By Bill Leonard
Recent articles in Baptist periodicals cite “professional evangelists” who confess that their preaching schedules have been reduced considerably since “churches are just not holding revival meetings” as they once did. For many congregations the tradition of one-to-two-week revivals is long gone, replaced by a Sunday to Wednesday schedule if at all. One evangelist reported being asked to conduct a “one-day revival!” Another observer commented that “some churches believe revivals are obsolete or no longer work.”
A longtime staple of evangelical church life, especially in the South, revivals were both controversial and culturally conditioned vehicles for rejuvenating churches and evangelizing sinners.
For advocates of a “Believers’ Church” that required a faith commitment of all members, revivals offered ways for explaining the need for grace and the process for experiencing it. They warned sinners “of the wrath that is to come” and called churches to spiritual renewal. With the demise of revival methods, what “new measures” help 21st century churches retell the “old, old story?”
Any discussion of revivals in American religious life must begin with a distinction between revivals and “awakenings.” Awakenings constitute “surprising a work of God,” Jonathan Edwards said, while revivals, as described by Charles G. Finney, represented “the right use of the duly constituted means,” a specific method for achieving spiritual ends. Awakenings may continue even as revival methods become less viable.
Revivals had great impact on American religious communities.
For certain Protestant groups, they became a major resource for evangelization and church growth in a period spanning two centuries. Through use of revival methodology, Methodists and Baptists, two small colonial sects, became the largest American denominations by the mid-19th century.
For many, revivals defined the nature of religious experience and established processes for getting sinners converted.
Revivals influenced, and perhaps even changed, Protestant theology regarding the nature and process of conversion. Revivals shortened that procedure considerably, from the agonizing, lengthy struggles with grace and depravity to a simple prayer by which immediate redemption was secured.
Revivals created and sharpened the “New Measures” initially established by Charles G. Finney and systematized by evangelists from D. L. Moody to Billy Graham. These included the “prayer of faith,” public “testimonies,” the “invitation,” “decision cards,” preaching styles and hymnody.
From the 18th century First Great Awakening, revivals created considerable controversy, splitting churches over theology and practice.
The First Awakening divided New Light/Old Light Congregationalists, New Side/Old Side Presbyterians and Regular/Separate Baptists. The 19th century Second Great Awakening shaped new denominations including Cumberland Presbyterians, the Restorationist (Christian Church) movement and various Holiness groups.
Opponents affirmed evangelism but rejected revivalistic methods as exploiting “religious affections,” an overly emotional approach to preaching, worship and conversion itself.
Still others disagreed over the nature of conversion and whether salvation was offered to the elect or to “whosoever” chose to receive God’s grace.
Some revivals opened doors to women preaching and “testifying,” while others slammed them shut.
Criticism of revival preachers was present from the beginning: the Harvard faculty attacked George Whitfield when he came to Boston in the 1740s; poet Carl Sandburg took on Billy Sunday and other evangelists in a poem called “To a Contemporary Bunk Shooter.”
Revivalists responded by pointing to results — the many people who claimed salvation and the congregations that were enhanced by the Spirit’s activity.
Revivals became an “entry point” for generations of persons who either grew up in the church or had limited religious background. They shaped a culture of conversion that dominated segments of American religion from Methodist camp meetings to Baptist “protracted meetings” to Pentecostal “healing revivals.”
In short, revivals convinced persons of their need of salvation and informed them as how to secure it. They reflected a wide theological spectrum from “hell-fire preaching” to “deeper-life” discipleship, to spiritual renewal for converts new and old.
Some congregations continue the revival tradition while others never really used it at all. Many have now left it behind completely, in a society where “protracted meetings” simply cannot be sustained.
If revivals are now a less viable way of organizing and encouraging religious experience, what might be other options extending the quest for conversion and spirituality?
— Some congregations are intentionally “seeker sensitive,” cultivating worship services aimed at the non-traditional inquirer.
— Some nurture “spirituality” through meditation and reflection in retreats, prayer groups and short-term workshops.
— Some follow the Christian Year, using Advent, Pentecost, Lent and other annual observances as occasions of spiritual renewal for individuals and communities of faith.
— Some encourage spiritual experience and a renewed sense of community through increased opportunities to gather at the Communion Table.
All toward what end? Strangely, Catholic Thomas Merton linked past and future possibilities when he wrote that the “genius of Protestantism focused from the beginning on the ambiguities contained in ‘being good’ and …’belonging to Christ.’ For conversion to Christ is not merely the conversion from bad habits to good habits, but nova creatura, becoming a totally new [creature] in Christ and in the Spirit.”
When churches do that, surely revival can’t be far behind.
