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.
While the name Charles Finney is most often associated with the Second Great Awakening, there is another dimension of that historic movement that is much less known. In the previous essay on the Burned Over District, we critiqued the theology and methods of Finney which seemed to yield a hardness to the Biblical Gospel. Now we turn to the account of another evangelist, a contemporary of Finney, whose ministry was basically the polar opposite of Finney’s.
Asahel Nettleton (1783-1844) represented the theology and methods of the First Great Awakening wherein the names George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were prominent. Many historians of the Second Great Awakening estimate that there were 30,000 conversions under the preaching of Nettleton. These conversions differed from Finney’s in that they lasted and the majority of the converts went on to live a life of true discipleship. It is generally admitted that ninety percent of Finney’s converts eventually turned away from the emotional high that characterized his message; history demonstrates that approximately that same percentage of Nettleton’s converts went on with the Lord.
Nettleton generally began an evangelistic campaign with strong preaching on sin. In a ten-week campaign (meeting every night of the week), he typically preached on sin for the first three weeks (breaking up the fallow ground). Only after the people understood their own sinfulness did he provide the Good News and extend them the Gospel call.
Finney and Nettleton publicly disagreed on the nature of true evangelism. They met on at least one occasion but there was no “meeting of the minds.”
As Arminians, we should be somewhat ashamed of Finney, his antics and his theological diversions. He was from our “camp” but is a stain on the history of evangelism. On the other hand, Nettleton, who was a Calvinist, was more faithful to the truth of the Gospel and will undoubtedly receive heavenly recognition for a job well done even though we may not totally agree with him. Finney was and is much better known. He has received the acclaim of the world, but . . .