The "Pastrix" on the Asbury Revival

What a comforting endorsement this must be to the revived folks at Asbury.  I mean, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

On longing and the Asbury Revival - Nadia Bolz-Weber

"And then there’s the commentary all over the internet about the revival. A simple search will bring up predictable critiques from both liberals and conservatives questioning the righteousness of what is happening in that chapel - based on very different criteria, but in a very similar spirit. I swear that social media should just be called “Joy Stealers Anonymous”. Analysis has its uses, but I’ve been left over the past couple days wondering: can we just absorb something with an open-hearted awe and curiosity for one fucking minute?"

Where the Pastrix pastrixes.

To Keep Thy Lent

TO KEEP THY LENT

BY Robert Herrick, Anglican Priest and Poet (1591-1647)

Is this a Fast, to keep
The larder lean?
And clean
From fat of veals and sheep?

Is it to quit the dish
Of flesh, yet still
To fill
The platter high with fish?

Is it to fast an hour,
Or ragg'd to go,
Or show
A downcast look and sour?

No: 'tis a Fast to dole
Thy sheaf of wheat
And meat
Unto the hungry soul.

It is to fast from strife
From old debate,
And hate;

To circumcise thy life.
To show a heart grief rent;

To starve thy sin,
Not bin;

And that's to keep thy Lent.

A "Progressive Christian" on the Asbury Revival

What in the world do we make of this, I wonder?  I wonder what Fr. Hess would say.

@thenewevangelicals I’m hopeful AND skeptical #asburyrevival2023 #asburyuniversity #asburyrevival #progressivechristian #exvangelical ♬ original sound - The New Evangelicals

A Reflection from an Anglican Priest on the Asbury Revival

"I think part of the disconnect here, even in how this was received by Anglicans, is that I am an Anglican and revival isn't really a part of my sacramental worldview. I've been repeatedly told that there is a difference between revivalism and revival, but I don't see it here. Revivalism emphasizes the experience, the emotion and the feelings. Sacramentalism emphasizes the objectivity of the covenant promises found in both scripture and the sacraments. If you don't have a sacramental understanding of the church what else is there? Revivalism. So then of course a revival doesn't seem like an issue. But for me it is. The promise of the gospel is there whether you feel it or not. The efficacy of the sacraments is efficacious regardless of what you experience." - Fr. Ricky McCarl, REC

This Is Anglican Worship. This!

Not this.  And most certainly not this.

There is No Excuse for Any Traditional Anglican to Vote Democratic

Megan Basham: Hear ye her. 

I  suspect she'll be swimming the Tiber, the "Thames" or the Bosporus before long.

Word

"Nothing so becomes a Church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theatres, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose." - St. John Chrysostom

We Don’t Need Revival

Anglican theologian J. Brandon Meeks writing at Mere Orthodoxy.  Do not neglect to read this one.

I humbly submit to you, patient reader, that the statement “we need revival” is false. It suffers from an odd mix of ambiguity and specificity, which just happens to be the exact recipe for confusion. Who is “we?” How is this “need” necessary? What is this “revival” of which it speaks? These are not difficult questions. They are the simple ones that no one seems to be asking. Once this line of critical enquiry begins, the dubious claim will fall like a well-upholstered woman at a Benny Hinn Tent Crusade. . . .

What is it that we have that is deemed to be so woefully ineffectual? We have the personal presence of the Triune God operating as both vanguard and rearguard as we march beneath the banner of the crucified and risen Christ. We have the delegated authority of the One who left death cold and lifeless in the grave. We have the very Spirit which raised Jesus working in us, upon us, with us, and for us. We have “Moses and the prophets,” that is to say, we have the Word of God—quick and powerful—unbound and unbridled. We have treasure in earthen vessels. We have meat to eat about which the world has never heard. We have the infinite power of creaturely weakness imbued with the sufficiency of God’s own Self. We have baptismal water that cleanses the conscience, confirms our faith, assures our hearts, and testifies to the faithfulness of our God. We have tangible promises; promises which we can eat and drink—promises that grab eternity by both ends and bring them into the present in the presence of Christ. We have lives we can live and deaths we can die for the glory of God so that there is no scenario in which a life cannot be offered in sacrificial service for the sake of Christ.

