SUMMARY:
“A revival is not the Church deciding to do something and doing it.
It is something that is done to the Church, something that happens to the Church.”
According to Lloyd-Jones, a revival is “a miracle.
It is the hand of the Lord, and it is mighty.
It can only be explained as the direct action and intervention of God.
Men can produce evangelistic campaigns, but they cannot and never have produced a revival.
A revival, by definition, is the mighty act of God and it is a sovereign act of God.
It is as independent as that.
Man can do nothing. God, and God alone, does it...
IN the last year I have received my share of indignant letters from people questioning me for daring to criticize Rick Warren and his “purpose-driven” teachings, regardless of whether my biblical arguments were valid or not. In almost every case, they have defended the Saddleback philosophy with the conspicuously frequent mantra:
“Many churches have been greatly blessed by Warren’s teachings, so who are you to dismiss this great revival?”
Judging from the prevalence of this common assertion of “revival” by these purpose-driven apologists, I sometimes wonder if this group mentality is the result of some kind of subtle Saddleback brain-washing technique.
Whatever the reason, it is quite clear that many Warren supporters have been led to believe that there is a growing spiritual revival in this country that has come about as a direct result of Warren’s “purpose-driven” philosophy b-ing brought into the church.
And who can blame them for feeling that way?
Certainly the media reports have helped create that impression. In the fall of 2003, Fox News reported, “Warren’s 40 Days of Purpose has sparked a nationwide spiritual revival...” *1
Saddleback Church’s own website proudly uses a quote by business strategist Peter Drucker, who called Rick Warren “the inventor of perpetual revival.” *2
Even Warren, himself, is not afraid to liken the recent growth spurt in his church to a “revival” brought on by his 40 Days of Purpose.3
Revival, it seems, is the new buzzword to use when justifying any new Christian enterprise that might be questioned on biblical grounds.
The hype for The Passion of the Christ movie was certainly no excep-tion.
As one of the official manufacturers of gift merchandise for the Mel Gibson film, Bob Siemon Designs sent out a press release in January 2004 proclaiming that “dawn is coming in the way of revival sparked by The Passion of the Christ.”
The release went on to say: “Signs of revival are already revealing themselves” because “several churches have contacted Christian retailers to purchase thousands of our [Passion of the Christ] witnessing card and lapel pins.” *4
Who knew that sales figures of movie-related merchandise were the barometer of a coming revival?
 |
|
 |
|
...the popular movie [Passion of Christ] has had a very limited impact on the evangelical community at large |
|
 |
|
 |
Forgive me for not buying into the hype, folks.
But every time I hear someone defend Rick Warren’s ministry based on the premise that it has cultivated a new revival, I ask myself this question: Revival?
WHAT revival?!
The facts certainly don’t attest to any measurable spiritual blaze in the Christian community.
The latest poll by the National Opinion Research Centre has shown that Protestant Christianity in America has declined to the point where it will probably no longer be the majority religious group by the end of 2004, while other groups like Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus will continue to grow. *5
Likewise, according to some of the latest Barna Group surveys, no signi?cant gains in the nation’s spiritual growth could be measured for the last year or two. *6
In fact, two recent statistics are not very encouraging:
1) only half of protestant pastors have a biblical worldview, *7
and 2) the number of unchurched adults has nearly doubled since 1991. *8
The anticipated revival that was to come from
The Passion of the Christ didn’t pan out either.
Despite the huge box-office grosses and DVD sales, the popular movie has had a very limited impact on the evangelical community at large.
According to the recent survey by the Barna Group, “less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the ?lm were moved to become Christians as a result.
And fewer than five Christians in 1,000 who saw the movie were moved to increase their proselyt-izing.” *9 Clearly, Christian leaders like Ed Young, Greg Laurie, and Lee Strobel, were somewhat mistaken when they con?dently proclaimed that the movie would create a dramatic rise in evangelism, church at-tendance, and spiritual growth.
The real dramatic rise, it appears, occurred mostly in Mel Gibson’s bank account.
Believe me, I don’t take any delight in exposing the exaggerations of current revival in the postmodern church.
Like every devoted Christian,
I have the desire to see God’s Spirit sparking the flames of true revival through the preaching of the gospel and the humble prayers and obedi-ence of the saints. Hence, I don’t readily dismiss the real possibility of revival in today’s Church, but I am always wary of any revival claim that seems to be based more on carnal excitement than a work of the Spirit.
As Charles Spurgeon once said, “I am glad of any signs of life, even if they should be feverish and transient, and I am slow to judge any well intended movement, but I am very fearful that many so called revivals in the long run wrought more harm than good.” *10 I concur with this sentiment.
My main quarrel against these current claims of revival, therefore, is more an issue of semantics and hyperbole.
I do not warm to the idea of certain “purpose-driven” Christians being allowed to cheapen the sacred meaning of the word “revival” and use it as if it were detached from its biblical foundation.
Revival is not synonymous with numerical growth in church attendance or an increase in church tithing. Likewise, revival is not evidenced solely by a change in behaviour that could just as easily be achieved through 12-step pro-grams or basic moral accountability.
Truth be known, the idea of “finding your purpose in life” is a fairly humanistic concept that is advocated in Jungian psychology just as much as it is in Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life.
Don’t get me wrong: I have no doubt that some individuals have sensed spiritual growth by going through the 40 Days of Purpose.
Surely God is pleased when any believer desires to glorify Him by focusing on His will for their lives.
But to say that Rick Warren is the “inventor of perpetual revival” is biblically untenable, and the Saddleback organization should be ashamed for promoting that blasphe-mous claim by their friend Drucker.
