Blogs

(Here’s a PDF of this paper: STEELE_The Tree of Religion Barth and Bonhoeffer on the Tree of Knowledge.) Introduction The precise meaning of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (=TK) has long vexed interpreters of Genesis 2:4–3:24.1 While the “tree of life” (=TL) is mentioned and alluded to throughout the Bible, the TK is explicitly mentioned by its full name just twice (Gen. 2:9, 17).2 Nevertheless, because of the significant role that the TK plays in the narrative, both Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth highlight the TK in their theological interpretations of Genesis 1–3. Furthermore, both theologians describe the TK and the knowledge of good and evil (=KGE) in ways that resemble their theological critiques of “religion” as an improper response to divine revelation. ...

(Here’s a PDF of this paper: STEELE_When Will Thy Kingdom Come.) Introduction: “Thy Kingdom [Has/Will] Come”? Just how eschatological is the Lord’s Prayer (=LP; Matt. 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4), particularly in light of its second petition, “Your kingdom come” (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, Matt. 6:10a; Luke 11:2d)? In other words, when will God’s kingdom come? Has it already arrived (not eschatological)? Is it in the process of arriving? Or will it arrive at some point in the future (eschatological)? Furthermore, who brings the kingdom about? Humans? God? Or some combination of the two? Settling the question of eschatology involves both the timing and the agency, the when and the who, of the kingdom. ...

Jesus Christ has gone into the far country in our stead, to bring us home to God!

It just happened again. I had to consult “BDAG,” A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.). I don’t own a copy, so every time I have to consult BDAG I think “I really should buy this.” But for the past decade or so, primarily because of BDAG’s cost ($150 on Logos, $130 used on Amazon, $165 new on Amazon) I’ve held off. Nevertheless, I’m seeking to build my “must-have” personal reference library to sustain a ministry as a pastor theologian. So, I think I need to buy BDAG sometime soon. While I’m at it, I might as well get HALOT, the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament… Logos sells them as a bundle. ...

I’m trying to put together a basic home gym in our basement apartment. Mainly, I’m interested in doing squats for now. Then, I’ll expand to deadlifts and benchpress. Our ceilings are too low for overhead presses, however. Anyways, I just ordered the Valor Fitness BD-9 squat rack from Amazon. I still need a decent Olympic bar and Olympic plates.

I’ve always wanted to learn more about Andrei Rublev’s famous icon of the Trinity. If you’re also curious, check out this video.

From “In Praise of Boredom,” by James K.A. Smith. But I know at least this: Instagram won’t save us, and tweeted verse will not undo what we’ve done to ourselves. But neither is there any special enchantment to reading in print. So this is not the Luddite’s redoubt, nostalgically canonizing codex or canvas as if history had come to an end in some glorious past. Every medium now reaches us inside the ecology of attention masterminded by Silicon Valley. We take pictures of our books and coffee, for heaven’s sake. The point isn’t platform but desire: what do we want when we pick up our phones? We don’t need better media, or to romanticize old media. We need to change what we want. ...

John Webster’s essay, “Reading the Bible: The Example of Barth and Bonhoeffer” (pages 87–110 in Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (paid link) [Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark, 2001]) is, in large part, the inspiration for my doctoral dissertation. I’d like to share the three reflections/lessons Webster draws from the biblical work of Barth and Bonhoeffer. Wrapping up his essay, Webster claims that Neither Bonhoeffer nor Barth were wissenschaftlich theologians; both were practical or pastoral theologians of the church of Jesus Christ. . . . Both, in short, were members of the guild, so despised by Kant and most of his heirs, of biblical theologians. Pondering their work may give us cause to reflect on three matters (108–109). ...

I’m reading Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s excellent book, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue (paid link). In it (on pages 25–26), I came across “Rapoport’s Rules.” First formulated by mathematical psychologist Anatol Rapoport and discussed by Daniel Dennett (Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (paid link), 31–35), here they are: 1: You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” ...

Just came across this article in New Blackfriars, and it looks helpful, especially in the context of Anglican debates about women’s ordination. Title: “The Four Types of Priesthood in the New Testament: On Avoiding Confusions about What ‘Priesthood’ Means” Author: Geoffrey Turner Abstract: Christian discourse tends to treat the concept of ‘priesthood’ univocally, so that ordained priests are seen to share the priesthood of Christ. But a careful reading of Hebrews shows clearly that the priesthood of Christ is unique to him. There are four (even five) types of priest in the New Testament and each of them is distinct and not to be confused. ...

I became an “egalitarian” in college, before I became an Anglican in seminary. It’s taken some time for me to get used to the different contours of the women’s ordination debate within Anglicanism. Growing up, the debate was all about particular Bible verses and whether or not women could teach and preach. However, in Anglicanism, although those same questions/arguments are present, I hear much more about whether or not women can administer the sacraments as priests. ...

Maybe you, like me, are coming to Anglicanism from a different tradition. If that’s the case, then one thing you should know is that Anglican debates about women’s ordination can often be quite different from debates about the same topic in other church contexts. This is due to Anglicans having different views on, among other things: ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church), the sacraments, and ordination. For example, in my broadly evangelical/non-denominational/Baptist upbringing, debates about women in ministry centered on whether or not women were allowed to preach and teach. ...

Came across this Barth quote in Church Dogmatics II/2 this morning. I really like it, because it’s a good reminder that Barth valued the Bible. His distinction between the Bible as witness to the Word of God and Jesus Christ as the Word of God did not cause him to abandon the Scriptural witness. It is as well to remind ourselves, at the conclusion of this analysis, that the question: What ought we to do?, is the question which was put to Peter and the other apostles (Ac. 2:37f.) by those who heard Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost. This means that, although we ourselves have to ask it, we must not ask it of ourselves. We must ask it of God, of the God who has revealed Himself to us and has given us the witnesses of His revelation. It is a question which is put by Holy Scripture, and therefore we must put it to Holy Scripture as the witness to God’s revelation. That the sovereign decision of God confronts us and our decisions objectively in Jesus Christ is, as we have seen, the supreme criterion of all ethical reflection. But Jesus Christ cannot be separated from His apostles, from the whole witness which underlies the community of God in the form of Israel, and then of the Christian Church. We hear Him as we hear His witnesses. It is in their testimony that the divine command is always to be sought and will always be found as the sovereign divine decision. We must not be surprised, then, if—in very different forms—we are always given what is in fact the one answer: “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” ...

Note that, as of 2019-01-26, 54 volumes of the Gesamtausgabe have been published. Unfortunately, only the first 45 of these are available in the Digital Karl Barth Library. *I’ve marked volumes unavailable in the DKBL with an asterisk. According to the publisher, TVZ: Seit 1971 sind im Theologischen Verlag Zürich mehr als 50 Bände der Karl Barth-Gesamtausgabe erschienen. In ihr werden Barths Texte kritisch ediert und so präsentiert, dass sie für die wissenschaftliche Beschäftigung, aber auch für einen grösseren Interessentenkreis lesbar und zugänglich werden. Jeder Band wird von einem oder mehreren spezialisierten Herausgeber(n) bearbeitet und erscheint in Zusammenarbeit mit der Leitung des Karl Barth-Archivs. ...