The Revival We Need - Glenn Conjurske

The Revival We Need
by Glenn Conjurske

Many in our day are talking of 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 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.

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.

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.

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 honoured by it, in the estimation of ungodly men? One holy church, that are 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 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.

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.

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.

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 webb, 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 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 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.

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.

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!

The Bible has practically ceased to be the standard of the modern evangelical church. Conformity to the world has taken its place. Scriptures like “Love not the world” and “Redeem the time” are no more than dead letters to the most of the modern church, while they give themselves over to the pursuit of sports and hobbies and recreations and entertainments and worldly goods, the same as the rest of the world does. Such scriptures as “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth” and “Sell that ye have and give alms” are also dead letters, and most of the modern church lives today not one whit differently than it would if those scriptures were not in the Bible. And worse than this, the message coming from many of the Christian publications and pulpits of the day is designed rather to confirm the people in such a state of things than to correct it, all such scriptures being habitually softened, pared down, and explained away, if they are faced at all—-but more generally simply ignored. Lukewarmness prevails, so that in many fundamental churches a large proportion of the members do not even attend the Sunday morning meetings—-and of those who do, only a small fraction will be found present on Sunday night. The people are rich and full, and reign as kings, and the pulpits preach this up as a virtue. Believers are yoked together with unbelievers in education and politics and social clubs and sports and recreations. The music of the church is patterned after that of the world. Divorce is common in the church, as it is in the world, and it is regarded as a virtue to wink at it. The ungodly theater—-which the real church of God has stood against for generations—-has now been brought into the homes of Christians, in the form of the television set, and Christians are more devoted to that than they are to prayer, or the Bible, or Christian books, or anything that comes from God. Even feminine modesty has been thrown away, and many Christian women habitually dress in the same kind of tight or scanty clothing that the rest of the world wears.

And do we—-does God—-wish to convert sinners to such a Christianity as this? May we not rather, with perfect truth and justice, echo the feelings and sentiments of Charles G. Finney?—-of what use is it to make “such Christians as these,” when the more we have of them, the more the word and name of God are compromised, and the greater the stumblingblock we put before the perishing world?

We stand today in desperate need of just such a revival as took place in Judah under the good king Josiah, as it is recorded in II Kings 23. It began with a determination “to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in the book” (vs. 3)—-or in other words, to thoroughly change their ways, on the basis of the Book of God, which they had formerly neglected. There then follow seventeen verses (4-20) of breaking down and taking away, putting down and slaying, cutting down and burning with fire and stamping to powder. This is the sort of revival which is desperately needed today.

All of this work of purging was followed by the keeping of the passover, in such a manner as it had not been kept “from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah” (vss. 21-22). This, of course, plainly indicates that some part of the word of God concerning the passover had been neglected or ignored, explained away or made void, throughout almost the whole history of God’s ancient people. And who will dare to affirm that such has not also been the case in the church of God? Those few serious reformers who endeavor to follow in the footsteps of Josiah know very well that it is the case. After the keeping of the passover there follows more putting away of “all the abominations that were spied in the land” (vs. 24).

This, and nothing less than this, and nothing other than this, is the revival which the church of God stands in need of today.

But there is one grand obstacle standing in the way of such a revival. It is exactly the same obstacle that stood in the way in Josiah’s time, when the Book of God lay buried and forgotten in the rubble of the temple. The obstacle is ignorance and neglect of the word of God. The Bible is very little known in our day. The preaching of the popular preachers, the books which flow in floods from the evangelical presses, the seminars which are multiplied across the face of the land, all conspire together to evince the most shallow and superficial acquaintance with the message of the Bible.

There is, however, a great difference between Josiah’s ignorance and that of the modern church. The people of God in Josiah’s day had lost the letter of the Bible. The church in our day has lost the spirit of it. Josiah had never heard the words of God. When he did hear them, he took them seriously, at their full face value, and acted upon them. The modern church hears, but heeds not. The men of our day know very well that the Bible says, “Labor not for the meat that perisheth”—-“Lay not up for yourselves treasures on the earth”—-“Sell that ye have and give alms”—-and yet no more act on those scriptures than their ungodly neighbors do. The women of our day know very well that the Bible says that it is an abomination for them to put on that which pertains to a man, that women are to keep silent in the churches, that their adornment is not to be that outward adornment of putting on of gold and silver and apparel, that they are to be keepers at home—-and yet are no more governed by those scriptures than they are by the Book of Mormon, or the Koran. There are, of course, exceptions to this dismal state of things, but I am speaking of prevailing conditions which are too patent to be denied.

The modern ignorance of the Bible is not innocent or excusable. The present state of things has been brought about by compromise, by pride and false security, by lukewarmness and carelessness and apathy, all of which have reduced the present-day evangelical church to a level at which it cannot so much as understand the plain message of the Bible. An unwillingness to change our ways, to deny ourselves, to bear the reproach of Christ, to suffer persecution, to do the will of God at any cost, renders us incapable of understanding the book which we hold daily in our hands. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine.” (John 7:17). “If thine eye be single”—-having but one object before it: to do the will of God regardless of the cost—-“thy whole body shall be full of light, but if thine eye be evil”—-governed by your own will and desires—-“thy whole body shall be full of darkness”—-rendered thus incapable of understanding the revelation of God. (Matt. 6:22-23).

So long as Josiah remained ignorant of the Bible, so long he remained completely unaware that any restoration was called for. For the same reason modern evangelicals remain unaware of the same thing. Many are aware that all is not as it should be in the church, but few seem to be aware of the extent and seriousness of the matter. I believe it is for this reason that the revival which many seek consists of the awakening and conversion of sinners, rather than an awakening and purging of the church. The lukewarm church has no consciousness of its own condition, but says, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,” knowing not that she is “wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.” (Rev. 3:18). Many hold it as a doctrine that these words of the Lord apply to the church of our day, but seemingly very little feel their awful import.

