What do you think?
Rate this book
Textual Warfare and the Making of Methodism
Textual Warfare and the Making of Methodism argues that the eighteenth-century Methodist revival participated in and was produced by a rich textual culture that includes both pro- and anti-Methodist texts; and that Methodism be understood and approached as a rhetorical problem--as a point of contestation and debate resolved through discourse. Methodist belief and practice attracted its share of negative press, and Methodists eagerly (and publically) responded to their critics; and the controversy generated by the revival ensured that Methodism would be conditioned by textual and rhetorical processes, whether in published polemic and apologia, or in private diaries and letters as Methodists navigated the complexities of their spiritual lives and anti-Methodist efforts to undermine their faith.
While it may seem obvious to conclude that a controversial movement would be shaped by controversy, Textual Warfare examines the specific ways Methodist belief, practice, and self-understanding were filtered through the anti-Methodist critique; the particular historic and cultural conditions that informed this process; and the overwhelming extent to which Methodism in the eighteenth century was mediated by texts and rhetorical exchange. The proliferation of print media and the relative freedom of the press in the eighteenth century; the extent to which society generally and Methodism specifically promoted literacy; and a cultural sensibility predisposed to open debate on matters of public interest, ensured the development of a public sphere in which individuals came together to deliberate, in conversation and in print, on a range of issues relevant to the larger community. It was within this sphere that Methodist religiosity, including the intensely private nature of spiritual
conversion, became matters of civic concern on an unprecedented scale and that Methodism ultimately took its form.
While it may seem obvious to conclude that a controversial movement would be shaped by controversy, Textual Warfare examines the specific ways Methodist belief, practice, and self-understanding were filtered through the anti-Methodist critique; the particular historic and cultural conditions that informed this process; and the overwhelming extent to which Methodism in the eighteenth century was mediated by texts and rhetorical exchange. The proliferation of print media and the relative freedom of the press in the eighteenth century; the extent to which society generally and Methodism specifically promoted literacy; and a cultural sensibility predisposed to open debate on matters of public interest, ensured the development of a public sphere in which individuals came together to deliberate, in conversation and in print, on a range of issues relevant to the larger community. It was within this sphere that Methodist religiosity, including the intensely private nature of spiritual
conversion, became matters of civic concern on an unprecedented scale and that Methodism ultimately took its form.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published July 15, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 6, 2025
This penetrating study investigates the manner in which eighteenth century Methodist self-identity was formed in the context of public dispute and contestation resolved through textual discourse of various kinds. The literature on anti-Methodist publications in the eighteenth century is voluminous, as evidenced by Clive Field’s extensive 1991 bibliography. McInnelly’s work shows how Methodists responded to their many critics in such a way as to construct their own identity as a people. In both public defences and private correspondence, ‘Methodist religiosity would be constituted in the controversy it inspired; Methodism may have been founded on theological principles, but it was defined and refined by public attacks and defences of these principles (p. 5).’
This central thesis is interrogated and defended through six chapters each investigating an aspect of Methodist textuality and rhetoric. Chapters 1 and 2 deal with the more obvious arena of such discourse – the print media, personal correspondence, and spiritual diaries – and offer an examination of Methodism as a ‘rhetorical problem’ drawing on Edward Said’s concept of the ‘contrapuntal reading’ of Imperialism. Allusions to Methodism in the print media, including newspapers, novels, and plays, resulted in Methodists ‘managing’ the ‘structures of attitude and reference’ by which they were defined (p. 42). McInelly also draws on Kenneth Burke’s discussion of ‘symbolic identification’ – ‘an inter-subjective experience in which individuals see themselves in and through the language of others’ (p. 64). Particularly compelling is the author’s argument that a rhetorical approach to Methodist emotionalism gives an answer to its critics who have dismissed or trivialized Methodist belief. At least since Aristotle the emotions have been viewed as ‘interpretations or judgments and thus dependent on discourse…reason and emotion are not diametrically opposed; rather, an emotional response results from a particular line of reasoning’ (p. 85).
