Part 9 (pages 120–133)
seat. It is. thought to have originated at the turn of the nineteenth century in the Methodist camp meetings. as a “mourners” bench.” Until the Rochester revival of 1831, Charles did not even use it.
A fourth issue dealt with what. Weeks considered “familiarity with God in prayer.”
Charles did not pray nor preach in the. customary “language of Zion.” So his critics called him a “vulgar speaker.” Above all, the evangelist wanted to be a commu- nicator. Charles believed that as an ambassador for Christ he needed. to communicate. clearly and effectively. Because of his belief, he spoke the language of the people.
Since he relied on this principle in preaching, he also used it in prayer. His desire was for people to understand spiritual things clearly—not to be confused about them because of stilted language. Charles knew that God understood plain, simple words, and that no irreverence was involved in addressing Him in common, everyday language: ;
The fifth point of contention had to do with church membership for new converts. The evangelist stood accused of opening the church doors too soon and.allow- ing new converts to become members before they were ready. When Charles’s record came to light, however, not one incident could be found where he pressured pastors into receiving a new convert prematurely. He tried always to.abide by the pastors’ principles regarding church mem- bership. If.a pastor disagreed with Charles’s views, Charles respected that.
In addition, studies show that converts who were allowed into the life of the church remained faithful and. grew into mature Christians. Historian R. H: Fowler admitted in his study Historical Sketch of Presbyterianism within the Bounds of the Synod of Central. New York that converts of the Oneida County revival usually offered much to the churches they joined:
The sixth measure which caused the most controversy was allowing women to pray in public. Charles elevated women by using them in revival leadership roles. In the nineteenth century, women’s rights were much in the fore- front of reforms, and the evangelist expressed a wide range of concerns. He sought after social justice as well as being a zealous revivalist, and he wove these two endeav- ors into his ministry. Charles thought it both Christian and logical to allow any member of the church, male or female, to serve in whatever capacity he or she was. best suited.
His practices, however,- shocked traditional church members. Then there were the St. Paul “proof texters” who pointed out Charles’s errors of interpretation to him. But Charles simply replied: “I know some have supposed that the Scriptures plainly. prohibit the speaking or pray- ing of women in promiscuous assemblies, but I do not so understand the teachings of the Bible.”
Charles has even-been accused of—or credited with— the whole concept of women participating in public wor- ship. Women, however, were already speaking publicly in Utica when the evangelist came there. He admitted at the time that it was a local custom. In fact, Theodore Weld may have started the practice. Weld admitted that, “I was converted to Christ in the city of Utica during a powerful revival of religion under Brother Finney, and the first time lever spoke in a religious meeting, I urged females both to pray and speak if they felt deeply enough to do it, and not to be restrained from it by the fact that they were female.”
Another measure that Charles used was praying for people by name in public. Traditionalists simply did not do this. Feelings ran high regarding this practice, partic- ularly among the “old.school” theologians who asked, “What if the person named in prayer was not one of the ‘elect’?” That question encompassed the.real problem.
- Even the extended meeting itself presented a problem to some people. For an evangelist to arrive in a commu- nity, stay, and preach until revival came was not the way to bring in the kingdom of God. The objections to this practice were mixed. Some said ifthe meeting were drawn out, it reflected continued interest. But another concern was that pastors and evangelists might deliberately. extend a meeting, pretending renewed interest by the people involved. If the meeting were deliberately prolonged, of course, the evangelist and. pastor could get credit for-a successful revival; but it would also leave the people exhausted and suffering from nervous fatigue. This situa- tion would also make the people vulnerable to’ spiritual degeneration, fanaticism, and extravagance.
