Anglican versus Andersonian Ecclesiology

Alright. I am just as tired of "conservative" schismatics, as I am of "revisionist" heretics. I need a little ranting room, if you don't mind. I do not know what to post first here, so I will let you (the reader) decide. This article is about an email I received from David Anderson of the American Anglican Council (one of the soon-to-be schismatic groups vying for American conservative Anglicans and their money).

I have pasted the email at the end, with my own paragraph markings [] for easy reference. Anytime you see a number inside [ ], that is a reference to Anderson's letter. The people referred to in the article are Rowan++ (the archbishop of Canterbury) and John Howe+ (the bishop of Central Florida).

Anderson writes an odd, and somewhat unconnected letter about what is wrong with the way Rowan++ perceives the Church, and underlying his critique, there seems to be a radical revision of Anglican ecclesiology going on in Anderson's mind. Ecclesiology, if you do not know, is the doctrine of the Church (ekklesia), what the Church is, how She is led, and what She does. This article is an attempt to tease out this new, revisionist "Andersonian" ecclesiology (and why it is neither Biblical nor Anglican).

MY ADDRESS TO DIOCESE CONVENTION 2007

Well, this weekend was the annual convention for the Diocese of Dallas. There was a possibility of things being really contentious (with everything going on in the National Church, and the Anglican Communion). But, I have to hand it to our bishop and our whole Diocese family: We all did a good job of holding it together. I am proud of us.

At the convention I was elected to be one of our representatives to our Province. For those who are Episcopal-challenged, here is an outline of our Church organization, and what a Province is: The basic unit of the Church is the Diocese, which is the entire Church in a geographic region (think of it like this: When Paul writes to "The Church in Rome" or "The Church in Galatia", he is writing to every Christian in that entire area, whether or not they meet in several locations or not. This region is a Diocese).

Within each Diocese are dozens of parishes, or local manifestations of the Church (think of it like this: At the end of Romans when Paul speaks of individual house-churches within the entire Roman Church, this is like a Parish). Now, for the purpose of organizing together, Dioceses are usually grouped in Provinces, which are made up of multiple Dioceses. And provinces make up national churches (like the Church of England, Nigeria, or the United States). Then all of these national Churches make up the whole Anglican Communion. There are some exceptions to this rule (hey, we're Anglican, and there's always exceptions), but this is the general outline.

So, it goes like this from small to big: Parish - DIOCESE - Province - National Church - Worldwide Communion. Make sense?

SOLDIERS, FARMERS, AND ATHLETES

A Sermon For Year C, Proper 23
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

-------------------------------
2 Timothy 2:3-15
-------------------------------

SERMON: I was wondering: Just between you and me, do the Bible readings on Sunday ever make you uncomfortable? Do you ever feel like you come to worship for joy and encouragement, only to be confronted with ideas that are uncomfortable and perplexing?

I mean, we have had a difficult month of readings. Last week, we heard the prophet Habakkuk get angry and ask God hard questions about how he could let the wicked prosper and the righteous perish.

The week before that we heard Jesus tell a story about a rich man suffering in the flames of hell. And the week before that Jesus told us a parable about how an embezzling manager not only got away with embezzlement, but was rewarded for his shrewdness in doing so!

These readings do not leave us with a warm fuzzy feeling. They often leave us with more questions than answers: questions about God's justice, about God's goodness, about the purity of our own motives, and about our eternal destiny. These are hard questions. Disturbing questions.

ANGRY WITH GOD

A Sermon For Year C, Proper 22
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

-------------------------------
Based on Habakkuk 1:1-13;2:1-4
-------------------------------

SERMON: Quick quiz: As followers of Jesus, what is the proper range of emotions to express in our relationship with God? What are the "correct" emotional responses to feel toward God?

Well, as Jesus followers from the Episcopal tribe, we are very comfortable with reverence. We like to be reverent toward God, with a sort of muted awe, silent admiration, and inward appreciation of God's beauty. We know what it means to "worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness".

We also value thoughtfulness. We like to meditate on God, without being given the "answers", as we look at ideas about God in our imagination. We truly value asking difficult questions, and deeply pondering the possible answers. In fact, sometimes we so deeply value thinking ABOUT God, that we fail talk TO God!

But, that's another sermon...

ONE HELL OF A SERMON

A Sermon For Proper 21 Year C
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

-------------------------------
Based on 1 Timothy 6:11-19; Luke 16:19-31
-------------------------------

After hearing a Gospel reading like that, I bet I know what many people are thinking "Is he really serious about all of this eternal torment stuff?"

And it is not Jesus who we are talking about. Many of us assume that Jesus' "hell parables" are either over-exaggerations intended to make us behave, or simply deluded holdovers from a backwards world-view, that believes in eternal torment.

Now, since most of us want to make Jesus into the prototypical enlightened humanist, we prefer to say that he was not deluded. Instead, he was just exaggerating. His is giving us a carrot and a stick to make us into nice people. The carrot is heaven, and the stick is the threat of hell.

T.E.C. TAC TOE: Who will win in "The Episcopal Church"?

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.  

I want to start out with a bit of honesty. I have hesitated finishing this article because I did not want to say anything negative about Christ Church leaving the Diocese of Dallas. But, I cannot help it. I feel shocked, saddened, and betrayed by the actions of Christ Church. I feel hurt, like a man whose friend flees when the fight gets too tough. I feel more hurt by them than anything New Hampshire or the national church has ever done, because what they did is more personal. CS Lewis says that the devil sends error into the world in twos, so that by avoiding one you fall into the other. Well, Christ Church has answered the heresy of the national church with schism, and last I checked neither is pleasing to Christ. May God have mercy on us all.

Before Christ Church went into schism; many people asked me what my take is on the crisis in the national church, and what I think our response should be. The words I emailed them then are even more appropriate now in light of recent events. And I want to begin by saying that I have real problems with many people on the "extremes" in the debate. In this debate, there are really four sides, not just two. Here are the key players:

A TALE OF FOUR GOSPELS

A Sermon For Year C Proper 18
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Luke 14.25-33

SERMON: What is the best news you have ever had? Can you remember a time when you sat around, waiting, wondering, hoping… Just to hear some news- some GOOD news- about something or someone you cared about deeply?

What was that good news? Was it news that someone you liked, liked you in return? Was it news that someone survived, made it through, and made it home? Was it news that all the tests came in, and it wasn't as bad as everyone thought it might be?

On the Difference Between the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church

2021 Disclaimer: This post is now 15 years old, and a great deal has happened with Anglican separatist groups splitting and merging in the United States over the last decade and a half. My understanding is that this has shifted the theology and practice of the Reformed Episcopal Church away from their reformed roots (outlined below), and toward traditional Anglo-Catholicism, which is very interesting considering the founding principles of the REC. Understanding the basics of this shift can be helped by understanding the overall history and theology of Anglicanism.

In 2007, one of my college students asked me the following question:

I went to a reformed Episcopal church on Sunday. The church was beautiful but the service was so different. I noticed that the BCP 1928 seemed to be a lot different than what I was used to. whats up with that? Just wondering.

My answer is as follows:

INTOLERANT ABOUT HOSPITALITY

A Sermon For Year C Proper 17
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Hebrews 13:1-8 and Luke 14:1-14

SERMON: Did you ever watch cartoons on TV when you were a kid? How about last night on cartoon network?

I loved cartoons. Every afternoon in third and fourth grade I would race home after school to watch my all-time favorite cartoon series: G.I. Joe- a REAL American Hero!

Like most kids growing up in Arkansas at the time, I loved guns, tanks, bombs, and explosions. And G.I. Joe supplied that yearning with an endless conflict between "the good guys", and bland, non-descript, faceless enemy called Cobra.

They were always locked in a properly-neutered, politically-correct, no-one-ever-really-dies war which never seemed to end… but which did seem to spawn the production of really cool gadgets and playsets, which my dad would pay hundreds of dollars to buy.

Looking back, it was kind of the macho equivalent of "Barbie Dolls".

AN UNWELCOME SERMON

A SERMON FOR Proper 16 Year C
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

Based on Hebrews 12:18-29 and Luke 13:22-30

As I stand here, I can't help but grin because of the situation. Here I am on the first Sunday back after a summer break, and I am nervous about getting Canterbury going again. Lots of things to get done. Tons of new people to meet, including many of you.

And there you are. You are beginning a new school year with tons of courses, and a to-do list a mile long. For some of you it is your first time away from home. For others it may your first time to walk into an Episcopal worship service.

And I am supposed to preach a welcome sermon. A sermon to help you get acclimated to your new semester, and hopefully to your new family of faith away from home.

