Church and Theology

The relationship between Church and State, particularly the intersection of Christianity and politics, has been on my mind since I first started paying attention during the lead-up to the 2008 USA presidential election. Back then, I was just a high school student, but these themes have stuck with me ever since. (For those curious, here’s a quick timeline: In 2012, I was studying biblical studies in college. By 2016, I was a seminarian, and in 2020, I was working on my Ph.D. in theology. Now, in 2024, I’m a software engineer! Yet political theology continues to weigh on my mind.) ...

With Holy Week and Easter coming up, I’ve been thinking about music and artwork that I’ve found particularly poignant when reflection on the crucifixion and resurrection. First, I’ve seen many icons of the resurrection (“anastasis,” in Greek) like the one below. But I don’t think I fully appreciated the image until I realized it was Adam and Eve that Christ is helping up out of their graves. He’s trampled down the doors/gates of Hell and is taking an elderly Adam and an elderly Eve by the hand. Rescuing them from the realm of Death, in order to bring them back to eternal life with God. ...

The following are some of my opinions, held with varying levels of intensity, about church/churches. Note: These are geared toward Christian churches in the USA. Some would obviously also apply to churches elsewhere. But I haven’t nuanced this entire list for all global church contexts. Many churches in the USA are too “busy.” They are trying to do too many different things and should instead refocus on the church’s proper priorities (Word and Sacraments). ...

TL;DR: If you’re serious about biblical and theological studies, you should invest in Logos 10 Bible Software. Do so via my exclusive partner offer for Logos 10 here! If I could go back in time and chat with Joshua Steele when he was a Bible & Spanish major in college, there are a few things I’d tell my younger self: Quit laughing at How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and READ the thing. Baba ghanoush is superior to hummus. Study computer science sooner rather than later. Bite the bullet and INVEST IN A LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE LIBRARY. Don’t get me wrong. I love physical books as much as anyone, and I own quite a few (hundred)! ...

I’m pondering the “don’t stir the pot” reaction that reliably happens every time we publish something on women’s ordination—most especially anything in favor of women’s ordination—over at Anglican Compass, where I’m the Managing Editor. (Note: This post is not a subtweet of anyone in particular. It’s just me thinking out loud about a phenomenon that keeps occurring.) Almost every time we post something about women’s ordination, a controversial issue has been whether or not doing so needlessly “stirs the pot,” as in “causes trouble, unrest, dissent.” ...

For a research project, I’m looking for examples of the reasoning that goes into what’s been called, among other things “theological triage,” “doctrinal taxonomy,” or “dogmatic rank.” I’m referring to the process of distinguishing between various levels of importance when it comes to theological statements/positions. So, for example, the Trinity would usually be considered a “first-order” or “primary” doctrine—a “dogma,” if you will. But a specific view of the end times would usually be considered a “second-order,” “secondary,” or “tertiary” doctrine—AKA “adiaphora.” ...

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?

> In short, if I am inhuman, I am also stupid and foolish and godless. The great crisis in which all worship and piety and adoration and prayer and theology constantly finds itself derives of course from the question whether and how far in these things we really have to do with the true and living God who reveals Himself in His Word, and not with an idol. But this question is decided concretely in practice by another one which is inseparable from it—whether and how far in these things we come before God together and not apart from and against one another. True Christianity cannot be a private Christianity, i.e., a rapacious Christianity. Inhumanity at once makes it a counterfeit Christianity. > > Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/2, 442.

The following is from Bonhoeffer’s Discipleship (usually known as “The Cost of Discipleship” in English, although the original title in German was simply Nachfolge). Bonhoeffer considers how we might respond to Jesus if Jesus were to show up and make the same kinds of concrete commands that he did in the Gospels. NOTE: I’ve taken two paragraphs in the original and broken them up into smaller chunks to facilitate reading here. ...

At this point, this is just a sketch. But I’m wondering how we Anglican Christians ought to be careful to keep our precious “via media” (“middle way”) mentality and methodology separate from what’s known as the “middle ground” fallacy. The “Via Media” According to Donald McKim in the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, the “via media” is (Lat. “the middle way”) Term used to describe the identity of Anglicanism as a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It was coined by John Henry Newman (1801–90) during the Oxford movement (337). ...

[Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics Original Publication Dates, courtesy of PostBarthian.com](https://postbarthian.com/2016/04/21/karl-barths-church-dogmatics-original-publication-dates/).If you’re trying to grasp the contours and contents of Karl Barth’s massive *[Church Dogmatics](https://www.logos.com/product/5758/barths-church-dogmatics),* it helps to have an outline! Here’s a helpful PDF version, with subheadings included, from Princeton’s [Center for Barth Studies](http://barth.ptsem.edu). [Barth\_Outline of Church Dogmatics](https://joshuapsteele.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Barth_Outline-of-Church-Dogmatics.pdf)[Download](https://joshuapsteele.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Barth_Outline-of-Church-Dogmatics.pdf)Below is a version that I’ve created from my Logos edition of *Church Dogmatics*. It’s the version found in the Index (CD V/1, 1–13). (Want to learn more about Karl Barth, but not quite ready to dive into the Church Dogmatics? Check out Keith Johnson’s extremely helpful The Essential Karl Barth: A Reader and Commentary [affiliate link].) ...

UPDATE: Here is the paper that I gave at the 2019 Karl Barth Graduate Student Colloquium at the Center for Barth Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. INTRODUCTION: “GENTILES” = “WORLD” IS WORSE THAN “ISRAEL” = “CHURCH” On at least one level, Karl Barth’s Römerbrief reading of Romans 9–11 is supersessionist. In general, especially in the second edition, when Paul refers to “Israel” in Romans 9–11, Barth refers to the “Church.”[1] He replaces Israel with the Church. That’s supersessionism, case closed. Right? Well, yes and no. It has become increasingly common to at least mitigate or nuance the charge of supersessionism against Barth’s reading of Romans 9–11. Various scholars have broadly argued that, yes, Barth’s handling of Romans 9–11 at least leaves the door open for at least a certain kind of supersessionism, but, no, he wasn’t being quite as careless with Israel as it might initially seem.[2] By and large, I agree with these assessments. Barth should have said more about the actual people and history of Israel, but he wasn’t trying to merely displace Israel with the Church, as if the latter were superior and the former were forgotten. He was trying to bring Israel and the Church together in solidarity, in opposition to the arrogance of the Church. ...

I’m scheduled to give a paper on Karl Barth’s reading of Romans 9:30–10:21 in Der Römerbrief at the 2019 Barth Graduate Student Colloquium at Princeton in August. Now, of course, it’s a pleasure and a privilege to give a paper at the colloquium. However, in hindsight, I don’t know why I thought giving a paper on chapter 10 of Barth’s Römerbrief was a good idea! Granted, I don’t have to solve all of the exegetical issues (of which there are many) in Romans 9:30–10:21. I just have to make some sense of what Barth thought about the passage. ...

(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!