Why is good theology so important? Because it protects us from bad theology. How do we know if our theology is good or bad? The early Church Fathers (some) employed what Irenaeus called theΒ regula fideiΒ or ‘Rule of Faith’. Thomas Torrance 
and others have reappropriated this in a very fine and nuanced way (which is the way I am thinking of it). The rule of faith then understands all of reality and all of interpretive reality (i.e. of scripture) through a christological lens. Insofar as our theologies understand the depth dimension of scripture, in principled ways, as Jesus Christ; then I would suggest that this is the standard by which we can adjudicate whether or not we have good theology or bad. And as the direct and central corollary, is that of course, if we have an understanding that is properly christological, then we will also have an understanding that is also Trinitarian of who God is, proper. This will drive the way we engage scripture, church, fellowship, ethics and everything else.
My concern is this is far far from the present reality in most of American (and Western) Evangelical theology today. We have a mish-mash of American pietism that has us so self absorbed and introspectively focused that we can’t make head or tails of our own navels from Christ’s. And then we end up projecting this kind of image of Christ onto the way that we interpret scripture, do church, fellowship, ethics and everything else; with the effect that we have traded worshipping the true, free, and sovereign Lord for an image of him that we have made in our own image and named him or that or us God (this is how I understand what Paul is getting at in Romans 1).
This has real life consequences; which is why I am writing this rather reflective post right now. If we are pietistic enough, if we are anti-intellectual enough, if we are emotionally driven enough; we can end up taking this god of our own making (who we believe represents the true God), and use him or that to justify decisions we make and actions we take in a way that makes us ‘feel’ like we offering worship unto God. When in fact we are only really worshipping ourselves (or the God we have fashioned in our own image). I don’t think we realize how subtle this can happen, and it can happen to all of us. That’s why Paul warns the Ephesians of the kind of spiritual battle they are involved in on a moment by moment basis (which is why, for one thing, they are supposed to be praying to God with all kinds of prayers). We need to maintain a sober posture, with the realization that the enemy of our souls–who prowls around like a roaring lion–studies our every move. The good news is, is that he studied Jesus’ every move as well, and yet Jesus withstood him (through the Spirit and scripture, cf. Mt. 4), ultimately making a public spectacle of him at the cross.
So the point then isn’t to worry so much about ourselves, and look to ourselves to try and figure out what our weaknesses might be. The point is that we need to be consumed by and devoted to the one we are in union with by the Spirit; we need to be consumed by our head, Jesus Christ. We need to go to him and be saturated by and through him if we hope to live victorious Christian lives (in him, he is the Victor!). We need to look at him, because our flesh (sin nature) is easily deceived (and often times in the most subtle of ways … which is my point above, i.e. that we can end up making God in our own image [the sin of natural theology] instead of understanding that we have been recreated and resurrected in and through his own image in Christ).
So good theology, ultimately will point you to Christ in a certain way. In a way that recognizes that Jesus Christ is truly sovereignly free in himself to be who he is for us in a way that reflects his true love as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Bad theology causes you to make God in your own image; even if it is done so with good intentions and holy regard. Our mode or posture ought to be one, then, of vigilance Β like a good soldier who doesn’t entangle himself with the affairs of this world–but stays on mission.
And I would say one other contributing factor to bad theology among prots would be solo scriptura. I talk to people all the time who ‘only read the bible’ and everyone else who doesn’t just screws it up. Trying to convince them that no one actually ‘only reads the bible’ seems impossible sometimes. I was just having a conversation about this yesterday, the guy would read a text and then feel the need to explain it to me :/ though supposedly all I really needed to do was just read it for myself, but even he knew that wasn’t really good enough because we didnt agree. Of course even within scripture their are warnings of hard things to understand which people will twist, thats why I agree that we must go back to the fathers as Torrance does in order to see how they interpreted it, and of course we find out it was Christocentric, and this position helps to make the scriptures clear, that has been the proof to me.
Cody,
I agree with you. It is exceedingly hard to make people realize that we all do theological exegesis, when they have been conditioned to think that they “just” read the Bible all by themselves with the Spirit. But then, that is not to say that we don’t have a subjective encounter with Jesus Christ by the Spirit as we read Scripture; I surely believe we do. I also believe that the Spirit ministers Christ life to us in applied and particular ways as we read the scriptures; but I believe that this application, even in our personal lives, is really placing us into a mind-set and trajectory that is to benefit the whole body of Christ of which we are a part.
I agree that we need to go back to the ‘Fathers’, but then I also believe that the Fathers are subject to modification and correction as they and their councils etc. were also subordinate to Scripture. As we both know, the “Fathers” did not speak with unanimity in their interpretation of scripture; indeed we see as much strife and wrangling amongst them as we do amongst contemporary theologians and exegetes. I think the one motif, though, that is dominate in the Fathers thinking is the centrality that a proper doctrine of God and christology have on everything else. They also reflect a commitment to theological/christological exgesis that I, like you, believe should serve as THE paradigm through which we construct a hermeneutic today. I just don’t want to absolutize the “Fathers” in a way that places them on par with Scripture; after all I am still Reformed and Protestant π .
I understand your reserve, but even TFT called himself an Athanasian. While I agree with you that there were some variance among certain ‘fathers’ I really like Torrance’s approach to putting more emphasis on those who were responsible for nicene theology, for the theology behind the niceno-constantinopolitan creed, such as Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc, and then to those who followed in their steps. I don’t think after all that arianism is still a viable option open for concideration do you? I agree with TFT that the Nicene creed is The eccumenical creed and should be foundational for our lense by which we interpret the Scriptures, and therefore those theologians who contributed most to the theology behind those formulations, of course I still hold scripture high as the litmus test, but then again if I’m saying something so new that I dont find it an any of the fathers then that should I think give some cause for doubting what I have come to.
Cody,
In principle I don’t disagree with you; I just think there is more nuance available in the history than TFT offers in say his Trinitarian Faith. I don’t think it contradicts, per se, what TFT has offered; but I still see more of a dialectic between the creeds and scripture. Anyway, I prefer not to absolutize the creeds, but hold them with relative grasp. But of course, Arianism is dead! But to notice that has to do with the theological argumentation and conceptuality V. its chronological location (again, this is why I am not interested in absolutizing this period as the ‘Orthodox’ do).