Revival Thinkers

Click here to go directly to the navigation menu.

Revival, reformation or both?

Experiencing God and thinking deeply about the God you've experienced are not mutually exclusive. For many, that’s an uncomfortable thought. It was for me. It was for my wife. It has been a challenge for others whom I have spoken to. Historically (and undoubtedly true of the Revival Fellowship, which I called home for more than 40 years), when exposed to alternative challenging thoughts and doctrinal perspectives, Christians have not always taken the time to compare these perspectives with God’s Word. Some, dismissing the challenge out of hand, have missed a vital point: following the Word’s truth wherever it leads is not dangerous nor disloyal. 

Is it OK for, say, the Revival Fellowship (RF) to have their own distinctive doctrines and beliefs? Of course. There are numerous denominations and "isms" within the Christian church because each seeks its own particular emphasis. For example, the RF was an offshoot of the Revival Centres International (RCI), which grew out of various Pentecostal/Charismatic revival efforts and movements in the 1950s. Each breakout into a new “church” resulted from different fundamental beliefs. It appears to have been the way of the Church since the second century (or possibly even the first). However, when that denominational (or private) emphasis impinges on core doctrines, especially those doctrines related to salvation (for example, "What must I do to be saved?"), then agreeing to disagree can hardly be an option. Each generation of believers ought to be concerned about (re-)establishing what they believe by confirming that their doctrines/beliefs are biblically supported. The Reformed Minister Jodocus van Lodenstein wrote in 1674, “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” (the church reformed, always reforming) and “ecclesia semper reformanda est” (the church is always to be reforming). I doubt he meant these statements as a marketing or motivational slogan to put on a t-shirt.

He said, in effect, that every generation is responsible for its own intellectual and spiritual integrity. It should evaluate and test the creeds, doctrines, beliefs, and worldview assumptions handed down to it against the inspired and authoritative Word of God. It is always appropriate to assess and improve our creeds, doctrines, beliefs, and worldview assumptions, ensuring we hold fast only to what is good. [1 Thessalonians 5:21]

Church history, both ancient and recent, is filled with strange ideas concerning God that resulted from meditation and prayer, without the foundation of Scripture exegesis. Serious Bible study provides the foundation of truth that is a protection from the errors of subjectivity.

James Garrett in The Doulos Principle: Called to be God's Slaves

Sometimes, the investigation under the guidance of scripture’s illumination results in good news for those ideas, dogmas, and doctrines that we in the Church hold dear. However, Scripture may shed light on areas in the Church’s body of belief that need refinement or revision.

The gospel accounts are clear that when Jesus began his ministry, some of those living in darkness were granted eyes to see, and Jesus' light was a life-giving force. John tells us ...In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and elsewhere, John records Jesus' words ...I am the light of the world! The one who follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life. To some, the light can be an unwelcome intrusion into their comfortable darkness. However, to those who want to see the right path and avoid life’s trip-hazards, the light is ... well ... illuminating. However, Jesus also spoke harsh words, the harshest of which he reserved for the religious elite. These critical, soul-exposing words were not for most of them an illuminating glow, but rather a life-shredding, self-righteousness-burning, blazing light that he used to strip away the hypocrisy of their lives and beliefs, exposing their spiritual poverty and corruption.

One of the aims of this website is to challenge the belief that the only accepted manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s initial “falling on” or “filling” or “baptising” is speaking in tongues (Hello RF and RCI). “No Tongues? No Holy Spirit. No Salvation. No Exceptions” is the mantra. If you are a Christian who believes that, you will be compelled by that belief to claim that the Apostle Paul spoke in tongues when he received the Holy Spirit. I’d encourage you to read The Conversion of Paul, in which I make a strong case for a contrary view.

In The Conversion of Paul,  I demonstrate that churches promoting the “initial evidence” doctrine of tongues miss something vital. Based on Paul’s conversion experience, he’d have trouble being called a Christian in those churches – at least until he finally did “speak in tongues”. Yes, Paul did speak in tongues (he says so himself), but we have no idea when that happened. Paul never tells us, and the Bible doesn’t say. We can say that it didn’t happen when he was “filled with the Holy Spirit” in Damascus, as we have a thorough historical account of what happened. There were no “tongues” for Paul at the time of his conversion. The proof and demonstration of the Spirit’s presence in Paul’s life was far more compelling and convincing than speaking in tongues. Paul’s complete and radical change of life was the only demonstration required, a lesson we can apply to our own time.

Similarly, I’ve written In the Spirit, which investigates the belief that “praying in the Spirit” is exclusively speaking/praying in tongues. This is not the case. Praying in the Spirit may include speaking in tongues, but it is not merely or only speaking in tongues.

Getting back to “ecclesia semper reformanda est”  (the church is always to be reforming), we all need to know if what we believe is true (and faithful to scripture). Please do not assume that every church doctrine and its associated underlying theology are always accurately aligned with Scripture. Please don’t just assume that “the way we do things around here” has clear, defensible scriptural backing in every case.

Time is well spent if it is invested in verifying whether “the truth” handed to you on a platter is true. Furthermore, understanding why you believe what you believe and how to defend it will equip you well.

The Apostle Paul encouraged the Colossian church to hold and be guided by “the word of truth, the gospel that has come to you”. Paul described the Christian message to the Ephesians as “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.”

Be warned, though – ideas that are not true permeate our society, educational institutions, governments and churches. So how do you distinguish between good, trustworthy, helpful, healing, edifying truth and suspect ideas?

For most of my formative years in the RF (let’s say the first 20!) I just accepted, uncritically and unquestioningly, what my Pastors and ‘the brethren’ taught me. This level of naive acceptance was also typical of most of my contemporaries. I (like the majority) assumed for decades that all the teaching presented each Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday, ostensibly based on the scriptures read from the Bible, must be biblical.

Unfortunately, historically, there has been an emphasis on what to think but not much teaching on how to think.