The First Great Awakening: The Message-Part 2

He was the consternation of the established clergy in American the colonies, from New England to the Middle ones, to the South. The clergy were comfortable reading their sermons in high language and living the good life in tax-supported state churches.
But George Whitfield was a threat, riding up and down the American coast preaching in ways opposed to the clergy, whether High Anglican, Presbyterian or Congregational. Whitefield came to America for the second time in 1740 to check on the orphanage he and others previously began in Georgia. From there he was invited to come to seven other colonies where he preached to at least half the population of those places.
The way he preached was different to say the least. He often spoke extemporaneously, waved his arms, cried, sank to his knews on occasion, and spoke in the language of the common folks.

And his message?
Like Jonathan Edwards, Whitefield was fairly Calvinist. First he would give the points he would present. Then he would preach law and judgement upon breaking that law--that is, what men justly deserved. The grace of God through Christ would come after that with the final close being a plea to simply believe on Christ, instead of our own merits to forgive sin and bring us into the fold of God.

Dan's Business Series is Now Complete

Dan's complete Business series is now listed in one blog (with the URL links):
The Christian & the Business World--Complete Archive.

I would recommend you read especially, The Industrial Church Revolution-Parts 4-6 because as we go on further into our revival history posts, you will see direct parallels to revivals being a result of what Dan writes about happening in the business world, and how that related to life in the home.

The First Great Awakening: The Message-Part 1

As we progress through the messages of revivals, we will see a seesaw between the head and the heart; between reason and emotion; and at times, Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

Dangling from their webs, spiders fascinated him, especially those in the forest where they had more room to spin and even fly. Later, he would craft a sermon from these spiders, hanging from their threads, at times over dangerous ground if they fell.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, with its illustration of sinners hanging over hell much like spiders hang, was a call by Jonathan Edwards to shake up the now-complacent third and fourth generation of Puritan descendants from their impious sleep.

"...there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up."

The youth were a particularly troubling situation, young men and women going on wagon rides under quilts; co-ed parties that often ended up in more than "discussion." As a result, there was a marked rise in out-of-wedlock births and everyone pretty well knew why. There was also a more materialistic approach to life than before and of course that pesky Enlightenment with its built-in deistic approach was plaguing the educated classes.

You would think that many pastors would begin to earnestly preach salvation and offer that grace gift of God to the people. However, there was one glitch. Hyper-Calvinism had pretty well taken over the pulpits and pastors were in a quarry. Since God had fore-ordained who was to be saved, pastors didn't wish to try too hard to get people to convert as that might cause the "wrong" people to be saved.

Edwards began to cave slightly. He told his parishoners that ""It is in your power to use means of grace" and "One can strive against corruption." This was translated by the congregants as "we can do something to be saved." As Edwards preached, strange occurrences began to happen--people shook, fell to the floor, screamed at the state of their soul, etc. And, more importantly, the nubmer of converts dramatically increased.

So what was the result? Here are Edwards' words:
Ever since the great work of God that was wrought here about nine years ago, there has been a great abiding alteration in this town in many respects. There has been vastly more religion kept up in the town, among all sorts of persons, in religious exercises and in common conversation than used to be before. There has remained a more general seriousness and decency in attending the public worship. There has been a very great alteration among the youth of the town with respect to reveling, frolicking, profane and unclean conversation, and lewd songs. Instances of fornication have been very rare. There has also been a great alteration among both old and young with respect to tavern haunting. I suppose the town has been in no measure so free of vice in these respects for any long time together for this sixty years as it has been this nine years past.
There has also been an evident alteration with respect to a charitable spirit to the poor (though I think with regard to this in this town, as the land in general, come far short of Gospel rules). And though after that great work nine years ago there has been a very lamentable decay of religious affections and the engagedness of people's spirit in religion, yet many societies for prayer and social religion were all along kept up.

Doonesbury Today

Zonker (college age) to Jeff, his roomate: Bush, Bolton, Delay--always the same faces on parade. For our entire lives, Baby Boomers have been the players to watch--the generation that makes things happen!
But our generation--who ARE we? Who's doing anything that really matters? We got nothing Dude! I mean nothin'!

TV news program: We interrupt this program with a special bulletin. Paris Hilton is still upset with Nicole Richie. Repeat. Paris Hilton is still upset with Nicole Richie.

Jeff: We'll always have Paris, man.

