Thread: The soul of Britain 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=029170
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Where do you think Britain is at when it comes to her spiritual condition?
If Russia can have a soul (according to the great Russian writers), why can't Britain be said to have one too?
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal? Why is the orthodoxy in some circles that there will only be one final great awakening before the end of the world? (Or else that there will be a falling away)?
Or do the revivalists need to revive (and repent) themselves?
[ 24. May 2015, 08:43: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Interesting topic, but would it be possible to narrow it down a bit, or at least clarify some of the terms? For example...
quote:
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal?
You seem to be assuming that the country DOES need to heal. What do you think exactly is wrong with the country that it requires healing?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
One more thing...
quote:
If Russia can have a soul (according to the great Russian writers)
I haven't read a lot of the writers I think you're referencing, but, as a rule, I'd be careful about taking national self-characterizations at face value. Especially when they're coming from writers and artists, and ESPECIALLY writers and artists of a mystical-nationalist bent.
In any event, well, isn't it one of the alleged characteristics of Brits that they are mildly cynical about religion, especially the state-sponsored Anglican variety? I've read this officially in a George Orwell essay, and it's also something I've kinda gleaned from my numerous interactions with British people, including right here on the Ship.
If that's true, the idea of a national "soul", even if does have some merit apart from self-aggrandizing Russian histrionics, might not make an entirely smooth transition to the UK.
[ 24. May 2015, 10:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
By the "great Russian writers" I take it that you aren't referencing contemporary Russia. If you mean Tolstoy or Chechov then there has been a revolution, decades of Soviet Communism and a break-up of the Russian empire in the interim. If Russia had a soul in the 19th century, then that has been significantly altered since then. Or, maybe not since 19th Century Russia instigated a war to gain control of the Crimea, and 21st Century Russia has some form of hand in Ukrainian politics which has resulted in control of the Crimea ...
I think, basically, I want to know what the soul of a country would look like.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Interesting topic, but would it be possible to narrow it down a bit, or at least clarify some of the terms? For example...
quote:
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal?
You seem to be assuming that the country DOES need to heal. What do you think exactly is wrong with the country that it requires healing?
Hi, yes, I'm coming at the subject from a Pentecostal background and a position that the country does need a Christian revival (and that this would make things better for most people (although there would be socio-economic repercussions for some trades if it ever did happen again)).
So, yes, I do think that Britain needs to heal in many ways, and that this healing should take the form of a revival in Christianity.
The 'Russian soul' writers did rather manufacture the 'soul' personification but it was embraced by many Russians and I think can be a helpful idea. I think it is a shame sometimes that Britain does not seem to be allowed the same 'enigma' status given to Russia (I hold nothing against the Russian people by the way).
I'm not a great patriot, but I do profoundly believe that the best thing for people in this country is for a spiritual awakening (to change the metaphor). Whether that will occur again is another matter.
With regards to the healing aspect - it is my understanding that one of Christ's more liberal policies was that people are 'sick' and require healing from God. So I do adhere to the same world-view in this area.
The first Pentecost was supposed to be a mini-revival in Israel, a kind of birthday for the Church (there's another personification for you). It would be nice to see such a revival in this country, but I understand many of the objections (often, incidentally, by trades and groups who feel threatened by the idea of an increase in the number of Christians).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In my experience revivalists tend to 'read back' their own concerns and assumptions into accounts of past revivals and don't engage with the primary and historical texts as closely as they ought.
Consequently they come up with wildly romanticised impressions of past revivals were like and a rather simplistic approach towards the historical, cultural and social conditions in which these things took place.
There can be as much romanticism involved as ever there was with notions of 'Holy Russia'.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience revivalists tend to 'read back' their own concerns and assumptions into accounts of past revivals and don't engage with the primary and historical texts as closely as they ought.
Consequently they come up with wildly romanticised impressions of past revivals were like and a rather simplistic approach towards the historical, cultural and social conditions in which these things took place.
There can be as much romanticism involved as ever there was with notions of 'Holy Russia'.
But how can any of us know that unless we have experienced life in a revival? Which most of this generation have not.
I imagine (simplistically) that it would be like Christmas - a huge build up and maybe an anti-climax but still an all-encompassing and exciting event which is hard to understand when it is not occurring.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
A massive family argument, 15 pairs of socks and an ill-fitting pullover? "Lord, we wanted revival not a collection of bad cracker jokes!". "But, I thought you wanted the soul of Britain ... that is bad jokes"
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Revial is to me one of those 'by their fruit you will know them' things.
So if people are turning to God, then good. But if the hungry are not being fed, the sick having their wounds bandaged, those in Jail visited etc. then I don't see a revival.
If there is not Love God AND Love your neighbour as yourself I can't see a revival. Anything that aims at one and not the other is aiming in the wrong direction.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Where do you think Britain is at when it comes to her spiritual condition?
If Russia can have a soul (according to the great Russian writers), why can't Britain be said to have one too?
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal?
Were the Russian writers talking about religious faith when they referred to the 'Russian soul'? I'm not acquainted with Russian literature, unfortunately, but I think poets and novelists tend to be referring to something a bit different when they talk about the national 'soul'.
Re Pentecostalism, you'll find few practising Pentecostals here, so there won't be much agreement that we need a 'Pentecostal-style Christian revival'!
However, there are Anglican and other mainstream clergy who claim to welcome Pentecostal spirituality in their local communities, particularly in parts of large multicultural cities or conurbations where the Pentecostals in question are usually black, or Asian. Without them, the rate of Christian decline would be greater.
IMO race, despite being an awkward topic, would have to be addressed if Pentecostalism were to be a vehicle for a Christian revival in the UK. The largest and also the fastest growing Pentecostal denominations here are black majority churches, but increasing racial, social and class segregation in the UK could make it harder for a Christian revival (Pentecostal or otherwise) to move from one community to another.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
Do states constructed through the concentratiom of power into one particular corner/set of interest groups have a "soul" in any meaningful sense?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
It would be nice to see such a revival in this country, but I understand many of the objections (often, incidentally, by trades and groups who feel threatened by the idea of an increase in the number of Christians).
What are these objections, and can you link to examples of "trades" objecting to a revival?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Mother Russia is referred to in the arts as a person, and as a person has a soul. I am nor sure that Britain has been referred to in that way. So the analogy with Russia having a soul and Britain having a soul actually works in any way.
But if we are to see a revival in the part of the UK I live in we have to go back a long, long way. So ignoring Wales and the Outer Hebrides foe a moment, where there have been revival, we have to go right back to the time of the Wesleys and Whitefield. Then there was a turning to God in a way that would be understood by American pentecostals, but also a turning to God hat caused people to open orphanages that were more humane than those around (Though I'll be th first to admit not particularly humane by today's standards.
I would expect a UK revival, if we have one, even after all this time, to include far more of a social aspect of the Gospel, noting the disagreement between Billy Graham and John Stott in the twentyth Century as to whether social action was part of the Gospel.
The UK is socially different to the USA, both within and without the churches, and I would expect a UK revival to be different to the Azusa Street revival in the USA a century ago.
A revival does not have to be as dramatic as Azusa Street, Wales or Lewis. If it comes in gently it is just as much a revival.
A gentle breeze can be just as effective as a mighty wind.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
There have been revivals in various places in the UK. There was one here around 60-70 years ago, and the effects can still be seen in the near-blasphemous attitudes of some of those who were "saved" at the time towards those who weren't. We need more of that like we need a hole in the head. Genuine movement of the Holy Spirit? Yes, with fear and trembling I do pray for that. What passes for "revival" in these parts? No thanks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
First, define revival.
I could post at length on this topic. I have done so in the past. I grew up in South Wales when there were still people around whose parents had been converted during the 1904/05 revival.
I'm not knocking it. All I am saying us that revival or no revival you've still got to get up and go out to work, you've still got to wash your socks, you've still got to go to the loo.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All I am saying us that revival or no revival you've still got to get up and go out to work, you've still got to wash your socks, you've still got to go to the loo.
No! Really?
Can't you sing choruses while washing your socks, or read the Bible on the loo?
You're going to accuse me of being too 'literal' here, but I really don't know what you're going on about.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Regarding going to work, revivalism often spread because converts share their enthusiasm with work colleagues as well as with family and friends. A bit more difficult to do nowadays, admittedly, as workplaces are more worried about giving offence to employees of various religions.
I've heard it said that new converts often think they have to leave their trades and become preachers and clergymen, so perhaps this is what you're getting at?
[ 24. May 2015, 14:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Revial is to me one of those 'by their fruit you will know them' things.
So if people are turning to God, then good. But if the hungry are not being fed, the sick having their wounds bandaged, those in Jail visited etc. then I don't see a revival.
If there is not Love God AND Love your neighbour as yourself I can't see a revival. Anything that aims at one and not the other is aiming in the wrong direction.
@ Gamaliel
I would suggest that the above is a pretty good definition of 'revival'.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Brittania?
It's a very interesting question. The "character" of a country is partly related to its landscape and climate, but it's also got more subtleties than that. And "national character" is probably not exactly equated to "soul".
The question of what is the soul of a country as opposed to its historical makeup - takes a bit of unravelling. I have been talking about this with some German friends, and we came to agreeing that the presence of Queen (i.e. a crowned monarch) is a powerful symbolic role which - if it is used for good - has some substantial spiritual clout.
And it could be said that the monarchy is in a dual position in the historical national character which both fawns to and disrespects authority in more or less equal measure. How does that translate into our spiritual behaviour? Maybe it accounts for us being both religious and atheist... Does respect (or lack of respect) for mundane authority somehow translate into a particular response to divine authority?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Googling a relevant Orwell quote, I only had to type as far as "old maids b" to get "old maids bicycling to holy communion" showing up second from the top in the search box. So, apparently, it's a not-unpopular search.
The full phrase ends with "...through the morning mist". Seems it was quoted by John Major, I'm guessing as part of his "Back To Basics" campaign.
I've always been a little dubious about that image as representative of the national character. I suspect you could have seen old maids bicycling to Holy Communion in most Christian majority countries in those days.
[ 24. May 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
George Bernard Shaw (or Lord Mancroft?) — 'The English are not a very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity. '
I don't think it would be possible to say what the soul of Britain would look like. Too confused a mish-mash of ethnic identities and races spread out over too long a period of history. Eg, the soul of the Anglo-Saxon might well have differed from the soul of the Anglo-Norman; the Plantagenet from the Tudor. The Pict from the Celt, Welsh from Scottish etc.
But, fwiw, I always imagined that the essential spirituality - or soul-life - of the English was Pagan with useful Christian accretions depending on historical accident, political ambition and taste in ecclesiastical architecture.
And for the Irish, perhaps, pantheistic, or even panentheistic, with some sincere attempts at incorporating various Western-based ideas of Christianity, because of a national tendancy towards hospitality, feelings of guilt, and a long memory.
I think this is why the Northern Irish protestants are perhaps a bit confused in the expression of their soul-spirituality. They're legalistic and insecure enough to want to commit quite blindly to the idea that a Holy Book can tell them what to do, think and say, quite literally on every occasion. But rebellious and unsettled enough to know that there's something inherently wrong with this. It would certainly explain the expression on most of the faces of our Unionist politicians.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, the idea of a British soul is a nonsense, ditto an essential spirituality. You can't distil so many people, localities, traditions, sub-cultures, into a single brew, nor should you try to. In fact, you could call that a true dislocation and alienation. Truth is concrete (V. Lenin).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, you are being overly literal, SvitlanaV2.
What I'm alluding to is the tendency within many revivalist traditions and circles to give the impression that what happens in church and in meetings/services is the only thing that really counts ...
Of course, revivalists stress that real-life continues but there is often otherworldly tendency in such circles as those of us who have spent any time within such settings will be able to identify.
That's not to say that people aren't involved in the sort of activities that Polly has drawn our attention to ...
Meanwhile - you are right to point out that not many Shipmates come from Pentecostal backgrounds - that is old-time 'traditional' Pentecostal denominations or the black-led Afro-Caribbean ones.
However, a good few of us here have spent time in 'neo-Pentecostal' or other revivalist settings, so we can bring a degree of first-hand experience to bear. I also have in-laws from South Walian working class Pentecostal backgrounds.
I know the tradition pretty well - good sides, bad sides and indifferent.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the idea of a British soul is a nonsense, ditto an essential spirituality. You can't distil so many people, localities, traditions, sub-cultures, into a single brew, nor should you try to. In fact, you could call that a true dislocation and alienation.
This.
quote:
Truth is concrete (V. Lenin).
Ah! This explains their architectural style.
[ 24. May 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
FWIW I think there are some savvy Pentecostal historians and commentators around these days - the movement has 'come of age' and you'll find a handful of academic historians / sociologists with Pentecostal backgrounds who have done a great deal to shed light on the early history of the movement - and to recast some of the hagiographies and so on.
On the whole, though, there is a tendency - I put it no stronger than that - for popular Pentecostalism to approach the issue of revival and revivalism through a set of assumptions and presuppositions and without examining the context of the original accounts.
For my money, the best and most balanced comments I've heard on revival came at a conference on the subject at King's College, London in 2002.
There were contributions from Baptists, Pentecostals, new-church people, Anglicans -- and a good balance between academic input and contributors who were pastors / leaders etc.
Some of the papers were later published in a book edited by Andrew Walker and Kirsten Aune:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/On_Revival.html?id=_EGnAQAACAAJ&hl=en
Generally, I find that Pentecostals and charismatics will tend to exaggerate the numbers involved in past revivals and overlook comments and data that don't support their pre-suppositions.
They aren't the only ones to do this, of course. All Christian traditions it seems to me engage in forms of selective reading and cherry-picking.
For instance, it's long been recognised that early Methodist commentators exaggerated the parlous spiritual state of 18th century England to make their own achievements the more impressive.
Large as the numbers involved in the Wesleyan and Whitefield revivals were, they were still a small proportion of the population as a whole.
Even in those instances where a considerable proportion of the population were involved the numbers were pretty small by modern standards.
During the 'awakening' at Northampton, Massachusetts with Jonathan Edwards and so on, the numbers involved were no more than a few dozen out of a population of no more than 400 - 450 or so.
Numbers in Britain were larger, of course - and in some areas constituted a considerable proportion of the population - but the pattern wasn't consistent.
Equally, it's often overlooked how most converts during the revivals of the 18th to early 20th centuries were already 'lukewarm' or nominal Christians who had been steeped in a general awareness of Christianity from birth.
That can no longer be assumed now.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Gamaliel
I think you need to be wary of the Northants figures. The situation is more complex.
Johnathon Edwards had very high standards for proclaiming a conversion. Less than a dozen converts might fit totally well with a packed church given the circumstance. The test of conversion was that you were accepted into full membership by the congregation and almost certainly required behavioural change.
Secondly and equally important, Edwards was actually fired by his congregation for his stance on membership. He was upholding a high standard where his predecessor (grandfather) had been more lax. There, therefore, is good reason for people to want to play down the numbers as well as up.
Jengie
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I pretty much agree with Gamaliel on the topic of revival, but I'd like to pick up on this: quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Do states constructed through the concentratiom of power into one particular corner/set of interest groups have a "soul" in any meaningful sense?
I have a great book on territorial spirits, great not least because it is a mere 63 pages long.
It has this to say about the City (starting with the biblical concept thereof) and "structural powers": quote:
A city (or a company or an institution) is created by, and lives through, the corporate decisions of men and women... there eventually comes into being a corporate spirit that embodies the character or personality of the organisation and gives it its individuality... this... becomes a created reality in its own right... In 100 years time none of the present inhabitants of London will be alive, but London will be alive and well...
(Tom Marshall, Principalities and Powers; seems to have been republished under another name since, fuller quote here)
I certainly don't go for the C. Peter Wagneresque version of territorial spirits and related warfare, but I think there might be something worth considering in Marshall's thinking.
Institutions and their ways of doing things certainly seem to endure beyond the lifetimes of those that make them up.
And institutional change is perhaps one of the most enduring features of a genuine revival.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Two points.
Yes, Andrew Walked et. al. knew what they were talking about; the Religious Studies Dept. at King's London was the place to be at that time (but I have to confess that I'm biased, having studied there ...).
And, thinking of "converts" among "Christians" - I think we must emphasise the "re-" in "revival" - i.e. the awakening of people who already possess some faith and religious knowledge. cf the story of William Haslam. Indeed even Pentecost could be seen in these terms, God's life coming to Jewish believers; the later "Gentile Pentecosts" less so.
Bringing the Gospel to people with no previous background is a different matter, both harder but occasionally easier.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I pretty much agree with Gamaliel on the topic of revival, but I'd like to pick up on this: quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Do states constructed through the concentratiom of power into one particular corner/set of interest groups have a "soul" in any meaningful sense?
I have a great book on territorial spirits, great not least because it is a mere 63 pages long.
@ Eutychus
There are some who want to distinguish between the spirit and soul. I'm not so sure I want to add clearly defined lines between the two.
What I am interested in the point you are making is that I do consider places/establishments/organisations/communities etc to have a spiritual identity or a soul of their own. At least that is how I am reading your comments.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm inclined to think that Exile is a better model than Revival - and may be a more necessary precursor to some spiritual awakening than any kind of hyperbole over some localised effects. But then you can probably get that from my sig.
Not that I'm knocking localised effects BTW. "Send revival, start with me" as one of Matt Redman's songs put it. One person "getting" good news is a cause of rejoicing, both in heaven and on earth.
But as an evangelist of my acquaintance (a self-aware one obviously) put it. "Revival? An evangelist's dream, a pastor's nightmare!"
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
The idea of the Russian soul I think was based in the belief that Russian Orthodoxy, especially in its popular practice, was a peculiarly spiritual and authentic form of Christianity. (I'm not sure Chekov went in for talk of the Russian soul, at least not without irony. Dostoyevsky went on about it all the time.)
I don't really think that Britain has an equivalent.
[ 24. May 2015, 19:19: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair points, Jengie - but you have illustrated the tenor of what I was trying to say - revivalists tend to overlook context and detail.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Also, the numbers thing has to handled carefully in all contexts. Both Wesley and Whitefield tended to exaggerate the size of the crowds who gathered to hear them - and it's always difficult to estimate the size of crowds. There were also lots of other things going on religiously that weren't necessarily revivalist in nature. There were already 40 'religious societies' in London when Wesley established his first on Fetter Lane.
I've seen old film footage of Anglo-Catholic processions in London with hundreds of people taking part - not just troops of boy scouts and other uniformed groups. Of course, not everyone attended church or chapel but there was a general awareness of these things that only persists in migrant communities here today.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, you are being overly literal, SvitlanaV2.
What I'm alluding to is the tendency within many revivalist traditions and circles to give the impression that what happens in church and in meetings/services is the only thing that really counts ...
Of course, revivalists stress that real-life continues but there is often otherworldly tendency in such circles as those of us who have spent any time within such settings will be able to identify.
That's not to say that people aren't involved in the sort of activities that Polly has drawn our attention to ...
Meanwhile - you are right to point out that not many Shipmates come from Pentecostal backgrounds - that is old-time 'traditional' Pentecostal denominations or the black-led Afro-Caribbean ones.
However, a good few of us here have spent time in 'neo-Pentecostal' or other revivalist settings, so we can bring a degree of first-hand experience to bear. I also have in-laws from South Walian working class Pentecostal backgrounds.
