From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: More on C.G. Finney.
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:38:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM) wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> Well, I think I'd disagree about Finney's value to the Christian church.
> You observed in the last part of your post that he was confused over seeing
> those who responded in his revivals return to their former ways.  Finney
> tried to create revivals instead of letting the Spirit do this.  A human
> cannot create a revival.

I agree, but when I spoke of the people who were transformed, and apparently
totally sanctified in times of revival, I was referring to the one true 
revival that Finney saw, and not his numerous evangelistic outreaches which
he mislabelled as revivals.

In Britain we do not have this misnomer. A revival is an outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, and an evangelistic campaign is a "campaign" or "outreach". 
(Sometimes a "crusade").

It was true regenerate Christians (himself included) that he saw falling 
into sin (as we all do), and this is what confused him.

I believe the very fact that he saw one true revival is a sign that he was
not totally wrong in his motivations, preaching etc. 

> Finney pummeled people into coming foreward and repenting.  I do not at all
> doubt there were genuine conversions there, but they were in spite of him,
> not because of him.  His "worry bench" is one of the most heinous crimes in
> the annals of Christian evangelism.

I agree, the worry bench did much to confuse things. I believe that a 
similar problem can be found in modern day churches where there is an 
alter call which starts mixing evangelism with ministry.

> It is true that much of the Presbyterian Calvinism of the time was lifless,
> no excuse there.  Finney, however, beat on people's emotions to gain a
> false repentance and then left the people without any support of any kind.

In some cases, yes. I think there were cases when genuine conversions took 
place, and local churches provided follow-up.

Again, this sounds a bit like modern evangelism in many ways. I would 
probably agree with you that Finney has adversely affected modern evangelism
methods, so much so that there is a great need for the modern church to 
make a complete re-evaluation of how it does things.

> They would have been better not to have ever heard the gospel than hear it
> in the form of his presentations.

I don't really agree. People * were * saved through his ministry, and I 
think that is important. 

Dr. Ian Paisley, a strong Calvinist, in his book on the 1858-9 revival in 
Ireland, talks enthusiastically of the consistent work of the Holy Spirit
through Finney. (In fact Paisley talks of "constant revival", but I 
would disagree with him here).

> I'm sorry, I get carried away about Finney because I have seen so much
> glowing stuff written about a man who should have the roundest condemnation
> of the Christian denominations.

I think balance is called for. Finney deserves our respect, but not 
uncritically. As with any man of God, there was good and there was bad.
May God grant that we do not miss the good because the bad blinds us.

Remember that many people would rightly criticize Luther on many things
(his temper for instance, or the way he treated Zwingli), but here was a 
man so signally used of God that the whole world has changed through him.

One of my favourite stories concerns George Whitefield, who I would 
respect as one of the most sound preachers of the methodist awakening. 
He was much clearer in his faith then Wesley.

One day Whitefield was preaching in the fields, but before he started 
he arranged for a man to blow a trumpet on his signal. 

The appointed time came, and the trumpet was blown. Whitefield then 
cried out "No, Gabriel, wait. There are still unconverted people here."

Now are we to disregard all of Whitefield's ministry because of this
one reprehensible act? Of course not. Every great man or woman in the 
church has their bad points, but we should prove all things and hold
fast to that which is good.

> Anyway, I should shut up on this one, now seems like a good time. [grin]

Yes, I guess I have said too much too.

> Dan Graham

All the best,
  Stephen.
-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU