The History of Misspelling George Whitefield’s Name

Whenever the topic of George Whitefield comes up in my classes, I always have to tell the students, “I know it looks like you’d pronounce his last name White-field, but it is pronounced Whit-field.” Therein lies the reason why Whitefield, the greatest evangelist of the 18th century, also has one of the most misspelled names in history. In one of the odd accidents of English pronunciation, Whitefield’s name was not pronounced the way it is spelled. Thus from the beginning of his public career, people have been misspelling Whitefield’s name as “Whitfield.” I see it all the time on social media. On Twitter, there are on average multiple tweets per day where his name is misspelled. (Figuring this out is made slower by the fact that one of America’s most prominent quarterback trainers is named—you guessed it—George Whitfield. I do not know if he’s named for the evangelist.) One of the first misspellings of Whitefield’s name came in one of his first published sermons. In 1737 in London, a publisher produced an edition of what would become one of his signature sermons, The Nature and Necessity of the New Birth, but misspelled his last name. After that, most publishers were clued in to the correct spelling as he became arguably the most famous man in Britain and America during the mid-1700s. But misspellings continued to pop up occasionally. Sometimes the name would be spelled correctly on the title page but wrongly within a publication. A 1771 Boston edition of John Wesley’s memorial sermon for Whitefield misspelled the name on the title page. (Ironically, Whitefield died in the Boston area in 1770. When word arrived in London, Wesley gave a memorial sermon at Whitefield’s Tottenham Court Road chapel, and the text of it made its way back across the Atlantic, where it… Read More

Read More

Share

When Christians Began Speaking of ‘the’ Antichrist

A number of academic books include an intriguing 1840 quote, and editorial insertion, about Manifest Destiny and “the” Antichrist. The quote says that Manifest Destiny and the spread of Protestantism into Catholic lands represented the “beginning of the downfall of [the] Antichrist, and the spread of the Savior’s power of the gospel.” As we can see from the quote, Manifest Destiny was deeply tinged with anti-Catholicism. But why do historians routinely assume that sources like this must mean “the” antichrist, even to the point of putting “the” in corrective brackets? The author meant to say “downfall of Antichrist,” not “downfall of the Antichrist.” It turns out that speaking of “the” antichrist is a relatively recent development. Inserting [the] before antichrist misunderstands the way that most Protestants before 1900 thought about the meaning of that eschatological term. For most observers between the Reformation and about 1900, “antichrist” was a power instead of a person. Many readers will recall that 1 and 2 John are the only places that the term “antichrist” appears in Scripture. In the King James Version (the dominant English-language Bible well into the 20th century) “antichrist” appears four times in those books. None of the KJV references speaks of “the antichrist,” although 2 John 7 speaks of a deceiver who is “an antichrist”; 1 John 2:18 suggests that there is a single antichrist to come, but also notes that many antichrists have already entered the world. Of course, there are other references in the Bible, such as the “man of sin” of 2 Thessalonians and the beast(s) of Revelation, that commentators have associated with the antichrist. Modern translations like the English Standard Version, New American Standard, and New International Version include “the” in most of the antichrist references in 1 and 2 John. My colleague David Garland tells… Read More

Read More

Share

Alan Jacobs and Augustinian Anthropology

I recently read my friend and Baylor colleague Alan Jacobs’s erudite and accessible book Original Sin: A Cultural History. This book is a model of the kind of Christian apologetics that might actually reach non-Christians. Humankind’s flawed nature is an intractable problem that has vexed prominent observers from the ancient Greeks to the “New Atheists.” But explaining the reasons for that flawed nature has been trickier than observing it. Jacobs does not assume that his readers are Christians, but he does suggest that the Christian explanation for humanity’s propensity to sin is the best explanation of all. Learned observers, including some liberal theologians, have been trying to jettison the doctrine of original sin (or our sin nature inherited from Adam) for millennia. But they haven’t come up with any more satisfactory explanations than the Christian one. That explanation was best advanced by Augustine and his theological descendants. You must hold five distinct beliefs in order to affirm the Augustinian anthropology, Jacobs writes. You must believe that everyone behaves in ways that we usually describe as selfish, cruel, arrogant, and so on. You must believe that we are hard-wired to behave in those ways and do not do so simply because of the bad examples of others. You must believe that such behavior is properly called wrong or sinful, whether it’s evolutionarily adaptive or not. You must believe that it was not originally in our nature to behave in such a way, but that we have fallen from a primal innocence. And you must believe that only supernatural intervention, in the form of what Christians call grace, is sufficient to drag us up out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. (If we add to this list a sixth belief, that through the death of Jesus Christ God has provided this intervention, then… Read More

