Recent Papers: The Memory of Revival in America for Gospel-Centeredness Today

I want to apologize for not writing here more often. Parenting, ministry, and studies get most of my time these days. I did, however, want to share some of my recent papers for your reading pleasure. In sharing this, I hope to give you window into where my studies have taken me recently. God bless you!

Introduction

            The First and Second Great Awakenings are significant in American religious history. It is impossible to properly understand how evangelicalism came to dominate the American religious landscape without seeing how revival has shaped church belief and practice over the past 300 years. Further, there is no comprehension of major political and philosophical events, such as the American Revolution and the Civil War, without factoring in the great American revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries. History does not occur in a vacuum, and the marriage of religion and politics in America has no signs of threatening divorce. At the same time, a false picture or memory of these events may lead evangelicals within the gospel-centered movement to glean from the Awakenings without proper discernment. This incautious approach includes a loss of adequate warning for missteps to avoid and a false sense of success based on popularity. In this paper, the author will argue that similar temptations to division, being a timeless influence, and serving the Lord through human strength, which were present in the First and Second Great Awakenings, continue to loom large for the gospel-centered movement today.

            In advancing the thesis above, significant space will be given to reviewing the First and Second Awakenings, the divisions present within them, and key theological ideas advanced through them. After this review, imports from the Awakenings to modern evangelicalism will be highlighted, focusing on how evangelicals of a Reformed theological bent may remember and misapply the revivals. Finally, the paper will conclude with how the gospel-centered movement can learn from the First and Second Great Awakenings to be faithful to the gospel as leaders in these times, as the early revivalists also aimed to do.

The First Great Awakening

Though the itinerant evangelist George Whitefield is remembered as the chief protagonist behind the First Awakening, ministers had reported unusual responses to preaching before Whitefield arrived in 1739.[1] Of Northampton, Massachusetts, in 1734, Jonathan Edwards would write, “It was, in the latter part of December, that the Spirit of God began extraordinarily to set in, and wonderfully to work amongst us.”[2] Before this time, spiritual apathy, along with social acceptance of sin, was prevalent.[3] Samuel Davies, preaching in Virginia in 1757, stated, “About sixteen years ago [1741], in the northern colonies, when all religious concern was much out of fashion, and the generality lay in a dead sleep in sin, …suddenly a deep, general concern about eternal things spread throughout the country; sinners started out of their slumbers.”[4] In various parts of New England, disconnected religious revivals and concern for eternal matters grew into what historians now call the First Great Awakening.

The scene was set for Whitefield’s arrival to preach in Philadelphia. His celebrity status had followed him from England through colonial pastors cut from the same cloth. Mark Noll writes, “In his student years, Whitefield underwent a conversion of the conventional Puritan kind. But from the mid-1730s on, Whitefield’s efforts to promote Christianity were anything but conventional.”[5] Whitefield preached outdoors to anyone who would listen, often on days other than the Sabbath and at various times throughout the day and evening. The evangelist leveled the playing field between the ministerial class and the ordinary citizen, inviting all listeners to stand together regardless of social class. Noll states, “He wore his Anglican ordination lightly and eagerly cooperated with Protestants of every sort who would support his work.”[6] Whitefield was a master at marketing through the growth of printed media, and his spirit matched the growing spirit of ministers in the colonies, such as Edwards and Davies. Over the next ten years, to 1750, the Lord would use Whitefield and others to draw sinners to salvation in Jesus Christ.

Emphases of First Awakening Preaching

While maintaining a connection to the Calvinistic beliefs of the Puritans before them, revival preachers of the First Great Awakening emphasized piety and a personal relationship with God that resonated emotionally. Behind the words spoken were hearts deeply moved by the message preached. Iain Murray writes, “The Awakening was heralded by a new kind of preaching, which was authoritative, fervent, and heart-searching.”[7] Three specific themes were prevalent in preaching during the First Great Awakening: “Whitefield preached powerful sermons that underscored the depths of human sin, the necessity of being born again, and a religion of the heart that highlighted a personal, relational walk with God.”[8] Original sin, regeneration through Christ, and a life marked by adoration and holiness drew the most space within First Awakening sermons.

Original sin inherited from Adam was a prevalent idea in revival preaching of this era. According to this doctrine, the fallen nature of man’s first parents has been passed on to all humanity. Passages like Psalm 51:5 emphasize this reality: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”[9] Due to God’s infinite holiness and righteousness, man’s sin is heinous and inexcusable, even though sin was present before one would draw a first breath. It should be noted that highlighting sin and its effects was often the main objective of a sermon of this time. Edwards would preach, “How much soever you dread damnation, and are affrighted and concerned at the thoughts of it; yet if God should indeed eternally damn you, you would be met with your own way; you would be dealt with exactly according to your own dealing.”[10] Whitefield notes, “God is a sovereign agent, and therefore may withhold from, or confer it [salvation] on, whom He pleases.”[11] Because of sin, no one had a right to salvation. Grace and mercy were God’s alone to extend.

After making the listener aware of sin and their sinful nature, the preacher’s task was to reveal the glory and splendor of God while guiding the hearer to accept God's justice, whether that entails their damnation or salvation in Christ. Caldwell calls this task coming to disinterested benevolence towards God, being “so enthralled with the beauty of God and his ways that they take little notice of themselves; their interest lies completely with God – his ends, his desires, his ways.”[12] Edwards is credited for developing this idea of benevolence, believing it could only be experienced by the redeemed.[13] It marks the acceptance of one’s guilt before God and the penalty of eternal damnation in hell that comes with it if God does not extend grace. The resignation of one’s plea before the Lord marked the humility that should attend the conversion of a sinner to Christ. The disinterested experience pointed towards the doctrine of regeneration that revival preachers of this time taught. Whitefield preached, “The Lord Jesus Christ is our righteousness; and if we are accepted with God, it must be only in and through the personal righteousness, the active and passive obedience, of Jesus Christ his beloved Son.”[14] The core belief that marked those redeemed was who Jesus Christ was and what He had accomplished for them. Edwards stated, “Men cannot look upon themselves as proper objects of mercy, unless they first know themselves to be miserable; and so, unless this be the case, it is impossible that they should come to God for mercy.”[15] The believer had to accept that God’s punishment for sin was justly deserved before recognizing and appreciating the grace available through Jesus Christ. Seeing the love of God in Christ, the sinner’s heart exalted the glory of God even if their fate lay in hell.

