What Is Systematic Theology?

Listener Followup

This morning, a friend texted to let me know that she had started listening to the podcast and, consequently, needed to know what systematic theology is.

I’m guessing she wants as simple an answer as possible, so I’ll start there, and she can skip the rest of the article, which will be a little extra. I want to take the opportunity to respond to a listener's question in a way that connects it with the bigger issue that I keep bringing up: theological education in the church.

My friend is not the first to ask this question in recent weeks. Given that our shared church tradition (Churches of Christ) has been biblicist in a way that identified “speculative theology” as the root cause of the church’s divisions, it’s not surprising that jargon like systematic theology is foreign. But I think the problem is more far-reaching than our denominational eccentricity, which has been overcome in many quarters anyway. The definition and attendant vocabulary of systematic theology is unfamiliar to most church members because it is “technical” knowledge proper to the academy.

This is only a problem if church members can study theology for themselves. As it turns out, anyone can, at any time, pick up a theological book, listen to a theological podcast, or Google a theological question. So it’s a pretty big problem. Here’s why: those technical terms that rarely escape the academic ivory tower function in formal theological education precisely to orient students amid the raucous cacophony of voices that echo through two thousand years of Christian reflection on God. Ask first-year Master of Divinity students and the honest ones will tell you the scope of theological information, methods, and problems is staggering. Not for nothing, the MDiv was, once upon a time, the standard advanced degree for educating church leaders—not scholars!—and it took as long as medical school to complete.

The technical categories that help students organize and assess the onslaught of information coming their way serve a practical function! It’s hard to imagine why church leaders trained in this way would choose not to give the rest of the church the same tools, unless, of course, they are planning to reserve theological reflection for “the experts” whose job is to deliver pre-digested understanding to the plebs. Since I reject that approach, let’s do a little theological education for the church.

Systematic Theology Basics

You can easily search online for an answer to my friend’s question. But the valid short answers (assuming you choose a reliable source of information!) will not clarify much in the grand scheme of things. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines systematic theology as “a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (such as Christianity) especially with a view to relating the traditions convincingly to the religion’s present-day setting.”¹ That’s true in the most low-resolution sense, but it’s incomplete and misleading in a variety of ways.

So let’s compare a few introductory resources to see what else comes into view. 

A Handbook of Theological Terms:

Christian T. [theology] has always served to clarify and criticize the faith of the churches, and this naturally is reflected in various specialized functions with specific names. Curricula in theological seminaries frequently are organized around these. Historical T. is the study of past theological systems. Systematic T. is, as the name suggests, the systematic organization and discussion of the problems that arise in Christian faith. Insofar as systematic T. is guided by the doctrinal standards of the church, it is frequently called “dogmatics” or “dogmatic T.” The special concentration on the ethical implications of T. is called “moral T.,” especially in the more CATHOLIC churches, or “Christian ethics” in the Prot. communions. Practical T. has as its aim theological reflection on the “practical” tasks of the church: preaching, education, the care of souls, the structure of church life, worship, and the like. Biblical T. may be regarded as in a sense a type of historical T., but because the study of the Bible has always had a normative significance in Protestantism it is regarded as a special field.²

Various clarifications emerge. One, the definition has to do with the academic curriculum and, therefore, disciplinary specialization. Two, a particular kind of organization characterizes the discipline. Three, it entails a concern with theological “problems.” Four, it is more or less synonymous with “dogmatic” theology (dogma = doctrine = teaching) but distinct from the study of historical dogma.

New and Enlarged Handbook of Christian Theology:

Systematic theology is the intellectual discipline that seeks to express the content of a religious faith as a coherent body of propositions. In Christianity, faith is the response of the whole human person to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a response including will, emotions, and belief. Theology is narrower than faith and is concerned with belief as the intellectual and propositional element in faith.

