America’s history is marked by moments when spiritual fires seemed to blaze through the land — periods called “revivals” or “awakenings.” Each was hailed as a return to God, a time when hearts were stirred, churches filled, and moral fervor renewed. Yet today, as the moral fabric of our nation frays and confusion reigns in pulpits, classrooms, and government halls alike, many Christians ask, Does America need another revival?
That question demands discernment. Not every revival that bears the name has been of the same kind. Some were deeply rooted in the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God, while others veered into emotional excess and theological error. America’s spiritual story is not one of continuous glory but of cycles — revival, decay, and reform. To ask whether we need another revival is to ask not merely whether we need religious excitement, but whether we need true reformation — the kind that begins with repentance, sound preaching, and the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.
The First Great Awakening: Truth on Fire
The First Great Awakening (1730s–1740s) remains one of the most profound spiritual movements in American history. It occurred in the American colonies at a time when many churches had become stale and formal. Sermons were polished but lifeless; moral respectability often stood in place of true conversion. Into that environment stepped Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Gilbert Tennent, among others.
George Whitefield, the English evangelist whose voice could reportedly be heard by thousands in open air, was the lightning rod of this awakening. His preaching was thoroughly evangelical and doctrinally sound. He proclaimed the necessity of the new birth — the supernatural regeneration of the soul by the Holy Spirit. He thundered the words of Christ: “You must be born again” (John 3:7, ESV). Whitefield preached the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, and the necessity of faith.
What made the First Great Awakening so powerful was not novelty, but truth preached with conviction. Edwards, in his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” reminded listeners of their utter dependence upon divine mercy. He was not a showman, but a theologian aflame with reverence. The fruit of the Awakening was lasting: new churches were founded, missions expanded, and a hunger for the Word of God rekindled. While excesses sometimes accompanied the movement — as with any revival — its central thrust was orthodox and Christ-centered. It produced enduring doctrinal and moral transformation, not momentary enthusiasm.
The Second Great Awakening: A Different Spirit
A century later, the Second Great Awakening (1790s–1840s) swept across America. The early phase, particularly in New England under men like Timothy Dwight (president of Yale and grandson of Edwards), retained much of the Calvinistic balance of the earlier revival. It called for repentance and faith rooted in divine grace. But as the movement spread westward — especially in the frontier revivals of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio — it began to change character.
At the center of this change was Charles Grandison Finney, a lawyer-turned-preacher from New York. Finney was brilliant, persuasive, and utterly convinced that revival could be engineered by human effort. He rejected key doctrines of Reformed theology — denying original sin, total depravity, and the necessity of the Spirit’s sovereign regeneration. In Finney’s view, the sinner possessed the natural ability to repent and believe; revival, therefore, was not a miracle of grace but a “result of the right use of means.”
Finney introduced what he called “new measures.” These included public pressure tactics such as the anxious bench (a seat for the convicted sinner to be publicly urged to repent), emotionally charged altar calls, and long revival “protracted meetings.” He believed the preacher’s job was to produce conversions through persuasive techniques. This was a sharp departure from Edwards and Whitefield, who saw revival as a sovereign act of God.
One man who saw the danger early was Asahel Nettleton, a Yale-educated evangelist and contemporary of Finney. Nettleton held firmly to Reformed theology and warned that Finney’s emotional methods would lead to shallow professions and false conversions. Time proved him right. In many of Finney’s revival sites, the initial excitement was followed by spiritual decline and even unbelief. Finney’s legacy birthed a more man-centered form of revivalism that would dominate American evangelicalism in the 19th and 20th centuries — emphasizing decisions rather than discipleship, emotion rather than doctrine, and human will rather than divine sovereignty.
The Fruits of the Revivals
The fruit of the First Great Awakening was deep and enduring. It revitalized colonial churches, birthed missionary zeal, and strengthened theological education through institutions like Princeton. Its legacy included the expansion of orthodox Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and Baptist witness. Most importantly, it united doctrine and devotion — truth and fire.
By contrast, the Second Great Awakening, especially under Finney’s influence, produced mixed results. It helped launch social reforms such as the abolition and temperance movements, but its theology often drifted toward moralism. Where Whitefield had declared that only God could raise the dead heart, Finney insisted that man could awaken himself. The fruit of such thinking is visible in modern evangelicalism: mass decisions without lasting discipleship, churches built on emotional experience rather than biblical exposition, and a culture of pragmatism that mistakes numerical success for spiritual health.
Yet even amid the confusion, God’s Spirit still worked. Men like Asahel Nettleton and Edward Dorr Griffin upheld the doctrines of grace, reminding the church that salvation cannot be manufactured. Revival, in its truest sense, must begin with the Spirit, not with technique. The difference between the two Awakenings can be summarized in one phrase: the first exalted God’s sovereignty; the second exalted man’s will.
The Nature of True Revival
True revival does not begin with tents, music, or clever methods. It begins with truth and repentance. The prophets of Israel did not call for emotional spectacle but for brokenness over sin and a return to covenant faithfulness. When Jonah preached in Nineveh, the entire city repented not because of persuasive tricks but because “the people of Nineveh believed God” (Jonah 3:5, ESV).
In every genuine awakening, the message has been the same: the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the all-sufficient grace of Christ. When men are humbled before a holy God, when the gospel is preached without compromise, and when the Spirit moves upon hearts, revival happens — not because we schedule it, but because God ordains it.
The Reformed View of Salvation: Regeneration and Sovereignty
At the heart of the Reformed understanding of revival is the doctrine of regeneration — the new birth. The Bible teaches that the natural man is “dead in the trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, ESV). Dead men do not respond to invitations; they must be made alive. Regeneration is that sovereign act by which the Holy Spirit gives new life to a sinner, enabling repentance and faith. Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wishes… so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8, ESV).
This stands in direct contrast to Finney’s theology. The true gospel does not call men to generate faith from within themselves but to receive what only God can grant. Repentance, too, is not a human achievement but a divine gift: “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25, ESV). Salvation is not man’s decision to cooperate with grace; it is God’s decision to bring the dead to life.
The Reformed believer understands revival as the outpouring of God’s regenerating power on a people who have grown cold. It is not an event to be advertised but a work to be prayed for. It begins not in the stadium but in the prayer closet, not in noise but in repentance.
What America Truly Needs
So, does America need another revival? The answer is yes — but only if it is of the right kind. We do not need another emotional campaign or media-driven religious fervor. We need what the First Great Awakening brought: preaching that exalts God, humbles man, and presents Christ crucified as the only hope for sinners. We need preachers with Whitefield’s conviction and Edwards’ theology, not Finney’s manipulations.
Our nation’s sickness is not primarily political but spiritual. We have forsaken truth for spectacle, holiness for happiness, and grace for self-help. If God were to send another genuine revival, it would look less like a concert and more like repentance — families confessing sin, churches returning to biblical preaching, and sinners crying out for mercy. True revival always begins with a deep sense of sin and ends with a deeper sense of God’s grace.
Conclusion: Salvation Is of the Lord
The cry for revival must be a cry for God Himself. America does not merely need to feel better; it needs to be born again. That cannot be accomplished by organization, marketing, or manipulation. It can only come through the Spirit of God reviving His church.
As Jonah declared from the belly of the fish, “Salvation belongs to the LORD!” (Jonah 2:9, ESV). That truth was the beating heart of the First Great Awakening and the great absence of the Second. Until we return to that conviction, our revivals will be little more than noise. But if God should again breathe upon His people by His Spirit, then and only then will the dry bones live.
That is the kind of revival Christians should pray for. Emotions should accompany the new birth, but these emotions are accompanied by an accurate understanding of the gospel and true repentance.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
rob@basedchristianity.org
RELATED CONTENT
Ryan Reeves discusses the First and Second Awakenings in these two videos. Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
W. Robert Godfrey discusses Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening. Finney is widely considered a heretic and a negative influence upon Christianity.
Evangelist Asahel Nettleton contended with Charles Finney and his methods of evangelism. Finney rejected the sounder theology of older theologians and pastors of the era. He revived a variant of the ancient heresy of Pelagianism.
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
I use words that reflect the “woke” culture and their redefinitions sometimes. It is hard to communicate effectively without using their twisted vocabulary. Rest assured that I do not believe gender ideology or “Progressivism”. Words and phrases like “trans man”, “trans women” , “transgender”, “transition” or similar words and phrases are nonsensical and reflect a distorted, imaginary worldview where men can become women and vice versa. The word “Progressive” itself is a propagandistic word that implies the Progressives are the positive force in society, whereas in reality, their cultic belief system is very corrosive to mankind.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@basedchristianity.org if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.