More on Finney

Charles Finney has become something of a fascination of mine recently - especially given all the attention that contemporary Reformed authors have conferred upon his influence when describing modern evangelism. In his discussion of the Pelagian captivity of the Church [¹] (which I just finished reading), R.C. Sproul describes the early Church in a rare show of solidarity against Pelagius' teachings:

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Florence, the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism-because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

I find it fascinating whenever the Church (or any group of people, for that matter) shows such unanimity on a topic. I find it even more fascinating that one man was so successful in not only reviving the Pelagic heresy, but also responsible for it's viral spread and broad acceptance:

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man's basic thesis was, we don't need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America's most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they're correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings-and I say, "I don't see how any Christian person could write this." And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.

Finneyism & Political Activism

Modern Reformation recently picked up an interesting article from Associated Baptist Press on religion and politics:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and best-selling author Rick Warren, both ordained Southern Baptist pastors, will speak about how to use the pulpit to address political, social and cultural issues at a preaching conference in April...

This seems to me a clear confusion of the two kingdoms brought on by Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening. Although I am somewhat new to the idea myself, I firmly believe that politics and the pulpit should never be confused. Rather, the Church should focus on the salvation available through Jesus Christ. This alone is the message the Church!

Warren has set a precedent for using his pulpit to speak about global warming and HIV/AIDS and has invited several prominent political figures -- including presidential contenders Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) -- to speak in his church...

Maybe I missed something - but are Obama and Clinton ordained ministers? Did they speak the Gospel during their time at the pulpit? Perhaps Obama delivered this line (quoted from World Magazine, "Preach It", Oct 2007):

Obama has said the Bible is not "a static text" and says he "must be continually open to new revelations"—and he has acknowledged that those who believe the Bible is inerrant and that it teaches, for example, that abortion is wrong aren't likely to accept his "ground rules for collaboration."

Wowza...I'm not sure I'd want to hear an Obama sermon even if it wasn't on politics...In any case, back to the original article:

Huckabee, in the middle of a campaign to win the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, is a good example of someone who has connected the pulpit with politics, Michael Duduit, editor of Preaching Magazine, said.

Even the Christian presidential candidate is getting into the act it would seem...perhaps that's why all Christians must vote for him! *sarcasm alert*.

All this to say that individually, Christians "have a duty to seek the welfare of the city (Jer. 29:7)" [¹] - or to be engaged politically. Corporately, however, the body of Christ should disengage from political activism. For, as D.G. Hart put it, "because the truths about politics, economics, and international relations are much more ambiguous than the way of salvation revealed in Scripture, Christians, as Machen admitted, will likely disagree." Which means that even if I don't support Huckabee's presidential bid, I can go on being a Christian...Ron Paul '08!