“Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?”

This earnest prayer, uttered by Jeremiah Lanphier out of his passion for the salvation of the residents of New York City in 1857, led to what historians call the Layman’s Prayer Revival or the Revival of 1858-59.  On September 23 of that year he knelt in prayer alone, shortly after the noon hour.

Lanphier’s intercession ascended from the upper lecture room of the Old North Dutch Reformed Church, his heart broken for the purposeless, despondent masses of New York.  A single man, he was wed to his ministry of personal evangelism, street preaching, and door to door witnessing.  His burden for the throngs of people forced him to his knees.  Could he have ever imagined what would soon come about?  That within a matter of months, over 50,000 people would gather daily for prayer in the city he loved?

New York City then as now sat in dire need of spiritual life.  The old North Dutch Reformed Church in downtown employed Jeremiah as a lay missionary to influence their area for the gospel. Converted in the year 1842, Lanphier was a forty-year old businessman filled with enthusiasm.

Lanphier began his assignment on July 1, 1857.  He put together a folder describing the church which he gave to everyone he met.  He passed out Bibles and tracts.  While he found some success, he was overwhelmed at the enormity of the task.  His prayer, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” led him to a novel approach.

Jeremiah had found prayer to be a great source of comfort.  He noticed how the businessmen were “hurrying along their way, often with care worn faces, and anxious, restless gaze.” He presented the idea of a prayer meeting for businessmen to the church board.  Their response was less than enthusiastic, but they agreed to allow Lanphier to proceed.  Determining that the noon hour was the most feasible time for a prayer meeting, he printed and distributed a handbill publicizing the meeting.  He promoted the meeting with great zeal.

HANDBILL LANPHIER GAVE OUT:

HOW OFTEN SHALL I PRAY?

(FRONT)

As often as the language of prayer is on my heart; as often as I see my need of help; as often as I feel the power of temptation; as often as I am made sensible of my spiritual declension or feel the aggression of a worldly spirit.  In prayer we leave the business of time for that of eternity and intercourse with men for intercourse with God.

(BACK)

A day-prayer meeting is held every Wednesday from 12 to 1 o’clock in the Consistory building in the rear of the North Dutch Church, corner of Fulton and Williams streets.  This meeting is intended to give merchants, mechanics, clerks, strangers and businessmen generally an opportunity to stop and call on God amid the perplexities incident to their respective avocations.  It will continue for one hour; but it is also designed for those who find it inconvenient to remain more than 5 or 10 minutes, as well as for those who can spare a whole hour.  Necessary interruption will be slight, because anticipated.  Those in haste often expedite their business engagements by halting to lift their voices to the throne of grace in humble, grateful prayer.

Pretty simple, right? But God has a way of honoring the simplicity of His children when coupled with faith. Lanphier’s own description of the birth of the noonday meetings beginning on September 23, 1857 is moving:

Going my rounds in the performance of my duty one day, as I was walking along the streets, the idea was suggested to my mind that an hour of prayer, from twelve to one o’clock, would be beneficial to businessmen, who usually in great numbers take that hour for rest and refreshment.  The idea was to have singing, prayer, exhortation, relation of religious experience, as the case might be; that none should be required to stay the whole hour; that all should come and go as their engagements should allow or require, or their inclinations dictate.  Arrangements were made, and at twelve o’clock noon, on the 23rd day of September, 1857, the door of the third story lecture-room was thrown open.

At first, Lanphier prayed alone.  Then, one joined him, and by the end of the hour there were six.  Prayer meetings had been held before, but this was different.  Former meetings tended toward formalism and routine.  These were free and spontaneous.

The following Wednesday there were twenty in attendance, and on the third thirty to forty.  Those present determined to meet daily rather than weekly.  On October 14 over one hundred came.  At this point many in attendance were not Christ followers, many of whom were under great conviction of sin.  By the end of the second month three large rooms were filled.  Almost simultaneously prayer meetings began across the city.  Many churches sponsored such meetings without knowledge of other activity similar to their own.  Within six months fifty thousand were meeting daily in New York, while thousands more prayed in other cities.  On March 17, 1858, Burton’s Theater near the North Dutch Church opened for noon prayer.  The theater was filled by 11:30 A.M.  Henry Ward Beecher spoke to three thousand gathered there on the third day.  Evening preaching services soon companioned the daily prayer meetings.  Lanphier and the church set up seven rules for the meetings: 1) Open with a brief hymn; 2) Opening prayer; 3) Read a passage of Scripture; 4) A time for requests, exhortations, and prayers; 5) Prayer would follow each request or at most two requests, while individuals were limited to five minutes of prayer/comments; 6) no controversial subjects were to be mentioned; 7) At five minutes before 1:00 a hymn was sung so the meeting could end at 1:00 promptly.

