The following article below is by Dr. Rick Flanders pastor, revival historian, and evangelist. If you would like to listen to a podcast by Dr. Flanders about Charles Finney click here. If you would like to watch the podcast via YouTube click here.
It is strange to see how severely some Fundamentalists are criticizing the ministry of Charles G. Finney these days. The famous revivalist has been dead for over 120 years, but the attacks on his ministry are mounting! The reason for this unusual phenomenon is becoming clearer as the anti-Finney articles and lectures multiply. Mr. Finney is being resurrected and attacked so that his philosophy of revival can be removed from the Fundamentalist mind. This particular slant on revival has prevailed in a large segment of the Fundamentalist movement for a long time. It was the basis of the revivalism of D.L. Moody and Billy Sunday as much as it was the methodology of Finney. Those who have opposed this approach over the years have primarily been the strict Calvinists. They attacked Finney, they criticized Moody, and they blasted Sunday! Strict Calvinism has not been the dominant theological viewpoint of the Fundamentalists through the years, and this is why Finney-Moody-Sunday revivalism has been so widely accepted and practiced among them. The goal of replacing this philosophy of revival with a more Calvinistic view is at the bottom of the mostly unjustified charges leveled at evangelist Finney. However, Fundamentalism’s potential as a force for revival will be destroyed if the Calvinistic view is adopted. The importance of Fundamentalists experiencing revival cannot be overstated, and it is vital that they understand correctly what Christians should do about revival.
Two Views of Revival
What the critics are saying about the history of revival in America and about Finney’s influence is very simple: (1) they say that the Great Awakening of the Eighteenth Century was our country’s purest experience with God-sent revival. The human leaders in that powerful experience were all good Calvinists, and every aspect of it was the result of unsolicited sovereign acts of God. (2) The Second Great Awakening of the early Nineteenth Century was a mixture of good and bad. Asahel Nettleton and other Calvinistic evangelists in the Northeast did the good, and the camp-meeting preachers of the South did the bad. (3) Then Charles Finney was converted in 1821, and began almost immediately an evangelistic preaching ministry that was very effective in winning converts. When the Presbyterian pastors of his part of New York State offered to pay for his theological education at Princeton, he refused their offer because of his aversion to the extreme Calvinism taught there. Soon Finney was preaching against some of the most sacred tenets of Calvinistic orthodoxy and he began using new methods that evidenced a crass, unprincipled pragmatism, they say. (4) The results of his revival ministry were terrible. Heresy was brought into the Presbyterian and Congregational churches, and pragmatism became an integral part of evangelical revivalism. Everything was ruined, and America has seen very little of true, God-sent revival since. (5) The supposed converts of Finney’s meetings soon drifted back into sin, and the famous evangelist himself finally admitted that his revival efforts resulted in little lasting good. (6) What is needed now, they say, is a return to the Calvinism of the Puritans and of the Great Awakening. Fundamentalists should give up the revivalistic notions they learned from Finney, and adopt the view of his Calvinistic critics, who saw revival as a hope, but not as a legitimate goalor expectation for serious Christians.
In the critics’ evaluation of revivalism we can see the distinction between the two views of revival now competing for dominance among Fundamentalists. The view of the more Calvinistic side has been influenced to a great degree by the writings of men on the outside of the Fundamentalist camp, such as John MacArthur and Ian Murray. It sees the revival of the saints and the conversion of sinners as works of God which cannot be “worked up” by man. This view sees a revival as an extraordinary event that is not promoted by man but is sent as a blessed surprise from God. The other view, the one which is blamed on Finney but was believed also by Wesley, Moody, Torrey, Sunday, and by many Fundamentalists of the past, sees revival as a goal to be pursued constantly by earnest Christians. It sees humility, repentance, prayer, holiness, and evangelism as matters of Christian duty that have the promise of divine blessing. It says that if we draw nigh to God, He will draw nigh to us! It holds that compliance with conditions set down in the Bible will bring revival from on high.
In some ways, these two views seem like two sides of one coin, but in the application of their principles many points of conflict arise. The first view wants to distinguish between “revival” and “revivalism” because revival is considered wholly a work of God and revivalism is viewed the presumptuous effort of man to produce what only God can do. The second viewpoint sees “revivalism” not as bad, but as something very good very much needed today! The church is not carnal and worldly and ineffective because of God’s sovereign decree. The church is carnal, worldly, and ineffective because she will not repent of sin, and turn to her Lord for the revival He offers to send. The truth is that this second view is the Biblical teaching about revival.
Early Fundamentalism
Historically, the Twentieth Century Fundamentalist movement arose out of two important religious movements of the last century: premillennialism and revivalism. Fundamentalism is the idea that Christianity can only be defined in terms of certain “fundamental” doctrines, and that to deny any of the fundamentals is to depart from Christianity. Fundamentalism is more stringent than other kinds of Evangelicalism which hold to the same basic doctrines, but do not insist that others must do so in order to be regarded as Christians. Fundamentalism is the Biblical way of dealing with heresy: by denouncing it and separating from it. When the heresy of Liberalism invaded the major church organizations, the Fundamentalist movement arose to fight it. First, they tried to expel the Liberals from the denominational bodies. When they failed in that effort, they removed themselves from the mainline denominations as a matter of principle. This was the Fundamentalist movement, but who were the Fundamentalists? History says that some were Baptists, and others were Methodists, and others were Presbyterians and Episcopalians. History also says that the majority of the early Fundamentalists were believers in both premillennial Bible interpretation and revivalistic effort. Some were more Calvinistic in their understanding of the Bible, and some were more Arminian. However, the strictest Calvinists and Arminians stayed out of the Fundamentalist movement. Some of them took a strong stand for the Faith in their own ministries, but would not be identified with the term “Fundamentalism.” Although the premillennial viewpoint and revivalistic interests are not essential to the definition of Fundamentalism, it is nevertheless true that the movement was made up primarily of revivalistic premillennialists. They loved Billy Sunday; they revered D.L. Moody; and they read the works of Finney.
Contrary to popular misconception, Mr. Finney has not always been a villain to Fundamentalist writers and leaders. One of Finney’s most important defenders was Professor G. Frederick Wright, who also contributed three articles to the volumes published in 1910 as The Fundamentals. This series of treatises defending the Christian Faith gave the Fundamentalist movement its name! Dr. A.T. Pierson, renowned pastor of London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle and consulting editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, was a great admirer of Finney as well as a contributor to The Fundamentals. The Presbyterian missionary Jonathan Goforth was admired and supported in his great work in China by many Fundamentalists. According to his wife, the reading of Finney’s Revival Lectures was “the factor God used to change his entire life and ministry.” The adoption of Finney’s approach to revival brought wonderful fruitfulness to Goforth’s ministry. The great Fundamentalist leader John R. Rice listed Finney’s Autobiography and Revival Lectures as two of the most influential books in his life. R.A. Torrey also stated that these same books transformed his ministry (as have many prominent men in Gospel work since Finney’s day). The influence of Finney’s life, ministry, and writings on the Fundamentalists of an earlier time was profound, and their open endorsement of his revival methods very common.
The Facts about Finney
No one can dispute the fact that Charles Finney was one of the most important figures in American church history. His revival campaigns of the 1820’s and 1830’s revitalized and extended the Second Great Awakening. The great revival that was experienced in Rochester, New York, largely through the instrumentality of his preaching, was acclaimed by friend and foe alike as the most extensive and powerful religious revival of modern times. Reader’s Digest of July 1994 contained an article entitled “Our Kindest City” which reported the continuing effects of that 1831 revival on the city of Rochester more than 160 years later! Finney’s ministry and writings were important to many movements: the anti-slavery movement, the prohibition movement, the anti-Masonic movement, the Holiness movement, the Deeper Life movement, the Bible college movement, and the Fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalists have generally rejected this man’s theological extremes while accepting his example and instruction in their evangelistic approach.
Finney’s theology did have some serious problems. He was a post-millennialist (as were most American Evangelicals in his day). He had little practical appreciation for the concept of “eternal security” as most Fundamentalists believe it today. His biggest problem was his weak view of human depravity, which resulted from an overreaction to the extreme Calvinists that opposed his work. However some statements that have been made about his theology are clearly wrong!
