Revival Churches Discussion forum
Click the banner to view the old forum
Friday
The Revival Fellowship
Click on the link to visit the Revival Churches Discussion ForumLiberated from the Revival Centres in 1985, they pretty much picked up the ball when Lloydy dropped it while he went on his manical genocidal cleansing spree to purge HIS church of its sinful human dross so that he could deliver it clean and perfect as a bride to a very fussy groom (not his actual words fyi). Godfrey, Khulmann and the gang dropped the horse, added a couple more trumpets and decided to be fellowships rather than centres. The meeting format didn't skip a beat and the drinking of various substances was and is still forbidden.
The majority of RFers can still sleep in on a Sunday morning but have to give up most of the P.M. (Prime Mowing time). Say goodbye to the kids on Sunday morning, 'cause you won't get to see them much again until you're safely back at home at 6.30 or so.
They continue to ex-communicate members who infringe on sexual sins and shun ex-members who don't wish to rejoin the ranks. They respect the idea that they're not the only 'true' church and believe that all the tongue-speakers of the earth are truly united in the one super dooper unit. They believe there are only three classes of people on this planet: Christians, worldlies... and Catholics. They hold disdain though for tongue-speaking Christians who don't preach the absolute necessity for tongues.
Their assemblies are still under the thumb of a tight hierarchal system that ensures all the seperate assemblies play by the franchise rules and that every burger has pickles on it and a staff member who will ask, "Would you like tongues with that?" No women are allowed to serve the burgers and the head guys have to wear ties and have a picture of the queen behind their desks.
One's christianality is still determined by an emphasis on physical evidence (ie. speaking in an ecstatic language - tongues) to 'confirm' salvation rather than the concept of walking by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). You must be completely submerged in water to fulfill the complete ritual. If you leave a hand out of the water during the dunking or get hit by a bus on the way to the river... eternal life hangs in the balance.
What do these churches do to help their communities around them..? the weak, the widow, the fatherless? Like every other Tongue-fixated church, they are only interested in dragging converts back to their halls where everything will come out in the wash. Cancer will go away, homosexuality won't happen, and life will be rosey and sweet forever and ever amen. In short... they do NOTHING for their fellow man.
Revival Centres International
- British Israel - Still in the creed of beliefs (Link to non-racist claim)
- Prophesy - Soon return of Jesus (Historicist view of Revelation - not rapturists). Soon did come at about 1997 for many... but soon is now interpreted as some time later, but still very soon.
- Punishment for sexual sins - Out of fellowship for life.
- Founder - Lloyd Longfield (1948 - Revival title given in 1958). Declared insane by most of his own members in 1995.
- Current senior pastor - Simon Longfield.
- Female leadership? - No. Women are very rarely even allowed to pray publicly, ie. opening a meeting in prayer. They can use the voice gifts... most are pretty happy to have the pressure off them.
- Alcohol? - Not on your Nelly! Do not drink, do not pass go, do not even collect a cold beer after a hot working bee.
Favourite quote from their website -
- "there will be no outrageous or wild behaviour and no 'religious theatrics' on the other hand, we don't think you will be bored"
- "The word 'pastor' means shepherd. Shepherds in Bible days were not the 'drovers' we see in larger scale farming techniques of today. The shepherd in those days lived in close relation with his flock, putting them first"
Revival Centre International
This group originated in Australia, and spread abroad.
Like all aberrant bible-based groups they follow the usual practice of only using those scriptures which support their beliefs; wresting verses out of context and ignoring, or explaining away any which are contrary.
A major difference between RCI and other pentecostal churches is in the doctrine which revolves around speaking in tongues. According to them, UNLESS YOU SPEAK IN TONGUES YOU DO NOT HAVE SALVATION. To quote from their pamphlet 'Salvation and the Holy Spirit' . . .
" . . . it is ONLY when the earnest seeker speaks in tongues that we can say with scriptural that he has received the Holy Spirit."
