Blogs

In Discipleship (DBWE 4), Dietrich Bonhoeffer frames all of the Beatitudes in terms of Jesus’ disciples living in renunciation (Verzicht) and want (Mangel). Interestingly, for Bonhoeffer, Jesus is only speaking to his disciples in the Beatitudes (he makes this argument on the basis of Luke 6:20ff.). And the disciples’ renunciation and want are caused by Jesus’s call to discipleship. Jesus sees: his disciples are over there. They have visibly left the people to join him. He has called each individual one. They have given up everything in response to his call. Now they are living in renunciation and want; they are the poorest of the poor, the most tempted of the tempted, the hungriest of the hungry. They have only him. Yes, and with him they have nothing in the world, nothing at all, but everything, everything with God. (DBWE 4:101). ...

Yesterday, I wrote just a bit about interpretive approaches to the Beatitudes in Matthew 5. I’m trying to get a better handle on how Barth and Bonhoeffer treat the Sermon on the Mount, and I’m starting with the Beatitudes. However, it’s pretty challenging to situate Barth and Bonhoeffer in light of the “standard” approaches to both the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount. A case in point: yesterday, I felt pretty confident that Bonhoeffer does not take the standard “entrance requirements” approach to the Beatitudes. ...

I’m a husband to Rachel and a father to Eva. I’m also: An Anglican Priest (serving/volunteering without pay) A Ph.D. Student at Wheaton College (full-time, including a fellowship as a Teaching/Research Assistant) Managing Editor of AnglicanPastor.com (part-time) In May 2020, my full-time residential obligations to Wheaton’s Ph.D. program will come to an end. I’ll still need to finish my dissertation in the following 1-2 years (the sooner, the better!), but I will no longer have to work on campus as a teaching/research assistant. ...

As I said in my previous post, “Interpretive Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount,” I’m working on how Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer read the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, when interpreting the Sermon on the Mount, the best place to start is at the beginning! This means beginning with the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:1–12. The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:1–12) 1 When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying: ...

I’m working on how Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer read the Sermon on the Mount. In order to help situate my discussion of Barth’s and Bonhoeffer’s readings, I’m trying to get a better grasp of the various interpretive approaches to the Sermon on the Mount. So far, the most exhaustive Sermon on the Mount “interpretive taxonomy” that I’ve found has been from Grant Osborne’s Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 159. ...

This code of conduct very much relates to Rapoport’s Rules, Adler’s advice, and Alan Jacobs’s “The Thinking Person’s Checklist.” SOURCE: T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 6th ed (Australia ; Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2009), 7–8. 1. The Fallibility Principle Each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question. ...

Editor’s Note: Thank you to the Rev. Dr. Emily McGowin for writing this rejoinder to Fr. Blake Johnson’s and Fr. Lee Nelson’s responses to her original blog post about the in persona Christi argument against women’s ordination. While we invite this conversation (about McGowin’s original blog post) to continue in our comments section and elsewhere—and we plan to publish more about women’s ordination in the future—we will not be adding surrejoinder blog posts. ...

The following checklist, found on pages 155–56 of Alan Jacobs’s excellent book, How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds (affiliate link), is a worthy addition to “Rapoport’s Rules” and “Adler’s Advice” (mentioned in my previous post, “Help me come up with ‘rules for conversation’!”). Emphasis added in **bold**. When faced with provocation to respond to what someone has said, give it five minutes. Take a walk, or weed the garden, or chop some vegetables. Get your body involved: your body knows the rhythms to live by, and if your mind falls into your body’s rhythm, you’ll have a better chance of thinking. Value learning over debating. Don’t “talk for victory.” As best you can, online and off, avoid the people who fan flames. Remember that you don’t have to respond to what everyone else is responding to in order to signal your virtue and right-mindedness. If you do have to respond to what everyone else is responding to in order to signal your virtue and right-mindedness, or else lose your status in your community, then you should realize that it’s not a community but rather an Inner Ring. Gravitate as best you can, in every way you can, toward people who seem to value genuine community and can handle disagreement with equanimity. Seek out the best and fairest-minded of people whose views you disagree with. Listen to them for a time without responding. Whatever they say, think it over. Patiently, and as honestly as you can, assess your repugnances. Sometimes the “ick factor” is telling; sometimes it’s a distraction from what matters. Beware of metaphors and myths that do too much heavy cognitive lifting; notice what your “terministic screens“ [See pages 90–91] are directing your attention to-and what they’re directing your attention away from; look closely for hidden metaphors and beware the power of myth. Try to describe others’ positions in the language that they use, without indulging in in-other-wordsing. [See pg. 106: “We see it every day. Someone points at an argument—a blog post, say, or an op-ed column—and someone else replies, ‘In other words, you’re saying … ‘ And inevitably the argument, when put in other words, is revealed to be vacuous or wicked.] Be brave.

In my role as Managing Editor for AnglicanPastor.com, I’m realizing the need to develop some “rules for conversation.” We describe the tone that we’re after as “clarity and charity,” which is an excellent summary. However, to guide our blogposts and comments, I think we need something more detailed and concrete. With that in mind, “Rapoport’s Rules” and “Adler’s Advice” seem like excellent starting points. But, if you have any further suggestions, please let me know in the comments! ...

In the ongoing debate about women’s ordination (in the Anglican realm and beyond), I keep hearing oversimplified claims from hierarchicalists (or “complementarians,” but that’s not the most helpful term in this debate) that they have the entirety of the Bible and Church tradition on their side. Therefore, we mutualists (or “egalitarians,” but that’s not the most helpful term in this debate), it is argued, have arrived at our positions for various reasons—perhaps capitulation to liberal cultural trends and hermeneutical methods—but not because we’ve read Scripture or studied the history of the Church very carefully. ...

When it comes to the Barth-Bonhoeffer relationship, there is perhaps no greater conundrum than the meaning of what Bonhoeffer called Barth’s “Offenbarungspositivismus” (“positivism of revelation” or “revelatory positivism”) in his Letters and Papers from Prison (DBWE 8). Now, before we proceed, please note that Bonhoeffer meant something very particular by “religion” in his prison letters. For an overview of how Bonhoeffer and Barth differed on the meaning of “religion,” and what that means for how we interpret their theological critiques of religion, please see my essay: “To Be or Not To Be Religious: A Clarification of Karl Barth’s and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Divergence and Convergence Regarding Religion.” ...

If you’ve not yet consulted the Oxford Handbook series, you should! The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology is especially useful! I’m very excited because the Oxford Handbook of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth are both about to be released soon! I just wish they weren’t so expensive!

This is from Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, p. 11: The church has a mission: to see to the speaking of the gospel, whether to the world as message of salvation or to God as appeal and praise. Theology is the reflection internal to the church’s labor on this assignment. (How) does this definition of “theology” differ from the one you’ve been working with?

I really like the timelines of Bonhoeffer’s life that are available in The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and in Bethge’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. (Those last two links are Amazon affiliate links.) However, I’m having a much harder time finding comparable timelines for the life of Karl Barth. The information is all there, but there’s no comparable table/list of dates in either The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth or Busch’s Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts. (Again, Amazon affiliate links.) ...

The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer SOURCE (Amazon affiliate link): John W. de Gruchy, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), xxiv–xxvi. 1906, 4 February, Dietrich Bonhoeffer born in Breslau, Germany 1912 Family moves to Berlin, where Karl Bonhoeffer, Dietrich’s father, takes up a position at Berlin University 1913 Dietrich Bonhoeffer begins gymnasium studies 1916 Family moves to the suburb of Grunewald 1918 Walter Bonhoeffer, Dietrich’s brother, dies on the western front ...