One Family Under God. Anna M. Lawrence
time in Georgia. In addition, Welsh revivalists had been meeting in select groups by the mid-1730s, and Wesley would have been aware of this practice.44
The American experience sparked the creation of Methodist bands in that Wesley consciously synthesized these precedents and the religious structures of the Georgia Moravian community. In organizing the Anglican community of Georgia, John Wesley drew specifically from Moravian models, which had single-sex groups. The Methodist band was almost certainly inspired by the Moravian organization of “choirs.” The Moravian family order was based in these choirs, which divided members according to sex, marital status, and age. In this sex segregation, Moravian women had considerable power overseeing other women.45 Moravian women held various leadership offices: nurse, deaconess, eldress, and chief eldress. Wesley followed this innovation of appointing female leaders, which abraded local colonial sensibilities. The colonists complained that Wesley appointed “Deaconesses, with sundry other Innovations, which he called Apostolick Constitutions.”46
Wesley’s proto-Methodist family model was based on the Moravians, but there were also significant differences between the family order that Methodists adapted and the Moravian model. In contrast to Methodists, Moravians lived in self-contained societies and shaped their communities around their religious order.47 The Moravian choir system became the basis for community organization in their settlements throughout the Atlantic Moravian world, starting in the late 1730s.48 In 1741, American Moravians formed their largest community in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where choirs, not individual families, were the basic unit of social, religious, and economic organization.49 The community lived in sex-segregated units, divided into groups designated as “Single Brethren,” “Single Sisters,” and “Married People.”50 The reasons for this segregation were practical and spiritual. All of the members slept, ate, worshipped, and worked within these units. By keeping individual members oriented toward the community and curtailing any inclination to pair off into couples or separate from the community into distinct nuclear families, Moravians kept individuals focused on their religious goals. As with other designed religious communities, the devolution of individual families contributed to the evolution of a higher religious family.
The Moravian model radically limited the influence of particular families, assigning child rearing to the larger community. Even before children were born, they were assimilated into the larger religious structures. Moravian leader Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf wrote, “When the marriage has been consecrated to the Lord and the mother lives in continuous interaction with the Saviour, one may expect that already in the mother’s womb the children form a choir, that is, a grouping of the community consecrated to the Lord’s work.”51 The community assumed responsibility for children at their weaning, when communal supervisors took charge of raising the children’s choir. Parental authority was curtailed in this system, deferring to the broader group authority. Moravian marital and sexual practices diverged from those in mainstream Protestant groups. Matrimony was not solely an individual or family concern, but a decision in which the community had the primary stake and interest.52 Historian Aaron Fogleman’s work confirms that even the act of conjugal sex was part of Moravian religious teachings, making marital sex a holy and radically guilt-free activity. Moravians saw marriage and sexual acts as healthy contributions to their religious community.53
Methodists never separated themselves from society and never instituted any sort of community order as the Moravians did, but they shared some of the same ideals and practices regarding the religious family, social religious goals, and divine authority. Like the Moravian choir, the Methodist band was a place for intense spiritual sharing and growth. Both Methodists and Moravians presumed that the greatest growth would occur among like-minded individuals, who were at the same stage in their life and could support each other. After Wesley returned to Europe following his Georgia mission, he continued to draw from Moravian ideas, talked extensively with Moravian leaders, and even stayed in their community in Herrnhut. Even though Methodists and Moravians would eventually part ways, the two religious groups shared a common genetic component following this contact in America.
The Moravians also affected John Wesley on a personal level. As the Moravians in Georgia promoted the religious benefits of sex and family formation, Wesley also began to think about his own marital possibilities. At the start of Wesley’s mission in Georgia, he was thirty-two, overripe for forming a romantic attachment. Propriety called for him to be married in order to claim respectability as a religious leader and as an upper-middleclass man. In 1736, John Wesley started a relationship with a younger woman in the Savannah congregation, Sophy Hopkey. Wesley and Hopkey visited various congregations around Georgia together, evangelizing together and planning a future together. However, as Wesley’s own account confirms, he was ambivalent about his intentions toward Hopkey and about marriage in general.54 He wrote that she was his soul mate and that they shared a physical and spiritual bond, but he also wrote that he was not sure he would ever marry.55 When Hopkey accepted a proposal of marriage from another man, Wesley was hurt and confused.56
This failed relationship would have been a simple romantic misstep (and not Wesley’s last one), but what unfolded after the dissolution of their relationship became much more complex, implicating the Anglican mission in Georgia and Wesley’s career. Wesley proceeded to exclude Hopkey from communion on the grounds that her marriage had been improperly publicized.57 Once he attempted this revenge, her family got involved and had Wesley arrested on charges of defaming Hopkey and failing to give her communion. He was also tried for “ecclesiastical innovations” and for being a “Jesuit, a spiritual Tyrant, a Mover of Sedition.”58 The essential maneuver that got Wesley in trouble was his legalism regarding Hopkey’s apparently improper marriage. While the core of his mission in Georgia was to “regularize” the colonists’ religious practices and sacraments, including marriage, baptisms, and communion, his stance on Hopkey’s improper marriage seemed personally motivated.59 In December of 1737, as authorities were moving to prosecute him on further related charges, he escaped to Charleston and then sailed to England.60
Wesley’s hasty retreat from Georgia and the mission’s altogether ignoble conclusion embarrassed not only Wesley but also subsequent historians of Methodism. Wesley first published his journal in order to quell the controversy that arose from his rumored unscrupulous behavior in Georgia. Historians have struggled to explain why this successful evangelical organizer was so ineffective at either evangelizing or organizing in this first attempt. Many biographers have framed this rocky period, as well as other episodes in the romantic lives of John and Charles Wesley, with a familiar narrative of good men who were unwittingly snared by besotted women. Methodist historian Frank Baker suggests that the Wesley brothers were bound to find trouble in the Georgia colony, due to their bachelor status and their personal charms. Baker writes, “Both brothers suffered from the fact that they were earnest and eligible bachelors, becoming focal points for dissimulation, jealousy, intrigue, and gossip.”61 Henry Rack confirms this sentiment in the title and content of his chapter on the Georgia mission, “Serpents in Eden.” This title refers primarily to three women in Georgia, Sophy Hopkey, Beata Hawkins, and Anne Welch, though Hopkey is singled out as “the worst of all the serpents in [John Wesley’s] Eden.”62 The other “serpents,” Hawkins and Welch, had reportedly caused Charles Wesley’s early departure from the colony. According to Charles Wesley, Hawkins and Welch led him to believe that they had had adulterous affairs with Georgia’s founder James Oglethorpe. When he tried to confront Oglethorpe about the accusations, the women reputedly recanted their initial accusations and made Charles Wesley the offender instead. Regarding these difficulties in Georgia, Rack concludes: “The whole episode suggests murky undercurrents of sexual jealousy and hysteria of which these idealistic and inexperienced clergymen were more or less innocent victims.”63 Wesley biographers have described the “pack of angry women”64 in Georgia as “scheming,” “petty,” and “malicious,” in order to dismiss the women’s accusations against John and Charles Wesley in this period.
In some ways, historians have simply reflected the ambiguity that John Wesley, in particular, felt about marriage. Both Charles and John Wesley were at critical junctures in their lives, on the precipice of starting a new religious movement,