Originally posted on the old CP blog in July of 2008.

Only days before he had shown up just in time for the first of a series of revival meetings. At first he remained somewhat hesitant, only standing and observing from the back. Today, however, he walked proudly up to the front dressed in a full suit, touting an extremely large Bible and firmly shaking the hands of all who greeted him with sense of accomplishment. It was the ideal, “prodigal comes home” storyline, and a model for the instantaneous transformation that was to be brought about by such a revival. I do not doubt that his actions were viewed as external evidence giving some form of validation to the hype.

As I watched all that was happening around me, the question weighed on my mind, “Is this all that it’s really about?” Could it be possible that we were so conditioned to perform under the given conditions and act in accordance to what we knew would transpire during each individual service? For years I viewed each service with increasing skepticism; questioning the legitimacy of the practices employed to evoke, what I perceived to be, automated responses. Everyone knew who would be speaking (for the most part). Everyone knew the songs that would be selected for such an occasion. Each night could be predicted based on what had transpired in prior years over the course of the past decade – like a perfectly calculated formula.

This young man had caught on to what I would later come to understand as American revivalism. He was a quick learner, only taking a mater of days to catch on. This along with other observations produced within me a deep seeded sadness as my skepticism eventually lead to an identity crisis which, by God’s grace, I was rescued from, as He lead me through what I can only surmise as a theological reformation. I am now grieved at such occasions. More than ever, I see the trappings of this type of revival rollercoaster. Each year an expectation builds around a particular week of services as the high water mark for spiritual encounters. The expectation of being “touched” builds as congregants anticipate what will transpire. This sort of behavior is encouraged under the theological mantra “God works because of your expectations.”

Further fueling the anticipation of “experience,” was the hope of many, that this could be “the time” when everything changes. This could be the time when I finally have a victory once and for all over the sin I have struggled with. Now, all of a sudden, study and devotion will become easier and I can achieve my best life now. This could be the service where a minister will pronounce a divine revelation over my life and all my financial problems will be solved. Many come seeking a special “word from the Lord”, while their Bible sits beside them

Many men and women will come hungry needing to be feed and instead of feeding upon an exposition of scripture, instead of a clear presentation of the gospel, instead of Biblical instruction on indwelling sin, the promise of sanctification, and the hope of resurrection and glorification, participants will be drawn into an emotional dependence upon (not-so) spontaneous spiritual encounters. The response to such an encounter is laid out perfectly by the right setting and mood music. Lofty promises and the perfect blend of guilt and persuasion are administered to spectators in order to elicit an adherence to the current spiritual climate.

It may be said that I can not judge, based upon the external evidence presented, whether or not internal change had taken place. With that I whole heartedly agree. In fact, that is my point in citing the example above. To cite a subjective experience, whether genuine or not, does not provide the theological evidence required to validate such extra-biblical methods being employed.

I could also perceive the charge being brought at this conjuncture that I am limiting the means by which the Holy Spirit moves among men. How can the Spirit be limited by himself? It was the very Spirit of God who divinely inspired the authors of scripture and in doing so, identified his ministry with that which has been revealed to us. It is only through the special revelation in scripture that we are able to comprehend any portion of the Spirit’s work. We are given the testimony of the Holy Spirit in scripture to distinguish the truth from the counterfeit.

It is true that the Sprit will come along side of us and aid our pursuit of the Holy Trinity through scripture. I will be the first to strongly state that we are dependant upon the Spirit’s work. But defending a special utterance from a minister with the use of scripture is doing nothing more than submitting scripture underneath our subjective experience.

It was always the hope that the level of enthusiasm achieved by such a revival meeting would remain present within the congregation long after the special services had stopped. Initially this was my hope as well. Early on, I was convinced that this was indeed what God wanted. However, after years of seeing this cycle repeated, I began to call into question what I observed around me. Although this reflection began as an exercise in pragmatism, it later evolved into a tenacious theological pursuit. One of my biggest concerns was directed towards those, who with the most sincere heart, follow the theology and philosophy of revival inspired, experience based spirituality, and in doing so, were held captive by it’s vicious cycle.

Being that many come looking for such experience, the minister presiding over meetings such as these is, in essence, held responsible for the eventual outcome. There is an enormous amount of pressure to perform and provide the exciting environment that has come to be expected. This sort of environment is a breeding ground for pragmatism.

Not to excuse myself from any accusation of pragmatism. I am very guilty of experimentation and using whatever worked. Howeve
r, by this time in my own reformation journey, I was beginning to look and long for stability and worship with a robust Biblical and historical legacy. It was at this point that I couldn’t see a truly God centered meeting or service coming to the point to where any means necessary would be used to create the type of emotional response that was desired. The determining factor of what is considered to be true is that which works. The long-term consequences aren’t weighed against expediency.

The question remains, “does worship work?” Is the worship of God something that we can experiment with in order that man is best served? My answer to that is no. There are long term consequences that will eventually take their toll. These types of pragmatic philosophy will eventually deteriorate all forms of truth because truth will become relative to the experience of the individual.

Synergism as we know it has taken over most worship circles. We are quickly losing any sense of a call to worship. After all, “we” are the reason we are there. Historical creed and confessions are being giving way to what ever presuppositions we are inclined to bring not only to our worship gathering but scripture as well. And lastly, we have lost any notion of legacy. We have forfeited our future in return for the freedom to worship in whatever way we find most pleasing. May future generations forgive us!