Of course, these arguments contained some truth. But as far as Charles and his revivals were concerned, the con- cerns did not apply. As soon as he knew the revival had run its course, he would leave immediately. Further, he realized that physical exhaustion and spiritual exhaustion often go hand in hand, so he tried hard not to overextend the people. ; :
Che iy ve
“Charles: -coul ‘be blamed: for ‘some ‘of these a uses; : since some of th abusing’ evangelists: were: ‘imitating his. new measures:-Another aspect: of the*abuses ‘was’ “that. Charles implied that if the right methods’ were used, God Would be réquiréd:to’ ‘send revival. Some: important ‘con: siderations need: tobe understood as’ to: > wh ‘the evanige- 7 list insisted on the miatters he’ did. :
First of all,’ the ‘institution aft the ‘new: measures reveals Charles’s reaction:to a'rigid- Calvinism, a'Calvin- isti that emphasized the sovereignty of: God 'to'the near: elimination ‘of ‘humati: responsibility. People we hos “seen'as passive ‘agents’ when they ‘received the. “grace ff. God:: ‘The evangelist had ‘never: ‘been’ able to : ~ such’ an’ approach; asa ‘result; he perhaps: swan; 5 toward the other extreme.: Later, as’a mattire: preacher, he did. admit that he had put too much emphasis on human abil- -. ity to'respond'to the gospel'and not enough onthe: giace _ of God to-act in’ ‘Salvation. He achieved: a much better . balance’in maturity. a
“In. the ‘secorid lace? Chiatles’ always ‘stressed ‘the work of the Holy: Spiritin the use of his revival methods: His main emphasis i in this regardwas‘on the ‘ “measure” of: ‘intercessory prayer’ He refused to. encoiitage singing in prayer meeting because-it might interrupt’ the 'spirit: of oe prayer. ‘Singitig’i in'the preaching ’ services, however Tee promoted: In Finney’s day; revivals tended to be wide: - spread: Many ‘different: methods’ of: ‘promoting: revival seéméd: to be ‘blessed. ‘But unlike most: evangelists, : Charles rately, if ever; had a: dry séason‘in his preaching.
The nature of the new mieasures hardly'seems : human- =~ istic to’ Christians. today. Christians now’ are accustomed
23> to prayer, counseling, and personal witnessing accompa- nying an evangelistic service as a matter of course.
.To some observers, Charles’s views on revival seem to. be too mechanical, too pat. In effect, he believed that if certain principles were followed, results were sure to come. He compared the process to farming, where sow- ing, cultivating, and reaping lead to a good crop. Even though the evangelist believed and expounded such ideas, he himself was not mechanical in following them. But others tended to be mechanical,.and some of these practices became rote for some of. Charles’s imitators. The abuse of these practices led to the church’s being filled with either evangelistic technicians or confessional theologians. Charles, however, always combined his in- novative new measures with a vibrant theology.
Some of the minor issues that Charles was criticized for involved two well-known ministers from New England, the Reverend Lyman Beecher from Boston and the Rev- erend Asahel Nettleton, a-prominent evangelist. Nettleton, nine years older than Charles, had a reputation for being an outstanding revivalist. _
The evangelist greatly admired. Nettleton and wished to counsel with him as a younger evangelist: “I had the greatest confidence: in.Mr. Nettleton, though I had never seen him. I felt like sitting at his feet, almost as I would at the feet of an apostle, from what I had heard of his suc- cess in promoting revivals. At that time my confidence in him was so great that I think he could have led me, almost or quite, at his discretion.”
Charles’s desire to ‘sit at.Nettleton’s feet, however, was not to be. While Charles was ministering in Troy, Nettleton was holding.a revival in Albany. So Charles made the effort to ride over to Albany, hoping to see the older man and hear him: preach. He wanted to have Nettleton .counsel-with him and offer him advice from his position as a more mature evangelist. But Nettleton let Charles know that he did not wish:so:much as to be seen with him, and Charles had to attend his meeting with another person. .
In a letter written on February 15; 1827, Nettleton told Jay Frost: “They [Finney and his friends] are driving us back into barbarism.under the illusion of a new era.” Later Nettleton wrote to Samuel Aiken: “It is no-reflection on his [Finney’s] talents or piety, that in his zeal to save souls, he should adopt every measure which promises pre- sent success, regardless of consequences; nor, after a fair experiment in so noble a cause, to say, I have pushed
. something beyond what they will bear, that most useful lessons are learned by experience.”. Even though Nettle- ton’s tone sounded: somewhat conciliatory, he was con- vinced that Charles should stop using his new-measures.
Charles Finney would never doso; he believed that his methods worked, and that they were most useful to bring souls into God’s kingdom. Nettleton himself used certain of the new measures, yet criticized Charles for doing so. Most likely he was jealous, to some extent, of the younger evangelist.
