What Revival Really Is!

Where does the word "revival" come from and how is it to be properly understood? As this subject emerges, many have erroneously assumed the term, descends from the pages of the Bible. Yet, surprisingly contemporary usage of the word cannot be found in the Scriptures. Arthur Wallis wrote, "We cannot go to the Bible to see how the word 'revival' is used, for it is not found there. The nearest equivalents are 'revive' (or quicken) and 'reviving,' but these may be applied to individual awakening, and are not always synonymous with what has been called, by common consent down the centuries, 'religious revival.'" Likewise Ian Murray writes, "It would seem that booth the word and its usage descend from traditions outside of the scriptures."

One valid approach to come to an accurate understanding of "revival," is to consider its etymology. In doing so, one is able to gain further insight into the meaning of the word. Arthur Wallis insightfully declares, "For a definition of revival we must therefore appeal to the people of God of bygone years, those who have used the word with consistency of meaning down the centuries, until it began to be used in a lesser and more limited sense in modem times."

Scholarly inquiry suggests the modern English usage descends from the French word "revivre," and Latin word "revivere." Reflecting on the "revival's" etymology, Baptist revival scholars, Henry Blackaby and Claude King wrote, "The word 'revive' is made up of two parts: 're' meaning 'again' and 'vive' meaning 'to live.' Thus 'revive' means 'to live again, to come or be brought back to life, health, or vitality.'" Coming into general usage at some point in the late seventeenth or the early eighteenth century, the concept of "returning to life," became a foundational concept associated with the word.

As the word took on an increasingly religious connotation, it became associated with stirring up devotion in lethargic believers. "Revival" was thought of as the mechanism by which God awoke the slumbering church. This particular English usage begins to emerge in early Puritan works. The word "revival" was first used in the English language by Cotton Mather in 1702 in his massive work "Magnalia Christi Americana." However, while the term revival was first used by Mather, the idea of revival is evident in numerous works preceding Mather's. Revival historian Richard Owen Roberts writes, "It is important to note that although we are not aware of any writers using the word 'revival' before Cotton Mather, the blessing itself was much in the minds of American writers prior to him. They were greatly concerned about the condition of the church in their day and frequently used such expressions as 'That the Lord's gracious presence may be continued with posterity,' Eleazer Mather, 1672; 'The prolonging of our prosperous days in the land,' Thomas Shepard, 1673; 'The former spirit of New England revived in this generation,' Peter Folger, 1676; 'The effusions of the Spirit,' Samuel Hooker, 1677; 'Prayer for a Spirit of converting grace to be poured out,' Increase Mather, 1678; 'The necessity of reformation,' Synod of Boston, 1679; 'The necessity of the pouring out of the Spirit on high upon a sinning apostate people set under judgment,' William Adams, 1679; 'returning unto God,' Increase Mather, 1680; and 'The wonderful works of God,' Cotton Mather, 1690." Puritan sensibilities shaped the meaning of the word. So it is little surprise that Ian Murray affirms that there is a "theology upon which the term [revival] was based."

On into to the mid-nineteenth century, we find revival being defined as an "empowering of the saints" was largely the consensus of the English speaking world. Thus, we discover voices from the past informing our modern expressions and understanding. Reflecting on this truth, Ian Murray writes, "The churches of the English speaking world have many records of times when there has been sudden and remarkable success for the gospel in the world. In connection with those times 'revival' has been part of the Christian vocabulary since the 1740's. The phenomenon and word long went together and, if for no other reason, we need to know how the word was originally used in order to understand the published records correctly."

While the etymology of "revival" suggests the return of "backslidden believers," its modern usage is often articulated in quite different terminology. What contributes to this discontinuity? The answer is quite simple. Tensions frequently exist between a particular word's etymology and usage. It is this breakdown that challenges comprehension. While the etymology of a word unquestionably has strong influence upon its contemporary meaning, it may be argued that usage ultimately has maximum impact. Arthur Wallis insightfully writes, "The meaning of any word is determined by its usage." This reality places modern scholars in quite a quandary. If an individual relies on usage to define a word, then etymology has little more than a marginal influence on the word's ultimate meaning. Yet, how can a word become cut off from defining characteristics to satisfy a modern misunderstanding?

This fervent conflict can be observed in defining the word "revival." In the last one hundred and fifty years the word "revival" has been used to describe evangelistic meetings, theological movements, unusual phenomena as well as social reform. While all of these concepts are coined "revival," they are largely discontinuous from the etymological origins of the word. Defining a word by usage becomes difficult, because words can become marred by misapplication. Numerous individuals have come to the conclusion that this truth has inhibited the modern understanding of "revival."

What does revival mean? Since both "etymology" and "use" define the broader meaning of a particular word, "revival" continues to be complicated to effectively articulate. In the midst of confusion, individuals have allowed the waters to become clouded and murky.

Revival's varied definitions (and controversial "effects"), do not seem to dampen its populist appeal. Regardless of education, position or theological orientation, people enjoy discussing the meaning of "revival." While people often claim that their purpose for discussions is for the "edification of the saints," misunderstandings often escalate. Previously hidden tensions become unveiled in the midst of conflicting worldviews. For perhaps the first time in their lives, bewildered individuals discover that words have different meanings and subtexts. While each and every person feels certain they have gained a firm grasp of "revival," they soon discover that the various conceptions of it are quite diverse. When people begin to wade into the waters of revival, things quickly become clouded and murky. This is true of discussions as well as the printed page.

Regardless of how ambitious a project is, whether an academic monograph or a well researched historical account, it is difficult to adequately articulate the meaning of "revival." Some traditions will find themselves pleased with the conclusions, while others will express utter disdain. Who is able to consider every facet of a diamond? Who can taste every droplet from the sea? As Richard Riss declared, "There are more than 100 distinctives of a genuine revival." With such a rich diversity, who can effectively capture it on the page? As one colleague and friend suggested, "Sometimes meaning is best understood in the midst of tensions."

Over the last two hundred and sixty years numerous arguments have ignited over whether the nature of revival is "extraordinary" or "normative." Many inquire whether scripture and tradition allow for "revival" to be a "regular part of the ongoing worship experience," or whether it is the unfortunate "oddity of an easily-excited people?" In the crumbling pages of revival literature this question often takes center-stage. John H. Armstrong inquired whether revival was "an evidence of normative Christianity? Even a return to conditions like those during the era of the apostles? Or were these revivals interruptions of effective day-to-day ministry that brought problems generally not worth the confusion which resulted?" Armstrong is certainly not alone with his questioning.

For many, the extraordinary nature of religious awakening has been a continuous refrain throughout the ages. George Whitefield, the celebrated eighteenth century evangelist voiced the views of many within the Protestant tradition when he affirmed that revival was "seldom seen once in a century." Similarly, Jonathan Edwards described revival as, "a very extraordinary dispensation of providence; God has in many respects gone out of, and much beyond, his usual and ordinary."

Whitefield and Edwards are not alone in this posture. Jeremiah Jeter complained in 1833 that revivals would "prove a snare if employed as substitutes for the ordinary and regular ministrations of the sanctuary." Likewise, a Southern newspaper editor remarked in 1851 that revival was "only intended as an extraordinary means of grace." Similarly, Dr. William Hamilton wrote in 1866 that revival is "a religious movement of unusual character." Evangelist John Sale described revival as a "special effusion of God's glory." Stephen Olford describes revival as a "strange and sovereign work of God." William McLoughlin writes that "The frequency of revivals in America during the first two centuries after 1607 was certainly due in large part to the theological belief that revivals were divine miracles outside the power of men." From these various points of view, revival is anything but a normative experience.

Wesley Duewel remarked, "Revival days are not normal days in the life of the church. They are supernormal, supernatural." One would find the same general impression from Nancy Leigh DeMoss when she noted that, "Revival is not ordinary. It is not just God working in the normal course of things. It is an extraordinary move of God's Spirit in the hearts of His people that produces extraordinary results." Arthur Wallis writes, "Numerous writings on the subject that have been preserved to us will confirm that revival is divine intervention in the normal course of Spiritual things." In the polished pens of these proponents, revival takes on a heightened nature, devoid of the mundane. These men and women justifiably abhor the "sacrilege" of making that which is holy, common.