Finney was not a Pelagian! According to Strong’s Systematic Theology, Pelagianism teaches that men are “as free from depraved tendencies, and as perfectly able to obey God, as Adam was at his creation.” Pelagians believe that “men can be saved by the law as well as by the gospel; and some have actually obeyed God perfectly, and have thus been saved. Physical death is therefore not the penalty of sin, but an original law of nature; Adam would have died whether he had sinned or not. . .” Strong wrote in 1906 that the “modern advocates” of Pelagianism are the Unitarians, of whom Finney was definitely not one. Strong’s Theology identifies Finney with “New School” theology, which was a modified form of Calvinism. Professor Lewis A. Drummond of Southern Baptist Seminary says of the claim that Finney was a Pelagian, “This was a serious charge and unjustified against Finney.” This eminent church historian agrees with Strong that Finney’s belief system should be classified under an orthodox but not strictly Calvinistic heading. “They should have leveled their guns on Arminian Theology. That is where the evangelist-theologian was coming from.” Finney was wrong about human depravity in that he did not accept that it is innate or “constitutional.” However he did preach a “total moral depravity” in man that he saw as “voluntary.” His weak view of depravity led later in life to an unacceptable belief in perfectionism, but even this was not outside the confines of basic Christian orthodoxy. Without question, Mr. Finney could have signed the doctrinal statement of almost any interdenominational Fundamentalist institution. To a strict Calvinist, Finney was heretical in some of his views (although remarkably in agreement with the Calvinists on other points), but to say that he departed from the fundamental truths of the Gospel would be false.
Finney was not a Rationalist. Theologian Charles Hodge accused him of “conformity to the doctrine of the modern German school, which makes God but a name for moral law or order of the universe.” This Calvinist professor wrote his criticisms of Finney over a period of thirty years (1847 – 1877) in various reviews of the evangelist’s published lectures. Sadly, many students of Calvinistic theology have accepted these charges without reading the thorough refutation of them written by Professor G. Frederick Wright in 1876. Dr. Wright proved that Dr. Hodge had grossly misrepresented Finney’s views of the universe, regeneration, and morality. Nearly any Fundamentalist will disagree with some points of Charles Finney’s theology, but only the hyper-critical will make of him a Liberal. He opposed what there was of Liberalism in his day, and stated that “those who have called in question the plenary inspiration of the Bible have, sooner or later, frittered away nearly all that is essential to the Christian religion.”
There is false rumor in Fundamentalist academia that Mr. Finney promoted an “easy-believism” and would do anything to claim large numbers of conversions. It would be hard to say anything farther from the truth than this. A study of his Autobiography will inform the reader of the evangelist’s reluctance to claim the genuineness of converts, leaving the positive identification of true converts to God. Writing of the revivals he witnessed, Finney often referred to meetings which “resulted in a great number of hopeful conversions.” This was Finney’s usual way of reporting his results. In his Revival Lectures, Finney’s exhortations to inquirers were anything but “easy believism.” He insisted that sinners be directed to repent (involving an “abhorrence of sin”), to believe the Gospel (faith “that commits the whole soul to [God] in all His relations to us”), to give his “heart to God,” to “submit to God,” to “forsake” his sins, and to choose “this day” whom he will serve. So far is this conception of the way of salvation from “easy-believism” that it might be classified with the teaching of “Lordship salvation”! Many would argue with Finney’s almost legalistic presentation of the Gospel, but no one can rightly accuse him of making it easy so that unrepentant sinners could be counted as converts.
Revival Methods
The greatest matter of importance in the controversy over Finney is the question of his methods. Critics love to call him a “pragmatist.” The philosophy of Pragmatism was developed and expounded in the Nineteenth Century by unbelievers like William James who were seeking a standard of morality in the absence of God and Scripture. James reasoned that whatever is right will “work.” He then proposed that whatever “works” is right! Of course, this philosophy is accepted by no Bible-believing Christian today, and was not accepted by the orthodox Christians of the last century. Finney was not a philosophical Pragmatist, and he denied teaching that the end justifies the means. “One cannot choose an end in obedience to God and reason, and then disobey and disregard both or either in the use of means to secure his end.” Probably none of those who label Finney and others “pragmatists” mean to say that they teach the philosophy of William James. They mean to say that some believe the final test of God’s approval is if an evangelistic method “works.” They like to quote Mr. Finney’s Revival Lectures where he said,
“When the blessing evidently follows the introduction of the measure itself, the proof is unanswerable, that the measure is wise.”
