Does the Church of the Nazarene in the USA/Canada need a movement of God?  Yes.  Is our sin and fear blocking that move?  Yes.  Do we need to repent?  Yes.  Will that happen through a protracted series of church services in which lots of tears are shed and hankies waved?  No. 

So, how will we know when God has indeed moved?  When God’s will is being done in the crack house to the west of my church and the banker’s house to the east of my church as it is in Heaven.

I like ‘enlivening’. 

I’m reading through Moltmann’s newest book Sun of Righteousness, Arise!  I definitely recommend this one to be added to your list of three.

Some relevant quotes:  “...the presence of God’s Spirit is experienced as the all-enlivening atmosphere in which social free spaces are opened up for the development of personal and shared humanity. In the charismatic congregations Christians at last ‘come of age’. They leave behind their self-imposed immaturity and have the courage to live their own faith for themselves and to follow their own consciences. They no longer see themselves as servants or children but as God’s mature friends.” (25)

“If there is to be a new age which can create a positive link between the experiences of that age of beginning and this age of the end, it would have to be an age of a beginning in the end: in the end—the new beginning. The symbol for this is not unending progress. It is the resurrection into life in the midst of the world of possible universal death.  A beginning out of the end is a beginning in which the possible end is always present.” (38)

“In the presence of the coming One, we see and experience reality differently from the way we experienced it in the conditions of death and transience. We see mortal life in the light of the life that is eternal; we experience history in the light of God’s kingdom, and nature in the perspective of its future perfecting in the eternal creation.” (48)

I think this enlivening has a renewed aspect of holiness, not moralism or legalism, but a radical, holistic rebirth of our identity, formed in God rather than incompletely in other tasks or roles. A positive, exocentric identity which reaches outwards and upwards, as we open ourselves freely to participating with what the Spirit is already doing in each particular situation.  This means a holistic re-embrace of both spirituality and activity in this world, not to assert ourselves or prove ourselves, but as a way of joining in with the dance of God with an ever-increasing adeptness.  We become holy as Jesus was holy. Holy in the streets, holy in persecution, holy in being freed to share with those who are lost and broken and hurt.  Holy in being so fully identified with God, that we don’t need to dominate others to get some kind of identity. We can be free to serve, free to relate, free to love, free to really, truly, wholly live, and live together in a community of enlivened others, unified in our diversity, partaking of Christ, and reflecting wholly lived life to the world.

Revival = doing the same old thing with new enthusiasm.

Revolution = doing a new thing expecting the same results as what you did in the past when it worked.

Resurrection = The cause of death has been replaced by life.

I like resurrection… Allowing that which is old and no longer effective (methods and mentalities, NOT people) to die and be resurrected in new and re-imagined ways. As I have been reading the Sermon on the Mount this week for a discipleship group study, I find it interesting that Jesus was re-imaging the law, taking it from an external application to an internal revelation. Not just what we “do” but how we “think.”  It is like going from black and white to Technicolor.

Great thoughts! I too prefer the word transformation.  For very similar reasons.  I also think it points to the reality that those who are changing are those have already been revived (Eph 2) and now need to follow the way of Jesus more closely.

I agree with so much of what you say in that our churches are full of folks needing to be “vived” having never experienced a true surrender to God’s work in their lives or opening themselves to transformation/formation into the image of Christ. 
I was listening to Joyce Meyer on TV recently and really like the idea of her call to the Body of Christ to participate in a LOVE revolution….calling all of us to allow God’s love to flow through us to others….which is something we cannot do apart from the transformational work of Christ in our hearts.

“Revival” from revive which means to bring back to life. Lazarus experienced revival, Jesus revived him. This, then, seems to imply that a death has occurred before there can be a revival. The church has not died. Stagnated in many ways and areas, but has not died.

Renewal fits better, but…. I don’t think it has enough life in it. Not much call to action. I think what we need is action.

Revolution, I like that, definitely calls to action. But like you I think the perceptions when revolution is heard is mostly negative, representing an overthrow. I do not think that the church catholic needs to be overthrown.

What about neovolution, a new roll/turn?

Transformation presumes there was an earlier formation.  If so, what was the earlier formation, what is the new transformation, and what is the trans bridge going from one to the other? 
Every generation wants its own revolution, transformation, renewal, couched in what they perceive to be their own “new” values.  I am often reminded that “there is nothing new under the sun.”