CELEBRATING IN-DEPENDENCE DAY

A SERMON FOR YEAR C, 5th Pentecost, Proper-8
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian
Scriptures: Galatians 5:1,13-25; Luke 9:51-62

What was your favorite holiday as a kid? Which holiday did you enjoy the most, regardless of whether or not you got presents?

For me the answer is simple: The Fourth of July. Independence Day. Perhaps it is because in the town I grew up in, it was the one day of the year when it was legally sanctioned to BLOW THINGS UP.

As a kid, I had this ritual leading up to Independence Day. I would build models of tanks, and jeeps, and even balsa wood airplanes for weeks before the fourth of July. I would collect armies of little green army men. And the week before, I would prepare the battlefield by building fortresses, and digging trenches, in our front lawn.

Then the day would come. I had positioned my soldiers. I had attached bottle rockets to my balsa wood planes. The tanks and jeeps were filled with miniature explosives. I had a lighter in one hand, and fists full of fireworks in the other.

A Short Lexicon of Probabilistic Epistemology

This article is about epistemology: the study of how we know what we know. The main thesis here is that we do NOT come to know things by becoming absolutely certain of them, so that we do not need faith to believe them. I do not believe- due to the noetic effects of our own finitude and the corrosion of sin- that we can have absolute certainty. Such certainty only applies to God's own knowledge. Instead, we can only have degrees of certainty… Or, put better, degrees of probability that any explanation [A, B, or C] actually conforms to a given Reality [X].

To Matt on the Problem of Petitionary Prayer

My buddy Matt Tapie recently wrote a blog that deals with faith in God and the problem of petitionary prayer (i.e. Prayers that ask God to DO something to help us). The central problem is always this: Why does God help some and not others? A few major solutions have arisen to deal with this problem:

Are all "miracles" just coincidences, completely explainable by scientific cause and effect? In this case, God is like a scientist who made this huge science fair project we call "creation", and then sits back passively to watch it run. This, by the way, is called Deism, and it leads directly to Atheism, because if God is nowhere involved in Creation, then there is no need of using God as a causal or explanatory factor at all.

Or, is God bound by the processes of the Universe to evolve along with it, growing and changing as the Universe grows and changes, like a soul that grows with a body? In this case, God cannot do anything other than what is already happening, because what is happening- good and bad- is God's personal evolution. God is doing the best God can. This is called process Theism, or panentheism, and because it leads to a view in which God never intervenes in Cration to express His personality, it usually leads to pantheism. Pantheism is the view that "God" is really the impersonal life force of the universe, source of good and evil, and unknowable to any personal being (like us).

So, all of the major solutions seem to deny key features of the Biblical revelation of God we find epitomized in Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. This God is personal, does "intervene" on some occasions, does do "miracles" (but infrequently), and does seem to be moved by petitionary prayers. But, why is God not moved by EVERY petitionary prayer (if, indeed, he loves everyone)? Here is what I wrote to Matt:

Does Atheism Cause Child Abuse?

[An essay on the logical implications of one's worldview on morality]

I recently had a discussion with a young atheist who could not believe in God because of all the pain and suffering in the world. In particular he pointed out child abuse and the death of innocents as a key stumbling block. I pointed out that without God, he had no basis to call such things "evil", since there is no evil in a materialist framework, only personal values and opinions. He had no clear answer to this, other than to say that he did value moral goodness, and he did believe that children are necessary even in an atheist worldview for the "continuation of the species". I simply retorted that he had no basis for such values from within his worldview, and he had to "back door" such values into his system from Christianity. Then we moved on with the discussion…

Cacophony or Communion

Exploring the Open Question of Identity, Authority, and Unity in Anglicanism
Copyright © 2007 Nathan L. Bostian

"[T]he Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became Man for no other purpose." -C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", book IV, ch. 8

"However we judge the theological concept that the divine became human so that the human could become divine, it is a philosophical, even a metaphysical concept. It is not concrete and will not 'preach'… [It will not] cut the Gordian Knot of human bondage to guilt and stress." -Paul F.M. Zahl, "The Protestant Face of Anglicanism", p. 37

"[W]e do not believe that Jesus leads us to break our relationships… We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children… are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church… we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate…" -Navasota Statement by the Episcopal House of Bishops, March 20, 2007

I. Introduction: Standard Anglican Typologies of Church.

Subverting Submission: A Rhetorical Analysis of Ephesians 5

Most of the scholarship surrounding Ephesians 5 revolves around the "revisionist versus traditionalist" axis. One side, hating the idea of unqualified female submission to a Jewish form of male chauvinism, reject the passage as spurious or semi-spurious. They develop possible literary hypothesis upon possible literary hypothesis, without hard evidence, to prove that Paul did not, in fact write it. And then, based on their leaning tower of hypotheses, they reject it as non-apostolic, therefore non-canonical, and therefore non-binding on Christians.

