Is revival in a church or area a work of methodology or the Holy Spirit? Charles Finney says, “It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.” Martin Lloyd-Jones says, “It is a miraculous, exceptional phenomenon.” Take for example the Welsh Revival of 1904. Men and women prayed, and the Lord responded with great favor. You can’t plan that, except by planning to hold closely to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I happen to know a guy who’s writing a doctoral thesis on Finney, and he identifies precisely this idea as Finney’s great theological failing.
In my younger days I spent a couple of years training to be a missionary with an organization that, at the time, was head over heels in love with Finney. I came away from that time with very mixed feelings.
On the one hand, there is much truth in his writings and his methods often produce results.
On the other hand, his principles are built primarily on pragmatism rather then the Word of God. Many of his writings use the Bible to introduce topics which are then expanded, illustrated and applied using experience and reasoning.
I find it a paradox that the most productive evangelists and revival leaders over the past few hundred years generally had a fair amount of unorthodox theology. It brings me back to the parable of the wheat and the tares. When the enemy sows weeds among the good seed, we often can’t tell the difference until the harvest matures. The same idea was presented when Jesus warned against false teachers and said that by their fruit you will know them.
For me the lesson I take away is that I need to be as faithful as I can to stay true to Scripture in my own teaching and trust God to redeem my misunderstandings and inadvertent unorthodoxies.
A Sunday School teacher many years ago said the biggest things wrong with the church today could be traced back to Finney (or close to that). He didn’t specify, but revivalism was probably the main idea he had in mind.
When I think of Finney, I remember an essay that appeared to demonstrate he was not a believer from his memoir. What he claimed to believe before his conversion was what he believed afterward, which is odd. He also lied to his ordination board.
Finney is one of the more polarizing figures in Church History. I’ve known many who thought that the problem with the church is that we don’t implement his methods faithfully enough. Others see the biggest problem in the church is that too many of his methods have survived. I think both are red herrings to distract us from the problems that come from hard hearts and sinful nature.
Solzenhitzn nailed it when he observed that the line between good and evil lies not in terms of geography or political parties (and may I add theology) but runs through the center of every human heart.