This brings up a important question. When don’t we need a revolution? As Christians, we should be constantly on the more in terms of our faith. A Christian that is not thinking about new ways to love and help people is not a Christian I want in my church.

How about “focusing?” I feel as if the information necessary for Christians to start acting the way Jesus calls them to act is all right in front of them, but there’s so much extra stimuli that the important things get lost.

I heartily agree that God is on the move, it is past time for the people of God to do what we should have been doing all along…judging ourselves. It is important to realize that God has always used conflict to promote His purposes. What will He do to produce holiness and fervency in our love for Him? Please don’t think that He is above letting us go through persecution, or tribulation. Such trials prove the genuiness of our faith. I almost welcome them. Still, it is time to overcome those nagging sins, and like one poster said, it all starts with repentance. Check out Daniel. When the 70 year exile was ending, what did he do? He repented in sackcloth and ashes and confessed the sins of the people of Israel. That was his FIRST move! And he did it for two weeks, until Gabriel showed up. He started with repentance. I don’t even think most of us know what that is.

I like the word renewal. I think it is important for us to understand what exactly this change is. I have not read the books that you are reading but after reading your blog, I would think that renewal fits best. I do not necessarily have anything against the word revival but I think that it has been overused. I also believe that the “revival” was not fully put in action like the initial purpose was for it. A whole new start with a new word would be good.

There are probably real dangers in shaping our theology to the connotations of words—especially if those connotations are personal and idiosyncratic. Although the perils of language are inescaple, it may be more helpful to detail what actually needs to happen than to figure what label to put on it.

I think we must give equal attention to wine and wineskins, but it seems that those considering one often don’t think much about the other. I have been part of groups deeply committed to intercessory prayer for a visitation and move of God in revolutionary transforming power that revives the lukewarm and saves the lost.(Did I leave out any kind of wine?)
I have also been part of groups that talk about the need for creative and innovative missional expressions of the church. But often these groups aren’t talking much to each other and those praying for wine aren’t thinking deeply about wineskins and those debating wineskins just assume the right skins will bring the wine.

It does seem that Wesley carefully thought about both. He had a deep and humble appreciation of the need for God to act, to move, to visit, to revive. And yet his classes for discipleship provided the new wineskins for what God had poured out. We need innovative prayer warriors with a vision for postmodern wineskins.

Tom,

I guess i don’t have a problem with militaristic, Being a Captain, who wears a uniform to church and all

A word that has been used within The Salvation Army world has been reEVOLution, reLOVEution or any variation of the world empahasising the word LOVE and while a former college professor of mine warned us to be wary of gimics The Tshirts were black with white writing except the letters of love which were in red. and included a stylized picture of Christ i was impressed.

There was even a book by the same name about practical holiness targeting our young people that was co authored by a girl who was aroung 19, 20 the movement seems to be winding down however i thought you would appreciate the love focus.

(i have several extra coppies of the book if you are interested)

Tom,
About 10 years ago I was in charge of establishing a program on my previous district for continuing ministerial training.  I came up with the title “Shepherds’ Advance”

Just this past weekend, another district has used that idea and coined their annual assembly as “Mission Advance.”

This allows for both the times when there was life and needs it renewed and for the times when there was not life and needs to begin.  In each case, it is a movment forward.

Advance gives us motion.  At the parting of the Red Sea, as well as at the mount of Ascension, and other places across the pages of scripture, the question is raised, why have you stopped here—move forward!

What words does the culture in which we live use to describe these things? The only thing I can think of is advertising’s use of “New and Improved”.

We all have a context for our concern that is distinctly Christian and perhaps predominantly Nazarene, but maybe not as mainstream Naz as we might think. How do our people describe “New and Improved”?

So, maybe the best way to come up with a better term is to ask folks how they would describe the things we are looking to have happen.

Dave: Stating the obvious since 1960.

Peter Rollins is using “insurrection.”  Sometimes I wonder if “it” does indeed need that kind of teeth.

I understand your dilemma. One of the classes I teach is “Apologetics” and this word has such negative connotations for me. It is almost like the word “Evangelist.” It is really too bad such good words get co-opted by those who use, abuse, and eventually distort the original meaning.