Read More

Share

Is Jesus an Imperialist? The Problem of Missions and Empire

It has become a standard tenet of evangelical missiology today that missionaries overseas must not impose their extra-biblical cultural values on proselytes or converts. Critics say that missions by definition involves cultural imposition, if not outright imperialism. There was a time in American history when missions advocates had no hesitation about combining the agendas of evangelism, “civilization,” and even empire. That backstory should make it clear why American Christians and other missionaries need to be careful to not let cultural or political assumptions infiltrate the gospel message. Yet the fact remains that it has always been easier for American missionaries to go where America has a strong business, political, or military presence. Like it or not, there has been a historic connection between empire and missions. This was nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in the U.S. annexation of the Philippines in 1898, one of the first instances of the United States acting as a formal colonial power. It was also the first time that the United States had taken colonial possession of a territory with large numbers of Muslims living there. As Karine Walther shows in her book Sacred Interests: The United States and the Islamic World, 1821-1921, prominent U.S. politicians and missions advocates made the case for annexing the Philippines on evangelistic and civilizational grounds. President William McKinley told a group of Methodist pastors that God had shown him that the United States should  “take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.” Senator Albert Beveridge added aspects of civil religion and racial superiority to bolster the case. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle… Read More

Read More

Share

Why Cynicism Is One of the Historian’s Great Gifts to the Church

I was recently reminded of this older piece from church historian Carl Trueman, and I thought it might be worth reposting an extended quotation on how the church can benefit from historians who take the long view and don’t get caught up in hyperbole and hagiography. Some years ago, Phyllis Tickle likened Brian McLaren to Luther and the Emergent Church to the kind of paradigm shift that happens only once a millennium. The amazing thing was not that she said this; in a world shaped by the continual escalation of sales rhetoric, this kind of language is to be expected in advertising. No. What was truly amazing was that people actually took her seriously, friend and foe alike. Such people are in urgent need of help to stop them saying or believing things that are very, very silly and absurdly self-important. Enter the church historians. Any intellectual historian of any merit will tell you that the last 1,000 years in the West have only produced two moments of paradigm shifting significance, and neither of them was the Reformation. The first was the impact of the translation into Latin of Aristotle’s metaphysical works. This demanded a response from the thirteenth century church. The response, most brilliantly represented by Thomas Aquinas, revolutionized education, transformed the philosophical landscape, opened up fruitful new avenues for theological synthesis, and set the basic shape of university education until the early eighteenth century. Within this intellectual context, the Reformation was to represent a critical development of Augustinian anti-Pelagianism in terms of the understanding of the church and of salvation, but it did not represent quite the foundational paradigm shift that is often assumed. The second major moment was the Enlightenment. Like the earlier Aristotelian renaissance, this was a diverse movement and the singular term is something of… Read More

