REVIVALS.
We might have closed our studies of the Way of Salvation with
Sanctification, without giving any attention to the subject of
Revivals. We remember, however, that, in the estimation of many,
revivals are the most essential part of the Way; so much so that, in
certain quarters, few, if any, souls are expected to be brought into
the way of life, otherwise than through so-called "revivals of
religion." According to this widespread idea, the ingathering of
souls, the upbuilding of the Church, her activity, power and very
life, are dependent upon the revival system.
In view of all this, we have concluded to bring our studies to a
close with an examination of this system. Before we enter upon the
subject itself, however, we desire to have it distinctly understood
that we intend to discuss the _system_, and not the _people_ who
believe and practice it. There doubtless are very excellent Christian
people who favor a religion built up and dependent on such movements,
and there may be very unchristian people who oppose it. With this we
have nothing to do. We are not discussing _persons_, but _doctrines_
and _systems_. The advocates of modern revivalism claim the right to
hold, defend and propagate their views. We only demand the same right.
If we do not favor or practice their way, our people have not only a
right to ask, but it is our duty to give grounds and reasons for our
position.
In discussing this subject, we intend, as usual, to speak with
all candor and plainness. We desire to approach and view this subject,
as every subject, from the fair, firm standpoint of the opening words
of the Formula of Concord, viz.: "We believe, teach and confess that
the only rule and standard, according to which all doctrines and
teachings should be esteemed and judged, are nothing else than the
prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testament." We
wish to test it by the infallible Word. By it, we are willing to be
judged. According to it, our views and doctrines must stand or fall.
What then is a revival? The word revive means to bring back to
life. It presupposes the existence of life, which for a time had
languished or died. Life was present, it failed and was restored.
Strictly speaking, therefore, we can only use this word of the
bringing back of a life that had been there formerly and was lost.
Applying it to spiritual life, strictly speaking, only a person who
has once had the new life in him, but lost it for awhile and regained
it, can be said to be revived. So, likewise, only a church or a
community that was once spiritually alive, but had grown languid and
lifeless, can be said to be revived. On the other hand, it is an
improper use of terms to apply the word revival to the work of a
foreign missionary, who for the first time preaches the life-giving
Word, and through it gathers converts and organizes Churches. In his
case it is a first bringing, and not a restoring, of life.
All those Old Testament reformations and restorations to the true
worship and service of the true God, after a time of decline and
apostasy, were revivals according to the strict sense of the word. For
these revivals patriarchs and prophets labored and prayed.
On the other hand, the labors and successes of the apostles in
the New Testament were not strictly revivals. They preached the Gospel
instead of the law. They preached a Redeemer who had come, instead of
one who was to come. It was largely a new faith, a new life, a new way
of life that they taught, and in so far a new Church that they
established. Its types, shadows and roots, had all been in the old
covenant and Church. But so different were the fulfillments from the
promises, that it was truly called a _New_ Dispensation. And,
therefore, the labors of the apostles to establish this dispensation
were largely missionary labors. It was not so much the restoring of an
old faith and life, as the bringing in of a new. We find their
parallel in foreign mission work much more than in regular Church
work. It is by overlooking this distinction that many erroneous
doctrines and practices have crept into the Church, _e.g._, as to
infant baptism, conversion and modern revivalism.
As to revivals, popularly so-called, we maintain, first of all,
that it ought to be the policy and aim of the Church to preclude their
necessity.
It is generally admitted that they are only needed, longed for
and obtained, after a period of spiritual decline and general
worldliness. A Church that is alive and active needs no revival. A
lifeless Church does. Better then, far better, to use every right
endeavor to keep the Church alive and active, than permit it to grow
cold and worldly, with a view and hope of a glorious awakening.
Prevention is better than cure. We would rather pay a family physician
to prevent disease and keep us well, than to employ even the most
distinguished doctor to cure a sick household; especially if the
probability were that, in some cases, the healing would be only
partial, and in others it would eventuate in an aggravation of the
disease.
