals, and collections to support orphan ministries—
showed a modern evangelistic vision beyond local parishes. His work also created a
sense of transatlantic evangelical identity.
Comparing and Contrasting Contributions and Styles
Edwards and Whitefield operated from a Calvinistic theological framework.
Human sinfulness, divine sovereignty in salvation, and the essential role of regeneration
by the Holy Spirit were key concepts.¹ Despite this shared foundation, their focuses ⁰
differed in tone, strategy, context, and form. Edwards emphasized the affective
dimension of religion—how true conversion involves not just intellectual assent but
deep affections, as he elaborated in Religious Affections. ¹¹ He was deeply concerned
with discerning genuine spiritual experience from emotional excess. He sought to
shepherd revivals through biblical fidelity and pastoral wisdom. Meanwhile, Whitefield
emphasized the Spirit’s immediate work in large-scale or mass conversions, giving a freer
rein to dramatic preaching that stirred hearers to weep, tremble, and respond publicly,
which validated revival success.
99 Rossel, “Great Awakening,” 110–11. ¹
Quirion, “First Great Awakening,” 7.⁰ ¹¹
Nickens, Survey, 306–7.
Their preaching settings also diverged. Whitefield’s style was public, dramatic,
and emotive. He would preach outdoors to vast crowds, often with theatrical intensity—
he shouted, paused, trembled, and gestured.1212 His journey from place to place
developed a revival network across colonies, allowing his influence to break out of
denominational boundaries. Edwards’s style was more reserved and exegetically
grounded. His sermons were typically delivered to his congregation within church
settings. ¹³ Edwards, however, intentionally used sermons like “Sinners in the Hands of
an Angry God” to awaken conviction, appealing to fear and hope. ¹⁴
Whitefield’s mobility and appeal were catalysts for revivalism’s diffusion. He
championed the breakdown of denominational barriers and encouraged cooperation
among “New Lights.” ¹⁵ His celebrity status shared experiences across the colonies and
contributed indirectly to the emerging sense of American identity. His preaching tours
brought together otherwise isolated revivals into a coherent movement. In contrast,
Edwards indirectly influenced revivals through his writings, pastoral oversight, and
theological reflection. His analysis of revival became the standard for later evangelicals.¹⁶
Together, they shaped the assessment of 18th-century revival—Whitefield catalyzing
emotional momentum, Edwards providing theological stability. Their occasional tensions
—such as on predestination debates or licensing itinerant preachers—were significant
but never affected their common commitment to revival.1717
1212 Rossel, “Great Awakening,” 112.
¹³ “The Great Awakening and Religious Freedom,” West Virginia University research repository.
¹⁴ Quirion, “First Great Awakening,” 9.
¹⁵ Uzunköprü, “Primary Role,” 147.
¹⁶ Rossel, “Great Awakening,” 114.
1717 Battlefields.org, “First Great Awakening.”
Other Leaders of the Awakening
While Edwards and Whitefield were key individuals, several others contributed
significantly:
• Gilbert Tennent (1703–1764): A fiery Presbyterian minister in New Jersey who
criticized unconverted ministers, Tennent argued passionately for revival preaching and
helped spark the “Log College,” a precursor to Princeton. ¹⁸
• Samuel Davies (1723–1761): A Presbyterian evangelist in Virginia, Davies
preached boldly among non-elite and enslaved communities, expanding the Awakening
southward. ¹⁹
• Theodore Frelinghuysen: A Dutch Reformed minister in New Jersey, he fought
against formalism, emphasizing heart religion among Dutch-speaking congregations. ²⁰
• David Brainerd: A missionary to Native Americans whose diary inspired future
revivalists like Jonathan Edwards and later the 19th-century missionary movement. ²¹
Evangelicalism and Its Birth in the Awakening
The term “evangelical” broadly refers to a Protestant movement characterized by
(1) the authority of Scripture, (2) the necessity of personal conversion or “new birth,” (3)
a central role for Christ’s atonement, and (4) activism in evangelism and mission.2222
¹⁸ WVU, “Religious Freedom.” ¹⁹
Nickens, Survey, 309.
² ⁰Quirion, “First Great Awakening,” 12. ²¹
Battlefields.org, “First Great Awakening.”
2222 Mark Nickens, Survey, 310.
²³ Quirion, “First Great Awakening,” 14.
Over time, evangelicalism also focused on faith’s experiential and affective dimension,
emphasizing heart and mind.
The First Great Awakening embodied and implanted these evangelical
components in colonial America. First, it insisted on personal conversion rather than
nominal church membership, insisting that one must be born again. Whitefield’s
itinerant preaching and Edwards’s inward affections theology pushed converts toward
this experiential dimension. Second, it elevated Scripture and direct dependence on the
Holy Spirit rather than ecclesiastical mediators. The revivalists turned toward itinerant
preaching outside strict ecclesiastical bounds, democratizing Word access. Third, the
Awakening cultivated mission and activism: new churches and “New Light” societies
streamed from the revival, and the impulse led to founding institutions (such as
Princeton) and eventually missionary efforts.²³ Finally, the Awakening helped unite
Protestants across denominational lines around the shared evangelical vision of
regeneration, personal piety, and zeal.
In summary, the First Great Awakening revived and reframed traditional
Protestant spirituality. It established personal conversion, emotional authenticity, and
the ordinary person’s direct relationship to God as standard practices. This shift in
thinking became the seed of the later evangelical movement globally.
Broader Impact
The First Great Awakening had reached beyond church life. It helped to release
the hold of traditional churches and brought in and began developing religious freedom.
The revivalists stressed that faith’s inward, spiritual drive challenged the state-supported
religious systems. It was set up for the disestablishment after the American Revolution.
There was an empowerment of lay people, women, and ethnic groups who promoted
one voice regarding religious matters. Evangelical Populism shaped reform movements,
abolitionism, and missions.
The opponents (the “Old Lights”) of these movements accused the revivalists of
chaos, disorder, and fanaticism based on emotional excess. Even Edwards warned that
counterfeit spirituality would happen even as he pushed genuine renewal. This tension
created evangelical self-consciousness, desire for heartfelt experiences, and theological
accountability.
Conclusion
Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were two complementary pillars during
the First Great Awakening, which revived and reframed traditional protestant
spirituality: Edwards through theological depth, a careful defense of revival, and pastoral
reflection, Whitefield through bold, accessible evangelism and mass appeal. Together
with other revivalists such as Tennent, Davies, and Frelinghuysen, they spread a revival
ethos across colonial America. That ethos—rooted in conversion, Scripture, heartfelt
religion, and evangelistic zeal—became the kernel of what would grow into modern
evangelicalism. Without this First Great Awakening, the evangelical impulse might have
lacked the coherence, institutional momentum, or cultural impact that ignited
transatlantic revivals, social reform, and global missions.
Word count: 1335
Bibliography
Mark Nickens. A Survey of the History of Global Christianity. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN:
B&H Academic, 2020.
R. D. Rossel. “The Great Awakening: An Historical Analysis.” History 59, no. 212 (1970).
K. R. T. Quirion. “The First Great Awakening: Revival and the Birth of a Nation.” Liberty
Journal of History (2016).
“The First Great Awakening.” Battlefields.org. Updated March 21, 2025.
“Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and Revival.” Oxford Academic (OUP).
“The Great Awakening and Religious Freedom.” West Virginia University research
repository.
Süleyman Uzunköprü. “The Primary Role of the First Great Awakening (American
Revivalism) in the Shaping of American Identity.” International Journal of Social Research
13, no. 70 (April 2020).
