Other Work By Me On This Topic (Here1, Here2, Here3, Here4, Here5, Here6, Here7, Here8, Here9, Here10, and Here11)
What do you think is worse? Fake Revival or No Revival? I would say, fake is worse. I’ve got, I think, good reasons for fake being worse than no revival. Fake revival does far more damage than nothing happening. True revivals through history occurred. Probably more fake ones though.
Jesus Revolution and Asbury University
In recent days, attention focuses in the United States among religious folk especially about an apparent revival in the 1960s, called the Jesus Revolution in Time Magazine. Descendants of Calvary Chapel made a movie, which is in mainstream, secular theaters. Another apparent revival presented itself in Asbury, Kentucky, at Asbury University, a historic Wesleyan/Holiness institution. I see it as a great interest that these two so-called revivals dovetailed like they did.
Revival moved up as a conversation topic. Conservative podcasts even among non-believers discuss the two, Jesus Revolution and Asbury. I think Fox News mentioned the two in various instances. Because Emmy award winner, Kelsey Grammer, starred as Chuck Smith in the Jesus Revolution movie, that brought greater coverage and consciousness.
Asbury reads as Woke or somewhat woke, which modified its revival in the traditional sense. In the history of the United States, historians point to two revivals they call “the First Great Awakening” and “the Second Great Awakening.” Before the second, the first was just the Great Awakening, like the first was just the Great War until a second World War occurred.
The two, the first and second Great Awakenings, were much different in nature and in effect. A big chunk of professing Christendom rejects the second Great Awakening and says only the Great Awakening in colonial America actually happened. I would be one of those. I agree the Great Awakening was a revival. The second was a fake one.
Controversy of Calling Something “Not a Revival”
Calling a professed revival, not a revival, is as controversial as denying the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. People who accept the revival, like those who say the Covid vaccinations were wonderful, want to hear only positive affirmation of their revival.
Questioning a revival is very close to questioning salvation, which is taught in scripture. If you read either 1 John or James, those two epistles among other places in the Bible, you see challenging or questioning a salvation profession. John does it. James does it. Paul does it. And Jesus does it. Some will stand at the very Great White Throne before Jesus, professing salvation, and He will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
Revival, as I see it in scripture, is a larger than normal flurry of true conversions. The idea of revival indicates something dead becoming alive, which speaks of regeneration. People are getting really saved in large numbers and based upon true gospel preaching.
The Asbury leaders say that God brought a revival there starting on February 8. They also say they can’t stop it, since God brought it, even though they did stop the regular meetings there just this last week in part because of a case of measles. As you might comprehend already, I don’t think the Asbury “Outpouring” or the Jesus Revolution were revival. I don’t need to wait to see on those two. I’m saying right now. They’re not.
My Experience
School Camp
As a senior in high school, I experienced my only gully-washer so-called revival experience. My academy had school camp, which it also called “spiritual emphasis week.” We got revivalistic style preaching morning and night. In long and emotional invitations, weeping students knelt at the front. Thirteen made professions.
The week ended with a session of emotional testimonies. Then we headed home. It did not translate into anything lasting. Not long after, it was the same-old, same-old with rebellion, apathy, and lack of biblical interest. The effects of school camp and spiritual emphasis week, despite the “revival,” didn’t continue.
Jack Hyles
When Jack Hyles was alive and in his heyday, in many instances I was in meetings where almost everyone in massive auditoriums came forward at his invitation. They streamed forward with only a few people left in their seats. I would think that Hyles could easily vie with any revivalist in his production of effect. If immediate outward manifestations measured revival, Hyles did better than anyone I’ve ever seen and on a more consistent basis.
At one point, independent Baptist, revivalist churches in the Hyles movement were the largest churches in the world. Huge crowds gathered to hear a line-up of revivalist preachers. They were pragmatic and doctrinally errant, but people felt intense closeness to God. I’m telling you that I’ve seen it.
Jack Hyles compared his gatherings to the Day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This recent “revival” at Asbury University its advocates also call an “outpouring.” This reflects a particular viewpoint about the Holy Spirit, that since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, more outpourings of Him might occur.
