Interview No.4: Not so systematic questions to a systematician

My friend John gets paid to help people think well about God.

Before he became a full-time lecturer in theology at the Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney, he was the pastor of a country church. He's married with kids, and has broad interests in theology, biblical exegesis, careful reading of culture, and train travel between the Blue Mountains and Sydney.

We caught up recently to discuss the interplay of faith and work, and John agreed to submit himself to the same gruelling interview process as Jordan, Dave and Erika before him.

With John wired up and strapped in, we embark on our journey ...

Celebrating Design: There is a lot of talk around which speaks of 'good theology' and 'bad theology'. What's the difference between the two?

John: That's a hard question. Maybe I can tell you what I think is good theology and simply say that bad theology fails to be good in some substantial way. Take a deep breath and here we go.

Good theology is about God and about the God who reveals and redeems through the Lord Jesus; so it is also grounded in scripture and not just with a few supporting texts but with a constant engagement with the big story of scripture with its focus in the work of Christ.

Scripture must be normative for good theology, and it must be read carefully. Good theology seeks to lay out the the conceptual coherence of the message of scripture and to deal with the challenges and questions of the past and the present.

So there is an important place for a humble use of reason. Good theology is aware of the thinking and confessions of the church of the past, and treats the doctrinal traditions of orthodox Christianity with great respect, without allowing them to supplant the norm of scripture.

Good theology is contextual. It does not pretend that theology happens in some abstract realm, rather it speaks to the church set in the world. Good theology is not afraid to disagree with people, but it seeks to understand people sympathetically before it is critical.

CD: There is a way of thinking which says theology is the enemy of creativity and original (or independent) thinking. As a theologian, how do you respond to that?

J: I happy to own the view in many ways! I think theology is properly constrained - primarily by scripture, but also by the creeds of the church and the demands of love, and by a proper humility about the secret things of God.

Unrestrained free thinking sounds like an Enlightenment virtue not a theological virtue. A true theologian is never independent but is consciously dependent on God and on the people of God.

Having said that, there is a place for doing our own thinking in theology. I am specially interested in 'constructive' theology, which is not simply a rehearsal of bible verses or past theological positions, nor is it polemical (pointing out why other people have it wrong); rather it tries to find ways of talking about God and his ways with us which are based in scripture and answer the questions and meet the challenges of our context.

As we do that we often find new ways of explaining scripture and reach new insights. For instance the last few centuries have challenged a traditional understanding of metaphysics (the philosophical description of 'reality'). Some theology has responded to that by capitulating and developing 'theology' which can not talk about miracles or God's speech (and sometime can't even speak of a personal transcendent God).

The theology that I think is interesting faces the challenge head on and is ready to see if there are things we've missed in scripture and if we can find better ways to think and talk about God.

CD: You spend a considerable amount of time helping students come to grips with 'systematic theology'. What actually is systematic theology? What is 'systematic' about it as opposed to other ways of exploring theology?

J: All theology is (should be) normed by Scripture. Systematic theology has two particular interests.

Its internal interest is conceptual coherence. That is it is concerned to say how Christian belief and teaching "makes sense". Making sense is not the same (at all) as imposing an alien logic.

The other interest is the systematic seeks to relate Christian belief and teaching to important questions which may not come from the Bible itself; some of these are questions of the past, others are from the present church and world. That is systematics concerned with context.

CD: How does a good understanding of systematic theology affect our views of design and aesthetics?

J: Probably not enough! I don't think that theology (especially reformed theology) has been associated with beauty. However there is an intimate connection between the true and the good and the beautiful. If systematics seeks to witness to the truth of the God, who is the Good, then it should teach us about beauty.

I know that theologians are thinking more about this currently, and I am very aware that I need to think about it more. Can you ask me again in a decade or so?

CD: Ethics is also a field of interest to you. What gives an ethical system consistency and the capacity to be acted upon confidently?

J: I wonder if 'consistency' is the most important virtue - at least it depends on what you mean by consistency. I'd say that I want an approach to ethics which: addresses 'living' not just difficult cases and the small list of 'standard' issues; is committed to the norm of scripture; is sensitive to the different ways in which the Bible shapes how we live specially the Biblical presentation of God and the history of salvation; deals with duties, virtues and consequences and is aware of the need to understand context in ethical reflection. Seems like a big list doesn't it!

CD: Among your students you seem to have a reputation for being a broad, interdisciplinary thinker. What are the influences that have made you the theologian you are (with the inherent strengths and weaknesses that go with that)?

J: Hard to say what has influenced me. I grew up in a Christian home in which education was valued and we talked about all sorts of things. Growing up I thought about being an architect (not sure how I got to that given my lack of dexterity with a pen), a journalist, a politician and a research scientist. I almost became a doctor heading for research, but finished with a science degree into which I put some philosophy.

During my uni years I benefitted from Phillip Jensen's preaching, and he is very much an expository preacher but with a good theological basis and wide range of applications.

My undergraduate theology at Moore gave me lots of depth in Biblical Studies, but I think I am naturally more of a conceptual thinker so gravitated to systematics.

I've been a pastor for seven years before I moved to PTC. I have been working on a PhD on Wolfhart Pannenberg who is committed to theology interacting with all areas of human study. I think all those influences probably make me want to be inter-disciplinary.

I do think that theology should be developed in interaction with its social and cultural context and that gives me permission to think about all sorts of things. It's a great job.