Revival And Revivalism: A Historical And Doctrinal Evaluation -- By: Gerald L. Priest

Journal: Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
Volume: DBSJ 01:2 (Fall 1996)
Article: Revival And Revivalism: A Historical And Doctrinal Evaluation
Author: Gerald L. Priest


Revival And Revivalism:
A Historical And Doctrinal Evaluation

Gerald L. Priest*

* Dr. Priest is Professor of Historical Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.

Iain Murray, in his recent critique of revivalism,1 laments what he considers a new view of revival that came into vogue during the latter half of the nineteenth century—a view which displaced the old with a distinctly different understanding of the subject. A shift in vocabulary marked the change. He writes,

Seasons of revival became “revival meetings.” Instead of being “surprising” they might now be even announced in advance, and whereas no one in the previous [eighteenth] century had known of ways to secure a revival, a system was now popularized by “revivalists” which came near to guaranteeing results.2

Murray relates that critics of revival as well as supporters of it have failed to draw a distinction between professional revivalism and genuine heaven-sent revival. “The two things are treated essentially the same…[they use] the terms interchangeably.”3 For the critics, all revivals can be explained in human terms; for the supporters, revivalism constitutes no real departure from the revivals in America’s early history. This has led to a great deal of misunderstanding as to the genuineness of revival and its effects.4

Most revisionist historians have failed to see any divine initiative or supernatural activity in the moral transformation of individuals and communities. Instead, they have caricatured revival by focusing on the idiosyncratic and aberrational behavior of the credulous in response to dynamic pulpiteers relying on their incredible powers of suggestion.5 Without admitting the divine origin of genuine revival, historian William McLoughlin criticizes those historians who have treated the subject of revival unfairly.

Chroniclers, intent upon the colorful or the bizarre, have created a false stereotype. Their real meaning and drama have been lost in exaggerations of their eccentricities. It is a mistake to think that all revivals are orgies of mass hysteria and all revivalists are grim or theatrical prophets.… If that is all there were to revivals, they might well be dismissed as quaint or picturesque sidelights of American life. But they have been far more than that.6

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()