" The baptism with the Holy Spirit is NOT AN 'OPTIONAL EXTRA' in the Word of God. Rather it is God's seal or pledge that we are saved (Eph 1:13-14) . . . The Bible therefore offers no assurance for those who choose to remain outside this freely offered experience . . . We are also warned that 'no other gospel' is to be preached (Gal 1:8). To preach less than the Holy Spirit Baptism for salvation is a disaster."" There is no salvation outside the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Anything less is not God's plan and IS NOT SALVATION." (emphasis are ours)
As regards 'Baptism in the Holy Spirit' or 'being filled with the Holy Spirit' one only needs to look at Acts 9 to see that Paul the apostle was himself 'FILLED with the Holy Spirit' (vs17) AFTER he had acknowledged Jesus Christ as Lord (vs6); AFTER he had received a further vision from the Holy Spirit concerning Ananias (vs12) and AFTER he was made a 'chosen vessel' unto the Lord (see Acts 9:4-17). This and other passages from Scripture indicate that AFTER being 'born-again' by the Spirit of God, a Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit. But there is no passage that indicates that one must speak in tongues to show that they are saved.
It is also worthwhile to point out that spiritual gifts are to be DESIRED or SOUGHT AFTER (1 Cor 12:28 and 14:11) by the BELIEVER only!
The Christian is warned not to look to supernatural manifestations such as prophecy, casting out demons, wonderful works (healing etc) as the SOLE CRITERIA for proof that a person is a Christian (Matt 7:17-23 shows there will be those who do these things in the Lord's name but the Lord is going to cast them away because they are not His).
The reasons for this warning become clearer when we look at such passages as 2 Thess 2:7-12; 1 Tim 4:1; and Rev 16:14, 19:20. Many will be deceived by miracles and the 'supernatural' because they will be looking at THESE as the foundation for their faith, NOT at the Lord Himself. This emphasis on a physical evidence to 'confirm' salvation is contrary to the injunction to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).
In verse 21 of Acts 2, Peter told his listeners how to be saved. In verse37 they cried out "What must we do?". Peter then told them to REPENT and be baptised for (because of) the remission of their sins. Then, Peter told them, they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
IN SUMMARY:-
THEIR BASIC BELIEFS ARE
1. Salvation is only for those who speak in tongues and this is the only way you can know the assurance of salvation.
2. They are the only true church.
3. The 'lost ten tribes' are Britain and the USA (British Israelism).
4. The major part of the book of Revelation has been fulfilled.
THEY ALSO TEACH THAT "goodness in natural terms is a fantasy, a delusion, set before us with its seeming opposite, evil, by the devil. THE TWO ARE INTERCHANGABLE depending on where we view them from . . ."
THAT "even family ties were to be callously disregarded when they impinged on a follower's walk".
THAT there is no forgiveness for the sin of adultery or fornication and that those who sin in this way are to be permanently removed from fellowship.
This organisation is potentially dangerous. It has a particular appeal to those who seek the reassurance of a 'sign' or a supernatural experience before they believe they have salvation.
Former members describe a system of control and manipulation and experience the same post-cult symptoms as those who come from other well known cults such as Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses and Moonies. All indications are that this is a destructive Bible Based cult.
Revival Churches: Revival Fellowship, Revival Centres International, CAI and GRC
The convoluted gospel of speaking in tongues as the primary and necessary indicator for Christian salvation, has been passing on from various churches for half a century now. These followers believe that anyone who calls themselves Christians, but cannot perform the act, is fooling themselves and whoever they talk to. Non-speaking Christians aren't even second-class citizens to them, in fact, they're not even Christians at all, according to their bible interpretation. They think very little of the 'fake' Christians and even less of the 'worldlies' whom they endeavor to save with their select gospel.
Many people who become disillusioned with Revival churches are sometimes forced out for various reasons, eg. legalism or overly controlling pastors. Many of these ex-members find themselves a bit lost and somewhat confused without a group of tongue-fixated church members around them, so they strive to find a church that is similar. Some start up their own. so strong is the elitism and exclusivity of this belief's mindset.
They can often look harmless in comparison to Revival. They implement a lot more modern praise and worship music (but will refrain from any emotional hand raising etc). They sometimes don't have a trumpet in their logo. They claim to have dropped the legalism and rules and etc. Of course, they are too blind to see how legal and divisive the actual tongues necessity gospel is in itself. Usually their meetings are carbon copies of Revival complete with two testimonies, 2 or 3 gift ceremonies, and a catholic based communion ritual.