. . . In defense of systematic theology, one could say that in all branches of study we make progress by relating items that had thitherto seemed unconnected. If behind Christian faith there lies the one great revelatory act of God in Christ, then all the several doctrines of Christianity belong together and receive mutual support and illumination from one another.³

The kind of organization at issue in systematic theology is here portrayed as “a coherent body of propositions” in which Christian doctrines are interrelated. The word proposition represents an internal debate about the nature of theological truth claims and signals the evangelical bent of this volume, but we needn’t get into those weeds. In any case, the significance of systematic is a little clearer. A theological system is an account of the relationships between the various elements of intellectual understanding that arise from faith. For example, if I say X about God and Y about the nature of humanity, then how do these ideas hold together in Z about the doctrine of the incarnation? The point of addressing problems systematically, then, is what we might call theological coherence.

Essential Theological Terms:

Theology  The etymology of the word indicates that it refers to a discourse or a study of God (or of the gods). In classical Greece, the poets came to be called “theologians,” because they spoke of the gods. In the early church, speech about God was sometimes called “theology.” In may of the writings of the first five centuries of Christianity, “theology” is a discipline that leads the *soul to the contemplation of the divine. In this sense, a “theologian” is a *mystic. However, already by the time of Augustine (354–430) we find the use of the term as referring to the discipline that speaks about God. For Augustine, and for most writers in the new few centuries, “theology” did not deal with the entire corpus of Christian doctrine, but only with God, just as *ecclesiology is reflection and teaching about the church, and *Christology is reflection and teaching about Christ. 

It was mostly *scholasticism that began using the term “theology” to refer to the entire corpus of Christian doctrine, and eventually to reflection about it. It is in this sense that it is most commonly employed in the latter part of the Middle Ages and until this day.

As to the purpose and method of theology, there has been much debate. For some, the purpose of theology is to discover truths about God and about life that one can attain by the sole use of reason (see *Reason and Faith)—and sometimes of experience. For others, theology has an apologetic purpose, trying to convince those who do not believe—or, in a variant of this position, at least trying to tear down the intellectual barriers to belief. Another position holds that theology is an intellectual exercise whereby the faithful come to understand better what they already believe, and that therefore theology, rather than seeking new truths, rejoices in discovering the depths of the truths already believed. For still others, theology is the systematization of Christian doctrine on the basis of Scripture—and, in a variation of this position, of Scripture and tradition. Many contemporary theologians argue that at least one of the functions of theology is to relate the Christian message to the historical situations in which people live—thus dealing, for instance, with sexist, racist, or class oppression. Finally, some hold that the task of theology is to critique the life and proclamation of the church in the light of the gospel.⁴

This entry addresses theology broadly and specifies the typical sources of the systematic approach as Scripture and tradition (i.e., historical theology). Though reductive, it highlights a few important points. One is the differentiation between theology as discourse about God in distinction from other topics (“theology proper”) and discourse about the entire corpus of Christian doctrine. Systematic theology refers to the latter. Two, the presumed purpose of theology may vary; one’s reasons for systematizing doctrine are not a given because the presumed “problems” are diverse. Three, the relationship between faith and the theological disciplines is an open question. The practice of theological reflection ranges in character from essentially mystical to merely intellectual.

I’ll conclude this section on basics with a definition of my own. Systematic theology is the practice of reflection on Christian doctrine (biblical and historical) that seeks to understand each part in relation to the whole in order to offer a coherent account of faith in Jesus Christ in the social context of the practice. In short, it is the holistic, contextual study of Christian doctrine.

A Closer Look at Systematic Theology

For a fuller definition, it’s helpful to consider systematic theology from a few other angles: topical organization, disciplinary specialization, and methodological variety. 