Amazing answers to prayer were recorded across the nation.  One man spoke of his burden for an unconverted son.  This son, who had travelled across the world, was converted soon after the request was made at Fulton Street.  One young man came to the meeting seeking salvation.  He was converted after hearing a request by a mother for her son.  “It struck me that that was from my mother,” the youth reported.  “After meeting I got sight of that request.  And sure enough, it was from my mother, in her own handwriting.”

The prayer movement spread nationally.   One of the most moving accounts out of the Prayer Revival came in the town of Kalamazoo, Michigan.  At a prayer meeting there a man in attendance related the following account:

At our very first meeting someone put in such a request as this: “A praying wife requests the prayers of this meeting for her unconverted husband, that he may be converted and made a humble disciple of the Lord Jesus.”  All at once a stout burly man arose and said, “I am that man, I have a pious praying wife, and this request must be for me.  I want you to pray for me.”  As soon as he sat down, in the midst of sobs and tears, another man arose and said, “I am that man, I have a praying wife.  She prays for me.  And now she asked you to pray for me.  I am sure I am that man, and I want you to pray for me.”

Five other men made similar statements.  The power of God fell upon that meeting.  In a brief period almost five hundred conversions came to the town.

The Prayer Revival made perhaps its most notable impact on an individual in Chicago.  As early as January 1857 revival fires burned in parts of the Windy City.  The YMCA held prayer meetings like those in New York.  A 20 year-old  named Dwight Lyman Moody attended the meetings. During the Prayer Revival Moody’s heart was stirred.  Biographer John Pollock said: “The revival of early 1857 tossed Moody out of his complacent view of religion as primarily an aid to fortune.”  He wrote to his mother about his attendance at the prayer meetings: “I go every night to meeting — Oh, how I do enjoy it!  It seems as if God were here Himself.”

For what do you pray today that would take God Himself to answer? What do you seek Him for in the name of the gospel? I have been praying much in recent days about these things, and it has led to a total rearrangement of my schedule and a refocusing of ministry. And God is beginning to honor this with lives being changed by the beautiful gospel. I want to spend my life trusting Him, not seeking comfort.

Let us pray for a movement today, shall we?

NOTE: the above is excerpted from my book co-authored with Malcolm McDow entitled Firefall.

In 1989 I loaded up my wife Michelle, our infant son Josh, a dog, and a cat, to embark on a journey from Texas to Indiana, from living in the Bible Belt all our lives to the Midwest, from full-time student status to ABD (All But Dissertation) PhD status, from relative poverty to some level of economic stability.  We had been called to Indiana to serve as Home Missionaries for the Home Mission Board (now North American Mission Board) for the SBC.

My service as a missionary focused on evangelism as an assistant to the Executive Director Mark Coppenger. Ironically both Mark and I now serve as professors at SBTS and SEBTS respectively. I joined a lean staff, some of whom still serve Indiana, and one couple (Gary and Tammi Ledbetter) now serve a state convention that did not exist in 1989 (The Southern Baptist of Texas Convention).  Those were good years, and things have changed a lot since then.

I was pretty much ignorance on fire. But I took seriously my call, and tried to be a good steward as all my salary came from the Annie Armstrong Offering.  Those days were filled with joy. From then until now I have had an active role at HMB/NAMB, from relating to the agency as a state convention leader in evangelism, to serving on a number of task forces, to leading as a guest missiologist on one occasion and as a consultant to the VP for Evangelization (my friend, John Avant) for a season.

I love NAMB. So many who have and still do work there I count as dear friends. So much good has been done through the ministry of our domestic mission board. But like many others, I have believed for some time fundamental changes had to be made.

Enter Kevin Ezell.  On February 9 a press release detailed “sweeping changes.”  I want to comment on these from the perspective of someone who has served as a home missionary and has by some accounts had some influence in the SBC in evangelism and church planting.

On the strategy shift to Send North America.  I love the strategy, but I also love the leadership, for strategy without strategic leaders is just ink on a page. I count new hire Aaron Coe as a dear friend and someone with whom I have served in New York City. On a special 16^th birthday trip I took our daughter Hannah there where we met with Aaron and key leaders. She has been with me as I spoke at City Uprising for Aaron as well. Our son Josh has been on a mission trip with SEBTS to partner with Aaron and with Freddy Wyatt, the outstanding pastor of Gallery Church.  When I spoke at the Pastors Conference in Louisville in 2009 I invited Aaron and Freddy to join me on the platform. I believe in Aaron and see him to be one of the bright young leaders of our time. I love seeing a new generation of young leaders like Aaron, J.D. Greear, David Platt, and others stepping up and leading.

I like the focus on “evangelistic” church planting. Let’s never assume that simply planting a church means we will plant those who reach the lost intentionally.  I like the respect for local churches to involve themselves in a variety of ways.  From 1900 when there were 27 churches per 10k people in the US to 11 per 10k in 2000. We need more churches. Evangelistic churches.

