Daryl Hart writes about why he finds talk of revivals problematic:
Revival itself is a confusing metaphor for spiritual life. It suggests someone who was alive, died, and is now brought back to life. How helpful can it be to use this image with reference to a person who is not regenerate? And just as pertinent, can it ever be used for a saint? Do saints die spiritually and then need resuscitation? If so, doesn’t revival imply that saints won’t persevere?
and
Let me be clear, I am critical of revivals and revivalists not for the sake of throwing brickbats (whatever they are). I am interested in the ways in which revivals have undermined reformation. I would contend (and have) that the better word to use for improvement in the church is not revival but reform. The rise of Protestantism was not a revival. It was a reformation. Meanwhile, the interior turn that experimental Calvinism nurtured and that gave rise to revivalism, acted as a solvent on those marks of reformation by which we identified a true church — proclamation of the gospel (creeds), rightly administered sacraments (liturgy), and discipline (polity). If revivalists were not inherently anti-formalists, they might be more willing to consider the importance of these formal aspects of church life. But ever since George Whitefield, revivalists have been more concerned with “the heart” than they have with the churchly qualities that manifest the heart and unite believers to the body of Christ.
I don’t think I’d ever singly encountered the notion that if a phenomenon has a title (Revival) which doesn’t in any way harmonise with our Bible understanding of the way God works to bring spiritual new life that this should be considered an important sign that what’s being talked about may not be so biblical after all.
You can read the whole post here.
(It takes issue with Tim Keller, so if you’re a fan of Tim (hi Al) you’ve been warned.)
mgpcpastor's blog 
Well, to be fair, I’m not a Keller groupie. I am helped a lot by him. But I would name at least 5 men who’s thrology I would more closely align myself with. What I learn from Keller is a helpful to deconstruct our listeners worldview. But he isnt the first person to do this.
If anything I reckon that preachers should listen to him less not more.
And I think there should be more critical interaction with Keller. Of course he’s wrong about things. So we need to be made awaee of what his blind spots are so that they don’t become our blind spots.
And, as I’ve said before, if critics like Keller want to be critical of certain sections of the church then he should name them. I can’t stand the use of a broad brush when a critic has in mind an identifiable person or group of people.
An interesting article.
So thanks for linking it.
You’re welcome.
I just like to know if people are reading these posts, even to the last line.
I’ve got everything by Keller too, and find it useful.
I can even tolerate his fixation with cities.
And I’d want to be fair and observe that he’s never systematically expressed his theology, so we’re left with fragments like this.
I also don’t get everything that Daryl Hart writes.
Sometimes it’s like listening to half a conversation (or less).
But I found something very intriguing about his central point this time.
PS there’s an interesting response in the comment thread.