In the world of Evangelicalism there are many kinds of revivals in which people participate. According to Webster’s dictionary, a revival is “(1) : a period of renewed religious interest (2) : an often highly emotional evangelistic meeting or series of meetings.” In this instance, I believe each definition refers to a different kind of revival and will discuss each separately.
Revivals are a rather contemporary phenomenon and do not have a long history in the Christian Church. We have the First (1730’s-40’s) and Second Great Awakenings (1800’s) in which the revival mentality began primarily in England and the American Colonies. These Awakenings were spread by traveling ministers who preached the gospel from any pulpit given to them. These “camp meetings,” as many of them became called, were basically outdoor church services where people were told the salvation message in very clear terms. They focused on guilt to renew religious interest in a person who was already a believer. According to Webster’s, these Awakenings would qualify as a revival. They renewed many people’s interest in Christianity.
However, these revivals, as with the revivals of today, have influenced the development of Christianity in the United States. As American Christians, we are very independent and autonomous. We do not believe in state-run establishments but rely very much on the priesthood of the believer. While independence is not entirely a bad thing, independence outside of a Biblical context can be dangerous. When I speak of a healthy revival, I am referring to a renewed interest in Christ and His message, as stated by Webster’s first definition, or as discussed by Spurgeon below. However, when I speak of a Charismatic Revival I am not speaking of just a renewed interest in Christ. Many of these revivals rely heavily on emotionally connecting to God and depend upon an atmosphere that is charged with fervor. Individuals travel many miles to “feel” God’s presence within one place. This is dangerous because people begin to rely on the experience that they have rather than defining their existence through scripture. Not every emotional or mystical experience is scriptural, and we should test our experiences against Scripture.
For example: 1) John 1: 1 – the word “Word” is a translation of the Greek “logos” which means “the reason” or rational thought- it was written to convince the Greeks that God was reason; 2) Paul focused on reasoning from the Scriptures: Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:19; 3) We should worship in balance: Mark 12:30; 4) I John 4:1– always test church doctrines against scripture 5) As well as several others: 1 Peter 3:15, Ephesians 4:14, Revelation 22:18,19, Cor 14:40, Pr 28:26, Pr 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 5:6, Titus 2:6, Titus 2:12, 1 Peter 4:7 It is possible to become so independent that we move outside of orthodoxy. Without education of Christian tradition or theology, all of us are susceptible to this.
I agree with Charles Spurgeon in reference to what a revival is and is not:
“It is a sorrowful fact that many who are spiritually alive greatly need reviving. It is sorrowful because it is a proof of the existence of much spiritual evil. A man in sound health with every part of his body in a vigorous condition does not need reviving. He requires daily sustenance, but reviving would be quite out of place. If he has not yet attained maturity growth will be most desirable, but a hale hearty young man wants no reviving, it would be thrown away upon him. Who thinks of reviving the noonday sun, the ocean at its flood, or the year at its prime? The tree planted by the rivers of water loaded with fruit needs not excite our anxiety for its revival, for its fruitfulness and beauty charm every one. Such should be the constant condition of the sons of God. Feeding and lying down in green pastures and led by the still waters they ought not always to be crying, “my leanness, my leanness, woe unto me.” Sustained by gracious promises and enriched out of the fullness which God has treasured up in his dear Son, their souls should prosper and be in health, and their piety ought to need no reviving. They should aspire to a higher blessing, a richer mercy, than a mere revival.”
So, you would not consider thousands of people coming to God in the early church, as recorded in the Bible (eg, Acts) a revival? I would. I find Webster’s two definitions of revival rather weak; nothing like the early church examples. Maybe we see revival in two different lights.
I think you should go back and examine the word, logos. Having been to Seminary, I was never taught that it meant ‘reason’ or ‘rational thought’. It was translated as Word. Paul used reasoning and rational thoughts particularly in Romans. He also used quite a bit in Ephesians and Galatians too.
The word ‘revival’ is a misused word describing something that actually pertains to the fact man can have periods of being out of the will of God yet being saved. An individual needs to be brought back to the throne of God to realize the purpose for which he was created. Man was created to worship God and to have fellowship with Him. It is a relationship which has been broken because of sin. Recognizing and confessing sin is the first step of returning back to worship and essentially being ‘revived’ in the spirit. Revival can only begin in one person at a time. One does not need to travel vast distances in order to experience spiritual revival. Simply coming to God to confess sins, asking forgiveness, and continuing on in a spiritual walk can be done at home, church, or any place that will afford a quiet time to reflect upon God and His Will for your life. A true revival is seen when a person, apart from others, shows by his walk, manner, and lifestyle that reflects the joy of Jesus. One does not need to be ‘caught up’ in the moment in order to experience revival. Yes, it is exciting to be near others who believe and share common beliefs. It does lift a person up but it does not necessarily constitute a revival. And it is temporary at best especially if you believe you have to be in the experience of the moment in order to feel that way. For example, I am a great baseball fan. I get caught up in the moment when my favorite team wins especially if I am in the stadium with others who share the same feelings. However, that is a euphoria time that is temporary and though I am joyful in the moment, it does nothing else for me later. It does not give me peace. It does not give me forgiveness. However, the Word of God does all of this and more. I can share more and I am by no means an authority on this topic.
