Revisited: "Revival Or Reformation: The Fork in the Road before Us"
Reflecting on a Reflection in honor of Black History Month
I originally wrote this piece to myself as a kind of journal entry. It is dated 3/15/2021 about one year after I began pastoral ministry (Ok, I wasn’t officially ordained until November 6th, 2020 but that was because of Covid—anyway, you get the idea). In some ways this is a more awkward post for me, since it is more vulnerable in sharing part of my journal, and an internal struggle in existential terms. In any case I felt it might be relevant to share, and of some use to others.
My church holds both a morning and even service each Sunday—a different sermon at each one. My first sermon series for the mornings went through Isaiah 40-66, and in the evenings, I began in Luke. Ironically, or perhaps prophetically, in any case providentially, my first two official sermons were "Isaiah 40:1-2--What Comfort is There?" and "Luke 1:1-4--Know the Certainty of What You've Been Taught" . The first asked a question, the second offered an exhortation. This initial pairing of a question and an exhortation have remained at the forefront of my mind ever since as we continue to confront religious/social/political instability and insecurity. In the Christian world, I think instability and insecurity have been expressed, to use broad umbrellas, through deconstruction and recalcitrance.
By “Deconstruction” I mean questioning the meaning of the Christian faith along with the implicit assumptions expressed in its forms and practice.
By “Recalcitrance” I mean “being stubborn and defying authority and restraint.”
If we are to “Know the Certainty of What We’ve Been Taught” doesn’t that mean anyone deconstructing their faith is no longer of that faith—now outside of Christ? Not necessarily. I have found it imperative to inquire further and to determine precisely what is being deconstructed. As folks like
, , ; podcasts like Christianity Today's "Rise and Fall of Mars Hill" and Sons of Patriarchy ; docuseries like Shiny Happy People and many others have made clear—"We might no for certain, something(s) MUST be deconstructed.” Certainly, there is no Gospel comfort outside of Christ, but isn’t that the question of the day? Where is Christ, and Who is He?” If insecurity is stemming from judging a tree by its fruit, is it possible these are running to Christ from groups that have long taken His name in vain? I am reminded of Hebrews 13:11-14,The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.
Conversely, if such a Savior is our comfort and this Savior calls to would-be disciples,
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul.” (Matthew 16:24-26)
So, when we see so many—as certain as they might seem in their way— scorn suffering for earthly comfort, might these actually "Forfeiting Heaven for Rome" (as Jon Guerra sings the question)? Is it possible to preach the Comforts of Christ where the cross is exchanged for the sword, and obligation to the poor is reinvested into self-interest? It is not, for such a comfort is one that walks away from a suffering Savior, and embraces the vanity of worldly counterfeits. If you have been taught a gosple of self-interest, and earthly comfort—sword shaped as it were, it is no doubt necessary to question “The certainty of what you have been taught.”
To ask “Is, what I have been taught Christ, or is it something else?” is the same sanctified scrutiny for which the Holy Spirit regards the Berean Jews as more noble than those in Thessalonica (Acts 17:11). This kind of “Deconstruction” might actually be the necessary seeking, and fruit of repentance that leads a person—perhaps for the first time experience the Comfort of Christ, who despite that cross invites us all to Himself:
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)
The invitation stands as long as it is called “Today” (Hebrews 3:13).
With that as the introduction, I simply include my old journal entry, with just a few adjustments, and a hastily written new conclusion.
Wells, Adam
3/15/2021 and revisited 2/28/2025
Revisited: “Revival or Reformation: The Fork in the Road before us”
The American church--that is congregations of Christ’s church in America--has some serious soul-searching to do. The realities of deviation from Christ’s Gospel have been set before us in recent history: Christian Nationalism,[1] the resurfacing charges of our complicity [at best!] with America’s stained heritage of racism,[2] and charges of constructing-and-continuing a Doctrine of Discovery which sanctioned the conquest and extermination of “Indians” in the New World. The charges are not simply that these things happened, but that the White churches in America have never properly owned up to and turned from these sins. As a result, it is crucial that we examine the “Faith of Our Fathers, living still” to see that we are indeed of the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints (2 Cor13:5; Jude 3). Who are our fathers, and what is the faith we have received? If the faith of our fathers constitutes nothing less than a continuation of what Frederick Douglas called “Slave-holder” religion, than we who have a reputation for being alive, may in fact be spiritually dead (Rev 3:1-6), and children with the devil as our father (1 John 3:8). Thus, the question I asked, just one year into the ordained ministry: “Revival or Reformation: The Fork in the Road before us” which makes up the bulk this essay, has given way in my soul to the following conclusion: That particular Fork has been passed and we are at the point of Realignment. Below is the beginning train of thought that has led me to this conclusion during the past 4 years.
