Televangelicalism

Robert Wurtz II

Copyright © 2013

Robert Wurtz II

All rights reserved.

ISBN-10: 0615878806

ISBN-13: 978-0615878805 (Robert Wurtz II)

DEDICATION

To all that are called to be Saints in Jesus Christ, with a love of the truth, and a zeal for the glory of God, and the edifying of the Body of Christ.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 Early Evangelism

Five Great Firsts

The Bible In A Dead Language

The Idea of a Pure Church

The Beginnings of Puritanism

Tares Among the Wheat

Indiscriminate Church Membership

A Sketch Of Separatism

Testing Professing Christians

An Assembly for the Regenerate

Conversion

CHAPTER 2  Preparationism and Evangelism

Challenges to a Pure Church

Purity By Evangelism

The Antinomian Controversy

Preparationism and Free Will

The Pelagian Controversy

Covenant Theology

Enjoining the New Covenant

Variant Views in the Ordo Salutis

The Role of Water Baptism

A Sample Preparation Narrative

CHAPTER 3 The First Great Awakening

A City on a Hill

George Whitefield

God Employs Variant Views in His Service

Marks of the New Birth (Whitefield)

John Wesley

Edwards Influence on Wesley

The Wesleyan Marks of the New Birth

Voluntaryism and Evangelism

The Impact of Whitefield and Wesley

German Pietism

CHAPTER 4 The Second Great Awakening

The Birth of the Bible Belt

Cane Ridge

The Enormity of Sins

The Advent of Humanism

The Origin of the Public Invitation

Hopefully Converted

The First Altar Call

Charles G. Finney

The Anxious Bench and Water Baptism

Directions to Sinners

CHAPTER 5 Spreading the Gospel (1790-1899)

The First Use of Media

Redefining Conversion

Evolutionary Conversion

Repentance and Restitution

False Comfort

The Inquiry Room

The Inquiry Room Experience

The End of an Era

The Necessity of Balance

The Task of Counseling the Masses

PART II  THE ADVENT OF MODERN EVANGELISM

CHAPTER 6  Evangelism In Crisis

Hijacking The Gospel

Instantaneous Conversion

Circumventing the Process

Dedication Prayers

Billy Sunday

Keeping the Cookies on the Lower Shelf

The Inquiry Room Passes Into Legend

Hitting the Sawdust Trail

No More Hopeful Conversions

Salvation By Logical Deductions

CHAPTER 7  Putting God On Main Street

Christian Radio

The Influence of Mass Media

God’s Man For The Hour

Variety Shows

The Tower to No Where

Televangelism’s Formative Influence

Tradition Takes the Force of Law

In the Absence of Holy Spirit Conviction

The Power of Positive Preaching

The End of Negative Feelings

CHAPTER 8 The Affects of Television on Christian Music And Ministry

Music Sacred and Secular

A Crisis in Religious Expression

Principals of Worship

The Devil in the Music

Anagogic Methodology

Modern Day Anagogical Methods

Conformity To This World

Popular Culture Invades the Church

Performance or Ministry

The Sobering Magnitude of Our Influence

CHAPTER 9 The Faster Builder

Three Influential Bill’s

Crackerjack Car Salesman

The Influence of the Chicago Fire

Billy Graham

Ecumenical Evangelism

The Fears of the Puritans Realized

The Wise Master Builder

I Placed a Placing

Dealing With Error

Souls At Risk

CHAPTER 10 Where the Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail

The Danger in Evangelism

Objections to the Book of Acts

John the Baptist in Lucan Theology

False Objections to Water Baptism

Trembling at the Word of God

Preparing to Receive the Holy Spirit

Paul Preaches the Gospel

Counting The Cost

Have You Received?

A Message To Modern Times

Appendix: How To Know If You Are In The New Covenant

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to Mary and Skyler for assisting with editing and Mike for your valuable advice.

Introduction

Televangelicalism is a word formed by combining the words television and evangelicalism. It is used to describe what evangelicalism has become as a result of Christian television. The areas of influence are many, but in this book I wish to focus our attention primarily on how televangelism, though well intended, has negatively altered the concept of evangelism and worship. The last 100 years have witnessed a systematic de-emphasis of repentance and the new birth experience; televangelism has greatly contributed to this problem.

Serious Christians understand that there is nothing more important to Christianity than the subject of evangelism. If people are not repenting of their sins and being born of the Spirit, then the whole purpose is lost. What does it matter if millions have dialed that number on the screen, signed a card, or prayed a prayer if there is no new birth? Some ministers view evangelism as a means of building themselves huge churches or large parachurch ministries. Their objective is to increase viewership, mailing lists, and ultimately garner additional support for their ministry. Christ came into the world not to build a man’s ministry, but a Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against. In an age where people are lining up to go on television to “do a work for God,” or “take the Gospel to the far flung corners of the globe,” it is the Gospel message itself that is at risk.

Our times are similar to a story found during king David’s reign over Israel. When David’s rebellious son Absalom was killed, there were two messengers that went to bring the news. The man who left first was a Cushite and he went with both the good news and the bad news. The second man was Ahimaaz, a friend of David’s who begged Joab to allow him to run as well. Joab’s words are insightful, “Why do you want to run, my son, since that you will have no reward for the news?” Ahimaaz said, "Come what may, I want to run." So Joab said, "Run!" Then Ahimaaz ran by way of the plain and outran the Cushite (2 Samuel 18:22b, 23). If you read on in the text, you will notice that Ahimaaz out ran the Cushite in order to be the first to bring good news. The trouble was, David was concerned with all the news not just the good news. His son had been killed, but Ahimaaz did not have the heart to share that bad news with his friend. He left the job half finished. The Cushite was more direct and told the whole story, bad news and all.

Sadly, the mentality of Ahimaaz seems to dominate the mainstream concept of God and the way the Gospel is preached today. As we will discover, ministers get on television and are either unwilling or unable to confront sin (tell the bad news) in a way necessary to preach the Gospel. They outrun the missionaries, but they leave the job incomplete. At some point, someone will have to come along and preach the whole message, not just the good parts that will win “a reward for the news.”

Two thousand years have passed since Christ revealed His purposes in building His Church. In order to recover and restore what has been lost, we must embark on a journey as archeologists to try to unearth what evangelism was like before the high-speed processing of anxious sinners during the massive modern evangelistic crusades. To unearth the objective of New Testament evangelism, we must excavate carefully the history of evangelism as if it were an ancient city that has been buried by the countless civilizations that followed. This original city, this original ideal from the mind of God, is contained in the book of Acts. We need to go down carefully, layer upon layer to see how we got here. This is a solemn task on sacred ground and not one that we enter lightly.

At times, we will need to describe the parties involved “warts and all” as Dr. A.W. Tozer described it. We will use statements made from authorized biographies, autobiographies, interviews and other verifiable sources. At times, we will need to pause and carefully sift through the implications of certain ideas that have influenced modern evangelism and worship. This may give the impression that the individual or theology is being overly criticized. This is not the intention. God has chosen to use these men, their methods and theologies for His purposes, just as He used many in the Old Testament. We are to prove all of their contributions and hold fast only to that which is good. Such an attitude takes a great deal of soul-searching and courage. At times, we will venture perhaps where angels fear to tread. May the Lord grant us the grace to be understood. May the Lord grant us the boldness to let God be true and every man a liar, when and if it becomes necessary.

Jesus started this great building known as the Church when He began His ministry. This is why He shed His blood. Since the beginning, this has been His building project and not men’s. Many have taught damnable heresies over the centuries to build a name for themselves and were enemies of the Church. Others were faithful workers carefully skilled and attentive to detail. The Church must be built by Christ’s methods and to His specifications. Cutting corners will never do. Unbiblical methods will not work. The Apostles understood that we as the co-laborers with God do not have the authority to change the Gospel message. So as we gather together on this great construction site for the ages, may we reflect on Paul’s words: we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building (1 Cor. 3:19 NKJV).

A book such as this would never be necessary if men had simply followed the pattern of evangelism set forth in the book of Acts. There is no possible way to improve on it. Any alteration is a detriment to the process. A different pattern of evangelism than the one set forth by Peter, Paul and the Apostles is bound to produce wrong results. We know the three thousand in Acts 2 were truly born again because God’s Word says they were “added.” What about modern evangelistic methods? What about the revivals of the 1900s and the televangelistic efforts of the last 60 years? Could God say that “x” number of people were added after their efforts?

Nothing is more important to the churches than how we evangelize. If we miss the mark here, all other efforts are in vain. Souls are at risk, and the churches are at risk. Today, the “narrow road” that Jesus spoke of has been widened to such a degree that we are in danger of losing our identity as evangelical Christians. As the churches fill up with false converts, the purpose of the churches is lost. Those that are truly born from above are viewed as radical and intolerant. These concerns, as we will discover, are not new. There has always been a remnant that desired a “pure church” that reflected God’s original design. Perhaps Fundamentalist intellectual J. Gresham Machen articulated the concern best when he commented concerning liberal minister Harry Fosdick, "The question is not whether Fosdick is winning men, but whether the thing to which he is winning them is Christianity?"

CHAPTER 1

Early Evangelism

The late G.W. North once stated that, “It's not preparation of the message–it's preparation of the messenger.” When God was ready to begin the great building project known as the Church, He had to prepare His ministers. This preparation began with roughly three years of intensive training that we find recorded in the Gospels. The disciples learned about God by living with Him day and night. Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, and the full representation of His personality. His teachings, His behavior, His disposition and attitude were all demonstrations of the character of God. As the writer to the Hebrews tells us, God spoke in various ways to the saints of old by the prophets, but now He is speaking directly by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). This means that Jesus Christ is the ultimate standard of what it means to be righteous, holy, godly, humble, meek, compassionate, merciful, benevolent, and all other important attributes. By His example, He taught the disciples to love righteousness and hate lawlessness in this present age. He is the living expression of what it means to walk in the Spirit. As the tree of life clothed in flesh and blood, He yielded the fruit of the Spirit in every circumstance. He taught the disciples by example to live by every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).

The disciples heard Him, they watched Him and they received from Him; nevertheless, they were not yet ready for the great task at hand. Before Jesus ascended into heaven in the book of Acts, the disciples were instructed to wait on the promise of the Father. This promise was the baptism in the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist foretold and Paul the Apostle explained. Paul said in Ephesians that there is “one baptism,” and that baptism is when we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. John the Baptist made it clear that Jesus would baptize not in water, but in the Holy Spirit and with fire. This great baptism in the Holy Spirit was initiated on the day of Pentecost after several weeks of preparation before the Lord. It was in an “upper room” that the Church was born–the Temple of God made without hands. It consisted of the Chief Cornerstone, Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:20) and the one hundred and twenty “living stones” that were present (1 Peter 2:5). Upon receiving this experience the one hundred and twenty were finally qualified to be witnesses unto Christ (Acts 1:8).

Five Great Firsts

Every first occurrence in the Bible is worthy of our attention. Acts 2 marks five great “firsts” I wish to look at briefly: the first baptism in the Holy Spirit; the first evangelistic message; the first response to that message; the first counsel given to anxious sinners; and the first addition to the Church.

The first baptism in the Holy Spirit not only equipped the one hundred and twenty to be the first evangelists, but it radically changed their spiritual condition. They who were in Adam were now in Christ and all the benefits of the cross were made effectual to them. Peter failed miserably at his first real attempt to be a witness, even swearing with a loud oath. The Peter after Pentecost was nothing like the Peter before Pentecost. The Spirit suddenly enabled him to be Christ-like. On top of this radical change was a boldness that allowed him to do our second first; preach the Gospel.

Peter prepared for the first major evangelistic message that would set more stones in this Temple project. He begins by explaining to the people some of the things that were going on with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They assumed the people were drunk, but Peter took that misunderstanding as an occasion to expound upon the prophecies related to the events of the last fifty days. He boldly preached Jesus Christ to the people (Acts 2:22f) and then he fearlessly set forth their sins for having crucified the Savior. His message then opened a door of hope showing the people that it was all predestined of God. Christ’s death was for the redemption of fallen humanity.

We have then the third first; the first response to a post-Pentecost evangelistic message: Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The Holy Spirit was at work convincing them of the truth that Peter proclaimed. They were cut to the heart. They knew that they were guilty before God. They understood that they needed to do something, so they asked. Notice that Peter did not manipulate the people or put words of repentance in their mouths. It was very simple. He preached, The Holy Spirit convicted, and the people enquired as to what they needed to do.

We have the fourth first; the first post-Pentecost counsel to anxious sinners. He answered them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Peter began his counseling session with the imperative: repent. The word of repentance is the first Word of the Gospel. Although some would suggest repentance is not necessary for salvation, even using Paul’s epistles to support their claims, we have Paul’s own words to testify to the contrary: I declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance (Acts 26:20).

It is a historical fact that Paul preached repentance everywhere he traveled, and not repentance in a modern-day sense; but rather, repentance in the John the Baptist sense. Secondly, Peter instructed the enquirers to be baptized in water. This is an act of obedience that can be done by almost anyone. Peter did not explain baptism to the Jews, because unlike the Gentiles, the people knew John the Baptist and how the people were immersed in water and confessing their sins. Thirdly, Peter told them if they would repent and be baptized in water, they would receive the Holy Spirit. We will not explore the details and implications of this here, but the basic pattern will be followed throughout the book of Acts. The Scripture summarizes the rest of his counseling session saying: and with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” (Acts 2:40 NKJV)

The fifth first was after the second response of the people: Then those who gladly received his Word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them (Acts 2:41 NKJV). A staggering three thousand souls (living stones) were added to the Temple. This is God’s figure, so we don’t have to concern ourselves with bloated estimates. It all began when Peter learned of Christ for three years and later prepared himself to receive the Holy Spirit. The minister was ready; the message was powerful; the people were cut to the heart; they enquired what to do; the minister gave counsel to the anxious; the ones that gladly received the Word were baptized (suggesting others did not gladly receive it); and by inference, three thousand received the Holy Spirit becoming living stones in the Temple.

The fruit of this type of evangelism was that they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42 NKJV). These people were truly born again of the Spirit. They had an appetite for the things of God and a desire to fellowship with believers. They continued also in prayers, evidence that they were living now under His Divine guidance.

The Departure

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since Peter and Paul preached the Gospel in the book of Acts. It didn’t take long for things to get off track. One of the primary reasons for this is that the Word of God was not published as it is today. In the twenty-first century we can print documents from our computers in seconds that would have taken hours or days to write out by hand in the first century. First century Christians had to share epistles, and it is unlikely that many of them ever saw all the Scriptures in their lifetime, especially together in one place. The printing press was a guillotine to ignorance, but it wasn’t invented until 1439 AD.

Another important fact is that during the first century, the unbelieving Jews persecuted the believing Jews as they tried to worship together in the synagogues. This led to the believers being cursed in their daily prayers. In 70 AD the Zealots led the Jews in their first revolt that resulted in the destruction of the Temple. In 135 AD the designated messiah Simon Bar Kochba was appointed by Rabbi Akiba leading to the Second Jewish Revolt. This Second Revolt resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from the Holy Land. The churches were shifting away from Israel and their Hebraic Roots and moving towards the West, where all manner of Greek philosophy and religion was rife. This Greek influence would lead to many unbiblical doctrines infiltrating the churches. By the end of the first century, the Gospel writer John was already dealing with Gnosticism in his epistles. On top of that the churches suffered tremendous persecution, including the burning of many sacred documents, until 311 AD.

When Constantine (272-337 AD) came to power in 306 AD he favored Christianity. In 318 AD the edict of Milan was issued granting religious tolerance. This made for several decades of peace for Christians that allowed important counsels such as the Council of Nicea to proceed where doctrines such as the Trinity were established. In an amazing turn of events the edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380 AD, making Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This empowered them to deal with “quarrels” and “heresy” because the state could enforce doctrine and ecclesiastical edicts, but it had many terrible side effects. If you were Roman, you were “born a Christian” in contrast to a “Born-Again” Christian. From that time, the notion began to exist that a person could be a Christian without having a conversion experience.

The book of Acts pattern of evangelism was lost in the main stream. People were Christian because the state was Christian. No need for evangelists or missionaries within the empire because everything was “Christianized.”  It was the law in the Roman Empire that everyone had to be a Christian and agree with the established Church doctrine.

Critical Facts In Post-Nicene Church History

During this era, the Gospels and Epistles were assembled into what is known as the Canon of Scripture and a man named Jerome (347-420 AD) translated the Greek into Latin. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was such a good translation that it became the official Bible of the Roman Church. Although we will return to this man later, in 354 AD, Augustine, the most important figure in the churches since Paul the Apostle, was born. His doctrine of predestination would greatly influence evangelism when it was rediscovered in the 1500s. Augustine spent some ten years studying Manichaeism[1] prior to becoming a Christian. His views of original sin and infant baptism[2] have influenced many theologians up to this present time. In 600 AD Gregory declared Latin to be the official language of prayer and worship. The Papacy was instituted and prayers began to be directed to dead saints and to Mary, the mother of our Lord. In the 700s, the worship of images was authorized and by the late 900s Pope John XV was canonizing dead saints. Many other heretical ideas came about such as transubstantiation, confession of sin to a Catholic priest, the sale of indulgences, and the doctrine of purgatory. The Roman Catholics made the authority of the Pope absolute, and the traditions of the Church on par with the Scriptures.

The Bible In a Dead Language

By the end of the Middle Ages few people spoke Latin. As with most languages, the words meanings change over time and soon there is difficulty with common people understanding them. In time, nobody but the priests and educated people could read or understand Latin. This brought a great spiritual darkness and ignorance among the people and in the Roman Church. For hundreds of years, corruption abounded and superstition ruled the day. What made things worse is that the Roman Church forbade the common people to have the Bible in their native language. This was done in order to control what the people believed. W.E. Addis in his work, A Catholic Dictionary writes:

It is not necessary for all Christians to read the Bible. Indeed, if the study of the Bible had been an indispensable requisite, a great part of the human race would be left without a means of grace until the invention of printing. More than this, parts of the Bible are evidently unsuited to the very young or to the ignorant, and hence Clement XI condemned the proposition that “the reading of Scripture is for all.” In early times the lay people read the Bible freely and the Fathers constantly encouraged them to do so, although they also insist on the obscurity of the sacred text. New dangers came in during the Middle Ages, such as the heresy of the Albigenses and the possibility of a corrupt translation. Heretics tried to make their own interpretation of the Bible.[3] To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Terragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible.  Pius IV required bishops to refuse laypersons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial.[4]

Soon any challenge to the doctrines of the Roman Church was met with extreme violence. It was an age of religious intolerance. Compliance was enforced by fire and sword. The church and the state were united. Any doctrinal disputes, it was feared, could cause political instability. The effective way to solve this was to keep the Bible locked up in Latin and feed the people what they wanted them to believe. This was a very dark time for Christendom, as unsaved men took hold of unsaved men and sought to “Christianize” them.

Although there were also peaceful missionary efforts, Christianity began to travel with the armies of nations like Spain and England that were colonizing the world. J.T. Addison, professor of History of Religion and Missions writes,

The main object of missions was the conversion of non-Christians and the creation of a Christian Church. Conversions were usually en masse, with the minimum of preliminary instruction, and repeatedly with very little education subsequent to baptism. The prince often led the way and encouraged or commanded his subjects to follow.

Christianity was being spread by the sword and gun, in total opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was being exported to native lands and made the local religion. Conversion was often spoken of not as mere individuals, but of whole continents. Many examples of this can be noted, so it would be superfluous to explore them here. Other men such as Columba and Patrick, in what is now the UK, took a more Biblical approach, but over the centuries the world was becoming ripe for a resurgence of Bible-based evangelism.

What is Evangelical?

Evangelical is a word derived from the Greek word euaggelion that means “gospel” or “good news.” In Biblical usage, “good news” refers to the message of salvation from the penalty and power of sin. It is the core message of Christianity. The first person to employ the term evangelical was the great Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546). He used it to describe Christians that stressed salvation by “faith alone” (sola fide) and who considered the Bible to be the “final authority” (sola scriptura). Luther also affirmed the priesthood of all believers in contrast to an elite clergy and priesthood that stood between God and man. His doctrine was in sharp contrast to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical system that believed in “good works” in addition to faith and in “tradition” in addition to the Bible.

The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the Corpus Evangelicorum of 1653 recognized the Reformers as “evangelicals.” In 1817 the union of Lutheran and Reformed churches in Germany referred to both groups as “evangelical.” From that time forward the terms Protestant and evangelical have been nearly synonymous. Today, in most predominantly Catholic countries, the term “evangelical” is the popular word used to describe all Protestant Christians.

New Birth and Evangelicalism

Adding to Luther’s principles of sola scriptura, sola fide and the priesthood of all believers, John Calvin (1509-1564) affirmed the need for a conscious conversion experience to settle the question of election for the individual.[5] He personally experienced conversion in 1533. Although a person could never know with certainty that they were one of the elect, the Reformers viewed a conversion experience as strong evidence of election. The need for a conversion experience eventually became an article of faith among the American Puritans. This understanding of the relationship between election and conversion brought the verbs evangelize and evangelization into the Protestant lexicon. In time, the evangelical conversion experience became so important that a conversion narrative was required for admittance into New England Puritan churches. This was effectively a systematic explanation of one’s own testimony on how one was converted to Christ.

The Role of the Doctrine of Election

It is impossible to overstress how the doctrine of election (predestination) affected the thinking of ministers and seekers alike in the centuries following the Reformation. One group of Reformers, Arminians, viewed election as conditional based upon man’s response to God in faith; God having foreknowledge of such faith, elects men to salvation from the foundation of the world. The other group, Calvinists, dismissed the notion of foreknowledge and assigned election to God’s prerogative alone. This election is unconditional and completely dependent on God’s arbitrary decision to save the one and damn the other. In other words, God elects for reasons known only to Him and no person can possibly influence God’s decision by their own efforts.

Huldrich Zwingli (1484-1531), one of the champions of Calvinism, suggested that the elect are children of God, even before they believe. All of salvation was on God’s part and absolutely nothing was on man’s part. Part of the basis of this belief was Paul’s Damascus road experience that happened in a “moment of time” and unexpected by Paul. A cursory read of the book of Acts will show that Paul’s experience was an anomaly and that evangelization as we see in Acts 2 was the norm. Paul emphasized God’s grace so some of the Reformers took it to its logical conclusion. Keep in mind that Paul preached repentance and faith everywhere he went. He called all men and women to renounce all of their sins, as would John the Baptist. For some of the more famous Reformers, all that seemed to matter was God’s arbitrary will. The great question became, if God has arbitrarily elected people independent of their own desires and response, who, then is elected? We will need to visit this question often as we move forward.

Salvation and Church Membership

With the visible church being locked up in Roman Catholicism for over a thousand years, the concept of Biblical evangelism was nearly lost. The Reformation brought about many important changes within Christendom. However, there were so many things to correct, it has taken many centuries to iron it all out. People didn’t “get saved” in the sense that we have known in modern times. They were baptized as infants,[6] confirmed as adults, and enjoyed church membership. Various graces were believed to be conveyed to the people through the sacraments. This meant that the church was effectively handing out the grace needed for salvation. The Reformers broke with this idea more or less. Anglicans and Lutherans are closer to the Roman Catholic idea of grace in the sacraments. John Calvin defined a sacrament as an earthly sign associated with a promise from God. He accepted only two sacraments as valid under the New Covenant: baptism and the Lord's Supper. He and all Reformed theologians following him completely rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. He also could not accept the Lutheran doctrine of sacramental union in which Christ was "in, with, and under" the elements. The Westminster Confession of Faith limits the sacraments to baptism and the Lord's Supper as well. These changes in doctrine were an important step forward, but the idea of evangelism through the preaching of the Gospel was still a while off. This is one of the reasons why the churches were filled with Saint and sinner alike.

The Idea of a Pure Church

Since the beginning of the Church at Pentecost, there have been Christians who were concerned with its purity. “Too much corruption” has been the cry of those that were vexed by the unrighteousness that has existed within. Not only have corrupt forms of worship or false doctrines been of concern, but also corrupt membership. From the Apostle Paul unto this very day there have been those that sought to protect the churches from wicked persons. In the early days of the Church it was easier to keep such persons out because of the persecution associated with converting to Christianity; however, over time, as Christianity became more accepted, the ungodly have knocked at the doors. Knowing that we all are capable of sin, the doorkeepers, under the constraint of their own frailness, have often allowed all but the vilest of sinners inside. As a reaction to this practice, whole sects have popped up within Christianity in an attempt to form on earth a Church “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.”

The Donatists

In 303 AD a Roman Emperor by the name of Diocletian came to power and sorely persecuted the churches. Some Christians renounced Christ as a result, and some handed over names of other Christians, as well as sacred writings to be burned. These people were known as traditors (Latin meaning “to turn over”). After Diocletian’s death some of these attempted to rejoin the Christians. One of these traditors, named Caecilian, had returned to the fold and was consecrated Bishop of Carthage in North Africa. This did not sit well with those that believed that persecution was a means of detecting who was and who was not a legitimate believer. Those who rebelled against him appointed Majorinus as a rival bishop; however, Majorinus died shortly after and Donatus took his place to continue the rejection of such compromise. The group separated from the Church and came to be known abusively as Donatists. Their actions were considered divisive and uncharitable to those that wanted to forgive and forget.

In answer to the Donatists, Augustine devised a theory of the Church, which was to guide orthodox Christian thought on the subject. There were, according to Augustine, two churches. One was the pure but invisible; it included every person living, dead, or yet to be born, whom God had predestined for salvation. The other was visible but not entirely pure; it included all living persons who professed to believe in Christianity.[7] Since not all people that profess Christ are true believers, the “visible church” could not be without spot or wrinkle. Augustine, however, did believe that we should strive to maintain purity within the Church by excluding gross sinners until they visibly repented of their sins.

The Radical Reformation

In 429 AD, Emperor Theodosius II formed a committee to codify all the laws (leges, singular lex) from the reign of Constantine up to Theodosius II and Valentinian III. Within this compilation was a law forbidding the repetition of water baptism.[8] This law targeted the Donatists who believed that when the sacraments were administered by sinful people (polluted hands) the sacraments were invalid. More laws would be passed against the Donatists for anabaptism (re-baptizing), which included banishment from the priesthood, seizure of real property or execution.[9] They were given the name Anabaptists (re-baptizers) as a pejorative term because their views were considered fanatical and divisive. Since the Church had united with the Roman Empire, religious matters were prone to cause division within the state, so strict laws were passed against so-called heresy. From this period in the 400s until the 1500s, the term Anabaptist took on the broader meaning of religious fanatic.

It is important to make a clear distinction within the broader Reformation between the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. Since the church and the state were united, Martin Luther sought to reform doctrine and practice magisterially, that is, by government authority. The state ruled the local church so Luther sought change through legislation. Men such as Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland and John Calvin in Geneva would later establish theocracies to enforce church practice. This meant that the Magisterial Reformers would employ the same type of brutal tactics dealing with heretics employed by the Roman Catholics. The Radical Reformers, on the other hand, sought to separate from the established church in order to return to New Covenant Christianity. They pressed for Christian love and toleration. They desired a pure church free from corrupt people and corrupt doctrine. The Radical Reformation was not a new ideology, but had continued “underground” in the Anabaptist tradition. Since they believed that infant baptism was invalid, they re-baptized their members. Without question, the Anabaptists were the closest thing to New Covenant Christianity and book of Acts style evangelism between 400 and 1600 AD.

Ulrich Zwingli took a magisterial approach to reforming the church. Since he was on paid staff in the government, he refused to take steps reforming doctrine and practice that may put his salary in jeopardy. This was especially true in the matter of water baptism. At first Zwingli agreed that infant baptism was wrong and that only adults should be baptized, but pressure from members within the government led him into compromise. Some of his students grew impatient feeling that Zwingli was dragging his feet on water baptism, so they broke off relationship with him becoming what we commonly call Anabaptists. Sadly, Zwingli began to persecute his own former students. We will look more in depth at this at a later time, but at this juncture, we need to bear in mind how desire for popularity, unity and money were affecting the progress of reformation within the Church as early as the 1500s.

The Anabaptists held stricter requirements for church membership than other groups that sought to reform the churches in the 1500s. Communion and baptism were restricted to believers only and they were the first of the Reformers to practice church discipline. They completely rejected infant baptism, which was and is widely considered as a means of bringing infants into “the visible churches” membership. Since infants cannot understand the Gospel, Anabaptists did not view their infant baptisms as valid, electing to “re-baptize” people once they came of age and professed Christ. This opened them to the charge of Donatism. They were seeking a pure church. It was an abusive charge, but shared with other English Reformers.

The Beginnings of Puritanism

The term Puritan was used to associate the English non-conformists with Donatism.[10] These groups came about as an extension of the Great Reformation that began in England around 1530 when Henry VIII rejected the Pope. He allowed the Bible to be printed in English opening the door to people learning how far the Roman Catholic Church had drifted from the scriptural ideal. Remember that before this the Bible had been locked up in the dead language of Latin since Jerome translated it from the Greek in 405. The common man could not read or understand Latin, so they were ignorant of God’s Word. In the 1300s John Wycliffe translated the Bible from Latin into English, sowing the seeds of the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, the printing press had not yet been invented, and these Bibles had to be painstakingly hand copied, taking months to produce. The impact was tremendous. Followers of Wycliffe known as the Lollards spread the message of the Bible until it was outlawed in 1401. The De heretico comburendo was a law passed by Parliament under King Henry IV of England, which sentenced the so-called heretics (the Lollards) to be burned at the stake. This law was one of the strictest religious censorship statutes ever enacted in England. Men were burned to death at Smithfield, London for simply teaching their children the Ten Commandments in English.

Reformation Gains Ground

Beginning in 1408 another law was passed at Oxford that made translating the Bible into English by unlicensed laity punishable by death. But as Reformed ideas spread and as more people were exposed to the English Bible, pressure for change mounted. When Edward VI came to power in 1547 the Church of England was stripped of many Roman ceremonies. When he died in 1553, Mary, wanting to return to the countries Catholic roots, ascended the throne and once again baptized many Protestants in fire and blood. Some Protestant leaders fled to the continent and learned the ways of the Reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli. In 1558 Mary died and Elizabeth took the throne. In 1560 the Geneva Bible was completed and published in 1575 in England. Between 1575 and 1611 over 100 editions were published. This placed the Word of God into the hands of more people than had ever been in history. It was as if the Word of God had been rediscovered again by Ezra as it had been in the days of Nehemiah. Once God’s word was available, the Protestants were then able to continue the work of reforming the Church of England.

The Puritans

Those that sought to reform the Church of England were known as Puritans. They were an exceedingly dedicated group of Christians who in an age of indifference took the Bible and Christian living very seriously. They made their homes little churches, with the father being the head of the home, responsible for teaching the children the Word of God. They prayed regularly and endeavored to align their lives with the Word of God. To the Puritans, this was the only way to bring glory to the Word of God and keep it from being blasphemed. Puritans were generally generous and lived a life of moderation. They were frequently and derisively charged with excessive seriousness and misery, but that was an unfair assessment of their lifestyle. To illustrate this, they laughed, but were not given to frivolity; they would have fun, but would not attend the theatre. They lived with eternity on their mind. For the Puritans life, was a spiritual war, and they were striving for righteousness. They suffered persecution for the values they lived and preached.

Removing Corruptions

The Puritans desired a church where “the visible church” of Augustine’s model was like the invisible church. This meant they were concerned about every aspect of the church being Biblical. The Puritans found that Pipe Organs, for example, were hindering participation in singing, so they were against them.[11] They were against anything that brought paganism into the church. For this reason they wanted to remove every statue or relic of Roman Catholicism from the churches. In this way, they were very much like the children of Israel that God had required putting away from them all traces of paganism and idolatry.

The Puritans main concerns were corruptions, unscriptural ceremonies[12] and offices, and corrupt members. By attempting to make such drastic changes, an enormous conflict emerged between the Puritans and the Church of England. In fact, because the Church of England refused to address the Puritan’s concerns, some left the Church and became Non-Conformists and Separatists.[13] The rest remained loyal to the Church of England, but continued to reform it from within.

Tares Among the Wheat

The Puritans were concerned that masses of people were attending meetings on Sunday and even partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but were not even right with God. A 1593 Edinburgh, Scotland register entry reads:

What a pitiful thing it is to come into a meeting with one or two thousand souls and not be able to find four or five that can give an account of their faith in such a way that it could be said, “this is a Christian man… he is a Child of the Church.”[14]

How could such depravity plague the church? It all comes down to ministers fulfilling their duties before God and man. When the ministers are sinful and unrepentant, they are not likely to enforce important regulations in the churches; consequently, men came to the Lord’s Supper in a sinful state. Since the authority to deal with such issues was in the hands of Bishops, the Puritans were helpless to correct these errors. They complained that the Bishops courts would excommunicate good men for minor offenses while allowing adulterers and thieves to go unpunished. As far as the Puritans were concerned, the Bishops were obstacles to reformation. When Puritan John Udall (ca. 1560-1592) rebuked the Bishops saying, “You are in league with hell and have made a covenant with death,” they executed him.[15]

Separatists

We must bear in mind that for centuries church and state were one united entity, not divided as they are today. While the majority of Puritans believed they could utilize the government to cleanse the church of its shortcomings, a minority group was not prepared to wait, and took an altogether different approach. This minority, though keeping themselves subject to the government, believed that the English church, like the Roman Catholic, was beyond reform. Their approach was to start new churches in which the wicked, and the willfully ignorant would be excluded. As early as the 1560s, there were a few groups that started to assemble. For example, in 1580, Robert Browne started a church and was the first to defend the practice of separating from the Church of England. Those who subscribed to his approach were called Separatists. Although Browne later recanted of his views, those who separated were also called Brownists. The Separatists preferred to refer to themselves as Brethren of the Separation.

Although the number of Separatist churches was small in the beginning, they learned how to function independent of the Anglican hierarchy. This allowed them to test novel concepts many years before the other Puritans that chose to remain within the Church of England. The non-Separatists did make progress in various places throughout the country. Some were allowed to choose their own pastors for their local churches. This gave weight to their argument that errors within the Church of England were not a sufficient reason for separating from it. The non-Separatists accused the Separatists of schism. The Separatists countered by claiming they were not guilty of schism, because the Church of England was no church at all. They based this claim on two grounds: first, the Church of England lacked an essential characteristic of a true church (a means of employing church discipline; the power to exclude unworthy members); second, it had never been a church because it had been improperly established with improper people. This meant that they did not consider the Church of England to be governed or attended by true Christians. A true Christian according to the Separatists was a person that demonstrated evidence of conversion.

Indiscriminate Church Membership

Unlike the Anabaptists that had requirements for joining the church, the Separatists charged John Calvin with sweeping saint, sinner, and the ignorant alike into the church at Geneva. They likened the practice to the wholesale conversion of the realm of England after Mary’s death, when Papist and Protestant were both brought into the church.[16] They insisted that this was no way to form a church. The Separatists believed that a church must begin voluntarily with persons worthy of worshiping God. These persons must not only believe, but also strive to live by God’s Word. In order to enforce this ideal, all church members were required to submit to church discipline. This could not be done by government compulsion or by constraint of sinners, but by the free consent of believers. These reforms would serve to form a church of real believers rather than force everyone indiscriminately and by government decree into the church.

A Sketch of Separatism

The Separatists had three requirements for admission into their churches: profession of faith, subscription to the covenant, and righteous living. As the Separatist churches formed, they insisted that they be independent of one another and not subject to a higher church authority. This was the forerunner of Congregationalism. They were to enjoin themselves to a covenant agreement. They were to be supported by voluntary contributions and not by tithes or by contributions of the civil government.[17] These churches could form with as little as two or three persons, but no more than could reasonably assemble in one place. In their worship services they stressed spontaneity, even allowing members to give a “prophecy” after the sermon. These prophecies were short extempore sermons. The Separatists had many other beliefs, but this brief sketch will suffice for our purpose of understanding how their influence contributed to our quest for “book of Acts” style evangelism.

Evangelicalism in the Colonies

In 1620, a fraction of Separatists from a church in Holland, that have come to be known as the Pilgrims, boarded the Mayflower and sailed to what is now Massachusetts. They were determined to establish a church where they could worship God in freedom according to the dictates of their own conscience. The journey was fraught with peril. Many died on the ship from disease. The rest arrived and settled at Plymouth. Only half survived the first winter in the New World. Though the cost was very high, they could proceed in implementing ideas about the establishment of the visible church.

In 1630, certain English Puritans followed the Pilgrims to the New World seeking to establish a pure Christian society (“a city upon a hill”) where they could live as a community of genuine Christians. These English Puritans sought to establish what Augustine called “the invisible church” upon the earth. They set extremely high standards for church membership. For example, each person had to show definitive signs of being a “visible saint” to gain admission into the church. This meant they had to have gone through a conversion experience. Only visible saints were qualified for the Lord’s Supper.[18]

The New England Puritans, like most Protestants, especially of the Calvinist variety, believed in some form of predestination. This means that they believed they were elected of God and chosen for this special purpose. It was an experiment of historic proportions. They believed themselves to be the elect, but what about people that would wish to join their churches? This question tested the churches of New England for the next 70 years.

Testing Professing Christians

John Calvin emphasized that it is impossible in this world to determine accurately whether one is numbered among God’s elect. He had, nevertheless, furnished a number of clues by which the anxious (people that questioned their election) could predict their chances.[19] It was essential for all believers to make his or her calling and election sure. Calvin and later the Puritans understood that no man has the authority to tell another man they were “the elect” or, in modern language, “saved.” Election could only ever be considered “hopeful” as far as counseling in evangelism was concerned. Those counseling the anxious were expected to lay the burden of proof upon the person seeking the Lord. They had to have the assurance in themselves that they had a clear conscience in their submission to Christ, and that the Holy Spirit witnessed in their Spirit that they were children of God. They stressed that it is God’s prerogative alone to give assurances of salvation.

Preparationism

There were two basic camps of people within Calvinism during this time: one that believed that God regenerated the elect spontaneously, enabling them to believe, repent, etc.; and one that believed “preparation” was necessary to conversion. Preparationism, therefore, is a word that denotes the view that unregenerate people can take steps in preparation for conversion, and should be exhorted to do so. This concept was the forerunner of “praying through” to salvation, as it became known up to the advent of Billy Sunday in the late 1800s early 1900s. Preparationism advocates a series of things that people need to do before they come to believe in Jesus Christ, such as reading the Bible, attending worship, listening to sermons, and praying for the gift of the Holy Spirit. By making use of these means of grace, a person seeking conversion might dispose himself toward receiving God's grace.

Conversion

For the Puritans, the conversion experience was to be followed by evidence of saving faith. Edmund S. Morgan described the typical "morphology of conversion" related in the conversion narrative as involving the stages of "knowledge, conviction, faith, and true, imperfect assurance." One was expected to be able to articulate the stages of salvation that Christ had brought them through in order to be admitted into the church and partake of the Lord’s Supper. The idea was similar to Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:28: but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

A Generation Unknown to the Lord

After the third or fourth generation, church leaders became concerned that many of the children being born into the churches were not experiencing conversion. The unconverted were filling up the churches.[20] This was a time when church and state were united; neither Jews, nor pagans, nor infidels, nor excommunicated persons could enjoy the full privileges of citizenship. One had to belong to a church in order to have voting rights or hold offices. This method would only hold together until 1662 when both the devout Christians, and the unconverted were growing weary of the system. The unregenerate felt they were being discriminated against, and the pious Christians worried about accepting the unregenerate into the assembly of the saints.

Recognizing Regeneration

The Puritans held that all men are by nature children of wrath and destitute of true godliness; they naturally grow up in the habit of sinning; and no one is converted except by a change in his habits of thought, feeling, and conduct. This change they ascribed to the special operation of the Holy Spirit through regeneration. They believed the truly converted are ordinarily conscious of this change when it takes place, and are able to describe it; though they may not know that the change of which they are conscious of is regeneration. If a person was living in the direction of sin, conversion meant they had turned and were moving away from it. In some cases, they admitted, the man was not aware of any change at the time of his conversion; nevertheless, he would be conscious of change afterwards. Godly desires are instilled such as no unregenerate man has ever had, and he can describe those changes. They made room for the possibility that some may be regenerated prior to adulthood,[21] even if the person could not remember the event taking place. The question was concentrated on the direction of their lives. If they grew up living a life of love and holiness and could describe their penitence for sin, and other pious exercises, their conversion was considered hopeful. They believed, therefore, that every converted person who has arrived to the age of accountability must have a religious experience that he/she can describe and by hearing that testimony other converted persons may judge of the authenticity of the conversion experience. The evidence put forward, however, was to be compared with their conduct in all areas of life to see if it was “such as is befitting saints.” If the person passed this test, their conversion was considered “hopeful.”[22]

An Assembly for the Regenerate

The Puritans believed that a church was  “a company of faithful persons.” That is, persons who have saving faith, regenerate persons, agreeing and consenting “to meet constantly together in one congregation for the public worship of God and their mutual edification; which real agreement and consent they do express by their constant practice in coming together for the worship of God, and by their religious subjection,” that is, by subjecting themselves voluntarily, from religious motives, “to the ordinances of God there.”[23]

To become a member one must voluntarily apply for admission. However, if the admission were open to all applicants, bad men would come in, whom neither knew their duty as Christians, nor were willing to perform it. With such members, Congregationalism would not be a safe form of church government.[24] The applicant, therefore, had to furnish evidence for membership. He must give an account of his religious experience. His application would be announced from the pulpit, and his admission deferred until a reasonable time passed for members to examine the truth of his claims. The burden of proof rested on the applicant. Every man, the Puritans held, is born into sin; if no evidence of a change appeared, the presumption was that he was still in his sins. They regarded and treated all in whom no evidence of regeneration appeared as unregenerate. These were persons who still required salvation or they would perish in their sins.[25]

Church and State

If the New England Puritans would have built massive monasteries instead of churches, they may have been able to focus on their own personal purity and only allow additions to the membership as qualified candidates became available: nevertheless, in churches, people get married and have children. Visitors come and desire to attend. What happens when a person was baptized into the church as an infant, but did not show evidence of saving faith? Should they be excommunicated at some point? And what happens if the unconverted member has a child? Should that child be baptized even though his parents have not experienced conversion (saving faith)? In a covenant society, there are guaranteed to be parallels to Israel’s experience. As it was with the New England Puritans, so too we read in Judges chapter 2: And there arose another generation that knew not the Lord, nor the works that He had done in Israel. This was a tremendous concern to some of the older “true members” of the churches. In order to deal with the concerns without putting the unconverted out of the churches, a compromise was agreed upon. A distinction was to be made between those that were raised in church but had not undergone a conversion experience (no conversion narrative) and those that had been truly converted. Basically, for the people that had only gone “half-way” with Christ, the Half-Way Covenant was devised as a means of offering a partial church membership. In 1657, a ministerial convention suggested that the members’ unconverted children should be accepted for baptism and church membership if they would simply give a “confession of faith” (called “owning the covenant”) in place of a conversion narrative.[26] In 1662, a synod of the churches accepted the practice, which came to be called the Half-Way Covenant.[27] Because the synod only had advisory power, the covenant was disapproved by many churches and never became universal.

Half-Way Membership

A person could become a member if they had been baptized in the church in infancy. Such a person no longer needed evidence of a conversion experience. Following similar criteria for church membership as the Pilgrims, only a profession of faith was required. In fact, unless the person could be proven to be a heretic or a scandalous person, they were received into membership. The “Half-Way” members were at first denied the Lord’s Supper and ministerial credentials within the churches. This step effectively maintained or increased the number of church members in the colonies by lowering the standard for membership, but it was a horrendous compromise of their original experiment of founding a “city on a hill.” It would have long-term implications because conversion was no longer viewed as essential in evangelicalism. Rather than having a congregation full of regenerated believers, many of the churches opted to employ rules and then practiced church discipline. This served as a substitute for a changed heart. The notion is as familiar as the Old Testament: impose institutional law over those that have not undergone a change in their constitutional nature.

The Biblical Pattern

Shortly after the establishment of the Church in the Book of Acts, measures were undertaken to find out where a person “was” in their spiritual walk with God. This was an effort to ascertain whether or not to consider each individual a saint. Paul demonstrated one of the Biblical measures when he asked the believers at Ephesus if they had received the Holy Spirit. The believers at Ephesus said that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul refused to make assumptions about a person’s spirituality. Later, he gave a charge to Timothy, one of the leaders at Ephesus: Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people’s sins; keep yourself pure (1 Timothy 5:22 NKJV). The warning against “laying hands on someone hastily” could refer to the ordination of elders or to the restoring of those who had been disciplined. The second part of the verse suggests that those who lay hands on unworthy people share the responsibility for their unworthiness.[28] This was a cautious attitude. This caution prevented the congregations of early churches from being affected by goats and wolves.

The Puritans took a similar approach, but were heavy-handed and un-loving about it at times, opening themselves to the charge of abuse. People were compelled to abide by the rules and agree with the doctrines or suffer punishments, which included degrading public humiliation. For this cause, certain Puritan leaders in England rebuked leaders in the colonies such as John Cotton, for turning people into hypocrites.[29]

The Early Pattern

With everything we have discussed so far we can see that the Puritans followed the basic pattern of the book of Acts and the early Catholic Church in one key area, people that had not had a conversion experience were not considered regenerate believers. In the early Catholic Church they were known as catechumen (from the Greek katēkhoumenos that means, “one being instructed”).  Catechumens were limited in their attendance in formal services. As unbaptized, they could not actively take part in any service, for that was reserved for those baptized. One practice permitted them to remain in the first part of the mass, but even in the earliest centuries they were dismissed before the Lord’s Supper. This process was effectively replaced with the Half-Way Covenant. People could join the churches without a genuine conversion experience.

Concerns about Compromise

Obviously, the Half-Way Covenant greatly disturbed the true saints. The leaders did encourage the unconverted to seek genuine conversion and work for the benefit of the church. The hope was that the unsaved would someday get converted, but as the hourglass of time has shown, many just hung around and influenced the church in almost every conceivable way. Many opponents of the Half-Way Covenant were concerned with the same type issues as we face today. What could happen? Before too long, the Gospel messages would be tailored for the goats–at the expense of the sheep, the true Christians (i.e. the people for whom the church was established from the beginning).

Not all churches accepted this practice. The Half-Way Covenant of 1662 AD caused a vexation proportional to the overall decline in true conversions among the churches. Though the New England Puritans were on the right track, it became evident that they had gone about their quest for a “pure church and state” the wrong way. The New World was being flooded with immigrants who were unconverted. The Half-Way Covenant allowed many unconverted people to hang around in the churches. It is highly probable that these problems were the seeds of the First Great Awakening in the 1730s. Men like George Whitefield (1714-1770) and Jonathon Edwards (1703-1758) preached to secure the conversion of all people, especially unconverted church attendees.

.

CHAPTER 2

Preparationism and Evangelism

The Reformation reintroduced the churches of God to intense persecution. This caused many people to count the cost before doing anything religiously that would conflict with the status quo. The followers of John Wycliffe, who sought to return to Biblical Christianity, were called Lollards, an abusive word meaning mumblers. Hundreds of these dear people were burned to death at Smithfield, England because they dared to believe and teach things against the Roman Catholic Church. John Huss (1369-1415) initiated a religious protest movement based on the ideas of John Wycliffe that helped spark the Reformation. The Reformation divided the Roman Church into Catholic and Protestant. A “Protestant” was a person that protested doctrines and practices within the Roman Church that were found to be unbiblical. The followers of John Huss became known as Hussites. He was arrested for his teachings and brought to trial. Extracts from his works were read, and witnesses were heard. He refused all opportunities to recant, but also declared himself willing if his supposed errors should be proven to him from the Bible. He was excommunicated in 1411, condemned by the Council of Constance, and burned at the stake in 1415. His efforts gave rise to a group we know as the Moravians. The Moravians were some of the earliest Protestants, rebelling against the authority of Rome some fifty years before Martin Luther. During this time, Protestantism spread like wildfire around Czechoslovakia. The Roman Catholics responded with the Counter Reformation (1545-1648) and systematic persecution that ultimately led to the violent death of many thousands of people. The Moravians were dispersed across northern Europe and became the forerunners of modern missions.

Challenges to a Pure Church

Long before the Pilgrims sailed to the New World, the Anabaptists and the Separatists gathered illegally, as churches, independent of the state religion. This made them subject to tremendous persecution. There were no “long lines” to part company with established religion and join these groups. It took considerable courage and strength of conviction to become an Anabaptist or a Separatist. The chance of false professors of Christ being among the group was relatively low. The New England churches would have an opposite situation. Their newly established freedom of religion brought great challenges for those that desired to purify the churches from the carry-over Roman Catholic influences. They managed to keep what they perceived as “unscriptural doctrines” out of the churches: the challenge was keeping the churches free from the unconverted. The problem was more difficult for the Pilgrims because they allowed people to join their churches that simply made a profession of faith and appeared to live a righteous life. The New England Puritans decided to raise the standard by requiring the people to give a conversion narrative before the church for full membership. This leaves a great question: “what about everyone who failed the test?”

Sailing to the New World for the unconverted meant one had to seek membership in a church, or they would not be able to go to church. If they were not members of a church, they could not vote in elections. Unlike Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, people were not “automatically” made members of a church by covenant baptism (infant baptism). The test for membership was even more than the “considerable courage and strength of conviction” of the Separatists: it was a conversion experience that one had to articulate in order to be accepted. This was an innovation unlike any up to this point in history.

The motive was simple; keep the churches of the New World as pure as possible. This meant rejecting those for full membership that had not had a conversion experience. The problem with this is that it worked too well. In time, the children of the members grew up and had no conversion experience that they could describe. This prevented them from becoming members of the churches and left them unable to have their own children baptized. At that time, infant baptism was normative among the Puritans because it was believed to replace circumcision under the Old Covenant. Paedobaptism (infant baptism) was a carry-over from Roman Catholicism along with the notion of “New Covenant theocracy” that they employed similarly to the way Israel lived under the Old Covenant. The Half-Way covenant was introduced in 1662 to allow those that were willing to make a profession of faith and live godly lives to have their children baptized and continue to come to meetings. Men like Northampton’s first pastor Eleazer Mather understood the implications of this change and greatly resisted. He was deeply apprehensive that the whole purpose of establishing a “city on a hill” was going to be lost. The concern was that if the unconverted were allowed to be members, they would lose their identity and fill the churches with sinners.

Purity By Evangelism

Few people in church history have believed in a pure church, in the sense of a visible church containing only regenerate members. Not even the Donatists, although their name became a catchword for accusing people of this doctrine,[30] believed in a church devoid of unregenerate members. Nevertheless, there were others who took a different approach to purifying the church than exclusion; that approach was evangelism. The question became, how could a church fulfill the great commission if it is essentially banning sinners from the meetings? The Northampton church adopted the Half-Way covenant as their pastor Eleazer Mather lay dying; however, this move was not as bad as it might have seemed at first. The pastor elected to take Mather’s place was Preparationist Solomon Stoddard. He believed that every means of grace needed to be employed in the conversion of the lost. Puritans from Richard Greenham (1535-1594) onwards developed a practical theology of conversion and assurance that turned the problem of purifying the church inwards to the conscience instead of outwards to the form of the church and concentrated on encouraging the mere church-goer to find the reality of his profession in personal Christian experience.[31]

The Antinomian Controversy

We must make note of one other event that took place in New England during this time that has implications to this very day, and that event was the Antinomian Controversy. The word Antinomian simply means, “without Law.” In other words, Antinomianism teaches that Christians are not under moral law, but are free to do as they pleased because they are “not under Law but under grace.” This was brought about unintentionally through a view of conversion preached by non-Preparationist John Cotton as a response to what he considered to be the “protracted and terrible ordeal of conversion.” By proclaiming grace flooding the soul in sudden illumination, without the sequential progress of preparation, Antinomians resolved their doubts in an instant by being ravished with the Holy Spirit.[32] In Cotton’s theology, the believer is totally passive in his religious experience, while the Holy Spirit provides spiritual regeneration. They cited Paul on the road to Damascus as the archetype. Some have called this “spontaneous regeneration” or the notion that a man or woman can be walking along and God regenerates them without their input. This model was in contrast to the theology of most other Puritan ministers such as Thomas Hooker, Peter Bulkley, and Thomas Shepard, who taught that people needed to prepare themselves to receive God’s grace by examining their lives in light of the Law and justice of God. Because true conversion requires a person to come to terms with their sin and rebellion against God, it is often a very unpleasant experience. It is all too negative and undesirable. The outworking of such preparation for conversion and its initial effect on the people will continue to be unpopular to this very day. To paraphrase the words of the 20th century evangelist Billy Sunday, “A person ought to be able to get saved without all the fuss.”

Anne Hutchinson took Cotton’s Free Grace view to its logical conclusion, and in 1636 was charged with heresy and expelled from the colony. She espoused a "covenant of grace," while accusing all the local ministers (except for Cotton and her husband's brother-in-law, John Wheelwright) of preaching a "covenant of works." They did not believe that a person should have to loathe in godly sorrow for their sins and labor under the burden of them, readying themselves to appreciate and receive the Gospel. To state the view as it is held today, the elect are regenerated by God passively and then exercise faith; since they are already elected (or they would not have exercised faith) they can never be lost; therefore, their future life-style has no bearing on their eternal salvation.

Free Grace Theology

“Free Grace” theology makes a distinction between the call to believe in Christ and the call to follow Christ. If one simply believes the claims of the Gospel, whether they choose to follow Christ or not, they are “saved.” In this view nothing but faith is necessary for salvation, and since faith is the evidence of election, the one believing can never be lost. Simply put, belief in the Gospel = elected of God. Free Grace Theology is the lowest possible expression of conversion next to full-blown Universalism. If a person simply gives a mental assent to the truth of the Gospel, they are believed to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Free Grace Theology stands in contrast to Lordship Salvation that insists that one repent as well as believe. Although Calvin placed regeneration preceding faith, he also believed that a person with saving faith would live a holy and righteous life, persevering to the end. Free Grace theology married Calvin’s order of faith and regeneration to Anne Hutchinson’s Antinomianism creating a schism within the churches. It is worth considering that she was excommunicated for similar views held by many Christians and ministers today. Understand that repentance is considered works in Free Grace theology and is therefore, “optional” and must not be insisted upon. The reader will know full well what such a theology implies and its ramifications. It is diametrically opposed to “book of Acts” style evangelism.

Preparationism Likened to Arminianism

Preparationism teaches that unregenerate people can take steps in preparation for conversion, and should be exhorted to do so. Some have said that in this doctrine are the seeds of Arminianism, but its teachers strongly denied this. Jacobus Arminius took the position that grace was not a force, but a person, the Holy Spirit. In personal relationships there cannot be the sheer overpowering of one person by the other.[33] The Preparationists concentrated on the fact that repentance and faith leads to conversion, but in no way did it earn God’s favor or suggest synergism. Preparationism advocated a series of things that people need to do to put them in contact with the means that God would employ in their conversion. Keep in mind that it was the Free Grace proponents that believed faith and conversion came unsolicited from God, and that conversion took place spontaneously and without means. Others believed God made use of means such as reading the Bible, attending worship, listening to sermons, and prayer. Calvinists, except for hyper-Calvinists, were never opposed to the use of means. From theological premises, one might presume that all Calvinistic evangelists did nothing but “wait on God,” while Arminians and other non-Calvinists did nothing but “exert themselves.” In actuality, “non-Calvinists like John Wesley and Charles Finney did a lot of waiting as they exerted themselves, and Calvinists did a lot of exerting themselves while they waited.”[34] By making use of every means of grace, a person seeking conversion might dispose himself toward receiving God's grace. This process became a pattern over time that could be made into a general formula or progression. This is the reason why a conversion narrative could be articulated in the first place, because the people heard countless sermons depicting the process by which a person was converted. Some have called Preparationism an exercise in pain, and have wondered if such preparation is necessary. Others went as far as to travel back to England to get away from the expectation of each person going through this process. It is certain that there were abuses of this concept and many were left in despair unable to attain to the radical requirements sometimes being counseled to anxious sinners. In extreme cases, they amounted to an obstacle to faith.

Preparationism and Free-Will

Every sincere Calvinist will go out of their way to show that salvation is by grace alone and that man is neither the “master of his fate” nor “the captain of his soul.” Calvin believed that “free-will” is a pernicious illusion.[35] Nevertheless, one questions the Calvinist position among the Preparationists when they read the way in which the unconverted were expected to take an active (in contrast to passive) role in their own conversion. Certainly, this was why John Cotton challenged Preparationism. In Arminian theology, preaching solicits a response from the hearer, and it is nonsense to say that a person’s response is not in some way their own decision, even if the means and desire can be attributed to God’s sovereign grace. Otherwise, the whole of the Christian life would be a passive and preprogrammed sleepwalk.

The first persons in American history dubbed as Preparationist were colonial pastors Thomas Hooker, Thomas Shepard, and Solomon Stoddard. Preparationism was a novel evangelistic measure that sought to assist people in the sometimes confusing and difficult process of genuine conversion. Rather than leave them in a state of confusion they came along side and counseled them to prepare themselves to be converted. Although imperfect and widely resisted, it was a significant positive step back to the method of evangelism displayed in the book of Acts. Although they believed that God was sovereign in dispensing grace, they also believed that human beings could prepare themselves to receive that grace. Some Calvinists, zealous to uphold God’s free and sovereign grace, rejected Preparationism. The Synod of Dordt in The Netherlands called it “Pelagian.”

Election in the Old Testament

Old Testament “election” did not share what came to be known as the T.U.L.I.P.[36] The concept of election/predestination was not new with Calvin, Augustine, or even Paul the Apostle. God "elected" Israel as His "chosen people" with a specific destiny: hence Israel as a covenant nation was "predestined." This was not an individual election, but an earthly calling to be "the people of God." The Jews were chosen in Israel, and the born again are chosen in Christ. The purpose of God in election is that the saints would be holy and without blame before God, in love. This is what the Body of Christ is "elected" to be. Election/predestination is the whole, not the individual. The Israelites were called to be God’s elect (chosen) because God had entered into a covenant with Abraham and had signified that covenant through circumcision. If one was born into a family of Israelites, they were elected by God’s immutable choice. This does not mean they are in heaven now; it means they were predestined by God for a purpose on the earth. The males were to be circumcised on the eighth day, and from then on it was assumed that they were God’s elect unless they proved otherwise. As the Israelites drifted far from God and His covenant, God sent prophets to call them back to the covenant. He told them things like “choose you this day whom you will serve,” and in another place, “If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.”

Though elected of God to His unique purpose, the people as individuals, and as a nation could frustrate His purpose. The Pharisees were part of the Israelites, but had frustrated God’s purpose to bring them into the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God. We read in Luke 7:30: “But the Pharisees and expounders of the Law have frustrated God’s purpose as to their own lives, by refusing to be baptized.” (Luke 7:30 WEYMTH) Notice that the purpose of God was frustrated as to their own lives. Some translators render the text, “have rejected the will of God.”

