I know you think this is a crazy idea—Flip Wilson, the comedian, who passed away ten years ago for Synod President? Are you kidding? Well, yes I am, in part. Some of you may not even know who Flip Wilson was. Flip Wilson portrayed humorous characters. The most famous was perhaps Geraldine the flirty black woman, "What you see is what you get!" Fewer people outside of Flip's fans will remember that he also portrayed Reverend Leroy, a smooth talking con–artist, "The devil made me say that!" Rev. Leroy was pastor of a storefront congregation, The Church of What's Happening Now. "We don't care 'bout what went on yesterday. We don't care 'bout what's going to happen tomorrow. We're talkin' about what's happening right now!"
The skill of Flip Wilson's comedy was the way in which he captured the odd aspects of life in America. The Church of What's Happening Now truly represents the silliness that has happened in much of American religious experience. American "evangelical" churches of every stripe have largely forgotten where the church came from. They have forgotten the two millennia of church history. They have forgotten the universal character of orthodox Christian doctrine as confessed in the Three Ecumenical Creeds. They have forgotten what truly made them evangelical—the Evangel, the Gospel. Even once confessional churches are showing signs of erosion.
Few average American Christians realize how narrow our understanding of the church has become in America. For instance the "altar call" is such a common part of certain segments of the church that they think it was practiced by the apostles. How many recognize that it entered into the American religious scene through a heretical theologian Charles Finney? This kind of "altar call" mentality has forgotten that the church gathers around an altar where we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. The true altar call isn't making a decision for Christ at a mourners bench. It is receiving Christ's gifts given "for you" at the altar of the Lord's Supper.
Another related aspect of the American religious scene is the emotional emphasis of much of the church. Manipulative music, group–psychologically driven experiences, pseudo signs and wonders are common fare. Witness the fiasco of Todd Bentley and the phony Florida revival. He is not the first such shameful con–artist to claim divine sanction. He will not be the last. But we love our charlatans in America as long as they stir us up.
Now the emotional mindset in American religious experience is branching out into meditative techniques, some of which are not even Christian. If incense floats your boat—burn it. Do you like chanting—do it. Lectio divina—empty your mind, don't worry about content, just experience it. Whatever gives you an emotional high is the current "drug" of choice. The only reason to consider the past is to survey the religious smorgasbord of experiences and techniques in order to fill your plate with whatever suits your taste. Pick and choose. You are in control! No norma normans of Scripture. No universal truth of the creeds. To play on the final words of the poem Invictus—I am the master of my faith, I am the captain of my soul. We are a self–centered and selfish church! The odd thing is that much of this is considered new and ground breaking. It isn't. Most of what passes for relevant is really passé. Most of what is ground breaking is simply digging up the garbage of previous heresies.
Because—"We don't care 'bout what went on yesterday"—we are doomed to repeat its mistakes and forget its truths. This focus on the present experience, the pop–culture, the latest fad, our personal "felt needs" while ignoring the past and not caring about the future makes us short-sighted in the extreme. Western culture can be characterized as short-sighted. We want immediate results, instant gratification—"We're talkin' about what's happening right now!" Demonstrate increases in attendance regardless if the pews are filled with people who haven't the foggiest idea of the Christian faith. Preach sermons with catchy, faddish topics. Forget that old tired message of the Cross, of sins forgiven, of life everlasting. We want what we want and we want it now! Don't bore us with something we've heard before. Entertain us! Tickle our ears! Scratch that itch!
Ten years from now the fad will move on. What's happening now will change. Ten years from now those mega–churches will have moved further away from God's Word. They will no longer resemble the relevant churches of today. They will move on and in the process cease to have any connection with the church universal. Like Reverend Leroy's church, few will remember them any more. But the true church goes on in the truth of God's Word. The Church abides because it is built on the Rock!
