On Enthusiasm in Classical Christian Schools

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) wrote three works on revivals and the work of the Holy Spirit. His purpose in writing was to document the religious enthusiasm and excesses he had observed in the 1730s and 1740s. Edwards observed true and lasting conversion as well as false conversion due to manipulation. Additionally, Edwards’ design was to distinguish between true and false religious affections and to provide pastoral guidance on how to discern true revival from manufactured or manipulated works of men. Religious Affections is his best-known work that demonstrates his work on discerning the hidden providence of God in the revivals he witnessed. If Edwards was the man of the hour in the First Great Awakening, Charles Finney (1792-1875) held this role in the Second Great Awakening. Finney completed similar work in his memoir as well as in his Lectures on Revivals of Religion. While works on revival may be most relevant for the church, there are also significant lessons on how schools can discern high enthusiasm within their communities. Because private schools are home to money, religion, and children, the need for discernment to reliably distinguish between true religious enthusiasm and misguided manufactured enthusiasm is not optional but essential. This article will share Finney’s and Edwards’ common ground, where they departed, and what that means for Classical Christian schools. 

Common Ground: God’s Use of Human Instrumentality

Although they were separated by a century of time, both Edwards and Finney worked among Christians who ardently opposed and discounted the revivals in their midst, yet both remained indefatigable in the cause of Kingdom depth and expansion. Finney had practiced law before his conversion and deployed his training in law when he was in the pulpit. He saw his task in preaching as seeking to get a verdict of conversion on the spot. Similarly, Edwards viewed revival as God’s use of the ordinary means of grace (e.g. preaching, prayer, etc) to make an extraordinary impact on God’s people. Unfortunately, I had long believed the typical caricature of Finney as one who only emphasized human technique and ignored the sovereign and mysterious work of God. However, the Finney I encountered when I read him myself was clearly influenced by Edwards on his view of the work of the Spirit. They both encountered tremendous opposition yet persevered in preaching, teaching, praying, and counseling people seeking peace with God. Lastly, they both did not see religion as merely an affair of the intellect but a concern of the heart. 

Practically, four lessons emerge from Finney’s and Edwards’ common ground. First, Classical Christian school communities can acknowledge that, amidst pluralism within Christianity, there will always be divergent views on how to discern the truth amidst high enthusiasm. Because Classical Christian schools are usually not tethered to one specific church, there will always be differing views on the gifts of the Spirit, leadership structure, philosophy of ministry, and much more. Second, Edwards and Finney both affirm the value of religious affection, or enthusiasm. Classical Christian schools are dedicated to the integration of the head and the heart and labor to form the entire person for the glory of God. Third, both Edwards and Finney believe that lasting affections are tied to the truths of man’s sinfulness, God’s holiness, the need to respond in faith to the work of Christ in the atonement, and ongoing submission to the Holy Spirit. Fourth, Edwards and Finney were both extremely dedicated to preaching, prayer, and teaching as God’s appointed means for conversion and discipleship. They both believed that human agency in obedience to God was the blueprint for building and forming the people of God. Classical Christian schools should commit themselves to working hard while remaining dependent upon the Holy Spirit to produce results. 

Divergence: Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

Finney and Edwards differed on how reliable human measures were. Finney has earned some of the criticism that he has received by indicating that pastors can engineer revival through the right use of particular measures. In his memoir on the Rochester revival of 1830, he points to the use of the anxious bench and calling for immediate public submission to God as reliable measures for producing revival. Many of Finney’s measures have inspired well-known leaders like Billy Graham, yet the issue is the degree of confidence he seems to place in them. Edwards, on the other hand, exercises a more sanctified suspicion of confiding too much in human technique. He points out excesses of enthusiasm that he compares to clouds without water or blossoms in early spring that never produce fruit. His list of reliable and unreliable signs in Religious Affections is by far the most valuable part of his work for those involved in Classical Christian schooling. For example, on page 50 of Religious Affections, Edwards writes, “The right way is not to reject all affections, nor to approve all; but to distinguish between affections, approving some and rejecting others; separating between the wheat and the chaff, the gold and the dross, the precious and the vile.” Despite Finney’s dedication to Kingdom expansion, he seems to exercise less discernment in distinguishing between true enthusiasm and counterfeit passions. On page 78 of Religious Affections, Edwards writes, “As from true divine love flow all Christian affections so from a counterfeit love in like manner naturally flow other false affections. In both cases, love is the foundation and the other affections are the streams.” Lasting enthusiasm comes from God whereas fleeting enthusiasm comes from man and is quickly metabolized by a community. 

Finney simply does not leave enough room for God at certain points. He condemns the doctrine of Edwards and some old school preachers as a straightjacket that prevents them from persuasively declaring biblical truths. While I agree with Finney that too much schooling can make a preacher useless, he at times fails to see that settled doctrine creates peace and God-centered clarity within a community. To Finney’s credit, he meaningfully interacts with those he disagrees with and never takes the dissension personally. Finney’s shortcoming is his failure to consistently acknowledge the hidden work of a sovereign God in times of extraordinary religious enthusiasm. He simply places too much confidence in human technique. A valuable verse to combat this tendency would be Psalm 20:7 which says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” Both human diligence and divine dependence are necessary. 

Application for Classical Christian Schools 

Our schools are full of countercultural, convictional, and enthusiastic people unafraid to stand for what they believe. Because of this reality, I see three applications for cultivating discernment around enthusiasm within our Christian communities. First, we should see collective enthusiasm as part of God’s good design. Were it not for religious enthusiasm, parents would not enroll their children in our schools. Although it can be distorted, shared religious affections can and should be pursued for the glory of God. Warm Christian piety governed by sound Christian theology creates the right atmosphere for children and their families. Second, we can and should take the long view when enthusiasm is mixed with controversy. Because Classical Christian schools are so tight knit (as they should be), common sentiment around specific issues can form quickly but also evaporate quickly. Religious enthusiasm is lasting because it is grounded in truth and the work of God. Edwards writes that one true sign of religious affection is a soft heart that is followed by a Christian tenderness. In a similar vein, Edwards writes on page 121 of Religious Affections, “The difference between doves and ravens or doves and vultures when they first come out of the egg is not so evident but as they grow to their perfection, it is exceedingly great and manifest.” Give enthusiasm time to settle before a verdict is rendered. Third, do not outright discount enthusiasm as a lack of restraint or giving full vent to the human spirit. The reality is that, in times of high collective enthusiasm, truth is often mixed with error. The key is to develop the discernment to identify the nature of true enthusiasm.