Zonker: Of course. I'm an idiot. Never mind.

(don't worry--A post on the Boomers is coming...upcoming...stay tuned......)

Dan's Business Series

I am passionate about people studying history to know HOW what is happening in the present came to be. So, when I saw Dan (Cerulean Sanctum) giving a history of business in America to orient us to what is happening today business-wise, I was thrilled.
The first of his business series can be found here.
Then just keep scrolling up for the others. At this writing he has done 10 posts in the series.


(Here is the complete list so far:
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/upcoming-series-christian-business.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-1-my.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-2-economic.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-3-subduing.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-4-industrial.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-5-industrial.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-6-industrial.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-7-binding.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-8-redemption.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-9-redemption.html
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-10-redemption.html)
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/06/christian-business-world-11-redemption.html

Quote of the Day

"The curse of my generation [20 somethings/postmodernns] isn't that we don't have something to stand for; it's that we don't have the integrity to back it up. "

Ambra Nykola

(The Revival series will continue next week).

Music Styles

A little lightness in between revival blogging.

JAZZ: Five men on the same stage all playing different tunes.
BLUES: Played exclusively by people who woke up this morning.
WORLD MUSIC: A dozen different types of percussion all going at
once.
OPERA: People singing when they should be talking.
RAP: People talking when they should be singing.
CLASSICAL: Discover the other 45 minutes they left out of the TV
ad.
FOLK: Endless songs about shipwrecks in the 19th century.
BIG BAND: 20 men who take it in turns to stand up plus a
drummer.
HEAVY METAL: Codpiece and chaps
HOUSE MUSIC: OK as long as it's not the house next door.

The First Great Awakening: The Methods

As one reads about the various revivals in history, some traits seem to be repeated. For instance, the big one I keep seeing is the tension between the Old way and the New way; between the head and the heart; between the Confessions/Word, and Spirit; between Calvinism and Arminianism.

In the First Great Awakening of the middle 18th century in New England, we find the Old Lights, who were the pastors of the old Calvinistic intellectualism school where the future convert gradually grew into a realization of their need for a Savior, vs. the New Lights, the revivalists who placed more of an emphasis on crisis conversion. The new emphasis was on "anyone could be saved," a more individualistic and democratic process, seen as some historians as the seeds planted for the new fledgling democracy after the Revolution. These New Lights often used words in their sermons such as "breaking, crushing, storming, shattering and cracking" the stony hearts of the unconverted to bring this crisis evangelism about. If people "groaned, shrieked and/or fell under the power" which often happened, they were said to be "stabbed, wounded, pierced, shocked and cut" by the seriousness of the gospel.
The New Light revivalists also emphasized God's love and mercy instead of the Old Lights' emphasis on judgment, God's anger at sin, and His mysteriousness. God was seen by the New Lights as converting and persuading, instead of simply intellectual understanding.

And then there was the evangelism goal of the two. More and more of the revivalists, including Jonathan Edwards began to question the premillenialism of the Calvinists. The revivalists believed that instead of some holocaust-Armageddon preceding Christ's return, perhaps there were to be progressive revivals and evangelism to turn man into a better being and THEN Christ could return (sound familiar?) After all, the revivalists were seeing their environment and neighbors radically changing around them. What would happen if this could be a worldwide happening? Some even thought America might be chosen by God to begin this process (sound familiar?)
Edwards believed this could actually happen as man cooperated with God's grace. He writes,
"It is not unlikely that this work of God's Spirit, so extraordinary and wonderful, is the dawning or at least a prelude of that glorious work of God so often foretold in Scripture, which in the progress and issue of it, shall renew the world of mankind...And there are many things that make it probable that this work will begin in America."

Meanwhile, in the Middle Colonies, the Presbyterians were being divided between the old Calvinism, the Old Sides; and the new revivalism, The New Sides. The New Sides, like their New England counterparts, the New Lights, also felt that crisis conversion and an appeal to the emotions brought about the needed revivals and conversions. By the 1750's the congregations of the New sides had grown for the most part three times as much as those of the Old Sides. Later, in 1758 the Presbyterian Old and New Sides were able to reconcile.

