"TIMES OF REFRESHING"

"...in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19).

The growing consciousness within the community of faith as to the need for spiritual revitalization is encouraging. Before enlarging on the point at large, however, the following merits our consideration.

In and of itself the Church neither generates nor induces meaningful renewal. For despite the endless array of "how to" schemes, programs and strategies, there are no prescriptive formulae whereby a viable awakening can be humanly initiated. Indeed, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it" (Psa. 127:1).

Should the preceding be questioned, one need only provide an objective example of revival having so come about. We well recall, for example, the 1972 pronouncement of a well known
denomination that they were declaring the following year a "year of revival" in their churches. (Remember the great and widespread revivals of 1973? Neither does anyone else.) As per the commonly sung hymn: "O Holy Ghost, revival comes from Thee." Simply stated, we are not He.

At this juncture, II Chronicles 7:14 ("If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land") is oftentimes cited as constituting a formulaic blueprint for inducing bona fide renewal.

What is typically overlooked at this point is that the preceding pledge was given within the context of God's having first reached out to His people (in this instance via the avenue of punitive chastening; see preceding verse 13) in an appeal for their return to righteousness and spiritual integrity.

Despite the preceding, one need not search far to learn that "the key to revival" is, in fact, quite simple, requiring only that we follow the "five point program" of II Chronicles 7:14. This obviously inclines toward the concept encountered in more than a few religious philosophies wherein one need only "push the right buttons" and "dial in the right numbers" to effectively "turn God on." Various biblical pronouncements of alternate perspective might here be offered, but for now the following will suffice.

Notwithstanding his innate divinity, our Lord functioned in life and ministry as a human being. Hence the significance of his statement: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing: for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner" (John 5:9).

Simply restated: That which transpires within the realm of divine manifestation finds its source, first of all, in the ordained will of God - to which the believer's role then becomes that of obedienct response to the Spirit's leading and enablement.

Luke reiterates this principle in recounting Christ's healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:18-26). In keeping with the underlying character of his ministry, Jesus' action at this point was in consequence of "the power of the Lord [being] present for him to heal" (vs. 17). The attendant anointing (i.e., spiritual presence and dynamic) was not something he had programmed, "worked up" or, in following some detailed outline, learned how to effect.

As further seen in II Chronicles, the foregoing principle similarly applies to spiritual renewal. Following the greatest revival of Old Testament account, "King Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced that God had prepared the people" (KJV); or as rendered elsewhere: "over what God had prepared for the people" (NASB); "at what God had brought about for the people" (NIV); or again, "at what God had reestablished for the people" (NAB), etc.

Of similar emphasis in his sermon at Pentecost, Peter called upon the assembled crowd for a meaningfully valid commitment "in order that times of refreshing(restoration and renewal)may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19).

The underlying point here is that to the degree wherein the believing community responds to the leading of the Spirit, God's involvement in the whole is likewise to be recognized. (Note, for example, His role in granting the vital requisite of repentance; e.g., Acts 5:31; 11:18; II Tim. 2:25). Apart from such awareness, the issue can, and at times unwittingly becomes, one of whether we are responding to the move of the Spirit, or are seeking rather to incite the Spirit's response to our outlined programs, designs and procedures.

As with the Psalmist, our hearts similarly cry: "Wilt thou not Thyself revive us again, that Thy people may rejoice in Thee?" (Psa. 85:6 NASB). The implications here become three fold:

1. A continued seeking of God for revival
2. Personal commitment to humility, prayer and righteousness (II Chron. 7:14)
3. Ongoing obedience to the leading of the Spirit in our Church, our community and our lives.

For, "To him who has shall more be given" (Matt. 13:12).

Burl Ratzsch

"TELL PETER..."

Was Peter indeed "long on words and short on courage" as often alleged in association with Jesus' arrest? Hardly. For starters, the timorous do not engage an armed mob single handedly (John 18:10). What then was involved?

Having earlier pronounced Peter "a man of revelation" in consequence of his "Great Confession," Jesus then commissioned him leader of the Church that would soon follow: "You are Peter ('rock') and upon this [large] rock I will build my Church... and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:17-19). Given the intense and ongoing rivalry among the Twelve, one can only imagine the other Disciples' response.

Nor had Jesus' intent been lost on the subject himself. In a less than inspired endeavor to exercise the authority of leader-designate, Peter drew Christ's stinging rebuke for so lacking in discernment as to render himself an offensive surrogate of Satan (Matt. 16:21-23). Following the build-up Jesus had just given him, such constituted a devastating humiliation, particularly in the presence of the other Disciples.

Seemingly without reason, Jesus continued to "cut Peter down." Seeking, at the Last Supper, to spare Christ the lowly task of servanthood, Peter is offered the option of agreement or expulsion - so forcing a rather inglorious retreat (John 13:3-9). Yet again, following Jesus' unsettling disclosure of impending treason from within the Twelve, Peter's pledge of loyalty is not only rejected, but his stated willingness to die with Christ if necessary pronounced an untruth (Luke 22:33-34). At this point, Peter's ego is taking a beating.

Removing to Gethsemane, Jesus struggles and his Disciples seek to cope with growing uncertainty. The apprehension becomes palpable as an armed mob intent on Jesus' apprehension approaches. Unhesitatingly, Peter steps forward. Despite having been openly branded as lacking in truth and loyalty, Peter will show whether or not he will die for Christ. With slashing sword he charges the mob. There is no surer way of dying on the spot.

It is one thing to be humbled in the presence of friends; it is quite another to be humiliated before one's enemies. Rebuking Peter before them all, Jesus then heals the casualty of his onslaught (Matt. 26:51-54; Luke 22:51; John 18:10-22). Not only has Peter's willingness to make the supreme sacrifice for Christ been spurned; he has obviously been "set up" - Jesus himself having instructed the Twelve to arm themselves prior to departing for the Garden (Luke 22:36-38). Disbelieving and increasingly distraught, Peter leaves.

Arriving at the High Priest's court where Jesus is to be arraigned, Peter is incredulous at Jesus' refusal to defend himself or to salvage the cause for which the Twelve, including Peter, have forsaken all (Matt. 4:20; Mark 10:28). It is enough. Angry and embittered, Peter calls it "quits." We all know the story.

Yet Peter was not abandoned. While he would see it only in retrospect, Jesus had predicted Peter's lapse together with the stipulation that upon his restoration, he would yet assume the role of leadership - here defined in terms of "strengthening the brethren" (Luke 22:32). Later, upon having specifically requested to meet with Peter (Mark 16:7), Jesus not only renewed the call originally issued some three and one half years prior to "follow me" (Matt. 4:19; John 21:19), but again confirmed Peter's call to leadership in terms of "feed[ing] my lambs and my sheep" (John 21:15-17).

What had it all been about? Simply that it had been necessary to first "break" Peter in such a way that he might effectively become that for which, and to which, Christ had called him. It had been a hard lesson. Yet today, the Body of which Peter prematurely sought to assume leadership in the Upper Room - together with Paul's subsequent apostleship in terms of expanding the faith among the Gentiles - is the Church of which you and I are now members.

Burl Ratzsch