Mexico
I took a trip to Mexico after my Freshman year in high school, and we drove into remote mountain villages around Monterrey to hold revival meetings. I didn’t know Spanish except for six or so verses I could quote then. Dozens and dozens made professions of faith with the pragmatic, emotional manipulation that occurred by my group. I would contend that much greater fake revival occurred in the 60s and 70s through revivalists than the Asbury one. These revivals did not get popular media attention of Asbury or the Jesus Revolution, but they resulted in explosive numerical growth as significant as the Jesus Revolution and much greater than Asbury.
Revival?
In listening to a few evaluations of the Jesus Revolution, a significant effect of this revival, mentioned by supporters, was the rise and popularity of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) and informal or casual dress in church attenders. I could add others from reading and observation. I’ve read Calvary Chapel Distinctives and the Philosophy of Calvary Chapel. I got especially interested, because of one of the largest evangelical churches in the state of Oregon is in Applegate, very close to where we started our church in Jackson County there. Many people involved with the movement, it’s obvious have no true conversion and don’t even understand the gospel.
I listened to at least one of the revivalists running the Asbury revival in one of its earlier video recorded services. I would not characterize what I saw as revival. I wouldn’t call it gospel preaching. It was so shallow, superficial, sentimental, worldly, woke, and Charismatic that I would have nothing to do with it. I hope someone gets saved through it, like Paul hoped in Philippians 1 with men who opposed him. Of course, I would want the salvation of people in Kentucky in the Asbury vein and through the Jesus Movement out of California. I believe both hurt the overall cause of Christ like any fake revival would.
Many years ago, Ian Murray wrote the classic Revival and Revivalism, distinguishing between true revival and only revivalism. Almost everything today is revivalism, which is fake revival. People want God to do something. God is doing something. Instead of being so overtly concerned that He does something, they should surrender to what He has done, is doing, and will do in the future.
More to Come
I watched a few hours of the livestream so I could give first hand account of what was taking place. I never heard the gospel preached. There was an assumption that everyone there was saved. They emphasized ecumenicalism. And the music was all contemporary.
My thoughts were, that if they are truly revived, they will have to reject everything they’re doing right now in order to get right with God. I also thought that never in a million years would I send my children to something like that. Also, I was not at all exhorted by what I saw and heard, which it seems I would be if God were working.
I told my church that if it’s revival we should see solid, KJV believing Baptist churches started out of it. Like George Whitefield is quoted as saying “when his converts began to embrace believer’s baptism in large number he declared, ‘All my chickens have turned to ducks.’”
Pastor Kent,
Two things can be true at once. That is how I view what is happening at Asbury. God could be doing something in getting a hold of peoples lives and there could be things happening that aren’t scriptural. The whole point of revival is that Christians are broken, in sin and far from God and from the position they are in and with the understanding they have, they turn back to God. Revival happens amongst the broken, those who see their sin and want to turn from it. (James 4) Revival is something that happens amongst Christians and always affects the lost.
I believe you wrongly understand what scriptural revival is based on the way you defined it. You defined it as a flurry of conversions…. This indicates you think revival starts with lost people. This is contrary to the word revival. Revival is “life again.” It’s God bringing his people back to spiritual health, back into a closer, more fervent relationship with him. The essence of revival is “life again” but the result of revival are many. Here is what is true about a revival. It always points people back to the Bible (to some degree or another), it always lifts up the Savior, and it always affects the lost. The lost are affected in two ways. They either come into the presence of God and say, “God is in you of a truth” and then want what we have, or they are affected because the saints who are revived have a renewed passion for the lost.
Every revival leads to a missionary movement. Personal revival leads to renewed personal evangelism. A church revival leads to a renewed awareness of lost souls and a harvest of souls or people surrendering to the Lord of the harvest calling laborers. Pentecost led to a missionary movement. The welsh revival led to a missionary movement.
Every church and every person needs revival on a regular basis. It’s in these times that the work of God advances mightily. Young people hear God’s call. The lost become keenly aware of their sin. Christians have a heightened sense of the holiness of God.
