What makes a “good” theological article? What qualities do journal editors and peer reviewers look for when evaluating submissions? Having served as managing editor and general editor of Themelios since 2013, I have received more than a thousand article submissions on various topics related to biblical, historical, systematic, and pastoral theology. What distinguishes the minority of published essays from the majority that are declined? In this column, I offer an editor’s perspective on the substance, style, and significance of excellent theological articles that align with the aims of Themelios. Such essays are marked by fidelity, freshness, fitness, focus, rigor, readability, and relevance.

1. The Substance of Theological Articles

Every honest academic journal seeks to publish readable, responsible, and original work that contributes meaningfully to scholarship. Editors and peer reviewers look for these and other qualities while also keeping in mind the particular readership, commitments, and scope of the specific publication that they oversee.1 Themelios is an international, evangelical, peer-reviewed theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith.2 Its target readers are theological students and pastors, though scholars, missionaries, and thoughtful laypeople around the world regularly benefit from the journal’s content. For decades, RTSF/UCCF operated Themelios as a print journal, and in 2008 The Gospel Coalition began operating it as a print journal. Successful submissions to Themelios typically come from authors who are familiar with and appreciate the journal’s content and aims. Fidelity, freshness, and fitness are three key qualities we look for in Themelios articles. Let’s consider each in turn.

1.1. Fidelity

Themelios articles should be marked by biblical and doctrinal fidelity. The journal maintains its commitment to promote and preserve what its first editor called “the bed-rock foundation of the historic faith … in Holy Scripture.”3 The Word of God written is the infallible and inerrant standard for faithful theological inquiry as well as its principal source. Thus, Themelios regularly publishes articles that probe various exegetical, historical, and biblical-theological questions while submitting to the authority and integrity of the Bible. For example, the 2023 and 2024 issues have featured articles on Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 3 John, Revelation, the use of the OT in the NT, and Bible translation.

Moreover, the journal is explicitly evangelical and reformed in its doctrinal standards, as set forth by The Gospel Coalition’s Confessional Statement.4 Themelios editors gladly affirm this confession. While contributors are not required to subscribe to the TGC’s Foundation Documents, these doctrinal commitments inform which articles and reviews are published in the journal. Thus, Themelios authors over the past six issues have explored perennial theological issues including the Trinity, the doctrine of Scripture, the imago Dei, the cultural mandate, the noetic effects of sin, the atonement, the role of the State, eschatology, and more. These articles have also engaged deeply with historical and modern theologians such as Augustine, Aquinas, Bavinck, Bonhoeffer, Calvin, Flavel, Henry, Irenaeus, Kuyper, Owen, Packer, Spurgeon, Webster, Wesley, Vos, and even Yong.

1.2. Freshness

As a general rule, peer-reviewed academic publications aim to publish original research that contributes meaningfully to scholarship in some way. Originality in academic terms is not the same as novelty, saying something new just to say something new like the Athenians in Acts 17:21. Originality simply means that the author moves beyond summarizing the views and arguments of other scholars and contributes something to the scholarly discussion.5 As The Craft of Research asserts, “Readers will look for originality in your problem, claim, and evidence.”6 This can achieved (a) by asking fresh research questions; (b) by comparing authors or texts in distinctive ways; (c) by bringing two disciplines into conversation; (d) by probing primary sources to shed new light on exegetical, historical, or theological issues; and (e) by reexamining scholarly positions or assumptions in light of fresh evidence. So Themelios authors have examined Christopher Nolan’s films in light of Pauline theology,7 retrieved Augustine and Aquinas for guidance on Christian military and intelligence work,8 and drawn on legal and medical expertise to examine contemporary ethical questions related to marijuana and birth control, respectively.9 Others have carefully examined the Greco-Roman background of the New Testament’s sports metaphors and Paul’s charge to “fight the good fight.”10

1.3. Fitness

By fitness I don’t have in view contributors’ strength training programs (though “bodily training is of some value,” 1 Tim 4:8), but an essay’s suitability or alignment with a particular journal’s scope, style, aims, and confession. Sometimes an article submission may demonstrate scholarly erudition, but its technical subject matter and dense arguments make it better suited for a specialized periodical consulted by experts in that field rather than for Themelios, a journal with a broader, international readership in view. We look for articles that are not only academically excellent but also accessible and appealing to pastors and seminary students from Jackson to Jos, Louisville to London, Sydney to Seoul.

