Whatever happened to Revival meetings?

[James Johnson]

It seems that revival meetings in the Church of the Nazarene have all but disapeared. Does anybody know the reasoning behind this?

[Paul DeBaufer]

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/we_dont_need_revival/

I really don't know. But Dr. Oord's blog might shed some light?

[James Johnson]

So because of the name (revival) we as a church quit holding these type of services? Hopefully Chuck Milhuff, if he's looking in could perhaps shed some light on this. I think it's a huge loss for the church.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yeah, I don't know.

I do know that Robert Pickle, who is an evangelist on the Indianapolis District, but lives in Arkansas, either does revivals or used to anyway. He does a lot of stuff with at risk youth leading up to a revival at a local church.. I found him at the general church evangelist site: http://app.nazarene.org/EvangelistProfiles/profile.jsp?personId=26748 I tried the linked website with no luck. But try calling him. He's got one heck of a story.

It has been a couple years since I talked to Robert, but got his materials about a year ago-don't know where they are at the moment.

[Shea Zellweger]

It seems that revival meetings in the Church of the Nazarene have all but disapeared. Does anybody know the reasoning behind this?

I think it's because much of revivalist ministries is still working from the same model it did in the 1940s. Different evangelistic techniques work in different eras. In the 40s and 50s, the majority of the country had been raised in the Christian church, but many had since left the faith, so revival made sense, as the biggest harvest available was in rekindling the love for God that had previously burned in the hearts of many but had since gone cold, and calling them back to a right relationship with God. Today, many people have never set foot in a Christian church, and never had a right relationship with God, so they don't need to be revived, they need to be brought to life for the first time. What once effectively lead hundreds to repentance now pushes people away. It's as I've said before, Edward's "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" was amazingly effective in his time, but it would have been an utter failure in the 1960s. Likewise, revivalist ministries worked great in the 40s, 50s, and even the 60s, but in most cases today, they fall flat.

Having grown up attending various revivals, I think one of the other downfalls is that most revivals do not take root. Jesus talked about the seed that fell among the rocks, and sprang up but had no root. That's how many revivals, camps, and other similar events end up working today. The Evangelist comes into town, holds four or five nights of revival meetings, and really inspires the people in attendance to go and do wonderful things for God. A month later, the church is right back to where it was, and the board is already planning another revival for 5 or 11 months down the road. The teens come home from youth camp and want to do great things for God, but school starts a few weeks later and they fall right back into their old routine. Looking back over an average of 3 revival events for the 16 years of church attendance that I actually remember, I can only give you two instances of people who were impacted in a lasting manner by a revival speaker. One of those went really hardcore for about 5 years, then burnt out and is currently an atheist. The other is a missionary in South America. I'll admit I don't keep tabs on absolutely every person that's gone to the same events that I have, but I still think it's pretty telling when I can say I've only seen one life that has been (thus far) permanently changed for the better by a revival service.

[Charlene Clevenger]

1. They cost the church too much.
2. Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning.

[James Johnson]

1. They cost the church too much.
2. Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning.

My friend, I would say your church needs a revival! Where's the fire, where's the emotion, where's the hunger to do God's will, to reach the lost? What has happened to us? I don't understand the attitude that seems to have overtaken our Churches. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'm really bothered about our lack of priorities, our lack of urgency. Charlene I'm not speaking to you or your Church, I'm speaking as a whole. Please don't take my remarks personaly.

[Jim Franklin]

Many people have much different work schedules that prevent them from attending than when when most folks had their evenings free. Some have families where the children are required to be at school for specific class requirements such as band and choir practices and performances or advanced placement labs. Others will make the excuse that they will not give up their favorite TV programs. The church needs revival always and should never give up on their efforts to draw closer to God however the effort is structured. Revival/renewal is required to keep from becoming stagnant. Bring it on.

The evangelist does not bring about a revival. The evangelist may be a facilitator. The best revivals are those that are actually in progress before the evangelist arrives because the congregation has had times of prayer and fasting before the schedule of services or events and particularly when the Spirit visits and the preacher does not even get a chance to preach. Could we ask the same about "camp meetings?"

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

My friend, I would say your church needs a revival! Where's the fire, where's the emotion, where's the hunger to do God's will, to reach the lost? What has happened to us? I don't understand the attitude that seems to have overtaken our Churches. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'm really bothered about our lack of priorities, our lack of urgency. Charlene I'm not speaking to you or your Church, I'm speaking as a whole. Please don't take my remarks personaly.

James do you think that it's possible for a church to be on fire, emotional, hungry to do God's will and reach the lost but to puruse that without having 3/5/7/10 night protracted meetings?

[Kelcey Snyder]

Very well said Shea.

Revival is great, however, when majority of the church (as it seems) are people who don't really have a strong relationship God and instead walk through the motions, revivals are not going to be that effective. Especially, when revivals are a bunch of messages telling the congregation what they are doing wrong or how if things don't change hell is going to break loose and God's judgment is going to come. But I do realize, however, that not all revivals are like that and I have been to several revivals that were really helpful. Last summer I interned at a church with their youth program and majority of the parents, let alone the teens, didn't even know what a revival was or it's purpose. There was one time, as I was teaching one of the classes on a Wednesday night, I tried explaining the purpose of the revival and majority of the teens saw no use for it.

I hate to say this, and I may be wrong, but I also think when pastors are not some what theological with their congregation and are just preaching a message to make you feel good that revivals are not going to stand a chance. Why waste your time, when you could be doing other stuff with your life, to come 4 nights in a row to hear more preaching? "Isn't being a Christian being good and paying your dues to the church?" In order to have a successful revival, the congregation has to be interested in it. And it seems that most church that I have been to that accept revivals are those who are theological rooted on Sundays and have serious discipleship classes.

I love revivals! I think it is awesome when revivals includes multiple churches and the body of Christ get's together and fellowships. My favorite and most memorable experience was a revival that I attended my senior year of college. Multiple churches, DS, pastors, and student all gathered in one building to worship God and I was able to experience "true" fellowship. It was amazing. I miss them!