Now keep in mind, a revival can be limited because of wrong doctrine or little understanding of the Bible. The purity and length of a revival are dependent upon peoples understanding of the Bible. Some of the greatest revivals happened amongst the Baptist like Shubal Stearns etc.
It’s easy to discredit stuff because we see somethings wrong. But let me ask, why isn’t revival happening in our Independent Baptist churches? Why isn’t revival happening at the churches that have it all right? Perhaps they/we are just content having all the right doctrine, having a form but denying the power. When was the last time there was a brokenness in your church over sin. When was the last time there was a brokenness for our coldness and dryness in our love for the Lord? When was the last time there was a brokenness over our ineffectiveness is winning lost souls? If scriptural revival is a flurry of souls getting saved then shouldn’t we be seeking to meet the conditions of a revival? Shouldn’t we be praying with the psalmist, “wilt thou not revive us again that thy people may rejoice in thee?” When was the last time there was a brokenness in your church over the fact that the people are more interested in material things and their jobs and careers and sports and politics and even debating minute (though important) theological points, rather than finding joy in the person of Jesus.
I happened to tune into one of the services and I heard a very clear Gospel presentation. Much scripture was given. Repentance was even addressed. Would I have done things a little different? Yes! But the fact is Christ was preached. I realize there were some contemporary songs sung, but there were also ALOT of great hymns sung, like How Great Thou Art. You think the devil is behind that? Young people choosing to skip the Super Bowl because they were more interested in praying and worshipping God (perhaps the best they know how).
George Whitefield was off on some of his doctrine but he pointed people to the Bible and God. What I saw at Asbury was some wrong practice, but in general a pointing people to the Bible and back to God.
I think rather than totally dismissing it we would be wise to test the Spirits, hold our tongue and pray that if something genuine is taking place that it would intensify and purify. Then we need to pray and say “Lord, pass me not O gentle Savior. Hear my humble cry. While on others Thou are calling, do not pass me by.”
Sincerely,
Kevin
David,
I essentially agree with you with your comment. It’s easier to evaluate the first Great Awakening because we had a lot of time to see what happened long term: immersed converts and many true churches organized. A lot of this relates to the preaching of a true gospel by men such as Whitefield and Edwards. The converts left dead congregational churches in droves.
Kevin,
Thank you for visiting, reading, and commenting. It is important, I believe, to point out false or fake revival. If we let it go, say nothing, people get the wrong idea about genuine spirituality, the work of God, biblical ministry, salvation, sanctification, etc. I’m going to write more about this, Lord-willing, following up on the first post in a two part or short series. I don’t want people to accept something that is wrong.
I watched the earliest posted meeting at Asbury and zoomed through a very long period of Charismatic style emotionalism, repetitious, rock rhythmed, sentimental, superficial, doctrinally ambiguous, led by women, ecstatic music before getting to the “sermon,” which was nothing like Edwards or Whitefield. Maybe the aesthetic and spirit of the so-called worship means nothing to you, but it clashed with the biblical nature of God. It more reminded me of a Corinthian style revival. If Charles Finney were alive, he would likely be proud of it. Everyone appeared in the egalitarian, postmodern casual, sloppy, and disordered dress (ripped blue jeans, etc.), giving no indication of anyone in authority. The man I heard used a few verses from a modern version, but at best you would be unsure what salvation was. It sounded more like Jesus as therapist. His list of sins that you put into your makeshift cup to give to Jesus included racism and terrorism. No one would even know who Jesus was, why or what it meant to believe in Him. I heard no biblical exposition. This is an updated kind of revival for today’s generation, like one of those BIbles with a hippie cover, to show how relevant the Bible could become. All of what I saw and heard conformed to the spirit of the age, would not dare distinguish itself, probably could not do that and be acceptable to that crowd.
It seemed that people in the audience were stirred to a certain degree. They were affected. I saw some emotion. Is that indications of the Holy Spirit? I have seen the same spirit, aroused by music in Charismatic settings, giving the impression that something spiritual is going on, but it choreographed by the feelings led by the music.