Read More

Share

The Former Baptist Pastor Who Popularized Ben Franklin’s Electrical Experiments

James Delbourgo’s A Most Amazing Scene of Wonders: Electricity and Enlightenment in Early America offers a remarkable account of Ebenezer Kinnersley, a Baptist pastor who lost his Philadelphia church position due to his opposition to the Great Awakening. Kinnersley then improbably became the greatest popularizer of Ben Franklin’s discoveries in electricity. Kinnersley was born in Gloucester, England, the same hometown as Franklin’s friend George Whitefield, the greatest evangelist of the 18th-century revivals. As a 3-year-old, Kinnersley came with his family to Pennsylvania the same year, 1714, that Whitefield was born. His family was Baptist, and Kinnersley became an assistant at Philadelphia’s First Baptist Church. Unlike the senior minister of the church, Kinnersley opposed the revivals because of the “enthusiastic ravings” of Whitefield and other itinerant preachers. He aired this opinion in Franklin’s newspaper, and it cost Kinnersley his job. Franklin took the unemployed Kinnersley under his wing and would later help him become a professor of English and oratory at Franklin’s new College of Philadelphia (the University of Pennsylvania). In the meantime, Franklin encouraged Kinnersley to expand upon his interest in Franklin’s experiments in electricity by preparing public lectures and demonstrations that Kinnersley could take on the road. And take to the road he did, traveling to more far-flung places in the colonies than did Whitefield (Kinnersley even went to Caribbean locations such as Barbados). The former pastor would charge well-to-do audiences five shillings to get in, and dazzled them with displays of electricity. In one favorite demonstration, he would have an audience member volunteer to sit on an insulating stool and channel electricity through the volunteer’s body and into a metal chain. A second volunteer would extend a hand toward the first, and a visible spark would jump between them. Kinnersley, contemptuous of religious enthusiasm and superstition, proclaimed that his shows… Read More

Read More

Share

The ‘Jefferson Bible’ and a Founder’s Deism

The “Jefferson Bible,” or “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” is arguably the most controversial religious book produced in the American founding era. The Smithsonian Museum of American History has a remarkable website with a digital reproduction of the whole text, which is well worth a visit. The Smithsonian has also published a facsimile edition of the Jefferson Bible. Although some popular Christian writers have tried to claim Jefferson as a Christian, he was actually a Deist whose contempt for traditional Christian beliefs became more clear in his retirement. Jefferson reviled beliefs like the Trinity and the virgin birth as irrational and implausible. He said that he looked forward to the time “when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three.” Jefferson did consider himself a Christian, but not of the sort that TGC readers would recognize. He wrote in 1803 that “to the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, & believing he never claimed any other.” In other words, he revered Jesus’s teachings but did not believe that Jesus ever claimed to be divine. Jefferson was convinced that Jesus’s followers had imposed the claims of divinity on him after Jesus died. This accounts for the shape of the Jefferson Bible, which was Jefferson’s multi-language edition of the Gospels. Jefferson used a pen-knife to remove sections of the Gospels that he found unreliable, especially a number of the miracles attributed to Jesus. In last verse of the Jefferson Bible, Jesus’s disciples “rolled a great stone to… Read More

Read More

Share

Alvin York, Christian Soldier

Alvin York, arguably the most celebrated American soldier in World War I, was born on December 13, 1887, in a log cabin near Pall Mall, Tennessee. York was devout, having experienced conversion through a Church of Christ in 1914. York considered declaring himself a conscientious objector, recalling, “I didn’t want to go and kill. I believed in my bible. . . . And yet Uncle Sam wanted me.” When York went to training camp, however, an officer convinced him that the Bible endorsed a Christian’s participation in a just war. Alvin York’s Conscientious Objector Claim, National Archives and Records Administration, Public Domain. At the Battle of Meuse-Argonne in 1918, York and his fellow soldiers were tasked with flanking a German machine-gun position. York’s best friend was killed in the assault, but York, an expert sharpshooter, picked the Germans off one after another with his rifle and pistol, he said, the “way we shoot wild turkeys at home.” York convinced the Germans to surrender with the assistance of a captured German officer, and brought back 132 prisoners of war. He eventually won the Medal of Honor for his heroic deeds. But York still struggled with the killings, not entirely sure that God approved of his actions. York was reluctant to agree to multiple offers to sanction a film based on his life, but he agreed to do so in order to help him raise money for a interdenominational Bible school that would, as York put it, “prepare its pupils to live and practice a full Christian life.” So he agreed to the production of the 1941 movie Sergeant York, starring Gary Cooper. Cooper won a Best Actor award for it, and the film was the highest-grossing film of 1941. Some critics interpreted the film as propaganda to encourage American intervention in World War… Read More