For two or three years, the controversy over the new measures raged on. Then on May 27, 1828, when the General Assembly met in Philadelphia, a resolution was passed that finally put it to rest:
The subscribers having had opportunity for free conversation on certain subjects pertaining to revivals of religion, concerning which we have differed, are of the opinion that the general interest of religion would not be promoted by any further publication on those subjects, or personal discussion; and we do hereby engage to cease from all publications, correspondence, conversations, and conduct designed and calcu- lated to keep these subjects before the public’s mind; and that, so far as our influence may avail, we will exert it to induce our friends on either side to do the same.
Several well-known church leaders signed the resolution, among them Lyman Beecher and Charles Finney.
The evangelist’s life. continued to be somewhat tumultuous. He was simply too controversial a figure and accomplished too much for that not to be the case. Nevertheless, Charles retained his new measures to good effect in all the revivals he preached. He determined to put the controversy and criticism behind him and to move forward, turning as many souls to Christ as he could.
‘126 s Charles concluded.a revival meeting New. . -/-\> Lebanon, one. Sunday,, he. encountered .Maria, a - young woman. from nearby. eS eatenion She ex
and. real the res f ( told her,that he sired to. do $0: o but that he had too many, other commitment: Maria’s urgent request.c did cause-him to get.more information, about. Stephentown; however. © -- »Charles ; discovered. that: Stephentown.: was: north. of. New Lebanon. He also found out that.a strange: set of cir: cumstances, had. caused. the town to,-become spi dry.:Many. yeats earlier; ia wealthy person. had. died. and : - given. the Presbyterian church -a ‘fund, the interest from. which was sufficient to support a pastor. The pastor. who. came, .however,..caused. the’. church:.to. deteriorate and became.an n.infidel, which i in turn hada disastrous effect in the town. The entire town had become morally corrupt and spiritually decayed. Such conditions always tanta- lized Charles, and he felt the pull of the Lord to go there and preach.
A recent New Lebanon convert offered to drive him to Stephentown in his buggy. Charles asked him, “‘Have you a steady horse?’ The man replied, ‘Oh yes! perfectly so, and smiling, he asked, ‘What made you ask the question?’ ‘Because,’ [Charles] responded, ‘if the Lord wants me to go to Stephentown, the devil will prevent it if he can; and
if you have not a steady horse, he will try to make him kill me. He smiled, and we rode on; and strange to tell, before we got there, that horse ran away twice, and came near killing us. His owner expressed the greatest astonishment, and said he had-never known such a thing before.”
The evangelist’s arrival in Stephentown’ generated interest, and he was greeted by a crowd at the designated meeting place. The congregation proved to be solemn and attentive, but nothing of any spiritual significance occurred that Charles could detect, so he did not sched- ule another meeting. But Maria, the young woman, so plead with him to come back that he finally agreed.
The next Sabbath, the same atmosphere hovered over the meeting, but there seemed to be a more serious attitude in the people. As Charles finished preaching, he took the initiative and set up a third service. He sensed that God was at work after all. During the third service, the Holy Spirit came upon the people—a revival began. : ;
Charles now had to bid farewell to New Lebanon and begin the work in Stephentown. Once he began minister- ing in earnest, tremendous blessings occurred. Many of the most prominent men in the community were: over- come by the power of God.
In an early message, Charles had used as his text, “God. is love.” A well-to-do farmer attended the service, whom Charles described as “a man of strong nerves, and of considerable prominence as a farmer in the town.” The. evangelist later recounted: “He sat almost. immediately before me, near the pulpit. The first that I observed was that he fell, and writhed in agony for a few moments; but afterwards became still, and nearly motionless, ‘but en- tirely helpless. He remained in this state until the meeting was out, when he was taken home. He was very soon.con- verted, and became an effective worker in bringing his friends to Christ.” Such occurrences often accompanied other revivalists’ meetings, as well as Charles’s, and they generally had a tremendous effect on the people present.
The evangelist noted: “I have seldom labored in a re- vival with greater comfort to myself, or with less opposi- tion, than in Stephentown. There was such power set home by the Holy Spirit, that I soon heard no more.complaints.”
