Thread: What is revival? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028894
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Here in Kenya I often encounter people from a variety of church backgrounds, including amongst the Anglicans with whom I am working,who have ancestors who were involved in what has been called "The East African Revival" of the last century.
There seems to be strong link to the Keswick holiness movement and in some cases a very legalistic approach to life.
I can also recall the 70s, 80s and 90s focus in some churches in the UK praying for and predicting that revival is coming.
So I've been thinking a lot about this and my questions are:
What is revival? Is there really such a thing?
What do we know from Church History and Scripture about what it might look like if it does exist?
I'll start the ball rolling with an observation.
In the Acts of the Apostles and the stories about the start of Christianity we read about the Gospel spreading dramatically as a result of both the words and the deeds of the early church. Is revival seeking to recapture that beginning? If so, I'd say that that at this point in church history it's a very mixed bag.....
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:

I'll start the ball rolling with an observation.
In the Acts of the Apostles and the stories about the start of Christianity we read about the Gospel spreading dramatically as a result of both the words and the deeds of the early church. Is revival seeking to recapture that beginning? If so, I'd say that that at this point in church history it's a very mixed bag.....
It was a very mixed bag even in the beginning. Acts covers maybe about 30 years, during which there is a single 'revival' in modern paralance, that in Jerusalem. The rest of the spread appears to be mostly of fairly tiny communities often numbering in the low tens (or less).
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
I agree, chris stiles, it was a mixed bag from the beginning.
But is that what revival is about-the making of converts/ disciples?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
There are two competing definitions of revival, one refers to re-invigoration of Christians, the other refers to mass conversions.

The only reason I get When the Spirit comes with power by John White off my shelves these days is to offer the following definition (p32) for threads like these.

These are what I see as the three most significant factors (out of a total list of six offered by White):
quote:
I believe there have been revivals which have met those conditions, but also that they are:

[ 16. February 2015, 09:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Places can be ripe for conversion. Most conversions, I think, are from one denomination to another. As in the Gospels - Judaism to Christianity.

When my Dad was a minister in South Africa (60s) he converted whole villages, and lots of them. They then built they churches which did a lot of good and were focal points for the village.

The places were ripe for conversion because the old denominations had become tired, lethargic and corrupt.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
At university, several people I knew were in evangelical fellowships expecting revival any minute. Most of them were primarily expecting a revival among believers, who would return to embrace sound doctrine, with that creating a burst of very effective evangelism to start the conversion of others.

Of course, each group had a different idea of what the "true faith" that everyone would come to embrace would be.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Some years ago it was quite a thing amongst some charismatic evangelical Anglicans to claim that revival would happen in x place during y year.

They were meaning that thousands would flock back to the church.

To my knowledge, this never happened.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This is usually the point where I link to this article in which the promised UK 1990 revival is creatively redefined after the fact as "signs of increased spiritual effectiveness".

All too often, revival (as in mass conversions) is prophesied/hyped, then redefined afterwards as "that was a good meeting", spawning its own brand (in all senses) of worship, books, conference cycles, and so on.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Places can be ripe for conversion. Most conversions, I think, are from one denomination to another. As in the Gospels - Judaism to Christianity.
I hate to be a pedant*, but where in the Gospels does anyone stop being Jewish?

*this statement may not be literally true.

t
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Sorry Eutychus, I realise from your comments that this is a topic which must have come up again and again and is probably tedious in the extreme for those of you who have been on the Ship for far longer than me.
I too am weary of ridiculous claims, I am much more interested in hearing other people's analyses of what constitutes revival if there were to be such a thing. I hoped that maybe there were some experts in church history around who might enlighten me!
PS Thanks for the link
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
fwiw...i suppose revival Might mean when loads of people become Christians in a short period of time..... rather than..... one at a time which is what usually happens.

Bit of a pastoral nightmare though, so i don't pray for it
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
A bit flippant but my experience of revival from spending time in Kenya was "extremely loud music that will go on continuously day and night for approximately three days".
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it's not too hard to find 'sane' or balanced accounts/definitions of revival if one is prepared to cut through the hype and misplaced enthusiasm that surrounds the topic.

For my money, the book 'On Revival' which came out of a conference I was fortunate enough to attend at King's College, London in 2002 is probably one of the best treatments of the subject.

It's currently unavailable on Amazon but you might find second-hand copies around.

At the conference, a Baptist minister, Steve Latham, gave a handy summary/synopsis of what we mean by 'revival' in contemporary terms - I can summarise that when I have more time.

Some of the conference delegates seemed disappointed because the whole thing was decidedly low-key and academic ... with a strong emphasis on the sociological aspects ... hardly surprising as Walker is a sociologist.

However, at no point was revival or even revivalism criticised or 'explained away' in purely sociological terms ... although some of the more Calvinistic as well as some of the more charismatic delegates seemed to think it was ... but that's not the impression I picked up.

If anything, it was pretty positive whilst striking notes of caution.

From the early '80s until 2000 I was involved with the 'restoration' scene where it was taught that once we'd 'restored' the Church (whatever that meant ...) we would see unprecedented global revival ...

It was a recipe for disillusionment. How would we tell when things had been properly 'restored'?

There was a lot of revivalist hype and over-egged expectations in the 1990s but this seems to have peaked around the time of the Toronto Blessing and pretty much stabilised/died off with the subsequent petering out of the Pensacola 'outpouring' and the Lakeland thing ...

You still get pockets of revivalist expectation though.

It's interesting that you should mention the East African Revival of the 1950s. The late, very lamented Shipmate Ken used to say that the influence of the East African Revival on charismatic Anglicanism in particular and revivalist expectations in the UK in general, has largely been over-looked.

I'd agree with him on that one.

People like Arthur Wallis, the elder-statesman of the UK 'restorationist' scene were stirred by accounts from East Africa, the Isle of Lewis and other places where there were revivals and so on.

In the South Wales where I grew up there were still loads of stories about the Welsh Revival of 1904-05 and I knew people whose parents had been converted at that time ... although I think I was aware even then that things weren't quite as straightforward as the glowing revivalist accounts made them out to be.

I could go on and on and on and on about this topic ... I have been known to in the past. But I'll spare you all that.

Suffice to say that whilst I don't dismiss the idea of revivals and outpourings and so on ... my views these days are similar to those Eutychus has aired. I've heard far too much hype and seen very little actual evidence on the ground.

That said - I think there are 'people movements' such as Boogie has described in South Africa where there are wholesale conversions and so on - but these are rare and there's often more to it than simply lively preaching and conviction of sin and so on ...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Places can be ripe for conversion. Most conversions, I think, are from one denomination to another. As in the Gospels - Judaism to Christianity.
I hate to be a pedant*, but where in the Gospels does anyone stop being Jewish?

You are absolutely right - I should have said 'as in the Early Church'

[Smile]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are two competing definitions of revival, one refers to re-invigoration of Christians, the other refers to mass conversions.
I think there is also an American meaning, in which "a revival" merely means "the holding of an evangelistic crusade".

I say this, not to be pedantic, but simply to avoid confusion.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said - I think there are 'people movements' such as Boogie has described in South Africa where there are wholesale conversions and so on - but these are rare and there's often more to it than simply lively preaching and conviction of sin and so on ...
Thanks, Gamaliel
But (general question here)what are the other factors involved?
The account of Jerusalem in Acts seems to have involved powerful preaching, some supernatural stuff and a radical lifestyle on the part of the church (The everything in common thing).
Now I think those things are normative to some people and descriptive to others and therein lies some of the problem for me in figuring all this out!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Two thoughts re. Acts in general (and please note that I am not a "cessationist").

1. God needed to do something pretty special at the start of the Church to demonstrate his power - not just at Jerusalem but also when it moved into new areas or among new peoples, e.g. Ephesus. These may not therefore be normative of (all) subsequent church life.

2. The book of Acts only gives us the "recorded highlights" of early church life - not the dull bits in-between when life just carried on as normal (a bit like "Match of the Day" really, where 90 minutes of football are compressed into just 10 or so). Of course I do realise that the early believers in Jerusalem do seem to have experienced features of revival on a more constant basis.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
A bit flippant but my experience of revival from spending time in Kenya was "extremely loud music that will go on continuously day and night for approximately three days".
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there is also an American meaning, in which "a revival" merely means "the holding of an evangelistic crusade".
I suspect that your Kenyan experience may well have been an example of the American use of the word "revival". At university I knew several Christians from Africa (including Kenya) and a lot of their theology and practice seemed to be drawn from American evangelicalism rather than British Christianity. I should add that these were from Baptist and independent Churches, rather than Anglicans.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Places can be ripe for conversion. Most conversions, I think, are from one denomination to another. As in the Gospels - Judaism to Christianity.
I hate to be a pedant*, but where in the Gospels does anyone stop being Jewish?

You are absolutely right - I should have said 'as in the Early Church'
Even then, in the early part of Acts at least there's no indication of people stopping being Jewish. Indeed, the early difficulties the Church had was that many early Christians were Jewish and considered that heritage to be a vital part of their faith in Christ.

The "revival" recorded in the opening chapters of Acts is a reinvigoration of Jews, into what many would see as a new sect within Judaism, rather than conversion to a new faith. Closer to the renewal of the faith of believers than the conversion of the heathen version of revival.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
A bit flippant but my experience of revival from spending time in Kenya was "extremely loud music that will go on continuously day and night for approximately three days".
Where we lived in West Africa 20+ years ago, that was usually a characteristic of (animistic) funerals! (The music, by the day, was largely based around drumming although electronic instruments were coming in).

More seriously:

1. Was this a conscious or unconscious adoption of pre-Christian practices into the Church? (It's worth noting that, where we lived, drums were largely rejected from use in worship as Christians were largely unable to dissociate them from pagan practices; guitars or accordions were OK as they didn't carry that religious "baggage").

2. To what extent is there a danger in any revival of this kind of music (or other stimuli) being used to effect "altered stats of consciousness" which may be confused with - or even welcomed as - evidence of God's blessing? This is a tricky one as the folk leading revival may be quite unaware that they are producing these altered states, but it can happen with loud music and, I think, it certainly happened in the "hwyl" of the Welsh Revival.

[ 16. February 2015, 14:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Yes, you're right
They do call evangelistic meetings "revivals" here, especially in Pentecostal circles.
But the people I'm talking about don't mean that type of thing they mean whatever actually happened all those years ago here in East Africa- and just like everywhere else it's tricky to get to the bottom of the stories.....
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there is also an American meaning, in which "a revival" merely means "the holding of an evangelistic crusade".
...
I don't really think it's fair to accuse specifically Americans for that misuse of the term.

I'd agree with what Eutychus and Gamaliel have said. I also think that in the normal way, 'revival' means a great turning of people to God in a way that human beings can't manufacture by holding evangelistic crusades, meetings and all the other things that involve steady, plugging, hard work, and even though those do build the church in a more quotidian way. The impression is that they seem to happen rarely, completely unexpectedly, and often in quite limited areas. The only one I've heard of that happened in the British Isles within living memory was the one on Lewis in 1949.

There are a few other things I would add that might be a bit more controversial.

The first, is that I do not think one can 'manipulate' God into sending a revival, and certainly not by repeating what seems to have produced a previous one.

The second is that in the last two centuries, people have assumed that they are a free church Protestant sort of thing, but over time, I don't think that's the case.

The third is that if one were to happen now, there's no reason why we should expect it would look like one of the ones in the past.

The fourth, which follows from that, is that it would therefore disappoint many of those who most pray for revival. As a result, some of them might well deny that this was a work of God at all.

The fifth is that the nature of the Incarnation means that even when we are 'doing great things for God' that doesn't give us an imprimatur that we get everything right.

The sixth sort of follows on from that, which is that the outward signs of how people instinctively express serious Christian commitment are different in different cultures. I suspect the Lewis revival majored on keeping the Sabbath, abstaining from alcohol and singing in unaccompanied Gaelic. A revival in an Orthodox country might well major on taking fasting very seriously.

The seventh, which is quite different from the fourth, is that we could undoubtedly do with one, but the Church's equivalent of the chattering classes would really, really disapprove of it.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
But the people I'm talking about [snip] mean whatever actually happened all those years ago here in East Africa - and just like everywhere else it's tricky to get to the bottom of the stories.....
Am I being naughty in suggesting that the legacy of the East African revivals in both Rwanda and the Congo did little to prevent the terrible bloodshed which later took place in those countries? I appreciate that a vicious culture of fear and coercion developed in both places, and was virtually impossible to resist. But had "revival" perhaps been conceived in over-spiritual and personal terms, without its effects ever reaching the very depths and worldviews of the persons involved?

(I would be very happy for you to contradict me here, as I'm sure you will know the situation far better than I do!)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
[Overused] What Enoch said. A great post!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The second is that in the last two centuries, people have assumed that they are a free church Protestant sort of thing, but over time, I don't think that's the case.
In addition to knowing African Christians and British evangelicals at university, I was also friends with quite a few Catholics. They would occasionally talk about various movements within the Catholic Church that were resulting a renewed faith for lots of people (at the time, South America seemed to be where the action was). Now, my Catholic friends would have never used the word "revival" ... but, ISTM, it's a very similar dynamic.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But had "revival" perhaps been conceived in over-spiritual and personal terms, without its effects ever reaching the very depths and worldviews of the persons involved?
Indeed.
Some of our initial work here in Kenya was in the run up to the 2013 election and was an attempt to make sure there wasn't a repeat of the previous post-election violence.
We talked about Rwanda as my husband has spent some time there and we talked long and hard about this point.
Some of our Kenyan friends will tell you that they completely understand the criticism that says that the Christianity of East Africa is miles wide but only inches deep. Really humbling.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Things are not as simple as we'd like. I have read through it in detail, but it looks as if Colonialism and the churches cooperation with it played a role. Oh and the major player is RCC not your Protestant revivalists (yes with Presbyterians and Anglicans playing a prominent role even if a minority).

Jengie

[ 16. February 2015, 15:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm sorry, MrsBeaky, I didn't intend to imply tedium!

I have first-hand experience of a revival which is to all intents and purposes ongoing: the one that has seen the entire gypsy population of France evangelised in the space of about fifty years, as well of plenty of offshoots abroad. It's open to the criticism of being an inch deep and a mile wide, but it does come pretty close to fulfilling all of John White's criteria quoted above.

I think I see genuine revivals something like tides; they go in and out without much human intervention and for no particularly well-explained reason. They don't so much bring masses of blessing as a whole new set of blessings and challenges. In this respect I echo Ethne Alba. For me it's not about praying ardently for revival but hoping I can cope with one if it turns up.

At the time of the Toronto Blessing, Jonathan Edwards' eighteenth-century work The distinguishing marks of the work of the Spirit of God was much-touted as offering justification for the physical manifestations prominent in that... thing. It does to some extent, but a more careful reading shows that Edwards' view of the Great Awakening was more about "how do we deal with this?" than "do it again Lord!".

[ 16. February 2015, 18:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - time to get technical ...

I think Baptist Trainfan is right, the US use of the term 'revival' to refer to evangelistic crusades - 'We're having a revival in our church ... it starts at 7.30pm on Thursday ...' - does cloud the issue.

