By Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div. from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Kansas. He is currently interim pastor of Emmanuel Friedens Federated Church, Schenectady, NY. His sixth book – The Immaculate Mistake: How Evangelicals Gave Birth to Donald Trump – has recently been published by Wipf and Stock (Cascades). And his newest book, Good and Evil in the Garden of Democracy, will appear by the end of April.
“The kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the good news!” To repent is not to feel bad but to think differently. In its concern for helping every individual to make his own authentic choice in full awareness and sincerity, Protestantism (especially evangelical Protestantism) is in constant danger of confusing the kingdom itself with the benefits of the kingdom.
If the revival at Asbury has helped students make their own authentic choice to follow Jesus in full awareness and sincerity, then God bless that revival. But if the revival confuses the kingdom of God with the benefits of the kingdom, we have a problem.
John Howard Yoder says, “If anyone repents, if anyone turns around to follow Jesus in his new way of life, this will do something for the aimlessness of his life. It will do something for his loneliness by giving him fellowship. It will do something for his anxiety and guilt by giving him a good conscience.” So the students at Asbury, whose “revival” is to proclaim a closer walk with Jesus and liberation from anxiety and guilt, are not wrong. Repentance, after all, as a “change of mind” is a good thing. As Yoder notes, if anyone repents, it will do something for his intellectual confusion by giving them doctrinal meat to digest, a heritage to appreciate, and conscience about telling it all as it is. If students repent it will do something for their moral weakness by giving them the focus for wholesome self-discipline, it will keep them from immorality, it will get them to work on time. So, revivals have their place.
But all this is not the Gospel.
Turning to a rhetorical critique of the Asbury revival, I submit that it sounds more like a movement of melancholy – a sense of loss of an old way of life. Barbara Biesecker, in “No Time for Mourning: The Rhetorical Production of the Melancholic Citizen-Subject in the War on Terror,” says Slavoj Zizek’s definition of the melancholic’s so-called lost object is “nothing but the positivization of a void or lack, a purely anamorphic entity that does not exist in itself.” Evangelicals, caught in the fantasy of a lost time – a lost glory of when America was truly righteous, Christians were truly Christians, and men were truly men – are, in this sense, melancholic. While there has never been a time in our history when America was holy and righteous, evangelicals long for the imagined “good old days,” and they are trying to repair the breaks in the imagined dome of American piety and recover the age of enchantment.
The Asbury revival – and the related revivals at other evangelical schools – then turns out to be the equivalent to American’s post-9/11 patriotism. Instead of a bona fide collective conversion, Americans flocked back to churches for a few Sundays and then reverted back to the old habits of neglecting the gathering together. The only thing left was the commitment to hyper-patriotism and continued outbreaks of anger, resentment, and revenge against a secular world.
Such a critique of a student revival may sound harsh, but such critiques have always shown up in evaluations of revivals in American religion. Jonathan Edwards, a thorough-going and thoughtful Calvinist, the reluctant leader of the First Great Awakening, and perhaps America’s greatest theologian, critiqued his own revival and argued that there were differences between genuine revivals and fake revivals. I can’t think of any preacher who has ever given as much attention to the nature of revival as Edwards. His works on revival include Faithful Narrative of Surprising Conversions, Thoughts on the Revival of Religion in New England, Treatise on Religious Affections and Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. From the latter work, Edwards reflected on the nature of revival:
Is the revival genuine, or is it a mere outburst of superficial emotion? Do we find empty enthusiasm backed by nothing of substance, or does the enthusiasm itself signal a major work of God? In every recorded revival in church history, the signs that follow it are mixed. The gold is always mixed with dross. Every revival has its counterfeits.
When Billy Sunday dominated the “sawdust trail” as America’s most famous revivalist, he faced waves of criticism. For example, a liberal Congregationalist minister in Oak Park, Illinois, William E. Barton (1861-1930), attacked Sunday’s pulpit manner:
We wish he would stop his profanity….damned stinking something-or-other, ‘To hell with’ something or somebody…. We wish he were a gentleman….He is a harsh, unjust, bad-tempered man…a very defective Christian.
From Jonathan Edwards – scholar, Calvinist, and quiet preacher – to Billy Sunday – athletic, populist, rude talking, ill-mannered, and emotional – America has run the gamut of revivalists. Criticism of revivalists has varied from excessive prejudice to thoughtful reflection, but criticism of revival is as relevant now as it ever was.
From the perspective of this critic, I would say that the revival at Asbury is genuine. There is no doubt that the students are very sincere. I think the revival exemplifies the moving of the Holy Spirit in individual lives. I believe that the students were deeply moved and many of them transformed. The experiences in this revival suggest students being born again to a stronger Christian commitment.
