Also, I think pastorally systematic theology (and many other attempts to try and over-rationalise the divine) poses many other problems – one thing we find in life is that we are constantly surprised at the exceptions there are to every rule in human beings, which is a level of nuance that ultimately the Bible often seems not to account for at least at face value. Take for example the question of divorce. Were one to do a theological exposition of it, we would end up with a picture something along the lines of divorce is wrong except on grounds of adultery. How does that then transfer into a situation where someone has been abused in marriage? Or to a situation of forced marriage? Obviously, as Christians, very few of us would say in either situation that people should stay within the boundaries of marriage – but it is a situation where we have to learn to listen to the cadences and melody of the Bible as opposed to the strict details.

With regards to changes in theology – I guess changes in theology generally come about by experiencing of new phenomenon. The theologian Timothy Tennant argues that when boundaries are crossed, especially in mission, in brings about the need for new theologies and re-appraisals of our beliefs about God. Examples of this include things like the reappraisal of the theology of slavery (which was heavily supported by Biblical Christians 200 years ago), the role and rights of women both in society and in the church, the nature of patriotism and war. New theologies are still going on today – an engagement with and listening from culture means we are formulating new theologies of environmental stewardship or sexuality etc.

I guess this is also what was happening in the Bible itself. The Old Testament law lays down a certain set of requirements for people to be included as members of Israel. Then later on in the Old Testament, for example Isaiah 56 – 65, these requirements get altered, reinterpreted and extended. Then again, Jesus comes along and has another take on what it is to be part of God’s people – and then Paul again. The Bible itself just seems to be too pluralistic for any sort of broad brush theology based upon individual passages to work. It seems more thematic in its approach rather than modernist systematic – and I think there is the risk we almost become unBiblical in our attempts to try and categorise things into nice neet boxes.

Anyway, that’s my random thoughts

I agree with you insomuch as to say that systematic theology alone is unable to reveal to us the true wonder and majesty of God – he is indeed personal, and although an understanding of his character could be reached from a systematic theology alone it wouldn’t actually lead us to a relationship with God. That’s why Bible teaching should, for the greatest part, be based on Bible passages, not Bible themes – it is more helpful, generally speaking, to study the whole of one of Paul’s letters rather than to skip through several of his letters.

That said, I think there definitely is still a place for systematic theology, and it cannot be dismissed as a discipline altogether. We read the Bible as a narrative to learn about God and his character – that is definite. But say you wanted to study for yourself (or teach someone else, for that matter) the theology of prayer, or the doctrine of the Trinity; a Biblical/narrative theology wouldn’t be so helpful here, especially for doctrines such as the Trinity which aren’t expressly mentioned in Scripture but which can be clearly deduced from it.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that we have to be ‘prepared to form new theologies’ as a result of holding a Biblical theology, however. The Bible is the Bible, and its words remain the same – what would lead us to a change of theology?
Questions of sexuality and so forth cannot be answered solely with Biblical theology, because the detail would get lost in the narrative. If we are concerned to come to a Christian conclusion on whatever topic is at hand then our first method if investigation must be to explore what the Bible says on the matter. We may use reason to help us understand the text (as we do when we study narrative), and we should certainly examine the context from which each of our verses have been taken (as we would hopefully do when studying a narrative), but surely the foundation must be the Bible itself – any other foundation is invariably tinged with sin, because it stems from the human heart and not God.

I may sound like I’m rambling, but if I was to write a one sentence report of all that I’d like it to go like this: Systematic theology is not totally invalid as a theological discipline, and has an important role in helping Christians to understand what they believe, but it is improper to extol systematic theology to the extent of ignoring the narrative quality of the texts we have inherited.

Love you x