As with all things in life, our approach to theology will be flavoured in degrees we don’t even recognise by the whims of fashion and our personal preferences and bias. By nature, some people are just more systematic than others. This isn’t entirely consistent though: witness this blog, on which biblical theology fan Andrew Wilson invariably writes highly systematic posts containing lists, points, and sub-points, whereas my posts are more ‘narrative’ in form. However, as this is a post about systematics, I will do as Andrew does and enumerate my points.

1. Systematic theology is to be defended because it is easier to grasp than biblical theology
One of the problems with biblical theology is that it is not always clear exactly how it should be defined. I take ‘biblical theology’ to mean having ‘an overarching understanding of the storyline of scripture, and interpreting any given passage of scripture in light of that story’. I think this definition is fairly clear (and it is the approach I generally employ in my preaching) but systematics is arguably easier to grasp: ‘What does the Bible say about X, Y or Z?’

2. Systematic theology is to be defended because it is the method by which many of us first gained clarity about many important areas of theology
Wayne Grudem isn’t very in vogue at the moment – certainly, he is not one of the names that appears too often on this blog. I fear we have become rather too sophisticated for him, and his particular brand of right-wing American evangelicalism. Grudem isn’t one of the theology-cool-kids, but 19 years ago when I was just beginning full-time church work and read his Systematic Theology cover to cover I was profoundly helped in my understanding of a wide range of theological issues. Systematics hasn’t stunted my appreciation of the biblical narrative, but clarified and enriched it.

3. Systematic theology is to be defended in the face of overly-systematic biblical theologians
It is an irony frequently observed that some of the most ardent proponents of biblical theology are utterly dogmatic in the advance of their system. This can be true at the academic level and also at the more practical. I have had conversations with fans of Chronological Bible Storying (a method of Bible teaching especially helpful in oral cultures) whose systematic zeal for their method over and against systematic theology is quite staggering. I am naturally suspicious of such dogmatism.

4. Systematic theology is to be defended because biblical theology tends to miss out the middle
I appreciate that responsible biblical theologians would not fall into this trap but there can be (at least at the popular level) a the tendency to jump from ‘in the beginning’ to ‘they all lived happily after’ without sufficient attention being given to what happens in-between. In this case, biblical theology quickly becomes trajectory theology: farewell, Rob Bell. Systematic theology helps us avoid this pitfall by considering as many aspects of the faith as possible in considerable depth, and making the connections between them.

5. Systematic theology is to be defended because it helps us understand Christian ethics
As Barth famously put it, “Dogmatics itself is ethics; and ethics is also dogmatics.” The task of Christian ethics is to describe human action called forth by the reality of the action of God and this means we need to understand and describe the action of God. We can only know what is good by looking at God and systematics helps us do this. For example, in the current debates about same-sex marriage, it is helpful to have a biblical theological overview of the nature, purpose and destiny of humanity, but without a systematic understanding of what the Bible says about marriage, sex and reproduction I think it is hard to construct a clear case. Systematics helps us to be clear about what is ethically orthodox in a way biblical theology can’t.

6. Systematic theology is to be defended because it is an ally, not an enemy, of biblical theology
On a recent visit to the USA it was terrifically helpful in showing people where I live to be able to open up Google Earth and within a few seconds go from a global view, to a view of the UK, to a view of my house on the south coast of England. This is the kind of context provided by biblical theology. The trouble is, if all I had was a Google Earth view of the UK and told an American friend to navigate her way from Heathrow airport to my house, she probably wouldn’t get very far. Much more helpful would be a detailed map, and this is what systematic theology provides. The best example of this is the London Underground map – a map that bears only passing relationship to geographical reality but is brilliantly helpful in working out how to navigate the capital. Ideally, in finding my way around I want both Google Earth and the map of the Underground: I want biblical theology and systematic theology.