Showing posts with label Finney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finney. Show all posts
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Finney and the American Religious Mind-Set--Pragmatism Gone Awry
American Christianity is deeply impacted by revivalism. Hardly any "outreach" done by diverse groups such as Pentecostals, charismatics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Emerging/Emergent church, church growth cannot be traced in some manner back to Charles Finney. This short excerpt from a paper I wrote in Graduate School describes Finney's views at key points:
-----
Of all the revivalists of the nineteenth century, Charles Finney is probably the most famous. His methods were widely imitated and touted even among some Lutherans. However, Finney’s theology and practice has some serious problems for a confessional church. His theology is extremely man-centered. In his lecture, What a Revival of Religion Is, he states, “Religion is the work of man. It is something for him to do. It consists in obeying God.” [1] Later in this same lecture he says that the sinner’s actions are necessary for salvation and that conversion consists in obeying, doing, and acting.[2] In another lecture he asserts that Scripture ascribes conversion to men.[3] This ignores the depravity of man and his inability to do anything for his own salvation. Miyakawa notes that for Finney sin was voluntary self interest not an inherited depravity.[4]
Finney also considers a revival to be something that men have power to bring about. By simply using the appropriate means men can bring revival. These means have a “natural tendency to produce revival.” [5] His view is something like a cause and effect principle or the exercising of the powers of nature.[6] He goes further to denigrate the notion of the sovereignty of God in spiritual matters such as revival.[7] Revivals in this view are not the result of grace alone.[8]
Another aspect of his theology and practice is emotionalism. He says “. . . it is necessary to raise excitement among them, till the tide rises so high as to sweep away the opposing obstacles.” [9] Finney does wish for a time in which this spasmodic religion were not necessary. However, in the present economy of things this will remain essential.[10]
Finney’s view of how one should preach the Gospel is also problematic. He states that “All preaching should be practical.”[11] By this he means that all preaching should lead to action. This action is what brings about conversion as noted above. In this view he confuses the Third Use of the Law with the Gospel. His entire lecture How to Preach the Gospel is filled with words such as must, should, and ought.[12] His concept of how one preaches the Gospel has a law orientation. Related to this is the fact that Finney advocated perfectionism.[13]
-----
The methods of Ablaze, Willow Creek, purpose driven churches, Church Growth, the Emerging/Emergent church, and many Evangelicals all have a mind-set that derives from Finney's Lecutres: "...these means have a 'natural tendency to produce revival.' His view is something like a cause and effect principle or the exercising of the powers of nature." The term revival could be replaced by church growth, relevancy, meeting felt needs, or any other outcome oriented theological term.
The pragmatic oriented methods also make use of group psychology: "Another aspect of his theology and practice is emotionalism. He says '. . . it is necessary to raise excitement among them, till the tide rises so high as to sweep away the opposing obstacles.'" This is where pentecostals/charismatics have been very influential upon American religious ideas. The exciting music, the praise bands, the large arenas, the highly charge atmosphere all derive from Finney's New Measures. It is not the Word working by the Holy Spirit where He will in whomever He will that converts. It is the group dynamic.
I do not believe that many Lutherans are aware of Finney's heretical influence. Perhaps some Lutherans simply do not care. Methods do matter. By adopting the mind-set advocated by Finney, sound theologically based evangelism (Word and Sacrament ministry, personal witness) is replaced by a wide range of pragmatic methods. This pragmatism might get "results" but the unintended consequences in many instances will be the damnation of souls for whom Christ died. One cannot be saved by Christ plus something else! The Confessional principles of the Solas rules out the methods of Finney and his theologically bankrupt great-grand-children.
-----------------
[1] Charles Grandison Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, edited by William G. McLoughlin (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960), 9.
[2] Ibid., 18.
[3] Ibid., 194.
[4] Scott T. Miyakawa, Protestants and Pioneers: Individuality and Conformity on the American Frontier (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), 171.
[5] Finney, 13, 15.
[6] Ibid., Introduction, by William G. McLoughlin, xxiv; Miyakawa, 171.
[7] Finney, 14.
[8] The Oxford Disctionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, s.v. “Finney, Charles Grandison.”
[9] Ibid., 9-10.
[10] Ibid., 11.
[11] Ibid., 198.
[12] Ibid., 194 passim.
