I have mused a bit lately about a central question in Christology and theological method.  My instincts are firmly Barthian on the point of how theological inquiry must be shaped.  By this I mean that I generally am inclined to take the person and work of Jesus Christ as the basic “starting point” for theology.  Or to put it in a way that is often tauted: “Theology begins and ends with Jesus Christ.”

I certainly am not rejecting such an understanding of theology, but I’ve pondered two questions that I think relate to this issue.  First, is it totally legitimate to say that we must begin theological inquiry with the person and work of Christ when God, according to the Scriptural narrative did not begin to reveal himself by becoming incarnate, but rather through a long history with Israel?  Second, what does it mean to talk about a theological “starting point” at all?  When do we ever “start” doing theology?  Our theological thinking is always retroactive and embedded within a multitude of contexts, beliefs, convictions, and priorities that shape our formal theological inquiry.  It seems that at many points saying “I begin my theology with Jesus” may hinder than help the process of actual theological reflection and particularly a theologians ability to be self-critical.  After all, if I begin my theology with Jesus and you disagree with me, then the problem is obvious: you’re not Christocentric enough and the debate is over.

 So, I’m curious what people might think.  Must theology begin with Christ, if God’s revelation does not begin there?  Does it make sense to talk about clearly defined “starting points” in theology at all?  What might the answers to these questions mean for the doing of theology?