Finney's folly

The fear of formalism (having external religion without an inward conversion) led many in the 18th cent. to seek for intense religious experiences in order to confirm that they and others were truly converted (see post on Jonathan Edwards below). The seeking after conversion experiences often lasted months and years under much prolonged doubt and inner turmoil. This relatively arduous process was made quick and simple in the 19th cent. due largely to the "new measures" introduced by one man, Charles Grandison Finney. Finney was trained as a lawyer and even though he probably hadn't even read the Westminster Standards all the way through, was ordained a Presbyterian minister. He began to conduct "tent meetings," which were precursors to the modern day crusades we see done today by the likes of Billy Graham and Greg Laurie. Finney argued that divine grace was not necessarily needed in order for a revival to occur, but rather, the right use of means. These means or "measures" included prolonged meetings, often lasting days at a time, intense singing, emotional testimonies, and perhaps most effectively, the anxious bench, and area reserved in the front of the meeting hall where those who were feeling especially convicted of their sins were to make their way in order to receive further instructions about their conversion (AKA "the alter call").

While many of Finney's contemporaries were impressed with the numbers that he produced, there were others who criticized his measures as a departure from the Biblical method of kingdom growth as it had been practiced in the Reformed churches for centuries. John Williamson Nevin was one of Finney's most ardent critics. Nevin was raised a Presbyterian and was a early graduate from Princeton Seminary. Even though he was not ethnically German, he took a call to teach at Mercersburg Seminary, which belonged to the German Reformed Church. He, along with his younger colleague, Phillip Schaff (the prodigious church historian), were proponents of what would be known as "Mercersburg Theology."

Nevin's main argument with Finney was that his methods of conversion (termed: "the bench") were in direct opposition to the truly Reformed and Biblical method, which he termed: the catechism. A catechism is a type of instructional tool written in a question and answer format designed especially for covenant children to learn about their faith. In Nevin's case (and mine), there was the Heidelberg Catechism, written in 1563. This method of teaching baptized children through repetition and memorization all led to the maturing of their faith where one day, when they were old enough to understand, the covenant child would profess his or her faith before the elders and then become communicant members of their local congregation. That's all there is to it, argued Nevin... no glitz, no glam, no fancy meetings or emotional appeals. He was arguing for a relatively slow, yet steady process which has typified the daily life of the church for millennia. So opposed were these two methods that Nevin would argue: "the bench is against the catechism and the catechism is against the bench." Their is to be no mixing of these endeavors, they are hostile to each other and to practice one is to do damage to the other.

Like all men used by God in history, Nevin was not without his faults. Much of his theology was left wanting, especially his disdain for predestination, as well as his formulations of ecclesiology. What positive lessons we can learn from him, however, is that he maintained the importance of the Church and her ministries. When so many in his day (even Old School Presbyterians) were drawn to the new ways of doing things, he stood for how it's always been done, the way it should be.