Theology

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. ...

O Loving Father, we commend to your gracious keeping all who are near and dear to us. Have mercy upon any who are sick, and comfort those who are in pain, anxiety, or sorrow. Awaken all who are careless about eternal things. Bless those who are young and in health, that they may give the days of their strength to you. Comfort the aged and infirm, that your peace may rest upon them. ...

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. ...

Which theological terms would make your shortlist? Here’s the list of terms found in “Jargon-Busting: A Glossary of Theological Terms,” at the back of Alister E. McGrath’s excellent Christian Theology: An Introduction (25th Anniversary Edition). adoptionism aggiornamento Alexandrian School allegory Anabaptism analogy of being (analogia entis) analogy of faith (analogia fidei) anthropomorphism Antiochene School anti-Pelagian writings apocalyptic apologetics apophatic apostolic era appropriation Arianism atonement Barthian beatific vision Beatitudes Calvinism Cappadocian fathers Cartesianism catechism catharsis catholic Chalcedonian definition charisma, charismatic Charismatic movement Christology circumincessio conciliarism confession consubstantial consubstantiation contemplation creed Deism dialectical theology Docetism Donatism doxology Ebionitism ecclesiology Enlightenment eschatology Eucharist evangelical exegesis exemplarism fathers fideism filioque Five Ways fourth gospel fundamentalism hermeneutics hesychasm historical Jesus historico-critical method history of religions school homoousios humanism hypostatic union icons ideology incarnation justification by faith, doctrine of kenoticism kerygma liberal Protestantism liberation theology liturgy logos Lutheranism Manicheism modalism monophysitism neo-orthodoxy ontological argument orthodoxy parousia patripassianism patristic Pelagianism perichoresis Pietism postliberalism postmodernism praxis Protestantism Quadriga radical Reformation Reformed Sabellianism sacrament schism scholasticism Scripture principle Socinianism soteriology synoptic gospels synoptic problem theodicy theopaschitism theotokos Thomism transubstantiation Trinity two natures, doctrine of typology Vulgate Zwinglianism

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). ...

Editor’s Note: The piece below represents the opinion of the author. Anglican Pastor does not take a site-wide position for or against women’s ordination. We do, however, require both clarity and charity. We ask that your responses to it do so as well. After reading this piece, please see Lee Nelson’s response and Emily McGowin’s rejoinder. The connection between christology and soteriology A cornerstone of orthodox Christian theology is summed up in the phrase “what is not assumed is not healed”. The phrase is echoed by many early church fathers, but it is credited to St. Gregory of Nazianzus. ...

Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics Original Publication Dates, courtesy of PostBarthian.com. If you’re trying to grasp the contours and contents of Karl Barth’s massive Church Dogmatics, it helps to have an outline! Here’s a helpful PDF version, with subheadings included, from Princeton’s Center for Barth Studies. Barth_Outline of Church Dogmatics 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). ...

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. ...

John Webster’s Idea Like so many others, I desperately wish that John Webster were still alive. After all, my dissertation topic owes much to his essay: “Reading the Bible: The Example of Barth and Bonhoeffer.” The essay (previously published as ‘“In the Shadow of Biblical Work:” Barth and Bonhoeffer on Reading the Bible,’and then published in Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics) begins: Two things at least are clear about the relationship of Barth and Bonhoeffer: that disentangling the history of their relation is of considerable importance for making sense of Bonhoeffer, if not of Barth; and that the disentangling is a rather delicate operation which involves some discriminating interpretation of the writings of two complex theologians. Much, for example, hangs on what we are to make of Bonhoeffer’s scattered remarks on Barth, revelation and non-religious interpretation in the prison writings, and of Barth’s puzzled response to them (87). ...

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