[Shea Zellweger]

My friend, I would say your church needs a revival! Where's the fire, where's the emotion, where's the hunger to do God's will, to reach the lost? What has happened to us? I don't understand the attitude that seems to have overtaken our Churches. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'm really bothered about our lack of priorities, our lack of urgency. Charlene I'm not speaking to you or your Church, I'm speaking as a whole. Please don't take my remarks personaly.

Jim,
Looking at Charlene's first point (they cost the church too much), I have to wonder whether "Revival" should really be a priority. I had a pastor tell me that it's recommended an Evangelist receive $2,000 for every 5 revival services he or she conducts. So, if the Evangelist comes, preaches Sunday Morning, and then Sunday-Thursday Evenings, it's recommended that you give that person $2,000. That particular church had an annual budget of less than $100,000 per year, and with that money they were paying their pastor , running a soup kitchen and clothing closet, opening up their doors to homeless people 5 days each week, and working on starting a preschool. All of those things were staffed 100% by volunteers, including a family who themselves were homeless and living on the premises of the church. Should that church divert its limited resources from doing these wonderful things for the kingdom so they can attend four extra services and hear four extra sermons designed to inspire them toward greatness as a church? When revivals actually were bringing people into the church, it made good sense to have them, and the expense was well worth it. When it's just a bunch of people who already attend church faithfully, what's the benefit? How does it advance the kingdom? Is it really so difficult to believe that we could find ways to inspire people toward doing the work of God without insisting that they come to our special service once or twice a year?

[James Johnson]

James do you think that it's possible for a church to be on fire, emotional, hungry to do God's will and reach the lost but to puruse that without having 3/5/7/10 night protracted meetings?

I do! Now my question is, are your Churches on fire, emotional, hungry to do God's will and reaching the lost? If the answer is yes, then I say great and keep up the great work you and your congregation is doing!

[Kevin Rector]

I do! Now my question is, are your Churches on fire, emotional, hungry to do God's will and reaching the lost? If the answer is yes, then I say great and keep up the great work you and your congregation is doing!

If the answer is no then the next question that needs to be asked is if four nights of church services that few will attend is the best way to fix the problem.

[Shea Zellweger]

I do! Now my question is, are your Churches on fire, emotional, hungry to do God's will and reaching the lost? If the answer is yes, then I say great and keep up the great work you and your congregation is doing!

But if the answer is "no," is a revival meeting the solution? Maybe sometimes, but methinks there are many situations where the answer to that question is also no.

[Shea Zellweger]

If the answer is no then the next question that needs to be asked is if four nights of church serves that few will attend is the best way to fix the problem.

looks like we're on the same wavelength. I feel more comfortable with my answer now :)

[James Johnson]

If the answer is no then the next question that needs to be asked is if four nights of church serves that few will attend is the best way to fix the problem.

I suggest this says a lot about the pastor and the leadership of the Church.

Kevin, I don't know if you're a pastor or not. I am not talking about you, I'm talking in general. And I know very small churches are in a different position and that like has been said there are different situations where revival is not an option.

[Kevin Rector]

I suggest this says a lot about the pastor and the leadership of the Church.

So what exactly is that "a lot" that is says?

[John Kennedy]

I suggest this says a lot about the pastor and the leadership of the Church.

Kevin, I don't know if you're a pastor or not. I am not talking about you, I'm talking in general. And I know very small churches are in a different position and that like has been said there are different situations where revival is not an option.

Then, why don't you come right out and spell out exactly what you think it says? Why content yourself with innuendo?

[Kevin Rector]

James, I am a pastor and ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene.

[James Johnson]

So what exactly is that "a lot" that is says?

I would say if a Church can only get a "few" people to attend, then I would question the foundation and groundwork that the pastor and his or her church leaders did to prepare for the meetings. I think there prep work must have been very poor.

[James Johnson]

Then, why don't you come right out and spell out exactly what you think it says? Why content yourself with innuendo?

There is no innuendo here at all, no hidden message. Why the hurt feelings?

[Shea Zellweger]

I would say if a Church can only get a "few" people to attend, then I would question the foundation and groundwork that the pastor and his or her church leaders did to prepare for the meetings. I also think this prep work must have been very poor.

you don't think it's possible that the culture of a church is such that a Revival meeting is not the best way to inspire them?

[Cam Pence]

I would say if a Church can only get a "few" people to attend, then I would question the foundation and groundwork that the pastor and his or her church leaders did to prepare for the meetings. I also think this prep work must have been very poor.

i would argue that you can do all the correct preparations for a revival and still not have a big turnout. i think the "blame the pastor card" is thrown out too much by default these days.

[Shea Zellweger]

There is no innuendo here at all, no hidden message. Why the hurt feelings?

James, This:

I suggest this says a lot about the pastor and the leadership of the Church.


Is innuendo. You have suggested that it says a lot about the pastor and the leadership of the church, but at the time you did not really say what that "a lot" is.

[James Johnson]

you don't think it's possible that the culture of a church is such that a Revival meeting is not the best way to inspire them?

I think you're hung up on the word revival. I think most churches could stand to be Spirtualy stirred.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think you're hung up on the word revival. I think most churches could stand to be Spirtualy stired.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the word revival, and everything to do with what a revival meeting is. If you are having services on four, five, seven, or any other number of consecutive nights in which you are trying to "spiritually stir" the church, I don't care what you call it, it's still a traditional revival meeting. And the fact is that these meetings do not have the same impact on every person or church. There is no one size fits all solution for causing a church to be "spiritually stirred." What works for one church may not work at all for another church. I can guarantee that if my church had a revival meeting, over 80% of the congregation would be there for every single service, so that might work just fine for them, but it simply would not work as well for other churches. A good pastor, board, and church leadership needs to recognize that they serve a unique church with unique needs, and that church is inspired in a unique way which may or may not include a week of "old time religion."

[James Johnson]

James, This:


Is innuendo. You have suggested that it says a lot about the pastor and the leadership of the church, but at the time you did not really say what that "a lot" is.