Regeneration, also called conversion or being born again, was an act of God in which a sinner is forgiven of their sin through faith in Jesus Christ, given a new heart for the Lord, and made acceptable to God. Jesus’ words in John 3:3 to Nicodemus were a constant citation for revival preachers: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The reason sinners cannot appreciate God’s beauty and splendor, revival preachers shared, is due to the Lord withholding grace and mercy for them to do so. Because of sin, a sinner’s eyes are blind to God’s glory in Christ. As man did not control his first birth, man cannot control his second birth. Rebirth could only be accomplished by God.

Despite the clear message of man’s inability to reconcile himself to God, revival preachers of this era consistently pleaded for sinners to trust in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls. Often with tears in his eyes, Whitefield would invite the lost to trust in Christ’s provision: “No, only believe in him, and then, though you have crucified him afresh, yet will he abundantly pardon you; ‘though your sins be as scarlet, yet shall they be as wool; though deeper than crimson, yet shall they be whiter than snow’ (Isa. 1:18).”[16] Edwards explained, “If you come to God for mercy, sensible of your own vileness, and seeking pardon only through the free mercy of God in Christ, you would need not be afraid; the greatness of your sins would be no impediment to your pardon.”[17] As much as the lost needed to know of their vile nature before the Lord, revivalists also ensured they understood the invitation of God to be cleansed and reconciled through Jesus Christ alone.

Assurance of salvation became vital for revival preachers to address in their teaching. If salvation is solely the work of God, how can a person be confident that the Lord has begun this work in them? The revivalists consistently pointed to a growing love for God and a changed character. The best evidence would be a disconnection from the world's cares for the cares of God. Preaching from Matthew 18:3, Whitefield states, “Now in this sense we must be converted and become as little children; that is, we must be loose to the world, comparatively speaking, as a little child.”[18] He later encourages, “If God be your Father, fly from everything that may displease him and walk worthy of that God who has called you to his kingdom and glory.”[19] One of Edwards’ most famous works, The Religious Affections, is solely dedicated to navigating how to know if the Lord has saved a sinner and what evidences a transformed life. Edwards argues that true religion does include being moved emotionally by God’s extension of grace to the sinner: “The saints on earth do know what divine love and joy in the soul are, and they know that love and joy are the same kind with the love and joy which are in heaven in separate souls there.”[20] For Edwards, as believers read the Bible and see the lives of those in the narrative, they will resonate with others’ experiences and emotions who trust in the same God they trust for salvation, experiencing the same assurance of God’s grace as David, John, and others point to through their words.[21] With love for the Lord being key evidence of life change, the revivalists of the First Great Awakening consistently pointed believers to look for marks of a changed character as proof of God’s work within them.

Impacts of the First Great Awakening

            Like other historical events, the First Great Awakening did not occur in a vacuum. It is impossible to separate the preaching of revivalists and the response from congregations of this time from the English Enlightenment, which, among other issues, gave individuals authority to decide upon religious concerns outside of exterior authorities like state-established churches.[22][23] Historians have recognized the First Awakening as a prime mover in advancing the Enlightenment cause in the colonies. John Wilsey writes, “Old structures of religion, such as the parish system, were dismantled by the itinerant preachers of the Awakening. This meant that people now heard the word of God preached outside the parish's boundaries and outside the church's four walls.”[24] Before the Awakening, parish pastors, through the authority of the Anglican church, were responsible for fighting heresy and false teachers in their respective regions.[25] Whether intended or not, Whitefield subverted church authority by preaching outdoors to anyone who would listen. Indeed, they did listen, typically in groups of thousands that gathered to hear Whitefield’s emotional preaching. Harry Stout writes, “Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching, the distinction blurred between church and theater.”[26] The revivals were as much about theology as they were about the experience of taking control of one’s religious freedom.

            It must be stated that while revivalists knew of the Enlightenment happening around them, they did not cave to societal pressure in forwarding every element the Enlightenment had to offer. Whitefield did not seek to advance the entire Enlightenment by breaking traditional norms, but he did seek to take advantage of the times for the gospel's sake. Edwards, being the theological student he was, was careful to glean from writers like John Locke while keeping a firm grip on the Scriptures. Stout writes, “Edwards was freed, by the very arbitrariness of the language Locke proclaimed, to attach very different meanings to this vocabulary.”[27] Edwards was taking the science Locke observed and bringing unchanging theological truths to bear upon it. He sought to answer the challenges of raising individual authority from a pastor’s heart, addressing theological questions believers would offer in an enlightened age. Caldwell writes of Edwards, “Though he was a staunch Calvinist, he so closely aligned divine and human agency in his work that it is often hard to distinguish the two.”[28] The evangelists had no power to stop the Enlightenment from happening, but they sought to be faithful to the gospel through it.

            Those faithful to state-established churches in the colonies did not care for the revivals. In addition to breaking from tradition and authority, critics pointed to revival preaching’s overly emotional tendencies and effects upon the hearers. Caldwell writes, “Sometimes the preaching was so convicting that ‘bodily effects’ could be viewed among the crowd: persons crying out in the middle of the sermon under sharp pangs of conscience, or individuals so overcome with terror that they trembled and lost their ability to sit up or stand.”[29] Some radical revivalists, such as James Davenport, claimed to know who was truly saved and who was not, relying on dreams and impulses from the Holy Spirit for direction over explicit Scripture.[30] Experiences and leaders like these were not the norm nor encouraged by prominent leaders such as Whitefield, Edwards, or Davies. Edwards recognized the tendency of a mixture of genuine and false emotions in God’s work: “There is indeed something very mysterious in it, that so much good, and so much bad, should be mixed together in the church of God.”[31] Still, revival critics pointed to the smoke in claiming that the fire was nearby.

