John Locke Jonathan Edwards George Whitefield
Fatigue Sets In
By the latter half of the 17th century a general spiritual
fatigue began to settle into Britain and its American colonies, as well as to
much of Europe. This fatigue only
increased in the early decades of the 18th century.
First, there was a fatigue with religious war, strife, and persecution. For example, the Thirty Years’ War, with its
great destruction in the battle pitting Romanists against Protestants, had
exhausted Europeans. Also, the English
civil wars of the 1640s followed later by the Stuarts’ persecutions of Presbyterian and other dissenters made
people desirous of peace.
Second, there was a fatigue with the seeming inability of the branches
within the reformed churches of the United Kingdom to reconcile and unite. The 3 branches were:
·
Episcopal (the Anglican Church of England) – adhering
to the Thirty-Nine Articles
·
Presybyterian- adhering to the Westminster Standards
·
Congregational- adhering to the Westminster Standards
except where the Cambridge Platform laid out differences
The primary difference among these three concerned the form of church
government. In addition, Presbyterianism and congregationalism were more
clear and emphatic that the elements of worship be limited to that which is
prescribed in scripture, so as to remain pure of corruption and invention
(hence the name ‘puritan’ to describe them).
Since the differences which separated them could not readily be ironed out,
the intermediate measure had been to give each certain territory within the United
Kingdom to be the established church.
England, Wales, Ireland and the southern American colonies were
Anglican; Scotland and effectively many colonial frontier settlements were
Presbyterian; and New England was Congregational. While this led to a measure of peace, it nevertheless represented
a disappointment that reformed Christians and the kingdom could not unite upon
a common confession.
Third, there was fatigue with controlling and containing the rising swell of
non-reformed factions and sects, including Baptists and Quakers, as well as others. The only way to suppress them seemed to be by civil force, by the
use typically of banishment from the territory, but many people were growing fatigued by this method of
suppression. This was part of an even
broader fatigue with the imposition of authority concerning religion by the
state, church and family.
Fourth, there was fatigue, especially among many intellectuals, with the
reformed view of man’s incapacity to attain knowledge apart from divine revelation
(i.e., scripture) due to man’s depraved sinful nature. Some viewed this proposition as a hindrance
and not a help to intellectual, societal and cultural development. It was becoming more fashionable to believe
only that which could be deduced by reason (the rationalism of Descartes) or by
observation in experience (the empiricism of Bacon and Locke), and to abandon a
pre-suppositional approach to knowledge according to Augustine’s dictum, “I
believe in order that I may know.”
Fifth, there was fatigue among many, especially the more economically
prosperous, with seeking to obey the regimen of the historic reformed faith, as
summarized in the Ten Commandments.
This fatigue compounded as many Britons enjoyed increasing prosperity
with international commerce and colonization.
Much of the prosperity which England and its American colonies enjoyed
was a fruit of the Protestant work ethic, but this same prosperity tended
towards more materialistic concerns and away from religious strictures. It also made time for more worldly
entertainments.
Sixth, there was fatigue among many people within reformed churches,
especially in the middle and lower class ranks, at a growing prevalence of
lukewarm religion in the established reformed churches, especially arising from
the spiritual fatigue among the economically prosperous. Many saw people just going through the
motions of the reformed religion, but with very little heart for Christ. Even in Puritan New England, Increase Mather
observed that “clear, sound conversions are not frequent. Many of the rising
generation are profane Drunkards, Swearers, Licentious and Scoffers at the
power of Godliness.”
Out of this milieu of fatigue, two great movements swept through the
English-speaking world: the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening.
The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement arising out of the 17th
century which advocated a rational and scientific approach to religious,
social, political, and economic issues, as opposed to an approach based upon
divine revelation. As such, it promoted
a secular view of the world and a general sense of progress and
perfectibility. And it attacked
religious authority, dogmatism, intolerance, censorship, and economic and
social restraints. It sought to usher in
an Age of Reason that it was believed would rid mankind of the ills it faced.
Paving the way for the Enlightenment was a French-born philosopher named
Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes sought
to prove how, starting from a position of universal doubt, he could through
reason arrive at a system of truth.
This methodology has earned him the title of the ‘father of modern
philosophy.’ As we have noted, this
methodology directly contradicted the historic reformed, Biblical view of
theologians like Augustine and Calvin whose methodology was instead: ‘I believe
in order that I may know’ (or as worded in scripture, ‘the fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom’). Reformed Christianity stresses man’s
inability to attain true knowledge about the fundamental nature of God and man
apart from divine revelation, due to man’s sinful corruption. Not surprisingly, Descartes rejected this
reformed principle, for he was Roman Catholic, educated in the Jesuit College
at La Flčche and the University of Poitiers. Descartes had significant
influence even in Protestant countries, residing much of his life in Holland.
Descartes’ credibility was certainly enhanced by his significant achievements
in mathematics and science.
It is not hard to see how the Enlightenment answered the general fatigue of
the age, especially among the more economically prosperous and educated
ranks. It promised a way to maintain
social stability through reasonable approaches, while offering the prospect of
avoiding the bloodshed and strife that had come with centuries of society based
in religion. It offered the prospect of healing sectarian division. It offered the opportunity of more freedom
of expression and thought, outside the confines of Biblical dogma.
The philosopher who arguably most popularized the
Enlightenment among the English-speaking peoples was John Locke
(1632-1704). Locke argued that people
had the gift of reason, or the ability to think. In the Essay Concerning
Human Understanding Locke proposed that the mind is born blank, a tabula rasa upon which the world
describes itself through the experience of the five senses. Knowledge arising
from sensation is perfected by reflection, thus enabling humans to arrive at
such ideas as space, time, and infinity.
Based upon man’s presumed native ability to
reason, Locke thought men had the natural ability to govern themselves and to
look after the well being of society. He wrote, “The
state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which [treats] everyone
[equally]. Reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind... that being all
equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health or
possessions.” Locke did not believe that God had chosen a group or family of people to
rule countries. He rejected the Divine Right of Kings, which many kings and queens used to justify
their right to rule. Instead, he argued that governments should only operate with the consent of
the people they are governing. In this way, Locke supported democracy as a form
of government. Locke wrote, “[We have
learned from] history we have reason to conclude that all peaceful beginnings
of government have been laid in the consent of the people.” Governments
were formed, according to Locke, to protect the right to life, the right to
freedom, and the right to property. Their rights were absolute, belonging to
all the people. Locke also believed that government power should be divided
equally into three branches of government so that politicians will not face the
“temptation... to grasp at [absolute]
power.” If any government abused these rights instead of protecting them,
then the people had the right to rebel and form a new government.
John Locke spoke out against the control of any man against his will. This
control was acceptable neither in the form of an unfair government, nor in
slavery. Locke wrote, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any
superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority
of man, but only have the law of nature for his rule.” Consonant with this
opinion, Locke asserted in “A Letter Concerning Toleration” that “the
toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so
agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind,
that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity
and advantage of it in so clear a light.”
Locke’s ideas were becoming increasingly embraced in the 18th
century, especially in the American colonies.
Among those influenced was a young man that many have contended is the
foremost theologian of the 18th century in America, if not the
world: Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was
born in Connecticut in 1703 and educated at home and at Yale University. As a
youth, he had a keen interest in natural science, and wrote treatises “On
Insects” and “On the Rainbow”. When he was fourteen, he discovered the
just-published writings of John Locke, doing so, as he said, “with greater
pleasure than the greediest miser uncovering a rich hoard of gold and silver
coins.” Locke heavily influenced Edwards’ philosophy, especially in the areas
of psychology (how the human mind works) and epistemology (how we know things).
The Great Awakening
At some point in Edwards’ young adulthood he embraced the major tenets of
the reformed faith that he was taught since his youth. He sought to demonstrate
the reasonableness of Calvinism in works like “The Freedom of the Will”, in which he masterfully set
forth metaphysical and ethical arguments for predestination coupled with man’s
will as it is experienced. And in works
like “A Treatise on the Religious
Affections” he sought to analyze the psychology of the Christian religious
experience and to show its importance in the Christian life.
Given the emphasis Edwards placed in personal religious experience,
including the emotions attendant with this experience, he became both the
catalyst of and the defender for the second great movement to sweep through the
colonies in the 18th century, the Great Awakening. His explanation and defense is found most
notably in his work, “A Faithful
Narrative of the Surprising Work of God.”
Here are excerpts from that work:
_____________________________
“…Just after my grandfather's death,
it seemed to be a time of extraordinary dullness in religion. Licentiousness
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; 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…
…But in two or three years after Mr.
