Revivalism (w/ Ken Jones) | Theocast

Revivalism and the Two Traditions in American Protestantism

Hi, this is Justin. Today on Theocast, our friend Ken Jones is joining us for another conversation. And the topic for this episode is revivalism. And we had talked to Ken about having this conversation and recording this episode weeks before the Asbury revivals were a thing.

And so we trust the Lord in that. And the conversation today about revivalism, we have it from a historical perspective and help try to delineate the two distinct traditions that exist in American Protestantism.

One that is confessional and grounded in the ordinary means of grace, another that is revivalistic and pietistic. If you don't know what all that means and you've never thought about these things before, this episode today is for you.

And we, just because we like to do this on occasion, give you a taste of what the Semper Reformanda episodes are like, we're gonna leave that on as a portion of today's recording, where we talk with Ken about the Puritans.

What do we make of the Puritans? And when people ask us, hey, what do you guys think about the Puritans? How would we answer that? You'll get to find out today. And we also do a little bit of more church history and talking about the Mero controversy.

We hope you enjoy all of this content, stay tuned.

We're excited to announce we have a brand new podcast available called the Kingsmen Podcast. It's where we are reclaiming biblical manhood by training and equipping men for the work of the kingdom. You can find it anywhere you download a podcast, you can also watch it on YouTube.

We have new episodes that come out every Monday.

Welcome to Theocast, encouraging weary pilgrims to rest in Christ, conversations about the Christian life from a confessional reformed and pastoral perspective. What we're trying to do here at Theocast is clarify the gospel and reclaim the purpose of the kingdom of Christ.

We are excited to be joined again today by our brother Ken Jones. So we're gonna introduce him first before I even introduce John and myself. Ken is the pastor of Glendale Baptist Church in Miami, Florida.

And he is also the co-host of the Saints and Sinners Unplugged podcast. So Ken, thank you for your time and your generosity and being with us yet again today. And joining Ken around the virtual table today to discuss some theology and to discuss the gospel.

Of our Lord Jesus Christ. Did you almost say the theological octagon?

Did you almost do it?

No, I didn't. I didn't.

Old school.

John Moffitt is already talking and he is the pastor of Grace Reformed Church in Spring Hill, Tennessee. And I'm Justin Perdue, pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in Asheville, North Carolina. And brethren, we've met today to podcast.

And we are excited to have another conversation with you, Ken. Last time, a few weeks ago, we talked about Christ-centered preaching. And our conversation for today is another very important and relevant topic.

I'm gonna hand it over to John in just a second to tee it up for us in more detail. But I wanna go ahead and tell the listener that we're gonna talk about revivalism today. And we plan to have this conversation weeks before the Asbury revivals occurred.

And we have the testimony of three witnesses here to confirm that that is in fact true. And so don't ever think that the Holy Spirit can only work in the moment. He also works in planning and preparation.

Amen, amen. John, let us know, man, a little bit more, but let the listener know, I should say, a little bit more about the conversation topic for today. And I don't know, you always like to make announcements.

I don't know if you wanna make any. People live for those things. They absolutely love your announcements.

I know.

Yeah, well, there's, I don't know, there's a couple of new stuff out. There's a new podcast out I'm doing called Kingsman.

So John, what you're saying is that you're becoming a professional podcast.

Yeah, no. The funny thing is I do this for my church. And the moment they're no longer beneficial for them, they're all going bye-bye. So just pray that it keeps being beneficial for them. I do wanna say this before we jump into this subject, because a lot of what I have to say and the things I've been saying for the last, I don't know, seven years that we've been doing a podcast, I have ripped off and stolen from Whitehorse Inn, both Michael Horton and Ken Jones.

So just to just, if you don't like what I have to say and you think I'm an antinomian and I'm all messed up, you're gonna blame Mike. I was gonna say, blame Ken Jones. So you shoot at him first. His email is Ken Jones.

I'm like.

But for those of you who don't know, Ken's gonna be speaking next week. So this'll be in the past, but at Ligonier Conference. And what's your subject, brother?

Justification by faith alone.

Oh, come on.

By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. It's the common theme is stand firm.

Yeah.

Maybe we should just do an episode on that.

That just sounds amazing.

Yeah, yeah.

So I get to talk about standing firm on the doctrine of justification.

That's awesome. Well, speaking of, this is a podcast about revivalism. And we announced last week, so Justin and I did a podcast. If you didn't hear it, we were kind of pointing the gun at our own self and some of the problems in the reform world.

And Justin and I recorded that weeks and weeks ago.

It's been a while ago now.

Yeah, we are typically way ahead because Justin and I, we only record twice a month. And so we try to get really ahead just for our own schedules. And that was recorded before the whole Osbury thing happened.

And we had already twisted the arm and bribed Mr. Jones to do a podcast with us on revivalism. And then that happened. So it was ironic. And then we tried to record it a couple of weeks ago and we had some technical difficulties.

So we're here, we're not gonna waste any more time. Let's jump into it. I wanted to eat up this way. This is not necessarily a podcast that's gonna be designed taking down one particular event, which has been recently here in Kentucky.

We wanted to talk about the movement in general. And the goal of this is to equip you with some discernment, some historical understanding. So we don't repeat history and then using the Bible for discernment moving forward so that we aren't quick to judge, but we're also not fooled by the wiles of Satan, which both of those can happen.

I've seen it where we are not gracious and kind towards our brothers. And then at the same time, we are easily led astray. And then that causes a lot of pain and suffering. So my own personal experience, and I know Ken has experienced this as well.

I grew up where there was a scheduled revival every single year and fiery preaching would come in. And it was very much in the line of Charles Finney, which we can talk about that a little bit. But we're really gonna be talking about the second great awakening and specifically more the first one.

Now, a lot of people do see the errors and the problems in the second great awakening and what kind of birthed out of that. But we also wanna talk about the first great awakening and where that might also have had some bits that may not have been as helpful as well.

And then we're gonna look at scripture, things like Jesus' conversation with a woman at the well, worshiping God in spirit and truth and using discernment. So that's the start. Justin, I'll let you kind of take us into the first.

Yeah, go ahead.

Let me just put something in here, John, to what you said. There is a tendency to kind of evaluate the different things, but I think in the moment and especially in the moment, there are two things that we always have to be careful of in the moment of one of these events, whether it's Asbury, because as you said, we initially started talking about this during the Asbury thing.

Number one, trying to evaluate something that we ourselves are not a part of. That's always, it's not a healthy thing. And then secondly, the urge to go and experience it regardless of what you've heard.

So for instance, rather than saying, hey, something happened at this particular campus, I guess it looks like a move of God. So then people start trying to evaluate, and especially we see in this day where we have access to immediate communication and so forth.

So we try to evaluate whether it's good or bad, which you can't do in the moment. And then secondly, we have to go there. Just because something is good doesn't mean we have to go there. So it becomes our own pilgrimage.

And I always think of the Mount of Transfiguration. When Peter is so in awe of what he's experiencing, he wants to build three tabernacles for Jesus, for Moses, and for Elijah. And the Lord says, no, no, just this is my beloved son, just listen to me.

That's right.

That's so good.

I think when we, in the moment, now what we're gonna be doing obviously is looking at that which has happened in the past.

That's right.

But in the moment for what's going on at Asbury, we pray that these are genuine believers and something is positive happening for them to God be the glory. But we don't need to leave where we are in order to go experience it and to try to make, to determine whether or not it's legitimate.

Yeah.

And I wanna jump on that real quick too, and then I'll hand it over to you, Justin, in that those of us who are trying to, when we say that, in other words, we're not affirming it or denying it, we get criticized for using discernment.

And I just wanna say scripture is very clear that there can be false worshipers and there can be false evidences of the Spirit. This is why Jesus even tells, I'll just jump into this now, the woman at the well, you don't even know what you're worshiping.

Right.

You think you're worshiping God and you're not. And then 1 John says, hey, test the spirits to see if they're actually of the Lord. So using discernment is a part of the Christian practice. This is what we're supposed to do.

Sorry, go ahead, Justin.

No, yeah, I wanna reiterate, because I think this is really important. I think we should be charitable always towards our brothers and sisters in the faith. And we should not presume to know the sovereign hidden will of God and immediately make pronouncements like, well, this clearly is this, or it's clearly not that.