            The most effective criticism of revival came in its tendency to split churches. Caldwell admits, “While it is clear that the awakening was a blessing to multitudes of colonial Christians, it is also clear that it did not promote unity among churches where revivals were powerfully felt.”[32] Davies lamented this division, but called for action due to the apparent spiritual decline in the colonies: “The plain truth is, a general reformation must be promoted in this colony by some means or other, or multitudes are eternally undone, and I see alas but little ground to hope for it from the generality of the clergy here, till they be happily changed themselves.”[33] If revivalists had to pick between the unity of churches and the salvation of the lost, they would pick salvation. The religious landscape of the time pointed to incredible hypocrisy and laziness on the part of parish ministers. In the revivalists’ eyes, a significant shakeup of religious practice had to occur for the lost to come to Christ.

            For Edwards, religious revival in the colonies was not an uncommon event to justify receiving criticism. Edwards believed God had done this before in previous generations. Speaking of his grandfather and predecessor in Northampton, Solomon Stoddard, Edwards wrote, “He had five harvests, as he called them. …Those about 53, and 40, and 24 years ago, were much greater than either the first or last, but in each of them, I have heard my grandfather say, the greater part of the young people in town seemed to be mainly concerned for their eternal salvation.”[34] Edwards related his revival experience to what had taken place in his grandfather’s ministry. For him, the Great Awakening was just another work of God in the land he remembered from his grandfather. In responding to critics of the revivals, Edwards would reason, “It is not strange that in a Christian, orthodox country, and such a land of light as this is, there should be many at a loss whose work this is, whether the work of God or the work of the devil?”[35] Edwards’ memory of Puritanism in the colonies made the question of revival's validity a no-brainer. At its heart, the revivalists were preaching the same message as the Puritans but with an intention to see that theology internalized rather than merely rehearsed.

            In conclusion, the impact of the First Great Awakening was a renewed spirituality that made sinners aware of their lost and helpless state before God, encouraging them to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation, and to live uprightly as they experienced a new love and appreciation for a God who willingly saved them. Amid the growing effects of the Enlightenment, revival preachers like Whitefield, Edwards, and Davies sought to reach the lost where the culture was, even if this meant breaking from the prevailing church culture of their time. These revivalists valued and connected with the Puritan doctrines of the past, even while actively distancing themselves from the church culture the Puritans had established in the colonies. Their mission was to preach the gospel, reach the lost, and see Christianity thrive in the colonies again. Their memory of previous revivals fueled what they believed to be possible in their own time, as the memory of the First Awakening would soon fuel what was to come.

The Second Great Awakening

            With the passing of the First Great Awakening, climactic events were soon to take place before the advent of the Second Great Awakening. The most climactic of these events was the American Revolution and the subsequent birth of a new nation in 1775 and 1776, respectively. Alongside an emphasis on personal liberty, as pushed by the Enlightenment, religious liberty grew as more denominations outside the Anglican and Congregational churches took root in America. Caldwell writes, “They came to be displaced by the surge of growth in Methodism and the Baptists, who both adapted quickly to the new American setting.”[36] The anti-Christian writings of Tom Paine and Voltaire gained some attention, but the Christian heritage as remembered in the early Puritan settlements was never seriously threatened.[37] Still, spiritual apathy and carelessness for eternal matters were again present as a new generation of Americans was born. Murray summarizes, “There was no general prevalence of irreligion towards the end of the eighteenth century. Yet the balance of evidence [towards deism and atheism] justified the apprehension many felt.”[38] Church growth had slowed tremendously, not keeping up with the growing population of the new country.

            Trends of carelessness for spiritual matters began to change around 1800. Rather than being centered upon a few individual preachers or places, the Second Awakening manifested throughout the new nation, with relatively unknown evangelists and preachers leading the way. After the death of Edwards, Calvinist theology with a heart for experiential religion continued to develop through institutions like Princeton and Yale. These developments helped secure, by God’s grace, a new revival of faith over the next forty years, but also led to the demise of biblical fidelity and sufficiency later in the century. As will be discussed, religious liberty can be both a blessing and a curse.

Emphases of the Second Great Awakening Preaching

            It is essential to recognize the vast space that the Second Great Awakening covered and the diversity of denominations it encompassed. Historians have divided areas of influence into revivals of New England, revivals in the frontier lands of modern states like Kentucky, and revivals in central New York. Caldwell states,

They were more local in nature, involving leaders of different denominations who each left their particular stamp on the revivals they oversaw. Regional differences also contributed to diversity. New England revivals were more intellectual and emotionally “quiet” affairs conducted throughout the region’s churches, while Methodist revivals in the South and West were often animated gatherings conducted in outdoor camp meetings.[39]

Reviewing the Second Awakening is further complicated by the lack of writing contemporary to the revivals, especially by those who led preaching and teaching in the frontier. However, in surveying the theology present within the three regions of revival, the theme of God’s love for sinners and the natural ability of man surface as key issues. Evangelists and preachers landed on different positions based on God’s love and man’s ability during the Second Great Awakening.