The other side, convinced of the much more probable hypothesis that Paul indeed did write it- or if he did not, one of his close disciples did- rightfully side with the catholic Church and accept it as canonical. They believe that God is, in fact, speaking through it to the Church today, and we need to listen to it as a foundational document for the Church. But, they read it in such a way that it supports something close to a ancient Jewish "second class status" for women.

One side wrongly approaches Biblical authenticity, but rightly discerns the Gospel message of liberation. The other side rightly approaches Biblical authenticity, but wrongly discerns the message. What shall we do?

Body and Bones, Coaches and Parents

A Theological Sermon on Ordered Ministry and the Structure of the Church. Copyright 2007 © Nathan L. Bostian.

[1] Our Cultural Problem with Authority.

In an age when many consider putting on a belt and a button-up shirt "dressing up", it an be quite a culture shock to walk into a sacramental church and find a priest wearing a tab-collar, a robe, and a stole that drapes down off of her neck. If a bishop is present, wearing his flame-shaped, miter hat, and carrying his large shepherd's staff, it can be an even greater shock.

Our natural reaction, as folks living in a consumer culture with a democratic government, is to ask: Why on Earth are they wearing THAT? Why are they standing up front, preaching, teaching, and praying? Who do they think they are?

LOVING TRUE IS HARD TO DO

LOVING TRUE IS HARD TO DO
A SERMON FOR YEAR C, SEASON EASTER 5
By Nathan L. Bostian

Wow. The last Eucharist of 2007. The end of a year together. It has been a year of triumph: For some of us, this has been our first successful year on our own in the big world, with all of the stupid mistakes, and fun times that come with it. Others of us have arisen victorious over the evil forces of tests, projects, and papers to receive our diploma. And me… I survived becoming a college chaplain. A year of triumph.

ARE YOU SHEEPISH?

ARE YOU SHEEPISH?
A Sermon for Year C, Easter 4
By Nathan L. Bostian

In the interests of Orthodox Christianity, I would like to start off tonight's sermon in a very unorthodox way. I want to ask you a silly question, and I would like your silly response:

When you were a kid (or an adult!) what animal did you want to be, and why? [ASK AROUND FOR ANSWERS]

I have to admit that I never really fantasized about being an animal. An astronaut, or a knight, or GI Joe, yes. But animals: not so much.

However, I thought that it would be really cool to be a huge, ferocious bird of some type. An Eagle, or a Falcon: Something with huge talons and that blood-curdling scream that would make your prey wet itself. And yeah, the idea of flying was pretty cool too.

But there is one animal hardly anyone fantasizes about being: A sheep.

Restoring or Distorting Christianity?

[The following is a letter written to some hokey heretics who run a website called http://restoringchristianity.com. Their ideas stem from a familiar hyper-protestant assumption that they are "restoring" the "true Church" after it has been corrupted for 19 centuries. This, of course, assumes that God allowed His Church to be lost for nearly 2000 years without doing anything until he raised up this new group to restore everything! Anyway, the three keys to the website are:

1. They claim there is no Trinity, Jesus is not God, and the only God is the Father. But, if you wonder why Trinitarianism makes sense (and they don't!), and why Jesus is God, read CS Lewis "Mere Christianity", Peter Kreeft's "Handbook of Christian Apologetics", Thomas Oden's "Systematic Theology", Athanasius' "On the Incarnation", and Augustine's "De Trinitatae".

2. They claim that salvation is conditional, and we must be baptized into Christ to be saved. But, of course, one may ask: How would baptism save us if Christ is not divine, since we are being included in Him? It would seem that only God could save us and bring us to God, and if Christ is not God, he is a created being like us who needs to be saved just as we do.3. They claim that their anti-Trinitarianism is a new idea, and unknown for most of Church History. This is utterly bogus too. Read on to find out more!

So, I wrote this letter to mock their assumptions, in a tone which makes it sound like I approve of them. Everything here is tongue-in-cheek. But note, I never actually use words of approval. I wonder if they will catch on…]