In the chapters on the Baptismal Covenant and Conversion, we
showed that it is possible to keep that covenant and thus always grow
in Grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. While we
sorrowfully admitted that the cases of such as do it are not as
numerous as is possible and most desirable, we also learned that they
might be far more numerous, if parents and teachers understood their
responsibility and did their duty to the baptized children. We verily
believe that thus it might become the rule, instead of the exception,
that the children of Christian parents would grow up as Christ's lambs
from baptism, would love Him with their earliest love and never wander
into the ways of sin. We also firmly believe that those thus early
consecrated, trained, taught and nurtured in faith and love, make the
healthiest, the strongest and most reliable members and workers in
the Church.
Neither can we for a moment doubt but that such is the good and
gracious will of Him who desires the little children to be baptized
into Him. It certainly seems repugnant to all that we have ever
learned of our God and Saviour, that it should be His will that our
dear children, who have been _conceived and born in sin_, and are
therefore _by nature_, or by birth, _the children of wrath_, should
remain in this state of sin and condemnation until they are old enough
to be converted at a revival. Yet it must be either that, or a denial
of the Bible doctrine of original sin, if we accept the teachings and
practices of modern revivalism. For either of these positions we are
not prepared.
Therefore it is our great aim and object to recall the Church to
the old paths. Therefore we are concerned to see the Church firmly
established on the old foundations of the doctrine of original sin, of
baptism for the remission of sins, of training up in that baptismal
covenant by the constant, diligent and persevering teaching of God's
Word, in the family, in the Sunday-school, in the catechetical class
and from the pulpit. In proportion as this is accomplished, in that
proportion will we preclude the necessity of conversions and,
consequently, of revivals.
Who will say, that a congregation made up of such as are
"_sanctified from the womb_," "_lent to the Lord_," from
birth, having "_known the Holy Scripture_" from childhood, would
not be a healthy, living Church? Such a Church would need no revival.
Would it be possible to have such a Church? Is it possible for
any _one_ member to grow up and remain a child of God? If possible for
one, why not for a whole congregation? Are the means of Grace
inadequate? No, no! The whole trouble lies in the neglect or abuse of
the means. With their proper use, the whole aspect of religious life
might be different from what it is. It is not a fatal necessity that
one, or more, or all the members of a church must periodically grow
cold, lose their first love, and backslide from their God. It is not
God's will, but their fault, that it should be so.
While the church at Ephesus lost its first love, and that at
Pergamos permitted false doctrine to creep into it and be a stumbling
block, and that at Thyatira suffered Jezebel to seduce Christ's
servants, and that at Sardis did not have her works found perfect
before God, and that of Laodicea had become lukewarm; yet the church
at Smyrna, with all her tribulation and poverty and persecution,
remained rich and faithful in the sight of God, and that at
Philadelphia had kept the Word of God's patience, and her enemies were
to know that God loved her. While the former five were censured, the
latter two were approved. The former might have remained as faithful
as the latter. It was their own fault and sin that the former needed a
revival. The latter needed none. Which were the better off?
We believe that where there is a sound, faithful and earnest
pastor, and a docile, sincere, earnest, united and active people, many
will grow up in their baptismal covenant; and among those who wander
more or less therefrom, there will be frequent conversions, under the
faithful use of the ordinary services and ordinances of the Church.
Such, we believe, were the pastorates of Richard Baxter, at
Kidderminster; of Ludwig Harms, at Hermansburg; of Oberlin, at
Steinthal; and of our late lamented Dr. Greenwald, at Easton and
Lancaster. None of these churches, after their pastors were fairly
established in them, needed revivals. And such, doubtless, have been
thousands of quiet, faithful pastorates, some known to the world, and
others known only to God. Blessed are those churches in which the work
of Grace is constantly and effectively going on, according to God's
Way of Salvation.