In the more Anglo-centric understanding of the term, 'revival' tends to be used to refer to a widespread and more general 'quickening' or 'Awakening' ... so the First and Second Evangelical Awakenings would be seen as paradigm examples of that -

The First being the mid-18th century Awakening associated with Whitefield, the Wesleys and Jonathan Edwards etc.

The Second was from around 1859/60 and again occurred on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is, as has been pointed out, a specifically Protestant term - but one can certainly find parallels within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy to some extent ... although, as Enoch says, expressed differently.

I would be inclined to use the R word in its Protestant context - not because I don't believe in the reality of spiritual movements within the older Traditions - far from it - but because it has a very specific meaning in a Protestant paradigm.

To borrow Steve Latham's helpful definitions - and using the kind of R1, R2, R3 type of classification that Walker used for his analysis of the UK house-churches - we can (if Latham is right) discern different layers and levels of 'revival':

R1: A spiritual quickening of the individual believer (personal renewal etc).

R2: an intentional series of meetings or campaigns (particularly within Pentecostalism) to deepen the faith of believers and bring others into the fold.

R3: an apparently spontaneous or unplanned period of spiritual quickening or enlivening in a local church which leads to the strengthening of the existing believers and the bringing of numbers of unbelievers to faith.

R4: a more regional experience of R3: that extends over a wider area and leads to widespread conversions - eg. the Welsh, Hebridean, and Indonesian revivals.

R5: Societal or cultural 'awakenings' - such as the trans-Atlantic first and second Evangelical Awakenings.

R6: the possible reversal of secularisation and 'revival' of Christianity as such.

Into this, I'd also add 'people movements' which is the name missiologists give to large-scale conversions of particular tribes or people-groups - examples include the Lisu people of Burma/Myanmar from the 1850s onwards or 'revivals' among European gypsies and Romany people from the 1950s onwards.

As for the 'other factors' that I mentioned and that Mrs Beaky was querying, I'd suggest that there are sociological and cultural factors that play a part too.

A lot has been written about that - and there were certainly discernible cultural factors at work in the Welsh Revival of 1904/05 - much as certain revivalists like to downplay those aspects.

I don't see why we shouldn't acknowledge those aspects. Christianity is an Incarnational faith. We are flesh and blood creatures who live in particular contexts and societies - it's inevitable that there are going to be societal and cultural conditions involved in these things.

How can there not be?

Some of the delegates at the conference I attended didn't like the focus on these aspects as they thought it somehow down-graded the 'sovereignty of God' or the more 'supernatural' aspects.

Why should it?

For example, there was a fascinating contribution about the features of a particular 19th century revival in north-east Scotland. The way things played out, the way the revival manifested itself was very different in the towns - Aberdeen notably - to how it was in the fishing villages along the coast - and very different again to how things 'worked' in the rural areas inland.

To acknowledge that in no way removes the Godward or 'supernatural' aspects.

I don't see why we have to set these aspects in opposition to one another.

It seems pretty obvious to me that a religious 'awakening' in Kenya, say, is going to look different to one in Knightsbridge or Kilkenny.

I would also make the observation that there are particular tropes - if you like - that often come up in revivalist literature.

So, for instance, the revivalists often exaggerate the parlous state of the churches or religious observance prior to the awakening itself. The Methodists certainly did this in the 18th century and there are indications that church-life in Wales wasn't as moribund as revivalists claimed before the Welsh Revival of 1904/05 ...

Equally, revivalists - particularly the more Calvinistic ones - have tended to stress that it was all a big surprise or unexpected ... in order to emphasise Divine Sovereignty. Others, like Finney (and yes, I am simplifying things) have stressed how obedience, faith and supplication on the part of the believers played their part ...

By the end of the 19th century some itinerant revivalists almost had ready-made 'revival kits' at their disposal ... if they did X, Y and Z - then bingo! there was your revival ...

I don't think it does to be too reductionist about any of this ... either writing it all off as hype and enthusiasm or even the results of particular social trends and changes - nor in classic revivalist hagiographical style - in claiming that the whole thing is somehow completely detached from any sociological context or influence.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Some of the delegates at the conference I attended didn't like the focus on these aspects as they thought it somehow down-graded the 'sovereignty of God' or the more 'supernatural' aspects.

Why should it?
It sounds as though the conference attracted people with two different agendas, one largely intellectual and one largely evangelistic, and didn't clearly enunciate how the agendas could feed each other.

One wonders why evangelistic Christians would attend a conference anxious to hear about the sovereign power of God when they surely hear about that at church every week? Perhaps the issue is that if God's power needs to work with or within these social conditions before a revival can occur then they fear deep down that they will never see a revival, because they doubt that such conditions will ever pertain where they are.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
This is all very helpful, thank you

One of the yardsticks I have always used when listening to "revival" type stories- or actually any testimony type stories- is the words of Jesus about looking for the fruit.
Now the fruit might be societal like improving living conditions for a whole segment of the population or it might be internal and individual like someone I know who had all sorts of weird experiences during the Toronto thing but 20 plus years on is still a changed man having left behind a lifelong battle with some very negative stuff.

