Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
George Whitefield was worse than Hybels, Swaggart, Haggard, Patterson, Pressler, Bakker, Hinn, Tilton and all the rest put together

George Whitefield was worse than Hybels, Swaggart, Haggard, Patterson, Pressler, Bakker, Hinn, Tilton and all the rest put together

Last updated on: August 8, 2018 at 6:53 pm by Fred Clark

George Whitefield was worse than Hybels, Swaggart, Haggard, Patterson, Pressler, Bakker, Hinn, Tilton and all the rest put together 2018-08-08T18:53:15-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I appreciate the point John Fea is making in this post on “The Willow Creek Mess.” It’s well-observed and well-taken.

In short, he was discussing a prominent figure from American history in a recent summer seminar for a group of grade-school history teachers. Because that prominent figure was a famous preacher and evangelist, the audience had a dismal expectation for how the man’s story would end, prompting one of the teachers to raise her hand with a question:

“So what happened with this guy? As I hear you talk I am expecting some kind of scandal or moral indiscretion. How did [he] fall?” This teacher seemed surprised that [the preacher] never got caught-up in some kind of sex scandal. She assumed that the [preacher’s] story ended badly. …

I thought about this teacher’s question as I read more about Bill Hybels and his moral indiscretions while serving as pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. She may have meant her question to be snarky or cynical, but I did not take it this way. It seemed like she had just come to expect this kind of thing from popular and powerful evangelical preachers.

This is where we are in 2018. If you start telling a story about a popular white evangelical preacher, those hearing that story will expect it to end the same way as so many of these stories do.

I think Fea is right about that teacher’s question. She wasn’t intending to be cynical in a hostile manner, but everything she’d heard and learned about prominent evangelical preachers had taught her a pattern that she quite reasonably expected to be reflected in the life of this earlier figure. Whether this teacher was 25 or 65, she had few examples in her lifetime of famous, popular, powerful white evangelical leaders whose story didn’t end in some kind of “fall” into disgrace due to some wretched scandal involving either sex or money.

Billy Graham, I guess — if we don’t consider the ugly racism of his son or his father-in-law as “scandals” that should count against him. (And if we forgive him for his obsequious assent to Nixon’s horrible mutterings about “the Jews.”) But the handful of exceptions to this pattern seems dwarfed by the seemingly endless parade of examples that reinforce it: Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, Tony Alamo, Ted Haggard, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Richard Land, C.J. Mahaney, Paul Crouch, Mark Driscoll, Dan Johnson, Andy Savage, Frank Page, Bill Hybels … the list goes on and on.

It ain’t pretty.

So I’m right there with John Fea lamenting the devastating damage this long succession of scandals has wrought to the church and to Christian witness in this world.

But here’s the thing: that historical figure Fea was discussing may not have had a sex or money scandal, but he did something far, far worse. Here’s the unedited version of that first paragraph quoted above:

At one point in the lecture, an elementary-school social studies teacher who had never heard of Whitefield raised her hand and asked, “So what happened with this guy? As I hear you talk I am expecting some kind of scandal or moral indiscretion. How did Whitefield fall?” This teacher seemed surprised that Whitefield never got caught-up in some kind of sex scandal. She assumed that the Whitefield story ended badly. We stopped and talked about Whitefield’s self-promotion, his ownership of slaves, and the way he divided local congregations, but as far as I know there was never an Elmer Gantry or Jimmy Swaggart moment in Whitefield’s life.

Whitefield is George Whitefield — itinerant revivalist of the Great Awakening and one of the most famous international celebrities of the 1700s. He was a spellbinding orator who enthralled massive crowds in a time when microphones and speakers didn’t yet exist. He preached thousands of sermons on both sides of the Atlantic before crowds that have been estimated to total as much as 10 million people (at a time when the total population of the American colonies was less than 3 million). Whitefield’s influence on American popular religion, and formal religion, and culture more broadly, can hardly be overstated.

But while Whitefield never fell into disgrace and scandal during his lifetime — never had “an Elmer Gantry or Jimmy Swaggart moment” — his legacy has been far more disgraceful and enduringly harmful than any of those scandalized wretches we listed above.

Because it wasn’t simply that George Whitefield was a slave-owner. He was an advocate for legalizing slavery and for building the economy of the Southern colonies firmly atop the monstrous system of plantation slavery.

Whitefield operated a famous orphanage in the colony of Georgia. (It’s still there, sort of, now existing as a boarding school for boys called Bethesda Academy.) The orphanage was supported by the large plantation Whitefield owned in Georgia, but that plantation was losing money, and Whitefield was sure he knew why: because slavery was illegal in the colony of Georgia.

No, really, it’s true. The new colony of Georgia was officially chartered in 1732 and soon thereafter wrote itself a constitution that prohibited the buying and selling of human beings, the lifelong theft of their labor, their abuse, rape, and torture.

We don’t learn this in school. We almost un-learn it in school, acquiring a kind of inability to absorb such a thing because it doesn’t fit with the myth-making narratives preferred by either North or South. But it’s true: slavery was not always legal in Georgia.

In 1740, when Whitefield began construction of his orphanage in the colony of Georgia, slavery was illegal there. Slavery was perfectly legal in New York City, in Philadelphia, in Boston — but not in Savannah. Up north, in New Haven, Jonathan Edwards had already purchased three people, enslaving them in his New England parsonage. (Their names — or, rather, the names they were assigned and allowed — were Joseph, Lee, and Venus.)

But in 1740 slavery was illegal in the colony of Georgia. As it always had been. Whitefield wanted to change that, because he was sure that abducting a bunch of God’s children and violently forcing them to work without pay, forever, would make his plantation profitable and his orphanage viable (spoiler alert: it did not).

And so Whitefield used all the power of his celebrity and his reputation as a pious leader to lobby the crown and the trustees of the colony to change its constitution: “Hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes,” he wrote in one letter, laying out his case. “What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all?”

Whitefield’s efforts paid off and, to his great delight, slavery was legalized in the colony of Georgia by a royal decree in 1751.

Might slavery eventually have become legal in Georgia without the big push from George Whitefield? Maybe. Probably. Perhaps it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom, etc.

The simple fact is that George Whitefield was instrumental in the expansion and the industrialization of chattel slavery in the Americas. That’s far, far worse than anything that Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart got caught doing in a motel room. It’s far, far worse and farther-reaching in its destructiveness than anything that any of those scandalized, “fallen” preachers listed above ever did.

Acknowledging that does not, in any way, minimize or dismiss the real harm wrought by many of those predatory preachers. Their sins are many and they are real. They earned their disgrace, even if their various misdeeds and predations did not rise to the nation-shaping monstrosity of Whitefield’s role in expanding plantation slavery.

And there’s a real sense in which those disgraced preachers, too, are a part of George Whitefield’s legacy. They are a product of the kind of white evangelical Christianity he preached and popularized. They are an inevitable result of his white theology. When you create and disseminate an otherworldly, obtuse form of religion that is incapable of opposing the starkest forms of injustice and oppression, then you’re bound to wind up with the kind of religion that elevates “leaders” like these. A bad tree cannot be expected to bear better fruit.

I share Dr. Fea’s sadness at the popular perception today that the story of any white evangelical preacher is bound to end in scandal and disgrace. I share his sadness that this perception is largely accurate. But changing that means candidly facing up to the roots of white evangelical Christianity in the otherworldly, unjust theology of slaveowners and slavery advocates.

In a related post on “The Willow Creek Mess,” Scot McKnight suggests that the megachurch will be unable to move forward — will be undeserving of moving forward — until it grapples honestly with the failure of its leadership and the way that has misshaped the current state of that community: “Willow will never be the old Willow. It can become a different Willow, but it will never be the same.”

The same is true for white evangelicalism as a whole. It needs to reckon with the way its theology, its hermeneutics, its piety, devotion, practice, worship, and ministry have all been pervasively formed by its birth and growth alongside of slavery. It’s possible that it can move forward by becoming something new and different, but if it tries to remain the same, old white evangelicalism, then it will never change its pattern. And the parade of scandal and disgrace will never end.

Previous Post

August 7, 2018

Stories with heroes and stories without them

Next Post

August 9, 2018 Postcards from the class & culture wars (8.9.18)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many men did Gideon keep from the 32,000?

Select your answer to see how you score.

500 300 200 400