I know the tradition pretty well - good sides, bad sides and indifferent.
I wonder if this other-worldliness is a particular problem in British rather than global revivalism. For most people in the world, losing interest in the every day and just focusing on heaven is a luxury they couldn't afford. Black Pentecostals tend to be less dualistic, and the African ones especially do seem to be quite at ease with worldly success.
My grandparents, born and raised in the Tropics, were separately re-baptised into a very new and rapidly expanding Pentecostal movement when they were young adults in the 1920s. It didn't turn them into otherworldly, impractical people. Indeed, their productivity and their participation in the rough and tumble of normal life were far more obvious to me in their lives than in my own! Their doctrines were always of great importance to them, but I never got the impression from them that church life was mainly what mattered. (But their denomination was probably rather theologically different from the ones you joined.)
It's also been said that the popularity of Pentecostalism in Latin America is frequently due to the fact that it helps straying men re-engage with their families, rather than any tendency to make them withdraw from the problems of everyday normal life.
Conversely, my own 'first-hand experience' suggests that the historical denominations tend to emphasise a cerebral approach to faith which in some senses could also be read as rather otherworldly - despite their concern for social justice, and such things. This approach is frequently a world away from meeting the spiritual needs of many working class people around the globe.
Still, you and I may agree that a revival of CofE niceness would be closer to the 'soul' of our own great nation than any sort of Pentecostal revival! More achievable too, I expect.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal?
What would this revival actually look like? Two reasons give me pause.
Firstly, as Gamaliel has pointed out amply above the evidence of past. Similarly, the actual evidence from the 'present day revivals' that are touted in charismatic circles are similarly mixed in terms of actual outcome, with the stories touted about them in charismatic circles to be extremely simplistic at best, and outright lies and exaggerations at worst (see Eutychus' past posts on healing alleged by Bethel and others).
This is even before one looks into the personal practices of leading figures in such movements and find out what a strange lot they really are.
I think a hope, and a longing for something better comes naturally, and is easily diverted into try to immanetize the eschaton.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Hi, yes, I'm coming at the subject from a Pentecostal background and a position that the country does need a Christian revival (and that this would make things better for most people (although there would be socio-economic repercussions for some trades if it ever did happen again)).
[As a tangent, I'd be interested in finding out what you believe the socio-economic repercussions would be]
quote:
So, yes, I do think that Britain needs to heal in many ways, and that this healing should take the form of a revival in Christianity.
Which past revivals do you feel best exemplify what you are talking about?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Svitlana - arguably the Roman Catholic Church is the least cerebral of the mainstream denominations in the UK at least, and has a tradition of mysticism (albeit mostly associated with religious orders). It has also historically been associated with working class people and immigrants.
Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on
:
The idea of a country having a soul seems to be just a quasi-religious way of dressing up nationalism.
Avoid!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'm wondering if it's being used in the same way as some Christians would use the term "saving souls" for converting individuals to the Christian faith. So, could revival be considered "saving the soul of a nation"? Something more than just the sum of the "souls" of the individuals converted.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
South Walian Pentecostals tended to be practical people too. You have missed my point, SvitlanaV2.
And no, I am not calling for a 'revival of CofE niceness' either. I'd be very tempted not to be nice to you if you continue to make those sorts of comments. But hey ...
I would also argue that the emphasis on prosperity and worldly wealth within certain African and other groups is itself highly dualistic because it's generally based on the manipulation or application of right techniques and beliefs in order to bring it about.
On balance, though, I would consider white working class Pentecostalism and the traditional black-led Pentecostal and Holiness churches to be more 'rootsy' and 'authentic' than HTB style middle-class charismaticism.
So, please don't misunderstand me. I also agree that there is still a raw, working class element within the RCs in the UK but the mileage varies
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Svitlana - arguably the Roman Catholic Church is the least cerebral of the mainstream denominations in the UK at least, and has a tradition of mysticism (albeit mostly associated with religious orders). It has also historically been associated with working class people and immigrants.
I admit, I was thinking of the Protestant mainstream churches, and also the CofE (for those who don't see it as essentially Protestant).
Perhaps I forgot the RCC as I somehow don't see the interesting possibilities of how it might possess, the 'soul' of Britain. There are more RCs than there are Pentecostals, but the discourse around Catholicism is one of problems and crisis management, which isn't the case for Pentecostalism.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I will admit that it's hard to see how the RCC could capture the 'soul of Britain', and certain areas would strongly contest such an idea! I was more commenting on the cerebral nature of mainstream denominations - I don't think you're wrong on that count, though obviously it varies amongst denominations.
To put the initial question another way, which places capture the soul of Britain? What are the holy places of Britain? I think that's one's guide to the soul of Britain.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gamaliel
I think the point about black Pentecostalism being less dualistic is that it makes less of a division between soul and body; the religious community is meant to serve both equally. And it's not a question of church life being more important than daily life, because daily life is felt to be diffused with spirituality. Washing socks and going to work (thoroughly non-literal examples, of course!) aren't seen as inconvenient intrusions upon the spiritual life.
But if your point is simply that Pentecostals are more interested in heaven than, say, Methodists than I could hardly disagree. (Although I also think there are differences of emphasis between Methodists from different cultural backgrounds.)
TBH, I wouldn't mind a revival of Methodist (or even CofE) 'niceness', if that meant attracting the seekers and the bewildered into inspiring and nurturing communities of love. Niceness as a euphemism for conflict-avoidance and superficiality isn't great, but I was getting at a warm religious 'ordinaryness' that might be easier for the British to engage with than the Pentecostal other-worldliness that some people may find inappropriate. Otherwise, what's left? Which Christian institution or movement gets closest to representing the British 'soul'? Which institution(s) could adopt that position in our culture?
[ 24. May 2015, 23:33: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Black Pentecostals tend to be less dualistic, and the African ones especially do seem to be quite at ease with worldly success.
OTOH such circles have issues when success doesn't automatically follow, selective monism doesn't really cure dualism, it just displaces it elsewhere.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I've been handed "success" tracts by white, brown and black Christians. So tough to see the common denominator here...
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
When a majority of the population or even a substantial minority of a country doesn't identify as religious, does the behavior of a religious minority qualify as a "national soul"?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
To put the initial question another way, which places capture the soul of Britain? What are the holy places of Britain? I think that's one's guide to the soul of Britain.
I would say that if we were to consider the concept of "soul of Britain" to be useful then this would be a good place to start. I would also add in events as well as places.
I think for a lot of people the "holy places" wouldn't be associated with any religion. I would say that "holy places" would include:
- The countryside. Specific examples would include the wild places of our National Parks - the Lake District, the moors of Yorkshire and the SW, Snowdonia, the Scottish Highlands. Also, gentler places like the Cotswolds or Broads.
- Sporting venues. Wimbledon, Lords, Wembley, Old Trafford, Hambden ...
- Cultural heritage. Things like the Tower of London, Natural History Museum, Edinburgh Castle ... Also music, film and the like: Beatles and Stones, various bands from Manchester ... ; films like Zulu, The Italian Job (the original with Michael "you were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" Caine), Carry On ...; TV like Dr Who, Only Fools and Horses ...
I also mentioned events. What do we commemorate, generally recognise as foundaitonal to our character? - Several events in the last war; the London Blitz, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain ...
- Other historic battles: Hastings, Rourkes Drift, Culloden ...
[i]The General Strike, Suffragettes ...
And, you may have noticed there's nothing specifically religious in there. That's because I don't think religion is a substantive element in the "soul of Britain". Maybe that's what revival would do, put religion (Christianity, or part thereof) back into the soul of the nation. Though if that means becoming a "Christian Nation" the way some right wing elements in the US would want their country personally I'd prefer things the way they are.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair points, Jengie - but you have illustrated the tenor of what I was trying to say - revivalists tend to overlook context and detail.
I often wonder if it is a kind of importing into Christianity what Campolo referred to as 'The Success Fantasy". The numbers game is I guess a way of measuring that kind of 'success'. Not sure it's got a lot to do with the commission to make disciples. Learning how to follow Christ may start with a single step, but it's a long job, both for individuals and Christian communities.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I refer y'all back to the comments from Tom Marshall I quoted above. I don't know about soul, but "corporate personality" is a term actually widely used (as indeed, is "company spirit").
To Alan's list one might add the Royal Albert Hall, described as "England's village hall" (and, it turns out, inscribed with Bible verses round the cupola). In the emerging days of the house church movement a meeting was held there at which one leader said "we've invited you to the Albert Hall tonight because we couldn't fit you all in our front room".
I'm not sure such places can be redeemed as souls can, but they carry a resonance that seems to go beyond the sum of the parts.
One might also jump the pond and consider the twin towers. Bin Laden well understood that their destruction had a hugely symbolic (one might indeed say spiritual) value over and above the loss of life and property. Could it not be legitimately said to be a blow struck against the soul of the nation?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To Alan's list one might add the Royal Albert Hall, described as "England's village hall"
I had thought about putting in the Proms, Last Night in particular. But, I wanted more of an illustrative idea than a comprehensive list (probably attempting such a list would be worthy of a thread on it's own, in Heaven).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wanted more of an illustrative idea than a comprehensive list (probably attempting such a list would be worthy of a thread on it's own, in Heaven).
I think it (or something very like it) has been done before!
Despite having just contributed above, I also think there's a danger, as has been mentioned, of nationalism or simply heading into nostalgia.
To the extent that I think Marshall's ideas have any traction, I think the nature of disembodied spirits is a little harder to discern.
CS Lewis seemed to lend this idea some credit, too, by the way. From That Hideous Strength:
quote:
Every people has its own haunter... He doesn't make two blades of grass the same: how much less two saints, two nations, two angels. The whole work of healing Tellus [Earth] depends on nursing that little spark, on incarnating that ghost, which is still alive in every real people, and different in each... When Logres really dominates in Britain, when the goddess Reason, the divine clearness, is really enthroned in France, when the order of Heaven is really followed in China - why, then it will be spring.
[ 25. May 2015, 06:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
The idea of a country having a soul seems to be just a quasi-religious way of dressing up nationalism.
Avoid!
Yes, possibly. I just thought it could make a helpful and interesting metaphor. I tend to see cities in a similar way and will always ask questions like 'How did London treat you?' when a friend returns from a trip there.
Inevitably it is always going to be a generalisation (and likely inaccurate), but there are some Biblical parallels with cities and countries being given characteristics (such as the assignation of animal symbolism for countries in the OT or the way in which Christ speaks of individual cities in the gospels).
I don't think it necessarily has to be jingoistic because the soul of Britain isn't very nationalistic in character.
Sometimes I see glimpses of the idea in things that people say. For example, after the recent election, when I expressed dismay at the result someone replied to me 'The people are afraid'. (I had thought people selfish and greedy).
With regards to revival, it would be good to see an inclusive revival. And more than that, I think it would be good to see a revival with freedom as a huge aspect to it (after all 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom').
I have tried to reason with God that a Christian revival would make things better for the people of this country and that it shouldn't be withheld because doing so is like a father disciplining an entire group of children for the misbehaviour of a few. As usual, I fear I have lost the argument.
But I still profoundly think that it would make things better (and be inclusive). That there are others who profoundly believe it would make things worse seems pretty obvious (and I'm not sure I can link to evidence that the drugs trade and some authorities are against such an idea if they are aware of it, but I think it is likely).
I don't, incidentally, think such a change in the nation would make pubs etc lose trade. In many ways I am naive in that I simply believe that the 'soul of Britain' would find healing in communication and dialogue with its/her creation.
I just think it is an interesting idea and I think that some of the opposition to a national awakening is misplaced.
Even the Christian community is divided over it, but it isn't in the Nicene creed that you have to either support or oppose a revival. Some Christians have a genuine fear that there is something dodgy about the whole idea and I get that.
[ 25. May 2015, 06:36: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
As you will have gathered, the topic has been much discussed here.
I think that before discussing further, and possibly before having any tangible faith for your prayers, you have to nail down precisely what you mean and expect by 'revival', and consider just how it would work, not in some nineteenth-century rose-tinted vision, but in your current context.
The city I live in was the starting-point of a revival among a specific people group in the late 1950s which spread worldwide and is to all intents and purposes still going on. It has even entailed national, institutional change. But in some respects it is an inch deep and a mile wide, and creates as many problems as it solves.
In a more recent development, a few days ago a born evangelist of my acquaintance came to my door and announced God had called him to evangelise the collection of artists, misfits, ex-prisoners, junkies and new age travellers that inhabit a soon-to-be-developed industrial wasteland in one part of my city. (By dint of driving his car up and playing worship CDs at full blast). He's met a lady who comes to our church who happens to work in this environment (and is half in it herself). He claims there's been a huge response and has now enjoined me, as a pastor, to take over, otherwise, his words, "you'll have 200 more people in your church soon".
I'm pretty sure I would have something meaningful to contribute to this effort, and I'm sure I could talk it up a lot, but the honest truth is that the prospect of this particular revival seems like a nightmare to me.
[ 25. May 2015, 07:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As you will have gathered, the topic has been much discussed here.
I think that before discussing further, and possibly before having any tangible faith for your prayers, you have to nail down precisely what you mean and expect by 'revival', and consider just how it would work, not in some nineteenth-century rose-tinted vision, but in your current context.
The city I live in was the starting-point of a revival among a specific people group in the late 1950s which spread worldwide and is to all intents and purposes still going on. It has even entailed national, institutional change. But in some respects it is an inch deep and a mile wide, and creates as many problems as it solves.
In a more recent development, a few days ago a born evangelist of my acquaintance came to my door and announced God had called him to evangelise the collection of artists, misfits, ex-prisoners, junkies and new age travellers that inhabit a soon-to-be-developed industrial wasteland in one part of my city. (By dint of driving his car up and playing worship CDs at full blast). He's met a lady who comes to our church who happens to work in this environment (and is half in it herself). He claims there's been a huge response and has now enjoined me, as a pastor, to take over, otherwise, his words, "you'll have 200 more people in your church soon".
I'm pretty sure I would have something meaningful to contribute to this effort, and I'm sure I could talk it up a lot, but the honest truth is that the prospect of this particular revival seems like a nightmare to me.
Don't worry, I don't know how to start a genuine revival and all I know of it has been from reading and studying books (I'm an armchair revivalist).
I would hope that a genuine revival wouldn't make things worse or cause any harm to individuals (beyond the loss of trade for some - e.g. the arms trade (as a result of an increase in social action)). If I thought it would cause harm I would not support the idea at all.
But I could live with supporting a revival which meant increased employment for many and loss of employment for a few (for example those within the arms trade). The increase in social action which accompanies large-scale revivals seems to make things better in so many aspects from what I have read.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
In my view it's better to think of revivals versus "normal life" in terms of the difference between crisis and process, rather than "good/less good" or "the norm/substandard lukewarmness".
In revivals, things - both good and bad - happen quickly and noticeably. In normal life, things - both good and bad - also happen, just more slowly.
Life is made up of both crises and processes. A good pastor/teacher will prepare the flock to deal with both, and to expect more process-based components than crisis-based ones*.
Teaching a church to expect only revival is to build up a false expectation and thereby run the risk of introducing false teaching and, as chris stiles has mentioned, false testimony.
In some ways, the Bible doesn't help, especially the NT, because it inevitably focuses on the "crises" in order not to be even longer than it actually is! (The OT does have a lot more background, for instance 1 Chr 1-8, but we usually skip over bits like that as "boring").
If you read Acts 19 aloud, it takes about three minutes. What most people, especially those of more excitable persuasion, take away is:
- the Ephesians receiving the Holy Spirit
- the extraordinary miracles God did through Paul
- the seven sons of Sceva débâcle
- the subsequent mass turning away from witchcraft
What they tend to miss is verse 9-10, which tells in a few words of how Paul taught daily in a lecture hall - for two years. You see my point?
==
*Very many years ago I preached a series, I forget on which minor prophet, the working title of which was "how to live between revivals". But that probably just shows how thrawn I am.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Regarding the definition of the term - I have spoken to a number of non-Christians about the whole concept and most of them understand the idea immediately to mean an increase in the number of Christians and the practice of Christianity (with occasional miracles). I have rarely had to define the terminology with them.
Even the Muslims I spoke to understood the whole idea as the concept seems to have a mirror-debate in Islam. They wanted to see an element of 'fun' in the whole thing and expressed dismay that this is so lacking in the debate. I never sensed any threat or great antagonism to the idea from Muslims and I did live among them in a Muslim majority community for seven years. But perhaps I am naive.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm not an expert, but the 'mirror' concept within Islam which immediately springs to mind in terms of your broad definition of revival and national soul is the Ummah, which I think would make most Westerners quite nervous these days.
[ 25. May 2015, 08:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In my view it's better to think of revivals versus "normal life" in terms of the difference between crisis and process, rather than "good/less good" or "the norm/substandard lukewarmness".
In revivals, things - both good and bad - happen quickly and noticeably. In normal life, things - both good and bad - also happen, just more slowly.
Life is made up of both crises and processes. A good pastor/teacher will prepare the flock to deal with both, and to expect more process-based components than crisis-based ones*.
Teaching a church to expect only revival is to build up a false expectation and thereby run the risk of introducing false teaching and, as chris stiles has mentioned, false testimony.
In some ways, the Bible doesn't help, especially the NT, because it inevitably focuses on the "crises" in order not to be even longer than it actually is! (The OT does have a lot more background, for instance 1 Chr 1-8, but we usually skip over bits like that as "boring").
If you read Acts 19 aloud, it takes about three minutes. What most people, especially those of more excitable persuasion, take away is:
- the Ephesians receiving the Holy Spirit
- the extraordinary miracles God did through Paul
- the seven sons of Sceva débâcle
- the subsequent mass turning away from witchcraft
What they tend to miss is verse 9-10, which tells in a few words of how Paul taught daily in a lecture hall - for two years. You see my point?
==
*Very many years ago I preached a series, I forget on which minor prophet, the working title of which was "how to live between revivals". But that probably just shows how thrawn I am.
I'm not coming at you from a sinister angle. I hold an open-minded scepticism towards many modern day 'revivals'. I'm looking for the genuine.
Do Christian leaders resist the idea because it seems to imply a shed-load more work? From what I have read it is the Christian leaders who are used initially in revivals.
Any revival surely would include those who oppose it anyway? You have to admit that such a change from the status quo would make life much more interesting (putting aside the insistence that such a revival could be seen as a life or death issue on all levels).
I still say that my support for any future revival entirely depends on the ways individuals are treated. If an individual was hurt or harmed as a result of the revival then it wouldn't be worth it and would be against the whole message of the thing (a message which I assumed to be the gospel).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't think you can manufacture a revival. You can only hope to cope with it as best you can.
I also think it's illusory to believe no damage will be done.
Alpha perhaps summarises my ambivalence about all this - I was working, pro bono, at the recent international conference in London.
There's no doubt in my mind that Alpha got a huge boost through the Toronto Blessing. I don't think that combination was engineered. It was happenstance or a God-incidence depending on how you see these things. I cordially dislike just about everything about Alpha, its classism, its elitism, its superficiality, and positively abhor its marketing ethos. It has damaged people, and there are people on the Ship to tell the tale.
But much to my annoyance, I can't dispel the notion that God is actually using the damned thing to bring people into a relationship with Christ, and, at least in the recent conference, into a broader recognition of the wider body of Christ.
