Charles Finney

When criticizing an evangelical idol like Billy Graham, one is often challenged with the claim that, as so much good is done, faults should be overlooked. Setting aside the seriousness of the faults in question, and the corresponding impossibility of letting them slide, we need to ask, has so much good really been done? Are these methods which we deplore really producing as advertised?

The record says, “No.”

In 1968 the Evangelical Alliance, BGEA’s first sponsor in Britain, published a report on evangelism that included a survey of eighty-five churches which had participated in Graham’s shorter London crusades of 1966–67. Its authors (a large committee) concluded:

On mass evangelism generally, the recurring theme was that the crusade did not make a lasting effect on the complete outsider. Even when they went, they either made no response, or made no lasting response . . . Church members, whether they went forward or not, found blessing and encouragement from the services, but the complete outsider tended to go back outside again. in the words of one comment, ‘If they asked, “What shall we do?” they seem to have been given little answer beyond “to decide for Christ” . . . On inquiry they were unable to give any real answer as to what this meant, other than they desired to live a better life.

—Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000), 56–57.

Now, let’s go back a century and a half and examine the record of one of Graham’s most famous predecessors. Charles Finney preceded Graham in implementing results-oriented methods. Finney claimed that the right use of the right means was guaranteed to produce conversions, and there is no denying that his methods produced massive results. But what results? In Revival and Revivalism, Iain Murray reported that

. . . the permanent results were considerably fewer than had initially been claimed. In the course of time, Finney himself admitted this. Joseph Ives Foot, a Presbyterian minister, wrote in 1838: ‘During ten years, hundreds, perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is easily admitted, that his [Finney’s] real converts are comparatively few. It is declared even by himself, that “the great body of them are a disgrace to religion”.’

—Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism (Banner of Truth, 1994), 288–289.

Asahel Nettleton on emotionally manipulative preaching:

Terrific [calculated to terrify] sermons and other means are artfully contrived to stimulate the feelings of ignorant people. In compliance with the call given at the period of the highest excitement, they repair to the anxious seat by scores. As their fears are soon aroused, they are generally as soon calmed; and in a few days many profess to entertain hope. Many such converts soon lose all appearance of religion; but they become conceited, secure, and Gospel-proof; so that, while living in the open and habitual neglect of their duty, they talk very freely of the time when they experienced religion.

—Bennet Tyler, The Life and Labours of Asahel Nettleton (Banner of Truth, 1975), 289.

There is no greater example of this method than Nettleton’s famous contemporary Charles Finney. Later in life, Finney himself would confess,

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state. [source]

The more I learn about Charles Finney, a man whom I once ignorantly admired, the more convinced I become that he was not a saved man at all, but the worst of wolves in sheep’s clothing. One need only to scan his Systematic Theology to conclude that he was not merely ignorant of the gospel, but actually rejected it and scoffed at it and its ministers. To read the testimony of his conversion is to witness an arrogant man creating a god in his own image with a religion to suit his own inclinations. Nowhere have I read of any manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit in his attitudes and behavior. Rather, there is abundant evidence of a prideful, unteachable spirit, and a penchant for playing dirty and bullying his way to influence and control.

As Finney plowed through New England, leaving a trail in which which General Sherman could have taken pride, local pastors appealed to Asahel Nettleton for support in opposing him. In the winter of 1826–7, Nettleton conducted two interviews with Finney, and found him to be hopelessly intractable.

In a lengthy letter to the Rev. Mr. Aikin of Utica, Nettleton gave a report of Finney’s behavior, and the plight of the local ministers, of which the following is an excerpt.

The account which his particular friends gave of his proceedings is, in substance, as follows:—He has got ministers to agree with him only by ‘crushing,’ or ‘breaking them down.’ The method by which he does it, is by creating a necessity, by getting a few individuals in a church to join him, and then all those who will not go all lengths with him are denounced as enemies to revivals. Rather than have such a bad name, one and another falls in to defend him; and then they proclaim what ministers, elders, and men of influence, have been ‘crushed’ or ‘broken down.’ This moral influence being increased, others are denounced, in a similar manner, as standing out, and leading sinners to hell. And to get rid of the noise, and save himself, another will ‘break down.’ And so they wax hotter and hotter, until the church is fairly split in twain. And now, as for those elders and Christians who have thus been converted to these measures, some of them are sending out private word to their Christian friends abroad, as follows: ‘I have been fairly skinned by the denunciations of these men, and have ceased to oppose them, to get rid of their noise. But I warn you not to introduce this spirit into your church and society.’ And so brother Finney’s supposed friends, men of influence, are sending out word to warn others to beware of the evils which they have experienced. I heartily pity brother Finney, for I believe him to be a good man, and wishing to do good. But nobody dares tell him that a train of causes is set in operation, and urged on by his own friends, which is likely to ruin his usefulness.

—Bennet Tyler, The Life and Labours of Asahel Nettleton (Banner of Truth, 1975), 345–346.

It should be noted that while Nettleton called Finney “brother,” and believed him “to be a good man” at heart, that Nettleton had relatively little history to work with. Finney’s ministry, so-called, was only three years old. It was primarily his methods and treatment of the legitimate clergy that were under examination thus far. He had, as yet, published no serious theological works. Had Nettleton read his Memoirs and Systematic Theology, I believe he would have been considerably less fraternal in his assessment.

Other than historical interest, I have two purposes for posting this today. First, Finney is still wields considerable influence today. Doctrinally ignorant and apathetic evangelicals, as well as some learned, orthodox ministers, generally ignorant of the real Finney, are happy to attach themselves to the legendary great evangelist, unaware that the legend is fiction, and the reality is deadly heresy. Second, Finney’s method of knocking down opposition is still being used today. Try speaking disparagingly of Billy Graham’s theology and methods (which are directly inherited from Finney), and see if you aren’t labeled something like “an enemy of revivals.” No discussion will be allowed. That which is untouchable is simply declared untouchable, and your credibility trashed. The spirit of Charles Finney lives.