Good evening, all.

In 30-odd years of engaging Revivalists in private conversations, public discussions and online debates, I’m convinced a majority are doubtless sincere, but ignorant. A smaller number again are insincere and cynical, while some I consider to be just plain stupid. Importantly, these categories aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, and people can inhabit multiple states simultaneously, or move backwards and forwards through them over time.

Before I go further, I should probably qualify and define some key terms. ‘Ignorant’ simply equals an absence of knowledge, and is more a statement of fact than it is a value judgment. One either understands a subject or one doesn’t. The opposite of ‘ignorant’ is ‘educated’. ‘Stupid’, on the other hand, describes the absence of intelligence, and involves a value judgment. The opposite of ‘stupid’ is ‘wise’, by the way.

Scripture uses words that are built on a handful of lexical stems in order to present these broad states. For example, the adjective kəsîl (כְּסִיל) occurs seventy times in the Old Testament, and describes someone completely lacking in understanding. Notably, in several passages the value judgment of ‘rebellion’ against God is implied in its usage, the implication being the ignorance is of itself willful. The New Testament equivalent to kəsîl is aphrōn (ἄφρων), which similarly can be found in contexts inferring a deficient moral/spiritual state. Such outright willful ignorance is to be contrasted with ḥākām (חָכָם), and sophos (σοφός), words which links knowledge to understanding, and understanding to discernment. From a biblically Christian perspective then, one can adequately discern a spiritual truth only when one is adequately informed about it.

My long experience has been the average Revivalist simply lacks the basic knowledge needed to properly interpret and apply the Word of God. Consequently he is absolutely lost when it comes to properly discerning spiritual truth, because he doesn’t have the necessary tools in his toolbox. Unfortunately the absence of knowledge will result, if left unchecked, in spiritual death (so Hosea 4:6).

So what to do?

Study. Learn. Seek knowledge so as to gain in understanding (so Ezra 7:10; 2 Timothy 2:15). This is precisely the journey I undertook after leaving the Revival Centres in 1989. I recognised I was ignorant—I hoped I wasn’t stupid—so having bought a few basic Bible study tools, I challenged myself to learning all I could about the settings, the peoples, the histories and the cultures addressed in my Bible as I read it. Later still I realized that in order to go deeper than was possible through my own haphazard approach to self-directed learning, I would need to enroll in University. I did, and I intentionally majored in the majors (i.e. the biblical languages, Church history, and biblical hermeneutics), and minored in the minors (i.e. the pastoral studies stuff). My goal wasn’t the collecting of testamurs, nice as they are, but knowledge. My aim and purpose was unabashedly spiritual, as aptly summarized by Anselm’s famous dictum: ‘faith seeking understanding’ (fides quaerens intellectum).

Unfortunately Revivalism breeds ignorance, given Revivalism fears all learning that would challenge its core assumptions and beliefs. And while it's true that every Revivalist is ignorant, not every Revivalist is stupid. The acid test that distinguishes the former from the latter is this: if you believe your subjective experience stands over the Word of God, then clearly you're stupid. Nothing I or anyone else says will have the slightest impact on you, so keep running towards that cliff with your eyes closed and your ears stopped. But to the ignorant but sincere I offer you a challenge: read each gospel through in a single sitting. I'll wager you won't find anything that reflects the priorities of your fellowship's doctrines.

Blessings,

Ian