Three Anglicans on the "Asbury Revival"
Embryo Parson Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:37PM "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.
Reader Comments (5)
Lovely Father! Delete my comment and block my IP address? Clever. Only if you are not aware of VPN and think that blocking one IP address actually blocks my real IP address. It’s clear that you don’t want to be challenged or called to repent for your sin. Your intellectual sensibilities must not be able to handle it. Maybe after you have had some liquid courage and become the keyboard warrior that you are. What do want to do in order to have a conversation?
Well, you were becoming a pain. I was about to delete this your latest tirade, "AnglicanPriest" fka "APAPriest", having deleted your earlier one, but then I paused and thought, let's just leave it up since it speaks volumes about you.
I have previously challenged you to reveal your true identity. Why don't you do so now?
In fact, I will delete every subsequent comment of yours until you do so. You really want to have a conversation? Then man up and tell us who you are.
Personally, I think we should wait and see what the fruit is. I don't think it's as simple as you suggest.
What were the fruits of the first and second great awakenings? Well, arguably millions of people grew up Christian in this country, and our culture was better than it could have been for a hundred years. (Yes, even though there were *huge* theological problems tied up in those revivals.)
Where was the Eucharist mentioned at Pentecost? (Baptism, yes; also true at most modern revivals.) Christianity largely failed in Israel. It's also largely failed in western Europe. Do those things mean that Pentecost wasn't real? No, of course. It was by Pentecost (as you say) that the Church was founded. Well, later revivals have had their part to play in keeping it alive and vibrant as well -- even if you and (certainly) I would wince at some of the attendant theology.
I really don't know what to make of the Asbury revival. I can only wait, caution all that it does not grant any kind of end run around orthodoxy or the sacraments, and wait to see its fruit. And of course pray.
Your admonition to caution is duly noted. St. Paul wrote that even though some preachers may only be motivated by monetary gain, he still rejoices that Christ is preached. As Samuel Sey writes in his article critical of the Asbury "Revival", which I posted above, he himself was converted to Christ at a "revival" that was later revealed to be bogus. I will post another hard-hitting article on "revival" by an Anglican theologian shortly.
That some good fruit might arise from all this isn't questionable. What's questionable is the bad fruit; the entire faith and practice of American revivalism, Pentecostalism, Charismaticism, and for us Anglicans, the so-called "Convergence Movement". I believe the latter to be un-Anglican to the core. As for Revivalism/Pentecostalism/Charismaticism in general, I believe it is nothing more than neo-Montanism with a profound gnostic bent. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Good points, Father, thank you.
I came to Anglicanism from a reformed background. One of the reasons was that I became increasingly uncomfortable with the ubiquitous urge to judge everything by the standard of the "reformed" faith -- as if "the faith" is not enough to be proud of. I say this just to express my mild discomfort with the much-bandied question as to whether this or that is "Anglican." Much more interesting to me is whether it is Christian and apostolic. Of course, I don't think those are genuinely different -- one of Anglicanism's great claims is to be a (full branch of) the Catholic church. So nothing truly catholic can be foreign to it, even if it decreases in emphasis for awhile.
Please don't take the above as a major criticism. The thrust of your comment was on whether this movement is real / apostolic Christianity, which is just as it should be. My point in the above is just that, if the answer to that is "yes," then I couldn't reasonably find myself judging it because it wasn't "Anglican."
As for gnosticism and neo-montanism -- I agree there's a huge amount of that throughout the Pentecostal movement. And also some pockets of real and beautiful Christianity. It's not a safe place to be, but one must judge its adherents as they come, I suppose, while not failing to give warnings about the dangers they will face.