Revivalism

An item of concern that I have lately been contemplating is revivalism. Revivalism theology is based upon pragmatist ideology and is dominant in the conduct of many churches when attempting to carry out gospel ministry. Revivalist language and practice produces shallow converts who, when challenged in any manner, fall away. It oft reminds me of the parable of the soils.  Rather than understanding the parable and applying it to our ministry, many of us attempt to count the produce from the rocky soil, the thorny soil, and anything else that might have a pulse and accepts a part of the message. Great numbers are recorded and boasted as the mighty working of the Spirit of God; yet, when one attempts to find many of these 'converts,' they are extremely difficult to locate. This is often called the revolving back door of the Southern Baptist Church.  Converts come in, are assimilated into the body, and, after the honeymoon is over, they slide out the back never to been seen again to the dismay of the leaders. Hardening people's hearts and heads seems to be the overwhelming outcome of these revivalism practices as people are convinced and assured of the Kingdom of God. When any convert falling under this umbrella is confronted concerning their supposed faith, they label the concerned proclaimer of the truth as judgmental and continue in their rebellion.

Some traditionalists that I have the privilege to know state that this is just "how it has always been done," and I shouldn't aim at changing a long standing tradition. Leave well enough alone; if it was good enough for John the Baptist, it is good enough for me. (I have actually been handed the trail of blood that claims baptist lineage all the way back to John the Baptist). 

I don't want to give a historical and theological account concerning the issues above as others have done better, (read Iain Murray's; Revival and Revivalism--it is a great book dealing with this in detail), but my question today concerns our reaction against such practices. I personally have a tendency to throw the "baby out with the bath water," per se, and I don't intend to commit such a crime with my church's theological understanding and ministerial practices. So, in an effort to not attack or enter into irreverent babble, quarreling over words with those who prescribe to the new measures, my question is then--how does one preach the gospel? One might say, "Brian, you should have learned this before you became a pastor!" I'm not asking for the mechanics of the gospel, but how might I avoid revivalism practices, leading to shallow man-centered conversions, ushering many to perdition as they comfortably grasp their assurance, only to be rudely awakened when they hear, "depart from me worker of iniquity, I knew you not."

I firmly believe that every word of the Bible points to Jesus Christ; it all leads directly to him. When preaching any portion of the Word of God, we must point to the Word that became flesh and dwelt amongst us. This is a laborious task as we must studiously seek the Word by meditating upon the law of the Lord day and night. It appears to me that revivalism theology makes an effort to hold to this, but only half heatedly as, message after message, the same basic gospel tenets are proposed. It seems to neglect teaching the whole council of the Word,and rather focuses solely upon the responsibility of man.  Another popular form is preaching from any text in scripture and then placing a detached gospel tag at the end, ultimately leaving many people confused as to how it fits. 

So, my practical question is this: when we come to Romans 13:1-7 on submission to governing authorities, must you finish with 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 no matter what? This is not an oversimplification. Really should every message contain the historical points of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection preached repetitively as the invitation? I agree we must preach the gospel, but can the gospel be preached in another way than just this recurring sermon tag at the end? Shouldn't the preacher labor in his creative talent and knowledge of the Word applying the biblical passage aforementioned, to demonstrate how it leads to the cross? Does the gospel tag harden the hearts and the heads of the people as they repetitiously hear the same thing over and over? Or am I throwing out the baby with the bath water?

Placing the gospel into a formula, tract, or program is damaging and useless as the invitation, decision, praying the prayer, taking the hand, walking the aisle, have all become. These practices have become nothing more than the Baptist liturgy by which people are deceived into thinking they are okay--thus, the hardness of heart. How are we to constantly call for a response to the gospel with out creating such a problem? Or does the very nature of the gospel itself and the preaching of the Word of God automatically call people to respond to such truth?

Should we preach the good news every time we step into the pulpit? Yes! Should it be the revivalist message? Should it be something more or less? Does the gospel tag harden hearts? How do we preach the gospel? Personally, the point I have come to is to preach the Word of God, diligently laboring to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry proclaiming Jesus Christ as preeminent and above all things. By the Grace of God I go!