If we as Christians are to understand ourselves more clearly and to make what we will of our legacy, it must be done in sight of how God views each and everyone one of us. Christian history must be a God-first history, it cannot be an empirical or deductive history alone.

When I read Sean McGever’s Ownership: The Evangelical Legacy of Slavery in Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield  I had a narrative running in the back of my mind (which I have had for some time) about why it is that Christian history includes human failure that resulted in  misery and suffering. This got me thinking that the history of Christians must be further understood in the context of what constitutes valid Christian theology.

A common pattern in Christian history I am noticing is that influential Christians will step outside Christian belief in various practices, will rationalize questionable decisions made in the name of Christian belief, after the fact, or will vigorously defend their actions where their words and deeds differ from each other and from biblical teachings. In my opinion, the legacy of slavery in 18^th century colonial North America as explored in Sean McGever’s work supports this historical theme as underscoring its core thesis, where the enslavement of other human beings by Christians sought justification by its practitioners. 

From McGever’s book, I get the impression that Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and George Whitefield were people who were not overly concerned with worldly politics, ‘social justice’, or economic institutions (including slavery) that facilitated material concerns. In their time, I can see that matters of conscience were not sorted out through the avenues of political policy in the same way that many people expect today. Rather, McGever’s work shows how influential evangelical Christians in the colonies acted in worldly ways, but sought to religiously justify self-beneficial actions, so they could demonstrate their actions would be acceptable to God. Through scriptural rationalization, before and after the fact, acting ‘in the name of Christianity’ as a form of appealing to ‘greater good’ while somehow still benefiting personally from their actions, or by drifting away from scriptural authority for justification, sometimes erroneously but sometimes intentionally, 18^th century ‘English Christians’ as McGever calls them, colonial evangelicals followed the consistent pattern of religious folly found elsewhere in history.

On matters of conscience, and in the context of slavery as a moral wrong, I think the three influential evangelical Christian leaders who are the focus of McGever’s discussion, were concerned more with what happens to people when they leave this world over what occurs within this world. Yet, interestingly, there appears to be great variability among how this heavenward outlook was held and expressed by John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards.

While Whitefield and Edwards were both gifted with words (albeit in very different ways), and while the theology of Edwards on paper remains quite influential and validly Christian (even if it has been criticized for lacking in grace), the way both Whitefield (the grind it out crowd-pleasing orator) and Edwards (the elite and gifted religious scholar) lived in the era of slave ownership, is marked by a very wide gap between much of what their own spoken and own written words profess in contrast to their actions. For this reason, insight enters as to how they would have likely acted in any age.

After reading about John Wesley’s experiences coming face to face with the grimness of colonial slavery for the first time, I think that Wesley was stirred very differently by the practice of enslavement than both Whitefield and Edwards. Wesley came to have the well-being of slaves while they lived in this world at top of mind in consideration of the institution of slavery in the colonies (but this is not to exclude soteriology as a motivating force for him, I would expect). Wesley used examples of what he witnessed in the colonies when he came to publish his anti-slavery literature.

From the book, it is clear that George Whitefield was a man of noticeable contradictions, and perhaps holding room inside to find deeper personal spiritual insight and growth. McGever presents Whitefield as a man who liked to speak to whichever cause was top of mind for people, but would also be useful to him at the same time.

McGever’s assessment shows that Whitefield was a man whose words and actions indeed had a wide gap between them, as will be further shown. Despite being Whitefield being a gifted preacher, McGever gives the impression that Whitefield was not really very much a man of steadfast character or of very many firm internal convictions. For example, in chapter six, McGever demonstrates Whitefield’s words vs. action discrepancy: following an incident known as the Stono Revolt, in which twenty white people were killed during this slave uprising, influential Whitefield composed a scathing letter, outlining his deep concern for treatment of slaves in the colonies. Yet, several months following this, Whitefield travelled to London several times to advocate in parliament for the legalization of slavery in Georgia (which had not yet legalized slavery). In The Colonial Records of Georgia, among economic benefits to the colonies, Whitefield’s key rationale for the legalization of slavery in Georgia was, according to McGever “too hot for White people. He believed that only Black slaves were able to work in these conditions” (p. 90).

During this fervor of advocating for the legalization of slavery in Georgia, Whitefield had built orphanage on a 500-acre plot of land in Bethesda, Georgia. However, due to an inability to hire laborers to work the planation on its grounds, the orphanage fell into deep financial trouble. At this time, Whitefield enlisted some of the orphans themselves who had come of age to labor at the orphanage. This economic scramble convinced Whitefield that legalizing slavery in Georgia would provide the best prospect of economic survival for the orphanage (the orphanage was an endeavor which Whitefield was lukewarm to engaging with, but for which he had taken responsibility). Eventually, British Parliament did legalize slavery in Georgia, and the benefit to Whitefield was relief from his financial problems with respect to the orphanage and its plantation, with the newfound ability to acquire slaves to work the plantation.

