Before we pray to God to revive the church in our country, we first need to ask God to revive ourselves. Revival must begin with us believers. The English evangelist Rodney “Gipsy” Smith (1860–1947) was once asked the secret of revival. His reply is convicting: “Go home. Take a piece of chalk. Draw a circle around yourself. Then pray, ‘O Lord, revive everything inside this circle.’” This ought to be your prayer and my prayer: “O Lord, revive me first.”

So what do you think is our greatest need as a nation?
Interestingly, in a Wall Street Journal article, written in 1947 (two years after the Second World War), a writer made this observation: “What America needs more than railway extension, western irrigation, a low tariff, a bigger cotton crop, and larger wheat crop is a revival of religion. The kind that father and mother used to have. A religion that counted it good business to take time for family worship each morning right in the middle of the wheat harvest.”
In short, according to this writer, what America needs most is a revival of religion—a religion that is based on the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In his book—The Secret of Christian Joy—published in 1938, Vance Havner (1901–1986) also made a similar observation: “The greatest need of America is an old-fashioned, heaven-born, God-sent revival.”
And I agree. I believe our greatest need as a nation today is true revival.
But what is revival? In his book, Revival: A People Saturated With God, Brian H. Edwards gives what I think is a comprehensive definition of revival: “A true Holy Spirit revival is a remarkable increase in the spiritual life of a larger number of God’s people, accompanied by an awesome awareness of the presence of God, intensity of prayer and praise, a deep conviction of sin with a passionate longing for holiness and unusual effectiveness in evangelism, leading to the salvation of many unbelievers.”
Noticeably, revival can only be experienced by believers—by those who have been made alive by the Holy Spirit through the gospel of Christ.
Read More
Related Posts:

What we know by nature is not that our lives are meaningless but that we are under God’s wrath for our transgressions. The cross deals with man’s ultimate problem as revealed to us in conscience. It is in the context of God’s revelation that a theologically informed gospel must be preached. God’s fury is upon the impenitent, whether there is hope of better meaning or not! The relevant-relational aspect of the cross is that hell-bound enemies can become friends with God through the one-time propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for our sins.