Would I actively seek something like Alpha? No way. Should I acknowledge the good it does do and try to embrace that despite my broader reservations? Probably, yes.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think you can manufacture a revival. You can only hope to cope with it as best you can.
I also think it's illusory to believe no damage will be done.
Alpha perhaps summarises my ambivalence about all this - I was working, pro bono, at the recent international conference in London.
There's no doubt in my mind that Alpha got a huge boost through the Toronto Blessing. I don't think that combination was engineered. It was happenstance or a God-incidence depending on how you see these things. I cordially dislike just about everything about Alpha, its classism, its elitism, its superficiality, and positively abhor its marketing ethos. It has damaged people, and there are people on the Ship to tell the tale.
But much to my annoyance, I can't dispel the notion that God is actually using the damned thing to bring people into a relationship with Christ, and, at least in the recent conference, into a broader recognition of the wider body of Christ.
Would I actively seek something like Alpha? No way. Should I acknowledge the good it does do and try to embrace that despite my broader reservations? Probably, yes.
Then I have been duped by an illusion that no physical harm will come of it. But if I am deceived then at least I know it.
I don't think a revival is worth the spilling of blood. I don't think a person's death or harm should occur to initiate or sustain an awakening. I don't think a revival should harm, it should heal.
But I'm willing to accept bruised egos and loss of trade or employment among some as a result of it.
A revival has its source in the gospel - the life of Christ and the things he taught. Like love, like mercy, like giving, like kindness. It should also be a unifying force in bringing denominations together, like a family engaged in a project. Including Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox.
To divorce a revival from the message of love which Christ embodied is not a revival in the way I understand it.
[ 25. May 2015, 08:50: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Do Christian leaders resist the idea because it seems to imply a shed-load more work?
I'm not sure Christian leaders resist the idea. They may well resist particular attempts to bring about revival or particular visions of what revival will be, but that's something else.
'Revival' is something that has resulted in a lot of stereotypes, and sometimes those seeking revival do play upto those stereotypes (intentionally or otherwise). We have images of 'revival meetings', big tents with unlikely testimonies and emotionally manipulating addresses calling people forward to be saved. People talk about revival breathing life into 'dead churches' (and, if you were the minister or a member of one of those churches being called 'dead' isn't going to endear you to the revivalists!). We have 'prayer walks' around town praying for revival, stepping over the homeless sleeping in the door ways, or concentrating on the pub as a 'den of iniquity' while ignoring the high street fashion store employing staff on below-living wages and selling the produce of sweat shops in Asia.
Those are all particular ways in which 'revival' is presented or expected. And, there is plenty to criticise in all of them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Then I have been duped by an illusion that no physical harm will come of it. But if I am deceived then at least I know it.
I don't know about physical harm, but psychological harm, certainly. You can read as much right back in Whitefield and Wesley!
quote:
I don't think a revival should harm, it should heal.
You seem to have missed my point about revival being a religious word for crisis. It does both more good and more damage in a shorter time.
quote:
But I'm willing to accept bruised egos and loss of trade or employment among some as a result of it.
A lot of what passes for revival these days seems to be about promoting, not bruising egos ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
And as Alan hints, I think dreams of entire evil industries spontaneously disappearing are largely a seductive alternative to the incremental, incarnational grind of bringing about that change on a day-to-day basis that commits you or me personally to actually doing something.
quote:
A revival has its source in the gospel - the life of Christ and the things he taught. Like love, like mercy, like giving, like kindness.
Says who? The word isn't actually in the Bible anywhere! quote:
It should also be a unifying force in bringing denominations together, like a family engaged in a project.
See Alan's priceless comment above on Christmas. The historical reality is that revivals have been divisive, and indeed Jesus' words about bringing a sword and setting parents against children etc. suggest there will always be divisive and violent aspects to the progress of the Gospel - as does a careful reading of Acts.
[ 25. May 2015, 09:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I agree with the places and events thing. I also agree that Pentecostalism can be very holistic - but only within particular parameters.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know about physical harm, but psychological harm, certainly. You can read as much right back in Whitefield and Wesley!
and going back to Edwards one sees a similar position (as an example, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Abigail Hutchinson essentially starved herself to death).
quote:
You seem to have missed my point about revival being a religious word for crisis. It does both more good and more damage in a shorter time.
I think seeing revival as an intensification of sorts is a very good model, thanks for that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A massive family argument, 15 pairs of socks and an ill-fitting pullover? "Lord, we wanted revival not a collection of bad cracker jokes!". "But, I thought you wanted the soul of Britain ... that is bad jokes"
Ho ho ho.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At the risk of sounding patronising, I used to be an armchair revivalist and took a lot of revivalist accounts at face value until I read around the subject more deeply.
I am not saying we should take 18th and 19th century accounts with a pinch of salt - but we do need to see these things in their cultural and historical contexts.
What revivalism does - and Pentecostal revivalism in particular - is to focus on the more black and white elements - it takes out the nuance and shades of grey.
To put it crudely, Pentecostals create a Wesley, a Whitefield or a Jonathan Edwards in their own image.
Despite all the stories from 1904/05 there is absolutely no evidence of pubs closing and beer being poured down the drains - what a waste - and although there was some reduction in petty crime, pre-1904 Wales had a low crime rate.
Also, as I've said here before, there is only so long you can stand in a chapel singing revivalist hymns - people need other outlets and in Wales - for all the protests of the revivalists - that tended to consist of sport, the Eisteddfod and Liberal - then Labour politics. The revivalists used to rail against sport and almost anything that wasn't obviously spiritual - although the more moderate chapels had sports teams and amateur dramatics.
There was also an ugly side in North Wales that is often overlooked - in some villages Anglican families were forced out by their non-conformist neighbours. You don't read about that in popular revivalist literature.
Elsewhere, the Anglicans benefitted from the revival as much as the chapels did.
From what I've heard from people whose parents or grandparents were involved, what started spontaneously quickly became formulaic and as many people were put off or inoculated against the Gospel by revivalism as were attracted or converted by it.
Both things were going on at one and the same time.
I've visited Gypsy churches in Spain that came from the 'Gypsy revival' and the same thing seemed to be happening there.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
The idea of asking God for a revival and God saying no is a new one for me. I must confess that I mostly think of revival in terms of people developing a deeper spiritual life (through reading the Bible, prayer, church attendance etc), experiencing the positive effects of that, and it then catching on. I'm not saying that the Spirit isn't in there by the way, because surely some of the most important and powerful work the Spirit does is in the little things?
On a friend's facebook post the other day, a Pentecostal friend of theirs was talking about people going to Pentecostal churches because of big signs and wonders, raising the dead etc etc. I'm not cessationist, but that sort of talk makes me sympathise with them! Like Gandalf, God is not a 'conjurer of cheap tricks' - signs and wonders fade away, they're not deep long-lasting spirituality. The Spirit nudges us and intercedes for us - and convicting people into feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless is far more the Spirit's line of work than putting all the arms dealers out of a job suddenly (as much as I would love to see the arms trade vanish).
Also bear in mind that most people would see the kind of thing mentioned in terms of revival by the OP as general good human qualities, not Christian ones. Certainly most non-Christians I know would associate a revival with an increase in Christian (or 'Christian') busybody puritanical behaviour.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yep - all that Pomona ...
There are upsides and downsides to all these things. A kind of busybody, interfering form of Puritanical religion was certainly a feature of the revivals in the Hebrides, South Wales and even East Anglia in the early to mid 20th century ...
We're talking 1904/05 Wales, early 1920s Suffolk/parts of Norfolk and the North East of Scotland ('the forgotten revival') and the late 1940s early 1950s on the Isle of Lewis.
That isn't to knock the positive effects, but with revival as with anything else there's the rough and there's the smooth ...
On the subject of revival, I think I've posted Steve Latham's helpful definition before when this topic has cropped up.
Adapting Andrew Walker's famous 'R' formula for the various strands of 'restorationism' - R1, R2 etc ... Latham identified 6 levels of 'revival':
R1: spiritual quickening of the individual believer.
R2: a deliberate meeting or campaign, especially among Pentecostals to deepen the faith of believers and bring non-believers to faith.
R3: an unplanned period of spiritual enlivening in a local church, quickening believers and bringing unbelievers to faith.
R4: a regional experience of spiritual awakening and widespread conversions eg. the Welsh, Hebridean, East African and Indonesian revivals, and possibly Pensacola in the 1990s (Latham wrote this in 2002).
R5: Societal or cultural 'awakenings' eg. the transatlantic First and Second Awakenings.
R6: the possible reversal of secularism and 'revival' of Christianity as such.
See: On Revival: A critical Examination, ed. Andrew Walker and Kirstin Aune, Paternoster Press, 2003.
I think most posters here would be broadly comfortable with this definition - and R4 and R5 is probably the form of 'revival' that Alyosha is thinking of - with hopes that these might extent to R6.
Would that be correct, Alyosha?
If so, the question remains as to whether we can have a realistic expectation of R4, R5 and R6 in a post-Christian, increasingly secularised UK?
On the 'soul' thing - I think it can be possible to think in terms of the 'soul of a nation' etc without it necessarily drifting into crude nationalism and phyletism ... but it's a fine line.
Many of my Orthodox contacts - but by no means all - would readily accept that notions of 'Holy Russia' and so on can easily spill over into forms of chauvinism and even fascism.
I'd also suggest it's possible to think in terms of 'genius locii' - and sense of place etc - but that might be material for another thread.
I don't doubt that there have been 'genuine' revivals with lasting and far-reaching effects - however, in this fallen and imperfect world I submit that we're barking up the wrong tree if we go looking for some kind of shining perfection.
Like Eutychus, I think many of us are overly inclined to take a highly romanticised view of the Book of Acts and equally revivalist accounts which are often partial, written to promote a particular viewpoint (whether Arminian, Calvinist or whatever else) and which focus on the spectacular rather than the mundane.
In Acts 14:4 we read that the 'people of the city were divided, some sided with the Jews and others with the Apostles'.
You're never going to get a situation where everyone gets on board. That didn't happen in the 1st century, why should we expect it to be any different now?
There was a lot of talk - a lot of talk - about revival in the 1980s and '90s. Eutychus and others will well remember it ... the psyching up of expectations, the various unfulfilled prophecies and a lot of trumpeting and harrumphing around.
It seemed to boil over about the time of the Toronto Blessing and apart from some sporadic outbursts and claims, I've not heard a great deal of 'revival talk' since that time - mainly because I don't move in circles these days where this expectation is rife - although I do hear it at times from some of the New Wine-y Anglicans.
Will there be another revival? Can we expect one?
I actually think it's the wrong question to ask.
I think we ought to simply get on with whatever it is we're doing to serve the Kingdom and aim to help alleviate need and suffering whenever we can.
Yes, we can avail ourselves of means to quicken our spiritual lives - but that might not be particularly 'revivalist' in flavour. For some it could be a monastic retreat, for others participation in study groups or forms of activism ...
There's this whacky idea out there that if we all somehow strain and go 'GGGNNNNnnnnnnnn ...' we can somehow summon up revival.
It don't work like that.
Let's just get on with loving our neighbours, serving our communities, doing those things that need doing - however unspectacular - and if the sovereign Lord sees fit to honour our efforts then that's great.
Mithering about revival seems like a great big red-herring to me ... and the further I get from revivalist forms of spirituality the more I come to that conclusion. That's not to say that I disparage 'enthusiasm' and oomph - we need those -but equally it also means that we don't spend our lives teetering on the brink of some imagined 'new thing' that's going to put everything 'just so' ...
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Yes, I mean:
R5: Societal or cultural 'awakenings' eg. the transatlantic First and Second Awakenings.
R6: the possible reversal of secularism and 'revival' of Christianity as such.
(Rather than a small scale Pentecostal Elmer Gantry style revival).
On the Puritanical nature of past revivals and revivalists, I think it is likely that there would be an element of that in any future revival. Personally I would favour greater freedom in every sense. I think a revival should free a person up rather than leave them feeling stifled and constrained.
On the prayer aspect of it - I don't really think it is fair to say that a national revival should equate to a personal deepening of faith (this is a different thing). That is like saying a miracle is a flower or a new-born baby. They are nice, but they are not miracles.
So, I take God's answer as a firm 'no'. However, the often quoted scripture is that "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
I'm not saying I've entirely turned away from my wicked ways, but you would think that a few Christians would have managed to do so. And as a result it is still like asking a father for a Christmas present for an entire family, only to be told that the misbehaviour of a few means that Christmas is cancelled for all.
Learning not to blame others for such unanswered prayers is perhaps something that I need to learn to do more of.
However, there is no revival. There is an ebb. Many people prefer the ebb. And so the status quo remains. I would suggest that the authorities and the drug dealers and the arms traders are also very content with this status quo. I'm not.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
And as a result it is still like asking a father for a Christmas present for an entire family, only to be told that the misbehaviour of a few means that Christmas is cancelled for all.
The text in Chronicles may be oft-quoted, but you have to bear in mind a) it was very definitely directed at OT Israel, so you first have to make a case for it applying today b) it is quite an interpretative leap from there (a promise of healing for the land and forgiveness of the people of God) to any of the definitions of revival being discussed.
quote:
I would suggest that the authorities and the drug dealers and the arms traders are also very content with this status quo. I'm not.
Can you think of a revival, any revival, that has significantly reduced armed conflict? I can't, at least not off the top of my head. In fact not a few people think that World War I was a direct (Satanic) consequence of the Welsh revival (to reverse its positive impact). From what I can tell, the alleged recent Cwmbran "revival" seems to have destroyed what sounds to have been a valiant effort to cater to drug abusers.
My experience is that God expects us to be in there among the druggies and dealers and the violent and bringing the good news, one bite at a time and most often with only mitigated success.
If God chooses to sober up and disarm a whole bunch of people at a time, I'm not going to stand in his way, but the harder I look the less I see any real precedent for this.
[ 25. May 2015, 17:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alyosha: That is like saying a miracle is a flower or a new-born baby. They are nice, but they are not miracles.
(I think they are.)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Yes, I mean:
R5: Societal or cultural 'awakenings' eg. the transatlantic First and Second Awakenings.
R6: the possible reversal of secularism and 'revival' of Christianity as such.
On what timescales would you expect R5 and R6 to occur ? And what evidence do you have that the First and Second Good Enough Awakenings - of themselves - actually changed things culturally/societally in a direction that was distinctively Christian ? What examples of R6 are you thinking of from a historical perspective?
It is notable that for all the noise, the evidence for any societal changes accompanying any of the revivals in Britain over the last 100 years have been greatly lacking. Conversely, if you look for those defining moments in the last 100 years when the country has changed direction (the election of 1945 for instance), revival has been nowhere to be seen.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Yes, I mean:
R5: Societal or cultural 'awakenings' eg. the transatlantic First and Second Awakenings.
R6: the possible reversal of secularism and 'revival' of Christianity as such.
(Rather than a small scale Pentecostal Elmer Gantry style revival).
On the Puritanical nature of past revivals and revivalists, I think it is likely that there would be an element of that in any future revival. Personally I would favour greater freedom in every sense. I think a revival should free a person up rather than leave them feeling stifled and constrained.
On the prayer aspect of it - I don't really think it is fair to say that a national revival should equate to a personal deepening of faith (this is a different thing). That is like saying a miracle is a flower or a new-born baby. They are nice, but they are not miracles.
So, I take God's answer as a firm 'no'. However, the often quoted scripture is that "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
I'm not saying I've entirely turned away from my wicked ways, but you would think that a few Christians would have managed to do so. And as a result it is still like asking a father for a Christmas present for an entire family, only to be told that the misbehaviour of a few means that Christmas is cancelled for all.
Learning not to blame others for such unanswered prayers is perhaps something that I need to learn to do more of.
However, there is no revival. There is an ebb. Many people prefer the ebb. And so the status quo remains. I would suggest that the authorities and the drug dealers and the arms traders are also very content with this status quo. I'm not.
Re the prayer aspect (sorry, no good at quoting small sections of a post!), that's not exactly what I mean - I meant that a revival is a consequence of a deepening of faith. It's like the phrase 'the harder you work, the luckier you are' - I feel like expecting a revival out of nowhere with a purely supernatural cause is not how most revivals happen.
To take Cwmbran as an example - the church there sounds like it was doing a good thing with local addicts. To me that is the real revival of the Spirit going on, but people got caught up in the signs and wonders and so it fizzled out. A revival takes work on behalf of the revived. Israel in Josiah's time is a good Biblical example IMO - Josiah just didn't ask God for a revival, he got it started. That's not denying that the Holy Spirit was involved, just that God doesn't force revival on people but works with them to produce revival.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Sorry Pomona, I misunderstood.
I also hope LeRoc that you will forgive me for not thinking that a flower or a baby is a miracle. I appreciate them and they are very nice (with mustard), but I find it very difficult to see them as miracles as I understand the word.
I find myself too wrapped up in this debate and it is God's kingdom anyway. He is making the choice not to send a revival here (and possibly not in my lifetime. I have to adjust to that fact. But I don't have to like it.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I suppose you could then look for how smaller-scale revival could happen around you - in your church or your workplace or whatever.
I feel like I don't quite 'get' why revival is so necessary in the form you want it? Could you maybe expand on why you see revival as so necessary?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I suppose you could then look for how smaller-scale revival could happen around you - in your church or your workplace or whatever.
I feel like I don't quite 'get' why revival is so necessary in the form you want it? Could you maybe expand on why you see revival as so necessary?
Revival would never come in the form I want it. I want a revival in which love and freedom reign and the atmosphere changes for the better and miracles are experienced. I want an exciting, inclusive, fun revival. I doubt that would happen. Not everyone likes Christmas either.
I think it is necessary though because, not only do believers supposedly feel happiness and joy, but also because of the knock-on social impact to the general population. I think that the presence of revivals reduces all kinds of unnecessary deaths and acts as a kind of genuine healing for people in general.
Maybe I have romantasiced it (although I would like to know how I could romantisice something which has never occurred in my lifetime), but I simply believe that it is the direction that the country should take and that in doing so, it will make things better. It doesn't matter as I am not a leader and as a result I get little say in decisions made outside my own life. I am willing to accept that I cannot change the world, but I am not willing to accept that I can't change my own world for the better. There are too many concessions made in this life by people and it stinks.
That's without even going into the idea of people receiving eternal life and evil being as defeated as it can be.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I feel that to say you want revival so people are happy and less ill/die less(??) is definitely romanticising it. Sorry. It sounds quite different to the basis of most Christian revivals - it sounds a bit New Agey to me.
Of course you can romanticise something you've never experienced, this is how most romanticising happens! Eg people romanticise the Tudors or the French Revolution or being a 50s housewife. Generally people who went through those things know the reality of it.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I feel that to say you want revival so people are happy and less ill/die less(??) is definitely romanticising it. Sorry. It sounds quite different to the basis of most Christian revivals - it sounds a bit New Agey to me.
Of course you can romanticise something you've never experienced, this is how most romanticising happens! Eg people romanticise the Tudors or the French Revolution or being a 50s housewife. Generally people who went through those things know the reality of it.
People would die less because there would be increased social action from believers in which the homeless, the needy, the vulnerable would be cared for better. Crime rates would lower. Drug deaths would decrease.
I feel like I'm espousing something totally alien to you all. All I'm promoting is the idea that a people return to their creator, the source of love who made you and I and the earth.
