Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

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

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

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

Encountering Finney

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

Charles Finney’s Step-children

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

…And Finney Begat Caner…

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

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

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

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

Evangelical Manipulation

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

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

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

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

Evangelical Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

Evangelical Growth

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

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

Evangelical Relativism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 thoughts on “Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

  1. Kudos to Tom Chantry for this insightful analysis, and making important connections between Finney and certain forms of modern Christian practice. I wish all my fundamenaist friends would read this post. Thanks!

  2. I don’t even know where to begin to comment. These observations are all sooo true. Liberty U and Thomas Road Baptist are products of fundamentalism, only Falwell took the man centered methodology a step further than the IFB’s were willing to go – political activism and ecumenical coalitions. All from the same rotten root of pragmatism.

    This quote caught my attention: ” his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God….”

    At my alma mater GSBC, the big talk is about “saving our nation” and this is the same Finneyesque game plan. When I was growing up there, the glory of God never once crossed my mind.

    1. Wow, that’s a bit scary that last paragraph. It reminds us that this issue with fundamentalism really is a big deal when it’s put like this.

      Thanks for your thoughts.

      Bob

  3. Thanks for the post, Bob!

    It is true, Fundamentalists are the original pragmatists, in spite of their pulpit-pounding against pragmatism. The difference between Fundys and soft Evangelicals is that Fundys are for the ‘old pragmatism’.

    I’ve heard (whether in a JR Rice sermon or from someone quoting JR Rice) that JR Rice was a big fan of Finney. I know I’ve heard both Hyles (Fresh Oil) and Schaap claim Finney as a hero.

    It does still tug at my heart strings when I hear either the altar call or Jack Hyles disregarded, though.

  4. God graced you with conviction and insight that is rarely heard of today. I commend you. Unfortunately, most people that read your blog are inclined to the same theological convictions. We are encouraged, but the father of lies captivates the minds of millions that need to know and hear your message.

  5. I end up saying this alot but you reformed folks consistently throw out the baby with the bath water. So let me see if I’ve got this right Caner lied so everything he ever espoused or did for the kingdom is wrong. That’s pretty simplistic brother Bob and I know by now that you are not usually like that, you are usually a bit more thoughtful. Caner lied because first of all he is a sinner, hopefully one saved by grace if he has called upon the Lord to save him, as the entire new testament teaches. Beyond that who knows his motivations or anyone elses motivation for that matter. I know you read your scriptures, what about all the verses talking/teaching about restoring a brother or about getting the beam out of our own eye so we can help others, how about Paul confronting Peter “to his face” Bob you know all these things.

    I still find you guys referring to authors to explain things instead of going to the sources themselves. Finney was a prolific writer and his books can be found easily. If you want to know what Finney thought read what he said! I’m not writing this to defend Finney, by the way.

    Now about speakers stirring up emotions, well friends I truly don’t know what to say to you. I was blessed to travel in the holy land and all over the mediterrean countries. I stood upon Mars Hill and read the sermon that Paul preached there, whew, it still gives me goose bumps on my goose pimples. The Word of God is powerful and active, if a simple man of God, with a sincere heart of God preaches from it, it will have an impact, God’s Word will not return void, that is a promise brother Bob from the Word. I know there are charlatans of every stripe out there that preach for money and power, but please just because you disagree with a man’s theology don’t throw out everything he’s ever done.

    Bob, you know what I’m saying is true. Caner, Finney me and you are made from the dirt. The Lord has decided to use us anyway. Thank you Lord, brother Bob we are so unworthy! I have been trying my very best to serve our Lord since 1981, when I look back at some of the foolish things I have said and done since that time, in the name of the Lord, I am ashamed. But praise be to God His mercies are new every morning. I get up dust myself off, make right what I can and continue on in the name of the Lord.

    In Christ
    Greg

    1. Greg,

      You should notice I never denounced Caner and wrote off everything he’s ever done. His incident is just an occasion for looking at Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. There is a certain emotions-driven preaching style which is high on style and low on Scripture-content. I’ve been there and sat through many such tirades which don’t glorify God but do glorify the wild and brash preacher.

      I am just commenting on the link between Finney’s man-centered theology, and his man-centered practice which lead to growth of man-centeredness in evangelicalism. I’ve written on this problem in my Man-Centered Christianity series.

      I don’t want to guess at Caner’s motives. But if they were as Chantry describes, that would fit with a certain ministry flavor that is quite extensive in evangelicalism and fundamentalism today. That could be whats going on in Caner, and if you read Chantry I think he’s careful not to say that is what is happening with Caner. He says the whole Caner debacle is a warning to the church at large and we should listen to it, not necessarily lob stones at Caner. I don’t think that’s what Chantry is doing if you read these and other posts he’s given re: Caner.

      Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Did you see the Calvinism debate post we have going on. I don’t have time to interact fully over there but you may enjoy some of Don’s posts. I did respond to your last comment on the matter there under that post.

      In Christ,

      Bob

  6. I really liked this article! One of the great things about “web readings” is they provide moments that lead to consideration of just what practices we see in the “modern” church and where the roots of such practices lie. I’ve always been interested in the “why” or mechanics of all things, not just belief systems…However, I realize that it is our (human kind) belief systems that form our world view and so there in lie the gears that propel not only the church…but civilizations…

  7. Caner should be fired. The fact that Liberty is still employing him in a responsible leading position makes Liberty complicit in Caner’s self-inflating dishonesty.

  8. Finney preached against Luther’s “legal fiction” idea… that one could be both wicked and justified. The same is taught in 1 John and James.

  9. Finney made history and brought thousands to the knowledge of the real and holy Jesus-Christ. And we? What are we doing? Criticizing others’ knowledge of God ?
    I am from Africa, and here we judge people not according to “their supposed-heresies” but according to the fruits they bear. Taze Russel and Rutherford left after them a big capitalist entreprise while William M. Branham led millions to focus more on dreams and visions rather than trying to know God through the scripture.
    But Finney’s impact is still seen through the lifes of christians to whom GOD’S GRACE COMMANDS OBEDIENCE TO HIS LAWS. For, though we are saved by grace through faith, we are still demanded to fulfill the GOOD WORKS (including a total and radical obedience of God Laws) that God has prepared beforehand. That’s the only way given to us by Jesus to prove our Love for Him (JOHN 14.21).
    Furthermore, (let me state the way i interpret James2.19)) “thou believest that there are many core points of the christian doctrine that Finney have corrupted, thou doest well. But THAT’S NOT THE POINT, for even demons may have known that”. The point is the next verse “FAITH WITHOUT WORK IS DEAD” or “DOCTRINES WITHOUT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IS WORTHLESS”. Finney and his disciples have proven it not only by their consecration but the demonstration of the Power of God throughout their lifes. Like Paul, Finney’s speech and preaching “was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”.

    I’m actually shocked by the fact that what I read on this blog is coming from eminent theologists. As far as I am concerned, I believe that God is in need of Finney-like christians whose FAITH IS PROVEN BY THEIR WORKS not by their doctrines. I also believe that the Church is getting drawn into the sea of mere critics, forgetting that GOD WILL NOT JUDGE US ON THE BASIS OF OUR VIEWPONTS ON THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES BUT ON THE BASIS OF OUR DEEDS (Rom 14.12). That’s where God is waiting for us and that was the core message of Finney. And if this message is an Heresy, then Jean Hus, Calvin, Paul, James and even Jesus were heretics too.

    God will certainly raise a generation of Finneys to bring confusion in the minds of all the puffed-up christians. May I be the head of this movement. SAY AMEN TO THAT.

Comments are closed.