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: