In Light of the Gospel

David Strain is the senior pastor of Main Street Presbyterian Church in Columbus, Mississippi, and he blogs here. Scott Clark pointed out that Strain recently interviewed D. G. Hart, and when I read the interview, I had to pass on the first Q&A. Strain’s question: “Would you comment on the distinction that is often made in conservative reformed circles between revival and revivalism? Is it a helpful distinction?” Hart’s answer:

I am inclined to think it is a distinction without a difference. It has been a way to try to distinguish the good First (Really) Great Awakening from the Second (bad) Great Awakening. I will take Edwards over Finney any day. So the theology of the First GA may have been better. But typically the assessment of Edwards and Whitefield does not go a lot farther than the 5 points of Calvinism. But what about preaching the “terrors of the law” to apparent believers? What kind of theology leads to that? And what about the frankly bizarre conversion experiences of even Presbyterian revivalists like the Tennents? And what about Whitefield’s pulpit antics (well documented in Stout’s biography)? When you look more closely at the First GA you are getting a lot more than that for which you bargained. And then there is the problem of conversion and the way that a dramatic experience became the norm for detecting regeneration and effectual calling. So in the end, I’m not inclined to think revivalism was all that hot.

Read Part 1 of the interview here. For more of Hart’s view on this, check out his biography of Nevin and The Lost Soul of American Protestantism.