It is sad how many seem to think that this sentence teaches unprincipled pragmatism. Finney never said that methods (“measures”) involving disobedience to God are right if they “work.” Actually, the quotation in question comes from a section of his lecture on wisdom in the ministry that presents exceptions to the rule that success demonstrates wisdom. He said that methods used strictly “for effect to produce excitement” may seem good at the time but will later be regarded as “a mere trick” and will “do more hurt than good.” He then asserted that a method may be mistakenly credited with producing a revival when really other factors such as “the prayers of Christians and the preaching” were blessed of God to bring the revival “in spite of these measures.” It was in regard to this second point that Finney made the criticized statement. Common sense says that activity which produces results is to be preferred over activity which produces no results. This is not a principle of ethics, but it is a sensible statement of practicality. Practicality is what is enjoined in our Lord’s Parable of the Pounds in Luke 19. Here (in verses 11 through 27) servants are rewarded for “how much” they produced with what their master had delivered to them. His command for practical productivity was “Occupy till I come.” The Greek world translated “Occupy” in verse 13 is pragmateuomai. This, of course, is the word from which “pragmatism” is derived. The idea that Christians should work for results may be labeled “Christian pragmatism,” but it is really just practical Christianity! Finney and the revivalists who followed in his train were Biblically practical in their efforts to win souls, an effort which, in itself, provokes suspicion among some Calvinists.
We come now to the main issue in the debate over revival. Is there anything men can do to produce or promote the coming of a true revival? A professor at a leading Fundamentalist seminary said recently to a group of preachers,
“Revival should be a desire but not our aim; else we are tempted to somehow produce it.”
It is claimed that Charles Finney tried to “work up” revivals by a set of methods that were unethical and wrong. Readers of MacArthur, Warfield, Hodge, or Murray may imagine that these “new measures” were unscriptural practices similar to what is being done in the mega-church movement today. However, they were not of that sort at all. Historian Keith Hardman lists the objectionable “new measures” as follows:
“. . .public praying by women in mixed audiences; protracted series of meetings (i.e., daily services); colloquial language used by the preacher; the anxious seat or bench; the practice of praying for people by name; and immediate church membership for converts.”
Look at that list again. Many Fundamentalists object to women leading in prayer (Finney did not advocate women preaching, as some now say). However, the other “new measures” are all recognized by most non-Calvinistic Fundamentalists as good evangelistic methods. “Protracted meetings” were simply night-after-night revival campaigns. Calvinists opposed them. Colloquial preaching is received happily by common men, but Calvinists attacked it. The “anxious seat” meant the public invitation. Finney did not advocate “praying through” for salvation, as some assert, but called repenting sinners to the front pew to decide immediately for Christ. It is strict Calvinism that objects to public invitations. Hyper-Calvinists also object to praying for the salvation of particular sinners, since they expect that some are not among the elect. Immediate reception of new converts into the church is a Scriptural practice, but it is disdained by many Calvinists. Finney was charged with “working up revival” by those who object to revival campaigns, evangelistic preaching, public invitations, and prayer for sinners, and church membership upon profession of faith. This is the same theological bias that fights the long-dead evangelist in Fundamentalist circles today, and is seeking to purge our movement of practical revivalism.
Real Revivalism
Actually, what we need in the Fundamentalist movement is a revival of revivalism. Honest, spiritual, and scriptural “measures” to promote revival should be used among us today. Finney’s theology should not influence ours, and Charles Finney himself need not become the Fundamentalist ideal, but the concept that Christians should pray and work for revival should not be rejected because Finney has been demonized.
God is the Great Reviver of His people. The Bible teaches that He is willing to revive individuals or groups if they will turn to Him for the quickening they need. Psalm 85 gives us this prayer to pray:
“Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?” (Verse 6)
Revival by definition is a bringing back to life. This the Lord is always willing and able to do for those who seek His face. Coming back to life is coming back to normal for the Christian. Vance Havner gave the sense of the Scriptures on this subject when he said, “What we call revival is simply New Testament Christianity, the saints getting back to normal.” It is God that gets us back to normal in response to our wanting to be made normal. False conceptions of revival will lead us astray in our thinking. Definitions of revival need to be derived from the teaching of Scripture, and not from experience or history. Here is a mistaken definition of the term propounded by one of the current-day Finney critics: “Revival is an extraordinary intensive and normally extensive work of God in powerfully applying His gospel to people, which results in the salvation of sinners and renewed obedience of saints.” Where in the Bible would anyone get the idea that God chooses arbitrarily at certain extraordinary times to apply the Gospel to people in an intensive and extensive way, and at other times leaves the saints carnal and sinners unawakened? God is always ready and willing to revive His people. When believers are in a revived state, they are obedient to God, Spirit-filled, Spirit-gifted, walking in the Spirit, pressing toward the mark, setting their affections on things above, growing in grace, and preaching the Gospel. They are living normallyas the New Testament sets the norm. Such people have the power of the Spirit working through their lives and are seeing sinners convicted and often converted through their testimony. Revival is not an extraordinary work of God; it is His ordinary work when His children turn wholeheartedly to Him.
American Revivals
The history of the great revivals in America has been misinterpreted by the critics of revivalism. The Great Awakening of the Eighteenth Century did not “come unexpectedly” as some say. It was a revival that was sought earnestly, especially by a preacher named Solomon Stoddard. Historian Keith Hardman says that “the idea of spiritual awakenings in colonial New England began almost entirely” with this soul-winning pastor. Stoddard led in organizing gatherings of ministers to address the erosion of spiritual life since the time of the founding fathers. At these “reforming synods,” the need for a general revival was the subject of many sermons. Stoddard emphasized the importance of evangelistic preaching.
“When men don’t preach much about the danger of damnation, there is want of good preaching. Some preachers preach much about moral duties and the blessed state of godly men, but don’t seek to awaken sinners and make them sensible of their danger. . .but if sinners don’t hear often of judgment and damnation, few will be converted.”
As pastor of the Congregational church in Northampton, Massachusetts, for 60 years, Stoddard conducted a distinctly revivalistic ministry As a result, his church and community experienced revival at least five times, each time seeing large numbers of lost souls come to Christ. Hardman says that “more souls were turned to Christ than at any other time in New England before the Great Awakening” through Stoddard’s revivalistic and evangelistic pastorate. Upon his death, Solomon Stoddard’s grandson became the pastor at Northampton, a man named Jonathan Edwards. It was Edwards’s continuation of Stoddard’s pursuit of revival that led, from the human side, not only to “harvests” of souls at Northampton, but also to a general awakening across New England. Of course, the Great Awakening was a mighty miracle of God, but it was occasioned by the submission of God’s servants to the Biblical requirements for revival. Revival begins with God in that the Lord continually calls His people to holiness and sinners to repentance, but it comes when men heed His call. This truth (“Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you”—James 4:8) became clearer to American Evangelicals as the years passed. The Great Awakening resulted as men responded to God’s call, but many strongly influenced by Puritan Calvinism believed that it all happened as a sudden, surprising, and sovereign act of God, precipitated by no human effort. As time went on, and revivals came again and again, some began to see that the Lord was responding to people who were responding to Him. Edwards himself, known as the theologian of the Great Awakening, is described by church historians as a “modified” Calvinist. He had moved away from the strict Calvinism of the Puritans. History shows that hyper-Calvinism is a hindrance to revival, and must be “modified” to make way for it.
When God’s people prayed, and repented, and sought God for a refreshing again at the turn of the century, the Lord sent the Second Great Awakening to America. This was the longest season of national revival in modern history (about forty years, 1800 – 1840). It was preceded and sparked by a “circular letter” sent by a group of Baptist preachers in 1795 to churches across the land which called for earnest prayer and effort to save the country from infidelity. When the fires of this great movement began to cool, God raised up Finney and other revivalists, mostly influenced by him (such as Baptist evangelist Jacob Knapp and southern itinerant Daniel Baker), to continue it in a powerful way.
It is sad that critics of revivalism want to downplay the effects of the Second Great Awakening. Many, many solid converts came into the churches through the revivals. Although some writers have claimed that Finney himself came to deny the genuineness of his early revivals, the claim is not accurate. In 1861, Finney wrote,
“I doubt if the world has ever witnessed revivals more pure, more powerful, more lasting and desirable in their results than those that have occurred in this country during the last forty or fifty years. If my health will allow, I hope to write some account of the revivals that have occurred under my observation. . .for the purpose, if possible, of disabusing the minds of those who have been prejudiced against those revivals by false reports.”