I thought this next part in McGever’s narration of Whitefield’s life gives the most insight into his mindset: Whitefield went to the Bible to find justification for purchasing slaves after his economic problems were improved. In line with the narrative historical that Christian figures can perpetuate societal harms such as the institution of slavery, it was as though Whitefield had to rationalize to himself his purchase of slaves by consulting scripture. However, I found it encouraging that something became unsettled within him upon purchasing slaves. After consulting with scripture, Whitefield concluded that the “temporal concern” of being a slave would be outweighed by the opportunity his slaves would have to hear the news of the gospel (p.92). As mentioned, building the plantation/orphanage was not Whitefield’s idea, but he took it on. John Wesley had written him a letter urging him to build it, urging Whitefield that the experience would help him more closely understand God’s will (p.80).

On Wesley’s suggestion that Whitefeld build the orphanage, I get the sense from McGever’s writing that Wesley’s intention was to help brash Whitefield acquire greater personal humility. In chapter one, McGever discusses Whitefield’s gift of the gab and tendencies toward showboating (p. 23). In a brief snippet about John Wesley’s character (p. 17), McGever points out that Wesley had the ability to “organize” people to action. From this, I inferred that Wesley understood well what Whitefield’s strengths and areas for development were. Wesley had written Whitefield a letter urging him to take on the orphanage, selling him on the idea of it an ambitious and novel undertaking in which he would come to have a better understanding of God. I think Wesley presented this kind of selling point to Whitefield to take on the project because it would have appealed directly to his elevated ‘important’ sense of self.     

For Jonathan Edwards, the gap between words and deed takes on a much different nature. Edwards was highly educated where Whitefield was largely self-taught. Edwards was thoroughly versed in scripture, and grew up in a culturally high-profile ‘elite’ Puritan family. Edwards’ theology is harsh and grim, bordering on merciless even. Edwards presented a dismal outlook of the human condition and this world in his writing and teaching. However, unforgiving, it is defensible as Christian theology despite it being lack of generosity of grace (this is from my own opinion based on reading some of Edwards’ work). Edwards soteriology emphasizes that all people are sinful under perfect God, and therefore, no person can have reasonable assurance of salvation for the next world from within this world, no matter their station or religious habits. Edwards’ famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of and Angry God” and well-known writing: “Freedom of the Will”, challenge the smugness of Christians who consider themselves saved simply because they go through the motions of being baptized and publicly profess Christ as savior. Much of Edwards’ evangelical writing and teaching was focused on urging people to truly change their hearts and will to be aligned with God. That is, not just expressed outwardly, but also truly found within.

To Edwards outward actions, I think he was concerned for the salvation of enslaved people and for slaveholders. His very narrow and hardline view of salvation in the context of the sin within all people was his primary concern. For this reason, I do not think he had very much interest in criticizing the institution of slavery, because it was ‘only’ of this world and all men were enslaved to sin deeply in this world. Edwards’ indifference to the legal purchase and enslavement of people, as McGever points out, is reflected in Edwards rare discussions about  the practice, even though he was a prolific writer and preacher. Edwards himself owned slaves and kept them as part of what was considered an orderly household and society, which demonstrates that slavery was normalized aspect of his worldview. It seems as though he was not cruel with the slaves who worked for him, but instead, he was likely indifferent to the fleeting nature of this human physical-world existence.

In the recount of Wesley’s first interactions with both slaves and slaveowners, and Wesley’s first witness to the practice of holding slaves, although slavery had been practiced the world over since history is able to remember, it is notable that while both Edwards and Whitefield themselves owned slaves, Wesley seems to have become unsettled in his conscience upon his first encounters with enslavement. Although Wesley did not immediately express a publicly negative opinion about the institution of slavery (I would not have expected him to have done so, given the slower pace of communication and the intentional move toward thinking before acting that is often lost in todays frenetic times), something different does begin to happen with Wesley, and more broadly in the colonies with respect to attitudes toward slavery.

While this was not discussed explicitly in the book, it reminded my of an effect described by Scottish Philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) that happens when a kind of moral leap in mindset takes hold both in societal outlook and/or from within individual hearts. Hume termed this: a ‘moral leap’. What happens is people do not know why they think it, but something just strikes them as ‘wrong’ and then they go back and fill in the reasons why they believe something is wrong after their experience of the moral leap.

A later French Philosopher, Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962) uses a similar phrase to capture a similar phenomenon in the study of science where a new change emerges. He called these leaps in understanding ‘epistemological breaks’.