The argument is convincing and the scriptures dovetail quite nicely when tweaked accordingly. Initiation and approval is given via a random rambling drawl and it is exchanged at every meeting, much like a secret handshake. However, this thread is not a debate on tongues but rather an expose on the churches (no matter how big or small) who are similar to Revival or who have broken off from them without discarding the tongues fixation. Most of these churches don't communicate with each other but do nod politely in their direction when it's acknowledged that, 'at least they have tongues'.
All tongue-fixated church have similarities. The foundation of this salvation criteria leads to many commonalities and
Major groups listed so far:
- The RCI - Revival Centres International
- The GRC - Geelong Revival Centres
- The CAI - Christian assemblies International
- The RF - Revival Fellowships
- The UP - United Pentecostals
The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting
The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting
Is it a biblical practice?
Is the decently and in order use of the gifts of the spirit as used by the Revival churches a correct interpretation of how things were intended to be? What does the bible mean by two at the most three*? It sounds like more of a recommendation than a commandment to me. Does it anger God if the gift is used only once or four times? If this is the Holy Spirit speaking, then who is Paul or anyone else to place a controlled restriction on it?
*Interestingly, in the other instances of the use of the number phrase 'two or three' (Matt 18:20 two or three are gathered - John 2:6 two or three firkins) the addition of the second number calls attention to the fact that the first number is not meant to be an exact sum.
It goes like this: One stands up and speaks in an unknown tongue, another stands up and explains what the other just said. They conclude God had something to say, and communicated it this way. Logic asks then, "Why did God have to speak gibberish, then raise someone up to speak intelligently, when all the while He is supposed to be using the pastor to speak to the congregation in the first place?"
Tongues as a prayer language:
We were lead to believe that God gives the gift of tongues so we can pray more effectively but where does it say He has to pray through us in an unknown tongue?
Romans 8:26 reads, "Likewise the Spirit also helps with our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Observe closely here, "cannot be uttered" Whether in English, or some supposed mysterious language given by God, it says plainly - cannot be uttered.
Tongues to enable witnessing (yes, already covered well in another thread)
Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:8 that the Holy Spirit would enable followers to be witnesses for Him. We read immediately in the second chapter that this is what happened. People were gathered from different regions of the Mediterranean world and spoke many different languages. Yet afterwards, they heard them speak in their own native language! Galileans speaking miraculously as Parathions, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamian, Cretes, Arabians, Egyptians, ... the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11) The original intent of the language gift was to maximize the efficiency of transmitting the Gospel message.
Context means everything when defining a concept, and the context of the phenomena of 'unknown tongues' here is plainly to communicate the Gospel in a simple, communicative, understandable language to the listeners that surrounded them. Acts 2:6 tells us that they heard them speak in their own language. They didn't hear words they couldn't understand, but benefited by hearing the gospel in their own dialect.
Tongues of angels and men
I've mention recently that the term angels can simply refer to anyone sending a message as the word 'angel' means messenger, but let's unpack it a bit further.
"Though I speak with the tongues of men or angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
Should we read a prayer language into this? Is this the subject Paul was emphasizing? No, he's saying how important is is to be lead by love no matter how blessed with gifts one is. Without love it's meaningless. He is exaggerating to prove a point. Isn't that obvious? He does it again in Galatians 1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." In other words he's saying: "Sheesh, I don't care if an angel drops down from heaven, don't listen to them if it isn't what I've told you". It's a hypothetical exaggeration here, to make it obvious to the reader, hardly a place to base a doctrine for a prayer language! Some then quote 1 Cor 14 but the entire emphasis of that chapter is in the gift of prophecy where all can be edified by understanding clearly what the speaker or the person praying publicly is saying!
Thought... Why does a prophesy sound exactly like an interpretation?
In verse one he asks us to desire the gifts but most importantly - prophesy. The Greek meaning of prophesy is to both foretell and forthtell, or to preach understandably. The word is propheuo and means to declare truth whether through prediction or not. In verse 5 Paul wishes that they all spoke with tongues. Why? They would be more useful if they all had the ability to cross language barriers. But he prefers that they prophesy unless there is an interpreter. Now this leads to the next question...
It's all right to speak in tongues if there is an interpretation!
First of all, that's not the emphasis here, secondly, what kind of language was being interpreted?