[13] The Oxford Disctionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, s.v. “Finney, Charles Grandison.”
-----
Of all the revivalists of the nineteenth century, Charles Finney is probably the most famous. His methods were widely imitated and touted even among some Lutherans. However, Finney’s theology and practice has some serious problems for a confessional church. His theology is extremely man-centered. In his lecture, What a Revival of Religion Is, he states, “Religion is the work of man. It is something for him to do. It consists in obeying God.” [1] Later in this same lecture he says that the sinner’s actions are necessary for salvation and that conversion consists in obeying, doing, and acting.[2] In another lecture he asserts that Scripture ascribes conversion to men.[3] This ignores the depravity of man and his inability to do anything for his own salvation. Miyakawa notes that for Finney sin was voluntary self interest not an inherited depravity.[4]
Finney also considers a revival to be something that men have power to bring about. By simply using the appropriate means men can bring revival. These means have a “natural tendency to produce revival.” [5] His view is something like a cause and effect principle or the exercising of the powers of nature.[6] He goes further to denigrate the notion of the sovereignty of God in spiritual matters such as revival.[7] Revivals in this view are not the result of grace alone.[8]
Another aspect of his theology and practice is emotionalism. He says “. . . it is necessary to raise excitement among them, till the tide rises so high as to sweep away the opposing obstacles.” [9] Finney does wish for a time in which this spasmodic religion were not necessary. However, in the present economy of things this will remain essential.[10]
Finney’s view of how one should preach the Gospel is also problematic. He states that “All preaching should be practical.”[11] By this he means that all preaching should lead to action. This action is what brings about conversion as noted above. In this view he confuses the Third Use of the Law with the Gospel. His entire lecture How to Preach the Gospel is filled with words such as must, should, and ought.[12] His concept of how one preaches the Gospel has a law orientation. Related to this is the fact that Finney advocated perfectionism.[13]
-----
The methods of Ablaze, Willow Creek, purpose driven churches, Church Growth, the Emerging/Emergent church, and many Evangelicals all have a mind-set that derives from Finney's Lecutres: "...these means have a 'natural tendency to produce revival.' His view is something like a cause and effect principle or the exercising of the powers of nature." The term revival could be replaced by church growth, relevancy, meeting felt needs, or any other outcome oriented theological term.
The pragmatic oriented methods also make use of group psychology: "Another aspect of his theology and practice is emotionalism. He says '. . . it is necessary to raise excitement among them, till the tide rises so high as to sweep away the opposing obstacles.'" This is where pentecostals/charismatics have been very influential upon American religious ideas. The exciting music, the praise bands, the large arenas, the highly charge atmosphere all derive from Finney's New Measures. It is not the Word working by the Holy Spirit where He will in whomever He will that converts. It is the group dynamic.
I do not believe that many Lutherans are aware of Finney's heretical influence. Perhaps some Lutherans simply do not care. Methods do matter. By adopting the mind-set advocated by Finney, sound theologically based evangelism (Word and Sacrament ministry, personal witness) is replaced by a wide range of pragmatic methods. This pragmatism might get "results" but the unintended consequences in many instances will be the damnation of souls for whom Christ died. One cannot be saved by Christ plus something else! The Confessional principles of the Solas rules out the methods of Finney and his theologically bankrupt great-grand-children.
-----------------
[1] Charles Grandison Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, edited by William G. McLoughlin (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960), 9.
[2] Ibid., 18.
[3] Ibid., 194.
[4] Scott T. Miyakawa, Protestants and Pioneers: Individuality and Conformity on the American Frontier (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), 171.
[5] Finney, 13, 15.
[6] Ibid., Introduction, by William G. McLoughlin, xxiv; Miyakawa, 171.
[7] Finney, 14.
[8] The Oxford Disctionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, s.v. “Finney, Charles Grandison.”
[9] Ibid., 9-10.
[10] Ibid., 11.
[11] Ibid., 198.
[12] Ibid., 194 passim.
[13] The Oxford Disctionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, s.v. “Finney, Charles Grandison.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
