This series is from the From the Editor’s Desk column of the Sword and Trumpet. The articles were co-authored by Paul Emerson and myself.
The previous article referenced the Finney Revivals which were a part of the Second Great Awakening in America. Charles Finney represented a very radical form of Arminianism that bordered on Liberal Theology. Finney and company concentrated on upstate western New York State which as a direct result became known as (and remains to this day) the Burned Over District. The revivalists under the leadership of Finney conducted area-wide revivals from community to community across the Empire State from Syracuse to southwest of Buffalo. These campaigns typically included the liberal use of Finney’s “New Measures” including the “Anxious Bench.”
The results were sociologically gratifying. Taverns, houses of disrepute, dance halls and other morally questionable businesses were closed down. The whole moral fiber of these communities changed for the better. However, over the months and years that followed, these communities gradually sank back into the immoral mire from which they had risen during the revivals. The Finney revivalists returned to these communities and while the results were similar in producing changes in morality, said changes were not as intense and attendance at the revival meetings was not as unanimous. It took less time in this second round for the communities to return to their sinful ways. This pattern continued until after the fourth round or so, there was minimal attendance at the revival meetings and no change in the communities. The spiritual and moral hardness that resulted produced very difficult ground for the true gospel; the same condition continues to this day in this geographic area. It is indeed spiritually hard ground. This writer can personally testify to this spiritual hardness as he grew up in this area.
Why is it that so many who seemed to be converts reverted to their former ways? Jesus helps us understand this phenomenon in the parable of the sower. In His explanation of the parable in Matthew 13:18-23, He describes four responses to the gospel: (1) unbelief, (2) temporary belief that fails the test of difficulty, (3) temporary belief that fails the test of prosperity, and (4) true belief. Two of the four responses are transient. Those who respond to the gospel in these ways seemed to have faith, but their confession of faith did not endure. That which at first appears to be genuine faith is later proven to be false. As such, theirs is no true faith. As Hebrews 3:14 says, “We have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.” True faith is enduring faith. Those who do not “hold…steadfast to the end” are not “partakers of Christ.”
Put another way, professing faith is not the same as possessing it. One can make a public profession of faith without truly believing in Christ. Those who possess true faith will profess it, but one can profess to believe in Christ without possessing true faith. The Finney revivals succeeded in leading many to profess belief in Christ before men, but without leading them to reckon with their sin before a holy God. Those public professions led to reforms which were upheld as long as human resolve lasted. Once the resolve failed, the emotional high faded, and the temptations resurfaced, the people of the land returned to their former ways. We learn from this that it is possible to manufacture a form of revival by watering down the gospel and side-stepping God’s ordained means. Yet revival of that sort is only skin deep. True revival—revival that lasts—must be wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God.