Our nation’s religious history is storied, and of mythic proportions.[3] Revivals are glowing stamps in out time-line, demarcated as the First, and Second Great Awakenings (roughly 1720-1742; and 1790-1840 respectively). To this day we continue to debate and evaluate the heritage of these religio-historical movements—the first championed by theological acumen in men like Johnathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and John Wesley; the second by Charles Finney wherein Arminian theology, and emotionalism took a more central role. Problematically, however, the First “Great Awakening” failed to lead the large majority of professing Christians (clergy and lay-person alike) to decry “Christian Nationalism”, or to challenge racism, prejudice, manstealing and segregation (yes, even in churches), or the disenfranchisement and genocide inflicted upon the Native Americans [a difficult title to use while displacing that same people to make their home your own] as clear aberrations of Christian teaching. So, rather than peoples and tribes, the titles “savages” or “heathen” were common][4] All this while sanctifying the actions under the call of “Manifest Destiny” to spread a vision from “Sea to shining sea.” This vision undergirded by the long-standing colonizing worldview expressed in Papal Bulls, known as the “Doctrine of Discovery” which was allowed to go uncriticized. The Second Great Awakening did lead to the rise of the abolitionist movement, but even here White Supremacy and Manifest Destiny were largely left to unmolested in its reign.
To sum up:
1. The Doctrine of Discovery allowed for European “Christians” to place their settling of the within the pages of Scripture by framing themselves as a “New Israel.” In the context of the so called “New World” this self-perception found religio-national expression in Manifest Destiny.
2. Racism, while popular parlance today, and decried by almost everyone, actually needs specification.
“Racism”, “Prejudice”, and “Racialization”[5]
a. Racism is social construction, in which society is formed in a hierarchical order based on skin color. Because it is a social construction, “racism” is not simply coterminous with “prejudice."Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith illuminate an important distinction between racialization and mere ‘prejudice’ with this illustration:
"[T]he social construction of race is highlighted by the fact that the way groups of people are defined changes. In the United States, Irish and Italian Americans were once viewed as distinct, and inferior, racial groups. Today they are classified as white Americans of Irish or Italian ethnicity."1
De facto Racism is such that is exercised in practice even when not legally required[6]. De Jure Racism is which is enshrined in law. For example, such a construction is what allowed the framers of the Declaration of Independence to simultaneous hold that “all men are created equal” while socially delimiting who, in fact, was truly a man.2 Thus, Native Americans are regarded as “Merciless savages” just a few lines later. Again, this is on display in the U.S. Constitution under 1787 “3/5 compromise” regarding slaves as 3/5 person before the law (as voters).
b. Racialization
Emerson and Smith argue that in our present society Racialization is a more helpful category than Racism.
“In the post-Civil Rights United States, the racialized society is one in which intermarriage rates are low, residential separation and socioeconomic inequality are the norm, our definitions of personal identity and our choices of intimate associations reveal racial distinctiveness, and where ‘we are never unaware of the race of a person with whom we interact.’ In short, and this is its unchanging essence, a racialized society is a society wherein race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships. A racialized society can also be said to be ‘a society that allocates differential economic, political, social, and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines; lines that are socially constructed.’”3
3. Christian Nationalism: view’s God’s plan as intertwined and inseparable from the success of a political nation. This kind of thinking began with Eusebius’ Messianic view of Constantine’s reign. This same doctrine found the United States. American Exceptionalism grows very much from this doctrine.
Today [3/15/21] the question is before us: As we labor in Gospel ministry are we seeking and praying for Revival, or Reformation? “Revival” meaning, “An improvement in the condition or strength of something”, or with a view to presentation, “A new production of an old work.” Sociologically revival can be defined as, “an instance of something becoming popular, active, or important again.” As a confessional Protestant my first impulses have lain in revival—to “show a better way” by digging into “the deeper protestant conception”[7] and building on the old, catholic heritage we hold as Christians. If we do the first two, will not the increased popularity follow?
Perhaps it did. Perhaps the ‘Young, Restless, and Reformed’ represented such a revival—the popularization and recognition, not only the doctrines of grace, but also of the need to be connected to one’s history. In this way, perhaps that group was not wholly different from what became known The Emergent Church. I am not uncritical of the Emergent Church movement, but these days the label is intriguing (emerging from where? Going where?), as I consider if what we must be pursuing is not revival, but reformation.
Reformation is what it sounds like: taking something once formed and forming it once again, presumably in an improved way. The Protestant Reformation rallied under the renaissance cry of “Ad Fontes”—“To the Fount!” In the midst of gross dereliction and abuse within the Roman Church, the result was the recovery and exposition of what Peter Martyr Vermigli proclaimed as ‘Quel benedetto articulo della giustificatione”[8] that blessed article of justification! Praise God!
