Curious Goings-On at the United Episcopal Church North America

Allow me to preface this by saying that I have good friends in the UECNA, including a bishop (+Denver Presley Hutchens) and a few priests, and that while I disagree with Bishop Robinson on certain things I respect his work as an advocate of Old High Church Protestant Anglicanism.

Thus the rose; now the thorns.

There are some weird goings-on in the UECNA of late, or so it seems to me:

1) The curious case of Bishop Robinson and Ryan Louis Underwood.

I remember encountering Ryan on Facebook many years ago, being generally impressed by him and wishing him well as a young aspirant to ministry.  We lost contact soon after that, but lately I have been apprised of a situation in the UECNA regarding him.  It would appear that he's gone full crypto-puritan and has aligned himself with one Donald Philip Veitch, which relationship I have briefly discussed here. 

In 2021, Ryan was ordained a deacon in the UECNA:

Soon after, however, Mr. Underwood chose to get on the bandwagon with some rabid crypto-puritan ne'er-do-wells over the Reformed Episcopal Church's graviation toward a more Caroline and in some cases Tractarian expression of Anglicanism.   In other words, Underwood and Co.'s Sacred Calvinist Cow had been slaughtered, just as it was slaughtered by Caroline and Tractarian divinity in the centuries after Edwardine divinity briefly held sway in the Church of England.

Underwood's behavior in the matter drew the ire of his bishop:



Soon thereafter, Mr. Underwood and Bishop Robinson reportedly had a little tête-à-tête that resulted in Underwood's departure from the UECNA.  Underwood and Veith's relationship strengthened, resulting in among other things this truly cringeworthy series of videos:

Donald Philip Veitch's interview with Ryan Louis Underwood I

Donald Philip Veitch's interview with Ryan Louis Underwood II

Donald Philip Veitch's interview with Ryan Louis Underwood III

One might think that Bishop Robinson would have been happy to wash his hands of Mr. Underwood, but no.  A few days ago he appeared at Underwood's ordination to the "presbyterate", seemingly at the hands of +Bob Biermann of the tiny Reformed Anglican Church, though it's difficult to tell since he's listed here as someone who only "lead" (sic, "led") the service:

Which leads us to ask, "What in the actual heck!?"

And then there are things like this which can be found in certain Facebook locales:

I for one think Bishop Robinson owes us an explanation here, because his actions don't seem to match his words.  What is he doing at the ordination of a young man who has associated with the likes of Donald Philip Veitch, and who with him continues to run down the Reformed Episcopal Church in the most vile and unchristian sort of ways?  (You should read Veith.)  Robinson has made known his revulsion for the Oxford Movement and modern Anglo-Catholics.  Does he secretly side with Veith and his ilk?

And what does he do with Underwood's seeming desire that Norway should become a "New Russia"?

2) The curious case of Bishop Robinson and Aaron "Erastus" Long, Canon to the Ordinary, UECNA Diocese of the East.

I have posted briefly on "Erastus here.  When I watch the videos of this guy, all I can say is "words fail."  How this guy got to be a Canon to an Ordinary is anyone's guess.  Word has it that the guy has a German Reformed background.  The EUCNA is presently staffing several "independent Reformed churches" in North Carolina, including Paul's Chapel Reformed Church where Long serves as "presbyter", I guess.  Click that link and have a gander at some of the videos and posts by Rev. Long to get a feel for what's happening there.  But how this is even remotely Anglican is, again, anyone's guess, Long's slavish devotion to the 39 Articles notwithstanding. 

Long is an Admin at a Facebook group named Prayer Book Anglican, which is peopled by the likes of Veith, Underwood and other aforesaid ne'er-do-wells.  I found out very quickly how censorious Long is when it comes to those who challenge their orthodoxy.  In a thread in which the Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC) was attacked and which featured a photo of  my ordination, after I responded he not only restricted me to one comment per hour, but has deleted substantive comments, because it appears he does not have the intellectual capacity to deal with them.  I have complained to Bishop Robinson about it, but as of this writing I have received no response.  Here's Robinson's Canon:

 Here was my response:Which comment was summarily deleted by Mr. Long.  Such is the measure of the man ++Robinson has made his Canon.  However, if it is true, as Robinson has stated, that it is the goal of the UECNA to "live in peace and cooperate with those of like or similar faith", then a word with his Canon about this may be in order.  Taking a swipe at the OAC in a discussion group and then essentially not allowing members of the OAC to defend it does not seem in harmony with that policy.