And in the Southern colonies, it was completely a matter of class distinctions. The upper class elite landowners were the Old-time Anglicans. Many of the poor felt shut out of that system and so welcomed the itinerant revivalists. However, the Anglican parishes didn't appreciate these interlopers coming into their districts and preaching. In 1747 Virginia, for example, it was declared that no itinerant could preach in any of their churches. Some who did so were arrested and/or fined. If people attended their meetings they could also be arrested and/or fined for not attending "church" (that is the parrish church) on the Sabbath. At times, mobs, egged on by the upper classes, would break up these itinerant meetings and even beat up the revival preachers.
Rhys Isaac has documented this tension in the Southern colonies,
"When the Baptist movement is understood as a rejection of the style of life for which the gentry set the pattern and as a search for more powerful popular models of conduct, it can be seen why the grounds on which the battle was mainly fought was not the [big plantation] estate or the great house, but the neighborhood, the farmstead and the slave quarter. The struggle for allegiance in the homesteads between a style of life modeled on that of the leisured gentry and that embodied in evangelicalism was intense."

This was a phenomenon that more or less was happening in most of the colonies--that is resentment from the old school pastors toward the infringement on their territory and churches by the new school ones. It was because of this circumstance that the idea of separation of church and state began to be voiced throughout the colonies, instead of a one-denominational state-taxed church.

(Note: Some of this material was gleaned from William McLoughln's book, Revivals, Awakenings and Reform

Offended?

I was reading a post entitled, John Piper-Obedience, Orthodoxy, and Joy over at Jollyblogger's site. It brought up a good point about Paul and the early Christians being martyred. For what were they being martyred, was one of the points Piper was making. I want to expand on that point by bringing it up to date. Take the Christians in some third world countries such as China, Vietnam and Sudan for instance. What are they being killed and tortured for?

Are they dying for the purpose-driven life? Are they dying because they wish to dialog and respect other religions which probably "have some good things to teach us?" Are they dying for the "prosperity gospel?"

Can you imagine these countries killing Christians for bringing "love and p.e.a.c.e." to people? For telling them they will prosper if they only believe? For telling them they have a purpose in life?

No, they are being killed because as Jesus Himself said,
"And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."
(Matt. 11:6).

Paul, in I Cor. 1:18, says, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. "

Then later in that chapter he says,
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.." (1:23).

Do you think Paul was onto something, maybe?

The First Great Awakening: Milieux

By the early 18th century, the Puritan influence had somewhat waned in New England, the Middle Colonies were in a flux mainly due to immigration, and the Southern colonies were stratified along strict class lines with a lower class on the frontiers.

At Harvard, the college begun to train Congregational and Presbyterian ministers, there was a trend away from personal piety. Reports from students, professors and pastors tell us that there was too much gambling, "tippling (drinking), leering (after young women) and frequent food fights in the dining hall.
Meanwhile, in the churches of New England, a sharp decline of membership prompted many churches to have what was termed "The Half-Way Covenant." This allowed people who weren't quite Christians yet, but seeking, to become full-fledged church members WITH the exclusion of participating at the communion table.

In all the colonies, There was more of an emphasis on personal was for personal gain than previously. Many businesses were charging unfair gain, political leaders lied to gain votes as well as paying themselves more from the town treasuries than was appropriate, and the judicial was giving many unjust opinions. In the southern frontier, the behavior was even worse. Termed uncivilized by many, fighting and drinking seemed to be the major sport with many taking the law into their own hands.
Some towns in every colony were beginning to rethink whether taxes should be levied to pay high-priced arrogant, but dead ministers. In most denominations of that day, the church pastorate were paid by taxes, not by freewill offerings. In fact, in a few European countries, this is still in effect today.

So, in a nutshell, things were not good overall in the colonies, that is from a holy point of view. When a society begins to undergo tremendous changes, especially in changing structures of power and authority, time is ripe for a revival.

In Revivals, Awakenings and Reform, William McLoughlin lists five causes of the First Great Awakening revival.
1. Rapid social change
2. Challenges to the Calvinistic worldview.
3. Frontier growth created divisions between the eastern centers of power and the western lower but freer order.
4. A changed (more positive) relationship with England and the aristocratic model after the Puritan revolution there of 1688. Many in the colonies begun to want the aristocratic way of life, instead of rejecting it as before.
5. The Industrial Revolution in England, some of which began to crop up in the colonies, replaced the old agrarian system with the new more capitalist system. This caused more class conflict and some were concerned that materialism was replacing the older system of mutual covenant with the community. In other words, what was good for the individual vs. what was good for the community with individual interests more subjugated.