I simply can't seem to win in this and I find it frustrating that the greatest opposition seems to come from within the Church. But it is God's decision and God is clearly of the same mind as you all.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I feel that to say you want revival so people are happy and less ill/die less(??) is definitely romanticising it. Sorry. It sounds quite different to the basis of most Christian revivals - it sounds a bit New Agey to me.
Of course you can romanticise something you've never experienced, this is how most romanticising happens! Eg people romanticise the Tudors or the French Revolution or being a 50s housewife. Generally people who went through those things know the reality of it.
People would die less because there would be increased social action from believers in which the homeless, the needy, the vulnerable would be cared for better. Crime rates would lower. Drug deaths would decrease.
I feel like I'm espousing something totally alien to you all. All I'm promoting is the idea that a people return to their creator, the source of love who made you and I and the earth.
I simply can't seem to win in this and I find it frustrating that the greatest opposition seems to come from within the Church. But it is God's decision and God is clearly of the same mind as you all.
But why does this need revival? Surely this can happen without a Pentecostal type revival?
Maybe God wants people to work at serving Him rather than waiting around for revival to happen.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
To take Cwmbran as an example - the church there sounds like it was doing a good thing with local addicts. To me that is the real revival of the Spirit going on, but people got caught up in the signs and wonders and so it fizzled out.
I don't think that's what happened at all. As I understand it (which is admittedly from some distance), the centre for addicts was doing a good but discrete work under the leadership of its founding couple, who I think also founded the church. They seem to have handed over leadership to a bunch of other people who opportunistically used their new-found positions of authority for their own ends and wrecked the vehicles. There were no independently attested 'signs and wonders' at all.
Otherwise, alyosha, I agree with Pomona that there's nothing distinctly "revival"-like about your aspirations. People are engaged in the kind of thing you express all the time, it just doesn't get hyped up and make the news.
[ 25. May 2015, 18:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
There really must be more to life than this.
I'm not attempting to promote a Pentecostal-denomination revival. Yesterday was the day of Pentecost as celebrated by many Christians. As a result I wrote the OP with the intention of creating an interesting discussion on revivals (as had happened on the day of Pentecost).
If ever a revival happens and people choose to go to church I would happily see them in Catholic churches (or any other churches).
I believe that an awakening can make things better for a country in the same way that I believe that Christ can make things better for an individual.
All I'm doing is to ask people to think about it and resist the urge to throw open-minded scepticism out of the window. People polarize one way or the other on the issue and I am trying (badly it seems) to create a centre ground on the issue.
Or get people to pray and ask for it too.
[ 25. May 2015, 19:16: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Eutychus - sorry for the misinformation.
Alyosha - you're missing my point. I'm talking about a Pentecostal/charismatic style revival - my point is that revival can happen in other ways but be unnoticed. I don't think anything you've mentioned is specific to a revival, but it happens because Christians put the effort in - essentially. I don't understand why Christians are supposed to pray for revival rather than bringing revival by their actions?
You may see empty churches and not a lot happening, but actually the Spirit is moving in all kinds of churches, just maybe not obviously.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Alyosha: I think the problem is that you are looking for something that is ill-defined when it comes to specifics and that has no actual precedent in Scripture.
Take the day of Pentecost.
Yes, 3,000 people are said to have believed on that day, been baptised and added to the Church. It was, by anyone's standards, a "good meeting". Luke closes the narrative with a summary of all the believers having everything in common, caring for each other's needs, and so on.
Yet by chapter 6 we learn that there are disputes about how this social action is being carried out, and while we read of action to remedy the problem, we never get told it was really sorted.
By chapter 8 the gospel has reached Samaria, but controversy is following hard on its heels, which will soon get worse as full-blown Gentiles receive the Spirit. A kind of truce is brokered in Acts 15 but the epistles clearly show the argument is ongoing thereafter.
By the end of Acts the gospel has reached most of the known world, but there is absolutely no evidence of, say, a general fall in crime or institutional change. When institutional change did arrive with Constantine, a lot of the people who champion revival seem to think it's the worst thing that could possibly have happened to authentic Christianity.
Do you take the Scriptures as a reliable guide to Christian experience? If you do, I challenge you to find solid grounds in them for expecting the kind of 'Christmas every day' you aspire to. If you look carefully, and I'd say, truly biblically, you'll find the picture is much less clear-cut.
[ 25. May 2015, 19:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm going further than Pomona, I actually think Alyosha that you are romanticising not only any possible current or future revival - but you are romanticising past revivals as well.
In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that you have a completely 'over-realised' view of the whole thing and that if you're not careful you're going to end up missing out on less 'spectacular' things that God is doing - to use the jargon - or disappointed because you're chasing some kind of chimera.
I used to belong to a church that believed that we were on the cusp of revival ... and that if and when x, y or z happened then we'd see a massive turning to Christ. The church grew quite large at one point but constantly suffered from painful splits and defections ...
I visited it last Sunday, for the first time in a good few years - (we left 15 years ago but I've been to a reunion since and am still in touch with one or two people - although most of my friends from those days have moved onto other churches or to none) -
There were only about 30 or 40 adults plus kids. Back in the day there were about 300 to 400 of us at the high-water mark.
The reality is, there has never, ever been a time when what you are describing was happening on the scale that you suggest - no, not once. Ever.
Sure, there have been times when religious observance has increased or 'revived' or when large numbers of nominal believers have been 'quickened' in their faith or substantial numbers of unbelievers have been converted.
The First and Second Evangelical Awakenings were examples of that - but not everything was hunky-dory nor could it have been ...
There have been some social impacts from revivals but generally, social change has come about through a combination of factors - and the general pervasiveness of Christian influence within Christendom has been one of those factors - irrespective of revival.
The Quakers were opposing slavery, for instance, a good while before the evangelicals got on board with the Abolitionist movement. In fact, a lot of Abolitionists were Unitarians and Free-thinkers - not a lot of revivalism there.
Whitefield never opposed slavery - in fact, he thought it was a good thing. Wesley spoke out about it and wrote about it and his last known letter was to William Wilberforce encouraging him in his efforts to work for a ban on the slave trade.
Yes, revivalism played a part in that - but so did the Enlightenment.
These things don't boil down to nice, neat formulae and recipes.
I'm also, I'm afraid, not sure you've understood some of the points that have been made here. My impression isn't that people are against the concept of 'revival' - more, they are suspicious of revivalism.
There's a difference.
Also, you seem to have this idea that revival is like some kind of supernatural mist or miasma which God somehow 'sends' into the atmosphere ...
That seems a pretty common view within some forms of Pentecostalism, and whilst it's one I can understand, it's not how I see things these days.
In some ways it's a kind of reverse form of 'real presence' ... instead of the presence of God being 'realised' in word and sacrament - as per the more sacramental churches and in the Reformed tradition (in a somewhat different way) it's as if there's some kind of 'glory cloud' that's going to descend and make everything better ...
I can understand the sentiment, but no longer go along with the out-working - although I do believe in 'thin places' or times when the presence of God is more 'apparent' or discerned - as it were ...
But, if we agree with the Orthodox that 'God is everywhere present and fillest all things ...' then surely we are to take a more Incarnational stance and see God at work in and through the everyday and the quotidian?
So, yes, babies, flowers and wonderful landscapes, as well as good food, fun, fellowship, love and respect etc etc are all 'miraculous' ... that doesn't preclude miracles in the sense that you mean them - direct, supernatural interventions - but it ain't all about that ... nice though it would be - as well as problematic - if these things did occur more regularly than they apparently do.
I don't know if I'm making any sense, but I would suggest that we need to aim for a more 'grounded' and Incarnational spirituality - one that doesn't dismiss the supernatural - far from it - but which also rejoices in the ordinary and the everyday and sees God at work in that.
I often tell people about my Great Aunt Nell. She had severe cerebral palsy and was confined to a couch for much of her life. Her body was so contorted that her face was almost looking across her back - and she couldn't stop dribbling into a napkin tucked beneath her chin. She was actually quite scary and distressing to look at in some ways - but boy, did she exude love. It was palpable.
She never went to a revivalist meeting, she never had any mountain-top spiritual experiences but she was very devout. The vicar who used to bring her communion each week said at her funeral that he'd learned far more about patience, long-suffering and faith from her than anything he'd studied at seminary.
I couldn't make the funeral, but my mum said that as her surviving sisters gathered to pray at the graveside the sense of love, grief and yes - faith - was so tangible it hit you in the gut and nearly bowled you over. It was like an electric shock.
Where was the revival there?
It was crude, raw, simple, no frills working-class ... it was 'vival' ...
That's what we want, ordinary people living out their faith in everyday, ordinary circumstances - in the muck and the grit.
Over-realised, cloud-cuckoo land eschatology isn't where it's at. Revivalism is a red-herring.
If you want people to be 'free' then perhaps freeing people from some kind of erroneous, over-egged view of revival and revivalism would be a good place to start.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
I hear what you're all saying. Let me go away and think about it all. At the moment it feels like a surrender to downgrade my expectations and I find life disappointing in many ways. So please allow me to consider the things you have said.
In terms of eschatology, you have to admit though, that an end time revival is more positive than some of the other positions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Apologies for the double-post ...
Was Pentecost 'revival' in the way you've defined it?
Whatever else Pentecost was it was the 'birthday of the Church' ... and what we see on subsequent occasions in the Acts of the Apostles when God the Holy Spirit is 'poured out' on gatherings of people it's generally a kind of 'birthday' for other groups - the Samaritans receive the Spirit, the Gentiles in Cornelius's household do too ...
Ok, so there's the subsequent 'filling' / 'refilling' or 'top-up' in Acts 4 for some of those who were present at the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 ...
God is God and can do whatever pleases him.
All I'm suggesting is that he's active in and through all sorts of circumstances - even those that may not fit our particular schema or programme.
Yes, we'd all love to see lots more people coming to faith, lots more people involved in churches of all kinds - be they Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Yes, we should work towards that end.
We've got to work from where we are. Very often, that's not a particular exciting place - but if we look closely enough we'll see signs of God at work despite it all.
If you've got some kind of romanticised view of what 'revival' entails then you are always going to be disappointed.
What I saw of the 'Gypsy revival' in Spain didn't strike me as particularly impressive on one level, to be honest - although it was great to meet some believers from that background - people with very different life-experiences to my own. I was humbled by their warmth of the welcome we received. Their flamenco-style worship music and distinctive 'off-the-beat' hand-clapping style was impressive too -- but these people were still poor, they still had lots of social problems ...
Revival and 'revivalism' can, and does, give some oomph but it doesn't solve all the problems.
Also, take Lord Shaftesbury, a 'prayer-book evangelical' and High Tory - he introduced some of the most far-reaching legislation in terms of impact on the lives of working people in this country - reducing factory working hours and improving conditions - and he was completely and utterly opposed to revivalism of any form. He couldn't stand the Salvation Army, for instance ...
He wanted nothing to do with revivalist enthusiasm. To what extent did 'Pentecost-style' revival impel him in his career?
It didn't.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
In terms of eschatology, you have to admit though, that an end time revival is more positive than some of the other positions.
Unfortunately, sound doctrine is not a case of picking and choosing the bits we like.
And once again, I think it's a question of intensity. If there's more good, there's more bad too. I have some sympathy for Roger Forster's "obstetric" view of eschatology (cf Romans 8, pangs of childbirth, etc.). The 'crises' of religious awakening and of evil are like successive contractions. Yes we can expect them to eventually 'give birth' to a new heaven and a new earth and the fulness of the kingdom, but not painlessly or without mess, and the important thing is the entire process.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I hear what you're all saying. Let me go away and think about it all. At the moment it feels like a surrender to downgrade my expectations and I find life disappointing in many ways. So please allow me to consider the things you have said.
I think that looking forward to something better isn't a bad thing, as long as you don't have an over-realized expectation of when it arrives.
quote:
In terms of eschatology, you have to admit though, that an end time revival is more positive than some of the other positions.
No. Surely what's far more important is the end - a new heavens and a new earth, God living with us, and every tear wiped from every eye - to miss this is to confuse a pregnancy with a baby.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
The friend of a friend I mentioned earlier talked about non-charismatic churches dying and emptying. While, clearly, charismatic evangelical churches are very popular, I think churches change and evolve according to the surroundings. The CoE's decline started much further back than many think, essentially from the Industrial Revolution - Anglican clergy were seen as in with the squire and the establishment, and so working and eventually middle class loyalty to them waned with the workforce's changes (with some exceptions, eg Anglo-Catholic slum parishes). Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, Salvationist etc churches were strengthened in this time, because their structures were much more suited to the developing industries then.
Now of course, those industries are now declining (if not gone totally) and many of those mainstream Protestant churches are struggling, and charismatic churches are picking up. It all comes and goes in waves - that's not revival, just the narrative of history. Who knows, we might get an RC/Taize/monastic upswing/revival next as people start to want to 'unplug'.
I think personality also plays a role - introverts are not going to have the same kind of revival (or 'revival') as extroverts.
And yes, it's revivalism I'm wary of. Obviously revival would be great, but it needs to be examined in context and Christians have to be realistic.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
In terms of eschatology, you have to admit though, that an end time revival is more positive than some of the other positions.
Unfortunately, sound doctrine is not a case of picking and choosing the bits we like.
And once again, I think it's a question of intensity. If there's more good, there's more bad too. I have some sympathy for Roger Forster's "obstetric" view of eschatology (cf Romans 8, pangs of childbirth, etc.). The 'crises' of religious awakening and of evil are like successive contractions. Yes we can expect them to eventually 'give birth' to a new heaven and a new earth and the fulness of the kingdom, but not painlessly or without mess, and the important thing is the entire process.
Yep. Sounds like a fun new thread to me
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Britain is a functioning state (more or less well-functioning according to your point of view) that has no soul.
Anglicanism reflects the soul of the English; it is diffident, pragmatic, tolerant, and suspicious of religious enthusiasm. Which is why the English think of religious revival as something that happens somewhere else...
If England has a soul, you can see it in Tolkien's Shire.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
If England has a soul, you can see it in Tolkien's Shire.
No introduction required, I'm sure...
[code]
[ 26. May 2015, 17:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Apologies for the double-post ...
Was Pentecost 'revival' in the way you've defined it?
Whatever else Pentecost was it was the 'birthday of the Church'
No it wasn't!
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Britain is a functioning state (more or less well-functioning according to your point of view) that has no soul.
Anglicanism reflects the soul of the English; it is diffident, pragmatic, tolerant, and suspicious of religious enthusiasm. Which is why the English think of religious revival as something that happens somewhere else...
If England has a soul, you can see it in Tolkien's Shire.
Best wishes,
Russ
I would go along with that. I also think that national character is influenced by landscape, including the natural wildlife of this island. The weather often promotes a stoicism and some of the wildlife (crows, ravens, bats etc) have a kind of eerie edge to them. I think this is reflected in superstition.
The fact that we are surrounded by sea also has an effect along with the fact that we get very few nasty natural disasters here. There is a genuinely funny sense of humour among many of the people.
But this sceptered isle has its dark facets and it is these which I struggle with.
[ 26. May 2015, 17:44: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair call, Leo.
Bats are actually quite sweet.
I do think that it is possible to talk of a 'soul' of a landscape or region - Yorkshire, say, or Northumberland, East Anglia ...
I live close to the traditional border between the Midlands and the North - where the Provinces of York and Canterbury - in Anglican terms - meet. I reckon you can tell the difference when you move from one to the other.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
This thread reminds me of the old joke:
One day it began to rain very heavily. It kept raining and a big flood came.
The man climbed up on the roof of his house, and knew that he would be ok. God would protect him.
It kept raining and now the water had reached his waist. A boat came by and a guy in the boat said: “Hey, jump in. We will take you with us”.
“No thanks”, said the man. “I’m a firm believer in God. He will rescue me”. He sent the boat away.
It kept on raining and now the water had reached his neck. Another boat came by and a guy in the boat said: “You look like you could need some help. Jump in and we will take you with us”.
“No”, said the man. “I’m a firm believer in God. He will rescue me. Don’t worry about me”. The boat sailed away.
It still rained and the water now reached his mouth. A helicopter came by and a guy in the helicopter threw down a rope and said: “Hi there my friend. Climb up. We will rescue you”.
“No”, said the man. “I’m a firm believer in God. He will rescue me. I know he will”. The helicopter flew away.
It kept on raining, and finally the man drowned.
When the man died, he went to heaven. When entering Heaven, he had an interview with God."“Where were you. I waited and waited. I was sure you would rescue me, as I have been a firm believer all my life, and have only done good to others. So where were you when I needed you?”
God said “I don’t get it either. I sent you two boats and a helicopter”.
I could be wrong, but it seems the Israelites were also sure their prayers for the Messiah hadn't been answered since instead of a conquering hero there was Jesus, a humble servant. Big events usually end up serving human egos and when we fixate on how we think prayers should be answered we miss God's actual repsonse.
.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Where do you think Britain is at when it comes to her spiritual condition?
<snip>
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal? Why is the orthodoxy in some circles that there will only be one final great awakening before the end of the world? (Or else that there will be a falling away)?
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I could be wrong, but it seems the Israelites were also sure their prayers for the Messiah hadn't been answered since instead of a conquering hero there was Jesus, a humble servant. Big events usually end up serving human egos and when we fixate on how we think prayers should be answered we miss God's actual repsonse.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that if Britain has a such a thing as a "soul", that soul is Christian. Which is somewhat problematic for a religiously pluralistic society. If Jews are looking for the 'wrong' messiah, does that imply that they (and other non-Christians) aren't really British? Or have lesser Britishness than their Christian fellow citizens? Are they "foreigners, only foreigners that were not called foreigners" in the words of G.K. Chesterton regarding Jewish Britons?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I could be wrong, but it seems the Israelites were also sure their prayers for the Messiah hadn't been answered since instead of a conquering hero there was Jesus, a humble servant. Big events usually end up serving human egos and when we fixate on how we think prayers should be answered we miss God's actual repsonse.
.
I'm giving this whole thing a lot of thought. In Death of a Salesman Willy Loman is enamoured with the American Dream that a man will come good and become rich if he works hard. It is described later as a 'phony dream' and Willy Loman meets a tragic end.
I am trying to decide if this cause, the cause of a revival in Christianity is a phony dream too.
I do think it is a bit of a cop-out to say that God hasn't said 'no'. What is happening (at least in Europe) is not a revival in anyway I understand the word.
To go back to my simplistic and childlike Christmas metaphor, it is like asking for Christmas and getting halloween and then being told that halloween is Christmas. As much as I like halloween, it can't be called Christmas.
If a whole group of people say that revival is a phony dream then I have to accept that that is a possibility. It is such a hard teaching though and even though I am usually more preoccupied with the needs of survival, I am finding this particular dream hard to give up. Partly because it is entirely linked with meaning to me.
Even Viktor Frankl said that those who survived the camps tended to be those who thought there was something to live for, who had a will to live and a sense of meaning.
By the way, I do work towards my prayers but I understand that sometimes it is not about the truth.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'Humankind cannot bear too much reality.' TS Eliot
No-one is asking you to give up on 'revival'- simply to modify your 'revivalism'.
God is still God, Christ is still Lord and Saviour, God the Holy Spirit still our Comforter, Counsellor and ever present help.
I am not saying that revival as you envisage it is not a possibility - but it's as easy to make a 'shibboleth' or idol out of it as anything else.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Humankind cannot bear too much reality.' TS Eliot
No-one is asking you to give up on 'revival'- simply to modify your 'revivalism'.