"Oh, I Can Spend the Rest of My Life Having This Conversation!"

John Cleese doing a face palm, "Fawlty Towers".

Again from Chris Arnzen, with reference to this exchange.

Chris, you couldn't have missed the point more spectacularly. The issue between us was not whether we must choose between episcopal authority and the substance of the faith. It was not either/or, but both/and. My point is that Salter, Veith, et. al are not Anglicans *because they reject Anglican ministerial order*. Their chosen order is Presbyterian, not Episcopal.

If that doesn't clear it up for you, I don't know what will.

To which he replied tonight,

"You are no son of the English Reformation. You are a Romanist & need to repent for the very sake of your never-dying soul."

Zzzzz.  To which I replied,

"I am neither a son of the Edwardine phase of the English Reformation nor a Romanist, but somehow that's too difficult a concept for you to wrap your head around. Pity."

Half-educated; half-baked.

The Orthodox Phronema

Just having a bit of fun, my Orthodox friends.  :>)

Crypto-Puritanism Redux

Glutton for punishment that I am, I've once again gone mano-a-mano with another Presbyterian with a prayer book, one Chris Arnzen, who does this dreadful podcast.  The exchange happened tonight at the dubiously named Prayer Book Anglican Facebook discussion group.  Here's how it went down.  (I know something of Rev. Salter, so I started asking niggling questions about him since Arnzen is publicizing a podcast to be done with him.) :

So there we have it, ladies and gentlemen, proof positive that Puritanism STILL exists, but thankfully as no more than a curious museum piece.  Amusing to those of us who know what real Anglicanism is, but unfortunately a potential trap for people who don't know but who have somehow become interested in Anglicanism and stumble upon these guys.  So that's the purpose of this post, to warns seekers who stumble in here not to stumble on to Salter, Veitch, Arnzen & Co.  They are not Anglican in any way, shape or form.  They are merely Calvinists bearing a prayer book that does not belong to them.  The Calvinists had their shot at making the Church of England an English Reformed Church, but they were rebuffed by the Crown and wiser divinity, and were left behind in the dust.  Anglicanism cannot be defined by its Edwardine phase or by the half-educated ravings of the Puritans.  The term "Anglican" didn't even appear as a descriptor until long after the Puritans left the Church of England, a time when anti-Calvinist Caroline Divinity began to hold sway and has continued to hold sway in orthodox Anglicanism today.  These people have no part with us.  They need to be honest, acknowlege their defeat and commit to Presbyterianism.  It's that simple.

As I Predicted

When His Grace the Pseudo-Bishop Donald Philip Veitch launched his Reformed Episcopal Disgusted Group, which is intended to be his and his crypto-puritan sycophants' answer to the Reformed Episcopal Church Discussion Group, I predicted that within a few days of its publication it would likely not remain public but go private, since they would not be able to withstand scrutiny from those of us who are more astute on all things Anglican than they are.  He has since restricted my ability to post and comment there, and now it seems he has blocked me altogether.   Now his group is going private, and the funny thing about it is that he touts himself as some sort of warrior.

It's "counsel", Phil,  not "council."   Try not to make this kind of spelling error in your doctoral dissertation.

"Church of England. Why Do You Ask?"

Activist Publicly Shaves Head During Church Service as an Act of ‘Repentance’ Over Climate Change+Fossil Fuels

Bob Hart Still At It

Don't you mean "Trumpublican Pieces of Shit", Reverend Father?  You simply can't help yourself, can you?

The Third Great American Awakening

Any updates on the Asbury Revival? You know, the revival that was hailed as the Third American Great Awakening and that reportedly spread to other colleges?

Things sort of went dark on it all it seems, but maybe I'm missing something. Any reports? Anything at all?

Hell? Yes!

Advent IV sermon preached two years ago by Thomas E. Gordon, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Orthodox Anglican Communion and Presiding Bishop of the Orthodox Anglican Church - North America.  Archbishop Gordon briefly references the views of David Bentley Hart, Fr. Al Kimel (Orthodox), which has apparently been embraced Fr. Robert Hart (Anglican  Catholic Church and brother of David Bentley Hart), et al. See at about 10:30 into the video.

