Oh no they didn't...

We have some work to do! It seems that there is a website (and publishing company) out there called "Lighthouse Trails Research Project", who claims to "expose the truth about contemplative spirituality, the bridge that unites all religions andthus denies the gospel of Jesus Christ". They hate people and movements as diverse as contemplative prayer, the emergent church, the charismatic movement, Rick Warren, Roman Catholics, and basically anything that does not fit into the Biblicist fundamentalist [lack-of-a]mindset.

You can find them at: http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/index.html

These people are mean, nasty, anti-everything-fundamentalists who lie and spread gossip about their self-proclaimed enemies in the name of Jesus Christ, without offering much more than a shred of evidence (if that much). For instance, did you know that Henry Nouwen was a homosexual, or that the Alpha Course is tied into the New Age? That's what they chaim. They make the guys over at Fide-O look like Oxford University. At least those guys can marshal a strong Scriptural argument.

SNL finds Christ in Christmas?!?

Merry Christmas all y'all!!!

Saturday Night Live is not known for being very Jesus-friendly, yet one of their skits last night hits it RIGHT on the head. It is an animated short about Jesus trying to find any Christ in modern Christianity.

It is, may I dare say it, prophetic...

This was almost our Christmas Card...

Civilization IV: How God spends His free time

I feel that the holidays are a time to completely veg out and enjoy a Sabbath.  Sabbath, for me, includes doing two things: First and foremost, setting aside some intentional time to hang with the Big Guy.  Set aside some time every day to pray a little (idea: using the Lord's prayer as an outline, go walking with God in a park or around your neighborhood, and take each phrase and elaborate on it and pray it back to God by finding as many ways as you can to "hallow His Name", "ask for His Kingdom to come", "ask for His will to be done", etc.).  Also, set aside some time every day to read some Scripture (idea: read one of the Gospels all the way through over the next two weeks... If you read Mark you will only have to read one chapter a day, the other Gospels will be two chapters a day... as you read, underline and circle everything that sticks out and ask God to show you what it means).  

OK, so spending time with Jesus in prayer and Scripture reading is the first thing.  What is the second, you may ask?

The History of Electronic Music

Hey folks... Little known factoid about me: I love electronic music (techno, industrial, house, acid, etc.).  Just ran across this incredible shockwave interactive presentation on the history of electronic music.

It features 5.5 hours of mp3 samples of electronic music, and about 100 genres.  It is really a great piece of work.

Disclaimer: This site does use quite a bit of profanity.  So if you are one of my youth or parents from Church checking this out, you are warned.  Look at it this way: you get to hear the good, bad, AND ugly of postmodern music over the last 30 years.  Enjoy...

http://www.di.fm/edmguide/#

Also interesting:

http://www2.abc.net.au/arts/soundsliketechno/

Will Candy Canes and Lawyers Bring God's Kingdom on Earth?

Well, I am watching the morning news, waiting for my darling daughter to wake up from her slumber, and I see story number 8,376 on the "Christmas Wars" between "good" evangelical Christians and the "evil" world system.

It seems that another elementary school child in a Texas school district is being used as a puppet by his parents, who are being used as puppets by their pastor(s), to push the Moral Majority Christian platform at school.  Supposedly the kid wants to distribute Candy Canes with the "Story" of the Candy Cane attached, which is actually a Gospel presentation.  The "Gospel Story" of the Candy Cane is actually pretty good.  I share it IN CHURCH about once every other year.

But... 

Santadolatry?

Alright, I am not the biggest "anti-Santa" fanatic in the world.  I used to be, then I became a youth minister that occasionally has to work with young children, and I had a young child of my own.  I mean, I see the Consumerism in the whole thing.  I also hate the Santa-Claus view of God, in which God is benevolent grandpa in the sky who only gives good gifts to good girls and boys.  And, I think that Santa, as we know him in 21st century America, contributes to both consumerism and the Santa ideal of God.

Yet, just as the idea of Saint Nicholas as been co-opted to become the Santa Claus of mass marketing, so also the Santa Claus can be co-opted back to teach about Saint Nicholas and the Spirit of selfless giving that flows from Christ.  If the "Santa Myth" can be "spun" for bad, then it can also be "spun" for good.  So, I do not mind Santa so much anymore.  He is a morally neutral tool that can be used used to serve Jesus just as easily as he is used to serve selfishness.

Luther, Nominalism, and the Nature of the Church

This is an odd post, because it addresses a couple of issues raised by an email from a friend (Steve) in which he asked about some recent posts. Regarding my recent post on Martin Luther and Reformation Day, Steve asked "How can you not like and respect someone that said 'Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men and drink more.....Sometimes we must drink more...and even sin a little to spite the devil....'".  Point taken Steve... I will address this below.

Also, Steve said that he is "very much leaning against the view that the Church somehow is the possessor and distributor of grace" (such as the Catholic view).  He is "much more now seeing that we are called to only be a Proclaimer, and especially a WITNESS as the Church... Anything else seems to me at present to somehow almost "interfere" with the work Christ". He also said that he is re-thinking the sacraments, and is very influenced by some views of Karl Barth regarding the Church and the sacraments.

So, I actually find all of these issues to be related.  In the following post I want to deal with Luther, then Karl Barth, and then the idea of whether or not the Church is a "Witness" to Christ (as Proclaimers), or the continuing "Incarnation" of Christ (as the Body of Christ).  

Could Hell be Redemptive and not merely Retributive?

The following way-too-long article started as a reply to a question about 2Thessalonians 1:8-9.  It morphed into a full-out defense of Hell as a redemptive process, not merely a retributive destination.  It is 9,500 words, and I would appreciate it if you did not comment until you have read the whole thing because some of your objections might be answered later on.

One of my older youth named Chris asked the question that got the ball of wax rolling.  It was basically:

WWCSLD?

Most people who have known me for long know that I am a CS Lewis junkie. I don't really do the Catholic "patron saint" thing, but CS Lewis would probably be my patron saint if I did. I have almost everything he has ever published except for the really expensive three volume set of his collected letters (only have volume 1... Christmas presents anyone?). For me, his books are just below Scripture, and he is one of very few people who write books that I will read more than once. So, just below the Holy Trinity is CS Lewis... Father, Son, Spirit... and "Jack".

Just kiddin' on that last sentence... But everything else is pretty much true.

A thought while cleaning up the Junior High Youth Group's mess...

As I walk around cleaning up bags of disposable junk food and Styrofoam cups left behind by kids who, while essentially good kids, are still so self-absorbed and used to other people picking up after them that they probably didn't realize how horrible they left their own youth room, the thought struck my mind:

In all our activities, all our ministries, we must seriously ask the question:

"Is this forming Christlike people?"

Sadly, I fear that for most of us (myself included) the answer is usually "no".

It is time for a revolution.

Happy Reformation Day

The following is a rant guaranteed to piss everyone off... It is mean, sarcastic, and over-simplified... and I'm not sure if I even believe it all... so read it with a grain of salt (and maybe a cold beer in hand):

Reformation day is a big day for me, because of the sheer magnitude of what Martin Luther was able to accomplish on the Cathedral Door of Wittenburg...

I mean, normally when I have pranked someone, we have put our feces in a paper bag and lit them on fire on someone's porch.  But, there was that one time the football team took up a "collection", and put everyone's feces in the cab of a guy's truck through the back windows.

But nailing feces to a cathedral door?  That is a great prank!  And 95 of them?  How was he able to do that without the vibration of the door causing them to fall of their nails?

Martin Luther is amazing, and will go down in the practical joke annals of all time!!!

Wait, what was that?

Theses, not feces???

Whatever... I guess never mind, nothing special about Reformation Day after all.  No, wait, I feel a rant coming on...

CONNECTING FAMILIES TO CHRIST

CONNECTING FAMILIES TO CHRIST

I love being a youth minister.  One of the most amazing things that I am privileged to do as a youth minister is to watch as young men and women give their lives totally over to the Lord.  To see that "lightbulb" go off over their heads when they realize that Jesus really is real, that He really does have a purpose for their lives, and that they really can know Him personally.  That is an incredible event to be a part of.  But, do you know what is even better than that?  When it happens to WHOLE FAMILIES!

Do you know why?  

Why do Anglicans baptize infants?

The short answer to this question is that we baptize children of believing parents because we feel it is more Biblical to do this than to make them wait until "adulthood" before making them part of the family of God. You see, the "Baptismal theology" of many Protestant groups (such as Baptists and Independent Churches) teaches that baptism is a sort of "acted out" confession of a personal decision to follow Jesus. It is an outward sign of an inward, personal choice to trust Christ. In short, it is a symbol of how we feel about God.

Roundtable on Unity and Authority

OK folks, I have several different types of folk who post on this blog. We are [mostly] Christians who acknowledge the Lordship of the Risen Jesus Christ. I am an Evangelical-Charismatic-Anglican. I have a few sort of emergent Restoration Christians who post. Recently we have been joined in conversation with some fairly conservative Southern Baptists from Fide-O. There is at least one Pentecostal brother who joins in sometimes. And we get liberals, conservatives, evangelicals, catholics, protestants, and everyone in between.

There are five main methods of attaining Christian Unity I know of:

New Look

One of my friends asked me to try something with a white background so it is easier to read long posts... and so, here it is.

Tell me if you like it / don't like it.

Also... does anyone know of another site to get templates? It would be fun to try something more interesting than what blogspot offers, but I don't have time to code the HTML for my own.

May the Lord bless, keep, and empower you, now and always. Amen.

Blogging etiquette and sloganeering

I believe that God made us to be filled with what some call "virtue", and what St. Paul calls "the fruit of the Spirit" (cf. Gal. 5:16-25) or even "the spiritual gifts" (cf. 1Co. ch. 12-13).  In all of these lists "Love" comes up as the first and foremost gift / fruit slice / virtue.  Love may look very different at different times, depending on the need.  Love sometimes comforts and consoles.  Love other times disciplines and rebukes.  The first and foremost thing that Love ALWAYS does is that it always puts the needs and the welfare of others before itself.  Second, it never lies about, curses, or belittles the person it loves, even if it may need to destroy a false idea or rebuke an evil action done by the beloved.

From this central virtue of love then flows various "academic virtues" which should be held to if one is going to participate in a debate on Christ's behalf, and if one does not use these virtues, they are not honoring Christ even if they utter true statements.

My theological history

When I get in discussions and debates with people, they often call me by a label that I think is completely off base.  Fundamentalists call me liberal.  Liberals have called me a fundamentalist.  Other times I get called a Catholic or an "Emerging Church" person.  So what am I?

I am like you.  I am embodied: I have a limited view of the world around me that is partially formed by my maleness, and I am a finite creation that has a hard time being "objective" about anything.  I am en-cultured: a product of a late 20th century Western consumerism that puts a whole lot of emphasis on personal choice and freedom, and still has a lot of hangovers from Post-Enlightenment modernism.  I am en-languaged: I have a way of thinking about things formed by speaking English, and reading Greek, Hebrew, and a smattering of Latin.  I am en-traditioned: I have come to view God and the world around me from certain traditions, namely the Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Anglican Traditions.  I am en-ritualed: I have certain rituals that I have developed and taken on myself from others that help me relate to my spouse, my child, my congregation, my friends, and my God.

Forum on the Holy Spirit

I posted an article on how the Holy Spirit has moved in the life of the Church, and it has generated some great conversation with Mike (http://mdmcmullin.blogspot.com/) and Matt (http://mtapie.blogspot.com/).  I would like to post that conversation here:

==================================
Mike said...

Enjoyed your post. I stumbled onto your blog. Pentecostalism was a breath of fresh air in the stagnation of modernity. Unfortunately, the pentecostal and charismatic movements traded their fresh intimacy with the Spirit for credibility and respect from evangelicals. I have several friends who are a part of the Charismatic Episcopal Church. I am intrigued by the symbolism in formal liturgy and enjoy seeing Christ presented as the great mystery in as done in so many orthodox churches. I'd love to know more about your background. I am an emerging pentecostal seeking to find ways to bring a new depth into the worship service. I don't mind using formal liturgy as long as it leaves room for the Spirit to interrupt.
==================================
Nate says...

Why I love to hate institutionalized religion

One of my youth asked me tonight about how we experience the Holy Spirit today in our world. That led me to tell a short version of how the Holy Spirit has been experienced in Christian history from the Apostles until now. The history went something like this:

Will Nate ever go Catholic?

A friend of a friend named Matt (check his blog here) sent me an email after reading my blog the other day. In it, he asked me a rather blunt question, but one worth answering and sharing with y'all:

"Can I ask you a question? Have you ever considered becoming Catholic?"

Given all the stuff I write on this blog in favor of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I felt I needed to answer this publicly and not just privately. Here it goes:

SHORT ANSWER: Yes. I have considered becoming Catholic with a big "C" (i.e. Roman Catholic). I already consider myself catholic with a small "c".

LONG ANSWER: We have all seen Church "family trees" in our Church history classes. Usually the denomination / sect / tradition that you are (and I say this for any denomination) in winds up being the middle of the chart, and all other forms of Christianity are seen as deviations to the right or left, if not fallen off entirely. This makes your particular denomination the "truest" expression of the Church, the norm to judge all others.

And now for something completely different

2018 UPDATE: I disagree with much of the content in this blog now, and am keeping it online only as evidence of how I have evolved and grown in Christ. 

To make proper sense out of this blog, it might be best to read my original post on “Where have all the good heresies gone?”, followed by my (admittedly vitriolic) reply to Krister’s comments on that blog, found at “Houston, we have a debate”.

I have got to hand it to Krister, he is humble and honest once you get past the rhetoric. He listened to me in one of my feistier moments and had the intestinal fortitude to reply with intellect and honesty. For that, I say that I see Christ in your reply and your attitude, even if I am not (yet) sure where He is in your theology. Thank you sir, and now I will respond in a much more sane manner.

I am sorry my reply was so harsh. But I did it for a purpose: there is a certain agenda of false tolerance in the theological outlook of Krister and many I have found in so-called “liberal” seminaries. This agenda has to be struck right between the eyes to make it realize how false, non-enlightened, and culturally determined it is. Sometimes soft words speak most loudly. Sometimes loud words do. Jesus used both. I felt like loud words were best on the last post, and if I was out of line, I am sorry. I will try to use softer words here.

But, before I do, here is Krister’s kind response to my not-so-kind response to him:

Houston, we have debate!

2018 UPDATE: I disagree with much of the content in this blog now, and am keeping it online only as evidence of how I have evolved and grown in Christ. 

Y'know, if you want no one to care what you write, write it very carefully, nuanced, so that it does not offend anyone. If, however, you want to get a lively discussion going, make outrageous statements that are just on the cusp of being undefendable! A theo-blogger named Krister (check his blog out here) just got kind of ticked off at my blog on the current homosexual crisis in the Anglican Church and wrote this:

Where have all the good heresies gone?

2018 UPDATE: I disagree with much of the content in this blog now, and am keeping it online only as evidence of how I have evolved and grown in Christ. 

The current situation in the Anglican Communion grieves me. As someone who has come to know and love the communion over the last six years (I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church in December of 2000), it is like watching the family you have just married into be ripped apart by adultery. As someone who is seeking ordination to the priesthood, it makes me worry about my future livelihood and calling. What, after all, am I getting myself into? I look at other communions / denominations and their relative lack of drama compared to us, and I often wonder if I should jump ship. But everytime I do, God whispers two things simultaneously in my spiritual ears: First, a line from "Mere Christianity" and the Gospel of St. John: "What is that to you? Follow thou me." Second, the grass always looks greener on the other side, but every lawn is crawling with pests, and chances are you will be more miserable with their pests than your own. Stay where you are at, where I have called you.

Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason in Anglican Theology

So, how do Anglicans interpret all the Scripture we read? Anglicans are first and foremost a "Bible church", and that means that we cannot, and do not, deviate from the data we find in Scripture. Scripture is divinely given by God and is the constitutional document upon which all other tradition and meditation on God must be done. You cannot get to God without going through Jesus Christ (John 14.6 ff). And you cannot get to Christ without going through Scripture. 

We cannot go "over" Scripture by using forms of higher criticism, or "under" Scripture by removing its foundation in history and claiming it to be a mythical document, or by simply going "around" Scripture and saying that the content of Scripture is hopelessly tied to its time and place of composition, and can offer no enduring principals for 21st century humans. It is the only reliable data we have about who God is and how to live for Him. Yet, data does not interpret itself. Kind of like data on a computer disk. You could have the plans for a revolutionary invention on the disk, but if you do not have a computer to interpret it, it is useless. In the same way, the Bible is only useful when interpreted by God's family, the Church. We Anglicans believe that there are two or three tools God has given the Church to do this.

An Affirmation of Women's Ordination

In a number of Anglican Churches (especially in the U.S., Canada, England, and Africa) you will find female priests. Ordination of women was one of the most hotly debated issues in the Anglican Church from the 1960's to the 1980's. It is still hotly contested by many Anglicans. For instance, the diocese next to mine does not ordain women to the priesthood, nor do they permit women priests to minister in their diocese. Much ink, and not a few unkind words, have been spilled over this issue in the last four decades.

I will try to explain the basic reasons for, and against, women's ordination. Before I attempt this, I want to make three admissions: First, I believe in women's ordination and my writing will reflect this. I will try to be fair, but I am not objective. Second, I will probably over-simplify things. This is a vast subject with many books written on it. Third, I have friends who are against women's ordination, and I once was against it myself. I respect the position of anyone who honestly opposes women's ordination for the sake of Christ (though I disagree with them). If you are in a Church that opposes women as priests, please ask your pastor for his view on the matter. With that said, let us talk about the four most common objections to women's ordination:

Form, Deform, Reform, Conform, Inform, Transform

My friend Brett has posted an article about spiritual growth and being "conformed" to Christ. It is posted here. There is a rich, rich symbolism behind the word "form" which his article revolves around. So, here are some things that begin to swirl in my head about "form", as in formation, conformed, transformation, etc.

Let us begin with the word "form". Form has been a big word in Christian Theology from its inception (indeed, since Plato in 500 BC) until we began to give up on beliefs in universals in the late middle ages and the reformation. Now we do not talk about "forms" as much because we tend to take it for granted that there cannot be forms or archetypes which exist as the metaphysical basis for reality as we know it. To put it another way, we have given up faith in universals and only believe in particulars these days. Yet, for the great theologians before the rise of nominalism in the 1300's, knowing something's "form" (i.e. universal nature and purpose) was essential to knowing what it was. Then came Nominalism, which is in part, a belief that universals are not real entities, but merely names- nomina- that we give to general sets of traits. Nominalism is just one of a scad of deconstructive philosophies and theologies throughout the centuries that deny the unity and purpose of the universe in big and small ways.

A Future History of the Panamerican Wars

This exercise in creative imagination was written by me in May of 2005. It is a "what if" scenario based on the ascendancy of Christian power politics in the United States, and the coming ascendancy of China on the world stage, in light of our current "war on terror". I wondered: what could go wrong with this whole situation? Then I wrote this possible future history timeline. Who knows, I might write a novel within this framework some day. I have always enjoyed the science-fiction "dystopia" genre of novels and films (such as the books "Brave New World" and "Fahrenheit 451", as well as movies such as "Blade Runner", "Mad Max", and "The Matrix"). I just got finished reading a brilliant 1985 novel by Margaret Atwood entitled "The Handmaid's Tale". It is about how the United States, in the late 20th century, gets taken over by a totalitarian Christian fundamentalist regime called "The Republic of Gilead". Some days I wonder if we aren't too far from "Brave New World", and other days I wonder if we are not too far from "The Handmaid's Tale", and I know that both are far, far away from the Kingdom of God.

So taking all of these elements, I decided to publish this on my blog. Enjoy, and feel free to comment.

A reply from powerFM

I want to give an update to my post about Power FM (see it by clicking here). I sent the letter in via email, and Eddie Alcarez (the station manager) actually CALLED me to talk about my letter (bravo powerFM!!!). We had a great 20 minute conversation, and I got to understand powerFM's stance on things much better. I don't agree all the way with them, but I truly see why they do what they do. Since my post was very critical of powerFM, I feel they deserve a fair shake. So, here is a reply from powerFM that I re-constructed from Eddie's comments (I will write as if I am Eddie):

An open letter to powerFM in Dallas

This is a letter sent to our really cool Christian Alternative rock station in Dallas. As you will find out below, I really love this station and support them financially. I love them enough to tell them that they have done some things that worry me. This letter is written to address these issues. I think this letter is important because it addresses some of the issues all of us Christians deal with when we try to engage culture creatively... and all of the issues I criticize them for are issues I must keep myself in check about when I try to engage culture as a youth minister.

You can find powerFM at: http://www.897powerfm.com
------------------------------------
Howdy from Coppell,

My name is Nate and I have supported the station for the last several years at $10.00 per month. I know that is not a whole lot, but our family doesn't have much more to give above our tithe. Over the last two years there has been some direction with the station that concerns me. I have been sitting on this and not saying anything, hoping it would go away... but it comes up every time I listen to the station.

So, here it goes:

Brett Wells on Tradition and Scripture

The following is a conversation started by my friend Bret (http://bretwells.blogspot.com/) about a debate I posted between myself and Steve Rudd (see http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2005/06/debate-on-tradition-and-scriptural.html). Both Steve and Brett are from the Church of Christ, but, as you will shortly see... they are very, very different:

So this priest and two monks walk into a delivery room...

The following article is a re-publication of an essay on fatherhood I posted to my daughter's website. The website is defunct, but my daughter is not... and this essay was too good to leave on my harddrive for no one to read...

This is a story about fatherhood for guys who aren't real emotional and who are completely out of touch with their "feminine side". Let me start this off by saying that I am not a touchy-feely kind of guy. I am humorous. I am passionate. I am intense. But touchy-feely... not so much. I don't cry at weddings or funerals... or very much at all for that matter. I don't watch chick flicks unless my wife makes me. And I am not even empathetic about most injuries. I am from the "no blood, no bones broken, no problem" school of thinking.

Debate on Tradition and Scriptural Interpretation

Here is a friendly debate between myself and Steven Rudd (of the Church of Christ) who runs the website http://www.bible.ca. The debate started over his postings that said that ALL tradition is bad in interpreting the Bible (see http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-tradition.htm). Here is how it went down:

Irrelevant appeal to authority???

Rejecting the so-called "appeal to authority" is a tactic used by all kinds of "skeptics" to "debunk" ideas that they do not like. Most frequently I encounter this tactic in discussing God with people who claim not to believe in God. Usually, it turns out that I do not believe in the God they do not believe in either, because they are not actually discussing the Person whom I know as God, but that is another point entirely.

When someone appeals to authority, they usually put it in terms such as "Because [Person/Institution/Source X] supports [Truth Claim Y], then I support [Truth Claim Y]". Usually, in debates about God, it goes something like this "Because the Bible says [Y], I believe [Y]. God says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Nontheists rightly argue that this proves nothing, because the reliability of the Bible is still in question. It may say that Y is true, but how do we know it is accurate in what it says? I mean, there is the issue of who wrote the Bible and when, and whether these writings are authentic and accurate. Then there are the textual issues of how well the text has been preserved, even if the original text was accurate. And then there are issues of interpretation, linguistics, and historical-cultural context, not to mention genre and purpose, in considering how to understand the text. Then there is the question of what presuppositions we bring to the text, and if there are other legitimate ways of understanding the text. All of these must be considered before making an appeal to Scripture to support a certain truth claim.

Noooooooo!

Just went to the latest Star Wars movie. Other than the cheesy 7th grade dialogue and the Frankenstien-the-space-man scene where Darth Vader becomes Darth Vader and screams "nooooooo!", it was great. Y'know, for someone so "strong in the force" as young Anakin, he isn't much of a politician and falls for evil waaaaay to easy. I guess they don't make Jedi like they used to. Just goes to show that just because you have the "brawn" of the force does not mean you have the "brains" to use it!

Best Anti Porn Website I have ever seen

2016 Disclaimer: I've grown a lot since writing this blog in 2005. I leave it up as a testament to personal growth and change.

This website is run by a raving left-wing feminist who calls herself "One Angry Girl"... and God bless her. This has the best anti-porn information I have ever read. If you want to protest porn, get info here. Her politics definitely make her a left-wing, huge-government, big-brother-will-meet-every-need, raving-anti-bush democrat-clone... BUT if you want a great site that protests against a huge problem in society today.

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/antiporn.html

Here's an email I sent to angry girl:

A REALIST View of Salvation

A REALIST View of Salvation

For the past 400 years, the debate in Protestant Soteriology (the study of salvation) has focused almost entirely on two alternatives: Calvinism and Arminianism. The outline of this debate has been centered around the five cardinal points of Calvinist Soteriology summed up in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. The debate has been basically an affirmation of the five points of the TULIP on one side, and a denial of these points on the other. For at least 400 years (or more, since essentially the same debate was going on in the Catholic Church long before the Reformation) no new information has been added, nor have any radically new perspectives been looked at (with the possible exception of Karl Barth). The debate has mainly centered around one side twisting the other side's "proof texts" to fit their own agendas. The basics of this debate are summed up below:

THE RISE AND FALL OF CONFIRMATION

Confirmation is a sacrament that has its origins (like all sacraments) in the life of the Apostles who followed Jesus. You might say that the first confirmation was administered by Christ Himself when He poured out the Holy Spirit upon His disciples at Pentecost, giving them the power to preach, teach, pray, heal, and perform miracles (see Acts 2). This empowerment by the Holy Spirit was Christ's "confirmation" of His Apostles and their mission to spread His Gospel everywhere. Every place they preached, their message was confirmed by the gifts of Christ's Spirit working powerfully in them.

A Letter to some "Biblical Unitarians"

Sent to the fine folks at: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/ and http://www.truthortradition.com/

Aha! Some post-modern day Arians! You are aware that your position has been rendered non-credible officially since the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and again at Constantinople in 381 AD (even though the church and empire was overwhelmingly Arian, I mean... "Christian Unitarian"... during the intervening 50 years)? You simply must read not only your Bible again (in original languages, please), but also your church fathers: Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, etc. They are all far more scriptural (not to mention artful) than anything found on your website. Or you can simply read any one of several hundred catholic, reformation, or modern systematic theologians. They all present an infinitely more coherent interpretation of Scripture than your private interpretations.

But, if you persist in being Unitarian, may I suggest the following:

Priorities and Corporate Stewardship

For as long as Paul's first letter to Timothy has been in circulation, the admonition "a root of all the evils is the love of money" (1Tim. 6:10, YLT) has been a catch phrase for the Christian attitude toward material wealth. Rightly so, for Paul also tells us that "some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs... But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (1Tim 6:10-11, NIV). This verse, as it is commonly interpreted, seems clear: money is evil and will corrupt you if you try to pursue it. But is this what Paul meant? How would that interpretation mesh with Paul's earlier admonition that "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1Tim. 4:4-5)?

Anthem

Someone has said 'to live deliberately is to suck the marrow of life'
A life with a purpose beyond ourselves transcends all the pain and the strife
My God, You are my purpose! Yahweh, You are my light!
You have shown amidst my darkness... Christ has turned to day my night.
If Your blood is living water,
make my thirst a desert wind!
Parching, wretched hot, and blistering within...
If Your body is my bread,
make my hunger gaunt and greedy!
On the brink of starvation, make me a beggar needy...
If Your Word is Spiritual milk- let me suckle like a newborn babe.
If Your Truth is my life's meat- make me a cannibal in blood lust rage!
Let me stare steely eyed resolute, into the dark hollow depths of Hell
and shout with last lung's breath "NO! NO MORE! I SHALL TELL!"
Tell it to all creation- yell at the whole dark world
Scream it with my very life- so much more than just mere words
Tell them all that Christ is life- and He is life alone
In Him is salvation for everyone- every soul that claims His throne
Scream it! Proclaim it to every nation- to every tribe and tongue!
Speak the truth to every person- man and woman, old or young!
Yes! He is my Lord... He is my God- wonderful and ever true
Incredible, and yet so odd- that He should save me too
I've talked the talk, I must walk the walk- and live what I believe
Shall I hear His Word, yet deny my Lord? May I never thus be deceived!
Live it, say it! Preach it, pray it! Every second of my whole life...
No hesitation- don't ever delay it! If I live, may I live as Christ!
If I live, may I live as Christ!

