Extremes of Revival vs Tradition in the Church

(Just a humorous picture of tradition, not necessarily tied to this piece. Found on despair.com)


A Conversation on Revival vs. Tradition

"Revival! Revival!"  That's all we need.  Collectively.  That's all the church needs.  That's all our families need. That's all our singles need.  That's all our children need.  That's all the world needs.

At least that's what I'm told.

This "revival" seems to call for certain necessary results.  "Revival" may be seen through rising church attendance, miraculous healings, unprecedented abundance of funds, renewal of emotional connections, rebirth of repentance, uncontrollable actions motivated by waves of either desperate joy or desperate sadness, unexplainable demonstrations of non-restraint, etc.

Then there's another side.  This side avoids revolution, and more.  This side avoids change of any kind.  The battle cry belonging to this side screams "Tradition! Tradition!"  That's all we need.  Collectively.  That's all the church needs.  That's all our families need. That's all our singles need.  That's all our children need.  That's all the world needs.

Or so I've heard.

This "tradition" seems to beg for certain required consequences.  "Tradition" may be seen in dedicated members, recurring prayers, comfortable means, old and familiar connections, steady conviction, controlled action motivated by histories and facts, explainable demonstrations of restraint, etc.

Both revival and tradition have been painted as extremes within the church.  Yet unfortunately, these extreme definitions of revival and tradition have been poorly assigned to their terms.  In fact, whether or not it's always identified as the culprit, I feel confidant in supposing that a great deal of church splits occur as a result of these flawed definitions.  If he who defines the terms defines the debate, then we need to reevaluate our terms and see if and where we need correction.   The overarching point forthcoming asserts that revival cannot truly exist without tradition just as tradition cannot be effective without revival.  However, before delving into how true revival and tradition need one another; we must first pinpoint the misconceptions concerning each of these terms apart from the other.  We must examine possible problems within the specific fields of these notions before we can jump to the general truths associated with the partners, revival and tradition.

Who am I?

First off, before looking at the terms cohesively and even before examining any theory or philosophy, I hope you have already questioned, who I am.  Who am I to even speak upon this matter as if I had some authority in defining what God's magnificent and even mysterious truth is?  Well, I am nobody.  I could be considered educated to a degree, but I am hardly confident in my personal knowledge.  I am not of vast intellect.  I have a hard time communicating the great things I feel a calling toward.  And the amount of facts, ideas, revelations, and inspirations I have to learn far surpasses what I may ever be able to know.  However, I am a learner.  I am an observer.  And I have attended and observed and recalled and questioned and examined and partaken in a large host of denominations and "non-denominations," as the case may be.  This does not give me authority in the sense that I consider myself an authority figure.  However it gives me opportunity in the sense that I consider myself challenged and called to assert that which I have come to understand.  And with such calling, I find that I am also willing to defend and discuss my beliefs so that God’s truth may be more deeply revealed.  If I am wrong, then let my errors come to the surface, so that His truth may increase and the half-truths, which we’ve deemed acceptable, may be identified and obliterated.  I would simply like to create a discussion on the ideas at hand. This topic has grown in me over the past five or six years, and I feel now this matter has grown in popular culture among Christian authors like Don Miller and controversial discussions in Bible study groups all over. I would be remiss if I didn't throw in on such an interesting and intangible subject matter. Now on to identifying the truths and misconceptions behind the terms “revival” and “tradition.”

Revival

Revival has been associated with revolution.  The two facets of modern revival that I have come across most are one connecting prosperity with revival and one connecting behavioral extroversion with revival.
As for the former type of revival, in many modern churches people have assumed that revival is directly related to church attendance and the expansion of the churches’ coffers.  If the sanctuary is not filled to maximum capacity then surely we’re doing something wrong.  Right?  Perhaps there are not enough activities.  Perhaps the building is not appealing enough.  Perhaps the ministries available are too few or too boring or too immaterial for the masses.  Perhaps the pastor is too mainstream or not mainstream enough.  Perhaps the music is too slow or too fast.  Perhaps the message isn’t comforting.  Perhaps the message does too much comforting.  Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

Or just maybe, perhaps, the filling of seats is not the issue we were meant to worry about.  In fact, I would suggest that the number of people in the church is the last issue we would have need to worry over.  Rather, let’s look at the hearts of those already in attendance.  Let us look at our own hearts.  You see, revival should not be about something new.  Revival is about something old, very old.  Revival is the renewing of an old thing.  Revival is not the sparking of a new fire, but the rekindling of a dwindling flame.  And this challenge is one that must manifest itself in the hearts of the dedicated, the tried, the tired.  Not necessarily a general incoming mass of new believers.  The incoming of new believers can only be an effect, an afterthought, a consequence of revived believers.  Revival in the heart of one Christian should inspire another until the church finds itself full of convicted, motivated, and steadfast believers out to make a difference in their sphere of influence.  New believers cannot appear unless this revival begins at the home level or covenantal level, this meaning the binding of lives between one or more people and God. 