Testimony

When I was a young man, I never imagined in my wildest dreams that I would be a priest, or even a Christian for that matter, though I was raised by devout Christian parents. When I embraced the faith of my fathers in the 1970s, I was baptized in a little Evangelical church in NW Arkansas and a few years later was admitted to John Brown University (JBU) with a view towards obtaining a degree in biblical studies.

Evangelical Protestants don't believe in a clerical priesthood. They believe in the "priesthood of all believers", a notion they believe to be rooted in the New Testament as expounded by Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther. But no "priests" after Christ.

When I was attending college there at JBU, there was a nest of "Anglican Catholics", good fellows and friends. Though we were friends and college buddies, they relentlessly challenged us to go back beyond the Protestant Reformation, and take up and read. They pointed us especially to this mysterious group of men called the "Church Fathers." As a biblical studies major at an Evangelical liberal arts college, I had become vaguely aware of them, but they were not on our theological radar screens, by design of those who taught us.

But having been challenged by my Anglican Catholic friends, I went to our library and started pulling off books from the shelves re: the writings of the earliest Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and suchlike.

I could not believe what I was reading: threefold ministry; the centrality of the Eucharist; the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; apostolic succession; the naming of the Church as the "Catholic Church." All happening before or at the time of or shortly after the last apostle, St. John, died.

It rocked my world. So much so that I put those books away and did not pick them up again for another 10 years, whereupon I began reading myself into a Catholic mind, and started making my way through liturgical Protestant churches and finally to Catholic faith and practice as manifested in Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic Anglicanism.

My call to the priesthood, though I did not recognize it as such at the time, began with serving as a reader in the Lutheran church, then as a reader and altar server in the Orthodox Church, then as an altar server in the Anglican Catholic Church, then as a hospital chaplain, then as a deacon in the Anglican Church in America and afterwards incardinated as a deacon to the Orthodox Anglican Church. Then, lo and behold, the Powers That Be in the Orthodox Anglican Church cornered me and said, "you will be a priest", which I had told them previously that this was completely against my intentions.

But you generally don't say no to your bishop, so there I was. St. John Chrysostom in his book "On The Priesthood" relates a similar story.

So, they made me a priest. Like I said, the last thing I would have ever imagined as a young man. And so I am, though most unworthy, but I have to say that I know that all priests and bishops worth their salt know that they too are most unworthy, and they really mean it, as I really mean it. It just isn't pious piffle. But for some inscrutable reason God has made us abject sinners deacons, priests and bishops. In my case, I can say that I can take solace not only in the fact that God forgives me a sinner, but that he has blessed me immeasurably with the opportunity to proclaim Christ in the preaching the Word of God, in season and out of season, and to proclaim him as well in the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Communion, Confession and Absolution, Holy Matrimony, and Unction. And because of this, I am a most happy old man.

The Life and Times of the Embryo Parson

If What David Bentley Hart and Fr. Robert Hart Say Is True. . . .

A day or so ago I responded to a person who asked if the brouhaha over Fr. Robert Hart's embrace of his brother David Bentley Hart's "certain universalism" and Fr. Wesley Walker's platforming DBH at The Sacramentalist Podcast isn't just a tempest in a teapot. My response was that "certain universalism", unlike the "hopeful universalism" advanced by such theologians as Hans von Balthasar and Anglican F.W. Farrar, strikes at the heart of the Gospel. One of DBH's fiercest critics, Michael McClymond, explains why in this article.

If the Hart brothers are right, we the Church might as well close up shop, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die and are saved. Some members of this group might argue that this is a non sequitur. I invite them to defend that argument here, because the burden of proof theologically lies with them.

One of the things that concerns me very much is this:

We in the Continuum fault the ACNA for carrying over much of the of TEC's leaven into their "orthodox" house. But could it be that some of the Anglo-Catholics of the Continuum have carried the leaven of "liberal Catholicism" associated with Gore, et. al  into our house? I see disturbing signs, not only in the case of Hart, that this may be true.

It's not like we're alone. That foul spirit has invaded the Roman Catholic Church and even the stalwart Orthodox Church. Why should we consider ourselves to be the exception? One of the reasons I left Orthodoxy for the Continuum is that I believed it was the exception. No more.

