24 JUNE 1966, Page 16

SIR,—I can't agree that 'the great American revivalists of the

nineteenth century . . . converted men from an outcast condition to one of social responsibility.' Since Pentecost, Christian conversion has been based on the premise that man is a fallen creature, that, left to his own devices, his path is spiritually down- ward. Thus, the kind of self-sufficient respectability which accompanied nineteenth-century 'progress' was somewhat affronted by conversion (as people are similarly affronted today by Dr Graham's presenta- tion of this basically essential message). I have en- countered parents initially more worried by their teenage children's professed conversion than by formerly wayward behaviour.

As a social scientist, I don't think that prevailing social institutions make much difference to reactions to the evangelist's message; most people one meets today have their counterparts in the Gospels. Simi- larly, I doubt that the prevailing moral laissez-faire will satisfy this generation any more than self- indulgence helped the author of Ecclesiastes. Dr Brjran Wilson may, from his point of view, con- sider 'successful' revival unlikely. Historically, revival has usually come upon such occasions. Wesley and Booth, in our times, would probably encounter the range of criticism, opposition and support which