Baptist Revivalism on the Decline

[Nathan_Finn]

The latest issue of the scholarly journal Baptist History and Heritage is dedicated to the topic of Baptists and Revival. Associated Baptist Press has a piece today summarizing Bill Leonard's and Lloyd Allen's respective articles about the decline of Baptist revivalism, particularly among Baptists in the South. Check it out: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5956/53/

I'm interested in knowing others' thoughts on this topic. Do you agree that revivalism is on the decline? If so, where do you most often find pockets still committed to Southern Gopsel music, drawn-out altar calls, annual revivals, homiletical "audience participation," etc.? Do moderates and conservatives have differing perspectives on the relative merits of revivalism? Are there elements of revivalism worth preserving no matter what and others that need to be jettisoned ASAP?

Also, were any of you Southern Baptists or former Southern Baptists raised in churches that were less inclined toward revivalism? (FWIW, my own home church was a hybrid of downtown cultural elitism and what might be called "soft revivalism.")

[William Thornton]

Not that he needs introduction to some here (and many folks here skip the Welcome Forum), but Nathan Finn is Assistant Professor of Church History and Baptist Studies at the SBC's Southeastern Seminary. I missed the earlier exchange between Ed P and him.

I'll read the ABP piece and respond later...

[Blake]

The church I grew up in in Iowa used to have annual revivals. One of those years (early 90s) after a church split healing came between the factions and the church grew from 40-50 some people to around 400 before the decade was over. I don't remember any revivals taking place at my church in MN. In college, the local SBC church had an annual revival that eventually was renamed and slightly retooled to be a week long nightly Bible study with a guest pastor. I know some of the SBC churches in the area of Indiana I'm at now have tried to hold the occasional revival. Whatever the fruit, those churches are small and shrinking and the revivals aren't doing anything for them numbers wise. Whether the churches I was around was having them or not, I've never thought much of them usually because I was too young to understand or too busy to participate. For what it's worth, there's one Northerner's experience with revivals.

[Dave Roberts]

I served as a pastor for most of the last 40 years. When I began pastoring, you announced a revival and the whole community showed up. In the 80's and 90's I watched a diminishing return on revival meetings, regardless of who the evangelist was. Since about 2000, fewer and fewer people attended the revival meetings, and those who might feel inclined toward a commitment to Christ often waited until things were back to normal and came shortly after the revival meetings.

I have preached in several revivals over the years. Local churches have not generally been as responsive in recent years. Back in August of this year, I preached for a small church with a very strongly moderate pastor and was part of one of the better revivals in its spirit, attendance, and the kind of response I witnessed from the people. It seemed, however, that this particular congregation came to the services with a hunger to draw together and move forward.

The lives of people today have become stressed on the time continuum to the point that in many communities a revival meeting seems a burden. I think revivals certainly have their place, but a lot of thought needs to be given to format, timing, and awareness of the surrounding community. The idea that God can only work in the 3rd week of August or the week after the full moon in September is over. My opinion is that effective evangelism in this century is going to be relational, not just something that happens in a stirring of emotions and ideas.

[Sandy]

I was raised in a church that had a revival meeting every fall, and an evangelistic crusade every spring. This was a SBC church in a small town in Southern Arizona, but the membership of the church was made up largely of transplanted Southerners. The two pastors who served the church during the time I grew up in it were both careful to focus the revival on inward needs, and the crusade aimed at the "lost", though generally the bulk of the attendance at the crusade meetings came from the few other small evangelical churches in the community, mainly the "other" Baptist church (Conservative Baptist Association) the Assembly of God and the Church of God, rather than from the 90% of the population that was "lost," including the Mormons, Catholics and unchurched. I don't think the pastors ever really realized that strategies which enjoyed a measure of success in rural Southern culture wouldn't work as well in secular Arizona so they did them anyway. For the most part, the revivals did succeed in strengthening that small congregation, while the successes of the crusades were limited.

Since graduating from seminary in 1989, I've only served on the staff of one church that actually took the time to hold "revival" services, and that was because some of the older folks thought it would help the church's sagging baptism statistics. It didn't.

I'd guess that the "revival" is probably confined to the rural south, and even there it might not be what it once was.

[Timothy Bonney]

I was raised in two churches growing up. Up to age 15 I was at Vandover Baptist Church in Fenton, MO. We had several revivals that I can remember. But after moving to Kirkwood Baptist I remember only one revival style event. When I was serving in American Baptist churches I knew of some churches that held revival services but not many. My experience is that now revivals only draw in the already convinced rather than anyone that needs convincing.

[Ed Pettibone]

I was raised in two churches growing up. Up to age 15 I was at Vandover Baptist Church in Fenton, MO. We had several revivals that I can remember. But after moving to Kirkwood Baptist I remember only one revival style event. When I was serving in American Baptist churches I knew of some churches that held revival services but not many. My experience is that now revivals only draw in the already convinced rather than anyone that needs convincing.

Ed: Tim. are you aware of a distinction between "revivals" and "evangelism events"? In the 1950's through the 80's The State Conventions and local associations associated with the SBC in areas where I am acquainted made quite a point of their being differences. But also the South Wayne Baptist Church in Fort Wayne Indiana and affiliated with the The Northern Baptist which became the ABC-USA was among the first churches That I was aware of making this distinction. Revivals being primarily for church people and Evangelistic events primarily for those outside of the church When I was at southern in the 60 both the School of Christian Ed and The Music School to some extent promoted different materials for each. I personally think the decline of these types of services has weakened both of the named denominations. And yes I know of several related the horror stories. Here I will be a bit judgemental saying that in my experience great and even good churches did well with both. Mediocre churches some times yes some times no, dying Churches seldom did well with either.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Tim. are you aware of a distinction between "revivals" and "evangelism events"?

No Ed. I don't remember any such distinction in the events I attended. They were specifically billed as "revivals" and an "evangelist" was brought in to preach. I honestly have some negative feelings about some of the preaching I experienced in some of those services. In at least a couple of cases I remember the evangelist style being quite manipulative. It was calculated to scare people down the aisle.

One of the few Southern Baptist churches I served in had an annual revival. Some of the services were quite good and others again felt manipulative depending on who the preacher was that year.

IMHO Revivals are a methodology for evangelism that is now past its day for the most part and doesn't work well in our current cultural context.

[William Thornton]

The first revival service I remember as a believer featured Eddie Martin in a neon orange suit. That was in the 1970s. He got my attention.

I began pastoring churches in the early 1980s and have had revivals every year in my first church (always the same week in July, Sunday through Friday, never a possibility of not doing it or doing it differently), almost every year in my second (flexible on the dates, but Sunday through Wednesday), and about every other year in my present (generally Sunday through Wednesday). Like the others have said, the meetings are enjoyed by the faithful, who lament the days when everyone in a community would attend each others revivals.

Leonard is quoted in the ABP piece saying that...

...many Baptists took a long time to realize that revivals were not accomplishing what they once did. The practice of re-baptizing church members, for example, spawned a class of evangelists known for leading large numbers of congregants to doubt the validity of their first profession of faith. Leonard surmises the phenomenon is either "a terrible indictment" of earlier revival methods or "one way of propping up the tradition."

I suppose so, though I've never hosted an individual who made a living as an evangelist doing this. It is probably outside of the memory of most SBCers under 60 or so that revival services once contributed impressively to actual church attendance and growth. I have enjoyed many good meetings but cannot recall one that did this.

He also says that the real culprit is competition from other activities and weeknight options for families and individuals. I wouldnt' argue with that.

[I'd have to say that I am intrigued by the current hot item in some SBC circles, the spontaneous baptismal service. Sounds rather efficient. No one has to come back night after night.]

[Timothy Bonney]

He also says that the real culprit is competition from other activities and weeknight options for families and individuals. I wouldnt' argue with that.

[I'd have to say that I am intrigued by the current hot item in some SBC circles, the spontaneous baptismal service. Sounds rather efficient. No one has to come back night after night.]

Even if people had more free time I doubt that that Revivals would do any better than they are doing. I just don't see such services being attractive to non-Christians.

When we go back to the old tent revival days of the traveling evangelists such tent meetings were community wide events. They had a large impact on the growth of Christianity on the frontier. But the world is a very different place now. Some churches now are trying internet ministries. One that has made news in the UMC recently is the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in the Kansas City, KS area. They are broadcasting services online in a way that encourages people to think of this web interaction as an online church. I'd be curious to see what effect such a ministry might have and what the pros and cons would be of such an online faith community.

[johnfariss]

I was not raised in church, and have been a Christian only since about 1982 or '83. The only time I attended a revival before then was when I was drug as a child (early 60s maybe) to a city-wide one in my hometown in east Alabama. The revivalist offered free airplane rides to the kids who brought the most kids, and tried to scare Jesus into all of us. It left a bad taste in my mouth. I have pastored churches since late 1986, mostly in North Carolina (both eastern and western) and southside Virginia. None of those churches were liberal; the most you could say about their theology was that they not as conservative as some, and if you eleminate judging them by adopting the BF&M2K and having female deacons, they were themselves quite conservative. They ranged from rural crossroads churches to village and small town to city churches. All of those churches traditionally had revivals every year (the last one I served, in a city of some 40,000, had revivals every two or three years instead of annually), and there was a faithful core group in each that not only looked foreward to them, but would not allow anything to deter the church from holding it. We held some with pastors from surrounding churches, and others with vocational evangelists, and I even preached at one or two (for other churches); some had virtually no planning, a "just have it and let the Holy Spirit determine who needs to be there" attitude; others had careful planning, publicity, cottage prayer meetings, etc., as preparation; some speakers were quite good, and others didn't know when to quit or how to be anything but loud, snarky, and frankly obnoxious. And all of them have had much the same result: they attracted virtually no unchurched or unsaved folks, and only a fraction of the regular congregation. Those who did come mostly seemed to regard it as an opportunity to get recharged and revived themselves, rather than for the unchurched to get "vived" initially.

