While my theological epistemology is multifaceted and nuanced, I will outline a brief account of how I form theology.

1. Whilst we are all subjective humans like everyone else, this does not mean we cannot know Truth

From the outset, I recognise that I am not an objective, neutral theological thinker. I enter life already formed by cultural languages, symbols, metaphors, and practices—and I can therefore interact with reality only through the lens of my upbringing and social location. This lens, often called a worldview or social imaginary, structures my experience and shapes how I perceive and interpret everything around me. To put it another way, no human being is born outside a world of ideas, assumptions, and practices. Even if we are not aware of it, we are like fish swimming in the waters of ideology, ethics, and cultural meaning. The patterns of thought, habits, and philosophies of the society we are born into seep into us from the very beginning. As the old saying goes, if you ask a fish about water, it will turn and wonder, “what is water?”. In other words, the world we are born into—our habits of thinking, our inherited philosophies, and our shared cultural assumptions—provides a frame of reference. However, this does not need to define or limit theological truth. Theological formation begins where we are, allowing Christ to meet us in our ordinary, familiar world, transforming it from within, and shaping our questions, understanding, and engagement with reality. In fact, this is what Jesus does. For example, Him saying “The kingdom is like yeast in dough” or “like treasure in a field” to bakers and farmers is Him drawing on the textures of their everyday lives, the kneading of dough, the smell of yeast rising, stumbling over rocky ground— so the kingdom became imaginable precisely because it is anchored in people’s ordinary experience. Yet those familiar images, sounds, tastes, sense of space, shared stories, everyday language, and traditions were turned upside down, opening space to imagine something new and to perceive a truth I had not seen before—a bit like how Jesus, in the parable of the hidden treasure, takes the everyday experience of a field and a man buying land, and then subverts expectations: the treasure is hidden, requiring sacrifice and a radical reorientation of life, revealing a value far greater than what is immediately apparent. In the same way, I recognise that I can only do theology within my own familiar symbols, habits, and frameworks, and yet this does not leave me without the ability to do theology. Rather, I can subvert those forms in Christlike ways so that the ultimate truth can be revealed. With this acknowledged, let us unpack how I form theology that I believe makes most sense of how the Biblical authors themselves – in particular Paul – does theology, and therefore how we all ought to do theology.

2. Truth has come close, therefore we subjective humans can know truth, though in humility and appropriate confidence

I begin with the well-argued assumption that the four biographical accounts of Jesus’ life—the Gospels—are trustworthy as collected eyewitness testimonies. This does not mean that the Gospels function like modern video recordings; ancient biographies do not work that way. Instead, they are carefully collected accounts, compiled to tell the story of Jesus, with each one addressing a particular audience. This explains why each Gospel has its own “flavour,” a unique arrangement of events, and slight variations in details. However, the core events remain consistent, providing us with a reliable portrayal of Jesus’ personality, actions, and message. These accounts give us a window into what Jesus believed about the world, ethics, and the good life. Nonetheless, there is a degree of humility in this approach, as we are working with secondhand knowledge. When we speak of Jesus — who is the embodiment of truth — we do so as one who trust that the Gospel writers, who recorded His words and actions, are closer to the truth than what we are from our vantage point, 2000 years later. This doesn’t equate the Gospel witnesses with Jesus Himself, but it places their accounts closer to the original source. In these accounts, it’s clear that Jesus is depicted as the embodiment of God. To listen to and observe these depictions then, is to encounter God’s personality, actions, and message. Through Jesus, we begin to gain some insight into God’s perspective on reality. However, this doesn’t mean we suddenly possess God’s “bird’s eye view” or become objective. We remain subjective creatures. Yet what we do gain is a subjective-yet-genuine understanding of our place, purpose, and value in the cosmos— discovered vicariously through our relationship with the Incarnate God as bracketed in scripture and experienced in our encounters with Jesus Himself. This ‘knowing’ is relational, acknowledging the reality of the Other (God) as truly Other, while recognising that our access to this reality, though limited, can grow closer between the knower and the known. In this way, the incarnation of God in Jesus offers us both humility and confidence. Humility, because as subjective creatures, we cannot fully understand Jesus. Yet confidence, because through Jesus’ life, words and close proximity, we are granted a vicarious understanding of humanity from a divine perspective. The fullness of God is revealed in Jesus, but I wouldn’t claim to plumb the depths of that infinite fullness. Likewise, whatever we discover about Jesus in our personal relationship with Him cannot contradict what is made clear in Jesus’ life and teaching as seen in the gospels. There may be more to know, but it doesn’t supersede what we already see in Jesus.