Stoddard's death, there began to be a sensible amendment to these evils. The
young people showed more of a disposition to hearken to counsel, and by degrees
left off their frolics; they grew observably more decent in their attendance on
the public worship, and there were more who manifested a religious concern than
there used to be. At the latter end of
the year 1733, there appeared a very unusual flexibleness, and yielding to
advice, in our young people. It had been too long their manner to make the
evening after the sabbath, [It must be noted, that it has never been our
manner, to observe the evening that follows the sabbath, but that which
precedes it, as part of the holy time], and after our public lecture, to be
especially the times of their mirth, and company-keeping. But a sermon was now
preached on the sabbath before the lecture, to show the evil tendency of the
practice, and to persuade them to reform it; and it was urged on heads of
families that it should be a thing agreed upon among them, to govern their
families, and keep their children at home, at these times. It was also more
privately moved, that they should meet together the next day, in their several
neighborhoods, to know each other's minds; which was accordingly done, and the
notion complied with throughout the town. But parents found little or no
occasion for the exercise of government in the case. The young people declared
themselves convinced by what they had heard from the pulpit, and were willing
of themselves to comply with the counsel that had been given…”
_____________________________
The Great Awakening reached its peak during the 1740s and 1750s, with George
Whitefield as its central figure. George Whitefield was an Anglican minister
who engaged in itinerant ministry in Great Britain and North America, which
often included open air preaching, instead of at the invitation and in the
setting of local churches. Large crowds
gathered in cities, towns, and rural areas to hear the stirring sermons of
George Whitefield. Whitefield’s visit
to Williamsburg in 1739 was one stop on a journey through the colonies that
ignited a movement that brought about personal religious renewal for many
people. His visit helped to mold and redefine a new American culture- a culture
which on the positive side stressed personal piety and the need for heart
religion, yet on the negative side leaned against the imposition of authority,
even where scripture requires it, and tended to undermine principles for maintaining
an established church.
Here is one example of George Whitefield’s emphasis on personal experiential
conversion in a sermon entitled “Marks
of a true Conversion”:
_____________________________
“…It is true, ye have no more members
than ye had then, but how are these altered! Though you are in one respect the
same ye were, for the number of your limbs, and as to the shape of your body,
yet if a person that knew you when ye were in your cradle, had been absent from
you for some years, and saw you when grown up, then thousand to one if he would
know you at all, ye are so altered, so different from what ye were, when ye
were little ones. And as the words plainly imply, that there has a great change
past upon our bodies since we were children, so before we can go to heaven,
there must as great a change pass upon our souls. Our souls considered in a
physical sense are still the same, there is to be no philosophical change
wrought on them. But then, 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... Are ye new-born babes? Then desire the sincere milk of the word,
that ye may grow thereby. I do not want that Arminian husks should go down with
you; ye are kings sons and daughters, and have a more refined taste; you must
have the doctrines of grace; and blessed
be God that you dwell in a country, where the sincere word is so plainly
preached…”
_____________________________
And here is another example in a sermon entitled “The Almost Christian”:
_____________________________
“…many set out with false notions of
religion; though they live in a Christian country, yet they know not what
Christianity is. This perhaps may be esteemed a hard saying, but experience
sadly evinces the truth of it; for some place religion in being of this or that
communion; more in morality; most in a round of duties, and a model of performances;
and few, very few acknowledge it to be, what it really is, a thorough inward
change of nature, a divine life, a vital participation of Jesus Christ, an
union of the soul with God; which the apostle expresses by saying, “He that is
joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Hence it happens, that so many, even of the
most knowing professors, when you come to converse with them concerning the
essence, the life, the soul of religion, I mean our new birth in Jesus Christ,
confess themselves quite ignorant of the matter, and cry out with Nicodemus,
“How can this thing be?” And no wonder then, that so many are only almost
Christians, when so many know not what Christianity is: no marvel, that so many
take up with the form, when they are quite strangers to the power of”
godliness; or content themselves with the shadow, when they know so little
about the substance of it. And this is one cause why so many are almost, and so
few are altogether Christians…”
_____________________________
John Wesley, another Anglican minister with an itinerant ministry, was a
friend of Whitefield. A letter to John
Wesley in response to Wesley’s sermons against election and for Arminianism reveals Whitefield’s mind in such matters:
_____________________________
“In the meanwhile, I cannot but blame you for censuring the clergy of our
church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself by your principles,
positively deny the 9th,
10th and 17th.
Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. God knows my heart, as I told
you before, so I declare again, nothing
but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake;
and when I come to judgment, will thank
you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul.
There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election
and everlasting love. And it
often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet
of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner
you have done. But I hope the Lord will
show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the Lord
should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would
abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,
Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and
servant in Christ,”
_____________________________
Whitefield very clearly disapproved of Arminianism, or the view that denies
predestination and God’s free grace in salvation. But, regrettably, it would seem Whitefield would have given
Wesley assurance of salvation and close Christian fellowship even though Wesley
unrepentantly promoted this heresy.
Presumably Whitefield believed Wesley’s “conversion experience” was
grounds for assurance. It would also
seem Whitefield never called the civil government to suppress Arminian
teaching, such as by Wesley, by use of means such as banishment. Although Whitefield was clearly Calvinistic
by conviction, by word and deed he diminished the importance of the issues
which had caused great controversy in the Protestant churches- issues like the
Arminian heresy and the Baptist heresy- while stressing the necessity of a
“conversion experience.” .” This is apparently the reason why he was
comfortable holding non-denominational crusades that tended to undermine his
own denomination, fore-shadowing the non-denominational crusades of our own
day. As Harvard historian Jon Butler has written: “Whitefield’s nondenominational ... revivals thus
prefigured another tradition in American revivalism, exemplified in the careers
of Charles Grandison Finney, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, and Robert Schuller.
Such evangelists ... stressed their own popularity at the expense of any
denominational authority.”
Many other examples demonstrate how
George Whitefield diminished the importance of doctrine in Christianity and
undermined the establishment principle.
For instance, on Whitefield’s voyage to America he lent his cabin to a
Quaker preacher, who held meetings there.
In England he freely collected money for the Lutherans of Georgia and he
enjoyed fellowship with the Moravians, though they were not in accord with his
Calvinism. On one occasion, preaching from the balcony of the courthouse in
Philadelphia, it is said that Whitefield cried out: “Father Abraham, whom have you
in Heaven? Any Episcopalians?’ `No.’ `Any Presbyterians?’ `No.’ `Have you any
Independents or Seceders?’ `No.’ `Have you any Methodists?’ `No!’ `no!’ no!!’
`Whom have you there?’ `We don’t know these names here. All who are here are
Christians—believers in Christ—men who have overcome by the blood of the Lamb
and the word of his testimony.’ `Oh, is this the case? Then God help us, God
help us all, to forget party names, and to become Christians in deed, and in
truth. Such statements as these tended
to minimize the importance of issues like God’s sovereignty in salvation, man’s
total depravity, and how God should be worshipped. But God is not as unconcerned of these issues as Mr. Whitefield
apparently was.
Other leading figures in the Great Awakening included “New Side”
Presbyterians Gilbert Tennent in the middle colonies and Samuel Davies in the
southern colonies. One of the more famous sermons of Tennent, “The Danger of an
Unconverted Ministry”, displays his view of the Great Awakening and those who oppose
it. Excerpts from that sermon are as
follows:
_____________________________
“…All the Doings of unconverted Men,
not Proceeding from the Principles of Faith, Love, and a new Nature, nor being
directed to the divine Glory as their highest End, but flowing from, and
tending to Self, as their Principle and End; are doubtless damnably wicked in
their Manner of Performance, and do deserve the Wrath and Curse of a
Sin-avenging GOD; neither can any other Encouragement be justly given them, but
this, That in the Way of Duty, there is a Peradventure or Probability of
obtaining Mercy. And natural Men,
wanting the Experience of those spiritual Difficulties, which pious Souls are
exposed to, in this Vale of Tears; they know not how to speak a Word to the
Weary in Season. Their Prayers are also cold; little Child-like Love to God, or
Pity to poor perishing Souls, runs through their Veins… And let those who live
under the Ministry of dead Men, whether they have got the Form of Religion or
not, repair to the Living, where they may be edified…”
_____________________________
In this same sermon Tennent went on to declare that the anti-revivalists, “being greedy of filthy lucre”, were “guided by the
devil.” They were according to Whitefield “wicked [and] natural men”,
untouched by the Holy Spirit, and “their discourse are cold and sapless.”
These men were “moral Negroes” who were white on the outside but black
as sin on the inside, said Tennent.
These echoed the words of George Whitefield who had said: “The generality of preachers talk of an
unknown, unfelt Christ. The reason why congregations have been so dead is
because they had dead men preaching to them.”
During its time the Great Awakening encountered strong opposition, even as
it generated mass appeal as well.
Within New England Congregationalism, it created a rift between “New Lights” and “Old Lights”. The revival movement itself died down in New
England by the 1750s, but this rift would persist. The “Old Lights”, led by Charles Chauncy, a Boston clergyman, opposed the revivalist
movement as extravagant and impermanent. The theology of the “New Lights”, a
slightly modified Calvinism, crystallized into the Edwardian, or New England,
theology that became dominant in western New England, whereas the liberal
doctrines of the “Old Lights”, strong in Boston and the vicinity, would develop
into the Universalist or Unitarian positions.
Even among the “New Lights” strict (or full) subscriptionism to the
church confession was not required of ministers. But within New England congregationalism, strict confessional
subscriptionism had died off even before the Great Awakening, perhaps forstered
by Congregationalist church government itself.
Within Presbyterianism the Great
Awakening brought about a rift between the “New Side” which supported the Great
Awakening and the “Old Side” which opposed it. The Presbyterian establishment
was centered in Philadelphia and was “Old Side”. It was sometimes referred to
as the “Old Synod”. Old Siders insisted
that the call of men to the ordained gospel ministry must be carried out by the
duly constituted officers of the church. They began to challenge the legitimacy
of men trained under Tennent’s supervision by the so called “Log College” in
New Jersey. They were especially wary of Tennent’s looser subscriptionism to
the Westminster Confession. They were also concerned that the Tennents laid
claim to supernatural discernment, which the Presbyterian anti-revivalists
regarded as superstitious and pretentious. One likened the Tennents to astrologers and fortunetellers: Could
Tennent really ascertain “Men’s inward feelings?” If so, “Must not Mr. Tennent
have some cunning beyond what is common to man?” In sum, the Old Side critique
of the Tennents was that they claimed possession of that which Presbyterian
orthodoxy reserved for the work of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, the “New Siders”
argued that subscription matters were judgments that belonged to the
Presbyteries and not the synod, that American Presbyterians needed their own
indigenous training school and not one in Scotland, and that, ultimately, Old
Siders really opposed the “experiential Calvinism” of the revivalists. The rift led to denominational schism in
1741.
This schism lasted 17 years. The New Side Presbyterians grew substantially
during the years of division, while the Old Side fought for survival. From 1741
to 1758, the numbers of New Side ministers increased from 22 to 73, while the
ministerial members of the Old Side decreased from 27 to 23. Further, the New
Side largely won over the respect and enthusiasm of most American
Presbyterians. The congregations of the New Side grew to more than three times
the size of the Old Side.
A reunion of the Old Side and New Side eventually took place in 1758, and
largely on New Side terms. Among the
compromises of the Old Side were an endorsement of the Great Awakening, an
affirmation of the necessity of experiential piety of ministers, a looser form
of subscription to the Westminster Confession (only requiring agreement with it
as a system of doctrine, and not in
its details), and the power of ordination of presbyteries. But despite this
reunion, there remained tensions within the Presbyterian synod for many years.
In the aftermath of the Great Awakening the denominations which stressed a
“religious experience” grew rapidly, at the expense of the established
churches. There was significant growth
of New Side Presbyterians, Baptists, and Arminian Methodists in the decades
immediately preceding the American Revolution. From 1740 to 1760 the number of
Presbyterian ministers in American Colonies had increased from 45 to over 100.
Especially on the frontier of the colonies, Baptists and Arminian Methodists
grew faster than New Side Presbyterians.
In New England alone the Baptist churches increased from 21 to 79
between 1740 and 1760. One of the
things that made the Baptists so popular with the masses was their novel type
of preaching, appealing primarily to the emotions. And one eyewitness Methodist
recorded of the Methodist revivals: “In almost every assembly might be seen
signal instances of divine power; more especially in the meetings of the
classes . . . Many who had long neglected the means of grace now flocked to
hear . . . This outpouring of the spirit extended itself more or less, through
most of the circuits, which takes in a circumference of between four and five
hundred miles.” The results of the Methodist movement are reflected in the
statistics of the Virginia and North Carolina circuits. In 1774 there were only
two circuits in the region, with a combined membership of 291; in 1776 the
number of circuits had increased tremendously, with one circuit alone reporting
1,611 members. The following year there were six circuits with a combined
membership of 4,379.