But I believe for certain reasons, one of which being our smallness, is that we have an excellent chance of destroying this thing root and branch.

It will take the bishops to do this, but if they hesitate in acting, faithful lower clergy can certainly light a fire under them. Wouldn't be the first time in church history. Bishops want their priests to remember the vows they took in the Ordinal. But it works both ways. They took vows too:

"Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?

"Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper."

 

Twelve Questions for the Would-Be Universalist

Thus Speaks the Still Tolerated Fr. Robert Hart, and the Orthodox Anglican Church's Reply

You know, Fr. Hart is known to whine whenever anyone publicly criticizes his outrageous behavior in writing that such a person has committed "slander" against him.  (He means "libel", not "slander", as I've instructed him several times about the legal distinction.)  He has threatened me, though I just laughed him off, the only appropriate response.  However,  *here our good priest almost actually rises*  to the level of libel.  We in the Orthodox Anglican Church (OAC) pay him no mind, however, because he is such a sad case.   Even if he's committed libel, which he legally hasn't,  I Cor. 6 would be our guide.

I came near to being incardinated into the Anglican Province of America as a deacon.  In a discussion about the OAC mission where I now serve as Vicar, the priest of that APA parish mentioned the whole Dees thing as a reason no Anglican clergyman should want to become canonically resident in the OAC.  I ended up leaving that parish for the OAC mission anyway, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that any objective person researching the OAC will see straightaway that our jurisdiction separated not only from the racist mind of Dees, but even from his original jurisdiction, now known as the Anglican Orthodox Church.

See this Facebook video.  Unfortunately, for now you will have to copy and paste the link or highlight it and click open link:

https://www.facebook.com/1389595446/videos/636790948287733/

The Orthodox Anglican Communion

Poor Fr. Hart. 

Sermons from the 2023 Orthodox Anglican Church Lenten Clericus, Amherst, Virginia

Take heed, ye priests.  Take encourangement, yes, but take heed.   Fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of the bishop's hands.  This was our "Asbury Revival."

For those of you aspiring clergy who think the OAC might be a good home for you, feel free to message me.

Gregory Shane Morris on Feminized Evangelical Worship

It is this phenomenon that in large part drove me out of my mind and therefore out of those Evangelical churches.  I took a trek through liturgical Protestant churches, and finally to Orthodoxy, where I found a real refuge from this stuff.  Upon leaving Orthodoxy (long story, which I have recounted in this blog), my wife and I floated around for awhile and visited several Evangelical churches, where we found that the situation had gone from bad to worse.   So, I said I was officially done with Evangelicalism and made my way from there to Continuing Anglicanism and its way of worship.  And there I'll stay.

"Part of the appeal of established liturgical forms to many Christian men is that de facto evangelical forms of piety *really are* affective and quite feminine, and not all men are willing to adopt them.

"Getting intimate with God," publicly shedding tears, closing eyes in religious ecstasy, swaying hips, "surrendering"--all of these are treated by universal unspoken agreement as markers of true godliness in evangelical world. Emotional spontaneity is another trait of  non-liturgical worship. The altar call is the obvious one (and I don't necessarily object to it) but less obvious are the myriad "response-points" built in ("maybe the Lord really got a hold of you today," at the end of sermons, etc.

I grew up in this world. There is a whole attitude, posture, set of mannerisms, mode of expression that signals one is "on fire for Jesus." It's the unofficial language, a barometer of faith. And most men have to overcome a gag reflex to engage in it.

Contrast this with established liturgical forms: hymnody that foregrounds theology and corporate identity, pre-written prayers of adoration and confession, memorized creeds, rituals that (while consonant with expressions of emotion--I've certainly cried during the Supper) don't by any means require them. A man can get through the entirety of such a service without any spontaneous or overt expressions of emotion, and can even talk about them afterwards without ever emphasizing the intimate "experience" he had with God as a result. There's something martial in established forms--something of the army formed up in the presence of a captain. The external, corporate actions are what matter. They are what win wars and display allegiance. Personal, internal response is less important. Liturgical worship is manly. It gives Christian men permission to honor God without a requirement for affectation. And it takes the pressure off of them to produce signals throughout the week that they are "walking with the Lord" (yes, I know this is biblical language, but it has taken on the life of its own).

