Revival and Revivalism

Iain Murray compellingly relates the story of evangelicalism in America after the First Great Awakening and brings it into the period right before the Civil War. This decisive era has shaped evangelicalism to the present day. Murray is a prolific author most notably associated with a massive two-volume biography of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Murray’s extensive writing of biographies and historical accounts from the Puritans to present-day figures such as John MacArthur gives him a great deal of gravitas in the evangelical world.Murray has for many decades centered his work in the ministry of the Banner of Truth Trust, a publishing arm concerned with the promotion of Puritan and Reformed works. So Murray is not a passive observer of history. He definitely draws lines of good and bad based on his background and perspective. At the same time, he is able to be fair-minded and to give respect and favor to those whose lives reflected the grace of Christ and His work in them, even when he differed with them theologically. In other words, Murray is an able scholar who brings a strong perspective to his work. The fascinating story of the devolution of revival to revivalism is where the drama of this book unfolds.With his major thesis, that a shift happened in the Second Great Awakening from revival to revivalism which has affected the Church in America to the present day, I can muster little argument. Even scholars who give Murray tepid reviews seem to agree with this thesis. Murray convincingly demonstrates the difference in spirit and approach between men like Samuel Davies and Archibald Alexander, and Charles Finney. Finney comes in as the major villain in the book, but Murray makes it clear the Finney did not act alone. Many other ministers were on their way to the New Measures before Finney popularized them. Murray points out something of the cultural shifts in America which were seized upon by the Finney-like preachers of the world to promote revivalism.Murray clearly does write to advance a theological viewpoint, namely that the Calvinistic forebears of the First Great Awakening and the beginnings of the Second Great Awakening were more spiritually-minded, more God-honoring and more fully used of God than their later revivalistic brethren. To be sure, Murray does at times give credit where credit is due (he has few negative things to say about Arminians like Francis Asbury and D.L. Moody, for example). But he never goes out of his way to spend extended time in the text extolling the virtues of such men either. Whereas he has a whole chapter on five influential Calvinistic ministers from New England, nowhere do we see an accompanying chapter on any Arminian figures who were faithful servants of the Lord. Murray goes to great lengths to uphold men most readers have never heard of, and turns away from any extended analysis of better-known figures whose track records seem faithful. I can only assume this is because they worked from a place of significant theological difference (Arminianism), one which Murray sees as fundamentally deficient. While Murray extols catholicity of spirit in some of the figures he highlights, he seems to display little of it himself.Murray also fails to explore the men he supports in a very complex way. With the exception of Lyman Beecher, whom Murray upheld early in the book but criticized later when Beecher turned more toward Finney’s approach, there is little critique of any men from the Calvinist camp. Murray upholds their virtues and puts little spotlight on their failings. Undoubtedly, the men Murray highlights must have been great and godly men. But even the godliest of men sometimes fail. But Murray’s book gives us the idea that all the failures belong to the Arminian pragmatists and that if we only got back to the Calvinistic principles, all would be well. To be honest, Murray’s argument resonates with me. I would put myself firmly in the Calvinist camp. But I have also been around long enough to know that there are some excellent and godly men and women who hold to Arminian theology and some very boorish and ungodly men and women who hold to Calvinism. I do believe that Arminian theology carries with it some harmful long-term effects. But I also believe that a real pursuit of God in an Arminian framework is to be favored over an abstracted Calvinism any day. The opposite is also true. Our theological positions are important and carry real implications. But godliness is more than theology alone. I wish Murray had made more of the Arminians in this time period who made much of prayer and the Word and trusting God. Surely not all Arminians were New Measures men.At the same time, I think Murray convincingly aims his arrows at the right target, Charles Grandison Finney. Murray is very effective at showing Finney’s theological devolution and corresponding rise of hubris. Murray makes a convincing historical case that Finney’s Memoirs were a bit of hagiography. Murray ably demonstrates Finney’s propensity toward favoring what “works” over what is right and his long-standing negative influence on future generations.I also commend Murray for his thorough research. Even so, there are times when Murray’s thorough documentation gets in the way. This is especially true when he quotes from primary sources in lengthy block quotes. This somewhat spoiled the reading experience and would have been better consigned to footnotes.I also appreciated learning more about men with whom I had little familiarity. My interest will be piqued in days ahead when I run across names like Alexander and Nettleton and Spring. Murray is an engaging writer. I will look forward to reading more of him.One of the greatest points of struggle for me in reading this book is how to deal with it as historical analysis. Murray is unabashedly theological and reads history through this theological lens. I am not saying this is wrong but this book did not have the feel of other books of history which take a more dispassionate or cautious approach to the supernatural. Personally, this was refreshing to me. I welcome such a book, because I wholeheartedly concur with Murray’s faith instincts. But it is apparent that other scholars do not take him very seriously precisely because of these instincts. It is unclear whether Murray’s work can have any sort of impact in the scholarly world because of its convictional nature.There is no doubt, however, that Murray’s book is a great gift to the Church. The evangelical church in America is, by most measures, in trouble. Many churches struggle to survive. There is a rising tide of ex-evangelicals and those who are simply done with church altogether. Sexual abuse scandals have not been the domain of Catholicism alone, but have been a real problem in evangelicalism as well. Just in the last two or three years a number of prominent evangelical leaders have been embroiled in scandals of various sorts and have had to step down. At the core of the challenges facing evangelicalism is an utter emptiness. A.W. Tozer had his finger on this pulse (or lack thereof) years ago when he wrote, “In the average church service the most real thing is the shadowy unreality of everything. The worshiper sits in a state of suspended mentation; a kind of dreamy numbness creeps upon him; he hears words but they do not register, he cannot relate them to anything on his own life-level. He is conscious of having entered a kind of half-world; his mind surrenders itself to a more or less pleasant mood that passes with the benediction leaving no trace behind. It does not affect anything in his everyday life. He is aware of no power, no Presence, no spiritual reality. There is simply nothing in his experience corresponding to the things that he heard from the pulpit or sang in the hymns.”How did this “mind-numbing” status emerge in the church? There are many answers to this question but undoubtedly Murray is on the right track when he asserts that man-centeredness has brought devastating long-term results in the Church. The rise of decisionism, a focus on entertainment and a lack of emphasis on the person and work of God have all contributed to the watering down of evangelicalism through the last several decades. When these weaknesses are combined with the tragedies and triumphs of the broader culture, the case for Christianity appears lacking. After all, if, as the preachers of pragmatism are telling me God will make me happy but things do not work out as I hope, how do I cope? How do I make sense of a world in which religion seems to be a weapon of terrorists and racists rather than a force for good? In a world of antibiotics and mass-transit and instant communication where is my need of God? In a world that under the sway of scientism has come to regard the material as all there is, what good is church to me? In a world where many prominent preachers fall, where is the integrity? The young woman in the pew as a teen will more than likely not be there in her twenties and the reason she will not be is that there is nothing compelling to her in the message or lives of most local churches. So often local churches try to mimic the culture and make everything entertaining. But perpetual youth group eventually runs its course, and when tragedy strikes, the shifting sands of empty spirituality give way. The God-centered vision of the First Great Awakening is desperately needed. The God-transformed character of ministers is desperately needed. The only way the tide will be turned is to realize that there is indeed a massive chasm between revival and revivalism and then to call on God for revival, even as we reject all efforts to try to manufacture it. May we see in our day an overwhelming and undeniable transformative move of the Spirit of God through the ordinary means of prayer and the Word.