Overall, anxiety and tension with questioning of authority structures, were replacing the older order of accepted authority and a more static society.

Into this milieux came the revivals of 1730-1760.

(Next: WHO were the revival leaders and WHAT did they teach?)

Revival Blogging

Well, I have been a busy bee researching and reading like mad about revivals. Throughout the summer I will be presenting my results, interspersed with my usual stuff for people who need a break from the revival posts.

Included in my coverage of the revivals will be the following points:

1. The sociological (and theological/political, if pertinent) background of the era, as well as the geographical place of the revival.

2. The leaders of the revival and what they did (or didn't do) to create the revival.

3. The theology of the revival and if it differed from the prevailing theology of the day.

4. What actually happened in the revival. Was it a more quiet revival? Or was it a jerking, shaking, falling revival? Who were the recipients of the revival (the working classes? Professional classes? Both?).

4. What were the results of the revival? Were people and places actually changed. If so, how long did the change last? Were there any political or other pertinent effects of the revival?

And to review what I had written in a previous post, I will be covering the First Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening-both the Southern-Western frontier and the Finney ones, the D.Moody-Billy Sunday ones, Azusa Street and Welsh revivals, Indonesian, Charismatic Renewal of the 1960's, and the present Third Wave-River revival.

Spirituality of College Freshman

UCLA did a study of 100,000 freshman at 236 colleges and universities in 2004. They found that 80% were interested in spirituality and 79% said they believe in God.

Here is the breakdown of the freshman by denomination/religion:

Roman Catholic-28%
None-17%
Baptist-13%
Other Christian-11%
Methodist-6%
Lutheran-5%
Presbyterian-4%
Church of Christ-3%
Other Religion-3%
Episcopalian-2%
Jewish-2%
Buddhist-1%
Hindu-1%
Islam-1%
United Church of Christ-1%
Mormon-0.4%
7th Day Adventist-0.4%
Unitarian-0.4%
Quaker-0.2%

Indictor of Student's Religiousness
Believe in God-79%
Pray-69%
Attend religious services-81%
Discusses religion, spirituality with friends-80%
Discusses religion, spirituality with family-76%
Religious beliefs provide strength, support and guidance-69%
Follows religious teachings in everyday life-40%

Current Views from College Freshman about Spiritual/Religious Matters
Doubting-10%
Conflicted-15%
Not Interested-15%
Seeking-23%
Secure-42%

Denominational? Or Not?

My church is in deep doo-doo. That is a term in the Doonesbury comic strip for trouble with a capital T, as the Music Man put it..

There seems to be an impasse between the elders and the pastor in my church. The elders want to say to the pastor, "Hasta la vista, Baby!" The pastor, on the other hand, doesn't think he should leave. And of course, the congregation is in the middle of this impasse. So what happens now?

There are usually two types of churches-- Denominational and non-denominational, although some fall into a nebulous area, such as Calvary Chapel or the Vineyard. However, I regard them as more denom. as not.
So exactly what would the outcome of our church impasse be in both types?

Since I've been a member of both kinds of church organizational structure, I feel I'm in a good position to explain. The non-denominational usually has no oversight. In many of these types of churches, pastors start them and may or may not appoint elders. But if they do, there is a chance that the elders are nothing more than rubber stamp "yes" boys. So if there is an impasse between elders and pastor, how is it resolved? Well, if the pastor appointed the elders, then he can "unappoint" them. In churches of this type the congregation's opinion or thoughts usually don't matter.
Of course there are exceptions to the above.

In denominational churches, especially those based on a presbytry organizational structure, i.e. Congregational and Presbyterian churches, the elders and pastors are more equal, although the elders may fire the pastor but usually not without the congregation's approval. If everyone is at an impasse, the denomination acts as a sort of bishop/apostle, coming in to mediate. In severe cases (like our church's) the denomination might even take over the church, dissolving both pastor and elders until healing can occur.

So which one is the best type? I believe it's denominational hands down because of the safety factor for the members. When churches have little or no oversight, they can become controlling and dictatorial.
(Read Wittenberg Gate's recent excellent series on control in the church).

So, whatever our denomination decides--we are Presbyterian (PCUSA, although an evangelical PCUSA one)--I am confident that it will probably be at least a good, if not the best, answer to an impossible dilemma.