We don't know those things. And so I think we would all be helped to slow down and not be so quick to comment and to be charitable and to assume well of our brothers and sisters, use discernment as we've said.

And Ken, I echo everything that you said, my man. And I think the listener would profit if we would put these things into our practice and not feel the need to speak on everything and also not feel the need to go and experience it and be a part of it, which leads me into the first comment that I would wanna make to anybody that's trying to assess Asbury specifically, or who is trying to assess revivalism in general, revival, the idea of it and the methodology behind it.

It's important that we understand in American Protestantism, historically speaking, there are two distinct traditions. One of those traditions is the revivalistic and pietistic tradition. And we'll talk more about what that is.

The other tradition is the confessional, ordinary means of grace tradition. And so one of the things that we would say, because truth in advertising, the three of us would all understand ourselves to be a part of the latter, the confessional, ordinary means of grace tradition.

What that means in part for us, to your point, Ken, about not having to immediately get in the car and drive to Kentucky to experience a work of God, we ought not feel that need because we understand that in the tradition in which we find ourselves, that we gather every Lord's day in the church and the ordinary means of grace are administered.

And the Lord is faithful to meet us as we gather in his name. And as we sit under the word of Christ preached, as we come to the Lord's table, as we observe even baptism, as we sing, as we pray, as we hear the scripture read, we believe that the Lord ministers to us through those means and he revives us every single Lord's day.

And corporate worship is our lifeline. It's where we come to receive from the ministry of Christ. And so we ought not feel the need immediately to go do this thing, this very subjective experiential thing in order to be legitimately Christ's disciples.

And that's something we wanna set people's consciences free and understand these two distinct traditions. I'll go and maybe tee it up with this too. And then maybe Ken, you or John could comment on this.

Revivalism and pietism go together, historically speaking. I mean, and in one sense, revivalism is just a uniquely kind of English American expression in our context of pietism. And if we observe this historically, and so what revivalism and pietism represent at the most basic level is a subjectivizing of religion where everything becomes about the subject's response to the preaching, or it becomes about the subject's experience of the divine.

It becomes about conversion experience, internal fervor, internal discipline, transformation of my life, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, rather than the emphasis being on the objective work of Christ in the place of the sinner.

And that subjectivizing of religion has not borne good fruit. And that's some of what we're gonna talk about today.

Yeah, and at least for that, the first great awakening Edwards, for one, was conscious of what he perceived to be a deadness, that there was something lacking, whether it's in practice or piety, amongst the colonists.

And so he was concerned that true religion was declining, or at least it wasn't, I guess you could say didn't see enough fruit or whatever. And so when he started preaching in a particular vein, it wasn't with the intention of starting this whole movement but he was reacting to what you guys have called in the past dead orthodoxy in the moment.

And he seemed to feel that the practice and the practice of religion had declined within the colonies. And so he was therefore, that's usually the backdrop. Now, I don't know about the current situation, but that's usually the backdrop.

So when you say pietism, that becomes a way of measuring one's spirituality by subjective internal things, feelings, et cetera, actions or whatever. But yeah, so that's where again, dead orthodoxy holding to sound doctrine, but maybe they didn't feel it was playing itself out in the life of the church and the life of the people.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think revivalism has a history and pietism too, but revivalism always has a history of seeing either dead orthodoxy or a deadness of spirituality or a presence of evil. Cause like in the second great awakening, it feels like they were going after everything.

Just to tear it all down.

And what's interesting is that we would agree, all three of us, that even in our present age, there is sin that's being promoted in churches and that there's not a clear distinction between the law and the gospel.

And there's not, I would even call it law light, right? The law achievable. And we're even questioning on the sufficiency of scripture. We would agree with all of that, but coming in and using law only, or I would even say to use moralism, cause it's not, if you preach the law rightly, you're left desperate, not for moral change, but for gospel life, right?

You're desperate for Christ for you.

That's right.

That's right.

So, my first assessment when I look at this is that, and we can unfold this and some people, they may have a problem with this, but it seems like throughout history, every time there is a proper assessment, there is a problem.

And we would agree there is a problem in America. There's always been a problem in America because there's always been a problem in the world, but there's a problem, right? And let me just pause for a moment.

Because the way you express that, when it comes to a lot of America, there is an assumption, a presupposition that this is a Christian nation.

That's right.

