• 
• 
• 
• 

[Above: Worshipers in Nigeria, 1990—Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center]

Does the vitality of a religious revival come directly from God, apart from human efforts, or is revival fervor channeled through the human efforts of preachers or seekers? 

 The two sides in this debate are often termed “Calvinist” and “Arminian,” even though many participants in the historical controversies were not at all dependent for their ideas on John Calvin (1509–​1564) or Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609).

Calvinists—who believe that God’s purpose and power undergird all human decisions—distinguish between “revival” and “revivalism.” They see revival as an unplanned event that reflects God’s initiative and revivalism as a humanly orchestrated effort to stir up religious interest. A Calvinist revival is unpredictable and powerful, like a sudden summer storm.

By contrast Arminians assert that revivals occur through divine-human cooperation, including such strenuous exertions as prayer, fasting, and the persuasion of potential converts. Beginning in the 1830s, American revivalists tended to emphasize strategies to promote revivals, and we see this later in the mass-evangelism techniques used by Dwight Moody, Billy Sunday, Aimee Semple McPherson, Billy Graham, and others.

Ultimately it is hard to draw a clean line of division between these two strains of thought. Calvinists, who wait on God to bring revival, still exert themselves and prepare for it to happen. Arminians, who exert themselves to cause revival, also wait on God. These two theologies of revival may be closer in practice than they are in theory.

By Michael J. McClymond

Show more