In these leaps, people don’t know why they feel something is morally wrong, but they feel it first, and then try to understand and explain why they feel that way. For the Christian leaders who are the focus of this book, plus many more people who lived during that time, it is notable that in the context of Hume’s contemporary philosophical observation, attitudes toward enslavement, despite its hand-in-hand history with the story of all humanity, was becoming less easy to justify during the 18^th century and that its practice was being called into question. In the 19^th century, British Parliament abolished the practice, but by that time, the United States had become an independent nation.

In chapter four, McGever gets into the gritty details of theological justification for slavery during the 18^th century. McGever outlines biblical defenses of the practice that were commonly held, and his depiction reveals just how thin the distinction between biblical justification and psychological rationalization actually were.

In the colonies, a kind of ‘theology of slavery’ emerged (perhaps an awkward way to term how the practice was justified). McGever well articulates the theological underpinnings for slavery held by 18^th century colonists in chapter four.

In chapter four, McGever argues that the theology described was generally held in common by most ‘English Christian’ colonialists, as he describes them. These included Puritans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists. Matthew Henry’s ‘Commentary on the Whole Bible’ and Richard Baxter’s ‘Christian Directory’ were two highly influential, but non-binding writings on how Christians ought to practice family and civic life, including how to slaves should be treated within the household.

For 18^th century English Christians living in the colonies, the justification for holding slaves found in the pages of Henry’s and Baxter’s works urged for treatment of slaves as part of the family, and with kindness. However, as Wesley discovered upon visiting the colonies, the reality of enslavement in practice severely ignored these guidelines, and often was instead one full of harm and malice inflicted onto the enslaved by the slaveholders who kept them in bondage. The Henry and Baxter writings considered it the duty of enslavers to evangelize those they enslaved because both authors believed that all people deserved to receive spiritual freedom through hearing the gospel. For a slaveholder to deny the gospel to the enslaved person would have been considered a sinful practice. Yet, in a difficult to justify theological contradiction, if conversion within an enslaved person occurred, it was generally not an instituted practice to free the converted slave from worldly bondage.

A stranger problem with the justification for slavery in the Christian colonies was where a drift from Bible teaching altogether arose. Justification for slaveholders to deny the gospel to their slaves was argued from the non-biblical teaching that McGever terms: polygenesis, whereby enslaved black people (and also indigenous people) were denied the gospel with justification as being entirely of a different nature. That is, black and indigenous people came to be regarded as some as not part of Adam’s lineage (based on the new ‘scientific’ theory of polygenesis), and were thought therefore, not possible to be saved in the Christian sense anyway. This rationalization was the one that I found the most unusual. For colonists who took this view, the will to keep slaves (but I would expect with economic fears below the surface also) held greater sway beyond what biblical ‘justification’ was thought to provide. The polygenesis justification became entrenched for many slaveholders, even when it was pointed that it was a not biblically defensible position. Farther east from Europe, and on the shores of northern Africa, Christianity already had a long history by the 18^th century. Ironically then, colonial slaveowners who held polygenesis justification to deny the gospel to those they enslaved, disregarded, or did not know what the skin tone of the early Christians would have been. McGever handles the contentious theological underpinnings of slavery in this chapter very well, citing primary resources as best as possible to speak the thornier aspects of this era in its own words.

What I liked very much from the outset of the book was that McGever keeps the question of ‘what would you have done if you lived during those times?’ at the front of the readers’ mind. Also, McGever frequently reminds the reader that the pace of travel and communication was much slower than it is today. I get the impression, based on how McGever describes John Wesley’s visit to Georgia and South Carolina that observant people in those days would have taken their strong feelings about things in a much slower way before drawing conclusions and making outward statements about established practices. With this in mind, I also get the impression that people who saw the wrongs of the time, took time to create a measured response to try to right the wrongs they observed in their era.

Although there was much brutality inflicted onto slaves (beyond being enslaved as a premise), the emerging ‘moral break’ with the practice of slavery, particularly as per John Wesley’s intake of the situation upon witnessing it for the first time, speaks to something that stirred within him in particular, as distinct from Edwards and Whitefield as fellow evangelical leaders discussed in the book. If Whitefield had any internal convictions about slavery, they would have been self-serving first, and I think Edwards, with his mind elsewhere, was indifferent to the established practice, simply accepting slavery as part of normalized life.

I thought that Sean McGever handles this sensitive topic with great care, while still remaining objective and with humility toward people and their life and times. One criticism I have is that McGever’s book leads all the way through with a colonialist-first viewpoint. This is so, even when he draws from sources critical of the practice. I would have like to have seen his book track down more examples from the enslaved person’s perspective looking outward, where it would have been possible. Nonetheless, there is a lot to think about in the pages of Sean McGever’s bold book.

-Matthew Kryzanowski