By Luke Phillips, contributing opinion
In February 1905, a prayer meeting held in the men’s dormitory grew out of the building into a blizzard and across Asbury’s campus. Three years later in February 1908, a revival lasting two weeks broke out during a prayer in Hughes Auditorium. The final service of a planned revival in February 1921 lasted through the night until 6 a.m., and revival services were extended for three days. The atmosphere of revival comes and goes at Asbury, but conversation about it lingers and remains.
Often the question posed is whether we should be pushing and planning for revival in the form of Holiness Emphasis Week, Fall Revival and similar programming throughout the semester — more specifically, should we promote those chapel services in which the speaker ceaselessly encourages the student body to come forward to the altar while the band continues to play?
The Church has a long history of intentional revival services and camp meetings. Influential figures in the Church such as Billy Sunday, Billy Graham and Evan Roberts held many successful revivals throughout North America and the United Kingdom. The holding of revival services at Asbury is not wrong or immoral, is not looked down upon by the Church and is looked upon fondly by the students of Asbury University.
A majority 65 percent of 50 student respondents via a social media poll agreed that Asbury’s planning of revival services is right and beneficial. The tension arises with those speakers who seem adamant that it is their message that will spur the next great revival of Asbury. Students at Asbury know this kind of speaker well, the one who push students to run to the altar, keep the band playing and encourage raised hands and teary-eyed faces. There is a significant difference between services such as these and the great revivals held by Asbury University, Billy Graham and Evan Roberts.
The primary difference comes down to voluntary attendance. The pews of the grand services Christians speak so highly of were filled with men and women seeking some change in their lives and in their hearts. Similarly, the planned revival services on this campus remain voluntary time aside from the regularly scheduled chapel services.
Chapel is a time cherished by many students, but one would be hard-pressed to determine this by the way most rush out of their seats upon dismissal. This behavior is only worsened by speakers who keep students standing or in their seats as the speakers interrupt worship to continue to encourage the mandatory attendees to step toward the altar as the music reaches a climax, as if the Holy Spirit is made to work on command in the hearts of the students. Unless the Holy Spirit decides to move in the hearts and minds of those in the congregation, He cannot be made or manipulated to do so. If students must be required to attend, why must they be made to sit and be pushed toward revival by speakers no more in control of the Holy Spirit than a tree is in where it is planted?
Asbury University is right to schedule revival meetings and to pray that the Lord would move in mighty ways in the lives of its students. God may work through any service at any time, but when students are made to attend a service under the threat of disciplinary action, it does not seem to be an atmosphere primed for revival in their hearts.
