The Revival We Need - Glenn Conjurske

The Revival We Need

Introduction: A Revival That Is Longed For but Not Seen
Many in our day are talking about revival, many are praying for revival, many are laboring for revival, and yet revival does not come. I myself have prayed for revival for nearly a quarter of a century, and yet I have not seen it. Revival has been so near my heart, however, for so long a time, that I think I have a pretty good idea of what it consists of, and it seems to me that many who are praying for revival are not praying for the same thing that I am. Indeed, I strongly suspect that many of them would actually oppose the revival for which I pray and labor, should God grant to them to see such a thing.

The Difference in Views on Revival
Many who pray for revival seem to mean nothing more by it than an increase in numbers, by the conversion of sinners. What I pray for (while certainly desiring the other also) is a return to the true doctrines and spirit of Christianity in the church. They pray for quantity. I pray for quality. They seek more of the same kind of Christianity which we have already. I seek a different kind of Christianity from that which we now have. I seek, as the first thing, a return to the Christianity of the New Testament, and then, that being secured, an awakening of sinners to convert them to that kind of Christianity.

Two Types of Revival in History
The revivals of history have been of two sorts. Some have been primarily restorations, which have brought the church (or part of it) back to the true spirit of Christianity. Others have been primarily awakenings, which have served to convict and convert many sinners, but which have left the church essentially unchanged in its principles and practices. Unfortunately, the term “revival” is usually applied exclusively to movements of the latter sort.

The “great awakenings” of history have generally been of the latter sort, and so has the ministry of many of the great evangelists, such as George Whitefield, Charles G. Finney, D. L. Moody, Sam Jones, R. A. Torrey, and Billy Sunday. Far—very far—am I from despising or depreciating the ministry of any of these men. Very far also from failing to glorify God for the great awakenings of history, such as those of 1857 in America, 1859-1860 in Scotland and Ireland, and 1904-1905 in Wales. The records which I possess of those awakenings, and of the ministries of those men, are among the most treasured books in my library. But glorious as all of these movements were, none of them went deep enough, or far enough. They did not purify the principles which governed the churches, by a return to a closer adherence to the Bible. Many of them did little even to raise the moral standards of the church, or to increase its level of spirituality or devotedness. Indeed, some may actually have contributed to the reverse of that. The actors in those scenes seem to have assumed that all was essentially well in those matters, and so labored primarily to convert sinners rather than to restore the church to what it ought to be.

Finney’s Contribution and Reflection
Some indeed, such as Charles G. Finney, did labor to reform the church, but this he did more by endeavoring to convert the sinners who were in it, than by raising its standards and purifying its principles. He was given in some measure to see his mistake, however, and after his failing health forced him to retire from his revival work he wrote:

“Is it not time something was done? Is it not time that some church struck out a path, that should be not conformed to the world, but should be according to the example and Spirit of Christ?

“You profess that you want to have sinners converted. But what avails it, if they sink right back into conformity with the world? Brethren, I confess, I am filled with pain in view of the conduct of the church. Where are the proper results of the glorious revivals we have had? I believe they were genuine revivals of religion and outpourings of the Holy Ghost, that the church has enjoyed the last ten years. I believe the converts of the last ten years are among the best Christians in the land. Yet after all, the great body of them are a disgrace to religion. Of what use would it be to have a thousand members added to the church, to be just such as are now in it? Would religion be any more honored by it, in the estimation of ungodly men? One holy church, that is really crucified to the world, and the world to them, would do more to recommend Christianity than all the churches in the country, living as they now do. O, if I had strength of body, to go through the churches again, instead of preaching to convert sinners, I would preach to bring up the churches to the gospel standard of holy living. Of what use is it to convert sinners, and make them such Christians as these? Of what use is it to try to convert sinners, and make them feel there is something in religion, and when they go to trade with you, or meet you in the street, have you contradict it all, and tell them, by your conformity to the world, that there is nothing in it?

“Where shall I look, where shall the Lord look, for a church like the first church, that will come out from the world, and be separate, and give themselves up to serve God? O, if this church would do so. But it is of little use to make Christians if they are not better. Do not understand me as saying that the converts made in our revivals are spurious. But they live so as to be a disgrace to religion. They are so stumbled by old professors that many of them do more hurt than good. The more there are of them, the more occasion infidelity seems to find for her jeers and scoffs.”

Finney’s Realization and the Current Need for Revival
Finney had gone to work in and with the churches that then were, to convert sinners and bring them into those churches. In this work he was largely successful, but in looking back upon his work he plainly saw that the churches themselves into which those converts had been brought were in such a low spiritual state as to stunt and dwarf the new converts, and be themselves a stumblingblock to the world. He plainly saw that the revival which was needed was not a mere awakening of sinners, but a renovation of the church. Now if that was the great need then, it is very much more so today, for the church is certainly in a much lower condition today than it was a hundred and fifty years ago.

Movements of Restoration Without Awakening
On the other side, we see some movements which consisted primarily of a restoration of Bible principles and standards, but with very little awakening or conversion of sinners. The Plymouth Brethren movement was such a work. Though far from perfect in this respect, yet it undoubtedly did surpass every movement which had gone before it in its return to the bare word of God, divorced from the human traditions which obscure and make it void. Yet the spirit of evangelism was weak in the movement. As others have observed, no great evangelist ever arose from its ranks. It labored in and partook of the fruits of the great awakening of 1859, along with other denominations, but was never characterized by the awakening and conversion of sinners.