Does post #20 not answer this?

[Shea Zellweger]

Does post #20 not answer this?

it sure does, but John's post was #18, which is why I said "at the time." You can't expect John to have read something you hadn't yet written when he made his post.

[Billie Goodson]

Jim,
Looking at Charlene's first point (they cost the church too much), I have to wonder whether "Revival" should really be a priority. I had a pastor tell me that it's recommended an Evangelist receive $2,000 for every 5 revival services he or she conducts. So, if the Evangelist comes, preaches Sunday Morning, and then Sunday-Thursday Evenings, it's recommended that you give that person $2,000. That particular church had an annual budget of less than $100,000 per year, and with that money they were paying their pastor , running a soup kitchen and clothing closet, opening up their doors to homeless people 5 days each week, and working on starting a preschool. All of those things were staffed 100% by volunteers, including a family who themselves were homeless and living on the premises of the church. Should that church divert its limited resources from doing these wonderful things for the kingdom so they can attend four extra services and hear four extra sermons designed to inspire them toward greatness as a church? When revivals actually were bringing people into the church, it made good sense to have them, and the expense was well worth it. When it's just a bunch of people who already attend church faithfully, what's the benefit? How does it advance the kingdom? Is it really so difficult to believe that we could find ways to inspire people toward doing the work of God without insisting that they come to our special service once or twice a year?

It seems like you are saying a church had a practice of paying an evangelist $2,000. Then they were paying their pastor. They ran a soup kitchen and clothing closet and opened their doors to homeless people 5 days a week. They were starting a preschool. All of that was staffed 100% by volunteers, including a homeless family living on the church property. I guess I might be thick, but they seem to have something going on there. I know plenty of churches that make more, have less ministries, struggle to pay their pastor, don't have any preschoolers ever come near the church. It seems like one church is ministering to the community, yet they are being faulted for having $2,000 revival speakers. Perhaps they got what they paid for. Can you pass the name on of any of their speakers?

[Shea Zellweger]

It seems like you are saying a church had a practice of paying an evangelist $2,000. Then they were paying their pastor. They ran a soup kitchen and clothing closet and opened their doors to homeless people 5 days a week. They were starting a preschool. All of that was staffed 100% by volunteers, including a homeless family living on the church property. I guess I might be thick, but they seem to have something going on there. I know plenty of churches that make more, have less ministries, struggle to pay their pastor, don't have any preschoolers ever come near the church. It seems like one church is ministering to the community, yet they are being faulted for having $2,000 revival speakers. Perhaps they got what they paid for. Can you pass the name on of any of their speakers?


Sorry Billy, I should've been more clear. The church in question did not have revival speakers because they did not feel it was a wise use of their funds. Based on Jim's comments here, it sounded as though any church that chose not to have a revival because of money issues was in desperate need of revival. The church in question is, IMHO, not in need of a revival speaker.

[James Johnson]

Sorry Billy, I should've been more clear. The church in question did not have revival speakers because they did not feel it was a wise use of their funds. Based on Jim's comments here, it sounded as though any church that chose not to have a revival because of money issues was in desperate need of revival. The church in question is, IMHO, not in need of a revival speaker.

Shea show me where I said that! I was addressing "FEW". I know of small churches who had the minister hold a camp meeting over a weekend because of the lack of funds. Money is a poor excuse and not having a meeting because only a few would attend is pathetic.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea show me where I said that! I was addressing "FEW". I know of small churches who had the minister hold a camp meeting over a weekend because of the lack of funds. Money is a poor excuse and not having a meeting because only a few would attend is pathetic.

Okay... here's what Charlene Said:


1. They cost the church too much.
2. Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning.
And here's what you said in response to Charlene:

My friend, I would say your church needs a revival! Where's the fire, where's the emotion, where's the hunger to do God's will, to reach the lost? What has happened to us? I don't understand the attitude that seems to have overtaken our Churches. I'm just thinking out loud, but I'm really bothered about our lack of priorities, our lack of urgency. Charlene I'm not speaking to you or your Church, I'm speaking as a whole. Please don't take my remarks personaly.

Based on your own response, it certainly sounds like you're saying that a church that decides a revival would cost too much has a lack of priorities. I gave an example of a real church that has fantastic priorities, and those priorities do not include a revival service. You even stated just now that "Money is a poor excuse." I disagree. If a church is working in their community, and they decide that they feel the money that it would cost them to hold a revival service would be better spent elsewhere, who are you to say that they've made a poor excuse, or that they have a lack of priorities? It's one thing to have the money and refuse to use it. It's another thing entirely to decide that the money would be better spent elsewhere, and that is precisely what I'm talking about when I say it depends upon the culture of the church.

[James Johnson]

Okay... here's what Charlene Said:


And here's what you said in response to Charlene:


Based on your own response, it certainly sounds like you're saying that a church that decides a revival would cost too much has a lack of priorities. I gave an example of a real church that has fantastic priorities, and those priorities do not include a revival service. You even stated just now that "Money is a poor excuse." I disagree. If a church is working in their community, and they decide that they feel the money that it would cost them to hold a revival service would be better spent elsewhere, who are you to say that they've made a poor excuse, or that they have a lack of priorities? It's one thing to have the money and refuse to use it. It's another thing entirely to decide that the money would be better spent elsewhere, and that is precisely what I'm talking about when I say it depends upon the culture of the church.

Or perhaps my response had more to do with "Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning." If you can't get your congregation to come to anything except Sunday morning services, then you may need to evaluate what you are doing as pastor and as a Church.

[Shea Zellweger]

Or perhaps my response had more to do with "Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning."

That's fine, but you did not make that clear at the time. There's really no need to get frustrated when people misunderstand, just explain what you meant. She stated two things, and there was nothing in your post that differentiated between the two. And there's still the fact that you said "money is a poor excuse." I'm not sure how you can get around that statement and say that you never argued a church saying it costs too much is somehow wrong.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think you're hung up on the word revival. I think most churches could stand to be Spirtualy stirred.