An Appraisal of these Movements
In evaluating the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment, we should observe
that the former catered to the mood of the time as the latter did, responding
to the condition of spiritual fatigue
that came to prevail among the English-speaking peoples, especially in North
America. But what was truly needed was not that the mood of the time should be
catered to, but rather challenged.
Preachers like the Apostle Paul were needed to say, “let us not be weary
in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Preachers were needed to encourage the
people in the historic reformed and Biblical faith and to battle against a
besetting fatigue.
The fact that there had been religious strife was no justifiable reason to
cease from defending Biblical truths, as if compromise could guarantee long
term peace. The so called “Age of
Reason”, secularizing the nations and promoting the idea that civil governments
should not enforce the first table of the Ten Commandments, has hardly brought
peace and harmony to the world. Rather,
the world ushered in by the ‘Age of Reason’ has seen the French Revolution, the
American civil war, World Wars I and II, the Nazi holocaust, the Communist
purges, millions of legalized murders via abortion, as well as a whole host of
other wars and ills. If experience
tells us anything, it is that a secularized West which strives to be run
according to reason has yielded more death, destruction, wars and persecution
than the years when Western society was premised upon the Christian faith ever
did.
The idea that there could be more tranquility and harmony if governments did
not defend the Christian faith and suppress heresy and idolatry has been a
siren song. The truth is just the
opposite according to scripture: God’s judgments- as manifested in wars,
murders, etc.- arise because of men engaging in false worship and other acts of
disobedience. As Romans chapter one
states:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness… Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own
bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator… For this cause God
gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural
use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet… And
even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without
understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful…”
In this sin-cursed world there will always be some strife, but the way to
decrease it is by the state and the church working together, each as prescribed
in scripture, to extirpate false religion and false worship, while building up
the true reformed Christian faith.
Peace comes as more people and more institutions are redeemed and
subject to Christ’s authority.
There should not be impatience with the process of reform, expecting all
branches of reformed Christendom immediately to reconcile all differences. The answer lies not in diminishing the
importance of issues like church government and worship, but rather diligently
praying to God and using the means available to bring men and society into the
truth.
Neither should there be impatience with obedience to the Ten
Commandments. They are a law of
liberty, which free men to glorify God and enjoy Him as we have been created to
do.
Finally, we should not grow impatient when an established national church,
with full subscriptionism to a reformed confession like the Westminster
Standards, is not a perfect church.
Christ foretold that there would be tares among the wheat in His
kingdom. So long as there is a true
profession of faith and outward obedience to the Ten Commandments, it is not
man’s place to discern which Christians may be mere hypocrites and without a
heart for Christ. Of course, the
circumstances in the American colonies were more complex than this, because too
often civil and ecclesiastical governments were not doing their proper jobs of
enforcing discipline and their confessions needed some amendment, but in cases
like the Presbyterian “Old Synod”, it would appear the “New Side” proceeded in
a manner of un-Biblical impatience.
Tennent was concerned about the problem
of an unconverted ministry, but
he chose not to use the church courts to adjudicate these disputes. Perhaps the reason is that the substantive
evidence was not on his side, so he resorted to inflammatory unsubstantiated
rhetoric.
Certain aspects of the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening should
additionally be condemned. The
Enlightenment idea regarding man’s nature is ignorant and wicked. Sadly, the Enlightenment promoted a view of
man which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical, reformed view and reality
itself. Man’s reasoning has been
thoroughly corrupted by the Fall, and man must rely upon God’s revealed word as
the foundation for true knowledge. Apart from scriptural revelation and the
renewal of the Holy Spirit, man’s condition is accurately described in Romans
chapter 3:
“There is none that understandeth, there is none
that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together
become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one… There is no
fear of God before their eyes.”
The first step to true knowledge and wisdom is fearing God, which entails
believing in and submitting to his word as the foundation for all other
knowledge. But the results of the Enlightenment, which is another course,
became quickly apparent: secular nations and secular schools were formed based
upon human reason rather than divine precept.
The result of such folly could only be greater folly and spiritual ruin.
The definition of “conversion” that seemed to gain currency during the Great
Awakening also must be condemned.
Biblical conversion is not having an emotional high that changes
behavior for a certain matter of time, even a lifetime. Neither is it having some mystical
experience of God or Christ. Rather, it
is the work of God in a person such that he comes to have true beliefs
concerning Christ and Christ’s work of redemption on his behalf, and responds
in loving gratitude by obedience to the Ten Commandments. These are the
meanings of the terms ‘faith’ and ‘repentance’ in scripture, and it is faith
and repentance that marks the elect of God. Part of the obedience that God
requires of his elect is a striving after a correct understanding of what God
prescribes, not a depreciation of the importance of doctrinal issues. Furthermore, such a work of conversion can
happen in the ordinary course of a person’s experience such that they are
unaware of any specific “conversion experience”, as it did in the lives of many
believers in scripture. Christ never
put the emphasis on some conversion experience, but rather the emphasis was
upon belief in the truth and grateful obedience (i.e., faith and repentance).
But if reformed churches grant that a ‘conversion experience’, as it came to be
improperly understood by many during and after the Great Awakening, is the sine qua non of Christianity, then such
churches should write their last will and testament, stipulating the Arminians
as the beneficiary of the estate. It
should come as no surprise that Arminian Methodists and Baptists rose in the
decades following the Great Awakening, even as adherence to the historic
reformed faith declined. Biblical faith and repentance is perhaps less
‘thrilling’ and ‘glamorous’ than the emotional charge of a revival meeting, but
it is infinitely more valuable.
Whitefield’s method of itinerancy also must be condemned. Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge
summarized the effects of itinerancy in this way:
“[Whitefield] assumed the right, in
virtue of his ordination, to preach the gospel wherever he had an opportunity,
‘even though it should be in a place where officers were already settled, and
the gospel was fully and faithfully preached ... If the pulpits should all be
shut,’ he says, ‘blessed be God, the fields are open, and I can go without the
camp’ ... If Whitefield had the right here claimed, then of course [New Sider]
Davenport had it, and so every fanatic and errorist has it. The doctrine is
entirely inconsistent with what the Bible teaches of the nature of the pastoral
relation, and with every form of ecclesiastical government, Episcopal,
presbyterian or congregational.” Evangelical
anti-ecclesiasticism was thus a sad bi-product of the Great Awakening. George
Whitefield is rightly acknowledged as the father of the parachurch, and, as
Joel Carpenter has written, “parachurch” is virtually synonymous with “evangelical.” The Great Awakening shattered the
authority of churches, and thus the establishment principle taught in scripture.
Perhaps the greatest indictment of those who led the Great Awakening is that
they did not rise higher above the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ and challenge it,
particularly on the issue of ‘toleration’ and ‘liberty of conscience’. Biblical Christianity is covenantal, which
means it recognizes the blessings and responsibilities that flow from covenant
heads, and that all authority flows from God.
As a covenant head, the civil ruler has a responsibility to enforce the
Ten Commandments in his sphere of authority, just as a parent has such a duty
in his. But if Locke were correct that “the natural liberty of man is to be
free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or
legislative authority of man” in
matters of religion, then this would logically pertain to parental authority as
well as civil authority. In the case of civil authority, it allowed the
Enlightenment to highjack and pervert the representative parliamentary
government which had been promoted by reformed Christianity. Elected government
would no longer have to serve God first and foremost, but rather the men who
elected it. In the case of parental
authority, baptizing one’s infant children and raising them in the fear of God
would be a heinous act. Indeed, even
requiring them to sing the Psalms in worship and observing the Sabbath day
would be an improper imposition. It is
no accident that not only did civil rulers cease enforcing the Ten Commandments
as the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ proceeded, but also Baptists grew significantly
in numbers and parental authority over children declined. If reformed churches accept the proposition
that religion should not be enforced by covenant heads- whether they be civil
rulers or parents- they have signed their own death warrant, and willed the
Christian church into the hands of Baptists.
Covenantal authority and blessing is a pillar of the reformed faith
which cannot be compromised or denied.
Of course, God used the movements of the Enlightenment and the Great
Awakening to achieve his sovereign ends.
One divine end was surely to judge the wicked spiritual fatigue that
characterized the age. God rewarded the moral laxity in many of the established
churches by raising up competing churches. He also rewarded the spiritual
indolence with greater heresy and error, which would ultimately lead to many of
the judgments outlined in Romans chapter one.
The American people fell for many of the false ideas present in the
Enlightenment, in Revivalism, and in Arminianism. And these errors in turn have ultimately led to great social
ills, from covenant-breaking divorce, rampant sodomy, millions of abortions,
etc. A society that embraces false
religion is judged of God, and the truth of Romans chapter one is evinced.
But besides judgment, God even used the imperfect means of men to spread Christ’s
gospel. As we are reminded in scripture, even when men do wrong, God means “it unto good… to save much people
alive.” It should be kept in mind that
the gospel of Whitefield was rooted in the doctrines of grace, even if later
Revivalists were primarily Arminian.
This was a gospel that could save men, and surely did save many men.
Furthermore, in fairness to Jonathan Edwards and others like Samuel Davies,
they were much more balanced and Biblical in their approach than Whitefield,
even at times rebuking Whitefield’s errors.
Edwards respected the role of the established church more than
Whitefield. And Edwards was quite firm
in decrying Arminianism for the damning heresy it is. There is certainly no hint Edwards sought to have fellowship with
its proponents. Besides the preaching
ministry, other enterprises were inaugurated with the Great Awakening- from
reformed Christian colleges to missions- that brought the gospel to many
people. Also, it was a needed reminder at the time that Christianity is a
religion of the heart as well as the intellect. True Christianity is not just about going through the motions,
even if man must limit his judgments about others to the outside behavior. God does see the heart, and God requires
that we love Christ supremely. To the extent that the Great Awakening
reminded people of this fact, we must commend it. We can praise God for how he
wrought salvation through the ministry of men like Edwards and Whitefield, even
if we must also point out the flaws as well.
There are certainly lessons that can be learned from the Great Awakening by
those that adhere to the historic reformed faith, such as it is found in such
confessions as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. One lesson would certainly be the great
disadvantage reformed Christians were under that had no indigenous college and
seminary upholding their views. The Old
Side Presbyterians relied on schools in Scotland to supply their ministers, and
did not establish a school in America which held to strict subscription in the
Westminster Confession. This greatly
limited the supply of such ministers.
Furthermore, even those ministers that could come to America were less familiar
and connected with the American social climate. In contrast, the New Side Presbyterians did have such a school,
even if in its beginnings it was a simple “Log College”, and New Side
Presbyterianism grew much faster. In
American history there has rarely been a college or seminary that strictly
subscribes to the original Westminster Confession, a great liability in
sustaining and increasing its influence in America.
One final lesson we might learn is how the reformed faith flourishes versus
how it languishes. The reformed faith flourished with the Protestant
Reformation. As we have seen from
American colonial history, the very colonization of America was but one example
of the propagation and extension of the reformed faith emanating from the
Protestant Reformation. With the
exception of Rhode Island and the Quaker colonies, the English colonies of
North America were bastions of reformed conquest for Christ’s glory and for the
saving of many souls. And even in these exceptions reformed Christians moved in
and had tremendous influence. But
following the Great Awakening the reformed faith has steadily languished,
especially in North America. Now
ultimately the flourishing and languishing is the consequence of divine decree;
nevertheless, it would be wrong not to investigate those causes which led to
God’s blessing in the one instance and His withholding of blessing in the
other. The salient difference between
the Protestant Reformation and the Great Awakening is that the reformed
preachers and leaders became off message in the latter but not the former. In
the Great Awakening the reformed preachers seemed to concede that there were
elements in the world that were not obliged to be obedient to Christ, simply
because some men had a different view.
But in the Protestant Reformation, there was no such concession. The Protestant Reformation called for the
extirpation of all false religion, idolatry and heresy, and the reformed
message they preached was simply this: Everything is Christ’s. Knowledge is Christ’s. Schools are Christ’s. Worship is Christ’s. Civil government is Christ’s. Ecclesiastical government is Christ’s. Our children are Christ’s. Consciences are
Christ’s. Businesses are Christ’s. The land is Christ’s. The air is Christ’s. Everything is Christ’s, and not one
iota of this universe is man’s apart from Christ. Everything must glorify Christ.
