Curious Christian

As I reflect on the body of writing I’ve built over the last twenty years here at Curious Christian, I find myself wondering how others might characterize the kind of theology I’m doing. If we were to frame it in terms of the traditional theological disciplines—biblical, historical, systematic, and practical—how would it map out?

Theologically, I think practical theology is the most prominent thread running through my work. Much of what I write is rooted in the question: What does this mean for how we live? I’m drawn to the interface between theology and practice, how faith is embodied in everyday life, community, and cultural engagement. I often write with an eye toward transformation, not just information.

Following that, biblical theology would undoubtedly come second. While I don’t always engage the biblical text academically, scripture consistently undergirds my reflections. Themes like kingdom, exile, land, justice, and resurrection recur throughout my posts. I suspect my thinking here is more shaped by N.T. Wright than I’ve explicitly acknowledged, particularly his emphasis on the grand narrative of scripture, the centrality of Jesus, and the inaugurated kingdom of God. While I’ve occasionally cited others like Brueggemann, it’s Wright’s framing that most resonates with my approach.

Systematic theology appears here and there, especially when I explore frameworks like Christocentric theology or contrast systems like covenant and dispensational theology. But I don’t write to organize theology into neat categories. My temperament is more exploratory than dogmatic. I’m more interested in coherence than rigidity.

Historical theology plays more of a background role. I draw on it when it helps illuminate a topic (say, the filioque debate or natural theology) but I tend not to linger in the historical record for its own sake.

One influence that may or may not be obvious is neo-Anabaptism. I don’t always fly that flag explicitly, but it does shape my posture, especially in how I think about discipleship, peace, power, and the way of Jesus. There’s a strong undercurrent of counter-cultural faith in my writing, which I think reflects this tradition.

If I were to visualize my blog’s theological balance in a pie chart, I might sketch it like this:

• Practical Theology – 40%
• Biblical Theology – 25%
• Systematic Theology – 20%
• Historical Theology – 15%

These aren’t hard lines, of course. I write from a place of curiosity, not from a blueprint. But looking back, I can see that what has emerged is a theology that’s biblically grounded, Jesus focussed, and attentive to the lived experience of faith.

In that sense, Curious Christian has become for me a kind of theological journal—one that’s more about faithful wandering than final answers. And I’m content with that.