Head and Heart

One of the fun things about teaching is that oftentimes, students raise questions that I as a professor have not really thought about before.  If you've read some of my earlier posts, you know that The Mainline was largely shaped in the classroom, so there should be little surprise that I've surely been influenced by this trend professionally.  That being said there is one question that has been raised several times by students over the past few years that I have a hard time figuring out, and since writing sometimes leads to answers, I thought I'd devote today's post to the issue, if not the answer.

Here is the basic outline.  While teaching the first half of the US Survey (roughly discovery/colonization through the Civil War/Reconstruction), I always make sure to spend time talking about the First and Second Great Awakenings.  Though there is debate over exact dates (as an aside, it is a pet peeve of mine how often historians get labeled as purveyors of dates, since History is rarely planned out and even when it is, its not as if things "just happen" on a given date or end a certain time), generally the First Great Awakening ran from the 1710s into the 1740s (give or take), and the Second Great Awakening ran from the 1790s into the 1830s (again, give or take).  The FGA was trans-Atlantic in scope, and was marked by the preaching of such divines as Jonathon Edwards, George Whitefield, and the Wesley brothers.  The SGA was more American in focus, and showcased the preaching talents of the Beechers, Charles Finney, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell.  The FGA is often construed as having saved orthodoxy from the clutches of Deism and reinvigorated a sense of "the Protestant Interest" (to borrow from Thomas Kidd's excellent work on the topic).  For American Historians, the FGA also is a precursor event to the American Revolution (at least in some circles).  The SGA, while starting off as a religious revival (geared towards making sure that churches got planted in the newly opened Western states) eventually morphed into a movement that was also (at least in the Northeast and much of the Midwest) interested in reforming society (including, of course, anti-slavery).

So far, so good.  But then the questions start.  Consistently I have students who "embrace" or "support" the FGA (how can you not like Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?).  But just as consistently, I have students who berate the very idea of the SGA.  Many of those who take on the SGA cite its calls for Christian activism in the public sphere, or with specific reforms that became a part of it.  But probably the most persistent critique is that the SGA appealed not to the "head" but only to the "heart".  That its emotional appeals led to "shallow" conversions, which contributed to later problems in American Christianity.

I admit that the first time this happened in a classroom, I was sort of taken aback.  It was certainly new to me.  I generally point out that the same type of critiques were and could be leveled at the FGA (again, take a look at Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God -- it is pretty scary stuff to think that God's grace is the only thing keeping you from falling into hell, and maybe you should get right with Him before he removes His grace!).  I've also had to counter claims that "nothing like this (ie appeals to emotion) ever happened in the Bible" -- by asking those interested to take a look at Acts Chapter 2 and try not to hear the emotional appeal in it.

When we dig a bit deeper the "head vs. heart" debate eventually gets us into discussion about theology.  Now, I'm not a theologian (and I don't think I've yet had one as a student), but the gist of this animosity towards the SGA in some circles is the belief that it was the start of liberal theology within American Protestantism.  There maybe some truth to that, but I'd also argue that it isn't the whole truth.  Saying that someone like Henry Ward Beecher (whose theology eventually diverged quite a bit from that of his father Lyman -- and both men were standard bearers for the SGA) would be comfortably classified as a liberal today is problematic for several reasons.  Did the SGA get everything "right" (whether theologically or in the manner of reform)?  No.  But then again, I'd argue that most of the people (including one favorite target for some modern theological conservatives, Charles Finney) weren't attempting to forge a coherent theology at all.  For some, but only some (like Washington Gladden) that came later.

In the end (for me at least) talking about the FGA/SGA has prompted some interesting discussions, which I enjoy.  They've made me question assumptions I've had about these events, as well as raise questions for me about how we (including my students) understand them.  Oftentimes, it seems "we know what we know because we know it," my hope is that with some study and reflection we can see that both the FGA and SGA utilized a sort of balanced witness of the Christian faith, of both "head and heart", that it wasn't an "either/or" kind of thing.  If that makes for a more complicated history, so be it.  Because it is also probably more accurate.