In May 1827 pastors of Congregational churches in Oneida published a Pastoral Letter of the Minister of Oneida Association to the Churches under their Care. The letter was not meant to point out any one spiritual leader, but was a gentle warning to avoid counterfeit revivals. Revivals that were considered counterfit were those that involved emotional responses based on a persons felt needs verses Spirit induced conviction of sin and need for a Savior. Counterfit revivlas emphasized numbers of decisions verses the number of followers of Christ folded into a church. Converts to Christianity verses followers of Christ – impacting every area of one’s life. The letter spoke of
“making too much of any favorable appearance; not guarding against false conversions; ostentation and noise; the hasty acknowledgement of persons as converted; (the strength of the church does not consist in its numbers, but in its graces… We fear that the desire of counting numbers is too much indulged, even by good people).”
The letter went on to speak about praying for persons by name (e.g. a preacher would often pray or call out to an unconverted person by name during the service), denouncing those who critique modern methods of revival as “enemies” or taking the success of any measure as an evidence that those measures are right and approved of God.
The scene was set and the pieces were moved into position between those on the one side who wanted to see “new measures” used in revival to inspire converts and on the other side were the older pastors who were uneasy with the outcome-oriented “revivals.” The more mature pastors fixed their hope on the grace of God expressed through strong preaching of the truth of God addressing the sinfulness of man and the wrath that would follow any who would not repent and trust in Christ. The younger evangelists were consumed with converts and desired to invent new ways of reaching the lost. These new ways were often bent on emotional urges that used means like the “anxious bench,” raising of hands, “alter calls” and the overarching focus on repetitious appeals to give people time to consider their path on the way to hell (e.g. “We will sing ‘Just as I am’ only one more time,” after the 8th time).
Nowhere in the letter is Charles Finney named, but it was his new methods that were catching the eyes and ears of people of the day. It was his name that was on the lips of people and it was Finney who was the leading cheerleader of the new means for getting people saved. Finney was quick to point out that his meetings were seeing people saved and how could the older pastors argue with results.
Question: Are any of the above mentioned “means” simply and always wrong? What is wrong with using means? When does relying on means and methods become an unhealthy focus and how do you know it?
First we must set what means DOES NOT work.
I personally at a young age was approached by “Christians” who wanted me to accept the Plan of Salvation by reading a small paragraph on the back of a tract and trusting in Jesus and the prayer I had uttered. It DID NOT work. I was no more a Christian than Judas, yet I was instructed to have faith. The Great Deceiver cares not whether one has misguided beliefs (as I was) or very decieved (Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, etc.). Hell will be filled with the nicest religious people coupled with hardcore sinners.
In Acts 20:21 Paul gives the shortest definition of true salvation in the Scriptures – “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” So any means whereby “the foolishness of preaching” is used to produce a “godly sorrow that worketh repentance” WILL WORK. This is where I lean toward the doctrines of Grace, especially grace that is impossible to resist when God truly gets a grasp of a person’s heart.
If those around one that has true conviction are close to God, He will give them insight to see the gestation period just before the “new birth.” I struggled for months as God drew me to Himself and it was evident to those around me that “something” was going on. What means brought me?
My offering here is simple… “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” God set aside the simple, effective preaching of His Word as the means for spreading the Gospel. Granted word of mouth and writing was the way of New Testament times to spread information, and we have advanced so far. But the message remains the same, and the means to spread the message should as well. I personally believe the many “programs” churches offer today make the House of God more of an amusement park for the emotions. This clouds and dims the light of the Gospel, the true worship of the saints, and working of the Holy Spirit.
Who can argue with results? Nobody. Who can argue with numbers? Everybody. The question is whether the numbers are really results, or just a mark of pride.
Jesus told us about a narrow gate, not a vast array of turnstiles with attendance clickers on them.
If you would rather be confident of results, embrace the “challenges” that only God can overcome. After all, who is served by encouraging false faith?
I’d rather see one soul become a true follower than a thousand “me too” confessions that buckle under the lightest weight of trial.
I’ve been pondering this and I don’t think the issue is the means or method – though it seemed he specialized in social pressure. The issue is that they defined the measurable standard of success as “a name on a card” or “a generic prayer”.
I think of it like a company that hires a marketing firm to get more customers. The firm sets up a 30 day free trial of the product and then reports success based on the numbers within the 30 day trial. Sure, many more people have tried or experienced the product but they are hardly committed customers at this point. (I think of my own loyalty to a particular computer company.)
So to answer your question, “are the means always wrong”, I say, no. Just like anything, it’s how you use them. I can imagine several alter calls occuring in the book of Acts.
On a side note, even though emotion is often abused, I’d be careful not to swing so far the opposite direction as to condemn it. Emotion is built into us as humans just like logic and reason are – and just like everything else, it can either be surrendered to Him or not. (How many times a day does reason lead us astray?)
P.S. You might want to clarify that the “raising of hands” was not in regards to a posture of worship but a method of alienation. 🙂
Just a related story for those who are interested.
I talked to a youth pastor in Chattanooga who brought in a special “evangelist” type speaker for a youth event. During the event the youth pastor sat behind the speaker because he was playing guitar for the worship music.
At the end the evangelist had everyone with “heads bowed and eyes closed” and he asked those who had made a decision for Christ to raise their hands. At this time the youth pastor kept his eyes open so that he could see who he might want to go talk to later. He said that there were not any hands raised, but the evangelist was saying things like “I see your hand”, “Thank you”, etc. The evangelist was willing to basically lie just to get people to raise their hands.
P.S. I think the whole argument can be summed up by the question of whether the church’s purpose is for “decisions” or for “disciples”?