History

The Best Seats in the House

Finney was a social reformer, and did not shrink from fighting common practices of the church that he believed were hypocritical. Among the crusades he enlisted in was the issue of pew rents. In New York City, he became a force in what was called in his day the free church movement.

As hard as it is for us to conceive, in Finney’s time, and before, in most churches many pews were rented, and a pew tax was charged. This was a way of covering expenses, but it discriminated against the poor. Wealthier families could purchase the privilege to sit where they wanted. Poor people were thereby restricted to back-of-the-church seats, or the balcony. Poor neighborhoods could not support a local church. Our example here is from 1833; the fee is $26.05, no small amount in those days. Notice the penalty for late payment!

In other words, you could not just walk into a church to hear the good news and sit anywhere; for most seats were reserved. The system had the effect of making those more “significant” folk, who could afford the best seats in the house, the most influential and important in the congregation, and therefore, in the affairs of the church. Thus, poor people had little or no say in church matters or were simply unchurched. So much for the Bible’s teaching that God does not respect one person above another.

Finney and others attacked this despicable practice, which was common in the more socially “elevated” Presbyterianism he ministered in. These reformers wanted to see the church a place free from prejudice, where differences of class, wealth, and race did not discredit equality in Christ. The rise of great cities like New York underlined the need for the poor and minorities to be warmly accepted on equal terms in the Church with the socially privilged; but human pride worked against this, and they were relegated to the cheap seats.

Surprisingly, many wealthy leaders, like the Tappan brothers, were instrumental in breaking down this discriminatory practice. the Broadway Tabernacle in New York City, which was built for Finney in 1836, was a free church; no one was allowed priviledged seats at any cost. They wanted the message clear that all would be welcomed with open arms to hear of God’s judgement and mercy.

“For if there come into your assembly a man with a gold ring, in fine apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that weareth the fine clothing and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say unto the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool, are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges with evil thoughts?” James, chapter 2

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Sailing for the Kingdom of God

Garth Rosell

Finney and 19th-Century Trans-atlantic Revivalism

In this series

Charles Finney was already well known in England by the time he arrived for his first visit in 1849. News of his remarkable revival activities in America, now spanning some twenty-five years, was carried regularly in religious periodicals throughout the British Isles and was eagerly read by the Christian community there. His Lectures on Revivals of Religion (the English edition of which was published in 1837) became an immediate best seller—gaining Finney thousands of new friends throughout those countries. In Wales, for example, its impact was so substantial that the great Welsh awakening of the early 1840s came to be known in some circles as “Finney’s revival.”

Close ties, of course, had long existed between Britain and America. Since the early Seventeenth century, when the English colonies were first planted in the New World, many Christians from both sides of the ocean considered themselves to be part of the same family. Literally thousands of letters—many carrying news of revival activity—flowed back and forth across the Atlantic. Individuals too, despite the enormous difficulties which were involved, made the lengthy and hazardous crossing aboard the relatively small ships which gave them passage.

Among these courageous travellers were many of the notable revival leaders of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. George Whitefield, the great Church of England minister, had been one of the first. Under his powerful preaching, the religious revivals which had broken out in the 1720s quickly spread throughout the American colonies—combining ultimately in what historians have come to call The Great Awakening.

In the century and a half between George Whitefield’s visit to America in 1737 and Dwight L. Moody’s visit to England in 1873, scores of preachers sought to carry the fires of revival across the Atlantic. Emerson Andrews, Robert Baird, Lyman Beecher, James Caughey, Calvin Colton, Samuel H. Cox, Asahel Nettleton, Phoebe and Walter Palmer, and William Buell Sprague were among the better-known figures who did so. Their efforts contributed to the peaks of transatlantic revival activity which marked the late 1820s and early 1830s, the late 1830s and early 1840s, and the late 1850s. The story of these remarkable seasons of spiritual refreshment is told by Richard Carwardine in his superb volume Trans-Atlantic Revivalism: Popular Evangelicalism in Britain and America, 1790–1865.

Perhaps the best-known figure to travel to England during these years, however, was Charles G. Finney. His two visits to the British Isles—from November 1849 to April 1851 and from December 1858 to August 1860—not only produced thousands of new converts but helped to bring renewed vitality to a number of churches in England and Scotland. Although he preached in small communities such as Houghton, where he was hosted by his generous friend Potto Brown, the bulk of Finney’s ministry was centered in larger cities such as London, Birmingham, Worcester, Edinburgh, Manchester and Liverpool. During his first visit, in fact, over eight months alone were spent preaching in the famous 3,000 seat Whitefield Tabernacle in London.

New Measures in Britian

In many respects, Finney’s revival labors in Britain paralleled his practice in America. Proven measures such as prayer, protracted services, inquiry meetings, calls to public commitment, encouragement of lay leadership, and the like were used with success on both sides of the Atlantic. While he was at the Whitefield Tabernacle (built for George Whitefield in 1753), for example, Finney preached to crowded congregations not only twice on Sundays but on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday evenings as well. Monday evenings were given to general prayer meetings at the Tabernacle. “I preached a course of sermons designed to convict the people of sin as deeply and as universally as possible,” Finney commented in his Memoirs. We are fortunate that twenty-two of these sermons are conveniently available to us in a collection which was published in 1851 under the title Sermons on Important Subjects.

The response to Finney’s preaching was little short of remarkable. On the evening of his fourth Sunday at the Tabernacle, as described in the Memoirs, Finney suggested to the pastor, the Rev. Dr. John Campbell, that he would like to hold a special meeting for inquirers following the evening service. Expressing his doubts as to whether any would be interested in attending such a gathering, Dr. Campbell suggested that Finney might use a small Sunday school room seating approximately forty persons. “Have you not a larger room?” Finney asked, “I believe there are hundreds of inquirers in the congregation.” Laughing, Campbell responded, “Mr. Finney, remember you are in England, and in London;—and that you are not acquainted with our people. You might get people to attend such a meeting, under such a call as you propose to make, in America; but you will not get people to attend here.” Notwithstanding Campbell’s comment, however, Finney persisted. Reluctantly, Campbell suggested that he might use the nearby British school room, which seated between fifteen and sixteen hundred. “Yes,” responded Finney, “that is the very room.” Dr. Campbell, “I know what the state of people is better than you do. The Gospel is as well adapted to the English people as to the American people; and I have no fears at all that the pride of the people will prevent their responding to such a call, any more than that of the people in America.”

After preaching a short sermon that evening, Finney called upon “all who were anxious for their souls, and who were then disposed immediately to make their peace with God,” to attend the inquiry meeting. After dismissing the congregation, Finney relates in his Memoirs, “Dr. Campbell nervously and anxiously looked out of the window” to see which way the congregation would go. To his “great astonishment,” he discovered that no less than fifteen or sixteen hundred of them were heading directly for the assigned room. While Dr. Campbell looked on in “amazement,” Finney pressed the inquirers to lay down “their weapons of rebellion” and “accept Jesus as their only Redeemer.”

Difficulties and Disappointments

Not all of Finney’s meetings, of course, were marked by such spectacular success. In several locations, in fact, Finney’s efforts were both difficult and disappointing. Not only was Finney confronted by the same kinds of theological questions which were raised regularly against him in America, but he was also thrown into an ecclesiastical situation which was quite new to him. Unlike America, Finney discovered, England had an established Church. Other religious bodies were considered part of the dissenting tradition. Even among the dissenting bodies, moreover, there were deep divisions and antagonisms. Consequently, as Finney learned, the style of interdenominational revivalism with which he had become comfortable in America did not seem to operate as fully in England. As a result, Finney’s influence—like that of virtually all of the revival leaders who had preceded him—was largely confined not only to churches within the subculture of dissent but also to particular strands (such as the Methodist and Baptist) within the subculture itself.