I am so sorry that denominationalism is on the "outs" today with the postmodern generation. Oh well, sigh, sigh. I guess they will have to learn the hard way just like we did years ago.

Next Christian Carnival

This weeks Christian Carnival will be at daddypundit.

If you are a Christian blogger, to enter the carnival, simply send an email to:

christiancarnival@gmail.com

Include the following in your email:
Name of your blog
URL of your blog
Name of your post
URL of your post
Description of your post

Those Fun-Loving Puritans

We often think of the Puritans as dour uptight people with those funny black hats. However, according to Peter Marshall, Jr. and David Manuel, authors of The Light and the Glory, the Colonial Puritans had some pretty humorous times.

Here are some humorous examples:

*The Puritan churches had a man called the tithingman. There was a sharp thorn on the bottom of his staff designed to wake up those who dozed. One Sunday the tithingman saw saw a Mr. Tomlins sleeping away. After being pricked by the thorn. Mr. Tomlin awoke with a start, was only half-awake and banged his hand against the wall, thinking a woodchuck had stuck him. So he began to curse woodchucks, right there in the middle of the church service. When he was finally wide awake, he was so embarrased that those in the church thought Mr. Tomlins would probably not go to sleep again during that day's service or on any other Sabbath day.

*In 1682, the dedication of the Old Tunnel Meetinghouse in Lynn was to include a great feast for all the townspeople as well as vistors and dignitaries from neighboring towns. The dinner was held in a neighboring barn where the young people were busy having a merry time, according to the eyewitnesses, hanging wreaths, bows and other pretty things for the decorations. Unfortunately, the chickens wanted to come into the barn too and were flying all over the place. Some of the ministers began to throw apples and nuts at the birds to discourage them so they would leave the barn. Sadly, some of the apples landed on the table and gravy and food flew all around with the birds.

One thing I personally found to my surprise, after doing a high school report on the history of prohibition, was the amount of liquor drunk in all the colonies. What really surprised me was the accepted drinking by the ministers when they would visit their parishoners. It was considered rude not to offer the minister "a cup." Drinks included sherry, port and of course rum as it was so plentiful from the Carribean. As the above-described dinner progressed, the merriment also progressed, if you get my drift. But then the Puritans were Calvinsits, not Armenian holiness folks.

Continuing with the dinner:
*A Mr. Gerrish saw a Mr. Shepherd winking at some young women. Mr. Gerrish asked Mr. Rogers if he wanted to confront Mr. Gerrish about this so as to embarrass him. It turned out that Mr. Gerrish was winking because he had flying hay in his eye. Despite the hay in his eyes, Mr. Gerrish's end of the table was said to be in great merriment with people laughing and clapping their hands.

*Mr. Gerrish was laughing so hard with his mouth open so wide that suddenly his jaws locked open. Mr. Rogers, who knew a bit of anatomy, delivered a powerful blow and then a press to Mr. Gerrish which did the trick. Mr. Gerrish did not do much laughing or talking for the rest of the evening.

*One visitor from Salem tried to crack a nut with his teeth and ended up cracking his tooth. He spent the rest of the evening with his whole face bandaged.

*At the end of the dinner it is reported that in the midst of a barrage of flying nuts and apples, there was "a few maudlin songs and much roistering laughter. The account concluded with,
"So noble and savory a banquet was never before spread in this noble town. God be praised!"

Revivals: The Puritans

Before we examine the history of revivals in the USA, it's probably a good idea to understand the foundations of the religious ideas brought here. In his book Revivals, Awakenings and Reform, William McLoughlin begins his chapter on the Puritans with "America was born in an awakening."
The Puritan revolution in England basically spilled over to the American colonies in the Northeast. Surprisingly, the revolt was against the established order in the English church and government. That is difficult to remember nowadays as the Puritan society here seemed so ordered to us who live in a more unordered and free society. However, wherever they went, they did effect some social change.

So, what exactly was the Puritan world view? They were staunch Calvinists which certainly formed their view of government, religious belief and societal norms in general. They believed in each person's capacity for interpreting the Scriptures for themselves as well as more enlightened pastoral leaders to help. While the British Anglicanism followed a more tradition-based approach (following the Roman Catholics), the Puritans were absolutely Bible based as to where their authority and rules for living came from. Here is where the rub came between them and the English ecclesiastical authorities. One followed Biblical authority and the other, more custom and tradition. Today, when we have the same conflicts we enter into civil discourse with each other. But back in the 17th century, people got killed over it. This explains the Puritan exodus from England to the American colonies with a stop in Holland (a more tolerant country).

