The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church Part 11

"And what am I? My soul, awake, And an impartial survey take.

Does no dark sign, no ground of fear In practice or in heart appear?

"What image does my spirit bear?

Is Jesus formed and living there?

Ah, do His lineaments divine In thought and word and action s.h.i.+ne?

"Searcher of hearts, O search me still; The secrets of my soul reveal; My fears remove; let me appear To G.o.d and my own conscience clear."

CHAPTER XXIII.

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 wors.h.i.+p and service of the true G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's Word, in the family, in the Sunday-school, in the catechetical cla.s.s 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 G.o.d? 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 G.o.d. It is not G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, and that at Philadelphia had kept the Word of G.o.d's patience, and her enemies were to know that G.o.d 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 G.o.d. Blessed are those churches in which the work of Grace is constantly and effectively going on, according to G.o.d's Way of Salvation.

CHAPTER XXIV.

MODERN REVIVALS.

We have shown that it ought to be the great aim and object of the Church to preclude the necessity of occasional religious excitements.

We also showed, by example from Scripture and from Church history, that it is possible to attain this end. If parents did but understand and do their duty in the family, teachers in the Sunday-school and pastors in the catechetical cla.s.s and pulpit, children would very generally grow up in their baptismal covenant; and a church made up of such members would not depend for its growth and life on periodic religious revivals.

But--alas, that _but_!--parents, teachers and pastors too often come short of their duty. Carelessness, worldliness and G.o.dlessness hold sway in too many of the congregations, homes and families. There is a spirit of love of pleasure, greed for gain and haste to be rich, that has taken hold of the heart and life of too many professedly Christian parents. There is no time for G.o.d's Word or earnest prayer with and for the children. There is often little if any religious instruction or Christian example. The little ones breathe in a withering, poisonous, materialistic atmosphere. The germs of the divine life, implanted in baptism, either lie dormant, or are blighted after their first manifestations. They grow up with the idea that the great object of life is to gain the most, and make the best of this world.

In the Sunday-school the teachers are often careless and trifling. They do not live close to Christ themselves, and how can they lead their pupils nearer to Him? They scarcely pray for themselves, much less for their pupils, and how can they instil into them a spirit of prayer?

Many pastors, also, are not as earnest and consecrated as they should be. They are not burning with a desire for souls. They go through their ministerial duties in a formal, lifeless manner, and their labors are barren of results. These things should not be so, but unfortunately they are. As a result, children grow up ignorant of their covenant with G.o.d, or soon lapse therefrom, and are in an unconverted state. The communicants of the church lose their first love, and become lukewarm. An awakening is needed.

If then we admit that, owing to man's imperfections and faults, _times of refres.h.i.+ng_ are needed, why not have them after the manner of those around us? Why not adopt the modern system, have union meetings, evangelists, high-pressure methods, excitements, the anxious bench, and all the modern machinery for getting up revivals?

We will briefly state our objections to this system.

_First._ We object to the modern revival system, because it rests on an entire misconception of the coming and work of the Holy Spirit. The idea seems to be that the Holy Spirit is not effectively present in the regular and ordinary services of the sanctuary; that He came to the Church as a transient guest on the day of Pentecost, then departed again, and returned when there was another season of special interest. That He then left again, and ever since has come and worked with power during every revival, and then departed to be absent until the next.

Now we claim that this is directly contrary to the teaching of the Divine Word.

When Jesus was about to leave His disciples they were filled with deep sorrow. He gathered them around Him, in that upper chamber at Jerusalem, and comforted them in those tender, loving words, recorded in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of John. In these chapters He promises and speaks much of a Comforter, whom He would send. The whole discourse goes to show that this Comforter was intended to be subst.i.tuted for the visible presence of Himself. His own visible presence was to be withdrawn. The Comforter was to be sent to take His place, and thus, in a manner, make good the loss. Jesus had been their comforter and their joy. They would no longer have Him visibly among them, to walk with Him, to talk with Him, to hear the life-giving words that fell from His lips. The announcement made them feel as if they were to be left "comfortless" and forsaken. But he says, John xiv. 16: "_I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth_;" verse 18, "_I will not leave you comfortless_:" revised version, "I will not leave you _desolate_;" more literally still, as in the margin, "I will not leave you _orphans_." John xvi. 5, 6, 7: "_But now I go my way to Him that sent me.... But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts. Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send Him unto you._"

Now, from these words, and others in the same chapters, two things are plain: First, that the Comforter came as _Christ's subst.i.tute_; Secondly, that He came _to abide_. While Jesus was to be absent, as far as His visible presence was concerned, the divine Comforter, the Holy Spirit, was to take His place. His presence was to subst.i.tute Christ's. But if He had come to be present only briefly, and occasionally, after long intervals of absence, it would be a poor filling of the painful void. Evidently the impression designed to be made by the words of Jesus was, that the Holy Spirit would come to abide. And this is made still more clear by the plain words of Jesus quoted above "I will not leave you _orphans_;" "He shall _abide_ with you _forever_." He came, then, as a subst.i.tute; He came also to abide forever.

The revival system is, however, built up on the idea that He comes and goes. He visits the Church, and leaves it again. At so-called revival seasons the Church has a Comforter. During all the rest of the time she is left in a desolate or orphaned state. Thus is the revival system built up on an entire misconception and misapprehension as to the coming and abiding of the Holy Spirit.

It likewise misconceives entirely the _operations_ of the Spirit.

The idea seems to be that this Blessed One operates without means, directly, arbitrarily and at haphazard. The Word and Sacraments are not duly recognized as the divinely ordained means and channels, through which He reaches the hearts of the children of men. That this is an unscriptural idea we have shown elsewhere. That the Spirit uses the means of Grace as channels and instruments, through which He comes and operates on the hearts of men and imparts to them renewing and sanctifying Grace, is taught all through the New Testament. We need not enlarge on these points again, but refer our readers to what has been written above on this subject.

Our _second_ objection to the modern revival system arises out of the first. Because of the errors concerning the coming and the operations of the Holy Spirit, the system undervalues the divinely-ordained means of Grace. Little if any renewing Grace is expected from the sacrament of Christian Baptism. Few if any conversions are expected from the regular and ordinary preaching of the Word. Little if any spiritual nourishment is expected from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Who that has attended such meetings has not heard the idea of Grace bestowed through Baptism ridiculed?

Who has not heard so-called revival preachers scout the idea of "getting religion"--which must mean receiving divine Grace if it means anything--through catechising the young in the doctrines of the divine Word? Are not these divine means often entirely set aside by the most enthusiastic revivalists? Who does not know that often at these revival services the reading and preaching of the Word are entirely omitted? Thus G.o.d's means, the means used by Christ and His apostles, are undervalued. While they are used at the ordinary services, when there is no revival going on, not much is expected of them.

Our _third_ objection again arises from the second. Because the regular Church ordinances are undervalued, they are largely fruitless. Because people have not much faith in their efficacy, they do not receive much benefit from them. Few conversions are expected or reported during the ten or eleven months of regular or ordinary church services, while many, if not all, are expected and reported from the few weeks of special effort. Even the work of sanctification is largely crowded into the few weeks. It is during these few weeks that saints expect to be quickened, refreshed, strengthened and purified, more than during all the rest of the year.

It is doubtless both as a cause and a result of this undervaluing and general fruitlessness of the ordinary Church ordinances, that we find so much levity and irreverence in many so-called revival Churches. Because the Holy Spirit is not supposed to be effectively present, is not in the Word and Sacraments, does not bring His saving and sanctifying Grace through them; therefore there is nothing solemn, awe-inspiring, or uplifting in these things. Therefore the young, even if they are members, and sometimes older ones, go to these churches as to places of amus.e.m.e.nt, to have a good time, to laugh, to whisper, to gaze about, write notes, get company, and what not.

A careful observer cannot fail to notice that in Churches which believe in and preach Grace through the means of Grace, there is an atmosphere of deeper solemnity and more earnest devotion than in such revival Churches. The above objection to the revival system we believe will explain the difference.

_Fourth._ We object to the so-called revival system because, as a natural result of the above, it begets a dependence on something extraordinary and miraculous for bringing sinners into the kingdom. As we have seen, these Churches expect nearly all their conversions from "revivals." It naturally follows that the unconverted will shake off and get rid of all serious thoughts and impressions, under the plea that they will give this matter their attention when the next revival comes round. We have more than once heard persons say, in effect, "Oh well, I know I'm not what I ought to be, but perhaps I'll be converted at the next revival." Thus the gracious influences of the blessed Spirit, as they come through the Word, whether from the pulpit, the Sunday-school teacher, or Christian friend, or even when that Word is brought to a funeral or sick-bed, are all put aside with the hope that there may be a change at the next revival. And we verily believe that such ideas, fostered by a false system, have kept countless souls out of the kingdom of G.o.d.

We object _fifthly_ that at these so-called revivals there is a dependence on methods not sanctioned or authorized by the Word of G.o.d. As we have seen, G.o.d's means are generally slighted. On the other hand, human means and methods are exalted and magnified.

The anxious or mourner's bench is regarded by many otherwise sensible people, as a veritable mercy-seat, where Grace is supposed to abound--as though the Spirit of G.o.d manifested His saving and sanctifying power there as nowhere else. But this is a purely human inst.i.tution, and has no warrant in the Word. On this point it is not necessary to enlarge.