Starting points for theology
When theologians write a book on Christian theology, they have to start somewhere. And people have chosen to start in interesting places – some start with creation, or the doctrine of man, or the doctrine of revelation. Others, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. More rarely, people have even begun with eschatology, or even the doctrine of the Trinity!
Not that they would neglect other doctrines – of course, they will go on to look at each of the other doctrines in turn. But for them, this is what comes first conceptually. And this is often a giveaway for what shape their theology will take in the end. Because whatever it is that you end up put first, actually ends up being the lens through which you see everything else … and sometimes that lens can unnaturally distort things.
People who put the doctrine of man first invariably end up having a high place for humanity, and a low view of God’s holiness or sovereignty. Conversely those who put God’s sovereignty first end up with a Christianity that seems to lack love and care. Those who put the doctrine of creation first can find themselves downplaying the cataclysmic effects of sin. Your starting point for theology actually matters – it can have a huge impact!
It’s like picking up a thick, woolen jumper from the floor. If you pick it up the wrong way – say, by pulling on this or that thread, you will actually pull the whole woolen jumper out of shape. And that’s what happens when you have the wrong starting place for theology. You seem to be saying biblical things – but in the end you’re actually pulling the whole of God’s revelation horribly out of shape.
So where should we start in our theological reflection? You actually start with the gospel itself, not with individual doctrines. Because the gospel is the whole, not just a part. The gospel is the content of God’s revelation. And when we pick up God’s revelation by the shoulders of the gospel, we find we are not distorting it – for this is really what God’s revelation is about.
In a previous post there was a diagram of the two channels for thinking theologically. One was individual Bible passages (red arrow), the other was the message of the gospel (blue arrow). Replace that blue arrow with something other than the gospel (say, the doctrine of man) and conduct your theology in that manner, and you will find yourself saying things that are strange. And that’s because we are no longer testing it with the gospel itself!
[ PS: this is why the Doctrine 1 course notes for PTC start off with a chapter on the gospel! ]
Categories: Ministry
I\’ve heard it said that the gospel is the means for God\’s plan to create a new world order with his rule at its centre and his people there with him. Its interesting that Peter Jensen\’s At the Heart of the Universe begins with a chapter titled "Tomorrow, Jerusalem" that is the the goal rather than the means. I understand that theology needs to be gospel based and God-focused, but I\’m wondering if the starting point for theology does actually need to be the gospel? Couldn\’t someone start by asking an ethical question (say "should I steal that gum because my breath stinks?") and work their way onto other matters? Maybe after reading the bible they might find that stealing is wrong… why? because God says so? why? because he created the world and knows whats best for us? etc and by doing so develop a systematic understanding of \’all things under the sun\’ which may still be very biblical and very gospel-centred and very God-focused?
Hello Aaron,
yes, Peter Jensen\’s book is an interesting case in point. He does start with eschatology in At the Heart of the Universe - and I did in fact ask him about that. He told me that he\’s realised that\’s not quite right – and that it\’s actually better to start with the gospel. You see this shift in his Doctrine 1 notes for PTC, and more recently his The Revelation of God. See article on his theological method here.
As to the second paragraph, that\’s not what\’s meant by the starting point for theology - see diagram in a previous post.