Revolutionary era, and by focusing on the transatlantic network, this work highlights the lines of evangelical power and filial duty. John Wesley expected American Methodists to respond in accordance with his own wishes by staying out of the political fray. He hoped that his American coreligionists would send their preachers back to England for the duration of the conflict. Yet, English and American Methodists found themselves divided politically over the issue of American sovereignty. They were torn over whether Wesley had the power, as the “dear old Daddy” of Methodism, to recall American ministers and, further, to expect a unified political response to the issues of the Revolution.42
E. P. Thompson argued that the Methodist movement preempted the revolutionary impulses of the eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century working class, since Methodist empathetic and emotional language co-opted the revolutionary sentiments of the English working class. Thompson’s branding of Methodism as antirevolutionary prompts questions about how to understand the relationship between religious faith and political movements.43 In many places, Methodists sought to separate political and religious beliefs, denying that the spiritual should ever associate with the secular. John Wesley drew this distinction when he wrote to his American and English ministers that they should stay out of political disputes in the case of the American Revolution. He wrote that because this was not a religious dispute, Methodists should not take sides or arms in it.44
In contrast, Bernard Semmel counters Thompson’s thesis by arguing that English Methodists were indeed revolutionary. According to Semmel, the Arminian Methodist theology of universal grace incited social liberalism, formulating an English quasi revolution.45 On the other side of the Atlantic, historian Dee Andrews demonstrates that American Methodism benefited from and absorbed the rise of republican languages and ideas. In her view, Methodism provided the best fit with this nascent political ideology. Her work emphasizes the elements of Methodism that drew from this Revolutionary period, specifically the republican elements of democratic decision making and religious equality.46 The underlying question for historians on both sides of the Atlantic was: how revolutionary were the Methodists? One particular way to measure the political impact of Methodism is to examine the movement’s ability to promote the leadership of dispossessed sectors of society, particularly white women, African American men and women, and the lower classes. But historians must still grapple with the relationship between spiritual and secular forms of authority. Therefore, Andrews can credibly point to measurable claims of authority by these groups within Methodist societies, while Thompson is also correct in his view that the Methodist hierarchy failed to assuage the serious class divides in English society more generally.
Methodist Conformity and Divine Providence
The Methodist family, like all families, reflected the limitations of family unity, on multiple levels, from demands for uniform responses within political disputes to prescriptions for social and sexual control. These social and political struggles reveal that Methodism was never monolithic in definition or in practice. This evangelical movement combined both primitive and modern forms of Christianity; it joined individualistic and hierarchical impulses. The disestablishment of churches following the Revolution was a key moment in American religious history, paving the way for a proliferation of sects and churches, including Methodism.47 However, scholars debate the relationship of institutional proliferation to populism. On the one hand, Nathan Hatch argues that the early national period witnessed the realization of American democratic ideals precisely through this proliferation of denominations.48 On the other hand, Jon Butler contends that while Methodism and other evangelical movements were individualistic in many ways, the eighteenth century was paradoxically a period of increasing denominational authoritarianism.49 Susan Juster also argues that the early national period marked an era of increasing power for evangelical denominations, but that this came at the price of marginalizing Baptist women.50
Part of the disagreement about how to characterize the political impact of evangelicalism is that this movement simultaneously emphasized rigid authority, collective identity, and individual religious expression. Methodists’ ability to redefine the family allowed them to move between these polarities of absolute individualism and committed adherence to collective codes of conduct. Methodists formulated many different levels of authority in the various relationships among family members, and Methodist authority asserted itself in a multitude of ways. There were the standard nodes of religious authority, including the quarterly and annual meetings and conferences that issued rules of discipline. Authority was further reinforced through the letters that preachers and exhorters wrote to the laity, through the sermons that preachers delivered, and through the publications that proliferated in this period.
Yet, Methodists still retained their individualism, varying their responses to official directives and other authorities within the group. While this disjuncture is present in any religious tradition, early Methodists had a particular way of making life decisions that empowered the layperson to act in accordance with individual impulses rather than conformity to external rules and leadership. Particularly regarding questions of social practices and ecclesiastical organization, Methodist men and women called on providence to demonstrate the correct path. Sometimes providence aligned with Wesley’s or other preachers’ directives; at other times, it produced a subversion of hierarchical power in favor of individual autonomy. In the case of celibacy, for instance, Methodists interpreted this injunction from Wesley as a call to consider marriages more seriously in some cases, to delay marriage indefinitely in others, and in still others to deny completely the practicality of celibacy. An entire spectrum of response came out of even the innermost circles of prominent Methodist ministers and laypersons, and Wesley himself debated the merits of celibacy and marriage.51
Laity and ministers alike described the source for their spiritual authority as providential and based in a communication between God and the individual. Providential signs could appear in randomly occurring dreams, but at other times they arose directly in response to petitions and prayers, combined with the individual’s sense of God’s will. Methodists formed close relationships with God, so much so that many believed that they could ascertain divine will in diverse arenas. Women and men relied on providential signs to point the way in deciding whether they should marry, where they should minister, how they should worship, and in making every kind of religious, social, or political decision.
Overview
This book opens by describing the span and sociability of early Methodism. As Methodists began meeting during American and English revivals from the 1730s to the 1760s, they established themselves as a transatlantic group. The central chapters of the book engage the social and emotional design of early Methodist life through an examination of the early narratives and personal writings of English and American Methodists. In Chapter 2, I discuss the themes found in conversion narratives, the single most important genre of early evangelical literature. In Chapter 3, I trace the familial culture of evangelicals in both the structures and the discourse of Methodism. This book explicates the basic organization and ethos of the Methodist family, the classes, bands, circuits, and larger print culture that connected this group. I also examine the specific roles of brother, sister, mother, and father within the family of Methodism. In Chapter 4, I explore the ways that early Methodists talked about sexuality by analyzing not just the self-definition of early Methodists, but also anti-Methodist views of evangelical language and behavior. In Chapters 5 and 6, I turn to an examination of how early Methodists approached the questions of marriage and celibacy. These chapters consider how Methodists debated the utility of marriage and their views on forming individual families. In Chapter 7, I examine the political dimensions of this group and the ways in which they struggled to balance