Regarding “revival” there have been plenty of synonyms used over the years like awakening and restoration.  If I think of something I will certainly share it.

A lot of churches that I’ve worked in weren’t so much dying as they were becoming obsolete. We don’t need a revival or something to punch in more “energy,” we need to get in touch with the world we’re living in and start making it better. God wants his will to be done on earth as it is is heaven. The Church is his means of accomplishing that, and yet we’re trying so hard to keep our hands clean. We need to be en-couraged, meaning we need to basically toughen up and get out on the battle field, loving those who harm us, taking up infirmaries, reaching out to those naked, thirsty, hungry, and suffering. And above all, we need to do this without expecting them to just roll-over and accept our theological doctrine. If they don’t, that’s their choice. We do, however, need to remove their excuses by being who we are meant to be as a Church.

I think I like transformation best too. It just seems more fit than revival or renual. I also was reading through the posts, and I liked how one person said resurection, becuase the old can die- and then we can start over. i really liked how he put that.

I think I like renewal best. The Bible tells us that when we enter the family of God we become new creations. This would be the original ‘new’ that renewal would be referring to. Personally when I think of renewal I think of a return to the original sense of awe and wonder I had as a young Christian. It is not that I regress in my walk to that point in my beliefs but I regain that tenacious desire for God that I used to have and want again. Maybe rejuvenation is a better word for what I am describing.

Transformation is a powerful term. It is a term that seems to carry primarily positive connotations within and beyond the Church. A few benefits of transformation language (particularly in contrast to revival and revolution) include:

1) Transformation seems to be a more biblically coherent term. That is, the essence of transformation is riddled throughout scripture. In contrast, we are not called to start a revival or revolution.

2)Transformation language, as I hear it used, tends to be more passive. That is, we do not actively transform ourselves, but we are transformed (by God). Revival and Revolution, on the other hand, are more active and aggressive terms. It is easy to construe revolution and revival as change occurring by “my” effort and will. Transformation tends to imply a passive act of “being changed.” 

3)Another positive aspect of transformation language is how easily it can be used to talk about both individual and corporate change. Each one of us is transformed by the renewing of our minds - transformed into Christ-likeness. Yet as a Church, we are being transformed and are called to participate in the transformation/restoration of the world.

4)Finally, transformation indicates a process. We are “being” transformed. This is helpful when talking about corporate change, which tends to be more like an ocean liner than a speedboat.

As for strategies for stimulating radical change - perhaps we should begin with corporate agreement and understanding regarding those things that are essentials (in which we are to have unity) and those things that are non-essentials (in which we have liberty). That is, what do we consider essential and what do we consider non-essential. I believe that establishing unity on essentials (for both belief and practice) is the first step toward meaningful and positive “transformation”.  Without this unity, it is unlikely that radical change will be positive.

I guess I’ve never really thought about the meaning of the word “revival” this deeply before, so I have never thought about the idea that the word should be substituted with another that better describes the “radical change” that we want to see.  This is definitely an interesting topic, and if I think about it, I would probably say that the term “transformation” may be more technically accurate.  However, I’ll honestly admit that I fail to see the significance of getting caught up in the technicality of word definitions.  Rather, I think the focus should be on how to bring about “revival” or “transformation” or whatever word one would like to use.  This is just my opinion though.

When looking at the word choices that the church currently uses, I have seen that it is important to choose carefully. From what I can understand you do not like words that bring to mind returning to something of the past. But were some of the ideals of the past that bad? I am not arguing for those words, but by entirely canceling those thoughts out we are still alienating ideas that could be implemented.

Good thoughts overall. They have given me somethings to think about.

This question will in my opinion instigate the beginnings of “revival”, “renewal”, or whatever you choose to call it. For transformation to occur we must engage in such discourse. Once a passion for change is exchanged within communities, God can heighten the effectiveness of the church. Revelation, discussion, and then change.

Words are becoming less meaningful in this age of bloviating.  I would propose the words of the Nicene Creed which do not need to be updated to fit the postmodern culture.  Perhaps we should all memorize the Nicene Creed and quote it together in our worship services.  That just might bring a “revival” of truth with a capital “T”