President Ezell also noted he is tying vital ministries like disaster relief more closely to church planting. I like this. The local church is God’s plan, and we see her working well to meet needs in the Acts. NAMB can do some things individual churches cannot, like disaster relief. This has been and can be a fantastic way not only to provide immediate relief in times of crisis but also to display the gospel well in so doing. At the same time, mercy ministry must be more than relief. True mercy ministry involves relief, rehabilitation, and development. Relief gets the publicity for obvious reasons and we should continue to provide it. But the local churches in a given area (and new plants) can step in to lead the vital rehab and development that should follow. I see a wonderful opportunity to partner a more parachurch-type focus such as disaster relief to the local church.

As for evangelism, I rejoice in Larry Wynn’s call to lead that area of NAMB. Larry is a friend of many years, a man I have respected for decades. I had him speak at our evangelism conference in Indiana way back when. I have taught outstanding men who came from his church including a very close friend and colleague George Robinson. Aaron Coe is the young gun ready to push us forward, while Larry Wynn is the seasoned veteran bringing wisdom to the field.

I love the focus on cities and have written on that previously. Reach the cities, reach the nation, and reach all the nations for that matter. While 50 cities ultimately and 25 in the short term may be overly ambitious, I rejoice at the focus on reaching urban areas.  The US was 80% rural in 1870 but is over 80% urban now.

Steve Davis will make a great leader in the Midwest as he has been a great leader for some time there in the state of Indiana. I do not personally know Jeff Christopherson, but I love the starfish-like shift from a more centralized Atlanta-based NAMB (read Starfish and the Spider for more on this). While SBC founders envisioned wisely a decentralized convention with autonomy given to churches, associations, states and the SBC, we have been functioning in a far more centralized manner in recent decades centering on Nashville, Atlanta, and Richmond. From seminaries with distance learning to NAMB’s move to be more field-based, I am personally pleased at the move to get more and more local in ministry.

I would also like to commend Tim Dowdy, chairman of the trustees and a great leader who gets that change must happen but who also understands our great heritage. There are many today who realize things must change, but who also recognize that if you are one step ahead you are a leader but if you are ten steps ahead you are an idiot. Lead on men, and I for one will follow!

This week I embarked on a journey with three men from my church to Kiev, Ukraine, to meet with old friends and new friends and to plan a trip for 2012.  My friend of 20 plus years Joel Ragains, an IMB leader here, as well as friends Russell Woodbridge (a recent colleague at SEBTS) and Michael Clifton (a former student) welcomed us to this beautiful country teeming with people who know Christ. Only 2% of Ukraine are evangelical Christians. It is a land dominated by the Orthodox Church.

While here I had the joy of speaking to a church planting class briefly at the Kiev Theological Seminary.  While I love teaching (just ask my students who have to sit through hours of my bla bla bla-ing), I also love to learn. So I asked these students what particular challenges faced them in sharing Christ. Listen to some issues I noted:

–Many in the church in Ukraine have separated themselves totally from the culture, creating a separate world in which to function, making it difficult to build relationships with the lost.

–Many in the culture seem uninterested in what they perceive to be the gospel, although in truth most unchurched have never clearly had the biblical gospel explained to them.

–Some (certainly not all!) leaders in the church seem to be unconvinced that reaching people can happen, and seem defeated.

–Many pastors of established churches have a resistance to church planting even though the need is so great.

–Many established churches have confused their tradition with the mission of God.

This sounds so much like the issues we deal with in the American church as well. But I also found remarkable encouragement in young men who have effectively planted churches and who have been reaching people for Christ. Note what they say appears to be effective:

–Sharing Christ in the context of community and relationships, reaching friends, neighbors, etc.

–Displaying the gospel through touching the broken. One growing young church has a remarkable ministry to drug addicts and alcoholics, with two homes operating essentially as “halfway houses” for those broken in the culture.

–Using platforms popular in the culture at large, such as a soccer league that unashamedly shares the gospel but that is also done so well it may be the largest in the city.

–Most importantly it seems in my brief time here that those churches led by men who have great confidence in a great Savior and a great gospel have the most impact in actually reaching people. Imagine that.

There are certainly differences. This is a culture ravaged by communism, with the result a corrupted form of society plagued by kickbacks, under the table payoffs, etc. Sort of what we will see in a few years if socialized medicine takes over in the U.S. Currently we are more plagued by consumerism and materialism. The effects of sin in culture may be different, but the same gospel application can change both.

This trip has encouraged me in the gospel. I am excited to come back to spend a coupe of weeks teaching at the seminary and bringing a host of people with me to help young church plants. Paul told the Thessalonians, another major city plagued with issues of its own, that the gospel did not come to them in word only, but also in power, in the Spirit, with conviction, and by the lifestyle lived out by the believers (See I Thess. 1:5, also all of chapters 1 and 2).  Thus the gospel must come today to a city like Kiev or a city like Raleigh. We cannot simply speak the gospel to people we hardly know and live insular lives separated from the world for which Christ died.  There is a great, missional tide sweeping across the hearts and lives of many who want to see a movement of God, and I pray I will be found riding that wave.