Charles Hodge, in his history of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, written in the 19th century, was critical of the revival period known as the Great Awakening. Why? His opinion seems to cut against common acceptance that this was a mighty work of revival, and that the Holy Spirit manifested Himself in a particular way during this period.

Charles Hodge (no known relation to this writer) would not accept this view so readily. In his opinion, the church was in a worse state two years after the Awakening than it was two years earlier. Thus, he was not so ready to accept the Awakening was the work of the Holy Spirit.

His criticism, therefore, begs the question. And if you allowed yourself to dream for a few minutes, what would a spiritual revival look like to you?

I dreamed a dream. There was a spiritual revival under way.

First, the politicians determined that they would only live on whatever tax God said was payable to the political order. It was not very much. In fact, most of them lost their job.

Second, the principle of restitution would be applied for the past 7 years, and all the tax money stolen from the people would be returned. Stolen money is simple to figure out: it’s whatever God says you’re not entitled to.

Third, our political leaders would lead the way on this and start with their own income from the stolen money and repay it to the people.

Fourth, the religious leaders, agreeing that this is the right thing to do, might urge their parishioners to copy the politicians, and make restitution of all stolen money, even if they didn’t steal it directly, but were the recipient of it through a government program of taking form some and giving to others.

Fifth, that everyone demanded the religious leaders read and re-read the law of God day and night until everyone understood what was right and wrong.

Sixth, the biblical prohibition against usury was reinstated; money was no longer devalued through credit expansion and the printing presses because gold and silver became legal tender again; the sabbatical become the practice outside the university; and the year of Jubilee was taken seriously in an attempt to preserve the property-based family.

Seventh, then I saw the mess I was in and figured while I can’t change anyone else, I can make some changes in my own life. And this is where the revival needed to get its start, not with other people, but with myself.

Eighth, then I understood that revival is not something you ask for, it is something you do. And if I could identify real changes in my own life, then I knew that revival was already under way. I didn’t need to ask for its appearance: I just needed to recognize that revival is how God works ordinarily.

It’s not the politicians who need to practice restitution: I do.
It’s not the politicians who need to conform themselves to their God-ordained duties: I do.

To ask for anything seemed rather pointless, almost an admission that God needed to change everyone else except me.

Thus, to pray for spiritual revival as a future event denies the revival already under way in the lives of God’s people everywhere.

Then I woke up.

But for a while, I thought I was in the midst of a truly spiritual “revival,” the likes of which are never talked about.

Martin Luther King is not the only dreamer. What are your dreams for a spiritual revival? And is it already under way in your own life?

And when you pray for revival, thank God for that revival already in progress instead of asking it to be a future event.

God bless you this week as you seek to serve Him who alone demands and deserves our full allegiance.

This topic has been debated for a L-O-N-G time. But consider these biblical quotations.

I’ve had some correspondence with a good friend, Mark. He’s a “justified by faith alone”, hang-on-to-the-Reformers guy who takes the Bible seriously. I’ve been a little rough on him.

Here’s how.

Proposition: The ONLY time the words “faith alone” appear in the Bible at the same time are in the book of James, and then they appear negatively. “You are not saved by faith alone.”

Proposition: Luther, in his enthusiasm for Biblical truth argued that the book of James did not belong in the canon, and he added the word “alone” to his translation of Romans.

What does the Bible really say about justification?

The words of Jesus: “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt. 12:37).

The words of Paul: “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Rom. 2:13)

Again, “We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28).

But don’t you dare stop there!

For St. Paul continued: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Rom 3:31)

And again: “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ” THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (Gal. 3:11)

Then James: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Now I don’t know about you, but I find it more than a little challenging to get “faith alone” out of those statements. By the same token, it’s equally a challenge to get the idea of being saved by our works of merit as the way of justification.

Yet these statements are what the Bible clearly says. Here’s my suggestion.

Maybe, just maybe, we should accept all the statements as the Biblical doctrine of justification, insisting neither on “works alone” nor on “faith alone” as opposites but rather as the complete picture. Maybe these apparently conflicting ideas are simply two sides of the same “coin”, and you can’t have one without the other. And when we describe the idea of justification, to ignore one side at the expense of the other just doesn’t seem like the full picture.

What do you think about this for a radical — but biblical — idea?