“How do you do theology?” includes your theological method (where do you begin and end) and the central motif (the most important doctrine that affects how you view other doctrines)
Theological Method
This post will utilize the type of systematic theology described by Millard Erickson, in his chapter “The Method of Theology” where Erickson discusses “the process of doing theology.”[1] That process generally moves from exegesis to biblical theology to systematic theology.[2] After discussing biblical theology, Erickson added that he places historical theology after biblical theology: “While the utilization of history may take place at any one of several stages in the methodological process, this seems to be a particularly appropriate point.”[3] Erickson instructed that the process of doing theology is to move from exegesis to biblical theology to historical theology to systemic theology.
The Central Motif
Andy Naselli follows a similar pattern in an article on D.A. Carson’s Theological Method in which he discussed how Carson does theology. Naselli in discussing the theological method of D. A. Carson brings into this discussion the central motif or the theology through which the other theologies are viewed. Naselli wrote that “methodology is important for Carson, and after God himself, bibliology is most foundational.”[4] Even though the central motif is not mentioned by name, Carson’s central motif is “the Triune God”[5] Naselli mentions “Carson’s theological method”[6] and then shows how Carson does theology: Carson starts with “exegesis”[7] moves to “Biblical Theology”[8] to “Historical theology”[9] and then to “Systematic theology.”[10]
Carson starts his theological method with God and then the Bible. Mike Stallard asks, What is the correct interpretive motif to use in today’s world? I would like to approach the answer from two perspectives. First, in the derivative sense, that is, in the derivation of one’s theology, the fundamental nature of Bibliology seems to be the starting point .... If Bibliology is taken away, then all other areas of theology are open to debate. The nature of the Bible as the special revelation of God to man is the hub around which the other areas of theology depend.[11]
The wrong Central Motif
In the article “The Significance of the Central Motif and Stratification for Method: A Case Study of Landmark Baptist Theology” Mike Stallard contends that choosing the wrong central motif or prominent doctrine in your systematic theology will skew all the other doctrines. Stallard uses the extreme emphasis on ecclesiology of Landmark Baptist theology as his example. The overemphasis on the local church as its central motif altered the stratification, hierarchy, or outline formation of other doctrines. Stallard asks, “Has the emphasis (or perhaps, overemphasis) on ecclesiology had any serious side effects throughout the entire theological structure of Baptists with resulting practical ramifications in church life?”[12] He answers: “This movement (and those it has affected) has chosen ... the doctrine of the church, that is, the local church, to be the central motif of its theological presentation to the world. Then the stratification or outline formation of other points within ecclesiology and other areas of theology are viewed through this dominant concept.”[13]
Stallard demonstrates how the following doctrines were interpreted through the grid of ecclesiology: Bibliology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Anthropology and Hamartiology, and Eschatology. Stallard showed that the central motif of ecclesiology produced the doctrine of the Baptist Bride of Christ in Landmark Baptist theology: “The doctrine of the Baptist bride causes one to view his future in terms of his relationship to the local church. For example, a man who is rightly related to a Baptist church but is a poor father to his children can be in the bride of Christ while another man who is a wonderful Christian father but is an infant-baptized Presbyterian will fail to be marked in that number.”[14] Stallard is referring to babies baptized as a dedication, not as a means of saving grace. Stallard makes this same point in another article: “The present writer understands the starting point for genuine Christian systematic theology to be the Bible”[15]
Walter Rauschenbusch wrote A Theology for the Social Gospel. He did not begin with theology proper or Bibliology as most conservative systematic theologies do but with hamartiology. Rauschenbusch defended using hamartiology as the starting point for theology: “Now, the doctrines of sin and salvation are the starting point and goal of Christian theology. Every essential change or enlargement in them is bound to affect related doctrines also.”[16] Rauschenbusch did not begin with just one chapter on hamartiology but rather six chapters. While Rauschenbusch wrote only one chapter on all of the other doctrines in his systematic theology (except the Kingdom of God) he focused most of his chapters on sin. Rauschenbusch revealed his man-centered theology. His hamartiology presented a liberal view of man and sin that makes unnecessary the penal substitutionary death of Christ where God poured out His wrath on His Son for our sins. Beginning in chapter four, Rauschenbusch continued promoting social sin over individual sin. Making hamartiology his starting theology distorted his other theologies.
Our theological method begins with the exegesis of the text, from which we derive our biblical theology. Next, those theologies are traced throughout church history in historical theology. Finally, systematic theology organizes the doctrines of biblical theology into categories.
What is the difference between biblical and systematic theology?
Wayne Grudem distinguishes biblical theology from systematic theology but also shows the connection between the two:
Biblical theology traces the historical development of a doctrine and the way in which one’s place at some point in that historical development affects one’s understanding and application of that particular doctrine .... Systematic theology, on the other hand, makes use of the material of biblical theology especially where great detail and care is needed in the development of a doctrine .... Systematic theology remains different: its focus is on the collection and then the summary of the teaching of all the biblical passages on a particular subject.[17]
Using biblical theology we can trace the theme of monarchy from the prediction of the monarchy in Genesis 15 to the establishment of the monarchy in 1 and 2 Samuel. A systematic theological approach would subsume monarchy under the bigger doctrine of the Kingdom of God. Charles Ryrie discusses the universal kingdom, the Davidic kingdom, the mystery form of the kingdom, the spiritual kingdom, the millennial kingdom, and the eternal kingdom.[18] Ryrie makes these distinctions: [Systematic] Theology is the discovery, systematizing, and presentation of the truths about God. Historical theology accomplishes this by focusing on what others throughout history have said about these truths. Biblical theology does this by surveying the progressive revelation of God’s truth. Systematic theology presents the total structure.[19]
How important is how you do theology that includes theological method and central motif? The way we do theology can result in preaching a biblical gospel or an unbiblical social gospel with no saving power.
[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 66.
[2] Ibid., 66.
[3] Ibid., 70-71.
[4] Andy Naselli, D. A. Carson’s Theological Method, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, vol 29, no 2, Autumn 2011) 255.
[5] Ibid., 250.
[6] Ibid., 257.
[7] Ibid., 257.
[8] Ibid., 258.
[9] Ibid., 259.
[10] Ibid., 259.
[11] Mike Stallard, “The Significance of the Central Motif and Stratification for Method: A Case Study of Landmark Baptist Theology,” 13.
[12] Mike Stallard, “The Significance of the Central Motif and Stratification for Method: A Case Study of Landmark Baptist Theology” at Hope, 7) [http://our-hope.org/blog/wp- content/uploads/2009/10/LandmarkBaptistTheology.pdf] (accessed 09-18-2020).
[13] Ibid., 13.
[14] Ibid., 9.
[15] Mike Stallard, “A Proposal for Theological Method: Systematic Theology as Model Building” 8. http://www.our-hope.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Method2.pdf
[16] Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, 167.
[17] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 23.
[18] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition, 15.
[19] Ibid., 460.