Read More

Share

Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening

Eerdmans has posted the chapter I wrote on Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening, in their recently published Jonathan Edwards Encyclopedia. In my endorsement for the volume generally, I wrote, “The Jonathan Edwards Encyclopedia assembles a remarkable cast of Edwards experts, whose entries offer a treasure trove of insights into Edwards’s vast body of work. A fitting monument to Edwards himself, this compendium will be an essential resource for scholars and admirers of this great preacher and theologian.” Here’s some of the chapter: Jonathan Edwards’s best-known sermon is his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” delivered in Enfield, Massachusetts (later Connecticut), on July 8, 1741, at the height of the Great Awakening in New England. Two days before that famous sermon, Edwards was preaching in nearby Suffield, Massachusetts, in a private residence packed with two hundred people, many of whom would be in attendance two days later. The scene was chaotic, with a cacophony of sobs, groans, yelling, and screeching nearly drowning out Edwards’s voice. One observer noted that the ecstatic penitents’ bodies dropped to the floor with such devastation that “you would have thought their bones all broken, or rather that they had no bones.” The scene sets the backdrop for Edwards’s Enfield sermon—at this stage of the Great Awakening, Edwards was quite familiar with, and prepared to accept, the most radical manifestations of evangelical piety. Historians have sometimes thought of Enfield as an unanticipated outburst of enthusiastic fervor—one that became so heated that Edwards decided to conclude the sermon before he finished his text. But understood in the context of the Suffield excitement, Edwards may have planned the Enfield sermon to get precisely the fervent response it received, from some of the same people he had addressed across the Connecticut River in Suffield only two days before. Yet Edwards… Read More

Read More

Share

Religious Liberty and the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case

Tomorrow the Supreme Court hears arguments in a critical religious liberty and free speech case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Christians should care about this case because it concerns whether the government can force people to act against their deeply held religious convictions. The case involves baker Jack Phillips, a Christian who ran afoul of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for refusing to make a cake for the wedding of two men. The Supreme Court itself made such a case nearly inevitable when it declared gay “marriage” a constitutional right in the 2015 Obergefell decision. If gay marriage is a constitutional right, the reasoning goes, then businesses can’t refuse to provide services to gay weddings. As The Wall Street Journal noted, Phillips says that baking a cake is an artistic expression subject to First Amendment free speech protections. Phillips has provided bakery services to gays under other circumstances, so his point is not that he won’t serve gay customers. It is that he objects to gay marriage and does not believe that the state should force him to create an artistic product under any circumstances, much less one that violates his conventional, traditional religious beliefs. As a matter of policy, Phillips also won’t produce Halloween cakes, or cakes that feature any profanity or suggestive themes. Court precedent has generally frowned upon the idea of the government forcing people to act against religious conscience. Even at the time of America’s founding, political leaders were well familiar with extending conscience exemptions to groups like the Quakers. As I have noted elsewhere, the Constitution provides an exemption for Quakers and others who might have scruples about swearing oaths. Twentieth-century cases involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses repeatedly found that the government could not force them into making expressions of patriotic devotion, like saying the Pledge of Allegiance.… Read More

Read More

Share

David Bebbington on Evangelical Preaching in North America

David Bebbington (University of Stirling) is the foremost historian of British evangelicalism, and for years has occasionally come to Baylor as a visiting professor. He is best known for his “Bebbington quadrilateral,” the four-point definition of evangelicalism, including activism, crucicentrism, biblicism, and conversionism. Bebbington has also compiled what I suppose is the most comprehensive collection of notes on church services over the past half-century in the English-speaking world. When you attend a church service with David, he takes meticulous notes, not just on the sermon, but also on details such as the number and names of hymns, the exact length of the sermon, the position of flags (if any) in the sanctuary. He’s been doing this at multiple services a week since the 1960s. Friends and colleagues have been encouraging David to synthesize and analyze these notes for some time, and he has begun to do so. He gave a recent talk at Baylor in which he unpacked his observations on sermons in North America in the 1990s. David’s observations give remarkable texture to the substance and style of evangelical preaching in those years, and for many, his recollections will seem like a trip down memory lane. [embedded content] Visit TGC Evangelical History