So what we have a tendency to do is look at the problems in America and then assume it's because of a failure of the church. I think if we want to analyze and assess the state of the state, that's one thing, but then we need to assess the state of the church.

That's right.

That's a whole different issue. And so, therefore, when I hear things like, we need to pray for the nation, et cetera, we should pray for the nation.

Always.

But my goal is not to revive the nation. The nation is the nation.

That's right, exactly. Well, and I was saying this on a phone call the other day, and we don't need to get completely derailed in our conversation, but the mission of the kingdom of Christ is not in any way tethered to the stars and stripes.

It's just

And

We're gonna get that now.

But, and we can all talk about the country in which we live and there are good things, there are bad things. I think we all acknowledge this. We can be thankful for some of the freedoms that we have and all of that.

And we're not disparaging our country in saying this, but this is objectively true that the mission of the kingdom of Christ is not tethered to any nation. It's not tethered to any geopolitical entity.

And so, yeah, we need to be thoughtful about that.

Yeah, and that's why I just want to make that distinction because if you want to talk about

Exactly.

Again, going back to, and I think that was part of the problem even at the first great awakening.

Sure.

100%.

There was such presupposition of a presupposed notion that this is the city on the hill that they were analyzing the condition of the church based on what they were seeing in the culture.

Well, and even the subjectivizing of religion as well and in the methodology of revivalism, it's so concerned with the transformation of individuals and the transformation of society through the individual.

We've got to make Christianity incredibly practical in how it manifests itself in the culture. It has always been an emphasis of revivalism. And this is why, I mean, even as we assess history, revivalism and pietism are the reasons why the evangelical church in the States has always hitched its wagon to social and political concerns.

I mean, we can see this historically, and it's not been good for the mission of the church in preserving it, keeping it pure, which is the salvation of God's people through the proclamation of Christ and the administration of the sacraments.

And so I think it's important that we understand, I'm going to kind of maybe conclude my own thoughts on the distinctions between, I'll just go ahead and say it, a reformed theology, piety, and practice and a revivalistic theology, piety, and practice.

Those things are antithetical to one another. They are not the same thing. They're different, right? And so the methodology even, this is maybe where I want to go with the first great awakening and make this comment.

Most people, the reason we're talking about the first great awakening in more specificity is most serious-minded evangelicals in America, I maybe should rephrase, let's just say it this way. The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, anybody who's going to the Ligonier Conference, anybody who's kind of a Calvinistic, serious-minded evangelical is going to have serious concerns with the second great awakening.

The new measures, the new methods introduced there, Charles Finney, all of the Pelagian doctrine that characterized that, the burned-over district, it's terrible. I mean, we all can agree on that. But most Calvinistic evangelicals would champion the first great awakening as this undebatable, great work of God, and everything about it was excellent.

And we would absolutely acknowledge that the Lord clearly did things in and through those people in that period of history. We would absolutely affirm that the doctrine, in terms of, in particular, the soteriology of the first great awakening, the preaching of Whitefield, for example, was excellent in terms of justification by grace through faith in Christ alone, amen.

We affirm all of that. And at the same time, the three of us, and confessional Protestants of that era, have concerns about the methodology wholesale. Because the methodology, even of the first great awakening, was extra ecclesiastical.

It was outside of the local church, and it was outside of the ordinary means of grace the local church gathered to receive from the ministry of Christ and the means of grace. It becomes about this personal experience.

It becomes all about a fiery preacher, and my own feelings, and my experience of the divine, and all of this stuff, and my commitment, my fervor. That's the emphasis. And then that conversion experience is the starting point, and then it's about moral transformation thereafter.

And what gets assumed and obscured in all of that is the ordinary faithfulness of the lives of the saints and the community of the church, and just the objective reality of the fact that Christ did this for you, that the gospel is news about something that's been done.

There's nothing we contribute. There's nothing we add to it. It simply is news to be believed, received, trusted, rested in. That gets obscured in the whole methodology and project of revivalism.

If you're new to Theocast, we have a free ebook available for you called Faith Versus Faithfulness, A Primer on Rest. And if you've struggled with legalism, a lack of assurance, or simply want to know what it means to live by faith alone, we wrote this little book to provide a simple answer from a Reformed confessional perspective.

You can get your free copy at theocast .org slash primer.

Means of grace are undermined in terms of being totally sufficient for the health and wellbeing of the saints, as well as the vitality of the church. You know, the importance of the church gathered, and in its ordinary gathering, rather than gathering outside of the church for an event.

And that really becomes, those become the building blocks for what would become the Second Great Awakening. So it starts in the First Great Awakening, these meetings, it did actually start in the churches, but then Whitfield, by the time he came over from England, you know, he was not, he was no longer part of the Church of England, or sort of.

And he's preaching open air, and he's going into areas that are not necessarily in the church. Whereas with Edwards, it starts with a series of meetings in churches, but with Whitfield, it becomes a non-church event.

That's right.

And then he becomes the center of attraction.

Sure.

Great preaching, you know, but he becomes, some say, the first American celebrity.

Yeah.

Doing it outside of the church. And then when you counterbalance what's going on in Europe at the time, even with problems in France, and humanism on the rise, and there was sort of a rebellion against the authority of the church, it's sort of the individualism that is promoted by the First Great Awakening that kind of tracks with them.

Yes. The, yeah, I was gonna say real quick,.

What's interesting, if you go throughout history, you can see pendulum swings based upon bad theology. I've experienced this in my own life, grew up in a very legalistic home, kind of swung over the other direction.

I never became like antinomian, but I was affectionate towards it because I was so appalled by legalism. And then this happens even, so you got bad theology, dead orthodoxy, or kind of the church has lost its way in a sense.

And so it swings over to like, every day needs to be Christmas. That's the experience euphorically. Whereas in our culture, that wouldn't even work. We would fall apart just as a human being. Every day can't be Christmas, but having it once a day is great.

And having a moment in your Christian life where there might be this celebration or the Holy Spirit works in a certain way, that's great. But when you are told that every day must be that way, it creates a false relationship.

Every day must be equally dynamic.

That's right.

And charismatic.

Yeah. Right.

And it makes sense when you're talking about how it starts with Jonathan Edwards in the church, and then Whitefield is outside the church. You know, Whitefield is responding to the Church of England. He's like, I don't like that.

And if you'll notice, anytime you see a movement and it's disconnected from the church, I don't know if it can be sustained because historically it hasn't because God moves through his church. So it's fascinating to me, like even with Osbury, it's gonna be fascinating to watch that because it's not necessarily a church movement.

Exactly.

I hope it moves into the church because that's where the authority of the elders and the word of God and the sacraments and preaching and teaching and the one another is supposed to take place and the spirit can be seen there.

And that's where I would agree with you guys that the revivalism, it was more of entertaining experience than it was God moving his church to advance the kingdom.

Well, and even in the First Great Awakening, even with Whitefield, Ken, you basically said this. You know, the way that this went down, and I think a lot of the concerns of confessional Protestants of the day were that Whitefield's methods, of course, are outside the local church, but they're also dependent, at least in part, on drawing crowds and keeping crowds via excitement and energy, right?

And so a couple of comments here. I think that one of the bad fruits of revivalism is even how we think about the measure of ministry. It became, the measure of ministry was no longer faithful proclamation of law and gospel in the context of the local church.

No longer just faithful administration of the sacraments. No longer was an ordinary Christian life just faithfulness in the context of the local church. No longer was that sufficient. The measure of ministry became really how much religious enthusiasm and how much religious experience are you creating?

That's a successful ministry. Or basically a level of religious enthusiasm or religious excitement or a personal experience of the divine became the measuring stick of a faithful Christian life, a good Christian life.

And I think that, I'm thinking about Ian Murray's book, Revival and Revivalism, right now. So Ian is really dear brother in Christ and has written a number of wonderful things, but he is gonna be very sympathetic toward the first great awakening and how he writes about it.

And one of the things that even he acknowledges is that, of course, sound doctrine is necessary for revival, right? Sound soteriology is necessary for revival. But what gave the first great awakening its power was the personal religious experience of the revivalists.

That's problematic, right? Because now the tie that binds is not doctrine. The tie that binds is not right practice. It's a common heightened personal experience of the divine.

Yeah, can I make a point biblical to that? It's like, if you want a case study in the Bible, it's like, let's interview Jonah. So Jonah, talk to us just about how you got this whole city to repent here because his experience, he was angry and he did not wanna be there.

