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.