Frustration With Abeka History

We homeschool our children and I teach our oldest son history and science this year. We use a combination of Abeka material and Rod and Staff. I am continuing with World History with my 8th grade son, using Abeka’s History of the World in Christian Perspective, Third Edition edited by Jerry Combee. As with most school history books, this one breaks no new ground and demonstrates little original research. It’s what I called “Sloganized History” mainly just repeating on what previous history books have printed and giving “evidences” for America’s supposed “Christian history”.

When dealing with the Second Great Awakening on pages 317-319 (and at least the book does deal with it!), the frustration mounts, for Combee’s presentation of the Second Great Awakening is full of unforgivable errors. It appears the editors have done no research whatsoever on the Second Great Awakening (SGA), but have instead just lifted material from the Sword of the Lord.

ERROR 1-”In the first half of the 19th century, a series of widespread revivals swept the nation. Peaking in the 1850s…” Wrong. The revival was winding down by the 1830s.

ERROR 2- “The revivals that led to the Second Great Awakening began quietly in New England.” How does a revival begin “quietly?” But the book could have been more precise with the location as being Connecticut, as I date the start of the SGA in 1797 in Connecticut.

ERROR 3- While taking a full paragraph on the Western Revivals, no mention is made at all of the various theological and practical errors which were developed on the frontier, or how the Western revivals differed from the Eastern revivals.

ERROR 4- “Revival surged from the western frontier to the cities of the East.” Wrong. It started in the East and flowed to the West, although many errors and excesses of the Western revivals did damage the revivals in the East.

The greatest mistakes deal with the book’s treatment of Charles Finney. Again, showing no original research at all, but merely repeating material found elsewhere, Combee and his editors completely mispresent Finney and exclude other pastors and evangelists that made greater contributions to the SGA.

ERROR 5- “The man most responsible for the nationwide revival…was Charles G. Finney”. An unforgivable error. The SGA began in 1797 and peaked in the 1820s (not the 1850s as the book claimed). Finney didn’t start his ministry until the mid 1820s (about 1825), when the revival was waning. Finney almost missed it. And why no mention at all of Gardiner Spring, Edward Payson, Edward Griffin or Asahel Nettleton? These men did much more to promote the revival than Finney ever did. But the book completely ignores them and that is a crime against both scholarship and church history.

ERROR 6- “Through the grace of God, Finney was saved, called to preach, and so anointed by God’s Spirit that he became one of the most powerful revivalists America has ever known.” This promotion of Finney to the Godhead is sickening and borders on idolatry, even if it was true. Finney was “one” of the most powerful revivalists. Who were the others? Couldn’t Combee even locate another one, like Nettleton? And seeing the fact that Finney was an apostate with his Pelagianism, I would “blame” God for sending this man out to preach.

The errors of this textbook regarding the SGA then are summarized as:
1. Wrong ending date
2. Ignoring other leaders of the revival, like Nettleton and Payson
3. Claiming that Finney was practically the cause of the SGA
4. Ignoring Finney’s many theological errors, many of which were quite severe
5. Ignoring the errors and excesses of the Western revivals

I had to spend an entire class period correcting the textbook and giving out the truth regarding Finney that church historians seem to want to ignore. I have come to expect no better from Abeka, since they also promote the nonsense that America was a “Christian nation” and that we have some sort of a glorious Christian heritage. They mix Christianity and American Patriotism (or Americanism) and end up with a magpie nest of error. I suspect the materials from Bob Jones University are no better. This is why I only use the book when necessary for history, relying more on original source materials. But what is needed are a set of Christian history textbooks that are accurate, full of original research, that give the “politically incorrect” details of American and World History, that doesn’t waste paper and ink trying to make America into a Second Israel. I’m sure there are such texts and I’m going to have to really search them out, as I will not be using Abeka history after this year for any of my younger children. It is simply not reliable or accurate enough.

The Heresies of Charles Finney, Part 3

Continued from my book Nettleton vs. Finney: The Shift in American Evangelicalism 1820-1830:

Finney’s New Methods

With a change in doctrine came a resulting change in method. Finney came to believe that revivals could be produced by following a set of rules. Finney maintained that it was the right and duty of ministers to adopt new measures for promoting revivals (Charles Finney, Revival Lectures. Grand Rapids: Revell, n.d, page 312). It was deemed impossible for God to bring about reformations but by these new measures (Dod, page 149).

