An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 5.1

Influences and Changes in the the Nineteenth Century

Part One
The Influence of Charles G. Finney

Introduction

It is not our purpose to give a point by point or year by year history of Baptists in America. There are many items of interest we would like to mention, but the scope of this paper restricts us to those matters which relate to the doctrine of the church and its relation to purity. Therefore, we leave the eighteenth century and the influences we have noted and turn to the nineteenth century. We shall show that the trends already mentioned continued until the covenantal concept of the church was fully lost in Baptist thinking.

It is somewhat with fear and trembling that the writer continues this chapter to speak further about the history and development of "revivals." He realizes, as McLoughlin observes, that there are generally two attitudes or extremes regarding revivals in American history.192 There are, first of all, those who would create a false stereotype or straw-man, exaggerating the abuses and extremes in order that the method of revival might be easily discredited. On the other extreme, there are those who eulogize the revivals of the past, portraying them as the most epic events in American history, free of any excess or errors. This second view would consider it heresy and the lack of Biblical orthodoxy and even to be unevangelistic and not love the souls of men, if one were to seek to point out any such excesses or errors, or attempt to picture and understand the revivals in their reality. To seek to be honest and realistic about any of the errors of the revivalistic atmosphere of our day is for some tantamount to being an enemy of God and the souls of men.

The writer would long to communicate the truth that even such meetings which seek to reach men for Christ, many times, as good as they appear, and as much as some think they have accomplished, like other good things can be counterfeited or even contain a mixture of the good and bad, purity and impurity, the real and the spurious in various percentages up and down the scale of right and wrong, even though they accomplish some good.193 After pointing this fact out clearly, but not in your writer's words, Sprague adds saying:

It becomes therefore a matter of great importance that we discriminate accurately between the precious and the vile; that we do not mistake a gust of animal passion for the awakening or converting operations of God's Holy Spirit.194

Sweazey also makes an interesting observation in this area of thought, when he says every evangelistic method could do great harm, and may be easily discredited by calling attention to its abuse or misuse at some point of revival history. Then he adds that any evangelistic method should be taught to a church as a boy is taught to use a gun, with the first lessons on its safe handling.195 We would add so that the boy does not shoot himself or someone else. Or so that the gun does not blow up in the boy's own face, as do so many "methods" of our day---methods which leave the church with "joiners" and "new members," but not with true converts.

The writer's point is that he is not against evangelism, but that a love for these areas of ministry cannot allow one to ignore blindly the abuses and misuses we have encountered and seen in these areas in our churches and their results. Surely we must with great spiritual perception seek to determine the true methods from the false, the right from the wrong, the real from the spurious, as far as methods, speakers, sermons, decisions, and even a foundational theology to the whole subject of revivals and evangelism. May we never align ourselves with either side of the extreme critics, whether they be the hard critics, who have little real concern for the souls of men, or the non-critics, who blindly think all is well and proper, which goes under the name of revival and evangelism, as long as it gets numbers and decisions and new church members. May we all keep these facts in mind, as we now turn to speak critically and also analytically of the revival movement of the nineteenth century.

The Revival Methods of Charles G. Finney

We do not divide these remarks on the history of revival into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to give the impression that the Great Awakening of the former century was unrelated to the Second Awakening of the latter century. Such is not the case and we state it clearly, as not to lead the reader to misunderstanding. Yet, though there is a relation, several writers have noted the marked differences between the two awakenings. Hudson says the first awakening under Edwards was regarded as the outpouring of God's Spirit as the by-product of the true and faithful preaching of God's Word.196 He continues to note men waited on God for revivals as one waits for rain, without any thought of instruments to produce them. In the second awakening men began to seek to produce revivals by the use of means. He says revivals had been an end in themselves at first, but with the second era in the nineteenth century they became a way to other ends.196 He says in another text, speaking on the same subject, that in the Second Awakening a revival was something which one sought for tangible results.197

Of course, the key figure in this second period of revival was Charles G. Finney. We would not leave the impression that he was the one who brought the whole change, for we have just shown in the last chapter changes which were taking place in the eighteenth century. But it cannot be denied that Finney, building on the modifications in theology and methods, which we have already noted, further transformed both theology and methods in his evangelizing in the nineteenth century. Sweet lists some of his new methods as: praying for people by name in public meetings; the permitting of women to pray in public and with men; and questionable and undignified means of advertising.198 McLoughlin adds to this list the practice of going to towns uninvited by the local pastor, the attacking of ministers who were not in sympathy with revivals in the attempt to break down their resistance or just to skin them publicly; the practice of praying in an overfamiliar way with God; and the introduction of a spirit of disorganization into the churches.199 Yet, just the listing of these new methods alone does not tell the story of Finney's reconstruction of revival. Some of these so-called new methods have become commonplace in our churches, and furthermore, they tell us nothing of the deeper theology which Finney represented. So it will be necessary for us to look at Finney in a greater dimension.