So, are you concerned that churches be spiritually stirred or that they have scheduled revival meetings?

I'm pretty sure you're wanting to see God move in your life and in your church and not just wanting to keep that particular tradition alive. Do you think that perhaps the lack of scheduled revival meetings is because of a sense by church leaders that, in our current culture, that scheduled revival meetings don't result in the spiritual renewal as they did, say 30 years ago?

Maybe, for instance, churches are turning to one day events because the leadership sees that more people are renewed by that than their having a series of evening services. Or, perhaps, they have found that having small accountability groups creates a deeping of spiritual life. They may have found that operating a food pantry or doing some other social service gives them a greater opportunity to present the gospel to lost people than their having a week of evening services with a special speaker.

What do you think?

[James Johnson]

You made this about money Shea,not me.

[Marsha Lynn]

It seems that revival meetings in the Church of the Nazarene have all but disapeared. Does anybody know the reasoning behind this?

I went to a revival service last night -- the first of five involving multiple churches. I was planning to go back for the rest of them. Now I am not. When I balance the fellowship opportunities that attract me to that event against my aversion to what happened in the service, the opportunities aren't compelling enough to tip the scales toward further attendance.

I'm not sure who is being targetted by the format. Not me. Maybe it's all for the glory of God. If so, I think God can be glorified without me.

I have no doubt the evangelist is doing God's will and reaching people -- people not like me. Meanwhile, I have better resources to meet my spiritual needs and will make do with other fellowship opportunities.

[Shea Zellweger]

You made this about money Shea,not me.

Actually, I believe Charlene was the first to make a statement about money. You questioned her post, and I tried to provide reasoning in defense of it, not realizing you were only addressing half of her post, at which point you told me that you weren't talking about money, but then asserted that money is a poor excuse. At least, that's how it reads when one goes through this thread.

[James Johnson]

Scott, what I have found in talking to many Nazarenes from many different churches, that most people have no idea why their church no longer has revival meetings ,and that it seems to be more of a pastoral decision than a congregational decision. I thought I would throw the question out to see what kind answers I would get.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I would say if a Church can only get a "few" people to attend, then I would question the foundation and groundwork that the pastor and his or her church leaders did to prepare for the meetings. I think there prep work must have been very poor.

Maybe I am reading something into this that is not there, please correct me if I am wrong, but this statement seems to imply an attractional model which seems to me to be outdated in our current culture. Once upon a time when the Bible and God held authority in the lives of even the unchurched we could announce a revival and many would come. But today the Bible, God, and even our values no longer seem to hold sway within the communities at large (this is not to say that there are not still large numbers of professing Christians in these very same communities, there are.) Even with the numbers of those professing Christianity there has been so much adoption of the ways of the world, just look at how consumerist our churches have become, how addicted to "reality" (humiliation) television professing Christians have become. The time of hanging out a sign, placing an ad, having a radio announcement, whatever will draw large numbers of people to our churchy buildings is gone, that age is over.

We live in a time and emerging culture that requires us to go to them, much like God came to us in the Incarnation. We need to build relationships with people. The people sitting in our pews on Sunday morning need to be led to do likewise. Then maybe we can get people out from in front of their TVs at times other than Sunday morning.

Just tossing out ideas. Besides, for many people revival brings images of Elmer Gantry type shows.

[Billie Goodson]

Actually, I believe Charlene was the first to make a statement about money. You questioned her post, and I tried to provide reasoning in defense of it, not realizing you were only addressing half of her post, at which point you told me that you weren't talking about money, but then asserted that money is a poor excuse. At least, that's how it reads when one goes through this thread.

Maybe we could do a mission emphasis and give money for world missions? Since we are talking about money, I just thought I would throw that in. Didn't Cunningham really give a great sermon on those who use money for missions during GA. The who-said of the money issue is confusing and seems pointless at this juncture. We seem to be losing the conversation here.... Just my opinion.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott, what I have found in talking to many Nazarenes from many different churches, that most people have no idea why their church no longer has revival meetings ,and that it seems to be more of a pastoral decision than a congregational decision. I thought I would throw the question out to see what kind answers I would get.

Thanks - I was under the impression you were advocating revival meetings and that you feel churches that don't have them are somehow lacking in desire for spiritual fire.

If you're just questioning, I don't guess I can give a better answer than the one I gave...that church leaders find other approaches more valuable to their congregations.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So, are you concerned that churches be spiritually stirred or that they have scheduled revival meetings?

I'm pretty sure you're wanting to see God move in your life and in your church and not just wanting to keep that particular tradition alive. Do you think that perhaps the lack of scheduled revival meetings is because of a sense by church leaders that, in our current culture, that scheduled revival meetings don't result in the spiritual renewal as they did, say 30 years ago?

Maybe, for instance, churches are turning to one day events because the leadership sees that more people are renewed by that than their having a series of evening services. Or, perhaps, they have found that having small accountability groups creates a deeping of spiritual life. They may have found that operating a food pantry or doing some other social service gives them a greater opportunity to present the gospel to lost people than their having a week of evening services with a special speaker.

What do you think?

Thank you!

Reminds me of a passage from one of the earliest Nazarene sermons, from 1895, by J.P.Widner:

Notice that Christ does not say: “Accept the creed which I frame; observe the church forms or rituals I devise; join the church which I have found.” He only said, “Follow Me.” It is as though he had said, “Come, live my life with me.” What does it mean? It means that Christianity is not a creed, not an ecclesiasticism, not a ritual, but a life.
It is this simple Christ life, which the world hungers for, and which gives birth to the cry that goes up from all lands: “We are tired of forms and creeds. Let us go back to Christ.”
It is this Christ life that we are to take out with us and teach and live in this city mission work that is our chosen field.
Yet the present question has been asked, “Why not do this work under present church lines with their machinery, instead of forming a new organization?” The question contains its own answer. It is because of the machinery. The churches are steadily withdrawing from this field.

