Some of you may know that right now the Southern Baptists (SBC) convene in Southern California for their 2022 annual meeting. At this very time, Mark Dever and 9 Marks, a Reformed faction of the SBC, produce their journal with the emphasis on revivalism (June 2022). I wish I could be happy to join their concern. Their accepted wokeism proceeds from the same root as revivalism, which is pragmatism.
One would think professing Reformed or Calvinists would insist on dependence on God for conversion and church growth. I don’t believe these men. They use measures as extreme as Charles Finney to produce results. Among many ways, their wokeism reveals their contradiction or hypocrisy.
Jonathan Leeman writes in his introduction, and I agree, “Revivalism depends on God’s Words plus our methods.” I also concur with these sentences:
Revivalism, which depends on our ingenuity and energy, brings short-term gains. It looks fruitful. It appeals to our yearning to see the results of our labors.
The SBC, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and independent Baptists are all rife with revivalism. The adherents depend on more than the Word of God for the results.
A word to describe a particularly wicked kind of “our ingenuity and energy” and “our methods” is pandering. This manifested itself in the seeker sensitive movement and the purpose-driven movement. A church studies its particular demographic and forms a strategy that conforms to the culture. The region likes either pop rock, rap, or southern gospel through which a church panders to its audience.
In “Six Marks of Revivalism,” Andrew Ballitch writes, “Revivalism can actually make this happen,” referring to meeting conditions that spur church growth. He also writes, and I agree again, “This revivalism was by no means monolithic.” Revivalism changes in how it manifests itself, because it centers on man, not God. The new measures of Finney have morphed into whatever measures seem necessary to produce numbers.
Not that long ago, churches and their leaders decided they needed a neutral name to attract the lost to the church. About one of the journal authors who wrote a few of the articles, the journal says “is the senior pastor of Fellowship in the Pass Church in Beaumont, California.” A part of the church growth movement, which is an insidious form of revivalism, is that you’ve got to market your church with a branding or label. If it’s all God, why not just call yourself “Beaumont Baptist Church”?
Church growth philosophy says it might offend an unsaved person to hear “Baptist.” Someone might think, “Hell fire and brimstone.” You don’t want to have that happen, so instead you call yourself, “Fellowship in the Pass Church.” This practice illustrates a pragmatic mindset in the trajectory of revivalism.
The name “Baptist” carries with it doctrinal connotations. Revivalism isn’t monolithic. Unsaved people don’t like the feeling of “Baptist,” and you can change that feeling, help along the process of church growth and increase your numbers, by choosing a neutral, apparently non-offensive name.
Like we know that gas prices went up before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we know that revivalism in its present iteration panders to unchurched Harry and Sally. That means the “blended worship” that 9 Marks won’t include in its presentation. You also might want to appear “woke” to your younger and perhaps ethnic demographic.
To get and keep a specialized population, you must show support to its grievances. For instance, you should call January 6 more than a “dustup,” as a recent NFL defensive coordinator, Jack Del Rio, did and was fined 100,000 dollars by his team. It means muting strong statements against popular sin, especially homosexuality and even abortion, in the spirit of Tim Keller. You might be complementarian, but you manage your speech so as not to offend egalitarians. Be careful of delineating male and female roles as if those distinctions exist.
Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, and 9 Marks promoted and still push wokeism. This matches the spirit of corporate America flying rainbow flags to celebrate gay pride. You can’t go into a McDonalds or Starbucks without rainbows hanging all over.
Have you heard of “virtue signaling”? Wokeism sends a signal to a demographic to attract, gain, and then keep their allegiance. It is a new measure.
Ballitch gives as a characteristic of revivalism, “emotional manipulation.” Wokeism is emotional manipulation. He also lists “reductionist views of conversion.” Revivalism reduced conversion to something short of true conversion. Wokeism better “reconstructs conversion.” It calls for repentance over implicit racism in all white people, specifying group guilt rather than individual.
Critical theory claims special knowledge of racism, a modern form of gnosticism. The true gospel eliminates racial and ethnic barriers and sees everyone the same. Including race in the gospel corrupts it.
With wokeism, wokeness becomes a necessary fruit of repentance like speaking in tongues among the Charismatics. Important transformation of language must accompany the repentance. Leadership attracts followers by modifying language, conforming to wokeism. This easily fits a particular view of the kingdom compatible with the amillennialism of Dever and his church.
Root to Finney’s revivalism was pelagianism. In his Systematic Theology, he denied man’s total depravity. He saw within man a spark of goodness, which he could fan with human measures unto salvation. With man’s sinful condition, his rebellion, the only solution is divine. A theoretical Calvinism with God at center does not reach actual practice.
Is there a particular approach for growing an urban church? Revivalism and wokeism both say, “Yes.” The Bible says, “No.” Don’t do anything different. Just preach the gospel. Don’t change based on white, black, Hispanic, Chinese, African, whatever. Depend on God.
When 9 Marks points out the moat of revivalism in its audience’s eye, it should remove the beam of wokeism in its.
Kent,
The term “revivalism” as you are using it is similar to the way the term “Christianity” is used. It’s an umbrella term. You are using it to tag anyone who believes in revival or has revival meetings as “revivalism” and thus equal in their philosophy with the pragmatic compromisers in the SBC. This is not accurate. The people I know who you would label as “revivalist” don’t practice compromise, they preached harder on sin than anyone else I know. When it comes to church growth they believe in preaching the gospel hard, evangelizing everywhere. Is it pragmatic to have a Vacation Bible School? It brings in more kids and allows you to preach the gospel to people who now have a reason to come into your church. Is this kind of thing what you would define as pragmatism and “revivalism”?