Doctoral students frequently seek to publish their seminar papers and dissertation chapters in Themelios and other journals.11 While this is often a promising pursuit, many budding scholars underestimate that such material typically requires substantive revision in its style and framing.12 For example, an article submission should not include a cover page that reads, “A final paper submitted to Dr. Smith in partial fulfillment of the requirements for BITH 800.” Likewise, an article should not say, “As will be demonstrated in chapter 2…,” nor should it include the sections entitled “Aims and Scope” or “Review of Literature” that are customary in a dissertation or thesis. From the opening sentences to the concluding synthesis, a submission should hang together as a discrete contribution intended for the readers of a specific journal.

Thus, fidelity, freshness, and fitness are three hallmarks of excellent articles.

2. The Style of Theological Articles

Having commented on the substance of theological essays, I now turn to reflections on style. The best theological articles address a focused research question in a way that is both academically rigorous and highly readable.

2.1. Focus

Themelios publishes academic essays between 4,000 and 10,000 words in length (including footnotes), and this word count requires authors to focus their inquiry with a specific thesis and sustained argument. To use a gardening analogy, a general survey essay is like raking a large patch of dirt, while a focused article is like digging a 2’ x 2’ hole to plant a rose bush. To write a good theological article, authors need to have a firm grasp of the lay of the land and then trade in the rake for the shovel to dig with precision and care.

For example, I once quickly declined a submission on “The Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit” because it offered a cursory survey of a very complex theological topic without clearly advancing academic inquiry. This illustrates the principle: “If a writer asks no specific question worth asking, he can offer no specific answer worth supporting.”13 Alternatively, Scott Swain’s article “B. B. Warfield and the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity” critically engages a single influential essay by the Princeton theologian to demonstrate the importance of a traditional interpretation of the revealed personal names for Trinitarian theology.14

2.2. Rigor

Each sentence, paragraph, and section of an exemplary theological article contribute to the whole. Most theological essays follow a three-part structure: introduction, body (with three or more main sections), and a conclusion.

A good introduction typically includes at least three elements: it provides essential context, raises a specific problem, and proposes the author’s solution.15 The first sentences of the article establish the author’s credibility, draw readers in, and set up the argument to follow. Authors should keep in mind that readers are often busy and easily distracted, so introductions should hook their attention and be “crystal clear, compelling, and easy to read.”16

For example, the introductory section of Will Timmins’s “Why Paul Wrote Romans” is a model of clarity.17 He opens with a well-chosen quotation of Wedderburn: “no one, single reason or cause will adequately explain the writing of Romans.” Timmins distinguishes between the letter’s occasion and the apostle’s “interlocking purposes.” He then contends that Paul had missionary, pastoral, and apologetic aims for Romans and that these three purposes are intertwined and related to the letter occasion.

Or consider the bold opening salvo of Rob Golding’s recent essay:

We are awash in the Western world’s tides of anger and polarization. The white caps of dissent arose decades ago, and the recourse was called postmodernism—rather than fight for the truth, let’s all believe what we want to. Live and let live. This provided floating rubble (i.e., subjective beliefs) to amass and combine as we swam in the increasing storm. Now, decades later, our rubble-dinghies have been transformed into capable ships—not just capable of keeping us afloat, but of warring against the constructions of others. The choice of young people today is not how to find the truth, but which truth (or boat, to keep the analogy) to select. Once the selection has been made, smooth sailing is not an option. A fight for truth dominance must ensue. We have sailed past the primitive age of postmodernism. We are now in the murky waters of post-post-modernism—the idea that we may select various truths according to our subjective experiences, but that those selected truths are objectively true. I and others call this metamodernism. In what follows, we will examine these ships and seek to determine the best way to interact with them from our own. In other words, how does a Christian modernist interact with a non-Christian metamodernist when both believe that “their truth” is the truth?18