I say all this acknowledging the legitimacy of a sparing but still heartfelt form of religious expression among men. The gospel makes me weep. Rich Mullins singing "Hold Me, Jesus" cuts me to the core. I am not the chest-thumping machismo guy. No motorcycles in the lobby, thanks. I also worship in a denomination where both sides are expressed. Some PCA churches are more affectational/evangelical. Others are 100% established forms, hymnals, and stained glass. And even that is a far cry from a traditional Anglican or Roman Catholic service. The point is that men know in their bones that evangelical worship favors feminine forms of piety, and all except those who have fully embraced the affectational, passive, individual, highly expressive posture would be embarrassed if their buddies at work saw them in church.

This implied requirement to become "one of the girls" is really costing a lot of churches, if not in male attendance then at least in fruitful male discipleship and engagement. Established forms have a lot of power to unlock Christianity's considerable masculine capital."

More on the "Asbury Revival"

Is Revival Happening in Asbury? || Robert Cunningham and Glen Scrivener:

Anglican critiques of revivalism: Tillotson on "the ordinary influence of the Holy Ghost"

Gratitude and the Asbury Revival

"My prayer is that they would find their way into Christian communities that form them for lifelong gratitude, even as the bright light of the revival dims. Such communities know that forever gratitude is the fruit of daily practices: the rehearsal of God’s goodness in the liturgy, regular Eucharist and prayers of thanksgiving, and a commitment to the works of mercy."

Here.

Hagia Sophia

I've shared this Cappella Romano video featuring Hagia Sophia in Constantinople on Facebook numerous times, but tonight something just struck me about it. (I will never say "Istanbul", BTW. Some orange-haired lefty at one of the talks given at the Assumption Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Denver during its annual Greek festival complained in the Q&A session that the priest giving the talk kept referring to the city as "Constantinople", when he should be calling it "Istanbul." His response,  "Because for us it will always be Constantinople", whereupon the orange-hair and his male friend stormed out of the cathedral. True story , but I digress.)

The video begins with the Byzantine chant that echoed throughout the cathedral for a thousand years until the imperialistic forces of Mahound conquered Asia Minor.

Under the secularist regime of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Turks turned Hagia Sophia into a museum. Here you see tourists traipsing through it when it was a museum. The chanters go silent. When the visitors dissipate, the ghostly chanters begin again.

Turk President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, against all admonitions from the Western world, recently turned Hagia Sophia into a damnable mosque again.

But then the tourists and Muslims are all gone and the space is empty, this is what the ghosts and angels chant, and it is heard in the heavenlies.

It will never truly belong to the Muslims, any more than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem does.

"And send word to the Franks, that the Turk has taken the City, to come and empty it, to leave nothing behind.

To take Aghia Sophia, with its gold screens, to take the Gospel, and the Altar.

And our Lady when she heard it,

her eyes filled with tears,

and Michael and Gabriel they comforted her:

Weep not our Lady, and be not tearful,

With the passing of years, and in time, they'll be ours again".

 

Man Up, Evangelicals; Including You Anglicans Among Them

"Part of the appeal of established liturgical forms to many Christian men is that de facto evangelical forms of piety *really are* affective and quite feminine, and not all men are willing to adopt them.

'Getting intimate with God,' publicly shedding tears, closing eyes in religious ecstasy, swaying hips, 'surrendering'--all of these are treated by universal unspoken agreement as markers of true godliness in evangelical world. Emotional spontaneity is another trait of non-liturgical worship. The altar call is the obvious one (and I don't necessarily object to it) but less obvious are the myriad 'response-points' built in ('maybe the Lord really got a hold of you today,' at the end of sermons, etc.)

I grew up in this world. There is a whole attitude, posture, set of mannerisms, mode of expression that signals one is 'on fire for Jesus.' It's the unofficial language, a barometer of faith. And most men have to overcome a gag reflex to engage in it.

Contrast this with established liturgical forms: hymnody that foregrounds theology and corporate identity, pre-written prayers of adoration and confession, memorized creeds, rituals that (while consonant with expressions of emotion--I've certainly cried during the Supper) don't by any means require them. A man can get through the entirety of such a service without any spontaneous or overt expressions of emotion, and can even talk about them afterwards without ever emphasizing the intimate 'experience' he had with God as a result.