Edwards’ theology had become prominent in New England through the memory of the First Awakening. After his death in 1758, Edwards’ students, Joseph Bellamy and Samuel Hopkins, sought to adapt the language inherited from Edwards’ Calvinism to a new audience bent towards personal liberty and religious freedom. Caldwell writes, “They sought to reconfigure Calvinism in such a way to render it more amenable to reason, more consistent with humanity’s sense of justice, and ultimately more in alignment with their reading of Scripture.”[40] While continuing to hold to the doctrines of original sin and disinterested benevolence, Bellamy and Hopkins differed from Edwards on the nature of the atonement: “The atonement is not understood as the literal payment of sinners’ moral debts. Rather, it is an act that secures the conditions where God can extend a pardon to sinners without neglecting sin.”[41] The doctrine of justification was also adapted away from Christ’s imputation of righteousness to sinners to sinners being merely forgiven of sins alone, making personal holiness a greater emphasis in evangelism. These changes to the doctrines of the atonement and justification set the course for the future of revivals, differing subtly from those seen in the First Awakening. Bellamy and Hopkins’ revisions came to be known as the New Divinity. By their deaths in 1790 and 1803, respectively, the New Divinity had captured the hearts of many preachers in New England.[42]

Key preachers for the revivals in New England, beginning around 1790, were Asahel Nettleton, Lyman Beecher, and Edward Dorr Griffin.[43] Caldwell writes of these men, “[they] presided over revivals that were both deeply emotional and yet calm and controlled in an effort to avoid enthusiasm.”[44] Their preaching, following cues from the New Divinity, shared greater language towards a hatred for sin and a loathing of the sinful nature as a distinct mark of Christian experience. Nettleton spoke, “Real Christians are sensible of their own vileness – they feel that they never suffer what they deserve, and are far less anxious about the good or bad opinion of others.”[45] Nettleton painted a picture of the Christian life with regard for the lost around them: “Christians have a tender regard for the welfare of their unconverted friends. They see them eager in the pursuit of happiness in the paths of disappointment. The pleasures of sense and of sin are but for a season.”[46] Beecher, writing about Nettleton, states, “The power of his preaching included many things. It was highly intellectual as opposed to declamation, or oratorical, pathetic appeals to imagination or emotions.”[47] Revivals of New England in the Second Awakening, while shifting in message slightly from the First Awakening, remained highly Calvinistic, but understood the need to appear reasonable for the modern audience.

            As the revivals of New England were seeing greater results, revivals on the frontier land of modern Kentucky were heating up as well. The famed Cane Ridge revivals of 1800 to 1801, an ecumenical effort combining Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, drew crowds of an estimated eight thousand people.[48] Caldwell asserts, “The great Cane Ridge Revival led by Barton Stone in August 1801 is said to have hosted close to twenty-five thousand attendees.”[49] Church membership exploded, with Methodists and Baptists being the most equipped to navigate the new spirit of religious freedom. Camp meetings, where people would travel and lodge together to hear powerful preaching, found their first practice on the frontier. The isolated setting and enormous crowds created an environment for far more emotional responses than seen in New England.

While records of what was preached are scant, Arminianism began to grow in influence through the results of preaching on the frontier. Stone, a Presbyterian minister at Cane Ridge, would later start the Disciples of Christ denomination, calling for a simplistic following of Jesus Christ while denying ecclesiastical authority and Calvinism.[50] Francis Asbury, a Methodist missionary from England, oversaw the incredible growth of Methodism in Kentucky while calling Calvinism illogical and contrary to the character of God.[51] Methodists took significant exception to the New Divinity. Asbury wrote, “The Gospel is a universal ministration of grace and truth: ‘we persuade all men’ – all men, everywhere. This position is proved by the general love of God; the general commission giving the ambassadors of Christ; the general atonement; general offers of grace; and the general judgment.”[52] Asbury and other Methodists could not logically understand how a God full of love could only choose some to be saved. The offering of salvation had to be made for everyone, and everyone had to have the ability to come to Christ.

It is important to remember that Methodist missionaries such as Asbury came to America with a developed theology already in place. Until this time, Puritanism and Calvinism had enjoyed a virtually unrivaled hegemony. With the advent of Methodist theology in the states, new ideas concerning God’s love and man’s ability came to power on the frontier. David Rice, a Presbyterian pastor, related the fruit of these ecumenical revivals to a Synod in 1803: “They appear to have a lively and very affecting view of the infinite condescension and love of God. … They seem to me to have a very deep and affecting sense of the worth of precious immortal souls, ardent love to them, and an agonizing concern for their conviction, conversion, and complete salvation.”[53] An intense zeal for the lost, combined with an affinity against Calvinism, began introducing trouble from the frontier revivals' outworkings. As Murray states, “The first of these evils was the sudden growth of new denominations, all claiming to represent true religion.”[54] The ecumenical spirit of the early frontier revivals quickly dissipated after the success at Cane Ridge. Further, the temptation to further develop away from Calvinist theology spread back towards New England.

At Yale College, an important institution for early Second Awakening revivals and the spread of New Divinity theology, Nathaniel William Taylor sought to further develop New Divinity theology for a greater hearing. Caldwell writes, “Yale Divinity School was founded in 1822 with a vision of rising to these [theological] challenges, and Taylor was called to be its first professor of theology.”[55] Taylor’s revision of New Divinity theology included a more optimistic sense of man’s ability to repent of sin and follow Christ: “Man has ample power, even the power of a perfect moral agent; we have shown that it is right in itself, that he should make himself a new man is qualified in respect to constitutional powers and properties, to perform without divine grace, what God requires of him.”[56] Without stating it outright, Taylor had departed from the doctrine of original sin, a key teaching of the First Awakening. Griffin and Beecher, leaders of earlier revivals in New England, raised immense criticism of Taylor and charged the theologian with Pelagianism.[57] Edwards’ original changes to theological language during the First Awakening had drifted far beyond his intentions; the spirit of making theology reasonable had resulted in heresy. Though denounced by many church leaders in the region, Taylor found a hearing from one prominent evangelist, which brought his progressive views to wide popularity.

