- What exactly is to be 'revived'? Christendom? Would that be a good thing?
- Who exactly is to be 'revived'? Is this meaningful language for post-Christendom contexts?
- And what do we do when the revival preachers promise us fails to come again and again? Has the revival paradigm failed us?
- And how much of the revival paradigm still permeates the emerging church?
In The Gospel-Driven Church, Ian Stackhouse commented:
"One of the deleterous features of a revivalist mentality is that short of what might be terms a surprising manifestation of God there is very little else to be getting on with...commitment to spiritual formation, on the other hand, takes seriously the fact that there are indeed seasons in the Christian journey, both personal and corporate, and that intense fervour is not sustainable, nor even necessarily required, in order for Christian living to occur."
I find myself wondering to what extent revival fervour has been behind popular facinations with charismatic phenomena and deliverence ministry (as signs of revival), endtimes speculation (as a metanarrative framework for a sence of urgency), strategic level spiritual warfare, faddish programs and rapid prophetic preaching (as a means to revival), simplistic hermeneutics (lets not get distracted from revival), mega-venues (lets hype up revival using group dynamics) and the general emphasis on conversion over discipleship.
Of particular concern to me is revival-motivated over-emphasis on intercessory prayer. I do not deny the need for intercessory prayer but Ive been to too many small group meetings and church services where you could conclude that this was the only form of prayer. The spirituality of Jesus and his apostles was so much broader than this. If you study the prayers of Paul for instance you'll find a diversity of prayer, and even when he engages in intercessory prayer you'll find him more likely asking for the increase of faith, hope and love than the success of church programs or increase in numbers.
In this regard, Ian Stackhouse also said:
"...our concern is that prayer can feature in revival circles only as intercession, thus ignoring the cumulative range of prayer that might feature in other traditions. Apart from the shear exhaustion that such commitment to prayer can produce, it has important theological implications. The overemphasis on intercessory prayer has the tendancy, in some places, to posit a static God who will only yield up his reward to those who pray long enough and loud enough...but in the process God is often portrayed as the deux ex machina, who is not only bound by our prayers but is also defined by our prayers; thus ironically, the supernaturalism that is often associated with revivalism is replaced by a mechanistic faith."
I am not saying the isn't a place for revivalism, but I am questioning the dominance of revivalism in church growth circles, as Im far from convinced that this paradigm has traction in postmodern mission fields. I am also questioning the uncritical acceptance of revival music as the dominant form of worship in the contemporary church.
2 comments:
Revivalism carries with it a lot of baggage from the frontier mentality of the 19th century US context. Recall men out on the trail for months would rock into town and blow their money in the saloon. The revival preachers countered with a sort of "get high" on Jesus. Hence the peculiar "blue laws" of fundamentalism - no drinking, no gambling etc as marks of sanctification.
There have been some intriguing results in the past with revivals, and J. Edwin Orr was the great missions expert on worldwide revivals.
The rhetoric of revivalism though often creates a passivity -- one waits on God in prayer for God's Spirit to move. And no effort is put into trying to exegete the culture, engage with ideologies apologetically, and work at a contextual level with people.
And many pious believers have a favourite bible verse to justify revivals - "if my people who are called by name will humble themeselves and pray...". It is from Chronicles of course and the people called by name is "Israel", and the healing of the land is related back to the covenantal provisions at Sinai (reiterated in Deuteronomy 28). The text is so often pulled out of context to justify a prayerful approach to missions that disengages from culture until the Lord moves.
Much of the revival talk lingers on in the assumption that revival occurs in Christianised societies. And some will hark back to the cycle of apostasy and repentance in the Book of Judges as being a normative pattern in the history of faith. Again the interpretation decontextualises Judges and OT history.
I have been very close to a "revival driven church," and I have seen that agenda used as a carrot to hype funding, staff positions, and generally keep people motivated. Lots of wind and heat.. and no revival. Sadly, I think the paradigm itself, whatever scriptural basis it might have had, has been abused and corrupted, like so many other agendas.
Post a Comment