Such unbiblical posturing ignores the sovereign working of the Spirit in this matter, and makes Warren’s “purpose-driven” formula some magical mechanism that acts as a revival-making machine.
There is a gigantic difference between the accomplishments of a calculated church campaign like “40 Days of Purpose” and the biblical concept of true revival.
What do I consider true revival?
Martin Lloyd-Jones, in one of his sermons on revival *11, explained the identifying marks this way:
“A revival is not the Church decid-ing to do something and doing it. It is some-thing that is done to the Church, something that happens to the Church.”
According to Lloyd-Jones, a revival is “a miracle. It is the hand of the Lord, and it is mighty.
It can only be explained as the direct action and intervention of God. Men can produce evangelistic campaigns, but they cannot and never have produced a revival. A revival, by definition, is the mighty act of God and it is a sovereign act of God.
It is as independ-ent as that. Man can do nothing. God, and God alone, does it... Not only can men not produce a revival, they cannot even explain it, and that again is most important. If you can explain what is happening in a church, apart from this sovereign act of God, it is not revival.”
One of the telltale signs of true biblical revival is the immediate, Spirit-led con-sciousness of God’s holiness and a sense of our own utter sinfulness and unworthi-ness. As Lloyd-Jones described it, those in a true revival “realize they have never done anything good at all. Before, they thought they had done a great deal, now they see that it is nothing—useless. Like Paul they begin to talk about it as dung and ?lthy rags. In their utter helplessness and hope-lessness, they prostrate themselves and cast themselves upon the love and mercy and compassion of God.”
Secondly, according to Lloyd-Jones, a true revival brings a clear view of the love of God. “Suddenly it all becomes real to them, and they are given to know that the Son of God has loved them and has given Himself for them. It becomes an individual and a personal matter: ‘He died for me, even my sins are forgiven,’ and peace comes into their hearts; joy enters into them and they are lost in love and in a sense of praise of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” *12
In light of this marvelous insight into true revival by Lloyd-Jones, I ask again: Where is this current revival that every-one’s talking about? Where is the unre-lenting gospel proclamation of faith and repentance? Where is the conviction of sin? Where is the miraculous, unexplained phenomenon of gathered Christians falling to their knees in total humiliation, awed by the holiness of God and praying for His mercy upon their souls? Certainly, no idealized church campaign, no matter how popular, has ever created such a manifesta-tion of God’s Spirit as experienced by the apostles in Acts 2.
Put simply, the term “revival” has been essentially hijacked by Warren and other church growth advocates, and thus stripped of its sancti?ed meaning. By their de?nition, they have made revival a word void of any authentic spiritual authority from God. It has become nothing more than a convenient phrase to validate any pragmatic strategy in the church. Oh sure, they always make a point to attribute their success solely to God, but they never truly forsake their zealous reliance on “purpose-driven” methods to achieve their goals. When they add rock music to the worship service and more people show up to hear it, they call it “revival”. When they down-play sin and focus on God’s love, and the people respond enthusiastically, they call that “revival”. Convert any newfangled marketing technique into a successful church program, and apparently any church can manufacture a genuine postmodern revival these days.
What this “purpose-driven” mindset seems to have forgotten, however, is that revival is not something man can “invent,” especially when it runs contrary to biblical doctrine. A revival’s power and authorship are solely of God, and must be in line with His truth. It is for this reason that Paul made it very clear where his ministry was focused in order to bring true revival and saving faith. He knew it wasn’t within his power to create it, either by “clever speech” (1 Cor. 1:17) or “man’s wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:4-5). He knew, quite rightly, it was the clear, simple preaching of the gospel that afforded true revival:
“For I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL, for it is the POWER OF GOD for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew .rst and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, my emphasis).
According to Scripture, it doesn’t take a 40 day formula for those who truly desire to see revival. If we simply and faithfully preach the gospel, fervently pray, and sub-mit ourselves humbly and obediently to the leading of the Spirit, then the power of God will be manifest in His own time, just as the apostles discovered as they gathered in the upper room at Pentecost. Despite the recent hype, we need to remember that revival isn’t purpose-driven; it’s Spirit-led.
As Lloyd-Jones so eloquently stated, revival “is what God can do. This is what God has done. Let us together decide to beseech Him, to plead with Him to do this again. Not that we may have the experi-ence or the excitement, but that His mighty hand may be known and His great name may be glori.ed and magni.ed among the people.” *13
Footnotes:
1.. Fox News report, Nov. 19, 2003; http://www.pastors.com/pcom/specials/rickbio.asp
2.. The Saddleback Story, http://www.saddleback.com
3.. Revival, Awakening, or Miracle?, Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox, Issue #84, 1/08/2003; http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/?id=84&artid=3716& expand=1
4.. Bob Siemon Designs Press Release; http://www.sharethepassionofthechrist.com/links/ThePassionateRevival.pdf
5.. USA Today, 7/20/04; www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-07-20-religion-majority_x.htm
6.. Barna Group http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=155
7.. Barna Group http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=15
8.. Barna Group http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=163
9.. Jeffrey Weiss, The Dallas Morning News; http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/9227174.htm?1c
10.. The Kind of Revival We Need, C. H. Spurgeon; http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/spurgeon/web/ss-0005.html
11.. What is Revival?, Martin Lloyd-Jones; http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=166
12.. IBID
13.. IBID
About the Author...
Found this information useful?
BOOKMARK this page NOW!
Web Site by
S & R Cope in association with
Appeared in Issue CETF NR 31 2005
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3
© Copyright 2006 Christian Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
|
|
|
|
|
-Last revised-
Monday, October 09, 2006
