08/09/2025
The Second Great Awakening: A Departure from Biblical Christianity
The Second Great Awakening (1790s–1840s) was one of the most influential religious movements in American history. It swept through New England, the western frontier, and the South, leaving a lasting mark on American evangelicalism. While it is often praised for its zeal, evangelistic passion, and social reform efforts, careful examination shows that it also departed significantly from biblical patterns of revival and church life.
1. From Sovereign Revival to Human-Oriented Methods
The First Great Awakening (1730s–1740s), led by men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, emphasized the sovereign work of God in salvation. Revival was seen as a divine outpouring of the Spirit, awakening sinners to life. By contrast, the Second Great Awakening, under figures such as Charles Grandison Finney, introduced a new theology: revival was not a miraculous act of God but a result of proper methods.
Finney taught that revivals could be produced at will by using the right techniques—emotional preaching, “new measures” such as the “anxious bench,” and extended altar calls. This marked a shift from trusting in God’s sovereign grace to depending on human manipulation of emotions. Biblically, salvation is “not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Romans 9:16).
2. An Optimistic View of Human Nature
Reformed theology, rooted in Scripture, affirms that man is spiritually dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1) and utterly dependent on the regenerating work of the Spirit. The Second Awakening, however, embraced a more optimistic anthropology. Finney denied original sin, insisting that people had the natural ability to repent and believe if they simply chose to.
This directly contradicted biblical teaching that “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). By minimizing man’s depravity, the movement fostered a shallow understanding of conversion—one based on decisionism rather than Spirit-wrought transformation.
3. Shallow Conversions and Emotionalism
Because revivals were engineered through methods rather than grounded in truth, many conversions proved short-lived. Emotional frenzy, mass responses, and dramatic experiences were mistaken for genuine regeneration. This produced what some historians call a “burned-over district” in western New York—areas repeatedly swept by revival campaigns but spiritually exhausted and disillusioned afterward.
The Bible warns of those who “receive the word with joy… but they have no root” (Matthew 13:20–21). Genuine revival produces lasting fruit, not merely temporary excitement.
4. The Rise of Heterodox Movements
Another consequence of the Second Great Awakening was the birth of numerous heterodox sects. The “burned-over district” became fertile ground for groups such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Millerite movement (which gave rise to Seventh-day Adventism). The lack of doctrinal grounding, combined with religious fervor, opened the door for serious departures from biblical Christianity.
Paul warned Timothy that in the last days people would have “itching ears” and “turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3–4). The Awakening, though claiming to exalt Christ, often replaced sound doctrine with shallow experiences that left people vulnerable to deception.
5. The True Biblical Pattern of Revival
In Scripture, true revival begins with God. It is not the product of human schemes but of His Spirit applying His Word. Revival is marked by deep conviction of sin (Nehemiah 8–9), repentance (Jonah 3:5–10), renewed love for God’s Word (Psalm 119:25, 40), and lasting obedience.
The Second Great Awakening, in its departure from these biblical principles, shifted the focus from God’s sovereign work to man’s efforts. While it produced social reform movements such as temperance and abolition, its theological compromises weakened the church’s grasp on the gospel of grace.
Conclusion
The Second Great Awakening cannot be denied its historical influence, but from a biblical standpoint, it represents a turn toward pragmatism, decisionism, and emotionalism rather than a Spirit-wrought renewal of the church. Its departure from the doctrines of sin, grace, and divine sovereignty serves as a cautionary tale: zeal without truth leads to shallow faith and enduring confusion.
The church today must learn from this history. True revival will not come from manipulation or methods but from the faithful preaching of Christ crucified and reliance on the Spirit of God.