In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and the way it rolled into the ongoing cultural conflicts engulfing America, some are claiming to see, or at least hope to see, what they deem the three “R's” of renewal, revival and reformation. We might share those hopes, but even if fulfilled, they are not what America needs today.
“Renewal” obviously means to make something, such as the Christian faith of some believers, new and fresh again. It usually amounts to a good pep talk kind of sermon. “Revival” literally means to bring to life again. While it seems to imply a benefit greater than just a renewal, that might be because it also implies that the faith of the people being revived has been dead, or at least near death. “Reformation” involves going deeper into the beliefs and worldviews of the community, and changing those to conform more fully to God's will. This is a much more rare and world changing phenomenon than the two previously mentioned Christian community changes, but there really does not seem to be the theological tectonic plate shifting going on right now that would indicate such a powerful change is coming soon.
There is another, much more important “R” word they don't mention, even though it is the most blessed Christian social movement we could hope for. That unused term is “revolution.” Most folks probably cringe at the thought of revolution, thinking it requires some terrible violence. They are repulsed by the suggestion that it has anything to do with Christianity. They could not be more mistaken.
First of all, we need to develop a usable, real world definition of “Revolution.” Then we will explore this definition by applying it to historic incidents of so called revolution. Then we can see that revolution is at the heart of Christianity, and definitely at the heart of what the church in America should be engaged in at this moment in history.
“Revolution” technically means turning, in the sense of a group turning from something to something else. The new political definition of “Revolution” goes like this. Take a look at the long history of the group, whether a church, a town, a state, a nation, or the entire human race. Figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it. Figure out what we did right, and do more of it. Then carry on, putting those conclusions into action. Kind of short and sweet, huh?
While this might not fit the idea that most people have of revolution, that it must involve some kind of bloody carnage, look at what most bloody so called revolutions have actually done. If those times of war and destruction don't result in the kind of honest dialogue mentioned in the definition, a period of honest reflection, then that group of people have not really turned at all. For the most part they have merely exchanged one brutal dictator for another. This is what most “revolutions” have consisted of, and why the word has a bad reputation. Even revolutions that did involve violence, such as the American revolution, were only truly revolutionary because they resulted in that time of honest, constructive dialogue, such as our constitutional convention and the years of social revolution that followed..
On the other hand, if a people can arrive at that moment of honest dialogue without resorting to violence, that is still a time of true revolution. In fact, those episodes of peaceful social change are the most revolutionary times on record. Think about episodes like what is called the “Velvet Revolution” in the former nation of Czechoslovakia. That revolution resulted in a peaceful disuniting under the enlightened leadership of Vaclav Havel. No shooting or hatred was needed, just a civilized separating of two nations, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, which no longer fit well together.
With that dialogue based definition of revolution in mind, just a cursory look at human history reveals that many of the social reform movements, especially in the West, and in the last few hundred years, have actually been revolutionary, both in their approach and in their outcomes. The ongoing positive results of that kind of revolution is probably due to the fact that it is actually just a society wide manifestation of the Christian call to personal repentance.
Think about it. A sincere Christian, seeking to live as God's obedient child will, on a regular basis, practice the discipline of thinking about what they did wrong, and repenting, and thinking about what they did right, and seeking to do that even better. That is the way, as an individual believer, we come more and more into God's will.
We should hear the call for revolution not as a call for violence, or civil war, but rather as a call to a kind of national repentance. To enter into a time of national soul searching. To figure out what we have been doing wrong, stop doing it; and figure out what we are doing right, or did right in the past, and do more of it.
There are a plethora of issues that we should deal with in this nation, at this time, using that framework of national revolutionary repentance. Many of them will be considered in coming blogs, but probably the most important to mention at this time is the idea of establishing some kind of national religion. What is called Christian Nationalism.
This looms as a concern because in actuality we have long suffered under an official national religion, a belief system known as Secular Humanism. Many of our current social maladies have resulted from our unknowingly accepting (via a wrong headed decision from the Supreme Court, Everson v Board of Education, in 1947) the establishment of that official national religion. What's more, with, once again, the spiritual uplift in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder, the sentiment has arisen that the remedy to this illegitimate Secular establishment is to instead turn to a national Christian establishment.
That is where a revolutionary dialogue can serve us well, because a close examination of history shows us that national religious establishments don't work well, whether they be Secular or Christian. Look at how badly official Christian establishments have suffocated the Christian faith in Europe. On the other hand, American history reveals that allowing religious establishments on the state level, as we did before the Supreme Court's blunder in 1947, did work well, and should be done again.
So in this time of spiritual and cultural upheaval, along with renewal, revival or even reformation, let's pray for a true peaceful revolution.
