What I love about this book is that it gives us a picture of what real revival is. Michael Brown describes the Brownsville Revival as full of weeping in repentance, humbling of self, faith in Jesus' work at the cross, and receiving Jesus' mercy. He tells of other stories of deep hunger for God to save people, weeping in prayer, and "truth-telling, however unpopular that may be". He himself hungers for more, but where is the church today and how might we get there?

On the one hand you have the church growth gurus focusing on very practical matters: which is somewhat important but decidely lacking. On the other hand, you have Pentecostals who believe they are living revival already! Why anything more?!

In my own context, doing life with Word Faith Pentecostals, Brown's message is refreshing to hear. While healing and exorcisms are front and centre in that context, the experiences of Michael Brown describe a revival that is deeply transformative for the long-term, both to receive the Spirit in salvation, and incredible outpourings of the fruit of the Spirit. What's refreshing is the message that there is something more. Our experience of God shouldn't stop at physical healing, as much as that is usually a sign of the life of heaven and an indication that the power of the Spirit is present. There's a lot more. This is a clarion call to radical surrender and holiness.

There is an idea (New Age in origin) that we can bring about revival, which presupposes that the world operates on spiritual laws—and so if we but knew the secret formula, we could spark a revival. Brown will often keenly discern the line between truth and error—he's one of the best in Pentecostal circles—but I felt that he was sometimes not fully clear on this issue. He speculates that in order to bring about revival we need to pray, reminding God that his honour is at stake, given the state of the "compromised, carnal, complacent church" today. Are the Scriptural passages cited prescriptive, though, or descriptive? He doesn't go into them in depth. He describes praying for more of God's heart—a commendable thing. In a buried paragraph he did state: "As we draw near to him, He draws near to us—and we can be assured that it is He who is drawing us in the first place." Amen—and I would say God starts revivals, as he starts all things, though he also chooses to use us. As such, we should want to be used by him, and pray for such occasions, which is exactly what Brown says.

Right at the end, Brown says very sharply, "revival is not something that man works up. Revival is something that God sends down". Thus, he doesn't advocate that we schedule in revival meetings, since that is not possible. Nevertheless, just a bit further on, he believes that if we hunger for it, we will get it. "God will not pour out His Spirit where there is not sufficient room to contain it. God will not visit in power where He is not deeply desired. But He will pour out water on the thirsty land." The line is not sharp: is it God or is it us who is in control?

It's perhaps a tough question, but because so many think that they can learn a few spiritual laws to get what they want, it needs a lot more clarity. If I were to analyse it myself, I would use the following four points to differentiate between the biblical worldview and a New Age one:

Brown focuses on coming to God in earnest prayer: it's personal—as opposed to operating as if we just had to do a few certain things to get the desired result (but that was fuzzy in the book), without reference to God.

It's intensely relational, because we want God's heart, and to get God's heart you often need to be taught by God himself through lengthy periods. This is opposed to a New Age spiritual law driven process where you will learn that if you pray like this, God must respond like that.

Brown presented a monotheistic view that we come to the One True God. Pantheistic teaching, however, says we can conjure up a revival in ourselves if we but say and do the right things—no God needed (you are little gods, after all).

The last key to differentiating between New Age and Bible is to understand metaphysics: the relationship between spiritual and physical dimensions. Brown presents the hard work we must do in prayer, and the changes that must be wrought in our heart to gain God's heart for the nations, even while coming to God who is spirit. This is distinctly different from a New Age approach that shifts the focus to the spiritual realm (not God, but the spiritual in general), and such practices as confession of positive ideals. Having done that in the spiritual realms, we are to walk in faith and not in the illusion of the physical (such as what our senses see and hear), that we are in revival, healing, and breakthrough. But that approach is wrong because while things do start in the spiritual realm, it's because things start with God, who is sovereignly sustaining the universe according to his unassailable plan. So we must approach God, and not rely on techniques or try to discover 'secret' knowledge to spark revival. It's all up to God.

Furthermore, we ought not to be discouraged from starting things in the physical, under false pretence that we have to do things in the spiritual first. We're not in some Matrix-like simulation where the physical is an illusion, totally controlled by the spiritual. "True religion" (James 1:27) is indeed not hypocritical and empty religious Pharaisaicism, but nor is it an elitist I'm-so-spiritual attitude. It is in fact the rather physical acts of helping the needy, and establishing the fruit of the Spirit (righteousness). To ground it further: what role does the formation of a deaconry to help the widows have, in the Acts revival, for extending that revival (Acts 6:1-7)? But this is something I'm adding that I would have liked to hear, which Brown may have added had he been more attuned to how New Age spiritualism has affected our understanding of these doctrines. I fear that a focus on just getting people saved will necessarily minimise the effect of that revival if we don't also prepare wise structures that help practical love and discipleship flourish (there are of course foolish structures that hinder people, but, like with so many things, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: structure can be good).

So to spell out my conclusion of whether he presents something New Age in character, or biblical, I think he comes across decidedly biblical—but he is unclear at points and would do well to sharpen the boundaries to help us steer clear of occult influences.

If you love the message of AW Tozer, Art Katz, David Wilkerson, Leonard Ravenhill, and countless examples of God changing people's lives, you'll be inspired by Michael Brown's contribution. He does give examples from Scripture, but his primary purpose is not to give a theology of revival, but to inspire us to the urgent need of the hour for revival. As such I think helping us picture what revival might look like strikes the right note, and is indeed inspiring, though I'm still left with a few unanswered questions on this vast topic.

A massive number of people weeping in repentance and humbling themselves before God is a great sight. I hope and pray we see it.