Moreover, to wait for God to bestow an awakening, by his own means and in his own time, comports very well with the softness and lukewarmness of our age. If we seek a restoration, this requires us to be up and doing—-to humble ourselves and change our ways—-to begin the work of self-searching and self-judging and self-denial, the work of purging and pulling down and overthrowing—-and this will not only require a high price of ourselves, but also serve to make us odious in the eyes of those who are not willing to pay that price.

The modern church of course wants the results—-the power and the success—-which the early Methodists possessed, but it is not willing to take the same course of devotedness and self-denial—-and of enduring reproach for it—-which led to those results. The very course which the Methodists pursued with such a glorious issue would be regarded as extremism and fanaticism by Christians today. When here or there a man among us rises up to bear a testimony against the prevailing lukewarmness and compromise, and to call the people back to the old ways and standards, immediately he is called a legalist, and labeled as “divisive,” “proud,” “judgemental,” or “extreme”—-while every precept and principle of the Bible is diluted and compromised under the pleas of “balance” and “moderation.”

All of the same charges, of course, were levelled against the early Methodists. In 1739 a prominent English clergyman published four sermons against the Methodists, entitled “The Nature, Folly and Sin of being Righteous over-much; with a particular view to the Doctrines and Practices of certain Modern Enthusiasts.” George Whitefield made answer in a sermon entitled “The Folly and Danger of being not righteous enough.” In this he says, “The writer upon this text tells us, ‘That it will be accounted unlawful to smell to a rose:’ no, my dear brethren, you may smell to a pink and rose too if you please, but take care to avoid the appearance of sin. They talk of innocent diversions and recreations; for my part, I know of no diversion, but that of doing good: … for, indeed, the diversions of this age are contrary to christianity. …perhaps many of you will cry out, ‘What harm is there in it?’ My dear brethren, whatsoever is not of faith, or for the glory of GOD, is a sin: Now does cards tend to promote this? Is it not mispending your precious time, which should be employed in working out your salvation with fear and trembling? …the playhouses, are they not nurseries of debauchery in the age? … If you have tasted of the love of GOD, and have felt his power upon your souls, you would no more go to a play, than you would run your head into a furnace. … The polite gentlemen say, ‘Are we to be always upon our knees? Would you have us be always at prayer, and reading or hearing the word of GOD?’ My dear brethren, the fashionable ones, who take delight in hunting, are not tired of being continually on horseback after their hounds; and when once you are renewed by the Spirit of GOD, it will be a continual pleasure to be walking with, and talking of GOD, and telling what great things JESUS CHRIST hath done for your souls; and till you can find as much pleasure in conversing with GOD, as these men do of their hounds, you have no share in him.”’

John Wesley, too, answered charges innumerable of the same sort in his Earnest Appeal. Let one example suffice: “Others allege, ‘Their doctrine is too strict; they make the way to heaven too narrow.’ And this is in truth the original objection, (as it was almost the only one for some time,) and is secretly at the bottom of a thousand more, which appear in various forms. But do they make the way to heaven any narrower than our Lord and his Apostles made it? Is their doctrine stricter than that of the Bible? Consider only a few plain texts: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength.”For every idle word which men shall speak, they shall give an account in the day of judgement.”Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God.’ If their doctrine is stricter than this, they are to blame; but you know in your conscience, it is not. And who can be one jot less strict, without corrupting the word of God? Can any steward of the mysteries of God be found faithful, if he change any part of that sacred depositum? No. He can abate nothing, he can soften nothing; he is constrained to declare to all men, ‘I may not bring down the Scripture to your taste. You must come up to it, or perish for ever.’ ”’

Here the man of God strikes the nail exactly upon the head. Too strict! The next thing you know, it will be sin to smell a rose! Legalistic! So the modern evangelical church brands everyone who stands for the Bible at full face value. The very reason why the church of God today stands in such desperate need of a renovation—-and the very reason why she cannot see that she does—-is that she has been so long in the habit of bringing the Bible down to her own level, instead of coming up to the level of the Bible, that she no longer has any proper conception of either the spirit or the substance of Holy Scripture. If she sees a man who takes all of the principles, precepts, and examples of the Bible seriously, and regulates all of his conduct thereby, she is honestly at a loss to understand what makes him so strange.

If Josiah had been to a modern evangelical or fundamental Bible college, or sat in a modern church, and learned the modern evangelical arts of explaining away and making void the word of God, the restoration of his day would never have taken place. “The Bible doesn’t mean not to have these things—-it just means not to trust in them. It doesn’t mean not to do these practices of the heathen—-it only means to change the way in which we do them. It doesn’t mean to get rid of these things—-it only means not to set our hearts on them. It doesn’t mean not to do these things at all—-it only means to keep them in balance.” In short, every command and prohibition in the Bible means—- —-just what we are now doing—-just what we have always done—-just what the world around us does—-just what our own church or denomination does—-just what we please to do. And so, by all of this modern juggling and twisting and wresting and paring down and diluting, we have made of the Bible a book to confirm us in our own ways, instead of the book which God gave to reprove us, and correct us, and instruct us in righteousness.

The revival which we need, then, is a return to the standards of the Bible, the spirit of it as well as the letter of it, beginning with simple obedience to the plain commands of God. When the modern church of God will cease making void the word of God in order to maintain her traditions, when she will cease diluting and paring down and explaining away the word of God in order to retain her pleasures, when she will take up the cross and deny herself, when she will go forth unto Christ outside the camp, bearing his reproach, then she might with confidence pray for the awakening and conversion of sinners.

Glenn Conjurske