[James Johnson]

Thanks - I was under the impression you were advocating revival meetings and that you feel churches that don't have them are somehow lacking in desire for spiritual fire.

If you're just questioning, I don't guess I can give a better answer than the one I gave...that church leaders find other approaches more valuable to their congregations.

Scott, I am for anything that helps build relationship between a person and God! And I do think that " revival" type of meetings are an avenue that is no longer being used. Why, is the question I've brought to this site.

[Marsha Lynn]

Scott, what I have found in talking to many Nazarenes from many different churches is that most people have no idea why their church no longer has revival meetings ,and that it seems to be more of a pastoral decision than a congregational decision. I thought I would throw the question out to see what kind answers I would get.

Are you talking to board members?

We have fewer scheduled "revivals" than in the past. If they're scheduled the faithful few will come, but it's certainly not the people who push for them to be scheduled. Since it's the pastor's initiative that gets them scheduled, it's only logical that it is the pastor who backs off from scheduling them when they become ineffective and no one seems to notice when they don't happen.

What seems more effective in edifying the local manifestation of the body of Christ is services designed to usher people into the presence of God and times of fellowship and training.

[Ryan Scott]

I may have a guest preacher come to my congregation some day for the express purpose of speaking to my congregation in a way I cannot. If I do, I will probably also pare that with some real discussion and education time - something a few current "evangelists" are working to do, to change forms and be more helpful to the sustained health and growth of a congregation than stirring them up for a short time.

One thing I will never do is invite someone I've not heard before. The last congregation we were a part of invited four evangelists for revival while we attended - two of whom, at the time, were serving on the denomination steering committee. One insinuated that the Church of the Nazarene lost its authority when it banned speaking in tongues and the other actually said, "if you take ketchup packets from Wendy's, you're going to burn," as the main crux of his sermon. Our pastor came very close to stopping the revival right then, ten minutes into the first service.

Evangelists are having a tough time right now in the Church of the Nazarene because they've damaged their own brand. I've heard some great evangelists preach, people who are committed and spirit-filled, who do a great job in their calling. These are few and far between (not to mention usually booked five years in advance).

We're also moving away from an understanding of our mission as "getting people saved" to "helping people live Christ-like lives" which takes the emphasis off one time events and puts it more on discipleship and growth. I had a couple classes at NTS with a couple young evangelists, working towards itinerant ministries, but they're not going to look or sound like the evangelists of the past and they're not going to be doing traditional revivals.

I think there is very much a place for itinerant ministry in today's world, but it will look very different than it has in the past. Right now I think were in the midst of a transition, both in expectations and in the understanding of this ministry.

[James Johnson]

I would hope we as a church see the importance of both "getting people saved" and "helping people live Christ-like lives".

[Shea Zellweger]

I would hope we as a church see the importance of both "getting people saved" and "helping people live Christ-like lives".


Definitely. We can't be a "discipling" church if we don't have any converts to disciple :D. The question for me is whether revival services accomplish either of those purposes, and in my experience they do not.

Top Ten Things I've learned from Evangelists (Letterman would be proud!):
10. Everybody should speak in tongues.
9. There aren't enough people being raised from the dead
8. I'm not doing enough for the cause of Christ.
7. Hurricane Katrina was the result of the debauchery that goes on in New Orleans
6. If you don't attend revival services, you're not a committed Christian.
5. Movie theaters are the Devil's Playground
4. If you don't want to wait for marriage to have sex, just get married sooner! (Illustration used here: evangelist would rather his 15 year old daughter get married now than have premarital sex)
3. The final battle will be between the army of Christ and the army of Allah
2. If you don't get saved tonight, you will probably die before you get home
And the number one thing I learned from an evangelist:
The entire Economic and Political infrastructure of the United States will collapse in 2009, followed by mass rioting, looting, and hysteria in every major city in the country. (oops!)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Top Ten Things I've learned from Evangelists (Letterman would be proud!)

I spent three years as a full time evangelist and I can tell you that for every evangelist "horror story" there's an equally horrifying "pastor story." In just three years I picked up a few of my own.

My position isn't that I think evangelists are the issue. Some of the most dedicated, theologically correct, talented people in the Church of the Nazarene (both now and especially in the past) are those who are evangelists.

The issue, I contend, is with a changing culture.

It was 25 years ago that I conducted a week long meeting in a church. We saw a faithful few out for every service. A few, I think, brought church friends from other churches. Then, on Sunday morning we had a few more. One lady, in particular, I thought was spiritually hungry. She came back for the final service and when she came in the door I knew she was there to seek the Lord in her life.

She did, indeed, respond to the invitation and found the Lord in that service.

As I was preparing to leave, the pastor sadly remarked that he'd hoped more people had gotten saved. I replied, "I think we had terrific results. After all 100% of the unsaved people who attended the revival got saved. As an evangelist, I can't ask for more than that."

And that was 25 years ago.

[Todd Erickson]

The problem with the revivalist ideal is that it "fills the people with the spirit".

But they're already full of the spirit, if they're Christians. God is always with us.

The trick is figuring out why they refuse to tap into that with their lives, except on special occasions.

The answer, generally, is that there is no discipleship within the church, no drive to risk, no daring to be incarnational no matter the cost, whether or not it results in butts in the seats and more offering in the plate.

So long as our aim is to build the church, revival is just a carnival act. Once our aim is to be Christ to the world, whether or not they swell the ranks of our church...then we are revival.

[Steven Martinez]

I think a huge practical answer to the question is that our senior pastors are more equipped to hold evangelistic services then in the past. The revival method was essentially to hold a revival a few times a year by bringing in an expert to draw people in and then the pastor's job was to equip and disciple those people into the life of the Church. For the most part it worked tremendously well. However, there was a shift and more pastors were trained in evangelism and so the outside evangelists began to disappear and the revivals they held as well began to vanish. Now we are at the point where our pastors are truly great evangelists and struggle with the discipleship/equipping ministry. How many pastors on NazNet have attended a district function in the last three years where the key speaker spoke on discipleship? Probably a lot. Five to ten years ago the topic was still evangelism. The pendulum has swung and now there are traveling consultants to teach discipleship methods. For example, my senior pastor and I has traveled all over the US because we were asked to share the way we are doing discipleship in our church. I know of several others who are also being asked to visit districts and churches to teach pastors and laity how to disciple. Instead of evangelists, the Church seems to be calling disciplers to travel and to teach/train others how to disciple. Times change and methods change.