And that's what you call the work of God because in spite of Jonah, the city was saved, right? And it seems like the experience is the opposite of like, look what's happened to me, this should happen to you as well.

Ordinary churchly devotion, just it doesn't sell in a revivalistic context. And everything has to be, it's individualistic, like you said, Ken, and it's very subjective and it's about experience and it's about intensity and all these things.

And no wonder, two, three centuries removed from these movements that we're discussing. If you were to talk to the average American evangelical, they're not gonna be certain as to whether the preaching of law and gospel and the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper or their own personal quiet time and going and serving at the homeless shelter downtown are more important.

They're not gonna know which is more primary to being a Christian.

Yeah, that's what ends up happening when these extraordinary things, these extraordinary moments, even if it started in a legitimate way, there is this internal subjective feeling and overwhelming feeling of joy or whatever.

But when you have these things, when they become the standard, then if that's what draws the people, then that becomes what people try to replicate. And they try to replicate it for themselves or that becomes the new norm.

And so everyone is being held to that standard. Every preacher is being held to the standard of this professional evangelist, this itinerary evangelist in terms of passion or emotion. And we evaluate the legitimacy of the message and the worship experience based on whether or not you give me the same feelings.

No, that's right. If you're chasing those goosebumps.

Yeah.

The deliverance.

Yeah. That's right.

If you look at the Reformation, what's interesting about that is that there was a movement there and there was an excitement there too because it was an excitement about the liberation of assurance and the gospel, right?

We were separating the law from the gospel. Luther had a fascinating experience through that. He wasn't trying to create a revival. He was trying to pull the gospel out from underneath the law and it just liberated so many people.

And I mean, Calvin had a massive church planning movement that came out of that. And so to say that Reformation or to say that Orthodoxy, true gospel preaching creates boredom and creates people who care less about holiness or the advancement of the gospel is to deny the Reformation and its history.

And I would say that we don't need revivalism in order for the gospel to be advanced around the world. We need to use God's word as it was designed. In other words, America, and I think any country that has been influenced by revivalism needs a Reformation, which is what I think we should probably talk about a little bit just about how a lot of what ends up happening in revivalism is so close scripturally and it sounds so close, but yet if we don't use discernment, we can easily be duped.

And I just have to read a couple of passages. I did a sermon on this recently. And there's a reason why Peter and Paul say things like this, because it's true. Like for instance, we'll just do 1 John.

He says, beloved, do not believe every spirit. And what he means by that is somebody who's saying, this is a work of the spirit. This is definitely a work of the spirit. He says, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.

In other words, examine them along with scripture and say, all right, let's see if this lines up. Or 1 Thessalonians 5 .21, when Paul says, but test everything and hold fast to what is good. And I think there's nothing wrong.

Sometimes people say, well, how can you deny this as a work of God? And it's like, listen, it is incumbent upon believers with as what Justin said, with gentleness, meekness. This James describes that as wisdom, right?

Meekness, gentleness, and open to reason. We do need to test everything because if it seems extraordinary and maybe outside of the normal sense, there should be a little bit of a caution. If someone comes running into my church and tells me, I died in the parking lot and now I'm alive.

And I'm like, great. Let's talk about that for a moment before I'm just gonna accept that carte blanche.

Yeah, I mean, even great observation. I'm even thinking about 1 John, testing the spirits and all. In the context of that letter, what is John started with and what does he say throughout? He emphasizes that Christ came in the flesh, that he didn't just seem to be human, right?

But he came in the flesh and that he is the propitiation for our sins. He also, we are testifying that sins committed in the body really matter. That this kind of inner enlightenment is not just the spiritual plane and all this kind of stuff is all that matters.

No, that's not true. Like we really are sinners. We all have sin. And the things that we do are really sin. And it matters how we live, right? But we're confessing that Christ came in the flesh, that he's a propitiation for our sins and that because we're sinners, we need him.

And so we gotta test the spirits. If anything that's being said is contradictory to that, we got a problem.

Well, the flip side of that, the flip side of that. And second Thessalonians, when Paul writes about lying signs and wonders, which he says, God puts them under a strong delusion that they would believe the lie rather than the truth.