The word “revivalism” is a bit of slur for some today, and not just the highbrows, or the mainline, or the progressive evangelicals. I hear this term at times from quite unlikely sources. Photo by Christian Dubovan on Unsplash What do people mean by the term when they are criticizing it? I’ve long pondered this, wrote about it in
Mar 3, 2022·edited Mar 3, 2022Liked by Scot McKnight
In my SBC childhood there were two kinds of revivals: the more abstract kind (a spreading movement where God was at work bringing souls to Himself), and the staged kind. For the latter, you’ve captured the problem so well and explained why these revival meetings made me so uncomfortable, especially as a child. My church had sets of revival meetings twice a year with visiting evangelists. There was so much pressure, and it was tangible. It also explains why so many of us evangelical kids made multiple decisions to follow Jesus, or at least wanted to. Powerful and unrelenting pressure, reinforced by fear of going to hell that very night(!) It was a lot for a child to process. I learned so much about Jesus in the church of my childhood, but shuddered when the revivals came to town. As an older adolescent, we coped by making fun of the exaggerated preaching styles. I’m glad those days are long gone.
When I think of "revivalism" it's hard for me not to think of the more contemporary uses of that word and its current popular forms. I think of the self identified 'revivalists' who often work in various neo-pentecostal/charismatic and restorationist pentecostal networks, particularly within the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). The strong influence of this type of movement and sheer numbers of such folks in North America makes it hard not to include them in this discussion. Typically a major feature with such leaders and networked churches is "revival."
"“God loves you” as the first law in the four spiritual laws departs from any form of evangelism among previous revivalists. (I could be mistaken here.)" I am reminded that Edwards preached much, much more about God's loving intention for our joy and (eventual) bliss with him - as in his constant use of "sweetness" language - than about "sinners in the hands of an angry God" (https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/expect-joy). And that even in the early church, Origen interpreted the Song of Songs as an allegory of the believer's/the church's relationship with God, and that in the medieval church, Bernard picked up and amplified that emphasis, and Abelard placed God's love at the center of his understanding of the atonement. Just a few thoughts that come to mind - I think we could have a lively conversation on this.
And my apologies for only picking out a mistake. I’m glad for your reflection. Revivalism is not above reproach. But if it were not for YFC, I might not be a believer today.
Hi Scot. From a charismatic UK Anglican and then non-denom background here. I would say there are some other revivalists and revivals than the ones you mention, some I would treat with more suspicion than others. Azusa Street, Toronto blessing, Brownsville, Florida (Todd Bentley). I also heard a lot about the Ugandan revival around 1990 . Also going back in time the Welsh revival 1904 and 1859 Scottish revival. John Wimber had a strong impact on UK charismatics. Ken Gott in Sunderland. All these revivals seem to have in common: an awareness of God’s presence, repentance, many salvations, renewal of fervour for prayer, worship and evangelism, and in most cases manifestations of the spirit such as healings and speaking in tongues. The criticism I think it fair to make is that for many charismatics the focus becomes about revival chasing, they will go where the power is, often this can be built around a cult of personality. This can be to the detriment of them being salt and light in their own community and they may see their local church as somehow not special enough.
I appreciate these reflections. Coming from a denomination born out of revivalism (Nazarene), I see the value of an emphasis on ongoing renewal yet I have a growing appreciation for the process of discipleship, a sometimes overlooked practice (at least in my experience).
My first question when I hear the term "revival" is to ask what has died that needs to be brought back to life? We revive or give new life to something or someone who has died. And folks in churches have been "reviving" all kinds of things that should be left in their graves. But there is much in Scripture that Christians have allowed to "die" a quiet death - like Jesus' call to care for the naked, the sick, the homeless, etc., etc. We let the last part of Matthew 25 die without a funeral. "Revivifying" anything is about giving new life to something that has been allowed to die. For me the term "revival" as used in evangelical circles is all about the wrong things. I won't use the word until it's used about real things.
You have chipped a little crust off the top of something that has been gnawing at me for years in general and recent months more in particular, namely that so many of my contemporaries are seemingly against (what I'd be mostly inclined to call something like) "conversionism", but no one seems to be able to articulate another option.
