Revival Fires being spread...Biblical?

It seems that one of the things that differs from modern revivals from those of old is when modern revival (from 1900 or so on) comes, people feel like they must visit that place and receive power to come back to their home and spread revival there.While I haven't studied revival very long, I have yet to come across any such thought or approach in the revivals of old (Wesley, Finney, Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, Edwards, etc.)Don't get me wrong - I do think people used by God to bring revival gain a reputation, and sometimes they are the only ones who've waited upon the Lord and preached with annointing and boldness, and God uses them, but where is it said by Ravenhill or others that some special POWER is given to go back home and spread the fire of revival there?My point is - the 20th and 21st Century has seen more worship of the power of God than God Himself in all His holiness, and too many modern "revivals" have prostituted the term so that people flock in the churches more for an experience with spiritual fireworks more than a genuine experience of God. Those circus acts in Brownsville and Toronto have especially perverted the term "revival", and you have to be so careful using the term or else someone start associating with those heretics.-Chris

I agree the term "revival" has been perverted. The primary difference I see between the revivals of old and now is that there is no conviction of sin and we've used a whole hosts of things in lieu of this. Without the conviction of sin brought by the person of the Holy Spirit, there is no true repentance. So if there's no conviction of sin, then I don't believe the Holy Spirit is there according to the Gospel of John.The focus is primarily on a feeling or an experience with God and these can be easily fabricated by the enemy. But if there's real repentance, then there's a marked change and people begin to come because it's tangible.I pray for real revival and that the name of Jesus be lifted up for His names sake.

Maybe we should come up with a legitimate definition of the word REVIVAL so that we can clarify and communicate to others what it is we are seeking.The point is not to try and "box-in" this amazing work of God, but simply to rub our heads together and come up with an articulate, consise definition. Sometimes I end up talking way too long when trying to clarify what I mean by the word "revival." What do you guys, many of whom have studied and sought revival much longer than I have, think?

Hi Chris,I haven't walked in it, nor have most of us at least in Western countries during our lives. I've read many books on the revivals of old and here's a simple definition that seems adequate to me from Wikipedia "A revival or awakening is a movement of the Holy Spirit bringing about a revival of new testament Christianity in the church of Christ and in its related community."

I found Ravenhill's definition of Revival"WHAT IS REVIVAL? Revival is the act of the Spirit upon believers who have lost their first love. Revival is the restoration of true doctrine. Revival is the rekindling of the power of prayer in individuals and in groups. Revival is seeing that God must be vindicated either by His mercy in pardoning - or by judgment! Revival is the ascendancy of the spiritual over the material. Revival is the Spirit's passion within the believer to know and to obey the total will of God. Revival is the willingness to forsake all, that God might be all in all to the individual and to the Church. Revival is the "no-time-limit" operation of God on the saints, resulting in a moving of God among the sinners. Revival is the redeemed sobbing with broken hearts over a nation of broken lives from breaking the commandments of God. Revival is not a luxury, but a necessity for our nation; not an alternative, but an imperative. found here: http://www.ravenhill.org/heartb20.htm