impleri

i was thinking lately about something from a service i attended a year ago. This service was a “revival.” Not the kind you read about in church history 101, but the kind that most baptist churches do annually. The speaker was talking about “revival” and declared that “there have been no revivals in the last century.” This has me thinking: what makes a “revival” a revival? Does it have to be ordained as such? Is it only labelled as such from a future historical point of view? Or, is it just that “revival” *is* happening, but most denominations don’t notice it because the “revival” has left the stagnant “churches” and gone out to the people of the Church.
Additionally, is “revival” enough? Or is something else, such as restoration or reformation, needed? i don’t think the current paradigm of “church” is effectively doing the things of the Great Commission. Sure, most “churches” have increased memberships (which occur from the assimilation of other “churches” closing their doors), but are they having an impact on the Kingdom of Heaven? Have we, the Church, strayed too far from the “original” Church organisation? Do we need to move towards what is being called the “Ancient/Future” paradigm of praxis?
In fact, do we need to redefine what “church” really “is”? In the Greek, the word for “church” (ekklesia) meant “the called out ones,” that is, the people, not the building. So, is “church” a building with a cross on it? A particular denomination? Or is it the people that follow Jesus?
Before i go on too much, i’ll stop here and let things sink in.