In my SBC childhood there were two kinds of revivals: the more abstract kind (a spreading movement where God was at work bringing souls to Himself), and the staged kind. For the latter, you’ve captured the problem so well and explained why these revival meetings made me so uncomfortable, especially as a child. My church had sets of revival meetings twice a year with visiting evangelists. There was so much pressure, and it was tangible. It also explains why so many of us evangelical kids made multiple decisions to follow Jesus, or at least wanted to. Powerful and unrelenting pressure, reinforced by fear of going to hell that very night(!) It was a lot for a child to process. I learned so much about Jesus in the church of my childhood, but shuddered when the revivals came to town. As an older adolescent, we coped by making fun of the exaggerated preaching styles. I’m glad those days are long gone.
When I think of "revivalism" it's hard for me not to think of the more contemporary uses of that word and its current popular forms. I think of the self identified 'revivalists' who often work in various neo-pentecostal/charismatic and restorationist pentecostal networks, particularly within the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). The strong influence of this type of movement and sheer numbers of such folks in North America makes it hard not to include them in this discussion. Typically a major feature with such leaders and networked churches is "revival."
"“God loves you” as the first law in the four spiritual laws departs from any form of evangelism among previous revivalists. (I could be mistaken here.)" I am reminded that Edwards preached much, much more about God's loving intention for our joy and (eventual) bliss with him - as in his constant use of "sweetness" language - than about "sinners in the hands of an angry God" (https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/expect-joy). And that even in the early church, Origen interpreted the Song of Songs as an allegory of the believer's/the church's relationship with God, and that in the medieval church, Bernard picked up and amplified that emphasis, and Abelard placed God's love at the center of his understanding of the atonement. Just a few thoughts that come to mind - I think we could have a lively conversation on this.
I think that's right about the first line. Bright got it from a business man if I'm not mistaken.
I think you have slight error in your references. The Four Spiritual Laws came from Campus Crusade, not Youth for Christ.
Thanks Paul, and I have made this mistake before. We got it corrected in King Jesus Gospel. I edited the above.
And my apologies for only picking out a mistake. I’m glad for your reflection. Revivalism is not above reproach. But if it were not for YFC, I might not be a believer today.
Thanks Paul. My father coached a cross country team and a Paul Luedtke was one of his favorite runners.
👍🏼
Hi Scot. From a charismatic UK Anglican and then non-denom background here. I would say there are some other revivalists and revivals than the ones you mention, some I would treat with more suspicion than others. Azusa Street, Toronto blessing, Brownsville, Florida (Todd Bentley). I also heard a lot about the Ugandan revival around 1990 . Also going back in time the Welsh revival 1904 and 1859 Scottish revival. John Wimber had a strong impact on UK charismatics. Ken Gott in Sunderland. All these revivals seem to have in common: an awareness of God’s presence, repentance, many salvations, renewal of fervour for prayer, worship and evangelism, and in most cases manifestations of the spirit such as healings and speaking in tongues. The criticism I think it fair to make is that for many charismatics the focus becomes about revival chasing, they will go where the power is, often this can be built around a cult of personality. This can be to the detriment of them being salt and light in their own community and they may see their local church as somehow not special enough.
I appreciate these reflections. Coming from a denomination born out of revivalism (Nazarene), I see the value of an emphasis on ongoing renewal yet I have a growing appreciation for the process of discipleship, a sometimes overlooked practice (at least in my experience).
My first question when I hear the term "revival" is to ask what has died that needs to be brought back to life? We revive or give new life to something or someone who has died. And folks in churches have been "reviving" all kinds of things that should be left in their graves. But there is much in Scripture that Christians have allowed to "die" a quiet death - like Jesus' call to care for the naked, the sick, the homeless, etc., etc. We let the last part of Matthew 25 die without a funeral. "Revivifying" anything is about giving new life to something that has been allowed to die. For me the term "revival" as used in evangelical circles is all about the wrong things. I won't use the word until it's used about real things.
You have chipped a little crust off the top of something that has been gnawing at me for years in general and recent months more in particular, namely that so many of my contemporaries are seemingly against (what I'd be mostly inclined to call something like) "conversionism", but no one seems to be able to articulate another option.
Thanks Zarman, and I have made this mistake before. We got it corrected in King Jesus Gospel. I edited the above.