I think you’ve made a good critique of my argument — probably similar to the one I would make in response to such a post! I’d agree that not all theology is systematic, the text is influenced by frames of reference which cannot be removed and, to an extent, I see the value of defining ‘high’ and ‘low’ theology. I also don’t like the professional/follower dichotomy.

My comment was in response to the idea that "our reading is our theology", and I’m still not agreeing with that. Although any thinking about God can be defined as theology it’s not how I like to use the term. (My ideas on this are changing, so I state my current views and am more than open to finding new definitions.)

I think a useful definition of theology includes ideas about reading the text, but focuses more on the rational (which includes revalatory) work. Theology should make visible the assumptions we bring to the text. It should guide us in our reading. It should provide an explicit framework and language with which to draw conclusions.

Furthermore, Humans don’t need academics to create abstracts ("frames of reference") to make abstract conclusions — we do this as a matter of course in the processing of the text.

I completely agree. However, people that are financially free to pursue their thought have a great time advantage over those that don’t. Because of this, I find that academics achieve a greater clarity of thought than I am able to. They often communicate those ideas more clearly. My point is that anyone who has the time to read, to think and to write their thoughts in an accessable way helps us make our assumptions explicit, which enables us to engage more powerfully with the text. I appreciate their work and I’m sure you do too. (This is a minor point I don’t want to sidetrack on.)

The main point I’m making is that theology should be explicit, rather than implicit. I think that this is critical and that’s why I was motivated to seperate reading from theology.