The Wesleyan Methodists: A Model Revival
Much more to our mind than either restoration without awakening, or awakening without restoration, is to see both of them combined together, and this we do see in the Wesleyan Methodist movement. Methodism, of course, was far beneath the Brethren movement in its return to Bible principles, but it was second to none in its raising of the standards of righteousness, and its return to the true spirit of Christianity, and this was accompanied by such an awakening of sinners as the world has rarely seen, and which continued with more or less of strength for many years.

Wesley and Whitefield: Two Approaches to Revival
John Wesley, while strangely adhering to the corrupt Church of England, yet had spiritual sense enough not to leave the Methodists’ converts to its care. He gathered them together in “societies” (for he dared not form a church—though that is what his societies actually were, and indeed ought to have been), where he provided himself for their spiritual welfare, and thus nurtured under his care one of the most fruitful and powerful entities in the history of the church. George Whitefield started out on the same plan, but afterwards gave it up, writing in a letter to John Wesley in 1748, “My attachment to America will not permit me to abide very long in England; consequently, I should but weave a Penelope’s web, if I formed societies; and if I should form them, I have not proper assistants to take care of them. I intend therefore to go about preaching the gospel to every creature”—and leave the converts, of course, to the care of whatever churches happened to be there, with whatever standards and principles the prevailing low spiritual condition of the church had bequeathed to them.

Whitefield was certainly well aware of the awful state the church was in. Just three days after writing the above to Wesley, he wrote the following to a friend in New England: “Poor New England! I pity and pray for thee from my inmost soul. May God arise, and scatter thy enemies! may those that hate thee be made to flee before thee! I am afraid the scene will be yet darker. But you know it is always darkest before day-break. It has been so in England. Matters, as to religion, were come to almost an extremity. The enemy had indeed broken in upon us like a flood. The spirit of the Lord is now lifting up a standard. The prospect of the success of the gospel, I think, was never more promising. In the church, tabernacle, and fields, congregations have been great, and perhaps as great power as ever hath accompanied the word. … I intend keeping myself free from societies, and therefore I hope to see you again next year.” Here he presents a just view of the darkness which then prevailed in the church, but speaks as though the success of the gospel and the conversion of sinners were all the renovation she needed, and again expresses his purpose to limit his endeavors to that. He was certainly not unaware of the need to raise the standards and purify the principles of the church. Nevertheless, the course which he chose to pursue left that need for the most part unattended to.

Whitefield’s Later Reflection
Whitefield had largely acted upon this plan already, which is doubtless one reason why he had no proper assistants to care for his societies. Wesley did not find such assistants, but made them. In taking the course which he did, I believe that Whitefield made the same mistake which Finney afterwards made. I believe also that Whitefield lived to see that it was a mistake, for later in his life he voiced the following to an intimate friend, who was one of Wesley’s preachers: “My brother Wesley acted wisely. The souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.”

The Revival We Need: Both Restoration and Awakening
The revival which we need consists of both a restoration and an awakening. It consists of both a return to Bible standards, principles, and practices, and also the obtaining of the power of the Holy Ghost to convict and convert sinners. But may not the latter in large measure depend upon the former? True, there have been awakenings in history which seemingly involved little or nothing of the renovation of the church, but it may be that the church in those days was not sunk so low as it is today. The Wesleyan Methodist movement certainly consisted of both of these elements, and observe, the restoration came first. For ten years before any awakening occurred among sinners, Wesley and his little band were exercising themselves to take up the cross and deny themselves, to pursue real Bible Christianity with all of their hearts, and to devote themselves heart, soul, mind, and strength to the cause of Christ. For ten years already they had endured the reproach of Christ, being branded as “Methodists” and “enthusiasts” (fanatics, as we would now say), for no other reason than that they possessed the true spirit of Christianity.

The Revival of Our Day: The Church’s Need for Change
Some in our day, moved by bigotry, have undertaken to deny all of this, contending that the awakening which began under Whitefield in 1737 was a “totally new movement.” I cannot here take the time or space to answer this, but suffice it to say that no honest historian could think such a thing. It is true that the Methodists in the earlier years did not possess all of the light which was afterwards given to them, but why was that further light given to them, and not to their neighbors across town? For the same reason that Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables, to reveal the truth to his disciples, and to conceal it from the rest. When his disciples asked him why he spoke in parables, “He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” (Matt. 13:11-12). It is true that the early Methodists lacked some important light in doctrinal matters, but they had the true spirit of Christianity, and bore a great deal of reproach for it. Therefore (as I surely believe) they were given the further light which they needed, and also the power of the Spirit of God to awaken and convert sinners.

The Modern Church’s Failure to Revive
Now to bring all of this down to our own day and condition, if the revival you seek is merely an awakening, merely an increase in numbers, merely an extension of the same kind of Christianity which we have already—I question whether God himself has any interest in granting such a thing. Finney lamented in his day that the conduct of the church was a disgrace to religion. What would he say today!