Finney’s New Measures were directly inspired by the Methodists of the Western Revivals. Finney portrayed in his Memoirs that these new measures sprung on him suddenly as if under divine revelation but is clear they were adopted from, or at the very least, influenced by, the Western Methodists. Finney had praised the Methodists as practicing the best form of evangelism (Murray, Revival and Revivalism, page 258). Finney was clearly in the group of the Kentucky revivalists and not of the more rational, traditional, and doctrinal New Englanders. Finney encouraged every type of Western-style emotionalism (Ibid., page 242).

We will first consider the revivalistic methods he employed and why Asahel Nettleton opposed them.

1. Praying for Sinners By Name

Nettleton gave his observation of the practice of mentioning sinners by name in public meetings:
“The practice of praying for people by name, in the closet, and the social circle, has no doubt had a beneficial effect. But as it now exists in many places, it has become in the eye of the Christian community at large, an engine of public slander in its worst form. I should not dare, in this solemn manner, to arraign a fellow-sinner before a public assembly without his own particular request (Tyler and Bonar, page 351).”
It seems that this practice went beyond simply saying “pray for so-and-so that he would be saved.” People were holding up these sinners before the community at large and requesting prayer for them in such a manner as to suggest that they were guilty of some heinous sin. It would be like saying “Pray for so-and-so that she would give up her prostitution” in a public meeting. Such prayers need to be made, but do we need to give a complete case history on the sinner? Do such prayers need to be made openly?

Openly naming sinners in prayer meetings was not practiced in the First Awakening nor in the early years of the Second. For example, Edward Payson of Portland Maine detailed how his prayer meetings were conducted: “Members of the church and others, if they think proper, present notes requesting prayers for the conversion of any friend or relative for whom they feel anxious. No names are mentioned. The notes are placed in a small box by the door, and afterwards handed to me to be read (Cummings, 1:251).”

2. Usage of Great Familiarity in Prayer

Finney was accused of being far too familiar with God in his public prayers. Nettleton described it as “this talking to God as a man talks to his neighbor…telling the Lord a long story about A. or B. and apparently with no other intent than to produce a kind of stage effect (Hardman, page 84).”

Nettleton observed with much regret at the rapid degeneration of the spirit of prayer under the hand of Finney. “That holy, humble, meek, modest, retiring form, sometimes called the Spirit of Prayer, and which I have ever regarded as the unfailing precursor of a revival of religion, has been dragged from her closet, and so rudely handled by some of her professed friends, that she has not only lost all her wonted loveliness, but is now stalking the streets in some places stark mad (Tyler and Bonar, page 352).”

3. Encouraged Women to Pray Aloud In Meetings

Nettleton commented on this practice: “Whoever introduces the practice of females praying in promiscuous assemblies, let the practice once become general, will ere long find, to his sorrow, that he has made an inlet to other innovations (Ibid., page 348).”

While Finney did encourage women to pray aloud in his meetings, he did not allow or encourage women preachers. Yet the exhorters, as we have seen in chapter 5, certainly did. Many exhorters were women who anointed themselves with the same authority to preach and exhort as the men.

4. Use of the Anxious Seat

The anxious seat was a particular seat in a public place in the meeting where the anxious may come and be addressed particularly, be made the subject of prayer and be conversed with individually. Finney admitted its design was philosophical, not theological (Finney, Revival Lectures, page 303). We would today say it was psychological. When the sinner came forward, a few minutes would be spent in personal conversation in order to learn the state of mind of the individual in order to remove their difficulties. The goal was to get each of them to promise to give their hearts to God (Ibid., page 296).