Hudson points out that Finney was bred a lawyer and felt as a preacher he was arguing the case of Christ before his hearers, therefore, he used the tactics of a trial lawyer.200 Thus he was concerned there was a necessity of a call for an immediate decision. The case had to be won and it had to be won now. The result was Finney's method of invitation. That which was probably objectionable to his critics was not just the invitation alone, but as Southard notes, this call for immediate decision created an artificial pressure and unstable emotions which produced conversions which did not last201 This is not to say that Finney was the first man to use the method of invitation, but under him it became quite pressurized. What he actually did was to take the tactics of the frontier revivals and camp meetings and sold them to the city churches and people.202

Mills stresses what Finney did was to remove revivals from the realm of the miraculous and placed them in the context of cause and effect.203 Apply the right methods and one will be assured of success, that is, numbers and decisions. Note this ideology uses as its standard of success the ruler of numbers and outward visible results. Realize also that this thinking opens the door again to pragmatism, that is, the idea that whatever gets results must be of God, or at least must be strongly considered to be of Him. Mills points out again that such a viewpoint cannot possibly leave room for man to be blessed in failure, but God is present and blessing only when there are numbers and results.204

McLoughlin notes Finney's own statements in this matter of pragmatic judgment of methods. He quotes Finney several times and among these statements are the following:

When the blessing evidently follows the introduction of the measure itself, the proof is unanswerable that the measure is wise.

Success in terms of the numbers of converts is a safe criterion.

Show me the fruits of your ministry and if they so far exceed mine as to give me evidence that you have found a more excellent way, I will adopt your views.

. . . all ministers should be revival ministers and all preaching should be revival preaching.205

McLoughlin draws the implication from this that Finney is saying preaching was good if it won souls and bad if it did not.206 He states further that those who followed Finney in years to come found his justification for the new methods to be this pragmatic standard of results.207

This attitude of Finney's verifies that his understanding of revival was extremely man-centered. Revival becomes almost completely human endeavor and God's grace, purpose, and will is subservient to and dependent upon man's works. When man does the right thing, employs they proper method, then numbers, decisions, and converts are assured. This effort of man brings the presence of God in statistics and visible results. On the other hand, if there are no numbers and decisions, then God is not present and man is not using the proper means. There seems no possibility of God's presence in an hour when visible results are absent. God wants to and must give results. If He does not, it is man's fault. Man can either bring God's will to pass or thwart it. In fact, man can even manipulate the will of God. But if one assumes that decisions and numbers are the result of his using the proper method, then in time when he reaps no results from his methods, he may well consider illegitimate methods just for the sake of obtaining results. The end of the use of such methods will be false fruit, which we may convince ourselves is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, but which in time will fade and fail to give the full evidence of true regeneration.

We have been dealing so far mostly with the methods and externals of Finney's work. Every method has a theology behind it, and Finney's were no different. We have hinted at a weak theology in the last paragraph, but now must speak specifically about his theological stance. It is only as we understand Finney's theology, as compared to the earlier thinking of the Great Awakening, that we can understand more fully his methods and pragmatic judgment of the ministry.

McLoughlin reports that when Finney was ordained he acknowledged agreement with the Westminster Confession, though he admitted later that he had not read it. When he finally did get around to reading it, he rebelled against it.208 Instead, with typical American reliance upon piety and rationalism, he approached the Bible with a strong common sense attitude, feeling he could explain all the mysteries of God, and that it was necessary to do so.209 McLoughlin quotes him as saying to the effect that our reason was given to us for the definite purpose of enabling us to justify the ways of God to man.210 It is understandable then why Finney attacked and rejected the Westminster Confession with its strong Calvinistic stance.