Then there are the opposite situations where nothing or even not such good stuff seems to be the legacy.
Somewhere there must be a balance between the sovereignty of God and our own willingness to play our part but....
Hype is often the enemy of real spiritual growth,ISTM
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
What about revival amongst a particular cultural group that's geographically scattered? Thanks to the internet, is this going to be the revival method of the future?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
In his Evangelical Christianity In Australia: Spirit, Word And World, historian Stuart Piggin discusses the 1959 Billy Graham crusade, beginning with his own definition of revival as: "Revival in the Christian tradition is a sovereign work of God which consists of a powerful intensification of the ordinary work of the Holy Spirit in convicting, converting and regenerating sinners, poured out upon large numbers of people at the same time, and is therefore a community experience. It is occasionally preceded by an expectation that God is about to do something exceptional; it is usually preceded by an extraordinary unity and prayerfulness among Christians; and it is always accompanied by a revitalisation of the church, the conversion of large numbers of unbelievers, and the diminution of sinful practices in the community".

Using these criteria, he concludes that revival did occur in Australia in 1959.

However, Graham's crusade in Australia ten years later did not have nearly the same impact, and some of the statistics Piggin quotes indicate (inadvertently on his part or not)that more than "spiritual" factors are involved in revival.

For example, the overwhelming majority of those who made decisions by "going forward" in 1959 were already church goers, with some sort of existing knowledge of, respect for, and commitment to, Christianity, whereas by 1969, the secularism which was one element of the cultural revolution of the Sixties had already taken root, so Graham this time was no longer preaching to such a receptive audience.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Similar trends have been observed here in the UK, Kaplan ... the 1950s Billy Graham Campaigns 'tapped into' an already existing cultural awareness of Christianity - however 'nominal' or 'uncommitted' and also, it's fair to say, tapped into a residual penchant for hymns and community singing.

The later campaigns in the mid-60s and the mid-80s had nowhere near the same impact.

From my reading and conference-attending on the subject, it strikes me that this has largely been the case for revivals in general ... at least in the Anglophone world.

It's been noted how the vast majority of conversion stories dating from the mid-18th century Awakening were written by people who were already familiar with the outline of the Christian story and who were, to all intents and purposes, pretty devout to start off with - at least by modern standards.

This might be simply because those who were able to write their stories down came from those socio-economic groups who were most likely to be engaged with church in the first place.

There are some quite 'working-class' accounts - such as that by the redoubtable Yorkshire stonemason, John Nelson ... but by and large the very nature of these things means that most accounts come from what used to be called 'the middling sort' - small traders, shop-keepers, merchants etc - people who were literate and 'respectable'.

Sure, there were 'drunkards' and 'sinners' and ne'er do wells affected by these revivals but the whole context in which they occurred was a largely Christianised paradigm.

That goes for 1950s Australia and the UK just as much as it does for the mid-18th or mid-19th centuries.

FWIW, @SvitlanaV2 - the conference I attended attracted a pretty mixed bunch ... there were pastors and church leaders, groups of students brought en-masse from Bible colleges and a few interested individuals like myself.

I don't think anyone was expecting it to be 'evangelistic' - but it was clear that those from more 'revivalist' backgrounds or the more fundamentalist end of the evangelical spectrum (and most, if not all, of the attendees seemed to be evangelicals of one form or other) were disappointed that it was not more ra-ra-rah and triumphalist.

On the whole, the presentations were of a very high standard - both in terms of academic content, if you like - and an engaging style of presentation. It certainly wasn't as 'dry' as might be expected from your average academic conference. There were one or two talks that I thought were a bit 'thin' - and I won't name and shame which contributors I'm referring to - but on the whole I'd say the tone represented the more reflective and 'balanced' end of the evangelical spectrum.

I don't think there was anything 'wrong' with the way the conference was pitched or marketed - I'd place the reasons for what disappointment I detected fairly and squarely with the over-egged expectations of some of those who came along expecting the usual rah-rah-rah revivalist pep-talk that was pretty common back in the 1990s/early 2000s.

Some of the speakers told me that they always had difficulty with some of the earnest young students coming into their Bible Colleges or seminaries who obviously believed they were the next Billy Graham or John Wesley and all they had to do was to huff and puff and revival would follow in their wake ...

Ah, what it is to be young ...


[Biased]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
One of my abiding memories of the conference is of a Q&A session following a talk by a chap from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the USA - that's orthodox Calvinist ... not Eastern Orthodox, of course ...

Dr Andrew Walker - who is Orthodox - and the Reformed speaker saw off some dippy contributions 'from the floor' by those of a more dispensationalist persuasion. I don't know why, but I was very heartened to see a trouncing of these views by a coalition of the Orthodox and the Reformed ...

I have to say, I was very impressed by Walker. I liked the way he engaged with evangelicals of every persuasion and offered help through the Kings College library and other resources to a Pentecostal pastor who was apparently struggling with some dodgy/heretical views that had arisen in his congregation.

A man of a truly eirenic spirit.

Tom Smail was there and I was impressed by him too. Likewise Ian Stackhouse, Nigel Wright the Baptist and others I could mention.