Thanks,
Do you categorically dismiss any type of revival theology, or is it all lumped under “revivalism”? I have heard some definitions/examples of revival that are very biblical (I.e. Psalm 85:6). What do you call the Great Awakenings and other historical movements that have seen thousands saved and cultures changed because of the preaching of God’s Word?
Finney’s theology definitely had errors, but you can’t lump everyone who believes in revival with Finney. To assume everyone who believes in revival is manipulative and only cares about numbers or visible results is an unfair assessment. There are plenty of Baptist churches that need reviving, and to say “don’t do anything different” gives the impression that the people outside of the church are the problem, when it might be the people in the church that are the problem. I’m not at all suggesting that churches change their name or theology just to get people in the doors to make it feel like the church is successful. What I am saying is that Christians need to turn from their sin so they can be filled with the Spirit and have God’s blessing.
Ryan and Jerry,
Sorry it took so long to approve the comment. I didn’t look at the comments for awhile. Just did. Okay, it would be good for both of you to understand what revivalism is. I think that the 9 Marks people define it fine and they’re taking it from Ian Murray’s book. They’re just hypocritical about it, because it is pragmatism to an equal and lesser degree to their wokeism. I believe revival can occur, but that is something different than revivalism.
What occurred in the first Great Awakening through the preaching of George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, no, I don’t think in general was revivalism. What Edwards though writes in his Treatise on the Religious Affections, critiquing the 1st Great Awakening, does describe what would be called revivalism. That would be tame compared to most of what is called revival, but is actually revivalism, today.
Kent,
No one I know defends everything about Finney. He had lots of problems. He is not the example of revival. Several things here.
1. Revival is something that happens amongst Christians. You can’t be “revived” if you haven’t been “vived” to begin with.
2. When God’s people are revived it makes an impact on the lost. Almost every missionary movement started with a revival. I could lay out the details but I will just state the facts.
3. Revival is a back to the Bible movement. During the first great awakening many people became Baptist, because they studied their Bibles. A true revival will always lift up the Lord Jesus and call people back to the Bible.
4. The Revival principle is all through Scripture. II Chron. 7:14 is the principle. God’s people humble themselves, pray and seek his face, and God shows up. The New Testament equivalent is James 4.
5. Examples of this principle are seen throughout scripture. King Josiah, King Hezekiah, King Asa, Joel 2:13ff (Get right night), Habakkuk, and the book of Acts illustrates a revived church.
6. Follow the Biblical pattern and don’t let others who have misused Bible truth keep you from seeking the Lord for revival amongst his people.
7. Our churches need revival. Why? Sin and worldliness abound, the gospel is not going forward like it should and could, intellectualism has replaced the need for the Holy Spirit, even churches with sound Baptist doctrine are dead and not reproducing or not producing the next generation of laborers to go into the harvest. A true revival will bring life again to our churches, a new love for the Lord and a new passion to reach the lost.
8. Revival can happen in an individual’s life or on a broader level in a church or community.
9. God is always ready to revive. Its conditional. God will always fulfill his promise if we meet the conditions.
These 9 marks are what true Biblical revival and revivalism is. A church that doesn’t seek revival yet has strong doctrine, is like the tabernacle after Moses built it, being all ready and right but not completed until the Presence of God came. Truly it’s time to seek the Lord.
Ryan
Hi Ryan!
You may find the study here:
https://faithsaves.net/revival-american-history/
of interest.
There may be a greater distinction between OT and NT revival than you are stating. You may also find the sermon on revival and revivalism here:
https://www.wordoftruthconference.com/sermons/series/2019-word-of-truth-conference/
of interest.
Did you get your nine marks from a careful exegesis of the OT and NT Hebrew and Greek words that can be rendered as “revival”? Is your conclusion that “revival” means someone has to have spiritual life first based on the English word, or the original language text, or on what someone told you?
I don’t have time to get into a long discussion, but I hope you think about these things. I’m glad you want people to have more spiritual life. That is truly wonderful, and I believe everyone who writes here is totally with you on that.
Thanks.
KJB1611,
I listened to the lesson on revival and revivalism and agree almost completely. Based on that Sunday school lesson, my 9 marks hold true. I think we are on the same page. Do you disagree with any of my 9 marks?
The one thing I disagreed with is your NT distinction in which only true independent Baptist churches could experience revival. That is actually what was stated. However, the example of George Whitefield was used. He was an Anglican. If revival can only be in true independent Baptist Churches how can Whitefield be credited for a role in the move of God. The revival principle is that when Gods people are revived they move to a more biblical pattern. Some to a more or less degree than others, but nonetheless a move of God. So I disagree with you there but wholeheartedly agree with almost everything else you said.
In fact what you stated about quickening in Ps 119 is precisely why I think churches should do revival meetings, so that the sanctification process is expedited, and a love for the loss is quickened.
I think it is safe to call you a “revivalist” based on your comment and Sunday School lesson.
Gracias,
Ryan
Interesting comments, thanks for providing the critique of wokeism in this article! Anything “woke” is in need of being criticised thoroughly. 1 Corinthians 15:34, Daniel 4:37
Hello Ryan!
I may or may not have time to answer your questions, but could you please explain if you still believe your first comment, that Dr. Brandenburg is against “anyone who believes in revival” when the message you almost totally agreed with was preached at the church he was pastoring? I would also like to get answers to the other questions I asked before.
I’m glad you agreed with the Scriptural truth in that message. May the Lord quicken you spiritually through it, including, perhaps, quickening you in being a bit more careful of your criticism of Bro Brandenburg in your comments above. Thanks.