Classical Loci of Systematic Theology

Since the 1500s, the Latin word loci (locations or places) has been the traditional term for the list of topics that systematic theology typically addresses. There is no official list, and it varies markedly between Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as between Protestant traditions and from theologian to theologian. Still, there is enough commonality through the centuries to depict a representative (admittedly Protestant) version of the list: 

1. Prolegomena (Preliminary Matters)

   1. Theological Method (Sources, Commitments, Assumptions)

   2. The Doctrine of Scripture

   3. Hermeneutics (Interpretive Theory)

2. Theology Proper (The Doctrine of God)

   1. Creation (Creator-Creation Distinction, Purposes)

   2. Divine Character (Holiness, Love, Justice)

   3. Providence (Sovereignty, Freedom, Suffering)

   4. Doctrine of the Trinity (some relocate Christology and pneumatology here)

3. Anthropology (The Doctrine of Humanity)

   1. Vocation (Purpose, Freedom, Responsibility)

   2. Hamartiology (The Doctrine of Sin, Evil)

   3. Society (Culture, Government, Family, Sexuality)

4. Christology (The Doctrine of Christ)

   1. Incarnation (Humanity and Divinity, Trinitarian Doctrine)

   2. Life and Ministry (Revelation, Kingdom of God)

   3. Crucifixion and Resurrection (Connections to Soteriology)

   4. Ascencion and Reign (Connections to Eschatology)

5. Soteriology (The Doctrine of Salvation)

   1. Plan of Salvation (Covenants, OT Redemption)

   2. Atonement (Forgiveness, Reconciliation, Restoration)

   3. Sanctification (Moral Transformation, Maturity, Perfection)

   4. Glorification (Connections to Eschatology)

6. Pneumatology (The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit)

   1. The Spirit in Trinitarian Doctrine

   2. The Presence of God

   3. Life in the Spirit (Relationship, Gifts, Fruit)

7. Ecclesiology (The Doctrine of the Church)

   1. Discipleship

   2. Community

   3. Leadership

   4. Sacraments

   5. Mission

8. Eschatology (The Doctrine of Last Things)

   1. Kingdom of God (Already/Not Yet)

   2. Resurrection and Judgement

   3. New Creation, Heaven and Hell

This a very sketchy rendition. The parentheticals are representative of the kinds of subtopics in view but far from comprehensive, and the outline could be vastly more detailed. Moreover, there are some topics obviously missing. Angelology and demonology often get included, and how one deals with Israel is a major variable (which I’ll address more below).

There is a genre of books also called systematic theology. These may be single- or multi-volume works, but their tables of contents generally look like a list of loci. In other words, this topical approach to theology is the common organizational structure from those who undertake to write “a systematic theology” that holds all of these doctrines together. At the same time, theologians commonly write on a single locus or subtopic (for example, the incarnation or the theology of justification). What sets such work apart is not that it is topical but its methodological distinctiveness. I’ll briefly explain this distinctiveness by contrast with the other theological disciplines and then discuss a major variation.

The Modern “Theological Encyclopedia”

As the theological academy emerged from the late Middle Ages, more defined areas of study took shape. A four-fold division developed: biblical (or exegetical) theology, historical theology, systematic (or dogmatic) theology, and practical theology. This schema is known as the theological encyclopedia. Variations exist, but this is the structure that has essentially endured and shaped seminaries for two hundred years. From it, ever greater specialization grew. With specialization came separate departments within seminaries and schools and, ultimately, distinctive understandings of the work at hand.

The modern scientific revolution exacerbated these separations. Monumental cultural forces reshaped the theological academy’s approach to validating knowledge. Among the most consequential shifts was the enthronement of objectivity and, conversely, the suspicion of subjective religious commitments. Biblical and historical theology became increasingly committed to scientific and historical methods of inquiry and saw systematic and practical theology as beholden to the church. In turn, systematic and practical theology looked at biblical and historical theology as beholden to a modernist agenda.

These movements have been rehearsed many times, and to some extent, they are caricatures. There were, of course, many rebels and gadflies in the mix. But the disciplinary divides are all too real and consequential, even as postmodernity has occasioned efforts to mend the fragmented theological enterprise. A major upshot of this fragmentation is radically different methods. Given the importance of Scripture for both biblical and systematic theology, characterizing the methodological difference between the two regarding biblical interpretation will help define systematic theology.