Able or Unable?

The theological climate of Augustine’s time fostered free will and responsibility.[37] Few before Augustine believed that human beings are depraved in such a way that they are unable to obey God’s commandments. If they had, the whole of the saints of the Old Testament would be damned today. God had a very low tolerance for disobedience under the Law. God made provision for the people to do whatever He told them, including supernatural exploits such as taking Jericho or walking through the Red Sea on dry ground. All they had to do was obey when He spoke to them.

The call of God is always a command. God called Abraham out of Ur and repeated this call thousands of years later when He called the Disciples to leave their nets and follow Christ. Abraham would have never left Ur of the Chaldees; Moses would have never led the Israelites out of Egypt; and the Disciples would have never left their nets if they had believed they were unable to obey. The doctrine of inability, as emphasized by certain Calvinists, would have been inconceivable to them. Moses tried to tell God he was “unable” to do what God told him to do in leading the people out of Egypt, loading Him down with excuses, eventually provoking Him (God) to anger (Exodus 4:14). Telling God “I can’t” is not inability, it is rebellion. When God speaks to us, we can do what He says to do no matter what it is. This contrasts with Zwingli, who said that the moment God speaks His Word His will is done and that man can only be changed if God wills it.[38] It is important to keep this in mind as we move forward because the Preparationists (though on the right track and well-intended) confused the people by telling them they needed to repent and then told them they were unable to repent. Men are depraved and in need of God’s intervening grace, but the Preparationists’ emphasis on inability adversely affected their evangelistic efforts and confused those that were seeking Christ.

Simple Obedience

Abraham, Moses, and many like examples ought to be evidence enough that when God tells us to do something we can do it; otherwise, He would not have commanded it. Nobody has read the Bible and assumed that Abraham, Moses, Joshua and the people could not obey. One is more likely to wonder why they did not obey, even though they had been warned of the consequences of their disobedience to God. Inability, as it is taught in hyper-Calvinism, is a learned doctrine. For example, when Joshua passed over Jordon and later took Jericho, only one family among all Israel disobeyed God, and for that they were executed and their bones burned. Prior to Augustine, the notion that men and women cannot obey God when He speaks to them would have been total nonsense at best and blasphemy at worst. If Augustine had lived under the Old Covenant with his doctrine of inability, similar to the attitude of Achan, he would have died for that belief.

Israel: The Elect of God

John the Baptist came along and upset the notion that the Israelites were by covenant and circumcision “unconditionally elect” telling them, “God is able of stones to raise up children to Abraham.” He challenged their passive belief and assumption that they were elected of God by covenant birthright and preached repentance as the first step towards being right with God. He knew that in order for repentance preaching to be effective, a person has to be moved off of their false assurance of salvation. False assurance is an elixir that numbs the mind and conscience to the dealing of God. The people of Israel, and especially the religious leaders, trusted in their doctrine of election not knowing they were in danger of going to hell. John was telling the people, in effect, that the wrath of God is coming, and they needed to make their calling and election sure. They needed to examine themselves whether they were in the faith. One is not elected because one was born in Israel; one is elected because one is born again in Christ.[39]

The Pelagian Controversy

David Bercot, a Patristic’s expert, has expressed a phenomenon he calls “Newton’s Law of Theology.” Throughout Church history, error has been reacted against causing extremes in theological views. That is, “for every doctrine there is an equal and opposite doctrine.” Two such extremes are the doctrine of total depravity set against Pelagius’ free will. The total depravity doctrine says that man is so utterly dead in trespasses and sins that he cannot respond to God. In fact, God has to enable the person to even desire to respond to God and give him that desire. Much of this belief is rooted in Manichaean Gnosticism that suggests that because there is a “metaphysical principal” at work behind the soul, people sin involuntarily. In fact, Augustine taught that man did not lose his free will in the fall, but could use it only to commit sins.[40] There are many examples from the early church fathers dating as early as 150 demonstrating that early Christians would not have agreed with Augustine, but rather believed man has free will.[41]

Keep in mind that regeneration was not possible until the New Covenant was established in Acts chapter 2, so it is impossible that regeneration was essential for obedience in the Old Testament. Obeying God was never a matter of ability, but of readiness of mind. This is the determining factor found repeatedly in the book of Acts (Acts 2:41, 11:1, 17:11). Until Augustine, most early Christians took the Word of God at face value without the multitude of answers that explain away passages that don’t fit specific theological persuasions. Augustine said that man was unable to do any good.[42]  Pelagius countered by saying we were not born with a sinful nature at all and can do God’s will independent of grace. These are equal and opposite errors. Although a person cannot be born again independent of the Holy Spirit, a person can cooperate with the Holy Spirit. This is often termed as synergism.[43] Calvinists, following Augustine’s doctrine, typically believe in monergism, meaning that God is doing all the work from start to finish and man is merely a passive recipient. Again, proponents would suggest that this was the experience of Paul on the road to Demascus and ought to be our model for conversion. However, Paul’s was a special case, and it was not done without preparation. Paul witnessed one of the greatest sermons ever preached as outlined in Acts chapter 7. So there was likely much soul searching leading up to his road to Demascus experience.

Examining the Heart

Until the Reformation, repentance was a forced and often “feigned pain” for sins committed, and the paying of a penalty (penance) set by a priest. People repented of their evil only when the Pope ordered it, when the celebration of Easter was approaching, or when a person’s health was in doubt. This was viewed by the Reformers as hypocrisy and would never suffice for those freed from Roman Catholicism.[44] This notion gained momentum until in the seventeenth century it was common among the New England Puritans to practice self-examination.

New Englanders examined their hearts with an intensity that is alien to 21st century “Americanized” Christianity. The heart, the Biblical metonym for the inward man, held a central position in the Pilgrims and Puritans conception of spiritual life. The heart could be “proud” or “humble” or “stony” or “fleshly.” The heart was known as the source of perpetual corruption, a jealous and indifferent barrier to grace. It is the realm of understanding where man must decide whether or not to entertain notions about God or account for Him in their decision-making processes. If men could deceive others with their mouths, they could never deceive themselves in their hearts. They knew that if the heart condemns us, God is greater than the heart and knows everything about us. Beyond the spoken voice, behind the conscience, they believed that the heart would tell them the truth about themselves and their relation to God. Only in the heart could self-examination be effective. There alone could God’s will be known. The assurance of faith they possessed; however weak, had to be discovered in the inward man. This is the place where God is privy to every secret.[45]

Learning to Listen to God

The Puritans understood that in order to be converted a person has to first be sensitive to the impressions that God makes on their heart. Self-examination was an exercise in seeking to ascertain what area the Holy Spirit was putting His finger on,[46]so that one might know what the controversy was between them and God. God works with many splendorous means to make an impression upon the heart and conscience of a sinner to cause them to consider their ways. This was another positive step towards evangelism, as it was known in the book of Acts. Prior to the Reformation and after Constantine (ca. 300s), professed Christians probably never thought about being converted. People were born into the Church and were considered Christians by covenant birthright. This was an erroneous notion that would have to be dealt with in order to regain a “book of Acts” approach to evangelism.

Covenant Theology

At the core of Puritanism was the doctrine of the covenant.[47] [48]This was a special contribution to the legacy of Calvinism, for though this doctrine may have been present in earlier forms of Calvinism, it was the Puritans in old and New England who gave the concept a sharper meaning. It served as the anodyne for the negative side effects of the Calvinist doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God and the predestinarian understanding of salvation. Since a covenant implies reciprocal responsibilities, it counters the one-sided, fatalistic implications of unconditional predestination and gives to humankind an active and meaningful role in redemption.[49] Whether or not the Puritans would have agreed generally that man has an “active role” in redemption is uncertain, but it certainly agrees with a casual reading of the Old Testament that continually implies that man in covenant with God has a responsibility to uphold his end of it.

Enforcing the Old Covenant

In Deuteronomy 10:16, God told the Israelites to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts and be no more stiff-necked. They were no longer sensitive to God’s Laws and could break them without any pain of conscience. The Prophets denounced them for committing horrific sins and being unable to blush in the process. As the writer to the Hebrews warns, they were hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. As Solomon suggests in Proverbs, men no longer fear the Lord, but mock the concept of a behavior being “sin.” Like a farmer’s field hardened by the hot, dry summer breeze, so the hearts of the men of Israel were hardened by years of sinning and resisting the Holy Spirit. The prophet exhorted the people, Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you (Hosea 10:16).

Enjoining the New Covenant

Richard Greenham (ca. 1535-1594), pastor at Dry Drayton, Cambridgeshire, and the “patriarch” of Puritan thought wrote, “The first thing is preparation. Before we can enter the covenant, we must first labor to circumcise the foreskin of our hearts as commanded in Jeremiah.”[50] Greenham Richard Rogers (ca. 1550-1619) added to this by suggesting that men must feel the prick of the Law, before he feels grace. For Rogers the facts of regeneration along experiential lines took precedence over prescribed theological dogma.[51]Arthur Hildersam (1563-1632), ever careful to insist that regeneration “to speak properly be the mighty work of God,” nevertheless proclaimed that “we may ourselves do much in this work, yea… we must be doers in it ourselves or else it will never be well done.” He defined “godly sorrow” for sin as sorrow that respected God and “worldly sorrow” as one that respected only the miseries that sin makes us subject to. The one was concerned for God having been offended, and the other for the consequences that one must endure for having sinned. Understand that the process in which a person came through repentance to saving faith was only described in general terms up to this time. There was also the question of whether or not a person is justified by faith during their preparation period.[52]

Reversal of Preparationist Thought

William Perkins (1558-1602) backtracked to Augustine, Zwingli, and Calvin saying “we can do nothing but sin before regeneration.” He took up the Calvinist line that men are “dead” and dead men cannot respond to God. He suggested that if a person desires to be “healed of their sins” then they are already regenerated. This reversal of Preparationist thought is likely to have occurred because in the last two decades of the sixteenth century, Calvin’s Institutes were required reading at the universities.[53] If we assume that Greenham, Rogers, and Hildersam were not as familiar with Calvin’s works as Perkins and those that followed, we can deduce from the facts in the case that Calvin’s influence greatly affected evangelism afterwards. Calvinist ministers began once again to emphasize God’s sovereignty in arbitrarily electing the one and damning the other. This doctrine would later be used by George Whitefield to stir sinners about their souls. Calvinists ministered under the assumption that man is dead and unable to respond to God (inability).

Variant Views in the Ordo Salutis

John Preston (1587-1628) was a Puritan converted under John Cotton’s ministry. He took the approach that a person must be Baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to begin to prepare for the indwelling of Christ. Although the theological term ordo salutis (the order of salvation) would not appear until around 1720, clearly Preston is suggesting that Baptism in the Holy Spirit (water baptismal regeneration) precedes repentance and faith. This water baptism is typically administered at infancy. He wrote:

Baptism, the seal of the Covenant, is to be administered to all within the Church, to infants though afterwards they do not actually and visibly believe. Now God would not appoint that the seal of the Covenant should be given to those whom it does not generally belong.[54]

It is important to point out that unlike today where it is generally assumed that the Holy Spirit is working with the evangelist to secure the salvation of men, some Calvinist ministers did not make this assumption. They believed that the Holy Spirit only drew the elect. This means that a person could go through the process of self-examination and do it totally independent of God. If a person were in this way, it was suggested that they were being prepared for damnation. Nevertheless, Preston exhorted men to prepare themselves for the indwelling of Christ by ridding their hearts of things that He hates. This is a clear call to repentance. He suggested that, “We must ‘open’ when Jesus stands at the door to knock.” For Preston, conversion was conditional. He believed emphatically that it is dangerous to continue in any known sin. In fact, his views border on Finney’s Christian Perfection. He writes:

Whomever walks in any course of sin is a dead man, and a child of wrath. That is, if there is any ruling lust in a man, so that he follows it and it commands him, that man is in a state of condemnation.[55]

Calvinists refer to this as the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. If a person is truly elect, they will persevere in righteousness until the end. If they do not, they were never one of the elect, but merely a hypocrite. He adds:

Whoever lies in any known sin is a hypocrite and no hypocrite can be saved, though he does other things ever so well. For such a person hangs not like a sprig, but like a bough that is almost rent off of the olive tree and can never prosper. If he only did a little, and yet did it in sincerity, it would be accepted; whereas while he does much, yet in hypocrisy, God does not regard it.

In modern times, we might say that Preston expected professing believers to live a life of repentance. He believed God called men and women to live holy and righteous before God. It will be useful to quote a particular point in its entirety:

See if you continue in any sin. It is continuance in sin that puts you in the state of condemnation. If a man falls into a known sin yet continues not in it, this is no argument against him, for the godliest man may occasionally fall, but such a man is not himself. Hence is that saying, “He was not himself when he did it.” But as for those that make a common trade of sinning, they cannot deny that they are anything but themselves in the committing of it. In the godly it is as Paul said, “Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me” (Romans 7:17). It is not they themselves, but sin that still remains in them. Yet the sin, though it is in them after their regeneration, yet is has no possession of them as it had before. Take heed therefore that although you have the same occasions to sin offered to you as before, yet do not continue in it, but totally abstain from it, for a wicked man may abstain from some sin a great while, even a whole year, and yet be said to lie in it, because if he had the same opportunities to sin as he had before, he would have committed the same sin as he had before. Therefore let every man look into his own heart and consider whether or not he is the same man he was before. Some had their delight in covetousness, some in pleasure, some in preferment, some in credit. Now examine yourselves, and see whether or not you still delight in the same things; see whether you continue in them still, and commit them as usual, and so judge of it accordingly.[56]

This Puritan attitude towards sin in the life of a believer is very foreign to modern-day Christianity, but it was a giant leap forwards towards the book of Acts. Preston did not believe in using God’s grace as a means of continuing in sin without condemnation. All known sin was to be repented of and utterly forsaken forever.

The Role of Water Baptism

Typically, Reformed Christians believe that baptism is a sacrament. Whether of infants or adults, they believe it is a "sign and seal of the covenant of grace," and that baptism admits the party being baptized into the visible church.[57] Calvin argued that New Testament baptism was parallel to circumcision under the Old Covenant, as it introduces a person into the New Covenant. Children of Abraham were circumcised as small children and so ought the infant children of Christians be baptized.[58] Although baptism makes one a member of the “visible church” it did not guarantee salvation. John Preston and others emphasized this. Prior to the Puritans sailing to Massachusetts, members of the visible church, including infants, were considered to be elect by faith unless and until they proved otherwise by continuing in sin or committing apostasy. As we will discover in Chapter 10, infant water baptism was not practiced in the book of Acts, believer’s baptism was practiced. Although we are gaining ground in the area of repentance and Christian living, we are still missing believer’s baptism, a key aspect of full initiation into the New Covenant. Except for the Anabaptists, most Protestant and Catholics placed water baptism in infancy defrauding those who were genuinely converted of the opportunity to follow the Lord in water baptism.

Baptism as Circumcision?

Once a conversion narrative was required for full membership into the visible churches in New England, the children of those that had no conversion narrative could not be baptized. This was akin to telling the parents that their children could not be saved. This is one of the reasons the Half-Way covenant was devised. Water baptism was fundamental to the covenant community as it provided a means of passing the religion down to the next generation.  Reformed Christians considered the water baptized children of professing Christians to be members of the visible church (the covenant community). Some took water baptism to be the means by which a person was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Like John the Baptist when he challenged the Jews notions of being in covenant as children of Abraham by circumcision, so too Puritan ministers will challenge the notion of being in the Invisible Church by infant water baptism or any other non-conversion related avenue.

Challenging The System

Thomas Hooker (1586–1647) was first a non-conformist and later a prominent Puritan colonial leader who founded the Colony of Connecticut after dissenting with Puritan leaders in Massachusetts. In 1633, he was made pastor of Newtowne, Massachusetts. The church was comprised of men who had been his followers in England, who had crossed the ocean, established themselves at Newtowne, and called him to be their preacher while he was still in exile in Holland. His concern was religious liberty. He did not find it in Massachusetts. What he did find was a theocracy and consequently, an aristocracy. Here the church ruled, almost as the church ruled in Rome, only it was another church and there was no Pope. No man could vote unless he was a church member. No person could be a church member, unless they could give a conversion narrative. Only one in ten men of mature age was qualified to vote. [59] Though a minister, Hooker carried his gun in one hand and His Bible in the other; and is assigned the title, “The First American Democrat.” He preached on Sundays and fought Indians on weekdays.[60] We must bear in mind that this was a different time, not far removed from the violence that attended the enforcement of established beliefs up to this time. Hooker moved his family from Massachusetts so that his posterity would not grow up under their theocracy, but in liberty. He was considered a man of valor, in a time when it took more courage to speak the truth than to bare one’s chest to the sword of the enemy.

A Sample Preparation Narrative

For all that America is indebted to this man for his ideals concerning liberty and democracy, there is another aspect to Hooker, that we must consider at this juncture. In 1632 in London and again in 1638 in The Netherlands, one of Hooker’s most significant Preparationist writings was published. It was entitled, The Souls Preparation For Christ: Being a Treatise of Contrition. Wherein is discovered how God breaks the heart, and wounds the soul, in the conversion of the sinner to Himself.  This protracted title was followed by the text in Psalm 51:17: The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou will not despise. He begins the work with the text:

Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts, and said to Peter and the other Apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved? (Acts 2:37)

Hooker’s view of awakening sinners was that “A special application of particular sins is a chief means to bring people to a sight of their sins, and to a true sorrow for them.” In this way Hooker followed the pattern of both the holy Apostles and Prophets. This was the pattern in the Bible, and has been the practice of many faithful ministers since. As John the Baptist, the minister is to preach directly and not secretly when intimating truths. He deals roundly with rebellious sinners as did John the Baptist, and says, O generation of vipers, who forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come? This suggests the depth of their sin, the evil of the person, and the wrath set in store for them. Again, he does not speak in vague generalities but shows the rebellious their sins in particular.

And when the publicans came to be baptized, he says, Receive no more than is appointed for you; and he says to the soldiers, do violence to no man, and be content with your wages (Luke 3:13, 14)

John the Baptist was called to be a minister of humiliation and preparation: and therefore, he deals plainly with them. In this way John the Baptist followed the pattern of Elijah. When Ahab had slain Naboth, the prophet came to him and said:

In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, Shall dogs lick thy blood: Ahab said, hast thou found me out, o my enemy? And he said, I have found thee out, because thou hast sold thy self to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord (I Kings 21:20)

The text goes on to say that when he heard this, he put on sackcloth and went softly. This was the power of a single particular rebuke and reproof on this miserable and wicked man. Hooker also employs examples from the epistles when Paul had to deal with Peter. When he halted before the Circumcision, Paul plainly reproved him to his face and not secretly. Because Peter sinned openly, he reproves him openly. Hooker adds the Lord Jesus to his list, whom shook up the scribes and Pharisees. He then moves to Paul, “And this is the rule in general, as the Apostle says; Reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith (Titus 1:13).” He believed that many ministers could tell a grave story meant to spark fear, and even speak of sins in general. He suggests plainly:

These common reproofs, these intimations of sin, are like arrows shot low or over their heads, they touch no man; but when a minister makes application of sin in particular, and says, oh all you drunkards and adulterers, this is your portion, and let this be as venom in your hearts to purge out your lusts. When our Savior Christ lapped up the Pharisees all in one speech, it is said, that they heard the parable, and knew that He meant them (Matthew 21:45). When particular application comes home to the heart, and a minister says; this is your drunkenness, and your adultery and profaneness, and this will break your neck one day: what assurance have you got of God's mercy? And what can you say for heaven? Then men begin to look about them. There was never any convicting ministry, nor any man that did in plainness apply the word home, but their people would be reformed by it, or else their consciences would be troubled, and desperately provoked to oppose God and his ordinances, that they may be plagued by it.

Thomas Hooker believed that the Word of God was like a sword, and the exposition of the text was like the drawing out of the sword and the flourishing of it. He found that some would wave it around as a man may wave a gun, however, in doing so it never hit the person’s heart rightly or made any real impact. Nevertheless, when a man strikes a full blow at a man, it either wounds him or puts him against the wall. So the application of the word was like the striking with the sword, it will work one way or other, if a man can block the blow so it is: but if not, it wounds him. Hooker then concluded, “I confess it is beyond our power to awaken the heart, but ordinarily, this way does good.”[61] After the person had been made to see their sins, it was expected that they meditate upon them in order to gain a right understanding of their crimes committed. Understanding that a person has sinned against their Creator, and are liable for the damages done to the very last penny, goes a long way in breaking up the heart. Hooker made use of the preaching of the Word of God as a means of Grace in order to prepare the unconverted for receiving Christ.

Thomas Hooker Pastorally

Although Hooker was straightforward in bringing a person around to Christ, he did not agree with the strict requirements for church membership that characterized the New England Puritans. He believed that if a person was required to give an account of their conversion, it should be done with “rational charity” because one man cannot know the heart of another, nor truly discover it.[62]  Even at that, Hooker was criticized for making the standard of grace too high. Some believed he had made “rules” that amounted to legalism that risked overshadowing a person’s legitimate conversion experience. This is overstated, as Hooker believed that a person’s sorrow for sins should be proportional to their severity and aggravations. Unlike some Preparationists, he did not believe that a person needed to be seized with fear for their soul in order to be saved. He believed God deals with people where they are. He explained:

If a man have been an outrageous, rebellious wretch, alas it is not a little matter will do the deed, it is not now and then a gracious promise that will break his heart; but the Lord must come down from heaven and break open the door by strong hands, by awakening his conscience, that all the country rings of him.[63]

Thomas Hooker gives an example of Lydia that underwent no such pains, but she was willing that the Lord should open her heart to receive the Word of God. At any rate, man must be willing to cooperate with the Holy Spirit as He brings him to Christ. As a pastor he admitted external covenanters on the basis of preparatory “motions,” or a charitable “hope.”

The Non-Preparationist View

On the other side of Preparationism were the Free Grace proponents. Though they were few in number, they managed to set forth their views to divide opinion in the churches. John Cotton (1585-1652) was a clergyman in England and the American colonies, and by most accounts was the preeminent minister and theologian of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As a devout Calvinist, he was said to, "sweeten his mouth with a piece of Calvin" before going to sleep. It was not until 1612, at the age of twenty-seven that he felt his first stirrings of grace and had heretofore wondered if he was ordained to eternal damnation. While still in England (1612-1632) he became concerned that Arminianism may lead away his flock because of their rejection of unconditional predestination, so he toned down the Calvinistic rigors of God's eternal decrees. He rejected Preparationism, but rather held that God performed the work of conversion totally independent of any effort on the part of the subject. In his view, this doctrine “magnified grace.” Man is "passive" in the conversion of his own soul. He was concerned that Preparationism at the same time raised and lowered the standard of conversion. It raised it in the area of assurance of salvation, so that those who were under preparatory anxiety could never know if they were or were not elect (saved). It lowered the standard because it placed sanctification too far down in the ordo salitus (order of salvation). In other words, a person may stay in a state in which they are in the covenant community, but not truly converted. He rejected baptism as a means of regeneration, and believed that baptized infants were as sinful as anyone else. In contrast to prevailing covenant ideals at the time, John Cotton suggested that no person should think they are saved merely because they are the children of Christian parents. He writes,

Therefore let all the children of Christian Parents understand it, and the danger of it; do not think that you shall be saved, because you are the children of Christian Parents, but take heed of scorning of Religion, and of high-prizing the world: and if you be forward in spiritual gifts, take heed of blessing yourselves in them: for if you have anything of your own to build upon, you will in time tread under foot the blood of the Son of God, wherewith you were sanctified, if you be not justified by it: work out therefore your salvation with fear and trembling; otherwise by one means or other you will fall off from God, upon such base and unworthy terms, whereby it will appear that the Lord is just in rejecting you, and you justly left in a state of perdition.[64]

Cotton would not admit members into his church until there was conclusive evidence that the person was regenerate. In his own words, “We receive none as members into the Church, but such (as according to the judgment of charitable Christians) may be conveyed to be received of God into fellowship with Christ.”[65]By 1636 Cotton’s Free Grace theology was causing division in the colonies between they who were of “a covenant of grace” and they who were of “a covenant of works.” At issue was whether or not election and sanctification had a connection, and if repentance and contrition for sin constituted works. Anne Hutchinson took up Cotton’s views and stripped them of the necessity of sanctification.

When challenged by his contemporaries, John Cotton reaffirmed, "that sanctification did help to evidence justification."[66] His view was that the regenerate is "not under Law but under grace," but this truth does not imply license to sin. Keep in mind that it is often difficult for those of a “legal persuasion” to understand the working of the Spirit to bring about in the regenerate the ability to fulfill the righteousness of the Law. This is what opened Paul up to criticism in the first century. There is a fear that people would get the idea that "Antinomianism" (without Law) was scriptural. This concern is not all together unfounded because in modern times certain brands of Free Grace theology impose no moral law whatsoever upon professors of Christ. On the other hand, Free Grace proponents that follow the Pauline line of Saints “having begun in the Spirit” and are able to “fulfill the righteous requirements of the law by walking in the Spirit,” fear legalists that would instruct them to “be made perfect by the flesh;” that is, legalistic rules.

This back and forth inability to rightly understand Paul, and fellow preachers who entertained the dichotomous views, led to much controversy and accusations. It stems from an incomplete understanding of walking in the Spirit. Unfortunately men like John Wheelwright (ca. 1592-1679) took Paul’s concerns too far and in a sermon in 1637 referring to all that “suggest sanctification is evidence of justification” as antichrists.[67] For this he was banished from the colonies, but it underscores the need to rightly understand how salvation was brought about in the book of Acts so that the one converted can turn to the book of Romans and understand what it all means. The book of Galatians is written to combat error on either side.

Preparationism Beyond 1662

Solomon Stoddard (1643-1729) was perhaps the foremost Preparationist in the New England colonies. He became pastor of the Northampton church during the Half-Way covenant controversy. His approach to conversion was based in part on his own experience. He had been brought in as pastor, but had not yet had a conversion experience of his own. His wife is said to have assembled certain women of the church together to pray for his conversion. While preparing to receive the Lord’s Supper, Stoddard had a revelation of the significance of Christ’s death that caused him to reach out to Christ in faith in a way he had not done before. Stoddard marked this as his conversion experience. As a result, he believed that all professing Christians who lived decent lives should be allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper so that perchance the Lord may use the occasion to convert the unconverted. This was a radical innovation that caused a bit of a stir. Keep in mind that many contemporaries with Stoddard did not believe that a person could know if they were elect in the first place, but only that they could have a reasonable assurance of it. Stoddard did not believe this. He believed a person could know they were one of the elect because of the great difference (contrast) between who a person was while unconverted compared to post conversion. In other words, a person knows if they have been truly changed or not.

By today’s standards, Solomon Stoddard would be labeled a hellfire and brimstone type of preacher. He believed that preachers were to preach the threatenings of the Law, man’s insufficiency, and God’s sovereignty.[68] He believed that the unconverted needed to have the reality of their soul’s condition set clearly before them in order to arrest their minds and set it squarely upon the subject. Stoddard counseled ministers that:

Men cannot exercise faith until the heart be prepared by a sense of danger and the insufficiency of other things. As long as they think they can help themselves they will not come to Christ for help.”[69]

In his book, A Guide to Christ, he wrote:

The danger of a natural condition is to be solemnly set before them. Though their terrors seem to be great, yet they need to be greater. Men must have so much terror, as to bring them to a separation from sin. Therefore there is need to represent their danger in the most lively and dreadful way, that the sense thereof may pierce their hearts deeply. If they be but thoroughly scared, they will be brought to a universal reformation, Isaiah 2:20, 21.”[70]

Again, keep in mind that Stoddard preached this way under the assumption that God unconditionally saved some and damned others and that unless God enabled a person by His grace (which He may or may not do) the person could not really believe. This was not only a theological barrier to salvation, but also a source of enormous grief for the persons seeking salvation. They had hell set before their eyes and were then led to wonder if they may be one of the elect or not. The problem was not the hellfire preaching, nor the conviction of sin that the people came under; it was the added preoccupation with unconditional election that vexed many of the men and women’s souls. They were completely at the mercy of what they believed to be the arbitrary will of God. The notion developed that one may desire God, but God not desire them. This theology in evangelism was completely unnecessary and foreign to the book of Acts. Stoddard continued:

They are to be urged to reformation. Their duty in this matter is to be particularly pressed upon them. Their consciences must be stirred to part with all sin, as Christ urges the Jews, if your right eye offends you, pluck it out. For, the neglect of reformation will put stop to the work: and they will not get forward in the work of humiliation, till they are reformed.

On the surface, this seems like Stoddard was calling the people to repentance, but the real purpose was to cause the person to see that without grace, they are unable to repent. If they did repent they were counseled to ask themselves if they had done so out of self-righteousness. The theological assumption was that people couldn’t repent in such a way that God would be pleased, independent of grace. Whereas today it is generally assumed that God is working in many splendored ways to secure repentance, in the 1600s God’s grace in calling sinners to repentance was not understood to be universal. It is absolutely true that we cannot come to God unless drawn of the Holy Spirit and that God initiates contact; however, if this idea is pushed too far it will leave a person in a state of spiritual limbo. In other words, you must repent, but you cannot repent. You must believe, but you cannot believe.

To our modern ears, this seems like total nonsense, but this was the natural outworking of Augustine’s doctrine when applied to evangelism. Stoddard and others saw it differently. He saw this difficulty as a means of humbling proud sinners. The belief was that a person has to understand that they are helpless to help themselves. The whole of salvation was the work of God, but man is still called to Christ. To many people, this was a gross contradiction.[71] He adds:

As the first concoction prepares for the second, so reformation does for humiliation. Men must overcome the next and more immediate difficulties before they overcome those that are remote. He that will not part with sinful practices will not yield himself into the hands of justice. If they do not reform, they put the work to a standstill; yea, such men do aggravate their own sorrows; for trouble will lie upon them till their hearts are brought to be humbled and their terrors be multiplied, if they belong to God, till they are persuaded to reform. Psalm 32:3: when I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day.[72]

The problem with this approach is that for all the sinners’ humiliation, unconditional election must be brought before their minds again to cause them to question their election. This was a vexing consequence and outworking of hyper-Calvinism. It is also why John Cotton feared lest his congregation in England be turned to Arminianism that rejected unconditional election. It was proving to be a stumbling block in counseling anxious sinners.

In fairness to Solomon Stoddard, he was unique among the New England Puritans in that he was trying desperately to evangelize the churches in contrast to previous generations that simply withheld membership from the unconverted. As with those that went before him, he did the best with what he knew to do. Positive Biblical change does not come as easy as bad unbiblical practice. Stoddard had a genuine concern for souls and experienced revival as a result of his more “book of Acts” approach to preaching. It was his counseling of the anxious that held him back. At a time when evangelism was believed to be all of God’s work; Solomon Stoddard, Thomas Hooker, and other Preparationists were reformers of such ideas. Their contribution to evangelism was that they emphasized, as did Peter and the Apostles in the book of Acts, that man can do something to break the stalemate between God and man. My impression is that these men may have broken farther with the view of unconditional predestination had it not been such an age of religious intolerance.

The Biblical position is that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of Christ. God has already taken the initiative to save sinners and at any given moment, it is “man’s move.” Paul reminds us in Acts that God has set the boundaries of our habitation so that we may feel after and find Him. Jesus said that if He were lifted up from the earth, He would draw all men to Himself. This drawing is always in play as the Holy Spirit strives with sinners to lead them to repentance. Solomon Stoddard’s writings on dealing with anxious sinners can be useful to those who approach them with the understanding that man’s inability is overstated in his theology. It will not be until the 1700s that man’s ability will be preached more in step with the book of Acts.

CHAPTER 3

The First Great Awakening

By 1727, Solomon Stoddard had been pastor at Northampton for over fifty-five years. He had experienced five “harvests” of souls during his ministry, the last of which was several years prior to Stoddard’s grandson Jonathan Edwards’ (1703-1758) arrival to assist in the work. Two years after Edwards arrived, Solomon Stoddard died, and Edwards was ordained pastor. The fruits of his efforts would be felt for generations to come. One such fruit that often goes unnoticed is the moral climate of a community. In the 21st Century, we have all kinds of wickedness being practiced in the Western World. Sins that used to be out-of-the-question for even the vilest of sinners are now commonplace and government sanctioned. It is important to have a historical moral perspective in order to measure the times we live in. When we think of moral and spiritual declension in modern times, we are thinking almost in terms of Sodom and Gomorrah. Has this always been the case? Certainly not! We need to ask, what was the condition of most of the churches of the New England Colonies prior to the First Great Awakening? We have precious insight in Jonathan Edwards’ own words:

Just after my grandfather’s death, it seemed to be a time of extraordinary dullness in religion. Licentiousness[73] for some years prevailed among the youth of the town; there were many of them very much addicted to night-walking, and frequenting the tavern, and lewd practices, wherein some, by their example, exceedingly corrupted others. It was their manner very frequently to get together, in conventions of both sexes for mirth and jollity, which they called frolics[74]; and they would often spend the greater part of the night in them, without regard to any order in the families they belonged to: and indeed family government did too much fail in the town. It was become very customary with many of our young people to be indecent in their manners at meetings, which doubtless would not have prevailed in such a degree, had it not been that my grandfather, through his great age (though he retained his powers surprisingly to the last), was not so able to observe them.”[75]

Indeed, as Solomon Stoddard’s eyes grew dim so did the spiritual climate of the congregation at Northampton, especially among the youth. However, you will notice something almost startling; the problems were relatively minor compared to modern times. Today we are not dealing with just flirtation (frolicking); we are dealing with full-blown fornication. We’re not dealing with youth who are content to show bad manners at meetings as in Edwards' day; we are dealing with high-handed rebellion and rejection of the Gospel. Nevertheless, for Edwards, the state of things was not acceptable, and it began to grieve him. Then suddenly and unexpectedly near the end of 1733, God began moving sovereignly among the youth. Edwards testified of a noticeable change in their attitude that could only be attributed to the working of the Spirit of God. Although they were indecent in their manners towards the end of Stoddard’s ministry, now they were becoming more receptive to sermons– even when directed specifically at them. Edwards further reported:

Then in April of the following year there happened a very sudden and awful death of a young man in the bloom of his youth; who being violently seized with chest pains (pleurisy), and taken immediately very delirious, died in about two days; which (together with what was preached publicly on that occasion) much affected many young people. This was followed with another death of a young married woman, who had been considerably exercised in mind, about the salvation of her soul, before she was ill, and was in great distress in the beginning of her illness; but seemed to have satisfying evidences of God’s mercy to her, before her death; so that she died very full of comfort, in a most earnest and moving manner warning and counseling others. This seemed to contribute to render solemn the spirits of many young persons; and there began evidently to appear more of a religious concern on people’s minds.”[76]

These events served as the sparks that would ignite what we have come to know as the Great Awakening. God was making use of these dreadful events to spark fear in the people–awakening careless sinners from their carelessness, and fixing their minds on eternal matters. This was akin to events that took place in the book of Acts chapter 5 when Ananias and Sapphira were both smitten dead by God instantly, and great fear came upon the people. This would also serve to forge Jonathan Edward’s theology concerning God’s sovereignty in evangelism and revivals. Whereas the focus from Thomas Hooker to Solomon Stoddard was on man “preparing” himself for God’s grace, these events demonstrate God working sovereignly in the conversion of sinners.

A City on a Hill

The idea in the original design of a “city on a hill” was finally being realized in Northampton; not through the cleansing of the church of all attendees except people with a conversion narrative, or the conversion of the lost through days, months, and years of Preparationism; but through a sovereign outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This outpouring, no doubt, was God’s way of shifting the evangelistic emphasis towards the operation of the Holy Spirit. Preparationism had placed the emphasis on man’s inability to affect their own conversion, while at the same time having the anxious sinner prepare for it–with no promise they would receive it. Though well-intentioned and rightly aimed, this measure led many anxious sinners into an exercise in futility–wounding many of their souls.

The lack of progress in evangelism within the Colonies in the late 1600s and early 1700s threatened to bring the church into a state of death or extinction. They needed a book of Acts style outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but had never seen one. For some 350 years God had been leading the churches back to “book of Acts” style evangelism–one step at a time: Here God was pouring out His Spirit in the next phase of that progression. Since the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has come to bring the life of God; no man can do His work. When God’s presence draws near people cannot help but be troubled and anxious for their souls. Edwards gives a snapshot of the affects of such an unexpected outpouring:

Immediately, a great and earnest concern about the great things of religion, and the eternal world, became universal in all parts of the town, and among persons of all degrees, and all ages. The noise amongst the dry bones waxed louder and louder; all other talk but about spiritual and eternal things, was soon thrown out; all the conversation, in all companies and upon all occasions, was upon these things only, unless so much as was necessary for people carrying on their ordinary secular business. Other discourse than of the things of religion, would scarcely be tolerated in any company. The minds of people were wonderfully taken off of the world. It was treated amongst us as a thing of very little consequence. They seemed to follow their worldly business, more as a part of their duty, than from any desire they had for it; the temptation now seemed to lie on the other hand, to neglect worldly affairs too much, and to spend too much time in the immediate exercise of religion. This was exceedingly misrepresented by reports that were spread in distant parts of the land, as though the people here had wholly thrown away all worldly business, and betook themselves entirely to reading and praying, and such like religious exercises. But although people did not ordinarily neglect their worldly business; yet religion was with all people the great concern, and the world was a thing only used as necessary. The only thing in their view was to gain the kingdom of heaven, and every one appeared pressing into it. It then was a dreadful thing amongst us to live apart from Christ, in danger every day of dropping into hell; and what persons’ minds were intent upon, was to escape for their lives, and to flee from the wrath to come. This work of God, as it was carried on, and the number of true saints multiplied, soon made a glorious alteration in the town: so that in the spring and summer following, anno 1735, the town seemed to be full of the presence of God: it never was so full of love, nor of joy, and yet so full of distress, as it was then. There were remarkable tokens of God’s presence in almost every house. It was a time of joy in families on account of salvation being brought unto them; parents rejoicing over their children as new born, and husbands over their wives, and wives over their husbands. The goings of God were then seen in his sanctuary. God’s day was a delight, and his tabernacles were amiable. Our public assemblies were then beautiful: the congregation was alive in God’s service, every one earnestly intent on the public worship, every hearer eager to drink in the words of the minister as they came from his mouth; the assembly in general were, from time to time, in tears while the word was preached; some weeping with sorrow and distress, others with joy and love, others with pity and concern for the souls of their neighbors. Our public praises were then greatly enlivened; God was then served in our psalmody, in some measure, in the beauty of holiness. It has been observable, that there has been scarce any part of divine worship, wherein good men amongst us have had grace so drawn forth, and their hearts so lifted up in the ways of God, as in singing his praises. Our congregation excelled all that ever I knew in the external part of the duty before, the men generally carrying regularly, and well, three parts of music, and the women a part by themselves; but now they were evidently wont to sing with unusual elevation of heart and voice, which made the duty pleasant indeed.[77]

This was a priceless account of the Northampton revival. It was a scene worthy of the book of Acts. We were given here a foretaste of the move of God that accompanied the birth of the United States and eventually spread to England. People were so full of God and so in tune with His presence that many wanted to drop what they were doing and just seek the Lord. This is the type of revival that affects the moral climate of a community. It resets the moral default settings, not through legislation of moral codes, but by manifestation of God’s unique presence.

Next Step: The Great Awakening

To this point, we have traced evangelism from the book of Acts through the Reformation, to the New England Puritans. We passed through Northampton where Preparationist Solomon Stoddard yielded the pastorship to Jonathan Edwards upon his death. At Northampton in 1733, God began moving in a way unique to the thirteen colonies, in that the Holy Spirit suddenly began awakening sinners through the use of means other than the preaching of the Gospel. Preparationism gave way to spontaneous dealings of the Holy Spirit. In other parts of the continent various threads of Christianity were spreading like wildfire.

By the 1730s, it was possible to discern three distinct religious patterns in the thirteen colonies: New England, with its heritage of Puritanism; the middle colonies with their religious pluralism; and Anglicans in the south. Each had their own emphasis and hopes as to what an awakening might bring, but when the Great Awakening arrived, its fires so overtook the nation that it completely changed the rules of the game for American churches.[78] It is referred to as the “great” awakening because it influenced so many people, in so many towns, and in so many ways. Although it took place in the form of many local revivals, there were two great leaders within this awakening; the one we have already introduced, Jonathon Edwards; the other was an English Methodist by the name of George Whitefield.

George Whitefield

George Whitefield (1714-1770) was born at the Bell Inn, Southgate Street, Gloucester in England. He was the 5th son (7th child) of Thomas Whitefield and Elizabeth Edwards, who kept an inn at Gloucester. At an early age, he found that he had a passion and talent for acting in the theatre. He read plays insatiably and often skipped school to practice for his schoolboy performances. Later in life he repudiated the theater, but the methods he imbibed as a young man emerged in his preaching. As a result of childhood measles he was left with crossed eyes, which led to his being referred to as “Dr. Squint-um.”[79] This gave the impression to the onlookers that he was looking at all times directly at them.

He gives an account of one of his first attempts at preaching:

Last Sunday in the afternoon I preached my first sermon in the church where I was baptized. Curiosity drew a large congregation there. The sight at first awed me. But I was comforted with a heart-felt sense of the Divine Presence and as soon found the advantage of having been accustomed to public speaking when a boy at school, and of exhorting and teaching the prisoners, and or people at their private houses, whilst at the University. As I proceeded, I perceived that a fire kindled, till at last, though so young, and amidst a crowd of those who knew me in my childish days, I trust I was enabled to speak with some degree of gospel authority. Some mocked, but most, for the present, seemed struck: and I have since heard, that a complaint had been made to the Bishop, that I drove fifteen mad the first sermon. The worthy prelate, as I am informed, wished that the madness might not be forgotten before next Sunday.[80]

God Employs Variant Views in His Service

It must be pointed out that God has chosen to anoint men who are of varying persuasions concerning election and free will, as if the subject was secondary to His primary concern, the winning of souls to Christ. Whitefield was no exception to this rule. He moved in the power of the Holy Spirit as he preached. Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones compared his delivery to the Apostle Paul who declared, For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Among those that were awe-struck by Whitefield was David Garrick, then the most famous actor in Britain. He was once reported to have said, "I would give a hundred guineas, if I could say 'Oh' like Mr. Whitefield." But not all were impressed. Churches in England were often closed to him. He then felt compelled to go “out to the highways and hedges” to preach in the open-air to common people. He would pass this method to his contemporary and friend John Wesley.

Whitefield in the Colonies

In 1738, Whitefield traveled to Georgia to help start an orphanage. In 1739 when he returned, his reputation as a dramatic preacher preceded him. In the fall of 1740 he embarked on one of the most important preaching tours in American history. In fact, it was essential to the spread of the Great Awakening. Crowds of up to 8,000 people would gather to hear him every day for a month. Before his death, he became the most recognized figure in America prior to George Washington and may well have been the most famous Christian in the world at the time. People would weep as he preached and came under tremendous conviction of sin. Those that were quickened found their way to churches in their respective towns. Although he claimed to be a Calvinist, he once admitted to John Wesley that he never read anything that Calvin wrote, but had learned his doctrines from Christ and his Apostles.[81] He didn’t care so much about doctrine, as he did preaching the Gospel. Nathan Cole described the experience of hearing Whitefield preach:

When I saw Mr. Whitefield come upon the Scaffold he looked almost angelical, a young, slender youth before some thousands of people with a bold undaunted countenance, and my hearing how God was with him everywhere as he came along it solemnized my mind, and put me into a trembling fear before he began to preach; for he looked as if he was clothed with authority from the Great God, and a sweet solemn solemnity sat upon his brow.

He went home from the meeting vexed under the load of his sin, contemplating if he were the elect or not. Divine election was the great subject that Whitefield presented in his message. He continues:

It pleased God to bring on me convictions more and more, and I was loaded with the guilt of Sin, I saw I was undone forever; I carried such a weight of sin in my breast or mind, that it seemed to me as I should sink into the ground every step; and I kept all to myself as much as I could; I went month after month mourning and begging for mercy, I tried every way I could think to help myself but all was failed. Poor me, it took away most all of my comfort of eating, drinking, sleeping, or working. Hell fire was most always in my mind; and I have hundreds of times put my fingers into my pipe when I have been smoking to feel how fire felt: And to see how my Body could bear to lie in hell fire for ever and ever. Now my countenance was sad so that others took notice of it. I made a great resolution that I would forsake everything that was sinful; And do to my uttermost everything that was good; and at once I felt a calm in my mind, and I had no desire to anything that was sin as I thought; but here the Devil thought to catch me on a false hope, for I began to think that I was converted, for I thought I felt a real change in me. But God in his mercy did not leave me here to perish; but in the space of ten days I was made to see that I was yet in the gall of bitterness; my convictions came on again more smart than ever–poor me.[82]

It was not long after this that he did trust Christ and was hopefully converted.

Marks of the New Birth

Over the centuries God was moving within the churches to lead people to understand that Christianity is much more than a mental assent to doctrinal statements coupled with a life of receiving grace via sacraments, and back to John 3:3 and the necessity of the New Birth. I must point out here that Christianity is not a religion in which people get rid of a few bad habits, assent to a creed or doctrine, pray a prayer, and you are “saved.” True Christianity is a person passing from death unto life and from the power of Satan unto the power of God. George Whitfield in his classic sermon, Marks of a True Conversion summarizes the change we ought to expect saying:

As for our temper, habit and conduct, we must be so changed and altered, that those who knew us the other day, when in a state of sin, and before we knew Christ, and are acquainted with us now, must see such an alteration, that they may stand as much amazed at it, as a person at the alteration wrought on any person he has not seen for twenty years from his infancy.

This is a staggering thing to consider. How radically different is a baby than he/she is twenty years later? That is the illustration Whitefield is using to capture our minds and settle them upon the great change wrought in a person truly born of the Spirit.

Are You Sure You Are Converted?

One of the primary strategies of evangelists in the era leading up to the 20th century was to call into question the hearer’s assurance of salvation. We do not hear preaching like this in the main stream, so it is necessary to experience it for ourselves in order to understand the effect it would have on the hearer. Whitefield began his soul-searching sermon with this standard type of enquiry:

And, I think, if I know anything of mine own heart, my heart's desire, as well as my prayer to God, for you all, is, that I may see you sitting down in the kingdom of our heavenly Father. But then, though we all hope to go to heaven when we die, yet, if we may judge by people's lives, and our Lord says, “that by their fruits we may know them,” I am afraid it will be found, that thousands, and ten thousands, who hope to go to this blessed place after death, are not now in the way to it while they live. Though we call ourselves Christians, and would consider it as an affront put upon us for anyone to doubt whether we were Christians or not; yet there are a great many, who bear the name of Christ, that yet do not so much as know what real Christianity is. Hence it is, that if you ask a great many, upon what their hopes of heaven are founded, they will tell you that they belong to this, or that, or the other denomination, and part of Christians, into which Christendom is now unhappily divided. If you ask others, upon what foundation they have built their hope of heaven, they will tell you, that they have been baptized, that their fathers and mothers, presented them to the Lord Jesus Christ in their infancy; and though, instead of fighting under Christ's banner, they have been fighting against Him, almost ever since they were baptized, yet because they have been admitted to church, and their names are in the register book of the parish, therefore they will make us believe, that their names are also written in the book of life. But a great many, who will not build their hopes of salvation upon such a sorry rotten foundation as this, yet if they are, what we generally call, negatively good people; if they live so as their neighbors cannot say that they do anybody harm, they do not doubt but they shall be happy when they die; nay, I have found many such die, as the Scripture speaks, “without any hands in their death.” And if a person is what the world calls an honest moral man, if he does justly, and, what the world calls, love a little mercy, is now and then good-natured, reaches out his hand to the poor, receives the sacrament once or twice a year, and is outwardly sober and honest; the world looks upon such an one as a Christian indeed, and doubtless we are to judge charitably of every such person. There are many likewise, who go on in a round of duties, a model of performances, that think they shall go to heaven; but if you examine them, though they have a Christ in their heads, they have no Christ in their hearts.

This opening statement was designed to call to question whether or not one was truly converted. It asks the question, “On what is your hope built?” This was akin to John the Baptist saying, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now the axe is laid to the root of the tree; every tree that does not bring forth good fruit will be hewn down and cast into the fire.” It matters not your affiliation or pedigree, but whether or not you have truly repented and trusted Christ. Have you begun in the Spirit? Does your life yield the fruit of the Holy Spirit? This is the true evidence that one has passed from death unto life.[83]

John Wesley

George Whitefield had a dear friend named John Wesley (1703-1791). As a child Wesley had been saved from a fiery building and true to form he was indeed a man “plucked from the burning.” He became an Anglican priest in England that had studied at Christ Church, Oxford. There he helped found the “Holy Club” along with his brother Charles and George Whitefield. This was the beginning of the Methodists. He traveled to the Colonies to do a work for God, only to realize on the ship and in a raging storm that he was not truly converted himself. As shocking as that may seem, this man at the age of 35, that was raised to know the Word of God at his mother’s knee, had all his life trusted in his own righteousness for salvation. He wrote in his journal:

All the time I was at Savannah, Georgia I was thus beating the air. Being ignorant of the righteousness of Christ, which by a living faith in him brings salvation "to everyone that believeth," I sought to establish my own righteousness, and so labored in the fire all my days. I was now, properly under the Law; I knew that the Law of God was spiritual; I consented to it, that it was good. Yea, I delighted in it, after the inner man. Yet was I carnal, sold under sin. Every day was I constrained to cry out, "What I do, I allow not; for what I would, I do not; but what I hate, that I do. To will is indeed present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not. For the good which I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do.[84]

He admitted that he was neither freed from sin, nor did he have the witness of the Holy Spirit. His own diagnosis was that he had sought these things by the works of the Law and not the hearing of faith. All the while, the ministry went on. He wrote, “And I continued preaching and following after and trusting in that righteousness, whereby no flesh can be justified.” Returning home, he diligently sought the Lord. He renounced his own righteousness. He added:

During this whole struggle between nature and grace, (which had now continued above ten years,) I had many remarkable returns to prayer; especially when I was in trouble. I had many sensible comforts, which are indeed no other than short anticipations of the life of faith. But I was still under the law, not under grace: (the state most who are called Christians are content to live and die in).[85]

Wesley struggled for a while coming to a place of complete trust in the finished work of Christ. Herein is the Reformers position of man’s estate before God validated; in that man is helpless in his own strength to reform himself sufficiently to become a child of God. Repentance? Wesley had much of it. Sorrow for sin? Wesley had it in superabundance. A desire to do what was right in the sight of the Lord? Indeed, Wesley burned with a desire for righteousness but he was going about it his own way. God had to arrest his attention and bring a great light upon the subject. It was on that ship somewhere in the vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean that God brought him into reality. As the Roman soldiers and prisoners in Acts 27, Wesley experienced the fear of imminent death by drowning in darkness. The whole experience must have been a foretaste of hell. He did not want to die like this, in fear rather than faith. As the Moravians prayed and sang peacefully in the ship Wesley’s nerves were frayed like no other time. All of his life he had done as the shipmaster in Acts 27, doing everything he could to get rid of things that offend. He bolstered his "ship" with all kinds of earthly disciplines, but in the midst of the sea, the chords that held his soul secure were melted before this flame. When it seemed that all of his life was destined for one massive shipwreck, he arrived in the place where God could really save him. John Wesley continues his testimony:

God prepared Peter Border for me as soon as I came to London, affirmed of true faith in Christ, (which is but one,) that it had those two fruits inseparably attending it, "Do minion over sin, and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness." I was quite amazed and looked upon it as a new Gospel. If this was so, it was clear, I did not have faith. But I was not willing to be convinced of this. Therefore I disputed with all my might and labored to prove that faith might be where these were not; especially where the sense of forgiveness was not: for all the Scriptures relating to this I had been long since taught to construe away and to call all “Presbyterians” who spoke otherwise. Besides, I well saw, no one could (in the nature of things) have such a sense of forgiveness, and not feel it. But I felt it not. If then there was no faith without this, all my pretensions to faith dropped at once.[86] (emphasis added)

One morning Wesley woke up and opened his Bible to the passage, There are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, even that you should be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Returning later he opened to another verse, you are not far from the Kingdom of God. In the evening, he went to hear a message. The experience he describes would mark a radical change in his life:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change that God works in the heart through faith in Christ, 1 felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death. I began to pray with all my might for those who had in a more especial manner despitefully used me and persecuted me. I then testified openly to all there what I now first felt in my heart.[87]

This marked John Wesley’s conversion. It is commonly referred to as his Aldersgate experience. He was 35 years old. It is instructional for those that may have been involved in Christianity all of their lives and yet have not truly been converted.

John Wesley’s Returns to Ministry

When Whitefield returned to England from the Colonies, he advised Wesley to follow a similar pattern of open-air preaching as he had done. This would mark the beginnings of revival in England. At first, Wesley was resistive to such a thought thinking that such preaching ought to be done inside the churches. He almost considered the saving of souls outdoors to be a sin; nevertheless, Wesley’s theology and radical views saw many if not most of the church pulpits closed to him. His concern for people, common and poor people, drove him past his reservations, and he commenced to preach in the open-air as had Whitefield in 1739.

Edwards Influence on Wesley

A brief account of John Wesley’s life would be grossly incomplete without the mention of Jonathan Edwards influence on Wesley in the early years of his ministry. While Wesley was still preaching in the churches, he found the results to be quite unsatisfying. The inner reality and the outward force of the Gospel, though faithfully preached, were not being experienced. Fortunately, Wesley was an editor and publisher of books that he found useful and was always in search of good materials.[88] On October 9, 1738, John Wesley was walking from London to Oxford, a distance of some 60 miles. On the way, he began to read Jonathan Edwards work, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton.[89] The revival accounts are said to have struck Wesley with terrific force.[90] Afterwards, Wesley adopted Edwards' analysis of “the distinguishing marks of a work of the Spirit of God” and in 1744 published an abridgment of Edwards works, with the Calvinist leanings filtered out. The effect of reading the account of this revival on the life of Wesley has been compared to his Aldersgate experience. It has also been suggested that Edwards book was mainly responsible for seeing revival spread to England.[91]

A Preacher of Righteousness

In modern times, it is hard to imagine how a preacher of righteousness could do so in a loving way, and yet John Wesley was moved with compassion when he saw the crowds, even as Jesus had been. Hundreds and at times thousands would gather to hear him preach. He preached on more than one occasion at his father’s tombstone. These highly successful meetings were met with much resistance by elements in the clergy. As others took up the practice, they were subject to their residences being ransacked and even firebombed. Occasionally, herds of cattle were driven through the crowds in an attempt to break up the meetings. Wesley’s life was often threatened, and as he traveled the length of the country on horseback he was sometimes robbed. Nevertheless, he pressed-on, covering many thousands of miles in his lifetime. He preached as many as three times a day.

The impressions that these revival meetings made upon fellow believers and upon England are incalculable. Some have said that Wesley’s anointed preaching single-handedly spared England the fate of France that endured a dreadful, bloody revolution (1757-1799). Wesley’s focus was on conversion and Christian perfection. For Him perfect love for God and man was perfection. This is a radically different attitude than existed among many of the Reformers. Wesley preached a personal experience in Christ with a focus on the New Birth. He opposed many of Calvin’s views on predestination and would be abusively labeled an “Arminian.” He felt that the church failed to call sinners to repentance, that many of the clergy were corrupt, and that people were perishing in their sins.

The Marks of the New Birth

As did George Whitefield, John Wesley addressed the matter of New Birth and the evidence we should expect to accompany it. In his classic sermon on the subject, Wesley gives the first in a list of evidences:

The true, living, Christian faith, which whosoever hath, is born of God, is not only an assent, an act of the understanding; but a disposition, which God hath wrought in his heart; "a sure trust and confidence in God, that, through the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he is reconciled to the favor of God." This implies, that a man first renounce himself; that, in order to be "found in Christ," to be accepted through him, he totally rejects all "confidence in the flesh;" that, "having nothing to pay," having no trust in his own works or righteousness of any kind, he comes to God as a lost, miserable, self-destroyed, self-condemned, undone, helpless sinner; as one whose mouth is utterly stopped, and who is altogether "guilty before God." Such a sense of sin, (commonly called despair, by those who speak evil of the things they know not,) together with a full conviction, such as no words can express, that of Christ only cometh our salvation, and an earnest desire of that salvation, must precede a living faith, a trust in Him, who for us paid our ransom by his death, and fulfilled the Law during His life. This faith then, whereby we are born of God, is not only a belief of all the articles of our faith, but also a true confidence in the mercy of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Wesley counters the notion that faith is a mere assent to facts or doctrines, but is rather a complete trust in the person of Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished on the cross. This is the very ground of true religion. It is essential that we establish the foundation of salvation by grace through faith and the justification that accompanies it, or we will despair of his teaching on Christian perfection. He then writes:

A Second scriptural mark of those who are born of God, is hope. Thus St. Peter, speaking to all the children of God who were then scattered abroad, says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope." (1 Peter 1:3) Elpida zvsan, a lively or living hope, says the Apostle; because there is also a dead hope, as well as a dead faith; a hope which is not from God, but from the enemy of God and man; as evidently appears by its fruits; for, as it is the offspring of pride, so it is the parent of every evil word and work; whereas, every man that hath in him this living hope, is "holy as He that calls him is holy:" Every man that can truly say to his brethren in Christ, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and we shall see him as he is," "he purifies himself, even as He is pure.”

Wesley then goes on to expound on this hope as being evidenced in what is sometimes called the “inner witness” of the Holy Spirit. He continues:

This hope implies, First, the testimony of our own spirit or conscience, that we walk "in simplicity and godly sincerity;" Secondly, the testimony of the Spirit of God, "bearing witness with," or to, "our spirit, that we are the children of God," "and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." Let us well observe what is here taught us by God himself, touching this glorious privilege of his children. Who is it that is here said to bear witness? Not our spirit only, but another; even the Spirit of God: He it is who "bears witness with our spirit." What is it he bears witness of? "That we are the children of God," "and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;" (Rom. 8:16, 17) "if so be that we suffer with him," if we deny ourselves, if we take up our cross daily, if we cheerfully endure persecution or reproach for his sake, "that we may also be glorified together." And in whom doth the Spirit of God bear this witness? In all who are the children of God. By this very argument does the Apostle prove, in the preceding verses, that they are so: "As many," says he, "as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!" It follows, "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:14-16).

Wesley then gives the final evidence:

A Third scriptural mark of those who are born of God, and the greatest of all, is love; even "the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto them." (Rom. 5:5) "Because they are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son in their hearts, crying, Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6) By this Spirit, continually looking up to God as their reconciled and loving Father, they cry to Him for their daily bread, for all things needful, whether for their souls or bodies. They continually pour out their hearts before Him, knowing "they have the petitions which they ask of Him." (1 John 5:15) Their delight is in Him. He is the joy of their heart; their "shield," and their "exceeding great reward." The desire of their soul is toward Him; it is their "meat and drink to do His will;" and they are "satisfied as with marrow and fatness, while their mouth praises Him with joyful lips." (Psalm 63:5) And, in this sense also, "everyone who loves him that begat, loves him that is begotten of him." (1 John 5:1) His spirit rejoices in God his Savior. He "loves the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. The necessary fruit of this love of God is the love of our neighbor; of every soul which God hath made; not excepting our enemies; not excepting those who are now "despitefully using and persecuting us;" a love whereby we love every man as ourselves; as we love our own souls. Nay, our Lord has expressed it still more strongly, teaching us to "love one another even as He has loved us.”

The Gospel of the Kingdom

The Gospel that George Whitefield and John Wesley preached was, in effect, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. That is to say, the Gospel of the Kingdom; not as Constantine made it, but as Christ proclaimed it. This is an essential point to bear in mind, because it marked a new paradigm within mainstream English-speaking Christianity. In most of the Western World up to this time, church and state were united. Disagreements were always within the broader church. Church Historian Bruce L. Shelley writes:

The Reformation proved again that faith and power are a potent brew. As long as Christians had access to power they used it to enforce conformity to the truth: Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed.[92]

He is not referring to spiritual power, but civil authority. Although the practice was completely contrary to the Gospel of the Kingdom, death-dealing theocrats, non-residents of the true Kingdom of God, gave Christianity a name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles. This eventually gave rise to an age of reason or what is sometimes referred to as the Enlightenment. It is important to stop and carefully examine this historical reality in order to learn the consequence of ignoring the teaching of Jesus Christ. This is “history” warts and all.

Why Wesley and Whitefield Were Necessary

Between the era of Constantine in the 300s to the middle 1600s Christianity suffered a terrible blow as people were “Christian” in name, but did not truly know Christ or His Word. For example, between 1618-1648 nearly one-third of the European population died from a “holy war” between Protestants and Catholics.[93] People simply grew tired of the holy wars that many suffered in the name of “religion.” They were tired of the compulsions by Catholics and Protestants. They were tired of burnings at the stake, hangings, beheadings, drownings and other persecutions as a result of disagreements in doctrine. Around 1648 we entered into a time of religious tolerance. This was wonderful because it effectively ended religious persecution. Nevertheless, centuries of non-Christian acts, done in the name of Christianity, caused much bitterness. Many of the churches across Europe were dead or dying, leaving little means of answering the naysayers that were starting to make their appearance. This dreadful mix of lifeless religion and its history of unchristian practices would now face the rise of rationalism, as the enlightenment was in full swing. Philosophers started berating Christianity until the people started to believe that religion was the problem and not the solution.

Voluntaryism and Evangelism

The preaching of Whitefield and Wesley finally began breaking the notion that the Kingdom of God was supposed to be a church-state alliance. Old doctrines die hard; but none died harder than the belief in a state church. Christianity had been forced upon people since Constantine, and some wondered if “Voluntaryism” (serving God voluntarily and not by compulsion) could survive. Even in the New England colonies, the churches were effectively a sterilized version of the Roman Church. The reason for this is that the mainline Reformers believed that the primary problem with Rome was its theology and not necessarily its methodology. Christianity, for them, was more of a “theologically based” religion than one in which someone has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.[94] Theology without the new birth is worthless, because a person is not brought into the reality of the New Covenant and enabled to model the person of Jesus Christ by the Spirit. Perfect theology is not necessary for new birth; however, new birth is necessary for genuine Christianity.

The Impact of Whitefield and Wesley

Whitefield and Wesley helped bring the churches closer to the book of Acts in multiple ways. They helped bring to an end the notion that Christians can persecute one another. Though they disagreed sharply on Calvinism and Arminianism, they showed the world that we can live together with divergent views without killing each other. In fact, Whitefield and Wesley were very close friends. A cursory reading of the New Testament is enough to inform a person that Jesus Christ came to establish a peaceful Kingdom in the hearts of men; where each treated others as they would like to be treated themselves. This was radically different than both Zwingli and Calvin that followed Roman Catholicism and established church states. They sought to enforce Reformed ideals. We need to understand what is back of these errors, or we are liable to repeat all of them. John Calvin believed that the New Covenant was little different than the Old Covenant; and he led Geneva in a way similar to ancient Israel under Moses and the Law. This is why so much of the reality of the teachings of Jesus Christ is absent in his theology and practice. He could not see that the New Covenant was substantially different than the Old. This error gave the impression that Christians could fight and war as did the ancient Israelites. In fact, as unconscionable as the persecutions were from Nero to Diocletian, men “in the name of Christ” persecuted fellow believers even more feverishly than the Romans. The notion of “just wars” and the use of violence were in accord with Thomas Aquinas’ (1225-1274) interpretation of Augustine. Calvin expressed this in the slow-burning death of Michael Servetus in Geneva, while Zwingli turned his fury upon the Anabaptists by drowning them in Switzerland.[95]

Justo L. Gonzalez suggests that more Anabaptists were killed during the Counter Reformation than were Christians from the time of Jesus until Constantine.[96] It is hard for modern readers to reckon with how some of the Reformers persecuted other Christ professing believers, contrary to the clear teachings of Christ. In one sense, it was simply the result of a de-emphasis on New Birth, coupled with Augustinian theology. This is a great danger, and it is impossible to overstate. Our theology must have its roots in the Bible itself, not in the doctrines of men. If we continue down a path that yields very few genuine conversions, the visible church is bound at some point to repeat the atrocities of the Middle Ages and will do so in the name of Christ. Augustine taught that it is possible to love a person while killing them. In other words, as long as you love them inwardly then you can justly kill them outwardly, if necessary.[97] This notion flies in the face of the Lord Jesus’ Words to Peter, “Put up your sword! He who lives by the sword will die by it.” The only way to prevent future errors from blotching Christianity is to put up our weapons (whatsoever they may be) and return to the book of Acts to discover what Peter’s experience was after he put away his sword. In a word, “he learned war no more.”

Automatic Members of the Kingdom?

There is a great danger in having a mechanical religion in which no heart change is necessary. It was the law of the land after Constantine that as with the Israelites that were born into the covenant and circumcised, so too were infants born into the New Covenant and baptized. If the baptized held to the creed of the church, partook of the sacraments and did not commit a mortal sin, he/she was saved. Serious sins could be forgiven if the proper penance was observed. No change of heart was required in Roman Catholicism; it was an outward church-state kingdom. However, the Kingdom of God that Christ preached, is an inward kingdom in which a person is baptized into His Body by the Spirit, having genuinely believed, truly repented, and is baptized in water. Having begun in the Spirit they walk in the Spirit fulfilling the righteousness that is in the Law. In a word, they are “Christ-like”. They are living expressions of Jesus upon the earth. The late George W. North summarized God’s will saying, “The Holy Spirit has come to teach you the habits of Heaven, how God would live on the earth if He were you.” This should be the basic pattern of it. It cannot be received by birthright, nor enforced by the sword; it must be the result of God working in man both to will and to do His good pleasure.

German Pietism (1666-1750)

There is one more subject that we must touch upon in order to complete our sketch of post-Reformation Christianity. German Pietism in Europe was a great advancement towards New Testament Christianity. Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) was a German Christian theologian known as the "Father of Pietism." Piety means inner obedience to God. Pietism (from the word piety) was a movement within Lutheranism that lasted from the late 17th century to the mid-18th century. It was in reaction to the dead formalism and intellectualism of the day. People began desiring a deep, inner obedience to God. It influenced Protestants, Anabaptists, and through the Moravians, John Wesley and the Methodists. The Pietism movement combined the Lutheranism of the time with an added emphasis on individual piety and a vigorous Christian life. In contrast to Calvinistic Puritans that believed that government was ordained by God to enforce Christian behavior upon the world; Lutheran Pietists saw the government as part of the world. Christians were called to live faithful lives independent of government enforcement of religion. Philipp Spener published a book entitled, The Pia Desideria (Pious Desires)[98] that included six main ideals:

1. Christians should attempt to spread the Word of God (evangelicalism). Pastors should preach from the entire Bible. Individuals needed to be converted to Christ through a personal encounter with Him.

2. The Lutheran doctrine of the priesthood of all believers should receive a new emphasis. The differences between the laity and clergy should be minimized. Ministers must recognize that their calling involves not just Bible study, teaching, reproving and consoling; but they must live holy lives.

3. Attention should be given to the cultivation of individual spiritual life. Love for God and man should take priority over love for theological disputes.

4. Truth is not established in disputes but through repentance, loving those that differ and the living of a holy life.

5. Ministers should be “true Christians.”

6. Sermons should not show the preacher’s erudition, but attempt to lead a sinner to repentance and faith and to edify believers unto fruitfulness.

After Spener died in 1705, the movement continued to influence the whole of Middle and Northern Germany. Among its greatest achievements, was the revival of the Moravian Church in 1727 by Count von Zinzendorf, Spener's godson. It also led to the establishment of Protestant missions. Spener stressed the necessity of new birth and separation of Christians from the world. Many Pietists (similarly to the Puritans) maintained that the new birth must always be preceded by agonies of repentance, and that only a regenerated theologian could teach theology. The movement shunned all forms of sin, common worldly amusements, such as dancing, the theatre, and public games. Pietism is also largely responsible for introducing (in some cases re-introducing) these important things into Christianity:

1.     Devotion to God through the emotions

2.     Church within a church (real vs. nominal)

3.     Passionate preaching (as opposed to lecturing)

4.     Hymns and joyous singing

5.     Modern Missions

6.     The Great Awakening in England and America

The Pietists influence on men like George Whitefield and John Wesley cannot be overstated. George Whitefield preached with such emotion that his sermons were considered “vulgar” to the other clergy, and he was banned from preaching in the churches. John Wesley was unconverted until he saw first-hand true Christianity in the life of the Moravians. As a proper Englishman, he was reluctant to raise his voice while preaching and resisted Open-Air ministry. He wrote in his diary: “What marvel the devil does not love field preaching? Neither do I. I love a commodious room, a soft cushion, and a handsome pulpit. But where is my zeal if I do not trample all these under foot in order to save one more soul?” Amen.

CHAPTER 4

The Second Great Awakening

John Wesley died in 1791, just one year after the start of the Second Great Awakening. He preached in the open air in England covering tens of thousands of miles. His organizational skills were unparalleled the church history giving rise to what came to be known as the Methodist church. Although Wesley remained an Anglican until his death, those that were known as Methodists came to America in 1766 and were organized as a distinct denomination in 1784. With their emphasis on evangelism, the new birth, and holiness; the Methodists were mightily used of God to restore these vital New Covenant truths to mainstream Christianity.

The Second Great Awakening was brought about by a combination of a tremendous move of God and the going forth of numerous Methodist preachers. This effort increased their membership until they became largest denomination in America in the 1800s. They were known for their loud and emotional sermons, designed to arrest the attention of the people. This was considered vulgar by the elites and made them laughing stocks among intellectuals. So it would only be fitting that we might trace the beginnings of the Second Great Awakening to a case of foiled mockery.[99]

In 1787, Cary H. Allen was one of the steadiest youths at Hampton Sydney College in Virginia. One day, he decided to take a walk together with a friend. They entered the store of a merchant with whom Cary Allen was familiar. Allen, who was always full of silliness, was asked to do an imitation of a Methodist sermon. Mounting the counter, he performed in such a comical and ludicrous manner, that his audience was convulsed with laughter. His friend had a bad feeling about it and wondered what calamity would befall him for making fun of such godly ministers. Shortly afterward the same boys went to make sport of a Methodist meeting in the neighborhood. In a wild turn of events, they would soon learn that God is not to be trifled with, and is well able to turn about the false perceptions of even the vilest of scoffers. Upon being subject to true Methodist preaching, with its accompanying Holy Spirit power, the very first person smitten down with conviction of sin was the “would-be comedian” Cary Allen.[100] Robert Davidson describes the scene:

The Rev. Hope Hull was the preacher. He was very impressive, and a loud and powerful preacher in brandishing the claims of God's violated Law against its transgressors. The house was crowded, so that Allen stood on the floor in front of the preacher. Strange to tell, his attention was so arrested and his conscience so awakened, that from a deep sense of his guilty and condemned condition, he was made to quake and tremble. At length he lost his strength and fell prostrate on the floor, in full view of the preacher and the whole congregation. There he lay after the congregation had been dismissed, in great agony of mind, crying for mercy. As he himself at the time declared, he uttered the first prayer he had ever ventured to put up to his justly offended God in all his life. At length he professed to have surrendered his rebellious heart to God, and found peace of mind, from believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.[101]

Allen went back to the college and started a prayer meeting. When other students gathered with them, they nearly experienced a riot. It was complained that they were behaving like “Methodist’s” that had a reputation for being loud and emotional (Methodists were the “Pentecostals” of that day). The president of the college, John Blaire Smith, had been converted during the First Great Awakening and was sympathetic to the young men seeking God. He invited them to pray in his office and the prayer meeting spread through the college.

Smith preached the Gospel from a Calvinist perspective, and revival broke out! In time, it spread to Yale University where Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards, ministered to the students. His reasoning and anointing were said to be so great, that rationalists would come to his office personally to debate with him and would leave converted. Soon revival hit and eighty percent of Yale was hopefully converted. Ashbel Green of Princeton University heard of the revival and started a one-year prayer meeting. He began preaching a powerful Gospel, and revival broke out. Rationalism was losing ground in the colleges, especially after Thomas Paine (1737-1809), a champion of Deist ideals died, and only six mourners came to the funeral.

The Birth of the Bible Belt

As with the spread of the Gospel in the first century, so also the Second Great Awakening owes its spread, in part, to religious persecution. James McGready (1763-1817) was a powerful preacher in North Carolina calling sinners to repentance. He experienced revival on a local level in three different places. The trouble was that the revival began to upset their monetary endeavors, and soon people more interested in money than mercy had had their fill of him! The secular residents sought to persuade him nicely to leave, but when that failed they ransacked his church and dropped a letter written in blood suggesting that he leave town.[102] It was at this time that he decided to answer the call of God to go west with the settlers to what is now Kentucky. This move would mark the beginning of what has come to be known as The Bible Belt.

The revival-minded McGready is credited with organizing what used to be called camp meetings. They were very similar to what George Whitefield and John Wesley had done in the previous century. McGready would send out a call to the residents of the area to get in their wagons or on their horses and travel to a large open area to hear the Gospel preached. Men would split logs and make them into pews for an outdoor church effect. Sometimes a brush arbor roof made of timbers and branches would be erected, one of which was reported to have provided cover for some 5000 people. The minister would ascend on to a tall platform and commence preaching at the top of his voice. John McGee describes his personal experience of attending a communion meeting at Cain Ridge that is well worth quoting at length:

We loved, and prayed, and preached together; and God was pleased to own and bless our labors and us. In the year 1799 we agreed to make a tour through the Barrens, toward Ohio, and concluded to attend a sacramental solemnity in the Rev. Mr. McGready's congregation, on Red River, in our way. When we came there I was introduced by my brother, and received an invitation to address the congregation from the pulpit; and I know not that ever God favored me with more light and liberty than he did each day while I endeavored to convince the people they were sinners, and urged the necessity of repentance, and of a change from nature to grace, and held up to their view the greatness, freeness, and fullness of salvation, which was in Christ Jesus, for lost, guilty, condemned sinners. My brother and the Rev. Mr. Hodge preached with much animation and liberty. The people felt the force of truth, and tears ran down their cheeks; but all was silent until Monday, the last day of the feast. Mr. Hodge gave a useful discourse; an intermission was given, and I was appointed to preach. While Mr. Hodge was preaching a woman in the east end of the house got an uncommon blessing, broke through order, and shouted for some time, and then sat down in silence.

At the close of the sermon, Hodge, McGready, and Rankin went out of the house; my brother and myself sat still; the people seemed to have no disposition to leave their seats. My brother felt such a power come on him that he left his seat and sat down on the floor of the pulpit (I suppose, not knowing what he did). A power which caused me to tremble was upon me. There was a solemn weeping all over the house. Having a wish to preach, I strove against my feelings; at length I rose up and told the people that I was appointed to preach, but there was a greater than I preaching, and exhorted them to let the Lord God Omnipotent reign in their hearts, and to submit to him, and their souls should live.

Many broke silence; the woman in the east end of the house shouted tremendously. I left the pulpit to go to her, and as I went along through the people it was suggested to me, "You know these people are much for order, they will not bear this confusion; go back and be quiet." I turned to go back, and was near falling. The power of God was strong upon me; I turned again, and losing sight of the fear of man, I went through the house shouting and exhorting with all possible ecstasy and energy, and the floor was soon covered with the slain. Their cries for mercy pierced the heavens, and mercy came down. Some found forgiveness, and many went away from that meeting feeling unutterable agonies of soul for redemption in the blood of Jesus.

This was the beginning of that glorious revival of religion in this country that was so great a blessing to thousands; and from this meeting camp meetings took their rise. One man, for want of horses for all his family to ride and attend the meeting, fixed up his wagon, in which he took them and his provisions, and lived on the ground throughout the meeting. He had left his worldly cares behind him, and had nothing to do but attend on divine service. The next meeting was a camp meeting. A number of wagons loaded with people came together and camped on the ground, and the Lord was present and approved of their zeal by sealing a pardon to about forty souls. The next camp- meeting was on the Ridge, where there was an increase of people, and carriages of different descriptions, and a great many preachers of the Presbyterian and Methodist orders, and some of the Baptist, but the latter were generally opposed to the work. Preaching commenced, and the people prayed, and the power of God attended. The nights were truly awful. The campground was well illuminated; the people were differently exercised, some exhorting, some shouting, some praying, and some crying for mercy, while others lay as dead men on the ground. At this meeting it was computed that one hundred souls were converted. But perhaps the greatest meeting we ever witnessed in this country took place shortly after, on Desha's Creek, near Cumberland River. Many thousands of people attended. The mighty power and mercy of God were manifested. The people fell before the Word like corn before a storm of wind, and many rose from the dust with divine glory shining in their countenances, and gave glory to God in such strains as made the hearts of stubborn sinners to tremble; and after the first gust of praise, they would break forth in volleys of exhortation.[103]

This is perhaps an example of God moving among people who, like Saul of Tarsus, had so kicked against the goads and trod under foot good preaching that God had to lay them prostrate to get their attention. The people who moved to the West were often hardened in their ways. Most had not been to church in years. It would seem then, that God moved among the people proportional to their hardness and rebellion. Not everyone requires such a conversion, but apparently some do. Saul was definitely one that did. Had God been able to reach Saul with a still small voice He would have done so. So it should be of no surprise that God would move in such a way during the preaching of Whitefield, Wesley and other preachers of righteousness.

Perhaps the greatest problem we face in this modern age is our unwillingness to allow God to do whatever it takes to secure a person’s conversion. It is so much easier to hope that God could secure a soul without too much of a ruckus, but this is obviously not the case. The masses are going through life to a Devil’s hell unthwarted, and many Christians feel better about it simply because their lives were made all the more comfortable. Would to God that He would meet a billion Saul’s on their road to Demascus, and if necessary, send such a shock into their lives that like Saul, they would tremble and fear, even refusing to eat for three days afterwards.

Cane Ridge

The Cane Ridge outpouring (1801) was characterized by fellow men and women of God coming together for the cause of Christ. The Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists united with each other in the work; meeting together, praying together, and preaching together. As the people would gather from all over the countryside, scores of ministers from multiple denominations would be spread throughout the field, preaching day and night on stumps to crowds in the thousands. This went on for several weeks. Peter Cartwright (1785-1872) gives an account of the meeting and his conversion at sixteen years old:

I have seen more than a hundred sinners fall like dead men under one powerful sermon,[104] and I have seen and heard more than five hundred Christians all shouting aloud the high praises of God at once; and I will venture to assert that many happy thousands were awakened and converted to God at these camp-meetings. Some sinners mocked, some of the old dry professors opposed, some of the old starched preachers preached against these exercises, but still the work went on and spread almost in every direction, gathering additional force, till our country seemed all coming home to God. To this meeting I prepared, a guilty, wretched sinner. On the Saturday evening of said meeting, I went, with weeping multitudes, and bowed before the stand, and earnestly prayed for mercy. In the midst of a solemn struggle of soul, an impression was made on my mind, as though a voice said to me, "Thy sins are all forgiven thee." Divine light flashed all round me, unspeakable joy sprung up in my soul. I rose to my feet, opened my eyes, and it really seemed as if I was in heaven; the trees, the leaves on them, and everything seemed, and I really thought were, praising God. My mother raised the shout, my Christian friends crowded around me and joined me in praising God; and though I have been since then, in many instances, unfaithful, yet I have never, for one moment, doubted that the Lord did, then and there, forgive my sins and give me religion.[105]

You will notice that Peter Cartwright could articulate his conversion experience systematically. This is what the Puritans in New England required for church membership. Rather than going through a time of preparation, Cartwright was dealt with mightily by the Holy Spirit and found Christ in a way that changed him permanently.

The Enormity of Sins

Perhaps a more candid and shocking testimony was given by J.B. Finley who writes:

I had lived thoughtless and wicked, resolving and re-resolving upon mending my ways, but continuing the same, or, rather, growing worse and worse, till I arrived at the twentieth year of my age. About this time a great revival of religion broke out in the state of Kentucky. It was attended with such peculiar circumstances as to produce great alarm all over the country. It was reported that hundreds who attended the meetings were suddenly struck down, and would lie for hours and, sometimes, for days, unconscious; and that when they recovered and came out of that state, they would commence praising God for His pardoning mercy.

Finley had determined that although many others had fallen under the weight of their sins, he would not fall. He determined that he would not be “emotionally driven” or “scared” into religion. In this resolution, he prided himself and headed to the meeting. Soon his mind was sobered, and his resolute attitude began to waver. He described the setting:

We arrived upon the ground, and here a scene presented itself to my mind not only novel and unaccountable, but awful beyond description. A vast crowd, supposed by some to have amounted to twenty-five thousand, was collected together. The noise was like the roar of Niagara. The vast sea of human beings seemed to be agitated as if by a storm. I counted seven ministers, all preaching at one time: some on stumps, others in wagons, and one, the Rev. William Burke, was standing on a tree which had, in falling, lodged against another. Some of the people were singing, others praying, some crying for mercy in the most piteous accents, while others were shouting most vociferously. While witnessing these scenes, a peculiarly strange sensation, such as I had never felt before, came over me. My heart beat tumultuously, my knees trembled, my lip quivered, and I felt as though I must fall to the ground. A strange supernatural power seemed to pervade the entire mass of mind there collected. I became so weak and powerless that I found it necessary to sit down. Soon after, I left and went into the woods, and there I strove to rally and man-up my courage. I tried to philosophize in regard to these wonderful exhibitions, resolving them into mere sympathetic excitement, a kind of religious enthusiasm, inspired by songs and eloquent diatribes. My pride was wounded, for I had supposed that my mental and physical strength and vigor could most successfully resist these influences. After some time I returned to the scene of excitement, the waves of which, if possible, had risen still higher. The same awfulness of feeling came over me. I stepped up on to a log, where I could have a better view of the surging sea of humanity. The scene that then presented itself to my mind was indescribable. At one time I saw at least five hundred people swept down in a moment, as if a battery of a thousand guns had been opened upon them, and then immediately followed shrieks and shouts that rent the very heavens. My hair rose up on my head, my whole frame trembled, the blood ran cold in my veins, and I fled for the woods a second time, and wished I had stayed at home. While I remained here my feelings became intense and insupportable. A sense of suffocation and blindness seemed to come over me, and I thought I was going to die.

Finley fled the scene again trying to escape the power of conviction that was upon him. He felt that the pressure of his sins being brought to bear upon his heart and mind was so great, that he would soon perish if he did not find relief. Finally, he went out into a field near his home and cried out to God so loudly, that the neighbors came out to see what was going on. Upon finding him a Dutchman picked him up and carried him into the house and laid him on the bed. Finley finishes the story:

The old Dutch saint directed me to look right away to the Savior. He then kneeled at the bedside, and prayed for my salvation most fervently, in Dutch and broken English. He then rose and sung in the same manner, and continued singing and praying alternately till nine o'clock, when suddenly my load was gone, my guilt removed, and presently the direct witness from Heaven shone full upon my soul. Then there flowed such copious streams of love into the hitherto waste and desolate places of my soul, that I thought I should die with excess of joy. I cried, I laughed, I shouted, and so strangely did I appear to all but my Dutch brother, that they thought me deranged. After a time I returned to my friend, and we started on our journey. O what a day it was to my soul![106]

This and numerous other accounts we could recount to give us insight into the type of evangelism and moving of the Spirit that gave birth to the most religious area in the entire world. Christianity spread like wildfire during these times. A hundred and sixty years later there is still more evidence of Christianity in the Bible Belt than anywhere else in North America. Nevertheless, trouble was also brewing.

The Advent of Humanism

In the 1800s Humanism was on the rise. In a speech entitled The Gods dated 1872, Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899) summarized the very essence of modern humanism. He stated that:

Reason, Observation and Experience, the Holy Trinity of Science, have taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If by any possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of, nature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel. Until then, let us stand erect.

This is the attitude that pervades many Christian circles today. Men and women no longer believe in a God that they have to “fear” and “kneel to” in a real sense. The fear of the Lord has departed the people in the main stream. We live in an era of arrogance born of a Gospel of humanism. When evangelism married humanism, it brought an abrupt end to New Birth such as we have documented in this chapter. Such preaching and dealings of God will soon be viewed as cruel, mean, and unloving, an affront on the most prized possession of the 21st century, self-esteem. Today almost nothing can be said that would challenge personal pride or happiness. Nevertheless, it is essential for posterity sake to make known these accounts of what preaching was like, and the results were like, prior to this humanistic and adulterous modern age.

The Origin of the “Public Invitation”

You may have noticed throughout all of our studies that something has been mysteriously absent from all the workings of God and the various means by which He has converted anxious sinners: that “something” is the altar call. This common evangelistic method, also known as the public invitation, has not always been around. None of the Reformers, the Puritans, the Preparationists, theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, or open-air evangelists such as George Whitefield and John Wesley would have known what an altar call is. Men like Whitefield and Wesley invited their hearers passionately to come to Christ by faith and regularly counseled anxious sinners after their services, but not in the way we see in modern times. Several books were written to help guide counselors in the instruction of anxious sinners. Ministers would have after meetings or visitations on the day following the evening meeting, but there were no altar calls, as we know them today.

Hopefully Converted

Prior to the camp meetings of the early 1800s, nobody called sinners to make a public, physical response to the Gospel. Seekers were left to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling; that is to say, if they were repentant enough to want to know what they must do to be saved, they will not have to be coerced into coming forward while soft music plays in the background. No, Wesley and Whitefield preached until the people wanted to know, “what must I do to be saved?” They would pray with them and counsel them, but left the business of saving the soul in the hands of God. Those that showed evidence of genuine faith, and repentance were said to be hopefully converted. To this point in history, it was understood that God alone had to deal with the heart and bring assurance of salvation to the individual. So where did the altar call come from? When did it begin?

The First Altar Call

Some ideas are like rivers; they are hard to determine the source. The altar call is no different. A great many writers suggest Charles G. Finney as the source, but the altar call was born upstream of his conversion in 1821. In 1741, Eleazar Wheelock (1711-1779) is said to have asked people, who were under conviction, to come forward and occupy the front seats in the meeting.[107] Even Charles Wesley is alleged to have once used the phrase, “Oh that blessed anxious seat!”[108]This is not an altar call as we know it, but it was in embryo.

As we continue examining our “archeological site” we come again to Peter Cartwright, who after having been gloriously saved at Cain Ridge, became a Methodist Circuit Rider. His two autobiographies made him a household name and the most famous American circuit rider. These were men like unto Whitefield and Wesley that traveled all over the country on horseback preaching the Gospel. They had territories that they served. In his autobiography The Backwoods Preacher, Cartwright gives an account of a meeting in Kentucky that took place in 1822 where there were certain women complaining that they were being hindered from “coming to the altar.” He writes this protracted explanation.

They told me that it was not pride that kept them away, but that the altar was so crowded, not only with mourners, but idle professors and idle spectators, and that in many instances the mourners were unceremoniously trodden on and abused; and the weather being very warm, the mourners in the altar must have nearly suffocated. These were the reasons why they did not come into the altar as seekers, and not pride; and I assure the reader I profited very much by these reasons given by those ladies; for I knew all this and much more might, with great propriety, be said about our altar operations. So I determined, at all hazards, to regulate, renovate, and cleanse the altar of God, and turn out, and keep out, all idle, strolling, gaping lookers and when the evening sermon closed, I rose in the stand, and I told them all these objections of the ladies, and I deliberately endorsed them as valid objections to our altar exercises, and told them I was going to invite every seeker of religion to, come into the altar, and assured them they should be protected from these abuses; and, in order to a fair start, I invited all to rise up and retire out of the altar except seekers ; and directed that the avenues leading to the altar be kept clear at all times; that there was to be no standing on the seats, and no standing up around the pales of the altar; that no person whatever should come into the altar unless invited, and that no person was to talk to, or pray with, the mourners uninvited, unless they got very excited. I appointed and named out my men to keep order. Thus arranged, and our large altar being cleared, and the aisles kept open, I invited the mourners to come as humble penitents, and kneel in the altar, and pray for mercy; and we all were astonished at the number that distinguished themselves as seekers. I suppose there were not less than one hundred, and almost all of them professed comfort that night, and among the rest, many of those fine, wealthy ladies from town.[109]  (emphasis added)

Cartwright’s account shows that the altar area in 1822 was not respected as a place where an anxious sinner could “bring their wounded heart,” but was treated casually as if some of the people had no idea that the seekers were crying out to God there. Cartwright’s directions to the people indicate that he viewed the altar as a means by which God would deal with anxious sinners one on one, and was not to be hindered. Only seekers were allowed to be in the altar area. Helpers (counselors) were not allowed unless invited by a seeker. My impression is that Cartwright believed the people should not be disturbed or distracted in any way. These altar times could go on for hours. The objective was that the seeker would respond to God personally and work things out between them and God. Coming forward meant nothing except you were coming to pray to God. Only after the person confessed that they had found comfort in the Lord would they be considered hopefully converted.

Charles G. Finney

We have thoroughly demonstrated that God has chosen to use both Calvinist and Arminian theologies and ministers for the salvation of souls. In fact, the Cane Ridge revival was an example of how God used both theological persuasions simultaneously. We now come to a minister of a different sort: Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875). Trained as a lawyer, Finney was converted to Christ in 1821, not having been raised as a believer. His methods would become so controversial, that some historians seek to black-out his ministry and influence altogether, suggesting that the Second Great Awakening ended in 1810. He is sometimes depicted as a false prophet or a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Finney is best known as a revivalist, an opponent of Calvinist theology, an advocate of Christian perfectionism, an opponent of slavery, a religious writer, and president of Oberlin College. Ordained a Presbyterian, his unorthodox views of predestination, the fall of man, and the atonement put him at odds with Calvinists and Arminians alike. Finney’s theology flew in the face of Calvinist inability with a stridence unknown since the Pelagian controversy. I don’t think it immoderate to say that had he lived in the era of the Reformation, theologians and leaders of religious nation states would have stood in line to put him to death. He was the type of man who heresy-hunters would dig up and burn his bones.

For starters, Finney did not believe that a sinner was unable to respond to God in repentance. He did not believe that the atonement was limited to the elect. He believed that God has called all people everywhere to repent, and it is folly to make excuses. He did not believe that man had a sinful nature, but as a rebellious, sinful man merely needed to be persuaded to change his mind about sinning and not change it back. The problem with dealing with Finney was his intellect. Although formally uneducated in theology, he could persuasively argue his case as a lawyer before a jury. Some have called him a rationalist, but this is not a fair characterization. He relied on the power of common sense to make a point. Being called to preach he told an associate that Christ had “put him on retainer” to plead his case before men.

Reaction to Fatalism

It is important to point out that Finney was a reactionary against certain theological notions that he found to be absurd. He was responding to what he perceived to be a very lackadaisical, if not fatalistic attitude towards salvation and saving sinners. If a man said, "When God gets ready, He will save me," Finney would have challenged this man with an immediate call to turn and repent. You will recall that the Puritan Preparationists would tell people that they must repent, but they were unable to repent. Finney ran cross with that idea. He would expect the person to decide right here and now to repent and believe. In his memoirs and in his religious writings, he talked about how as a youth he could not understand the preaching of Presbyterian ministers and felt he understood why so few people were saved. In other words, he sat under ministers who seem to have taken Calvinism to its ultimate conclusion. Man cannot save himself; God must do it! Finney retorted with a few lines from Lorenzo Dow. In his book entitled, The Dealings of God, Man and the Devil we read this lyric:

You can and you can't

You shall and you shan't

You will and you won't

And you'll be damned if you do

And you'll be damned if you don't[110]

Now you know where this expression comes from. Finney used it. The overall attitude towards the doctrine of unconditional election Dow then expresses in a poem of which he gives no author:

There is a Reprobation plan, somehow it did arise

By the Predestinarian clan, of horrid cruel ties

The plan is this, they hold a few

They are ordained for Heaven

They hold the rest accursed crew

That cannot be forgiven.

They do hold, God hath decreed

Whatever comes to pass

Some to he damned, some to be freed

And this they call free grace

This iron bedstead they do fetch

To try our hopes upon

And if too short, we must be stretch'd

Cut oft, if we're too long

This is a bold serpentine scheme

It fits the serpent well

If he can make the sinner dream

That he is doomed to Hell

Or if he can persuade a man

Decree is on his side

Then he will say without delay

This cannot be untied

He tells one sinner, he's decreed

Unto eternal bliss

He tells another, he can't be freed

For he is doomed to miss

The first he bindeth fast in pride

The second in despair

If he can only keep them tied

Which way he does not care[111]

This is the backdrop of Finney’s theology. His evangelistic method was to pray earnestly until the Spirit of prayer was present for the meetings. He even had an associate named Father Daniel Nash (1763-1837) that would go ahead of him to certain towns and begin praying and fasting for revival. He would preach an extemporaneous message that would practically “peel the paint off the walls.” He would hit every sin known to man in an attempt to “flush them out” and “leave them no hiding places.” Finney took it for granted that God was working with him to secure the salvation of souls. He did not hesitate and wonder if people were elect, he preached as if God were personally standing at the front of the church demanding that the people repent and believe. The theology of Unconditional Election never entered his mind. He assumed God wanted every man to be saved and was bringing to bear every means of grace during his preaching to achieve that end. As far as Finney was concerned, he knew God was doing His job in convicting of sin, righteousness and judgment, he (the minister) needed to labor with God in proclaiming the Gospel; and it was up to the person to respond in repentance and faith. This was a novel idea to say the least. He rebuked such “You can and you can't, You shall and you shan't…” ideas with his preaching methods.

Finney was a holiness preacher in the Wesleyan model. Most holiness Christians would probably consider Finney extreme. Eating for pleasure was sin in Finney’s theology, much less the standard vices that were preached against in the late 18th and 19th century. He focused on challenging men and women's assurance of salvation and was expert at it. He experienced all of the sensational responses to conviction of sin found in the Cane Ridge revival and others. He believed that in order to keep people revived, the minister must keep going over them, breaking them up. The trouble with this is that as people advance in clearing away all known sin, the minister is left to meddle in questionable areas. Preaching ones convictions is not the same as preaching God’s

Word.

A Sample Meeting

Finney called people to take a stand for God. Early in his ministry he held a series of meetings at Evans Mills, New York. He was troubled that the congregations were not repenting, but said they were "pleased" with his sermons. He asked the people, as did Abraham’s servant, “how they would deal with his Master that he would know rather to turn to the right hand or to the left.” He then set about to challenge them in a way they had not previously known. At the end of his sermon, which stressed the need for conversion, he stated, "You who have made up your minds to become Christians, and will give your pledge to make your peace with God immediately, should rise up." The entire congregation, having never heard such a request, remained seated. Finney responded, “Well then, you have taken your stand; you have rejected Christ and his gospel." The congregation got up hostile and walked out. When he stopped speaking they turned to look and he told them he would take the matter up the next night. Finney recounts in his memoirs what happened next:

Deacon McC. and myself agreed to spend the next day in fasting and prayer separately in the morning, and together in the afternoon. I learned in the course of the day that the people were threatening me, to ride me on a rail, to tar and feather me, and to give me a walking paper, as they said. Some of them cursed me; and said that I had put them under oath, and made them swear that they would not serve God; that I had drawn them into a solemn and public pledge to reject Christ and his Gospel.[112]

Finney spent the day in prayer and fasting preparing for the meeting, but not preparing a sermon. He did not believe in preaching from notes. He was an extemporaneous preacher and believed every preacher ought to be. The key, said Finney, was to prepare by being “full of the subject” when it came time to speak. He continues:

I had not taken a thought with regard to what I should preach; indeed, this was common with me at that time. The Holy Spirit was upon me, and I felt confident that when the time came for action I should know what to preach. As soon as I found the house packed, so that no more could get in, I arose, and I think, without any formal introduction of singing, opened up with “it shall be ill with him; for the reward of his hands shall be given him." The Spirit of God came upon me with such power, that it was like opening a battery upon them. For more than an hour, and perhaps for an hour and a half, the Word of God came through me to them in a manner that I could see was carrying all before it. It was a fire and a hammer breaking the rock; and as the sword that was piercing to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit. I saw that a general conviction was spreading over the whole congregation. Many of them could not hold up their heads. I did not call that night for any reversal of the action they had taken the night before, nor for any committal of themselves in any way; but took it for granted, during the whole of the sermon, that they were committed against the Lord. Then I appointed another meeting, and dismissed the congregation.

You will notice that he did not give an altar call during this meeting. He took for granted that they had taken a stand against God. He watched as a woman, who was the sister of a well-known missionary, was being carried out under tremendous conviction of sin. She had thought she was a Christian, but after Finney challenged her assurance, she realized she had never been truly born again. Having accepted an invitation to spend the night with a friend, Finney was not at his usual quarters when many came by night seeking counsel for their anxious souls. One woman was converted, and her husband came to the meeting with a gun to kill him! As he preached, unaware of the man's intentions, he heard a scream and the large man fell to the floor under extreme conviction of sin. A few days later he was hopefully converted to Christ and resisted Finney’s meetings no more.

The Anxious Bench and Water Baptism

If, in the midst of his preaching, a person became “anxious for their soul” Finney instructed them to come forward and sit on the front row, designated the anxious bench. From there he would preach directly at them, sometimes calling them by name. In fact, Finney was criticized for using the words “you” and “hell” together in a sentence too often in addressing the congregation. Nevertheless, the propagation of the use of the anxious bench itself was of more concern. It was highly frowned upon by prominent ministers of the day because they feared it would lead to spurious conversions and false assurance. This meant that a person believed that by “doing something” they were converted. Professor Dod of Princeton University commented on the practice:

Though he (Finney) supposes that the anxious bench occupies “the precise place” that baptism did, we can by no means consent to receive it as the equivalent. Baptism was, indeed, a test of character, since obedience or disobedience was exercised in view of a Divine command; but the anxious bench cannot operate thus, except by arrogating to itself a similar authority.[113]

The accusation is that Finney made the anxious bench replace the scriptural command to be baptized in water. His teaching was as follows:

The church has always felt it necessary to have something of the kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles baptism answered this purpose. The gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ were called on to be baptized. It held the precise place that the anxious seat does now, as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians. And in modern times, those who have been violently opposed to the anxious seat have been obliged to adopt some substitute, or they could not get along in promoting a revival.[114]

Finney may have preached repentance well, but he errs greatly in replacing water baptism with the anxious bench. As we will discover, most mainstream evangelists up until modern times duplicated Finney’s error. This was an affront on the clear pattern of the book of Acts. He obviously recognized the need for “some” kind of response, so he invents one. It is difficult to understand how a person could preach repentance at the level Finney did and then resist the Divine command to be baptized in water. When water baptism is neglected or intentionally ignored, substitutes are invented or borrowed to take the place of this mandate rite of initiation.[115] This is an example of how a tradition can make God’s Word of none effect. Finney’s new measure, “the anxious bench” is now contradicting the New Covenant. When our measures contradict our message, we are in error. Finney went on to say that he did not believe many people that were converted in his meetings would have been baptized if it were offered. He gave his reasoning for why he rejected water baptism when he stated:

And in modern times, those who have been violently opposed to the anxious seat have been obliged to adopt some substitute, or they could not get along in promoting a revival.

What he is saying is that water baptism was a practice rejected among many, especially Presbyterians of the day. Baptists called the people to water baptism and were shunned and accused of busting-up revivals by pressing the issue.[116] Understand that when a revival is being held and an entire town filled with varying denominations is coming; the minister will seek to avoid controversial issues. The problem is, this has become the norm since Finney’s day. Even D.L. Moody avoided water baptism to prevent controversy.

Finney on Counseling Sinners

Finney would call people to stand to their feet or come forward if they intended to follow Christ. When they remained seated, he informed them that they had posited themselves as the enemies of God by their obstinacy. When counseling anxious sinners, he followed a similar method as the Puritan Preparationists, except instead of telling the people all the reasons why they could not repent and believe, Finney told them they must repent and believe, right here and right now. He believed that the Holy Spirit convicted of Sin, but at the moment he/she fully surrendered to God the operation of the Holy Spirit changed and where He was bringing conviction of Sin, He was now flooding in with joy and love. He warned those that would counsel the anxious to make sure they repented of all known sin. Counselors were not to give refuge to a person who wrestled with a questionable practice. If God was dealing with them about it, they were told to repent and forsake the practice. For the counselor to comfort the anxious in their rebellion on a point was to fight against God in the salvation of the soul.

Finney’s memoirs contain multiple accounts of how he ministered among the people. However, not all were pleased. As we have already seen, men like Asahel Nettleton (1783-1844) and Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) suggested as early as 1827 that Finney’s preaching style was questionable while others suggested that the innovation of the anxious bench would ultimately lead to spurious conversions. It is very important that we stress this point because a church full of spurious conversions is unable to accomplish God’s purposes due to their carnal mindset. Lyman Beecher later changed his mind and advocated the New Measures resulting in him being tried by the Presbyterian leadership for heresy. While his wife lay dying, he successfully defended his position, even on appeal; but ended up splitting his church. This tells us how volatile the issue of the “anxious bench” was when it was introduced. It was seen as a compromise that would cause damage to the churches.

Directions to Sinners

Finney was very careful about how he gave directions to sinners. He viewed them in one of three states:

1. Careless

2. Awakened

3. Convicted.

A careless sinner needs to be awakened; an awakened sinner needs to be instructed; and a convicted sinner needs to respond in obedience to God. Finney believed that there was a sense in which the sinner converted himself; the minister converted the sinner; and that the Holy Spirit converted them. It was a three-party process. The job of the minister was to declare faithfully the Word of God and direct the sinner to submit to the Spirit of God. He writes concerning the work of the Spirit:

The Spirit of God, in striving with sinners, suits his strivings to the state of mind in which he finds them. His great object in striving with them is to dislodge them from their hiding-places, and bring them to submit to God, at once. Now these objections, and difficulties, and states of mind, are as various as the circumstances of mankind, as many as there are individuals. The characters of individuals affords an endless diversity. What is to be done with each one, and how he is to be converted, depends on his particular errors. It is necessary to ascertain his errors, to find out what he understands, and what he needs to be taught more perfectly, to see what points the Spirit of God is pressing upon his conscience, and to press the same things and thus bring him to Christ.[117]

Again, Finney believed that once a person has truly turned to Christ the Holy Spirit leaves off the operation of conviction of sin and begins to pour in love and joy. Further, God is not in the business of punishing sinners for their sin with excessive mental anguish and heaviness when they are willing to repent. The purpose of the conviction is to achieve the desired result of repentance, nothing more. His view was that the only reason a person suffers under conviction is because they are unwilling to submit.

Resisting and Receiving the Spirit

It is difficult to examine Finney’s practices fairly because of the high amount of rhetoric found in publications of the day that dealt with His methods. Some books were so filled with course denunciations, that one can hardly discover what the real issue was. Many Calvinists viewed Finney’s methods as anathema. Finney did not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and preached man’s ability and rejected inability. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that many could have put the finger on the spot and understood exactly what was wrong and how it would play out in the future; especially when Finney’s counseling methods were similar to the Preparationists writings when in practice. My impression is that Solomon Stoddard and other Preparationists believed that a sinner could obey God in repentance. As we have already said, Non-Calvinists like John Wesley and Charles Finney did a lot of waiting as they exerted themselves, and Calvinists did a lot of exerting themselves while they waited. Finney’s doctrine was wrong, but his methods, as he used them, would often be effective in seeing a person converted and filled with the Spirit. The reason for this is that he was an expert at putting his finger on the very heart of the problem; men always resist the Holy Spirit. His theology in evangelism could be expressed in two words, “Stop resisting!” His theology for living was akin to Mary in John 2:5: His mother said unto the servants, Whatsoever he says unto you, do it. Finney preached in a thousand different ways that men must submit to God and obey Him in every area of life. He understood that the Holy Spirit is given to those that obey Christ (Acts 5:32, Hebrews 5:9). To continue to strive with the Spirit is to risk Him leaving you as you are.

Obeying God

Charles Finney was an expert at demonstrating that a person can obey God if they simply did it. In other words, he believed that God’s commands were “doable.” He had no patience for people that left an impression upon sinners that they should “wait on God to change them” or any such notion. He used an illustration to show the absurdity of thinking one must “hold on” or “keep trying” while being in rebellion:

Suppose my child should, in a fit of anger, throw a book or something on the floor. I tell him "Pick it up," and instead of minding what I say, he runs off and plays. "Pick it up!" He sees I am in earnest, and begins to look serious. "Pick it up, or I shall get a rod." And I put up my arm to get the rod. He stands still. "Pick it up, or you must be spanked." He comes slowly along to the place, and then begins to weep. "Pick it up, my child, or you will certainly be punished." Now he is in distress, and sobs and sighs as if his bosom would burst, but still remains as stubborn as if he believed I could not punish him. Now I begin to press him with motives to submit and obey, but there he stands, in agony, and at length bursts out, "Oh, father, I do feel so bad, I think I am growing better." And now, suppose a neighbor to come in, and see the child standing there, in all this agony of stubbornness. The neighbor asks him what he is standing there for, and what he is doing. "Oh, I am using means to pick up that book." If this neighbor should tell the child, "Persevere, persevere, my boy, you will get it by and by," what should I do? Why, I would turn him out of the house. What does he mean by encouraging my child in his rebellion.[118]

Finney counseled sinners that they should obey now and not make excuses. The trouble with this is that the human beings are not always flexible enough to move this quickly. He that wins souls is wise. A sinner is like a suicidal person that is prepared to act irrationally if they are pushed too hard. This is why we have to be sensitive to God when we evangelize.

Interfering With God

It may seem counter-intuitive, but sometimes an altar call can interfere with what God is doing in a person’s heart and mind. Some things just take time. Preachers are not “sales people.” A salesman will press their customer to get a sale knowing that if he allows the person to walk out the door, they will probably never be back. The Kingdom of God is different. People need time to count the cost. They need time for God to deal with them. Receiving Christ is not a “decision” one can make in the heat of the moment. It is a surrendering to God of one’s whole life. Most of the time a salesman wants you to “hurry up” and “sign on the dotted line” before you change your mind! He just wants to make a sale now. An altar call can be a good thing or a bad thing. If a person is not ready, you are wasting your time and may be hindering God’s work. In an attempt to speed things along, you may actually be delaying their true conversion. It’s easy to say, “Repent, right now!” But sometimes people need to think about what God has said. We must allow the Holy Spirit ample time to deal with people.

Strike While the Iron is Hot?

Charles Hadden Spurgeon (1832-1892), a contemporary of Finney’s, once contrasted two types of laborers for the Lord. He writes:

It is dreadful to see some men at their ordinary occupation; I cannot call it labor, one drop of their perspiration must be a very costly thing, as rare as a pearl of the first water. But others throw their soul into whatsoever they have to do, and not only strike while the iron is hot, but also make the iron hot by striking. They do not wait for opportunities, but accept the present event as an opportunity. They work with both hands, and make the anvil ring again with the music of their hearty blows.

Notice Spurgeon’s phrase, “not only strike while the iron is hot, but make the iron hot by striking.” This is how Finney ministered. If the iron was not hot, he would make it hot with protracted (lengthy) meetings where strong preaching was involved. He may spend days or weeks explaining to the people what salvation from Sin is supposed to look like. Unlike a sales pitch, his preaching included the “fine print” of the Gospel and not just the benefits. He was no “Ahimaaz.” He was never in a big hurry. There was no such thing as expecting in one sermon to convert a sinner. The under appreciated element in all of these things is the ongoing agency of the Holy Spirit in the salvation process. Although we may agree with Spurgeon in striking when the iron is hot or until it is hot; Spurgeon also believed that if the iron were really hot of the Holy Spirit, it would still be hot in the morning. Not so if a man makes it hot by striking.

Drifting Away From the Gospel

Great changes in human affairs or great alterations in human character never take place by trivial causes. Some of the greatest traditions we hold owe their existence to a series of almost imperceptible changes in the traditions of our forefathers. We have arrived at our sense of “normal” through a chain of events that none have lived long enough to see, understand, or explain. This is why we have taken a brief look historically at some key events that have laid the track to where we presently are in evangelistic practice. We have dug deeply and carefully into our archeological site to see plainly what evangelism “used” to look like. Only by making careful comparative studies can we see change over time.

The concept of “making a decision” for Christ, utilized by various “New Light” Calvinists and Arminians was now normative. It predated Finney, though it was greatly propagated by him. People that were once thought to be completely helpless in their soul’s salvation are now being called to make a “decision.” From now on; the altar call will be a normal part of evangelism. People will believe that by coming forward to physically do something they are beginning their walk with the Lord. This seems innocent on the surface, but it is a dreadful departure from the past. Since Finney did not believe in Original Sin, he did not have a right understanding of regeneration. From this point on, people will begin thinking of salvation in similar terms to when Jesus called the disciples. He called and they publicly obeyed and followed. Some were baptized, but most fell away. This is not the post-Pentecost way of evangelizing in the book of Acts.

Humanism Meets “Hard Preaching”

The more popular evangelistic meetings became, the more attention they received. Writers would attend and go back and publish what they saw. They would print pitiful accounts of people coming under conviction of sin, often focusing on the young women. They did this in order to solicit a public outcry for what was happening. In the 1200s-1600s, people were being burned to death for matters of faith, but humanism had so affected the paradigm of the age that even a tough sermon on sin became unacceptable. Writers would recount the reactions of sinners to conviction as if they were writing on child or spousal abuse. It was a diabolical strategy that few could see happening. The writers tried to shame the preachers for the emotional results of their preaching. Suddenly, the preacher is posited as “unloving” because the masses cannot distinguish between hurting (pain) and harm (injury). Some suggested that the fathers or husbands of these women were “left in the dark” about what was happening with their loved ones in these meetings as if they would retaliate if they knew. As we will discover, this process went on until preaching on sin and calling people to repentance slowly went out of vogue in this land.

CHAPTER 5

Spreading the Gospel (1790-1899)

Between the Revolution and the Civil War, evangelical Protestants drove the development of popular communication. Between 1790 and 1830, almost 600 Christian magazines were founded. In fact, there was a Christian print company in every state except Mississippi. These groups were pioneers in printing advancements such as cheap stereotyping, steam-powered printing, and mechanized papermaking. These technologies were utilized in places such as the Religious Tract Society of London (1799), the New York Tract Society (1812) and the New England Tract Society (1814). These three organizations combined to form the American Tract Society in 1825. These groups distributed hundreds of thousands of pieces of religious literature. The organizations were comprised of evangelicals that were committed to the Word of God and to the abolition of slavery. Long after Benjamin Franklin was publishing the sermons of George Whitefield, famous Americans still led the charge spreading the Gospel through printing. The first President of the American Tract Society was Elias Boudinot, who was also President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783 and later became the director of the U.S. Mint. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was named President of the American Bible Society in 1821. Francis Scott Key, the writer of the U.S. National Anthem, was Vice President of the organization from 1817 until his death in 1843. The American Bible Society provided the first pocket Bibles for soldiers in the Civil War (1861-1865). During the 19th century, four canvasses of the United States were undertaken (1829, 1856, 1866, 1882). Between 1829 and 1831, over 1,000,000 Bibles were distributed. This means that one in thirteen Americans would have had a Bible. Over 700,000 additional Bibles were distributed in the 1882 event. This was an unprecedented spread of the written Word of God among humanity. Although printing had been widespread in the secular world to this time, evangelicals were without parallel in the organization and distribution of literature. Between 1829 and 1831, the American Tract Society printed roughly five pages per year for every person in the United States. Add the itinerate Methodist preachers who were always merchants of the written Word (as well as preachers of the spoken Word) and you have a wholesale canvassing of the United States with Gospel materials.[119] It is impossible to overstate the significance of the spread of the Gospel via the printing press during this era. Nevertheless, as we will see, the sacred Gospel was not limited to a sacred printing press.

The First Use of Media

Another important new measure during the 1800s was the use of the secular press (media) to advertise religious meetings and print sermons. When we use the term “media” we are not speaking of a technology (printing press, radio, television) but the way in which that technology is used. Books were printed prior to the advent of the newspaper, but newspapers were a very different media than books. Books were widely used to educate,[120] while newspapers were generally used to entertain. Information in a book typically had no expiration date unless it was written on the subject of some fast changing field of study. Newspapers, on the other hand, had a shelf life of less than 24 hours. Books were written in such a way as to promote rational thinking and cohesive thought: newspapers were written to be consumed as a cheap pastime with only a relative amount of meaningful education upon current events, the rest being an endless amount of information that had no direct bearing on the reader. This reality was exacerbated by the invention of the telegraph.

It is hard for us to imagine a time when it could take months to send a message across the United States. In 1860, the Pony Express reduced the time a message could travel from St Joseph, MO to California to about 10 days. This was a huge leap forward given the fact that a stagecoach would travel day and night to make the trip in 28 days. In 1869, the Transcontinental Railroad was completed reducing a trip from coast to coast from six months in the early 1800s to just seven days. As significant as these new technologies were, nothing could prepare us for the electric telegraph, invented by Samuel Morse. At first, it had a range of just 200-300 miles (due to limitations in electrical technology), but the invention of the resender (repeater) changed all that. This was an electrical apparatus that replaced the man who had to receive manually and resend messages in remote stations along the telegraph route. The telegraph enabled long-distance communication, but the resender (repeater) enabled mass communication. Soon, lines were strung across the United States allowing information to travel from New York to St Louis in mere minutes. As with all technologies, we cannot resist using them! At first, it seemed the technology would be used to send important messages, but it was not long until it developed into a medium for the transmission of endless amounts of data that would be printed in Newspapers across the country.

People generally have a fascination for the “latest” news even if it has no real importance to them other than to provide something to discuss around the dinner table or the water fountain. The telegraph became a medium for entertainment setting society up for a showdown between education and amusement. It is important that we understand this fact. The printed word was not always a means of satiating man’s God-given thirst for knowledge by providing him with relatively meaningless information. The newspaper, empowered by the telegraph, changed the rules of the game until man’s desire for knowledge was supplanted with a deeper desire for vain and even forbidden knowledge. Samuel Morse asked in his first telegraphic communication, “What hath God wrought?” It is hard to imagine that the same God who confounded the languages at Babel would have been behind the invention of the telegraph that laid the foundation stone for a tower of Babel like none could have envisioned in Genesis. Had Morse had prophetic insight, he may have quoted Genesis 11:6b, “now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” From this time forward man would look to this technology, and its offspring, to amuse themselves endlessly with information about subjects they cannot actively participate in. In a period of 50 years, the worlds “business” became the business of everyone within reach of a paperboy. What should alarm us most was that a medium now existed for the mass dissemination of propaganda that could sway popular opinion based upon man’s unconscious desires and prejudices. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Secular Media Employed in the Gospel

Evangelical publications and secular newspapers would be employed together in the work of spreading the Gospel. Keep in mind that in the 19th century, reading the newspaper and going to advertised meetings were both “forms” of entertainment. The nature of entertainment is that it is more appealing when it is convenient. Newspapers helped facilitate the process of setting up the meetings. We must not be blind to the fact that not everyone went to hear a sermon because they wanted religion; some simply had nothing else to do. Keep in mind also that in the 1850s, people were known to sit for hours listening to political debates that required an acute attentiveness and capacity for rational thought. This is because education up until this time was done primarily with books that engaged the intellect. The political events provided a pastime, but they were still highly intellectual. Nevertheless, society was being introduced more and more to raw entertainment for the sake of amusement. Once ministers understood that some of the people were attending for the sheer entertainment value, they had to reckon with this if they wanted the people to return the next evening. This reality opened the door to novelty and showmanship in ministry. The minister had to “perform” for a certain percentage of his audience. Long before the theatrics of Hollywood, politicians and ministers felt a pressure to “put on a show” for the crowd. As newspapers took the place of book reading a systematic dumbing down of the culture took place until ministering at the intellectual level of Jonathan Edwards in 1899 would have left much of the crowd confused.

Religious events were printed in the secular newspapers to keep the people abreast of what was happening in ministries and in meetings. It seemed like a great idea, but even early secular media had completely different objectives than Gospel preachers. In fact, if you compare the objectives of secular media with the New Testament, you will find that they are diametrically opposed to one another. For centuries, to be a “celebrity in print” one had to be an accomplished author like Dickens or Hawthorne. Nevertheless, newspapers had a way of making “celebrities” out of common people. This is idolatry and blasphemy from a Biblical perspective. Once a person’s name appeared in an important section of the newspaper, they were famous. Even outlaws achieved celebrity status in this medium. Newspapers themselves became legends with names like, The Sun, Post, Herald, and Star.

People flocked after you and wanted to see and touch you if you were a celebrity in print. Although secular media was in embryo and Hollywood was still nearly a hundred years in the future, the trappings of fame were already being felt. Famous people compete with one another for the attention and affection of “the audience.” In modern times it is normal to turn to the sports page and see ball scores, but what would we think of a religious section printing similar statistics? Instead of home runs, base hits and errors, religious statistics were printed. It was during this era that people started being counted as a means of measuring “success.” Before this time, it was not a common practice to “tally” at all. However, for all of their counting there was a “safety mechanism” in place that properly described the results. Today it is common to hear that “x number of people were saved” but the phrases “found hope in prayer,” or “x number of seekers were hopefully converted,” were common up until 1900. A search of any newspaper archive between 1800-1920 will demonstrate this truth.

Redefining Conversion

As Christian literature spread throughout the continents and Christian education was organized from the Seminary to the Sunday School, people were learning what a Christian was supposed to be, and began imitating them. Whereas the New England Puritans required a conversion narrative in the early 1600s for church membership, by the late 1800s people were joining churches without being converted at all. The Methodists of the late 17th and early to mid-18th century typically pressed people to repent, trust in Christ and seek Christ for true conversion, but by the early 1900s, this concept was being largely lost. One of the reasons for this, is that popular evangelistic efforts were changing focus. Whereas the sovereignty of God in conversion had been focused on by the Calvinists, and man’s responsibility to repent before God was focused on by the Arminians, a new group was arising that defined conversion as simply “beginning to follow Christ.” Just as Peter left his nets to follow Jesus, so too you can be converted. It was the beginning of what we now know as decisional regeneration.

Conversion came to be so shallow, that the old time Methodist preachers lamented the fact. We have an example of this in the life of Methodist Itinerant Preacher Simon Peter Richardson, who writes in the 1855 section of his autobiography:

Dr. Moran was seated a few pews back from the altar. I was talking to him, when all at once Miss Julia rose up and faced the congregation and exclaimed, "I have got it at last!" Her face was bright; she was happy, and showed that she was. The doctor looked at her intently for a short time, then hung his head and leaned forward on the back of the other seat. After a while he turned to me and said, "That young lady is converted." I replied, "Yes, she is." "Well," said he, "if she is, that is true religion; and if that is true, all other religion must be false." Earth and hell are silent in the presence of a genuine conversion. Conversion is the truth of Christianity made manifest in a life form. One of the most important questions I could ask myself and the Church is, "Why are people not converted now as they were fifty years ago?"[121]

If this was the state of things in 1855, how far had they fallen off by 1900? English Nonconformist John Angell James (1785-1859) in his autobiography writes:

It is greatly to be feared that the orthodox doctrine of conversion, that is, the turning of the sinner by the regenerating power of the Spirit from sin to God through Christ, in other words, the necessity of an entire inward change of heart, begins in many of our Dissenting pulpits to be merged in vague general notions of a religious state, which implies no quickening from a death of sin to a life of righteousness. I hold by the nature and necessity of regeneration and conversion, as set forth in the writings of the evangelical school, whether Episcopalian, Dissenter, or Methodist, and I hold that this is the teaching of the Word of God. This, and only this, is the teaching that God has blessed in every age, country, and church of the world. Do we not see in the preaching of those by whom this doctrine, if not formally denied, is neglected, an obvious want of spiritual effect? Where are the sinners turned from the errors of their ways? What do we see there of broken-heartedness on account of sin, of joy and peace in believing, of true holiness and righteousness? Are the churches of such preachers’ fields which the Lord hath blessed?”[122]

Evolutionary Conversion

Fewer conversions were taking place, fewer were expected, and fewer people were being told, “Ye must be born again.” In keeping with Charles Darwin’s influence, ministers began thinking of conversion as an evolutionary process rather than a crisis event followed by a process. A Christian was something that you became over time. This is a radical departure from the expectations of the Puritans, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Whitefield and Wesley wrote extensively about the marks of the New Birth, as it was central to their understanding of Christianity. The Calvinists and Arminians may have disagreed on the particulars of conversion, but they generally agreed that it resulted in a radical change of heart and mind.

False Comfort

What is worse is that a general attitude started to prevail in which people who were anxious for their souls were being comforted without being converted. Whitefield, Wesley and Finney would have challenged a person’s assurance, now reassurance took precedence over trying to ensure authentic conversion.[123] It is as if suddenly the ministers were co-laborers with the sinners rather than being co-laborers with Christ. They took the side of the sinner against God and comforted them without exhorting them to repent. Soon these unconverted professors of Christ were making their way into ministry positions. By 1903, less than half the candidates for the Wesleyan ministry in Britain could testify to a definite conversion experience, the majority preferring language about gradual enlightenment or conviction.[124] Whereas Christians used to enjoy recounting their conversion experiences, now they were being largely ignored, even in their obituaries. A conversion narrative was being replaced with citations of being members of certain churches. The trouble with this is that some churches had no standard at all for membership.         In 1897, a member of Algonquin Congregational Church, Illinois, described how the minister had persuaded her to join the church, and when she told him she was not saved, he said, “Never mind, you are as good as the rest of them.”[125] Clearly there was a generation that had lost sight of the essential nature of conversion. However, it must be remembered that preachers are not too inclined to preach an experience they have not had. Preachers typically preach their experience. If they struggle with sin, they preach that Christians struggle with sin. If they have trouble with the flesh, they preach that too. Few take the “preach truth until you reach truth” mentality.

Preaching the Word of God was once considered to be a most solemn and serious thing to do, but by the 1900s, it was becoming more commonplace and cavalier. You would not have found joking and nonsense in the pulpits of men like Wesley and Finney. A common saying of the early 1800s was that “God never uses a jester to search consciences.” New birth requires that God arrest a person’s attention and perhaps bring them under terrific conviction of sin. Many people did not like this and thought it abusive. Humanism and its emphasis on relief of suffering was the philosophy of the day. Hence, unprepared ministers gave rise to an era of unconverted sinners. These often became ministers and passed down a sub-standard Christianity that has been tumbling ever since.

A Glimmer of Hope

In the late 1800s, Dwight Lyman Moody (1837-1899) was the most well-known evangelist in America, and possibly the world. Perhaps the Nebraska Advertiser dated November 11, 1875 best describes him:

Dwight L. Moody, a robust, strong, earnest man, who believes that Jesus of Nazareth came into the world to save sinners; a plain, uneducated man, begging, and entreating his fellows to put their trust in Him as he has done: a man without grace, without polish, without even good grammar, but a man whose soul is permeated and filled with the one idea that without Jesus a man must be lost, and who loves his fellow men to the degree that he is willing to forego all the ambitions of life so that he can rescue them, that is Moody. His co-laborer is just like him in purpose, though different in method. Ira D. Sankey, is a handsome man, with a soul full of love for his fellows, and a voice like an angel. What Moody does in speech he does in song. He slugs only such songs as hold up to their gaze Christ on the cross dying for sinners. He sings only of that love deep enough to take in the vilest and broad enough for a world of transgressors. This is their only theme, this is all they say or sing. It is the old story, the beauty and sweetness of which even the infidel never could make head against, of He who so loved the world that he gave his own life to save it. This Moody talks and this Sankey sings. It is love, love, and love. Moody holds his audiences by telling the story of Jesus, who would suffer death for one sinner; Sankey, with his wondrous voice sings of that Savior who, having the ninety and nine, went out through the night and storm, through the tangled brake for the one! And the effect they produce is wonderful.”

Moody was a relatively uneducated man who sought to use common sense to lead people to Christ. He enlisted the local churches to be involved with his evangelistic campaigns. This method would prove to be just as challenging for D.L. Moody as Charles Finney had experienced it. In order to avoid controversy, water baptism was not preached, but rather the raising of the hand or standing to the feet was the substitute. The Anabaptists died en masse to restore water baptism to the evangelistic process, but with Finney and now Moody, it became a pattern, not to denounce necessarily, but systematically ignore the precept.

Repentance and Restitution

Although not with the fervor and consistency of Charles Finney, George Whitefield, or John Wesley; D.L. Moody preached repentance. He writes:

A man is not prepared to believe or to receive the Gospel, unless he is ready to repent of his sins and turn from them. Until John the Baptist met Christ, he had but one text, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:2). But if he had continued to say this, and had stopped there without pointing the people to Christ the Lamb of God, he would not have accomplished much. When Christ came, He took up the same wilderness cry, repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. 4:17). And when our Lord sent out His disciples, it was with the same message, that men should repent (Mark 6:12). After He had been glorified, and when the Holy Spirit came down, we find Peter on the day of Pentecost raising the same cry, repent! It was this preaching, Repent, and believe the Gospel that wrought such marvelous results then (Acts 2:38-47). And we find that, when Paul went to Athens, he uttered the same cry, now God commands all men, everywhere, to repent (Acts 17:30).

Moody then goes on to explain what repentance is not.

Neither is praying Repentance. That too may sound strange. Many people, when they become anxious about their soul's salvation, say, I will pray, and read the Bible; and they think that will bring about the desired effect. But it will not do it. You may read the Bible and cry to God a great deal, and yet never repent. Many people cry loudly to God, and yet do not repent. Another thing: it is not breaking off some single sin. A great many people make that mistake. A man who has been a drunkard signs the temperance pledge[126], and stops drinking. Breaking off one sin is not repentance. Forsaking one vice is like breaking off one limb of a tree, when the whole tree has to come down. A profane man stops swearing; very good: but if he does not break off from every sin it is not repentance, it is not the work of God in the soul. When God works He hews down the whole tree. He wants to have a man turn from every sin. Supposing I am in a vessel out at sea, and I find the ship leaks in three or four places. I may go and stop up one hole; yet down goes the vessel. Or suppose I am wounded in three or four places and I get a remedy for one wound: if the other two or three wounds are neglected, my life will soon be gone. True Repentance is not merely breaking off this or that particular sin. Speaking on repentance, Dr. Brooks, of St. Louis, well remarks: “Repentance, strictly speaking, means a 'change of mind or purpose;' consequently it is the judgment which the sinner pronounces upon himself, in view of the love of God displayed in the death of Christ, connected with the abandonment of all confidence in himself and with trust in the only Savior of sinners. Saving repentance and saving faith always go together; and you need not be worried about repentance if you will believe.”[127] (emphasis added)

D.L. Moody did not believe that a person had the right to ask God to forgive them of their sins, unless they were willing to make restitution, whenever possible. The word “restitution” means to make payment for injury or loss. It is an attempt to restore something to its original state. God did not call men to regret, but to repent; and genuine repentance will result in works worthy of repentance. Of course, people regret things they have done, but they are not willing to repent. Moody states:

Another thing. If there is true repentance it will bring forth fruit. If we have done wrong to any one we should never ask God to forgive us, until we are willing to make restitution. If I have done any man a great injustice and can make it good, I need not ask God to forgive me until I am willing to make it good. Suppose I have taken something that does not belong to me. I have no right to expect forgiveness until I make restitution.

This was a common aspect of repentance dating all the way back to Zacchaeus in Luke 19:8 where he was willing not just to make restitution, but to restore fourfold what he had taking unlawfully.

The Inquiry Room

It is difficult to imagine it today, but there was a time when it was considered a “new measure” to ask for or solicit prayer publicly in a meeting. Any introduction of a new practice was considered an innovation and was bound to cause alarm. The reason for this is that people in general were very cautious about the things of God. Today, there is a cavalier attitude in most circles and only a minority of people feels any sense of alarm when significant changes are made. It should be pointed out further, that these innovations were amoral in nature. That is to say, they did not suggest worldliness or compromise; they were merely novel approaches to doing the ministry. This is an important distinction to make.

The inquiry room is an example of a once novel measure that has come and gone from mainstream Christian practice. It began prior to the ministry of Charles Finney and continued on until early in Billy Sunday’s ministry. This was a room or church sanctuary set apart for the sole purpose of counseling and praying with anxious sinners in an attempt to help lead them to genuine conversion. We have an account of the use of such a room taken from the May 1834 edition of The Religious Intelligencer:

In all of our protracted meetings we have had the "anxious seat," and the meeting for inquiry, and have desired those who had submitted to God to manifest it. The same measures have been adapted at this meeting, and only one new measure has been added; viz: giving liberty in the public assembly to ask prayers. And very numerous requests have been preferred, and many gracious answers have been obtained, and the influence of this measure, both upon saint and sinner, has been happy. Our measures have been those, viz: In the forenoon, meetings for prayer in different parts of the congregation, and a meeting for inquirers in the anxious room (inquiry room). At 2 o' clock P.M. and in the evening public preaching. At the close of the evening sermon, the impenitent were invited to present themselves on the front seats as subjects for prayer. Then they were sometimes addressed in a few words of instruction, and at the close, they were affectionately urged to be present the next day, at the inquiry room. This same course was pursued during the whole meeting. The inquiry room was the place for the most heavy and successful labor, because here the attention could be fixed. We did not invite into this room visitors, lest the attention should be diverted. Here the character and the claims of God were presented, and each one singly conversed with, and urged to an immediate and honest submission to God. After this interview with individuals, the whole were instructed by presenting divine truth under a variety of illustrations. These measures, whether new or old is immaterial, have been signally blessed. They are pre-eminently calculated to lead sinners into the kingdom of Christ; and to fit and to prepare souls for heaven. Any church with a minister who loves and who faithfully preaches divine truth, with a believing reliance upon the Holy Spirit, which will adopt and pursue these or similar measures, may expect certain and blessed success.[128] (emphasis added)

The Inquiry Room Experience

The use of the inquiry room became so popular, that it became necessary to provide those who labored with the anxious sinners a guide on how to conduct themselves. In 1884 George Soltau (1847-1909) of England wrote a handbook on the subject entitled, Enquiry Room: Hints for dealing with the anxious. He moves first giving basic directions:

As a company of workers desiring to engage in the solemn and important work of dealing with the anxious in the enquiry room, we all are agreed at the very outset that the Holy Spirit alone can lead a sinner to the Savior; that each of us must look to Him for the right word, the fitting text, the wise counsel; and that we are to be but the mouthpieces through whom He will speak. Our constant attitude must be one of communion with God; our memories and minds must be well stored with Scripture, that we may be ready for the Master’s use. Before entering into the details of our subject, the following general suggestions will be found worthy of consideration:

1.     Do not be too eager to lead a soul into peace. In Jeremiah 6:14, and 8:11, we find the words, “They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace; when there is no peace.’” It is not desirable to use the expression, “Have you found peace?” seeing that the anxious soul needs a Person, rather than a blessing.

2.     Avoid the expression, “You have only to believe, to be saved,” until you have very fully stated and explained the facts and promises to be believed; and then point out that it is a person in whom the soul’s trust is to be placed, and not your statements about Him.

3.     Always read your quotations from the Bible, turning to the passage; so that the Enquirer may be able to distinguish between your statements and the Word of God. The latter has an authority that your statements can never possess.

4.     Avoid telling your own experience or that of others; as the Enquirer must lean on the Word of God, and not on any one’s experience of it.

5.     Do not try to apply to the need of the Enquirer any text, the truth of which you have not yourself experienced.

6.     Make it clear that at conversion the Lord Jesus claims possession and control of the entire being. Show that it is not merely the salvation of the soul that is needed, but also deliverance for mind and body from all the power of sin in every direction.

7.     If an enquirer baffles you with difficult questions, hand such an one over at once to a more experienced Christian.

8.     As far as possible converse only with persons of your own age or younger; of your own sex and walk in life.

9.     Do not tell a person he is saved. Let the Holy Spirit be the witness in the heart of the believer, telling him that he is delivered from sin and its penalty.[129]

George Soltau then gives directions as to the importance of making sure the anxious person recognizes their sinfulness. He continues:

An inexperienced worker, having a few favorite texts, would probably speak to each person in this way, “You must just believe that the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanses from all sin. You know He said, ‘Him that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out.’ Cannot you believe that ‘Now is the accepted time,’ that ‘Now is the day of salvation’? ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.’ Just kneel down, and say from your heart, ‘Take me as I am’” We would not say that none of those thus addressed would get any blessing through such treatment: but what we ought to do is to – First ascertain the cause of this blindness; and lameness; and numbness, etc.; and then by God’s help apply the right remedy.

Our first questions then should be, “What brings you into the Enquiry Room?” “What do you think you need?” The answer may be, “I want to be saved,” or “I want to become a Christian,” or “I don’t feel I am quite right,” or, “I think I ought to turn.” In none of these replies is there any very definite statement concerning sin, or any apparent consciousness of sin. Therefore the first thing to be arrived at is to convict deeply of sin. The Gospel is not designed primarily to make people happy, and give them peace; but to deliver them from sin, its presence, power, and penalty; and to bring them into communion with a Holy God. Sin is not an accident or a misfortune, but a disease. Active in its principle, permeating every fiber and tissue of mind and body; hideous and loathsome as a foul leprosy; abominable and irremediable; not to be dealt with piece-meal, but to be attacked at this root. All the restlessness of soul, the craving for excitement, the love of the world, the dislike of holy things, the reluctance to come forward for Christ, are the effect of sin dwelling in the heart. What, then, is the state of the heart of a sinner?”[130]

We will not continue to quote from this book as the reader may acquire it free since it is now in the public domain. Nevertheless, I have shown the approach to leading an anxious sinner to Christ in an inquiry room type environment as late as 1884. This method was similar to D.L. Moody, Charles H. Spurgeon, and many others. As we already read in the Religious Intelligencer, “The inquiry room was the place for the most heavy and successful labor, because here the attention could be fixed.” Indeed it is “heavy labor” working with God to lead souls to a genuine conversion experience in Christ. There is nothing haphazard or slapdash about it. These counselors pressed the anxious to make a decision for Christ, as had been being done for almost 100 years.

As with Finney, so now with D.L. Moody, we are seeing an up tick of the notion that a person just needs to make a “decision” and a down tick of the New Covenant necessity of being born again of the Holy Spirit. These things happened so slowly over the course of time that they would have been almost imperceptible to anyone living in that day. New Measures serve as inflection points, but emphasis on regeneration (new birth) steadily dies out. The emphasis was shifting totally towards man and the minister. Indeed, there is a sense in which God does the work; the Word of God does the work; the minister does the work; and the anxious does the work. When this reality is forgotten the whole process is thwarted, and the result is often a spurious conversion.

The Necessity of Balance

The minister who excessively promotes God’s sovereignty risks creating a stumbling block to individuals responding to God. The minister who overly promotes man’s ability risks a spurious conversion in which the Holy Spirit did not complete His work. What happens? A person ends up believing they are “saved” because of something they did, not something God did. It has been said that, “Our responsibility is to respond to Christ’s ability.” To do and preach otherwise is utterly disastrous. As Patrick McIntyre has rightly observed in contrasting the old style of evangelism with present day high speed decisionism:

The downgrade of evangelical theology and practice has reached full fruit, and the fruit is obvious. Unfortunately, most identify the rotten fruit as a need for "discipleship," and recommend the application of pesticides and fertilizer to the fruit. Few recognize that the fruit is just like the tree it grew from. The tree of decisional regeneration is not the Tree of Life. The problem is not that the fruit needs more attention; the problem is that the rotten fruit grew from a rotten tree ... the tree of materialistic humanism.[131]

The End of an Era

D.L. Moody preached his last message on Nov. 16, 1899 at the old Convention Hall in downtown Kansas City, MO. He was a tremendous man of God that did his best to see sinners come to Christ. Nevertheless, we must know that this dear man of God, as Finney before him, exerted enormous influence upon the churches and their evangelistic methods. As is common today, ministers who came to see him or read about him employed his techniques or something similar. His influence was limited because technology was limited. He used the printed page to spread sermons that were wonderful to read, but he used the press as well and that put a unique stress on the ministers. Meetings were advertised, and the press followed them closely. It was news. It was entertaining. People loved to read about them.

Whole periodicals sprang up in the 1800s, just to recount the successes of ministers and missionary societies. You could read all the statistics, including the exact number of tracts or Bibles handed out by organizations and churches. Human beings are people that like to follow progress, so you will find accounts of meetings and their results. It was news. It was interesting. Bear in mind that people were not told they were “saved” like today; they were considered hopeful. You may read of a meeting where 50 were “hopefully converted” or 35 were “hopefully born again.” These numbers increased as the size of the meetings increased.

The Overwhelming Task of Counseling the Masses

Whereas in the late 1700s, the altar had been a place for people to come and get right with God, now a concerted effort existed through the inquiry room to counsel anxious sinners. Counselors had to be trained, and sometimes the task was overwhelming. Accounts are told of one minister trying to counsel with as many as 75 people in one night. Peter counseled with 3000, but he gave them straightforward words of instruction that included repentance in the beginning and warnings at the end. It was up to the people to work out their own salvation and follow through with the direction. They had to learn to respond to God as He was drawing them. Unfortunately, a new idea was coming into vogue that over emphasized the role of the minister in the process. Understand that the minister cannot do God’s part of the process just like the anxious cannot do God’s part. Eventually, the large numbers of seekers overwhelmed the inquiry room.

Moody’s methods were very influential, but the influence of those that would come after him was multiplied not merely by the press, but by radio and television. They would far exceed the direct and indirect influence that Moody was capable of. Today many churches are alarmingly influenced by popular individuals who minister in the name of Christ, but are more appropriately motivational speakers. The weight of the influence is usually based upon the minister's popularity. The results? What is said on radio and TV is soon communicated in the local churches. Dwight Lyman Moody returned home from his last preaching engagement in Kansas City with what is believed to have been heart failure and died on December 22, 1899. Again, he was only 66 years old and did a great work for God, but his influence on evangelism was tremendous. He carried Finney’s attitude towards water baptism, depriving anxious sinners of an essential aspect of full initiation into the New Covenant. We were unwittingly and almost imperceptibly moving in the wrong direction as “decisionism” was gaining popularity. Measures were being adapted to the circumstances as the opinions of the ministers supporting the large crusades tied the hands of the evangelists. The media placed pressure on the minister to achieve and publish results. Ministers were becoming so popular that they reached “celebrity” status. These elements became a toxic mixture that would poison evangelism in the 20th century. We were seeing the beginnings of "mass evangelism" and the challenges associated with it.

PART II

THE ADVENT OF MODERN EVANGELISM

CHAPTER 6

Evangelism In Crisis

Compromise is like fiscal inflation: it devalues our standards so imperceptibly that it takes 50 years to see the effects. The compromises we make today may seem minor, but they will have devastating consequences for our children and grandchildren in the aggregate. This is especially true when it comes to evangelism. In modern times most evangelists have tried to minister independent of 1900 years of church history. They do not look to the book of Acts, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, or even D.L. Moody for counsel on how to rightly present the Gospel. Sadly, their model is the thief on the cross. Indeed, “thief on the cross” evangelism rules the day. Ministers determined that if the thief on the cross was saved, then his experience is the minimum requirement for heaven; hence he has become the standard. No time for water baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit, or any other important means of grace whereby we might become partakers of the Divine nature. What could possibly be more tragic and detrimental to the purposes of God? This modern invention would be shocking if we were not used to it. How did we get used to it? We will discuss that answer in detail in Part II, The Advent of Modern Evangelism.

Hijacking the Gospel

How will we ever get on track when God’s target in New Birth is that we would all be partakers of the Divine nature, when evangelists and seekers are only concerned with the minimum of having their sins forgiven? It’s as if the Gospel has been hijacked and flown to a destination other than what God intended. Understand that it is human nature to try to find the minimum requirement of something, and then do it; nevertheless, the Bible does not recognize this mentality. It does not offer us contingencies; it sets before us God’s ideal for salvation and does not relent. We may fabricate from proof-texts something lesser, but we cannot attribute that “lesser thing” to God.

Various measures have come and gone up to this point in history; nevertheless, one thing had not been compromised in the mainstream: people were expected to come to Christ in a genuine born-again experience. They were expected to become a new creature n Christ. We may argue persuasively that Finney and Moody did not have the same understanding of conversion as did Wesley and Whitefield; however, Finney and Moody’s insistence on genuine repentance and submission to Christ partly compensated for that deficiency. One does not need to understand New Birth in order for Christ to transform one into a new creation: all one needs are the basic elements of the preaching of the Word of God, and the dealing of the Holy Spirit. Finney and Moody’s primary error evangelistically was the substitution of water baptism with “coming forward” or “standing to your feet.”

As we have discovered, conversion was seen over the centuries as a process that could take place quickly or one that may require a process of preparation. Charles G. Finney, and later Dwight L. Moody, are responsible for emphasizing and promoting instant conversion as the result of a decision for Christ. This is radically different than Jonathan Edward’s “surprising work of God” in which the Holy Spirit came in great power drawing the people of Northampton to repentance and genuine conversion. There the seekers emerged from that move of God with what Whitefield and Wesley called, “The marks of the New Birth.” It was not a “decision” in the modern sense of the word. We make decisions for all kinds of things in life. We decide what kind of car we want, who to marry, where to work, etc.: however, we do not decide we want to serve God in this way. Conversion begins with a command to repent and forsake all known sin. This means we have to respond directly to God and His dealings. It is not a cavalier choice. A person does not come forward in a meeting and say, “I think I will become a Christian” as if some slick salesperson just forded the walls of their good judgment and they signed on the dotted line (only to regret it later). If a person can be “talked into” a decision for Christ, they can be “talked out of” a decision for Christ. God does not want mere decisions: He wants sons and daughters.

What Must We Do?

In Luke 3 John the Baptist preached repentance: the response of the penitent was almost universal “what should we do?” In the book of Acts chapter 2 Peter preached and the response was, “what shall we do?” The hearer became an inquirer. These men of God who preached knew that if they had not done their job well enough to cause the people to solicit instructions, they had more laboring to do! This reality is the main subject of the great paradigm shift in evangelism from Wesley and Whitefield to D.L. Moody and beyond. If the people do not become anxious enough for their souls to take it upon themselves to find out what they must do to be saved, they are not convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment to come.

A person that is convicted of sin and is ready to repent will do everything necessary to get right with God. They don’t need some “emotional music” playing and some “sad story” intended to influence them to “make a decision.” Like Phillip as he was speaking to the Ethiopian, there will be a desire to find out and do what God was requiring. “What hinders me to be baptized?” was the attitude of this Ethiopian. Compare this to the mindset of D.L. Moody:

Sometimes a person will say: “You can't make me believe a man can be saved all at once.” Well; as I read the Bible, I don't see how a man can be saved in any other way. If you take a gift, there must be a minute when you haven't taken the gift and another minute when you have. There must be a minute when you take it. In passing from one territory to another, there must be a minute when you cross the line.”[132]

By “saved all at once” he means a decision for Christ, not conversion in the pre-Finney era sense. Notice also that the emphasis is on crossing some sort of line between being saved and being lost. “Cross this line” and you’re saved. What can this possibly mean? I suggest that encapsulated in this one paragraph is the philosophy of evangelism that will overthrow nearly 200 years of progress dating to Wesley and Whitefield. It will give rise to what A.W. Tozer is credited as describing a “salvation by logical deductions drawn from proof texts.” Moody continues:

Question: Wasn't Zaccheus converted instantly? Answer: Yes. As soon as he heard the Word of Jesus he came down from the tree. I don't know just the moment of his conversion. I suppose it must have been somewhere between the branches and the ground. It was very quick, I know.”[133]

This is the type of logic that appeals to the common man, but it is foreign to New Covenant Christianity. We are watching right before our very eyes a redefinition of the term “conversion.” Whereas for the Puritans, Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley, conversion meant New Birth and the supernatural change of nature entailed, now the term simply means that a person has decided to follow Christ. Zaccheus hops out of the tree and he is converted? What does that mean? Surely it does not mean that he is at this point “a new creature in Christ” and “buried with Him by baptism into His death.” Surely it does not mean that between the “branches and the ground” that Zaccheus passed from death unto life; from the power of Satan to the power of God? Did the old pass away and all become new? Had he received the Holy Spirit having been baptized into Jesus Christ? Certainly not. It may have been a starting point for Zaccheus, but this is not what Moody said. Contextually he used the illustration earlier that a person has to “cross the line” and for him, it was when Zaccheus came down from the tree to follow Christ. The starting line towards conversion in the Puritans, Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley’s theology is now the finish line in D.L. Moody’s. This does not mean that Moody did not expect the person to “take up their cross and follow Christ,” it meant that New Birth was no longer the objective.

One of the reasons why Moody had people stand in the meetings was to get people to do something “they did not want to do.” He said that it was a “great cross” for people to make a public stand for Christ.[134] His meetings were intentionally relaxed to facilitate a willingness to stand when he gave the call at the end of the sermon. He believed it was an awful thing to preach about coming to Jesus without giving the people an opportunity to come.[135] Compare this method with the book of Acts that calls men to repent, believe the Gospel, be baptized in water, and receive the Holy Spirit. Moody’s method was woefully inadequate. It is important to say charitably, that these men did not do these things in blind ignorance. Ministers contemporary with them challenged both Finney and Moody for their methods. Like today, ministers did not like being critiqued for their errors. I submit that this is the single greatest reason why we cannot move forward in getting back to book of Acts evangelism.

Instantaneous Conversion

D.L Moody believed that conversion was instantaneous. He preached that it was as sudden as a man walking through a doorway.[136] He rejected completely the notion of what the Puritans called “Preparationism.” In one of his well-known sermons entitled How To Be Saved he states:

I can imagine you saying, "I do not see how a person can be saved all at once." So many persons think they have to work themselves out gradually, that they have to do a little here, a little there, and after they have toiled and worked and have considered the matter prayerfully for some time, they will be more acceptable. The Israelites were told to sprinkle blood upon the door-posts, that the angel of death might not enter the houses where the blood was to be seen. There was one moment when they had not sprinkled the blood on their door-posts, and when they were exposed to the blight of the destroying angel; and there was another moment when the blood had been sprinkled there, and they were safe.[137]

Clearly, Moody has forgiveness of sins (justification) in view. In other sermons, he preaches repentance, but there is a subtle oversight here that gives the impression that repentance is not necessary to salvation. Peter and Paul did not preach salvation in this way. They were generally careful to preach repentance towards God before they preached faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, faith always implied repentance. They did not offer “the solution” without first exposing man’s sin problem. Although the book of Romans is not written to teach evangelism, Paul begins by commending them for their world-renowned faith, but then proceeds to preach the Gospel to them again, building an inescapable case against humanity for their sins. The knowledge of sin precedes repentance and faith. This is the pattern. Disturbingly, Moody has an almost “Free Grace” theology at times. He continues:

My next illustration is the serpent upon the pole. You sang a song tonight about it: "It is life just to look at the crucified One." It is not to work that we are told. It is just to look. How simple! You know a fiery serpent had gone through Israel and bitten many people, and they died. And the Israelites went to Moses and said," Entreat the Lord to take away this serpent." They did not ask for a remedy; they did not ask for the bitten ones to be allowed to recover. They could hear the groans of the dying all around. But God more than granted their prayers. God always gives us more than we ask for. He not only took away the serpent, but he said to Moses," Make a brass serpent and put it on a pole and lift it on high, so that all who are bitten shall look and live. And it shall come to pass that when they look, they shall not die, but live." How simple? A little child can look. It is so simple that the learned and the unlearned can look. You do not have to go to college to learn how to look. You do not have to pass through a university to learn how to look. That little child there is not more than three or four years old, but it understands how to look.[138]

On the surface, this sounds very right, and it is right except that it is missing repentance and the subsequent requirements for entrance into the New Covenant. The Gospel is much more than getting sins forgiven, but this is what it is in this sermon. From this point on in evangelism history the focus is an appeal to seek forgiveness of sins. This is not the great commission; it is only a piece of it. Paul was commissioned by God to go to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me (Acts 26:18 NKJV). Notice the progression: open their eyes; turn them from darkness to light; turn them from the power of Satan to God; that they may receive forgiveness and an inheritance among the sanctified. Man centered evangelism leads to a Gospel preoccupied with relieving human suffering (hell) to the marginalizing of God’s purposes. God desires sons and daughters, not merely forgiven sinners.

Circumventing the Process

Prior to D.L. Moody, anxious sinners were counseled to surrender all to God and to repent of all known sin. Salvation was an encounter with the Holy Spirit where He put His hand, as it were, on the controversy that the seeker had with God. The anxious were expected to place their faith in Christ in a way that God could believe them. Now the objective is so low that all that is needed is to get a person to “rise and signify that they are going to trust Christ.” By rising the person believed they had done what God had required of them and they had “come through the door.” A cursory read of the Gospels reveals that many did “rise” and follow Christ, only to fall away later. The danger of giving a person something to do such as “rising” is that it circumvents God’s dealings by giving the impression that the process is now over, when in fact the person may be actively resisting the Holy Spirit while at the same time seeking forgiveness of sins.

For Moody, if a person makes a decision to follow Christ and believes the Gospel, they have “crossed the line” or “walked through the door” to conversion. Contrast that with a young John Wesley who lived a life that by today’s standards would appear to be utterly holy and righteous. I dare to say modern evangelists would not hesitate to call him “saved.” However, in his own words he writes, “I went to America, to convert the Indians; but oh! Who shall convert me?” John Wesley realized that he had been doing a work for God and he himself was not converted. Why? Because he had a radically different definition of conversion than what has been preached, in the main stream, since his death.

Dedication Prayers

Once crowds became too large to counsel individually; whole group sessions were employed. Anxious sinners were asked to go to a separate meeting and hear additional information about the Gospel. The Rev. George Renny explained how this worked:

D.L. Moody requested those who were yet unsaved and anxious, to cross the platform where the pulpit stands, and retire to the hall below. It was found that no fewer than two hundred men, a few of them with silvery locks, and a few young in years, but the vast majority in the full vigor of man hood, and occupying various positions in the social scale, confessed themselves unconverted, and anxious for salvation. Mr. Moody explained the way of salvation, in a very simple and forcible manner, and the texts of Scripture, which had been most blessed in the way of delivering and assuring his own soul, were dwelt upon.[139]

Moody expressed regret that he could not deal with each person separately. The people were then asked to pray silently. They were then told that they who had been enabled to trust Christ should do so now in this “solemn moment.” Some were weeping, others were alarmed. We then happen upon another innovation that will take root in the next century, repeating prayers. Rev. Renny continues:

Mr. Moody after this requested them to repeat audibly the words of a dedication prayer, so full of directness and simplicity, that as every lip, quivering with emotion, slowly echoed the words, we seemed carried back to the days of the Covenant.[140]

Surely, this practice is a forerunner to the “sinner’s prayer.” The Gospel was being preached, but not fully understood in such a way that a person would take it upon himself or herself to call upon God in their own words. They were being “helped along” in a way very foreign to older evangelism methods. I must point out again that these type prayers have the effect of suggesting to the anxious that they have done their duty. They did “something they didn’t want to do” and that action replaced genuine repentance and water baptism. A person needs to understand both their condition and the solution well enough to call upon God in their own words. If they do not, the process is far from complete.

Billy Sunday

William Ashley "Billy" Sunday (1862–1935) was a popular baseball player during the late 1800s, but in the first two decades of the 20th century, he became the most celebrated and influential evangelist in America. Born to a poor, patriotic family in Ames, Iowa, Sunday never saw his father. In 1862, his father enlisted as a private in the twenty-third Iowa Volunteers.[141] He died of disease in Patterson, MO. four months later and was buried in an unmarked grave. His mother was forced to make a living for the family, advancing only as far as a two-roomed log cabin. Billy would be reared in the school of poverty and toil, earning a graduates degree in “horse-sense.” Billy would sometimes say, “Experience is a school teacher that carries a rod!”[142] He would sit at the feet of this master until he made it to the Major Leagues.

Billy Sunday’s Conversion

Billy Sunday was converted in the 1880s at the Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago. He left baseball for the ministry. In the spring of 1891, Sunday turned down a baseball contract for $3,000 a year to accept a position with the Chicago Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) for $83 per month. Sunday's job title at the YMCA was Assistant Secretary, yet the position involved a great deal of ministerial work. It proved to be a first step towards his evangelistic career. For three years, Sunday visited the sick, counseled the suicidal, and visited saloons to invite people to evangelistic meetings.

Learning the Ropes

In 1893, the YMCA fell into financial trouble and was no longer able to support Billy Sunday.[143] He then felt it was God's will that he become the full-time assistant to Dr. J. Wilbur Chapman, the second best known evangelist in the United States at the time (D.L. Moody was first, but aging). Chapman was one of the best-educated clergymen in America, having spent many years in Universities and at least one year at Oberlin College in Ohio where Charles G. Finney had been the president. Chapman commanded respect in the pulpit both because of his strong voice and his sophisticated demeanor. Billy Sunday held him in such high esteem intellectually that he believed him to be without peer. Since Sunday was relatively uneducated, being around Chapman gave him confidence when he faced the liberal academics that may have otherwise intimidated him.

Billy Sunday's job as Chapman's "advance man" was to precede the evangelist to cities in which he was scheduled to preach, organize prayer meetings and choirs, and set up the meeting structure. He would then listen to Chapman preach night after night. Sometimes Sunday was asked to minister. Chapman critiqued Sunday's own attempts at evangelistic preaching and instructed him in the art of sermon preparation. Further, Chapman encouraged Sunday's theological development, especially by emphasizing the importance of prayer and by helping to reinforce Billy's commitment to conservative Biblical Christianity. Unexpectedly in December 1895, Wilbur Chapman received a call from his former church asking him to leave the evangelistic field and return to be their pastor. When he accepted, Billy Sunday was faced with no means of supporting his family. He prayed and felt led to follow in the footsteps of Chapman and become an evangelist.

The Early Days

On January 7, 1896 in Garner, Iowa, Billy Sunday opened his first evangelistic meetings.[144] This was the beginning of a career that would last four decades. Between 1896 and 1907, Sunday preached in 70 different communities. He called this tour the “Kerosene Circuit” because the places he traveled were without natural gas and electricity. He traveled by railroad to mostly cities of less than 60,000 people. In the early days, the meetings were usually held in local churches that seated between 100 and 200 people. If there were a large meeting hall that could be rented, the towns’ people would pool their money together and lease it. Reaching thousands of people required a lot of travel and labor.

Gradually, Sunday began attracting larger crowds, so he rented huge tents that could hold several hundred people. He drew from his experience as Chapman’s assistant, even laboring himself to put the tents up. During inclement weather, he would sleep in the tent so that when the wind came up, he could run from stake to stake making adjustments. It was hard times, but he persevered. It would be ten years before Sunday could hire an evangelist’s assistant as he had once been. This assistant would go before Sunday and set up the tent. Sunday’s tent-meetings ended after a series of weather-related disasters with the tent finally being destroyed in 1906. After this, Sunday avoided tent meetings. If the church or town hall could not accommodate the people, Sunday insisted that a wooden tabernacle be erected at the town’s expense. If this was impossible, Sunday selected from another large city that had requested his services. The first “Billy Sunday Tabernacle” was erected in 1901. When the meeting was over the building was torn down and, recycled.

On the Map

The use of wooden tabernacles signaled that Billy Sunday reached the level of attendance enjoyed by Wilbur Chapman and D.L. Moody. These were both status symbols and advertising measures. In those days, towns competed fiercely with one another for the limelight. It was important that leaders display their towns as up-to-date. In these micro wars for regional dominance, having Billy Sunday come preach in a brand-new tabernacle put a little town on the map.[145]  Understand that civic pride was the driving force behind many of these meetings and to some, it was more important than anything Billy Sunday accomplished by his preaching.

Pride and the Pocketbook

It was not only civic pride that had to be dealt with, but also the pride of local ministers and even Billy Sunday himself. At first, Sunday ministered and only asked for a love offering at the end, but once he became large enough to draw the masses, he demanded these massive, expensive structures. Money started to become an issue. Local businesses would often put up the funds for the structure with a hope that the offerings would pay the debt; however, sometimes they came up short and the town was left making up the difference.

None of the Apostles needed large amounts of funding to do their ministry; neither did Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield or John Wesley. At this juncture in our discoveries, we are unearthing the beginnings of a new dimension in evangelism that will plague the churches from this time forward. Ministers who desire to have huge ministries will have to collect funds by raising money, encouraging large offerings or both. Up until 1908 Billy Sunday would leave towns, and the people boasted that he never asked for an offering. As the building grew and the cost of acoustics along with it, the issue of money became more prominent. The evangelist’s image was not enhanced by this fact, nor was the work. Whereas the people loved Billy Sunday because he was involved in erecting the tents or slapping the tar on the roofs of Billy Sunday Tabernacle’s, in time he was almost uninvolved in the labor side of the ministry. This had an impact on people that were looking for a minister who could relate to their everyday struggles, by lending a hand driving a nail, climbing a ladder, or raising a tent post.

The Language of the People

Billy Sunday was a theatrical preacher. He would employ a chair, baseball bat or anything else to enhance his message. It may be more accurate to refer to his efforts as “performances” rather than mere sermons. He would sometimes swing his bat as if targeting a fastball over the middle. He has been photographed with a kitchen chair over his head with one arm or leaning upon it as if he were about to employ it in some destructive activity. A few Prohibition related open-air preaching films still exist, where he can be seen moving around the platform in a very animated way. We have a first-hand account from a meeting in Iowa:

When Billy Sunday preached he didn't just talk. He would pound the pulpit, sometimes even leaping over it, roll on the floor, and wrestle with a red kitchen chair to illustrate man’s struggle with sin. Every muscle in his body seems to be in accord with his voice.[146]

Keeping the Cookies on the Lower Shelf

Billy Sunday was sometimes quoted as saying that he “kept the cookies on the lower shelf” so that the children could get to them. He was implying that the Bible is difficult to understand, therefore, it has to be broken down so that the common man can comprehend it. This is not exactly correct. The New Testament was written in the common (Koine) language of the people and was meant to be understood. William Tyndale stated that he intended to translate that Koine Greek into the language of English plow-boys, not theologians. His work came down to us as over 80% of the KJV, Authorized Version of 1611. The Bible was not written exclusively for the intellectually elite, but for people that are willing to obey its precepts. Simplifying the straightforward message of the book of Acts can only mean one thing: compromise.

Billy Sunday had no formal theological training, and doubtfully understood many of the great evangelistic subjects that we have discovered up to this point. This is not a criticism, but an observation. As with Finney, Moody, and now Sunday, these men were “checked” by students of the Bible that warned them of the consequences of some of their teachings and practices. All too frequently, the response was less than receptive. This is where accountability comes in. Jesus told the Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains” (John 9:41 NKJV). Had they gone along blindly doing wrong it would have been one thing; nevertheless, once a person has been made to know the truth, they are accountable. There is a dangerous arrogance that can enter the thinking process in which a person is not coachable. At that point, it is not about education or intelligence, but a willingness to respond rightly to truth when it is made clear. In modern times, popular ministers are challenged concerning their teachings and methods, only to dismiss their challengers as “critics” or some other derogatory characterization. They are warned, but go on doing what is right in their own eyes. Sadly, these ministers begin to view those that would challenge them as their enemy. Had they stopped to consider the awesome responsibility of preaching God’s word, they may have thought differently.

Keep in mind that Peter was a fisherman and Matthew was a tax-collector; Nevertheless, one of Sunday’s favorite sayings was, "I don't know any more about theology than a jack-rabbit does about ping- pong, but I'm on the way to glory."[147] It is almost a boast against sound theology. Ministers are to show themselves approved of God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. When men take a cavalier attitude towards God’s Word, they are dangerous. We end up with people thinking that some ministers are Biblically sound in their preaching, but others are let off-the-hook and can say whatever they want to, and it doesn’t matter. This is not the case. Teachers are going to have a stricter judgment when they stand before God.

Preaching Against Sin

In fairness, Billy Sunday preached against sin and vice. He used “horse-sense” in his sermons to get the message across. In His own words:

I believe the Bible is the Word of God from cover to cover. I believe that the man who magnifies the Word of God in his preaching is the man whom God will honor. Why do such names stand out on the pages of history as Wesley, Whitefield, Finney and Martin Luther? Because of their fearless denunciation of all sin, and because they preach Jesus Christ without fear or favor. But somebody says a revival is abnormal. You lie! Do you mean to tell me that the godless, card-playing conditions of the Church are normal? I say they are not, but it is the abnormal state. It is the sin-eaten, apathetic condition of the Church that is abnormal. It is the “Dutch lunch” and beer party, card parties and the like, that are abnormal. I say that they lie when they say that a revival is an abnormal condition in the Church. What we need is the good old-time kind of revival that will cause you to love your neighbors, and quit talking about them. A revival that will make you pay your debts, and have family prayers. Get that kind and then you will see that a revival means a very different condition from what people believe it does. Christianity means a lot more than church membership. Many an old skin-flint is not fit for the balm of Gilead until you give him a fly blister and get after him with a currycomb. There are too many Sunday-school teachers who are godless card-players, beer, wine and champagne drinkers. No wonder the kids are going to the devil. No wonder your children grow up like cattle when you have no form of prayer in the home.

As you can see, Billy Sunday declared war on sin and compromise in his preaching. He preached what some call “convictions” that critics would say was a consequence of his shallow theology. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. People were made to think about what is and is not acceptable for Christian living.

Conversion According to Billy Sunday

Billy Sunday gets challenged by critics, like myself, who suggest he did not understand true conversion. He may not have been able to articulate conversion in clear theological terms, and he may not have known how to lead a person there, but on the surface, he did have a “decent” grasp of salvation. We have an explanation in his own words:

What does converted mean? It means completely changed. Converted is not synonymous with reformed. Reforms are from without, conversion from within. Conversion is a complete surrender to Jesus. It's a willingness to do what he wants you to do. Unless you have made a complete surrender and are doing his will it will avail you nothing, even if you've reformed a thousand times and have your name on fifty church records. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, in your heart and confess him with your mouth and you will be saved. God is good.

Billy Sunday states plainly that conversion means that a person is completely changed from within. It is a complete surrender to Jesus Christ. It is a willingness to do what He wants done. So far, so good; where we run into trouble is where he keeps explaining:

The plan of salvation is presented to you in two parts. Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth. Many of you here probably do believe. Why don't you confess? Now own up. The truth is that you have a yellow streak. Own up, businessmen, and businesswomen, and all of you others. Isn't it so?

You will notice Billy Sunday is drawing from Romans 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. This passage would be taken up in 1948 in east Texas by Baptist pastor Jack Hyles along with four other verses from Romans to devise “The Roman Road To Salvation.”[148] This innovation by Hyles was one of the first attempts to systematically bring a person to Jesus Christ; but the concepts were in seed form in Billy Sunday’s messages. Sunday then explains what “he” means by confessing:

You've kept your church membership locked up. You've smiled at a smutty story. When God and the Church were scoffed at you never peeped, and when asked to stand up here you've sneaked out the back way and beat it. You're afraid and God despises a coward, a mutt. You cannot be converted by thinking so and sitting still. Maybe you're a drunkard, an adulterer, a prostitute, and a liar; won't admit you are lost; are proud. Maybe you're even proud you're not proud. Jesus said: "Come to me," not to the Church; to me, not to a creed; to me, not to a preacher; to me, not to an evangelist; to me, not to a priest; to me, not to a pope; "Come to me and I will give you rest." Faith in Jesus Christ saves you, not faith in the Church. You can join church, pay your share of the preacher's salary, attend the services, teach Sunday school, return thanks and do everything that would apparently stamp you as a Christian, even pray, but you won't ever be a Christian until you do what God tells you to do. That's the road, and that's the only one mapped out for you and for me. God treats all alike. He doesn't furnish one plan for the banker and another for the janitor who sweeps out the bank. He has the same plan for one that he has for another. It's the law; you may not approve of it, but that doesn't make any difference.[149]

The theology of Billy Sunday, as Moody and Finney before him, required people to repent of their sins and obey Christ in faith. Nevertheless, for Billy Sunday, this was compromised in practical application. Repentance must not be in “word and in tongue” but “in deed and in truth.” All the hell-fire preaching in the world is meaningless, unless a person is made to know that they must do what the book of Acts teaches: repent, believe, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. Sunday believed that the reason why there is so little power in the churches as compared to when the 120 left the Upper Room was that there is “too much trash in the church. Too many frauds that refuse to obey God. They are disobeying Him and are not right with Him yet.”[150] Nevertheless, a person has to be brought into New Birth or it is all meaningless jargon. Sunday preached against sin and vice, and if it were that simple, we could stop here with Billy Sunday, and move on to the next stage of discovery. Unfortunately, there are several things that happened during Billy Sunday’s ministry that we must stop and examine. This is a place in our "excavation" of historical evangelism that requires our undivided attention.

The Enquiry Room Passes into Legend

You will notice that Billy Sunday, as did D.L. Moody, put a lot of stress on doing something “outward” as a sign of commitment to Christ. The trouble is that the outward sign in the New Testament is water baptism.[151]Once Finney and Moody suggested that a person couldn’t be water baptized into the Kingdom of God and marginalized the Biblical command, it would be easy to marginalize man-made measures and even more significant aspects of the Gospel. There is a dangerous mindset here that needed to be addressed. Men do not, nor have they ever had the right to strike a commandment from God’s word. It was compromise, and once a pattern of compromise is established it is almost impossible to turn the pattern back to a Bible based practice. Finney and Moody would have people stand as a commitment to attend the enquiry room (inquiry room) where they would be counseled and prayed with. The enquiry room was an invention, so we should not be surprised when it was trodden under foot as they had done water baptism.

Surprisingly, people did not normally come under great conviction of sin during Billy Sunday’s sermons as we have discovered to have happened with former evangelists. In fact, the use of the term “anxious sinner” will go out of vogue during Sunday’s ministry. Why is that? For starters, he often made people laugh, but rarely made them cry. His sense of humor was stronger than his reverential fear of God. This was a radical change of attitude as compared to Charles Finney that taught his students that “God never uses a jester to search consciences.” There may have been tears and hysterics under conviction of sin during Whitefield, Wesley, and Finney’s evangelistic ministry, but not Billy Sunday’s. His method was “The Power of Positive Conviction.”[152] [153]He made sin absurd and foolish as well as wicked; and he made the sinner ashamed of himself. Sunday replaced Holy Spirit conviction with humor, satire and scorn. This was an abrupt departure from the notion that sinner’s need to be deeply convicted of sin; that is, brought by the preaching of the Word and the Holy Spirit into an “anxious state” and then “godly sorrow.” Billy Sunday took Moody’s notion of stepping through a doorway to its ultimate conclusion. He stated it this way:

Some people think that they can't be converted unless they go down on their knees in the straw at a camp-meeting, unless they pray all hours of the night, and all nights of the week, while some old brother storms heaven in prayer. Some think a man must lose sleep, must come down the aisle with a haggard look, and he must froth at the mouth and dance and shout. Some get it that way, and they don't think that the work I do is genuine unless conversions are made in the same way that they have got religion. I want you to see what God put in black and white; that there can be a sound, thorough conversion in an instant; that man can be converted as quietly as the coming of day and never backslide. I do not find fault with the way other people get religion. What I want and preach is the fact that a man can be converted without any fuss.[154]

If Billy Sunday had been an unknown preacher in some remote area of the world this paragraph would not be so bad; but he was the most famous evangelist in the world during his life. Keep in mind that we were moving into the modern era where fame equals authority. Preachers were imitating him and echoing his theology on a huge scale. Billy Sunday, for whatever reason, had an obvious disdain for “praying through at an old fashioned altar.” Those that may be tempted to idolize Billy Sunday should take note of what he was saying about conversion, “without any fuss.”  In fact, he used the phrase “converted without any fuss” so emphatically that it is now almost cliché. There is no doubt that Billy Sunday desired to win people to Christ, but his ambition ran cross with New Covenant theology. He was nearly mocking the notion of praying through to genuine conversion. It took too long. There was no need to go through the process of New Birth in Billy Sunday’s theology. Imagine how horrified the ministers that opposed Charles Finney would have been to see Billy Sunday’s evangelistic techniques! This dreadful compromise is even more shocking now that we have had over 100 years to live with the consequences.

Hitting the Sawdust Trail

Up in the Puget Sound country, where the sawdust covered aisles and the wood tabernacle made an appeal to the woodsmen, the phrase "Hitting the sawdust trail" came into use by Billy Sunday. As loggers traveled deep into the woods, they would spread sawdust on the ground to leave a trail back out. The metaphor was luminous. It was Billy Sunday’s way of suggesting that during the meeting, there was a “trail” that led the lost to salvation, the way home to the Father's house. This new measure would take the place of water baptism, coming forward and sitting on the anxious bench, the altar call, standing on your feet and raising your hand. Sunday’s invitation has also been criticized because it drew people to come for all sorts of reasons, not just conversion. He shouted: “come on, you Masons,” or “come on, sailors” or “come on there, Wanamaker Store, you're a fine looking bunch.” Billy Sunday worked for the railroad and was particularly eager to appeal to railroad men: If railroad workers were present he shouted, “come on, Erie’ or Boston and Maine.” As the number of people responding to the message dropped, Sunday altered the invitation to include all kinds of people coming and for any number of reasons. Because Sunday equated “Hitting the Sawdust Trail” with conversion to Christ, the whole evangelistic process became utterly corrupt. At the height of his ministry, Billy Sunday called the people to respond and shook hands with as many as eighty-four converts a minute. Two lines would form on each side of the pulpit. Standing in the middle, he could shake hands with two people at a time, one with each hand.[155]

The Abuse of Finney’s New Measures

Patrick McIntyre in his book, The Scandal of Modern Evangelism states concerning Billy Sunday and those that imitated him:

Finney could not undo what he had done. The die was cast. All the clichés and quackery epitomized by Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry[156] began here. Charles Finney's methods, in the hands of incompetents and charlatans would ultimately produce millions of spurious conversions. The "methods" became the easiest way for ungifted and lazy men to produce "results."

Evangelists like D.L. Moody used some of Charles Finney’s "new measures” to good effect. Others, less gifted, abused his methods and brought reproach on all evangelists. Again, the problem with Finney’s anxious bench was that it started what we know today as the invitation system that effectively replaced water baptism. The people were only hearing a partial Gospel. Inviting people forward is not a problem so long as it is followed up with something like the Enquiry Room so that they truly repent, believe, are water baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. An altar call without genuinely praying through to conversion is a less than worthless measure, because it leaves the impression that the sinner has done “something” to make them right with God.

Billy Sunday rallied the local churches of various denominations to support his massive meetings. In order to keep the peace among the denominations Sunday did what D.L. Moody had done and what Charles G. Finney had done before him: the Gospel message was stripped of any “controversial” themes, such as water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Billy Sunday popularized the tally system, emphasizing the number of people who "walked the sawdust trail." This was something very different than how many people "the Lord added to the Church." Sunday popularized the practice of "coming forward" as a symbol for the sinner who wanted to "get right with God." Despite this, Sunday in the beginning still relied on the “after meeting” where counselors would deal with awakened sinners one-on-one. Over time this was replaced with a Gospel tract. In fairness to Billy Sunday, he never led people in a formula "salvation prayer.”

Celebrity Preachers

Perhaps much of the problem was caused by use of the press. When meetings were advertised and covered in the newspapers, there was an added pressure to have “results.” After all, who wants to report that the meeting was a bust? Long before the days when Rex Humbard would become the father of modern-day televangelism, D.L. Moody is credited with aiding in the development of the modern newspaper as they were used for creating the great wave of interest in this one very public evangelist and the meetings in general. Preachers were becoming celebrities and icons. Again, as with Finney, so with Moody, the “new measure” of using the press was considered fair play. It brought attention to evangelistic meetings at a time when newspapers were to the people what televisions are today. Unfortunately, most people simply cannot handle popularity. The pressure to compromise in order to maintain popularity becomes almost overpowering. The press and all other such means of “spreading the Gospel” will prove to be a double-edged sword.

Criteria Degeneration

Advertising evangelistic meetings in the 1800s opened the door to publishing the number of people that were hopefully converted. It is impossible to overstress the significance of that terminology. It suggests that a person’s conversion is “hopeful” not guaranteed. The use of such language was as far as men dared to go in their reporting of results. But as with anything, the boldness to intrude into areas reserved for God’s Divine prerogative alone, driven by vanity, eventually supplanted reason. Pressure related to pride and expectations of the press wanting “good results” were major causes of the erosion of the criteria for hopeful conversion. The secular media effected a degeneration of what it meant to be converted. Add to that the mindset of the newly established industrialized world, with all of its high-speed manufacturing machinery, and evangelism became more “quantity minded” and less “quality minded.” More, more, more... faster, faster, faster...

You Can Meet a Star

As the "altar call'' became more common, the numbers that came forward increased. During the 1800s, the act of going forward to receive prayer was never considered the means of salvation. Nevertheless, through the changing of generations, the Biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God was slowly replaced by the modern "quick-fix" mentality. The Puritans "struggle of faith" and the Methodist’s "praying through" were replaced by shaking a hand and signing your name on a convert’s pledge card.[157] This is conversion “without all the fuss.” How could this happen? Understand that Billy Sunday was a popular professional baseball player before becoming a minister. His method of preaching broke the mold by any standard. He started out like D.L. Moody, and his mentor Wilbur Chapman with an emphasis on individual counseling in the after meeting. However, by the end of his career, this process ended completely. Billy Sunday asked people to come forward to shake his hand as an indicator that they were turning to Christ. This marked a strong turning point in the way in which altar calls were understood. Consider how Sunday was a ball player and that many wanted to “shake his hand.” No doubt many were sincere also. Early reports in the 1800s suggested that only 10% of the persons who went forward in an altar call were hopefully converted. As the decades past, the percentage grew to as much as 30%. Until finally, by 1918, the newspapers were reporting that everyone who "hit the sawdust trail" to shake Billy Sunday's hand, was saved.[158]

The Sunday Convert

Most serious-minded evangelists knew that Billy Sunday’s methods produced spurious conversions. This led to the derisive term “Sunday Convert.” A fellow student at Wheaton College kidded Torrey Johnson, founder of Youth For Christ, “Got religion, have you? I suppose it’s the Billy Sunday type. It’ll last about six months.”[159] What an awful comment, but it was all too true. People would go through Sunday’s scheme and “backslide” in about six months. This is exactly what Finney’s contemporaries feared, and now it came to pass. Although Finney was not the originator of the measures he was rebuked for using, he popularized them and brought them to the mainstream. He made them acceptable. Once something is made acceptable by a famous figure, it is almost impossible to stop it. Finney influenced Moody who influenced Chapman, who mentored Billy Sunday. Each minister compromised the measure more than the person who taught it to them. The compromises added up until Christianity went from a repent, believe and “wait and see” to “walk this trail and you’re saved.” In fairness to Finney, he knew it was impossible to fully know who was saved. Again, upon seeing fruits of repentance, verifiable faith, and seeing a compelling change of lifestyle, Finney would consider the person hopefully converted. Unlike Billy Sunday, he never allowed people to rest in any assurance that man could give.

The End of “Hopeful Conversion” Terminology

God and His Word doesn't change; only the definition of what it meant to be “saved" slowly changed. By 1918, a newspaper headline reported:

“CONVERTS RUSHED TO GRASP HANDS OF BILLY SUNDAY." According to the media, "Publicly acknowledging their belief in Jesus Christ as their savior, and expressing their repentance for sin, 425 men, women and children of all ages and types, surged down the sawdust trail to the platform at the tabernacle last night to grasp the hand of Billy Sunday and to be enrolled as professing Christians.

It is almost inconceivable that 100% of the people who went forward were considered "saved" because of this “singular act” and “supposed mindset.” Lost in the frenzy was the Biblical teaching of the sovereignty of God and the born-again experience. The terminology "hopeful conversion" was lost by the end of Billy Sunday's career. Within a 39-year span, "hopeful conversions" were replaced with "x number of people got saved."[160]

Billy Sunday’s Influence on Evangelicalism

With the advent of Billy Sunday, personalities were beginning to take the center-stage in evangelism. Meanwhile, the local ministers who perhaps were relying on the Holy Spirit to draw people were no longer "exciting enough." In fact, they are said to be "pitied" unless they can put a sermon over like Billy Sunday. Why? People like to be amused, and Sunday brought tremendous entertainment value. So much did the church world begin to follow Billy Sunday's approach that normal preachers in the mold of Jonathon Edwards or John Wesley became outcasts. Unless the man or the ministry could “keep the attention of the people” and “keep the cookies on the lower shelf” they were looked down upon. Evangelism turned towards an entertainment based, tickle-the-ears methodology. Newspaper articles lauded the fact that in their words, "the church and the theatre became friends" and that Puritanism had formerly deluded the churches. The writers rejoiced that William Shakespeare had supplanted John Calvin. They hailed Billy Sunday as a man who teaches that "burning" is to be preferred to "learning."

The Nobility of Ignorance

There can be no doubt that God has used men who had little or no Bible education. Nevertheless, for some mysterious reason, we went from John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield and Charles Spurgeon (among many others) to be followed by Charles Finney, D.L. Moody and then Billy Sunday. We were seeing the rise of what Paul warned Timothy about when he stated, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires (2 Timothy 4:3 NASB). I dare to say that most modern evangelistic preachers and teachers could not relate to Wycliffe, Tyndale, Calvin, Wesley, etc. How can that be possible if we are all cut-out of the same stock? Are people less sinful than in the 1400s-1800s, or the book of Acts? If the people have grown more sinful, and God and the Bible have not changed; why have mainstream preachers and teachers shifted away from the values esteemed by ministers of bygone generations?

Understand that Charles Finney, D.L. Moody, and Billy Sunday have shaped modern evangelical practice and were not theologically minded. Finney’s theology was more his own philosophy. Moody was a shoe salesman, and Sunday was a professional baseball player. You will recall one of the concerns of the Separatists in England that preachers were ministering as “blind leaders of the blind.” They expected preachers to be learned in the Scriptures and walking in accordance with its truths. They petitioned Parliament to have many of these men removed and replaced with capable ministers. They complained that there were shoemakers, barbers and horse keepers ministering to the people. It took 300 years, but let me say reverently and respectfully that we seemed to have come full-circle.

Regrettably, the approach to evangelism by these dear men of God, who seemed to be well intentioned, was a radical departure from the deep theological roots of those that brought about the Reformation and the emphasis on genuine conversion that followed. The tide was changing, and it has only gotten worse. The Lord knows that people need to understand the Gospel. That can only happen if it is explained properly. This means that preachers must study to show themselves approved unto God. By implication, there is an “unprepared” and “unapproved” minister. Nevertheless, suddenly, the whole of our theological construct began to be influenced by men who doubtfully could articulate the wonder of the New Covenant. In time, the only thing that mattered was that a person knew how to escape the damnation of hell. Gone was the zeal for understanding all that God had for us in the New Covenant. Gone from the mainstream was the deep understanding of the Christian life made available to us through the cross. Today, John Wesley's influence is barely felt. Charles Wesley's hymns were so “doctrinally sound” that they would not be understood in modern mainstream Christendom. Why? Because ignorance of the Scriptures went in vogue, and we have not yet recovered from it.

Salvation By Logical Deduction

Billy Sunday’s conversion pledge was the forerunner of today’s sinner’s prayer. It took time for evangelicals that hold to the Reformers sola fide to dismiss the notion that making a verbal pronouncement was effectively a sacramental act.[161] Billy Sunday had no such reservations. In fact, his evangelistic process was so utterly unlike anything that went before him that we have to designate “Pre-Billy Sunday” and “Post-Billy Sunday” when discussing the subject of evangelism. Consider this transcription of a tract that was given to each person that “walked the sawdust trail.”

Dear Friend: You have by this act of coming forward publicly acknowledged your faith in Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. No one could possibly be more rejoiced that you have done this, or be more anxious for you to succeed and get the most joy out of the Christian life, than I. Therefore, I ask you to read carefully this little tract. Paste it in your Bible and read it frequently.

-Billy Sunday

2 Tim. 2:15

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN

"A Christian is any man, woman or child who comes to God as a lost sinner, accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, surrenders to Him as their Lord and Master, confesses Him as such before the world, and strives to please Him in everything day by day."

Have you come to God realizing that you are a lost sinner?

Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior; that is, do you believe with all your heart that God laid all your iniquity on Him? (Isa. 53:5-6) and that He bore the penalty of your sins (1 Peter 2:24), and that your sins are forgiven because Jesus died in your stead?

Have you surrendered to Him as your Lord and Master? That is, are you willing to do His will even when it conflicts with your desire?

Have you confessed to Him as your Savior and Master before the world? Is it your purpose to strive to please Him in everything day by day?

If you can sincerely answer "YES" to the foregoing questions, then you may know on the authority of God's Word that you are NOW a child of God (John 1:12), that you have NOW eternal life (John 3:36); that is to say, if you have done your part (i.e., believe that Christ died in your place, and received Him as your Savior and Master) God has done HIS part and imparted to you His own nature (2 Peter 1:4).

Pre-Billy Sunday evangelists would have been horrified by this tract that was given to tens of thousands of people. It may have been considered heretical. It is so far off that it is hard to know where to begin. Sadly, most evangelicals today would see absolutely no problem with what this tract contains. Why? Because in a Post-Billy Sunday evangelicalism, most people do not understand genuine conversion. A person cannot be led through a series of proof texts and then asked if they are compliant. Conversion is brought about as a result of God regenerating a person who is surrendered to Him. It sounds like what Sunday is saying, but it is very different. Salvation is of the Lord and when the minister steps too far into the process, he/she is in error. We are to call people to repent, trust in Christ, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. It begins when we turn from all known sin with a willingness to place our complete trust in Christ. When this happens in a way that God can believe us, He will transform us. When this happens, we will not need to be told we are “saved.” The Holy Spirit will witness within us that we are children of God. This is why we read in George Soltan’s Enquiry Room: Hints for the Anxious:

9.     Do not tell a person he is saved. Let the Holy Spirit be the witness in the heart of the believer, telling him that he is delivered from sin and its penalty.

If anyone were ever anxious for his or her soul in Billy Sunday’s meetings where he employed the “Power of Positive Conviction” to further his message, this tract would have likely quenched that anxiety. Again, Sunday then comforts the seeker with these unconscionable words:

If you can sincerely answer ‘YES’ to the foregoing questions, then you may know on the authority of God's Word that you are NOW a child of God (John 1:12), that you have NOW eternal life (John 3:36); that is to say, if you have done your part (i.e., believe that Christ died in your place, and receive Him as your Savior and Master) God has done HIS part and imparted to you His own nature (2 Peter 1:4).

This one bold step of assuring a person of their salvation, formerly reserved to the Holy Spirit alone, would prove to be an evangelistic tragedy of epic proportions. In 39 years, Billy Sunday basically overthrew 400 years of theology in mainstream evangelicalism. This is why we can now say we live under “Post-Billy Sunday” evangelicalism.

CHAPTER 7

Putting God On Main Street

Far be it from me to number any good and godly minister on TV, radio, print or otherwise among the transgressors. Perish the thought. If you are an honest preacher of God’s word, Calvinist or Arminian, Baptist or Pentecostal, or any other Bible believing minister, this chapter is not about you. Let’s get that clear before we begin. What I wish to deal with is how Christianity (specifically evangelism) has been distorted by a band of American TV ministers who refused to follow the Bible. Long before reality TV shows featured so-called preachers in L.A. sporting mansions, Bentleys, and gold chains, there were ministers with a “vision” of “putting God on Main street.” Thirty-five years before secular country music singer Ray Stevens asked, “Would Jesus wear a Rolex” there were several TV preachers who would have answered in the affirmative (at least, their Jesus would have). These false teachers have so infiltrated the minds of many Christians that real Christianity is now being blasphemed when a true teacher or preacher presents it. This is exactly what Peter warned of:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their damnation does not slumber (2 Peter 2:1-3).

How many sinners do you suppose are blaspheming God right now as a result of seeing these prosperity merchants strutting around flaunting their success? If 2 Peter 2:1-3 has any meaning at all, we can rest assured that it will be shocking to many on that great judgment day to see their favorite TV preacher cast into hell. Ray Stevens asked the question twenty-five years ago, and now the madness is normative. Once the prosperity heresy went on satellite, and ministers picked it up in Africa, an exaggerated version of it has plagued that impoverished continent. This is only one example of how deception has been exported from America. We need to sober our minds to what is going on lest we be caught up in the snare of this wickedness. We also need to ask, how did it come to this? We hope to answer that in this chapter.

The Advent of Mass Evangelism

Mass communication has greatly challenged the historical means of presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in turn, dealing with those that have heard the Gospel once a message has been given. Dwight L. Moody very much took advantage of the press in the promotion of his meetings as did Billy Sunday. A simple search of Google's Newspaper Archives reveals how churches have utilized the press in various ways for over 200 years. Nevertheless, things were about to change. The turn of the century marked a new day in evangelistic practice. Preachers took hold of a medium many times more powerful than a newspaper. The influence of radio and television has dwarfed what Moody was capable of.

It is cliché to say, but by 1899, evangelicalism was headed into a “perfect storm.” Bad evangelistic practices were on a collision course with mass evangelism. In the late 1800s Billy Sunday ministered primarily in large tent gatherings,[162] but advancements in technology during his lifetime allowed his impact and influence to extend well beyond previous evangelists. During his glory-days, the Billy Sunday Tabernacles were gargantuan. By way of example, Kansas City citizens built a canvas and wood tabernacle at Admiral blvd. and Lydia. A staggering fifteen boxcar loads of lumber and canvas were used. The 215-by-302 foot structure (65,000 square feet) was larger than the old Convention Hall that was designed for the 1900 Democratic National Convention where Moody preached his last sermon 17 years before. Seating capacity was 12,000 with a standing room for 4,000 more. During the seven weeks of the Kansas City revival, 92 sermons were preached. A front-page story in The Kansas City Star reported on “The Final Tearful Farewell” after Billy Sunday's last sermon, The June 18, 1916 edition gave the “statistics” that a total of 1,356,000 persons had attended the revival and 20,646 of them "hit the sawdust trail." If we take this event as a template, we may conclude that these massive tent meetings reached as many as 1.3 million people in seven weeks (185,000 per week). These numbers were unprecedented, but this method was about to give way to a whole new means of reaching the masses.

Christian Radio

In the early days of Christian radio, the parishioners who listened were usually the most active within their congregation. The radio provided a means of filling their spare time with something “spiritual” rather than “secular.”[163] It was a replacement for meaningless entertainment. If the old saying is true that "video killed the radio star," then we can say with the same confidence that "the radio star killed the newspaper” as a primary means of keeping tabs on tent meetings. It did not happen all at once; it was slow, but sure. Up to this time tens of thousands could be reached under a tent, but on January 2, 1921, evangelism took a giant step forward when Pittsburgh’s KDKA installed three microphones in the Calvary Episcopal Church for the first time.[164]An audience of roughly 4700 people heard the voices of choir members, including future vice president of ABC, Robert Saudek.[165]

Liberal Congregationalist Samuel Parkes Cadman (1864-1936) was one of the first people to give a religious address on radio.[166] This marked a new era for Christianity and evangelicalism as radio stations multiplied until the whole nation was saturated. By the end of the 1920s one in ten stations were “Christian.” Beginning with Cadmon, evangelicalism started experiencing widespread influence from just a handful of individuals. Ministers were now preaching sermons on radio that could be regurgitated back into local assemblies. The more popular the radio preacher, the more likely he would be quoted or imitated.

The Influence of Mass Media

We have been afforded roughly a hundred years to examine how mass media, beginning with radio, has made an impact on how we live. As early as 1974, experts were saying that “parents and teachers are no longer the principal shapers of children’s minds in the United States. Television is.”[167] The influence on children and adult alike is so profound that advertisers spend billions of dollars each year promoting their products and services.

Researchers Donald Horton and R. Richard Wohl, examining the effects of television, coined the term “para-social communication” to describe how viewers become intimately connected with TV personalities. People watch television so frequently that they get drawn past the barrier of the picture screen, and into an illusion of actual relationship. Some feel they know the TV personality better than their neighbors, friends and even family members. These para-social relationships can replace real relationships. TV producers understand this phenomenon. This is why the camera will zoom in close to talk-show hosts during their monologue to create the illusion that a conversation is taking place.[168]

This para-social reality has devastating consequences for the visible church. If viewers of Christian Television are moving in a para-social relationship with their favorite TV minister, they will defend them as they would a close friend or family member; even when they know deep inside their para-social minister is wrong. Some may feel more strongly towards their “television pastor” than their “real pastor.” This is caused in part by the false intimacy created by watching television in intimate settings such as the living room or bedroom. People react to drama on television in much the same way as they do in real life. Audiences employ what is known as temporary suspension of disbelief. They set aside things that they know are true and allow themselves to be caught up in the fantasy of television. Having discovered that audiences react to TV the same way they react to real life, TV programmers began designing shows to influence social behavior. Nevertheless, it is an established fact that TV has a direct influence on viewers, whether they realize it, will admit it, or not.

Understand that radio and television are platforms from which information is disseminated and names are built. Mass media is a tower on which many other towers can be constructed. This is the ancient expression of man in rebellion at Babel, “Let us build a name… let us build a tower.” Electronic media is an awesome means of exaltation. Its machinery is designed for competition. Its objective is maximum listeners or viewers. To enter this field is to enter the room with the Devil who is more than willing to offer a price for your soul. The sheer allurement of radio and television (as a means to hubris; alternately in more Biblical language popularity, pleasure, and possessions) holds its subjects in its orbit without the ability or willingness to break free. All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life are gluttonously consumed here.

What has happened? Few people stopped to ask whether or not television as a medium (in contrast to an electronic device) was a valid means of presenting the Gospel or Christianity in the first place. The television medium is an unapologetic source of superficial entertainment. The very nature of television militates against the notion of self-examination (introspection). It is the supreme distraction from all inward thoughts. It is as “the drums of Tophet” that once drowned the screams during infant sacrifice in Ancient Israel. People turn the television on to escape from the pains of life, not to inflict themselves with more. In other words, nobody turns on a television to be challenged, but to be amused. To assume that a minister can appear on television and duplicate the tent-meeting, revival sermon, or evangelistic message without losing the power of God in the translation is naivety at best and willful ignorance at worst. Secular journalist Neil Postman lamented as far back as 1985 that religion was being blasphemed by the way it was portrayed on television. He writes:

I believe that I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion all together.[169]

The minister using the medium of television is very conscious that he is just a click away from being turned off and dares say nothing that will jeopardize a single viewer. As I intend to show, the truth of the Gospel has been drowned in an ocean of falsehood. We have sat back and watched as some minister on some channel has compromised almost everything that was truly meaningful in Christianity. The sad thing is, that we live in an age where few people even care what has been lost, so long as they can keep getting (or hearing) what they want.

As long as people can turn on the TV and forget the troubles of the day, they are satisfied. But at what cost? The moral standards are swiftly declining until only 10 years separates an “R” rating from a “PG-13.” Sadly, even within the churches are individuals who are brainwashed by modern media. In their desire for perpetual distraction, their minds no longer deeply ponder the great issues of live. Self-examination went out of vogue before Billy Sunday and unlike the clothing styles and musical genres of popular culture, it has not cycled back around since.

Feedback Loops

It is on television (TV) that Christianity becomes “big business” with similar objectives as secular programs. What are those objectives? Corporations want to win your business so the need maximum viewers. Televangelists want to “win souls,” so they need maximum viewers. Both end up doing what it takes to get the viewership they desire: giving the people what they want. This is the great challenge for secular and Christian programs. If people quit watching, there is no use in being on TV at all. Getting people to watch becomes, by default, the primary objective. Since you cannot force people to watch your program, you have to get them “hooked” somehow, so that their hand stays away from the channel changer. Unlike preaching in the open-air, many ministers have not been content to allow a crowd to gather spontaneously, but (as we shall examine) have fallen into the trap of compromising the Gospel for ratings, money and popularity. Once that happens, there is no hope of using the secular media in a way that will glorify God.

In the early 1900s, the Father of Public Relations, Edward Bernays, helped usher in an era in which every human being would become a “happiness machine.” He used the media to bring this about. Corporations used focus groups and psychoanalysts to discover what people want, so that Public Relations experts like Edward Bernays could feed it back to them in the form of consumable products. This was done with many different forms of advertising. In this media, popularity rules the day. When corporations cannot innovate, they imitate what is working for the other guy. Adopting this philosophy is one of the ways the world enters mainstream Christianity. Ministries simply look to do what has been “working” at getting ratings up for other shows. This attitude is passed into the local churches, and they are deeply affected. Once this secular mindset takes over, ministers are replaced with motivational speakers, and the board is replaced with business executives. Sadly, even small churches will make room on their boards for any man who has corporate executive experience to share. If boards become run by these types of men, the culture of the church turns from building fellowship practices to management systems, from having beliefs to having a brand, and from cultivating revival to reputation.[170]

What is the legacy of 100 years of mass media? It is too early to tell, but at this juncture, we see the big religious organizations that seem to admire the success of the corporation, and the small church in turn admires the success of the big religious organization so that the philosophy of ministry in the local church is a quasi-expression of the average successful corporation with all of its marketing savvy. In an age that boasts of individuality, we are a mass of imitators scouring the pop-cultural landscape for the next bandwagon. What does this mean for the Gospel? How will we ever get back to the book of Acts?

Let Us Make A Name For Ourselves…

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

(Genesis 11:4 NKJV)

"Let us make a name for ourselves" captures the spirit of modern-day corporate branding. Edward Bernays’ marketing and public relations machinery also calls attention to the fact that each business has to come up with some proprietary product that they can own and sell. No one can hope to build a business on a commodity, so innovation becomes the order of the day. This raises a great question: “What effect does free market competition have on the free Gospel?” A business grows only through new products and new categories of products. Mass media grows only as they introduce novel programs that command a greater audience than the competition. Can the Gospel be made to fit into such a scheme? What happens when we constantly seek to utilize the same Gospel message to capture a larger audience? Could the Gospel survive such a practice as corporations employ for success? If we try to replace the original Gospel with 2.0 and 3.0 versions, to carve out our own niche (often branded as revelations, special anointing, or some other demographically cynical words), we are bound to get heresy or gross compromise. How can “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever” be a reality in this construct?[171]

A “Perfect Storm”

"The question is not whether Fosdick is winning men, but whether the thing to which he is winning them is Christianity?"

-J. Gresham Machen

Reading the writings of early televangelists, there was always an emphasis on getting the Gospel out to people that would not ordinarily have a chance or desire to hear it. This would be well enough if it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was being preached. It is not enough to “reach people” or boast of how some gangster “tuned in” to your show. What are you preaching? Did you tell that gangster that he must repent of all known sin and turn to Christ in absolute abandonment? Or did you preach a Gospel that tickled his ears and left him unchanged? When Moses said, “Thus says the Lord” a million people took a step forward: what are we to make of a televangelist who speaks and tens of millions are influenced weekly?

If the enemy can control or influence large amounts of Christian radio content, and the majority of television preachers and singers, he can control how people perceive Christianity. This is what he has done and will continue doing until somehow it is stopped. This also allows him to influence the local assembly. Although God has placed individuals within the churches to be the source of feeding the flock of God, great new challenges were on the horizon starting with Christian radio. Soon famous preachers would be quoted and imitated in almost every way. As we continue unearthing what has happened in evangelicalism since the book of Acts, we will slowly discover that the radio evangelists and eventually the televangelists began to dictate trends and fads within the local churches. This is a very sobering feature to add to our “perfect storm.”

Let me say again that the use of means such as tents, newspapers, radio, and television are not in of themselves evil. They are amoral means. It is the abuse and misuse of these tools and means that is wrong. The solution for abuse is not non-use, but right-use. Nevertheless, the question becomes, will the world tolerate a pre-Billy Sunday evangelical Christianity on the radio and television? Are ministers prepared to preach the Gospel as did John Wesley and George Whitefield on television and radio? Or does the mentality of Ahimaaz, which we addressed in the Introduction, dominate our mainstream evangelism today? As we will discover, ministers get on television and are either unwilling or unable to confront sin (tell the bad news) in a way necessary to preach the Gospel and see the hearer come into the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God. Keep in mind that we are talking about radio and television evangelism. Is true evangelism taking place?

Special Authority to the Popular

I believe it is impossible to estimate fully the influence that radio and television have made upon Christian doctrine and practice in the last 75 years. Why? Because parishioners, preachers, and teachers in local churches are assigning special authority to popular Christian personalities. The problem is so severe, that few bother to consult with the Bible about a subject, much less a theologian; they just refer to something their TV or radio preacher has said. This is not to say that sometimes they may be right, but Christians must be good Bereans and search these issues out for themselves. The Roman Catholics assigned the authority to the Pope and traditions; Rabbinic Judaism places authority with the Rabbis; modern Christians are placing it with TV ministers such as Billy Graham, T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, and a host of others. All a minister needs is to have their own radio or television program, and they are a candidate for being quoted. This would be manageable if we turned on John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Paul the Apostle, but these “modern” ministers and their brand of Christianity, often bears little resemblance to what we find in the New Testament. Their programs are yielding an exponential influence beyond the original broadcasts. Why? Because we live in an era of Pop-psychology masquerading as Christianity (Pop-Christianity) where teachers and preachers often imitate their favorite TV preacher. What happens when popularity and coolness take the place of preaching a book of Acts Gospel?

People rationalize that it “must be God” that is providing them the platform to speak, or they would not have it. This is not necessarily true. Paul warned the Ephesians that after he departed from them, grievous wolves would come in not sparing the flock. The Scriptures warn of a generation that would heap to themselves teachers who tickle the ears. How could that happen in the New Testament era when some people only heard a few Gospel preachers in their lifetime? Indeed, The Devil will provide a false teacher a platform as if it were a light thing. He will promote false ideas about God and salvation, just as he did during the Middle Ages. He will force the local teacher and preacher to have to compete for influence within their own churches, their words being trumped by what is taught on television and radio. This style of Christianity totally misses God's plan for a local church in which Christ is walking in the midst and tending the lamp-stand. Christ wants to speak to the local assembly through the local people, but His voice is often drowned out by a deluge of popular so-called Christian programming. Christ is building a Church modeled after the Spirit of God, not the latest and most popular thing on Christian radio or television.

Early Televangelism

As early as 1949, ministers such as Jack Wetzel (1913-1996), Fulton sheen (1895-1979) and Percy Crawford (1902-1960) appeared on television: Nevertheless, in 1952, Rex Humbard became the first to have a weekly television broadcast.[172] By 1966, Humbard was known as “Your Television Pastor” and by 1970 was on 225 television stations from coast to coast, and deep into Canada. With a potential weekly viewing audience of 15,000,000, he was the most viewed evangelist in the world. This was a weekly potential audience eighty times (80X) greater than Billy Sunday. By 1980, his programs spanned the globe across 695 stations in 91 languages and to date had the largest coverage of any evangelistic program. We will return to Humbard a little later, but first we must mention another influential TV minister that was moving with him along a parallel line.

Television in the Tent Meeting

The organ begins playing in the background as a black-and-white aerial view of the massive revival tent appears on the screen. Suddenly, in large white cursive letters, the name Oral Roberts (1918-2009) appears on the TV screen. The next scene has Roberts sitting at a table describing himself as a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, ministering under a tent that will seat 10,000 people. He proceeds to declare that the healing events we were about to see were genuine. To prove this he asks a local judge seated next to him to give him an oath declaring that the statements he is about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth “so help me God.” He affirms: “I do.” He has prepared an affidavit to “solemnly affirm” that what is about to be presented is true.

The scene changes where thousands of people are shown in the crowd. The announcer appears on stage to introduce Oral Roberts:

Now ladies and gentleman it is my happy privilege and pleasure to present the man that God has raised up with a message for your deliverance; God’s man for this hour, the Reverend Oral Roberts.

Roberts springs from behind the curtain smiling, raises both hands to signal the crowd to stand, and commences to sing Where the Healing Waters Flow. He reads his text and begins preaching in a “Billy Sunday” type drama.[173] The altar call that followed was identical to that of hundreds of itinerate preachers who had gone before and were contemporary with Roberts.[174] The pattern was now well established. He calls the people forward after the sermon for prayer, and then leads them in the sinner’s prayer. This was the next step from Moody and Sunday’s precursors:

Oh, my God, tonight I know that first things come first, and the most important thing of all is that men and women and young people surrender their lives to Christ, that they be saved from their sins, that Christ may come into their hearts. God don't let a mother's boy who heard me preach tonight go to hell. Don't let a mother's girl who heard me preach tonight go to hell. Don't let a daddy or a mother who heard me preach tonight go to hell. Save them, Jesus, save them tonight from all their sins and may they be born again by Thy Spirit, washed in the blood and saved through and through, without the loss of any, I pray. Amen

This prayer is then followed by a repeating type sinner’s prayer:

Each of you standing before me raise up your right hand and repeat after me. Oh Lord, be merciful to me a sinner. Save my soul from all sin. Make me thy child that I may live for thee forever. I receive Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. Amen. If you meant that say amen.

He then sends the people out of the main tent to the prayer tent to pray until they “know the Lord has forgiven them.” He waits on them to return and afterwards prays for the sick. This was ca. 1955.

There are three observations I wish to make respectfully: First, Oral Roberts is referred to as “God’s man for the hour,” a concept that will move into local assemblies. It coincided with a heavy Hollywood emphasis on hero-figures in the 1940s-1960s, such as the Lone Ranger, John Wayne, Gene Autry, and James Arness. Second, the focus in praying the sinner’s prayer leans heavily towards not going “to hell.” He mentions not going to hell three times in his pre-prayer. Although missing hell is tremendous, it is man-centered and does not appreciate God’s purposes in the New Covenant. This is evidence that “sin’s forgiven” has become the primary reason for praying the sinner’s prayer. An emotional appeal is made drawing a person to respond for their family member’s sake. Third, Oral Roberts did not tell the people that they were saved, but directed them to go and pray until God gives them assurance.[175] This is an important positive carry-over from the pre-Billy Sunday era.

God’s Man For The Hour?

The first point I wish to expand on is this notion that God exalts TV preachers. It is certain that many people watching the program believed the announcer that Oral Roberts was “God’s man for the hour” leading to a dependence on man and the belief that God had specially anointed TV ministers to be exalted above the “ordinary” minister. When Paul left Ephesus in Acts 20, he commended the elders to God, not to man. He had no confidence in men, but in God alone. This was necessary to prevent the very things he warned them about. Paul also writes to the church at Corinth: For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake (2 Corinthians 4:5). Can you imagine Paul allowing himself to be eulogized in the manner of Oral Roberts? Tragically, a crop of ministers came to the fore that seemed to enjoy the limelight and the accolades. Many became household names and attained celebrity status. This was completely contrary to the teachings of Christ on humility and self-denial. John the Baptist’s maxim was “I must decrease, He must increase.” Some 30 years after Robert’s was announced as “God’s man for the hour,” revival historian and author Leonard Ravenhill (1907-1994)[176] would threaten to walk off of a platform if the announcer attempted to eulogize him. In his historic interview entitled A Man of God made shortly before his death, Ravenhill states:

I can’t say there is revival anywhere right
now. And so do you think I am going to talk Holy Spirit revival when we are dying and doomed and damned here and we go running into worse trouble?
What is in the Scriptures? What does God say? “I can’t give you glory because you honor one-another.”[177] That’s one of the biggest sins in Israel. In fact, John[178] asked me and I said, “If you do I’ll
walk off the platform!”

In March 1968, Oral Roberts felt called of God to leave the Pentecostal Holiness denomination to be ordained in the United Methodist Church.[179] He had been a Methodist as a child. The most compelling attraction of the Methodist church was its latitude. Roberts was increasingly cramped by Pentecostal theology and his church's moral prudishness; both restraints limited his audience and hindered his new television format.[180] They had an emphasis on holiness that was a hindrance to television success. It was the "unstructured part of Methodism," specifically the Methodist “free pulpit,” which most attracted him.

Variety Shows

In 1955, the first tent crusade was televised, and, from 1955 to May of 1967, the ministry was on television. In 1967, Oral Roberts took his ministry off television. Then, in 1969, he began to televise prime time specials called Contact with Mahalia Jackson (1911-1972) as his first guest star.[181] The opening line became a household phrase over the next several years, “Something Good is Going to Happen To You.”[182] These shows could be characterized as variety shows or musicals–enlisting the singing voice of men like Richard Roberts, Carlton Pearson and the World Action Singers.[183] These programs were not only a radical departure from his previous format, but they ushered in a new age of “Christian television ministry.”

During these decades, whole para-church ministries have come into being in an attempt to deal with teachings propagated through the secular media. We are enduring the wholesale spread of pop-Christianity and "fad" doctrines that leave in their wake everything from rife heresy at worst to a trail of outdated books that end up on bargain tables at the local used Christian bookstores. And though we could spend time at length considering this fact, I wish to examine something that took place in the late 1950s that I believe was a warning about the direction of modern televangelism (television evangelism). This historical event was the impetus for this book, Televangelicalism.

The Tower to No-Where

Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it, lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him,[184] saying, “This man began to build and was not able to finish.” (Luke 14:25-30 NKJV)

Our passage asks us to consider what would happen if a man laid the foundation of a tower and then afterwards was not able to complete it because he did not count the cost. This passage existed for over 1900 years as a valuable lesson that in itself was fully capable of revealing the mind of God on the subject. And yet I believe, that in the mind of God, He knew that the day would come when just such an event would truly come to pass: not in an age where multitudes were measured in hundreds and thousands; but in tens of millions.

Consider that in Akron, Ohio (the city where A.W. Tozer was converted) stands a giant unfinished concrete television tower that is the mocking-stock of a highly popular and respected evangelical minister the late Rex Humbard.[185] This is the tower in the black-and-white picture on the cover of this book. On an evangelistic tour in Canada, Humbard saw the 626-foot Calgary Tower and decided he would duplicate it near Akron. At over 700 feet tall, it was designed to be the highest structure in Ohio. Humbard designed it to include a restaurant, television studio, and observation deck.[186]  This concrete and steel structure, though nearly forty years old, is still the source of countless crude jokes. At over 400 feet tall, it is an eyesore scarring the city skyline. It was the brainchild of Humbard, the seeds of which were sown after he wanted a television studio in the sky, but did not count the cost and was unable to complete the job. It is said that this massive tower sold in the 1980s for only $30,000. It is essentially a giant cell phone tower today.[187]

The Televangelical Gospel

What happened? Financial problems plagued the ministry in the early 70s, and they were not able to complete the tower. Attention turned elsewhere, and it was left standing. Is this not a picture of much of modern-day televangelism? I believe this event signaled the beginning of the Televangelical Gospel that stripped, for the most part, an essential element of the Gospel: counting the cost. Armed with Billy Sunday’s altar call methodology, televangelists began broadcasting to millions the “sacramental act” of responding to an altar call to be saved. Completely dependent upon supporters to stay on the air, the televangelical message became a slave to ratings and offerings. This reality is what gave birth to what we know today as the "name it and claim it" prosperity heresy. Rex Humbard was the father of it in the main stream.[188]

Televangelism’s Formative Influence

In 1980 when Rex Humbard’s ratings started to slip, he began shooting his program outdoors at the lush Callaway Gardens in Georgia. "We're competing in a world of show biz," says his wife, Maude Aimee. "You have to have a better line than the next balloon seller. Religion isn't any different."[189]These comments offer insight into the thinking process that was driving televangelism. What happened? Their Cathedral was looking dated, so they took the show outdoors to take advantage of the wonderful, eye-catching scenery.[190] By inference, she was saying, we need to keep up with the times and to do that we have to “one-up” the program down the street. Keep in mind that multiplied millions of people are watching this play out.

As surely as MTV influenced a generation for this world system, Rex Humbard and similar Christian broadcasts were programming the minds of millions of Christians. They made duplication of worldly techniques conventional, and the extravagant lifestyles of preachers acceptable. If you want to know why the rave among many preachers in the 21st century is to live in mansions, drive Bentley’s, strike up the band, black out the buildings, and turn up the accent lights, look no further than Rex Humbard. In fact, though he was unable to complete his “tower” he purchased a vacation home in Florida for $650,000 ($1,800,000 adjusted for inflation).[191] He argued that he and his family deserved to have a place to relax together for the better of the organization. And while many preachers were referring to the TV as “hellevision” many Christians went a whoring after these ministers and made them “God’s anointed.”

Formative Evangelistic Concepts

Aesthetic influences were only minor when compared to the evangelistic influence. One need to look no farther, than actual footage of Rex Humbard’s programming dating to the 1960s and 70s. The program begins with a globe spinning on the screen and the announcer reminding the audience that there are more people on the earth today than lived in the aggregate from Adam until now. He makes a call to “think of the challenge that God has placed before us, to reach these millions upon millions of people with the saving message of Jesus Christ.”  He continues, “It is to meeting this challenge that the Rex Humbard World Outreach Ministry is dedicated.” Then we see a transition that includes what appears to be an artists conception of the giant studio and TV tower that was never completed.

At this point one would be fairly convinced that the primary mission of the program is to evangelize the world. After a number of songs and a message, the “altar call” is given. The organ begins playing a moving piece as Rex Humbard comes forward and asks the people to stand and bow their heads as he begins speaking:

How many men and women and boys and girls in this room your relationship with your Lord you feel is like it ought to be, and today if your heart were to quit beating (finger snap) right now or the Lord would come you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ready to meet the Lord. Don’t lift your hand unless you’re sure, but how many are sure, may I see your hand? Thank you, you may take it down. While heads are bowed and eyes are closed before we pray, how many men and women, boys and girls in this room will say “Rex, I could not lift my hand then and say that if my heart were to quit (finger snap) beating now and I had to stand before the Lord that I would be sure I am ready and I want you to pray for me.”

Humbard then asks the people who could not lift their hands and would like him to pray for them to lift their hands now. He tells the people that if they lift their hands to the Lord, He will see them. He reminds the people that he has prepared an altar in front for the people to pray and then calls everyone who raised their hand to come forward. He encourages them to “come now and not later” to the altar area. Just then the crowd softly begins singing “Just As I Am.” It is a familiar sight to anyone who has been born in the last 60 years.

Tradition Takes the Force of Law

We have watched this approach to “getting saved” for so long, that to even question it seems almost like blasphemy. This helps us understand why the Catholics resisted the Reformers. The errors they were practicing had gone on for so long that no one remembered when things were different. Traditions take the force of law over time–and it is no different with the modern day “altar call.” The reader could have probably rehearsed Rex’s appeal or one similar from memory, though you have never given one personally. This is how programmed our minds are to think in this way. Nevertheless, understand that not even Charles G. Finney, champion of the anxious bench and advocate of “new measures” would have known what was going on during Rex Humbard’s altar call. Finney called people forward, but it was for counseling after the meeting. D.L. Moody called people to stand, but he held Enquiry Meetings where he would speak for up to two hours with an anxious sinner leading them to surrender fully to Christ.

The essential missing element in modern-day evangelism is conviction of sin. It is the great mysterious variable that is necessary to true conversion. We should ask, How can a person come to Christ unless they are convicted of sin and respond to Him as a person? How does Rex Humbard’s evangelism match up with the first five chapters of this book? We have to reckon with this. It may be necessary for the reader to go back and review those chapters to make a comparison.

Rex Humbard prays for the people and then moves to what we commonly know as the “Sinner’s Prayer.” The people repeat after Humbard:

Dear Lord Jesus… forgive all my sins… cleanse my heart from all unrighteousness… I receive Jesus Christ… as my only Savior and my only hope… of a home in heaven… I will live for the Lord… and serve the Lord… the rest of my life. When life is over… let me live with you forever… this I ask in Jesus name… Amen.

How many believe God answered that prayer? Hands go up. Then Lord I ask your Spirit and presence to bear witness that it is well. Grant the personal miracle of each of these lives this day… in Jesus name. Amen.

Humbard then asks the people to stand and look at him as he announces he is giving them a piece of literature God’s Plan For Your Life. This is almost identical to Billy Sunday’s pattern, except Sunday did not pray a repeating prayer. He then offers to send it to those who prayed by television. He continues speaking:

Now the Bible says if we confess our sins (and we just said “Lord forgive us of our sins”) He is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins and cleanse our hearts from all unrighteousness.

Notice a serious error in Humbard’s statements, he says that “confessing our sins” is asking the Lord to “forgive us of our sins.” It is not. The word “confess” from 1 John 1:9 is the Greek “say the same thing after.” It means to acknowledge. This is the very thing many people will not do. They will ask for mercy, they will make excuses and blame others, but they will not acknowledge that they have sinned against the Lord. This error infected mainstream evangelism and is still practiced today by a multitude of ministers. In chapter 10, we go into detail as to what “confess” truly means. Humbard then holds up the printed pamphlet and demonstrates how God cleanses our sins by turning it over to the blank side and showing the people. He then states:

On the authority of the Bible here is your page in God’s book. Not because of your good works, but because of Calvary we have got a clean page. If we have a clean page we are ready to meet the Lord, right now. The enemy will come to you and run you in the ditch saying, “what about yesterday or last week” and get you looking in the rear view mirror. You tell the enemy no–my past is blotted out and I am going forward. That’s what the Gospel is about. And I believe it. If I didn’t believe it I would never preach another sermon, pray a prayer, or sing a song because the Bible said so, Jesus said so and I believe it.

The people were then dismissed to go to the counseling room to pick up their literature. You will notice a parallel to Billy Sunday’s “convert pledge card.” What was left unspoken for Billy Sunday has now been made into a formula type prayer.

What is missing in this formula prayer that would have been present in Peter and Paul’s preaching in the book of Acts? Where are repentance, faith, water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit? Before the reader is tempted to anger or lamentation for Rex Humbard’s sake, may we rather lament how the book of Acts has been marginalized and its pattern flagrantly disregarded. Nobody reading this will be judged because they did not follow Rex Humbard or Billy Sunday: we will be judged for the truth of God’s word having been brought to our attention and our having trodden it under foot.

We are called to agree with what God has said about our sins. Who confessed their sins to God and forsook them during this prayer? We will examine the Biblical approach to evangelism in a later chapter, but the glaring question here is, “Who was saved by saying this prayer?” After all, millions of people have trusted in this prayer or one similar for salvation. Let me say first that any step towards God is significant and important and should not be mocked. The question is, have you repented of your sins and truly trusted Christ? Have you been baptized in water? Have you received the Holy Spirit? Are you walking in the Spirit?

The Original Design

It is interesting to note that Rex Humbard’s weekly program was originally designed as an outreach to the elderly, the sick, and all other persons who were unable to attend weekly worship services.[192] It should be noted that the sinner’s prayer was once believed to be a deathbed prayer. Humbard’s desire was to “preach a simple Gospel” by proclaiming “the positive message of God’s forgiveness and love.” As we will see, this new spin on the Gospel will rule the day from the 1950s onwards. From this point on, Holy Spirit conviction will not be tolerated in the mainstream.

In addition to all the measures employed by Billy Sunday to convince a person to “come to the altar” inspirational music was added to the list. This was not a Rex Humbard innovation, but he employed it in his method. In an environment where the Holy Spirit has not yet convicted the people of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come–the people are manipulated into coming forward to “settle” the question of their soul’s salvation. We will address this more in the next chapter, but it was this practice that led to the modern-day confusion between soulish music and the manifest presence of God. The people would “feel something” interpreting it as “God” no matter if it was He or not. The people often trusted the minister involved so the practice was seen as legitimate. In fact, it was not even questioned. Today it is completely “normal.”

Counting the Cost

Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish... So likewise, whosoever he be of you that does not forsake all that he has, he cannot be my disciple.

The Gospel according to Jesus focuses on the necessity of counting the cost for becoming converted. Salvation is the free gift of God, but it may cost you family and friends to be converted. Nominal professors of Christ have no real concerns because they are basically unsaved people adopting the name “Christian.” But a genuine born-again Christian who is a true child of God will run cross with this present world. His/her newfound desires will wear down or even disgust carnal people. Count the cost–do you want to be a nominal Christian or a child of God? Do you want to be persecuted for being godly and righteous? Count the cost. Are you prepared to be shunned by society for your life style and convictions? Counting the cost begins with a right reference point for what it means to be a Christian. If we use our own lifespan as the reference point for true conversion, we will be misguided by the multitudes of people who signed a pledge card or prayed a prayer these last 60 years and were never really changed.

In the Absence of Holy Spirit Conviction

There is no substitute for Holy Spirit conviction of sin. Billy Sunday tried mocking sin; Rex Humbard and others employed emotional sounding music; but none of it can do God’s work. In fact, when a sinner is under conviction, he/she does not need an invitation to the altar. Did Peter give an invitation in Acts 2? Did Paul give an invitation at Athens? Certainly not. They preached until the people asked, “what must I do to be saved?” The reason they could do this is because they had preached the Word, and the people were pricked in their hearts. If this phenomenon does not happen, the preacher simply moved on to the next place. This is why Paul planted no churches in Athens. Churches require real converts and obviously, there were none. Some will say, “Jesus called the Disciples publicly.” This is true, but the call of God came from Jesus Christ and not from a preacher. The Holy Spirit is in the role of Jesus Christ, and He does the inward calling. We can no more call a person to follow Christ than we can tell a person to go and sell all that they have. Preachers are called to preach the Word of repentance. We must not get the roles confused. We have to preach–the Holy Spirit has to convict, call and comfort. Modern evangelists often do not understand this because they have been trained in the model of Billy Sunday. They are trying to call with an altar call; convict with soft music; and comfort with a false assurance that borders on brainwashing. Those whom the Holy Spirit calls, He also convicts. If the person responds rightly, the operation of the Holy Spirit will change from conviction to comfort. When man interferes with this process, the result is confusion, compromise and catastrophe.

A Savior for America?

In the 1970s, a televangelist rose to fame that seemed to have a special ability to “tell it like it is.” His boldness in preaching against sin, and compromise is almost legendary. Leonard Ravenhill stated in an interview before his death “He might have been a deliverer for this nation (the United States).” He often chided preachers for refusing to “preach sin black and Heaven pure.” He preached against everything from sipping alcohol to gambling. He named sin and compromise, specifically. Grown men would sit in the crowds at the large evangelistic crusades and tremble and weep under conviction of sin. The phenomena were so moving that even sinners would watch the programs just to hear what he had to say. Many older Christians lauded him as a great man of God, much to the disdain of those who sought to find fault with him. He was a polarizing figure who called people to repent in a way not seen in a century in the main stream. For roughly 15 years, strong preaching became popular again, especially in Full Gospel circles. The cousin of 50s Rock and Roller Jerry Lee Lewis, and 80s country star Mickey Gilley; Jimmy Swaggart (1935- ) forsook the path of sin for a call to minister to multiplied millions around the world.

Answering a Secular Objection

In 1985, secular journalist Neil Postman wrote an insightful book on the effects of television on our culture. He lamented the fact that the TV has almost single-handedly supplanted the culture that existed before it. He deals with multiple areas of life where TV has done great damage. He did not bypass religion. It is apparent from his writings that he had a decent grasp of the Gospel and what it required. He sat down and watched 42 hours of Christian Television before writing of TV’s effect on religion. He compared what Jesus taught to what televangelists typically preached. It was a sad commentary indeed, and this was in 1985 before the prosperity heresy came to fruition. He makes one particular comment that I find very sobering. It agrees with a specific point that I have likewise made concerning an unwillingness to confront directly all forms of sin. He states:

Television favors moods of conciliation and is at its best when substance of any kind is muted. (One must make an exception here for those instances when preachers, like Swaggart, turn to the subject of the Devil or secular humanism. Then they are quite uncompromising in the ferocity of their assaults, one may assume, because neither the Devil nor secular humanists are included in the Neilson ratings. Neither are they inclined to watch.[193]

Certainly, Postman is quite cynical towards televangelists, but does his point have merit? Are messages tailored so as not to offend certain people in the audience? Obviously, the minister would not mind offending people who do not watch the program, because they do not support financially. We need to ask ourselves if a televangelist could preach a typical evangelistic sermon of the 16th-18th centuries on TV? If not, why not? Postman, in an earlier segment of his book argued that modern televangelists could not be compared with Whitefield, Edwards, and Finney;[194] but was this merely an intellectual deficiency or was it compromise? That is the great question. Postman assumes it is both. However, I suggest that the pressure to compromise is proportional to the size crowd the minister desires to reach. That is a simple thing to say, but I believe it will pass muster. We already discovered that Finney, Moody and Sunday were willing to nix water baptism to prevent offending the people who did not believe in it. Once preaching makes the quantum leap to television the pressure to conform would be exponentially greater than what Finney, Moody, and Sunday felt. The only answer to this dilemma is found in the words of Harry S. Truman, “If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!” Step aside and allow someone who will preach the Gospel as it is. Peter would not side-step an issue just to keep the peace. He preached on the resurrection of the dead in Acts chapter 3 & 4 knowing it would agitate the Sadducees and land him in deep trouble; not because it was offensive to them, but because their offense was an obstacle to the truth of the Gospel. The Gospel cannot be made to dance to the whims of compromising men.

Following the Fallen

It is not the intent of this book to condemn famous men who have ministered in the name of the Lord, but to discover the effect of their contribution, good or bad on the concept of evangelism. Jimmy Swaggart raised the bar as far as preaching against sin, but he still utilized the sinner’s prayer. It was a step in the right direction in some ways, but there was still a long way to go before we got to “book of Acts” type evangelism. Then, in the very height of his popularity in the late 1980s, Jimmy Swaggart fell from grace. The fall made him as well known in the average home as the president of the United States.[195] The effect of this fall can only be described as shocking and vexing. Many millions of Christians were disillusioned, and many ministers sought to distance themselves from him. Some ministers committed never to get behind a famous preacher again. As with Finney, Moody, Sunday and Graham, Swaggart drew support from local churches (particularly full Gospel churches) that encouraged their parishioners to attend the multi-day events. Some even took buses together to the meetings. “Not again” claimed some pastors. Even though Jimmy Swaggart tearfully confessed on national television, in a display that can only be described as “just as legendary as his preaching on sin” the effects of his fall were staggering. Although by God’s grace Jimmy Swaggart taught us how to repent and do our first works over; and has since recovered much that was lost; very few preachers preach on repentance and sin anymore.

The Power of Positive Preaching?

From 1980-1988, religious broadcasting was at its apex in terms of influence. The July 1980 edition of the Wallstreet Journal reported that televangelists were reaching 128 million people per week.[196] According to Neilson’s ratings in November of that same year, Oral Roberts had 2.275 Million viewers; Robert Schuller’s The Hour of Power had 2 million;[197] Rex Humbard had 1.9 Million, and Jimmy Swaggart had 1.6 million. The fall of Jimmy Swaggart in 1988 opened the door to a wholesale abandonment of so-called “hard preaching” against sin in the main stream. By the early 1990s, many people were “fed up” altogether with many of the televangelists due to the wide-spread scandals of the times.[198] One of the few televangelists to emerge from this era intact was Robert Schuller. By 1983 with 2.5 million viewers on 165 stations, The Hour of Power, broadcast from the Crystal Cathedral, was being called “the best produced and most popular series in religious programming.”[199] This figure made Robert Schuller the most popular television preacher in the world. What kind of Gospel was he preaching? Understand that his program would eventually become the fourth longest-running weekly program in television history. Although viewership reached some 3.5 million just prior to the televangelism scandals of the late 1980s,[200] the program still maintained an audience of 2.5 million as the others faded.

The End of “Negative Feelings”

It is hard to know where to begin when describing the error of Robert Schuller and his negative influence on Biblical evangelism and modern Christianity. He is one of the fathers of the notion that preaching should be positive and not negative. He was so committed to his ideology that he would not tolerate dissention in the ranks. In fact, Robert Schuller fired his own son, who had succeeded him at the Crystal Cathedral in 2006 citing “a lack of shared vision.” His son had preached a more “evangelical” type message and that message went cross with the vision of Schuller Sr.

Schuller focused on what he said were the positive aspects of the Christian faith. He deliberately avoided condemning people for sin, believing that Jesus "met needs before touting creeds." This diabolical attitude spread like a plague through unsuspecting Christians until those infected exalted themselves as elites of love and compassion. This is contrary to Jesus, who loved the rich young ruler, for example, but demanded that he repent by selling all he had. Schuller’s counterfeit love has since been accepted currency in the churches. Genuine love, as Jesus practiced it, is now rejected as false. We can trace this error to Schuller’s mentor the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) who authored The Power of Positive Thinking. Peale worked together with Smiley Blanton, a psychoanalyst, to form a religio-psychiatric outpatient clinic next door to his church.

An Unholy Marriage

Understand that when psychiatry and religion marry the thrust of doctrine will be to eliminate from the subconscious and conscious mind negative thoughts and memories. This is the basis of the cult idea Dianetics and the Church of Scientology. In the early 1950s, L. Ron Hubbard utilized a Mathison Electropsychometer to uncover the hidden feelings of men and women who would otherwise be hidden forever. He believed that the device sees all, knows all, and is never wrong. He would “audit” patients by asking them questions that would bring up negative memories and feelings. As the patient held a metal handle in each hand the negative memory would register an electrical signal on the needle (similar to a lie detector). The concept was similar to Sigmund Freud: discover the negative memories and deal with them in order to improve the person’s mental state. Hubbard believed the electronic device gave life to Freud’s theories. Two years of psychoanalysis could be reduced to two or three months. Hubbard abandoned the Mathison machine after he had a falling out with its inventor and created his own Hubbard E-Meter. He believed that his E-meter was so sensitive that it could register the pain of a tomato plant, leading him to believe that tomatoes “scream when sliced.”[201] It sounds absurd, but you can see how the desire to eliminate negative feelings dominated the practice.

The ideological connection between Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller and L. Ron Hubbard is typically dealt with from the self–help/pop–psychology perspective.[202] Although this is certainly a concern, especially for those concerned about the role of grace on the transformation of a believer, there is a deeper issue that has largely gone unnoticed. Once an attitude is adopted that the objective of Christianity is to relieve negative emotions, there is no room left for Holy Spirit conviction of sin or for preaching that would bring about godly sorrow.

The Ongoing Affect of Schuler’s Error

Robert Schuller worked feverishly to alter the way in which Christianity and evangelism were perceived by the masses. Ministers who came under his spell would not preach in such a way that would bring a person into a negative mental or emotional state. Soon it became “unloving” to preach truth in the mainstream because it made people “feel bad.” Add to that the backlash against televangelists in the late 80s and a fear arose that if one were to raise the bar in preaching and then fall into sin one would be tarred and feathered with Swaggart. Everyone had witnessed his public mockery and wanted nothing to do with it. What happened? Many preachers preached a positive–lukewarm Gospel that focused on love and de-emphasized repentance, confession, and godly sorrow. Preachers came to the conclusion en masse that they had a better way than the pattern set forth in the book of Acts. Would it be correct to say that if Robert Schuller and others could have taught Paul the right way to evangelize, he may have been more successful at Athens? God forbid! The Robert Schuller “gospel” of positive (possibility) thinking and non-negativity came into vogue and has nearly destroyed evangelism all together.

Today, after forty years of the gospel according to Schuller and other like-minded speakers influence, the method of seeing a person come to Christ is not to preach righteousness so that sinners will know they are sinners. That would be “negative” and cause negative feelings. The method today is to tell the sinner there is a hero inside of them! This is the message of Robert Schuller’s informal successor Joel Osteen. His “positive message” has loaded his church with some 45,000 members and millions of followers by television. In his book Your Best Life Now he uses the word “positive” 30 times and does not use the word “sin” once, a statistical fact that is common to his books. The ear tickling “false gospel of positive thinking” spell binds the masses, but is completely contrary to the reality of the New Covenant. Tragically, many ministers are under this deception as well. God is in the business of bringing many sons and daughters unto glory; however, to get “there” a person has to acknowledge that they have sinned. They have to renounce themselves as king of their lives and forsake all that they could ever be independent of God. We have to be crucified with Christ. Nothing we are, not our talents, abilities, etc., are of any use to God whatsoever until they have been nailed to the cross of Christ.

Unprofitable Servants

The Calvinists were right to suggest that we have nothing of worth to offer God and that all our righteousness is as a garment of menstruation.[203] However, today, if a person were to press the teaching of Jesus that we are “unprofitable servants” (Luke 17:10) they would be mocked and disparaged as “Pharisees” or “holier than thou.” The humanistic gospel of self-esteem has corrupted almost to a point of no return. To preach against sin, so as to bring about the negative feeling of Holy Spirit conviction, is to invite the fury of many so-called ministers and Christians in our day. When the preaching style of Jimmy Swaggart gave way to Robert Schuller’s power of the positive Gospel, we lost Christianity and “book of Acts” style evangelism in the main stream. If you dare preach on repentance and sin in most churches, you will be NIB (and acronym for “Not Invited Back”). Today, the TV and internet are loaded with ear-tickling ministers for people to heap to themselves. Technology has enabled 2 Timothy 4:3.

Mainstream evangelism is in a state of full-blown backsliding. You practically have to go to a street corner to hear the Gospel preached as in the book of Acts. Most churches won’t have it. To some that may be an overstatement, but who will not admit that we have fallen woefully backwards and away from the progress that was attained up to Billy Sunday? The door to the widespread belief in Universalism is starting to come open, and I suggest that apart from Divine intervention, it will be the unassailable message within 30 years in mainstream evangelicalism. We are almost there right now.

CHAPTER 8

The Affects of Television on Christian Music And Ministry

"We're competing in a world of show biz," says his wife, Maude Aimee. "You have to have a better line than the next balloon seller. Religion isn't any different."

“Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.”

-Neil Postman

Music and singing have always been a valid part of religious expression. It would be superfluous to spend time proving this fact. Nevertheless, we have experienced almost 60 years of “show biz” influencing our evangelism and church meetings. Think about that. Few people are alive today that can remember what Christianity was like before “show biz” made its impact. But as with Charles Finney’s anxious bench, and Billy Sunday’s handshakes, the churches of God have not taken compromise sitting down. In the era when televangelists were rising to fame, they were criticized by Christian organizations and ministers as “electronic evangelists” in “electric churches.”[204] Indeed, there have been plenty of times for televangelists to do some serious soul-searching. Even secular forces were against Christian programming–leading to the formation of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB). Some televangelists even turned on one another. Maude Aimee’s admission of “competing” explains why certain ministers tried to bring down others by divulging  their immorality. By the end of 1987, these “competitions” that enlisted media research firms such as Gallop and Arbitron were ended by a series of scandals. Many people were upset by the embarrassment brought upon Christianity in general, while others were upset by the perceived money-making rackets; however, few were concerned that the Gospel of Jesus Christ had taken the hardest hit of all. Televangelists involved in these “competitions for viewership” were forging our concepts of church and ministry.

Music Sacred and Secular

Christianity is no stranger to accomplished musicians, even producing great men such as Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750). Bach was a German composer, organist, harpsichordist, violist, and violinist of the Baroque period. Bach believed that the aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. Fueled by his Lutheran faith and devotion to its liturgy, Bach devoted his life to creating music for refreshment, proclamation, and praise. However, by the time we reached the 1980s, there is an emphasis on Christian music as entertainment that is unlike anything in church history. This music was played primarily on progressive Christian radio stations as an alternative to secular music while the sacred hymns were still being sung in the churches. Hence, there was a clear line between Christian praise and worship and Christian entertainment. Consider also that up until the 1980s it was clearly understood that there was a great difference between sacred and secular music. The one was an expression of this world system wallowing in sin and under the influence of the spirit of antichrist; the other was an expression of Biblical principles and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. They were polar opposites. In fact, whole apologetics ministries led by men such as Eric Holmberg (1954- ) and John Ankerberg (1945- ) used many means to warn young Christians about the trappings of secular music. Needless to say, nobody up until this time was confused as to the difference between secular and sacred music.

Music Based Religion

“[It] is not that television is entertaining, but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. […] The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter, but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining.” -Neil Postman[205]

There are a million ways that the Serpent has gotten Christians to think his thoughts after him. -R.C. Sproul Jr.

Beginning in the 1950s, Christian television incorporated a great deal of highly polished Christian music and singing. Groups began to practice their songs until they were perfected, similarly to a secular band that would rehearse their songs for recording. This quest for high-quality music carried over into the churches, until having a good praise and worship “band” was considered essential to any successful church in the 21st century. Whereas Charles Wesley emphasized Christian Perfection in his hymns, modern praise and worship leaders emphasize perfection in the quality of delivery. Hence, praise and worship “leader” became a new ministry category, as did the “sound technician.” Rather than living a selfless life of obedience and faith; singing has become the primary means that masses of Christians use to express their faith. It has given rise to whole generations that can sing Take Up Your Cross,[206] but are unwilling to actually do it. As long as we can say it, or sing about it, we can assure ourselves that we are actually obeying the command. Singing is a wonderful thing, but in modern times it has become the primary thing. It has become a means of pleasing self in the name of pleasing God. As a popular television evangelist admitted in the early 1990s, “We say we sing to God, we sing for ourselves!”[207] Much of what is labeled as “Christian” music is self-pleasing, rather than God-glorifying. Many modern churches have completely abandoned the old hymns that were passed down for 300 years.

A Crisis in Religious Expression

You are not here to amuse the goats: you are here to praise the Lamb. -G.W. North

There are three great questions that we must ask in the 21st century if we are ever to find our way in our expression of the Christian faith:

1.     What is church?

2.     What is culture?

3.     What is compromise?

To answer the questions we need a valid reference point. What has been the attitude towards music since the book of Acts? How did this modern attitude towards music come about? I suggest that it came as a direct consequence of having a large percentage of unconverted people in the churches. Modern evangelistic methods have caused compromise that seeks to be relevant to popular culture. We are overran by individuals who need to be entertained and will not tolerate God-glorifying, self-denying hymns that are for the glory of God and edification of the believer. Our evangelistic techniques have dictated how our worship services are performed. Far from the hymns of men like Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts, modern Christian music is typically doctrinally bankrupt and carnally entertaining. Songs no longer bring before our minds the great truths of the New Covenant, nor do they challenge us to a life of holiness. Dan Lucarini in his insightful book, Confessions of a Former Worship Leader: Why I left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement wrote:

During our weekly practices, the praise band would often switch into a rock and roll “jam-session.” As the leader, I could have discouraged this but instead I chose to indulge my own appetite for rock and roll. To put it bluntly, I was having fun. As I look back on this, I see how hard it was to restrain the rock music beast and prevent it from taking over completely.[208]

This is a shocking admission. I get the sense that what many so-called worship bands desire is to “play” or “jam-out” rather than worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth. It’s like they are chomping at the bit and could rush voraciously at any moment into a fit of rock and roll. This book was written over 11 years ago. Things have only gotten worse, so there is no telling what is going on in these “jam-session” practices today. There is a preoccupation with playing the music and sounding like a professional band. Some “worship services” have protracted, while preaching of the Word of God takes a back seat. We need to ask, do we find a proportional amount of singing to preaching in the Gospels or the Book of Acts? Did ministers sing songs to create an “atmosphere” where the people would respond to the preaching? Did they use pseudo-secular or even full-blown secular music to attract youth to their meetings? Did the Jews decorate the synagogues to “feel” like the local sin dens?” Clearly the answer is “no.” So how did we get here? How did we transition from innovators of God glorifying hymns to imitators of the secular music industry?

Understanding the Role of Singing in the Bible

We learn from the book of Job that the morning stars sang together and the angels shouted for joy when God created the Earth.[209] They were pleased that God was “well pleased” and responded in singing. As our first instance of song in recorded history, we gain important precedent for God-centered singing. This is the fundamental thing: the creation rejoices when its Creator is glorified.

The first recorded song sung by humans in the Bible is the song of Moses and it came as a spontaneous expression of praise unto God for having delivered the children of Israel from the pursuing Egyptian army:

Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD: “I will sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea. The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. He is my God, and I will praise him, my father’s God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name (Exodus 15:1-3).

God was glorified and the people rejoiced! This is the pattern. But by Exodus 32, the children of Israel are singing an all-together different song:

“And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” But he said: “It is not the noise of the shout of victory, nor the noise of the cry of defeat, But the sound of singing I hear.” (Exodus 32:17, 18 NKJV)

We see in these two examples a contrast between praise and play. The song of Moses was praise, the song of idolatry was play. The song of Moses was directed at Jehovah, as He has revealed Himself to be, and in solemn accordance with the reverence He deserves. The song of idolatry was sung to the manmade golden mixture of the gods of Egypt and the One True God. It was a case of indirect idolatry. The people sought to worship God in the same way that the heathen worshipped their false gods.  We read, but when he came nearer to the camp, and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned within him (Exodus 32:19). Here we are introduced to carnal dancing in addition to singing. The passage describes the behavior as the people eating and drinking and rising up to play.[210] Paul takes up this passage in 1 Corinthians 10:7 and warns the people to stop becoming idolaters.[211] These Corinthians thought they could preserve their relationship with Christ, while pretending to make use of their liberty, by amusing themselves (playing) in worldly, pagan celebrations.[212] They attempted to have Christ and have their paganistic celebrations at the same time. This is the essence of idolatry: play.[213] It comes from the Greek meaning to amuse oneself or to play as a child. When worship and praise are done for personal pleasure rather than the Glory of God, we are in gross error. Proper worship is directed at God; it does not seek to elevate our emotions or to excite our senses. While worshiping, our emotions may or may not be elevated or excited, but elevation and excitement of emotions should not be our objective.

Musical instruments have a way of moving the emotions unintentionally, especially when amplified electrically. Much of what modern Christians believe is the “presence of God” is nothing more than the stimulation of their soul in the same way that secular music might affect them. Anyone who attended secular concerts in the 1970s, and 1980s can testify to how the music can have a tremendous effect, especially when played loudly. We have to be able to discern the difference between the presence of God and the moving feeling of a good bass line. It ought to be a great concern that after bringing multitudes into the churches through the invitation system that bypasses genuine repentance, faith, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit that we now have a counterfeit presence of God in the form of soul-stimulating music. In fact, as early as 1959, teachers of evangelistic techniques were admitting that a “decision and commitment” were not the same as repentance.[214] Soothing music may coax a person into making a “commitment” or “decision” for Christ, but it could never impress a person to repent and believe. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. When the unsaved take hold of worship they will model it after their own worldly lusts. Selah.

Music and Singing in the New Testament

Prior to Jesus being taken and crucified we have this record, “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.“ (Matthew 26:30) This song, unidentified by Matthew, was sung by Jesus. This dispels all questions as to whether or not it is right to sing Christian songs. Singing unto God is a perfectly proper thing to do. Paul takes it another step when he writes, Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord (Colossians 3:16). Notice the type of songs: psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. This is in contrast to songs that neither glorify God nor edify the believer. Paul told the Corinthians that he would sing with and without the understanding. Even with the background of being a strict Pharisee, he employed singing in his worship and praise to God. When Paul and Silas were in prison they prayed and sang praises to God loud enough for the prisoners to hear. God responded and shook the prison open. Revival broke out.

Praising the Musician

As we read the Old Covenant we see that musical instruments were employed in praise and worship, so long as they were used to praise the Lord. We have to make that qualification, because our times are very different than they were under the Old Covenant. For example, we read in Isaiah 42:8:

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Secular musicians have taught generations to come out on stage before a crowd as they screamed at the top of their longs in exaltation. Guitar players would step to the front and break into a “solo” to whip-up the crowd. Drummers were given solos to put their skills on display. What were these musicians saying? Look at me! Praise me! Clap for me! Worship me! However, in Israel, the thought would have never entered David’s mind or anyone else’s. They understood clearly, I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another. The sad thing is that in modern times, so-called Christian musicians have sometimes behaved very similarly and often in the name of “giving glory to God.” If the people are praising the performer their attention is not on God. This is common sense. The prosperity heresy has enabled men to use God as a means to their financial success; modern worship techniques and Christian concerts have allowed men to use God as a means to their own exaltation. It is a prime example of how Televangelicalism has influenced the churches to commit idolatry. What did Paul say?

But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence (1 Corinthians 1:27-29 NKJV).

The emphasis here is on God’s choice. Why? So that no flesh (person) can boast in His presence. Apparently, this is a primary objective of God: His works are for His glory alone. Paul adds to this in 2 Corinthians 4:7, But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. The Psalmist stated that everything that has breath should praise the Lord, not the musician. The difference between sacred and secular music is that when David played his instrument the demon who vexed Saul would leave for a while; however, when men play for their own glory demons show up to join the festivities! If we pattern our worship after this present evil world we will move in a “wisdom” that is earthly, sensual and demonic. Demons know the difference. Would to God that we moved in a reality like unto David that so glorified God that a demon could not stand it! Why? The worship of God was coming from a man or woman after God’s own heart.

The Great Debate

Since the Council of Trent[215]in the 16th century, music has been a matter of debate within both Protestant and Catholic churches. Up to that time singing was typically designated for the “clergy” and contained songs sung or chanted in Latin. The “laity” were passive recipients of any grace that followed.[216] Basil the Great (330 AD–378 AD) had faith in the power of music to instruct, inspire, and move the emotions towards God. John Chrysostom (347-407) warned his congregation against “licentious chants.” He further stated:

Since we sing unto God, rather than to man, we need no instruments, no trained voice, but only a sober mind, an awakened intelligence, a contrite heart, sound reason, and a clear conscience.

He believed that heartfelt devotion has no need of instruments; there is need only for a lofty purpose.[217]In reality, if we have “a sober mind, an awakened intelligence, a contrite heart, sound reason, and a clear conscience,” instruments are not a problem, but they are not necessary either. Jerome (347-420) followed a similar attitude suggesting that though a man sing out of tune, it is pleasing to the Lord, so long as he sings from the heart. He warned that we must beware of trying to make the house of God into a well-polished theatre.[218]

The oldest known manuscript of a Christian hymn for which a text and a melody have been preserved is the Oxyrhynchus Hymn, written in Greek (ca. 270).[219] It is a hymn written to the glory of God. It is translated as follows:

Let the Luminous stars not shine,

Let the winds and all the noisy rivers die down;

And as we hymn the Father,

the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Let all the powers add, Amen Amen

Empire, praise always, and glory to God,

The sole giver of good things, Amen Amen

This is our earliest example of Christian thought in hymnody, and it is clearly “God centered.” During the next several centuries the debate on the usefulness of music would continue. Is music, in the language of Basil the Great, “Honey to be smeared on the rim of the cup”[220] to make the teaching of moral truths to the youth more pleasant? Should the church musician examine his music to be sure it is strictly “religious” rather than “secular?”

The First English Hymn

With the Bible locked up in Latin, Caedmon of England (ca. 670) became the first English hymn writer. His first hymn was as follows:

Now let us praise the Author of the heavenly kingdom, the power of the Creator, the counsel of the Father of glory! For, as He is the Eternal God, He is the Author of all marvelous things: He, the Guardian of the human race, first created the sky for the canopy, the earth for the habitation of the sons of men![221]

This was the first communication of Bible truth in the English language. It was sung a cappella.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), in the introduction to his commentary on the Psalms, defined the Christian hymn thus:

A hymn is the praise of God with song; a song is the exultation of the mind dwelling on eternal things, bursting forth in the voice.[222]

Musical Instruments

Instrumental music in the church has been regarded with some degree of suspicion in almost every age.[223] Views on the use of instruments fall mainly into three categories: those that feel instruments have no place in the church under any circumstances; those who feel that instrumental music should be restricted to an aid for congregational or solo singing; and those that feel instrumental music is useful whether someone is singing along or not.[224]Opposition to instruments came primarily from churches outside the establishment.

Principals of Worship

The regulative principle of worship, is a doctrine suggesting that God institutes in the Scriptures everything He requires for worship in the churches, and that everything else is prohibited. In this view there can be no innovations. This doctrine is often found among those with a strict view of the principle of sola scriptura. The regulative principle of worship is contrasted with the normative principle, which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable in the churches.

Lest we get reckless, it is important to point out that when it came to religious service God gave Israel a pattern that was to be followed to the letter. Approaching God is an exceedingly serious matter. God did not want to be worshiped in the same manner as the pagan gods of the age. As Moses was upon the Mountain, it appeared to be consumed with fire. It was a fearful sight to behold. He stated, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” If an animal were to touch that mountain when God was manifest it was to be stoned or shot through with an arrow. This staggering display gave Israel a sense of fear and awe towards God. They needed a right perspective of whom they were serving. We have other examples in Isaiah 6 and the book of Revelation. Solomon summarized this truth when he stated, Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil (Eccl. 5:1 NKJV).

The Devil in the Music

Long before the time of Christ it was understood that music had a powerful effect on the human mind and spirit. The Greek philosophers believed that if a man had the power to control the lyrics within society, it did not matter who made the laws. Even such philosophers as Plato were vexed by the way music used during his lifetime. In his famous work, Laws, Plato (428-348 BC) lamented the musical revolution of his time and its "unmusical anarchy":

Through foolishness they deceived themselves into thinking that there was no right or wrong in music that it was to be judged good or bad by the pleasure it gave. By their work and their theories they infected the masses with the presumption to think themselves adequate judges. As it was, the criterion was not music, but a reputation for promiscuous cleverness and a spirit of law-breaking.[225]

Christian musicians dating back to the Middle Ages understood that music could be played in such a way as to bring evil to mind. Singers refused to sing, and musicians refused to play what they called “false tone progressions” (Tritones) because they felt they were out of harmony with natural progression. Some abhorred this singing and music as they would have abhorred the sight or sound of the Devil.[226] They believed music answered to man’s heart in such a way that he/she could distinguish between music that was good or evil. Regardless of innovations, they knew we have not, nor can we change the musical instincts of mankind, God-given as they are.[227]They believed these discerning faculties were given to man for more profound reasons than it is likely we will know this side of heaven.

Diabolus in musica–“the Devil in music” was banned from Guido of Arezzo’s hexa-chordal system in the eleventh century until the end of the Renaissance because it was believed to summons the Devil. The Roman Catholic’s forbid it to be played under pain of death.[228] Some of the more radical writers state that, Diabolus in musica has its counterpart in science by the introduction of that lying spirit which, if affirmed, denies God as the Origin and Author of the Harmony of the Universe. In an age when Church and state were united and church ordinances enforced, such “music” was controlled. As the church and state divided, and society became increasingly secular, the rebellion that often accompanied Rationalism beckoned for Diabolus in musica and many musicians have answered.[229]

Anagogic Methodology Vs. The Real Presence

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostle (Acts 2:43).

The Bible is filled with "firsts" and they are all significant. Our passage is the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit and fire as promised in the holy Prophets and reaffirmed by John the Baptist. This outpouring sets the pattern for all outpourings and demonstrations of the Spirit that follow in the book of Acts. There is one important feature that will characterize them: each will usher in a consciousness of God that alters the attitude of the people subjected to it. Luke uses the language, "fear came upon every soul." This awesome awareness of God is similar to what Isaiah experienced in Isaiah 6. It is a foretaste of Heaven where the operations of angels and men are in the manifest presence of God.

Isaiah gives a passionate cry of grief and despair in Isaiah 6 as he was made subject to God's holy presence. It is hard to define the word "fear" in the book of Acts, but we may take Isaiah's experience as indicative of what the people felt when God was near. The reader may be interested to know that the love of God is not mentioned once in the book of Acts: the emphasis is on the fear of God. In fact, the fear of God is discussed in the New Testament more frequently than God's love. We should emulate this balance between love and fear. In the book of Acts, God was establishing Himself much in the way He did with the Israelites. Ananias and Sapphira were the New Testament version of Nadab and Abihu. The pattern is simple: when God's holy presence is truly near, judgment is swift. When God's presence is not among the people in the way He desires it to be, by default, the fearfully reverent human response to His presence departs with Him.

It is impossible to substitute earthly and man-made means for the true manifest presence of God, but this has not stopped men from attempting it. For example, in the 1200s an architectural motif came into fashion within the Roman Church that we know as Gothic Cathedral. Back of these designs was an anagogic ideology that sought to elevate a person's mind into the heavens by man-made means. The word anagogic comes from the Greek word ἀνάγω (anagō), which means "up" or to "lift up." It is used in Luke 4:5 when the Devil took Jesus "up" on the Temple and in Hebrews 13:20 where Jesus is "raised" from the dead. It also means to "take up" as in “to take a ship up" on the high seas. This sense of elevation gave rise to the Latin word anagoge, which took on the spiritual denotation, "soul raising, and sublime." Those who employed anagogic techniques appealed to the scriptures suggesting that they made use of symbolism (such as a throne, beasts with multiple faces, wheels, etc.) for the purpose of "elevating our minds" into an immaterial environment. They utilized man-made means such as art, relics and buildings for the same purpose.

Understand what is happening here. The idea came in vogue that one could use material means, just as one would use a sermon or a song, to elevate the mind heavenward. Man had made seven great wonders over the centuries, all of which inspired "awe" and "amazement," so too, these buildings and paintings were attempts to cause astonishment. The Roman Catholic's went as far as to put huge solid bronze doors on one of the ancient basilicas. This door was of such stunning craftsmanship that they believed it could be used as a “measure” to lead a person's mind to Christ. The idea was that the "mind can be elevated to truth through that which is material." Stain glassed windows were installed of staggering beauty and proportion in many religious structures. All in an attempt to elevate the mind towards heaven and Christ. Proponents of these measures suggested that the "material" was the first step to the "immaterial" and "salvation." A careful examination of the thought process reveals a desire to create a sense of marvel and then deflect that marvel towards Christ and the things of God.

Gothic Architecture and Anagogical Windows

Understand that Gothic in the sense we are referring to, is not the black on metal "gothic" that has sparked clothing lines in recent popular culture, but Gothic Cathedrals of enormous size and grandeur between the 1200-1600s. These towering structures were fitted with multicolored windows of profound detail and craftsmanship. Some walls had more glass than stone. The Biblical artwork on these windows was meant to be interpreted, so instructions were given to the onlooker on how to view them in order to receive the maximum spiritual benefit. These windows were marvelous and engemmed (made appear to be gems) the stones on the interior walls with explosive light at certain times of the day. The purpose found in this was to carry away the person from the external cares of this life and into the heavenlies (or somewhere just short of it). They tried to recreate the aesthetics of heaven on earth.

This writer has stood in St. Georges' Chapel inside Windsor Castle in England. It was awe inspiring and majestic in feel beyond description. Had I not already known God's presence, I may have believed that what I felt was "God" or "His presence." It was very moving to stand and behold the awesomeness of such a place. Truly, this was a church I would enjoy visiting weekly; nevertheless, we must understand that for all the aesthetics and anagogical designs, they cannot rise to substitute for the conscious, manifest presence of God. Christians in the 1200s tried desperately with art and architecture to bring about a sense of awe and wonder: to manufacture with man-made means a sense that one was drawn upwards toward God, but this is only a man-made measure and can never rightly fulfill a purpose reserved for God alone. There is no unction in these measures.

Modern Day Anagogical Methods?

“The other night I went to a club and I watched the DJ control the entire room. Not even a politician can do that.”[230]

-Prince (Rogers Nelson)

The Gothic Cathedrals with their many splendorous colors may have flashed upon the walls, but they could not power the searchlight of heaven that they desperately needed. They could not manufacture a "book of Acts" awareness of God for those that experienced these things. Men spent their entire lives working on these buildings and some never lived to see them completed. For all of our boasting of modernity and progression, we are forced to admit that there is no new thing under the sun: though we too, at times, have believed the lie. In the 21st century, we have moved away from the stained-glass windows and replaced them with accent lights, both of which are amoral in of themselves. We traded in the sublime structures of the middle ages, for the string effect on the synthesizer. Again, they are amoral in of themselves. Nevertheless, between these two, we have effectively raised our hands with the architects of bygone generations and said "Guilty!" We are "guilty; guilty; guilty!" God is not here. Cut down the lights, turn down the volume and weep in the stillness of nothing. Remove the stain-glassed windows, pull down the towering walls, and weep in the stillness of nothing. We moved them with our strings and stained glass, but they were never moved to reverence and because of that there can be no repentance.

Once a counterfeit version of the presence of God became normative, the door flew open to even greater compromise. At some point during the 1990s an attitude began to prevail that we need to “reach the youth” by being relevant to them. Youth rooms were separated from the main congregation and made to look like the local nightclub. I have come to believe now that this “new measure” was more likely an expression of the leaders’ spiritual condition than any real desire to reach young people. Does that seem like a strong thing to say? Not if you grew up on a steady dosage of Journey and Whitesnake like I did and knew the difference between the local tavern and the local church. When I left the world, I had no desire to return, but I found a strange attitude in many leaders I conversed with that seemed to be fascinated by the world.

As a former youth pastor, I was told that I needed to watch an hour of MTV in order to “relate” to the youth group. Keep in mind that Bob Pitman, founder and former president of MTV once stated, “The strongest appeal you can make is emotionally. If you can get their emotions going, if you can make them forget their logic, you’ve got them.”[231]I found this counsel to be disturbing and vulgar, especially since I had watched countless hours of MTV in the 80s as a teenager and knew the damaging effects. MTV altered my understanding of everything from romance to material possessions. However, when I rarely did go to church I did not expect the church to look like “MTV.” In fact, had the sanctuary of the church I attended looked like many do in modern times, I would have likely left and never returned. Therefore, at no time did I allow the youth to believe that subjecting ourselves to such vileness was acceptable.

Secular music is the “straw that breaks the camel’s back” one fellow youth pastor once told me. I agree. Nevertheless, this did not stop many from marginalizing youth pastors such as myself. We were “out of touch” or “not real youth pastors.” Many youth pastors and churches continued segregating the youth and providing them with a “dance club” atmosphere. I have to ask, if the Roman Catholics used anagogic ideology to point parishioners’ minds towards heaven when they came into the church, what directions were the minds of the precious young people being pointed when the youth room looked like a dance club? Did it bring to mind thoughts of God? Did it elevate them heavenwards? Absolutely not. It was not intended to make the youth think about God. It was intended to make them feel comfortable in “church.” This abominable ideology took hold, until now, the same themes have made their way to the main sanctuaries. The word is “profaned.” A generation took hold of the holy things of God and systematically profaned them to the generation that followed.  Now, it is rare to find a Christian that understands, much less desires, maintaining God’s standards of holiness. The concept of sacred and holy have been all but lost.

Finding Our Way Back

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostle (Acts 2:43).

Leonard Ravenhill once said, "With all thy getting, get unction." Unction is an old word that means “anointing.” It is the manifest presence of God that accompanies the preaching of the word of God. It is that element of inspiration in which God is backing the words being spoken. Ministers will sometimes speak directly into a microphone to give the impression of power, but it is a forgery. The Holy Spirit does not need amplification to drive home His Word. Moreover, as we have discovered, the presence of God does not come with a good rift or a dynamic bass line. The switch on the keyboard labeled “heaven” does not beckon God. It is a hard saying, but we must come to reality. Why keep fooling ourselves? God comes when His people make themselves ready by determining to live in absolute obedience to Him. He comes and He intends to stay - not in the meetinghouse, but in the person. When a person is void of the indwelling presence of God they need man's machinery to fill their consciousness with something they can call God's presence.

May the Lord forgive us for treating Him as if He were animated to action when we struck up the band and turned on the lights. Many people that reject these things are labeled as "religious" or "legalistic," not knowing that so-called religion is really worship in the absence of God. Religion is when we manufacture a "presence" with our man-made means and call it a “move of God.” When God truly comes, and I mean truly comes: great reverence and fear will come upon the people like unto Isaiah in Isaiah 6 and John the Revelator in Revelation 1. This is the consistent pattern in the book of Acts.

If God comes when we play our songs, why are so many oppressed of devils? David played, and the demon left Saul. It could not stand worship in the presence of a man who drew nigh unto God with his lips and whose heart was near unto Him. We speak of the mighty presence of God and yet the people are still gagged and bound. Peter needed no stained glass. Paul needed no synthesizer. The Apostles were walking in the power of God because they walked in the fear of God. They knew Him in the beauty of holiness. What was it that made these men different than the rest of us? It was because they were moving in the real thing. They did not need tools to assist them in creating an "atmosphere"... they were yielded fully to God and walked in His presence and power. Their mere presence brought the people face to face with God.

Conformity To This World

The problem with “come as you are” is that it often meant, “remain as you are,” at least as far as music, language, clothing, and social habits are concerned. -John Makujina[232]

In Romans 12:1,2, Paul draws our attention to the first 11 chapters and then begs the readers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reasonable service. This is the language of priesthood. When God accepted the sacrifice in the Old Testament, fire would fall from heaven. The trouble today is that it is all too easy to manufacture our own fire, and continue on with our “meetings.” This is the first area of danger that we have already discovered.

Second, we are then commanded not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good, perfect, and acceptable will of God. This deals with our identity and sanctity as Christians. If people have not been renewed in their mind; that is, in their thinking, they will pattern their lives after this present evil world.

Christians are supposed to have the life of God and the mind of Christ, enabling them to be sons and daughters of God. Notice what Paul says:

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Corinthians 6:17-17:1).

I have opted for the old KJV to show that by using “ye” the scripture is pointing the finger at us, and commanding us as individuals to obey this precept. It is not optional. In fact, it is the condition for being sons and daughters. Notice the conditions, if “ye” will: Come out from among the world and touch not the unclean things, then God will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Paul then says that if we have these promises, we must cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

When evangelistic efforts produce spurious conversions, we end up with people that cannot comprehend 2 Corinthians 6:17-17:1. This is why we cannot continue down this path. Spurious converts see no use in obeying Paul’s words and have no time for them. Many are angered by them. They are not perfecting holiness because there is no fear of God before their eyes. They likely came to the Lord out of a selfish motivation, or a refused to surrender to God, and were never regenerated. Unlike Jesus who allowed the Rich Young Ruler to walk away, our evangelistic techniques, as we have already discovered (and will continue discovering), welcomes the “Rich Young Ruler” types into the churches!  They are in rebellion, but we receive them into fellowship under the guise of “loving them” or some other nonsensical reason. Jesus “loved” the Rich Young Ruler and watched him walk away. What more could Jesus do? He died for him. The consequence of being more loving than Jesus, is that we are losing our identity as the churches of God.

As the spurious started coming into the churches in the early 1900s they gave birth to many generations that have no idea what true conversion is. They think like the world; act like the world; identify with the world; and love the world. Until someone has the courage to preach repentance in the churches as did Solomon Stoddard and Jonathan Edwards at Northhampton, we will completely lose our identity as Christians.

The Heavenly Angels and the Worldly Devils

When we speak of a distinction between the churches and this present evil world, there are some that will have no idea what we are referring to. For this reason I wish to submit a simple and fallible analogy for their sakes. Let’s say that two ball teams named the Heavenly Angels and the Worldly Devils were archrivals for a hundred years. The Heavenly Angels wore white and the Worldly Devils wore red. Each stadium was decorated according to team color with no variation. Their musicians played their respective theme songs that were night and day different. When the teams played there was no confusion for the first 30 years of this great rivalry as to who was on what team. If there were visitors to either stadium each team fan was easily identified by the uncompromising adherence to team insignia, color and general identification.

Then something changed. The Heavenly Angels fan base was infiltrated by a small number of Worldly Devils who attended the games wearing little slithers of red on their white garments. At first there was a strong protest, especially by those that had been around in the beginning; but in time it became acceptable. The ones who protested were labeled as “judgmental” and “unloving” while the “wolfish” Worldly Devils were welcomed with open arms. Meanwhile the Worldly Devils maintained their solid red scheme to the point of fanaticism.

Then another strange thing happened with the Heavenly Angels; people began coming to the home games wearing jerseys that were solid red with a white Angel morphed halfway into a Devil. At first there was a great outcry and strong protest. “This has gone too far!” some decried and a great tumult ensued. Then an even stranger thing occurred. The Heavenly Angels theme song came over the stadium speakers played to a harsh rift very similar to the Worldly Devils. Certain Heavenly Angels strongly rebuked the stadium officials, even calling for their jobs (the people always knew who these “trouble making whistle blowers” were!), but in time this too became accepted.

In 50 years the stadium had changed from a Heavenly place fit for the Heavenly Angels to a pinkish mix of loss and confusion. The Heavenly Angels went on a losing streak not seen in their history. Having lost 50 games in a row attendance dropped to an all-time low. Then one of the coaches came up with what most thought was a brilliant new idea. Let’s change the player and coach uniforms to match the fans! So then even the players and coaching staff were dressed in red and white. Teams around the league began to mock them calling them “The Worldly Angels.” This did not detour them. In fact, as the years went by and attendance dropped (as losses mounted), another new innovation was devised.

One of the new coaches that had been a fan all of his life was brought to the staff fresh out of college with fresh new ideas. Sporting his red and white uniform to the coaches meeting he proposed a radical change in the theme song. He suggested that “it was not enough to change the rift and melody as was done 10 years before, but the lyrics needed to be changed to a less offensive poetic to include all fans of all teams and all ages.” This, he said, would surely improve attendance. So the team took the field for their 80th anniversary with their new theme song blasting over the loud speakers. Only a handful of fans were left by now donning their pure white uniforms. The true Heavenly Angels got up and walked out of the game. Scores of mobs dressed in full red and a mixture began abusively persecuting the Heavenly Angels in white, as they left the stadium referring to them as “holier than thou.”

Little did these know and even fewer cared that the owner of the Heavenly Angels was on a long hiatus and was scheduled to return in less than twenty years. No one knew the day or the hour he would return, but the feeling among the Heavenly Angels dawned in White was that it could be any time. One thing was certain; He was going to return and take an account of what had come of His team. What do you suppose will be the end of those that have morphed His Heavenly Angels into the Worldly Angels?

Progressives Take the Lead

There are two basic categories of groups to consider when we think of innovations: conservatives and progressives. As rationalism gained a foothold in the 1800s, a lot of established beliefs went up for grabs. Charles Finney in the early to mid-1800s argued for innovations in the churches sighting that God allows for the churches to innovate means out of necessity. Consider this comment from his lecture on New Measures and Instrumental Music:

Over time, in some congregations, various instruments were introduced for the purpose of aiding the singers, and improving the music. When the bass violin was first introduced, it made a great commotion. People insisted they might just as well have a fiddle[233] in the house of God. "Why, it is a fiddle, it is made just like a fiddle, only a little larger, and who can worship where there is a fiddle? The next thing you know people will want to dance in the meeting house.”

If Finney could have fast-forwarded to today, he might have been less sarcastic about the peoples’ concerns. We not only have all kinds of musical instruments, but dancing of all kinds is permitted within many churches. What Finney could not foresee was the deep chasm that was developing between sacred and secular music. He complained because so many churches resisted change. He could not understand that he was challenging the protective mechanism that God established within the churches themselves to stave off worldliness.

At first, the issues being discussed were essentially amoral. Churches would split over using hymnbooks or pitch pipes. Some would go as far as to split over new songs or “Choir” singing. These things are obviously a matter of personal preference. Nevertheless, what happens when we transition to duplicating the World’s drivel and feeding it to the saints?

Erosion of Standards

“I'm not about to put up a silly skit and preach a 15-minute message on 'how to cope' to a multitude of people who are dying and going to hell. I tremble at the thought." -David Wilkerson

As we discovered, Oral Roberts beginning in 1969 brought secular styled music and dancing in the name of ministry to television. To think that Finney’s revival meetings shut down the dance halls in many towns he visited: yet his insistence on new measures helped to pave the way for the church houses to become dance houses. When your methods and your message contradict each other, you are in error, even if it takes 150 years to manifest. Over the last 100 years we have moved well beyond the normative principal approach to worship. I can only describe what is happening in many progressively modern churches as “anything goes.”

In the 1950s, the conservative influences within churches were trying desperately to stop the influx of worldliness into Christian meetings. There were clear lines drawn. Music was being used to express the spirit of this age, and in the most brazen ways. Standards of morality and decency that carried over from the Victorian era were being cast off faster than they could be preached on. Parents who grew up still knowing the influence of the Wesleyan Holiness Movement were desperate to keep their children from falling prey to this decadent society. Mamie Lewis was such a woman. In 1955, she enrolled her son in the Assemblies of God’s Southwest Bible Institute in Waxahachie, Texas, hoping that he would sing and play only evangelical Christian songs. After hanging around reluctantly for about three months he was asked to play piano at the evening chapel service. He took up the Pentecostal hymn "My God is Real." The preacher shot him a look of reproach as he altered the time signature to a "boogie-woogie" style. He commenced to play faster and faster until it was double tempo. As a few students began to howl he lit into the song and beat it until there was nothing left. He cried out the final lyric, "My God is real for I can feel Him in my soul…" as he violently raked the keys back and forth. Jerry Lee Lewis, cousin to Jimmy Swaggart, was grinning and breathing heavy.[234] The commonly recounted ending is as follows:

Pearry Green, then president of the student body, related how during a talent show, Lewis played some "worldly" music. The next morning, the dean of the school called Lewis and Green into his office to expel them.[235] Lewis said that Green should not be expelled because "he didn't know what I was going to do." Years later Green asked Lewis: "Are you still playing the devil's music?" Lewis replied, "Yes, I am. But you know it's strange, the same music that they kicked me out of school for is the same kind of music they play in their churches today. The difference is, I know I am playing for the devil and they don't."[236]

It is almost a rebuke. Did 50 years sanctify the very thing that got Lewis expelled from Bible College? What did the leadership in that College believe that was different from today? Either they were incorrect, or we are. Was it the genre? Conversely, could it be that the leading edge of the Spirit of the age expressed itself in that specific way at that particular time, therefore the leaders of the College rejected it? Why did the men of God in 1955 reject the popular expression of the spirit of their age but we in the 21st century embrace it? How could something that originated in hell be accepted in the worship of the God of heaven? Understand that we are not referring to cutting-edge innovation, as was the case with J.S. Bach and Charles Wesley, but imitation of the spirit of this evil age.

Maintaining the Boundaries

"Music is the language of languages.” […] “It can be said that of all the arts, there is none that more powerfully moves and changes the consciousness." [237]-David Tame (musicologist)

In many Christian circles the influence of popular culture has been so great that hymns that were sung in the churches of God steadily for some 200-250 years have been discarded as “old” and “out of touch” with the times. This is a very strange thing to consider even for the most ardent proponent of modern worship techniques. It is as if there is a conspiracy to totally break-ties with the past so that there is no continuity between the Christianity pre-1980 and the Christianity of today. In 2005, Ron Bailey, founder of Bible Base, made this insightful observation:

In a genuine 'house of God” the word will not pretend to uniqueness or novelty; it will arise out of what God has already said to others before us. The circumstances will be different, but something will be the same. The old voices will echo in the new building. The wise householder was said to bring forth out of his treasure things new and old; "Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure things new and old" (Matthew 13:52). What is genuinely “new” and from God will always draw with it the “old.” Much of the western church over the last 100 years has failed to see the difference between the new and the novel. There is never any need for the novel in a “house of God,” but there will be a constant need for the “new” a “new” that has an unbroken fellowship with the “old.” The “novel” will produce independence and pride; the “new” will produce interdependence and humility.

What is more disturbing is that some churches are now adopting full-on secular music into their services or “pre-services.” This is not the so-called secular music of the 1600s or the 1800s: it is a modern expression of the spirit of antichrist. I heard recently of a church that used a popular 70s hard-rock song as sermon material that was once considered by Christian ministries such as Youth For Christ to be one of the most satanic of its time; a song that had been backmasked[238] containing subliminal messages. Clearly, many secular rock bands had moved beyond the realm of “art” and “expression” by the 70s and were seeking to influence for Satan (Diabolus in musica). Some even lauded their rebellion and devilry employing satanic symbols on their albums and T-shirts. Youth pastors of the 70s and 80s taught their youth to avoid these bands as if they were bubonic plague. Since then secular music has only accelerated in its highhanded evil. There are even explicit lyric’s labels on packaging to warn parents of the content. And as shocking as all of this may be, we have a generation that has cast off the counsel of their forefathers and are trying to imitate this type music and offer it up to the Lord as praise and worship. What is more appalling is that there is no revolt against such things. In many circles of mainstream Christendom, we have totally lost sight of the boundaries between the holy and the profane and between the Church and this present evil world.

Losing Our Sense of Sacred

In Isaiah 6:1ff God gave the Prophet a foretaste of Heaven. He shuddered and cried out “woe is me!” He learned rapidly why God judged his cousin king Uzziah with leprosy when he went into the Temple to offer incense to the Lord as a king (2 Chronicles 26:19). God is to be reverenced (feared). What about Nadab and Abihu who offered strange (common and unapproved) fire to the Lord? They were burned to death with the Fire of God and Aaron, their father, was not allowed to mourn their death (Leviticus 10:6). Their judgment was warranted; therefore, God forbade any hint that what He had done in judging them was undue severity. What about when Uzzah reached up and touched the Ark of God and was smitten dead? (2 Samuel 6:7) What about Hophni and Phinaes and the way they disregarded God and the sacred things of God. What about Eli that stood by waiting for God to judge him because he would not put an end to the sin and compromise? (1 Samuel 3:14) He would rather defend his sons than defend what was right. All this led the people terribly astray (1 Samuel 2:17). What was God teaching us through these things? After all, they were written for our example and for our learning upon whom the ends of the earth have come (1 Corinthians 10:11). Anytime you or I see someone being smitten dead in Scripture we should stop and have a “therefore” moment; the punishment is exemplary, it is God's estimate of a particular behavior. God may not smite a person dead every time they do something high-handed, but once He has reacted to a behavior it has become our example of how He feels about it. We shouldn't need more examples. How many people would have to be smitten dead after the record we already have for us to get the message and believe God? (Revelation 9:20, 21)

Modern Day Will-Worship

When we bring rock music styles into the church, we violate the principal of abstaining from the appearance of evil.

-Dan Lucarini

Do you ever wonder why some Christian gatherings are like the rock concerts of the 70s and 80s, with all the similarities, including loudness and pyrotechnics? As soon as the older people “fall ill” or have to “step aside” it's like the bursting of a dam when the worldliness and sometimes diabolic behaviors begin to pour forth into the churches. Sadly, the attitude is reminiscent of an old story of a frustrated wife who tells her alcoholic husband that she was going to hire a wino to decorate their home, so he would feel more at ease there, and he wouldn’t have to roam. She suggested taking out the dining room table, and putting a bar along the wall, and then a neon sign to point the way to their bathroom down the hall.[239] What happened? She decided that to lure her man to the house, she would decorate it like the corner tavern. Many people have liquor bars in their basement because they like the “feel” of a bar. Is that not what has happened? People waited for the old timers to die off so they could turn many of our churches (particularly youth rooms) into pseudo dance clubs, and the men and women could dress like they were out on a Saturday night?

Is there a generation chomping at the bit, hoping to have a chance to take this on to the next level, until all that the churches of God were ever designed to be is lost in the chaos and compromise? I think of the kings of Israel and Judah that seemed to wait for their fathers to pass so they could plunge Israel into utter worldliness and ruin (1 Kings 15:26, 16:30, 2 Kings 21:7, etc.). Has the Bible been put so far down on the list of influences within these circles that nobody even bothers to ask if some of these things are even Biblical or Godly? (2 Timothy 4:3)

When God got ready to teach us about Himself and His service in the Old Covenant He ordered almost every detail. The clothing, the Tabernacle, the recipe for the incense, the Fire, were all sacred things. He taught us and commanded us to discern between the holy and the profane (Ezekiel 22:26, 2 Corinthians 6:17, Hebrews 5:14).

Popular Culture Invades the Church

When Edward Bernays (1891-1995) coined the term “public relations” and founded its industry,[240] it is doubtful that many could foresee how the feedback loops would create an opinion driven culture. Find out what the people want, compare that to what you're doing, and make adjustments to please as many people as possible. Think about how often in any given day we are afforded an opportunity to “rate” a service, give feedback or cast a vote based upon our personal judgment of something or someone. It's as if the world is conditioning people to become expert faultfinders. When the feedback loops are employed in the churches, there is no hope of ever returning to the book of Acts as our template. The people end up worshiping a god in their own image and after their own desires.

The Spirit of American Idol

Good people today don’t like to be reminded of it, but unconsciously we are all being swayed by the subtle

trickery in this age. -Vance Havner

At the start of the Cold War in 1950, the United States Government issued a warning that the Soviets believed that they could dominate the world once they took over (or fully influenced) important strategic nations. They could impose their will “without having to fire a shot.”[241] Such is the way the enemy has infiltrated our churches through the wholesale abandonment of the evangelistic techniques of the 1700s and 1800s. We woke up one day and the enemy was in the camp, and nobody seems to have heard a single shot fired. Sarah Raymond Cunningham in her book, Dear Church: Letters From A Disillusioned Generation writes:

Twentysomethings want our God and our faith to be different from and more real than the special effects, and air brushed images of our TV screens. We don’t want to feel like we worship on an American Idol set. We don’t want the offering spiel to come off like a host introducing the next phase of a reality TV show. And we don’t want the morning message to rival infomercials with quick promises to improve our lives overnight. We are seeking the actual God, the one who created the entire universe from dust, and we don’t think He has to wait on the next MTV fad or Microsoft update to deliver fresh spiritual experiences.[242]

Sarah is expressing the concerns of many people in the 21st century that are trying to understand why there has been a push, since American Idol came on the air in 2002, to imitate the shows aesthetics. Christians should be appalled by the notion that someone is being made into an “Idol” right before their very eyes. Instead, many want to imitate them.

What happens when Christian Television begins to look like secular television? Soon Christians begin to conduct themselves with secular thought processes. Ministry becomes a performance-based endeavor. Ministries start to look for “talent” rather than taking Chrysostom’s approach. What did he say?

Since we sing unto God, rather than to man, we need no instruments, no trained voice, but only a sober mind, an awakened intelligence, a contrite heart, sound reason, and a clear conscience (Chrysostom ca. 407 AD).

He was not suggesting that trained voices and instruments are evil: however, today if we don’t have instruments and trained voices, we don’t think we’re qualified. We live in a time when “talent” itself is worshipped. If a person can do something extraordinary, they are lauded as one that can be “greatly used of God.” This is totally false. Paul said, “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty.” (1 Cor. 1:25) Sadly, talent is lauded while “the sober mind, awakened intelligence, contrite heart, sound reason, and clear conscience” are now optional and marginal. In many circles, you don’t even have to be converted to lead the churches in “worship.” As long as you can sing harmoniously and play proficiently everything else is secondary.

Since the dawn of traveling Christian singing groups in the early 1900s, Christian singers have been judged, not by their sincerity in singing, but by their outward ability to entertain. It is man-centered. What is worse is that the churches have looked for “talent” by utilizing talent contests, rather than allowing God to raise people up for His own glory. For several decades, singers and ministers have been taught to perform before an audience rather than minister to the Lord. It does not matter if your heart is right, what matters is if you can pass through a three-judge panel. People are opinionated and critical of all the aesthetics and indifferent towards the important spiritual matters listed by Chrysostom. It is a sad and sobering state of affairs.

Criticistianity

What happens when this critical attitude that demands to be entertained begins to dominate the churches of God? Not having a proper definition to describe my answer I created one: Criticistianity. You will notice I simply combined criticize and Christianity, and what a foul mix. What a stench and rottenness in my ears! Sadly, the behavior is more vile yet. Why? Because we risk losing an essential part of a ministry in the body of Christ altogether. Christians measure other Christians contributions to the kingdom the same way the three-judge panel measures the audition of a would-be American Idol. If that is not an abomination, what is? The people of God come to minister before the Lord and end up getting setup for a worldly criticism from their own peers. It's as if a believer may venture to come forward with their talent and rather than it being measured for its potential ministerial value, it is looked at through the critical eye of America's Got Talent. Strike one! Strike two! Strike three! You’re out! Ha Ha! goes the crowd, and down goes another potential Peter, Paul, John, Steven or James. Laughed down and mocked by their own peers. I asked a young person once why most of their generation won't step out to minister; they replied, "Because they are too afraid they will be mocked or told ‘what they have done wrong’ afterwards."

Teaching Pragmatism

At some point in the last 50 years a sinister concept has come in to many circles. It has been fostered, in my view, by Christian television that has sought out the most beautiful singers, choirs and instrumentalists; the most eloquent, refined and articulate speakers to show off to the world and the churches of God. We started producing performers rather than ministers. We needed to show the world that we had just as “good of talent” as they do. We started forging potential ministers into a worldly paradigm. Pretty soon it didn't matter if you were holy and living right, all that mattered is that you could perform. This is contrary to the church meetings that I remember as a child in the 1970s. I recall a day when men and women got up and preached and sang from the depths of their heart. It was powerful. I had a sense that the preacher believed what he preached and the singer meant what they were singing. Today that doesn’t seem to matter in the least. It’s more about your stage presence and mannerisms. Strangely, it’s often about how cool your hair looks or how high of notes a man can hit during the song. This, in my view, can project a false and even soulish since of sincerity and power. It all “sounds” powerful to those that never had a front-row seat to the real thing. Nevertheless, were not fooled in the least. It is just sad that a whole generation of Christians have no idea what I'm talking about. Ironically, they likely would say that it is me that is critical.

If we are moving in an American Idol type construct, we will create the same thing American Idol creates: men and women made up to be Idols.[243] Praise and worship idols, musician idols, preacher idols, etc. It is what the program is designed to do. Think about it. It sets out to exalt men in the eyes of man. The more exalted the “teen idol” is the more profitable the enterprise. This is an abomination to God and one example of something that best not be being practiced in the churches of God. God forbid that Christians would teach their children to watch such devilry on TV and then go forth into the churches and do likewise.

Coolness or Holiness?

You can tell by the flippant way that the Gospel is treated and presented at times, that few ministers know why Moses was terminated from his position while he had yet all of his strength. Why was he not allowed to complete his calling to lead the people into the Promised Land? Most ministers and teachers would say it was because “he smote the rock instead of speaking to it.” Some would add that the rock that was smitten was a type of Christ and then add the typological relationship of the Law and Christ. However, the Old Testament tells us in two different places that Moses was disqualified because he “believed Me not” to sanctify Me (the Lord) in the eyes of the children of Israel (Numbers 20:12). Moses, that dear man of God and the meekest in all the earth, committed a cardinal sin that was aggravated by his position as a leader and his first-hand knowledge of God. He gave the impression that God can be disobeyed (trifled with) if one gets angry, is under pressure from people, or the circumstances seem to justify it.

Jesus told the Disciples to go into the world and make Disciples, not get decisions. He told them to baptize the people in water, not have them come forward or pray a prayer. And it is this gross and flagrant disobedience from the start that sets converts on a bad foundation. Consider the enormity of disobeying Christ in the preaching of the Gospel, in light of Moses’ experience, with billions of souls at risk. Flippancy and an “anything goes” mentality is the surest evidence that ministers do not truly believe the Bible they claim to preach. They exalt their own ideas in place of Christ’s direct commandments. Television pastor Rod Parsley admitted as much in his early 1990s preaching series entitled The Power of Holiness:

The Kingdom of God is not a multi-level business opportunity! It is not Amway or Shaklee.[…] We‘re about building our own kingdoms! We say we preach for God, we preach for ourselves! We say we sing for God, we sing for ourselves! Preachers hire lawyers and private detectives to try to bring one another down! God help the church with its head in the lap of Delilah! You don’t come into the church to be exalted!

Here we have him saying the truth, but then continuing to preach the prosperity gospel. We have to do more than agree there is a problem: we have to change direction. Nevertheless, what happens when men and women are exalted? What happens when pride starts to enter in? Sadly, some of the most lauded and popular in the Christian Music world (as has also happened with televangelists) are found to have been in adultery or some scandal. They lose their contract, and it becomes a huge blemish on the churches. Their singing was said to be “powerful,” but now there is chaos and confusion. I don't want to be critical, but whatever happened to just being sincere and meaning what you sing? Whatever happened to being moved by the Spirit rather than feeling coerced into the singer “performing” and then the crowd into “participating?” I don't remember a crowd having to be prodded and forced to worship God in the old days. Why? Because the singers had a way of making people feel what they felt when they sang. They meant it, and the crowd believed them. There was no performance or pretense. The people tried to live holy lives and it reflected in all that they did. God was glorified, and the people were edified. I have to ask, what is more important: holiness or coolness?

Judging the Ministry?

Are we caught up in the world’s way of assigning value based on aesthetics? Are we like the politicians who improve their chances by losing 20lbs and hiring a professional make-up artist? Are the young, flashy, Television Evangelists of modern times to Christianity what John F. Kennedy was to politics in the early 1960s? Has presentation and camera appeal supplanted morality and theology? Do TV ministers spend as much time in the study room as the make-up room? What are we looking for in a minister? Is it good looks? Is it a “Colgate smile?” Are we that shallow?

Do we have a right to sit back and judge a minister or a singer based on their proficiency in their genre? Do we worship the aesthetics of music? Does it have to sound perfect and pretty or we can't enter in to worship? Does the speaker have to sound slick and refined for the people to listen? What happened to the days when simple preachers stumbled over their words, but yet we recognized the voice of God in their speech? Does this generation even know how to listen for an unction from God? Have they been so cultured that they would probably walk out on Paul the Apostle because his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible? Would an old-time country preacher or a plumber like D.L. Moody even have a prayer today? Would we cast him off because he used words like “aint” in a sermon? Have the masses cast off the truth that “little is much if God is in it?” Do we despise the day of small things? If we have, then at what cost?

Has a generation of music and public speaking critics been raised up? A person is known as a critic when they have become proficient at judging. Granted, spiritual things must be judged. We need to test all things and hold fast to that which is good. This is common sense, and we will not waste time exploring it further. This is not what I am referring to. Criticistianity is that mode of behavior in which an individual has exalted themselves as an expert in a subject so as to critique others that move among them in that area that do not meet their expectations aesthetically. Few people ask if the song is Biblical or the message theologically sound. They are judging a “performance.” It seems as though an “armchair quarterbacking” goes on today similar to what goes on during the voting process of American Idol. This judgmental attitude that measures a person’s worth by their talents and polish surely cannot please the Lord. "God, were sending this one back, because they're not refined enough." Has Hollywood invaded our thinking process that profoundly? God help us.

Is it Really the World to blame?

Can we rightly blame Eddie Bernays? Not completely. Christian Television taught us, “You have to have a better line than the next balloon seller.” To get that kind of quality you have to critique things. Christians should know better than to entertain a critical spirit. Nevertheless, the behavior has so reached the mainstream that almost everything and everyone has to be critiqued, even in the churches of God. It seems that everyone, and everything has to “perform” these days to a certain expectation, and we are being asked to give our opinions. The opinion gets used in a feedback loop to keep altering everything and everyone until it (or they) suit the highest number of peoples' desires. What do you get? A ministry that is performance-based and pandering to the masses just like popular culture. Again, what happened to the days when people were just real? What are we to make of the words of Maude Aimee when she said, "We're competing in a world of show biz?" Are Christian programs really competing with one another, trying to one-up the other? Is ministry to be done for the ratings? Moreover, has Hollywood infiltrated modern Christendom through all these idol-type talent shows until there is no hope for anything to be genuine and non-entertainment based?

Performance or Ministry?

Brent Kercherville spells out the challenge we face in a generation of man-centered “worship.” He writes:

There is a worship that God does not delight in, does not want, and will not accept. Worship that is for us, for our joy, and for our pleasure is not worship at all. Only acts that are for God, His joy, and His pleasure are worthy to be called worship.

One of the most fearful and sobering lessons in the entire Bible is that of Eli and his wicked sons. He allowed these boys to use their position to pick up on the girls as if they were rock stars, driving the very presence of God from the people; all the while his father, repeatedly warned of God, refused to confront them. As they offended God to the uttermost in the name of “ministry” and “worship,” God told Eli he had honored his own sons more than he honored God. God judged Eli's house forever as an example unto us as to how He views using ministry for whoredom. The modern “American Idol” worship service is doing exactly that all over again, and the Eli's sit back as the Ark is carried off as if they have done no wrong. It is epidemic in our times. All the while, the old timers sigh and cry and are accused of being “trouble-makers.”

Sadly, Ezekiel 9:1-10 comes into view. God's presence was departing the Temple. However, before He goes He sends a messenger to put a mark in the forehead of those who sigh and cry for the abominations that are driving out the presence of God from the people. A destroying angel was sent in to annihilate all that did not have that mark in their forehead. This story is exemplary. It shows us forever God's estimate of what was happening with the mixture of sinful self-seeking men leading worship in His House. We do well to take heed.

Dividing the Worship

Worship leaders and musicians are not “rock stars,” and if they come off as such they are false and are to be avoided. Men and women wanting to be seen and adored divide the worship in the house of God. Why? Because musicians and singers who are “talented” are typically the most pampered, paid and tolerated individuals around. They are in demand and in the money. Churches have the attitude that if they have good music they can grow, but if not, they will falter. This is what American Idol, Hollywood, and Christian Television has done to many churches in our times. Local church leaders see television churches doing it, and just like in pop-culture, they desire to imitate what they see on TV. Nevertheless, God is not calling “stars” He is calling “servants.” He does not want the self-exalted, He wants the selfless. A man or woman's talent is of no use to God until it is taken through the cross of Christ. If we subvert people with our talents in the name of ministry we have a God to face. It makes me wonder, who still believes in the fact that God can use anyone he wants to for His purposes? When man’s eye is on the Saul’s of this world, God is looking to men after His own heart.

Carnal Thought Processes

Why in the world would we fight against God to try to teach people that they have to perform at a certain level in order to be acceptable in the churches of God when God called the churches out of that very mindset in the first place? Do we not realize that we will give an account to God as to how we define Christianity and ministry in the eyes of the people and the public? Some of the ministers and television personalities will wish they had never seen a TV camera when they realize the enormity of their negative influence on God’s people. Christian Television is shaping the world’s concept of what church is, what ministry is, what worship is, what holiness is, and what Christianity is. We need to think that every time we get up before the people they are watching us and following our lead. Where are we leading them? What are we modeling before their impressionable eyes? We are shaping right now the next generation of Christian's concepts of God, church and all things ministry. What a sobering thought and awesome responsibility! God doesn’t want a church modeled after the latest pop-cultural craze. He has called us to take the lead in the culture and correct the spirit of this age. We set the tone. We dictate what is “cool” or “in” in the churches of God, not the world. The people will acclimate to what we are doing, so we had best do what is right; for we have already been warned in James that ministers (teachers) will face a stricter judgment than non-teachers.

The Sobering Magnitude of Our Influence

When Moses said, “Thus Saith the Lord,” over a million people took a step forward. That is an awesome thing to consider. The late G.W. North, while preaching in 1975 in England, paused for a moment of reflection. He uttered these sobering words that all ministers, everywhere would do well to hear:

The times that I have been over these truths. I want to know I’m right. Don’t you? I get the Scriptures and I go over them and over them and over them, for great is the responsibility of he that preaches God’s Word. I remember saying to my wife one day: ”You know dear, I have just come through a period where I have thought about the enormity of all the people that I have had to counsel both publicly and privately, and if I have told them the wrong thing… I have damned souls.” Some of you wouldn’t be so hasty to become preachers if you knew the enormity of it all.

When we signify some new thing as being “ok with God” when it is not, the influence is tremendous, more than we can possibly know. Surely we can't be so ill-advised that we don't understand that most basic fact? Peter, John and Andrew were fisherman; they were not conference style motivational speakers. Does a man have to sing like Sinatra or Elvis before he is worthy to “minister”? Do our kids need to become like Britney Spears or Justin Bieber? Seriously. What message are we sending people? I've been backstage in the Christian talent performances. I've seen the confident groups mock the ones that sought to pray for the touch-of-God. I have known of judges to counsel sincere, God-fearing young men to “take off their suits, dress their age, and watch Nickelodeon to learn how to minister to their peers.” It is an abomination to God. But who do you think gets the high marks and praise in these so-called Christian talent contests? You are right. The ones that are perceived to have “talent.” All the while the ones that truly love God are often marginalized and discouraged from ministering. These are the training grounds of future ministry.

Rejected Among Your Peers?

We need to answer Paul's question, why; then, do you criticize your brother? Answer: Because this is the 21st century, and we live in the three strike/three-person panel era. This is the idol manufacturing generation. Men are made into idols to be exalted rather than forged into abased servants. All the trappings of the manufactured rock star comes into play; all the while, the sincere, God-fearing, non-celebrity types are marginalized and made to fear doing anything, lest they not measure up to the worldly criticism. It goes without saying that that type criticism should never have a place in the churches of God; nevertheless, this is what the three judgment panel spirit (attitude) does. Is there any wonder worldliness is trying to rule? The disturbing thing is that the three-man judgment panel is trying to trump the Three-Person panel of the Godhead (if you will) that is calling a generation to repent and serve God. It's lunacy. It's not working either. Look around. We have almost no-one stepping up in ministry that will preach repentance towards God and separation from this present evil world. And why should they? Do you like being criticized by fellow Christians for trying to serve the Lord in sincerity? Neither do they. I believe it is sin. The problem is that it has now gone on for so long, and so many are used to “texting in their favorite pick” to the phone, that the sting of the transgression for that behavior in the churches of God is no longer felt. Many are becoming past feeling. That is to say, it used to sting the conscience, but not anymore. There used to be a check in the Spirit, but not now. It's not only acceptable in our times, it’s almost demanded. Should we as Christians succumb to moving in this mindset?

Ministry in an Era of Criticistianity

The results of this age? Ministry now has to cope with a new catch phrase, "you’re not good enough." And if it’s not ministry, why are we doing it? Why are we wasting precious time to do it on any level? We are supposed to be shepherding the flock of God. We are to come alongside and encourage a generation to step into what God has for them. Not with an invitation in one hand and a stick in the other. Not with a checklist to critique how they preach or sing. God have mercy on this critical generation. We need to purge the Church of these carnal mindsets, get out of God's business, and let Him start using whom He will to minister, not to entertain men, but to glorify God.

CHAPTER 9

The Faster Builder

“Some people think that they can’t be converted unless they go down on their knees in the straw at a camp meeting, unless they pray all hours of the night and all days of the week while some old brother storms heaven in prayer. ... What I want and preach is the fact that a man can be converted without any fuss.” –Billy Sunday

“He made it (the question of salvation) so simple that there was no need for inquiry rooms.” –Helen Amelia Thompson Sunday[244]

So far, we have unearthed the “main skeleton” of how evangelism has been carried out since the book of Acts. We have examined some of the finer points in detail, and then we connected modern evangelistic techniques to modern worship practices. We discovered in Part I, a systematic push forward towards the practices of the book of Acts, beginning in the 14th century, only to find this effort brought to a screeching halt, and subsequent reversal in the 20th century. Our forensics demonstrate that until the time of Charles G. Finney, evangelicalism, overall, had been moving forward in its understanding of initiation into the New Covenant (conversion). The Reformers focused on the necessity of faith and grace. The Anabaptists added a focus on water baptism for adults. John Wesley and Charles Finney focused on repentance from sin and holiness of life. The Pentecostals added a focus on Baptism in the Holy Spirit. We had all the elements of true conversion coming into the 20th century, but before we could see the fruits of such Biblical advancements, an evangelistic derailment took place.

A cursory look at post-Billy Sunday evangelism leads one to believe that most of the Tent and Television evangelists were primarily concerned about one thing: get a person “converted” as fast as possible. They were concerned with velocity not validity. When people were coming into the tents by the thousands there was simply no way to deal properly with each one individually. There also seemed to be a preoccupation with publishing the number of people “converted” in the meetings. If you asked Billy Sunday, and the thousands of ministers that cloned his techniques, they would probably tell you they were “saving souls.” They would be highly offended if you challenged them. Nevertheless, without being critical of these men, but focusing on their techniques, we need to ask why these men never seemed to bother going back and examining what salvation looked like in the book of Acts? Why did Billy Sunday forsake repentance, faith, water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit? Why did he abolish the Enquiry Room and replace it with a handshake and a pledge card? Did the 20th century suddenly signal a generation coming forth that did not need to pray through, as they did prior to Billy Sunday?

One of the problems with compromise is that you almost never recover the ground you surrender. People dig in and there is no changing their minds. “We have done this for 50 years, why change back now?” That is like driving for five hours east when you were supposed to be going west and then asking why you need to do a u-turn. The longer we go, the farther we are away from the methodology of the book of Acts. Tragically, once salvation was reduced to a handshake, pledge card, or “sinner’s prayer” those who utilized the technique were willing to stick to it at any cost. Why? Because it was effective at maximizing the number of advertised converts. It brought a false sense of accomplishment to many evangelists.

Three Influential Bill’s

We have examined at some length Billy Sunday and his influence on 20th century evangelism, but we have yet to discuss two other men who took Billy Sunday’s techniques to their ultimate conclusion. While Billy Sunday was compelling the people to “walk the sawdust trail,” William R. "Bill" Bright (1921–2003) was being born in Coweta, Oklahoma. He was to become one of the most influential American evangelists of the 20th century and the founder of the largest Christian ministry in the world: Campus Crusade For Christ. Some say that his efforts “won more people to Christ” than any other person. I wish mainly to touch upon his method of evangelism commonly known as The Four Spiritual Laws. These “laws” were converted into tracts in hundreds of languages and passed out all over the world to hundreds of millions of people. They commonly read as follows:

1.    God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life (John 3:16, John 10:10).

2.    Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23).

3.    Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life (Romans 5:8, I Corinthians 15:3-6, John 14:6).

4.    We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives (John 1:12, Ephesians 2:8,9, John 3:1~8, Revelation 3:20).

The tract goes on to inform the reader that a person must repent of their sin (singular) and truly trust Christ. A mental assent to the facts of the Gospel will not suffice. Then they are instructed to pray this prayer (or something similar):

Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Amen.

If the person is “sincere” in their prayer they are directed to another set of instructions that completes the process:

Did you receive Christ into your life by sincerely praying the suggested prayer? According to His promise in Revelation 3:20, where is Christ right now in relation to you? Christ said that He would come into your life. Would He mislead you? On what authority do you know that God has answered your prayer? Answer: The trustworthiness of God Himself and His Word.

This is what A.W. Tozer called, “salvation by logical deductions drawn from proof texts.” Bill Bright then goes on to give what he calls “An important reminder”:

Do Not Depend on Feelings. The promise of God's Word, the Bible, not our feelings, is our authority. The Christian lives by faith (trust) in the trustworthiness of God Himself and His Word.

Bill Bright then employs a diagram of a train to illustrate his view of the relationship between fact (God and His Word); faith (our trust in God and His Word); and feeling (the result of our faith and obedience John 14:21). He tells the person that, “The train will run with or without a caboose and that it would be useless to attempt to pull the train by the caboose.” He goes on to say that, “Christians do not depend on feelings or emotions, but we place our faith (trust) in the trustworthiness of God and the promises of His Word.” He then goes on to describe from thin air what happened to the person that sincerely believed:

The moment that you received Christ by faith, as an act of the will, many things happened, including the following:

1.    Christ came into your life (Rev. 3:20).

2.    Your sins were forgiven (Colossians 1:14).

3.    You became a child of God (John 1:12).

4.    You received eternal life (John 5:24).

5.    You began the great adventure for which God created you (John 10:10; 2 Cor. 5:17).

He then asks the person if “they can think of anything more wonderful that could happen to you than receiving Christ?” He then asks, “Would you like to thank God in prayer right now for what He has done for you?” He completes his counsel by stating, “By thanking God, you demonstrate your faith.”[245]

You will notice that the first law states, “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.” Does Bill agree with Paul? What did Paul say? Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:30, 31 NKJV).

Crackerjack Car Salesman Counsels Evangelists

As Bill Bright’s ministry expanded to over one hundred on staff, a discussion came up to figure out whose evangelistic methods were most effective on campus. Bill Bright was the “most successful” so he was asked to write out his method. He compiled it into a brochure called God’s Plan For Your Life. With Bright’s background in sales, he trained his student evangelists in what he termed Christian salesmanship (soul winning).[246]  This would be the vehicle by which his evangelistic approach God’s Plan For Your Life would be propagated. In addition to reading spiritual books such as Oswald Chambers works, Bright also asked his students to digest Frank Better’s, How I Raised Myself From Failure to Success in Selling.[247]  Better was a positive-thinking disciple of Dale Carnegie, who taught people to make up a questionnaire[248]and establish a rapport with people you desire to influence. Around 1957, Bill Bright brought in Bob Ringer, who Vonette Bright described as “a crackerjack automobile salesman”[249] and member of the Hollywood Presbyterian church, to speak at their annual staff conference. He spoke on “presentation fatigue” and suggested that it is important to have a clearly stated message, a pitch.[250]  He even employed Bill Bright as an example of how he uses a “pitch” when presenting the Gospel. After a short period of aggravation at the thought, Bright agreed and honed his message into the standard God’s Plan For Your Life.

It is clear that the “bad news” aspect of the Gospel was grossly minimized due to the positive-thinking approach natural to Frank Bettger and agreeable to Bill Bright. Beginning in 1957, perhaps a billion (1,000,000,000) people have not been told to repent, as Paul told the Athenians, “because God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness,” but have been asked a question: “Has it ever occurred to you that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?”[251]  The original presentation was later felt to be too much to memorize and present, so it was truncated in 1959 into the Four Spiritual Laws as we know them today.

Having originally begun with man’s sinfulness, Bright came to believe that preaching on sin and repentance was too negative. This happened when a “bell” went off in his head one night, and he decided to change the first point to emphasize God’s love. This paradigm shift was so disappointing, that one of his female students wept, believing it was a compromise of the Gospel. Bright was not moved. In fact, he stated later that in retrospect, he realized it was one of the greatest things that ever happened to Campus Crusade Ministry.[252] After implementing these techniques, Bill Bright stated around 1957 that, “Our ministry multiplied a hundredfold during the next year.”[253] Over the years Bill Bright’s method would come under scrutiny by those concerned with genuine conversion. As with Charles G. Finney, there was a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of true conversion.

Some will say, we are exhorted from Paul the Apostle, “Nevertheless Christ is preached!” But we must also caution ourselves against “another Gospel” preached to the Corinthians and the Galatians. Could this presentation of the Gospel, as done by Bill Bright and others, merely vaccinate the people who hear it against the real Gospel?

Appealing to Man’s Sense of Selfishness

Contemporary with Bill Bright was an important, but little-known missionary by the name of Paris Reidhead (1919-1992). It would be tempting to say that Reidhead had the unique ability to zoom-out and understand evangelistic efforts going on in his day, but he would attribute his unique insights to the inspiration of God. During a Bethany Fellowship Summer Conference in the mid-sixties, Paris Reidhead was preparing to speak at the Tuesday morning Bible hour. Upon returning to his room after breakfast to meditate and pray about his message for that morning, he felt strangely impressed that he could not deliver the message that he had prepared for the session. Instead, he felt led differently. After praying a message came to mind which he had prepared for the church in New York City of which he was pastor at that time. He did not have the notes with him, so he wrote out on an empty envelope the Scripture texts to be used and one or two ideas that came to his mind. With the envelope in his Bible marking the book of Judges, Chapter 17, and casting himself utterly upon the Lord, he went to the auditorium where between four and five hundred people waited to hear from the Lord through him. It would be a Word from God to 21st century evangelists and Christians alike. In it he pulls back the curtain and shows the motivation behind so much evangelism that was taking place at the time. I will give a small excerpt here for our brief observation:

There's another group of people that have taken umbrage[254] with the liberals, this group are my people, the fundamentalists. They say, "We believe in the inspiration of the Bible! We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ! We believe in hell! We believe in heaven! We believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ!" But remember the atmosphere is that of humanism. And humanism says the chief end of being is the happiness of man. Humanism is like a miasma out of a pit, it just permeates everyplace. Humanism is like an infection, an epidemic, it just goes everywhere.

So it wasn't long until we had this, that the fundamentalists knew each other because they said "We believe these things!" They were men for the most part that had met God. But you see it wasn't long until having said "These are the things that establish us as fundamentalists!"... The second generation said "This is how we become a fundamentalist! Believe in the inspiration of the Bible! Believe in the deity of Christ! Believe in His death, burial, and resurrection! And thereby become a fundamentalist." And so it wasn't long until it got to our generation, where the whole plan of salvation was to give intellectual assent to a few statements of doctrine. And a person was considered a Christian because he could say "Ah hah" at four or five places that he was asked. If he knew where to say "Ah hah" someone would pat him on the back, shake his hand, smile broadly, and say "Brother, you're saved!" So it had gotten down to the place where salvation was nothing more than an assent to a scheme or a formula, and the end of this was that salvation was the happiness of man because humanism had penetrated. If you were to analyze fundamentalism in contrast to liberalism of a hundred years ago as it developed, for I am not pinpointing it in time, it would be like this: The liberal says the end of religion is to make man happy while he's alive, and the fundamentalist says the end of religion is to make man happy when he dies.[255]

Bill Bright’s message contained within the Four Spiritual Laws was a hybrid between fundamentalist and liberal thought. It effectively made man the complete center of the message, suggesting that God wants to make man happy both now and in eternity.[256] This appeal to man’s selfishness has left multitudes of people “expecting” God to fix all of their life problems after salvation and has disillusioned many when life did not change or got worse. God is bringing many sons and daughters unto glory, which is a very different thing than a man-centered “wonderful plan for your life.” Bill Bright built upon Billy Sunday and together proved to be a radical departure from the ideals passed to us successively by the Reformers, Separatists, Pilgrims, Puritans, and Methodists, not to mention Peter, John, Paul and the Lord Jesus.

The Chicago Fire Standardized the “Invitation”

Edward Bernay’s (1891-1995) wrote the book Propaganda. One of the first points he makes is that people are too busy to study all the issues involved in life by themselves, so they subconsciously decide who they are going to believe when it comes to matters that are important to them.[257]  The sheer amount of trust that is placed upon these individuals is almost incalculable. What if they are wrong? If we are discussing politics or marketing the problem would be serious enough: what are we to make of the awesome responsibility placed on a handful of people dictating to the world what it means to preach the Gospel and be a child of God? And if there were so few influencing so many, how strongly would you suppose that Satan is working to influence them? Two hundred years ago, the press could be used to spread word of a meeting of thousands in one place to be influenced by one. When the radio was invented that number rose exponentially. When the Television and satellite were invented that number multiplied again. A man can speak today, and it is broadcasted into several hundred million homes at once. Think of the enormity of that kind of influence!

Another important strategy of Edward Bernay’s was to use irrational fear to move public opinion on an issue. He would make use of or manufacture anxiety, if necessary, to gain influence.[258] When people are fearful, they are apt to think with their emotions and not with their intellect. They are prone to irrationality. Consider this commonly repeated story of fear, fire and soul’s damnation:

It will be remembered that just before Chicago was destroyed by flames in 1871 D.L Moody had dismissed an audience, telling them to go home and think what they would do with Christ. He never met them again. This dismissal he regarded as one of the greatest mistakes of his life, and he determined never to repeat it.[259]

As terrible as the fire was in destroying homes and churches; and as horrendous and lamentable the Chicago Fire was for the thousands that lost their lives, it has done a disservice in working to standardize the notion that an “invitation” or “altar call” is absolutely essential to any evangelistic meeting. It leaves the impression that God must save a person right here and right now and that there is no time for a struggle of faith. Numerous books in the succeeding decades on evangelism and “how to give an invitation” have included this story to spark fear in the minds of the ministers, suggesting that he must secure a decision as soon as possible, lest some catastrophic event leave the person without a “chance to be saved.”[260]

Given the fact that this attitude never reigned in the church until 1871, one ought to ask what the great difference was between preaching in the book of Acts and preaching today? What is more important is that D.L. Moody was not attempting to get people to answer an invitation in the 21st century sense, but rather the story continues:

From that time on he laid great stress on the after meeting, which took place at the close of an evangelistic address, in which he tried to bring individual souls to an immediate decision as to the great issues he had just brought before them. These meetings were probably the most characteristic and original feature of his work (emphasis added).[261]

I need to make a clear distinction between what D.L. Moody did in response to his experience with the great Chicago fire and how many evangelicals have used his experience to promote decisional regeneration. No matter how urgent Moody felt the need was to see a person come to Christ, he still insisted on taking them through the Scriptures and prayer to ensure as best as possible that the conversion would not be spurious. In other words, Moody was thinking “after meeting” and “inquiry room”: the new evangelists and their teachers were thinking “sawdust trail,” “sinner’s prayer,” or “decision card.”

Billy Graham

By the time William Franklin "Billy" Graham, Jr. (1918- ) started his ministry, the concept of making a “decision” for Christ or “receiving Christ” was getting long in the tooth. Billy Sunday had passed away, and now the crowds would embrace another “Bill.” Billy Graham would soon become the first full-time employee of Youth For Christ and eventually the most well-known evangelist in the history of the world. His message has influenced hundreds of millions of sinners, saints, and ministers.

Billy Graham had gone to hear tent revivalist Dr. Mordecai Ham (1877-1961) preach, and through his ministry he was converted. It was not an instant repeat-a-prayer type salvation, but a struggle of faith before surrendering to Christ. In his own words:

This night a great giant of a man stood and began to preach in such a way as I had never heard a man preach. About halfway through his message he pointed in my direction and said, "Young man, you are a sinner." I thought he was talking straight at me. I ducked behind the person who was sitting in front of me and hid my face. The idea of his calling me a sinner! "Why, I am as good as anybody. I live a good clean healthy moral life. I am a member of the church!" I told myself. But then he began to quote various verses from Scripture." All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," "There is none righteous no, not one," and others. Each listener became deeply involved with the evangelist, who had an almost embarrassing way of describing your sins and shortcomings and of demanding, on pain of divine judgment, that you mend your ways. As I listened, I began to have thoughts I had never known before. I had a tremendous conviction that I must commit myself.[262] I'm sure the Lord did speak to me about certain things in my life. I'm certain of that. But I cannot remember what they were. But I do remember a great sense of burden that I was a sinner before God and had a great fear of hell and judgment. When the invitation was given, I rushed out into the night and made my way home. I will never forget the struggle that followed. All night long I wrestled and fought; then at school at my desk, in the gym playing basketball, in the barn milking. I could hardly wait for evening so that I could get back to the service. This night I sat near the front and the preacher got up again but this time he seemed to smile at me, and said in the tenderest tones that God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. I thought, This is for me! I am a sinner. God loves me. When the invitation was given, I made my way to the front with the others, gave my hand to the preacher and my heart to the Savior. Immediately joy, peace and assurance flooded my soul. My sins which were many were gone, and for the first time I had met the Person who became the Hero of my life, and after eleven years He is still the One I idolize.[263]

Billy Graham was under great conviction all night and day as God was dealing with him about his sins. He states clearly that God did “speak to me about certain things in my life.” His climatic moment was walking to the front and giving his hand to the minister and his heart to the Savior.

Before we move past this conversion narrative, I wish to point something out that I believe plagues many legitimate ministers today. Billy Graham stated, “Each listener became deeply involved with the evangelist, who had an almost embarrassing way of describing your sins.” Notice how Graham characterized the way the preacher described your sins as “almost embarrassing.” This is the man that God used to reach Billy Graham, but there seems to be an underlying criticism here in his technique.[264] When John the Baptist called the people to repentance, they were baptized in water and confessing their sins. Billy Graham seems to suffer from a mistaken notion that other people can come to Christ in a way different than he came. Many older ministers will admit that they came clean before God and prayed through at an old-fashioned altar, but now preaching strongly against sin seems “harsh” or in Graham’s words almost “embarrassing.”

What if Paul would have taken that approach and preached a soft-soap Gospel that can neither save nor deliver? What about Peter? Whoever comes into the Kingdom of God will have to come through the same Door that the Saints came through, and by a similar means of grace. Preaching on sin and repentance is not emotional abuse, it is sound doctrine.

The Evolution of the Billy Graham Invitation

Billy Graham preached his first message at a small Baptist church in Palatka, Florida. He had had no warning before hand, so he nervously delivered an eight-minute evangelistic message. He closed by asking those that wanted to be saved to raise their hands. There were about four responses. He then called them forward. When only three came he confronted the fourth man for not coming forward. He got an unexpected and embarrassing retort, “You don’t need to think because you go to that school down there that you know everything.”[265] It was an unforgettable experience that showed the danger of being overly aggressive in getting people to respond to your message. This was followed by a few years ministering on a local level with people regularly responding to the invitation. In 1945, he went to work at Youth For Christ (YFC) with his first big meeting at Orchestral Hall in Chicago. Three thousand people came, and forty responded (roughly 1 in 75). This signaled that Billy Graham’s evangelistic ministry was progressing. He resigned from YFC and started his own evangelistic organization.[266]

Billy Graham typically presses for a decision from the beginning of the sermon until the end. He adds the question, “Well, Billy, what do I have to do?” before during and after the sermon. He then moves to the formal invitation. In the early days, Billy Graham used a three-step process in giving his invitation: 1. Heads bowed. 2. Raise hand if you wish to repent and believe. 3. If you raised your hand come forward. The Choir would sing Charlotte Elliott’s 1836 hymn, Just As I Am. All who responded were then ushered into an adjacent prayer room or tent, where each inquirer was counseled by a personal worker. By 1957, Graham had dropped the request to raise your hand for repentance and faith. While heads were still bowed he would have the people get up and come forward. He would state to the effect, “You come as an indication of giving your life to Christ.”[267] The three step method became the two step method and continued as such until the mid-1960s when he simplified the message to just “Get up out of your seats and say by coming, ‘I receive Christ.’ ” He stopped insisting that heads be bowed as the invitation was made. Those that could not get up and come forward were asked to raise their hands as a sign of their repentance and faith. He then addresses the inquirer on the basics of Christian living. This usually takes five minutes. Each inquirer is then paired with a counselor who offers further instruction and helpful Christian literature. Before the group is dismissed he leads them in the sinner’s prayer:

Oh God, I’m a sinner. I’m sorry for my sins. I’m willing to turn from my sin. I receive Jesus as my Savior. I receive Him as Lord. From this moment on I want to follow Him in the fellowship of the church. In Christ name. Amen.

Billy Graham views this process as including repentance of sins and faith in the crucified and risen Christ alone for salvation. He/she must commit to a life of obedience to Christ and must share their faith publicly.

Ecumenical Evangelism

Ecumenical evangelism (cooperative evangelism) is the process by which churches are brought together in unity at the expense of their unique doctrines and practices for the sake of conducting a peaceful evangelical outreach. As early as 1957, several ministers accused Billy Graham of ecumenical evangelism because they became concerned that fundamentalist teachings were being compromised and broke away from the ministry. Although Billy Graham downplayed the concerns, it is evident that he was prepared to let them go in order to maintain a broad audience that included liberal Christians and Roman Catholics. He stated his attitude succinctly:

My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join with us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one compromising personal convictions, not we.[268]

This is a hard saying to accept at face value given the fact that as an ordained Southern Baptist, Billy Graham speaks very seldom of water baptism in his sermons.[269] Beginning at John the Baptist the people went out to be baptized and confessed their sins (plural). Both in Matthew 3:6 and Mark 1:5 we are told clearly that those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. Jesus took this pattern up almost as if He were an echo of John the Baptist. So did Peter and Paul. Paul preached repentance and fruits of repentance to the very end of his life. Water baptism was essential to this process.

The Devastating Effect of Ecumenical Evangelism

The reason typically given as to why Billy Graham did not emphasize water baptism is that he wanted to avoid subjects that would have been controversial to his theologically diverse supporters. This is consistent with evangelists back to Charles G. Finney. What happens? You can’t preach repentance in the way it should be preached, or you might offend the Free Grace proponents. You can’t preach water baptism (especially by total immersion) or you might offend the Salvation Army and the Quakers. If you preach receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, you may offend the cessationists.[270] By the time it’s over with there is nothing left of the Gospel but a bunch of humanistic jargon that is salvifically impotent. It’s as if the evangelist is bound and tied by the variant opinions of the multiplicity of denominations and belief systems represented in the crusades. Unless God were to sovereignly intervene and deal with people, the message becomes so lukewarm and incapable that it cannot help but give birth to a multitude of spurious conversions. If we are to go forward in seeing the churches of God get back to Biblical, book of Acts evangelism, the hindrances must be done away with.

A Shift in Values

When a person believes they are converted and have received the Holy Spirit when they are not and have not, they see life through a totally different set of eyes than one that has been truly converted. It cannot possibly be overstressed that spurious conversions always lead to compromise in the churches. The spurious’ attitude towards sin and the world are totally different than the regenerate. Their mind is at enmity with God, so they struggle to do basic Christian things such as love their neighbor, forsake the world or walk in truth. They make no distinction personally between holy and profane. They may have carry-over convictions as a result of their denomination or their upbringing; nevertheless, they do not hate sin. They do not hate this world system. They are a friend of it and will seek to bring it into the churches of God to make the church more agreeable to their carnal mind.

The Fears of the Puritans Realized

In 2011, George Barna conducted a poll to determine who was the most influential Christian minister in America. Among evangelicals, 35% named Billy Graham, 12% named Joyce Meyer, and 5% named Joel Osteen. What does this statistic mean for our future? After Billy Graham is called home to heaven, there will be a shift in this data. Who will take the lead, and how will mainstream evangelicalism be led?

It is apparent from our excavation that as evangelistic techniques changed over the last 100 years, and as the definition of conversion changed with it, the whole makeup of the visible church (Christendom) changed. Over 400 years ago the Separatists in England charged John Calvin with sweeping Saint, sinner, and the ignorant alike into the church at Geneva. They compared Calvin’s “evangelism” as it were, to the wholesale conversion of the realm of England after Mary I of England (Bloody Mary) died, when Papist and Protestant were both brought into the church.[271] To get away from such practices they moved to the New World and established a “city on the hill.” Today, these concepts are almost completely erased from evangelical consciousness. Few are concerned with the purity of the church and the authenticity of its members. Nevertheless, this attitude has a very serious consequence.

Building Upon the Foundation

For we are laborers together with God: you are God's husbandry, you are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another builds thereon. But let every man take heed how he builds thereupon (1 Corinthians 3:9-13).

Our passage relates to a problem that existed in Corinth in which the people were factionalizing; that is to say, they were lining up behind their favorite ministers. Paul will deal with this factionalizing and division by going to the foundation of the issue. He begins by reminding the people in a figure that one farmer plants, another farmer waters, but God gives the increase. It is God's field, seed, rain, sunlight, etc., but the assisting agent in the process is the farmer (husbandman). So if there is praise to be received, it must alone belong to God. We then have a transition in our metaphor from “husbandry” (farming) to “carpentry” (building). You are God's building, says Paul. We are owned by God, having been saved as a consequence of His grace. We are at work on God's building project and are expected to follow his building plans and procedures. We are the builders, we are not the designers. Paul tells us that the foundation has been laid which is Jesus Christ. Paul followed a simple pattern as he preached the Gospel: repent and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance; believe the Gospel; be baptized in water; and receive the Holy Spirit. This was the grace of God working in Paul following the pattern already set forth by Peter in Acts 2. We are to follow God's pattern as would a carpenter his blueprints.

The Wise Master Builder

The grace of God that brings salvation came to us, as it did the original first-century readers of the epistles, through the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul describes his role in this process saying, "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation..." God gave Paul the tools and the direction to lay the foundation for the churches under his care. He referred to himself as a "wise master builder". "This is the Greek word architektōn or "architect”. Tektōn" is from tiktō, meaning to beget, and means a begetter, then a worker in wood or stone, a carpenter or mason (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). "Archi" is an old inseparable prefix like archaggelos (archangel), archepiscopos (archbishop), archiereus (chief priest)." (Robertson) Notice Paul was not just a master builder, but a wise master builder. This implies that he understood the absolute seriousness and enormity of what he was doing. He approached the work soberly and with great wisdom. Why? Because what he was building would have to have the strength to support what came after. No building is any stronger than its foundation. He also understood that the early pattern of the work was setting a standard and precedent for hundreds of generations to follow.

I Placed a Placing

Paul said, "I laid the foundation." This is literally, "I placed a placing." When words are doubled in Hebrew idiom, it is done for emphasis. This is the ultimate laying of a foundation, and that foundation is Jesus Christ.

Try to picture what Paul means when he says, “But let every man take heed how he builds thereupon."  Imagine a properly laid foundation of stone or brick.  You see it going up uniformly as designed, and then suddenly there is an abrupt shift, because obviously there has been a “shift change.” The new builders are careless and slapdash. They certainly don’t have the standards that Paul, and the Apostles had. It is as if the “new crew” didn’t even bother to pattern after what had been laid already. They simply went off and recklessly did their own thing.

This is a picture of our times. There is a wholesale breaking loose from the faith of our fathers and the faith that was once delivered unto the Saints. Whereas Christ is the foundation, and many truths were added by the Apostles in the Acts and the epistles, a series of falsehoods and compromises have been introduced in the form of man-made traditions that compromise the work. Many of these traditions are in conflict with the design and purpose of the building project, but have taken on the force of law and are proving historically very difficult to weed out.

Dealing With Error

No practice or teaching in the Bible has been as savagely, vigorously, and universally fought against as John the Baptist’s and later the Lord’s and the Apostles ordinance to fulfill all righteousness and be baptized in water, confessing sins, by total immersion. As early as the AD 400s, people were being put to death for simply obeying this commandment. We have this awful account as related in The Martyrs Mirror:

Among all the cruel bloodhounds, and persecutors of the Christians may well be counted Isdigerdis and his son, Geroranes, who not only flayed and roasted the Christians alive, but also split reeds, and bound them, with the cut side inwards, tightly around the naked bodies of the martyrs, whom they then drew out by force, thus shockingly lacerating the bodies of the Christians. They also confined the steadfast martyrs, naked, in cells, bound them hand and foot, and then chased in a great number of rats, which, impelled by hunger, gnawed their bodies, and, in the course of time, entirely devoured them.[272]

Infant baptism was broadly practiced by this time (ca. 400) with dissenting views being punishable by imprisonment or cruel death. We know that although Jesus said to suffer the little children to come unto me, neither He nor the Apostles ever suggested in any way that an infant, with no consciousness of sin or desire to repent, could possibly follow the prescription for water baptism. Let me emphasize that no baby was baptized by John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul or anyone else in the Bible. It was a new measure that took the place of the true ordinance, just like Finney’s new measure, the anxious bench.

Men have tried in vain for over 1500 years to offer a substitute for Christ’s call to water baptism. Finney himself understood the need to have something “like” water baptism, suggesting his “coming forward to the anxious bench” answered to the need for water baptism. He would rather people do what he said than have them do what Christ said. Why? He was worried about controversy. Just like Moody, Sunday and Graham.[273] There is a huge brick missing in the foundation of evangelical faith. Even the lauded champions of sola scriptura continue to insist on the practice of infant baptism suggesting it has taken the place of Jewish circumcision. When the Anabaptists[274] sought to rectify this ancient error, they were hog-tied and drowned by Ulrich Zwingli.[275] The Anabaptists taught that people cannot expect persons, merely because they have been dipped in infancy, to show forth the excellency that was in Christ Jesus, and baptism ought not to be given to babies because it is not a sign of membership into a Christian society, but a visible token of inward regeneration. Any person that seeks to be baptized without having repented and turned to Christ is still in the world no matter if an ocean of water had been poured over them.

Promoters of a Weak Foundation

At the risk of being redundant, we need to state clearly that repentance is foundational to Christianity; genuine faith is foundational; water baptism is foundational, and receiving the Holy Spirit is foundational. We need to ask ourselves if these foundational subjects are all involved in modern evangelistic efforts? What about televangelism that is spreading its message to hundreds of millions? Or do we have a televangelized visible church that sees no reason to repent of all known sin, be water baptized, and filled with the Holy Spirit? Televangelism in the U.S. as has been put forth by Billy Graham, Rex Humbard and many others has been built upon the shoddy foundation of Billy Sunday, who built upon DL Moody, who built upon Charles Finney. It does not take a structural engineer to see that we are building a dangerous form of Christianity that risks the souls of literally millions of people. If an individual does not come to Christ in the way set forth in the book of Acts, how can they be sure that the layer upon layer of new measures, meant to take the place of Biblical commandments, will save them in the end? Paul said, in effect, "take heed how you build upon the foundation that was passed to you." We could drink a hundred cups of coffee and not be sobered to the enormity of the seriousness of this subject.

Souls At Risk

It was a Friday evening in Kansas City on July 17, 1981 when the local television programs were interrupted to bring a special report. A Tea Dance party was rolling at the Hyatt Regency, arguably the city's poshest hotel, with 1600 people in attendance. News began to stream that something very terrible had happened. Two connected concrete and steel walkways collapsed and plunged to the ground under the weight of those standing on them. These massive multi-ton structures fell to the lobby that was hosting the tea dance, killing 114 people and injuring 216 others. It was the deadliest construction-related disaster to date and would not be surpassed until the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in 2001. It was not an act of war, it was an act of negligence.

The concrete and steel fell killing many instantly; others were given morphine and told they were going to die. The scene was so horrific, that it resembled a war zone. Again, this was not caused by enemies prevailing in a terrorist bombing attack, but by a derelict building modification that was never properly reviewed to determine the consequences of such a design change. You will recall a quote earlier from the US government in 1950 stating the Soviets desire to take the world without firing a shot. This is an example of how destruction is not always from the enemy per se, but from within our own ranks. The Hyatt Regency Skywalk collapsed because no one took the time to look at the original blue prints, do the calculations, and make sure that the structure could handle the modification (innovation/new measure). It resulted in mass loss of life, grief, post-traumatic stress disorder cases, lawsuits, etc. The firm responsible lost its license and the men in charge lost their engineering certifications. It is exceedingly sad to know that such a lesson would have to be learned the hard way. What about this great building project known as the visible church? Are the new measures heaped upon us at the expense of Biblical truth going to lead to a collapse of morality and spirituality that is unprecedented in history? We seem to be on the verge of it.

Going Forward

There is nothing that we can do about the past except to learn from it. It is not our job to go back and tear out things that have already been built, nor to overly criticize men whom God has chosen to use. Many have done the best with what they knew to do and that is highly praiseworthy. Some have flagrantly disregarded all attempts to bring correction to their doctrine and practice. Nevertheless, that is not what this book is about. Although some will suggest that I have been hard on certain evangelists, that was not my intention. We have excavated this great subject of evangelism and held the men and their practices up to the light of God’s word; not in an attempt to criticize, but to prove all things that we might hold fast to that which is good. This book is not about men per-se, it is about measures and doctrines that have been introduced into the churches that need to be reevaluated. God uses men; and men are subject to mistakes. If God’s Word is ignored and the practice of unbiblical or false measures continues, then the practitioners have sinned with knowledge. They are accountable. Paul laid the foundation rightly, but what will other people do that arrive on the work site later? This is the great question. We are responsible for our work. Will others build as wise master builders or as a foolish faster builder who builds the walls of questionable or false teachings that lead to spurious conversions? Someday all of our works will be tested by fire.

CHAPTER 10

Where the Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

Although many millions of people may have come to true conversion over the last century, the churches’ mission in advancing towards “book of Acts evangelistic practices” has been a complete write-off. We lost much ground that had been gained up to 1900. The stage was set for the losses in the 19th century and came to fruition in the 20th. The high-speed evangelistic crusade, sinners prayer invitational system methods were taken under tents to influence hundreds of thousands; then onto the radio to reach millions; then onto the television to influence hundreds of millions. Today if a person asks “what must I do to be saved” they are very likely to get for an answer “Just say the sinner’s prayer.” In fact, people are now being told that if they will “say this prayer” they will be saved from hell no matter how they live afterwards, as though the prayer were an eternal sacrament. These individuals say the prayer, but as is often the case, they have no intention of repenting of their sins much less submitting to water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. Is there any wonder the churches’ are loaded with people that have no appetite for God? Is there any wonder that these same individuals need to be entertained with a mixture of Christianity and worldliness? In the absence of genuine Regeneration there can be nothing more than carnality. If we truly want to change the church; if we truly want to change America; if we truly want to change the world; we have got to get back to changing our evangelistic methods to what Peter and Paul did in the book of Acts. There is no other way. To think differently is to fool ourselves and continue in this downward spiral.

A Proper Reference Point

The word “reference” is derived from the Latin word referre. It means "to carry back" and is formed from the prefix re- and ferre, "to bear," A large number of words derive from this root, including refer, referee, referent, referendum, etc. and they all retain the basic meaning of the original Latin as "a point, place or source of origin" in terms of which something of comparable nature can be defined. Our reference point for evangelism is not the Old Testament, nor is it the Gospels; it is the post-Pentecost portion of the book of Acts. The objective in evangelism is to bring a person fully into the New Covenant, not to get sinners sins forgiven only. Paul explained in the book of Romans and in the epistles what that entails, but for our purposes, we don’t need to know all the details, we only need to understand what the Apostles did in order to see individuals brought under the New Covenant. Some have used the language “full initiation” into the New Covenant to describe fulfilling all the requisites to complete the process.

The Gospels are written too early to give us a picture of how the process works because they only contain the elements of repentance, faith, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit in germ, they do not describe how they were carried out. Moreover, John’s baptism of repentance was limited in scope and was not effectual once Christ appeared. We see this in Acts 19 where the people had received John’s baptism, but needed to be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Although there was the change of covenant from Old to New, John the Baptist’s baptism model still serves well as a pattern in terms of repentance and confession of sins. Also, the Holy Spirit was “with” the Disciples during the narrative of the Gospels, but was “in” the Disciples after Pentecost. Unlike the unbelieving Jews that Jesus came to that “received Him not,” the Disciples did receive Christ[276]giving them the authority to later become the sons of God by receiving the Holy Spirit.[277]

The epistles and the book of Revelation are written too late to give insight as to the “how” of full initiation into the New Covenant. The epistles are typically written to the saints, meaning that it was assumed that the intended audience had experienced New Birth, were in Christ and under the New Covenant. This is an important thing to consider when reading the epistles, they are not evangelistic writings. There are points that can be used in evangelism, but the epistles are not designed to teach evangelism. Even the book of Romans was written to people that were “called to be saints with a faith spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1). It was written to explain the Gospel, not teach evangelism. One may proof-text a “Roman’s road” from the book, but this is not the pattern for evangelism that Peter, John and Paul used.

Moreover, although it is not an evangelistic writing, the book of Hebrews describes a process that the readers were assumed to have gone through as a “foundational” reality. The objective of God in securing the salvation of men is laid out in Hebrews 2:10a where we are told why Christ came: For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory. God is bringing “many sons” (and daughters) unto glory. Repentance is a change of mind, but regeneration is a change of our nature. This means that we are transformed by the Spirit of God into a son in which Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, is not ashamed to call us brethren (siblings/brothers and sisters Hebrews 2:11) . To achieve this purpose we have to go through a process, ordained and established by God. The writer to the Hebrews explains:

Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment (Hebrews 6:1, 2 NKJV).

You will notice all four elements we have been describing: 1. Repentance from dead works. 2. Faith towards God. 3. The doctrine of baptisms. 4. The laying on of hands.[278]Added to this list are two more important subjects that are also mentioned as having been preached in the book of Acts during evangelistic endeavors: 5. the resurrection of the dead. 6. Eternal judgment. We have an example of this with Paul at Athens in Acts 17:29-32:

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter” (NKJV emphasis added).

It is utterly important how we present God to the unrepentant. Notice that Paul teaches in this narrative exactly why people are to repent: Because God is going to raise from the dead every human being that has ever lived all the way back to Adam to stand before Him in judgment. The fact that Jesus arose from the grave is proof positive that we someday will likewise be raised. He will judge the world by the one that lived and died in this world. He will judge by the one that was tested in all points like as we, yet without sin. He will judge by the one that is touched by the feeling of our weaknesses.

If anyone in the universe has a right reference point from which to judge the world, it is Jesus Christ. He is both God and man and knows the limitation of men. Paul preached this as a warning to the hearers, alerting them that God is no longer overlooking their ignorance, but He is commanding all men everywhere to repent. The message was apparently rejected at Athens because we have no record of Paul establishing a church there. This was Paul’s approach to evangelism. It is a million miles from Bill Bright’s, “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.” Nay verily, “God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready” (Psalm 7:11, 12).[279]

The fear of the Lord is emphasized in scripture more than God’s love, yet the love of God is emphasized in modern times more than the fear of God. Why is that? Could this be one of the reasons why the Apostles were beaten and killed? Awakening sinners with the message of repentance is a good way to get beaten up. Paul knew this. Peter knew this. Stephen knew this. It is why Paul asked the churches to pray with him that a door of utterance would be opened to him. And that he may speak boldly as he ought to speak. Preaching the Gospel, book of Acts style, is a dangerous proposition. Nevertheless, the cost of diverting from the New Covenant pattern is the loss of Christianity. I believe that a refusal to preach repentance and judgment, as Paul and the Apostles preached it, is a key reason why we are in the condition we are in, in 21st century evangelicalism. With each passing day, the willingness to step up and preach as the Apostles did dissipates.

Preaching or teaching God’s love first to rebellious sinners will result in a lack of reverence and fear for God. The same Jesus Christ that taught us about the love of God also emphasized hell and the fear of God.[280] We are called to imitate Christ. The question is, do we place the same emphasis as did Christ or do we have a spirit of Ahimaaz wanting to tell what many consider to be the positive side of God, but not the negative? Once the fear of God disappears from the Church it will not be found in the World. The World is already ignoring God’s love and goodness as it is revealed to them in their daily lives.[281] Although it is true that God loved the world enough to send Christ to die for sins, to use this reality as a means of converting rebellious sinners is not only unbiblical, it is an exercise in futility that will invite the swine to trod God’s love underfoot and turn again and tear the messenger to pieces.[282] They may not do it literally with their hands, but they will surely do it in their hearts or with their mouths. You will search in vain for the word love or charity in association with evangelism in the book of Acts. The expression of love is continual, but the use of the word for the sake of gaining repentance is unknown throughout the book of Acts.

This is not to say that we are not compassionate towards those that are bowed down and desperate, because Jesus was compassionate and it is likewise in our nature. Paul said that the “love of Christ” constrained him. Love in scripture is not the superficial emotion that is careless with a person’s eternal welfare and their reconciliation to God. Love is a motivating force that will press a person to do and say things they ordinarily would not say or do. Our society at large is in rebellion, and individuals need to repent. Do we love them enough to tell them? Or do we pretend to love by offering them an inert Gospel that avoids offense? We must preach in love, but we must preach repentance. Man cannot teach this balance, it can only be achieved by being led of the Spirit in all evangelistic efforts. The scripture offers us a baseline to determine whether or not we are likely being led of the Spirit in evangelism. Are our times like unto Paul’s time? Is sin rampant and idolatry rife? If it is, we should expect continuity between what we are preaching and what Paul preached. There is no one size fits all solution: but the general sense is that God has called all men everywhere to repent.

The Danger in Evangelism

What was Paul’s experience? Did the people welcome his message? What about Peter and James? They suffered greatly to preach the Gospel. Knowing these things it seems completely unreasonable to suggest that any aspiring evangelist should ever be coached by a “crackerjack car salesman” or asked to read books such as How To Win Friends and Influence People. The first Word of the Gospel is repent and that message, especially when proclaimed to heads of state, has been time tested to loosen ones head from their body.[283] It does not make friends. What was John the Baptist’s call to repentance like?

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance (Matthew 3:6, 7 NKJV).

It is hard to imagine anyone coming-off more offensively than John the Baptist. Yet the Lord Jesus takes up the same statement against the Pharisees:

O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34).

Can you imagine John the Baptist or the Lord Jesus preaching repentance today? They would both be labeled as “unloving,” “unchristian-like,” or as “having a bad spirit.” That is not to say that ministers should go around name calling, but the point is that there is something terribly wrong with our concept of love. We have confused niceness with love when sometimes love has to be very tough. Love is not always an agreeable attitude: sometimes it is a very confrontational attitude. Was Samuel nice to Saul the king of Israel when he rebelled against God? Was John the Baptist nice to Herod? Not by today’s standards. Was John the Baptist worried that he might offend Herod by pointing out his adultery and calling him to repent? How do you suppose things would go if he were an advisor to Richard Nixon or any other American president or world leader? And to think that the least in the Kingdom of God is supposed to be greater than John the Baptist. There is a tremendous disparity here. John the Baptist never knew the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire, and he confronted and corrected the Spirit of his day. The 120 came out of the Upper Room and turned the world upside down. How is it that we are not walking out the greatness spoken of by the Lord Jesus?

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men (Mark 5:13 NKJV).

Objections to the Book of Acts

True sola scriptura does not afford us the authority to dismiss the book of Acts, as so many often do, as simply a "narrative genre" not meant to teach doctrine. Is that not a strange concept to begin with? Almost the entire Old Testament is narrative history. The means by which God has chosen to teach His people is salvation history. The Bible is not a compendium of all knowledge: it is a God’s eye view of events meant to tell a story the German theologians termed heilsgeschichte.[284] Events are recorded for our learning and instruction. The book of Acts is no different. The didactic nature of the epistles must not disqualify the narrative of Acts given the fact that the epistles often utilize narrative from the Old Testament to build theological conclusions and teach doctrine.

John the Baptist in Lucan Theology

Luke was not only a historian, he was a formidable theologian with a Biblical understanding of New Covenant soteriology.[285] Luke’s Gospel, as well as the book of Acts, was purposefully written with theology embedded in their patterned literary structure. His treatment and detail concerning John the Baptist comes front and center, as continuity is maintained from the introduction of John the Baptist (through his birth narrative) in Luke 1:13-17, to Paul’s insistence in Acts 26:20 that he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Luke’s writings are not only book ended with general references to John the Baptist’s ministry and message, but direct references to him can be found in Acts 1:5, 22; 10:37: 11:16; 13:24, 25; 18:25.[286]  Moreover, the material on John the Baptist in Luke’s Gospel is far more extensive and placed more prominently than in any of the other Gospels (Luke 1:5-25, 57-80; 3:1-20; 7:18-35).[287] This indicates that John the Baptist’s message of repentance should be carefully understood and made central to our thinking as we travel through the book of Acts in search of evangelistic patterns.

Peter’s Post Pentecost Directions to Sinners

Peter’s directions to sinners in Acts 2:38 contains John the Baptist’s Word of repentance as the first Word of the Gospel, “Repent!” as well as the first reference to Christian baptism, and the promise of the Holy Spirit, all of which are programmatic to evangelism:

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

I have chosen to cover directions to sinners early in this chapter because there are many ways a person can be brought into a state in which they are anxious for their soul and wish to know, “What must I do to be saved?” Peter gives in Acts 2:38 the basic theology behind initiation into the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God. It cannot be improved upon. The terms employed call to remembrance in these Jews minds a battery of concepts and historical events stored up in 2000 years of history. Most recently they were given a fresh look at repentance and baptism through John the Baptist’s ministry. What did they see?

Confession of Sins

In both Matthew and Mark’s account of the events we have these details:

Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5 NKJV see also Matthew 3:6).

Notice a frequently overlooked aspect of repentance and water baptism; confession of sins (plural). They were confessing (admitting) their sins to God publicly while in the water. It is not known whether or not others standing by could hear these confessions (perhaps John could). An old rule of thumb is that repentance should always extend as far as the knowledge and extent of the sin. If it is between you and God: confess it to God alone. If others are privy to it, confess it before them. If the whole of society knows about it, confess the sins before the whole of society. Our word “confess” means to acknowledge or admit to it.[288] This is where a great many people stumble and cannot go forward in the New Covenant. We know from 1 John 1:9 and other Old Testament narratives (such as the matter of David and Bathsheeba) that God is ready to forgive when we confess and forsake our sins. If that certain sin in your life is God, serve it: but if not, confess it, and forsake it forever. How do we know king David repented? Because he never committed the sin again. If we will repent and be baptized in water, then by implication, we are moving in faith: we are receiving the Word.

Then those who gladly received his Word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to the church (Acts 2:41 NKJV).

Renouncing Sin

Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed.

(Acts 19:19, 20).

Repentance in the book of Acts extended beyond turning from and confessing sin, to totally renouncing and eliminating it. Notice that the Ephesians did not sell their instruments of sin, they burned them. They wanted these evil documents out of their lives and out of circulation. Burning documents in antiquity was a way of repudiating the contents. These were ”magical papyri” or slips of parchment with symbols or magical sentences. They are known technically as Ephesia Grammata or Ephesian Letters. These Ephesian Letters were rolled up into tubes and worn as amulets or charms. Book of Acts style repentance leads to total renunciation and abandonment of sin. This attitude is a direct result of taking God’s Word seriously. Many people would consider this extreme, but it is only because they have yet to be truly converted. A person’s attitude towards sin and compromise is an expression of their spiritual state; the Ephesians wanted nothing to do with sin whatsoever. What items might exist in the life of a sinner that need to be “burned” or utterly forsaken once they repent?

Water Baptism

I wish to consider an important passage following Peter’s words in Acts 2:38. Here we read, Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41). Notice the phrase, “then they that gladly received the Word.” This is the disposition of a person that is truly repentant towards God and trembles at His Word. It is tragic that since the 2nd century, professing Christians have fussed over doing such a simple act as water baptism. As we have examined in previous chapters, Protestants and Catholics persecuted the Anabaptists simply because they wanted to obey the Lord and be baptized. Jesus was baptized, and we should be also. When God states His will it is only natural that a Christian would desire to follow His will. If there is a fuss, there is a problem with the person doing the fussing.

In the beginning, people were baptized in the Jordon River or a similar place. Some have said there is a connection to what the Jews call ritual immersion. This was more related to Rabbinical law than Mosaic Law. It was total immersion in which the person was completely submerged in the water.[289] Baptism in water had for many centuries been understood in Israel to signify a newness and a fresh start (2 Kings 5:12-14). Water cannot bring newness: being baptized into Jesus Christ by the Spirit does. However, we are still commanded to be baptized in water as an outward expression of that reality, even if we have received the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of obedience. This is the clear teaching of Peter and Paul.

A right attitude towards water baptism is recorded by Luke in the story about the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Philip happens upon him reading the book of Isaiah and preaches Christ to him. After a time of sharing the details of the Gospel we read, and as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all of your heart, you can. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:36-38 KJV). Notice that Phillip states that he must believe with all of his heart. This man wanted to follow through immediately with his faith. He truly believed, and as a result; water baptism was not a fuss; in fact, the man seemed to nearly run to the water. No begging. No arguing. He joyfully obeyed. What’s stopping me right now? This is how the disciples reacted to Paul at Ephesus, when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Again, this is a sign of true conversion. Jesus told Satan that man was to live by every Word that proceeded from the mouth of God. When we are moving in truth, we receive with gladness the Word of God.

Novation’s Innovation

It did not take long until the whole process of water baptism was corrupted. Origin is said to have been baptized as an infant ca. 180 AD. We then have another account in which Pope Cornelius I records that as Novatian was about to die, "He received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.” Dr. Roy Blizzard writes:

From the beginning, baptism had been by immersion for the remission of sins. Novation, at an adult age, grew sick. Nigh unto death, he called for baptism. He received only clinical baptism by sprinkling, only on the condition that, if he got well, he would be properly baptized. Following his recovery, he was ordained to the priesthood and rose to the highest rank in the Roman clergy. The controversy arose over whether one unscripturally baptized could attain to such an office.

When immersion in water was impossible, something, as near to immersion as possible, was to be administered. While there could be no baptism without immersion, they felt that something must be done, hence, when there was not sufficient water in which to immerse, they poured water upon the person’s head. This was one of the first “new measures” in Church history, and as water baptism had been vitiated[290]as to its Biblical principle, other innovations soon followed. In the third century, we find the introduction of clinical baptism (from kline, a couch); that is, the baptism of sick persons confined to their beds. It was not water baptism, properly, as the people receiving it were merely sprinkled with water or had water poured on them. The reason alleged for this departure from Biblical practice was the necessity of baptism to the salvation of the soul, and the consequent danger of depriving a person from receiving it and the person die unbaptized. Compromise begets compromise. If the sick person recovered they were not baptized afterwards, but they were not admitted into the ministry either. Novation, however, was an exception to this rule. After his recovery, his eminent qualifications for the ministry induced the churches to deviate from the established custom, and he was ordained. Any exception to a law soon becomes the new law as has been found in many cases throughout history and practical life.

False Objections to Water Baptism

The Apostles in the book of Acts had an attitude that we desperately need to adopt in modern times: We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Unfortunately, millions of people around the world have been indoctrinated by the traditions of men to believe that water baptism is something unnecessary for believers. Many were baptized as infants and believe that it is effectual to this very day. This is an odd reality, because infant baptism is like the sinners prayer, the practitioners are constantly trying to find the practice a theology. Why? Because there is none. We understand that the Roman Catholics practiced infant baptism, but why didn’t the Reformers correct their error? Why didn’t the champions of sola scriptura strike the practice in favor of the one plainly described in the book of Acts? After all, the Bible was not written to theologians, it was written to common people with common sense. Nobody has read the Bible and concluded from the Scriptures that infants should be baptized. One reason is because they did not think of entering the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant in the way it was done in the book of Acts; they thought of entering the Kingdom and Covenant at first birth based on the false Roman tradition encapsulated in covenant theology. One does not enter the Kingdom of God or the New Covenant by first birth but by new birth.

The Reformers colossal error was their inability to draw a sharp distinction between the Old and the New Covenant. It’s as if the New Covenant was a mere continuation of the Old, except the Church had replaced Israel.[291] Calvin considered the two covenants to be essentially the same, only different in the way they were administered. The Reformers mindset was virtually identical to that found in the Old Covenant. That’s why there are so many parallels to the theocratic governments of Israel to that of Geneva and Zurich. In fact, the Reformers viewed the Reformation as akin to King Josiah in ancient Israel, overthrowing idolatry.[292]

Regretfully, John Calvin was influenced by Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) who took over in Zurich after Ulrich Zwingli was killed leading his army in battle. Warring like ancient Israel was itself a sure proof that Zwingli was in error. What business does a Christian theologian have leading people into battle in the first place? Did not Jesus tell Peter to put up his sword, because they who live by the sword will also die by the sword? The Kingdom of God is not Israel under king David, as Zwingli learned quickly upon his death. He boiled the covenants down into one continuous covenant, “The Covenant of Grace” (a phrase and doctrine completely foreign to Scripture). He then fed the notion to Bullinger who expanded on it.

In Bullinger’s theology, as was true in Israel so also in the Church, infants were brought into the covenant by a covenant sign. For the Old Covenant it was circumcision, for the New Covenant it was infant water baptism. After the child grew up under the Old Covenant he had to obey the Law of Moses: after the Christian grew up he had to believe in Jesus. Nevertheless, we must understand that water baptism is never connected with circumcision in the Old Testament. The time would fail to discuss how terrifically deceived millions have been over the last 1800 years simply because they refused to follow the simple instructions as they were handed down to us in the book of Acts, but opted to employ their clever minds in fabricating replacement doctrines. However, we have in our generation an opportunity and mandate to return to the book of Acts methodology.

Trembling at the Word of God

Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences (2 Cor. 5:11).

There are two great issues in this passage that we must understand in order to be effective New Covenant evangelists. First, imagine the magnitude of what Paul was saying here in the end of verse 11. It was as if he wanted not just to be known by God and demons (Acts 19:15), but wanted to be well-known in the conscience of those he ministered to. It is as if Paul was appealing to their consciences asking, “What does your conscience tell you about me?” Many preachers, especially Televangelists, err greatly here. They do not understand that they are being judged in the conscience of those that hear them. If their congregation is filled with unrepentant sinners, their sinful hearts may love to hear an ear-tickling message, but the conscience is rejecting it. In the unrepentant sinner’s double-minded state, they at the same time love and reject the false preacher they are listening to. A side of them loves him (or her), and their conscience rejects them. Once the person truly sees the light and gets right with God the conscience will function properly, and that will spell the end for the ear-tickling preacher. This is just one common-sense reason why it is folly to try to preach an ear-tickling message. The conscience is warning the person about you.

Second, Paul gives one of his reasons for persuading men to repent: Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men. In the 21st century, such a statement sounds almost barbaric. Nevertheless, it is utterly crucial that we simply read the plain language of the text and follow orders. We have been commanded of God. Paul said he persuaded men based on his knowledge of the terror of the Lord. Two hundred years of rationalism and humanism has made such notions obsolete: however, the concept is not new to Paul. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and correction. Jesus said it more plainly, in Matthew 10:28: And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

When the Protestant Reformers and Roman Catholics started persecuting the Anabaptists for doing the very thing they refused to do (being baptized in water), they had a choice to make: will they fear drowning at the hands of Ulrich Zwingli or burning under the Roman Catholics, or will they fear God and do what He said to do? Paul preached in the fear of the Lord and sought to instill the fear of the Lord in the hearers of his messages. He understood the importance of having an utterly reverent and obedient attitude towards God: He is not to be trifled with. In fact, it is a similar concept to Stephen’s prerequisite for receiving the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 7 He states:

Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what house will you build me? says the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Has not my hand made all these things? You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:49-51).

I want to make an important connection here in order to show a subtle emphasis in Lucan theology[293] and Paul’s theology. Stephen’s statement is in reference to Isaiah 66:1, 2a where God speaks, “Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?” For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD. You will notice from the text in Acts 7:49-51 that Stephen quotes all the verse except the very last part. Acts 6:12 tells us that it was the elders and the scribes that he was speaking to. This is important because the scribes could quote a vast number of verses of Old Testament Scripture from memory.[294] They were the copyists of the Torah scrolls,[295] so they likely would have known the rest of the verse that Stephen leaves out. When his mouth stopped speaking they heard the rest of the verse in their minds… but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my Word. Stephen then adds his own inspired commentary… You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do you.

The story behind Isaiah 66 begins with an awesome display of God’s majesty in Isaiah 6. This well-known event came about as God’s answer to Uzziah’s, (Isaiah’s king and cousin) untimely death.[296] It was Uzziah that went brazenly into the Temple to make an offering and was withstood by the priests. Leprosy appeared on his head, and he died that way. The lesson was that Uzziah, though he was a king, was to operate within the boundaries of God’s holy Word. Kings were not to function as priests, only Jesus Christ the King/Priest could do that. Uzziah did not “tremble at God’s Word” and died for his error. The same God that we find in Isaiah 6 wants to live in man in Isaiah 66. This is a staggering thing to consider. Nevertheless, in order for that to happen, the person must be broken, contrite and must tremble at God’s Word. In other words, God’s word has to reign supreme. Uzziah learned this the hard way.

Preparing to Receive the Holy Spirit

We come now to the final step in full initiation into the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God. We have looked at repentance, that is; the confession and renouncing of all known sin. Secondly, we looked at water baptism as being commanded of God, but compromised and convoluted by man. When the Ethiopian saw the water he wanted to obey God and be baptized. He made no excuses, he wanted it done right then. He didn’t put it off. These are very simple and straightforward things. Be swift to obey at the absolute earliest convenience. If we will repent and believe in such a way that God can believe us, then we are ready to receive the Holy Spirit. God cannot be fooled. If we have not truly repented and trusted God, it is senseless to attempt to go farther. If, in fact, we have then it is vital that we go to the next step and receive the Holy Spirit.

If all you and I owned was a copy of the book of Acts we would have all the information we need to be brought into the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant. Lucan theology in the book of Acts establishes a pattern of John the Baptist style repentance, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:38, we have the three-step package that Peter gives to those inquiring “what must we do?” Repent, be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the very next chapter Peter states:

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19 NKJV).

Here we have two Greek words meaning “change your mind” and “turn.” If we will do this, our sins will be blotted out and we will be in position to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 2, Peter and the rest of the 120 experienced this very thing when the Holy Spirit came into the Upper Room and filled all the people present. As a kingdom of priests unto God, they needed to be anointed by the Holy Spirit. As sons and daughters, we needed to be taken out of Adam and baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, making all that He accomplished through the cross available to us.

We have an example of the Holy Spirit “falling” on the people and filling (refilling) them in Acts 4:31. The consequence was that “they spoke the Word of God with boldness.” At this point it is quite evident to the one receiving the Spirit and those around them knew that “something” supernatural has happened to them. The Holy Spirit didn’t just come into the people unannounced. He made Himself known. We have another passage in Acts that is important:

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him” (Acts 5:29-32).

Notice that Peter is inferring that the religious leaders do not obey God; therefore, they do not have the Holy Spirit. Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit will build upon this point telling the leaders, “You do always resist the Holy Spirit, as your father did, so do you!” (Acts 7:51) God wanted to give them His Holy Spirit, but they would not stop fighting against God. The word in the Greek for “resist” is very strong and it means “to actively resist” or “to fall upon” as a person would fall upon their enemy. In modern times, it would be like “resisting arrest.” Isaiah 63:10 takes it a step further and informs us that the Israelites vexed the Holy Spirit by their rebellion. Is there any wonder they had not received the Holy Spirit? Things improved in Acts 8 where we read:

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money (Acts 8:14-18 NKJV).

Here we have the Word of God being preached in Samaria as a natural progression beyond Jerusalem and Judea. They received the Word of God, and they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus was in contrast to John’s Baptist that had passed its sell-by date and was no longer effectual. Interestingly Philip does not lay hands on them to receive the Spirit, even though he had been working miracles. Peter and John then laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. It is noteworthy that the language of “the Holy Spirit falling on the people” is still used although the Apostles laid their hands on them. In other words, there was an additional human agency involved unlike in Acts 2 & 4. This event was so remarkable and impressive that Simon the sorcerer wanted to pay money to buy the power to lay hands on people and have them receive the Holy Spirit. Obviously, the people knew they had received and so did Simon. What took place that was so dramatic that he put his soul in jeopardy wanting to buy the power to imitate what the Apostles had done?[297] Again, there is a great disparity here from much of our experience and the book of Acts.

Our next occurrence is that of the dramatic conversion of Saul of Tarsus. God gives Saul (Paul) a vision of a man named Ananias coming to him laying hands on him to receive his sight. Luke records the events:

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized (Acts 9:17, 18 NKJV).

Notice the order is now changed. He is filled with the Holy Spirit, and then he is water baptized. It is interesting that Saul has been used to suggest spontaneous regeneration, but are they who promote this notion willing to follow through with Paul’s (Saul’s) experience by laying hands on the people that they might receive the Holy Spirit and baptize them in water? Is there any justification for omitting from any Christian’s covenant initiation any of these important elements? Only if one is bound to the traditions and doctrines of men. Luke has already shown beyond a reasonable doubt that repentance, water baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit were normative experiences of the believers in the book of Acts.

From Samaria to the Gentiles

It is important to note as we travel on to the 10th chapter of Acts (the next occasion of God pouring out His Holy Spirit), what kind of man received the Spirit:

And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you (Acts 10:22).

You will recall that Luke records at least two examples of how the Holy Spirit is given to those that obey the Lord (stop resisting and start submitting). Cornelius was a just man who feared God. He was a man of fasting and prayer (Acts 10:30). He worked righteousness and gave alms to help the needy (Acts 10:35). This means his heart was ready to obey God. Is there any wonder Luke can add this detail:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the Word (Acts 10:44).

Perhaps some would ask, why was he not baptized in water before receiving the Holy Spirit? The Jews would not have baptized a non-Jew because they did not yet know that the Gospel was to be taken to them. It was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who had repented that signaled God’s acceptance. In fact, Paul spends a great deal of time in Ephesians and Romans informing both Jew and non-Jews that it was God’s plan all along. After this baptism in the Holy Spirit, these non-Jews were baptized in water. We might also point out that Paul was baptized in water after he received the Spirit. This makes it clear that God’s normative will is that all people be baptized in water no matter if they have received the Holy Spirit or not.

Paul Preaches the Gospel

When we arrive at Acts chapter 13, we have Paul and Barnabas attending a Sabbath synagogue meeting in Antioch. After a Scripture reading of the Law and Prophets, the ruler of the synagogue sent for them with a message that if they had any exhortation of the word to say on. Paul stands up and gets their attention. He then commences to preach a truncated version of Stephen’s message from Acts 7 leaving out some details and adding others. You will recall that Stephen was killed before he could finish his message, making it only to Isaiah 66. Paul continues with the Seed of David:

Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus: When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose (Acts 13:23-25 NKJV).

Paul reminds the Jews of the repentance and baptism ministry of John the Baptist. Although this was important, Paul does not want these Jews to stop there but to go on believing the second half of John the Baptist’s message, believing on Jesus Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit. He explains that because the Jews neither knew Christ nor the prophets that they read each week, because they fulfilled the prophesies when Christ was turned over to Pilate and slain. Paul then preaches to them the Resurrection of Christ and by inference all of humanities eventual resurrection. He continues:

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses (Acts 13:38, 39).

Paul preaches to them justification by faith in contrast to the works of the Law. This was an essential aspect of the message to the Jews because men cannot receive the Holy Spirit by the works of the Law, but by the hearing of faith (Galatians 3:2-5). As the meeting broke up many of the religious Jews and the proselytes followed Paul to hear more. Paul exhorted them to continue in the grace of God. That is to say, no matter what happens to us, continue seeking the Lord and the truth of the Gospel until you have the whole package. Paul seemed to have known that the situation was very unstable, and he may not be able to keep teaching them.