Finney saw the anxious seat as vital to evangelism because it served to make conversions quick. Finney was too impatient for sinners to wrestle with conviction for days, weeks or even years as in the old days. He wanted instant conversions and instant results. If a man will not get saved at the anxious seat, Finney believed the Holy Spirit would forsake him there (Murray, Revival and Revivalism, page 246). Thus Finney taught that a person must come to the anxious seat to be saved (Dod, page 124). The anxious (or mourner’s) bench came to be regarded as a veritable mercy-seat where grace is supposed to abound, as though the Spirit of God manifested His saving and sanctifying power there as nowhere else (Porter, page 203). Finney defended the anxious seat because so many were being saved as a result of its use. It worked, or at least it seemed to produce results, therefore God must approve of it (Murray, Revival and Revivalism, page 283). In Finney’s system, the anxious seat was seen to fill the same need for a public testimony as baptism did in the early church (Dod, page 126).

There was much public opposition to the use of the anxious seat. Charles Spurgeon was concerned about the emphasis of stream-lining conversion into a speedy business. He wrote “I am glad to see instantaneous conversions, but I am more glad when I see a thorough work of grace, a deep sense of sin and an effectual wounding by the law.” He also observed that it is a motion of the heart and not a motion of the feet to come to Christ. Many came to Christ in body by going forward to the anxious seat but never came in heart (Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, Carlisle PA: Banner of Truth, pages 109,112). Horatius Bonar remarked on usage of anxious seats to multiply conversions “Our whole anxiety is, not how shall we secure the glory of Jehovah but how shall we multiply conversions (Ibid., page 117)?” There were fears that the anxious seat would be used to psychologically twist a sinner under conviction. The sinner is under conviction but is now forced to come forward where his condition is made known in public. This would force him into a position of making some sort of public profession. It scared many away from any profession because they did not want to be held up to ridicule.

5. Called on Converts to Stand in Meetings and Give Public Testimony That They Had Given Their Hearts To God

This was a forced public testimony that a newly converted sinner had accepted Christ. While public testimonials are necessary, they should not be forced, especially on men who had just been saved. It was believed that if a new convert was forced to make a quick public profession, it would prevent him from backsliding away from that profession since everyone in the meeting now knew about it. Thus peer-pressure was used to keep a new convert in line spiritually rather than depending upon the inward work of the Spirit in that person’s heart. This tactic should also be considered a psychological aid to evangelism.

6. Protracted Meetings Designed to Wear A Congregation Down

These type of protracted meetings are now called evangelistic meetings or campaigns that might run for weeks. Their use was no doubt influenced by the Kentucky camp meetings of the early years of the Second Awakening. Finney said they were as old as the Bible. He claimed the Jewish festivals were nothing else but protracted meetings- their manner was different but their design was the same. All denominations where religion prospered held them (Finney, Revival Lectures, page 297). But he did admit that protracted meetings were not necessary for a revival (Ibid., page 302).

These meetings were designed to “wear a congregation down” in the hopes that it would result in a large number of conversions and revival. The evangelist would keep hammering at the congregation day after day with highly emotional preaching until he got the results he was after. It would never be admitted that perhaps the Lord had no intention of giving a revival to that area despite the best efforts of the evangelist. Yet in revivalism, the evangelist is under pressure (sometimes very intense pressure, especially from other preachers) to produce results, so he would stay in the area until something did happen. If no revival resulted, the evangelist or the people were blamed. Some secret sin must have held the revival back. Yet a simple study of church history would have revealed that God sends revival in an unpredictable and sovereign manner and man’s programs could not alter that fact.

7. Services Held At “Unseasonable Hours”

These were held to keep a congregation off balance. One problem that churches have is falling into ruts. The same old services with the same old songs and the same old preacher and the same old forms was seen as the problem. People can get lulled into a rut by a constant conformity of routine. Finney saw one way to get people out of ruts was to schedule meetings at abnormal times- weekdays, daytime services, morning services.

8. The Inquiry Room

This was a room that was set aside to give personal instruction and counseling to those who came forward during the invitation. It would be here, away from the hustle and bustle of the meeting, that the sinner would be directed to Jesus. The personal worker would do everything he could to help that person to Jesus.
There is certainly no sin in personal work but the abuses of this practice are evident. High-pressure techniques to wring a profession out of the sinner were employed with regularity. Again, the pressure for conversions on the part of the preacher and personal worker were intense.