Really an awesome book... though historical, it is an interesting read. It helps you appreciate not only our wonderful God, but how He was so instrumental in starting this amazing United States of America.

There is such an emphasis on numbers and being able to point of clear signs of "success" today in Christian churches. Churches are pressured to be able to enumerate their success by pointing to "X amount of people came forward", or to subtly create conditions that play upon emotions in order to have people become "saved". Certainly everyone has seen a crusade or meeting claim anywhere from dozens to thousands of new followers of Christ. Yet, for many, this rings hollow--a single decision, clouded with emotion, mood music, and special lighting can give rise to a false conversion, where the "decision for Christ" is easily cast aside or forgotten, with no fellowship, no discipleship, and worst of all, no true repentance.This is not a new issue. In "Revival and Revivalism", Iain H. Murray looks at two very distinct types of movements. The first Revival, he cites simply the faithful preaching of Christ crucified, and outpourings of God working in people's lives in His own good time and by His own good plan. In the early 1800s, we are introduced instead to Revivalism, which is a manufactured sort of push for "winning souls" in which sentimentalism, emphasizing human ability, and watering down the gospel and need for repentance became the sort of expedient, flashy tool that many embraced. A wide range of theologically suspect (if not outright wrong) positions of this overarching revivalism are covered, from camp meetings where multiple "Apostolic gifts" were expected to be seen as some manner of litmus test for the work of God, to later preachers who downplayed original sin and the radical inability of man to come to Christ on their own. Murray examines how figures such as Charles Finney helped bring this type of change about--a change that is now widely accepted in many Protestant bodies.Murray does not need to draw the parallels between this movement and much of today's "Religion of Self", easy-believe, flash and numbers-oriented attempts at evangelism. Many churches have sacrificed Bible-based teaching and gospel-centered preaching in exchange for self-help, culture-driven, or simply feel-good messages. Murray notes that in many places in the 1800s where this "Revivalism" allegedly saved many souls, only a few years later the effect was largely gone, leaving a spiritual wasteland in its place. This came from treating sentimentality and emotion as signs of conversion, rather than conviction of sin, repentance, and a desire to abide in Jesus Christ and the bearing of fruit.At times, Murray's quoting and explanations go on a bit long, and some names and figures tend to run together, making this a somewhat challenging read. But his points about true revival only coming from God, and for the need to treat repentance, conversion, and salvation as deep, life-long concepts that are not just one-and-done experiences, are incredibly relevant to Christianity today. In an era of easy-believism, a low/casual view of the important of doctrine, prosperity teaching, and emphasis on man over God, "Revival & Revivalism" reminds us our duty as Christians remains constant, even when these twisted and base concepts are the popular or prevailing view.

This book has much to say that we might learn from today. Essentially, it argues from history that "Revivals" are a work of God that can't be engineered--rather, they result from the simple, unadorned preaching of the word according to God's own schedule and planning. However, revivalism--the attempt to bring about revival through special ministry techniques which go beyond ordinary preaching of the word--is fraught with danger. This is a fascinating and timely warning for us today. Both the church-growth movement at home and modern missionary strategies may be at risk for some of the flaws that undermined America's Second Great Awakening. Murray gives us a chance to learn from history, rather than repeating mistakes of the past.