Thanks, I double checked logos again. It does indeed mean reason- it begins with Heraclitus who is a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. John was writing to a primarily Greek audience when he wrote his epistle. Because the Greeks were very much into reason and philosophy, John was trying to let them know that he knew who was “reason” Himself. I like your definition of revival :).
I’ve traveled to France to take a look at the Eiffel tower, I’ve traveled to Colorado to go skiing. I’ve also traveled to attend college and every year or so I travel to see my family. If I’m traveling for all of these other reasons, it stands to reason (logos) that I should be willing to travel to see some brothers and sisters in Christ and be encouraged by them.
The word blue can mean many different things. I could be referring to the color blue. I could be referring to the ocean (the big blue). I could even feel blue. Just because I use the word blue in a particular way doesn’t mean the other uses of the word are invalid.
I’m sure you are familiar with the phrase “Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship” if Christianity is a relationship then we have room for both reason and emotion. If I related to my spouse in only a logic way we would have a boring one sided relationship. If I related with my friends in only a logical way, spending all of my time reasoning with them I wouldn’t have any friends. I want to have fun with my spouse and my friends so it stands to reason that I would also want to have fun with God.
If reason is the only way to connect with God I feel sorry for all of the mentally handicapped people out there.
BigBlock,
I don’t think that anyone would advocate discarding emotion, or that Christianity shouldn’t include both reason and emotion. I have certainly not seen anything on this blog that would suggest such an extreme position, and I don’t know that it’s fair to read that into any of the writings here.
That being said, there are two sides to this issue. You are correct to point out that reason alone is insufficient to know God. It is also true that emotion alone is insufficient to know God. All religions have emotional experiences, and many adherents to other religions have estatic emotional experiences of what they believe to be God. Also, check out the blog entry on this site about autism, which explicitly agrees with your concerns about the mentally handicapped in that reason alone is not sufficient to know God or be made in His image.
I would also express concern with the statement that “Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship”, which is a sentiment that is not necessarily in congruence with the Bible. While Christianity is about a relationship with God, it is not limited to a relationship. Christianity is a specific set of doctrines or beliefs that are based on the witness of the Bible. For example:I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried…on the third day he rose from the dead. All our emotional experiences as Christians must be filtered through correct doctrines (beliefs) which come from the Bible. This is the proper balance between emotion and reason. We can discuss the meaning of words such as “revival” or “blue” by defining a particular aspect of the word in question (in this case the sense of an “emotional evangelistic meeting”) in terms of whether it conforms to various Biblical doctrines, as the quote from Spurgeon does or as Ken’s post does…in fact, one of the scriptures quoted (I Jn 4:1) commands us to do so. Traveling to be encouraged by other believers is somewhat beside the point.
Click here for the article on autism.
I agree with Charles Spurgeon. If we are healthy we don’t need reviving. I don’t think the church is healthy. Christians are not only rejecting the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but are mocking them along with the pagans. Divorce is rampant throughout the churches. Abortion is in the churches. Homosexuality is in the churches. The spirit of the Pharisee is in the church. Gossip is in the church. Love for money is in the church. The Church is not healthy, it is sickly and it needs reviving.
I think you guys are being silly. Look up the word revival on the topical index of http://www.biblegateway.com/ even if you don’t seem to know what the word revival means, they seem to. They also list many instances of it in the Bible.
BigBlock,
Is it possible that the “problems” you mention are not the result of “rejecting the gifts of the Holy Spirit” as much as they are the results of a culture which is not interested in sound teaching or doctrine? I would argue that one of the biggest indicators of a church that is sick or has lost its way is an organization which is never willing to move to what Paul calls the “solid food” of doctrine or teachings rather than the milk of enjoyable experiences. This type of church puts all its emphasis on generating a particular psychological “worship” experience, but there is no systematic or deep teaching of doctrine, leaving believers rudderless in drifting into potentially distructive behavior. If gossip or abortion or a love of money is condoned, this seems to point to a church which places individual experience above Biblical teaching.
Calling people silly in a discussion is not helpful or fruitful for trying to make your point, particularly when the author in question has taken a great deal of care to present her argument in a rigorous manner. I wonder if you are not missing the point of this particular blog. Notice that the author wrote: “When I speak of a healthy revival, I am referring to a renewed interest in Christ and His message”. No-one here is denying the idea of revival as a Biblical concept, and it is unfair of you to suggest that this is the case. What *is* being questioned is “revivals [which] rely heavily on emotionally connecting to God and depend upon an atmosphere that is charged with fervor”. The author clearly stated that she was discussing “revival” in this context. In other words, a revival which relies too heavily on emotional experience without a strong doctrinal core is open to the charge of psychological manipulation. Thus, the “camp meeting” mentality in which people must return to revivals again and again to “experience” God. The danger here is that people begin to associate God’s presence with a particular emotional state experienced in a particular context, which is *not* Biblical. For believers, God is present in our lives no matter what our emotional state is.
I would love to continue to discuss this, and would be happy to respond further, but only if you are willing to engage the specific points being raised rather than reading things which aren’t there into comments (i.e., setting up a “straw man” argument) and then dismissing us as “silly”.
Here’s an interesting article about emotional experiences and religion in general and Christianity and particular:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/aprilweb-only/25-41.0.html?start=1