Finney’s ministry in Scotland, during the fall of 1859, illustrates the problem. By accepting John Kirk’s invitation to preach to his large Edinburgh congregation, Finney soon discovered that he had effectively limited his ministry to those dissenting churches which were associated with the Evangelical Union. Founded in 1843 by James Morison, as a kind of offshoot of Presbyterianism, the Evangelical Union was opposed by many of the larger Christian bodies throughout the country on theological as well as ecclesiastical grounds. As a result, Finney’s work in Scotland was confined almost exclusively to one body—and a rather small one at that.

Related to this problem was the difficulty of space. Outside of the large cities, it was almost impossible to find buildings large enough to seat the crowds wanting to hear Finney preach. Potto Brown provided a temporary solution to the problem by securing a thousand-seat tent, which Finney used in 1849 when the Union Chapel in Houghton ran out of space. Several months later, a wealthy gentleman in Worcester offered to have a portable “tabernacle” built for Finney’s use—one that could be disassembled and moved by train from place to place. Convinced that the ministers of England would “disapprove of a course so novel,” however, Finney rejected the idea. The building of such a structure would have to wait until 1875, when enormous crowds gathered to hear Dwight L. Moody.

Preparing the Way

Despite all of the difficulties, however, the years which Charles and Elizabeth Finney spent in the British Isles produced some important results. Several thousand individuals were converted. Church membership was increased. congregations were revitalized. Anglo-American ties were strengthened. Bridges were built between an older revival tradition and that which was yet to come. While it may be true that, in the long run, Finney’s writings have had a more profound impact upon the British churches than did his actual ministry there, it is also possible that Finney’s ministry in England and Scotland helped to prepare the way for the coming of the great Keswick Movement of the 1870s and the subsequent work of American evangelists from D. L. Moody to Billy Graham.

“There is always something due to the instruments of eminent usefulness in the cause of God,” remarked Dr. John Campbell at a special farewell gathering for the Finneys at the Whitefield Tabernacle on March 31, 1851, shortly before their departure from England to return to America. “To honour the servant is, in effect, to honor the Master. Among such instruments a very high place is due to the Rev. C. G. Finney, who has left behind him, in England, an impression such as was never made by any other American among the British churches.”

Garth Rosell is professor of church history and director of the Ockenga Institute at Gordon- Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Dr Rosell has written numerous articles on Finney, and along with Richard A G Dupais, has prepared a new critical edition, with the complete restored text, of Finney’s Memoirs (Academie/Zondervan, 1988, 704pp).

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine.Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Charles Grandison Finney: A Gallery of Critics, Friends, Sweethearts, and Acquaintances

John Morgan (1803–1884)

John Morgan and Finney were colleagues at Oberlin College and both embraced the doctrine of perfectionism. After graduating valedictorian from Williams College in 1826, Morgan became an instructor in Latin at Lane Theological School in Cincinnati, Ohio. During his time at Lane, the students formed an antislavery society. Morgan was the sole faculty member to support the student movement.

The trustees of the school—some of them slave-owners—were appalled at the student’s actions. In spite of opposition from the school’s president, Lyman Beecher, and from benefactors Arthur and Lewis Tappan, the trustees took action against the society. Among their actions were the banning of all extra-curricular student societies and the dismissal of John Morgan. The students, infuriated by this response, withdrew from Lane. Soon afterward, John Jay Shipherd met with these students to persuade them to enroll at a new school he hoped to establish at Oberlin.

The students agreed to come if several conditions were met; among them: John Morgan must be given a professorship. Shipherd agreed to all the student’s demands. Morgan accepted the invitation and in June 1835 began teaching New Testament exegesis and literature. At the same time Charles Finney became Oberlin’s professor of theology.

In the fall of 1836, several of the faculty members, including Morgan and Finney, began to stress the doctrine of perfection. Many prominent Christian leaders severely criticized Oberlin’s position. Morgan answered these attacks in the Oberlin Quarterly Review.

Throughout his 32 years at Oberlin, John Morgan, a versatile scholar, taught in every branch of the school. He corresponded with the traveling Finney several times seeking to influence him to return to his responsibilities at Oberlin.

John Humphrey Noyes (1811–1886)

Charles Finney was interested in the perfectionist ideas of J.H. Noyes. Noyes began to develop his unique theology while a student at Andover and Yale Divinity Schools. His theology contained two foundational ideas: first, Christ’s second coming had occurred in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem fell; the return was spiritual, and at this point in history, Noyes believed, the Christian Church had become “spiritualized.”

Secondly, based upon his interpretation of Romans 7, Noyes believed that at conversion all sin was cleansed from the believer; therefore, believers could reach a state of perfection in this life. Because of Finney’s increased interest in perfectionism, Noyes—who was receiving much public attention—hoped to include the famous evangelist in his cause. Finney wrote to Noyes, “I have often heard of you and your extravagances … I have learned not to be frightened if it is rumored that anyone has received any light which I have not myself.” After a meeting, Noyes was pleased that Finney did not consider him insane.

However, Finney changed his assessment of Noyes and his ideas. Followers of Noyes were often inclined to fanaticism. Then, in 1843, Noyes declared himself to be filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore entirely sinless. The result of his declaration was expulsion from Yale, alienation from professors and friends, and rejection by his sweetheart, Abigail Merwin.

Though discouraged, Noyes persevered, and in 1841 organized his followers into the Society of Inquiry, a utopian commune in Putney, Vermont. The goal was to usher in the Kingdom of God; among the means to accomplish this were: biblical communism, “theocratic democracy,” divine healing, male continence (sexual discipline) and complex marriage—whereby all members were married to each other. Six years after its inception, the Putney group proclaimed that the millennial kingdom had come to their community—they had achieved perfection.

The outside world concluded otherwise, however, and amidst angry charges of adultery the members of Putney were forced to remove to another community at Oneida, New York. The Oneida community reached its peak membership in 1857 at 250 people. Though only an average of less than two children were born per year at Oneida in its first 20 years, in 1869 Noyes oversaw a large voluntary experiment in selective human breeding to create a perfect spiritual generation.

Public outcry forced the Oneida group—including Noyes’ nine offspring—to disband in 1881. Noyes removed to Canada. Oneida, grown affluent from planned selection of wealthy members and animal trap and luggage manufacturing, was the longest-lived and most radical American communal experiment.

Lydia Andrews Finney (1804–1847)

Charles met Lydia Andrews in 1820 during his legal training in Adams, NY. Lydia realized that Charles was not a Christian and began praying for his conversion. In 1821, he was converted. On October 5, 1824, Charles and Lydia were married. Three days after their wedding Charles left Lydia with her parents and traveled to Evans Mills, NY, to find a house. However, on the way he became involved in several revival meetings. He returned for Lydia six months later.

Lydia, though, did not always stay at home; she and their children traveled extensively with the itinerant Charles. She did not enjoy public duties or speaking and preferred to work behind the scenes. During Charles’ revivals, Lydia would conduct women’s prayer meetings; Charles viewed these as essential to his revivals. Lydia was also instrumental in the formation of many infant schools and maternal associations in the towns where revivals were held.

At Oberlin College, Lydia actively participated in the women’s department. She was viewed by many students as a “mother confessor” and a spiritual advisor, instructing the female students in educational, spiritual, and vocational matters.

Lydia was described as reserved and humble. Her spiritual life was marked by highs and lows. She struggled with a poor self-image, depression, and nervousness. Yet she is noted for her achievements in forming women’s networks to promote missions, and activism in the antislavery movement. She became a new model for minister’s wives. On 17 December 1847 Lydia died, leaving five children: Helen, Charles, Frederic, Julia, and Delia. Her death has been called Charles Finney’s darkest hour.

Elizabeth Ford Atkinson Finney (1799–1863)

Elizabeth Atkinson, who became Charles’ second wife on Nov. 13, 1848, was a woman of strong character and great influence in her husband’s ministry. When they married she was a widow of 49 and Charles was 56. They had known each other for 18 years, but the details surrounding their marriage are not known.