Evangelicalism has its 'deep end'.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
@MrsBeaky: I'm often in Mozambique, and I found that Brazilian churches like the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God — which I would basically describe as prosperity gospel on steroids — have a lot of influence. I also encountered Brazilian missionaries in non-Portuguese speaking countries like Malawi. I'd be interested to know if you're seeing anything like this in Kenya?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


FWIW, @SvitlanaV2 - the conference I attended attracted a pretty mixed bunch ... there were pastors and church leaders, groups of students brought en-masse from Bible colleges and a few interested individuals like myself.

I don't think anyone was expecting it to be 'evangelistic' - but it was clear that those from more 'revivalist' backgrounds or the more fundamentalist end of the evangelical spectrum (and most, if not all, of the attendees seemed to be evangelicals of one form or other) were disappointed that it was not more ra-ra-rah and triumphalist.
[...]

I don't think there was anything 'wrong' with the way the conference was pitched or marketed - I'd place the reasons for what disappointment I detected fairly and squarely with the over-egged expectations of some of those who came along expecting the usual rah-rah-rah revivalist pep-talk that was pretty common back in the 1990s/early 2000s.
So perhaps if the event had been marketed differently those who were expecting a 'revivalist pep-talk' could have stayed away and saved themselves the entrance fee and the journey.

Historical revivals are interesting to hear about, but as your post implies, hoping for a significant revival in late 20th/21st c. Britain has been an unwise and unfulfilled longing, and is likely to remain so unless the social conditions change significantly. I suppose some might say it's for the best if 'revivalist' church leaders and students hear the truth, accept reality and focus on other things.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I s'pose I'm still sufficiently Calvinistically inclined to balk at terms like 'revival method' ...

I s'pose my take on the internet would be that it allows people to connect/discuss widely - and across their usual boundaries or communities ... hence the discussions and debates between Christians of very different traditions that are prevalent online.

That's a positive thing, I'd suggest.

However, as a medium it can tend to 'flatten' or compress issues into neat sound-bites and memes - so any 'revivalist' or enthusiatic movement that is driven or spread by the internet is, by its very nature, going to be pretty unnuanced and rather simplistic.

The same could apply to political discussions online and much else.

There's been a fair bit of debate among some evangelicals as to whether future revival is possible - given that historically, revivals tend to develop within societies that are already Christianised.

Is it realistic to anticipate revival within an increasingly secularised context?

My own view is that we will see both increasing secularism and increasing religiosity at one and the same time - often in reaction to one another.

I also anticipate the growth of movements with a barely discernible Christian base and am quite expecting some of the more prosperity-gospel style movements to go way, way off beam and lose any semblance of connection with historic, creedal Christianity. I think that's already begun to happen.

What I don't see - because I think it's had its day - is a revival of the more 'modernist' forms of classical evangelicalism. There'll always be a stalwart, hold-the-fort rearguard action being fought by some of these folks - but by and large, I think the more conservative forms of evangelicalism will become increasingly marginalised.

So, no, I don't see signs of future 'revival' in the 'classic' sense - ie. Welsh Revival and so on - in future - at least not in the secularised West.

What we will see, I think, are increasingly exotic forms of Pentecostalism - with a largely self-help/therapeutic flavour and beleagured pockets of confessional Christianities.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So perhaps if the event had been marketed differently those who were expecting a 'revivalist pep-talk' could have stayed away and saved themselves the entrance fee and the journey.

Historical revivals are interesting to hear about, but as your post implies, hoping for a significant revival in late 20th/21st c. Britain has been an unwise and unfulfilled longing, and is likely to remain so unless the social conditions change significantly. I suppose some might say it's for the best if 'revivalist' church leaders and students hear the truth, accept reality and focus on other things.
Well yes, although, looking back, I don't think there was anything 'misleading' or lacking in the way the event was promoted.

By and large, if I remember rightly, some of the more 'revivalist' types came with parties from one or other of the evangelical Bible Colleges in the London area. The conference fee was not expensive and I'd imagine they may have had student discounts or perhaps their institutions paid their entrance fee - I don't know.

From what I can gather, from discussions with some of the staff from Bible Colleges that I've met over the years - and I've done some work for one college myself - the expectations of their students are often very different from what they actually get on the curriculum.

They certainly don't appear to expect any kind of critical engagement - they seem to think it's going to be some kind of full-on revival boost for however long they study at such places.

That's not the fault of the institutions themselves, I would suggest ... it's the nature of the churches and fellowships from which these people come and the expectations they imbibe from popular evangelical/charismatic culture.

I know. I've been there.

Mark Noll said it years ago in his book, 'The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.'

"The scandal of the evangelical mind," he wrote back in 1995, "Is that there is not much of an evangelical mind."

It's easy to knock some of the evangelical Bible Colleges but from what I've seen, they are working very hard to address just that issue. I'm glad someone's doing it.

[code]

[ 17. February 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sorry, MrsBeaky, I didn't intend to imply tedium!
Thank you, the perils of internet communication!

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

@MrsBeaky: I'm often in Mozambique, and I found that Brazilian churches like the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God — which I would basically describe as prosperity gospel on steroids — have a lot of influence. I also encountered Brazilian missionaries in non-Portuguese speaking countries like Malawi. I'd be interested to know if you're seeing anything like this in Kenya?
Oh yes indeedy, not necessarily Brazilian but in the same mould as regards prosperity gospel, fake miracles and exploitation of the most vulnerable in society.
But for the record I do know of one wonderful Brazilian missionary who is a nurse and working with the poor and marginalised. She is from a Pentecostal background and her approach to her work appears to fairly holistic
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


From what I can gather, from discussions with some of the staff from Bible Colleges that I've met over the years - and I've done some work for one college myself - the expectations of their students are often very different from what they actually get on the curriculum.

