Chapter 1
REVIVAL AND EVANGELISM
The need to more carefully define what we mean by the words revival
and evangelism was
never more urgent than now. It has been observed that both words have become
ecclesiastical
ragbags into which we have crammed all sorts of religious activities until
they have lost their
shape and their distinctive meanings.
The words revival and evangelism have been used interchangeably by so
many for so long
that their real distinctions have become blurred. And out of this confusion
have come
misunderstandings, disillusionment, and a growing disenchantment that expresses
itself in
questions like, "Do revivals pay?" and, "What's wrong with our evangelism?"
While all the confusion and cynicism cannot be explained by semantic
differences, yet a
clear understanding of the meaning, objectives, limitations, and potentials
of what these words
symbolize would, in itself, go a long way towards clearing the atmosphere
that is so heavy with
criticism, questioning, uncertainty, and disillusionment concerning much
of our evangelism today.
For both words, on their way from Jerusalem to Jericho, have been beaten
and robbed, and not
only have the priests and the Levites gone by "on the other side"; they
have often been the very
ones wielding the clubs.
Even a brief glance at a dictionary would help one to see that revival
means to reanimate,
to renew, to awaken, to reinvigorate, to restore to new life that which
is dying or dead.
Evangelism, on the other hand, means announcing, with the purpose of persuasion,
the good news
of the gospel.
Revival is what the church experiences. Evangelism is what the church
engages in.
Revival is spiritual renewal of God's people. Evangelism is confronting
those without with
the claims of Christ.
Revival is God crying to lethargic Christians: "Wake up -- and get to
work." Evangelism is
an awakened church crying to sinners: "Repent -- and be saved."
Revival is getting one's own heart warmed. Evangelism is setting other
hearts on fire.
Revival is periodic. Evangelism is continuous.
Those who understand the difference between revival and evangelism never
say, "Oh, we
didn't have much of a revival -- just a lot of church members warmed over!"
But that is revival.
Revival is experienced by the church; evangelism is what a revived church
does about its
renewal.
Those of insight and penetration have always distinguished between revival
and
evangelism. For instance, Dr. Paul Rees has said that "revival and evangelism,
although closely
linked, are not to be confounded. Revival is an experience in the church;
evangelism is an
expression of the church."
In an editorial in Christianity Today, April 9, 1965, under the title
"What the Church Needs
Most," were these words: "Revival and evangelism are not identical, although
the word 'revival' is
frequently used to designate soul-winning efforts directed toward unbelievers
... Revival will
revitalize God's people ... But revival is not always welcome. For many
its price is too high.
There is no 'cheap grace' in revival. It entails repudiation of self-satisfied
complacency, of easy
preference of the good to the best, and of idols. Revival turns careless
living into vital concern. It
replaces conformity to the world with obedience to Jesus Christ. It exchanges
self-indulgence for
self-denial. Yet revival is not a miraculous visitation falling upon an
unprepared people like a bolt
out of the blue. It comes when God's people earnestly want revival and
are willing to pay the
price."
Over a hundred years ago Charles G. Finney said that "revival is nothing
else than a new
beginning of obedience to God." Fifty years ago Bishop Edwin Holt Hughes
was saying that "by
evangelism we mean any sustained effort to bring men and women to Christ."
Twenty years ago J.
D. Drysdale was saying that "revival is not a great ingathering of the
lost, but a quickening of the
saved." And ten years ago Arthur Wallis was saying, "Revival is necessary
to counteract spiritual
decline and to create spiritual momentum ... In revival the church dormant
becomes the church
militant." And about the same time, George Sweazey was saying in his book
Effective Evangelism:
"Evangelism is every possible way of reaching outside the Church to bring
people to faith in Christ
and membership in His Church"; while Lin D. Cartwright said in his book,
Evangelism for Today,
"The older members need constant remotivation. Herein is the chief value
of the revival meeting."
James Burns, writing in 1909 in his book Revivals, Their Laws and Leaders,
indicated
what revival means in the church when he wrote: "To the church a revival
means humiliation, a
bitter knowledge of unworthiness, and an open and humiliating confession
of sin on the part of her
ministers and people. It is not the easy and glowing thing many think it
to be, who imagine that it
fills the pews, and reinstates the church in power and authority. It
comes to scorch before it heals;
it comes to condemn ministers and people for their unfaithful witness,
for their selfish living, for
their neglect of the cross, and to call them to daily renunciation, to
an evangelical poverty, and to a
deep and daily consecration.
"This is why," Burns continues, "a revival has ever been unpopular with
large numbers
within the church. Because it says nothing to them of power such as they
have learned to love, or of
ease, or of success; it accuses them of sin, it tells them that they are
dead, it calls them to awake, to
renounce the world, and to follow Christ."
It is Burns, also, who emphasized what he termed the "periodicity" of
revivals, and how by
their very nature they were limited in duration and how absurd it was to
speak of "continuous
revival." As modern a writer as Martin Marty says that "the very word revival
carries with it a
tone of the transitory." And D. E. Halteman distinguishes between revival
and evangelism as
follows: "Let us carefully distinguish between revival and the conversion
of sinners. A revival
belongs exclusively to the church. It is a season of intensified Christian
activity in religion. The
conversion of sinners is the result of this condition in the church."
But our own men have been saying the same things for a long time. Dr.
Chapman, in an
editorial in the Herald of Holiness of February 1, 1922, in discussing
the difference between
revival and evangelism, said that "a perpetual revival is a contradiction
in terms. The church
should always be engaged in evangelism, but a revival, by its very nature
is periodic."
