Yesterday, we talked about a theory put forward, not for the first time, as to the levin and causes of the Civil War. he postulates that it had it's main roots in what is known as the "Second Great Awakening" and the moral surety and even superiority that it engendered. Because men were convinced that their positions on issues like slavery and states rigs were rooted in the will of God, this writer maintains, they were unwilling to compromise and come to agreement with one another. War was the only option. That leads us to another point:
There is also a third issue, and that is a misunderstanding of what exactly happened during the Second Great Awakening. The author maintains that what happened during the Second Great Awakening is to be treated as a legitimate "awakening". Biblically speaking, it was not. Let's think about that for a moment.
The Second Great Awakening was very different than the First Great Awakening. That great work of God was a legitimate work in every sense of the word and it showed that it was in the results over the colonies during the generation or two after it blossomed. But like every revival, every revival in recorded history, it died out just a generation or two after it occurred, and ungodliness began to set in.
God had indeed chosen America in which to do a marvelous work. Just as He had chosen England to do the marvelous work of missions He has also chosen America to be a part of that marvelous work of reaching the world for the Lord Jesus.
But like all those before us we were dull of hearing, hard of forehead and calloused of heart. After God sent revival under Jonathan Edwards, we again went our own way. But the work that came under the Wesley's and others was a different work. It was a more subjective, emotional work rather than a work that was based on God's Word alone. It preached a more active gospel, a more "you can do it" gospel. It was the time for women's suffrage, and of course, it was the time that God was moving to abolish slavery around the world. Both of those things were wonderful, worthy causes; causes that the church should have been involved in long before the 1800s and should have been speaking out on behalf of vehemently before they were forced to speak out on behalf of at this time.
The problem was not that the church addressed these issues. The problem was the identification of the gospel with these issues. That is likewise happening today. It is a great tragedy. The gospel is about salvation from sin, it is not about addressing social issues, no matter how grave or seriously those social issues are.
To make the gospel about social matters is to put the cart before the horse. Anyone can correct a social issue. Not anyone can commend themselves to God. To be right with God is a matter that only Jesus Christ could correct. It is only his righteousness that could commend us to the Father. Anyone can set themselves between someone who is dealing with an injustice, anyone can feed a hungry child, anyone can stop a wife from being abused. But only Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, could come and live and then give Himself for sin. He did what we could not and would not do. That in turn, then gives us the basis upon which we can do those other things.
It is not that those things are not important, of course they are! They are critical, they are immensely important! Jesus said that all Gods people must bear fruit! But we must keep those works where they belong in the stream of things. The fruit cannot be portrayed as appearing before the branches of the tree or before the tree itself! The works cannot be placed in front of the work of our Lord
This is a part of the idea that the writer of this article does not understand. He does not understand that what happened in the Second Great Awakening was that many people who saw themselves as being "awaken" were only professing religion and were not truly awakened.
I do not expect this writer to either understand or agree with this assessment. But this is a theological assessment, and I am confident in its accuracy. I have read the sermons of many of these preachers and I have looked at the results of these revivals and they do not demonstrate what the Scripture says concerning what a genuine revival ought to demonstrate.
This does not mean that there was no revival, it does not mean that nobody got saved at that time. It doesn't mean that there was no awakening at then. It simply means that this awakening was not a Great Awakening as it has been painted.
The implication is that it could not have the effect on the Civil War that this writer implies that it did have. Rather, because there had been a long downwards spiral from the end of the first First Great Awakening in the late 1700s, I believe one can make a serious argument that it is the increasing depravity of man, his evil heart and consequent actions that are the cause of both the occurrence of the Civil War and its severity. Had there been an actual "awakening" I firmly believe there would not have been a Civil War.
What I'm reviewed people do not understand, what they consistently misunderstand (and I believe deliberately so because of their nature) is that where redeemed people are, where godly people are there is agreement. The problem is that unsaved people don't know what the definition of a redeemed person is! They think that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is indeed a Christian! And of course, that is not so. Just because one stands for any length of time in a garage doesn't make them an automobile.
No comments:
Post a Comment