In theological discourse we often distinguish between Theology proper (about God) and Christology (about Jesus). My question is whether this separation in our presentations (written and spoken) of theology is helpful.
If Jesus ‘is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being’ (Heb 1.3), the ‘image of the invisible God’ (Col 1.15), can we ever discuss God without this involving Jesus? Should we ever discuss Jesus without this involving God? If the NT places Jesus squarely within the ‘divine identity’ (Bauckham), then both Father and Son are mutually ‘interpretive’.
Doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity show that every discussion of God should involve Father, Son, and Spirit? In this light do the categories of Theology, Christology, and Pneumatology break down? And if so, is the formal separation helpful or unhelpful? While we have surely found them helpful in organizing our thoughts and presentations, has it actually effected our theology? Should we maintain these distinctions in our minds if they are artificial?
The answers given will no doubt vary depending on what we are trying to achieve in each presentation, but I put the question out to get us thinking. Your thoughts…