In an article in the Herald of Holiness of November 23, 1921, C. Warren
Jones said:
"When the church is thoroughly aroused and able to carry a burden, the
revival will be completed
in that sinners will be saved. In many places the most difficult thing
to do is to awaken the church.
The awakening must come first. Keep things in their proper order. Leading
the world to Jesus
Christ is the last thing and is the natural outgrowth of quickened believers
and an awakened
church."
"The first and greatest task of the evangelist," said C. W. Ruth in
the Herald of July 30,
1924, "is to produce a revival atmosphere. Warnings and exhortations do
but little to win the
unsaved until the church is moved and warmed and ready.
"Our Master said that, 'when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will
reprove the world,' and
the context shows that He means when the Holy Spirit has come to the church
sinners will be
convicted of sin.
"There must be genuine heart burden," Ruth continues. "There must be
unfeigned soul
travail for lost men. There must be the breaking up and melting away of
pride and indifference and
self-sufficiency. There must be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit."
Dr. D. Shelby Corlett said in an editorial in the Herald of October
22, 1938: "A revival is
the quickening of the Church into greater and more aggressive spiritual
activities ... Indifferent and
lukewarm Christians cannot bring a revival -- they need one ... We are
becoming too formal, too
professional, too denominational, to precipitate much spiritual blessing
upon the people of this
generation. Only a genuine spiritual revival will meet the need."
And the present editor of the Herald of Holiness, Dr. W. T. Purkiser,
said in an editorial in
May 10, 1961: "Revival concerns Christians who have drifted out of contact
with the battle for
souls. Revival is the breath of God's Spirit fanning the glowing coals
into white-hot flame. Revival
is the awakening of deep concern for the lost and spiritually needy. Revival
is the renewal of
personal involvement in the spiritual aspects of God's work in the world.
"Evangelism," Dr. Purkiser concludes, "is the overflow of revival, and
the salvation of the
unsaved and sanctification of believers is its end result."
And more recently, Dr. Mendell Taylor, in his book Exploring Evangelism,
says: "Revival
is the Lord at work in the church; evangelism is the church at work for
the Lord."
But farther back, and far more important than these human insights and
distinctions, is the
Word of God. That is the ultimate Authority for any list of priorities.
David gives the true sequence of revival and evangelism when he cries:
"Create in me a
clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me ... Restore unto
me the joy of thy salvation;
and uphold me with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy
ways; and sinners shall be
converted unto thee."
Notice that sequence: first, restoration and renewal -- that is revival;
then outreach -- that
is evangelism.
It is Jesus who gave the commands: "Tarry ye," and, "Go ye." "Tarry
ye" -- that is revival.
"Go ye" -- that is evangelism. And it must ever be in that sequence. Effective
evangelism waits on
revival. The disciples found it so on the Day of Pentecost, and Christians
have found it so ever
since. Without the tarrying, the going is ineffective and fruitless and
frustrating. But when the heart
is truly revived, renewed, and filled by His Spirit, effective evangelism
is a natural and inevitable
consequence. Most of the confusion surrounding our evangelism today is
the result of our wanting
evangelistic results without being willing to pay revival prices. Forgetting,
or neglecting, the
divine sequence: revival first, then evangelism, we too often engage in
evangelism when we
should have experienced revival.
The solution to the problems of evangelism in any day, in any church,
and in any
denomination is revival. A revived church never asks, "Do revival meetings
pay?" -- it's too busy
having them. A vigorously spiritual church never asks, "What's wrong with
our evangelism?" --
-it's too busy evangelizing.
It is Dr. Ralph Sockman who reminds us that "revival is not going down
the street with a
great big drum; revival is going back to Calvary with a great big sob."
But that's just it; we'd rather strut than sob.
Of course it's cheaper, and more fun, to strut. But after we have called
attention to our
beautiful new buildings and our increased finances and our rising respectability
just so long, there
begins to be an uneasiness, a certain gnawing sensation at the edges of
our minds and hearts and
we begin to ask, "Is this really why we've come to the Kingdom -- to compete
with others on the
basis of bigness and respectability? Is this really why we're here? Is
this really what it's all
about?" And a painful reevaluation begins. And this, I submit, is where
we are.
I suggest that for myself, and for all of us, it's time we quit strutting
and began sobbing.
If revival means renewal of right relationship with God and others,
if it means a quickening
of the Spirit in the hearts of Christians, if it means a new sensitivity
to the needs of others -- then
how absurd to ask: "Do revivals pay?" Of course they pay! They couldn't
help but pay! And, I may
ask, is there anything else that pays so much?
Do we say, because indifferent Nazarenes do not attend prayer meetings,
that we should do
away with prayer meetings? Do we say, because cold-hearted Nazarenes do
not attend Sunday
night services, that we should do away with Sunday night services? Do we
say, because
backslidden Nazarenes run off to the beaches or to the mountains or to
the lakes instead of
attending Sunday school on Sunday morning, that we should do away with
Sunday school?
If we used the same yardstick on all religious activities that we sometimes
use on our
special meetings, we might stop altogether.
Many forms of evangelistic activity may not pay, but revivals always
pay. They always
have, from Old Testament times on, and they always will.
If these distinctions between revival and evangelism are valid, our
slogans are not always
true to the priorities. If by "Evangelism First" we mean priority of activity,
then it is absolutely
correct. If, however, it means priority of need, then the slogan should
be "Revival First." For it is
only revived, renewed, Spirit-filled hearts that can make any evangelism
spiritually effective.
If evangelism, then, is not the cause but the result of a spiritual
church, how true the title:
IT'S REVIVAL WE NEED!