They certainly don't appear to expect any kind of critical engagement - they seem to think it's going to be some kind of full-on revival boost for however long they study at such places.

That's not the fault of the institutions themselves, I would suggest ... it's the nature of the churches and fellowships from which these people come and the expectations they imbibe from popular evangelical/charismatic culture.

I know. I've been there.
But this suggests that there should be more communication and interaction between the churches and the evangelical theological colleges.

It just shows that the mainstream theological colleges are not the only ones that can be accused of living in their own little world, isolated from what's going on in the congregations! (Yes, I know that this is a bit of an exaggeration.)

I can understand the difficulty, though; it's these fiery young people who want to enter the ministry in any case, so the colleges can't discombobulate them before they arrive or else they'd have no candidates....

[ 17. February 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think there is that inherent tension, SvitlanaV2.

Interestingly, at the conference Dr Andrew Walker made a comment which I've seen him make in print, that really and truly the theology should be being done 'out in the churches' and not purely in the seminaries.

I agree with that 100%.

The difficulty comes when we try to implement that.

How many church leaders, ministers/pastors would actually be comfortable if their congregations DID do theology? [Big Grin]

They might say they'd welcome it, but I'm sure it'd rattle quite a few cages, right across the theological and 'churchmanship' spectrum if this actually did start to happen ...

[Help]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But this suggests that there should be more communication and interaction between the churches and the evangelical theological colleges.
To be honest, in this particular case I blame the churches more. I think part of the problem with peoples expectations comes down to the teaching and explanations provided by individual churches - which can often be fairly parochial. At the more spiritual end, revival is so often talked about in isolation and put in a pedestal, to the point where it's easy to get the idea that it is not only the prime goal that we should work towards but the only goal.

So I'm not really surprised when candidates for theological college have somewhat unbalanced views. Wiser ministers will steer people towards the more rigorous colleges, in a hope that they will pick a little balance along the way.

quote:

I can understand the difficulty, though; it's these fiery young people who want to enter the ministry in any case, so the colleges can't discombobulate them before they arrive or else they'd have no candidates....
To an extent, though I'm fairly convinced that the average 'fiery young person' isn't really well suited for the generally fairly mundane life that is the average church.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'm fairly convinced that the average 'fiery young person' isn't really well suited for the generally fairly mundane life that is the average church.
But do the colleges have much choice?

I understand that the mainstream denominations now have a majority of older people on 2nd (etc.) careers looking to enter the ministry. Maybe the evangelical colleges ought to encourage the same trend. That would help them avoid sending the the 'revivalistic' youngsters into church leadership (though many of us would say there are worse problems a church could have...). I don't know if this would work out demographically, though.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes indeed, Chris.

It's a conundrum, though, as popular evangelical/charismatic spirituality - fuelled as it is by popular testimony books and accounts - not of derring-do on the mission-field as in days of yore - but of this, that or the other 'mighty move of God' somewhere or other - most of which don't stand up to scrutiny - does lead to expectations of thrilling, vibrant, Spirit-filled ministry ...

The various evangelical charismatic conventions also feed that as they give them impression that the Christian life is always going to be one extended mountain-top experience.

If you get enough earnest people together in one place it's easy to convince yourself that revival is just around the corner. I'm not surprised I bought into all that back in the day, because that's what it looked like, that's what we were led to believe.

You can only live on the edge of your seat, teetering on the brink of the next big whatever-it's supposed to be for so long.

The conundrum is that we need conviction, enthusiasm and oomph - otherwise nobody would ever put themselves forward for ministry/leadership or pastoral roles.

I'm not sure how we can best balance these things out. We don't want a generation of washed out cynics. Neither do we need the puff and posturing that passes for revival within contemporary revivalism.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd need to look into this, but I'm not convinced that the revivalistic youngsters in the evangelical Bible Colleges are necessarily going into church leadership. Some of them obviously are.

It'd be interesting to look at any stats that might be available to see where they end up. I would imagine that some of them end up in youth-work of some kind - and the larger evangelical churches have sufficient funds to finance that.

Others probably drift and find themselves all but unemployable.

I'll ask my contacts in this field to see what they can tell me ...
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Gamaliel, when I mentioned the impact of the internet I was thinking specifically of LGBT Christian groups like Diverse Church - but I think it applies to any group who have a reduced or even non-existent voice in churches in real life (I want to keep this out of Dead Horses which is why I didn't mention the context).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'm fairly convinced that the average 'fiery young person' isn't really well suited for the generally fairly mundane life that is the average church.
But do the colleges have much choice?

They do and they don't. As Gamaliel points out, a lot of these types of people end up in some form of youth work, before going on to do something else entirely - or less often if they are in a larger church, end up on a 'pastoral team'.

Perhaps the colleges serve some kind of social good by acting as a kind of holding pen for such people.