Today, when I say we need reformation, I do not mean re-reform what the Lord already laid bare through the works of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli etc. protesting the corruptions and deviations of the faith that developed in the Roman church. When we look to reformation we must look to the current abuses and dereliction within our “American Protestant Church Context.” Thus, ours must be a reformation of theological anthropology. Thus, Ours must be a reformation of Ecclesiology; ours must be a reformation of eschatology; ours must be a Reformation in understanding God’s will in both justice, and mercy—and keeping Micah 6:8 in mind, perhaps most importantly, ours must be a reformation in humiliation, walking before God Himself.
Now in the days of George Floyd, Donald Trump, Ravi Zacharias, Paul Nyquist, Jerry Falwell, Jr., along with rampant cover-ups, propaganda and misrepresentation—not only in our news, but generationally in our history curricula—both in grade schools and seminaries! Is it so surprising or unthinkable to ask if what is needed is actually an Ad Fontes Reformation—not a revival “For the soul of America,” but reformation for the souls of Americans to be called out of a nationalistic and civic religion so deeply ingrained across our denominational traditions.[9]
Revival, to me, seems too quick to move forward, when evidence clearly demands us to look backwards and examine the complicity of our forefathers with such great sin. Does it find itself supported in the symbols of our faith (i.e. Our Creeds and Confessions)? Or, are we simply caught in a staggering case of sinning against conscience? Surely, we are not ipso facto guilty of the sins of our forefathers (Ezekiel 18:3-4). Nevertheless, if we see the effects the present manifestations of the sins of our forefathers is it right to say that we bare no responsibility to prepare them (2Sam 21:1-14)?[10] And, if in being shown these sins we do nothing to turn from them (Num 5:5-10), surely the guilt becomes our own (Exodus 34:7). Will we too say, “The Way of the Lord is not just” rather than repent and change our ways (Ezekiel 18:25, 26-32)?
How much more accountably will we become if we then go on, continuing to despise the prophetic voice, predominantly of a Black church (1Thessalonians 5:20) that has long warned us to turn from these sins? Will not our blood be on our own heads (Ezekiel 3:16-21; 33:1-6).[11]
“Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs.” (Luke 11:47-48)
I am not afraid that we are in danger of, but that we are presently quenching the Spirit to our own atrophy. Let us reform, and not revive a stiff-neck.
Concluding Reflection for Today (2/28/2025)
On the last day of Black History Month, this last passage of Luke 11:47-48 and its has stuck in my mind. It holds a revelatory function in how we can approach a history of unfaithfulness, re-frame it as a better narrative than it is, and form a mythological meaning that supports the same status quo that formed and was formed by the original perpetrators.
I. Howard Marshall points out that in Luke 11:47, “No specific audience is addressed in this woe; the audience is wider than the scribes.”[12] In other words, Jesus is speaking to all the people listening. Marshall then comments on v48,
“One would normally regard the erection of a tomb as a sing of honour for the dead, but this cannot be the thought here. 1. The saying may be bitterly ironic: ‘Your fathers killed the prophets, and you make sure that they stay dead; you simply complete what your fathers did’ … 2. You are no better than your fathers who refused to hear the prophets and killed them. You, to be sure, build their tombs, but you are equally unwilling to hear them.’”[13]
Marshall’s two options need not be opposed to one another. Matthew 23:29-32, which speaks of ‘adorning the graves of the prophets’ seems to support the second interpretation. In effect that simply qualifies the manner in which a people would keep a prophet dead—ignore the living Word they proclaimed. To do so, is to reject Christ Himself, the Word of God incarnate (Jn 1:14).
America has memorialized civil rights leaders from the past, celebrating the progress of America. But have we really changed? And have we as the church had ears to hear Christians like Lemuel Haynes, Frederick Douglas, Richard Allen, Absalom Jones, Sojourner Truth, David Walker, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Prathia Hall, and countless others? Have we had humility before God, and ears to hear them as much more than civil rights activists, but as prophets calling us to a better way—indeed, to hear what the Spirit says to the churches?
This source of deep-seated insecurity and uncertainty spans far beyond particular denominations, but to the racial divide so long manifest in the church experience in the United States. Think about it. The Black church existed, by necessity, first as an invisible institution (18th cent.). Then through the leadership of Revs Richard Allen and Absalom Jones (1794*) protesting a White Supremacist Christianity that would proclaim one body of Christ, and yet have blacks and whites be separated in worshipping that one Lord, it became a visible institution by separating from the segregationist White church institution.
Someone once asked me, ‘given such a divide will the Black church every cease to exist.’ In the moment, I answered, ‘Of course, there is one church of Christ, one day we will all be made wholly One.’ That is theologically true, but I regret that answer as speaking in the language of the White normativity in which I was discipled. I wish I had answered, “Yes, when the White church ceases to exist.” For that is the truth of the matter.