God is still God, Christ is still Lord and Saviour, God the Holy Spirit still our Comforter, Counsellor and ever present help.
I am not saying that revival as you envisage it is not a possibility - but it's as easy to make a 'shibboleth' or idol out of it as anything else.
I know that you're not, but some people are asking me to give up on it. I'm willing to listen and to adjust my expectations.
Oh sod it. I'm going to carry on hoping for one, whatever people say. If that means I suffer for it, so be it. It is a life or death issue and the needs of the people are greater than my own (isn't that always the way in this machine which we call Christianity? The individual little cog suffers at the expense of the machine?) (as usual).
User error no doubt.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Where do you think Britain is at when it comes to her spiritual condition?
<snip>
Is it time for another 'Pentecost-style' Christian revival so that the country can heal? Why is the orthodoxy in some circles that there will only be one final great awakening before the end of the world? (Or else that there will be a falling away)?
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I could be wrong, but it seems the Israelites were also sure their prayers for the Messiah hadn't been answered since instead of a conquering hero there was Jesus, a humble servant. Big events usually end up serving human egos and when we fixate on how we think prayers should be answered we miss God's actual repsonse.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that if Britain has a such a thing as a "soul", that soul is Christian. Which is somewhat problematic for a religiously pluralistic society. If Jews are looking for the 'wrong' messiah, does that imply that they (and other non-Christians) aren't really British? Or have lesser Britishness than their Christian fellow citizens? Are they "foreigners, only foreigners that were not called foreigners" in the words of G.K. Chesterton regarding Jewish Britons?
I was just thinking, please God, that there isn't a Christian revival. The Irish vote reminds me that a secular society can get on with improving the lot of women, gays, kids, and others, who were downtrodden under Christian rule. See the Vatican's comment that the Irish vote is a defeat for humanity - I'm reminded of Lawrence's phrase, Look, we have come through!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The point that's sticking out for me is that you've hinted that God is punishing the country by withholding revival. What for, do you think? Perhaps identifying what you think are our national sins might give some insight into Britain's metaphorical soul.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hmmm ... probably 'adjustment' rather than 'abandonment' ...
I think Eutychus's point about crisis and process is pertinent here, as well as the 'seasonal' analogies we find in scripture - provided we don't get too literal about 'latter rain' and so on ...
For Protestants, the 'inter-testamantal period' was one of 'silence' - but if you have a look at the Deutero-canonical or 'inter-testamental' books it's pretty clear that there was actually a heck of a lot going on ...
We don't have to put as much 'weight' on these texts as the RCs and Orthodox do to see that.
What was happening in the 400 years between Malachi and the birth of Christ?
Well, quite a lot ...
Same in those OT periods when 'the word of the Lord was rare, there were few visions ...' (I Samuel 3:1).
There is never a time when God is inactive. He might simply be active in a different way to how we might expect.
You seem to be a literary sort of chap, you may appreciate this poem by Laurie Lee - 'Christmas Landscape' -
It illustrates my current 'take' on these issues - although I doubt if that's what Lee had in mind.
See: http://allpoetry.com/Christmas-Landscape
I love the sudden 'volta' or change of direction in the poem. We have all this ice, hunger and pain but ...
But the mole sleeps, and the hedgehog
Lies curled in a womb of leaves,
The bean and the wheat-seed
Hug their germs in the earth
And the stream moves under the ice.
I love this poem. I read it to myself every Christmas.
It reminds me that the Incarnation came with pain - an occupied country, tyrannical government (the Massacre of the Innocents, displacement of peoples ...) - but the Divine was revealed in the midst of that and in the every day ...
So, too, with whatever we understand 'revival' to be, and the way our own lives work out when we think about it ...
We're all going to die one day - and they say that death is pretty painful for at least 50% of us.
Nevertheless, there remains the hope of resurrection ...
'But the mole sleeps, and the hedgehog
lies curled in a womb of leaves ...'
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
I was just thinking, please God, that there isn't a Christian revival. The Irish vote reminds me that a secular society can get on with improving the lot of women, gays, kids, and others, who were downtrodden under Christian rule. See the Vatican's comment that the Irish vote is a defeat for humanity - I'm reminded of Lawrence's phrase, Look, we have come through!
I don't see how a Christian revival has anything to do with homophobia or prejudice against gays, but however you want to defend your position is just peachy.
[code]
[ 27. May 2015, 10:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Listen for the faint cracks, listen for the stream moving under the ice ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
I was just thinking, please God, that there isn't a Christian revival. The Irish vote reminds me that a secular society can get on with improving the lot of women, gays, kids, and others, who were downtrodden under Christian rule. See the Vatican's comment that the Irish vote is a defeat for humanity - I'm reminded of Lawrence's phrase, Look, we have come through!
I don't see how a Christian revival has anything to do with homophobia or prejudice against gays, but however you want to defend your position is just peachy.
You might not, but there's plenty of people (the Vatican for starters, but plenty on the protestant side as well) who think it'd mean returning to "Biblical morality" - which does indeed, in their minds, mean homophobia and marginalisation (at least) of homosexuality. Else why would they react so badly to the Irish vote? Presumably they believe that if there were revival there'd be lots more people voting No.
[code]
[ 27. May 2015, 10:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The point that's sticking out for me is that you've hinted that God is punishing the country by withholding revival. What for, do you think? Perhaps identifying what you think are our national sins might give some insight into Britain's metaphorical soul.
No. I don't see God as punishing the country by with-holding blessings. I have hinted that he is not as giving as we may tell him he is but that is between God and his conscience. I do not see God in any kind of pain or disaster or illness. I see God in gentleness, caring and those who work to alleviate disaster.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
I apologise Quetzalcoatl, I can be spiky.
Why does a Christian revival have to include lawmaking? People would petition on all kinds of subjects ranging from pro-life issues through to, I admit, equality laws.
An increase in Christians would give greater political clout to Christians. One would hope that having been in the minority we would have some love in our positions and turn away from all prejudice towards others (including gay people), having experienced it ourselves. Unless you would like to claim that being a Christian gives preferential treatment as the atheists say?
[ 27. May 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I apologise Quetzalcoatl, I can be spiky.
Why does a Christian revival have to include lawmaking? People would petition on all kinds of subjects ranging from pro-life issues through to, I admit, equality laws.
An increase in Christians would give greater political clout to Christians. One would hope that having been in the minority we would have some love in our positions and turn away from all prejudice towards others (including gay people), having experienced it ourselves. Unless you would like to claim that being a Christian gives preferential treatment as the atheists say?
No need to apologize. I'd rather not gamble on a Christian revival being a liberal paradise; it's more likely to be a misogynistic homophobic hell.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I apologise Quetzalcoatl, I can be spiky.
Why does a Christian revival have to include lawmaking? People would petition on all kinds of subjects ranging from pro-life issues through to, I admit, equality laws.
An increase in Christians would give greater political clout to Christians. One would hope that having been in the minority we would have some love in our positions and turn away from all prejudice towards others (including gay people), having experienced it ourselves. Unless you would like to claim that being a Christian gives preferential treatment as the atheists say?
The evidence of history is unfortunately that when religious people feel in a comfortable majority they tend towards enforcing their personal standards on everyone else, because that's what God's said he wants.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
I was just thinking, please God, that there isn't a Christian revival. The Irish vote reminds me that a secular society can get on with improving the lot of women, gays, kids, and others, who were downtrodden under Christian rule. See the Vatican's comment that the Irish vote is a defeat for humanity - I'm reminded of Lawrence's phrase, Look, we have come through!
I don't see how a Christian revival has anything to do with homophobia or prejudice against gays, but however you want to defend your position is just peachy.
You might not, but there's plenty of people (the Vatican for starters, but plenty on the protestant side as well) who think it'd mean returning to "Biblical morality" - which does indeed, in their minds, mean homophobia and marginalisation (at least) of homosexuality. Else why would they react so badly to the Irish vote? Presumably they believe that if there were revival there'd be lots more people voting No.
People would also use it for their own agendas and to make money too. But why is it not a force for good? We are talking about a return of people to the source of all love, mercy and true freedom and not an imposition of some new authority. We are not talking about people living under Sharia law (although who knows that that wouldn't be better than this?) We are talking about an increase in freedom, a revival of love.
The collateral damage would be in the loss of trade for some people. Why would a revived Christian community mean that new laws were made? There would be protest and petition, but hopefully there wouldn't be riot. A Christian revival would reduce the chances of rioting.
No-one else is talking about the socio-economic impact of the thing. But it has happened before so it can happen again - no-one makes contingency plans for it. Or is a secret revival starting in hidden miracles?
I asked whether the revivalists needed to repent first. I suggest that we do.
[code ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
]
[ 27. May 2015, 10:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The point I'm trying to make is that however we envisage revival, there's always going to be a rough side as well as a smotth side. History amply bears this out.
Show me one revival where there wasn't some problem of some kind or other - revivals - just as much as 'ordinary' church life, involve people.
Wherever there are people, there are problems.
I've mentioned before, about the Welsh Revival - how for all the increase in numbers at church and chapel there were issues and problems too - many of them neatly air-brushed out of some, but by no means all, of the popular revivalist histories.
I've spoken to people whose parents and grandparents were converted during the Welsh Revival and they told me the same ... just because there was a revival going on didn't make all the problems go away.
That's why I provided the link upthread to the Laurie Lee poem - life, death, joy and pain run concurrently.
That doesn't remove the 'divine' element from the whole thing. God works in and through these things. That's what the Incarnation is all about.
The Russians have a saying about prominent or influential figures, apparently, 'Greatness casts a long shadow.'
It's the same with revival and revivalist movements - yes, there's grace and glory, but there are often casualties and not everything goes as smoothly as we might wish.
Heck, you've only got to read Wesley's journals to see that.
Or the NT for that matter ...
It's like anything and everything else. Marriage has it's upsides and highlights - but it also contains its 'longeurs' and moments of conflict and pain.
Welcome to the real world. Welcome to real life.
Sure, there'll come a day when ...
Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no longer, nor mourning, nor outcry, nor will there be pain any more; for the first things passed away.
But we're in the here and now, between the 'now' and not yet.
Any view of revival or Christian life and mission in general that doesn't take that into account is wide of the mark, in my view.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I was just thinking, please God, that there isn't a Christian revival. The Irish vote reminds me that a secular society can get on with improving the lot of women, gays, kids, and others, who were downtrodden under Christian rule. See the Vatican's comment that the Irish vote is a defeat for humanity - I'm reminded of Lawrence's phrase, Look, we have come through!
I don't see how a Christian revival has anything to do with homophobia or prejudice against gays, but however you want to defend your position is just peachy.
You might not, but there's plenty of people (the Vatican for starters, but plenty on the protestant side as well) who think it'd mean returning to "Biblical morality" - which does indeed, in their minds, mean homophobia and marginalisation (at least) of homosexuality. Else why would they react so badly to the Irish vote? Presumably they believe that if there were revival there'd be lots more people voting No.
People would also use it for their own agendas and to make money too. But why is it not a force for good? We are talking about a return of people to the source of all love, mercy and true freedom and not an imposition of some new authority. We are not talking about people living under Sharia law (although who knows that that wouldn't be better than this?)
In what way would it be? You have a particular part of Sharia law you think would be better than we have?
[code ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
]
[ 27. May 2015, 10:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Less rioting?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
There was a riot in Ephesus connected with 'revival' if I remember rightly ...
Wesley and his followers were often met by quite violent mobs.
Russia, nominally, has plenty of Christian believers - but that doesn't stop there being violent, homophobic attacks on gay marches and the like ...
If anything, it probably increases the possibility of that sort of behaviour ...
Puritan New England and Calvin's Geneva were highly 'Christianised' and almost theocratic societies - that didn't stop executions or persecution of those who disagreed or didn't fit in for whatever reason ...
Now, I'm not saying Calvin was a monster or anything of the kind - I'm simply saying that - in and of itself - a significant proportion of any society professing Christian faith doesn't immediately stop violence and so on.
There was a massive transatlantic 'Awakening' in 1859/60. That didn't stop the American Civil War breaking out a few years later, with some 600,000 deaths.
That doesn't invalidate the Awakening, of course, but what it does do is to illustrate that while we're living in a fallen and imperfect world, things continue to go wrong irrespective of how many revivals we have or don't have.
At the 'On Revival' conference I attended, Steve Latham made an interesting and pertinent point -- what would happen if, say, some admired and high-profile Hollywood star or pop music celebrity were to convert to Pentecostalism - for instance?
And, if, as a result, it suddenly became cool, hip and trendy for young people to embrace Pentecostalism?
On one level we'd probably be pleased, 'Oh look, plenty of young people are turning to the Christian faith.'
But on another level, we'd be having niggling doubts - it's simply a fad, a response to fashion trends, how deep does it go? etc etc etc.
There'd be two sides to it.
All I'm saying it's ever been thus.
The Roman Empire becomes 'officially' Christian. Hoorah! Upside - Christian values begin to permeate society. Downside - there's an increase in 'nominalism' and also the use of force to impose Christian hegemony.
Revival breaks out in Wales in 1904/05. Hoorah!
Upside - over 100,000 people are added to the churches and chapels within 18 months. It has a knock-on effect elsewhere - the US, Africa, Scandinavia ... there are revivalist scenes in India and other places. It feeds into the emergence of the Pentecostal movement in the US and then worldwide ...
Downside - it wears itself out, people feel restricted by old-fashioned, puritanical forms of religion that aren't in step with the times ... people are put off by what they see as hypocrisy and a kind of petty-minded religiosity ... there's not a lot of 'depth' to the teaching, there are extended periods of emotional hymn-singing that begin to cloy after a while ...
You see how it works?
Upsides and downsides. Crisis and process. Advance and retraction.
Of course, God is at work in and through it all - in the doldrums as well as the crashing waves.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
"In what way would it be? You have a particular part of Sharia law you think would be better than we have?"
Well, all that stuff about not charging interest on loans seems fairly kind.
But we shall stick with this rancid status quo as the authorities like then shall we?
I am not a Muslim apologist. I have nothing against Muslims. If you want to make the Government's enemy your own enemy that is fine. But our battle should not be against flesh and blood. That it so obviously is shows how we have utterly failed as a society.
A failure which would be changed by a Christian revival.
[ 27. May 2015, 09:45: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Medieval Europe had a ban on 'usury' - changing interest on loans. That's why they had Jewish people as money-lenders. It was ok for Jews to do it, but not Christians ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Go on, have your revival, but don't expect it to magically make all the problems go away. It won't, it doesn't, it can't.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
"In what way would it be? You have a particular part of Sharia law you think would be better than we have?"
Well, all that stuff about not charging interest on loans seems fairly kind.
But we shall stick with this rancid status quo as the authorities like then shall we?
I am not a Muslim apologist. I have nothing against Muslims. If you want to make the Government's enemy your own enemy that is fine. But our battle should not be against flesh and blood. That it so obviously is shows how we have utterly failed as a society.
A failure which would be changed by a Christian revival.
In what way. I'm trying to envisage what your post revival society might look like, and why you think it'd be like that.
If you think I see the government's enemies as mine, well, I'm really not sure where you're getting that from. My main enemies as I see them are the right-wing tabloids and their continuous demonisation of the unemployed, the working class and immigrants.
[ 27. May 2015, 09:49: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Medieval Europe had a ban on 'usury' - changing interest on loans. That's why they had Jewish people as money-lenders. It was ok for Jews to do it, but not Christians ...
Go on, have your revival, but don't expect it to magically make all the problems go away. It won't, it doesn't, it can't.
Oh, okay, off I go then and have my little revival.
I have utterly failed in my debate then. My intention was to change minds and not to win stupid arguments about things which are in God's hands. I hope he is happy in his heaven.
[ 27. May 2015, 09:51: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
"I'm trying to envisage what your post revival society might look like, and why you think it'd be like that.
If you think I see the government's enemies as mine, well, I'm really not sure where you're getting that from. My main enemies as I see them are the right-wing tabloids and their continuous demonisation of the unemployed, the working class and immigrants."
Immigrants would be accepted. This ridiculous prejudice against Eastern Europeans would be tackled as individuals embraced a God of acceptance. There would be a greater social movement to help the unemployed, the vulnerable, the immigrants. There would be massive debate, but for a change immigrants would not feel like second-class citizens as the population began to learn and grow and heal.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Problem is, I see this revival emphasis as a bit like what my old dad used to say about elections - people expect a Labour victory on the Thursday, dismantling of the Capitalist structures over the weekend and fully functioning Socialism with peace, prosperity and plenty for all by Monday afternoon at the latest.
Similarly we put our hopes in a "revival" where lots of people will become Christians (of the same general subspecies as us, naturally) and all happily work for the good of society. We never ask how this would actually look in reality. I don't share the optimism.
[X-posted]
[ 27. May 2015, 09:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
"I'm trying to envisage what your post revival society might look like, and why you think it'd be like that.
If you think I see the government's enemies as mine, well, I'm really not sure where you're getting that from. My main enemies as I see them are the right-wing tabloids and their continuous demonisation of the unemployed, the working class and immigrants."
Immigrants would be accepted. This ridiculous prejudice against Eastern Europeans would be tackled as individuals embraced a God of acceptance. There would be a greater social movement to help the unemployed, the vulnerable, the immigrants. There would be massive debate, but for a change immigrants would not feel like second-class citizens as the population began to learn and grow and heal.
We can get on with doing that without a revival. We can work with the many non-religious people who share the same vision. We can speak out against the Daily Heil and its lies. We can distance ourselves from those who own the faith but want to push society in the opposite direction.
We can just get on with it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Immigrants would be accepted. This ridiculous prejudice against Eastern Europeans would be tackled as individuals embraced a God of acceptance. There would be a greater social movement to help the unemployed, the vulnerable, the immigrants. There would be massive debate, but for a change immigrants would not feel like second-class citizens as the population began to learn and grow and heal.
Nice idea. How do you know that this would happen, though?
I don't see this as a necessary corollary of revival at all.
If anything, some forms of 'revival' could militate against all that.
The US Deep South remains deeply religious with lots of revivalist movements - but can you point to significant social developments there of the kind you envisage?
I don't doubt that most Christians in the US Deep South are neighbourly, loving and well-adjusted people ... but it's not a part of the world that is particularly well-known for the kind of tolerance that some are advocating here.
The problem, as I see it, is that you have an over-realised eschatology and an unrealistic view of what revival actually entails - based on selective readings both of revivalist literature and the NT.
All I'm asking you to do - as you're asking us in a similar way - is to re-think and re-calibrate your thinking on these things.
What would a 'post-revival' society look like?
Well, pretty much as post-revival societies have looked in the past - some good things, some bad things, some indifferent.
Was the UK post-Wesleyan / Whitefield revival any 'better' than it was previously?
Yes, on balance, in many ways I'd say it probably was.
However, we still needed the Reform Acts and so on - there were still people working long hours in factories and mines, there were still problems with drink, poverty, prostitution and so on. These didn't magically go away.
Sure - there was a lot of fruit in terms of mission agencies and societies, reform movements and so on - but not all of these had a 'revivalist' or even an evangelical base. In fact, people like Lord Shaftesbury were vehemently opposed to revivalism and he was as evangelical as you can get.