Charles G. Finney

            Finney is given far more credit as the primary leader of the Second Great Awakening than is due. By the evangelist’s own admission, his conversion to Christ occurred on October 10, 1821, at least twenty-one years into the origin of the Second Awakening.[58] It is more accurate to limit Finney’s evangelistic ministry to New England, mainly in central New York, from 1825 to 1840. As stated above, the lack of historical writings contemporary with the revivals, combined with Finney’s ambitions, has created an informational vacuum that leaves the evangelist center to the entire movement that cannot be credited. Some historians and Christian figures have helped solidify Finney’s role as the lead figure of the Second Great Awakening incorrectly.[59] In 1835, Finney dated the Second Great Awakening as having begun in 1825 rather than at the beginning of the century: “Only of the last ten years in which has there been such remarkable revivals throughout the length and breadth of the land.”[60] Due to the lack of contemporary writings for the early revivals of the Second Great Awakening, especially those on the frontier, Finney’s dating has been widely accepted due to the evangelist’s popularity.

            Finney’s success cannot be understood apart from the theological developments highlighted above. The evangelist took Taylor’s theology to heart. Finney writes, “When a man becomes religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable to put forth before. They only exert the powers they had before in a different way and use them for the glory of God.”[61] Focusing upon the gravity of sin and a necessary life of holiness while trusting in Christ, Finney advanced theological points that Taylor had developed to a mainstream audience. Caldwell writes, “Finney was not so much an innovator but a masterful repackager.”[62] If a man could will himself to God, then the preacher’s job was to do whatever it took to lead a man’s will to do so. With such moral ability in mind, Finney also borrowed from other revivals liberally.

            “New measures,” as they were called, were first installed in the frontier revivals at places like Cane Ridge.[63] The anxious bench, or altar call, where convicted sinners were invited forward for spiritual counsel, and protracted meetings, which were elongated worship services that lasted days on end at times, resulted in a greater emotional response from the audience. Caldwell writes, “These manifestations, which were known in the First Great Awakening, were accompanied by even more dramatic physical effects, such as being ‘struck down,’ in which an individual fell over, or experienced ‘the jerks,’ where an individual’s head or torso would jerk back and forth in a rhythmic motion.”[64] Accompanied by an informed theology from Taylor, Finney sought to excite the sinners' will to God in the same way as displayed on the frontier. While acknowledging the abuse of such emotional manifestations at times, Finney believed that proper preaching would naturally affect the sinner through the power of the Holy Spirit: “When I see cases of extraordinary excitement, I have learned to inquire, as calmly and affectionately as I can, into the views of truth taken by the mind at the time.”[65] Sinners would necessarily be stirred emotionally before believing in Christ. Still, the key factor of regeneration and conversion for Finney was what truths were believed and how the sinner would adapt their will to following Christ. It was the preacher’s role to persuade the sinner to turn to Christ, a subtle shift away from viewing the preacher as an instrument in the Lord’s hand to do as He wished. Finney blamed pastors for why revival was not more common. If preachers tried harder, sinners would come to salvation by having their will excited by the work of Christ.

            Nettleton and other New Divinity revivalists recognized dangers to Finney’s ministry early on and sought to correct the evangelist’s course before damage occurred. However, these errors were counted as jealousy and the older generation not being connected to the times. Finney was attracting large crowds in central New York, and success apparently showed the Lord’s approval of what was taking place. Responding to critics of his preaching, Finney stated, “The fact is, coming as they often do, from regions where there are no religious revivals at the time, they frequently feel reproved and annoyed by the warmth and spirit which they witness.”[66] Finney’s criticism of other preachers and ministers colored all of his teachings. It is rare to find the evangelist speaking well of other religious leaders at all. New Divinity leaders lost hope of reconciliation with Finney after one central New Divinity leader, Beecher, switched to supporting Finney after criticizing his methods for some time. As Murray summarizes, “Beecher anticipated the success of the new movement correctly, although that success was to be more sweeping than he ever thought. … Ambition and expediency are natural companions.”[67]

Impacts of the Second Great Awakening

            The Second Great Awakening had a far greater reach and impact for advancing the gospel message than the First Awakening ever had. Still, the lasting effects of division that followed this era call much into question. The First Great Awakening also produced church splits and division over practice, but the Second Awakening took division over practice and doctrine mainstream. While Davies had highlighted spiritual apathy among church leaders as an end justifying the means of division for the sake of sinners’ salvation, Finney attempted the same arguments without similar conditions. The division in the nineteenth century was between early leaders of the Second Awakening and those who came into ministry through their very revivals. Finney, being the most visible leader of the later revivalists, represents how facts became misconstrued and turned to give later revivalists a more favorable image. Finney attempted to justify division by channeling Edwards' memory while simultaneously criticizing the theology Edwards helped develop – the theology with which the Second Great Awakening had begun.

            The early revivalists of the Second Awakening never opposed emotional responses to gospel presentations. Instead, they opposed preachers and teachers aiming to incite emotional responses. Outside of the anxious bench and protracted meetings, Murray cites examples of “denunciatory language designed to alarm, pointed remarks to particular individuals delivered in public, naming unconverted people in prayer, [and] using inquiry meetings to make individuals pray or ‘submit.’”[68] Examples abound of these mental pressures in Finney’s preaching. The pastor, in Finney’s view, is to “lay out their strength, and jeopardize their health and life” to see revival take place.[69] In leading his listeners to contemplate sin, Finney encouraged physically writing individual sins down: “You must take them up one by one. Go over them carefully as a merchant goes over his books; as often as a sin comes before your memory, add it to the list. General confessions of sin will never do.”[70] Finney’s list of possible sins to write down is endless, and the listener is left with a tremendous burden for handling sins before coming to God: “You will never have the Spirit of God dwelling in you, until you have unraveled this whole mystery of inquiry, and you spread out your sins before God.”[71] Finney believed emotion had to be incited for God to work among sinners in revival.