When it comes to topics Jesus spoke on, some topics allow for more metaphysical speculation than others. The gulf between our time and Jesus’ time, and the limited details Jesus provided on certain issues, requires us to tread carefully. As a rule, the less concrete and grounded a metaphysical claim is, the more flexible we can be in our thinking; conversely, the more concrete and grounded a claim is, the less flexible we can be. For example, eschatology. Jesus affirms a belief in resurrection and judgment and in His own bodily resurrection, accession, and promised return – this offers us a concrete and grounded truth about the future – there will be a resurrection, judgement, and a New Creation. Yet where there might be appropriate speculation are on things He didn’t touch on. For example, He doesn’t delve into the specifics of what this new cosmos—particularly if there are aliens or the implications for the New Creation if we become a multi-planetary species. On this, we have more room for speculation. Another is demonology. Jesus clearly speaks on and interacts directly with an evil being called the Devil & Demons, but He offers no detailed explanation of their origins or exact nature. Here, we might cautiously speculate about the origins of the Devil and demons, without being too dogmatic about knowing exactly what the Devil is like, yet all the while affirming the reality of a personified evil called the Devil as part of Jesus’ worldview.

3. Jesus, who is the Truth, also truthfully informs us how to be informed by Scripture in forming theology

However, forming theology is not just looking at Jesus. He is our starting point and brackets out anything that would contradict Him, however, beyond Jesus, how does the rest of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Old Testament) and the remaining New Testament canon come into play in theological formation? Overall, in the gospels, Jesus Himself affirms the overall meta-narrative of the Old and New Testament. He does this by pulling the Old Testament into Himself. Likewise, His ascension and promise to return also shape our understanding of the world’s future. Also, Jesus affirms the presence of the Holy Spirit, continuing God’s work in the world between His ascension and return, which further clarifies the trajectory of the meta-narrative.

Specifically, for this first part of the meta-narrative, the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus holds both a binding and authoritative relationship with the Old Testament, while also offering its reinterpretation through His own life & teachings. Not once does He question the validity of the Hebrew Bible as scripture, but rather He affirms the Old Testament; the Old Testament Scriptures, He seems to suggest, point toward Him and are not to be disregarded, but rather seen as a story waiting to reach its climax in Him. He affirms the Old Testament prophetic narrative that a day of resurrection and judgment is coming, and through His own life, death, and resurrection, He embodies the fulfilment of the Old Testament scripture and promises. So we are called to engage with the Old Testament as both authoritative and pointing toward the fulfilment found in Jesus. This approach informs how we read these texts—reverently, yet always in light of Jesus’ life and teachings.

Jesus’ relationship with the New Testament letters is similarly instructive. The early writers of the New Testament understood their work as authoritative to some degree, though perhaps not on par with the Hebrew Scriptures. These letters, written by those who were closer to the events of Jesus’ life, are trusted for their proximity to the truth Incarnate. By the time of the third century, it became apparent that these writings needed to be canonised in order to establish a clear collection of texts. These New Testament letters and narratives model for us early theologising as they take the Old Testament scriptures, see them as fulfilled in Jesus, and then take the life, death, and resurrection, and the eventual return of Jesus as the bracket of events to work within as they then developed their inspired ethics and other topics within their pastoral writings.

Zooming into the Bible specifically then, this is where the relationship between theology and biblical scholarship meets: For if we are to understand how to theologise then we want to study scripture rightly. For example, we might need to learn what might of been Paul’s understanding of ‘the mind’ to help us interact with modern philosophies of consciousness. Or we might need to learn how to read Genesis through Hebraic eyes in order to have a robust conversation with scientist in exploring the tension between the Bible’s story of creation and the scientific story. We need to constantly ‘thicken’ our view of our theological meta-narrative, that is, the Bible rightly interpreted through Jesus, to then do the further theological reflection.