Other Puritan beliefs included a more separate church from state than was currently in England with its belief that God puts his authority in the king and that is the end of the matter.
The Puritans were covenental and millienists. In other words, they believed that they were the special people of God to bring His Kingdom on the earth. Hence, their many references to the City of God on the hill in the wilderness (literally when they arrived in Massachusetts).

Yes, there was an emphasis upon an ordered society, obedience to authority and community with the Puritans; but, there was also an emphasis on individual freedom and thought that was not found as much in England. However, there arose a long conflict between this idea of authoritarian rule and the permissiveness of freedom. The revivals that followed would have to traverse this shaky divide. Later there would be a new religion that rose up based on the Enlightenment philosophy and science of reason, Unitarianism. This new religion lent a lot of thought to the later revivals.

Another dualism that is found in Puritan thought is the conflict between reason and intuition; realism vs. idealism. We also must deal with one last Puritan [Calvinistic] ideal since it will play a major part in future revival conflicts. The Puritans believed that the Bible was the main authority of course, BUT God's will could only be understood BY enlightened men of learning infused with God's grace of interpretation.

So....stay tuned this summer for what happened when men of UNLEARNING began to be the pastors, revivalists and teachers in the future revivals.

Christian Carnival LXXXIII is up

The Christian Carnival for this week is now ready to read at Reformed Politics.

deo omnis gloria, has a fascinating post on The Effects of Relativism on Christianity.

After defining relativism, he goes into how it has affected the Catholic church. Next he talks about the Protestants. He basically says that since the Protestants adhere to sola scriptura, in which everyone can interpret Scripture for themselves, it isn't surprising that Protestants have gotten away from the Biblical truth at times and splintered into denominationalism.

He writes,
"During the past century, Protestantism compromised moral teaching after moral teaching, starting with divorce, then contraception, fornication, abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage. Now let me be clear that not all Protestant churches have compromised on all these moral teachings, but many have, and all have on contraception. How did this happen? In order to understand how moral relativism is rapidly growing in Protestantism it is important to point out the major defect of Protestantism. Although Protestantism, in itself holds to certain absolutes, most importantly that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world, what that demands is completely left up to the relativistic interpretation of individual believers. In other words, by holding to Sola Scriptura or "the Bible alone" it naturally follows that each individual must be both the interpreter and definer of what truth is as he/she understands it in the Word of God. Reading requires interpretation, so the question of who has the authority to interpret can only find an answer in the individual believer. Individual interpretation has led to denominationalism, which is in direct contradiction of Sacred Scripture."

He then asks,
"So what is the future of Protestantism? The reality of the situation leads us to the conclusion that Protestantism will continue down the path of denominationalism and moral relativism. I believe many of the non-denominational churches have seen this, but rather than seek the Church Christ founded, they have simply broken away from their original churches, thus compounding the "denominational" problem."

I think this is a good analysis. However, I would answer that if one looks to the history of Protestantism, one can see that God sends corrective awakenings and revivals and then we get back on track....usually. That is one reason why I am examining some of the major revivals of our country's history (USA) along with the Welsh and Indonesian revivals during the summer.

Revival: Awakenings in the USA

I am reading a fascinating book about revivals, awakenings and reforms in United States evangelical history. It is actually an essay beginning with the Puritan colonies in the seventeenth century. The author, Wiliam G. McLoughlin, lists five periods of revival:

1. The Puritan Awakening (1610-1640)
2. The First Great Awakening (1730-1760)
3. The Second Great Awakening (1800-1830)
4. The Third Great Awakening (1890-1920)
5. The Fourth Great Awakening(1960-?)

I will be posting off and on all summer about these five eras as I study them. Why? Because I believe we need to see what God did in our history to get us back on track when we went off-base.

Did these revivals have things in common? Were there problems in common also? Did the revival effects last? If not, why not? Did they really change their surroundings? These are some of the questions I will be asking as I do my reading and research. I will also be researching and posting the Welsh and the Indonesian revivals.