Biblical theology takes a dim view of systematic theology’s topical imposition of structure. Instead, it seeks to draw out the Bible’s own theology according to its internal structure and emphases. Hence, a standing critique of systematic theology is its tendency to subdue the importance of Israel and, in general, pay too little attention to the biblical text itself. Sadly, there is a great deal of evidence to justify the claim. Many volumes of systematic theology evince little if any serious interpretive engagement with Scripture. And it is fair to note that any topical approach to interpretation will screen out some things and accentuate others. Moreover, many biblical theologians like to point out that Scripture’s diversity and historical particularity resist the tidy, comprehensive systematization of theology. Better to let Scripture have its say “on its own terms” even (and maybe especially!) when it does not fit a preconceived dogmatic agenda.

In turn, systematic theology looks askance at biblical theology’s tendency to ignore or even reject the implications of the church’s faith for understanding Scripture. Again, the evidence warrants the criticism. A majority of biblical scholarship in the last hundred years has treated the biblical text like an artifact to be analyzed historically with little to no regard for the theological coherence of its findings, much less the input of a theologically committed reading. On the one hand, this created a stark division of labor according to which biblical theology was concerned solely with what the text “meant,” leaving what it “means” for the theologians. I experienced this attitude in the course of my theological education, even among faithful, church-going biblical scholars. The story of the seminary graduate who is baffled by the need to preach about the significance of his exegetical findings is bizarrely common. On the other hand, the dominance of historical-critical methods of exegesis created only the illusion of objectivity, replacing the theological commitments of the church with presuppositions that are inhospitable to essential tenets of Christian faith.

These broad strokes only scratch the surface of the methodological differences that distinguish biblical and systematic theology. But for those unfamiliar with the terminology, the discussion should help to clarify what systematic theology is about, particularly in relation to the conversations I’ve had on the podcast as a systematician focused on biblical interpretation. These days, there is a lot of work aiming to redress the deficiencies that have arisen from these disciplinary divides. And even within the field of systematic theology, methodological shifts have given rise to diverse, innovative approaches that don’t map well onto the old topical structure.

Narrative Theology

It would be futile to attempt a representative summary of theological methods in the space I have here. Instead, I’ll focus on narrative theology, which represents a double-edged critique of the split between biblical and systematic theology. 

Cutting one direction, it seeks to recover the theological unity of Scripture by centering the plot of the biblical story. This is a response to the dissection of the canon into discrete historical artifacts whose excavated meaning has no inherent theological connection to the rest of the Bible. Instead, narrative theology understands the story to provide the theological coherence by which to understand every part of Scripture. 

Cutting in the other direction, it seeks to establish the coherence of Christian doctrine by demonstrating its narrative logic. This is a response to the organization of theological understanding according to an imposed propositional coherence that depends on external categories and concerns. Instead, narrative theology provides a comprehensive view of reality according to the story of God’s purposes in Christ manifest through the power of the Holy Spirit.

To conclude, a couple of caveats are due. First, many would argue that narrative theology is not a single method but a set of approaches to biblical interpretation and theological discourse. Its rapid development since the 1970s has certainly involved diverse perspectives. But any method we might identify contains just as much diversity. In my view, there is enough consistency among major exponents of narrative theology to treat it as a rich, dynamic method. 

Second, many would argue that part of what narrative theology redresses is the pretension of establishing “a” system. Systems, they contend, are another expression of the modern worldview that presumes to attain totalizing knowledge. Strangely, greater attention to systems has simultaneously emerged in postmodernity (e.g., family systems, systemic injustice). Moreover, I’m personally unimpressed with the critique because the ancient conception of theology as the study of “all things in relation to God” is premodern, and the pursuit of a coherent understanding of every truth claim we might make is not necessarily subject to totalizing ambition. So I continue to describe my field as systematic theology. Nonetheless, the leading alternative, constructive theology, is also a useful descriptor.

1. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “systematic theology,” accessed February 23, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systematic%20theology.

2. Van A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms (New York: Touchstone, 1964), 240–41; bold added.

3. John Macquarrie, “Systematic Theology,” in New and Englarged Handbook of Christian Theology, ed. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 492; bold added.

4. Justo L. González, Essential Theological Terms (Lousiville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 170; bold added.