Is Revival the Goal?

Photo by Bree Anne on Unsplash

I remember that at some point in the early days of me being in Canada and involved in charismatic church ministry my Dad, who had gone to the Anaheim Vineyard in the late 80s and loved it, remarked that ‘North American Christians are kind of obsessed with revival’. Reflecting on this now, I can see that he was correct. It is very common now, especially in charismatic/Pentecostal settings, for churches and ministries to centrally define their identity and mission as experiencing/being/spreading revival. We hear slogans such as ‘Church in revival’, ‘Revival is our mission’, and so on. Some of these churches and ministries are very prominent and influential within and beyond the charismatic movement. The question that this blog post seeks to explore is whether or not this is a biblically and theologically appropriate way to define the central, ultimate identity and purpose of a Christian ministry.

The first thing to mention is that even a cursory reading of the history of North American Christianity shows that revivals, defined as specific, time-bound, geographically-located and unusually influential moves of God’s Spirit, have been of immense significance in the North American Church. We need only think of names such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney and Phoebe Palmer to be reminded that Christianity in North America, especially but not only south of the border, has the idea of revival hard-wired into it by virtue of its history. This observation brings an important question to the fore: How do we define revival? Is it, as articulated above, a time-bound event of unusual Christian activity? Or is it the more general conviction that the Christian church in the 21st century should exhibit the practise of spiritual gifts and the experience of miracles in a way similar to the early church in the book of Acts? I think that both of these are appropriate definitions, but also that it is important to mention which definition we are working with when we use the word revival.

We can now begin to tackle the central question of this blog post: Is it biblically and theologically appropriate for revival, in either of the above definitions, to be the central, ultimate identity and mission of a Christian church/ministry? I would argue that numerous biblical texts and theological themes in the New Testament advocate the practise of spiritual gifts and the experience of miracles as a genuinely important part of the life of the Christian church not only in the 1st century but today and until Christ returns. The main theme of the book of Acts is that the church has been empowered by the Holy Spirit to continue and geographically expand the supernatural ministry of Jesus so as to bring people to salvation in Him. I would also argue that Paul’s letters, especially in 1 Corinthians and Romans, command us to seek to practise spiritual gifts and that no text in the New Testament teaches that these gifts have ceased with the death of the original Apostles. That said, I do not think that the whole counsel of Scripture or the historic tradition of the Church teach that either of the above definitions of revival ought to be the main, ultimate identity and goal of individual Christian lives or collective groups of Christians. We obviously do not have time in a short blog post to hash this out fully biblically and theologically. But I would suggest that the Bible teaches that the ultimate identity and mission of the Church revolve around the following four items. Note that I do understand that these items are not lifted straight from the Bible ‘objectively’. They are shaped by the traditions of which I am a part. That said, these foci are still, in my view, much more faithful to the biblical witness than the idea of ‘Revival’ being the main mission of a Christian ministry.  

1.     To love, glorify, thank, obey and enjoy God through Jesus, assisted by the Holy Spirit.

2.     To love our neighbour as ourselves, especially the marginalized and those who mistreat us.

3.     To be formed, not only as individuals but as the collective people of God (the Church), into the likeness of Christ, especially in ways that promote Christian unity.

4.     The Great Commission - being people of the good news who tell others about what God has done for humanity in Christ and who teach others to follow Christ faithfully.

I would argue that both definitions of revival are means that God uses towards these ultimate ends. Revivals as specific, time-bound events of the unusually powerful activity of the Holy Spirit are tools that God uses in his providence for his purposes. The general empowering of Christians and the Church by the Holy Spirit for spiritual gifts and miracles is the same thing. They are means to an end, they are not the end in and of themselves.  

For clarification’s sake, let me say that none of this means that I am not deeply invested in moving in the power of the Spirit, spiritual gifts, and God pouring out his Spirit in unusual ways at various times and in various places. I love these things and they are a very important part of my theology and practise. I believe that Christians are called to be “naturally supernatural” as Gary Best has taught. We should not practise what Jack Deere has called 'functional cessationism'. But this doesn’t mean that ‘Revival’, in either of the above two definitions, is to be the main, ultimate or first goal of individual Christian lives or the ministry of collective groups of Christians. Revival is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. It can be one important part of a ministry’s distinctive contribution to the body of Christ, but it is not THE mission, THE goal. Jesus didn’t say they will know you by your revivals. He said they will know you by your love. And as I argued in my blog post a few weeks ago about Saint Augustine’s hermeneutic of love, if ‘Revival’ is not causing us to love better, that is, be more faithful to God and treat other people better, then it is at best unhelpful and at worst harmful.

I think that the elevation of revival to the status of the main identity and goal of a church or ministry, aside from being biblically and theologically inappropriate and therefore unhelpful, also has several other negative by-products. One of these is the propagation of what I call ‘pseudo-revival-theology’. It is now very common in the charismatic movement and in Pentecostal churches to hear entire teachings based on the idea of people being ‘carriers of revival’, or on how to live in ‘your own personal revival’. A prominent example of this is Lauren Daigle’s song ‘My Revival’. Some of the lyrics say “You [Jesus] are my revival.” I mean no disrespect to Daigle, and I appreciate most of her music, but what on earth does this mean? I think that in these theological teachings we have moved out of the realm of biblically-based Christianity and into what I would call a totalizing or universalizing of our own experience which goes beyond the Scripture in an unhelpful way.

Another unhelpful by-product of the centralizing of revival in the identity and mission of the church is the oft-repeated trope, especially prevalent south of the border, that the only way we can ‘turn America/Canada back to God’ is to pray for a massive, nation-wide revival. This theological proposition is the juggling of several cans of worms at the same time, I think. But without even getting into the (highly questionable) ideas of American exceptionalism, America being founded as a Christian nation and civil religion, I think we need to question whether God is limited in how he can accomplish his purposes in various nations at various times. Can God not achieve his purposes for any nation in whatever way he desires? Has God stated anywhere in His word that revival is the only option? Could he not do this by empowering the day-to-day, unimpressive, mundane faithfulness of his people? Again, do not get me wrong, I am all for revival in both of these definitions if and when it causes us to love God and others in a more full and Christlike way. And I do believe that it is appropriate to regularly pray for the unusual working of God’s Spirit in specific times and places and also for the move of the Spirit in and through individual Christians and local congregations. Being a member of the Vineyard movement, I am deeply invested in what we call ‘Kingdom theology’, which has a strong emphasis on spiritual gifts and praying for the miraculous work of the Spirit in and through the church. But I maintain that the Kingdom is much more than these things and is not reducible to these things. They remain means to an end, with that end being the love and glorification of God and the saving of all creation through Christ.

What then has caused so many Christians to ultimately understand and base their personal lives and ministries on ‘Revival’? As mentioned above, I think this is an example of people universalizing and totalizing their own personal experience. I think that this is an example of the anti-intellectualism and anti-traditionalism of the charismatic movement hindering its faithfulness and effectiveness by allowing it to drift away from biblical emphases through a lack of critical thinking and reflection.

Thanks so much for reading! Please feel free to let me know what you think in the comments below or on social media, and to share if you like.