4. Pulling these threads together, we have Jesus, who is the Truth, giving us right instruction on how the entire Bible is to be seen, and therefore how to be used in forming theology

Given all of this, we now have an account of the meta-narrative of the cosmos that can help us discern how to theologise. The writers of the earliest letters take the Hebrew Scriptures as a story pointing to Jesus—His life, death, resurrection, ascension, and promised return—and weave them together to address ethical and theological concerns as they arise within the community. In doing so, they model a way of doing theology for us. They view the early Scriptures as a story that culminates in Jesus—with His life, death, and resurrection becoming the fulcrum point—and that then projects forward to New Creation. This framework gives these writers the freedom to reflect on the past, always fixated on Jesus, while keeping a keen eye on the future. It’s like discovering a new Shakespeare play that features William Shakespeare as a character, but with the final act missing, yet there are scribbled notes on how the play should end. Taking the early acts into account, you don’t repeat them when the missing act is performed, but you also don’t ignore either the character of William Shakespeare or the scribbled notes on the ending. Instead, you incorporate the story that has already been told, paying crucial attention to the fulcrum point of Shakespeare’s story arc, work towards the ending, which frees you to faithfully improvise as the final act is acted out towards its ends. In the same way, the writers of the New Testament ‘perform’ the final act in their own contexts as they address ethical and theological concerns in light of what they know about the overarching story of Scripture. Similarly, we do this when we address the ethical concerns of our own time & location, scripture-as-a-story-with-Jesus-front-and-centre as the framework through which we explore emerging topics.

Much has changed throughout history, and we’ve made many discoveries (though this certainly isn’t a posture towards history that sees the past as ‘outdated’, with us as ‘progressed’). The world now is vastly different from the first century (and even the Scriptures themselves might allow for some metaphysical speculation, as previously discussed). Therefore, as topics arise, I apply this framework of theological/ethical improvisation. It’s neither ‘anything goes,’ nor is it a rigid, formulaic approach to topics . Instead, we seek to discern what is right in light of the earlier ‘acts,’ climaxing in Jesus, while honouring the theology of the New Testament and working towards the goals of New Creation. Topics then become a conversation about how to be faithful in the here and now, but the conversation partners are not all on equal footing. Instead, It’s like the relationship between a parent and an adult child: the parent represents the meta-narrative, and the topic is like the adult child. The rich dialogue between them is mature, taking seriously the considerations of the other, with the meta-narrative leading, whilst seriously considering how topics from various disciplines (such as psychology, philosophy, politics, anthropology, science, and more) can help create a nuanced, deeper, and more refined understanding of the world in which we occupy as created and sustained by God.

5. Given that I stated that we can engage in other disciplines (yet like a parent to a child), how can this be?

As for the validity of engaging in dialogue with these other topics, we can recognise their theological value in light of a theology of truth that extends beyond the Christian faith (yet in ways that don’t ultimately contradict the faith). This theology of finding truth outside of the Christian realm is as follows:

1. Because humans are made in God’s image, we should not be surprised when elements of truth surface through human endeavour, even without explicit connection to God. Think of a child and their parent—this child will naturally express characteristics that reflect their parent, as they share the same DNA. Similarly, art, philosophy, culture, and even religions can reflect aspects of who God is, even if they make no direct reference to God, all stemming from humans’ deepest instincts as image-bearers. However, like a child who has rebelled against their parent, the truth expressed can be suppressed, needing to be brought back into alignment with God. This is where theologians can help cultivate and bring to completion the deepest instincts of these truths, while also purging the parts that have been corrupted by rebellion.
2. Because God created the world, certain empirical truths can be embedded in the very fabric of creation. By studying the created order, we can learn much, including insights about God and His relationship to the world. As such, wisdom can be gleaned from disciplines like psychology, philosophy, biology, science, anthropology, and more, which can complement theological reflection. However, God’s creation carries a mystery, a raw energy, and a wildness that must not be overlooked. To observe creation and assume it is inherently good without understanding its complexity is naive. Furthermore, it’s important to differentiate between raw data of studies and the interpretation of said raw data — sometimes we too quickly conflate the two. Theologians can offer humility in reckoning with the untamed nature of God’s creation and provide an interpretive grid that is theological, fostering data interpretation in Christlike ways.
3. Because God desires to redeem all things, the work of the Holy Spirit implicitly draws out what is of God and can be redeemed toward Christlike ways. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find God at work in places we didn’t expect—whether in other religions, cultures, movements, or even in the complexity of people’s lives. However, human rebellion leads us astray, so theologians must partner with the Spirit’s work more explicitly, supporting the Spirit’s actions in order to draw people towards the direction Jesus.
4. Because of Christ’s work and the ongoing work of the Spirit across culture, we shouldn’t be surprised when people do good, as the Christian revolution has subtly influenced public thought—think of concepts like humility, human rights, or institutions like public hospitals and schools, all of which were pioneered by Christianity. However, without God, these concepts and institutions can lose their grounding in Christ, ethics ‘gone wild’, leading to serious distortions of these concepts and institutions, which is why theologians are needed to help reframe and centre them back to the ways of Jesus, bringing out their best features.