Let's use our imagination here for a sec. Suppose you've been given a 'language' gift from the Lord and you use it in the meeting. Only one problem, no one understands what you just prayed including you! (verse 14) My spirit (i.e. my inward sincerity) was there, but who knows what I said! Over and over again Paul places the emphasis on communicating that all may understand in this chapter. He even uses musical instruments as an analogy.
In verses 27 and 28 Paul states that speaking in tongues is permissible if we have two, and at the most three speak in this fashion. Then, and only then, if one interprets. Let's use our imagination again, eh? The assembly has gathered, and the pastor moves to the pulpit and lo and behold, he's carrying the original Hebrew text! Someone says afterward: "Wow! We heard a message from Hebrew! He sure is gifted having the ability to read the original Hebrew! We sure are blessed, I enjoyed hearing the Hebrew read today in our meeting." The other would respond: "Yeah, but I wonder what he said?" Sound far-fetched? The Roman Catholics have read sermons in Latin for years! Paul is telling them, if you do use a different language, explain it that all understand.
Tongues was explained at pentecost as a gift given to clearly communicate the Gospel in a language that all could understand. It's the same Greek word "glossa" throughout the New Testament and yes, even in 1 Corinthians where Paul found the most problems. Being the same Greek word, why should anyone change the meaning to the way it is being practiced by Revival and their ilk?
- Where do they get off implying that all who don't practice tongues are on their way to hell?
- Where do they get the revelation to say that one church is better than the other because one practices tongues and the other doesn't?
Not from the bible.
and some more...
A little bit of logic unravels the whole 'gifts' ritual very quickly. ie. The two or three tongue messages TO the Lord are interpreted as messages FROM the Lord. The interpretations are completely similar to the two or three prophesies that come afterward... and are not prophetic at all.
Many Revivalists claim the miracle of the gifts because the one they were about to blurt out had a similar message to the one that got in first. This isn't surprising considering everyone in the community has been listening to the same talks, and talking in the same circles... not to mention the mathematical coincidence effect that there are only so many topics commonly used and that every now and again someone is going to beat you to the punch with a similar message.
Tuesday
The Revival Fellowship - Separation Policy
But we can all see this is inevitable. The chasm must divide wider between their organisation and the wider world of Christendom. The Revival churches have an identity that prides itself on separatism and non-compromise. It comes down to a factor that they are putting in the 'too hard' basket - the protection of an invented salvation doctrine, ie. "If you don't speak in tongues you are none of His" (a non-existent scripture that defies the message of the gospel). Deary deary me, the Revivalists have put themselves into a self-perpetuating rut that only takes them further down the funnel of segregation and further along the continuum of (dare I say it) cultism.
Their leaders know what they must do to keep their doctrine pure and undefiled. The unwritten laws of cult-controlling techniques demand that you exponentially cut off outside information to keep the scriptural convolutions believable and yourselves necessarily in-house where the wolves won't get at them. Unfortunately the wolves are simply sheep dogs trying desperately to herd the sheep away from the wolves within their own fences.
If it ain't Revival, it's gotta go. It's a type of genocide you might say, and it shows no sign of stopping because these glaringly dangerous policies will force out the 'thinking' Christians (who can see what's coming) and leave a stronger core of Yes-men among the flock. A flock who are mostly tied in too strongly to their church by friend and family networks. Along with this, a mess of carefully preached doctrines, rules, and fear of the outside 'worldlies' .
The 'tongues' you pivot everything on is a bastardisation of simple bible messages cross-stitched together by well-meaning and intelligent, but ultimately extraordinarily blind-sighted men, confused by what seemed like a good idea at the time. Many of the less hard-core leaders and members will admit that there 'may' be sprinkles of true tongue-speaking Christians in mainstream churches but are unfortunately 'damned' by affiliation and proliferation of a watered down gospel that just won't do for them.
I know where your fundamental allegiance lies. It's caught up in a belief-web of absolutism that this Revival doctrine is a cornerstone of Jesus' message to mankind and the only 'key' criterion that will open the door of the fire-proof Ark that's gonna sweep your version of true Christianity away to safety when the fire comes.But is it True Christianity? Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion? ... giving aid to the poorest people, as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. Revivalists are all for that... as long as the poor people are Revivalists. I'm not saying that every member of a church goes door to door with Happy Meals to hand out, but there was a deep message of a lifestyle that may work better if you put his community plans into action.