[Jim Chabot]

Definitely. We can't be a "discipling" church if we don't have any converts to disciple :D. The question for me is whether revival services accomplish either of those purposes, and in my experience they do not.

Top Ten Things I've learned from Evangelists (Letterman would be proud!):
10. Everybody should speak in tongues.
9. There aren't enough people being raised from the dead
8. I'm not doing enough for the cause of Christ.
7. Hurricane Katrina was the result of the debauchery that goes on in New Orleans
6. If you don't attend revival services, you're not a committed Christian.
5. Movie theaters are the Devil's Playground
4. If you don't want to wait for marriage to have sex, just get married sooner! (Illustration used here: evangelist would rather his 15 year old daughter get married now than have premarital sex)
3. The final battle will be between the army of Christ and the army of Allah
2. If you don't get saved tonight, you will probably die before you get home
And the number one thing I learned from an evangelist:
The entire Economic and Political infrastructure of the United States will collapse in 2009, followed by mass rioting, looting, and hysteria in every major city in the country. (oops!)

Dear me, you need to get back up here and here some good evangelists, here's my list of 10 (not in any order)

1. That you cannot gain biblical knowledge by carrying a bible, you need to read it (Manny Chavier)
2. That the Apostles creed is a very important document, it contains the basics of our faith in a for that can be committed to memory (Jorge Barros)
3. That you can preach through Revelation for the teaching rather than the prophesy (Don Woodbridge)
4. By example, How to keep a deep undying Love for our spouse. (Wes Fader)
5. That we should not point out sin in non believers (Dick Devendorf)
6. That Holiness equates to Love (Gary Bond)
7. The meaning of the word tetelestai. (Doug Oldham)
8. When you partner with Jesus, he is the driver not the passenger. (Bob Howard)
9. That the Holy Spirits actual words are recorded in Hebrews. (Bob Taylor)
10. Life's greatest question. What shall I do with Jesus? (Eldon Neihoff)

So hows that, off the top of my head? There are still plenty of good evangelists and song evangelists around. We attend three campmeetings every year and vary rarely have we not come away with something of lasting value. Our church still holds revival services annually, they are worth the expense and effort.

[Shea Zellweger]

Dear me, you need to get back up here and here some good evangelists, here's my list of 10 (not in any order)


8. When you partner with Jesus, he is the driver not the passenger. (Bob Howard)

Oliver Phillips once said in a sermon at my church that Jesus doesn't want to be your co-pilot, he wants to be the pilot. But it wasn't at a camp meeting, so it doesn't count :D

[Jim Chabot]

I spent three years as a full time evangelist and I can tell you that for every evangelist "horror story" there's an equally horrifying "pastor story." In just three years I picked up a few of my own.

My position isn't that I think evangelists are the issue. Some of the most dedicated, theologically correct, talented people in the Church of the Nazarene (both now and especially in the past) are those who are evangelists.

The issue, I contend, is with a changing culture.

It was 25 years ago that I conducted a week long meeting in a church. We saw a faithful few out for every service. A few, I think, brought church friends from other churches. Then, on Sunday morning we had a few more. One lady, in particular, I thought was spiritually hungry. She came back for the final service and when she came in the door I knew she was there to seek the Lord in her life.

She did, indeed, respond to the invitation and found the Lord in that service.

As I was preparing to leave, the pastor sadly remarked that he'd hoped more people had gotten saved. I replied, "I think we had terrific results. After all 100% of the unsaved people who attended the revival got saved. As an evangelist, I can't ask for more than that."

And that was 25 years ago.

We had a similar experience at Douglas camp two years back. Most everyone there we knew as Christians from various churches that come to camp meeting to recharge. There was one woman there for the last three nights, she came to the altar on Sunday night, fearful that she needed further instruction for her salvation. Larry Lechrone spent close to an hour with her after the service.

[Jim Chabot]

Oliver Phillips once said in a sermon at my church that Jesus doesn't want to be your co-pilot, he wants to be the pilot. But it wasn't at a camp meeting, so it doesn't count :D

Oh great! Now I have to take Doug Oldham and Bob Howard off of my list because they were at our church revival services instead of camp meeting?

Maybe I can get Bob back on the list. I did hear him speak about the effort that unity requires. And I heard that at a camp meeting.

Okay, we can ditch Doug and insert this one.

7. The dynamic of a dream, the R.G.Letourneau story (Paris Reidhead)

There I'm back to 10 good ones!

[Shea Zellweger]

Oh great! Now I have to take Doug Oldham and Bob Howard off of my list because they were at our church revival services instead of camp meeting?

Maybe I can get Bob back on the list. I did hear him speak about the effort that unity requires. And I heard that at a camp meeting.

sorry, I interchange revival and camp meeting. Oliver's sermon at our church was just a Sunday morning sermon, it wasn't a part of a revival week or anything like that.

[Jim Chabot]

sorry, I interchange revival and camp meeting. Oliver's sermon at our church was just a Sunday morning sermon, it wasn't a part of a revival week or anything like that.

Looks like poor Doug is still our of the line up, he was at our church for a concert with Steve Adams.

Maybe he should get partial credit since his dad was an evangelist, and he was the one who told Bill Gaither to write a song called "He Touched Me" on the way home from a revival meeting.

[Mike Schutz]

I would say if a Church can only get a "few" people to attend, then I would question the foundation and groundwork that the pastor and his or her church leaders did to prepare for the meetings. I think there prep work must have been very poor.

James, the dynamics of each church are far too complex to make such a statement as this. It is comparable to saying to every person in your church "If you don't come out to revival services then you are not a strong Christian." Unless you know the specific situation of every person, you cannot make such statements.