My concern is that the revival didn’t go far enough. It didn’t demonstrate a genuine “change of mind” – the literal rendering of repentance. As Stanley Hauerwas makes clear,
The gospel is the proclamation of a new age begun through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That gospel, moreover, has a form, a political form. It is embodied in a church that is required to be always ready to give hospitality to the stranger.
A revival in a bastion of evangelical exclusion, a revival that re-intensifies anti-gay, anti-diversity, anti-science, and anti-history, is not deserving of the name revival.
A revival should focus on the “lack” rather than the perceived mythological “loss.” Future-oriented revival opens the door to new interpretations of how people who are different are to be treated. Revival would offer a counter to the severe rationalism of evangelical faith that no longer rely on universal principles chiseled in stone in a literal Bible. Instead, it will be fluid and deal with particular circumstances, changing circumstances, including the advance of ethical consciousness as a new way of interpreting the Bible.
I want to suggest that the Jewish approach to the interpretation of Scripture offers a better way of approaching the possibility of genuine revival. The Hebrew word “peshat” means “straight” and refers primarily to the surface of literal meaning of the text. This is the plain, simple, and often decontextualized interpretation of the text. The second method of Jewish exegesis, the “drash,” refers to how the text is to be lived and applied. Here is the seedbed for revival.
On this reading, revival is not God doing something in our hearts. This is the kind of sequestered revival that offers meaning and purpose to the individual, but has little to do with the production of practices that will save us from a lack of showing hospitality to strangers.
A revival has to be more than immediate, individual, and narcissistic. Instead, true revival leads to concrete, physical, bodily practices for the benefit of Others.
True revival would involve the Hebrew definition of repentance: “to turn” or “to return to the paths of justice and righteousness. The Jewish sense of justice (Tsedek) calls for those who are “revived” to be compassionate and caring. Built into the notion of Tsedek is a natural tension between the dictates of equity and mercy. There is a blending of love and justice, truth and peace. Ultimately, revival produces actual, material, physical changes in the lives of Others, especially the “least of these.” Justice cannot be achieved by the affects of personal revival.
My prayer would be that the student revival at Asbury move beyond a grasping for the old orientation – the imagined idyllic world of a pious and righteous America – and instead create a reorientation in favor of justice and mercy. If this revival moves in this direction, then the students may bring about the conversion of their older leaders who are so wedded to secular politics and MAGA philosophy. If this revival moves in this direction, then we may have a true Methodist revival of social concern and “catholic” faith, and a true Baptist insistence on “Jesus as Lord” as opposed to the powers and principalities.
May it be so.
From Frederick Schmidt:
I always read what Rod has to say with interest but I have to say, I think that he is pretty wildly off target with his latest piece on the revival at Asbury. Having been a part of that community years ago, I know it has its potential shortcomings. But they are very different from the revivalism of the reformed tradition in this country and I think that he completely ignores the quest for meaning that dominates the college years in the lives of young adults. As a result, the bulk of Rod’s critique feels as if it rests on a prior assumption: Revivals are about hawking a certain kind of logic, that logic is not what the Gospel is all about, therefore, the revival at Asbury is – by definition – problematic. Sometime ago I offered an alternative understanding of what transpired there: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/whatgodwantsforyourlife/2023/02/understanding-the-revival-at-asbury-university/
Frederick is right in defending the revival at Asbury. I indicated my own support and its genuine nature. I also will take a plea deal on “being wildly off target” at times. It is the price of saying what others may be reluctant to say.
That being said, my purpose, in my mind, was to suggest that revivals need to manifest lasting practices, that salvation as Hauerwas puts it, is being engrafted into practices that make us an alternative to the false politics of the world. By insisting on a revival that results in the production of the social gospel and an alternative politics and hospitality to strangers – gays, minorities, women, and immigrants, I am only asking that we have plenty of time to see the final results at Asbury.
I do dissent from the idea that I employed a prior logic about revivals. I am a child of revivals, and I am not a part of the evangelical fandom, but I have a deep respect for its lasting results. Perhaps I am delusional, but I think I am more in line with the critique of Jonathan Edwards than I am the usual liberal rejection of revivals.
I hesitated to write about the revival for more than a month, because I had my own questions. But I obviously did write the piece. Like Flannery O’Connor I believe it is sometimes necessary to exaggerate, to shout, and to draw large startling images. If that is wildness, then my only defense is
“What would the world be, once bereft Of Wet and wildness? Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet; Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.” —Gerhard Manley Hopkins*
Hauerwas, Stanley. Working with Words: On Learning to Speak Christian (p. 173). Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The Wesleyan emphasis on “holiness” and “Catholic spirit” and “social principles’ does make Methodist revivals a different genre. I am aware of that, but also, I am suggesting that Asbury has been pulled more in the conservative evangelical direction. Its seminary has been designated as an accredited seminary by the Global Methodist Church.