Wesleyan doctrine did not bring the Great Awakening. It did bring us Charles Finney. It is second blessing theology. It is not built on a historic, biblical doctrine of salvation. That’s why people need again and again to be brought to a higher spiritual plain by these types of events. They want it. They seek after it. You can see that on the website explanations of Asbury. They come from a revivalist heritage. The revivalist half of Ian Murray’s exposition in Revival and Revivalism, the former true and the latter not true.
Much more could be said, Kevin. A whole book. What you understand as revival and what I do, they’re different.
Kent,
I agree we have a different understanding of revival. I appreciate that you want everything to line up with the Bible. I do to. That’s how I judge everything. I agree with almost everything you said. I agree there are issues. I am quite confident that a lot of those kids if given some spiritual truth would respond. If they are reading their Bible more and seeking God more than I am thankful for it. While I wouldn’t participate I can certainly pray that something is genuinely going on.
The fact you don’t pray for revival (God’s presence that quickens the sinner and awakens the lost) shows you are skeptical of anything revival and the Holy Spirit is the reviver. You shouldn’t be afraid of it. It’s not a sovereign act, it’s a promised response when God’s people humble themselves and pray and seek his face. God always responds. It doesn’t always mean that the whole town gets turned upside down but God always revives when his people meet the conditions.
Revival meetings are special times where Gods people focus on meeting the conditions and seeking his face. This should be continually on a personal level but we all know we get distracted and caught up in life. We need regular times of special focus on seeking God, hearing his word and coming into his presence. I know you don’t like the ideas I am espousing. I know you just wrote it off as Keswick, higher life, Finneyism etc. But I know enough personally that if myself or my children or the young people in my church or members for that matter don’t have regular “burning bush” experiences with God where they like Isaiah see the holiness of almighty God, it produces a dry, go through the motions Christianity. It has the form but not the power. Perhaps that’s why very few young people here the call of God. Perhaps that’s why a lot of young people today are content to go to church but their life is more about their career and being a good Christian who believes right. I am all for believing right doctrine, but if it doesn’t coincide with a passionate pursuit of God’s face (manifest presence) then it will be no different that Moses after he completed the tabernacle. It was all built just as God said but until the Presence of God was there it was incomplete.
Oh Lord quicken us! Help us to seek thy strength and face (manifest presence) continually.
At our church, I want biblical preaching, teaching, and living. I pray New Testament prayers like what Jesus and Paul prayed. If those are revival, then I do pray for revival, but in the same way that Jesus and Paul prayed for it. I don’t believe in irresistible grace, so I don’t believe God will make something happen without the cooperation or faith of unbelievers. Believers on the other hand will conform to the image of Jesus Christ — that is predestined for everyone justified (Rom 8:29-30).
What I hear from Asbury and the Jesus Revolution is the opposite of what I just wrote. They say God uses a corrupt vessel, unlike what Paul writes in 2 Timothy 2, where there are vessels unto honor and dishonor and only the ones unto honor are fit for the Master’s use. Yes, all of us are sinners, but true believers will necessarily live a characteristically sanctified life, as seen in 1 John and James.
The presence of God is with every believer (Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 6:19-20). Every believer is necessarily spiritual, because he possesses the Holy Spirit. Praying for another outpouring of the Spirit is a faithless prayer. That outpouring already occurred. The next time it occurs will be in the tribulation period after the rapture of the saints. Until then all believers have 100 percent of the Person of the Holy Spirit living in them, which means that they also have the other two members of the Trinity in them. They are as spiritual as they can be. They don’t call down the presence of God. They already have it. What they need to do is submit to the presence of God that is already there.
Dear Kevin,
I believe the article here:
https://faithsaves.net/revival-american-history/
and the sermon here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqB7oprRHYg
may be helpful to you.
Thanks.
Let me also suggest that setting a sovereign work of God against something that we are responsible for is a false dichotomy, If you have heard people set the one against the other, they may not be thinking things through very carefully.
Also, a crucial issue here is how we define “revival,” which is not that easy to do, since the English word never appears once in the New Testament, and a huge percentage of what is taught as applicable for today from the Old Testament is not derived from careful exegetical study of the passages where the relevant words occur, but rather quotes a verse or two and then discusses whatever somebody said happened in an uninspired book. If we stuck to Biblical words and what they meant in their context it would help clarify a great deal.
KJB1611,
What is the alternative to the false dichotomy of revival as a sovereign act vs. something humans are responsible for? You suggest it could be neither of those, but you don’t give another possibility.
Kent,
Do you believe that what has happened at Asbury is a work of God? At all?
Hello Luke! Revival, properly defined, is BOTH a sovereign act of God and something we are responsible for.
Thanks.
I would agree completely. No serious student of the Bible could deny the sovereignty of God in true revival. I believe the dichotomy is proposed because many more people believe that revival happens without man’s involvement. No conditions need to be met. No seeking after God. No repentance of sin. God just sovereignly decides where He wants to work in hearts, and man can’t do anything to change God’s plan.
Luke,
God is sovereign, so He allows or causes everything. I would interpret what occurred at Asbury as God allowing it to occur. I don’t believe He caused it, because it lacks many qualities that characterize a work of God. The fruits of the work of God are not there. I will write more about this, but Asbury is a heritage of fake revival or revivalism. Brother Ross has written a ton on it, it’s a big part of his PhD, 1000 page dissertation that is available at Faithsaves.net. I do believe that Asbury is a deceit, a spirituality more like what Paul warns about in 1 Corinthians 12 at the beginning of that section, in other words, spiritual ecstasy. It is syncretistic.
A neo-Galatian view of grace, turning grace into lasciviousness, using grace as a base of operations for the flesh, characterizes the so-called revival. It form fits the woke culture, egalitarian, casual, sensual, and worldly.
We live in an era where if there is some truth we hear, we rejoice in it, like 1 Corinthians 13, love rejoices in the truth. We want to believe or hope the best about someone. I get that instinct as part of the fruit of the Spirit. Today if someone is not a mere naturalist, we rejoice. Someone believes in the presence of the divine, like the Greeks in Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle day, or Roman Catholics or even the Tibetan monks persecuted by the Chinese. We look at that compared to reprobate secularism, complete naturalism, and we side with the supernaturalists.
In the Old Testament, you had the syncretism of worshiping God in the high places. They worshiped a true God in the wrong way. Does God accept that? This unwillingness to show the distinction between the sacred and profane, so that God associates with the profane, like the high places in the Old Testament, God rejects. They were worshiping God, but in the same way they worshiped Baal. Asbury is in the legacy of the Jesus’ movement that does not separate the holy from the profane. The holy does not sanctify the profane, rather the profane defiles the holy. They defile the holy so that the two are indistinguishable. We should not accept that.
Kent, thanks for the good article. About Jack Hyles you wrote, “If immediate outward manifestations measured revival, Hyles did better than anyone I’ve ever seen and on a more consistent basis.”
I find it interesting, and apparently reflective of our culture, that things like the “Jesus Revolution” and the “Asbury University Revival” grasps attention in the wider culture, while “revivals” like those of Hyles did not. Yes, he and those in his orbit had much better “results” over a longer period of time and, as you write, “on a more consistent basis.” Now, to be clear, I don’t think Hyles’s revivals were really any more true revival than what is what is happening at Asbury now. Back probably thirty years ago or so, for a while, I made a concerted effort to go through and “add up” the revivals that evangelists reported to the Sword of the Lord. That was very consistent, in seeing reports over and over such as “100 saved, 2 baptisms.” Something wrong with that when it is consistently true of a large group of evangelists.
All that said, it just struck me as interesting how that people outside of “revivals” such as the “Jesus Revolution” and the “Asbury University Revival” get caught up in meditating on them as possible heirs to the “Great Awakenings” while never giving revivalists such as Hyles the time of day. Regardless, I think time has proven the fruits of the “Hyles Revolution” were not as tasty as many independent Baptists thought.
I’ll stop rambling now. Thanks again.
Hi Robert,
I agree that Hyles was no true revival, but I’m sure that many revivalists, who accept Jesus Revolution, would reject Hyles, even though it had all the external qualities that they would accept as significant. My point, of course, was that I’ve seen these so-called revivals, which were not revivals. Thanks for your comment.