When it comes to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, it is impossible to find a more sure rock bed outside of the simple beauty of the gospel. The proclamation of this truth is an absolute prerequisite necessary for conversion, the means by which the Holy Spirit draws one to faith and the overarching message commissioned to the church to propagate to the ends of the earth. Its beauty lies within it’s simplicity as well as its profundity. The gospel is such that, in the words of Martin Luther, “a simple plowboy can understand”, and yet is so profound that some of the greatest minds in history have spent their entire lives expounding upon the richness of a salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

It is scarcely possible to understate the importance of the most basic understanding of the gospel by a professing believer. In Romans 1:16 Paul clearly identifies the gospel as “the power of God unto salvation”, with the antithesis being, that outside of the one true gospel, salvation is not possible. This statement presupposes divine inspiration and authority of scripture over such matters. Given that position, this statement by Paul clearly emphasizes the importance of a correct understanding of the gospel, outside of which, there can be no reconciliation with a just and holy God. In other words, there is only one way that salvation can be preached to fallen humanity – that is the one true gospel revealed through sacred scripture. To redefine that message in any way, is not scriptural, is not Christianity, and offers nothing to aid our fallen condition and separation from our creator. It would be similar to a doctor offering a lollypop to a cancer patient. It may look good, sound good and taste good, but it does nothing to treat the disease that is destroying them from the inside. This is a sobering matter that we must contend with and a wake up call for a generation of evangelicals who have taken the gospel for granted.

It is on this point that I would like to begin a series of posts in which I intend to chronicle some of the issues I was forced to wrestle with in my journey into reformed theology. Although an understanding of the gospel is not exclusive to the reformed or Calvinist position, the lack of a clear understanding of the gospel within modern evangelicalism was one the primary catalysts that provoked me to find answers to what I had only just assumed. This is an issue that has become of greater concern as I see a lack of the centrality of the gospel within the broad scope of the church in America. That, along with a continual redefining of what the gospel means, is, and does, brings into question whether or not we have lost the true meaning of the gospel.

Four years ago I received an email from a friend who sought my help to answer a church related question. He wanted to know what would classify a church as “preaching the gospel”. At the time he was seeing a young woman who had made it clear, that in order for her to attend any given church, they must preach the gospel. As I answered his question I realized that “preaching the gospel” means something entirely different depending on which church environment or denomination you are referring to. I proceeded to give him possible definitions based on possible churches that she might have been referring to. As I did so, two things became increasingly clear: first, it is impossible to have multiple definitions to what the gospel is and each be correct; and second, if I was to be honest, I had to confess that I couldn’t provide a clear, concise definition of the gospel either.

It was true that I could define some of the basic principles of the gospel, but I lacked the categories and clarity to understand the centrality of the gospel within the life of a believer. I assumed the gospel and then moved on to other matters which were seemingly more important. I was guilty of what C.S. Lewis coined as “Christianity and.”  It was the a unclear definition of the gospel combined with a confusing montage of other requirements for a believer (baptism of the Holy Spirit, gifts of the Spirit, strange forms of legalism, emphasis on the immediate and emotional, health and wealth). I had become accustomed to hearing the gospel referred to in different contexts, by different people, using different methods, and in different ways. Because of this, I had taken an actual understanding for granted. I was more concerned with higher, more spiritual matters. The great truth of gospel was being choked out by addendums tacked on by well meaning men and women who didn’t realize the weeds that were being sown.

Because so many churches have lost the centrality of the gospel within the scope of their ministry, I was able to minister in some fashion on a weekly basis and still not articulate the foundational truths of the gospel with any sort of clarity. I would pick the flavor of the week so to speak. This isn’t to say that I didn’t understand the basic categories of creation, fall, sin, the cross, resurrection, ascension, and the second coming; but rather I had only heard those referred to in regards to a subjective experience. You would hear some of the biblical terminology referring to the gospel within the presentation, but it never seemed to be the focal point. It never was about what Jesus did, unless of course, that was used within the context of what he will do for your life now.

Coming to the realization that I had difficulty defining the gospel produced within me a mixture of emotions. In one sense I was deeply ashamed for operating in the role of a shepherd when I myself needed so much guidance in these matters of utmost importance. In another sense I was very angry with those who had taught me so much for so long but didn’t help me to clearly understand the gospel. Finally, I was stirred. Something deep within me was shaken up by this realization. I could no longer sit complacently and only assume what cost my Savior His life.

By the grace of God I became a devote student of scripture and of historical protestant theology. This is a work that must be attributed to Divine initiative. Prior to my reformational journey, I could never be considered much of a disciplined student. In fact, I was a mode
l of academic apathy. However, this instance was a different matter. Over the next year and a half I read, listened to, and studied through everything that I could get my hands on. I began to see what I had assumed for so long now stood in stark contrast to what I seeing throughout the pages of scripture. I also began to seek out Godly men who helped clarify my understanding of the gospel. As I consulted with many modern authors, pastors, and scholars, as well as those of antiquity, I could finally discern the focus of the gospel and redemption narrative through all of scripture. In humility, I saw my constant reliance upon the gospel, even as one who had already been converted.

Although, looking back now, the journey took much longer that I would have preferred. But I am grateful for the sustaining grace of God and I won’t call into question God’s providential timing. I am also grateful for the cost which I paid. At certain points the cost was very high. However, it was worth every bit of heartache and effort that was put into it. I saw my utter dependence upon the grace of God. I could see that my position in Christ and God’s declaration of righteousness was not dependant upon and performance or merit. I could declare with confidence that salvation was all of grace and all to the glory of God. It was a beautiful thing.

Soli Deo Gloria!