We have enough. And enough is enough. To say that we need revival is to say that the presence of God among his people is not enough. To say that we need revival is to say that the Word of God has lost its generative potency. To say that we need revival is to say the kerygma of the cross has lost its ancient power. To say that we need revival is to entomb the Church of God in an already evacuated grave. To say that we need revival is to say that two-thousand years of Christus Victor has been more regress than progress. To say that we need revival is to say that the Body of Christ is blind, halt, maimed, lame, or dead. To say that we need revival is to say that the fervent prayers of righteous men are ineffectual and avail nothing. To say that we need revival is to denigrate the blood of martyrs, devalue the sacrifices of persecuted brothers, and deny the worth of quiet fidelity. To say that we need revival is to err by knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Enough is enough.

What, then, is this “revival” that we need? It cannot be the presence of God, we already have that. It cannot be an infallible witness of God’s revelation of himself, we already have that too. It cannot be anything that pertains to life and godliness, we already have that.

This is where the waters usually get murky. Those who make the claim rarely have a coherent definition of this necessary revival. It usually ends up being described as something of a divine do-over; a redemptive-historical repeat. Those who argue along these lines can often be heard saying things like “we need another Pentecost,” or “you can have your own private Pentecost,” or still yet, “have you had an Upper Room experience?” Please don’t get the wrong idea here. I don’t reject such sentiments because I harbor some disbelief in the power of Pentecost; I reject such cavalier expressions because they deny the power of Pentecost.

Pentecost, like Calvary, was a singular epochal event in redemptive history. Like the cross, it was an historical moment of such potency and significance that it can rightly be described as transhistorical. That is, though it is rooted in a particular time and place, its effects are such that they burst the bonds of our normal notions of time and space. Even in the book of Acts, the effectuality of Pentecost was perpetual, while all of the accompanying phenomena were not.

Just as we need not have a repetition of Calvary in order for atonement to be made for sinners not yet born in the first century A.D., just as Jesus need not rise a second time from the grave in order to vindicate himself and his people before his Father, neither must there be another Pentecost in which the Spirit is made available in power to the people of God. To suggest that we need revival, if revival is conceived of as being a “fresh Pentecost,” is to make hash of the words of Peter, Paul, the Four Evangelists, and anyone else who may have mentioned the cross or the Spirit in the canonical Scriptures.

Or as I put it here about about the Asbury "Revival", "How unlike the original Pentecost (are these "revivals"), which gave rise to the Catholic Church 2,000 years ago, and wherein lies the true and abiding glory of the Holy Ghost in its quiet, mystical solemnity."

The "Convergence Movement" isn't Anglicanism.  This isn't Anglicanism.

Experts Discover Strange New 'Revival' That Occurs Every Sunday For Some Reason

The Bee always delivers.  ;>)

"Experts have uncovered a new phenomenon in the revivalism industry: a 'revival' that occurs every Sunday where God's people gather to worship and receive the means of grace."

Is the Asbury "Revival" a Real Revival?

Like I said, "flash in the pan."

“I’ve been to more ‘revivals’ than I can count. I grew up in churches where ‘revivals’ were the norm, not the exception.

I actually became a Christian during a ‘revival’ at a youth retreat. After a weekend of preaching, ‘prophecies’, prayers, and ‘casting out demons’, most of the people at the youth retreat accepted the altar call, repeated the sinner’s prayer, and made professions of faith in Christ.

Within weeks, however, the vast majority of the people who professed faith in Christ had returned to unrepentant sin. So I’ve seen firsthand how emphasis on ‘revivals’ instead of repentance harm so many.

It’s with that in mind and the authority of the Bible that I hesitate to call what is happening at Asbury University a ’revival.’”

Samuel Sey

Three Anglicans on the "Asbury Revival"

"Anglican" No. 1

"Anglican" No. 2

Anglican No. 3

Anglican No. 3. Be that guy.