A pastor can be more or less Reformed, but a doctrine either is or is not Reformed.
A Debtor To Mercy
The church will always have to war against false gospels. From the time of the Judaizers to this very day, the church has been bewitched by sacerdotalism, syncretism, decisional regeneration, social gospels, prosperity gospels, Lordship Salvation and many other false teachings.
Some of these deceptions are more obvious than others, depending upon the degree of marginalization of the person and work of Christ. All false gospels promise deliverance from one thing unto another. Things become a bit trickier when the Christ remains at the center of the message.
While fundamentalists during the 1980s and ‘90s were on the lookout for anti-Christ, certain Reformed folk were setting their sights on Robert Schuller and then Joel Osteen, while still others were fighting the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision. During this time of disquiet, another false gospel not only received a wink but a motion toward a comfortable seat at the Reformed table. Lordship Salvation, promulgated by John MacArthur with endorsements by such notables as J.I. Packer and James Montgomery Boice, became a non-confessional doctrinal option in the broad tent of Reformed evangelicalism.
The MacArthur controversy wasn’t a fair fight. The Lordship gang of independently minded untouchables were picking on the theological weaklings within Arminian Antinomianism. Because the Reformed faith wasn’t under attack, many who grasped Reformed soteriology didn’t bother to take a side in the Lordship debate. Strictly speaking, there was no correct side to take! Both sides were wrong, though only one side positioned itself as historically Reformed. The prominent darlings within Reformed evangelicalism who weighed in on the debate were popularizers and preachers, not confessionally minded theologians. Although they took the Lordship side, the debate was largely dismissed as noise among Reformed academics because both sides were outside the tradition.
During the fog of war, a new star was arising.
While MacArthur and company were flexing their independent muscles in the Reformed evangelical schoolyard, many on the fringe of Reformed confessional theology were spooked into confusing justifying faith with the fruit of progressive sanctification. Forsaking oneself and commitment of life replaced receiving and resting in Christ alone for justification. While certain crusaders falsely, yet confidently, claimed to be defending the faith once delivered unto the saints, a new star from the multi-cultural city of Manhattan was rising above the theological smog. This talented leader was not focused on the nature of saving faith, but on the evangelistic question of what the gospel offers sinners in a postmodern context.
With the stage presence and communication skills of a CEO of a multinational conglomerate, Tim Keller sought to identify and meet a legitimate need by trying to reach the nations for Christ in the dense 23 square miles of New York’s apple.
I know no Reformed pastor who has made more disciples in such a short period of time as Tim Keller. Even Keller’s disciples are already spawning disciples!
Fast forward to 2023. The new gospel eclipses the theology of the cross.
Instead of seeing the objective act of premarital relations as sin, our greatest need is to look away from self-centered romance in order to find life’s truest fulfillment in Christ alone. The offer of Christ is no longer an offer of imputed righteousness and forgiveness for uncleanness, but rather is packaged as freedom from self-idolization and the vapid fulfillment of existential experience. Christ is offered to men and women as the door to freedom from the sin of self-imposed slavery. The world with all its social woes is our unmistakable object lesson. What unregenerate person could miss what is in plain sight! The world’s poverty, disunity and abusiveness is a result of a broken relationship with God. That’s the bad news. The good news is Jesus is the remedy for the unfulfilled life and all broken and abusive relationships. Christ will satisfy our needs if only we become satisfied with Christ. It is God who makes true worshippers through Jesus Christ. Herein we find a “take it to streets” approach to Christian Hedonism.
The new gospel would be as attractive as it is relevant to the postmodern urbanite. Of course, hell, too, needed to be reworked a bit. Hell is no longer a place of eternal torment and punishment for sins against a loving yet wrathful God; and outer darkness is no longer accompanied by weeping and gnashing of teeth. Rather, hell is a reasoned trajectory of living one’s life without Christ at the center. It’s a dimension to be pondered more than a place to be feared. Hell is a philosophical extension of life lived without God. Hell contemplates the future eternality for disembodied spirits resulting from a meaningless temporal existence. It’s the expansion of this life, as opposed to the wages of sin. (Likewise, heaven isn’t an inheritance and sabbath rest from the battle against indwelling sin, as it is the transcendent spatial trajectory for the Christian after death.)
Does this gospel message sound familiar?
We live in a broken world in which we try to find meaning, acceptance and healing through material pleasures, careers, entertainment, community and intimate relationships. Perhaps we even try to find meaning by trying to be a good person. But no matter how hard we try, if we’re honest with ourselves we will admit that we cannot rid ourselves of emptiness. We always seem to suffer under abuse or broken relationships leading to further discontentment. No matter how often we become disillusioned with material things, ideologies and the relationships in which we entrust ourselves, we continue to turn to those idols for ultimate satisfaction and happiness even though they fail us without fail.
Our biggest problem is we are separated from God who made us to be in relationship with him. The good news is we can be restored to God who is the only one that can give our lives meaning. Jesus came to give us life abundant. But to be restored to God we must turn from self and believe Jesus paid for our sins. That is the only way our emptiness can be replaced with meaning. We need a relationship with God who is the author of all meaning. We need that relationship because God created us as relational beings.
The bad news is, if you continue to seek meaning apart from God, upon death you will enter into an eternal darkness void of all meaning and bliss. If you don’t seek in this life meaning from God, you’ll get your heart’s desire forever. You will reap for all eternity more of what you’re experiencing now, a meaningless life where self is at the center. Hell will be where you send yourself. Your punishment will be your unquenchable search to find fulfillment in created things, apart from God at the center. So, I urge you, come to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins so that you might find meaning now and forevermore. Only through Christ can God heal your brokenness and give your life the true meaning for which you were created and have been searching.
The problem isn’t that the word “sin” is utterly absent from the contemporary gospel presentation. Rather, sin is so ill-defined that the theology of the cross loses its context, and by that its relevance. If our greatest need may be motivated by a self-absorbed desire for meaning, then Christ crucified for sinners isn’t being offered.
Any gospel that denies the theology of the cross is another gospel. It’s also not very enticing!
If the “meaningless” of this life is life’s eternal penalty, I suppose most can accept that consequence without too much dread. But who will say they can embrace being cast into biblical hell? The stakes of the game of life aren’t terribly high if one actually enjoys his selfish life.
That man’s life outside Christ is meaningless is a minor point. Even Christians don’t always find fulfillment! Man has a sin problem. His very existence outside mystical union with Christ is an offense to God. The contemporary gospel isn’t that we can escape God’s wrath, gain a right standing to God’s law, and be adopted as sons of God in Christ. Today’s gospel exchanges life’s disappointments for meaning. The felt need we are to try to elicit with the gospel is one of purpose and fulfillment, not deliverance from the wages of sin, which is death.
The true meaning of the cross is contextualized not by purpose but by what is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.
What we know by nature is not that our lives are meaningless but that we are under God’s wrath for our transgressions. The cross deals with man’s ultimate problem as revealed to us in conscience. It is in the context of God’s revelation that a theologically informed gospel must be preached. God’s fury is upon the impenitent, whether there is hope of better meaning or not! The relevant-relational aspect of the cross is that hell-bound enemies can become friends with God through the one-time propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for our sins.
The theology of the cross and the doctrine of justification unearth man’s need and by extension the biblical gospel.
Consider the multi-faceted import of the cross of Christ:

Propitiation presupposes wrath.
Satisfaction presupposes justice, which again presupposes wrath.
Expiation presupposes the middle ground of enmity being removed through a propitiatory sacrifice that exhausts God’s wrath.
Reconciliation presupposes alienation because of sins that deserve God’s wrath.
Sacrifice presupposes an offering for sin that deserves God’s wrath.
Redemption presupposes deliverance from bondage, and condemnation, which demands God’s wrath.
Love is Jesus suffering the unmixed wrath of God for unjust sinners.

The theology of the cross is not one of restoring meaning to life. The cross is a symbol of love, mercy and grace, which finds its only expression in the context of the wages of sin, which is death, not want of purpose. Because today’s gospel is not theological, it’s not biblical.
There’s a wisdom to the cross that relates to theological justification.
How the cross brings meaning to life isn’t at all obvious. However, when we begin to understand our need for a perfect righteousness and satisfaction for sins, the cross is not just intelligible but can be seen as the profound wisdom of God.
As I taught my adult daughters since they were little children, sinners like us need two things to stand before a holy and righteous God – a perfect righteousness that’s not our own and God’s gracious pardon for our sins. What we need to stand in the judgement is accomplished only through the active and passive obedience of Christ. Accordingly, our greatest need is not for meaning in life but to be justified in Christ. The new gospel dilutes our sin problem, and, therefore, the gospel’s remedy.
Read More
Related Posts:

A true biblical “feminist” embraces the ontological reality of male and female, submits to the authority of Scripture, and the authority of her father or husband, and adheres to the biblically outlined roles of men, women, and children in the marriage, family, church, and society. This is a feminism that builds up rather than tears down. It is time for women to reclaim their power of femininity, venerate motherhood, and permit men to be masculine again.  