The third chapter examines the clash between Methodism and (it is argued) its closest rival – the theatre. Harry S. Stout in The Divine Dramatist (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) set out the dramatic power of George Whitefield as an analog to the theatrical world. McInelly builds on this earlier study with an examination of Samuel Foote’s play The Minor (1760) which satirised Methodist preaching and preachers and a comparison between the theatrical styles of Whitefield and David Garrick. The idea that Whitefield was the first to cast evangelical religion in an entrepreneurial mode and utilise revival as a marketplace phenomenon is now an accepted part of evangelical historiography, most notably in Frank Lambert’s Peddler in Divinity (Princeton UP, 1994). Without rejecting this thesis, McInelly warns against reducing Methodist religion to such factors and thereby missing the sincere faith of the participants. Undoubtedly Whitefield was a self-promoter who ‘wanted to be a star’ (Stout, Divine Dramatist, p xxi) but at the same time he had a ‘firm belief in the commodity he brought to market – spiritual renewal and salvation’ (p. 107).
The Methodist use of the hymnal is well-worn territory, but McInelly gives us a fresh investigation in chapter 4 by arguing that the hymns themselves, as well as the practice of hymn singing, were in part a response to anti-Methodist discourse. He sees the hymnal as ‘a site of complex negotiation between John and Charles Wesley and their followers as the Wesleys attempted to steer the movement away from charges of religious enthusiasm’ (p. 121). John Wesley frequently emended his younger brother’s hymn texts in order to avoid what he considered overt sentimentality, preferring a ‘plainer’ style, and also sought to regulate hymn singing in order to preserve the dignity and order of Methodist worship. Such an approach was a direct response to charges of enthusiasm and serves as a further example of how Methodists shaped their own identity in part through response to their critics.
In chapter 5 Methodist sexuality and textuality (sextuality?) are combined in an examination of charges of sexual impropriety among Methodists. While recognising the sexually-charged language of Whitefield, the Wesleys and their followers, McInelly rejects Henry Abelove’s claim (The Evangelist of Desire, 1990) that John Wesley’s ‘seduction’ of his many female correspondents was driven by egotistical desire to create a following. Abelove ‘presents Wesley…with little regard to his deep-seated longing to do God’s will’ and for McInelly this is an oversimplification of the admittedly erotic elements of Wesleyan discourse (p. 161). Eighteenth-century critics of Methodist religion often saw it as a threat to the ‘proper’ role of women whose moral purity was thought to be best protected when they were confined to the domestic sphere. There was, then, a subversive element to early Methodism which gave women an efficacy and agency beyond the expectations of polite society.
The sixth and final chapter investigates Methodist in-fighting, most notably the Calvinist vs. Arminian controversy, which was played out in a very public arena and both shaped Methodist doctrine and the public perception of Methodists. Tobias Smollett’s 1771 novel Humphrey Clinker serves as an interesting case study in the public perception of internal Methodist disputes. Though generally anti-Methodist in its tone, Smollett’s novel displays quite a nuanced understanding of the movement and is able to see its redeeming features (pp. 194-202). Where D. Dunn Wilson claimed that internal disputes hampered Methodist growth (Many Waters Cannot Quench, 1969) McInelly argues instead that such quarrels helped cultivate the spiritual lives of Methodists and solidify their Methodist identity and self-understanding (p. 210-11).
In his Conclusion the author argues that ‘textual warfare…helped make Methodism…by providing a material context in which faith-based experience was both tested and confirmed in public and private settings (p. 217)’. This is perhaps not a new hypothesis but it is one that is skilfully interrogated here in a book that provides valuable insights into the nature of early Methodism. Perhaps its most original claim (and an important one) is that Methodists came to understand themselves as Methodists only in the face of their most vociferous critics. As ‘the Mormon who does Methodism’ (McInelly is Associate Professor of English at Brigham Young University, Utah) the author brings an admirable ‘outsider’s’ objectivity sometimes lacking in Methodist treatments. I highly commend this valuable work.
This central thesis is interrogated and defended through six chapters each investigating an aspect of Methodist textuality and rhetoric. Chapters 1 and 2 deal with the more obvious arena of such discourse – the print media, personal correspondence, and spiritual diaries – and offer an examination of Methodism as a ‘rhetorical problem’ drawing on Edward Said’s concept of the ‘contrapuntal reading’ of Imperialism. Allusions to Methodism in the print media, including newspapers, novels, and plays, resulted in Methodists ‘managing’ the ‘structures of attitude and reference’ by which they were defined (p. 42). McInelly also draws on Kenneth Burke’s discussion of ‘symbolic identification’ – ‘an inter-subjective experience in which individuals see themselves in and through the language of others’ (p. 64). Particularly compelling is the author’s argument that a rhetorical approach to Methodist emotionalism gives an answer to its critics who have dismissed or trivialized Methodist belief. At least since Aristotle the emotions have been viewed as ‘interpretations or judgments and thus dependent on discourse…reason and emotion are not diametrically opposed; rather, an emotional response results from a particular line of reasoning’ (p. 85).