1998

Fortress of Nothing

I want to build a huge stone castle
and enthrone God deep in its walls
I want to construct concrete catacombs
so thick that they'll never fall
But God in His grace merely gives me this skin
sheltered only by His mighty hand
Yet I want a brick house stoic faith
built upon rocks I have lugged through this land
But Faith is not stoic
Faith never stands still
Faith is not some haunted fortress
sitting there on a hill
No- Faith is dynamic
it moves and it breathes
And it is only made strong
when its comfort it leaves

1998

Who brings the Kingdom, part II

This is a follow up from "Who brings the Kingdom", so if you want to really understand what is going on, please read it first (posted March 2005). My professor replied with the following:

Who brings the Kingdom?

In my "Church and Social Context" class of 2005.03.11, an interesting debate was brought up concerning Evangelicalism and the current bunch of End-Times apocalyptic novels (like Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series). The professor is a liberation theologian who believes in realized eschatology (which means that the end will be "realized" as God's people liberate the world from bondage and bring about the Kingdom of God on earth). Because of his theological stance, the professor had a big problem with the idea of apocalyptic eschatology. Apocalyptic means "un-veiling" or "Divine intervention". It is the idea that the world will get worse and worse until God has to un-veil Himself and intervene by invading the world and establishing His own Kingdom. So the tension in the argument was set up like this:

Realized eschatology: We will make the world better and better until all heaven breaks loose and the Kingdom comes by our efforts.

Versus

Apocalyptic eschatology: We will make the world worse and worse until all hell breaks loose and God has to intervene to bring His Kingdom.

So, I wrote this:

Aren't Anglicans and Episcopalians really liberal and anti-Biblical?

I feel I have to answer this question because of a lot of "bad press" the Anglican and Episcopal Church has brought upon itself in the last few decades. Unfortunately, some Anglican churches are far too liberal (actually, a better term is "revisionist"). The decision of some bishops in 2003 to ordain an openly homosexual "bishop" in New Hampshire, who was living out of wedlock with his "lover" after he left his wife, is just one example of this revisionism. But, worldwide, revisionism is not the norm for the Anglican Church. In Europe, Canada, and the United States, you will find a fairly even split between Biblical, Christ-centered Anglicans and revisionist Anglicans.

In general, the Biblical side of the Church is growing and the revisionists are shrinking. However, if you go to Africa and South America, you will find an overwhelmingly vibrant, Biblical, Christ-centered Church that is growing by leaps and bounds! The Anglican Church is the fastest growing Church in Africa right now, with around 60 million members (compared with 6-8 million in Europe, Canada, and the US). Honestly, the Church is in a struggle for revival right now, and revival is prevailing slowly and surely.

The Flavors of the Anglican Church

1. Christianity and Ice Cream

I admit it. I love ice cream. My favorite flavor is chocolate fudge ice cream from Baskin Robbins. There are plenty of other flavors I really enjoy, but chocolate fudge is my favorite. Don't get me wrong. I love all kinds of ice cream, not just chocolate fudge. If you offered me another flavor of ice cream, I would eat it because that is certainly better than not getting any ice cream at all. I would even eat vanilla ice cream, although it is pretty bland to me. But if given the choice, I would pick chocolate fudge. That's kind of how I feel about the Anglican Church.

You see, I think Christianity is a lot like ice cream. There is a basic recipe that you have to follow to get ice cream, including milk, sugar, cream, salt, ice, and just the right temperature. But within that recipe there is a lot of leeway to add ingredients to make the ice cream better. But you have to be careful. If you add too many extra ingredients, it can cease to be ice cream and become a cold glop of candy. Likewise, if you take away too many ingredients it can cease to be ice cream and become a slushee or popsickle.

In the same way, all truly Christian churches have a basic set of ingredients: One God eternally existing in the three persons of Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Spirit, worshipped by a fellowship of believers who have been baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We all believe the Bible is inspired by God to show us how to have a relationship with God and live for Him. These ingredients are basically summed up in the recipe of the Creed. But, some Church traditions barely add any flavor to their ingredients and are like plain old mass produced vanilla ice cream. Other Church traditions add so much extra stuff to their faith and worship that you don't know where the ice cream ends and the candy bar begins. And there are lots of other non-Christian religions that try to be ice cream, but they don't have the right ingredients to start with.

To me, the Anglican Church is the chocolate fudge ice cream of the Christian world. I love all of Christianity. Catholic Churches, Protestant churches, Independent Churches: they are all better than no Church at all. But given my choice, I pick Anglicanism over the rest. Why? Well, that is the purpose of this booklet. It is to describe to Christians and non-Christians the uniqueness and richness of the Anglican Church. Now, I will admit, I am biased. Other people may disagree with what I will say, and like their own "flavor" of Christianity better, but I will try to be fair and accurate in what I say about my own flavor and theirs. I have tasted most of the major flavors of Christianity. I have been a member of mainline Protestant Churches, Independent Churches, Pentecostal Churches, and Charismatic Churches over a period of nearly a decade. I can say that the Anglican Church is what tastes best to me.

Jimmy and the Sponge

2017 UPDATE: I disagree with much of the content in this blog now, and am keeping it online only as evidence of how I have evolved and grown in Christ. In particular, this blog is evidence of both how clueless I was about LGBTQ struggles (especially in some of the stereotypes I engage in here), while also showing that I was on a slow trajectory to understanding that committed LGBTQ relationships are morally equivalent to committed heterosexual relationships. That insight would finally bear fruit around 3 years later, near 2008. But here is where I was at in 2005. Read at your own risk. I leave this up as a memorial to how Christ has helped me grow and evolve.

Now for chapter 327 in adventures in missing the point. So, I am watching the news, and apparently the new Sponge Bob video is being protested by Dr. James Dobson of "Focus on the Family", because it advocates homosexuality. I have not watched the video, so I do not know if the evil cartoonists are trying to lead poor six year old boys down the path of gay prostitution or talking with a lisp. The makers of the video say no. James "I am Christ's policy advisor" Dobson says yes. Who's right? I don't know. I guess it depends on who you think is more honest and reliable.

Is it the people who make a lot of money from selling videos and dolls to children, who's business would be hurt if they really did promote homosexuality to six year olds? Or is it the guy who sells millions of dollars worth of books and expands his "religious right" media empire every time he "uncovers a plot to destroy Christian America"? Should we trust the people who have every reason NOT to make Sponge Bob gay? Or should we trust the guy who has every reason to start a witch hunt? I am not saying the venerable Doctor Dobson is a liar, I am just saying that he has every reason to skew the already effeminate character of Sponge Bob to his advantage.

Critiques of the emerging church movement

As someone immensely sympathetic to the emerging church movement, I have some critiques of the movement. I am interested in seeing what you think...

1. Despite protests to the contrary, it seems like the emerging church movement is neck-deep in consumerism. I own a lot from the emergent YS line, and it seems like sometimes they use "emergent" as a tag line for new, hip, trendy, cool. My biggest critique is that the whole movement (of which I am admittedly a part of) smacks of avant-garde consumer trendiness...

Just look at how they market Dave Kimball, or postmodern youth ministry, or Len Sweet, or Brian McLaren. At the same time these guys (rightly) eschew modern American consumerism, they are neck-deep in it.

Are we there yet?

We've all been there. It's the big yearly mission trip to (fill in the blank), and you have been driving the 15 passenger van for about 10 hours, and you have the annoying kid (God love him) in the back yelling "are we there yet"? Your rear end is stuck to the seat in a pool of sweat. You have listened to the same Christian CD five times in a row. And this kid keeps asking "are we there yet"? You tell him to shut up and chill out over and over (in the kindest way you can), but every half hour or so, he asks "are we there yet"?

I learned from a youth ministry friend of mine the perfect response (which she, in turn, learned from her youth minister). Just say "Five minutes… we only have five more minutes" every time they ask, no matter how long or how short the time is. Pretty soon they get frustrated, and then give up, and learn to enjoy the ride. You know, upon further reflection, I think that is what God has been saying to me lately too: "Five minutes Nate, we only have five more minutes". He keeps saying it until I shut up, chill out, and learn to enjoy the ride.

Why I hesitate when I hear “someone got saved”

While walking into the grocery store one day I happened to see a young woman who I volunteer with in a “parachurch” youth evangelism organization. I knew that she had gone to summer camp with many of the students we worked with all school year, so I asked her “how did camp go?” She responded with a smile “It went great… three of our kids got saved… so-and-so accepted Christ… and remember so-and-so the atheist? He accepted Christ too!” I smiled, congratulated her, thanked God, and exchanged a few pleasantries, and then departed. Then a recurring thought hit me: Did they really get “saved”?

Government and Religion in God's Plan

A Short Theology of Government, Defense, and the use of force to protect the innocent

Government and Religion

In all ages, God's family must co-exist with those who choose to stay outside of the family. Therefore, God has set two complimentary forces at work in society: government (to govern all people) and religion (to govern God's family). Both government and religion have similar goals: to bring community and peace out of chaos and destruction. Yet, they use different tools to accomplish this. Government uses the police and physical force to control people's actions. Religion uses persuasion and the force of conscience to control people's actions. Also, they have different areas of oversight. God made government to use justice to protect people and property from crime and physical violence. God made religion to protect people from immorality and evil that is not physically abusive, and help them do good instead. For example, government protects people from the physical crimes of murder and theft by legal force.

Religion, on the other hand, persuades people away from hatred and jealousy that cause these crimes, and urges them toward Love. Likewise, it is the Government's responsibility to make sure that society is safe enough for people to pursue Love, life, and purpose. It is Religion's responsibility to lead people to Love, life, and purpose in Christ. Because of this, it is the role of religion to help the needy through charity, because only religion can truly give purpose and love with charity.

emerging church manifesto

Welcome to the Emerging Church! There is a whole movement out there across the world primarily among evangelical churches called "the emerging church movement"...

The emerging church movement is hard to explain... and it is just developing as a consciousness within the Church, because it is only about 5 years old... McLaren's book "A New Kind of Christian" (see below) was published in 2001 and was kind of the "shot over the bow" that started the whole thing off...

It is basically a whole lot of people, like myself, who are evangelicals, but who have been burned by the Evangelical church establishment in various ways, and feel short-changed by how it has over-simplified the Gospel and then mass marketed it in ways that are very individualistic, consumeristic, and self-centered... and we are looking for something different, but we do not know exactly what that is yet...

I know who the antichrist is and when Jesus is coming back!!!

2018 Disclaimer: I disagree with many aspects of where I was at in 2005 when I wrote this. For instance, I have supported marriage equality and LGBTQ inclusion for about a decade at this point. And I used to love to rant on blogs. As a result I sound insufferable on this blog. I leave it up as a testament to how God helps us grow over time.

I was driving down the road in the Dallas Area listening to a program called "Religion and Politics" on 91.7 KVTT, so-called "christian" talk radio, at the 3pm hour, on 2005/01/07 (I write all this detail so you can send emails to the station and/or the radio program if you wish). And I hear this preacher, "Brother-I-am-a-pandering-preacher-at-some-conservative-right-wing-Jesus-is-american-church" start talking about the "end times". In particular, he talked about how the anti-Christ would be the former Russian Premier Gorbachev, and the "whore of Babylon" would be Roman Catholicism, a.k.a. the "state religion" of the new-and-upcoming "European Union".