While prominent, this particular position is not universally accepted in the broader Christian community. There are subtle, dissenting voices who declare that an inundation of revival is a "regular part of Christianity throughout the ages." This "silent minority" considers "dynamic Christianity" to be normative expression of the community of faith. While talking about the various models of revival depicted in scripture, Dr. Ben Aker, Professor of New Testament theology at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, noted that, "Through a number of the epistles, the Apostle Paul gives us a pastoral model of revival that is long-term and normative." Aker and a number of others from this persuasion have had difficulty understanding revival exclusively as "supernormal" or as Finney penned, "excitements." These men and women understand Christianity to be a vibrant, exhilarating reality; persuasive in speech and compelling in action. While their voices do not often rise above the cacophony of the opposition, they nevertheless resonate. Among this burgeoning chorus, one finds the renowned Baptist preacher, Vance Havner, writing, "Revival is simply New Testament Christianity, the saints getting back to normal." Similarly, Lewis Drummond, a popular Baptist preacher wrote, "Many of our churches are so subnormal that when they experience the normal they think it is abnormal and call it revival." Surprisingly one would even find Richard Lovelace affirming, "Revival is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which restores the people of God to normal spiritual life." Pastor John Kilpatrick who led the Brownsville Revival affirmed, "We have become so used to the abnormal that now that the normal has come it seems abnormal." Revived Christianity is not an oddity to these men.

Despite criticism to the contrary, few affirming the "normative" nature of a move of God would depict revival as a construct of man. Nor would they deny revival's supernatural or "otherworldly" origin. They are only suggesting that God's intention for every local congregation is for it to be an effective, powerful witness in the earth. In their minds, ineffective, powerless Christianity is not the Biblical standard. Pastor Steve Gray insightfully noted that "Revival appears extraordinary, because so few churches walk in it."

While Charles Grandison Finney, the "Father of Modern Revivalism," refers to religious revival as, "spasmodic religion," the noted revival theologian, Richard Lovelace, refers to it as a restoration of the "normal spiritual life." While Wesley Duewel makes reference to revival as being "supernormal," Vance Havner prefers to call it "the saints getting back to normal." Regardless of theological persuasion, godly men still seek to discover whether religious revival should be considered normative or extraordinary. This ongoing quest continues to inspire numerous volumes year after year. Thus, in the pens of revivalists, debate continues.

Numerous individuals inquire whether revival comes to help maintain the present order or bring a violent upheaval. While one group expects revival to preserve their local congregation "the way it is," another expects "a glorious, soul stirring outpouring of the Holy Ghost" to level it to the ground. These vehement presuppositions color the way that people discuss the subject of revival.

Reflecting the view of many pastors, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones stated, "Revival is God's way of keeping the true church..." Traditional revivalist, "Pappy" Gube Beaver bemoaned that, "People don't want the old-time religion any more." Pastor Steve Gray humorously noted, "Most pastors are looking for a revival that brings more of the same, only faster and more exciting." Among pastors, teachers and ministry leaders, they have an expectation that true revival will preserve the current religious order.

Historically, this has rarely been the case. Many of the men who actually experienced revival bring a slightly different perspective to the table. For example, Andrew Murray, the great nineteenth century holiness writer declared, "We need a different and mightier revival the revival that we need calls for a deeper and more entire upheaval of the church." Revival has rarely remained within the confines of the establishment. Nathan Hatch noted that in revivalism "the church is somewhat incidental to the conversion process." Hatch continued, suggesting that instead of looking for direction from their local pastor, individuals began to look "to revivalists - the Whitefields, Moodys, Sundays" One Baptist minister preached about revival bringing a "Divine dissatisfaction." C.C. Goen wrote, "Religious dissent is a function of revivalism."

Richard Owen Roberts writes that, "When revival comes men may expect to have their well- laid plans broken. Schedules will be thrown to the wind. Goals and ambitions once thought to have the stamp of eternity upon them will now be reveled as temporal the breaking will affect not only individuals but also entire churches traditions may perish. Programs may have to be abandoned."

Unfortunately, this type of feather ruffling can cause tensions and unrest in congregations. One Brethren scholar goes so far as to affirm that "Revival tends to cause division." Throughout the pages of history one finds evidence to reinforce these assumptions about the schismatic nature of revivalism. Historian Grant Wacker described one group as "petty and mean spirited;" essentially unwilling to submit to any type of authority. Reflecting on the Pentecostal Revival, H.A. Ironside writes that "divisions have been rife among the Pentecostal people, and the adherents of the various parties roundly anathematize one another." Describing the experience of Methodist revivalism in the Nineteenth Century, Kathryn Teresa Long wrote, "Rather than renewing already existing churches, their revivals initially helped to create new religious communities among people suffering in various degrees from the social strains of a nation on the move into new political, economic and geographical areas." Timothy L. Smith noted that many of the adherents of the Holiness revival were "unable to accept much real discipline save their own." Charles Parham noted that the Pentecostal churches "are full of people who were kicked out of other churches. They are religious anarchists. They will not submit to anything."

Joel Adams Wright, an early Pentecostal explaining how he could not stay involved with any particular local congregation noted, "With all handles knocked off I could be free in Christ." Reiterating Wright's position Frank Bartleman wrote, "Don't marry a movement. Only the free man can hope to get God's perfect mind and will." Many of the adherents of revival movements in America were "mavericks at heart, careless of tradition, willing to drop old allegiances at the first hint of strain." A.J. Tomlinson wrote, 'Creeds, articles of faith, systems, false churches are even now quivering, almost ready to fall.'"

Igniting the classic debate of whether revival is maintenance or upheaval, Dr. John H. Armstrong rhetorically inquired whether "'awakenings' solidify the church's faith and life, or help, in reality, to break it down?" To Armstrong, a revived church would likely be similar to what one of my colleagues described as a "quiet, introspective congregation, reading the historic creeds while patiently waiting on the grace of God."

While Armstrong's perspective is prominent, "passive waiting" is in conflict with the larger history of revival. According to Russell Richey, "What needs to be underscored, at any rate, is that revivalism requires a theology of action. It eschews theologies of inaction like the hyper-Calvinism of such 18th-century figures as John Gill and John Brine or any extreme quietist, individualistic or rational positions. Revivalism needs and generates a theology of transformation." Pastor Steve Gray wrote, "Some people think God [sends revival]primarily to passive receivers. In fact, according to this view, hungering for revival or working toward it actually makes revival illegitimate"

Certainly one should not exclude the pervasive Calvinistic heritage in America, but revival has traditionally been a theology of crisis that leans towards "Arminianism." One scholar noted that Presbyterians and those within the Calvinistic tradition have had difficulty "containing the passions of the revival. Methodism was made for it. Methodist theology was more hospitable to its central ideas." Nathan O. Hatch, the noted Evangelical historian noted that, "Presbyterians and Anglicans were always trying to control religious impulses through formal services. Methodists allowed blacks, among others, to experience religion more on their own terms." William Warren Sweet suggests that Methodism was even the springboard for revival in the Calvinist territory of the East. "Revival in New England was, no doubt, partly due to the introduction of Methodism, with its strong evangelistic emphasis." Arguably, because of their Arminian posture that seemed to better gel with the emerging American spirit, Methodism went from "15,000 souls in 1785 to 850,000 by 1840." Scholars suggest that this explosive growth happened "in good part because of their identification with the revivalist viewpoint." Dickson Bruce Jr. writes that "only the strictest frontier Calvinists among the Baptists and Presbyterians were able to resist a shift toward the Arminian position." The "Methodists" and Arminians were better suited to "rock the boat" while those from the Reformed tradition were largely trying to preserve things.

Writing about conflicts within Presbyterianism during the Second Great Awakening, Bernard Weisberger declared, "At that time [Presbyterians] held closely to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, which stated that God had chosen only a small part of mankind to be saved and determined beforehand who these "saints" would be. Those elected were 'predestined' - certain to go to heaven. All others were just as certainly doomed. Nothing - no effort of will or agony of repentance - could change the awful decree. A belief like that was a millstone around a revivalist's neck. To be aroused, sinners in his audience simply had to feel that there was more hope than predestination allowed bit by bit, revival minded Presbyterians drifted from the 'pessimism' of ultra-orthodoxy. " Bernard Weisberger continued, "To allow for the practice of revivalism, Calvinist theology had to undergo considerable modification. It had to leave more room for human hope and reason." Thus, in much of the historic record, "revival" seems to move in the midst of "action" or "crisis." With such a disposition in mind, Russell Richey affirmed, "Revivalism works with a soteriology of crisis." Thus, like any good story, revival depends on conflict for it's continued "plot development."

Whether real or contrived, revival seeks to either repair or restore something lost or damaged. Finney declared that "revival presupposes a declension." Driving home the conflicting nature of this perspective, Bernard Weisberger wrote, "Ministers chose (the word revival) deliberately to scold a naughty world by the suggestion that it was necessary to 'revive' the piety of an earlier day, when Americans supposedly had more respect for God and His anointed. Rebuke was built into the term."

It is difficult for revival to "pat the present order on the back" while it sternly rebukes them. It is little surprise that James Burns writes, "revival has been unpopular with many within the Church. It says nothing to them of the power they have learned to love, the ease, or success. It accuses them of sin; it tells them that they are dead. It calls them to forsake all and follow Christ." William McLoughlin summed up the context well when he wrote, "old systems die slowly and religious fervor burns quickly." A particular example of this drama can be seen played out in the Great Awakening. Sarah Valkenburgh wrote, "Although the Great Awakening stimulated dramatic conversions and an increase in church membership, it also provoked conflicts and divisions within the established church." Clarifying the conflict, Frank Lambert wrote, "To the revivalists, itinerancy meant obedience to the Biblical commission of carrying the gospel to every corner of the earth. To anti-revivalists, itinerancy meant invasion of parish boundaries resulting in disorder and confusion." Valkenburgh noted, "The Awakening became a struggle of power between the established clergy and the itinerants, who ultimately disrupted unity within the Congregational Churches of Connecticut."

(Continued in Next Module)

As Whitefield was returning to England in 1741, he depended on the itinerate Gilbert Tennent to "blow up the divine fire lately kindled there." Despite being ridiculed as "an awkward and ridiculous Ape of Whitefield," Tennent managed to keep the fires of revival burning until Whitefield returned in 1742. Yet this does not happen without an escalation of controversy. "The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry," the famous sermon Gilbert Tennent preached at Nottingham, Pennsylvania, was characteristic of the polemics against the ecclesiastical opponents of revival. Tennent lashed ministerial opponents who had reservations about the revival as "Pharisee-Shepherds" who "with the craft of foxes . . . did not forget to breathe the cruelty of wolves in a malicious aspersing of the person of Christ." This type of speech enraged the established clergy in New England. There soon was a lessening of ecclesiastical support for the empowered itinerates.

Critics particularly singled out itinerate James Davenport who they accused of exploiting "anticlericalism for evangelical purposes" and who ministered in locations subversive to the established order, places such as "fields, orchards, or barns." Things grew even worse for the cause of revival among established congregations as George Whitefield published his journals. Many of the colonial educators and ministers were surprised to read, "I found the generality of preachers preached an unknown Christ (and) that the colleges had darkness in them." With statements like that, conflict obviously ensued. Ministers, who previously only had a problem with the more extreme itinerates, now began to consider Whitefield and "his revival" a "means of promoting separations." In light of the controversy surrounding Whitefield, in June of 1745, the General Association of Connecticut voted that it was not "advisable for any of our ministers to admit him to their pulpits or for any our people to attend his ministrations."

Sarah Valkenburgh writes, "To preserve their role as leaders of the church and to reestablish organization and unity within the congregation, several ministers began attacking New Light radicals (revivalists)." The strongest of which was Charles Chauncy. In a book titled, "Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England," Chauncy affirmed that true religion was not "shriekings and screamings, convulsion-like tremblings and agitations, strugglings and tumblings." True joy, Chauncy claimed, came instead from sober and obedient Christian living. Reflecting on the enthusiasm in New England, Chauncy observed that "the plain truth is, an enlightened mind, not raised affections, ought always to be the guide of those who call themselves men."

Warring with the present order and trying to initiate a new standard has always been one of the characteristics of American revivalism. Reverend "Pappy" Gube Beaver, a tent-revivalist, is a rather pithy example of this truth. Barbara Benziger makes note of Beaver in her sociological diatribe, "Revival!" Beaver is quoted as saying, "they shot through my tent with a shotgun three times, somebody did. Trying to run me out of the community there, for preaching the gospel. And somebody said, 'You're going to have to leave now.'" William Warren Sweet writes that revivalists in the Second Great Awakening were accused of "diverting" people "from their occupations." Specially, Sweet noted that James McGready was charged in the populace of "running people distracted." Some interpreted the admonitions of Steve Hill to be schismatic what he told four thousand Pentecostal ministers to "Get out of the web of religion."