For these reasons, there is genuine learning to be gained from engaging in these various topics, and it is also for these reasons that theologians are essential in the theological dialogue and improvisational work. Yet as stated earlier, they are like the relationship between a parent and an adult child: the parent represents the meta-narrative, and the topic is like the adult child. Of course, intertwined in this dialogue is ongoing prayer and reflection, mediated by the Holy Spirit, who continues to refine what it means to think theologically as we move forward. In this way, rich theologies are formed—and perhaps re-formed—over time, all while still holding fast to the person of Jesus and the meta-narrative He embodies in His teachings, His view of Scripture, His life, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, and His eventual return, of which is unchanging. And via Jesus, subsequently trusting the Old testament (rightly interpreted through Jesus) and the remainder of the New Testament (rightly framed within the Kingdom that Jesus has bought and will one day bring).

Pulling it all together:

1. We realise that no theological formation is objective – including mine. However, using everyday language, symbols, and practices as bridges to communication, we can articulate a way of forming theology.
2. We trust the gospel writings to provide us with a “good enough” picture of Jesus. This doesn’t mean the accounts are unbiased or complete, but they offer a reliable insight into His life and message.
3. Jesus claims to be the embodiment of God, so through His words and actions, we receive a “bird’s eye view” of reality. While this doesn’t mean we understand every aspect of reality through Him, it gives us a glimpse into the deeper parts of the world.
4. Jesus speaks clearly on certain topics, but on others, He doesn’t provide exhaustive details to account for all of time, history, or future discoveries. For matters grounded in reality, we can be less flexible, but for areas where He’s less clear, we can approach them more speculatively.
5. Jesus offers us a meta-narrative through His life and teachings. While we don’t get the complete picture, we can at least discern the contours of God’s will and His actions in the world. Thus, we have a trustworthy Jesus offering us a trustworthy meta-narrative.
6. Jesus offers us a view of His people’s scriptures (the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament), so we can emulate His approach to them—seeing them as authoritative, yet flexible and surprising. This means treating Scripture as a story that finds its completion in Jesus. Now, we have both a trustworthy Jesus and a trustworthy meta-narrative, as well as a way to approach the Old Testament in light of Jesus and New Creation.
7. The early church considered their writings sacred, and this was affirmed in the various councils that codified the consensus of the early church. Using the above framework, we see the earliest theologians believed in a trustworthy Jesus and meta-narrative, while using the Old Testament to point to Jesus and New Creation, generating theology in response to the concerns of their time.
8. We continue to return to the text, learning to understand the richness of the Bible, so as to strengthen our theological engagement with the wider world.
9. We can observe this model and apply it to our own time—using the metaphor of improvisation to discern how to theologise in light of our cultural moments and discoveries. These moments and advances in various fields can engage in dialogue with this theological narrative.
10. We can affirm the need to engage with cultural moments and discoveries by understanding our theology of revelation, which compels us to engage with these areas as theologians, developing new theologies along the way – but we do so with the unchanging meta-narrative of Jesus leading the conversation.

One of the earliest and most influential Christian theologians who models this well is the Apostle Paul. He discerned God’s grand story, saw its climax in Jesus, and fixed his eyes on the horizon of New Creation. Yet, he did not remain abstracted from the world—he actively engaged with the wide Gentile landscape of ideology, philosophy, politics, and cultural practices. Paul saw both realities: God’s unfolding redemptive plan and the lived world of his audience.

As he addressed local congregations, he spoke their language, drawing from their philosophies and poetry—whether hinting at Stoicism in his letters or quoting Greek poets in Athens. But he did not leave them within those frameworks. Instead, he skillfully wove their cultural narratives into the One True Story, whose Author took on flesh. Just as Jesus incarnated into the world, Paul embedded himself within the cultures he engaged, contextualizing the gospel of the Kingdom of God for different places, peoples, and ethical situations. The gospel itself did not change, but his emphasis on different facets of God’s Kingdom shifted as he discerned what God was saying to His people. He drew upon the riches of scripture, yet as fulfilled in Jesus, and engaged theologically with the wider world by truly knowing the ideas of the wider world.

Paul’s theological epistemology was centred on Jesus, and his approach was deeply local, pastoral, prophetic, and reliant on the Holy Spirit to work through his words. In the same way, I seek to model my theology after his—rooted in the unchanging story of God yet attuned to the cultural and ethical realities of those I seek to reach.