Mr. Finney did write a detailed account of many of these revivals in a volume known as his Memoirs or Autobiography. Throughout this classic book, the “perseverance” of many of the converts is noted, and the spirituality of the revivals is demonstrated. It is true that, because of the perfectionism that dominated his thinking at times in the last part of his ministry, Charles Finney expressed disappointment in the spiritual level of certain individuals years after their conversion, but this feeling was due largely to his unscriptural expectations of sinlessness. His friend Asa Mahan also disparaged the results of his early revival efforts because of his own perfectionist views. To say that Finney believed his early ministry to be a sham is to contradict the testimony of his autobiography. The truth is that many remarkable Christians met Christ in revivals led by him. The Baptist theologian A.H. Strong was saved in one such revival in 1856. Henry C. Trumball, the noted publisher of the Sunday School Times, was won to Christ at a prayer meeting led by Finney. The founder of the Y.M.C.A. was converted by reading Finney’s writings. The power of the Second Great Awakening had a tremendous effect on the religious and social history of our country. The missionary movement that continues in the Evangelical churches today began as a result of the Second Great Awakening. The midweek prayer service was born in this long season of revival. The public invitation practiced in most Fundamentalist churches became widespread at this time. Seven large benevolent and evangelistic societies were organized in the zeal of this Awakening: the American Bible Society, the American Sunday School Union, the American Tract Society, the American Temperance Society, the America Board of Foreign Missions, the American Home Missionary Society, and the American Antislavery Society. These and dozens of other groups formed for helpful purposes were called collectively “The Benevolent Empire.” In 1834, just three years after the great Rochester revival, the “Empire” organizations received donations totalling more than the entire annual budget of the federal government! Did the Second Great Awakening bring any significant results? Hundreds of thousands of apparently genuine converts came into the churches, the tide of public opinion was turned against slavery and alcohol, tremendous movements for Christian action were organized, and a spirit of pure religion prevailed in the land. It was at the height of the “Finney” revival era that Alexis de Toqueville visited New York state and made his famous comments about the power of the Christian religion in American society.
“There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America. . .Christianity itself is an established and irresistible fact, which no one undertakes either to attack or defend.”
To suggest that the revivals of the 1820’s and ‘30’s were superficial emotional fire crackers with little lasting effects is to deny or ignore the facts of history. Charles L. Thompson, an observer of Finney’s revival ministry, wrote two years after the evangelist’s death, “the fruits of revivals under his [Finney’s] labors have rarely been superficial. . .in the main the converts under his preaching have run well, have lived Christian lives, and endured to the end.”
Another result of the Second Great Awakening was the Prayer Revival of 1857-59. Although some will dispute this assertion, it is nevertheless true that changes in the way America believers thought about revival, which came about because of the Second Awakening, were the basis, on the human side, of the powerful revival that took place seventeen years later. Some say that the Prayer Revival took place suddenly and unexpectedly beginning with a laymen’s prayer meeting organized by Jeremiah Lanphier in New York City. Without question, the revival began in that meeting, but a historian who has studied these times says that “there was an earnest expectation of awakening, and much prayer in many places for it in 1857. In cities large and small there were interdenominational prayer meetings [for revival].” People were praying for the revival before it came! Mr. Lanphier’s prayer meetings led to many conversions, and the establishment of weekday laymen’s prayer gatherings all over the country! In Boston in 1858, one man said, “I am from Omaha and on my journey east I have found a continuous prayer meeting all the way!” Hundreds of thousands came to Christ and into the churches through the revival of 1857-1859, and revival fires spread from America to Europe!
The Prayer Revival laid the ground-work for the great revivals in both armies during the Civil War. It is estimated that at least 150,000 Union soldiers and around the same number of Confederates were converted through the revival meetings, prayer gatherings, and personal witnessing that took place in the camps! Fixed in the minds of many was the principle that prayer, repentance, and Spirit-anointed evangelism would lead to revival and conversions.
D.L. Moody was a soul-winner who gained valuable experience as an agent of the Christian Commission during the Civil War. He had been converted under the influence of his pastor, Dr. Edward Kirk, once a “disciple of Finney” and a key revivalist of the Second Great Awakening. History records that Moody led the nation into a new revival era during which evangelists organized churches in a locality to work and seek for revival. Millions of souls were saved in great evangelistic campaigns led by Moody, Jones, Chapman, Sunday, and others from 1875 to 1920.
Decay or Progress?