Here in southern Maryland, in the DC suburbs, I know of no churches that have them at all--maybe some of the rural churches farther south, but none in my community.

John

[johnfariss]

Leonard is quoted in the ABP piece saying that...

...many Baptists took a long time to realize that revivals were not accomplishing what they once did. The practice of re-baptizing church members, for example, spawned a class of evangelists known for leading large numbers of congregants to doubt the validity of their first profession of faith. Leonard surmises the phenomenon is either "a terrible indictment" of earlier revival methods or "one way of propping up the tradition."

I suppose so, though I've never hosted an individual who made a living as an evangelist doing this. It is probably outside of the memory of most SBCers under 60 or so that revival services once contributed impressively to actual church attendance and growth. I have enjoyed many good meetings but cannot recall one that did this.

Although I never went to one, I had a DOM in central NC tell me that was the pattern of the "Real Evangelism" (I think that was its name) led by Bailey Smith back in the '80s and early '90s. He said the methods used there virtually split the association, and he left over the issues it caused to be DOM for a mostly rural eastern NC association.

John Fariss

[linda]

I'm a dinosaur, I guess.

I come from the time and places where revivals were twice a year. They focused on reclaiming the backslider and evangelism.

They were well attended when they dropped off the radar.

Personally, I think maybe we could use a good revival.

[John Wylie]

I personally agree with what others have expressed here about revivals being for the saved and evangelistic crusades being for the lost. In Oklahoma, January Bible Studies are very popular and fairly well attended. I think that they are more productive that the typical revival meeting with an evangelist preaching his five best sugar sticks.

[Stephen Fox]

While she doesn't speak to Revivalism in particular, Marilynne Robinson's Gilead is interesting take on Era of the 50's when Revivals were in vogue.
Like many of you I was in the drama of two week events in the 60's and they made an impression on me.
Heard a story the other day about Don Harbuck and the possible danger of too much emotionalism. And Harold Bloom has an interesting take on religious ecstasy which sometimes were part of the experience.
Garry Wills has pretty good treatment of Billy Sunday in American Christianity, and there was an interesting Revival meeting in Nathaniel West Day of the Locust.

Those are some of my random thoughts.

other than that as Daniel Plainview says in There Will Be Blood....

Luc Sante as I have reported before is fascinted with the hardscrabble evocations of them in the American experience.

[Ed Pettibone]

John Fariss wrote "Although I never went to one, I had a DOM in central NC tell me that was the pattern of the "Real Evangelism" (I think that was its name) led by Bailey Smith back in the '80s and early '90s. He said the methods used there virtually split the association, and he left over the issues it caused to be DOM for a mostly rural eastern NC association.

Ed: Bailey Smith Is most famous for his line that "God does not hear the prayer of Jews". He was elected President of the SBC in 80 and 81.

[Dave Roberts]

The older pattern in the south was a 2-week revival with the first week focused on getting the church members revived and the second week focused on reaching the lost. With the gradual shortening down to 3 or 4 days, all distinctions were blurred.

[KeithE]

This book gets more into Revivalism across the American Protestant front instead of being strictly Baptist, multi-day revivalism.The Great Revivalists in American Religion, 1740-1944 is a google book that my good friend (and ex-pastor) Bill Cooper wrote. It costs ~$15 to get the whole thing ebook from Google ebooks and $55 from Amazon as a paperback. I know he was working on it back in the early 80's when I went to his small PCA church and just published it earlier this year. But he had me read some of it seems like circa 2005 when he still lived in Huntsville (now lives in Springfield MO). I remember asking him if he was going to include Billy Graham and he was going to do so, but apparently changed his mind. Apparently Billy Graham would have destroyed his thesis. To him, Jonathan Edwards was the best (perhaps only legitimate revivalist) and things went downhill after that point. Finney is to blame in that he eschewed Calvinism and great emotionalism followed and just got worse.

This book presents a historical and theological understanding of how and why Christian revivalism came to be what it is, mainly a series of ineffective meetings. The work shows how revivalism moved from the Edwardian emphasis on the amazing works of God, as the Puritans would have put it, to the "new methods" of Charles Finney and revival as the reasonable works of man as befits Jacksonian democracy. Later, D.L. Moody concentrated on methodology to such a degree that revivals became big business and the focus of the Gilded Age. With Billy Sunday, revivalism has lost all content and has become nothing more than entertainment.

To me Finney and Graham (to whom I owe my initial conversion to at the Cow Palace in San Francisco) were the best. The need to repent and re-order one's life was Finney's and Graham's main message. There is nothing wrong with emotionalism - faith should move one's soul.

We remained friends ever since (and maybe because we left his church in 1986!) - our wives are very close and email often - they moved to MO about 2 years ago with his wife being offered the head librarianship for Springfield. He finished his book.