Do yourself a favour. Re-calibrate your over-realised view of what revival entails and look at the actual facts and historical evidence.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
My romatisiced utopia of a revival is not so much a problem as the fact that God is refusing to grant his children the revival which many ask for (even on God's own terms). And in saying so does that make it even less likely to be granted?
This is using the same terminology as the Almighty - that he is a Father. So some of his children request a revival. He says 'No' or 'No yet'. But the need is too great. The need of the people who will suffer while we wait. And you can say that we are God's hands and feet and this is true enough to an extent:
But there comes a time when some prayers can only be answered with a miracle and not with effort.
That time is now.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What the ...?
Why is the time any more needful now than it was at the time of the Black Death when around a third of the people living in Europe and much of Asia died of plague?
Why is it any more pertinent now than it was when half of Europe was at each others' throats during the Thirty Years War?
Or in Neolithic times before the Judeo-Christian tradition had even emerged?
Was God absent then?
I don't see it as a case of God 'refusing' to answer prayer for revival - I see it more as you working with a partial and quite faulty paradigm in the first place - an overly reductionist and over-romanticised one that doesn't take into account sound historical analysis nor even solid biblical exegesis come to that.
I'm not suggesting you are way off beam in terms of generally accepted Christian orthodoxy (small 'o') but you do seem to ave a rather narrow and partial / rose-tinted view of what enthuistic and pietistic forms of Christianity can achieve in and of themselves rather than alongside complementary factors.
None of these things happen in a vacuum. 'Put your trust in God but keep your powder dry.'
Both / and not either / or.
There has never been a revival where virtually everyone has had some kind of conversion experience - although I'll grant that numbers have been high in some revivals and 'people-movements'.
We are told that 3,000 people believed and were baptised on the Day of Pentecost - but not how many weren't or who went home unmoved or unconvinced.
Praise God for the 3,000.
There could have been thousands more present who remained sceptical or unmoved.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Because many of the people are afraid and many of them are deeply struggling and there needs to be space and freedom to breath and heal and grow. Because there needs to be hope for the children and not a decline in Christianity.
You've nicely defended God so that he is pristine and free of all blame. But what about us? God can defend himself.
I spoke with God over this because, as you know, I prayed the original prayer and I thought this was one time I could win an argument with him. I'm not in the habit of presenting prayers I occasionally make publicly. You know that Christ had strong words towards anyone who showed-off in that respect (although I notice that doesn't stop many prominent Christians from doing so).
I'm a sinner. I presented my request and I petitioned (possibly like a moderately-persistent widow). How bad does the need have to get?
It's just such a cop-out.
User-error?
That is VERY convenient.
I'm just trying to make things better and at the moment all I'm getting is flak for it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I'm just trying to make things better and at the moment all I'm getting is flak for it.
To be fair, what you're getting flak for is your lack of clarity.
While I would welcome full churches and repeat services to accommodate everyone, you're not firstly, saying whose revival this is - are we going to be suddenly inundated with Orthodox churches as the the population rediscover God through their timeless liturgy, or will the House of Windsor convert en masse to Roman Catholicism and lead the nation to reject the Protestant Reformation and all its works? Or are we going to all worship using badly-written praise songs with unnecessary key changes?
Secondly, you're not at all clear as to why revival is any particular answer to our current socio-economic woes. Or even what those woes are.
Revival may well be the answer, but what's the question?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I'm just trying to make things better and at the moment all I'm getting is flak for it.
To be fair, what you're getting flak for is your lack of clarity.
While I would welcome full churches and repeat services to accommodate everyone, you're not firstly, saying whose revival this is - are we going to be suddenly inundated with Orthodox churches as the the population rediscover God through their timeless liturgy, or will the House of Windsor convert en masse to Roman Catholicism and lead the nation to reject the Protestant Reformation and all its works? Or are we going to all worship using badly-written praise songs with unnecessary key changes?
Secondly, you're not at all clear as to why revival is any particular answer to our current socio-economic woes. Or even what those woes are.
Revival may well be the answer, but what's the question?
Yes, what is the premise to this discussion? I mean, it seems to be that we are in a terrible mess, such that even sharia law might be preferable. Eh? Come again - this all seems very vague. I still have my suspicions that mass revival would lead to pro-life, anti-gay, misogynistic, politics. No thanks.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I'm just trying to make things better and at the moment all I'm getting is flak for it.
To be fair, what you're getting flak for is your lack of clarity.
While I would welcome full churches and repeat services to accommodate everyone, you're not firstly, saying whose revival this is - are we going to be suddenly inundated with Orthodox churches as the the population rediscover God through their timeless liturgy, or will the House of Windsor convert en masse to Roman Catholicism and lead the nation to reject the Protestant Reformation and all its works? Or are we going to all worship using badly-written praise songs with unnecessary key changes?
Secondly, you're not at all clear as to why revival is any particular answer to our current socio-economic woes. Or even what those woes are.
Revival may well be the answer, but what's the question?
Sure, to be fair on yourself.
There are no social woes. All is fine. All is peachy. No-one is in need. We can all go back to sleep.
- And then Puddleglum placed his foot into the fire to break the witches spell. -
It's just madness.
The question is what direction the country needs to take. My conviction is that a Christian revival would be the direction to take.
It seems that few others agree.
That's fine, that's your choice, but when or if it does come - if it comes in my lifetime, then all those who have been against it will be -
forgiven and included in it.
You can have a go at me for my lack of clarity, but I would have thought that a revival should be inclusive and promote unity.
I'm just learning and I'm shocked that so much opposition seems to come from within the Christian community. It's not normal.
I'd expect it from Government or drug dealers who would personally lose out from it. But from Christians?
[ 27. May 2015, 12:59: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
There are no social woes. All is fine. All is peachy. No-one is in need. We can all go back to sleep.
Which is not what I said. Or came anywhere near close to saying.
I'm known on these boards as being on the (very) radical left - hence the appellation "Deepest Red" under my avatar. So if you think that I believe there are no social woes that need fixing... dude, no. I'm not that guy.
What I'm trying to identify is (a) what social woes are you trying to fix and (b) why a Christian revival will fix them. You're not expressing yourself with sufficient clarity to allow the other posters to engage with the specifics, and I'm inviting you to give it a go.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Alyosha, on balance, I'd welcome a Christian revival too - but as the others have said, you're not making it clear how you envisage this to look.
You're also writing as if it is some kind of catch-all panacea in and of itself - when, historically, this has never been the case. Where revival has been accompanied by genuine social change and the alleviation of suffering there's generally been other factors involved too - it's a lot more holistic than one might get the impression from your posts.
I'm afraid I'm not into the 'blame' game - blaming God any more than blaming us.
Sure, we need more zeal, evangelism, personal piety and compassionate and a whole load of other things as well. But I don't see these somehow floating down in the form of a 'glory cloud' that ... bingo! suddenly makes everything ok.
There's a whacky H G Wells short-story called 'In the Year of the Comet.' It's set pre-WW1 and just as hostilities start, a comet strikes the earth's atmosphere and sucks all the nasty gases and influences out - so that, once everyone wakes up after the impact, all is sweetness and light, the war stops, people begin to share everything in common - there's lots of free love too, which Wells would have approved of - and everyone lives happily ever after ...
Your view of revival strikes me as similar to that - something disembodied and somehow disconnected from the real world.
It sounds more dualistic than incarnational to me.
No-one's saying everything is wonderful - and yes, a religious revival might well help alleviate some ills - but in and of itself it doesn't solve everything.
You've still not explained how it can prevent unnecessary deaths and suffering, for instance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all generations of past revivalists have shrugged off this mortal coil same as everyone else.
As for what's helping to alleviate - but not eradicating - suffering and so on - there are a whole range of agencies involved in all of that - the NHS, the police, social workers, voluntary groups, charities - some with a Christian base, some without - and all many of other means.
You seem to have this view that unless it's based on Christian revivalism in some way it doesn't count.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
There are no social woes. All is fine. All is peachy. No-one is in need. We can all go back to sleep.
Which is not what I said. Or came anywhere near close to saying.
I'm known on these boards as being on the (very) radical left - hence the appellation "Deepest Red" under my avatar. So if you think that I believe there are no social woes that need fixing... dude, no. I'm not that guy.
What I'm trying to identify is (a) what social woes are you trying to fix and (b) why a Christian revival will fix them. You're not expressing yourself with sufficient clarity to allow the other posters to engage with the specifics, and I'm inviting you to give it a go.
Specifically, the country does not need fixing. Britain was never broken. Britain is sick and needs healing. Specifically, individuals making peace with their creator has a knock-on effect in their lives. Most of these individuals will testify that knowing their creator makes things better for them. The result is a specific outlook of love and mercy towards others.
When this happens, people forgive others. People are gentle with others (and themselves). And people will actively work to make their communities better. Specifically, very few Christians will engage in crime or drug use. Specifically, there is an increased acceptance towards other races and therefore racism decreases. Specifically, people will engage in projects which help the vulnerable and needy.
Specifically, older people are cared for better and children are listened to.
Specifically, most Christians turn away from violence and attempt to promote love.
Specifically, society changes as a result of these things occuring in the lives of individuals. Further social action is taken by the Christians to make things better in society - to combat racism, to combat prejudice, to combat hatred.
So the problems, the woes of racism, prejudice, and a host of self-destructive behaviour are tackled.
Most Christians will also turn away from corruption so society becomes less corrupt.
But I am assured that such thoughts are simply romantic. And therefore I must grow up and learn.
Happy?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
You can have a go at me for my lack of clarity, but I would have thought that a revival should be inclusive and promote unity.
Since the underlying premise of a revival is that the present situation is either wrong belief or insufficient fervor on the part of most people, it seems like the kind of thing which would actually promote disunity. After all, the 'problem' is defined as the wrongness of other people's beliefs, which is a very Us vs. Them viewpoint.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Racism, sexism etc are institutionalised and structural. They cannot be defeated by vague notions of love. Sometimes violence is needed.
For myself and other leftist Christians, rioting and oppressed groups fighting back (eg Ferguson demonstrations) are part of a Christian revival.
What you describe sounds nice, it just also sounds totally removed from reality.
Also, we think everything is terrible now because 24/7 media makes us aware of it. In reality we're living in one of the most peaceful and equal times in history - we're hyperaware of war for instance, but actually there's much less war than in previous centuries when as far as Britain was concerned it happened somewhere else. I certainly don't think a country with employment rights, an NHS (well at the moment anyway), protection in law for women and minorities etc needs sharia law in order to improve! Don't get me wrong, sharia is often misunderstood and was actually a liberalisation of contemporary laws when it was introduced, but it's not exactly applicable to 21st century Britain.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And a lot of those social improvements are a product of a secular society, aren't they? And secular does not equal atheist.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Alyosha: of course it's not wrong to dream and hope and pray. It would probably be a good thing if more Christians did so, and perhaps looked at life a bit less cynically.
But I think our major argument with your thesis is that it is just too simplistic: God sends a mighty revival, lots of people are truly converted to Christ, the churches fill, Christian values come to the fore and people become nicer, and society is changed. Most of us would want to add some caveats to that.
For instance: revival does not take place in a religious and sociological vacuum, but in a context. Certain predisposing factors have to be present - for instance, a cohesive sense of community, a certain pre-existent knowledge of the Christian faith, a level of anxiety within society and so on. These themselves will not, of themselves, bring revival; but they create the conditions in which revival can take place.
None of this is to undermine the sovereignty and power of the Holy Spirit; but we must recognise that revival is as much a human construct as a divine one. It is my believe that 1st century Jerusalem and its hinterland were a particularly fertile in which God could work. That might well be true of rapidly-industrialising 18th century Britain, too.
- Past history leads us to say that "mass conversion" does not automatically lead to social improvement. Yes, it may lead to changes in individual behaviours, but it can take a long time to seep down through the general fabric of society and may still leave huge "blind spots".
Of course enthusiastic Christians have been behind many great social reforms (such as the achievements of the "Clapham Sect" and even the modern missionary movement). But whether these should be directly linked to - say - the 1759 Revival or the Methodist Movement is at least debatable.
- I think that many on the Ship are well aware that we live in a multicultural society, the like of which has only existed for perhaps the last 70 years or so. This means that the ideas of a "Christian country" and "shared religious values" seem much less relevant than they did in the past. I know that many sincere Christians would love to see Muslims and others coming to faith in Christ (though others would see this aim as unacceptable and even patronising). Even disregarding this, is it possible for Christian revival to permeate the whole of our nation's diffuse and diverse culture? I doubt it.
- Finally, I think that quite a few people on these boards have, in younger days, ben members of "enthusiastic" Christian groups which seemed to continually proclaim revival as being "just around the corner". You can understand that, after hearing that for 10 or 20 years, expectations become a bit dulled and hopes diminish.
Sadly too many of us have been let down too often, not by God but by his self-styled prophets, to get too excited by the sort of thing you are saying. You will think that that is sad, and you may well be right. But it's the truth. And it has led us to worship in different styles and to read the Scriptures in different ways.
Does that help to explain at all? Or does it simply muddy the waters further?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Alyosha: of course it's not wrong to dream and hope and pray. It would probably be a good thing if more Christians did so, and perhaps looked at life a bit less cynically.
But I think our major argument with your thesis is that it is just too simplistic: God sends a mighty revival, lots of people are truly converted to Christ, the churches fill, Christian values come to the fore and people become nicer, and society is changed. Most of us would want to add some caveats to that.
For instance: revival does not take place in a religious and sociological vacuum, but in a context. Certain predisposing factors have to be present - for instance, a cohesive sense of community, a certain pre-existent knowledge of the Christian faith, a level of anxiety within society and so on. These themselves will not, of themselves, bring revival; but they create the conditions in which revival can take place.
None of this is to undermine the sovereignty and power of the Holy Spirit; but we must recognise that revival is as much a human construct as a divine one. It is my believe that 1st century Jerusalem and its hinterland were a particularly fertile in which God could work. That might well be true of rapidly-industrialising 18th century Britain, too.
- Past history leads us to say that "mass conversion" does not automatically lead to social improvement. Yes, it may lead to changes in individual behaviours, but it can take a long time to seep down through the general fabric of society and may still leave huge "blind spots".
Of course enthusiastic Christians have been behind many great social reforms (such as the achievements of the "Clapham Sect" and even the modern missionary movement). But whether these should be directly linked to - say - the 1759 Revival or the Methodist Movement is at least debatable.
- I think that many on the Ship are well aware that we live in a multicultural society, the like of which has only existed for perhaps the last 70 years or so. This means that the ideas of a "Christian country" and "shared religious values" seem much less relevant than they did in the past. I know that many sincere Christians would love to see Muslims and others coming to faith in Christ (though others would see this aim as unacceptable and even patronising). Even disregarding this, is it possible for Christian revival to permeate the whole of our nation's diffuse and diverse culture? I doubt it.
- Finally, I think that quite a few people on these boards have, in younger days, ben members of "enthusiastic" Christian groups which seemed to continually proclaim revival as being "just around the corner". You can understand that, after hearing that for 10 or 20 years, expectations become a bit dulled and hopes diminish.
Sadly too many of us have been let down too often, not by God but by his self-styled prophets, to get too excited by the sort of thing you are saying. You will think that that is sad, and you may well be right. But it's the truth. And it has led us to worship in different styles and to read the Scriptures in different ways.
Does that help to explain at all? Or does it simply muddy the waters further?
No, it makes sense and I understand all that. I simply want my prayers answered and I have to learn patience and not be so childish.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Racism, sexism etc are institutionalised and structural. They cannot be defeated by vague notions of love. Sometimes violence is needed.
For myself and other leftist Christians, rioting and oppressed groups fighting back (eg Ferguson demonstrations) are part of a Christian revival.
What you describe sounds nice, it just also sounds totally removed from reality.
Also, we think everything is terrible now because 24/7 media makes us aware of it. In reality we're living in one of the most peaceful and equal times in history - we're hyperaware of war for instance, but actually there's much less war than in previous centuries when as far as Britain was concerned it happened somewhere else. I certainly don't think a country with employment rights, an NHS (well at the moment anyway), protection in law for women and minorities etc needs sharia law in order to improve! Don't get me wrong, sharia is often misunderstood and was actually a liberalisation of contemporary laws when it was introduced, but it's not exactly applicable to 21st century Britain.
I don't know Pomona, I just think that as soon as you take up arms against the oppressor, you have entirely lost the battle. Protest is important and even maybe direct action as a last resort, but I'm not violent and I like those vague notions of love. I do see love as a more powerful force than that really, but maybe the definition has been watered down.
Use the pen over the sword.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And a lot of those social improvements are a product of a secular society, aren't they? And secular does not equal atheist.
I agree. I think secularisation has done a lot of good in terms of social improvements (note that Ireland is one of the most rapidly secularising countries in the world).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Question: is it possible to believe in revivals and not be a Calvinist (on the free will issue I mean)?
If God directly intervenes to cause revival, that suggests he directly intervenes to cause people to come to faith, which seems to me effectively equivalent to Unconditional Election.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Racism, sexism etc are institutionalised and structural. They cannot be defeated by vague notions of love. Sometimes violence is needed.
For myself and other leftist Christians, rioting and oppressed groups fighting back (eg Ferguson demonstrations) are part of a Christian revival.
What you describe sounds nice, it just also sounds totally removed from reality.
Also, we think everything is terrible now because 24/7 media makes us aware of it. In reality we're living in one of the most peaceful and equal times in history - we're hyperaware of war for instance, but actually there's much less war than in previous centuries when as far as Britain was concerned it happened somewhere else. I certainly don't think a country with employment rights, an NHS (well at the moment anyway), protection in law for women and minorities etc needs sharia law in order to improve! Don't get me wrong, sharia is often misunderstood and was actually a liberalisation of contemporary laws when it was introduced, but it's not exactly applicable to 21st century Britain.
I don't know Pomona, I just think that as soon as you take up arms against the oppressor, you have entirely lost the battle. Protest is important and even maybe direct action as a last resort, but I'm not violent and I like those vague notions of love. I do see love as a more powerful force than that really, but maybe the definition has been watered down.
Use the pen over the sword.
But what exactly do those vague notions of love do? I am not sure how much they help when people are being killed for being black.
What I am talking about IS direct action, and it is just part of a wider fight for liberation. Oppressed groups didn't gain freedoms by sitting and waiting for some vague New Agey cloud of peace and love to descend, they took things into their own hands. Which is what I've already said - I dislike the phrase 'God helps those who help themselves' generally but I think regarding revival it is applicable.
I notice you haven't responded to my comment that we're living in an extremely peaceful time compared to previous centuries.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: is it possible to believe in revivals and not be a Calvinist (on the free will issue I mean)?
If God directly intervenes to cause revival, that suggests he directly intervenes to cause people to come to faith, which seems to me effectively equivalent to Unconditional Election.
I don't see why it isn't possible.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Racism, sexism etc are institutionalised and structural. They cannot be defeated by vague notions of love. Sometimes violence is needed.
For myself and other leftist Christians, rioting and oppressed groups fighting back (eg Ferguson demonstrations) are part of a Christian revival.
What you describe sounds nice, it just also sounds totally removed from reality.
Also, we think everything is terrible now because 24/7 media makes us aware of it. In reality we're living in one of the most peaceful and equal times in history - we're hyperaware of war for instance, but actually there's much less war than in previous centuries when as far as Britain was concerned it happened somewhere else. I certainly don't think a country with employment rights, an NHS (well at the moment anyway), protection in law for women and minorities etc needs sharia law in order to improve! Don't get me wrong, sharia is often misunderstood and was actually a liberalisation of contemporary laws when it was introduced, but it's not exactly applicable to 21st century Britain.