Read More

Share

The Original Thanksgiving Menu in the Fall of 1621

Yesterday Tommy Kidd provided a helpful overview of the original context for the first Thanksgiving, along with its development through time. In a review of Robert Tracy McKenzie’s The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning from History (IVP, 2013), John Turner summarized what we know about that original feast in 1621: In late September or early October, the Pilgrims celebrated their recently gathered harvest. They did so without pumpkin pie (no ovens), cranberry sauce (no sugar), and sweet potatoes (not native to North America). One of the settlers, Edward Winslow, recorded that they ate some kind of “fowl”—more likely to be goose or duck than turkey. Geese were much easier to shoot. The meal may also have included fish, shellfish, and perhaps eel, and the settlers would also have used vegetables such as turnips and carrots. Nor did they sit across from their native counterparts at a long table. Instead, McKenzie writes, “We should picture an outdoor feast in which almost everyone was sitting on the ground and eating with their hands.” About 90 Wampanoag men and their chief Massasoit were present, but we don’t know whether they came with an invitation. A few years later, a delegation politely informed Massasoit that the Pilgrims “could no longer give them such entertainment as [they] had done.” It was, in any event, a fragile peace. In 1623, the Pilgrims placed the severed head of a Massachusetts Indian on their fort as a warning to native enemies and friends alike. For the Pilgrims, this was not a holy day of thanksgiving, a long and solemn day of prayer, preaching, and worship. Instead, the “first” thanksgiving was a harvest celebration, including military drills and “recreations” (probably races, shooting contests, and so forth). Later generations of Americans temporarily… Read More

Read More

Share

A Historian’s 5 Tips on Writing

Kevin Kruse is professor of history at Princeton University. He is the author of two important works in American religious history: White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (2005) and One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (2015). At his Twitter account, @KevinMKruse, Professor Kruse did a series of tweets on writing advice. With his permission, they are reprinted here in a more permanent format. The best way to improve your own writing is to read as much as you can from other authors. Not just the great books, either. You can pick up good habits in reaction to bad writing, too. And don’t just read narrowly in your own sub field, or even in your own discipline. Historians should read novelists, not just for prose but for plotting and pacing. Maybe this section works as a mystery, with slow build up and then a reveal? Maybe that chapter needs the tension of an upstairs-downstairs plot? Does this political tale need the grandeur of a heroic battle, or the intimacy of a flawed character study? This advice will come too late for more advanced scholars, but if you’re in college and just starting out—try your hand at as many different kinds of writing as possible. When I was in college, in addition to my classwork, I wrote for the campus newspaper and took a lot of creative-writing poetry courses. Now, I was a horrible poet. But I learned a whole lot about word choice, structure, meter, rhyme, and rhythm along the way. I’ve written this a thousand times on undergrad papers, but it’s a lesson that could be learned by some grad students and senior scholars too. You’re trying to persuade readers with your argument, not impress them with your thesaurus. Avoid jargon whenever possible. There are certain terms… Read More

Read More

Share

Not All Turkey and Touchdowns

The Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony weren’t the first Europeans to settle in North America, nor were they the first permanent English colonists. But because of our annual celebration of Thanksgiving, and our hazy images of their 1621 meal with Native Americans, the Pilgrims have become the emblematic colonists in America’s national memory. Although modern Thanksgiving has become largely non-religious — focused more on food, family, and football than explicitly thanking God — the Pilgrims’ experience reveals a compelling religious aspect of our country’s roots. Although people often refer to the Pilgrims as “Puritans,” they technically were English Separatists. These were Christians who had decided that the state-sponsored Anglican Church was fatally corrupt, and that they should found their own churches. (The Puritans, who would establish Massachusetts in 1630, believed in reforming the Anglican Church from within.) Establishing independent churches, however, was illegal. Under heavy persecution, some Separatists decided to move to Leiden in the Netherlands around the same time that the Virginia Company founded Jamestown in 1607. The Netherlands offered the Separatists religious liberty, but the Pilgrims also became concerned about the negative influences of living in such a culturally diverse society. So in 1620, 102 settlers sailed to America on board the Mayflower. Their final Old World port was Plymouth, England, which supplied the name for their new settlement in what became southeastern Massachusetts. All adult men on board the ship signed the “Mayflower Compact,” which many consider the first written constitution in American history. It is a very brief document, but it powerfully articulated the colonists’ commitment to God and government by common consent. It reads, in part: Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern… Read More

Read More

Share