I read Frederick’s post on Patheos and I agree with him. His statement of the ideals of the Wesleyan spirit is brilliant. The Methodists, combining Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic theology with American Protestant theology always has the most gifts to facilitate a national revival that would reject the current “poisoning of the evangelical church” in America. Thank you, Frederick!
Rod, thanks for the generous response. It’s a welcome breath of fresh air in the digital world to differ without coming to verbal blows. I also appreciate the added insight into your thoughts on the subject.
Just a few notes about the institution itself: (1) I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of what things are like at either the University or the Seminary. (2) What I do know is that while they share a common religious milieu, they are organizationally separate. So, what might apply to one, doesn’t necessarily apply to the other. (3) I am aware that the GMC has selected Asbury as one of its approved seminaries but the GMC approved United Theological Seminary in Dayton, as well, which is a UMC seminary.
Having followed the debates that have roiled Methodism and having watched how the same debates have evolved in my own tradition, I am not surprised. But I don’t think that the decisions that both the GMC and UMC will make on such matters means that the seminaries they choose will be in lock-step with the respective denominations going forward. As far as I am aware, the vast majority of the faculty at ATS remain United Methodists, and the seminary will continue to admit those who apply from the UMC. The reverse will likely be true as well.
Protestant institutions have historically separated the preparation of clergy from the vetting process that leads to their ordination. And, as I am sure you are aware, they are not as deeply integrated as are Roman Catholic seminaries where seminaries still march to a different drummer.
Bottom line: I think that it is probably risky to draw any conclusions on that basis about where the university might be moving. Speaking as one who was once deeply shaped by that heritage and still values what it offers, I hope that both institutions will continue to nurture the wisdom of their distinctive heritage.
My own institutional bias, as a recovering pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapturist, sometimes causes me to commit the rhetorical fallacy of making tenuous connections that are more nuanced than I realize. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Jumping to unwarranted conclusions would get me kicked out of my rhetorical criticism classes.
Having taught at United for 7 years, I was not surprised that they would be in the GMA orbit. It is the last of the old Evangelical Brethren seminaries still in existence and is quite conservative. I was surprised when Truett Seminary decided to affiliate with GMA. The economic realities of seminary existence, in my view, at times precarious.
After I read your article, I re-read Stanley Hauerwas’ essay, “Methodist Theological Ethics: Why Methodists Can’t Distinguish between Theology and Ethics.” He points out Wesley’s commitment to “practical divinity.” My response to the revival at Asbury was based on my tenuous conclusion that Asbury was not bringing the “social gospel” along for the revival ride. My quote from Edwards was only meant ironically. Sometimes, I try to be overly cute because I am playing with words and ideas and in the process surrender precision. My conclusion is that we are not actually in disagreement here. Your historical analysis of revival in the Wesleyan context is important. My ongoing commitment to speak to the failures of evangelicals to be Christian is too deep a part of my entire existence, I can’t help but keep speaking. Thanks for reminding me of the “Catholic spirit.” After all the Episcopal Church itself is a holiness movement.
To clarify: Truett has been recommended by the GMC. Saying that Truett decided to affiliate with the GMC gives the impression that Truett is now “officially” a seminary of the GMC, which isn’t correct. The Wesley House at Truett welcomes students from the GMC and from all Wesleyan denominations. I would also add that, implying (as you seem to) that Truett’s ready willingness to serve GMC students is due to “economic realities” is uncharitable. The primary motivation is to help equip people of all Wesleyan denominations to serve God well in whatever places they find themselves (denominationally and otherwise).
I gladly accept your argument that there are implied accusations about Truett. I should have simply articulated my own sense of disappointment that Truett, a Cooperative Baptist school, has reached out to GMC in the current UMC division over issues revolving around the issues of gays, gay marriage, and the ordination of gays. I have read other explanations for churches leaving the UMC, but remain unconvinced by those suggestions.
I would like to take back my harsh suggestion of “economic realities” because all seminaries have to deal with tough economic issues, but this does not mean that any seminary compromises its basic convictions on the basis of economic realities. As a “Welcoming and Affirming Baptist” I obviously oppose churches that refuse to ordain gays.
The direction of Asbury and Truett and the Global Methodist Church will not be determined by me. I have no voice in those communities. My voice is the voice of dissent that the direction doesn’t align with my reading of the “social” nature of the Gospel.
I am not qualified to even comment on this situation – however, reading through the exchange between the two ministers, I am glad this world has both! I have, by the way, just given my grandson (college student) a copy of Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search For Meaning…”
Thanks to both of you…
Thank you for your response. I have a reputation in some circles of not being charitable enough. I have, more than once, repented of this lack in my character. At the same time, I am a firm believer in the power of argument, and I will continue to press my argument for the social gospel and for gay inclusion in all aspects of the church and culture. Your willingness to engage disparate views is a breath of fresh air.
I have taken sides and I press the issue with the same zeal as the fundamentalists who trained me. May the Lord bless you and keep you.