Some Calvinistic thinkers see this era of “professional evangelists” as a time of declension. “Revivals” had degenerated from the divine miracle of the Calvinist-led Great Awakening to the effects of high-pressure salesmen who styled themselves “evangelists.” Everything has gone downhill ever since, they say. But the truth is that the changes that occurred in revivalistic methods and activity during the Nineteenth Century were mostly improvements. God’s people began to understand more and more that the reviving of the saints and the conversion of sinners, although both distinctly works of God, nevertheless came in response to the repentance, faith, and obedience of believers seeking revival. “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded”(James 4:8), is a key principle in God’s dealing with man. Even the Great Awakening was a powerful response from Heaven to an earnest upward turn among a few on earth. It is true that men do not initiate dealings with God, but it is also true that God deals with all men. It is the response of man to God that brings the response of God to man. This is how revival works.
Some Calvinists argue that the “Arminianism” of the revivalists led the churches into Liberalism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The influence of the Nineteenth Century revivals served to hold back the evils of Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, and Evolutionism in society and in the churches. The cause of unbelief in all its forms has been fighting for dominance in American life for nearly three centuries. The battle between truth and error can be seen in every chapter of our nation’s history. It is a mistake to see revivalism as anything but the arch-foe of what we now call Liberalism.
What happened then? How did unbelief win the fight on so many sides? Is not God greater than the Enemy of truth? If revivalism did not weaken the power of the church to fight evil, what happened? The problem was in the machinery of the church organizations in the last century. The elements of Liberalism were accepted one by one in denominational schools and agencies. Revivalism was a force against the movement, but when the evangelist left town, the churches remained fatally connected to the entities that fed them the contamination. The Fundamentalist movement arose at the turn of the century out of the influence of the revivals. Fundamentalism saw the disease, and called for its removal from the body. Sadly, the Fundamentalists did not win the fight in the great denominations; compromise did. And there has not been a widespread revival in our country since that time.
Fundamentalism and Revival
Fundamentalism is very important to our hopes for revival in the Twenty-First Century (should the Lord tarry). Sound doctrine and practical holiness are essential to revival, and the compromising segments of Evangelicalism are deficient in these areas. Yet our separatist brethren are also deficient in matters essential to Biblical revival. They may not fellowship with unbelievers, but they seldom fellowship with God either. They may have their doctrine correct down to the letter, but they know little of the Spirit Who is the Author of sound doctrine. They may still give an old-fashioned altar call, but few ever respond. Some of them are changing their services to accommodate changing times, but seldom do these modified services change any lives. They won’t do anything wrong, but they do little of what is right either. Fundamentalists can reach the world because they are separated from the world, but they will have little impact and win few to Christ until they experience a revival from God. As we have noted, some assign revival to the realm of hopes and dreams. The truth is that revival is a desperate need among Fundamentalists. How can we go on with the attitude that revival would be nice, but is not necessary? If we will be revived by our God, we will have the wonderful results of revival: a powerful renewal of evangelism, great enthusiasm for missionary work, growing churches, deepened spirituality, a prayerful spirit, transformed preachers, deliverance from sin, eager volunteers for the ministry, strengthened Christian families, and Spirit-anointed services. For too long, we Fundamentalists have tried to get the results of a revival without seeking revival itself. Most of our seminars and conferences for thirty years could have been subtitled, “How to Have Results Without Revival.” The era of this attitude must come to an end. We must begin now to seek and work for a genuine reviving of the Fundamentalist churches of America. Then we can hope to shake our nation and the world for God!
Certain aspects of Calvinism can hinder revival, and really should be avoided. The theological system of John Calvin attempts to be a thorough explanation of the grace of God. Coming to light in the times of the Reformers, the Calvinistic system did much to combat in the minds of the people the works-salvation system they had been taught for so long by the Catholic Church. The unfortunate part of Calvinism as taught by Calvin and by his followers over the years has been its unbalanced and unscriptural expositions of divine election and predestination. The Calvinists are wrong who say that sinners who are commanded to repent cannot do it. God has called all men every where to repent and trust in Christ (Acts 17:30), and He has enabled all of them to do it. From the beginning of the Bible we find that the sovereign God Who created all things has decreed that individual human choice be involved in the matter of man’s salvation. Men are given the grace to decide (John 1:9), and their decision decides their destiny. God’s foreknowledge (through His omniscience), His election (by His sovereignty), and His predestination (as an expression of omnipotence) work together to guarantee the eternal salvation of those who believe, but these mysterious works of God do not negate the genuineness of the element of man’s will (Romans 9:30-33). Knowing that God has truly provided for the salvation of all men through a universal propitiation for their sins (I John 2:2), and that God truly desires the repentance of every man (II Peter 3:9) and will save anyone who will believe in Christ (John 3:36) gives the revived saint the highest motivation to consecrated evangelistic work. Calvinism can stifle or hinder this Scriptural motivation.