Anyone who knows anything at all about the history of American revivalism understands that every "revival" has proved to be nothing more than a flash in the pan.  Spectacular and popular, yes, but yielding no substantial fruit in the long run.  A flash in the pan and then a subsequent return to the godless staus quo.  Did the First and Second Great Awakenings produce any substantial long-term fruit?  Look where we are now as a nation.  And what of the little mini-revivals since then?  Where's the fruit?  A few of them produced rank heresy, like the Prosperity Gospel.  The rest of them fizzled.   There was a similar "revival" at Asbury in 1970.   What became of that?  I guess if you don't succeed, try, try again. 

How unlike the original Pentecost, which gave rise to the Catholic Church 2,000 years ago, and wherein lies the true and abiding glory of the Holy Ghost in its quiet, mystical solemnity.

Be Anglican No. 3.  He understands Montanism and gnosticism.  You'll find the real thing in the churches that "merely" proclaim Christ in Word and Sacrament, and you'll understand why true Anglicans have always derided "enthusiasm."

Oh and by the way, the fact that the *MSM* is all over this story should prove instructive.  For them it's all about the "wow" factor.  The faith and practice of the Apostles and the Fathers as manifested in the Catholic Church doesn't concern them in the least.

Pastor Chris Rosebrough presents a particularly Lutheran assessment here, and though Anglicans would demur on certain points of Lutheran theology it is still worth the hour it takes to watch it.

Craig Trulia on David Bentley Hart's "That All Shall Be Saved"

Another addition to the DBH archive.

Bishop Chandler Holder Jones on the Anglican Formularies

Bring It On

"At least five times, therefore, with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearance gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died." - G.K. Chesterton on the "Five Deaths of the Faith" in his book "The Everlasting Man."

The Catholic Church is a done deal, baby, because it is Christ's body on earth, charged with carrying on his sacramental presence and fulfilling his mission to the end of the age.  Strike it down and it shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.  That is its resurrectional principle and power.

 

The Rev'd Steve Macias: Why I Left the Anglican Church in North America

What Is Christian Worship?

It is *this* for us traditional Anglicans, and not the Neo-Anglican charismatic ecstaticism of the "Three-Streamers".

From Exemplar Media, a licensed 501.3c Non-Profit publishing company division of the Orthodox Anglican Communion.

Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Book Reviews)

Robert Yarbrough, (PhD, University of Aberdeen), professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, summarizes and then eviscerates the argument of Neo-Anglican theologian Will Witt.

Matthew Colvin's (PhD, Cornell University) equally devastating review at The North American Anglican.

Ordination and Embodiment, Rev. Mark Perkins at Earth and Altar.

That Witt employs an oxymoronic concept of "Catholic egalitariarism" under which to categorize his argument for the un-Catholic monstrosity of the ordination of women to clerical office is a testament to how Neo-Anglicans like Witt, just like the secular and religious Left, employ the perversion of language to advance its goals.   Witt is not a man of the Catholic Church in any sense of the word.  In fact, he prides himself as being a "Reformation Christian."  He is simply a Neo-Anglican egalitarian whose theology is inordinately influenced by modern culture and who therefore must resort to theological legerdemain in an infidelic attempt to destroy historic Christian faith and practice with respect to ordination to clerical office.

The Anglican Church in North America and Women's Ordination.

The Will Witt archive.

Why Be Anglican?

Certain Anglicans and COVID

You were wrong, Archbishop Mark Haverland , Fr. Jason Hess, Fr. Robert Hart, and all Anglicans who "reasoned" as you did, and we were right.

You piously framed it as being a question of Christian love toward our neighbors, but you were wrong and we were right when we framed it as being rather a question of shoddy science that resulted in self-harm and societal harm. 

Try listening next time.

4/27/2023 Update.

What Is Anglicanism?: Courtesy of the Orthodox Anglican Church - North America

I.   What Is Historic Christianity?

II.  Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism

III. The Church Councils

IV.  The Reformation and Anglicanism

V.  Anglicanism and Liturgy