Like Charles’ first wife Lydia, Elizabeth was directly involved in her husband’s work. Unlike Lydia, Elizabeth enjoyed opportunities to work and speak publicly. She was confident, poised, witty in speech, and had an iron resolve. She also held prayer meetings, and addressed the gatherings as well as leading them.

Finney’s revivals became known as The Finneys’ revivals. Elizabeth recruited women to help in the campaigns. Charles referred to her meetings as “one of the most important instrumentalities in the promotion of a revival.” One of her major achievements was elevating public tolerance for women’s participation in ministry, and she and Charles popularized the concept of team ministry. The public recognized her labors by its monetary support of her work.

Elizabeth gained the reputation as the one who ran the Finney ministry. It was said that a sure way to get Charles Finney to come and hold a revival was to favorably mention his wife’s labors. Her influence was evident in the controversy over Charles’ second trip to England. When Charles agreed at her prompting to go to England, the Oberlin community expressed their strong disapproval. Charles changed his mind and Elizabeth was upset. She became angry when a Mr. Clark made the remark to Charles, “Everybody thinks you are so under the influence of your wife that if she says to go to England you go, if she says to go to Boston you go.”

Elizabeth, confident that God was calling them to England, took on the entire Oberlin community. Charles eventually did go to England, but Elizabeth’s popularity waned at Oberlin. In the incident Charles seemed to show indecisiveness and dependence upon Elizabeth’s judgement … or respect for his wife by following her feeling of calling to England. The second trip to England was the crowning event of the Finney’s ministry. The success of the trip endorsed Elizabeth’s ministry among women, and helped her regain respect in the Oberlin community.

After returning from England in 1860, the Finneys continued their labors at Oberlin. In 1861 Charles, 68, suffered a collapse from stress and exhaustion. While Elizabeth was nursing him back to health, her own health failed. She died on 27 November 1863 while on a trip to Clifton, NY.

Rebecca Allen Rayl Finney (1824–1907)

Finney’s third marriage was to the widowed Rebecca Rayl in the fall of 1865. She taught at Oberlin and was an assistant principal in the female department. Charles was 73, she was 41.

Rebecca was a strong-minded and independent woman. While Charles would preach against the evils of frivolous adornment, Rebecca would sit listening in a blossom-adorned bonnet. She was articulate in speech and skilled as a writer. In Charles’ final years, as his strength to preach was failing him, he began to do more writing. During this period of his life, Finney devoted himself to attacking the Masonic movement. Rebecca assisted regularly in his writing endeavors.

Rebecca and Charles enjoyed a quiet Sunday afternoon and evening together with two of his children and their families before his death on the morning of August 16. Suffering from pains around his heart after going to bed, doctors were summoned. Though Rebecca insisted he was not, Charles quietly told her, “I am dying.”

George W. Gale (1789–1861)

Tutor, opponent, and friend, Rev. George Washington Gale was Finney’s pastor in Adams, NY. Charles was choir director at Gale’s Adams Street Presbyterian Church.

Friends though they were, they disagreed about theology. Gale, a past student of Princeton, preached a Calvinism that Finney would not accept. Charles stated in his Memoirs that in discussions he “criticized [Gale’s] sermons unmercifully.” Their discussions ultimately resulted in Finney’s conversion. Gale became Finney’s sponsor and ministerial instructor.

Because of poor health, Gale left the pastorate in Adams and settled on a farm in Oneida County, NY. He began a practical education experiment, offering a home and teaching to young men preparing for the ministry in return for farm work; his work became the Oneida Institute. Later he and his followers traveled West and founded Knox Manual Labor College in Galesburg, IL (named for him) where Gale taught moral philosophy.

After Gale’s recommendation of Finney as his pastoral replacement was rejected in Adams. he recommended he be commissioned in Jefferson County, NY. Finney’s first marked success as a revivalist came when he preached in the Whitesboro Church during a stay at the Gale farm.

As Finney progressed in his ministry, Gale criticized his crude preaching style and confused theology, openly voicing embarrassment of his convert and former student. Finally, however, Gale softened on Finney’s approach and became involved in the revivals.

Lyman Beecher (1775–1863)

A famous clergyman Lyman Beecher was a minister of churches in Long Island, NY, Litchfield, CT, and Boston, MA, and a leader in the so-called Second Great Awakening and the New Divinity movement. He was also a leader in the early attack on Finney’s New Measures.

Beecher considered Finney’s new-style revivalism dangerous. He charged that the revivals tended too much toward emotionalism and said they would lead to “barbarism.” He was displeased with Finney’s methods of allowing women to pray in mixed groups, being from a tradition where women who did such things compromised their femininity. He was the leading spokesman against Finney at the famous New Lebanon Conference in 1827, where, after it became evident that Beecher and his associates had been misinformed about various things, Finney was cleared of bad practices. It was seen as a victory for Finney, and a defeat for Beecher and even more for his associate Asahel Nettleton.

Beecher claimed to have told Finney after the New Lebanon meeting that if Finney planned on bringing his revival to Boston, he would meet him at the Massachusetts border and fight him all the way there. Eventually, however, Beecher admitted the value of Finney’s campaigns, and corresponded and met with him on several occasions. Finney did bring his revival to Boston. Beecher and Finney maintained a cordial, but distanced relationship.

Beecher was said to be the “father of more brains than any man in America,” for among his children were Harriet Beecher Stowe, writer of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and Henry Ward Beecher, the most famous American preacher of his day. Beecher was tried and acquitted in the Presbyterian Church for heresy in the 1830s for his modified views of some central Calvinistic doctrines.

Asahel Nettleton (1738–1844)

At the time of Asahel Nettleton’s conversion in 1801, he was considering opening up a dancing school. Later, after graduating from Yale in 1809, he was involved in successful evangelistic work in eastern Connecticut and was ordained as an evangelist in Litchfield County, CT in 1817. He never held a settled pastorate and never married.

Nettleton was a very astute and respected evangelist. He had an intellectual approach to preaching, like Jonathan Edwards, and was known for somber yet vivid, powerful sermons. He also had a highly developed approach to his meetings involving attention to maintaining a reverent, orderly atmosphere, careful coordination with local pastors, and a thorough visitation and follow-up instruction program for new converts.

He was among Finney’s most severe critics and felt called to halt the influence of Finney and his unorthodox, innovative measures. With Lyman Beecher, he led the effort to clip Finney’s wings at the New Lebanon Conference, but seeing early on that the meetings were not headed for the results he wanted, he remained absent from most of the sessions, due to “nervousness,” returning on the last day noticeably irritated and suffering from dashed hopes.

Nettleton campaigned against Finney in his sermons, letters, and other publications. When it became clear that Finney was surpassing him in popularity as an evangelist he became increasingly incensed.

Lyman Beecher observed in 1827 that Nettleton was as far above Finney in his “talent, wisdom, and judgement, and experience,” as was Napoleon Bonaparte above any average corporal in the French army. However, Nettleton’s preaching fell out of favor with many of the more “progressive” ministers—Beecher included—because he persisted in emphasizing original sin, a doctrine Beecher and his kindred spirits dropped in their revision of Calvinism. Beecher eventually accommodated Finney more and more, but Nettleton never compromised his position, becoming in this and other matters an opponent of Beecher.

Nettleton never fully recovered from a bout with Typhus fever he contracted during his ministry and died in 1844, his significant work publicly eclipsed by the meteoric career of the man whose influence he opposed.

Arthur (1786–1865) and Lewis (1788–1873) Tappan

Arthur and Lewis Tappan were the primary financial backers of Charles Finney and other social reformers. Wealthy New York merchants, they were active in the “Great Eight Benevolent Societies,” which included the American Bible School Union and the American Temperance Society. The Tappans also strongly supported the antislavery movement, and through their support, kept Oberlin secure through its controversial involvement with the abolitionist movement.

The Tappan brothers had become wealthy as silk importers and merchants. (Arthur Tappan and Company at times grossed over $1 million annually.) The Tappans also founded America’s first credit-rating agency, which later became Dun and Bradstreet.

Lewis Tappan was instrumental in influencing Finney’s acceptance of the pastorate at Chatham Street Chapel in New York City. Chatham Street Chapel was called the “cathedral of benevolence.” The Tappans insisted that blacks be invited to the chapel and Finney did not object. Yet, throughout Finney’s career there, blacks were segregated from whites. This policy eventually led Lewis to leave the church; he wanted color distinction abolished.

A disastrous fire in 1835 began a series of financial difficulties for the Tappans. In 1837 Arthur Tappan announced, to the shock of the public, that he was $1.1 million in debt. During this crisis, Arthur’s concern for financial responsibility toward his creditors won him great respect in the financial community.

Arthur Tappan was the first president of the American Anti-slavery society, and later president of the American and Foreign Slave Society. Lewis Tappan was a delegate to the World Antislavery Convention in London in 1843; he retired in 1849 and devoted his time to humanitarian work—primarily for the antislavery cause.

Asa Mahan (18??–1889)

When angry students abandoned Lane Seminary because of their stand against slavery and decided to be part of the new school at Oberlin, they chose Asa Mahan as their first president. Mahan as a Lane trustee, had been a defender of the students’ position. He became Oberlin’s first president—a unique school where black students would be invited to join the student body, and complete freedom of speech would be allowed on all reform issues.

Asa Mahan and Charles Finney brought attention—and scorn—to Oberlin by their perfectionist teachings. Mahan, in 1836, was the first of the two to receive the second blessing. He later recounted, “… The highway of holiness was now, for the first time rendered perfectly distinct to my mind.” When Mahan had related to Finney the experience of being “baptized in the Holy Ghost,” Finney sought and later, in 1843, found the blessing for himself. In 1836, Mahan and Finney held revival meetings at Oberlin, in which Mahan did most of the preaching. At the last of these meetings a student asked if “we may look to [Christ] to be sanctified wholly, or not?” Mahan recalled that he was shocked at the question, for he then realized the implications for the first time of his perfectionist teaching. At this point he and Finney cautiously responded that further thought would have to be given to this question. In 1839, when a student asked a similar question, Mahan’s immediate response was “yes.” Mahan and Finney came out forcefully on the side of Christian Perfection.

Finney went to lengths to dissociate their ideas from those of contemporary radicals like J.H. Noyes, and from Wesleyan perfectionism. Mahan, however, was not as cautious, and was reported to speak in such a way as to claim he was free from all consciousness of sin. Since God demanded perfect obedience, it therefore must be achievable. Finney stated his case in 1839, “Entire and permanent sanctification is attainable in this life ….”

Amidst fierce criticism, Oberlin perfectionism developed under Mahan, Finney, and others. The Oberlin Evangelist was established to promote the teachings. In 1839, Mahan published the book Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, which was composed of articles first run in the Oberlin Evangelist. Through his convention lectures, articles, and books, Mahan became one of the major defenders and promoters of Christian perfectionism in America and England. In 1870 he published a popular book entitled The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Mahan taught that Spirit baptism did not involve “any miraculous indowments.”

At Oberlin, Mahan’s leadership and ideas, which tended to extremes, eventually caused serious contention among the staff, supporters, and students. (Among other things, he led a fight to eliminate study of the “heathen classics” at Oberlin.) His behavior became offensive and harsh, and he was considered by most of the staff to be unfairly critical, and arrogant—a rotten example of the holy lifestyle he promoted. In 1850, after an extended and unpleasant ordeal in which Mahan refused to accept a graceful dismissal, and became permanently embittered toward Finney, he resigned and took some sympathetic staff and students to Cleveland to found a new school. Lewis Tappan wrote to him. “… you are so self-conceited—so sensitive to your reputation—so idolatrous of your influence that you have, I fain believe, done immense injustice to Mr. F[inney] and to yourself.”

Mahan spared little in his unkind feelings toward Oberlin and for years agitated unrest and fought them for back pay. He declared that his new school, originally to be called the National University, later named Cleveland University, would make Cleveland “the Athens of the … West.” A less-than sympathetic critic stated that it would more aptly be named, “The Universal University for all creation wherein the Idea of the Infinite will be fully Elucidated and all who do not admit the fact will be sent to their proper place by its Pres., the greatest man who ever has or ever shall live….”

However, when news of Mahan’s attitude at Oberlin had circulated, and he approached some Oberlin supporters for money, support for his new school dried up and the enterprise died. After Mahan left Oberlin, the school distanced itself from its past radicalism and was apologetic about its previous perfectionist extremism. Oberlin elected as its next president the famous and more controlled Charles Finney.

Mahan, who championed perfectionism to the end (and acted somewhat less than an achiever of it), later served two other colleges as president, and was a pastor for some time in Jackson, Michigan. He was all along regarded for his skills as a speaker and writer. He spent his last years in England, where he died in 1889.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

Another Winter in Boston

Charles G. Finney

Personal reflections, in Finney’s own words, about, among other things, his relationship with God, his baptism in the Holy Ghost, Heaven & Hell, perfect peace & blessedness, and his inward struggles with the death of his first wife.

The winter of 1843–1844, which Finney spent preaching in Boston at Marlborough Chapel, was a decisive one for him. His experience of the second blessing, or baptism of the Holy Ghost, occurred a this time, and is related here in this excerpt from his Memoirs (also called his Autobiography). In a way, Finney’s description of his experience seems unremarkable, if we are looking for anything exotic—he mentions no miraculous or mystical experience. Here is the real man, in intimate words that recall similar personal reflections by Edwards and others. Here is the inner man, who all that follow Christ—whether they agree with Finney or not—can relate to.

In the fall of 1843, I was called again to Boston …

The mass of the people in Boston are more unsettled in their religious convictions than in any other place that I have ever labored in, notwithstanding their intelligence; for they are surely a very intelligent people, on all questions but that of religion. It is extremely difficult to make religious truths lodge in their minds, because the influence of Unitarian teaching has been, to lead them to call in question all the principle doctrines of the Bible…. They deny almost everything, and affirm almost nothing.

During this winter, the Lord gave my own soul a very thorough overhauling, and a fresh baptism of his Spirit. I boarded at the Marlborough hotel, and my study and bedroom were at one corner of the chapel building. My mind was greatly drawn out in prayer, for a long time; as indeed it always has been, when I have labored in Boston. I have been favored there, uniformly, with a great deal of the spirit of prayer. But this winter, in particular, my mind was exceedingly exercised on the question of personal holiness; and in respect to the state of the church, their want of the power of God ….

I gave myself to a great deal of prayer. After my evening services, I would retire as early as I could; but rose at four o’clock in the morning, because I could sleep no longer, and immediately went to the study, and engaged in prayer. And so deeply was my mind exercised, and so absorbed in prayer, that I frequently continued from the time I arose at four o’clock, till the gong called for breakfast, at eight o’clock. My days were spent, so long as I could get time, in searching the Scriptures. I read nothing else, all that winter, but my Bible; and a great deal of it seemed new to me … the whole Scriptures seemed to me all ablaze with light ….

After praying in this way for weeks and months, one morning while I was engaged in prayer, the thought occurred to me, what if, after all this divine teaching, my will is not carried, and this teaching takes effect only in my sensibility? May it not be that my sensibility is affected, by these revelations from the reading of the Bible, and that my heart is not really subdued by them? … The thought that I might be deceiving myself, when it first occurred to me, stung me almost like an adder. It created a pang that I cannot describe. The passages of Scripture that occurred to me, in that direction, for a few moments greatly increased my distress. But directly I was enabled to fall back upon the perfect will of God. I said to the Lord, that if he saw it was wise and best, and that his honor demanded that I should be left to be deluded, and go down to hell, I accepted his will, and I said to him, “Do with me as seemeth thee good.”

Just before this occurrence, I had a great struggle to consecrate myself to God, in a higher sense than I had ever before seen to be my duty, or conceived as possible. I had often before laid my family all upon the altar of God, and left them to be disposed of at his discretion. But at this time that I now speak of, I had had a great struggle about giving up my wife to the will of God. She was in very feeble health, and it was very evident that she could not live long. I had never before seen so clearly what was implied in laying her, and all that I possessed, upon the altar of God; and for hours I struggled upon my knees, to give her up unqualifiedly to the will of God. But I found myself unable to do it. I was so shocked and surprised at this, that I perspired profusely with agony….

But as I said, I [later] was enabled, after struggling with … discouragement and bitterness, which I have since attributed to a fiery dart of Satan, to fall back, in a deeper sense than I had ever done before upon the infinitely blessed and perfect will of God. I then told the Lord that I had such confidence in him, that I felt perfectly willing, to give myself, my wife and my family, all to be disposed of according to his wisdom.

I then had a deeper view of what was implied in consecration to God, than ever before. I spent a long time upon my knees, in considering the matter all over, and giving up everything to the will of God: the interests of the church, the progress of religion, the conversion of the world, and the salvation or damnation of my own soul, as the will of God might decide…. I felt a kind of holy boldness, in telling him to do with me just as seemed good to him; that he could not do anything that was not perfectly wise and good; and therefore, I had the best grounds for accepting whatever he could consent to, in respect to me and mine. So deep and perfect a resting in the will of God, I had never before known.

This was early in the morning; and through the whole of that day I seemed to be in a state of perfect rest, body and soul. The question frequently arose in my mind, during the day, “Do you still adhere to your consecration, and abide in the will of God?” I said without hesitation, “Yes, I take nothing back.” … The thought that I might be lost did not distress me. Indeed, think as I might, during that whole day, I could not find in my mind the least fear, the least disturbing emotion. Nothing troubled me. I was neither elated nor depressed; I was neither, as I could see, joyful or sorrowful. My confidence in God was perfect, my acceptance of his will was perfect, and my mind was as calm as heaven.

Just at evening, the question arose in my mind, “What if God should send me to hell, what then?” “Why, I would not object to it.” “But can he send a person to hell,” was the next inquiry, “who accepts his will, in the sense in which you do?” This inquiry was no sooner raised in my mind than settled. I said, “No, it is impossible. Hell could be no hell to me, if I accepted God’s perfect will.” This sprung a vein of joy in my mind, that kept developing more and more, for weeks and months, and indeed, I may say, for years. For years my mind was too full of joy to feel exercised with anxiety on any subject. My prayer that had been so fervent, and protracted during so long a period, seemed all to run out into, “Thy will be done.” It seemed as if my desires were all met. What I had been praying for, for myself, I had received in a way that I least expected. Holiness to the Lord seemed to be inscribed on all the exercises of my mind ….

At this time it seemed as if my soul were wedded to Christ, in a sense in which I had never had any thought or conception before…. Indeed the Lord lifted me up so much above anything I had experienced before, and taught me so much of the meaning of the Bible, of Christ’s relations, and power, and willingness, that I often found myself saying to him, “I had not known or conceived that any such thing was true.” … I had had no conception of the length and breadth, and height and depth, and efficiency of his grace.

I labored that winter mostly for a revival of religion among Christians. The Lord prepared me to do so, by the great work he wrought in my soul. Although I had had much of the divine life working within me; yet, as I said, so far did what I experienced that winter, exceed all that I had before experienced, that at times I could not realize that I had ever before been truly in communion with God.

To be sure I had been, often and for a long time; and this I knew when I reflected upon it, and remembered through what I had so often passed. It appeared to me, that winter, that probably when we get to heaven, our views and joys, and holy exercises, will so far surpass anything that we have ever experienced in this life, that we shall be hardly able to recognize the fact that we had any religion, while in this world ….

As the great excitement of that season subsided, and my mind became more calm, I saw more clearly the different steps of my Christian experience, and came to recognize the connection of things, as all wrought by God from beginning to end. But since then I have never had those great struggles, and long protracted seasons of agonizing prayer, that I had often experienced…. He enables me now to rest in him, and let everything sink into his perfect will, with much more readiness, than ever before the experience of that winter.

I have felt since then a religious freedom, a religious buoyancy and delight in God, and in his word, a steadiness of faith, a Christian liberty and overflowing love, that I had only experienced, I may say, only occasionally before…. My bondage seemed to be, at that time, entirely broken; and since then, I have had the freedom of a child with a loving parent. It seems to me that I can find God within me, in such a sense, that I can rest upon him and be quiet, lay my heart in his hand, and nestle down in his perfect will, and have no carefulness or anxiety.

I speak of these exercises as habitual, since that period, but I cannot affirm that they have been altogether unbroken; for in 1860, during a period of sickness, I had a season of great depression, and wonderful humiliation. But the Lord brought me out of it, into an established peace and rest.

A few years after this season of refreshing, that beloved wife, of whom I have spoken, died. This was to me a great affliction. However, I did not feel any murmuring, or the least resistance to the will of God. I gave her up to God, without any resistance whatever, that I can recollect. But it was to me a great sorrow. The night after she died, I was lying in my room alone, and some Christian friends were sitting up in the parlor, and watching out the night. [This is a reference to the common practice of family members or friends staying, “sitting up,” with the body of a dead loved one, around the clock, “watching out the night,” in the parlor, where the coffin would be set up for some days before burial.] I had been asleep for a little while, and as I awoke, the thought of my bereavement flashed over my mind with such power! My wife was gone! I should never hear her speak again, nor see her face! Her children were motherless! What should I do? My brain seemed to reel, as if my mind would swing from its pivot. I rose instantly from my bed, exclaiming, “I shall be deranged if I cannot rest in God!” The Lord soon calmed my mind, for that night; but still, at times, seasons of sorrow would come over me, that were almost overwhelming.

One day I was upon my knees, communing with God on the subject, and all at once he seemed to say to me, “You loved your wife?” “Yes,” I said. “Well, did you love her for her own sake, or for your sake? Did you love her, or yourself? If you loved her for your own sake, why do you sorrow that she is with me? Should not her happiness with me make you rejoice instead of mourn, if you loved her for her own sake? Did you love her,” he seemed to say to me, “for my sake? If you loved her for my sake, surely you would not grieve that she is with me. Why do you think of your loss, and lay so much stress upon that, instead of thinking of her gain? Can you be sorrowful, when she is so joyful and happy? …”

I can never describe the feelings that came over me, when I seemed to be thus addressed. It produced an instantaneous change in the whole state of my mind. From that moment, sorrow, on account of my loss, was gone forever. I no longer thought of my wife as dead, but as alive, and in the midst of the glories of heaven. My faith was, at this time, so strong and my mind so enlightened, that it seemed that I could enter into the very state of mind in which she was, in heaven; and if there is any such thing as communing with an absent spirit, or with one who is in heaven, I seemed to commune with her. Not that I ever supposed she was present in such a sense that I communed personally with her. But it seems as if I knew what her state of mind was there, what profound, unbroken rest, in the perfect will of God. I could see that that was heaven, and I experienced it in my own soul. I have never, to this day, lost the blessing of these views. They frequently recur to me, as the very state of mind in which the inhabitants of heaven are, and I can see why they are in such a state of blessedness.

from:

Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney

Written by Himself

A.S. Barnes & Co., New York

1876

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

A Glossary of Terms

ARMINIANISM Within the European reformed Protestant tradition, two major viewpoints developed: Arminianism and Calvinism. Arminianism is the viewpoint, named after the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560–1609), that emphasizes that Jesus died for all mankind (a universal atonement), and that salvation depends upon a human decision to accept or reject God’s gift. In this system, since salvation depends on human choice, so does eternal security; that is, a person can lose his or her salvation. The theology of John Wesley and his followers is considered Arminian. Finney, though from the Calvinistic tradition, held ideas that are considered Arminian; therefore he was criticized by many of his fellow Presbyterians and Congregationalists, many of whom were staunch Calvinists. Many see Finney as an example of the trend in New England Calvinism toward Arminian ideas, and view his revival techniques (called the “new measures”) as evangelistic practices that emphasized human decision in salvation—an Arminian emphasis which is the norm in modern evangelistic revivals. Finney called for decisions on the spot and taught that salvation could be lost. Protestant doctrinal positions all fall within these two limits, or are attempts at finding a compromise between them. Both views claim to most accurately represent biblical teaching. Though many accusations have been made against Arminian theology by Calvinists, implying that it allows humans to overrule God, it can be seen as an attempt to protect the value of human responsibility.

CALVINISM This is the teaching that is based upon the theology of the Protestant reformer John Calvin. In this system, God’s sovereignty is foremost even in personal salvation. Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of only the elect—those whom God had predestined for eternal life (a definite, or particular atonement). Salvation depends upon predestination, not human decision, though human decision has its necessary place in the process. Since God ordained the salvation of individuals, they cannot fall from salvation. The so-called five points of Calvinism were actually responses drawn up in Holland at the Synod of Dort in 1618–1619 to oppose five points put forth first by Jacob Arminius (see above). Generally, those traditions called reformed, other than Lutherans, have been Calvinistic. The Huguenots from France and the English Puritans (and therefore the early settlers of New England) were Calvinists. Notable Calvinists have included the Baptist John Bunyan, the Anglican George Whitefield, the Congregationalist Jonathan Edwards, and the early 20th-century prime minister of the Netherlands, Abraham Kuyper. Finney was a descendent of the American Calvinist tradition, and was criticized for distorting it. He rejected the notion of personal predestination to salvation, and emphasized the role of the human will. Though Calvinism is often criticized for eliminating the place of human responsibility in salvation, making God out to be a tyrant, Calvinists have generally considered the relation between God’s predestination and human choice to be a mystery, and have not wanted to neglect the role of personal decision.

NEW MEASURES Methods used by Finney in his revivals that caused controversy. They included using “anxious benches” at the front of the church for singling out those under special conviction; informal public praying, which was considered disrespectful; protracted meetings, which were regular meetings, maybe for months, and which some felt disturbed the church order and undermined the local pastor; and allowing women to pray in public meetings in mixed company with men. It’s important to keep in mind that these were disturbing in Finney’s day because they were viewed as biblically unwarranted gimmicks and innovations. Certain of these techniques were seen as disruptive to dignified worship, and as emphasizing human choice and emotionalism.

REVIVALISM The practice of having planned times set aside in the year for special evangelistic and rededication services. Though the Church has always experienced revivals, many have argued that this modern approach undermines local pastoral influence and the role of regular evangelism through weekly sermons, and confuses emotional responses with genuine conversion. It is, however, an accepted approach, especially since C. G. Finney.

PERFECTIONISM A theological teaching that states that perfect obedience to God is attainable in this life by faith. Since God demands of us to be holy, it is argued, it must be achievable. It does not mean (except in some extreme forms) that we can become sinless. Crucial in this teaching is that sanctification (holiness, obedience) is by faith, not by works. This means that we must overcome sin not by human effort and struggle, but by, in faith, submitting to God and allowing him to deliver us from sin. Finney was a promoter of perfection and was strongly criticized for it. (It is helpful to realize that Finney believed Romans 7:7–25 could not be about a believer, because a real believer, in his view, would not struggle with sin in that way, but would, by faith, be delivered from it. Traditionally, however, Romans 7 has been seen as dealing with the struggles of a believer.) This doctrine has found a place in the so-called “victorious life” teaching, and has been a major part of the Keswick Movement and fundamentalism.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY The Calvinistic teaching that mankind is corrupted by the Fall in every area of his being, including the will. Therefore, man is dead in sin and cannot, by his will, choose God.

GOVERNMENTAL ATONEMENT A view about the death of Jesus Christ that says that Christ, by his death on the cross, simply fulfilled God the Father’s requirement of punishment for sin, making it possible for people to save themselves by believing and becoming holy.

NATURAL ABILITY The teaching that humans have a natural ability to obey God. The reason that people reject God is not that they must, but that they want to. Sin is a moral problem. People are, therefore, without any excuse for rejecting God. They can believe, but they won’t. Previously, people were called upon to repent, but, it was believed, only by an act of God would they become converted. However, Finney, though emphasizing natural ability, did not accept the idea that conversion was a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, and saw it as simply a rational human decision.

IMPUTED, or ORIGINAL SIN The teaching that all humans inherit, by descent, the actual original sin of Adam, and the punishment it deserves. Finney rejected this and taught that individual humans are only responsible for their own sinful actions.

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, or HOLINESS The teaching that the righteousness of Jesus Christ, shown by his total obedience to the Law of God, is transferred (imputed) to the believer upon conversion. Therefore, Jesus’ perfect obedience makes up for the failure of humans to be perfectly obedient. Finney rejected this doctrine and argued that humans themselves attained holiness, or perfect obedience, by faith. For him, a person had to be holy to be saved; holiness was not achieved by obeying the Law, but by faith.

POSTMILLENNIALISM The position that the millennium will arrive on earth before the return of Christ. This view has been held by many in the Church, and was the dominant view in Finney’s day. This was Finney’s belief and motivation for his social reform ideas, for he felt that Christians were called to bring about the perfection of society.

BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT A teaching, now associated with the Holiness Movement and modern Pentecostalism, that a second experience is to come to an individual after conversion—like Pentacost came to the Church after Calvary. Though later many saw speaking in tongues as proof of such an experience, for Finney and those around him, the baptism of the Spirit was more a second work of grace that elevated one to a higher relationship with God, that transformed one to a higher plane, to holiness of life, and greater effectiveness in God’s service; it was not believed to be attended by miraculous signs.

THE NEW DIVINITY The theology that was developed in New England by the followers of Jonathan Edwards, and which was based upon Edward’s thought. The leader in this development was the minister Samuel Hopkins, who had been a student of Edwards. This movement camel under attack by many because of its innovations and changes, and became associated with Yale College and the very influential Nathaniel Taylor, who made radical adjustments to some of Edward’s stronger Calvinistic teachings. In the religious atmosphere of Finney’s time, there were the older, and more traditional Calvinists, and there were the usually younger, more “progressive” New Divinity men. Finney’s ideas borrowed much from the New Divinity, which some have argued was New England Calvinism being reshaped by the import of Arminian Wesleyan teaching and practices.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

History

From the Archives: The Oberlin Evangelist, 16 December 1840

Though Finney was in the New England Calvinist tradition, he increasingly took positions considered Arminian. In this excerpt from the Oberlin Evangelist of 1840 Finney argues that Christians can fall from grace (i.e., lose their salvation); this was a direct contradiction of the Calvinist teaching of eternal security. Finney took certain statements of the apostle Paul to teach this, though those statements were traditionally considered statements about falling from obedience to the Lord. His stand on this added to the controversy surrounding his perfectionist ideas. Point 2 below has been a cause of confusion, for Finney seems to say that Christians do not receive new natures upon conversion—something the New Testament seems to clearly teach (e.g., in 2 Cor 5:17). Some have said that Finney seriously deviated from historical Protestant teaching; the statement has even been attributed to an unfortunate mental slip or confused thinking on Finney’s part. Whatever the explanation, it is one of Finney’s more controversial statements on 1 Corinthians 10:12 “Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

This confidence, whatever may be its foundation, cannot of itself secure the soul against falling into sin and hell.

1. Because, if it is founded in anything naturally good in us, it is ill-founded, of course.

2. If it is founded in what grace has already done for us, it is ill-founded; for however much grace may have done, it has not changed our nature. Our constitutional susceptibilities remain the same. It has not so changed our relations and circumstances as to exempt us from temptation; and consequently, nothing that grace has done, or ever will do for us, can render our perseverance in holiness unconditionally certain.

3. If this confidence is based upon our purposed watchfulness, prayerfulness, experience, or faith; these, independent of the sovereign grace of God, afford no foundation for our confidence, as to render it at all certain, or even probable, that we shall not sin again.

4. If this confidence is based upon the promises of God, it will not render our perseverance unconditionally certain; because the promises of God are all conditioned upon our faith, and the right exercise of our own agency ….

5. Any confidence in the promises of God, either for sanctification or final salvation, that does not recognize this universal principle in the government of God, is ill-founded and vain; because God has revealed this as a universal principle of his government; and whether expressed or not, in connection with each promise, it is always implied.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

Pastors

PRACTICING THE PRESENCE IN THE PASTORATE

Richard Bridston

I sat at my desk and looked at the two books. One was my Bible, the other my Day-Timer. They were at war again. Personal devotions versus professional duties.

It was Friday morning. The Day-Timer was attacking with two unfinished sermons for Sunday, an adult Bible class to polish up, a bulletin to make, and three overdue visitation calls. The counterattack came from unshakable memories of sermons (some my own!) highlighting the importance of prayer.

It was a familiar battle. I-man of God, preacher of the Word-was also the chief operating officer of a complex organization. I had a million things to do. So a couple of verses, a run through the prayer list, and on to my real work. And I know this feeling is not unique to me.

When I finally decided to do something serious about my own spirituality, I made some interesting discoveries. The villains I most suspected turned out to be mere accomplices. The most important miscreant was hiding where I least expected.

At first I thought the problem was my schedule. I studied time management. I learned to set priorities. I put prayer in my Day-Timer, along with relaxation and dates with my wife. My marriage improved, and so did my health. But the prayer battle continued. My defeats were glaring now, trumpeted by blank check spaces in my daily log. I chose work over prayer most of the time. It was almost as if I didn’t want to pray.

Perhaps I needed personal renewal. So I tried various conferences. Many were wonderful. I enjoyed the preaching, was lifted by the worship, strengthened by the prayers. But I was a spiritual groupie-I felt spiritually vital in the group, but I dried up back in the daily grind.

Was the problem stress? I took an excellent class in stress management. I learned about adrenalin and cortisol. I started working out. I began to journal about the “oughts” and expectations I battled. I learned to be more assertive, to delegate responsibilities But still I found myself too busy to pray more than a few minutes a day.

Three years ago I stumbled upon the chief culprit: not stress, not time management, not workaholism, not my schedule, but my spirit. The real villain was poor theology.

I finally took a class in “spirituality,” a term I had confused with “spiritism.” Some of the readings in the course were, to my careful orthodoxy, weird. But beyond the strange personalities of the mystics, there was a tantalizing vision: prayer not as duty but as delight.

I had worked hard for the Lord. But my dedication was grim and forced. When Paul spoke of being a “bondslave” of Jesus, I could identify, but not with the ecstatic self-abandonment he evidenced. I sensed the same joyful self-sacrifice among the monks of a small priory in the desert north of Los Angeles.

Our class was on a modified silent retreat. One afternoon I headed up among the boulders and Joshua trees to pray. With me were only the sighing wind and the bright desert sky. And four printed questions. I got only as far as the first, which asked me to reflect on God’s care in my early life.

I’m glib, and I began to write rapid, familiar cliches. Then it dawned on me like the sun rising in my soul; God does care for me! He cares about my feelings. About my struggles. He loves me. He enjoys me! I don’t have to prove anything.

I, spiritual child of Martin Luther, had never been able to find a gracious God. But now I realized he is with me because he loves me. I’m not a pastor to him. He calls me by name.

Please understand, I knew intellectually I was justified by grace alone. But I had been living as if I were “under the law,” a special law for pastors. He was a demanding boss, calling for something far beyond my ability to deliver. He was my ultimate Parishioner, measuring my performance against his infinite expectations.

No wonder it was hard to pray! Time alone with him had been time to prove something, to demonstrate holiness or earnestness or even repentance. It was like reporting to the board of elders. I had preached the efficacy of the finished work of Christ to my congregation and exempted myself as pastor.

I’m still glad I learned something about managing time and stress. But for three years now, instead of trying to prove something to God, I have offered my ministry as a gift to my Lover. Sometimes it’s as crude and simple as a child’s handmade gift, but I offer it anyway, because I know he cares.

So, do I pray like John Wesley? No, I’m still no model of personal discipline. But something funny happened at that desert theology class. I began to enjoy God’s presence. I snatch times with him now many times a day: stopped at a red light, sitting in a dentist’s office, parked in front of the school to pick up the kids.

I discovered God is my Friend, not my Foreman.

-Richard Bridston

Mt. Bethel Lutheran Brethren Church

Mt. Bethel, Pennsylvania

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

GOD’S BLESSING AND THE NONGROWING CHURCH

Johnny V. Miller

There’s a pastor I know across town. His church is not growing, so he envies me. I know that because he told me.

I know this man well, and I’d say he’s more godly than I am. He prays more, studies harder, and preaches more enthusiastically. He visits more, counsels more, and even makes evangelistic cold calls. Yet I make three times as much money, get invited to speak at other churches, and enjoy the highest ecclesiastical accolade of this age: “He pastors a growing church.”

Please don’t give me the managerial platitudes that say I must work smarter while he works harder. Honestly, in every way that counts before God, I believe he’s a better man than I.

So I would like to propose a toast-er, a blessing: “God bless the pastor of the nongrowing church.” He may be much more like the Lord Jesus than I am.

Some folks may not like that statement. They’ll argue that it’s God’s will for each church to grow, and I agree. They’ll argue that growth should be numerical, the fruit of evangelism, and I agree.

Yet that is not the way it was much of the time in our Lord’s ministry. He wasn’t always (maybe not even usually) “the pastor of a growing church.” When the crowds did flock to him, it was sometimes (maybe usually) for the wrong reasons (for example, in John 6:26, where it was for food). And when he got down to real business, they were quick to disappear John 6:66). An attendance chart of Christ’s ministry might have revealed statistical decline over time.

Was he discouraged? Possibly. Did he quit? Not until death. Was he a failure? Absolutely not!

Nor was Paul a failure when all abandoned him and his churches shrank while cults and false apostles mushroomed. The total fruit of Paul’s ministry may not have equaled the numbers in my medium-sized church.

We are all aware that it isn’t just good churches that grow. Cults grow, too. Of course, we assume the Holy Spirit and proper techniques produce our growth while false promises lead to cultic growth. However, the corollary of that assumption is that it’s justice when they decline but failure when we do. The failure of a church to grow is thus taken as an indictment of the pastor, evidence of spiritual rejection, a reason to quit.

So let me say it again: “May God bless the pastor of the nongrowing church”-the kind of faithful, diligent servant who sticks to his post with no accolades; the one who is never asked to speak at Founders’ Day, whose name never appears in his seminary’s brag rag, whose statistics never raise the eyebrows of denominational leaders; the person who writes but is never published, who will move but never be promoted; the minister with the resilient spirit who keeps plugging away for the Lord.

I envy that kind of faithful spirit, and I honor it. I am already wondering if I’ll feel like a failure as soon as my church plateaus. I’m defensively praying that God will still bless me then, and that my church will, too.

Johnny V. Miller

Cypress Bible Church

Cypress, Texas

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

SELLING ANCIENT DISCIPLINES TO MODERNS

Paul Anderson

Trying to convince computer-age people to practice spiritual disciplines such as regular prayer, Bible study, and giving is like trying to sell hair restorer to a bald man. He might accept that he needs the stuff, but he’s not convinced your product can deliver. In response to an article I’d written on fasting, a lady wrote, “You don’t really believe we’re supposed to do that in the twentieth century, do you?”