            It must also be highlighted that the two sides of the division in the latter days of the Second Awakening were unequal. Finney drove the division. Nettleton, writing in 1827, wrote, “I believe [Finney] to be a good man, and wishing to do good. But nobody dares tell him that a train of causes set in operation, and urged on by his own friends, which is likely to ruin his usefulness. I wish I had health and strength to shew brother Finney my whole heart on this subject.”[72] Rather than heeding the wisdom of older ministers who had seen revival, Finney blamed them for the lack of revival in the present. Finney believed that if a pastor did not have success in revival, that pastor was not truly called to ministry, was poorly educated, or knew what to do for success but refused to do so against God’s will.[73] The response to this message from congregations was criticism towards pastors who lacked emotional results from preaching. Criticism from Finney and others who held similar views on revival led to church splits, pastors resigning, and eventually to a Presbyterian denomination splitting in 1838. Opposition to Calvinism played a large part in the growth of Methodism, which Finney grew theologically closer to throughout his ministry.

The Awakenings’ Imports to Modern Reformed Evangelicalism

            Memories concerning what occurred during the First and Second Great Awakenings are significant for modern pastors and evangelists, who utilize this history for gospel advancement. Two extremes emerge from not considering historical sources closely enough. The first extreme is envisioning the First Awakening as a renaissance of Reformed theology in America without recognizing that the primary leaders of these revivals intended to break from traditional church practice in the colonies. This error has appeared recently in defenses of Christian nationalism. Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker write, “When you are made aware of the history of Christian theology prior to the Second Great Awakening, and the history of the American founding, you begin to realize that evangelical political engagement leaves something to be desired.”[74] Torba and Isker are far too simplistic in their reading of historical theology. Further, Torba and Isker fail to see anything beyond Finney in the Second Awakening. Edwards, remembered correctly as a staunch defender of Reformed theology, also had to defend the events of the revivals to others who shared his theology. The disagreement during the First Awakening was over method rather than theology, but a view in which no church division was present before the Second Awakening is a façade. It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the theological complexities of early American theology and church practice, such as that of the Puritans, Anabaptists, and Quakers.[75] Whitefield and Edwards leave enough literature for modern readers to see the complexities of the First Awakening and the goal of faithfulness in reaching the lost.

            The other extreme is allowing Finney’s ministry during the Second Awakening to overtake the influence and drown out good outcomes through other revivals at the time. Finney can rightly be credited with significantly reducing Reformed theology’s influence in America, alongside the work of Methodists such as Asbury. As shown, the spirit of religious liberty present in the early 19th century and a desire to take responsibility for one’s spiritual practice inhibited the power of denominations with authoritarian views, like those of Anglican and Congregational churches, to be effective. However, much of the Second Awakening began with a clear connection to Edwards’ legacy through Bellamy and Hopkins. New Divinity theologians read the culture and preached the gospel to it. The core of New Divinity theology was the same theology preached by Whitefield, Edwards, and Davies. It could be argued that Bellamy and Hopkins invited edits to the doctrines of original sin and the atonement, which Taylor later took to an extreme. Through Finney, Taylor’s edits to the New Divinity doctrine grew to incredible acceptance. Finney’s popularity highlights the ability of theological drift and unhealed division to disrupt good gospel work. Many were reached for Christ in the Second Awakening, and faithful ministers at the time, many of whom will remain unknown on this side of eternity, deserve credit for leading the way.

What the Gospel-Centered Movement Can Learn from the Awakenings

            The gospel-centered movement is a philosophy of church practice in which Scripture is read with the understanding that Jesus is its main subject, that people only change through grace rather than law, and that one’s identity is found in the finished work of Christ on their behalf.[76] Distinct from gospel-onlyism, which leaves no room for theology or church practice to extend beyond presenting Christ as Savior, gospel-centeredness invites all of life to reflect and align with Christ's past, present, and future work.[77] The gospel-centered movement should be seen as a faithful reaction to abuses in the seeker-sensitive movement, where preaching and teaching leaned towards advancing human flourishing outside of clear gospel proclamation in favor of life-improving principles from the Bible. Though not exclusive, the gospel-centered movement largely consists of Baptist and Presbyterian believers who share an affinity for Reformed theology.[78] As in the case of the First and Second Awakenings, revivalists sought to speak faithfully into the spiritual apathy of their times, just as the gospel-centered movement aims to do now. As in the 18th and 19th century revivals, specific warnings are given to the gospel-centered movement: guard against disunity, balance emotion and doctrine, and aim to be faithful in the present.

            Given the fractured state of American politics and identity today, the gospel-centered movement would do well to fight disunity with incredible intentionality. At this time, it is far too easy to promote personal ministries over a unified focus upon Christ. In this same unifying spirit, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, “For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Cor. 3:4-6). Though ordained as an Anglican evangelist, Whitefield preached the gospel alongside ministers of any denomination who shared his zeal for Christ and burden for the lost. It would be tempting to view Whitefield as being pragmatic at the core for this, but Whitefield’s preaching featured a clear commitment to Calvinist thought and a sharp disdain for Arminianism. Whitefield did not shy away from being harsh towards the convictions of his friends, but did so without making it personal.[79] Ministers working together, despite being from different denominations, worked well in the early frontier revivals of Cane Ridge. In the present online world, the gospel-centered movement finds itself with opportunities to respond quickly and personally to other pastors and teachers without careful discernment. Further, statements spoken or written online tend to live forever, and the impressions left may not be able to be corrected should sentiments change over time. While the preaching of the First and Second Great Awakenings had a vast impact and reach, it could be argued that the impact and reach of gospel-centered preaching today is limitless.[80] Because of these temptations, those committed to gospel-centrality must fight against division and disunity harder than ever before. Following Whitefield’s example, church leaders need to create appropriate spaces for theological and practical debate while continuing to teach in line with their convictions from Scripture. As the gospel continues its work on church leaders, faithful church leaders help shape other faithful church leaders, just as the Lord did during the Awakenings. Finney’s resistance to counsel, choosing to remain in an echo chamber of supportive voices, brought disastrous results, as unchecked disunity will do again in the gospel-centered movement.