By the way - I spent 27 years on the campus of one of our colleges: 4 as a student, 23 working there, and of those 23 I spent nine years having a direct influence on who spoke to the student body and faculty. I heard some of the best speakers in the holiness movement, and they were a blessing that set the tone for God to work in miraculous ways in the lives of thousands of students. I also heard some of the most ridiculous statements that were an embarrassment to the church, college and kingdom. My pastor for most of those years, one of the best pastors in the denomination, struggled with the lack of attendance at midweek services. It was not his fault, as you have suggested. Times have changed. The church is called to come up with new methods to bring the eternal truth to each generation. It is silly to curse the darkness.

[David Showalter]

Or perhaps my response had more to do with "Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning." If you can't get your congregation to come to anything except Sunday morning services, then you may need to evaluate what you are doing as pastor and as a Church.

James, I've pastored for nearly 30 years and guess I'm a bit more interested in my folks going back out into their homes, families, neighborhoods, communities, and world sharing the life and love of Jesus through authentic Christ-like living, sharing, giving, witnessing, listening, caring, holding home bible studies, or just home Christian Fellowship times, etc., than I am in focusing on gathering them one more time back into a safe huddle at the building we call church. I really think the shift that has taken place the past few decades just might be more biblical than what some want to go back to.

[Jon Bemis]

I would say if a Church can only get a "few" people to attend, then I would question the foundation and groundwork that the pastor and his or her church leaders did to prepare for the meetings. I think there prep work must have been very poor.

Or maybe "revival meetings" aren't the best way in today's culture to build the kingdom.

[David Troxler]

I may have a guest preacher come to my congregation some day for the express purpose of speaking to my congregation in a way I cannot. If I do, I will probably also pare that with some real discussion and education time - something a few current "evangelists" are working to do, to change forms and be more helpful to the sustained health and growth of a congregation than stirring them up for a short time.

One thing I will never do is invite someone I've not heard before. The last congregation we were a part of invited four evangelists for revival while we attended - two of whom, at the time, were serving on the denomination steering committee. One insinuated that the Church of the Nazarene lost its authority when it banned speaking in tongues and the other actually said, "if you take ketchup packets from Wendy's, you're going to burn," as the main crux of his sermon. Our pastor came very close to stopping the revival right then, ten minutes into the first service.

Evangelists are having a tough time right now in the Church of the Nazarene because they've damaged their own brand. I've heard some great evangelists preach, people who are committed and spirit-filled, who do a great job in their calling. These are few and far between (not to mention usually booked five years in advance).

We're also moving away from an understanding of our mission as "getting people saved" to "helping people live Christ-like lives" which takes the emphasis off one time events and puts it more on discipleship and growth. I had a couple classes at NTS with a couple young evangelists, working towards itinerant ministries, but they're not going to look or sound like the evangelists of the past and they're not going to be doing traditional revivals.

I think there is very much a place for itinerant ministry in today's world, but it will look very different than it has in the past. Right now I think were in the midst of a transition, both in expectations and in the understanding of this ministry.

I have heard the ketchup packet sermon, only then it was McDonald's, probably 8 years ago.

One of my problems with calling evangelists has to do with the ones who do not seem to change their message to indicate growth in their own life. This goes for preachers and song evangelists. If they are using the same material they used 4 years ago, I wonder if they are growing in their own life spiritually. This is not to say they should never reuse a sermon, but when the "package" is the same, and never changes, it seems less genuine.

On another occasion, an evangelist contacted me and said God had told him that he was to speak at my church on a particular set of dates. I am a reasonable enough Christian that when someone says "God told them..." that I would listen long enough to get information. Then I went to prayer and asked some other trusted people to consider what I had been told. However, I never sensed that God was telling me that message, nor the others I asked to pray. I did not extend an invitation to that evangelist. Heard later that he went to another church on those same dates and told them God had directed him there on those same specific dates.

Contrary to what someone else has suggested on this thread, the pastoral leadership is very important to discern what the local flock requires. It is not the traveling evangelist that knows the sheep. If revival is for the congregation, the pastor is the key leader to know when to schedule and when to refrain from scheduling...or even when stopping the "show" as it gets started is the best course of action.

[Gary Creely]

This is a great topic, and one I have put a lot of though and prayer into.

My Observations-

Whats wrong-

Churches have so many choices of posible directions in ministry. Time and resources are limited, as leadership we need to consider what will be the most effective route to go. Lets say a reasonable 5 day revival costs the church 3k, well I look at that and see: I could do a 10,000 piece mailing and potentially get 100 visitors from that. There are tons of examples, but the tuff question is: is a revival the best use of resources? It has been my experience that revivals tend to attract people in the church who believe in there effectiveness, and newer and fringe people rarely attend. So there is very little in the way of effective evangelism that I have seen taking place. In terms of being a positive effect on those who do attend I have found that to be hit or miss. Like pastors there are good evangelists and bad ones. The difference is a bad pastor typically only messes up one church or so, where as a bad evangelist can effect a lot more churches in less time.


Whats next-

I think the revival experience will be replaced by the church wide campaign. A program like 40 days of purpose fills many of the roles of a revival, but also many more. A campaign stretches over a season, rather than a week (if you are lucky). A campaign is much more holistic in the sense that the entire church can move in the same direction with there spiritual journey. They build moral and typically attract new people durring these times. I believe they out revival a revival. I also believe that is the future, or even the present.

This is where my journey of thought and prayer had led me in regards to revivals.

[Billy Cox]

The pendulum has swung and now there are traveling consultants to teach discipleship methods. For example, my senior pastor and I has traveled all over the US because we were asked to share the way we are doing discipleship in our church. I know of several others who are also being asked to visit districts and churches to teach pastors and laity how to disciple. Instead of evangelists, the Church seems to be calling disciplers to travel and to teach/train others how to disciple. Times change and methods change.

Whether the subject of interest is evangelism or discipleship, I have often wondered whether churches would get better results if, instead of copying methods that are successful elsewhere, they sought to understand the way in which those methods were discovered.

