Can Evangelicals Be Evangelicals Without Revivalism?

Some thoughts from John Fea on American evangelicalism over at The Way of Improvement Leads Home:

Fea writes,

"One of the central tenets of evangelicalism is an emphasis on conversion. Historically, evangelicals--especially American evangelicals--have taught that one can identity the distinct moment when they experienced the "new birth." Evangelicals talk about their "spiritual birthdays" (when they were "born-again") and the moment when they were "saved." Evangelism has focused on sharing the good news of the gospel (sometimes in a "cold-turkey" fashion with people on the street) and then getting a new convert "plugged in" to a local church where they can be "discipled" in their faith by a mature Christian or Christian community.

In a fascinating article in Christianity Today (the flagship publication of American evangelicalism, I might add), Gordon T. Smith describes this narrative of evangelical conversion with the label "revivalism." Revivalism, of course, has a rich tradition in American history. From George Whitefield to Charles Finney to D.L. Moody to Billy Sunday to Billy Graham, evangelicals are used to asking their revivalist "what must I do to be saved." They have sat on the anxious bench and fretted over their sinful conditions. They have walked the "sawdust trail." And they have "come down" out of their stadium seats so that Billy Graham can pray for them.

Smith's article caught my attention because he suggests a major "sea change" in the way that evangelicals understand conversion. He argues that evangelicals are moving away from "revivalism" and starting to think about conversion and redemption in different ways. Here is just a small taste. I encourage you to read the entire article.

Increasingly, there is appreciation that conversion is a complex experience by which a person is initiated into a common life with the people of God who together seek the in-breaking of the kingdom, both in this life and in the world to come. This experience is mediated by the church and thus necessarily includes baptism as a rite of initiation. The power or energy of this experience is one of immediate encounter with the risen Christ—rather than principles or laws—and this experience is choreographed by the Spirit rather than evangelistic techniques. Evangelicals are reappropriating the heritage of the Reformation with its emphasis on the means of grace, and thereby affirming the priority of the Spirit's work in religious experience.
The fundamental categories and assumptions of revivalism are thus being questioned as never before. There were voices in the past that questioned revivalism: C S. Lewis, always adored by evangelicals, was seemingly oblivious to the language and categories of revivalism. A. W. Tozer, J. I. Packer, and John R. W. Stott, while obviously evangelicals, nevertheless seemed to be able to articulate the Christian faith in other than the language and categories of revivalism, as did many others. But the difference of the past generation of theological reflection is that we can genuinely speak of a sea change, so much so that the language and categories of revivalism are simply no longer viable. However much this vision powerfully shaped the life of the church and its mission and, indeed, influenced more than a generation of evangelical missionaries to spread around the globe, the church has over the past generation sought new linguistic wineskins and new theological categories by which to understand conversion and redemption.

To what extent is American evangelicalism defined by "revivalism?" And if "revivalism" is no longer the dominant paradigm, do we still have evangelicalism?"