The EU Constitution

After the "No" votes from both France and the Netherlands on the EU Constitution, I was wondering what it contained that turned so many Europeans off. Actually, it was just a few objectionable items, not the whole document. But I was surprised by how socially liberal it is. Read that .....social liberals...as in socialism. Here is a synopsis of it taken from the book The European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin as well as an Op/Ed piece by Vincent Tournier in the New York Times (May 27).


The constitution is 450 pages. Now put on your seat belts because the content is way beyond the American constitution. Here are some of the points in the European Union Constitution as well as some observations about the European Union in general:

*The EU will be able to sign treaties in its own right, binding its member nations.
*It might be ultimately granted a seat on the United Nations--replacing the United Kingdom and France.
*The EU presidency rotates every 6 months, the presidency being held by the president of a member nation.
*The EU can create a rapid-reaction strike force, but each national government will still have control over its own armed forces.
*Any citizen of a member state can live and work in another member state, although each member state still retains the right to determine who will be a citizen in their own state. This is a point which disturbs a lot of European citizens as you may well imagine.
*The EU can determine minimum rules as to judicial procedure dealing with rights of the accused, of victims, and admissibility of evidence in court proceedings.
*There is no reference to God and only a veiled reference to Europe's "religious inheritance."
*There is only one short reference to private property.
*There is no reference to free trade and free markets.
*Clear commitments are made to:
-sustainable development...based on economic growth
-a social market economy
-protection and improvement of the quality of the environment
-promotion of peace
-combating social exclusion and discrimination
-promotion of social justice and protection
-equality between men and women
-solidarity between generations
-protection of children's rights

*The heart and soul of the constitution is human rights. But they go far beyond the American human rights.
-Right to Life-no death penalty
-eugenics is prohibited
-selling human body parts is prohibited
-cloning of humans is prohibited
-protection of personal data
-the right to access personal data which has been collected about him
-the right to marry and to found a family
-the right to form and join trade unions
-the right to education and access to vocational and continuing education
-discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnic, religious backgrounds, based on genetic features, language and opinions is prohibited.
-Children are allowed care, well-being and the right to express their views.
-the right to free placement service in employment
-the right to limitation of working hours; to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual paid leave.
-the right to paid maternity leave and parental leave upon birth or adoption
-the right to social and housing assistance
-the right to access to preventive health care and medical improvement

Mr. Tournier writes,
"the European Constitution...enshrines a plethora of rules and regulations while ignoring the fundamental needs of democracy......Two factors help explain what is called the "democratic deficit" of the union: the absence of a separation of powers, the weak Parliament and an inaccessible judiciary whose final role hasn't even been decided yet. The Constitution does not offer any solutions for these problems, aside from minor alterations that don't deal with the underlying causes. The text, which has as many exceptions as rules, isn't written for the ordinary citizen, but for the bureaucrat. Even its equivalent of the Bill of Rights, presented as a great democratic advance, raises serious problems, to such a point that the national governments have had to introduce numerous safeguards to limit its effects."

Saved?

This is an answer to Jollyblogger's post, Westminster Confession on Security and Assurance.

David asks, Can a Christian lose their salvation? The answer is Yes, although it is not that easy. And of course you can only lose your salvation IF you were a Christian to begin with. That brings up an interesting question--How does someone become a Christian? By simply "accepting Christ? Period?"

I'll throw that one out to you.

So how does one lose their salvation then, assuming they ARE a Christian.

Hebrews 6 provides the answer. This book was written to Jewish Christians who were under a tremendous amount of persecution. Some of them decided to go back under the Jewish sacrificial system to avoid the persecution. In other words, they were in essence saying that Christ's atonement on the cross was not sufficient. This is why the first 10 chapters of Hebrews is devoted to elevating Christ above the angels and other beings. The author wanted to set that foundation to prove that Christ was sufficient, and His crucifixion was necessary; that this was the GodHead's intention since the beginning of time.

That brings up another interesting question. Are Protestants who follow the [false] holiness theology, and also Roman Catholics; those who believe they must be holy to be saved; are they really saved? What does "holy" and "not sinning" mean in this context?
At the other end of the spectrum, are people who just "accept Christ" saved? I will also throw this one out to you to answer.

So, I must reject Andrew Strom's super holiness theology--he says most people in America's evangelical churches aren't saved; but I must also reject the hyper-Calvinistic one too. I don't think it is often that a true Christian can lose their salvation, but according to Hebrews 6, it can happen.