BOOK REVIEW | Revival and Revivalism

By Bryan Kim

Rarely does a study of history not only inform the mind but also move the heart. Sinclair Ferguson says about Revival and Revivalism: “This is not merely a record of the church’s past. Rather, those who read it will soon realise that it provides a key to understanding contemporary evangelism and its deep needs. It may not be too much to claim that this volume is essential reading for Christians who desire true revival in the churches of our own day.”

Murray traces the phenomena of genuine revivals in American history before examining how a very different phenomenon of “revivalism” came to be birthed in their midst. With careful historical research backed up by copious data from primary sources, Murray shows how evangelicalism became “marred”. Leaders fell for the temptation of thinking that they had the means to bring on revival. From then on, not only did church practices begin to be corrupted but also its theology. Conversion came to be thought of as no longer a work of God who alone could regenerate sinners so that they could repent and believe in Christ, but merely an act of the will to choose Christ. Thus, it became acceptable for a person to be emotionally manipulated to make a “decision for Christ”, and this was seen as sufficient evidence for someone’s conversion.

As with Murray’s other works, his writing style tends to be a bit dense. Readers are required to work hard to try and understand his point, perhaps because of his tendency to ramble. But as usual, like his other works, the labour is well worth the effort. The historical facts usually contain some encouragement, and we can be grateful that he has recorded things that are not likely to appear in other current publications.

Murray’s basic approach is chronological, enhancing readability by giving a sense of a developing narrative. We are first given accounts of genuine revival in the late 18^th century before he turns to narrate the marring of evangelicalism in the early 19th century amid the genuine revival of the Second Great Awakening.

The book is worth its price for the first half alone which traces the revivals of the late 18^th Century. It gives ample encouragement for us to keep working hard in the God-ordained means of prayer and preaching in the hope that God may bring about revival again today.

But the big payload is in the second half of the book which chronicles how leaders lost their way. Where once intense emotions were not considered as any necessary sign of conversion, leaders mistook these for genuine signs of conversion and something to try to induce. If people could be induced to make decisions for Christ by bringing them forward through the means of “anxious seats” and “altar calls”, then revival itself could be induced by man-made means.

The obvious conclusion to be made after reading the book is that evangelicalism still suffers today from this 19^th century marring. “Revival meetings”, altar calls, counting conversions by people having prayed a particular prayer or having come forward at altar calls, are very much late innovations that may have little to do with genuine Christianity. The effects of “revivalism” has also meant that we have become far too obsessed with “special” events at the expense of the “ordinary” ministry of the word.

I’d like to share two other things that particularly impacted me.

First, it was abundantly clear that Reformed and Presbyterian churches do not suffer in any essential way from an inability to evangelise. Individual hyper-Calvinistic churches may indeed exist who do not believe that we ought to use the means of prayer and preaching to save souls, but I am still yet to see one. To be Reformed does not in its essence mean that we reject means. Indeed, genuine revivals more often than not occurred among Calvinistic churches. Murray notes that William Sweet, a church historian from a Methodist background, once remarked: “It is an interesting fact that most of the great American revival movements have come largely through Presbyterianism, and the great Revival in the West is no exception.” Charles Finney popularised the idea that revival could not occur among churches of Calvinistic persuasion, but he himself was converted during a revival in a Presbyterian church, a fact that he neglects to mention in his own works.  We no longer need to think that Presbyterians are reliant on Arminian churches to make converts. We ought not rely on our Pentecostal friends to covert souls with our role being to bring them to maturity. We have a great heritage of witnessing God’s power to convert souls through our ministry.

The second was a personal challenge to me as a minister of the word: whether I had unconsciously imbibed a “revivalistic” theology of conversion. I have always thought it a mistake to make too hard a distinction between God’s choosing us and our choosing Christ, such that we erroneously claim that we do not choose Christ at all in our conversion. Yet, I have perhaps imbibed the “revivalism” belief that if someone does choose Christ, this in and of itself should be seen to be the work of God and entail conversion. On the contrary, one may choose Christ in the flesh and not as result of the Spirit. One may have chosen to believe merely because he felt particularly needy on a particular day. Thus, my job as a preacher is not to get people to “cross the line” and persuade them to choose Christ, as if by choosing they can then be assured of salvation. My job as a preacher is rather to make people aware of their sinfulness, their total hopelessness without Christ and their need for him, and obligation to trust him. It is the work of the Spirit to carry out this work of conviction and bring about true repentance and faith. Only in this way can we experience assurance through the Spirit.

I was particularly impacted by how in earlier revivals, ministers did not try to alleviate the distress that people felt on account of the just judgement of God. They did not lead people too quickly to the teaching that they need no longer be distressed because of Christ. They left that in God’s hands who would bring about the experience of peace by working faith in Christ in his own time. For example, Murray shares Asahel Nettleton’s account where distress during one meeting was so great that the Christians dreaded the thought of attending the next:

“They could hardly endure the thought of passing through such a scene of distress a second time … I felt the same reluctance. But to the astonishment of all, instead of an anxious, we had a joyful meeting. Most of those in such distress at our last meeting for inquirers, had found relief, and were exceeding joyful. What an astonishing change in one week! I felt that it could hardly be possible. We had lost our anxiety, and had little else to do but to render united thanks to God for what He had done.” (p216)

Indeed, it was only because leaders lost their nerve and felt that they needed to reduce people’s anxiety that they endorsed “revivalistic” practices which told these “anxious” souls that they should stand up and come forward. Such people were virtually assured of their salvation. It was this shortcut to assurance that more mature ministers felt that people were being made into false converts. Asahel Nettleton, for example, is recorded to have said: “These individuals are thus distressed, not because they have religion, but because they have no religion.” (p.211) That is, distress is not a mark of having true faith but the lack of it.

I have one comment about Murray’s treatment of prayer. Is prayer a sure means to revival? I don’t think the author sufficiently clarified the role of prayer. While he makes no bones about how prayer can’t be relied upon in any kind of mechanical cause-and-effect way to bring on revival, and further how the spirit of prayer that accompanied revival was itself brought on because the revival was already assuredly coming. Yet he could have stressed that revivals were usually preceded by prayer. They did not occur without a renewed spirit of prayer. In our rather prayerless age surely more should be mentioned about the fact that without earnest prayer we have little reason to expect revival! It may be that there is no guarantee of revival even if we do pray, yet that should not discourage us from praying. The key is to pray with an attitude of submission: “Lord, please grant your church revival. Please grant an outpouring of your Spirit. Yet not my will, but yours.”

It is true that we may be so sinful that it is impossible to pray without some sinful expectation that God ought to serve our will. Yet the risk of that outcome ought not discourage prayer. God has a way of purifying us and purifying our desires to the satisfaction of our purified desires and to his glory.

In conclusion, I heartily recommend this book for every Christian concerned about evangelism and revival. C. S. Lewis commented: “We all want progress. But… if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road…” For those wanting genuine revival, it is imperative to see whether Murray is right about whether our practices and theology on evangelism and revivals have come from a late innovation arising from man and not from God.

This review was first published on the AP website: https://ap.org.au/2025/11/25/15783/