I don't know Pomona, I just think that as soon as you take up arms against the oppressor, you have entirely lost the battle. Protest is important and even maybe direct action as a last resort, but I'm not violent and I like those vague notions of love. I do see love as a more powerful force than that really, but maybe the definition has been watered down.
Use the pen over the sword.
But what exactly do those vague notions of love do? I am not sure how much they help when people are being killed for being black.
What I am talking about IS direct action, and it is just part of a wider fight for liberation. Oppressed groups didn't gain freedoms by sitting and waiting for some vague New Agey cloud of peace and love to descend, they took things into their own hands. Which is what I've already said - I dislike the phrase 'God helps those who help themselves' generally but I think regarding revival it is applicable.
I notice you haven't responded to my comment that we're living in an extremely peaceful time compared to previous centuries.
Things could be more peaceful. We're forever being told to count our blessings and be content. I don't know if things were more peaceful in the past or not. They keep saying this and the last century are the most violent there have ever been. Maybe we do have things good in the UK, but things could be so much better. I don't see that as a whinge, it's just aspiration for a better society.
Or failing that some kind of ambition for greater things, more meaning, a better world.
I do sign petitions for causes I believe in. I am proactive. If that does not promote any level of acceptance from the more militant, it is just one of those things. I've long since learned to stop trying to gain acceptance.
They told me that there was no strange initiation ceremony for new people on this forum. Did they lie to me?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Well yes but my point is that a better society takes work. Hoping for revival is not work. I'm not saying that you don't do anything, but expecting a revival to just happen and make everything great immediately is incredibly unrealistic, and actually not what has happened with historical revivals.
I don't see why being expected to engage in robust debate is a strange initiation Why is it strange to have to defend your arguments?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well yes but my point is that a better society takes work. Hoping for revival is not work. I'm not saying that you don't do anything, but expecting a revival to just happen and make everything great immediately is incredibly unrealistic, and actually not what has happened with historical revivals.
I don't see why being expected to engage in robust debate is a strange initiation Why is it strange to have to defend your arguments?
Hmmm.
[ 27. May 2015, 15:48: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Sorry, could you perhaps expand a little? Was it aimed at the comment about revival, or about board initiations?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Alyosha,
As Pomona says, we do robust debate here. If you are queried, I don't advise taking it personally. I do (strongly) advise reading the board guidelines (top of each board) and the 10 commandments (linked top center of the board.) Know what to expect and follow the rules. You have made enough posts here to have the hang of this. If you have any complaints about how the board is run, take it to the Styx. If you want to make any personal attacks on another poster, and that includes criticizing their posting style, that goes in Hell or nowhere.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I know that when I first joined the Ship, I was somewhat taken aback by the robustness (is there such a word?) of the debate. But it is all part of the fun and, if nothing else, helps one to think through one's own position.
Perhaps you were thinking, "We're all Christians here, so we'll all agree". But it doesn't work like that. Most of us are Christians (of various breeds and ilks); some have been Christians but now disavow it; some are atheists or people with an argument about faith. And there are one or two (you'll find out who over time) who rather like to be "Devil's Advocate" and take a contrary position simply to propel the discussion forward.
Apart from that, there are just a couple of us who are sweet-natured and really, really nice ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Getting to grips with the debating style is certainly a learning curve. I found it helpful to read old posts and just observe, along with contributing to less controversial posts (eg stuff in Heaven like recipe threads).
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
I know this thread is meant to be about the UK so I hope it's OK if I make a couple of observations about things here in Kenya.
I started a "What is revival?" thread a few months ago because I'd encountered some people here who had family who had been involved with what was called the East African Revival. From what I can glean from personal anecdote it was very much like what has been described up thread- a mixed bag, with good and bad simultaneously happening.
Fast forward to now. Here in our town there is a large slum area and we know quite a lot of Christians who are working there. In fact I sometimes make field visits there myself. Some of the stories that are coming out from there are of revival type signs, wonders and conversions. None of which I can verify. But more importantly to me, if true it appears that the Holy Spirit is only working where certain people are involved....
so maybe the rest of us have been passed by?
Or is it all a load of cobblers?
Or is it like I said above, that all sorts of things can be happening at the same time?
Like the story about Ephesus in Acts which has been mentioned.
So depending on who you talk to here it will be stories of revival or stories of life with a good mixed bag of challenges and joys.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This isn't exactly answering your question. But it is relevant.
We heard wonderful churches about the churches that had been "touched" by the East African Revival, both in Congo and Rwanda. Yet many of those same Christians became involved in terrible acts of violence and genocide.
People have heard that the Revival was "broad, but not deep". Was there a lack of follow-up teaching on practical aspects of the Christian faith? Was it "too spiritual for its own good"? Was is just frothy and superficial? I don't know, but something clearly went wrong, and parts of the human condition were not touched by it.
(Of course, I'm not discounting the pressures of mob violence, nor the deep-seated differences between tribal groups which go back centuries. But shouldn't Revival have made a difference, even to these?)
[ 27. May 2015, 17:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
We heard wonderful churches about the churches that had been "touched" by the East African Revival, both in Congo and Rwanda. Yet many of those same Christians became involved in terrible acts of violence and genocide.
People have heard that the Revival was "broad, but not deep". Was there a lack of follow-up teaching on practical aspects of the Christian faith? Was it "too spiritual for its own good"? Was is just frothy and superficial? I don't know, but something clearly went wrong, and parts of the human condition were not touched by it.
Given the history of Christian groups committing mob violence, I'm not sure your assumption that such acts are contrary to the "practical aspects of the Christian faith" holds up under scrutiny. Such acts may be arguably contrary to the philosophical or intellectual aspects of the Christian faith, but they're all to common a practical aspect. There are only so many times you can say something is an aberration before you have to start asking if there's a pattern.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, which is one of the reasons why I think that revivalist hagiography is overblown.
Yes, revivals can and do have an impact on individuals and societies but there have to be other factors in place too - religious emotion will get you only so far.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, which is one of the reasons why I think that revivalist hagiography is overblown.
Yes, revivals can and do have an impact on individuals and societies but there have to be other factors in place too - religious emotion will get you only so far.
But how do you know that? Few people in this generation have experienced a revival.
It's like saying 'Christmas is crap. It makes people think of dead relatives (and never ever experiencing an Xmas)'.
That's true, but there are other parts of Christmas which are kind of nice. At least I admit to not knowing what a revival would be like. I simply believe that it would make things better.
[ 01. June 2015, 07:56: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, which is one of the reasons why I think that revivalist hagiography is overblown.
Yes, revivals can and do have an impact on individuals and societies but there have to be other factors in place too - religious emotion will get you only so far.
But how do you know that? Few people in this generation have experienced a revival.
It's like saying 'Christmas is crap. It makes people think of dead relatives (and never ever experiencing an Xmas)'.
That's true, but there are other parts of Christmas which are kind of nice. At least I admit to not knowing what a revival would be like. I simply believe that it would make things better.
Following on from what I said up-thread about the current stories here in Kenya about revival type situations, the other day I listened to someone explaining why the reported miracle signs, which have now suffered some kind of relapse were still revival as we were now in a time of intense spiritual warfare.....
I too would like to see things made better in communities all around the world and I too would welcome the work of the Holy Spirit in many, many situations but the types of cognitive dissonance which I've encountered make me very wary and slightly depressed by some of these stories.
I long for honesty and integrity in our story-telling- when that happens perhaps there is the chance for transformation to begin in our lives.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, which is one of the reasons why I think that revivalist hagiography is overblown.
Yes, revivals can and do have an impact on individuals and societies but there have to be other factors in place too - religious emotion will get you only so far.
But how do you know that? Few people in this generation have experienced a revival.
It's like saying 'Christmas is crap. It makes people think of dead relatives (and never ever experiencing an Xmas)'.
That's true, but there are other parts of Christmas which are kind of nice. At least I admit to not knowing what a revival would be like. I simply believe that it would make things better.
Following on from what I said up-thread about the current stories here in Kenya about revival type situations, the other day I listened to someone explaining why the reported miracle signs, which have now suffered some kind of relapse were still revival as we were now in a time of intense spiritual warfare.....
I too would like to see things made better in communities all around the world and I too would welcome the work of the Holy Spirit in many, many situations but the types of cognitive dissonance which I've encountered make me very wary and slightly depressed by some of these stories.
I long for honesty and integrity in our story-telling- when that happens perhaps there is the chance for transformation to begin in our lives.
Absolutely. But you are probably one of the few people here to even get near to any kind of revival. Are there any benefits from it? Is it all as bogus as people fear?
Africa is far more deserving of a genuine revival than the Europe. If the stories you are hearing are fake then maybe you are right and maybe everyone else is right - that a revival will make things worse. That seems to be the main issue with it. But we have fake stories in this 'decline' (look at 'Taming the Tiger' and some other similar stories).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How do I know that, Alyosha?
Because I've read plenty of revival accounts - and not just the popular hagiographical ones.
Because I've visited Gypsy churches in Spain which came about through a revival / people movement.
Because I grew up in South Wales where everyone was banging on about how wonderful the Welsh Revival was all the time - and so decided to investigate and look more closely - whereupon I found that ... lo an behold, there was good stuff and bad stuff going on at one and the same time.
Because I am realistic enough to recognise that there are upsides and downsides to revival as there is with anything else - whether it's marriage, employment or any other condition.
That doesn't mean that I am 'dissing' revival nor saying that it's unnecessary or unwarranted.
No, far from it ...
All I'm saying is that many revivalists operate with a very fuzzy idea of what these things entail - and they have no real historical perspective - nor even a proper theological perspective very often ...
It isn't a case of having to 'live through' or 'experience' a revival to be able to comment on these things.
Sure, I've heard recorded testimonies of people who lived through the Hebridean revival, for instance, who were almost euphoric about it - a special spiritual atmosphere, a general awareness of the presence of God - etc etc.
Wonderful.
I'm not knocking any of that.
But we don't spend our lives blissed out in some kind of glory cloud. I've been married for over 20 years now and it's bloomin' hard work at times ... it's not some kind of euphoric state 24/7.
Same with revivals - they aren't some kind of state of suspended animation where everything is wonderful and hunkydory. People still die. People still stub their toes or get toothace or constipation, they still have to get up and go out to work, they still have to wash their socks, when they go to the lavatory they still have to use toilet paper to wipe their backsides ...
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How do I know that, Alyosha?
Because I've read plenty of revival accounts - and not just the popular hagiographical ones.
Because I've visited Gypsy churches in Spain which came about through a revival / people movement.
Because I grew up in South Wales where everyone was banging on about how wonderful the Welsh Revival was all the time - and so decided to investigate and look more closely - whereupon I found that ... lo an behold, there was good stuff and bad stuff going on at one and the same time.
Because I am realistic enough to recognise that there are upsides and downsides to revival as there is with anything else - whether it's marriage, employment or any other condition.
That doesn't mean that I am 'dissing' revival nor saying that it's unnecessary or unwarranted.
No, far from it ...
All I'm saying is that many revivalists operate with a very fuzzy idea of what these things entail - and they have no real historical perspective - nor even a proper theological perspective very often ...
It isn't a case of having to 'live through' or 'experience' a revival to be able to comment on these things.
Sure, I've heard recorded testimonies of people who lived through the Hebridean revival, for instance, who were almost euphoric about it - a special spiritual atmosphere, a general awareness of the presence of God - etc etc.
Wonderful.
I'm not knocking any of that.
But we don't spend our lives blissed out in some kind of glory cloud. I've been married for over 20 years now and it's bloomin' hard work at times ... it's not some kind of euphoric state 24/7.
Same with revivals - they aren't some kind of state of suspended animation where everything is wonderful and hunkydory. People still die. People still stub their toes or get toothace or constipation, they still have to get up and go out to work, they still have to wash their socks, when they go to the lavatory they still have to use toilet paper to wipe their backsides ...
Then your objection is only in my romantisisation of it all? But can't you look past that?
You are relatively established as a member of the town council etc, so as a leader, you would have the good of the people as a top priority? So why would a revival of Christianity not be for the good of the people?
Come the revival, the established will be included and will show more genuine love towards the vulnerable and needy. Or I suppose that is a pie in the sky romaticisation too? Because so far it really does seem to be.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Both/and not either/or ...
As I've said a few times on this and probably other threads - I do see a revival of Christianity as a good thing - but I don't see 'revivalism' as necessarily beneficial in and of itself.
Religious enthusiasm has both upsides and downsides.
It doesn't automatically lead to the kind of justice, righteousness and integrity that you appear to assume it does. What 'revival' can do is act as a impetus for some of these things - but it doesn't, in and of itself, always do so.
Same as anything else - same as with the official adoption of Christianity within the Roman Empire. Overall, for all the chunterings of 'enthusiastic' Christians - Anabaptists and so on - it did lead to a general change in society - but it didn't do so overnight and it also led to a rise in nominalism and indifference.
I've heard, for instance, that the situation in the Roman arenas actually got worse for a while after the official Christianisation of the Roman Empire as there were suddenly far more capital offences for which people could be condemned to hideous deaths in the games and so on ...
Ok, after a while, this was rectified as it gradually filtered through to society in general that watching armed combat to the death or the massacre of animals and condemned prisoners wasn't quite compatible with Christian faith ...
It has ever been thus - change happens gradually.
Look how long it took to abolish slavery - and that within highly Christianised societies.
Revivalism didn't lead to the abolition of slavery - hard graft in Parliament, lobbying and political action led to the abolition of slavery.
Ok - some revivalists became involved with the fight against slavery - but by no means all.
It isn't simply that you have an overly romanticised view, you also seem to have an overly pietistic view as to how people's behaviour changes as a result of revival or bouts of religious enthusiasm.
There is no magic bullet.
Effecting change takes hard work.
I'm not expecting to make any real difference on the town council unless I stick with it for some considerable time. I don't have a magic wand. Neither has anyone else.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Both/and not either/or ...
It isn't simply that you have an overly romanticised view, you also seem to have an overly pietistic view as to how people's behaviour changes as a result of revival or bouts of religious enthusiasm.
There is no magic bullet.
Effecting change takes hard work.
I'm not expecting to make any real difference on the town council unless I stick with it for some considerable time. I don't have a magic wand. Neither has anyone else.
Well I hear that council prayers are still allowed despite some opposition to them? Maybe you can use them somehow?
I'm not that pietistic, I was acknowledging that other Christians feel strongly about other things and in the event of a revival would likely push for their agendas. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. Supposedly, when a person becomes a Christian it frees them up? Or is that just a romantic idea too?
The people who don't like change, tend to be very happy with the status quo. I would simply suggest that this could influence your conclusion when it comes to a revival of Christianity.
I'm not calling for an overturning of Government. I'm introducing the idea of the possibility of making things better than they currently are.
No-one likes change. I don't like change. But some changes can make things better and they don't harm others. And this is one of them.
But it isn't about that is it? It's about egos and power and people clinging to jobs? It's about pride and maybe a little about fear too? It really shouldn't be this way.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Absolutely. But you are probably one of the few people here to even get near to any kind of revival. Are there any benefits from it? Is it all as bogus as people fear?
Africa is far more deserving of a genuine revival than the Europe. If the stories you are hearing are fake then maybe you are right and maybe everyone else is right - that a revival will make things worse. That seems to be the main issue with it. But we have fake stories in this 'decline' (look at 'Taming the Tiger' and some other similar stories).
There are no short answers to the questions you raise, Alyosha
One of the huge drivers here in Kenya is money, the pursuit of money is written in as a way of life. My Kenyan friends will tell you that when you live somewhere where you can't trust the people in authority to use public funds for the good of everyone (and we're talking basic access to healthcare, education and food security here) then you have to go looking for the money elsewhere. In addition to normal people looking to care for their families, we then have the complicating factor of ridiculous material aspirations.
Enter the church from the wings. Money can be a driver there too and one way of encouraging the donation of money is by making people happy with stories of how their money, handed over for the cause of the gospel is reaping a harvest. I can tell you of countless "commitments to the Lord" and stories of signs and wonders at evangelistic events here in our town. But no-one really seems to follow these people up to see how their lives have changed. Then there are the stories like the one I mentioned up-thread. If and when (and I would like this to happen, I really would) I find a story I can verify I will let you know.
This is not just happening here in Kenya or in the wider African continent, this is an issue in the hearts of humanity everywhere. As is the whole story-telling to build our own egos thing. Most of my work here is with the poorest and most marginalised people in society and for some of them these stories and rumours bring hope that things will change, maybe the Spirit of God will do something for them. I often sit and weep when I hear them say these things.
But all is not lost as there are also wonderful people here who are working for no personal gain to transform the lives of people in their communities. If I am honest the signs and wonders aspects seemed linked to the wealthy churches with wealthy pastors and little or no transparency. Many Kenyan Christians are very realistic about it all.
Then there are the stories which I can verify of the people who lost loved ones in the post-election violence of 2008 and who have done the hard work of forgiveness and are now working to help resolve community based conflict to ensure such a thing never happens again. One friend of ours here was incarcerated for making a stand against corrupt practices which were impacting the lives of local people. He lives and breathes Micah 6 v8. When he speaks, people listen and lives are changed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Both/and not either/or ...
It isn't simply that you have an overly romanticised view, you also seem to have an overly pietistic view as to how people's behaviour changes as a result of revival or bouts of religious enthusiasm.
There is no magic bullet.
Effecting change takes hard work.
I'm not expecting to make any real difference on the town council unless I stick with it for some considerable time. I don't have a magic wand. Neither has anyone else.
Well I hear that council prayers are still allowed despite some opposition to them? Maybe you can use them somehow?
Business at the House of Commons begins with prayers that the members will govern wisely. It has been called the best evidence for the non-existence of God, or at the very least the inefficacy of prayer...
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Absolutely. But you are probably one of the few people here to even get near to any kind of revival. Are there any benefits from it? Is it all as bogus as people fear?
Africa is far more deserving of a genuine revival than the Europe. If the stories you are hearing are fake then maybe you are right and maybe everyone else is right - that a revival will make things worse. That seems to be the main issue with it. But we have fake stories in this 'decline' (look at 'Taming the Tiger' and some other similar stories).
There are no short answers to the questions you raise, Alyosha
One of the huge drivers here in Kenya is money, the pursuit of money is written in as a way of life. My Kenyan friends will tell you that when you live somewhere where you can't trust the people in authority to use public funds for the good of everyone (and we're talking basic access to healthcare, education and food security here) then you have to go looking for the money elsewhere. In addition to normal people looking to care for their families, we then have the complicating factor of ridiculous material aspirations.
Enter the church from the wings. Money can be a driver there too and one way of encouraging the donation of money is by making people happy with stories of how their money, handed over for the cause of the gospel is reaping a harvest. I can tell you of countless "commitments to the Lord" and stories of signs and wonders at evangelistic events here in our town. But no-one really seems to follow these people up to see how their lives have changed. Then there are the stories like the one I mentioned up-thread. If and when (and I would like this to happen, I really would) I find a story I can verify I will let you know.