Many churches have tried to copy Willow Creek's methods, but how many have thought to do what Willow Creek's early leaders did - namely finding out who their community was and then crafting an approach to church that would make sense to that community.

[Hans Deventer]

1. They cost the church too much.
2. Not many people come to services except on Sunday morning.

As to #2, in the Holy Week we have services every night. Each night some 50-100 people show up. We have 190 members.

[Kevin Rector]

Friends, I've moved the tongues side conversation to a separate thread to help keep this one on track.

[Steven Martinez]

Whether the subject of interest is evangelism or discipleship, I have often wondered whether churches would get better results if, instead of copying methods that are successful elsewhere, they sought to understand the way in which those methods were discovered.

Many churches have tried to copy Willow Creek's methods, but how many have thought to do what Willow Creek's early leaders did - namely finding out who their community was and then crafting an approach to church that would make sense to that community.

Totally agree. My goal when asked to come and present was to present a method where the main focus is to discover the voice of the community and how to speak that voice. I will say that many people are not happy at first with what we do because they desire a plug and play model and many pastors simply do not want to take the time to find that community voice. When I present on the Master's Plan, I tell pastors to take the material and if possible to take 1-2 years to redevelop the basic methodology for their specific congregations and communities. For example, on our Zone we have 6 churches doing the Master's Plan model and everyone is unique in their application even though there is a basic methodology that is being practiced by everyone. So although our churches are all within 30 miles of each other, they are similar but different because our communities are all different but there is a similar need for continued evangelism and discipleship. None of us copy exactly what we learned from our Brothers and Sisters in Cali, Colombia but we have taken the basic pillars of "their success" (prayer, intentional evangelism, connection, discipleship and leadership development) and adapted them to speak to our neighborhoods. To me the churches that tend to be successful (I define that as spiritual healthy, effectiveness in their community, and numerical growth) are the ones who do exactly what you suggested. Of course when you read all of the books, everyone seems to gloss over the fact that these mega churches spent years of struggle and strife before their hard work began to pay off.

[Craig Laughlin]

Scott, I am for anything that helps build relationship between a person and God! And I do think that " revival" type of meetings are an avenue that is no longer being used. Why, is the question I've brought to this site.

This has already been said but I'll chime in as another pastor. I do not hold revival meetings because they simply do not accomplish what they once did. The work of God's Kingdom is way to important for me to give precious resource to what is not effective. Pastor's are like parishioners, they vote with their feet and they have walked away from revival meetings.

James I really appreciate that you have demonstrated the sensitivity to ask pastors rather than just start out with telling us we are wrong. - I grow weary of people who have never pastored or have not pastored in a long time telling me how I am doing it wrong especially when it would be in that person's interest if I did it their way. It is all about the message not the method.

[Charlene Clevenger]

When you talk about the evangelist's fee, don't forget travel expenses to get him/her here, plus multiple nights in a motel (they don't stay at the parsonage anymore), plus meals and other expenses throughout the week (it's all we can do to feed our families a quick meal before revival service, we can't have the evangelist over for dinner). It adds up pretty quickly.

Our church recently had a weekend revival, but we didn't bring in an outside evangelist. We have 3 elders in our church who did the preaching.

[Tinker Boyd]

I think a huge practical answer to the question is that our senior pastors are more equipped to hold evangelistic services then in the past.

I think this is a very good point.

I think revivals (in the format we grew up thinking about them) attract those from within the churches so the revival format is "preaching to the choir" so to speak. I think in the future we will see more traveling Sunday school teachers and more energy put into sharing disciplineship materials between our churches that bring personal/small group revivals - and the small groups people will bring in the lost.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think in the future we will see more traveling Sunday school teachers and more energy put into sharing disciplineship materials between our churches that bring personal/small group revivals - and the small groups people will bring in the lost.

I like this approach. One of my concerns is that even as we "defend" the idea that the protracted meeting doesn't produce the spiritual results it once did is that we don't toss it aside without finding ways to accomplish what these meetings once accomplished.

I remember revival meetings in which we labored all week (plus time leading up to the revival) and then, at the end of the week could only point to a couple of spiritual victories.

Okay, so that's all we had. However, what are we doing today that has "only a couple of victories?" If whatever replaced revivals isn't bringing at least a "couple" of people to the Lord, then we may have done a good job of recognizing the declining value of protracted meetings, but what have we done to replace them?

[John Reilly]

It seems that revival meetings in the Church of the Nazarene have all but disapeared. Does anybody know the reasoning behind this?

Yes ...

[Scott Moseley]

Even way back when I was a kid, a teener, or a college kid, I didn't enjoy revival meetings as they seemed so Old Fashioned. I know my parents and grandparents did enjoy them as they were a form of entertainment and socialization. I just didn't connect with the music, and generally the style of service , preaching, or the emotions that were stirred at the altar call. I did see value in the revival meetings and I genuinely felt that Lord worked and entered, changed , and restored souls though the ministry of revivals but I just really hated going. I went to a revival a few years back by chance and the seniors that were there really loved it .. I could see that it really speaks to a segment, but feel like the times are moving on and it was probably the last true "revival" meeting I will have chance attend again.

[Shea Zellweger]

At District Assembly, we got to hear about longing for "an old convention song." that's the closest I've been to a revival in about a year.

[Sarah Smith]

Good thread!

Just a couple of personal observations: a successful church is not necessarily one with numerical growth. I believe rather it is one where the truth is preached, believed, taught, and lived. In some settings that is not going to be popular and hence no numerical growth, or very little.

Fastest way to get me out of a church is start a "forty days of this or that" campaign. I've been through two churches going Saddleback, and all I can say is never again. In both cases the churches went from a clear proclamation of salvation through Jesus Christ to more the message of "come and join our church and explore if maybe Jesus is the path you choose for your faith experience." In both cases, also, works that should follow salvation (and they should!) became works instead of doctrine. As in, it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you live a good moral and charitable life.

Not.