McLoughlin notes again, it was this common sense approach, which was so popular with people who thought in a common sense manner and not in a theological framework, that completed the reconstruction of the theology of America from Calvinism to evangelicalism, or even to outright Arminianism.211 He calls it an "Arminianized Calvinism," saying this thinking replaced the Old Calvinistic system, as Finney knocked the last props from under it.212 He states this cutting of the ground from under Calvinism by Finney was intentional, as he wished to start a new movement within the Presbyterian denomination.213 We must admit that this was quite successful, influencing not only the Presbyterians, but many other groups. McLoughlin says that by 1840 Finney's views were held by ministers of almost every non-liturgical denomination with the exception of the Old School Presbyterians, a few Hopkinsians, and the hard-shelled Baptists.214 By 1870, however, even in the Presbyterian church, the Old School had wilted and joined hands with the New School.215

Speaking of Finney's influence on Baptists, McLoughlin notes Baptist revivalists such as Jacob Knapp and Jabez Swan brought the Finney theology and methods into Baptist churches after 1830 only to have to fight the same battle Finney engendered among the Presbyterians. He further acknowledges, however, the Calvinism remaining among Baptists was overthrown in this period, showing that the new theology and methods were more pleasing to the Baptists in general than to the Presbyterians.216

It is the writer's contention that the changes we noted in the last chapter in the eighteenth century prepared the way for Finney, Swan, and Knapp and the completion of the renovation of Baptist theology. When these men succeeded in the demise of Calvinism among Baptists, they were also contributing to the defeat of the covenantal concept of the church, whatever, if any, remnants of it may have remained in Baptist thinking.

To summarize Finney, we have to say he was too much a man of his time and not enough a man of the Word. The pietistic spirit; the rationalistic spirit; the optimistic spirit; the independent spirit; the democratic spirit; and the individualistic spirit of his day---all seemed to combine into one moving and powerful spirit of influence in Finney's life and thought. Because of this he felt man was perfectible and that the millennium was coming. But the old theology of Calvinism stood in the way, and therefore it had to go. Its replacement had to be a mold of thought that was in tune and in step with the spirit of his time. In the process of reconstructing his common sense theology, he also spread new views and methods of evangelism. The theology and methods centered on man and his greatest good and not God and His greatest glory.217

McLoughlin adds that these new methods and new theologies were seen as the way of effecting the new nation's Christian liberty just as quickly as had been effected its political liberty. This was to be the final development in the rising America, which would soon by the power of godly persuasion bring in the millennium.218

An Added Note from the Author

Since writing this material thirty-five plus years ago, the author has read all of Finney's writings (theology books, memoirs, revival lectures, etc.), and he has included in his theological novel series, the journey books, A Journey in Heresy, whereby he further exposes Finney's heretical theology. See also the series on Finney's theology, which appears on this blog, for further understanding of the depth of Finney's false teaching.

Notes

192 William G. McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham (New York: The Ronald Press, 1959), p. v.
193 William B. Sprague, Lectures on Revivals of Religion London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959), p. 13.
194 Ibid., p. 13.
195 George E. Sweazey, Effective Evangelism: The Greatest Work in the World (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1953), p. 23.
196 Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965), p. 136.
196 Ibid.
197 Winthrop S. Hudson, The Great Tradition of the American Churches (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 69.
198 William Warren Sweet, Revivalism in America, Its Origin, Growth and Decline (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1945), pp. 135-136.
199 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, p. 34.
200 Hudson, Religion in America, p. 143.
201 Samuel Southard, Pastoral Evangelism (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1962), p. 13.
202 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, pp. 12-13 and 124.
203 Liston O. Mills, "The Church Revival: Con," Review and Expositor, Volume LXIII (Winter 1966), p. 53.
204 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
205 McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, p. 100 quoting C. G. Finney, Memoirs, p. 83 and C. G. Finney, Lectures on Revival, p. 175, 178 and 167.
206 Ibid., p. 88.
207 Ibid., pp. 99-100.
208 Ibid., p. 23.
209 Ibid., p. 24.
210 Ibid.
211 Ibid., p. 9.
212 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
213 Ibid., p. 41.
214 Ibid., pp. 65-66.
215 Ibid., p. 65.
216 Ibid., p. 136.
217 Ibid., p. 102.
218 Ibid., p. 121.