Of course, the way we view and form the “other” looks different today. I could list a number of recent Executive actions, and attitudes that treat the foreigner as less than human, but for now I think I will set the question of segregation this way—have we formed religious bodies that have segregated love and care for just certain kinds of people. What I mean by that is not just a sentiment as
so eloquently describes in her book "The Evangelical Imagination" , but to be personally invested into what those unlike you are concerned and care about—indeed, if we are members of one body, if one rejoices all should rejoice, and if one weeps, all should weep (Romans 12:15). Moreover, each member needs the others that the whole body might function properly (1Corinthians 12) and build itself up in love into its head who is Christ (Ephesians 4:1-16).Only God knows the future of the church in the United States. Right now, its fruit reveals deep-rooted rot. My prayer is that in times of turmoil and tension, if the fork in the road of reformation or revival has indeed passed, that the necessary realignment would take place holding fast to the whole Christ, and the faith of our fathers once and for all delivered through the apostles. For I do firmly believe, the God who is love (1 John 4:8) is able both to crucify our flesh with Jesus, and raise us up that we might live through Him—and cause the love with which He first loved us, to spill forth toward God and man by the power of the Almighty Spirit of God dwelling in the bruised and broken bodies of those who have followed Christ outside the camp—rejected by the world, but welcomed into the rest of the living God.
[1] Kristin Kobes De Maz. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Liverlight. 2020.
[2] Jemar Tisby. The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity in Racism. Zondervan. 2019. Cf. His later compendium. How to Fight Racism: Courageous Christianity and the Journey Toward Racial Justice. Zondervan. 2021
[3] On the notion of American religious myth see Robert Bellah. Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion a Time of Trial.
[4] Mark Charles and Soong-Chan Rah. Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. IVP. 2019.
[5] Michael O. Emmerson and Christian Smith. Divided by Faith. Oxford. 2000. P7.
[6] These distinctions are nothing new. Lemuel Haynes quoting George Wallace, argued that the slave-trade was de jure illicit because it betrayed the clear law of God in nature, “One has nobody to blame but himself, in case he shall find himself deprived of a man whom he thought by buying for a price he had made his own; for he dealt in a trade which was illicit, and was prohibited by the most obvious dictates of humanity. For these reasons, every one of those unfortunate men who are pretended to be slaves has a right to be declared free, for he never lost his liberty; he could not lose it; his prince had not power to dispose of him. Of course the sale was ipso Jure void.” (Ed. Thabiti M. Anyabwile. May We Meet in the Heavenly World; The Piety of Lemuel Haynes. Reformation Heritage Books. Grand Rapids, MI. 2009. 23-24). Richard Rothstein argues regarding De Jure aspects of racialization in his book Color of Law, wherein he traces the enshrinement of racial prejudice in the U.S. courts and legislation.
“The Color of the Law demonstrates that racially explicit government policies to segregate our metropolitan areas are not vestiges, were neither subtle nor intangible, and were sufficiently controlling to construct the de jure segregation that is now with us in neighborhoods and hence in schools. The core argument of this book is that African Americans were unconstitutionally denied the means and the right to integration in middle-class neighborhoods, and because this denial was state-sponsored, the nation is obligated to remedy it.” Richard Rothstein. The Color of the Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liverlight. New York, NY. 2017. Xiv.
[7] See Lane G. Tipton. Review: Vos’s Reformed Dogmatics. ND. CCE Feature Article: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (opc.org). Accessed 3/16/2021.
[8] Frank James. “SUMMATION AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL IMPLICATIONS.” Praedestinatio Dei. PhD Dissertation. Pp 344-360.
[9] See Robert N. Bellah. Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 1992.
[10] This distinction between guilt and responsibility has been pointed out by Sam Storms. Is it Possible to Repent for the Sins of Others?. Sam Storms: Oklahoma City, OK > Is it Possible to Repent for the Sins of Others? Nov. 23, 2015. Accessed 3/16/2021.
[11] See Jemar Tisby. “1 Thessalonians 5:12-24: Do Not Despise the Prophetic Voice of the Black Experience.” Wheaton College. 10/30/2019. LGAD171 HK01 V01 16 9.
[12] I. Howard Marshall. Commentary on Luke. NICG. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI. 1997. 500.
[13] Marshall. Ibid. 500-501.
Divided By Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 2000. 7.
For example see James Oakes. The Ruling Race: A history of American Slaveholders. Vintage Books. New York, NY. 1982. 3-34.
Emerson and Smith. Ibid.
I am grateful for your writing, and quoting Frank James on Peter Martyr Vermigli? That's !00%! (Jennifer and I love the James'!)