Handbook Of Revivals For The Use Of Winners Of Souls

Henry C. Fish

Paul was the prince of evangelists. In five and twenty years he travelled three times over a great part of Asia and Europe. Twice he spent two years as a prisoner, preaching to all who came to him, as well as to successive soldiers to whom he was chained. At one place he wintered, at another he spent a year and a half, at a third two whole years, so preaching “that all they that dwell in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus.”

Our blessed Lord went from place to place preaching and performing his mighty works. In the three years of his public life he travelled three times over Galilee. Three times he visited Jerusalem. For weeks together he preached at Capernaum, a border town where many were coming and going. Six months he labored beyond Jordan, and twice he sent out disciples to extend his work. He came not mainly to teach, and yet through his public life he labored as an itinerant. It was thus that he spread his gospel among perhaps three millions of people.

Modern missionaries, in the main, are evangelists. So were many of the earnest preachers of early days. Whitfield spent most of his life as an evangelist. So did John Wesley, who rode horseback 100,000 miles in his visits from place to place.

In this country from the earliest times, there have been men acting as evangelists. More than a hundred years ago the Philadelphia Baptist Association appointed Rev. Messrs. Edwards and Gano to visit and preach as evangelists. Dr. Nettleton, in the first half of the present century, was a famous evangelist. Inspired with the earnest wish to give himself to the foreign mission service, but prevented from so doing, he gave himself to the work of an evangelist; first among, destitute churches, and then, upon the calls of his brethren, to the visitation of churches with pastors. And everywhere the Lord went with him and wonderfully blessed his labors. Eternity alone will tell the multitudes led to Christ in connection with his itinerant services. The names of others might be mentioned who were also much blessed in this work.

And yet such labors in our day are not looked upon with favor. A chief cause is found in the imprudence of some evangelists. Great scandal was brought upon this class of preachers by one James Davenport, more than a century ago. His excesses caused the ministry to look with suspicion upon this style of service, and to dread even the name evangelist.

Rev. Joseph Fish, of Stonington, Conn., in a sermon which he published in 1763, informs us of the visit of Mr. Davenport to his church some twenty years previously. Speaking of the revivals of that day, he says, “In these strange operations, there was a marvellous mixture of almost every thing good and bad—truth and error, chaff and wheat. For while the spirit of God wrought powerfully, Satan raged maliciously, and acted his old subtle part to deceive. This happened, or at least was carried to the highest pitch, under the preaching and ministrations of a wonderful, strange, good man, (the Rev. James Davenport, of Long Island,) who visited these parts in the time of our religious concern and awakening; a young man of undoubted real piety, fervent zeal for God, love to souls, and ardent desire to advance the Redeemer’s kingdom. But, (thus it was permitted,) a man, while with us, under the powerful influence of a false spirit in a great part of his conduct, as many then told him, and as he himself did afterwards acknowledge with deep abasement. Satan taking the advantage of his zeal in religion, transformed himself into an angel of light, and hurried him into extremes; yea, artfully carried him beside the truth and duty, and beyond the bounds of decency.” It is not difficult to trace the effects of the misguided zeal of this man in the existing coldness towards itinerating ministers.

And this has been enhanced by men since his time. Any one familiar with the religious history of the churches for the last forty years, can recall the names of evangelists who have not commended themselves to the good judgment (if indeed. to the confidence) of their brethren generally. Dr. Humphrey, in his Revival Sketches says: “The great demand for preaching in western revivals, brought out a number of zealous young men with but little experience, who felt it their duty to enter into the work and help the pastors wherever their services were desired. They soon took the name of evangelists, or revivalists, as they were more commonly called. Some of them, in process of time, became zealous overmuch. They introduced measures which many pastors of riper judgment and more experience in revivals could not approve. And as their zeal increased, they wanted to go to places where they were not sent for. Nor would they be hindered for want of regular invitations. Influential members of the churches who sympathized with them were approached, and enlisted to overrule the judgment of their ministers, and wring from them a reluctant consent. If the ministers would not yield, they must be broken down, as the phrase was. This was often attempted, and sometimes succeeded. Nor would the evangelist, long consent to labor under the advice and direction of the pastor. He must give up the reins, and stand aside and look on, or take a subordinate part in the revival. The consequence was, that divisions were created in the churches, part holding with the pastors and part with the evangelists; and though scores of converts might be announced, some churches were actually weakened, and to such a degree that if not quite broken up, in what has since been called the ‘burnt district,’ they have scarcely recovered to this day. Not only were good ministers driven from their congregations in this manner, but such prejudices against revivals were created by these extreme measures, that it has taken a whole generation to remove them.”

But while eccentricities and rashness are justly chargeable to some who have acted as evangelists, it should not operate as an argument against this class of laborers. Richard Baxter remarks that though the word of God is divine, our mode of dispensing it is human; and there is scarcely anything we have the handling of but we leave on it the print of our fingers. Imperfection attaches to our best endeavours; and why should we be suspicious of a particular kind of labor because of the extravagance or unworthiness of some who have undertaken it? God knows more than we know; and it becomes us to be slow to denounce that upon which he bestows his blessing, even though it seem not to deserve our approval.

Much can be said in favor of this particular instrumentality. Undoubtedly it is of divine appointment, for “he gave some evangelists.” And if it be insisted that their functions in primitive times were unlike those performed now, it devolves upon the objector to show the essential difference. True, they did not labor chiefly with churches, but outside of them; although this is not clear as to Apollos, at least, whose fame as an evangelist was in all the churches. But at first there were no churches with whom evangelists could labor. It was needful that they preach in new localities, like our modern missionaries. This carrying the gospel into “the regions beyond” engrossed all their time and attention; a prominent exception, however, being found in the apostle Paul, who, with other labors, visited and strengthened the churches, — co-operating with the pastors. To reason from the early practice therefore, as against the present, seems scarcely allowable. We doubt whether an argument against modern evangelism can be drawn from New Testament order.

Again, experience attests to the great usefulness of this agency. We have spoken of Whitfield and Wesley. It is also well known that Luther and his fellow-laborers carried forward the work more as evangelists than as pastors. Hosts of itinerant preachers and colporteurs went everywhere conveying the word of life to the homes and hearts of the people.

The early revivals in this country were directly connected with the labors of Edwards, the Tennents, Wheelock, Pomroy, Pendleton, and many others, who either had no pastoral charges, or gave them up for the time, and went out as evangelists to places far and near, arousing the churches and warning men to repent. The same was true of the later revivals; as remarked above in regard to Nettleton and others.

It were not difficult to point to some men now who are honored and beloved as the helpers of pastors in “bringing in sheaves,” and the extent of whose usefulness it is impossible to over estimate. What multitudes of souls, both among those in glory and those toiling for Christ, are witnesses to the good accomplished by the untiring energies of men whose names might be mentioned.

We are fully aware of the unfavorable opinion of many as to some of the men and measures connected with evangelism during the last half century. Nor do we say there is no good ground for it. But it may well be asked, what had been the condition of the churches to-day without that class of labor to which exception is taken? Certainly the churches never made greater progress than within the period of modern evangelism. And who will undertake to say that it is owing, largely, to the new impulses given through not this particular branch of effort?

Farther. We can easily see some peculiar advantages in evangelistic labor. For one thing, it stimulates expectation and hope, and impels to prayer and readiness for a blessing. Speaking of the great revivals at the beginning of this century, Baird says, “As one means of extending the work, ministers who had enjoyed the presence of God among their own people were selected by some ecclesiastical body and sent forth, generally two together, on preaching tours among the neighbouring churches. The expectation of their coming drew large audiences wherever they preached.”

“The churches which they visited being in most cases prepared to receive them by a previous season of fasting and prayer, and. animated by their presence and labors to redoubled fervor of supplication, were in many cases favored with an immediate outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Under these and similar influences the work of God spread into more than one hundred towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and into a still greater number of places in the new settlements of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New York, which had but recently formed a wide-spread field of missionary labor.”

For the time being, as we see, these men were evangelists; and the facts alleged were what would have been expected. For, if a minister and church know of the speedy coming of an evangelist, the feeling is that they must bestir themselves. Sluggishness and procrastination are put away. The preaching is more earnest. Responsibility for the success of the proposed special effort is felt; prayers are more fervent and direct; and thus the way of the Lord is prepared.

Still farther: expectation is awakened in the community, and the people are ready to come together, at least to hear the strangers, and to witness what occurs. And the first thing in saving men is to gain a hearing. A principal reason why the masses perish is because they never hear preaching.

Again: through the labors of evangelists the various gifts of the ministry are in a measure diffused. One man has specially the gift to teach, another to incite. Or, as we may say, the one prepares fuel and the other kindles it. One preacher, too, may have no aptness in revival work, and another may excel in this, and in little else. Thus one class of talent is supplemented by the other.

Dr. Geo. B. Ide, of Massachusetts, after a great revival among his people in connection with the labors of Mr. Earle, said that his parish was like a garden in the spring with the beds all laid out, and the seeds all planted in them; and that it only needed the additional sunshine that came along with the evangelist to make the seeded rows shoot forth. So in multitudes of cases. One man plants and another waters; while it is God that giveth the increase. One sows (he is specially fitted for that,) and another reaps (he is specially fitted for that). And again one man excels in winning souls to Christ and another in building them up in the faith. And why should not all the gifts of the ministry be brought into requisition, and diffused far as possible among the churches for their edification?

How often, too, does a disheartened minister find cheer and strength in the coming of an evangelist. His work may drag heavily; and yet a little added power would accomplish wonders. Mr. Earle once likened himself to the additional horse with whiffletree attached to hitch on and help pull the load up the hill. The disciples went forth two by two. But the pastor labors on alone; and like “the coming of Titus” of old, may be the visit of a brother minister. Iron sharpeneth iron; countenance cheers countenance; and so the feeble hands become strong, and the work goes bravely on. Often is a single visit of an evangelist the very thing that saves a church, and insures a long and successful pastorate. But for this many a man had quitted his field and let the interest die.

Hundreds upon hundreds of feeble churches too, without settled pastors, have been saved from extinction by such visits of God’s servants; and after that have been able to support a minister.

Farther still: a pastor may be overworked; and a failure of health at the beginning of a revival among his people, may make the labors of an evangelist highly desirable for a few weeks or months. Anticipating this state of things, Dr. Porter said: “Such help has often been furnished by the occasional labors of other pastors, who have had a short leave of absence from their own flocks. But perhaps the only adequate provision for such emergencies would be, that a few men, of rare endowments for this particular service, — men of God, distinguished for judgment, fervor of piety and suavity of temper,— should be held in reserve to labor where they are most needed, as assistants to stated pastors. These men, of course, should be ordained ministers, and hold themselves accountable to some regular ecclesiastical body.”

Once more, there is no reason to doubt that it pleases God to bestow his converting grace in special measure in connection with the labors of some evangelists. It is undeniable that through them great numbers of souls are gathered into the Christian ranks; and there is no conceivable way of accounting for this acknowledged success but on the ground here indicated. It seems good to the Most High, in the sovereignty of his operations, to accompany with the extraordinary power of the Holy Ghost the preaching and the means, which are in themselves simple and in no wise remarkable, of men whom he has evidently raised up for this particular work. The names of Whitfield, Nettleton, the Tennents, Finney, Knapp, Inskip, Earle, Hammond, Dewitt, Graves, Caughey, and others, illustrate this remark. And we hold this to be a sufficient warrant for the employment of the agency in question.

Say what we will, God sets the seal of his approval on these labors; and what “he hath cleansed, that call thou not common or unclean.”

Nor is it by any means certain that one reason for the infrequency of revivals is not to be found in the neglect of this instrumentality. And if churches generally, instead of viewing all evangelists with suspicion, and speaking evil of their work and their office, were to pray for more and better men of this class, it were a mighty gain to the cause of Christ. And when the harvest is so plenteous, and the laborers so few, it is little less than appalling to witness the frequent indiscriminate denunciation of a means which has been, and is, such a power for good.

In saying this we are not depreciating the pastorate; far from it. Nor would we be understood to hold that the system of evangelism has not its drawbacks, and could not be improved. There is danger on the part of churches of a distrust of the established means of grace, and a morbid craving for extraordinary measures: and on the part of the evangelists, a longing for immediate rather than permanent results; an adoption of doubtful measures and management to hurry such results; and an unhealthy love of notoriety through the press, and the like. These, and perhaps other tendencies are to be guarded against. But such tendencies are not sound objections to the system itself; for there is nothing perfect beneath the sun. The field is wide for evangelistic labor, and in the time when many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased, likely it will be more extensively called into requisition than now.

In just this connection some words of caution are appropriate. If reliance is placed upon foreign aid to such an extent as to diminish the sense of responsibility on the part of the church or the pastor, it is a serious evil. Sometimes the feeling is that without an evangelist nothing can be done; and so nothing is attempted. Sometimes the people wait (in comparative indolence and. hopelessness) until the promised visitation is realized. And sometimes the visit of the evangelist having come, it is felt that the work will go forward anyhow, as a necessary consequence.

All this is wrong. The pastor and his charge must feel that it devolves on them, not on him, to insure success, in its human aspect. If the impression prevail that they are now relieved from obligation, and may be lookers-on, no good can come. The pressure must still lie upon their hearts. No aid from abroad is useful which tends to release the church and the stated ministry from a full, undivided sense of responsibility for earnest, active, personal effort to carry on the revival.

Yet it should be added, that if a church and minister will not labor together without assistance, let them send for it. Better so than that the wise and foolish slumber on, and both perish together.

And the evangelist himself will need grace to act with discretion, in order to secure the greatest benefit. If wise, he will never use a style of preaching that is vulgar in diction or manner, or in any way offensive to good taste. He will be solemn and not trifling; always courteous, and never abrupt, rude, or coarse. He will everywhere be the Christian gentleman.

He will be patient, “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing.” He will be much in prayer; will watch his own heart; will keep humble before God; will study to show himself approved of God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word, and not handling the word of God deceitfully. He will be thoroughly honest, not using aught of “pious fraud,” or artifice of any kind to gain a present end, as is sometimes the case with revival laborers.

The good evangelist will also in every way help, and not harm the pastor. The pastor is the head of the flock, and cannot even temporarily abandon his post. He is responsible for results more than any one else; and therefore his opinion and wishes are to be respected. Said Nettleton, “Settled pastors have, and ought to have, the entire management in their own congregations. Each one has a right to pursue his own measures, within his own limits; and no itinerant has any business to interfere or dictate. It will ever be regarded as inter-meddling in other men’s matters.”

Good evangelists will not be ready to denounce those Christians and those ministers as enemies of revivals, who will not yield up to them the reins, nor sanction all their movements. There is danger of this from the nature of the case. Their minds are awake to the soul’s salvation; and they are oppressed by its amazing importance. They feel that something efficient ought to be done—must be done to wake up a slumbering world; and they naturally desire that all Christians should go along with them in their efforts. In this state of mind they expect nothing but cordial co-operation; and where they do not find it, corrupt nature takes advantage of the excitement they have reached, and the disappointment they feel, (and perhaps withal of a naturally ardent temperament,) to discharge itself not only in grievous complaints, but sometimes even bitter invective. All this should be guarded against with the greatest care.

It is a most delicate service for an itinerant preacher to go in and labor with a pastor of ordinary standing in a revival. And it requires great wisdom, prudence, and self-forgetfulness, lest the latter be thrown into the background, and his influence unintentionally impaired. The biographer of Nettleton bestows a high praise in saying, that an instance probably cannot be mentioned in which his influence led to the dismission of a pastor; but many instances might be mentioned in which he was instrumental in strengthening the hands of pastors. He would treat ministers with such kindness, and speak of them with such respect, as to make the impression on the minds of their people that they were worthy of their confidence; and thus not a few who had almost lost their influence, were firmly reinstated in the affections of their people.

Of course the true evangelist, as we have intimated, will watch his own heart, and be right before God. He will not act an assumed part; affecting a measure of sincerity and godliness that does not belong to him. How holy a man does it become him to be! How much on his knees! How intimate and uninterrupted his transactions with the Throne! If Luther trembled every time he entered the pulpit, well may an evangelist tremble as he sets foot on new ground, and puts himself into vital connection with a special work in behalf of God and men! His very zeal and success expose him to peril. Human passions, hateful pride, and uncharitable bitterness may be mixed with his zeal for the Lord; and when abundant blessings are showering down, the enemy of his soul is sure to attempt to puff him up with the idea that he has eminent gifts, and the highest tokens of God’s favor, and so he may go forth and act among his fellow creatures as if peculiarly wise and strong and good.

President Edwards’ words on this point are much in place; and no doubt they were called forth by some of the revival preachers of his time. He says: “There is also great temptation to an assuming behaviour in some persons. When a minister is greatly succeeded from time to time, and so draws the eyes of the multitude upon him, and he sees himself flocked after and resorted to as an oracle, and people are ready to adore him and to offer sacrifice to him, as it was with Paul and Barnabas at Lystra, it is almost impossible for a man to avoid taking upon him the airs of a master. All young ministers in this day of bringing up the ark of God should take warning by the example of a young Levite in Israel, Uzzah the son of Abinadab. He seemed to have a real concern for the ark of God, and to be zealous and engaged in his mind; but God smote him for his want of humility and taking too much upon himself.”

Doubtless this is one reason why God subjects these his servants to so many humiliations, and defeats, and trials. In this way they are kept where he can consistently bestow upon their labors his blessing.

It must be added, that if the evangelist should respect the position of the pastor, so should the pastor respect the position of the evangelist. Obligations are not all on one side. It not unfrequently happens that the evangelist is assailed, publicly or privately, and perhaps by those from whom better things should be expected. In such cases, the pastor, above all others, should “hold such in reputation.” Sometimes it may be necessary (not often) to resort to the public press to expose a base slander or a lurking insinuation. Possibly it may have to be done in the open assembly. Except in extreme cases, however, it is decidedly better that neither the assailed party nor the pastor take any notice of the matter. If the brethren of the church, including the minister, give to the evangelist their hearty and persevering support, all will be well. The “strife of tongues” will in this way be silenced; and God will take care of both the workman and the work. But a pastor who is not ready to be the true brother to the evangelist, acts a very unworthy part in inviting him to come to his assistance.

In this connection we must record the belief, that the habit of some excellent brethren in the ministry of passing indiscriminate censure upon evangelists and their work, is a sin that ought to be repented of. Did not our Lord teach that speaking lightly of one of his servants was to “despise him that sent him? If ministers denounce their brethren (who at least have a conscience in pursuing their often thankless task) what must be expected of the world? We commend the thought to all preachers and theological teachers.

The following resolutions, adopted by an association in Maine, after a season of rich spiritual harvesting, embody sound views upon the topic under remark:

“1. God honors the established ministry of the Christian religion by employing, in the conversion of sinners, usually, the truth as preached by his faithful ministers.

“2. The establishment of such a ministry, however efficient and successful in any branch of the church, has by no means exhausted the instrumentalities of salvation; the prerogative being still the Lord’s to project, even into the most cultivated portions of his vineyard, new and additional means.

“3. Masses of precious truth, imparted by many an able and faithful pulpit, sometimes lie inoperative, at least in that which is most essential, because unquickened by the Spirit—by importunity of prayer—by devout ardor of sympathy—by fervor of appeal—and by variety of motive made intense and almost irresistible. To do this may demand, for a time, men and measures not usually employed.

“4. Evangelists are of divine appointment, and have their peculiar work. That work is never in derogation of, but always collateral and auxiliary to the established ministry; being designed merely to supplement its officers and labors, and thus be tributary to the conversion of souls, the spread of the Redeemer’s kingdom, and the glory of his name.”

“O LORD, REVIVE THY WORK!”