Tag: altar call

Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).

Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.

The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.

Encountering Finney

In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.

Charles Finney’s Step-children

In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.

…And Finney Begat Caner…

Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.

Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.

I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?

After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.

Evangelical Manipulation

Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.

Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.

Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.

He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.

Evangelical Entertainment

As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.

We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.

Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.

It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.

Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.

Evangelical Growth

If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.

This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.

Evangelical Relativism

But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.

Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….

Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.

I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.

Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.

The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.

I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.

This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.

Mining the Archives: Why Pray the “Sinner’s Prayer”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published December 10, 2005.

I wrote the following as a comment to a post by Jason Janz over at Sharper Iron. The post provided excerpts from an hour and a half long interview of Mark Dever that Jason conducted. I commented on the brief excerpt below. What follows that quote is my original comments (posted back before their site crashed and lost many of their old posts). Note: I’ve updated the link to point to the current page which contains the interview. The excerpts are no longer included in that post.

Jason Janz: And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?

Mark Dever: What do you mean if they “did it?”

Jason Janz: If they said “I believe.”

Mark Dever: Well, wonderful. Let’s watch. We’ll see….

I listened to much of this interview a few weeks back. Mark Dever is very interesting to listen to! This interchange, though, stuck out the most to me. Dever’s “What do you mean if they ‘did it’?” is simply amazing. He seems to come from a tradition that is not inundated with the “1,2,3 pray after me” menatlity, like most of fundamentalism is.

I see a big question raised by Jason’s question, “And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?”: what would the prayer do? If they said “I believe” or if they, presumably, responded favorably to an “invitation” (a modern notion, with its roots in Charles Finney, a rank arminian, openly heretical on the doctrine of the atonement), or were convicted by a sermon and were directed to trust in Jesus and then had faith, what would praying for salvation or praying to be saved do? If all who genuinely believe are saved, as John 3:16, Acts 16:31, and etc. teach, then why does anybody need to pray for salvation?

Is there any example of any evangelist or of Christ himself ever directing someone to ask for salvation or to pray anything like a “sinner’s prayer”? The “sinner’s prayer” so often cited was a story Jesus told, and certainly someone praying the kind of prayer the publican prayed manifested genuine faith. That is why I believe that sometimes people will naturally pray some kind of prayer, as an expression of faith. Much like someone might stand and say “I believe”. But what happened first, the prayer or the belief?

Rom. 10:14 would clearly say the belief. It is important to see that Rom. 10:14 comes right on the heels of vs. 13 and provides much to help us in interpreting vs. 13. It seems to force us to see “saved” as referring to ultimate salvation. For all who believingly pray on the Lord/worship the Lord (trace the phrase “call on the Lord” in the Old Testament or New Testament and see how it is used of worship often, and often describes those who are saints. 1 Cor. 1:2–the saints are those who continually are calling on the Lord.) will be ultimately saved at the resurrection/judgment. I think it is clear that “saved” in Romans 10 refers to glorification. And I believe this is substantiated by vs. 14 saying how can they call if they have not believed (first)? Vs. 10 gives the correct order in time concerning justification, while the order given in vs. 9 is paralleling the quote of Moses discussed in vs. 5-8. I believe vs. 11 is more correctly translated by the ESV’s “put to shame” rather than the KJV’s “ashamed” (the KJV has something similar for the translation of the same greek word in 1 Pet. 2:6). Vs. 11 really is not paralleling the english idea of shame in the sense of “everyone who believes will not be ashamed of the gospel, but will eventually confess Christ before men”. But rather is saying “everyone who believes in the cornerstone will not be destroyed by the coming flood of judgment, they will not be put to shame by the judgment coming”.

Think about it. When someone is praying the “sinner’s prayer” they may have already believed, but really are still unsure that mere simple faith in Christ will be enough to save them, so they add the prayer in hopes that this will really work. So then, are we really making our converts two-fold more the child of hell by giving them assurance based on a prayer (a work that they did)? If they have believed, they should be encouraged that belief alone is all that is needed since we have such a wonderful Savior. They may want to pray a prayer of thanks for God’s already having saved them, as they are already united to Jesus Christ by faith. They should further be encouraged to live for Jesus, and warned that their faith will be proven genuine by their fruits. Then they should be baptized and added to the fellowship of believers, their local church.

For more on “the sinner’s prayer”, see my later post: “The Sinner’s Prayer Problem“.

More on Helping Your Kids with Salvation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

A few days ago, I posted on this question: How do we know our children are saved? After that post, I found a few more resources about this issue.

Justin Taylor highlighted a free series of sermons on how children come to Christ. The 6 part sermon series is available for free download.

My friend Jamsco of The Responsible Puppet, has a new blog about parenting: Responsible Father. One of his recent posts addresses this issue head on: Altar Calls for Children: I’m Against Them. As my previous post would let on, I agree with him on this one. Altar calls for children are more dangerous and confusing then helpful.

Finally, I should mention a book I’m working my way through. It’s by Donald Van Dyken, entitled Rediscovering Catechism: The Art of Equipping Covenant Children (2000, P&R publishing). Instilling the facts of the gospel into our children’s hearts is something we can all agree on. After this book, I’ll pick up Shepherding A Child’s Heart by Tedd Tripp (1995, Shepherd Press).

As parents, we can’t think more deeply about, or read more widely on this issue. It is the most vital aspect of our Christian parenting. Lord, have mercy — on us, and our children.