Now most pastors and churches understand this idea, the idea that the revival starts small then ought to move out to the public.  Most understand that an eventual result of revival should be higher attendance due to the spreading and dispersing of a revived gospel.  So up until this point, I am not saying anything too surprising.  But here’s the issue.  While most church leaders recognize the connection between revival starting small in the homes of its members and moving out to the public, many churches have a problem with skipping steps.  They cry, “Revival!  Revival!  Revival!” But they forget to work on the whole discipleship part.  Many churches forget to name and identify the path to true revival.  The result is an emotional charge of agreement and excitement and readiness.  Yet when you skip steps, you end up in places you were not aiming for.  In fact you lose footing and often fall right back to the starting point.  
From this point, we can see the second type of modern revival take shape. Members feel this emotional rush and recognize the longing in their hearts to fulfill their calling in reaching a lost world, but after the service, after the prayer, after the worship, after the thrill, a silence overtakes them.  An emptiness of resolve washes over their hopes.  They feel the need, but they cannot locate the understanding.  They feel the passion, but they cannot grasp the tenacity.  They feel the hope, but they cannot shake the hopelessness.  The tools for personally and consciously grasping truth are just out of reach. This mindset can leave individuals thinking that they must not be truly "worshiping" if they aren't raising their hands or dancing in aisles or speaking in tongues. You must not be doing it right if others can't see blatant expressions of your resolve. And while I do adhere to the idea that a living tree will bare fruit that matches, said fruit may not look like the fruit on our neighbors tree. Therefore, comparing fruit--ways of worshiping, gifts of the Spirit, capacity of sacrifices--can be a wasted or even deadly pastime. This constant striving without change can result in a constant feeling of guilt. They might always feel like they're in the wrong, but they cannot grasp what to change. They feel the struggle between their humanity and their desire to please God, but they can't see the path to recovery. They speak the language of repentance, but know not the life of repentance. Every week, they hear the message of grace and are reminded of their own sins. Every week, they feel the ache from the consequences of their sins and the hurt it must cause their God. And every week, they return to their own acknowledgement of all they lack. This weekly ritual would be profitable if only every week also connected with some real change. The revival church leaders want to lean on seems to be that ever-present guilt. Grace covers them in the moment. It lends peace for the moment. But throughout the rest of the week, grace is tainted and used more as justification for personal appeasement. Then that guilt weighs back in like a torment rising up from the depths.

This process leads to Christians speaking fluent "christian-ese," but carrying an unfortunate lack of knowledge when it comes to backing up their own beliefs. Individuals who take "revival" to the extreme of its parameters can say phrases which beg of others not to "speak lies into one's life" or on the other side to "speak truth into one's life" or to "stay on the straight and narrow" or to "let the Spirit move" or to "let go, and let God" or to "lay hands" or to "be a spiritual warrior" and the list goes on. None of these phrases are wrong. None of these notions are in-it-of-themselves misguided. But they can be misguiding. If not rooted in knowledge of the truth, they are just empty phrases that help us wade through the tides of life. But they won't help carry us out past the shore.
My favorite quote that brings some clarity to this reality is from The History of Rasselas when the astronomer states, "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful" (Johnson 129).

Many churches have this strong desire to improve the integrity of their church, but focus on their attendance to do so. The integrity of their "revival" is based on how loud the church praises and the amount of money they pull in when it's time to take offering. But the integrity is a false front because it has no source of knowledge. Scriptures are taken out of context. The "movement of the Spirit" is only used to justify a means to an end. And accordingly, the language developed in a church that is full of false integrity is one void of meaning. The result is dreadful and dangerous, weak and useless.

