Systematic Theology -- How Does It Look?

We're all familiar with the thick tomes that profess to give us the survey of the theology of the Christian Faith, beginning with the doctrine of God, then proceeding step by step through the attributes of God, the doctrine of creation, the creation of the spiritual realm (angels), the creation of man, the fall of man, etc., through the covenants, Christology, and redemption, and on into the practical and sacramental theology of the church, and ending up in eschatology.  Not being an expert on "Prolegomena," which is the exposition of the philosophy underlying the concept of Systematic Theology, I have to say that my opinions to follow are just that.  However, I question the tutorial usefulness of much of this mode of organizing the content of systematic theology.  (This method is actually more suitable for providing a traditional indexing scheme for systematic theology reference books.)

It seems to me that there is an internal architectual conflict in the traditionally structured project.  First, there is the "philosophical" approach which, as a sort of apologetic, seeks to explain and build up the body of systematic Christian knowledge by arguing from first principles.  Secondly -- and here is the problem -- the Bible doesn't present the source material for our knowledge in this way.  So, the construction of a gradually developing philosophical edifice of knowledge is attempted via references to inspired material that doesn't teach this way at all.  Recognizing this inconsistency in method, should we not let the tutorial "shape" of the inspired material instruct us how to teach the edifice of Christian doctrine?

The traditional philosophical scheme seeks to build up the credibility of each doctrine in a way that will supposedly impress and gradually lead the mind of the "reasonable" inquirer into a full knowledge of the truth.  But, did anyone ever come to Christ this way?  Does anyone believe the Bible, as the foundation for Christian thought, without first believing the gospel?  Doesn't the way that God makes himself known to us imply the way that we should study his theology?  

There is an alternative, and that alternative is practiced in early Lutheranism, and elsewhere, though it is certainly not new with them.  It is called the "loci" method.

Locus is the Latin for "place," or "topic."  It is similar in meaning to "topos" in Greek, from which we get the English word "topic."  Both locus and topos refer to (often literary) themes or topics.  Philipp Melanchthon's wrote the first evangelical systematic theology and called it "Loci Communis," or "common places," meaning "common topics."  What is done using the "loci" method is to take Scriptural topics, and elaborate them theologically.  Each topic has its own elaboration in terms of available Scriptural data.  Though there is no desire to be irrational or contradictory, or even insistently paradoxical in the writings, it is nevertheless the case that not all possible theological questions are addressed, because Scripture does not address (or answer) them.  Not all antinomies can be resolved.  Mysteries remain.  The point of the "loci" method is to present the important Scripture topics in a manner that is respectful of what the Scripture actually teaches about the topics, and not in a manner which attempts to cover all the range of questions that the human mind can think to ask, or want to demand answers to.

This approach to systematic theology, is, in my opinion, more respectful not only of Scripture, but of the minds of the believers who need to learn the doctrine of Scripture the way it is taught in Scripture, and who do not need to be taught in a manner structured by philosophical and apologetical conceptions foreign to how the Bible teaches itself.