Because we have not had a genuine revival in many years in America, the naysayers who suppose that the history of it in the past is fabricated are in the ascendancy. The common argument is that the normal Sunday to Sunday procedure of the worship in the church should be the focus, not an emphasis to pray for God's more His more manifest presence. One reason for this is what is called the "covenant nuturing model of child rearing" now supposed the norm and children "conversion" stories are to such people suspect. This was the emphasis in Dr. Herman Hanko's article "Ought the Church to Pray for Revival?" But it is more than that. Though popular in its day and for years later, the awakening of "Christian" in Pilgrim's Progress to these people savors of preparationism. The burden on the back that represented great conviction of sin is downplayed by those whose profession knew nothing of such a conviction. Compare that to the words of William Tennent during the Great Awakening. Those who were brought to the Savior, all we prepared for it by a shart law-work of conviction in discovering to them in a heart affecting manner, their sinfulness both by nature and practice, as well as their liableness to damnation by the original and actual transgressions." In our day even among those of my own circle, the great new theme are the works of Thomas Aquinas instead of Jonathan Edwards and searching self-examination is seen by them to have too much of an emphasis. For 36 years of narrating the emphasis is on the former and I find myself out of sink with many whose new darling shibboleth has even quenched a zeal for missions and pressing the claims of Christ on all men, and even the free offer of the gospel to all has become jettisoned.