If a church can get back to the heart of what is important, if it can reveal truth and simply let it speak for itself rather than dressing it up in attractions, if it can avoid the seduction of a quickly built up and even more quickly torn down revolution, if it can understand that revival is not the start of something new but the spurring on of something very old, if it can be patient in building up disciples rather than stealing for peaking attendance charts…

If God became the focus of church, revival may become real.  Revival may retrieve its great power and result.

Tradition 

Tradition. Ah, tradition. It is hard for me to speak on this topic long without wanting to break into a chorus from Fiddler on the Roof. But this topic is steeped in numerous layers of value, beauty, grandeur, and meaning. Just the word tradition brings warmth to my heart because of its connections to the past and the future. It is a link into the past. It gives meaning and life to the majority of our actions, both religious and non. Without tradition, we would be a wandering world. Every culture, tribe, and tongue would be without nationality, expression, history, and in turn, without rhyme or reason. Not every tradition we support as individuals or as a culture is supported by reason, but the use of every tradition does provide a form of reason for every individual or culture. The basis of a tradition teaches its partakers the history of their people. It shows what a culture or family values. It is the quickest way cut through the fat and get to the heart of a person's identity within their own world. And respecting these traditions is a vital instrument in discovering the lessons that past generations have already come across. So in short, traditions should be considered invaluable to any church.

The difficulty arises when tradition replaces God. This dilemma has resulted in YouTube hits like:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

People have come to assume that "tradition" and "religion" are synonymous. This assumption can be rather damning in application. Religion is simply anyone's belief system. A devout atheist can be very religious. Their religious code may not include a higher authority or a need to attend a local church, but they do find an authority figure to answer to and they do develop a circle of friends or support. Any belief system is a religion. So first of all, you can't "hate" religion in that sense. That notion would be the equivalent to hating free thinking, belief, or identity. It doesn't make sense. Rather, specifically the individual in this video seems to hate tradition. While it saddens me that tradition could be cast in such a disparaging light, I can concur with the fact that traditions can be performed with a separation from life. In the Christian church this deadness in tradition is despicable. At best, it's lip service. At worst, it's sacrilegious. When we begin to numbly follow tradition void of the life in which those traditions were born, we are killing off the church. We are killing off our spirits. We are the lifeless, breathless, uninspired children of a lost cause. The point of communion is lost on us. The beauty of sacrifice is spoiled. The notion of giving becomes utterly selfish in nature. Our history is dead, lessons unlearned, and past un-lived. Tradition is meant to be rooted in life, wonder, marvel, and most of all, story-telling! We have the great gift, in this age of information, to have access to limitless libraries of stories, but we are content, for example, to pay our tithes and condemn those who don't, without understanding of what it means to truly give--not just of our wallets, but of our lives. With just the smallest amount of research, we have access to some of the most beautiful stories of giving that one could ever conceive possible. Each encounter that our children have with a past tradition should leave us over-joyed at the opportunity to open up the dusty pages of someone's life--a life lived by a saint or sinner who came to face God in such a triumphant manner that it impressed a change in our culture's way of living. Yet the modern church has come to know "tradition" as a sort of death to revival. Many churches use tradition as a bat made specifically for dead horses. They cry, "Tradition! Tradition! Tradition!" But they know not where their traditions come from. They know nothing of the beautiful tapestry into which they were born or adopted. They deny their own glory by marring a notion like tradition with a lack of interest in the unfolding of their belief systems. And then they do the unthinkable, they use tradition as a big boulder to hide behind when they feel God's gaze come their direction. The deny the newness of growth and change because it doesn't fit in their repertoire of "the known ways God moves." They force the grandness of God into a little box that meets their immediate needs. It works like a track their ancestors dug feet deep into the ground. They claim that the track only moves forward and backward, so there's no need to seek God outside of that track even though He may be calling us from all angles. We are only comfortable with the track we are in already. They refuse the great challenge of their own history which begs of them to apply the lesson of their traditions in new and uncharted territory. What else can be expected but that traditions exist in a dead zone, when we refuse the opportunity to be rejuvenated in the movement of the Spirit. How sad that such a precious tool for light and life could be used in such a negative and even detrimental way. If God became the focus of church, tradition may become real.  Tradition may retrieve its great power and result.

In summary, may we cling to tradition with a fervor for life, and may we seek revival with a tenacity for the daily grind that is change. May we learn the lessons of our past and praise God through the traditions that highlight His glory. May we understand that revival is not just a mantra we claim in the church building. And may we praise God through a desire to daily transform ourselves by the renewing of our minds.