Though we are now going off on a tangent.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, Pomona, I can see how the internet could serve the needs of such groups who might not otherwise be able to have a voice ...

I'm not sure how that applies to the topic of revival, though - at least not how its been understood within classical evangelicalism.

Christians of a particular orientation sharing their concerns with one another online - and perhaps even drawing other people of those orientations to faith wouldn't feature in the thinking of most revivalists I've ever come across ...
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd need to look into this, but I'm not convinced that the revivalistic youngsters in the evangelical Bible Colleges are necessarily going into church leadership. Some of them obviously are.

It'd be interesting to look at any stats that might be available to see where they end up. I would imagine that some of them end up in youth-work of some kind - and the larger evangelical churches have sufficient funds to finance that.

Others probably drift and find themselves all but unemployable.

I'll ask my contacts in this field to see what they can tell me ...
Historically, the classic case is Evan Roberts, who burned himself out in the Welsh Revival 1904-6 while still in his twenties, and then appears to have done practically nothing until he died in his seventies.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Roberts did have something of a brief 'come-back' with a localised 'revival' in West Wales later in life ... but essentially, you're right, he was burned out in his 20s.

I'd suggest that there is a certain inevitability about this. We aren't 'built' to withstand white-hot spiritual intensity for extended periods.

Any one of us would collapse or burn out after 18 months of non-stop revivalism.

At the risk of being controversial, I'd also say that - for the most part - our energies and creativity, our impulse to 'do' - will not be satisfied by endless rounds of revivalist singing.

It's been observed that some of the energies that fed into the Welsh Revival - and it was predominantly a 'young people's' movement - later led many of the participants out of pietistic Protestantism and into Labour politics, the Eisteddfod and Welsh Nationalism.

There's only so long you can stand in a crowded chapel singing 'Here is love, vast as the ocean ...' - good though that might be in and of itself.

It's often forgotten that there was a highly legalistic aspect to the Welsh Revival - promising young sportsmen were dissuaded from their careers, there was a certain amount of small-mindedness and pettiness ... not to mention, in some areas, a somewhat aggressive attitude towards Anglican neighbours ... there are accounts of Anglican families forced out of some North Wales villages.

That said, the Anglicans benefitted from an influx of converts just as the non-conformist churches did.

These things are always complex and multi-faceted.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
My 'contacts in the field ' report that although they go out into the mission field ( C/E or other) keen to win folk for Christ; they all (100%) would distance themselves from talk of revival.

Why?
Maybe because:

* it can all too often lead to attempting to work out How God has moved, rather than acknowledging that he has and being grateful

* if the How can be replicated, then matters can swiftly move to a chocolate machine reaction: I put the penny in here and get the chocolate bar there. Only God rarely ( if ever) works the same way twice.

* claiming revival these days would all too easily put ordinary folk under a media spotlight, which is really not at all helpful.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, Pomona, I can see how the internet could serve the needs of such groups who might not otherwise be able to have a voice ...

I'm not sure how that applies to the topic of revival, though - at least not how its been understood within classical evangelicalism.

Christians of a particular orientation sharing their concerns with one another online - and perhaps even drawing other people of those orientations to faith wouldn't feature in the thinking of most revivalists I've ever come across ...
I was thinking more in terms of revival happening amongst said group of people (or disabled people, or whatever). A cultural connection between the people being, er, revived rather than a geographical one.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I understood what you meant, I was simply making the probably axiomatic and completely unnecessary point that this wouldn't fit neatly into the standard evangelical paradigm of what's supposed to happen in a revival ...

I'm not sure what they'd call some kind of niche spiritual movement among gay people ... but I can't imagine it being complementary.

They could probably cope with a revival among disabled people though - although some would wonder why they weren't all spontaneously and miraculously healed ...

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I understood what you meant, I was simply making the probably axiomatic and completely unnecessary point that this wouldn't fit neatly into the standard evangelical paradigm of what's supposed to happen in a revival ...

I'm not sure what they'd call some kind of niche spiritual movement among gay people ... but I can't imagine it being complementary.

They could probably cope with a revival among disabled people though - although some would wonder why they weren't all spontaneously and miraculously healed ...

[Roll Eyes]
Sorry, I was asking whether it could be called revival in a technical sense, rather than whether people would approve of it or not. Although, all the LGBT evangelicals I know are very strongly evangelical and would use terms like revival to describe such a movement - but obviously outsiders' views will differ.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The definitions, it seems to me, are all in the eyes of the beholder ... what some would consider a 'genuine' religious revival, others wouldn't of course.

It all depends on where one stands.

Is there an 'objective' definition?

Or is 'revival' a 'loaded' term in the first place?
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is there an 'objective' definition?

Or is 'revival' a 'loaded' term in the first place?
This is exactly the sort of thing I was aiming at with my OP. I fear that like many other things there are probably no definitive answers but I'm grateful for everyone's contributions so far as they've helped me clarify a few things.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks Mrs Beaky, I'm glad you've found this thread helpful - I think it just goes to show, if more proof were needed - that our attempts to define and categorise things are necessarily provisional ...

There's nothing wrong with that, of course, we just have to get used to living with mess.

'The wind bloweth where it listeth ...'

[Smile]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0