The third chapter examines the clash between Methodism and (it is argued) its closest rival – the theatre. Harry S. Stout in The Divine Dramatist (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) set out the dramatic power of George Whitefield as an analog to the theatrical world. McInelly builds on this earlier study with an examination of Samuel Foote’s play The Minor (1760) which satirised Methodist preaching and preachers and a comparison between the theatrical styles of Whitefield and David Garrick. The idea that Whitefield was the first to cast evangelical religion in an entrepreneurial mode and utilise revival as a marketplace phenomenon is now an accepted part of evangelical historiography, most notably in Frank Lambert’s Peddler in Divinity (Princeton UP, 1994). Without rejecting this thesis, McInelly warns against reducing Methodist religion to such factors and thereby missing the sincere faith of the participants. Undoubtedly Whitefield was a self-promoter who ‘wanted to be a star’ (Stout, Divine Dramatist, p xxi) but at the same time he had a ‘firm belief in the commodity he brought to market – spiritual renewal and salvation’ (p. 107).
The Methodist use of the hymnal is well-worn territory, but McInelly gives us a fresh investigation in chapter 4 by arguing that the hymns themselves, as well as the practice of hymn singing, were in part a response to anti-Methodist discourse. He sees the hymnal as ‘a site of complex negotiation between John and Charles Wesley and their followers as the Wesleys attempted to steer the movement away from charges of religious enthusiasm’ (p. 121). John Wesley frequently emended his younger brother’s hymn texts in order to avoid what he considered overt sentimentality, preferring a ‘plainer’ style, and also sought to regulate hymn singing in order to preserve the dignity and order of Methodist worship. Such an approach was a direct response to charges of enthusiasm and serves as a further example of how Methodists shaped their own identity in part through response to their critics.
In chapter 5 Methodist sexuality and textuality (sextuality?) are combined in an examination of charges of sexual impropriety among Methodists. While recognising the sexually-charged language of Whitefield, the Wesleys and their followers, McInelly rejects Henry Abelove’s claim (The Evangelist of Desire, 1990) that John Wesley’s ‘seduction’ of his many female correspondents was driven by egotistical desire to create a following. Abelove ‘presents Wesley…with little regard to his deep-seated longing to do God’s will’ and for McInelly this is an oversimplification of the admittedly erotic elements of Wesleyan discourse (p. 161). Eighteenth-century critics of Methodist religion often saw it as a threat to the ‘proper’ role of women whose moral purity was thought to be best protected when they were confined to the domestic sphere. There was, then, a subversive element to early Methodism which gave women an efficacy and agency beyond the expectations of polite society.
The sixth and final chapter investigates Methodist in-fighting, most notably the Calvinist vs. Arminian controversy, which was played out in a very public arena and both shaped Methodist doctrine and the public perception of Methodists. Tobias Smollett’s 1771 novel Humphrey Clinker serves as an interesting case study in the public perception of internal Methodist disputes. Though generally anti-Methodist in its tone, Smollett’s novel displays quite a nuanced understanding of the movement and is able to see its redeeming features (pp. 194-202). Where D. Dunn Wilson claimed that internal disputes hampered Methodist growth (Many Waters Cannot Quench, 1969) McInelly argues instead that such quarrels helped cultivate the spiritual lives of Methodists and solidify their Methodist identity and self-understanding (p. 210-11).
In his Conclusion the author argues that ‘textual warfare…helped make Methodism…by providing a material context in which faith-based experience was both tested and confirmed in public and private settings (p. 217)’. This is perhaps not a new hypothesis but it is one that is skilfully interrogated here in a book that provides valuable insights into the nature of early Methodism. Perhaps its most original claim (and an important one) is that Methodists came to understand themselves as Methodists only in the face of their most vociferous critics. As ‘the Mormon who does Methodism’ (McInelly is Associate Professor of English at Brigham Young University, Utah) the author brings an admirable ‘outsider’s’ objectivity sometimes lacking in Methodist treatments. I highly commend this valuable work.
Displaying 1 of 1 review