            Another warning for the gospel-centered movement, though not far removed from the above, is balancing emotion and doctrine. The doctrinal revisions advanced by Bellamy and Hopkins, and later edited further by Taylor, were made with a heart to reach the lost in an era where reason had gained a greater place in society. Living through the Enlightenment, these theologians wanted to soften the message of Calvinism for an audience who held to a more optimistic view of human ability. At some point, however, doctrinal revision turned into denying first-order beliefs such as original sin. The present culture may also tempt preachers to soften or change essential doctrines. In the postmodern age, the gospel-centered movement may be tempted to follow the culture and allow feelings to be more authoritative than Scripture allows.[81] At the same time, the gospel-centered movement can be a leading example of how to appropriate feelings rather than bash them. Jeff Vanderstelt does well at connecting feelings to beliefs faithfully: “We need to learn to speak our beliefs out loud. So often, we are not even aware of what we are believing in any given moment. We just go along, living in false belief, and, as a result, we continue to engage in sinful behaviors.”[82] A faithful presentation of repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ will address feelings as a common source for truth in the postmodern mind. Gospel doctrine always points to a loving, holy God who welcomes sinners to salvation in Jesus Christ. Such a God can answer the hope for encouraging feelings without abandoning timeless truths, as displayed in many revivals of the Awakenings.

            Finally, the gospel-centered movement must fight the attempt to be the definitive practical philosophy of Christianity for all time. Returning to 1 Corinthians 3, Paul writes, “According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:10-11). The evidence from the Awakenings displays how pastors led by the Holy Spirit can contextualize the gospel faithfully. The church needs the terms and practices of gospel-centrality right now, and the Lord will see fit to use it to advance the gospel here and now. Whitefield’s example is crucial here. The evangelist’s ministry during the First Awakening was massive, but the later years of Whitefield’s ministry did not bring the same results. Murray writes, “Although his preaching was continually used of God to the end of his life in 1770, the evangelist never saw the same amazing harvest as had marked the years of the Great Awakening. Far from being discouraged, he regarded this variation as fully in accord with the workings of divine grace.”[83] Faithful ministers of the Awakenings worked to preach the gospel and left the results to the Lord. Many had been in ministry for years before seeing any significant response, though their methods or messages had not changed to induce a response. It was the Lord opening hearts to the gospel. By contrast, Finney taught that all that was needed for revival to take place was for preachers to do their job to incite a sinner’s will to choose Christ. In theory, Finney believed that revival should never stop as long as pastors tried: “Nothing is more fatal to a revival than for its friends to predict that it is going to stop.”[84] By contrast, Keller states, “the ultimate source of a revival is the Holy Spirit,” while highlighting how human effort through prayer and gospel preaching is God’s means for bringing sinners to Christ.[85] While the gospel never changes, the means used for reaching the lost and discipling the faithful may change, as during the First and Second Awakenings.

Conclusion

            This paper has argued that similar temptations to division, being a timeless influence, and serving the Lord through human strength, which were present in the First and Second Great Awakenings, continue to loom large for the gospel-centered movement today. In advancing this thesis, significant space was given to reviewing the First and Second Awakenings, the divisions present within them, and key theological ideas advanced through them. After reviewing these, imports from the Awakenings to modern evangelicalism were highlighted, specifically focusing on how evangelicals of a Reformed theological bent may remember the revivals improperly. The paper concluded with how the gospel-centered movement can learn from the First and Second Great Awakenings to be faithful to the gospel and reach the lost, just as leaders of the revivals also aimed to do.

[1] Whitefield first visited the colonies in 1738, but this was before his ordination. He returned in 1739-40 with the intention of evangelizing the colonies. See the timeline presented in Sermons of George Whitefield (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), x.

[2] Jonathan Edwards, “A Narrative of Surprising Conversions,” in Jonathan Edwards on Revival (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 12.

[3] Robert Caldwell writes, “Though they were descendants of the deeply pietistic English Puritan tradition, many Congregationalist ministers had come to the conclusion that its churches had lost their spiritual edge by 1700.” [Robert Caldwell III, Theologies of the American Revivalists: From Whitefield to Finney (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 12.]

[4] Samuel Davies, Sermons on Important Subjects, vol. 4 (London, UK: Wentworth Press, 2019), 49-50.

[5] Mark A. Noll, The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 51.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism 1750-1858 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), 5.

[8] Robert Caldwell III, Theologies of the American Revivalists: From Whitefield to Finney (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 15.

[9] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011).

[10] Jonathan Edwards, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” in Revival Sermons of Jonathan Edwards (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 24.

[11] George Whitefield, “The Conversion of Zaccheus,” in Sermons of George Whitefield (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 173.

[12] Caldwell, 68.

[13] Ibid.

[14] George Whitefield, “Abraham’s Offering Up His Son Isaac,” in Sermons of George Whitefield (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 24.

[15] Jonathan Edwards, “Pardon for the Greatest Sinners,” in Revival Sermons of Jonathan Edwards (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 3.

[16] George Whitefield, “Of Justification by Christ,” in Sermons of George Whitefield (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 240.

[17] Edwards, “Pardon for the Greatest Sinners,” in Revival Sermons, 7.

[18] George Whitefield, “Marks of a True Conversion,” in Sermons of George Whitefield (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 74.

[19] Ibid., 78.

[20] Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2013), 42.

[21] This is part of Edwards’ opening argument in Part One of The Religious Affections, particularly in “Concerning the Nature of the Affections and Their Importance in Religion.” See pp. 35-38.

[22] John Wilsey, One Nation Under God? An Evangelical Critique of Christian America (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 10.

[23] While it is outside the scope of this paper, it is important to define what the English Enlightenment was. In short, it began a scientific revolution where authority and truth were given by experience rather than inheritance. Truth claims had to be verified rather than blindly received. For more, see Wilsey, 17-27.

[24] Wilsey, 10.

[25] Ibid., 11.

[26] Harry Stout, “What Made the Great Awakening Great?” in Turning Points in the History of American Evangelicalism, Heath W. Carter and Laura R. Porter, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 4.

[27] Stout, 10.

[28] Caldwell, 58.

[29] Ibid., 28.

[30] Ibid., 19.

[31] Edwards, Affections, 16.

[32] Caldwell, 18-19.

[33] Samuel Davies, Charity and Truth United or The Way of the Multitude Exposed in Six Letters, ed. Thomas Clinton Pears, Jr. (Whitefish, MT: Literary Licensing, 2011), 204.

[34] Edwards, “A Narrative of Surprising Conversions,” 9.

[35] Jonathan Edwards, Thoughts on the New England Revival: Vindicating the Great Awakening (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 45.

[36] Caldwell, 101.

[37] Benjamin Franklin, no Christian himself, refused to print Paine’s books because he felt they would not be received well: “You will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject [religion]. …He that spits in the wind, spits in his own face.” [Arthur B. Strickland, The Great American Revival (Whitefish, MT: Literary Licensing, 2012), 31.]

[38] Murray, Revival and Revivalism, 115.

[39] Caldwell, 102-103.

[40] Caldwell, 88.

[41] Ibid., 92.

[42] Ibid., 98.

[43] Murray also lists Edward Payson and Gardiner Spring alongside these men as influential to New England revivals of the Second Awakening. See Murray, 193-194.

[44] Caldwell, 103.

[45] Asahel Nettleton, “Discerning Between the Righteous and the Wicked,” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 1821, Kindle.

[46] Nettleton, “Sinners Affectionately Entreated to Enter on the Christian Pilgrimage,” 5070, Kindle.

[47] Lyman Beecher, Autobiography of Beecher, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), 364.

[48] Murray, 153.

[49] Caldwell, 104.

[50] Murray, 173.

[51] Ibid., 178.

[52] Francis Asbury, Journal of Rev. Francis Asbury: Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. 3 (London, UK: Forgotten Books, 2018), 146, Kindle.

[53] David Rice, “A Sermon on the Present Revival of Religion” (opening address, Kentucky Synod, Lexington, KY, 1803).

[54] Murray, 173.

[55] Caldwell, 119.

[56] Nathaniel W. Taylor, “The Sinner’s Duty to Make Himself a New Heart,” in Practical Sermons (New York, NY: Clark, Austin, and Smith, 1858), 409, Kindle.

[57] Caldwell, 121.

[58] Charles Finney, The Autobiography of Charles G. Finney (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1977), 19.

[59] John Fea consistently cites Finney as the lead figure of the Second Great Awakening: “Theology moved away from Calvinism that stressed humankind’s inability to save itself and toward a free-will or democratic theology, preached most powerfully and popularly by revivalist Charles Finney.” [John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction, Revised Edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), 5.] Billy Graham wrote, “Through his Spirit-filled ministry, uncounted thousands came to know Christ in the nineteenth century, resulting in one of the greatest periods of revival in the history of America.” [Billy Graham, foreword to Lewis A. Drummond, Charles Grandison Finney and the Birth of Modern Evangelism (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983), 6.

[60] Finney, Revivals of Religion, 314.

[61] Charles Finney, Finney on Revival (Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2014), 37.

[62] Caldwell, 106.

[63] Ibid., 105.

[64] Caldwell, 105.

[65] Finney, “Excitement in Revivals – Letter Six,” in The Sermons and Articles of Charles Finney: A Collection of Over 400 Readings (Toronto, ON: Toronto Publishing, 2016), 13114, Kindle.

[66] Finney, “Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed?,” 4423, Kindle.

[67] Murray, 268.

[68] Murray, 243.

[69] Finney, “When Revival is to be Expected,” in Finney on Revival, 65.

[70] Finney, “How to Promote a Revival,” in Finney on Revival, 73.

[71] Ibid., 84.

[72] Keith J. Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 1792-1875: Revivalist and Reformer (Ada, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1990), 173.

[73] Finney, “A Wise Minister will be Successful,” in Finney on Revival, 208.

[74] Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker, Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations (Clarks Summit, PA: Gab, 2022), 42.

[75] Ironically, Stephen Wolfe does a wonderful job of showing the mass diversity of beliefs and practices in the American colonies in the 17th and 18th century while attempting to argue for a unified Protestant political ethic. In this author’s view, it defeats his purposes, but Wolfe claims that early American religious leaders were not influenced by the Enlightenment. Such an assertion is impossible. Wolfe cites neither Edwards nor the First Great Awakening in his argument – either an intentional absence or tragically overlooked. See Stephen Wolfe, “The Foundation of American Freedom,” in The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2021).

[76] Jared Wilson, lecture notes for DR30060 Integrating Christian Faith and Practice, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, March 2025.

[77] Ibid.

[78] The Gospel Coalition, founded by Tim Keller (Presbyterian) and Don Carson (Baptist), make this assumption clear. TGC is a significant hub of gospel-centered thinking.

[79] Remember Whitefield’s relationship with the Wesley brothers during his time at Oxford. Some personal letters between Whitefield and John Wesley get quite heated, but their commitment to agree to disagree while sharing the gospel is commendable. See George Whitefield, A Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley (London, UK: Gale ECCO, 2018).

[80] This author has in mind online accessibility, the ability to translate preaching and teaching into other languages, and the connectivity of social media. Artificial intelligence can also be used to assist gospel-centered philosophy and teaching all around the world.

[81] Proverbs 3:5 states, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.”

[82] Jeff Vanderstelt, Gospel Fluency: Speaking the Truths of Jesus into the Everyday Stuff of Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 124.

[83] Murray, 23.

[84] Finney, “Hindrances to Revival,” in Finney on Revival, 259.

[85] Tim Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 73.