Yes. The trick, for us who are pastors, is finding ways to minimize the obstacles and give people the joy of discipline. Here are some ways our congregation has found to do that.

Present disciplines as normal

Most Christians wish they were more disciplined. They know they should pray consistently, read their Bibles more regularly, and give generously-just as they should exercise more faithfully and spend their time more wisely. But their guilt about their lack in these areas causes them to dismiss the disciplines, considering them only for the spiritually elite. After all, how many people-besides Martin Luther and John Wesley-get up early for an hour of prayer? As a result, many people accept the notion, “I’m just not a disciplined person,” and leave it at that.

So at Trinity we talk about Christian disciplines as a normal part of the believer’s life, not an add-on for the spiritually elite. In the Sermon on the Mount, we point out, Jesus spoke about prayer, fasting, and giving as if he expected all people to practice them.

We introduce the spiritual disciplines in the pastor’s class so members hear about them right from the beginning. We stress that we don’t have one set of principles for normal folk and another for the all-stars. We expect, for instance, that all our people will tithe. We couldn’t say for sure who is and who isn’t tithing, but we invite testimonies from brothers and sisters who were convinced by the Word of God and their experience to give it a try.

Model them through leadership

As we all know, the Christian life is more caught than taught. Parishioners follow our lives more than our words. So the leaders of our congregation are constantly reminded that they set a standard for the people.

I was in the home of a former member who is now a pastor. He said that when he was a member of our congregation, he knew the leaders were giving quality and quantity time to prayer. It made him want to do the same thing. One young father told me recently, “As I saw leaders applying various disciplines to their lives, I desired to grow in Christ with them.”

Move in slow motion

On the other hand, the commitment of leaders can, for some people, be too intimidating a model. My predecessor, for instance, rose at 4 A.M., jogged eight miles while praying for the church, worked on memorizing books of the Bible, had his personal prayer time, made entries into his journal, and daily met for prayer with a group of men-all before family devotions at 7:15 sharp! He was careful not to make his program normative, but his example brought challenge to some and groans to others.

We’ve learned to go slow. Before we called the congregation to a fast a year ago, we discussed it among the elders for several weeks. I then taught on the subject for several weeks. Then we issued the invitation to join us in fasting.

People appreciate moving deliberately. Moving slowly and steadily gives our members a sense of peace and security. They know we aren’t going to pull any fast ones on them.

Start young

Our through-the-Bible confirmation program starts in fourth grade and teaches children prayer, Bible study, and memory work. We now have teachers who went through the program as children.

We also encourage parents to start their children in personal and family devotions. A young man on our church council attributes his interest in regular Bible study and prayer to his father’s persistence. “We were sometimes grumpy when he called us together early in the morning for devotions,” he says, “but he kept on doing it. His consistency made it a major priority for me now.”

Avoid the dual dangers

Two dangers confront us in encouraging spiritual disciplines. One is giving people the impression it’s all up to them. They were saved by grace, but now they had better roll up their sleeves and get to work.

One woman in our congregation, for example, returned from a teaching seminar and made six life-changing commitments, including one to meditate daily. I rejoiced in her enthusiasm but cautioned her to be easy on herself. Her five children weren’t knocking at her knees when she made her commitments. The challenge of stepping into spiritual disciplines must be tempered with realism.

On the other side are those who believe God does everything. They’re content to relax, not wishing to disturb grace by their works. Having walked with the Lord for twenty years, they’re still giving the Lord only five quick minutes before falling off at night. Such people may need a kick in the pants rather than a pat on the back.

I called George, a member of our congregation, to tell him I expected him at the men’s prayer group at 6 the following morning. He wasn’t home, so I left the message with his wife. I told her that if he wasn’t at the breakfast, I would come over and throw him out of bed.

My wife, who heard me, wondered why I’d spoken so insensitively. The reason could be seen the next morning. When George’s alarm went off, he struggled to decide whether to get up. However, when his wife remembered my call and passed on the message, he decided to come. During the prayer meeting, George thanked the Lord for the “encouragement” he’d received from a brother “who cared whether I came.”

As I explained to my wife, some people need toughness and can handle it. George is a coach who knows both how to give and how to receive a challenge.

Growing as a pastoral leader involves discerning whether a person needs a kick or a pat. I’ve had church members who responded best to a challenge that demanded everything of them. Those who don’t have that kind of motivation may need encouragement bit by bit.

Paul struck the balance when he urged believers, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling,” adding that “God is at work within you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

-Paul Anderson

Trinity Lutheran Church

San Pedro, California

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

THE FIGURES BEHIND THE SURVEY

Jim Berkley

For survey participants, the CTi research department used a random sample of a thousand LEADERSHIP subscribers. Each was mailed a survey and, two weeks later, a reminder post card. Some 49 percent responded. Since CTi survey responses are typically 26 percent, this survey apparently touched a nerve.

Respondents were 87 percent clergy and 13 percent lay. Of the clergy respondents:

-98 percent are male

-97 percent are married

-67 percent have children at home (households average 3.6 members, compared to 2.7 nationally)

-94 percent have finished college, 78 percent have a graduate degree, and 18 percent have a doctorate (19 percent of U.S. adults are college graduates)

-average age is about 43

-18 percent serve urban churches, 39 percent suburban, 32 percent small-town, and 11 percent rural

-average Sunday worship attendance is 301; 49 percent have between 50 and 200, 6 percent fewer than 50; and 45 percent greater than 200

-average number of years in ministry is 16.5

-43 percent are solo pastors, 41 percent head a staff, 15 percent serve on staffs, and 1 percent are retired

As we began to analyze the survey results, we discovered something pastors, denominations, and the IRS have found: pastors’ compensation is hard to compare.

Problem 1: Some pastors live in a parsonage; some own their homes and receive a housing allowance. Some receive neither a parsonage nor an allowance. Is it fair to compare cash salaries apart from housing considerations? And how does one arrive at the value to a pastor of rent-free parsonage living?

To equalize the two situations for the sake of comparison, we chose to add $750 a month to the cash salary of pastors living in parsonages. This figure, approximating the average rental value, is, unfortunately, highly subjective. Each parsonage, depending on size, location, and condition, would be different. The average selling price for homes nationwide the first four months of 1988 was $109,725. By real estate rule of thumb, rental on those homes would be around $1000 a month. Fair-market rent for three-bedroom apartments is around $700 a month. So we set a conservative value of $750 a month, or $9000 a year, as the average equivalent value of a parsonage. This somewhat arbitrary figure allows us, however, to compute a benchmark compensation figure for both homeowners and parsonage dwellers.

Problem 2: Fringe benefit packages differ widely. Some pastors get none. Others have ample packages. So how do we arrive at a fair average?

We decided to total the various perks each pastor received and find the average amount for the whole pool-those who receive benefits and those who get none. When added to the average salary and housing allowance (or parsonage value), that gives a better average compensation figure. It could be misleading to average the benefits of only those who receive them and then add that total into the compensation package.

Problem 3: The concepts of remuneration and reimbursement merge in many minds. Should a book allowance be listed in the budget with salaries and benefits or with such items as office utility bills and stationery expenses? Is a car allowance part of a pastor’s compensation or an operating expense for the church?

For purposes of this study, we chose not to consider reimbursements for professional expenses a part of the remuneration package. Allowances for such items as transportation (car), books and magazines, continuing education, entertainment, memberships, and conferences merely reimburse the pastor for out-of-pocket expenses incurred while doing the work of the church.

Since such reimbursements are important-and sometimes forgotten at budget time-we sought reimbursement information on the survey. But adding these numbers to salary and benefits to determine “what the pastor makes” would cause the total to appear incorrectly high.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube