Article

The Anxious Bench, Revivalism, And Charles G. Finney

by on November 4, 2026 | Comment

After an animated exhortation to sinners, an invitation is given to all who “desire the prayers of Christians,” who are “determined to seek salvation,” . . . to come forward and kneel at a particular seat or seats in front of the pulpit. An appropriate “song” is then sung, during which the “mourners” are expected to come forward. During this singing, exhortations are continued, urging, in the strongest manner, as many to come forward as possibly can be induced to do so. When as many as can be persuaded have come forward, all Christians are exhorted to get on their knees and pray for the mourners. Now a scene of noise and confusion of voices and sounds ensues, which my pen cannot describe. All pray audibly, ministers and people, male and female, and often with the utmost vociferation. I have heard this confused mingling of voices at the distance of half a mile. After this season of united prayer, the ministers, elders, and indeed all who are disposed, both male and female, “talk” to the mourners, giving them instruction, exhortations. During this, the singing is kept up in the loudest possible manner. The selection of tunes and “songs” is often not only in bad taste, but wholly inappropriate to the state of the mourners. Soon, a call is made by someone for prayer. Then follows another scene of prayer which is succeeded by another scene of “talking” to the “mourners” and singing of “songs.” If it be in the day, this alternation of exercises is continued until the regular exercises of the meeting call for a cessation. If it be at night, it continues very long, sometimes till day. During these exercises you often hear what is called shouting. “Some” Christian has “got happy,” or some one of the mourners has “professed” as it is called, i.e., has obtained relief, and is thought to be converted.1

This 1845 newspaper article describes a series of meetings held outdoors in the West.2 The “particular seat or seats” at the front of the gathering went by different names, including mourners’ seat, mourners’ bench, anxious seat, or anxious bench. In this article I will call it the anxious bench or bench.3 The anxious bench was one of the tools used in revivals collectively called New Measures. The bench, used during the Second Great Awakening, was considered by its proponents to be an innovative and effective evangelistic technique. The most influential proponent was Charles G. Finney (1792–1875), who used the bench during evangelistic gatherings that were under his direction. The purpose of the device, according to Albert B. Dod, was to give a designated place during a revival service for those anxious about salvation so they could be addressed directly by the revivalist and be prayed for by the people in attendance.4 Separated from the general gathering, the occupants of the bench were addressed as those most likely to yield to the gospel.5 This description of a camp meeting in the Religious Herald shows how unruly such meetings could be, but it would be unfair to think that whenever a revivalist used the anxious bench it produced chaos. Open-air meetings tended to be extreme. The indoor gatherings Finney often directed were less disorderly. The important thing to note is that repeated calls for sinners to go to the bench, continuous singing, calls for prayer, preaching, and other actions wore down attendees so that some bowed to the pressure and joined the professing group.

Charles Finney saw his duty as not only presenting the message but going even further by pressuring the listener to act. The revivalist’s task included calling the sinner “voluntarily to renounce his sins.”6 Renouncing sin is important for repentance, but Finney’s listeners were being presented with a spiritual debate, an either/or choice that they were fully capable of deciding for themselves in their own strength. In his method, accepting the work of Jesus was presented as a choice, and then the sinner was to decide whether the gospel was reasonable and act. The preacher’s duty is described even further by Finney in his Memoirs:

I saw clearly that just at the point where the sinner is thoroughly instructed, and while under the voice of the living preacher with the strong pressure of truth set home by the Holy Ghost upon him, something was needed to induce him to act then and there upon his convictions. I concluded then, and have always thought since, that to call the sinner right out from the mixed multitude to take a stand for God, to be as open and frank in his renunciation of sin before the world as he had been in committing it; to call him to change sides, to renounce the world and come over to Christ, to renounce his own righteousness and accept that of Christ, in short to do just that which constitutes a use of this measure [the anxious bench]. I have always found it a thing greatly needed; and I might relate scores of instances in which proud men, after resisting it for a time, saw the propriety and necessity of it, and themselves came forward to the anxious seat and gave themselves to God. And I have often been told that they believed if they had not been called on to take that step, and if they had not taken it or something equivalent to it, they never should have been converted.7

It is clear from this quotation that Finney used the bench to encourage the sinner to take action. The “strong pressure of truth set home by the Holy Ghost” was not sufficient to save; something else was needed. Unredeemed man is faced with a choice once the Spirit has brought him to knowledge of the truth; he is fully capable of making the decision in and of himself, but he needs to be encouraged to believe through use of the bench.

John W. Nevin’s book The Anxious Bench was written with the hope of reconciling the two factions that had developed in the New Measures controversy, with the bench serving as a symbol of New Measures and revivalism.8 In chapter 4, Nevin reckons four objections to the bench. The first is “the Anxious Bench, in the case of an awakened sinner, creates a false issue for the conscience.”9 If one who is awakened is called to the bench, then the issue is no longer the salvation of the soul but whether or not the individual will go to the bench.10 The second objection raised is “the Anxious Bench, in the case of those who come to it, is adapted by its circumstances to disturb and distract the thoughts of the truly serious, and thus to obstruct the action of truth in their minds.”11 Nevin adds that the emotional aspect of a call to the bench is especially appealing to youth and women. Further, he was fearful that what was being perceived as a person coming to faith was the individual yielding to emotions brought on by the revivalistic atmosphere rather than thoughtful submission to the gospel.12 The third objection is “the Anxious Bench is adapted to create and foster the ruinous imagination, that there is involved in the act of going to it a real decision in favor of religion.”13 Nevin observed that the use of physical artifacts, ceremonies, and practices in Roman Catholicism to bring religious blessings is similar to revivalist technique with the bench and associated pressures. The bench takes the place of regeneration.14 Nevin’s fourth and final objection is “harm and loss to the souls of men flow largely from the use of the Anxious Bench.”15 Emotion rules the service when the bench is in use. The association of the bench with salvation deceives the sinner because the comprehensiveness of salvation is reduced to an emotional, high-pressure, boiler-room environment. Many, said Nevin, had been deceived into believing they were saved by walking to the bench, even though the preacher’s intention was not necessarily to associate the bench with salvation.16

In chapter 5, Nevin presents the proponents’ defense for using the bench. The defenders say, first, that it is used “to bring awakened sinners to a decision.”17 There is nothing wrong with confronting sinners with the necessity of decision, but, Nevin asks, What is it that the sinner decides when coerced to decision? Surely the revivalist’s intention is noble because his desire is to see sinners believe the gospel, but the spiritual reality of salvation and its inward transformation cannot be accomplished with physical leverage. The bench proponents’ second defense is that “sinners are not brought exactly to a decision by the Anxious Bench but they are brought at least to a committal.”18 Thus, the bench is said to cause the awakened to bind themselves to seek the Lord and become hopeful about their salvation. The third defense is that “the ground may be slightly shifted again, so as to present the measure, not in the light of a bond upon the sinner’s soul, but as a prop and support rather to his weakness. A first step often costs more than a hundred that follow.”19 The sinner is to be encouraged to go down the aisle to the bench as a first step, giving strength to believe. Defenders of New Measures contended, “A world of hesitation in certain circumstances, is surmounted by a single effort to move.”20 Proponents added that drunkards had been helped to reform through a similar technique. It is hard to believe that bench proponents paralleled abstinence from alcohol with coming to Christ. Nevin points out that believing in the Lord is nothing like an alcoholic taking a temperance pledge. A temperance pledge is based solely on an exercise of the will, while believing in the Lord is accomplished through a will transformed by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Temperance can be achieved in the flesh without grace, while salvation can be achieved only by the gracious power of God. The fourth defense is that the awakened sinner is given the opportunity to have suitable instruction in the gospel at the bench.21 This, says Nevin, simply did not happen in the meetings he observed. In revivalist meetings, counseling sessions lasted no more than a few minutes because counselees were handled in assembly line fashion.22 The fifth and final defense is “the anxious should be called out, in order that they may be made the subjects of prayer.”23 Nevin believed that the chaotic environment resulting from using the bench was anything but prayerful.24

Finney not only used the bench in his own meetings but also actively promoted its wider use. In Lectures on Revivals of Religion, he gives practical instructions on techniques for promoting revivals. The two chief points of discussion are, first, that “under the gospel dispensation, God has established no particular system of measures to be employed and invariably adhered to in promoting religion”; and second, that “present forms of public worship, and everything, so far as measures are concerned, have been arrived at by degrees, and by a succession of New Measures.”25 The church has great liberty in the means and mode of gospel preaching because the Bible, says Finney, gives no instruction concerning the proper form: “THE GOSPEL was then preached as the appointed means of promoting religion; and it was left to the discretion of the church to determine, from time to time, what measures shall be adopted, and what forms pursued, in giving the gospel its power.”26

According to the proponents of New Measures, the church’s duty was to preach the gospel as efficiently as possible, with New Measures techniques aiding the effective power of the gospel message. With these foundational principles in mind, Finney equates the bench with conversion, in that one who is unwilling to go to the bench is unwilling “to do anything for Christ.”27 He believes that during the apostolic era, the practice of baptism served the same purpose the bench fulfilled in the early nineteenth century.28 The apostles, says Finney, preached the gospel to the people, and those willing to side with Christ were called out for baptism; thus, the sacrament became a condition, or initiation rite, for admission to the church.29 He fails to notice that baptism was instituted by Christ as one of two sacraments and that it was neither to be added to nor supplanted. In revivalism the bench became the natural evolution of baptism. Finney says that the bench is a legitimate descendant of baptism, and he adds, “Perhaps it is not too much to say, that it is impossible for God himself to bring about reformation but by new measures. At least, it is a fact that God has always chosen this way, as the wisest and best that he could devise or adopt.”30 Also, “without new measures it is impossible that the church should succeed in gaining the attention of the world to religion. …But new measures we must have.”31

Finney says that as Christianity has advanced through the centuries, techniques commensurate with the times but not drawn directly by good and necessary inference from Scripture have brought real success. The external pressure that raises the emotions and prompts a prospective conversion candidate to walk to the bench is necessary because “it is impossible for God himself to bring about reformation but by new measures.” New measures are not optional but required, says Finney, because God reforms the church by the means of new measures. The church should expect techniques to change because, as the years pass, people change and the measures must be adjusted. Finney saw the bench as a necessary tool of his time and the means for bringing sinners to Christ, but he also believed that in succeeding years the bench might yield to newer measures.

Because of the influence, success, and prominence of Charles Finney, the New Measures took hold. Finney’s apparent achievements gave credibility to the technique he employed and induced his contemporaries to use the same method. The bench was a tool revivalists used, implementing the New Measures to rouse the sinner to will himself from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God. In Nevin’s points of refutation, the emphasis is on God who works in conversion, not man. In Finney’s teaching, salvation is a change of mind, and if a person is not convinced by preaching, then the anxious bench and other new measures must be used to induce him to act.

As readers process this article, it may become clear that things have not changed all that much since the era of Charles G. Finney and that modern churches are still tempted to rely on techniques not found in or based on Scripture. At the heart of his views regarding New Measures in general and the anxious bench in particular is a misunderstanding of the condition of men and women regarding sin and a sad lack of knowledge regarding the nature of God. The idea Finney promoted—that the Holy Spirit needs the help of emotions and the pressure of the anxious bench to apply redemption—should shock you. If it does not, you need to rethink your doctrine of God. A fundamental point of theology is God’s aseity, which is his independence. He needs absolutely nothing but himself, which stands in stark contrast with fallen man, who is a full-time needer requiring God’s air to breathe, his ground to live on, the depths of his earth to provide an abundance of minerals for life, the produce he condescends to allow man to cultivate, his cattle on a thousand hills, rain that falls on the just and the unjust. Do not forget that God spoke and created the heavens and the earth—this is mind-boggling. Finney’s idea that the Holy Spirit is incapable of fully applying the work of redemption, accomplished by the Son, as planned by the Father is, to say the least, a great error. It has been said that all doctrinal errors stem from an inadequate understanding of the doctrine of God, and Finney exemplifies this in his understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in applying redemption. His error should prompt us to ask how many churches today truly understand how the Holy Spirit applies Christ’s work to sinners. And even though most reject the anxious bench today, we ought to ask whether practices are still used that attempt to supplement or replace the work only God can do.

Notes

  1. “Camp Meeting in the West,” The Religious Herald. (Hartford, CT) May 24, 1845, www.loc.gov/item/sn85038314/1845-05-24/ed-1/.
  2. “Camp Meeting.”
  3. “Camp Meeting.” Generally, denominations such as the Methodists and Cumberland Presbyterians used “mourners,” while the German Reformed and Presbyterians used “anxious.” In later years, the term “anxious bench” was used to describe candidates running for political office.
  4. Albert B. Dod, Essays, Theological and Miscellaneous (Wiley and Putnam, 1847), 122.
  5. Paul E. Johnson, A Shopkeeper’s Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815–1837 (Hill and Wang, 1978), 101–2.
  6. Charles G. Finney, The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, ed. Garth Rosell and Richard Dupuis (Academie, 1989), 321. This edition is restored from Finney’s original manuscript published in a severely edited form in 1876 after his death. This edition was reprinted often, but it was not until the 1989 edition that Finney’s complete original manuscript was published. The 1876 edition had portions removed that were considered controversial by the editor, James Harris Fairchild (1817–1902), who was president of Finney’s Oberlin College in Ohio. For more than a century, readers of Memoirs were provided with a censored picture of Finney.
  7. Finney, Memoirs, 323.
  8. For a fine study of Nevin, see D. G. Hart, John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist (P&R, 2005).
  9. John Williamson Nevin, The Anxious Bench, American Religious Thought of the 18th and 19th Centuries Series, ed. Bruce Kuklick (Lippincott, 1846; repr., New York: Garland Publishing, 1987), 29.
  10. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 29–31.
  11. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 31.
  12. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 31–33.
  13. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 33.
  14. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 34–35.
  15. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 35.
  16. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 35–39.
  17. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 41.
  18. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 42.
  19. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 44.
  20. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 44.
  21. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 45.
  22. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 45–46.
  23. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 48.
  24. Nevin, Anxious Bench, 41–48.
  25. Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals (Oberlin, Ohio, [1868]), 250.
  26. Finney, Lectures on Revivals, 251.
  27. Finney, Lectures on Revivals, 268.
  28. Finney, Lectures on Revivals, 268.
  29. Finney, Lectures on Revivals, 269.
  30. Finney, Lectures on Revivals, 272.
  31. Finney, Lectures on Revivals, 273.

©Barry Waugh. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Barry Waugh
    Author Image

    Barry Waugh (PhD, WTS) is a member of a PCA congregation in South Carolina and has edited Presbyterians of the Past since 2015. He has also written for the Westminster Theological Journal and The Confessional Presbyterian; contributed to Gary L. W. Johnson’s, B. B. Warfield: Essays on His Life and Thought, 2007; and edited Letters from the Front: J. Gresham Machen’s Correspondence from World War I, 2012.

    More by Barry Waugh ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law (Matt 22:37–40). Comments that are profane, that deny the moral law, that deny the gospel, that advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.