Abstract
This thesis examines the revivalist writings of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and George Whitefield (1714-1770) for evidence that the Great Awakening altered their perspective on revival. It is principally based on primary sources written between 1736 and 1743. Six separate chapters explore their background, their understanding of revival, their efforts at propagating it, their techniques in managing the revival, their defense of revival, and their institutionalization of revival.
Both their understandings of revival came from their own observations of the revivals that accompanied their evangelistic efforts. Their theological background, heavily influenced by Calvin, insisted that God was responsible for both conversions and revival.
The thesis notes that Whitefield's and Edwards' use of four primary techniques to propagate revival evolved as they experienced revival. Their preaching, their organization of small, religious education groups, their publishing of sermons, and their written narratives of revival all show signs of adaptation to changing circumstances.
Both managed revival by using small groups and publications to guide people way from inappropriate spiritual expressions. These groups and documents also provided opportunities to educate new converts about their spiritual experiences. Edwards and Whitefield had the opportunity to clarify their understanding of revival as they defended the revival against those critics who questioned their claims about God's role in the religious events of 1735-1743.
Both institutionalized revival by interacting with the next generation of evangelical ministers and by making available their doctrines and their own experiences in their published narratives. This propensity to publish their reflections on revival allowed future generations access to their revival principles.
The overriding hypothesis of this study is that Whitefield's and Edwards' understanding of revival grew out of their involvement in revival in the eighteenth century religious revivals of colonial North America and that their revival writings and preaching were attempts to codify and transfer the lessons they had learned about revival to future generations of Christians who might, they hoped, themselves experience a God-ordained time of revival.
The key conclusions of this study are that 1) Whitefield's and Edwards' positions on revival issues developed through repeated exposures to revival, 2) Whitefield and Edwards used similar means to propagate, manage, defend, and institutionalize revival, 3) Whitefield's sermons and journals themselves express a clear and concise theology, 4) a comparison of Whitefield's and Edwards' theology refutes the suggestion that the lack of a uniform theology throughout the colonies negates the reality of the Great A wakening, 5) a careful study of Whitefield's and Edwards' revival writings produces a heightened awareness of the nature of their narrative works, 6) Edwards' revival writings show a concern for worship that is too often missed in studies of his work, 7) Edwards and Whitefield were actively involved in developing, recording, and teaching the principles of authentic revival.