The next day nearly the whole city came out. The unbelieving Jews saw this and were moved with envy and began to contradict and blaspheme. They were worried that they were going to lose their “disciples” and “congregation” to these new teachings. Concerned more for their own status in the eyes of the people than the salvation of their souls, they blasphemed the Gospel. They then stirred up the people until Paul and Barnabas were expelled. Paul left them with a final thought as was often his token:

But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:51, 52 NKJV).

We know that such a statement would not be viewed today as “loving,” but we are taken aback to find out that Paul not only said these things in love, but in joy. He was not glad they had resisted the message as there was a time when he would have been accursed from Christ if it meant the unbelieving Jews would repent. Rather, his joy was not affected by their rejection of the message. So we see then that the content of the message has little to do with the disposition of the speaker. He was not angry when he left, he was full of joy. If Paul had been preaching “Paul” he would have been angry, just like the non-believing Jews who saw their congregation go out to hear Paul. Nevertheless, when one preaches Christ, one ought not to have the attitude that the unbelieving Jews had. Evangelism is not a competition with the group down the street: it is a battle for the precious souls of men. Unfortunately, some of these angry non-believing Jews would follow Paul to the next city and have him stoned nearly to death.[298]

Counting the Cost

In an amazing turn of events, Paul heads back to Antioch where they already forced him out the city. Why? He had left disciples behind that were on their journey with the Lord and wanted to share more with them. Luke tells us:

And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21, 22).

He undoubtedly would have been bruised and battered having recently been stoned and with that image as the backdrop he tells them, We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God. Paul did not sugar-coat the reality of serving Christ. Paul had not been mentored by Norman Vincent Peale or Robert Schuller. He wanted the people to know the truth that if they intend to serve Christ, there is a cost involved. Paul had lost all things and counted them as dung that he may win Christ. In the 21st century, this would be a very negative message, but it is reality, and we have to come to terms with it.

A Tale of Two Cities

Corinth was a Roman colony a mere 50 miles from where Paul had preached in Athens. It was a wicked city, as were other Roman cities during this period. The very term “Corinthian” meant a profligate, and “to Corinthianize” meant to have relations with prostitutes.[299] Money was freely spent on sinful pleasures. When Paul would later write the book of Romans from Corinth,[300] he gave insights that paralleled the city in Romans chapter 1:18-32.

Paul arrived in the city of Corinth on his second missionary journey around AD 51. He preached the same Gospel message at Corinth as he did at Athens a short time before. At Athens, he reasoned with the Jews in the Synagogues, but they blasphemed. His response is insightful, “he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean” and so he left and went to the Gentiles. Paul preached until he was clean from the blood of the people that heard him. This is an obvious allusion to Ezekiel 3:18 where God tells the watchman:

When I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand (NKJV).

When leaving Ephesus Paul uses the same language again stating:

Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26, 27 NKJV).

Observe what Paul did to clear himself of responsibility: he declared to them the whole counsel of God. This was his pattern everywhere in obedience to the Heavenly vision. This was no “repeat this prayer after me” business. Paul was no Ahimaaz that out ran the Cushite in order to be the first to bring “good news” without the “bad news.” He preached the Gospel until he was cleared of the responsibility to tell the whole account. Finding many Corinthians receiving the Word, even Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue and his entire house believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8). Paul preached the one and only true Gospel. God did not have one Gospel for the Athenians and another for the Corinthians, just like he would not have one Gospel for the Athenians and another for the Americans or some other modern nation. The only differing factor between Athens and Corinth was that the Corinthians received the Word in faith and were baptized, the Athenians did not.

We can determine from the book of Acts that the people of Corinth repented and were baptized. We determine from the Corinthian letters that they had “received the Spirit” and even moved in the gifts of the Spirit. Paul preached until the Corinthians came to full initiation in the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God. But as others were to be added to the church; perhaps “Ahimaaz” type preachers or even “Judaizers” were there preaching a “different” Gospel that some of the people were wanting to receive. Paul writing to the Corinthians states:

But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you may well put up with it! (2 Corinthians 11:3-5)

Paul is warning the Corinthians that Satan could well be at work deceiving some of them into receiving a different Jesus, receiving a different spirit, and accepting a different Gospel. This is the danger of desiring an ear-tickling message in the hands of a false teacher/preacher. It is Satan moving on the person as he did upon Eve. The Corinthians with their pagan background already knew what it was like to be “led away”[301] by demonic forces to serve idols,[302] so they were familiar with the impressions made by spirits.[303] The trouble is that they were at risk of receiving a “different spirit” than the Holy Spirit because they would not accept the true Gospel. It may seem absurd and obscene, but it is quite possible to resist the Holy Spirit as He seeks to establish His authority in your life and while yielding to “receive something,” receive a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit. What did God say?

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear (Isaiah 59:2).

A Gospel that does not include repentance is a false Gospel. The question then becomes, “What spirit does a person “receive” when they have refused to repent of their sins?” We know it cannot be the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is not given to those that resist Him (Acts 7), but to those that obey Him. Peter gives the pattern again in Acts 5:31-33:

Him (Jesus Christ) God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him. When they heard this, they were furious and plotted to kill them (NKJV emphasis added).

There is a generation that has not repented of their sins and yet claims to love God. They claim to have “received the Holy Spirit” but they are apologists for compromise and a world system that God hates. They are in love with their personal caricature or idea of God: for they profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate (Titus 1:16). They refuse to hate sin and compromise. For one that has received the true Holy Spirit, that is a contradiction. Paul warned the Corinthians that they could receive a different spirit to go along with their different Jesus and different Gospel. The consequence of this would be that they were led in a totally different way than what the Holy Spirit would lead. Some would suggest this is the spirit of bondage and fear (Romans 8:15; 2 Timothy 1:7), but this is highly unlikely given the immoral nature of some of the people at Corinth that had fallen into sin. It is more likely that they took a “shall we sin that grace may abound” approach to liberty in Christas Paul speaks of it in the book of Romans.[304] This may have been a common conclusion to the Gospel for those that did not properly follow Paul’s teaching.

When a person feels “led” to the wallow in the mud and then seeks to drag the churches of God in with them, they have received a different spirit. Sadly, this delusion is not a new phenomenon. The Lord put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets in 1 Kings 22:24 and they whist not that it had happened. They should have known that they could not have the Holy Spirit and serve false gods or live in rebellion against the One True God, but they apparently did not. For we read:

Now Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, “Which way did the spirit from the LORD go from me to speak to you?” (NKJV)

This is the danger associated with yielding to or receiving a spirit, while simultaneously resisting the Holy Spirit. This man didn’t have the good sense to know that he was operating under the influence of a lying spirit. He probably was “led along,” as the Corinthians experienced before they were regenerated, so they thought the “leading” was the Holy Spirit. What a terrible thought. Nevertheless, this is what happens when a person trifles with God by trying to be a prophet while living in sin. These are the most deceived people on the face of the earth and the ones in line for that dreadful scene Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:22, 23:

Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (NKJV)

These people believed they were working miracles in the name of the Lord, but they were actually working lawlessness.

Have You Received?

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

(Acts 19:2a NKJV)

When Paul arrived at Ephesus he found certain disciples that had apparently repented and been baptized under the ministry of Apollos. When Paul encounters these believers, he expresses concern about “where they were” in relation to the New Covenant and the Kingdom of God. He asks them pointedly, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” He begins by asking them what we have called “typically” the last step in full initiation into the New Covenant. Notice that Paul does not tell them that they received the Holy Spirit when they believed, but he asks them if they received when they believed. Paul does not believe that the Holy Spirit is received “automatically” or by a process of logical deductions drawn from proof texts (as we find pervasive in modern evangelicalism). He wants to know, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The evidence Paul is looking for is personal testimony based on conscious reality. Their answer: “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2b NKJV)? We, likewise, need to ask this question of those that we are unsure about their spiritual condition. Understand that this approach is completely contrary to modern evangelistic counseling methods that teach people that if they believe they by default have received the Spirit and are already regenerated. Paul’s answer to the Ephesians is insightful:

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all (Acts 19:4-7 NKJV).

This event laid the foundation for the church at Ephesus. Paul continued to preach here for roughly three years, holding nothing back from both Jew and Greek, giving them the full counsel of God. In fact, the whole region heard the Gospel during this time. God confirmed His words with powerful signs and wonders. Some of these signs brought the fear of God upon the people, including believers. For example, the seven sons of Sceva attempted to do miracles as God had done through Paul, only to be beaten and stripped naked by a demoniac. Others were healed by taking pieces of cloth from Paul’s body and laying them on the people. As a result of these signs many people came forward and confessed their sins publicly. Others brought expensive possessions that were tied to demonic forces and burned them publicly. An attitude of repentance prevailed. Paul continued preaching this same Gospel all around the general area for several months and then returned for a final exhortation to the Ephesian elders. He told them:

You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:18-21 NKJV).

Notice how Paul preached repentance and faith publicly, from house to house, to Jew and Greek. God responded with special miracles. Notice also that Paul is careful to remind them that he did not “keep back” or “furl the sails” (to cower, hold back or shrink back)[305] from the message of repentance and faith; though it was so unpopular that it nearly got him killed. He was therefore able to proclaim:

I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God (Acts 10:26, 27 NKJV).

Paul preached until he knew that he was free from the blood of those that heard him. This is a remarkable attitude towards preaching the Gospel and one that we do well to imitate. Paul knew that he had not allowed “compromise” or “fear of men” to alter his message: had he shrank back from preaching the whole Gospel their blood would have been on his hands. This is the enormity of preaching.

A Message To Modern Times

Paul knew that as soon as he left town, savage wolves would come in to destroy the flock. He warned them night and day with tears. As a final plea he sets before their conscious minds the reality of what was at stake:

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28 NKJV).

Paul tells the elders, in effect, “pay close attention to yourselves first. Make sure that you have a pure heart before the Lord, and that you have not allowed the enemy to come in and influence you for evil as he did Ananias and Sapphira.” Secondly; pay close attention to the flock of God. Why? Because the Holy Spirit has charged you with making sure they are taken care of properly. This is not a group of sheep on the backside of a desert, but the sheep of the Lord’s pasture that He has purchased with His precious blood. Wolves are coming! Says Paul. Get ready!

Disciples of Men

Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears (Acts 20:30, 31).

Paul revealed a great danger facing the Ephesian church. There were those within the congregation that would wait until Paul was gone and would draw away disciples after them. Paul echoed this warning to Timothy (who would later follow him to Ephesus) when he wrote:

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:2-5 NKJV).

Paul charged Timothy and those that would follow him in the ministry of the Word of God to continue doing what he had done. He also charged Timothy to commit the Gospel that Paul had committed to him to faithful men who would be able to teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). Paul then turns our attention to the judgment and effectively says, “Preach the Word! Be ready at all times. Convince, rebuke, and exhort and do not grow weary doing it.” Why? Because circumstances will develop in which people will oppose sound doctrine. These times tend to wear on a minister. He tells Timothy that he will have to minister to people who would rather heap to themselves teachers who tickle the ears, rather than hear the truth. This will be the state of things, and it will be necessary to continue being alerted to everything going on. Teach the people to know the difference between the true and the false teachers. Continue doing the work of an evangelist; that is, keep on preaching repentance from all known sin, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, water baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. These things will never grow old or go out of style. These were Paul’s last words to Timothy and to us.

For all that Paul had said and that the Spirit inspired, God has issued a charge to all of us. We all have a part to play in this great construction project known as the Church. No matter who comes and in what age to “draw disciples after themselves” or “tickle the ears of the people” we have this charge from God to persevere in preaching the Word faithfully as the Apostles had done. Amen.

Appendix: How To Know If You Are In The New Covenant

Perhaps you have finished the book and you are wondering, “Am I really born again?” or “Do I truly have Eternal Life?” You may have come to Christ by saying the sinner’s prayer or some other method of modern evangelism. Let me ask you, have you repented of all known sins? Not just the “big” things, but have you repented of the thing(s) that come up before your mind when you go down to pray? Have you agreed with God about your sins? Are you making excuses? Have you renounced all known sin and asked the Lord to forgive you?

Second, have you placed your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross? Perhaps the poet put it succinctly:

Upon a life I did not live,
Upon a death I did not die, Upon Another's life, Another's death,
I stake my whole eternity.

Not on the tears which I have shed,
Not on the sorrows I have known,
Another's tears, Another's griefs,
On them I rest, on them alone.

Not what these hands have done
Can save the guilty soul;
Not what this toiling flesh has borne
Can make the spirit whole.

Thy blood alone, Lord Jesus,
Can cleanse my soul from sin;
Thy Word alone, O Lamb of God,
Can give me peace within!

Third, have you been baptized in water? If you are unable to be baptized, for some reason, you are in the gross minority. I have known of an elderly bed-fast quadriplegic to be water baptized by immersion. She desired it bad enough and made arrangements to make it happen. I am not saying you cannot be saved without water baptism, but I am saying that if you are born of the Spirit, you will desire to follow the Lord in water baptism. When God becomes your Father, you will desire to live by every Word that proceeds from His mouth. The Bible does not give contingencies, so we cannot speak authoritatively for those that reject God’s Word. If water baptism is utterly impossible that is one thing, but if you have the opportunity you need to obey God.

Fourth, have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? This is always a conscious event. Paul asked the Ephesians if they received when they believed? He expected them to know. Certainly, the pattern in Acts is that each person knew and so did the people around them. We will not discuss the matter of “evidence” as it is beyond the scope of our discussion, but suffice it to say that they who have received the Holy Spirit know they have received. If you have not received the Holy Spirit review chapter 10 and prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to show you what you need to do. The Father is very willing to give us His Holy Spirit, but we have to prepare ourselves. This was the ministry of John the Baptist: to prepare the way of the Lord. Repentance, with fruits worthy of repentance, prepares the “highway” for our God to come into us.

Marks of New Birth From Genesis 1 & 1 John 2-3

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness (Genesis 1:26a).

Therefore, what you heard from the beginning, let it abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you will abide in both the Son and in the Father (1 John 2:24 MKJV).

John draws our attention to when the saints first heard the Gospel and responded in repentance and faith–having been baptized in water and received the Holy Spirit. This reality brought them into the New Covenant by the New Birth, changing the “position” of the Holy Spirit from “with” them to “in” them (John 14:17) and their status as human beings from being “in” Adam to “in” Christ. Our Lord prophesied that at that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you (John 14:20). All of these great truths would be mysterious up until “that day” when they received the Holy Spirit and “then” they would know and understand what it is to be “in” Christ. This is the truth contextually of John 14:17-20.

Returning to 1 John 2:24, John then instructs us on the condition of our salvation; namely, that if what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you will abide in both the Son and in the Father. This is a conditional “if–then” statement. If what you heard remains in you–then you will abide in the Son and the Father. God has chosen to justify fallen men by grace through faith, but one must not stop at mere justification. Having your sins forgiven is a means to an end–it is not an end of itself. Unfortunately, forgiveness is all that many people are concerned with. They do not go on with God to fulfill His purpose in bringing forth sons. They look for a “minimum requirement” to escape judgment, but this is not God’s design at all. God is bringing many sons unto glory (Hebrews 2:10) that have been changed in such a way that Christ will not be ashamed to call them brethren (Hebrews 2:11). This is God’s eternal plan as revealed in Genesis 1:26: Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.

Failure to Continue

As we have discovered, many people never move on to the fullness of the New Covenant, but seek a state of “justification” (forgiveness of sins) that is more like an insurance policy to protect them from eternal damnation. The trouble with this is that there is no such thing in the New Testament. Multitudes have taken the “thief on the cross” approach to salvation–believing that all they need to do is call upon the name of Christ and He will “remember them” when He comes into His kingdom. All the while, they have their entire lives ahead of them with no intention of dying in the immediate future. This is an example of pretexting a truth from scripture. The thief on the cross was inches from death, how can that reality be applied to a person with potentially years if not decades left to live? It cannot. God justifies the ungodly for the purpose of making them holy. Justification is a tool in God’s hands for God’s purposes. It cannot be used for man’s selfish and sinful aims. This is not only the biblical reality, it is common sense.

Abide in Him

And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He is revealed, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming (1 John 2:28).

One of the great questions of Christianity is, “what will God do with those that have refused to go on with Him, but desired only a state of ‘justification?’” They never really repented and forsook their sins, but they did “pray that prayer,” “sign that card,” or “join that church.” They resisted the Holy Spirit, vexed the Holy Spirit, and made a multitude of excuses. John gives us insight when he uses the language ashamed before Him at His coming. “Ashamed before Him” is a Greek phrase that means to “shamefully shrink back in guilty surprise” (A.T. Robertson). Indeed, it will be a surprise to those that desired only “justification” to realize they have believed a lie and are damned. It would be superfluous to explore New Testament warnings along this line, so we will digress. We may conclude from these passages that God’s design is that we “get in Christ” and then “abide in Him.”

Understand that John takes up this great subject of being born again to dispel many myths that existed in his day, along the lines of what we have mentioned. There is no new thing under the sun. John did not want anyone being deceived either by their own evil hearts or by false teachers. He concludes 1 John 2 saying, If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness has been born of Him (1 John 2:29). To be “a” son of God is to do by nature what “The” Son of God had patterned for us, that is, he loved righteousness and hated iniquity (lawlessness Hebrews 1:9). If a person loves sin and this present evil world, it is evidence that they are not a son (or daughter). Knowing that the original text does not have chapter designations, we continue on:

Behold what manner of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him (1 John 3:1 MKJV).

The transformation from a sinner to a child of God is so radical, that the world cannot relate to us, nor can we relate to it. The people of the world are moving in a totally different spirit and paradigm. It is as if the two were from different planets. As human beings, they look somewhat the same, but that’s where the similarities end. Saints and sinners are in different kingdoms that are at war with each other. Jesus said it plainly:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life shall lose it. And he who loses his life for My sake shall find it (Matthew 10:34-39 MKJV).

This is a staggering truth that we can combine with John’s teaching. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. If our father, mother, daughter, daughter-in-law, son, son-in-law, or any other family member does not “know us” it is because they do not “know Him.” We are faced with a choice. If it comes down to choosing, we must choose Christ. Otherwise, He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. This is the plain teaching of Jesus.

If You Have This Hope

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be. But we know that when He shall be revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, even as He (Christ) is pure (1 John 3:2-3).

We have our next “evidence” that we are, in fact, Children of God. Everyone and without exception that has the hope of one day seeing Christ purifies himself, even as Christ is pure. That is to say, they work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. They renounce sinful practices and thoughts (James 4:8) and they search out and obey the truths of God (1 Peter 1:22). They come out from among the world and live separate, refusing to touch “unclean” things or participate in wickedness. Although God provides the grace to achieve this aim, everyone who has this hope takes the initiative and purifies themselves. John continues; Whosoever abides in him sins not: whosoever sins hath not seen him, neither known him (1 John 3:6). Whosoever “keeps on abiding” in Christ does not “keep on sinning.” This is the clear sense of the passage. One cannot keep on sinning and say they are abiding in Christ: it is a contradiction (see John 15:4-10). John then gives the definition of sin in order to avoid confusion. Sin, simply put, is transgression of the law of God. John continues:

My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that continues in righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that continues sinning is of the devil; for the devil sinned from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:7-8 MKJV).

John tells us plainly to let no person lead us astray (deceive us) in our understanding of this reality, he that continues in righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that continues sinning is of the devil. This is common sense, but it is necessary to state it plainly. This motif is common to John as he informs us that Jesus told the religious leaders that they were of their father the Devil, and the lusts of their father they continue to do (John 8:44). They were born after the seed of Satan and behaved in accordance with their “father.” Again, this strong language is like a bombshell, but we must come into reality. John then gives the contrast, Everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9). The verb tense for “commit sin” is linear present active or “does not have the habit” of sinning. Why? Because His seed remains in him. His seed (sperma autou) is God’s seed, “the divine principle of life” (Vincent) that replaces the former devilish principal. Being born of God reorients a person in such a way that their natural desire is to please God and purify themselves from anything that is sinful or ungodly.

An Additional “Evidence”

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother (1 John 3:10 KJV).

John has set forth his teaching clearly. If you do not do righteousness you are not of God. He then adds, neither he that does not love his brother. He continues, Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that does not love his brother abides in death. Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:13-15). This is the second necessity; we must have love one to another. This is evidence that the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). John continues, Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whosoever has this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. Many attitudes feign love, but this is the bottom line. Do we love merely in words and in tongue or are we willing to love when it costs us something? The early church made sure that no one lacked any necessities of life. They would not bless laziness, but those that were unable to help themselves were recipients of help.

Hereby We know

And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God (1 John 3:15-21).

John ends his epistle with these words: These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:17). Each individual must approach these passages with a willingness to know the truth. Preconceived ideas will only lead to more deception. Many have taken these passages and made them say everything but what they actually say. John wants us to test ourselves so that we may know that we have eternal life. He is not passing out blanket approval certificates. We can ask ourselves, “Does our heart condemn us?” If so, why? God has offered a means by which we can serve God with a pure heart. We must be willing to let God change us. We must repent of all known sin and believe with all of our hearts the great truths of the Gospel. We must set our hearts to obey God. Once we are “in Christ” we must “abide in Him” and hereby we know that we are of the truth that we may assure our hearts before Him.

Bible Versions Quoted

KJV: This is the 1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible (also known as the Authorized Version).

NKJV: “Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission”

MKJV:  Modern King James Version © 1999

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert Wurtz II has been an outreach minister and teacher of Advanced Biblical Studies for over twenty years. He has authored hundreds of published articles and the book The Love You Had At First, a study of the church at Ephesus. He resides with his wife Anna in Independence, Mo.

[1] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the New Testament, Volume 5. P. 393 The great error of fatalistic determinism (Calvin’s tremindum mysterium) as picked up from Manichaeism overshadowed Augustine’s theology and ultimately led to many false doctrines that gave way to horrible unchristian acts such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

[2] Beginning sometime in Ante-Nicene (pre 325 AD) Christians began baptizing their infants in contrast to New Covenant revelation. It is the oldest error practiced among Christians today. In modern times it is referred to as “covenant baptism” and practiced among Presbyterians and other denominations. It was an innovation absent from the New Covenant promoted by Augustine and championed by Ulrich Zwingli. John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance in which the people confessed their sins. This has been replaced by the “altar call” or “invitation” in most evangelistic endeavors.

[3] See Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History. P. 398, 399 the use of force to stop nonconformity of doctrine can be traced to Augustinian theology. Augustine, in his writings concerning non-conformists, makes very clear the connection between two major changes in his thinking between about A.D. 395 and 408. He often repeats this argument that in persecuting non-conformists the Catholics are but following the example of their Lord. It is based, of course, on his new ideas about God's sovereign will. Having once come to this conclusion, Augustine was quite resolute in his advocacy of persecution, confiscation of possessions, and "fear of punishment or pain." To the Tribune Boniface he wrote: "Is it not part of the care of the shepherd when any sheep have left the flock . . . to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance?"

[4] William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, 1893. P. 89

[5] S. Burgess, The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 2002. P. 613

[6] Augustine taught that in baptism a baby was forgiven the guilt of original sin. He said: "As nothing else is done for children in baptism but their being incorporated into the church, that is, connected with the body and members of Christ, it follows that when this is not done for them they belong to perdition.” A baptized baby would (he said) go to heaven if he died, but an unbaptized one to hell. ROGER T. FORSTER and V. PAUL MARSTON, God’s Strategy in Human History. P. 381

[7] E. Morgan, Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea, 1967, P. 3

[8] William Kenneth Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, Issue 63, 1905, P. 61

[9] Robert A. Baker, John M. Landers, A Summary of Christian History, 2005, P. 235

[10] Ibid, Morgan. P. 4

[11] As in modern meetings, musical instruments, which are intended to complement the singing, were often hindering it. Since the 1300s pipe organs have been a fixture in large churches. The Puritans complained that the congregation was often listening to the music as it carried the song instead of singing.

[12] J.I. Packer, in The Puritan Identity, Lecture 1, lists four ceremonies that the Puritans objected to. 1. Wedding Rings in the marriage service. They sought to dispel the notion that marriage was a sacrament. They felt the rings furthered the notion. 2. Kneeling to receive the sacrament Lord’s Supper. This was because kneeling suggested that the Lord was present in the sacrament, a Roman Catholic notion. 3. The wearing of the surplus. Special garments such as the surplus suggested that the minister was closer to God than the common people and that the priest was a mediator between Christ and the people. 4. The marking of the forehead with the cross at baptism.

[13] Nonconformists were also called Dissenters, or Free Churchman. This was any English Protestant who did not conform to the doctrines or practices of the established Church of England. The word Nonconformist was first used to describe the conventicles (places of worship) of the congregations that had separated from the Church of England (Separatists).

[14] Ibid, Morgan. P. 10

[15] Ibid, Morgan. P. 11

[16] Andrew Mallory, Saints, Sinners, and the God of the World,  2011, P. 19

[17] Ibid, Morgan P. 27

[18] Robert G. Pope, The Half-Way Covenant Church Membership on Puritan New England. 1969 P. 4

[19] Ibid, Morgan. P. 67

[20] It is important to point out that the unregenerate resented not being allowed to participate in meetings and decisions because they were being taxed for the support of the churches. They also felt demoralized for their being effectively treated as second-class. The Puritans tried to maintain a pure church, but their involvement in politics made this very difficult. This mixture of church and state, a carry-over from Roman Catholicism, continued to challenge evangelical churches until 1691 when the English crown withdrew authority from the Puritans. At that point men and women could not be compelled to agree to certain doctrines, creeds, etc., and the door was opened to a more individualistic expression of evangelicalism. What had started with Luther was finally finding a fuller expression. It would prove to be a double-edged sword.  Men were freed to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and as liberalism moved in it brought tremendous compromise.

[21] This is likely due to the view that infants must be regenerated in order to be saved. This view is unnecessary on multiple theological grounds. See Matthew 18:3, 18:10; Mark 10:14, etc.

[22] R. Baird, Religion of the United States of America, 1844, P. 618-619 They were said to be a “pious man” an expression used to mean a true Christian.

[23] Cambridge Platform, 1648; chap. iv. Sec. 4 (quoted in Baird P. 619)

[24] Congregationalist polity, often known as congregationalism, is a system of church governance in which every local church congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, or "autonomous" (Wiki).

[25] Ibid, Baird P.620

[26] David McDowell, Beyond the Half-Way Covenant: Solomon Stoddard's Understanding of the Lord's Supper as a Converting Ordinance. 2012 P. xviii

[27] A synod of above 70 met in Boston, Tuesday, 11-21 March, 1662, and after two adjournments reached its results in the September following. The vote carried by a margin of 60 to 10.  Quoted in Trumbull, Dexter’s Congregationalism, pp, 470, 471

[28] New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (ed. D. A Carson et al.; Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994), P. 1301

[29] David McDowell, Beyond the Half-Way Covenant: Solomon Stoddard's Understanding of the Lord's Supper as a Converting Ordinance, 2012, P. 16

[30] Richard J. Bauckham, Adding to the Church, Para. 4

[31] Ibid, Para. 5

[32] Julius Rubin, Religious Melancholy and Protestant Experience in America, P.47

[33] C. Bangs, Arminius: A study in the Dutch Reformation, 1971. P. 343

[34] M.J. McClymond and G.R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, P. 678

[35] Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas. 2004. P.159, 160

[36] Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

Unconditional Election (also known as predestination. God damns some and saves others)

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement, Christ did NOT die for all)

Irresistible Grace (God's grace and Holy Spirit cannot be resisted)

Perseverance of the Saints (God will cause the elect to persevere to the end)

[37] Kam-lun W. Lee, Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good. 1997, P. 206-208. Ambrose was a reflection of the theological views of the times . See also Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, P. 288-291

[38] Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual Life. 1966.  P. 16

[39] There is no such thing in the New Testament as personal (individual) election of believers. Christ is the chosen One, and believers are elect because they are in him. For a proper discussion of Augustine’s errors see Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History.

[40] Malcolm Alflatt, Involuntary Sin in St. Augustine. 1974. P. 114

[41] David Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. 1998, P. 285-286

[42] Kam-lun E. Lee suggests this doctrinal position may have been the result of Augustine’s own struggle with sin. This is a common error among theologians who interpret their personal experience into the sacred text. See Kam-lun W. Lee, Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good. 1997, P. 209

[43] Think of two gears rotating together-- that is “synergism.”

[44] Huldreich Zwingli, On True and False Religion; quoted in Harry Fosdick, Great Voices of the Reformation. 1952. P. 164

[45] Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual Life, 1966 P. 1

[46] The “Finger of God” is a Biblical expression representing God’s Divine authority. In this context it is an expression meaning that God makes a person aware in the inner man what issue He has a controversy with.

[47] Perry Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century Volume I. P. 395

[48] Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 7, Article 6. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,of which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet, in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles and is called the New Testament.

[49] John H. Primus. Richard Greenham: The Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor. 1998. P. 126

[50] Ibid, Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared P. 50

[51] Ibid, P. 54.

[52] Ibid, P. 58-61

[53] Ibid, P. 65

[54] John Preston, Riches of Mercy to Men in Misery, 2011, P.425

[55] Gerald Mick, The Digital Puritan Volume III, Number 1, 2013, P. 42-45

[56] Ibid, Mick, P.47

[57] Westminster Confession of Faith, 28:1

[58] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. 4.16.1 ff

[59] Edward Hooker. The Descendants of Rev. Thomas Hooker in Hartford, Connecticut 1586-1905. 1909, P. xix

[60] Ibid, P.xxii

[61] Selections for the Soul’s Preparation for Christ. Para 1. International Outreach, Inc.
P. O. Box 1286, Ames, Iowa 50014

[62] Ibid, Norman Pettit, The Heart Prepared P. 92

[63] The Souls Preparation, quoted in Pettit, P. 95.

[64] John Cotton. A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace. 1652, P.150,151

[65] John Cotton. Of the Holiness of Church Members. 1650, P.45

[66] David D. Hall. The Antinomian Controversy: 1636-1638, A Documentary History. 1990, P. 8

[67] Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson. The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings.  2001, P. 132

[68] Solomon Stoddard, A Guide to Christ. 1714. Published by William D. Hart 1827. P. 24

[69] Ibid, P.25

[70] Ibid, 31, 32.

[71] See Lorenzo Dow,  The Dealings of God, Man, and the Devil, as exemplified in the life, experience of Lorenzo Dow. Volume II. 1849. P.11

[72] Ibid, Stoddard, P.29

[73] Licentious means that the youth disregarded accepted rules and standards of conduct.

[74]Frolic means to play about with someone in a flirtatious or sexual way.

[75] Jonathan Edwards, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton. 1735 Reprinted in Dunning & Spalding, 1832, P.33, 34

[76] Ibid, P. 35

[77] Ibid, P. 38

[78] Mark A. Noll. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. 1992. P. 90

[79] Joseph Beaumont. The Prince of Pulpit Orators: a Portraiture of Rev. George Whitefield. 1871. P.243

[80] John Gillies. Memoirs of Rev. George Whitefield. P. 19, 20

[81] Ibid, Mark Noll., P.92

[82] Nathan Cole. The Spiritual Travels of Nathan Cole. 1761

[83] The Apostle John deals with this subject in 1 John 3. Here we have a list of qualities that we may “know” if we are passed from death to life or not. The means by which we pass from death to live are given in John 5:24. The question becomes, have you believed in such a way that you have passed from death unto life? This is not a mental assent to doctrinal points but the placing of ones faith in trust completely in Christ in such a way that He can believe us.

[84] John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley Volume I, January, 1738, 1827, P. 94-96 See also Romans 7.

[85] Ibid, Wesley.

[86] Ibid, Wesley.

[87] Ibid, Wesley, P.98

[88] Randy L. Maddox, Jason E. Vickers, The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley, 2010, P.152

[89] Richard Green, The Works of John and Charles Wesley, 1906, P.31

[90] Albert C. Outler, John Wesley, 1964, P.15

[91] Ibid, Outler, P.16

[92] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language: Third Edition, 2008, P. 311

[93] The Thirty Years War was ended with the Peace of Westphalia; a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in Osnabrück and Münster.

[94] David W. Bercot., The Kingdom That Turned The World Upside Down. 2003. P. 252

[95] See Thieleman J. van Braght., Martyrs' Mirror: The Story of Seventeen Centuries of Christian Martyrdom From the Time of Christ to A.D. 1660. It documents the stories and testimonies of Christian martyrs, especially Anabaptists. The full title of the book is, “The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their Savior, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660.” The use of the word defenseless in this case refers to the Anabaptist belief in non-resistance. The second printing is a colossal book of over 1100 pages long containing some 4000 entries.

[96] Justo L. Gonzalez., The Story of Christianity. Volume 2 The Reformation to the Present Day. 1984. P. 56

[97] Ibid, Bercot. P.197-206

[98] Philip Jacob Spener., Pia Desideria, 1675

[99] Henry Blackaby, Richard Blackaby, Claude V. King., Fresh Encounter: God's Pattern for Spiritual Awakening. 2009. P161

[100] Robert Davidson., History of the Presbyterian Church in the State of Kentucky. 1847. P42

[101] Benj. J. Wallace., The Presbyterian Quarterly Review. Volume IV. 1856. P. 59

[102] Kenneth Keulman., Critical Moments in Religious History.  1994. P. 129

[103] Richard D. Dickenson., A History of Methodism. 1885. P.490

[104] Peter Cartwright.,  The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright: The Backwoods Preacher, Volume III., 1857. P.45

[105] William Francis Pringle Noble., 1776-1876, a Century of Gospel-work: A History of the Growth of Evangelical Religion in the United States. 1876. P.278

[106] Ibid, Noble, P.282

[107] Cedrick B. Cowing, The Saving Remnant: religion and settling in New England, 1995, P. 193

[108] Edward Norris Kirk, Lectures on Revivals, 1875, P. 296

[109] Peter Cartwright.,  The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright: The Backwoods Preacher, Volume III., 1857. P.133

[110] Lorenzo Dow, The Dealings of God, Man and the Devil: as exemplified in the life of Lorenzo Dow. 1849, P. 12

[111] Ibid, Dow. P.12

[112] Charles G. Finney., Charles G. Finney Memoirs. 1876. P. 64-66

[113] Albert Dod, Essays: Theological and Miscellaneous, 1847, P. 126. Quoted in Ian H. Murray, The invitation System, 1967. P. 10

[114] Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion VIV.III.2, 1832

[115] Gordon T. Smith, Beginning Well: Christian Conversion & Authentic Transformation, 2001 P.186

[116] Charles G. Finney, Memoirs Of Rev. Charles G. Finney, 1876, P. 129,130

[117]  Charles Grandison Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, 1835, P.336

[118] Charles G. Finney., False Comforts For Sinners. Lecture XVII.

[119] Mark A. Noll. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. 1992. P. 227

[120] America was a nation of readers in the 1800s. According to US postal records in 1899, nearly 600 place names were authors (Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Tyndall, Euclid, etc.) G. Mercer, Adam, Self Culture Volume 8, 1898-1899, P. 543.

[121] Simon Peter Richardson D.D., The Lights and Shadows of Itinerant Life. 1900. P. 142

[122] R.W., Dale., The Life and Letters of John Angell James. 1862. P. 301

[123] Dominance of Evangelicalism. P. 35

[124] Ibid, Kenneth D. Brown., A Social History of the Nonconformist Ministry in England and Wales, 1800- 1930 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 53. quoted in Dominance P. 36

[125] David Bebbington., The dominance of evangelicalism: the age of Spurgeon and Moody. 2005. P.36

[126] Temperance as a mass movement originated in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. People would sign pledges to commit to total abstinence of alcohol.

[127] Dwight Lyman Moody., The Way To God. P. 77-80

[128] N. Whiting, Religious Intelligencer XVIII, 1833, P. 220 emphasis added

[129] George Soltau, The Enquiry Room: Hints For The Anxious, 1884, P. 8-10

[130] Ibid, P. 13

[131] Patrick McIntyre, The Inquiry Room, retrieved July 2013, http://www.inquiryroom.com/index.html

[132] T.J. Shanks, Fleming Revell, D.L. Moody at Home, 1886. P. 68

[133] Ibid, P.69

[134] J. Wilbur Chapman, The Life and Work of Dwight L. Moody, 1900, P. 370

[135] Ibid, P.374

[136] Richard S. Rhodes, Moody’s Latest Sermons, 1898, P. 570

[137] Ibid, P. 573

[138] Ibid, P.575

[139] John Hall, George Hay Stuart, The American Evangelists, D. L. Moody & Ira D. Sankey, 1875, P. 202, 203

[140] Ibid, P204

[141] William T. Ellis, Billy Sunday: The Man and His Message, 1914. P. 23

[142] Ibid, P. 24

[143] Lyle W. Dorsett, Billy Sunday and the Redemption of Urban America, 1991, P. 52

[144] Ibid, P.56

[145] Ibid, P.65

[146] Janice Stock, Amazing Iowa, 2003, P. 133

[147] Ibid, Ellis, P. 147

[148] Jack Hyles, Let’s God Soul Winning, 1962, P.32 Jack Hyles claimed on multiple occasions to have authored the new measure, “The Roman Road to Salvation.”

[149] Ibid, Ellis, P. 149

[150] Ibid, Ellis, P. 365

[151] Timothy George, Mr. Moody and the Evangelical Tradition, 2005, P.2 Betsy Moody joined the Unitarian Church when D.L. Moody was four years old. He was baptized by sprinkling at age five by a Unitarian Minister. Paul Dwight Moody, The Shorter Life of D.L. Moody, 1900, P.16

[152] Ibid, Ellis, P. 146

[153] The “power of positive conviction” is the intrinsic power of strongly believing in something. It is the power to effect change through strong convictions. We have this comment from the Oberlin Review September 25, 1888: “College essays and orations on "The Power of Positive Conviction," are wont to enumerate as examples only such men as Martin Luther, Joshua R. Giddings, and men of kindred character, who were radicals of the most pronounced type. One thus gets the impression that positive conviction can accompany only an extreme position. It is true that these men had such a conviction, and with it as a motive power, they helped forward great progressive movements.”

[154] Ibid, Ellis, P. 151

[155] R. Alan Streett, The Effective Invitation, 1984, P. 104

[156] Elmer Gantry is a 1927 satirical novel by Sinclair Lewis. It was made into a movie in 1960. The novel tells the story of a young, narcissistic, womanizing alcoholic who eventually becomes a highly animated hell-fire evangelist. The parallels to Billy Sunday were such that he denounced Sinclair Lewis as "Satan's Cohort." Sinclair wrote a disclaimer in the front to avoid a lawsuit. The movie contained a disclaimer as well. The book was banned in some cities such as Boston, Mass.. Elmer Gantry begins his evangelistic career as a manager for Sharon Falconer, an itinerant evangelist based loosely on Aimee Semple McPherson. Lewis performed his research for the book in Kansas City.

[157] Patrick McIntyre, The Graham Formula, 2005, P. 48

[158] Ibid, P. 49

[159] Joel A. Carpenter, The Youth For Christ Movement and It’s Pioneers, 1988, P. 28, quoted in Ibid, McIntyre. P. 49

[160] Ibid, McIntyre.

[161] Ibid, McIntyre. P. 50

[162] As a young minister I enjoyed hearing the stories about Billy Sunday’s preaching techniques, and was thrilled to actually preach behind a pulpit that Billy Sunday once used at a meeting in South Dakota. The locals told the story of Billy coming to town to “test the waters” by preaching in a tiny one room church. When the place was packed and many left outside he set his tent up in a lot near by and conducted a series of revival meetings.

[163] J. Gordon Melton, Phillip Charles Lucas, Jon R. Stone, Prime-Time Religion: An Encyclopedia of Religious Broadcasting, 1997, P. vii

[164] Anthony J. Rudel, Hello, Everybody!: The Dawn of American Radio, 2008, P. 178

[165]  Donald G. Godfrey, Frederic A. Leigh, Historical Dictionary of American Radio, 1998, P. 357

[166] Edgar De. Witt, American Preachers of Today: Intimate Appraisals of 32 leaders, 1971 P. 305-306

[167] Susan B. Neuman, Literacy in the Television Age, 1995, P. xiii

[168] Ray Broadus Browne, Pat Browne, The Guide to United States Popular Culture, 2001, P. 811

[169] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 1985, P.121

[170] Michael Compton, An Essay on Mass Media, 2013

[171] Ibid, Compton.

[172] Numerous other evangelists such as A.A. Allen, Oral Roberts and Billy Graham took to the television airwaves during this time sometimes using the meeting tent as the backdrop.

[173] David Edwin Harrell Jr, Oral Roberts, An American Life,  1985. P.98

[174] Ibid, Harrel, P.98

[175] Although ministers from many denominations would seek to gain members to their churches in these prayer tents causing strife, this did not stop Roberts from using the prayer tent in these meetings. He appears to have understood that the Holy Spirit must bring assurance of salvation.

[176] Leonard Ravenhill was the author of Why Revival Terries. He preached against and lamented the state of the churches and the shallowness of modern evangelism.

[177] How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? (John 5:44)

[178] This is likely to mean John Richard Wimbur (1934-1997), one of the vounding members of the Vineyard Movement. He was known for his desire for authenticity in the churches. He is quoted as saying, "I also visited several healing meetings... and became angry with what appeared to be the manipulation of people for the material gains of the faith healer... Dressing like sideshow barkers. Pushing people over and calling it the power of God. And money – they were always asking for more, leading people to believe that if they gave they would be healed..."

[179] Lovett H. Weems Jr. Q&A: Evangelist Roberts was comfortable with Methodism, “The United Methodist Reporter” Dec. 29, 2009

[180] Ibid, Harrel, P.289

[181] Robert G. Voight, Words of Life. Part III. The Life And Ministry of Oral Roberts, 1988

[182] This line was also made the opening song for broadcasts as well as a book published by Oral Roberts in 1996 by the same title.

[183] Some of these dance routines numbered future Universalist Carlton Pearson.

[184] To mock him (autoœi empaizein). An old verb, em-paizoœ, to play like a child (pais), at or with, to mock, scoff at, to trifle with like Latin illudere (Robertson).

[185] Rex Humbard, Put God On Main Street, 1970, P.126

[186] Rex Humbard, To Tell The World, 1975, P. 143-153.

[187] Some 10 years ago I sat down with a married couple from Akron that attended Rex Humbard's church. The husband's father worked on the tower project in the 70s. I was told that the concrete and steel in this structure is such that to bring it down would destroy everything around it. I concluded that it is symbolic of mush of televangelism-- like a giant ‘tare’ that must continue to grow with the wheat until Jesus returns.

[188] Some trace the prosperity message to A.A. Allen, but truly the message was popularized by Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts.

[189] Kristen McMurren, “If Jesus Were Preaching Today, Says His TV Apostle Rex Humbard, He Would Never Get into Politics,” People, Volume 15 No. 18, May 11, 1981.

[190] The sanctuary was erected in 1956 and was the first church ever designed specifically for television ministry.

[191] Milwaukee Sentinel, Tuesday, June 3, 1980, Part 1, Page 3

[192] J. Gordon Melton, Phillip Charles Lucas, Jon R. Stone, Prime-Time Religion: an encyclopedia of religious broadcasting, 1997, P. 150

[193] Ibid, Postman, P. 116

[194] Ibid, Postman, P. 117

[195] Ibid, Melton, xi

[196] Don Cusic, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: Pop, Rock, and Worship, 2010, P. 434

[197] In 1970, on the advice of Rev. Billy Graham, the Hour of Power began televising from the Garden Grove Community Church. http://www.hourofpower.org/about/index.php retrieved July 2013.

[198] Ibid, Cusic, P. 436

[199]  Roy M. Anker, Self-Help and Popular Religion in Modern American Culture: An Interpretive Guide, 1999, P. 151

[200] J. Gordon Melton, Phillip Charles Lucas, Jon R. Stone, Prime-time religion: an encyclopedia of religious broadcasting, 1997, P. 306

[201]  Hugh B. Urban, The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion, 2011, P. 51

[202] See Charles H. Lippy, Pluralism Comes of Age: American Religious Culture in the Twentieth Century, 2000, P. 100, 101

[203] But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6). Hebrew like a garment of menstruation [are] all our righteous.

[204] Thomas Ferraro, The Electric Church Becomes a Booming Business, Sarasota Herald Tribune, November 23, 1979.

[205] Ibid, Postman, P. 87

[206] "Take Up Your Cross", Words by Steve Millikan, Jane Johanson and Ray Boltz, Music by Steve Millikan

[207] Rod Parsley, The Power of Holiness, 1992

[208] Dan Lucarini, Confessions of a Former Worship Leader: Why I left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement, 2002, P. 31

[209] Job 38:7

[210] 1 Cor. 10:7

[211] Neither be ye idolaters (meœde eidoœlolatrai ginesthe). Literally, stop becoming idolaters, implying that some of them had already begun to be (Robertson).

[212] R.C.H Lenski, Interpretation of I & II Corinthians, 1937, P. 397

[213] D. Prince, Protection From Deception, 2008, P. 54

[214] C.E. Autrey, Basic Evangelism, 1959, P. 126

[215] As part of the counter reformation, the Council issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies at the time of the Reformation. Significant to this discussion are the decrees issued concerning music that broadly effected how music was handled.

[216] David P. Appleby, History of Church Music, 1965, P. 22

[217] Ibid Appleby, P. 23

[218] Ibid Appleby, P. 24

[219] John Arthur Smith, Music in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 2011, P. 29

[220] Homily on the First Psalm. Quoted in William Oliver Strunk, Readings in Music History, 1950, P.121

[221] Diontsious Lardner, A History of Europe During the Middle Ages Volume IV, 1834. P. 15

[222] Hymnus est laus Dei cum cantico; canticum autem exultatio mentis de aeternis habita, prorumpens in vocem.

[223] Ibid, Appleby, P.54

[224] Ibid, Appleby. P.54

[225] Benjamin Jowett, Laws, By Plato, Book III

[226] Paulist Fathers, Catholic World Volume L, 1889-1890,  P.201-203

[227] Ibid, Fathers, P.203

[228] James R. Lewis, Satanism Today, An Encyclopedia, 2001, P. 72 The “death metal” band “Slayer” released an album entitled Diabolus in Musica in 1998.

[229] The reader would benefit by making a study of the influence of the demonic in music in modern times. Numerous musicians have given testimonies over the years of being taken over by forces beyond their control when either writing or playing.

[230] Hell’s Bells 2: The Power and Spirit of Popular Music (script), 1989, quoted in Eric Holmburg, Rock Music Exposed, 2004 Video Doc. Part 1

[231] R. Serge Denisoff, Inside MTV, 1988, P. 132

[232] John Makujina, Measuring the Music, P. 208 quoted in ibid, Lucarini, P.39

[233] The use of the term “fiddle” in place of a “violin” brings to mind the secular use of the instrument as it was employed in dances.

[234] Nick Tosches, Hellfire, 1982, P. 74

[235] “I had ‘em rockin.’ I mean, I thought that was the way you should do it. The first time I learned to play ‘Silent Night’ I played it Rock & Roll style. But in Waxahachie they said, ‘We can’t have this around here. You don’t boogie-woogie when you say your prayers at night. You are expelled for two weeks.’ Then I said, ‘I’ll take the whole year.’” Robert Palmer, Blues and Chaos, 2009, P.155

[236] Jonathan Leaf, The Sixties, 2009, P.77

[237] David Tame, The Secret Power of Music: The Transformation of Self and Society through Musical Energy, 1984, P.15

[238] Backmasking is a recording technique in which a message is recorded backward on to a track that is meant to be played forward. Backmasking is a deliberate process in which a message is understood only when the album is played backwards. The process was popularized by the Beatles, Led Zepplin, Queen and other lesser-known rock bands. Backmasking became a serious topic of discussion in the 1980s, with ministries working diligently to warn Christians of the practice. Subliminal messages containing phrases such as "It's fun to smoke Marijuana", "There is no escaping it. He will give you 666," etc. This led to record-burning protests and proposed anti-backmasking legislation by state and federal governments. The minister that used this material has since repented publicly.

[239] Dwayne Blackwell, I'm Gonna Hire a Wino to Decorate Our Home. 1982

[240] Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations,  1998, viii

[241] U.S. Government Printing Office, American Foreign Policy, Basic Documents, Volume 2, 1950, P. 1945

[242] Sarah Raymond Cunningham, Dear Church: Letters From A Disillusioned Generation, 2006, P. 38

[243] The cult of celebrity and fame has been around for decades. Since the so-called roaring 1920s and the advent of popular culture in the 1940s actors and singers have been regarded as secular gods.  But in the 21st century Americans worship popular culture more than ever before. There are even programs entitled, “Entertainment News”  X.J. Kennedy, A Nation of Idol Worshippers, 2008, P. 527

[244] William G. McLoughlin, Billy Sunday Was His real Name, 1955, P.128. Quoted in Ibid, McIntyre, P.55

[245] “Four Spiritual Laws English,” Retrieved July, 2013, http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htm

[246] John G. Turner, Bill Bright & Campus Crusade For Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America, 2008, P. 51

[247] This book was also reported to have been read annually by Oral Roberts.

[248] “Questionnaire Evangelism” was also one of the methods taught by D. James Kennedy in his popular Evangelism Explosion course. The object is to set forth a series of about five questions to solicit interest in the Gospel. D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion, 1970, P. 118-130

[249] Legacy CCC Interview

[250] Michael Richardson, Amazing Faith: The Authorized Autobiography of Bill Bright, Founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, 2000, Chap. XI

[251] Ibid, Turner, P. 99

[252]Bill. Bright, Come Help Change The World, 1970, P.47

[253] Ibid, Bright, P.44

[254] offence or annoyance

[255] Paris Reidhead, Ten Shekels and a Shirt, ca. 1965

[256] Simplistic evangelistic preaching has created a widespread impression that the Gospel is basically an insurance policy for the next world. Apostolic preaching is concerned with this life and the next. David Pawson, The Normal Christian Birth, 1989, P.295

[257] Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, P.11 This book was used by the Nazi’s in the 1930s to mass brainwash their people against the Jews. Bernay’s had to then abandon the term propaganda and create a new one, Public Relations.

[258] Larry Tye, The Father of Spin, 1998, P. 177

[259] William R. Moody, The Life of D.L. Moody, 1900,  P.392

[260] H. Dan. Mullins, Orchards: A Pastor's Guide to Growing a Fruit-Bearing Church, 2011, P.40; Faris D. Whitesell, Sixty-five Ways to Give Evangelistic Invitations, 1997, P.47; Elmer Towns, Ed Stetzer, Warren Bird, 11 Innovations in the Local Church, 2007, P. 207

[261] Ibid, Moody, P.392

[262] Dr. John Charles Pollock, The Billy Graham Story: The Authorized Biography, 1966, P.7

[263] Billy Graham, Calling Youth to Christ, 1947, P.90-92 http://www.ccel.us/callingyouth.ch6.html

[264] Embarrassment is an emotional state of intense discomfort with oneself, experienced upon having a socially unacceptable act or condition witnessed by or revealed to others. Usually some amount of loss of honor or dignity is involved. It is similar to shame, except that shame may be experienced for an act known only to oneself (wiki).

[265] R. Alan. Streett, The Effective Invitation, 1984, P.110

[266] Ibid, Streett, P.112

[267] Ibid, Streett, P.113

[268] Timo Pokki, America's Preacher and his Message: Billy Graham's View of Conversion and Sanctification, 1999, P.20

[269] Ibid, Pokki, P. 189

[270] Cessationism is the theological view that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances and faith healing, ceased being practiced after the death of the last Apostle.

[271] Andrew Mallory, Saints, Sinners, and the God of the World,  2011, P. 19

[272] The Bloody Theatre or The Martyrs Mirror, 1660, edition 2006, P.197

[273] Billy Graham gives an apologetic as to why he does not emphasize water baptism, suggesting that he was not called to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. He also suggests that if he baptized then people would say they were baptized in his name. But this does not explain why it is not mentioned in his sermons when it was front and center in the book of Acts. His website states, "You may know that we urge immediate and extensive Bible study for each convert. As the Scripture is reviewed, the place of baptism will surely be discovered. If baptism were a requirement for salvation, we would certainly say that. But you couldn't support that knowing, for example, that the thief on the cross had no opportunity for baptism or church membership. Yet on his confession, paradise was secured. Jesus said to him, 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43)." This gives an example of the shallowness of the Gospel in our times. Multitudes, as a result, only think of doing “what the thief on the cross” did to be saved.

[274] The Waldenses of Germany were “Anabaptist” and were among the first antipaedobaptists (against infant baptism) noted to resist this and many of the errors of the Roman Catholic church (see William Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, 1819, P.334-340). They died by burning. They established a baptism confession based upon the word of God. In later times they joined with the Hussites who had gone into compromise as a result of the negative and unscriptural influence of the Reformers that continued to practice infant baptism. Most of the Waldenses broke away again and separated themselves to avoid the error. They noted that the Reformers and Hussites did not trace their authority to sola scriptura but to the early 2nd and 3rd century fathers (see Thieleman J. van Braght, The Bloody Theatre or The Martyrs Mirror, 1660, edition 2006, P.364).

[275] Roland Herbert Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 1952 P. 97-99; Zwingli was on hand to watch the execution by drowning. (Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, 2011, P. 627, 628); In view of the position which Zwingli occupied in the State of Zurich he cannot be acquitted of responsibility for the drowning of the Anabaptists, although he had for a long time held the government back from taking severe measures, since he was distressed at any attack upon religious freedom (Wilhelm Oechsli, History of Switzerland 1499-1914, 1922, P.90-93).

[276] John 1:12. Effective aorist active indicative of lambanoœ “as many as did receive him. It is common error in modern evangelism to equate receiving Christ with receiving the Holy Spirit. They are two separate persons in the Godhead. One is received by personal commitment, the other is received by the laying on of hands. The word for “receiving” in terms of “receiving Christ” is the Greek lambanO and it means to take hold of, to grip. In other words, as many as took hold of Him to them He gave authority to become. This is not the passive “accepting Christ as Savior” but an tradition” since the 400eved July, 2013. http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=14601)

[277] See Acts 8:15-19

[278] “Laying on of hands” is the common means by which people received the Holy Spirit.

[279] The impression that we have given to people by preaching that God is a God of “unconditional love” is that they can rule out the possibility of hell. In other words, “How could a God of love judge us and send us to hell?” God’s love is preached without any mention of what He hates, what disgusts Him, or what makes Him angry. Because God has been preached as love to a fault, it is almost impossible to correct the typical sinners conception of God in order to preach to them the Gospel. On a most basic level we must preach God as He is revealed Himself in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.

[280] Jesus said plainly, Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28b) There is no more needed lesson today than the fear of God. (A.T. Robertson)

[281] Matthew 7:27; Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. (Acts 14:17) These expressions of love are unsuitable in modern society that believes they are entitled to all these things.

[282] Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. (Matthew 7:6 NKJV)

[283] And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist... and they brought his head in a charger. (Mark 6:25-28)

[284] Heilsgeschichte is a German word literally translated "salvation history". Used in OT studies in the 1950s, as a theological principle, reading Scripture as the story of God's redeeming acts in history. Historical catalogs of God's saving acts are found in both the New and Old Testaments.

[285] Soteriology is simply the study of salvation.

[286] Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19, 2005, P. 153

[287] Ibid, Shauf, P.154

[288] Confess means primarily, to say the same thing as another, and, therefore, to admit the truth of an accusation. Compare Psalms 51:4. (Vincent)

[289] Rivkah Slonim, Liz Rosenberg, Total immersion: a mikvah anthology, 2006, P. 25

[290] vitiate |ˈviSHēˌāt|  To spoil or impair the quality or efficiency of: to destroy or impair the legal validity of.

[291] David Pawson, The Normal Christian Birth, 1989, P.314

[292]  Donald Keith McKim, David Frederick Wright, Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, 1992, P. 136

[293] Lucan Theology involves the systematic investigation of the writings of Luke (Luke & Acts) to determine the manner in which this portion of God’s Word was conditioned by the historical circumstances of its writing. What was Luke’s purpose in writing? Why did he select the material contained in his writings? How is Luke’s contribution of revelation about the ministry of Christ and the Apostles Gospel to be understood?

[294] Hughes Oliphant Ol, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, 1998, P. 87

[295] The scribes (soferim) in the Second Temple period were not just professional copyists, but were expert teachers of the law. Without chapter and verse divisions scribes were expected to find any requested context within the whole of the Torah. See also Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews, 2010, P. 51;   By David Orto, The Understanding Scribe, 1989

[296] William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 1982, P. 277

[297] Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. (Acts 4:22 NKJV)

[298]  See Acts 14:19. The antagonism of the non- believing Jews of Antioch and Iconium drove them to pursue Paul and Barnabas to this remote spot (for some, a journey of over a hundred miles). Here they were not content to see them expelled, but stoned Paul until they believed they killed him (see also 13:50; 14:2, 5; also 17:13).

[299] R.C.H Lenski, Interpretation of I & II Corinthians, 1937, P.12

[300] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary Volume 10, 1976, P.4.

[301] James Stevenson Riggs, Harry Lathrop Reed, Epistles to the Corinthians, 1922, P.94

[302] Robert E. Picirilli, 1,2 Corinthians, 1987, P. 175

[303] See 1 Corinthians 10:19 and 12:12. Paul says, "Ye were led away unto those dumb idols (pros ta eidoœla ta aphoœna). “Unto the idols the dumb.” See Psalm 95:5-7 for the voicelessness (a-phoœna, old adjective, without voice, phoœneœ) of the idols. Pagans were led astray by demons (1 Cor. 10:19f.). Howsoever ye might be led (hoœs an eœgesthe). Rather, “as often as ye were led.” (A.T. Robertson)

[304] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?  (Romans 6:1, 2) Paul often struggled with conveying the true nature of the New Covenant to the people. It was never meant to be a free pass to sin, but a means of bringing a sinful people into a state of sonship in which Christ would not be ashamed to call them brethren.

[305] First aorist middle of hupostelloœ, old verb to draw under or back. It was so used of drawing back or down sails on a ship and, as Paul had so recently been on the sea, that may be the metaphor here. But it is not necessarily so as the direct middle here makes good sense and is frequent, to withdraw oneself, to cower, to shrink, to conceal, to dissemble as in Hab. 2:4 (Heb. 10:38). Demosthenes so used it to shrink from declaring out of fear for others. (Robertson)

Table of Contents

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Introduction

CHAPTER 1 Early Evangelism

CHAPTER 2 Preparationism and Evangelism

CHAPTER 3 The First Great Awakening

CHAPTER 4 The Second Great Awakening

CHAPTER 5 Spreading the Gospel (1790-1899)

PART II THE ADVENT OF MODERN EVANGELISM

CHAPTER 6 Evangelism In Crisis

CHAPTER 7 Putting God On Main Street

CHAPTER 8 The Affects of Television on Christian Music And Ministry

CHAPTER 9 The Faster Builder

CHAPTER 10 Where the Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail

Appendix: How To Know If You Are In The New Covenant

ABOUT THE AUTHOR