This is not just happening here in Kenya or in the wider African continent, this is an issue in the hearts of humanity everywhere. As is the whole story-telling to build our own egos thing. Most of my work here is with the poorest and most marginalised people in society and for some of them these stories and rumours bring hope that things will change, maybe the Spirit of God will do something for them. I often sit and weep when I hear them say these things.
But all is not lost as there are also wonderful people here who are working for no personal gain to transform the lives of people in their communities. If I am honest the signs and wonders aspects seemed linked to the wealthy churches with wealthy pastors and little or no transparency. Many Kenyan Christians are very realistic about it all.
Then there are the stories which I can verify of the people who lost loved ones in the post-election violence of 2008 and who have done the hard work of forgiveness and are now working to help resolve community based conflict to ensure such a thing never happens again. One friend of ours here was incarcerated for making a stand against corrupt practices which were impacting the lives of local people. He lives and breathes Micah 6 v8. When he speaks, people listen and lives are changed.
It seems to me that you're doing absolutely everything you can do and are a much better person than myself (because I would be terrified in that situation). In resisting the prosperity gospel I would suggest that you are much closer to Christ than the wealthy preachers.
I don't know what to say. I wish you every success. Don't give up.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Aloysha - you say you're not pietistic then come out with pietistic suggestions such as introducing prayers before town council meetings ...
As it happens, a fair number of people on the town council have some kind of church background.
By no means all of them, of course.
They are also happy to support various faith-based initiatives - and I can think of several here that they have supported in some way.
You don't need a 'revival' for that to happen ... it happens as part of the general course of things.
If there were a 'revival' then the general process of government wouldn't stop or be disrupted in any way. What makes you think that it would?
In what way did the government of the UK change as a result of the 18th century revivals? It didn't.
In what way did local or regional government/politics change in the wake of the Welsh Revival? I can't see how it had any impact on those aspects whatsoever - if anything the whole thing was pietistic and otherworldly. They used to discourage people from playing sport on a weekend for goodness sake ...
Check your facts. Check your history. Check and revise your theology.
You have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Aloysha - you say you're not pietistic then come out with pietistic suggestions such as introducing prayers before town council meetings ...
As it happens, a fair number of people on the town council have some kind of church background.
By no means all of them, of course.
They are also happy to support various faith-based initiatives - and I can think of several here that they have supported in some way.
You don't need a 'revival' for that to happen ... it happens as part of the general course of things.
If there were a 'revival' then the general process of government wouldn't stop or be disrupted in any way. What makes you think that it would?
In what way did the government of the UK change as a result of the 18th century revivals? It didn't.
In what way did local or regional government/politics change in the wake of the Welsh Revival? I can't see how it had any impact on those aspects whatsoever - if anything the whole thing was pietistic and otherworldly. They used to discourage people from playing sport on a weekend for goodness sake ...
Check your facts. Check your history. Check and revise your theology.
You have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
No I haven't. Town council prayers were just put into law because of the Bideford town council overturning. The National Secular Society opposed the whole thing but in the end the Government decided to retain them (simply because they look good and don't cost anything).
If the Government are completely unaffected by a nation-wide revival then I put it to you that that is because Government has very little to do with God.
So why does the Government infer that God is with them in their decisions? Because that is always their subtext.
Meanwhile, who is with the people? Not the Government, that's for sure. Thankfully God still cares for us.
[ 01. June 2015, 12:50: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Which is why, of course, God smote the mayor of Bideford.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
You are adding dualism to your pietism.
What has the Government to do with God?
Everything has to do with God ...
Making pious, dualistic distinctions between these things doesn't get us anywhere ...
I don't see how the Bideford thing has anything to do with whatever I do or don't do or get involved in with our town council here.
If I want to pray for our town council, I can do so in the comfort of my own home or in church on a Sunday. I don't need to press the council to have prayers before each session.
Does that mean that I don't have anything to do with God either?
While I'm at it - can you, as a revivalist, point to ANY piece of legislation over the last 300 or 400 years here in the UK that has had anything to do with revivalism - or pressure from pietistic / revivalist Christians?
You'd be hard pressed to find anything.
Sure, the Salvation Army's revivalism in parts of London's East End and up in the North East had an effect on those involved - men turning from strong drink and rowdiness and becoming exemplary husbands and fathers etc.
I don't doubt that.
Nor do I doubt the very real impact that Booth and the Salvation Army had - alongside other agencies - in addresses social issues in late 19th century Britain.
Nor do I dismiss the impact of people of faith like Dr Barnado or Lord Shaftesbury - the latter introduced some of the most far-reaching legislation this country has seen in terms of improving working conditions -- but he was no revivalist.
Yes, of course I'd like to see more people turning to Christ. Yes, there are 'benefits' that would flow from that into wider society as a whole ... but what I'm saying is that this isn't always the corollary of revival or revivalism.
Point me to one single act of Parliament or piece of legislation, for instance, that has been brought about by religious revival.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You are adding dualism to your pietism.
What has the Government to do with God?
Everything has to do with God ...
Making pious, dualistic distinctions between these things doesn't get us anywhere ...
I don't see how the Bideford thing has anything to do with whatever I do or don't do or get involved in with our town council here.
If I want to pray for our town council, I can do so in the comfort of my own home or in church on a Sunday. I don't need to press the council to have prayers before each session.
Does that mean that I don't have anything to do with God either?
While I'm at it - can you, as a revivalist, point to ANY piece of legislation over the last 300 or 400 years here in the UK that has had anything to do with revivalism - or pressure from pietistic / revivalist Christians?
You'd be hard pressed to find anything.
Sure, the Salvation Army's revivalism in parts of London's East End and up in the North East had an effect on those involved - men turning from strong drink and rowdiness and becoming exemplary husbands and fathers etc.
I don't doubt that.
Nor do I doubt the very real impact that Booth and the Salvation Army had - alongside other agencies - in addresses social issues in late 19th century Britain.
Nor do I dismiss the impact of people of faith like Dr Barnado or Lord Shaftesbury - the latter introduced some of the most far-reaching legislation this country has seen in terms of improving working conditions -- but he was no revivalist.
Yes, of course I'd like to see more people turning to Christ. Yes, there are 'benefits' that would flow from that into wider society as a whole ... but what I'm saying is that this isn't always the corollary of revival or revivalism.
Point me to one single act of Parliament or piece of legislation, for instance, that has been brought about by religious revival.
The Wesleys? Methodism and the resulting influences? Prison reform? Didn't the abolition of the slave trade have some roots in Christian influence too?
'Aside from contributing so much in the social sphere, Methodists were also a great influence on politics and political campaigning. In 1834, the ‘Tolpuddle Martyrs’ were sentenced to seven years’ transportation for swearing an oath to each other as part of their creation of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers, when the formation of such unions was restricted. Their leader – George Loveless – was a Methodist preacher who was moved to act in this way to protest against the conditions of fellow agricultural workers. Some Methodists were also involved in the Chartist movement in the 1830s and 1840s which campaigned generally peacefully for six voting reforms to make the voting system in Britain fairer for all. However, arguably their most significant contribution to British political life was that, since many Methodists were also trade union leaders, they were instrumental in the formation of the Labour Party in 1900 which originally championed the ‘ordinary people’ and their needs. '
source
[ 01. June 2015, 15:35: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
It seems to me that you're doing absolutely everything you can do and are a much better person than myself (because I would be terrified in that situation). In resisting the prosperity gospel I would suggest that you are much closer to Christ than the wealthy preachers.
I don't know what to say. I wish you every success. Don't give up.
Thank you for your encouragement, Alyosha
I am simply doing whatever I can to live authentically as a follower of Christ in the place where I find myself, which in my opinion is all any of us can do.
The rest is up to God, revival or no revival
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nobody's disputing the social impact of the 18th century revivals, Alyosha -- although E P Thompson certainly did, notoriously, in 'The Making of the English Working Class' where he saw Methodism as purely 'pyschic masturbation' which had no social benefits whatsoever. But then, he was a Marxist, of course ...
I'm not saying that Methodism didn't feed into Chartism and political reforms of one kind or other.
It's no accident that many trades union lodges or branches are called 'chapels'.
All I am saying is that we need to keep a sense of proportion. The evangelical and revivalist voice wasn't the only one in the Abolition movement - there were Unitarians like Josiah Wedgwood involved - as well as out and out atheists and libertines like Charles James Fox.
It's overly simplistic to see the Evangelical Awakening of the 18th century as the single, root cause of the Abolition. John Wesley certainly encouraged Wilberforce - and his last known letter is to that purpose - but not all the 18th century revivalists were Abolitionists.
George Whitfield certainly wasn't - he actually thought the slave trade was a good thing.
Also, it's rather reductionist to see the 18th century revivals as changing the character of the nation. They certainly contributed a great deal - no-one here is disputing that - but there was much else going along besides - such as the Enlightenment and so forth.
Impressive though the numbers involved undoubtedly were, they still constituted a relatively small proportion of the overall population. I think there was something like 60,000 people involved in Wesley's Methodist societies by the end of his life ... a goodly number but not a huge proportion of the population.
Sure, the Wesleys weren't the only game in town and if you add up all those involved regularly (or irregularly) with the Established Church, the various Dissenting bodies and the various religious 'societies' (not all of which had a revivalist character) then there'd have been a considerable number of people involved.
But we are talking about a generally more 'religious' age anyway ... when John Wesley founded his first 'society' on Fetter Lane, there were already another 40 religious societies of one form or other meeting around the capital.
There were 'religious societies' meeting for prayer, Bible study and discussion in many parts of the country - there were plenty of them in Yorkshire before Wesley scooped many of them up and organised them along his own particular lines.
There'd been pietistic and religious study groups since the 1720s at least - particularly in those areas of the country where parish churches were spread thinly due to topography etc.
Also, family and household prayers were still common in the large houses - where the master of the house would gather his servants and family together for daily prayer - a practice that went back to Puritan times.
What the Wesleyan impetus added was a sense of 'oomph' and enthusiasm - and 'felt' personal experience - to gatherings and initiatives of this kind. Most of the extant 'testimonies' and journal accounts were written by people who were already nominally Christian or somewhat lukewarm - in their later estimation - before their conversions.
Ok, that would mostly apply to those with sufficient education to write these things down - I don't doubt that a lot of the poorer and less well educated 'hearers' and converts were previously unchurched.
It's very hard to establish how many people actually did have regular contact with the churches back then ... the only religious census there's ever been here in the UK was taken in 1851 I believe and the organisers were shocked to find that 50% of the population didn't appear to be in church or chapel on a Sunday ...
What we have with the 18th and 19th century revivals isn't so much an ingathering of previously unchurched people - although that certainly did happen to an extent - but the 'quickening' or 'awakening' of nominal or luke-warm believers.
That's why I don't believe it makes much sense to talk of a 'revival' in a Wesleyan sense today - because the conditions are very different.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There were certainly Methodists (and other non-conformists) involved with Chartism (particularly on the 'moral force' rather than the more violent and radical 'physical force' side) - and with the early trades union movement ... and yes, this did feed into the early Labour movement.
It's often been said that the early Labour Party 'owed more to Methodism than to Marx'.
However, keep things in proportion and in perspective.
Zephaniah Williams, one of the key Chartist leaders in South Wales, made no secret of his open antipathy to Christianity and is said to have had a picture of Christ in the pub he ran with a caption, 'The Man Who Stole The Donkey'.
Even if this is 'black-propaganda' on the part of his detractors, there was a strong vein of 'Free Thinking' and even atheism running alongside some of the more religious elements within the reformist movements of the early 19th century.
Yes, the religious revivals had an input - but as one influence alongside many others.
When you fast forward to 20th century Wales, you find many of the young people caught up in the revivalism of 1904/05 later abandoning it in order to get involved with Labour Party politics, Welsh nationalism, the Eisteddfod and other social or cultural movements.
Why?
Because revivalism will only take you so far. There's only so long you can sing revivalist hymns in the minor key or happy-clappy choruses Pentecostal style.
Sure, some revivalists did get involved with social issues and so on - but for many of them it remained very much a pietistic thing - with very little social impact beyond personal piety (which is commendable in and of itself, of course).
Yes, there were movements for prison reform and so on - but Elizabeth Fry wasn't a revivalist as far as I can tell. Nor were philanthropic Quakers such as the Rowntrees and Cadburys.
Revivalism assumes that religious observance is only 'valid' if it's on fire ...
Plenty of rather cool-customers such as the 'Prayer Book evangelical' Lord Shaftesbury had significant input and impact without being in any way 'revivalist' in terms of their own personal spirituality.
We've got to look at the aggregate of all these things and at the historical and socio-cultural contexts. A few selective quotes from this, that or the other revivalist hagiography isn't sufficient.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Those points about atheism sound correct to me. My family, which has strong trade union roots back into the 19th century, were atheist through and through, and frequently cited the vicar and the squire as the twin enemies of the working man, and in fact, of progress. I suppose today the vicar and the squire are just faded relics.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
Town council prayers were just put into law because of the Bideford town council overturning. The National Secular Society opposed the whole thing but in the end the Government decided to retain them (simply because they look good and don't cost anything).
If the Government are completely unaffected by a nation-wide revival then I put it to you that that is because Government has very little to do with God.
So why does the Government infer that God is with them in their decisions? Because that is always their subtext.
Meanwhile, who is with the people? Not the Government, that's for sure. Thankfully God still cares for us.
Indeed - Eric Pickles made a big fuss about tios being a Christian country - but when many of us wrote to him about trhe marginalisation of Religious Education, which is a local council issued, he didn't even bother to reply to any of us.
Maybve he was busy eating pies.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Having children young enough to have not long left school, I can state with some authority that, whatever the views of the local education authority on religious education, it eventually falls to (a) the Head, and (b) the vagaries of the exam boards, as to whether or not children get much of a grounding in Christianity.
My own offspring were not only expected to study Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Janaism and Judaism in RE, they also spent a lot of time looking at Islam in what we used to call 'Civics' - the emphasis being on how one needs to wary of causing offence to adherents of the Prophet. They actually spent very little time at all 'doing' Christianity - and that was in a CofE school.
Not once in 7 years did they have a whole school assembly, or even just years 7-11, because the school didn't have anywhere big enough to hold one.
Assemblies were usually with 2 forms squeezing into one room and consisted of discussing infractions of the discipline code, asking who had detention that day, and handing out letters to go home: there was no religious content at all, other than on the last day of term, when they said the some prayers.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Which rather supports the view that Curiosity Killed aired, that the 'secularisation' of 'religious education' from the 1970s onwards has all but killed off any chance of us tapping into a residual awareness of Christianity in future.
I was probably the last generation which received traditional 'religious instruction' at school ... a normal primary and junior school and a bog-standard comprehensive.
We did get to sing the traditional hymns and, it being South Wales, we did tend to sing them with gusto.
A great deal of it stuck with me - both from school assemblies and from Sunday school. Our parish church wasn't noted for its 'liveliness' and the rector - God rest his soul - had a speech impediment and was difficult to understand - at least for us kids.
I dropped out when confirmation classes started but had a general, 'working knowledge' of concepts such as the Trinity and Deity of Christ ... so when I encountered earnest evangelicals at university there was already something 'there' for them to work with ... or the Holy Spirit to work with if you prefer.
Another of these both/and things ...
I'm not saying that what applied to me as an individual also applies to society at large - but it seems axiomatic to me - from my reading around the subject of 'revival' and 'revivalism' - that what most Pentecostals and charismatic evangelicals understand by revival can only really take place within a nominally or habitually Christianised context.
Yes, people can and do come to faith from previously unchurched backgrounds - but generally not in any large numbers. We've got to start 'further back' and can't assume a level of knowledge of the Christian Gospel in a way that previous generations did.
Ok - in missiological terms there are exceptions to this general rule - the 'People Movements' that occur from time to time among particular tribal groups or sections of society - the Lisu people of Burma/Myanmar being one of the prime examples from the 1850s onwards.
The 'Gypsy Revival' among the Romany people of Europe from the 1950s onwards would be another example.
I think these should be considered as a separate missiological category to what is generally termed 'revival' - and it would be interesting to explore what social factors assist or encourage such apparently spontaneous movements.
Meanwhile, back to Britain -- it strikes me as odd how we should somehow expect or anticipate some kind of 'revival' - as if this is our God-given right in some way.
Whoever said that we were guaranteed to have such a thing? The Apostle Paul and the early Christians were convinced that Christ was going to return in their life-times - that the end of the world was imminent. They had to revise that view in the light of experience.
Equally, who among the thriving North African church of the early centuries could have foreseen a time when Christians were in a minority? Ok, so the Copts are a sizeable minority in Egypt - perhaps 10% of the population - but how many Christians are there across Libya, Algeria and Morocco? Sure, there are pockets among the Berber peoples and others ... but compared to how many there were in the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries ...
I'm wondering what 'basis' there is to 'expect' some kind of revival. Who says so? Where does this idea come from?
I certainly don't expect Christianity to disappear in these islands - but I don't expect to see a sudden reverse of secularism either.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.....My own offspring ... spent a lot of time looking at Islam in what we used to call 'Civics' - the emphasis being on how one needs to wary of causing offence to adherents of the Prophet. They actually spent very little time at all 'doing' Christianity - and that was in a CofE school....
Perhaps if people were scared that we might blow them up, we might get more attention.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd have thought that not causing offence to people was a pretty desirable characteristic ... irrespective of whether some extremists are prepared to retaliate violently when such offence is offered or received.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Well indeed. But why is so much attention given to Islam? Sure, it's the biggest non-Christian religion in the UK- but basically it's because people are scared of it, or rather of its most extreme adherents, in a way they're not scared of Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, or Christians.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, if that is the case, then surely it makes sense to teach kids about it ...
We teach them not to do other dangerous things.
Anyhow - the point in question here isn't Islam nor any of the other religions here in the multi-cultural UK but what Alyosha calls 'the soul of Britain' ... which somehow seems to have become tangled up in a debate about revival and revivalism ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.....My own offspring ... spent a lot of time looking at Islam in what we used to call 'Civics' - the emphasis being on how one needs to wary of causing offence to adherents of the Prophet. They actually spent very little time at all 'doing' Christianity - and that was in a CofE school....
Perhaps if people were scared that we might blow them up, we might get more attention.
Actually, I read somewhere that the number of Westerners becoming Muslims increased after 9/11. This is because they started to read about Islam and ask questions about it, the better to understand what was going on. Some of the answers the enquirers received were obviously more positive than negative.
I often wonder if Islam will have an influence on the 'soul of Britain' in the future. Certainly, the assumption that whiteness and Christianity will easily represent the national identity well into the next century is likely to be increasingly problematic.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
.....My own offspring ... spent a lot of time looking at Islam in what we used to call 'Civics' - the emphasis being on how one needs to wary of causing offence to adherents of the Prophet. They actually spent very little time at all 'doing' Christianity - and that was in a CofE school....
Perhaps if people were scared that we might blow them up, we might get more attention.
Actually, I read somewhere that the number of Westerners becoming Muslims increased after 9/11. This is because they started to read about Islam and ask questions about it, the better to understand what was going on. Some of the answers the enquirers received were obviously more positive than negative.
I often wonder if Islam will have an influence on the 'soul of Britain' in the future. Certainly, the assumption that whiteness and Christianity will easily represent the national identity well into the next century is likely to be increasingly problematic.
That's similar to the idea that if the Church were personified (as she is), she would not be white. And I think that is a fair personification.
[ 02. June 2015, 09:31: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0