With the “new measures” controversy now behind him, Charles found new joy in his work. While the evangelist had still been in New Lebanon, the Reverend Mr. Gilbert, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Wilmington, Dela- ware, had visited him. Although Gilbert. was a pastor of “old: school” Calvinism, Charles consideredhim a fine, devout Christian with an earnest desire for people to come to Christ. Even though the two men had theological. dif- ferences, Gilbert’s desire to-see sinners come to Christ smoothed the path between them. Further, Gilbert greatly desired Charles to leave Oneida County and come south to Delaware. When he finished at Stephentown, Charles planned to proceed to Delaware.
As the ministry started in Wilmington, however, a new situation confronted Charles: “[Gilbert’s] teaching had placed the church in a position that rendered it im- possible to promote a revival among them, till their views could be corrected. They seemed to be afraid to make any effort, lest they should take the work out of the hands of God. They had the oldest of the old-school views of doc- trine; and consequently their theory was that God would convert sinners in His own time; and that therefore to urge them to immediate repentance, and in short to attempt to promote a revival, was to attempt to make men Christians by human agency, and human strength, and thus to dishonor God by taking. the work out of His hands.” Charles refused to be discouraged by the situa- tion and decided to try to persuade the Reverend Gilbert to change his mind, so that he could in turn teach his congregation. :
After a few weeks of labor and considerable discus- sion, Charles felt the time had come for the people to hear a thundering “new school” theology sermon. So the fol- lowing Sabbath he took as his text: “Make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die?” (Ezekiel 18:31). The evangelist described the sermon with these words: “I went thoroughly into the subject of the sinner’s responsibility; and showed what a new heart is not, and what it is. I preached about two hours; and did not: sit down till I had gone as thoroughly over the whole subject, and: their jnevitable. ferults ar ; ‘As. Charles descended: from the.
seemed to be leaving very slowly, and many of them appeared to be waiting for a further word. However, Mrs. Gilbert, the preacher’s wife, left immediately. Two ladies standing near the pulpit looked partly grieved, partly offended, and greatly astonished. The first woman the evangelist and the Reverend Gilbert came to took hold of Mr. Gilbert as he was following after Charles. She spoke in a rather loud whisper, “Mr. Gilbert, what do you think of that?” ;
He replied, “It is worth five hundred dollars.’ The woman replied, “Then you have ‘never preached ‘the gospel.” Gilbert responded, “Well, I am sorry to say I never have.” The evangelist was pleased at these remarks; however, when he reached the Gilberts’ house, Mrs. Gilbert accosted him about the message, telling him she took exception to what he had preached.
Mrs. Gilbert sensed that the evangelist might be right. She .secluded herself in her room for two whole days and emerged not only transformed in theology; but in life as well. Joy beamed from her face: From then on, the work went forward. As for the Reverend Gilbert, his views greatly changed along with his style of preaching and his way of presenting the gospel.
In the meantime, Charles had accepted an invitation to preach in the growing city of Philadelphia twice a week. For a short time, he divided his time between Wilmington and Philadelphia—a distance of about forty miles. As the work in Philadelphia progressed, however, he sensed that he needed to put all of his time in there. So he and Lydia moved to Philadelphia.
Charles Finney *
From the beginning, Charles’s work in Philadelphia took “strong hold.” The pastor, the Reverend James Patterson, held views similar to the Reverend Gilbert. But he was a godly man and cared a great deal more for souls than for nice questions about ability and inability, or any of the points of doctrine upon which the old and new school Presbyterians differed. Charles. considered the Reverend Patterson “one of the truest and holiest men that I have ever laboured with.”
When the Reverend Patterson’s wife would say after a good sermon, “Now you see Mr. Patterson, that Mr. Fin- ney does not agree with you on these points upon which we have so often conversed,” the minister would reply, “Well, the Lord blesses it.” How Charles rejoiced to hear comments like these! .
A new and unusual experience opened up for Charles in Philadelphia. The city was much larger than any place he had preached in before, and there were several Presby- terian congregations in the city. So the evangelist was able to rotate his preaching among different churches.
Nearly all the Philadelphia pastors were “old school” men. Patterson was concerned that if the ministers of these churches realized Charles’s. doctrinal position, they would reject his. ministry. But that did not happen. The evangelist found himself accepted in every church except one, the old Arch Street Church.
Charles was never one to modify his views nor his preaching to please people. When he preached in the Arch Street Church, he chose the topic, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). The message struck home to the