The question arises “How did the sinner get to Christ? Was it by means of inward conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit or through a highly trained personal worker who knew which buttons to push to get a profession?” The inquiry room was looked upon with suspicion because it was believed that it employed Arminian methods by calling attention to human action rather than the divine. Men were then claiming to be saved because they went forward in the invitation and made some sort of profession in the inquiry room. These fears were summed up by Charles Spurgeon: “Go home alone trusting in Jesus. ‘I should like to go to the enquiry-room.’ I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into a fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of enquiry-rooms turn out well (Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, page 102).”

The Heresies of Charles Finney, Part 1

From Chapter 7 of my book Nettleton Verses Finney: The Shift in American Evangelicalism 1820-1830, which will eventually be re-posted on our website.

The Ministry of Charles Finney I: Finney’s Ministry

What is wrong with this statement?

“When Charles Finney was converted and filled with the Holy Ghost the American churches were in a sickly state. Most churches were either Hyper-Calvinistic or Universalist…apathy prevailed (Homer Duncan, cited in Murray, Revival and Revivalism, page 298).”

Or this?

“One hundred years ago, God raised up a voice so cutting, that it penetrated the hardened hearts of sleeping churches. The Christians were shocked and angered by such piercing words. God was crushing the believers by the voice of Charles G. Finney and a tremendous revival swept over our land (Jack Chick, The Last Call: A Revival Handbook. Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1978, page 3).”

The problem is that both statements are totally wrong! By the time Charles Finney began his ministry in the mid-1820s, America was still enjoying the benefits of the powerful revivals which rocked the country in the first twenty years of the nineteenth century. Finney started his work late in the Second Great Awakening and almost missed it, getting in on about the last few years of it. The majority of American churches were in no way hyper-Calvinistic nor Universalist nor apathetic. Most modern revivalist historians and Finney apologists ignore the powerful ministries of Nettleton, Griffin, Payson and Dwight. Charles Finney has been raised to the level of a hero and a personality cult has been erected around him.

Is Finney worthy of such accolades? The historical records clear say “no”. We must turn our attention to the man who was in reality responsible for the destruction of the foundation that had been set by the First Awakening and the leaders of the Second Awakening in the East.

This man is Charles Grandison Finney. While he is not responsible for developing what would later be known as the “New Measures”, he is responsible for promoting and popularizing them in the East.

Finney and his influence must be studied and analyzed because he is totally almost universally lauded as the man who sparked and fueled the Second Awakening, which is clearly untrue. John R. Rice, founder of the Sword of the Lord and a devotee of Finney, called him “the greatest soulwinner in the 19th century” after Moody (while completely ignoring all the other worthy evangelists of this era) (John R Rice, The Power of Pentecost. Murfreesboro TN: Sword of the Lord, 1949, page 234).” Louis Gifford Parkhurst, writing in Jerry Falwell’s Fundamentalist Journal, referred to Finney as “the greatest preacher and theologian since the days of the apostles (Louis Gifford Parkhurst, “Charles Grandison Finney: Preached For A Verdict.” Fundamentalist Journal, June, 1984, page 41).” Fred Barlow, writing in the Biblical Evangelist, said of Finney

“When you read the messages and the ministry of Charles Finney, you get the strange sensation that you are reading pages right out of the Acts of the Apostles…No American evangelist in his ministry ever more paralleled the apostolic preaching, passion and power of a Simon Peter or an Apostle Paul as did Finney (Fred Barlow, “Charles Grandison Finney- Apostolic Evangelism”. Biblical Evangelist, July 1967).”

These claims must be searched out. After a careful reading of Finney, of his own works and biographies of him, I must reject the high praise heaped on Finney. Instead, I would go so far as to charge Charles Finney of marring the Second Awakening and of being the first true New Evangelical! In very direct terms, Finney was a heretic, both practically and theologically, and is not worthy of the accolates that have been heaped on him. I think many men looked as his “results” but never examined his doctrines or methods, even today.

Was Finney the greatest soulwinner of the 19th century? He is responsible for many professed conversions, yes, yet his evangelism is inferior to that of the preachers who ministered early in the Second Awakening, including Nettleton. Was he the greatest theologian since the days of the apostles as Parkhurst claims? Certainly not. Other men far surpassed Finney in terms of theology. Promoters of Finney also refuse to deal with Finney’s doctrinal problems, including his Pelagianism and teaching of entire perfection.

(more to come)