The feminist movement has for decades propagated the myth that historically, and almost universally, women have been uniquely oppressed and confined to the domestic sphere, leaving the power, wealth and public life for the men.
Over the past 170 years, the feminist movement has undergone multiple waves of change, however, a consistent thread within this ideology has been the suppression of traditionally feminine traits with the promotion of masculine traits within women. The movement which originally pledged to fight for equality between men and women bestowed upon them by their Creator (Seneca Falls Declaration 1848) has progressively abandoned the biblical distinctions between male and female genders and roles for the fictitious idea of sameness.
Within any ideological “-ism” a grain of good can be found, but within feminism, the grain of truth has mutated into a vulgar and abusive ideology. The feminist movement has been hurting and enslaving many women for decades all the while purporting to be liberating them from the alleged evils of patriarchy. Now many women are waking up to the reality that the promises of liberation and equality from the feminist movement come at a great personal cost.
God has given women the keys to the future of any society—motherhood—and if we are going to pass on a good legacy to our children true feminine feminists must take the lead within our personal spheres of influence by adhering to the authority of the Scriptures in our understanding of male and female identity and roles within the marriage, family, church, and society.
Anti-Femininity
Classical feminism advocated for the recognition of the basic equal humanity, dignity, intelligence, and competence of the female sex (e.g. Olympus de Gourge, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Jane Austen). However this is not a new or revolutionary concept, it was embedded within the creation account of mankind by their Creator, “So God created man [humankind] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)
In this verse, both males and females are included under the heading of “man” and are granted equal status as sharing in God’s image. The Bible has provided clear teaching regarding gender roles and distinctions while upholding an inalienable equality between men and women. A woman who embraces her femininity and biblical gender role is no less than a man–they are distinct yet equal.
However, the feminist movement has consistently sought to undermine gender distinctions of any kind and subsequently proven to be quite disingenuous in its claim of being advocates for women’s rights. They have not been advocates for the many women who uphold the binary definitions of gender and the God-given roles within the marriage, family, and the church. On the contrary, they have promoted women adorning masculinity and viewed femininity as a facilitator of oppression.
The feminist movement has been significantly influenced, if not highjacked, by Marxism, another -“ism” with a grain of truth, which focused on the power struggle between business owners and the working class. As the feminist movement intersected with Marxism the practical result was women being demoted from wife, mother, and matriarch to join the ranks of the labour force for the marketplace.
The feminist movement pressured women to enter the workforce in order to gain economic equality with men. However, if these women were going to compete with men within a male-dominated workplace they were called upon to shed any stereotypical femininity and female gender roles.
No longer was it acceptable for a woman to find her value in being, “created in the image of God,” now it was calculated by her ability to dominate within her life and work spheres like a man. Biblical femininity and female gender roles were typecast as weak and a relic of the oppressive patriarchal system.
The feminist movement subsequently crafted a toxic caricature of male masculinity that vilified strong and successful men. Therefore if true equality were to be attained the feminist movement required both genders to become neutered. Herein lies the real rub, the feminist movement is not pro-women it is pro-masculine women. The modern feminist, in practice, disdains feminine-women and despises masculine-men.
Embracing Transgenderism
It should not be surprising to anyone that a feminist movement that is so anti-feminine would evolve into a quagmire of perversions. The new 21st-century feminist is defined as such, “Quite simply, feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities.” (International Women’s Development Agency)
The feminist movement does not exclusively promote women’s rights but includes “all genders,” and ironically transgender-women. Quite absurdly, the feminist movement has trumpeted the valour of men winning women’s athletic competitions, beauty pageants, and laughably Woman of the Year awards.
For a female to speak out against such perversions and inequalities is considered a transgression against the feminist ideology and is met with incensed anger and disapproval. An article from the ACLU titled “Banning Trans Girls from School Sports Is Neither Feminist nor Legal” by Shayna Medley and Galen Sherwin makes the argument that, “The politicians who introduce these anti-trans bills are not concerned with the integrity of girls’ athletics, any more than proponents of bathroom bans are concerned about preventing gender-based violence. We must see these efforts for what they are: fear-mongering intended to push transgender and non-binary people out of public spaces.”
In turn, the men and women who do speak up to protect the equal rights and opportunities for these girls are vilified as transphobic oppressors of women. The response to such crusaders for female rights is met by a disproportionate level of anger and cancellation from the very people claiming to advocate for women’s rights–witness the backlash JK Rowling is receiving for having the audacity to stand up for women’s (female) rights.
This begs the question: why are feminists embracing transgender women? For decades the feminist movement has tirelessly worked to undermine gender distinctions and transgenders personify the ultimate degradation of gender. Perhaps transgender women are the logical end of the modern feminist movement. Where does this leave the female girls on the college swim team? They have become losers dominated by men in lipstick and high heels. The feminist movement is replete with people who refuse to address the real assaults on female rights and equality, like transgenderism and Islam, while also minimising the real-world success of countless women in the public sphere. This leaves many women (and men) feeling unable to relate to or work with the loud angry mob of feminists in the west.
Angry Women
The feminists display disproportionate levels of anger about perceived inequalities and reproduction laws which they allege are oppressing women, while they pay little regard to the reality that they are living in societies brimming with successful, wealthy, and powerful women (many of whom are also mothers). A disconnect with reality is exemplified in this quote from Martha Rampton, professor of history and director of the Center for Gender Equality at Pacific University, “the realisation that gains in female representation in politics and business, for example, are very slight.” Compare this assessment of “very slight” with the following facts:
In 1965 2.3% of the US House of Representatives were women compared to 2021 at 27.3%; In 1971 4.5% of the state legislators were women compared to 2021 at 30.8%; In 1995 0% of Fortune 500 CEO’s in the USA were women compared to 2020 at 7.4%; in 1995 9.6% of Fortune 500 board members were women compared to 2019 at 27%; In 1986 9.5% of University and College presidents were women compared to 2016 at 30.1%.
For feminists to make the claim that women have had very slight gains in representation is confounding and disingenuous. Individuals will always face challenges and need to sacrifice in order to gain success in politics and business, but the grievances of the relatively few angry feminists are not shared by the majority of females. Most women are content to rely upon men, in varying degrees, financially, socially, emotionally, and sexually and do not consider themselves oppressed and enslaved.
Many women do not feel the need to have a 50/50 representation within all areas of the public sphere. In our Western world women have equal status, rights, and opportunities as men, so why aren’t the feminists heralding their success? Though the feminist movement has for decades actively marginalised and vilified gender-based distinctions they have been unable to change the ontological realities of gender. Thus, those women who legitimise gender-based divisions of labour, appreciate the value of masculine men and feminine women, oppose abortion, and find personal worth and value in their role as wives and mothers are not considered success stories.
Read More
Related Posts: