Is the modern emphasis on revival Biblical?

[Binaca Chugger]

That accusation is based on bad history.

Actually, it's based on his love letters.

Any study I have seen by neutral parties clearly indicated the homosexual accusation is based upon bad history.  I have read history by parties on both sides of the KJVO issue who interpret history to validate their point.  This is bad history on both parts.  Taking a whole perspective and from reading neutral historians.... the homosexual accusation is an assumption based upon a biased view.

Can I assume you have never read the letters of King James and that you are relying on what others have said? There is a great deal of revisionist history that is nothing more than advocacy for a particular view point.  Why not read the original writing of King James. Then you can know for sure what he wrote, not viewed with a twisted bias. I believe you might be very surprised.
Original research is so refreshing.

I do not base my opinions on studies others have made. I do my own original research. It is so easy in this day of massive original sources access.

Hmmm...  Resource please?

 

[PappaBear]

Papabear,
I'm a fan of George Whitfield. I've even visited his grave (it's in the basement of a prebyterian church in Newberryport, MA.). I've also read plenty of Ravenhill, Tozer and Spurgeon.
The question was not is revival biblical or is revival necessary but is the modern emphasis (and I'm thinking typical IFB here) biblical.  I can't deny that American Christianity is weak and anemic, but I don't think a lack of zeal is the cause.  I think our churches are full of unregenerate people who got there, in part, because of an emphasis on certain aspects of revivalism. I think unchecked revivalism keeps  christians ignorant and brings in all kinds of bad practice. I think that if you want to fix that we should emphasize what the Bible emphasizes for Christians which is not revival.  Revivals are great for getting people saved, I don't think that they are supposed to normative to the Christian life.

Thank you for your reply, Bro. Hayden.  I see that my original concerns regarding the use of the qualifer "modern" were valid.  Might I suggest that it may be painting with too broad a brush to ascribe empty, fleshly methods to "typical IFB's" regarding revival emphasis?  I consider myself to be Independent Fundamental Baptist, was saved in such a church, and not only do I believe in true revival as described, it is what I was taught by my "typical IFB" mentors. 

I will loudly and gladly "AMEN!" you regarding our churches being filled with the unregenerate, but not as to the means of their coming in.  That influx has come more through the teaching of "easy-prayerism" soulwinning methods with a misguided emphasis on numbers and mega-growth.  You will find that to be a more significant attribute of the "megachurch" movement and such as the Hutson-era Sword of the Lord crowd than of "typical IFB." 

If you restrict "revival" to be defined as posting a sign and holding a meeting, then I can agree with much of what you say.  But most, if not nearly all, of the "Revivalists" and those who emphasize revivalism would reject that same notion.  So again, it comes down to what you truly think "revival" is, and if THAT is not something we should indeed emphasize.  But to play rhetorical games of redefinition does not help, but hurts the truth.

Revival as a powerfully spiritual awakening should scripturally be emphasized to jar awake lethargic, complacent, apathetic and dead churches.  And that for the same reason as I stated before.  Just because there are those who teach apostate methodology in evangelism does not excuse us to totally reject the Great Commission.  And because a slim segment of Christians may in fact teach fleshly methods and opportunistic emphases as "revival" should not cause us to abandon a proper Biblical emphasis on being born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, repentance, or godly zeal. 

Thinking of revival as a reawakening or quickening, I think the Christian life is SUPPOSED to be a resurrection life as a normative.  Unfortunately, we have travelled down the road to vain and empty religion devoid of spirit as the "new normal."  Let us all hope that good preaching (it is the power of God -- 1Cor 1:18) and the spiritual emphasis of faith over the wisdom of men (1Cor 2:5) will bring repentance and send us off in the right direction.

*Hat tip </)

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Let me just tell you what I think revival is to clear it up:

I think revival is when God moves people to bring them to an awareness of their unregenerate condition or, if they are saved, to bring them back to spiritual health

. 
I do not think that true Christians are to live revival to revival, any more than I think our actual lives are lived by becoming babies over and over again.  Birth happens once.  New birth happens once.  Walking happens a step at a time, day by day.
As a pastor, I don't consider it my job to facilitate revival.  My job is to feed and protect the sheep that God has given me.  Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little.  That does not mean that I preach with no "spirit" or "zeal" it just means that I am freed from the expectation that every sermon has to be a spiritual home run.  God has prescribed "all scripture" "that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works" and a large percentage of "all scripture" does not lend itself to revivalistic emphasis. 
In my experience (admittedly limited to Sword/Hyles fundamentalism, so your experience may be different) revival as a goal replaces a daily walk in the Word.  Instead of walking day by day, we've got to go from sprint to sprint.  That's not a healthy expectation.
As far as the power in preaching, that power comes from the Word of God, not from my delivery.  The person who penned those words was considered to have "contemtable speech."  I view my job as a preacher as bringing people to a clear understanding of what God's Word says and what they should do about it, not bringing about some kind of emotional crisis every time I speak.  Zeal is important, but true fire gives off light, and unfortunately, I've been around too many preachers whose idea of zeal confounds and confuses people about what they are actually saying.
Thanks for the conversation.