Question

Based on what you know about America in the 1700s, how would colonists react to Edwards’s sermon? Would they find it frightening, hopeful, or both?

Answer 1

If you mean Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1741) and the wider revivalist preaching of the Great Awakening, colonists’ reactions would most commonly be both — intense fear followed by hopeful assurance — but the mix varied by background and region.

Key points to keep in mind:
- Edwards’s rhetoric was deliberately terrifying: vivid images of wrath, hell, a “fiery pit,” and the idea that unconverted people are held over damnation only by God’s arbitrary mercy. That struck many listeners as urgent and horrifying, producing visible terror (weeping, trembling, fainting) in revival meetings.
- That fear had a purpose: revivalist preaching tried to shock people out of complacency so they would repent and experience a conversion. After the emotional crisis, converts typically reported relief, joy, and a sense of salvation — so the sermons promised hope if one turned to Christ.
- Social and regional differences mattered. New England Puritans and those already steeped in Calvinist expectations were the most susceptible to Edwards’s theology and emotional style. In the Middle and Southern colonies, where religious life was more pluralistic and some elites were skeptical, many found the methods excessive or manipulative.
- Responses also split along generational and class lines. Young people and the poorer classes often embraced the revival enthusiastically; some established ministers and conservative parishioners (the “Old Lights”) criticized the emotionalism and questioned conversions’ authenticity.
- The wider effect: the Great Awakening’s blend of fear and hope helped produce large numbers of conversions, new denominations, itinerant evangelism (e.g., George Whitefield), and long-term changes — greater religious democratization, challenges to established clergy, and new social networks.

So: yes — frightening at first, because Edwards intended to awaken people to imminent danger — but ultimately hopeful for those who responded, because the sermon offered an immediate path from terror to assurance of salvation. Others, however, rejected the approach as too extreme or manipulative.