There's something martial in established forms--something of the army formed up in the presence of a captain. The external, corporate actions are what matter. They are what win wars and display allegiance. Personal, internal response is less important. Liturgical worship is manly. It gives Christian men permission to honor God without a requirement for affectation. And it takes the pressure off of them to produce signals throughout the week that they are 'walking with the Lord' (yes, I know this is biblical language, but it has taken on the life of its own).

I say all this acknowledging the legitimacy of a sparing but still heartfelt form of religious expression among men. The gospel makes me weep. Rich Mullins singing 'Hold Me, Jesus' cuts me to the core. I am not the chest-thumping machismo guy. No motorcycles in the lobby, thanks.

I also worship in a denomination where both sides are expressed. Some PCA churches are more affectational/evangelical. Others are 100% established forms, hymnals, and stained glass. And even that is a far cry from a traditional Anglican or Roman Catholic service. The point is that men know in their bones that evangelical worship favors feminine forms of piety, and all except those who have fully embraced the affectational, passive, individual, highly expressive posture would be embarrassed if their buddies at work saw them in church.

This implied requirement to become 'one of the girls' is really costing a lot of churches, if not in male attendance then at least in fruitful male discipleship and engagement. Established forms have a lot of power to unlock Christianity's considerable masculine capital." - Gregory Shane Morris

Anglican men, stop this!!  Do this instead. 

Do you really want God’s presence? Then do I have a revival for you!

I do not need to drive hours to a revival.  I just drive to my church for a revival of Christ’s Real Presence every Sunday.

The Asbury Revival and the Long Game of Faith

An excellent analysis of the "Asbury Revival" from a Roman Catholic writer, and with a wonderful Lenten application.  The concluding paragraphs:

"The infectious joy of the Asbury Revival is, for all that, a good reminder to Catholics as we begin our long Lenten journey. Lent—for all its severe associations—is rooted in the brightness of springtime. The word “Lent” is etymologically related to the word “lengthen,” referring to the lengthening of days as the world shakes off wintry darkness and turns to the eastern, or Easter, sky. In spring, we enjoy a lengthening of days, increasing light, and an unveiling, or even remaking, of the world. A revival.

But Lent, of course, is a time of penance and self-examination, and it should be viewed as an awakening out of hibernation into the dawn of the world and the Word. Everyone is called to be made anew into the comprehension and participation of the creation and Resurrection—which is something to rejoice and be glad about. But that reality and the feelings it elicits only come with the grime and grit of the road.

As with anything that gives enjoyment—as opposed to mere pleasure—effort is required: a passage, a pilgrimage. Pilgrimages, though difficult, are merry. One of the reasons for this is the Chaucerian joke that pilgrimages point out the wide spectrum of humanity that makes up the Church: saints, sinners, and middle-of-the-roaders, all bumbling and stumbling their way toward the common goal, toward eternity. Like the pilgrims we all are, Lent calls for the asceticism of the Way and bids us, challenges us, to rejoice in it—to find happiness in holiness: on earth as it is in Heaven.

The teachings of Christ indicate that Lent must not be a time to elicit the praise of men for external mortification or exhibition. Lent is a time to earn the silent reward of God—and that reward does give joy. Though we are required to suffer through Lent, so, too, should we laugh through Lent to bear witness to the love of God. There is no such thing as a sad saint. It is in suffering that the human soul finds the deepest spring of contentment. The paradox of this cheerfulness, this happiness that is holiness, is nothing to hide.

God gives the gift of joy to share, and Lent is the time of all times to share, to give, and to make other people happy in both the levity and the gravity of faith. Though the Lenten journey is one that should be kept between the penitent and his God, this does not mean that the gladness that flows from reconciliation cannot shake the world like a revival meeting. Though you keep your left hand from knowing what your right hand is doing, do let your neighbor know that you are happy.

It would be wonderful if Catholics could claim the kind of joyful effect that has flowed from the Asbury Revival, and many are doing what they can and must to claim just that, even if it doesn’t make it on Tucker. But the whole point of the Catholic life and the Catholic Faith is the long game, not the flash in the pan. And this is the sooty essence of Lent: to happily renew faith out of the ashes and recover newness of life—to lengthen our days with light together with the days of our brothers and sisters unto eternal life."