He said he could "prove" this from the book of Revelation that since the "great whore of Babylon" (a.k.a. Catholicism with their emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary) was riding the "Red Dragon" (a.k.a. Communism, of whom Gorbachev supposedly represents, even though he was one of the instigators of bringing more democracy and free market economics to the former Soviet Union). But, lets not allow actual facts to distort the truth we want to believe...

Sins of Addiction and Sins of Aggression

I guess there are lots of ways to categorize sin: Violations of the ten commandments... Not doing to others as you would want done to yourself... Not following Jesus' example... The "seven deadlies"... Acting in a way contrary to the fruit of the Spirit... Acting in ways that enslave, degrade, or harm others... How often we live without remembering and practicing the presence of God.

All of these are extremely valid ways to look at "missing the mark" of God's goodness and love. Furthermore, I think that all of these are helpful "scales" to measure our walk with Christ, so long as we don't use them to beat up ourselves and get trapped into a guilt cycle. Walking with God is not so much about learning how NOT to sin, as it is learning to DO good and to GET UP when we fall down.

Its like learning to dance. When you learn, you know you will fall down, step on toes, get out of step, and embarrass yourself. The key to learning is not to get all timid and fearful and guilty and stop trying to dance so you don't do anything stupid. The key is to step in with gusto, move your body, and ask forgiveness from your partner when you screw up. The worst thing to do in learning to dance is to give up trying. THAT is stupid. That is embarrassing. Everything else is forgivable.

Really? I hate that "god" too!

Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens--what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave--what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (Job 11:7-9)

But Moses protested, "If I go to the people of Israel and tell them, 'The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' they won't believe me. They will ask, 'Which god are you talking about? What is his name?' Then what should I tell them?" God replied, "I AM WHO I AM". Just tell them, 'I AM has sent me to you.' ...This will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations." (Exodus 3:13-15)

Will the real God please stand up?

When I talk to people who say they do not believe in God, or that they hate Him, one of the first questions I ask them is "What kind of God do you not believe in"? This may sound like an odd question, because it is clear what we mean when we say "God", right? Wrong. There are lots of misconceptions out there about who and what God is. Some of these misconceptions have, sadly, even been taught to people in Church. It is no wonder they have turned from "god", because their "god" is not really "god" at all, but a very poorly drawn caricature of the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. It often turns out that I do not believe in their "god" either. In fact, I often hate the god they hate too, because their god is a false, harmful lie that drives people from the real God.

So what are some of the misconceptions? I will mention a few:

Only little minds can have faith in God and the Bible

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. But now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he made the universe and everything in it. The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

Is faith just a crutch for the weak?

There is a familiar rejection of faith and God (and the Bible) out there that goes something like this: "There are no reasons to believe there is a God anyway, and the Bible is so unreliable and full of contradictions that no reasonable person could ever believe in it. Religion is just an opiate for the masses, and faith is for those who cannot prove what they believe."

I believe two things about this statement. First, I believe it is improbable and false, and I will spend the rest of this chapter discussing why. Second, I find that it is usually not based on rational, intellectual grounds, but its true basis is emotional. Someone is angry at God or the Church, so they manufacture intellectual reasons to justify their emotional stance. I believe these issues are dealt with in the previous eight chapters.

God is a controlling, manipulative puppet-master

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jeremiah 18:1-10)

The false God of total control

There are some false ideas of God out there that make Him into a tyrannical dictator that controls the universe on puppet strings. Everything is pre-determined and pre-destined. God has created a race of the "chosen" whom He loves and who He will save, as well as a race of the "damned" who cannot get on God's good side no matter what. Generally, you can identify the chosen by their sparkling smiles, good grammar, and clean cut appearance. The damned have tattoos, vulgar language, and they like to smoke and drink. God, it turns out, is the producer of "Leave it to Beaver" and other wholesome 50's sitcoms, and if we do not act like that, then we are going straight to hell.

God won't answer me or return my calls

"Why do you complain to him that he answers none of man's words? For God
does speak- now one way, now another- though man may not perceive it." (Job
33:13-14)

Who does God speak to?

One of the biggest problems that most people (including myself) have with a "personal God" is that unlike 99.9% of other "personal" relationships, we do not seem to hear from God very often, if ever. This problem is only compounded when we get around some "super spiritual" person who says something like "Well, God led me to find the cutest outfit the other day. I was talking with Jesus and praying for all the lost souls in the mall, when He led me into the juniors section and told me to buy this pantsuit!" Well, maybe it isn't that bad (although I have heard people actually say things like this)... but there are those people who constantly talk about God leading them to do this or that, or that God told them this or that.

It tends to make you feel like: (a) God loves them and hates you, and that you will never be "good enough" to hear from God like that; (b) That they are big phonies; or (c) They future mental patients. I mean, how can they be any different from the rash of insane mothers we have had lately who kill off their children under "orders from God"? Let me tell you from my experience in that type of religious environment that none of the top three options are usually true.

If God is so good, why is life so horrible?

If God is supposed to be so good, how come life is so horrible???

The world can be a scary, awful, painful, miserable ball of suffering sometimes. Horrible things happen for no rhyme or reason, leaving people, families, and even whole nations destroyed. Terrorists slam hijacked planes full of moms and dads and kids into office buildings while screaming "God is great"! Thousands more moms and dads and children and sisters and brothers die as those buildings collapse, along with hundreds of brave men and women who were trying to save them. They were just doing their job. They were trying to do good in the world. And their lives are snuffed out.

Young Patrick dies in a car crash on the way home for the holidays. He was not doing anything wrong, other than going a little over the speed limit. He had just gotten his life right with God, and now he is suddenly dead. Now, his parents and sister have been given a Christmas gift they will never be able to get out of their heads or their hearts. Did he deserve this? Did they?