April 27, 2012

From a historian’s perspective William McLoughlin 1 sets out to analyze the phenomena of spiritual awakening and define it from a multi-disciplined point of view. As recorded in the foreword, McLoughlin takes Paul Tillich’s statement, “that religion is the soul of culture and culture the form of religion” (vii) literally. He is more interested in tracing the cultural implications of revitalizations, which meet his definition of awakenings, than maintaining any strictly Christian focus on awakenings. McLoughlin implements the formulation of cultural change as expressed by the anthropologist Anthony F.C. Wallace during his study of the Seneca Indians and applies it to five periods in American history which, according to his definition, have experienced Great Awakenings.

Wallace uses the term “mazeway” to describe patterns of thought and behavior which are readily accepted by persons within a culture. Awakenings are preceded by periods when the accepted answers to questions of value and meaning are no longer accepted or reassuring. At this point when individuals become hard pressed to create new “mazeways” (14), the stage is set for an awakening.

According to Wallace, revitalization movements follow a certain pattern. The first stage of a revitalization movement is “the period of individual stress”(12). One by one individuals lose their way. They begin to show signs of societal stress by neglecting their families, becoming physically or psychologically ill or other dysfunction on the individual and family level. This gives rise to the second stage which Wallace refers to as the “period of cultural distortion” (13).

Throughout this phase the institutions of society appear unable to respond effectively to the societal dysfunction occurring. During this period a “traditionalist movement” (14) arises declaring the need for a return to the “ways of our fathers” (14). Also, during this interval of social distortion, violence may erupt as “outsiders” easily become scapegoats for the misgivings of others. The third stage is the appearance of a prophet who personally undergoes a traumatic experience which epitomizes the crisis within the culture (16). The final stage occurs when this prophet begins to attract members of society who share his experience and worldview (19). This “new light” vision for the society begins to attract followers who are willing to experiment with the new way. As more and more adherents are attracted, emotional catharsis may affect large portions of the culture. During this emotional purging many experience “new birth” or “conversion” experiences. These experiences give credibility to the movement and force some measure of acceptance within the culture as a whole clearing, the way for the new consensus to be defined and institutionalized (21).

Basically, McLoughlin’s argument is this: a culture reforms itself by breaking its own rules until the old order is widely perceived as irrelevant. People then begin to seek new understandings of their society’s values. Eventually a charismatic leader arises and advocates a “new way”. If this leader can gain a substantial enough following, these new ideals will be widely accepted and institutionalized. For approximately a generation the culture will settle into this newly defined understanding until a subsequent generation begins the process over again.

Applying Wallace’s model, McLoughlin considers the American culture as having experienced directly, or having been directly influenced, by Five Great Awakenings. The first (Great Puritan Awakening 1610-1640) (10), while not directly experienced by our culture, has provided the core values for our culture’s beginnings (1). The First Great Awakening (1730-1760) (10), as named by history, is second according to McLoughlin’s count. He states that it “made the thirteen colonies into a cohesive unit, and inspired them to believe that they were a free and independent people” (1). The Second Great Awakening (1800-1830) (10) defined Americans’ belief that the nation has a manifest destiny (1). The Third Great Awakening (1890 – 1920) (10) is defined in seemingly secular terms to have led to understanding the theory of evolution and industrial progress (1). The Fourth Great Awakening (1960 – 1990 “?”) (11), McLoughlin further skews toward a wholly secular understanding by defining it as a time of reorientation in which America sought who she was and how she should relate to the universe (1).

McLoughlin’s purpose in writing is to show that the keys to great awakenings can no longer be found exclusively within the realm of Protestant mass revivalism (7), so that he can further “suggest the importance of an interdisciplinary study of religion in America” (217). If one’s worldview is not defined by biblical precepts, then the author’s proposition can succeed.  For anyone who takes the sovereignty of God, the inspiration of scripture or the supremacy of Christ seriously, however, his argument will fail.

To receive benefit from this work, one must understand the bias of the author’s opinion. He is not claiming to interpret awakenings in terms of evangelical Christianity. Instead, he approaches the subject of spirituality as a pluralist, the premise that all religious ideas have equal value. The only reason so much of his work discusses evangelical Christian themes is because of their historical significance in molding the core values (103) of our nation. He makes no value judgements between the validity of Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, Zen Buddhism or Satanism. He simply is attempting to identify anthropological movements within the American society.

With this bias in view, one can agree with the observation that revival, or awakenings are preceded by a falling away of society’s authoritative norms. Also helpful is the discussion on how “new lights” and “old lights” relate one to another taken from the First Great Awakening through the Third Great Awakening. The concepts of original sin, regeneration or conversion and atonement are traced through an evolution of “new light” thinking from Jonathan Edward’s student Hopkins (78-79) to Taylor (117-119) to Rauschenbusch (176).

In his discussion of the third Great Awakening, a dramatic change occurs from Wallace’s third phase. McLoughlin points out that it is ironic that the greatest professional revivalist of his day was an old light (150), Billy Sunday. For Christians this is an important development. In past awakenings, and in Wallace’s model, the “new light” prophets redefined the social conception. This pattern, if followed in this awakening, would leave the basic Christian worldview in place. During this awakening, however, the “new light” prophets redefined God and his position within the social consciousness. For the first time the Bible and Christianity’s definition of the way of salvation were set aside. This marks a pivotal turning point in the Christian church’s role in defining America’s cultural norms.

It is into this void “a surrogate religion” (153) of agnostic humanitarianism, which fully accepted the evolutionist worldview, was placed. Adherents to this new found faith were completely willing to differ to the wiser verdict of science on any controversial biblical question (155). This would be repeated in the Fourth Great Awakening as, once again, an “old light” fundamentalist Christian Evangelist, Billy Graham (186), would arise to proclaim the message of salvation.

McLoughlin’s conclusion that revival is “by definition syncretic” (215) does not take into account the biblical definition of revival. Revival is a returning to God’s way by turning from one’s own selfish ways. The whole concept implies some absolute to which one must return. Syncretism is the opposite of revival in that it is the adding of one or more idols to those already accumulated by a person attempting to live without God. Revival is ridding the heart, home and society of all idols and returning to the one true God.

Revival and awakening are foremost spiritual acts of a sovereign God. Therefore, they cannot be understood thoroughly apart from God’s revelation to man and man’s need for reconciliation to God in the person of Jesus Christ.

McLoughlin is arguing for a position which suggests that we should not seek to deny a spiritual role in awakening and revival unless we insist on being so closed minded as to persist on defining spirituality in strictly Biblical or Evangelical terms (7). Evangelical Christians must wholly dispute his argument. For the Christian, the spiritual can only be defined as God has defined it in his revelation to us — Holy Scripture. To do otherwise is to accept the lie with which Satan first led mankind astray in the garden: “hath God really said?” Awakening cannot be divorced from the reconciliation of sinful man to holy God. To attempt an understanding in merely cultural means suggest, that a cultures need to survive change (8), supersedes those within the cultures need for reconciliation to God.

In the final analysis the subject of awakening must be defined in theological terms. Even McLoughlin unwittingly admits as much when he quotes the anthropologist David Buchdahl: “One can deny the god of the bible, . . . but in order to think about ‘reality’ completely, some sort of ‘god-term’ is still required for a coherent symbol system” (215). America’s culture has experienced different upheavals, but an awakening of the kind which evangelical’s understand to be taught in Scripture still awaits us.

End Notes

1. William McLoughlin, Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1978. 239 pp.