This post was started to prep for CU’s July 4th, 250th Anniversary celebration by showing the movie “A Great Awakening”. The content below is about that movie.
From ChatGPT on 6/26/2026 – Prompt: What are the critical bible scholars’ views of the movie called “A Great Awakening”
Response: There has been very little published commentary from critical biblical scholars on the 2026 film A Great Awakening. This is not surprising because the film is a historical drama about the First Great Awakening and the friendship between George Whitefield and Benjamin Franklin rather than a film about the Bible itself. It was produced by Sight & Sound Films, whose productions are aimed primarily at evangelical Christian audiences. (Wikipedia)
Because the film is so recent, historians of American religion and critical biblical scholars have not yet published academic reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, one must infer how scholars who specialize in historical criticism would likely evaluate the film by comparing its historical claims with current scholarship.
The principal areas where critical scholars would probably agree and disagree are as follows.
Areas likely to receive favorable evaluations
Most historians would agree that the film correctly portrays several broad historical facts.
- Whitefield was one of the central figures of the First Great Awakening.
- Franklin and Whitefield maintained an unusually close friendship despite profound theological disagreements.
- Franklin printed many of Whitefield’s sermons and admired his rhetorical ability.
- Whitefield’s preaching had an enormous social impact throughout the American colonies.
These points are well established by historians such as Thomas S. Kidd, Harry S. Stout, and Frank Lambert.
Where critical scholars would probably criticize the film
1. It presents an evangelical interpretation of history
The film argues that the Great Awakening spiritually prepared America for independence and that Christian revival was the decisive force behind the founding of the United States. (Rotten Tomatoes)
Most academic historians consider this an oversimplification.
For example:
- Harry Stout argues that Whitefield transformed colonial religious culture but was only one factor among many that shaped American identity.
- Frank Lambert argues that economic, political, Enlightenment, and imperial developments were equally important.
- Thomas Kidd, while more sympathetic to evangelical religion, likewise does not attribute the Revolution primarily to revivalism.
Thus, scholars would likely say the film gives theological causes greater weight than the historical evidence warrants.
2. Franklin’s conversion
Perhaps the greatest historical criticism concerns the film’s conclusion.
The film portrays Franklin eventually embracing orthodox Christianity through Whitefield’s influence. (Wikipedia)
Most historians reject this interpretation.
Franklin consistently described himself as a deist or theist who admired Jesus’ ethics but expressed uncertainty about Jesus’ divinity. His autobiography and later writings contain no clear evidence of an evangelical conversion.
Biographers including Edmund S. Morgan, Walter Isaacson, and H. W. Brands conclude that Franklin never became an evangelical Christian.
Consequently, historians would likely regard the film’s ending as theological speculation rather than established history.
3. Whitefield’s role in slavery
Academic historians have increasingly emphasized Whitefield’s advocacy for legalized slavery in Georgia.
Whitefield not only owned enslaved people but actively lobbied colonial authorities to legalize slavery in Georgia because he believed his orphanage could not survive economically without slave labor.
The film reportedly acknowledges Whitefield’s ownership of slaves but treats the subject briefly and near the end. Reviewers from both religious and secular backgrounds have noted that this minimizes one of the most controversial aspects of Whitefield’s career. (Reddit)
Historians such as Thomas Kidd acknowledge Whitefield’s evangelistic achievements while also emphasizing that his support for slavery was morally significant and historically consequential.
4. Providential interpretation
Critical scholars generally distinguish between
- historical explanation, and
- theological interpretation.
The film repeatedly suggests that God providentially directed events leading toward American independence.
Critical historians generally would not evaluate such claims because they fall outside historical methodology. Instead, they would note that these represent theological convictions rather than conclusions derived from documentary evidence.
Biblical scholars specifically
Critical biblical scholars such as:
- Bart D. Ehrman
- John J. Collins
- John Dominic Crossan
- Dale C. Allison Jr.
have not, as of June 2026, published reviews of A Great Awakening. Their work focuses primarily on the historical Jesus, early Christianity, and biblical literature rather than eighteenth-century American religious history.
However, based on their historical-critical methodology, they would almost certainly distinguish between:
- historical evidence,
- theological interpretation,
- devotional storytelling.
That distinction is central to critical scholarship.
Overall assessment from a critical scholarly perspective
A historical-critical evaluation would probably conclude that the film is:
Historically reliable regarding
- Whitefield’s fame
- Whitefield’s friendship with Franklin
- the importance of revivalism
- the broad outline of colonial events
Less reliable regarding
- Franklin’s supposed evangelical conversion
- the extent to which revivalism caused the American Revolution
- the relatively limited treatment of Whitefield’s support for slavery
- providential claims about God’s direct guidance of American history
In short, critical scholars would likely describe A Great Awakening as a historically grounded drama told from an explicitly evangelical theological perspective, rather than as a neutral work of historical scholarship. Its major historical framework is recognizable, but several of its central interpretive claims reflect the filmmakers’ theological convictions more than the consensus of academic historians.