Mr. Finney said that a revival can be expected when seven conditions exist:
1. “When the providence of God indicates that a revival is at hand.”
2. “When the wickedness of the wicked grieves and humbles and distresses Christians.”
3. “When Christians have a spirit of prayer for a revival.”
4. “When the attention of ministers is especially directed to this particular object, and when their preaching and other efforts are aimed particularly at the conversion of sinners.”
5. “When Christians begin to confess their sins to one another.”
6. “When Christians are found willing to make the sacrifice necessary to carry it on.”
7. “When ministers and professors [professing Christians] are willing to have God promote it by what instruments he pleases.”
He went on to say that “when the foregoing things occur, a revival, to the same extent, already exists.” Certainly Fundamentalists should seek to have a revival in their churches, at their schools, and in their own hearts. Then we should work and pray to have the revival spread.
Fundamentalists at the turn of the millennium should get off the defense and on the offense. Five thrusts of revived effort should begin before the year 2000:
1. Regular prayer meetings in every church for the power of God upon His people.
2. Door-to-door evangelism renewed in the work of local churches.
3. Area-wide revival campaigns led by evangelists given to this work and supported enthusiastically by the churches.
4. Vigorous church-planting efforts through the cooperation of the churches.
5. Great new missionary projects promoted by the infusion of new volunteers and new funds for the evangelization of the world.
A debate is being carried on among Fundamentalists as the century and the millennium come to a close. Serious questions are being raised. Shall we change our philosophy of ministry to fit the changes taking place in our society? Shall we alter the outward forms of our work to be more effective in preaching the Gospel? Shall we shed the “taboos” and conventions of an earlier Evangelicalism? Shall we repent of certain policies and practices we inherited from our Fundamentalist fathers? The truth is that Fundamentalism does not need to be revised; Fundamentalists need to be revived! And revival will not come by changing to a more Calvinistic view of revival. It will come through sincere, Scriptural revivalism.
“Draw nigh to God, and he will draw night to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” (James 4:8-10)
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (II Chronicles 7:14)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Chapman, J. Wilbur, The Life and Work of D.L. Moody. New York: W.E. Scull, 1900.
Drummond, Lewis A., A Fresh Look At The Life And Ministry of Charles G. Finney. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1983.
Finney, Charles G., Lectures on Revivals of Religion. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868.
——, Finney’s Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1994.
Frankenberg, Theodore Thomas, The Spectacular Career of Rev. Billy Sunday. Columbus, Ohio: McClelland & Company, 1913.
Goforth, Rosalind, Goforth of China. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1937.
Hardman, Keith J., Charles Grandison Finney 1792-1875. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
Holbrook, Clyde A. and others, The History of First Church in Oberlin, Ohio. Oberlin: First Church, United Church of Christ, 1984.
Martin, Roger, R.A. Torrey, Apostle of Certainty. Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1976.
MacArthur, John F., Ashamed of the Gospel. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1993.
Murray, Iain H., Revival and Revivalism. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994.
Priest, Gerald L., “The Revivalist Preaching of Charles G. Finney,” Mid-America Conference on Preaching Syllabus. Allen Park: Inter-City Baptist Church, 1996.
Rice, John R., Dr. Rice, Here Are More Questions. . . Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1973.
——, We Can Have Revival Now! Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1950.
Rosell, Garth M., and Richard A.G. Dupuis, (eds.) The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney—The Complete Restored Text. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.
Strong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology—A Compendium. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907.
Thompson, Charles L., Times of Refreshing. A History of American Revivals from 1740 to 1877, With Their Philosophy and Methods. Chicago: M.W. Smith & Co., 1877.
Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America. New York: Mentor Books, 1956.
Torbet, Robert G., A History of the Baptists. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1950.
Warfield, B.B., Perfectionism. New York: Oxford, 1932.
Wright, G.F., Charles Grandison Finney. New York: Houghton, Miffin, 1891.