While conflict is a major dynamic of revival, revival participants are not always schismatic, despite claims to the contrary. John Wesley, throughout his life and ministry, refused to part ways with Anglicanism. In fact, he essentially died as an Anglican cleric. Methodism only emerged as a distinct organization after his death. Wesley was not alone. Despite severe persecution by the Methodist Bishop, leaders in the Georgia Holiness revival refused to part with the Methodist organization. Reflecting on these Holiness leaders, Clement Cary wrote, "The conditions were such at a time that a word from these brethren [Holiness leaders] would have carried hundreds of members into a separate organization [away from Methodism]. A crisis was reached and nothing but the loyalty of Dodge, Jarrell, and a few other leaders held the people in the [Methodist] church." Even though the opposition was at times slanderous and vindictive, numerous revivalists have sought to preserve the established order and demonstrate the grace of God manifest in their lives.

Additionally, one finds that many participants in the Charismatic Renewal attempted to bring cohesion in the turbulence of discontinuity. Richard Quebedeaux wrote that "[Although] there were a few Neo-Pentecostals who discouraged others new to the experience from remaining in the more theologically inclusive denominations, "[The] Charismatic Renewal [has had] very little interest in separating from old ecclesiastical structures and building new ones. Rather, present institutions are to be 'renewed' by the Charismatic activity of the Holy Spirit as it affects the membership of a church or other group through the continued presence within that structure of individuals who have been baptized in the Spirit." This truth is best illustrated in the story of Rector Dennis Bennett and St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California. In 1960, Bennett announced to his congregation his dramatic encounter with the Charismatic Renewal. Several prominent members began to vocally oppose Bennett. Attempting to avoid a schism, Bennett resigned and wrote the following, "I am sorry for the furor, and for the pain that has been caused. I ask every person at St. Mark's, whether they be for me or against me, not to leave the Parish or cancel their pledge. This is a spiritual issue, and will not be settled in this way. I myself am going to stay strictly out of Parish work until the matter has been clarified one way or the other. Support whatever interim pastorate the Bishop and Vestry set up. Any rumors that reach your ears that in any way imply I am leaving the Episcopal Church are false. What I am standing for is to be found within the Episcopal Church; no one needs to leave the Episcopal Church in order to have the fullness of the Spirit." Reflecting on Bennett and other selfless participants in the Charismatic Renewal, Michael Harper writes that this revival movement was "the most unifying in Christendom today."

Even on up to the late Twentieth Century, Pastor John Kilpatrick of Brownsville Assembly of God made a great effort to submit to his denominational leadership in the midst of a burgeoning revival. He did this in spite of the fact that a number of his denominational colleagues were in opposition to what was occurring in his congregation. Julia Duin writes that "Kilpatrick agreed to be accountable to a 'covering committee' of Assemblies pastors, including... [General Superintendent, Thomas] Trask. Mr. Kilpatrick must meet with these men at least twice yearly." Kilpatrick's close communication and submission to General Superintendent Thomas Trask of the Assemblies of God is largely unprecedented in revival history. Trask noted, "Maybe if we had done this in the past we wouldn't have had some of the casualties we have had." This relationship resulted in Trask writing the following to ministers in the fellowship: "I have been asked by many, 'Brother Trask, have you been to Brownsville Assembly in Pensacola Florida; and what do you think?' Well, I am happy to say I have been there and had the joy of ministering to that fine congregation on a Sunday morning. First of all, one must recognize that this is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. With that knowledge one must be careful not to become critical when God chooses to work in ways we are unaccustomed; and yet we are admonished in the Word not to be gullible but to try the spirits." Despite challenges to the contrary, John Kilpatrick and Brownsville Assembly of God have chosen to remain in relationship with the General Council of the Assemblies of God. It is a rare example of the unifying possibilities of revival.

Moreover, it is difficult to accuse the revivalists of creating a context of discontinuity when most of the participants were already predisposed to accept the teachings and rhetoric of the revival. Larry Witham writes that "The headline revivals of the 1990s - the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship and Brownsville Assembly of God - are only attended by people who already accept those religious views." Reflecting on this same truth, Margaret Poloma wrote, "I didn't find anybody who was not a charismatic, Pentecostal or independent church member."

Is revival "keeping the true church alive" or an "entire upheaval of the church?" Some have said that popular revivalism is endeared at the grassroots level and often scorned by those in positions of power. Others have suggested that any form of revival that brings conflict between governing authorities and the people is not true revival at all. This is a subject that revival literature continues to try to address.