Golding’s introduction is brief and arresting. His title, “Swimming in a Sanctimonious Sea of Subjectivity,” not only employs catchy alliteration but also introduces sea imagery that is sustained throughout the introduction: “awash … tides… white caps … floating … swam … dinghies … ships” and so forth. The final sentence raises a probing question that the rest of the article addresses: “How does a Christian modernist interact with a non-Christian metamodernist when both believe that ‘their truth’ is the truth?” Golding does not provide his answer in the introduction proper but at the outset of section 3, arguing that “meek anger” is often the Christian’s best response to metamodernism.19

The body is the “meat and potatoes” of the article where the author makes a convincing case for his or her thesis. The argument progresses step-by-step, acknowledging and responding to alternatives and objections while offering rigorous, responsible evidence for the author’s proposal. While there are many stylistic features of excellent articles to note, here I briefly comment on the importance of signposting and the use of footnotes.

Signposting refers to strategies writers employ to help readers track with their argument. Where are we going? What have we seen thus far? How does this part relate to the whole? Overview and summary statements answer these sorts of questions, while well-crafted, numbered headings and subheadings aid readers as they progress through an essay. For example, consider how Paul House summarizes his argument in “J. I. Packer and the Next Wave of Evangelicalism”:

This article will outline the first three of these waves and Packer’s place in them before focusing on the fourth. It will then offer some foundations for future renewal based on Packer’s life. My goal is to suggest how Packer’s life bears witness to enduring foundations for renewal within evangelicalism in a possible next wave.20

House effectively uses headings to guide readers through the progression of the different “waves” of evangelicalism introduced in the introduction:

1. First Wave: Rekindling the UK Evangelical Heritage (1944–1954)
2. Second Wave: Expansion and Limits of UK Evangelicalism and Its Institutions (1954–1979)
3. Third Wave: Expansion and Limits of North American Evangelicalism (1979–1999)
4. Fourth Wave: Seeds for Renewal (1999–2020)
5. Foundation Stones for the Next Wave of Evangelicalism

He also signposts his argument with summary statements. For example, House concludes section 1 this way: “He [Packer] never separated writing, teaching, and church ministry—the three areas in which evangelicalism made the most strides during the first wave.”21 He likewise opens section 3 with an effective transition: “When Packer moved to Vancouver in 1979, North American evangelicalism was experiencing the sort of expansion that UK evangelicalism had enjoyed from 1944–1979.”22

While signposting guides readers through the argument, well-chosen footnotes contribute to the article’s ethos and bolster readers’ confidence in the accuracy and thoroughness of the evidence provided. The most essential function of footnotes is to document the sources of the author’s quotations and ideas to prevent plagiarism and allow interested readers to consult those sources for themselves. So the source information should be accurately presented and consistently formatted according to the journal’s house style. If readers (and editors!) encounter sloppy, inaccurate, or outdated footnote references, they will naturally wonder whether the author has done his or her homework. Moreover, footnotes enhance an essay’s ethos by signaling that the author has command of relevant primary sources and is conversant with the best contemporary works on the topic.

Hallur Mortensen exemplifies effective use of sources in his essay “Seeing Is Not Believing: Apocalyptic Epistemology and Faith in the Son of God in Mark’s Gospel.”23 The two modest footnotes on the opening page reference the author’s own work published by Mohr Siebeck, three other major monographs, and representative articles from Biblica and Revue biblique. Mortensen demonstrates a strong grasp of English, French, and German scholarship; appropriately cites supporting and alternative views; and provides nuance and clarifications along the way.

Finally, a strong conclusion brings appropriate resolution to the article. The conclusion is not the place for introducing new information or arguments but for tying up loose ends. It leaves readers “with a clear statement of your point and renewed appreciation of its significance.”24 It not only summarizes the author’s thesis and essential argument but presses into why it matters. As Jensen writes, a good conclusion “bring[s] home the bacon.”25

Here are two examples of excellent conclusions. First, Hans Madueme and Robert Barham close their case for Christian fiction this way: “Ours is a prompt to consider this kind of fiction: stories that open up windows into the world as it really is, a world of angels and demons, a world of good and evil, a world of heaven and hell, a world charged with the grandeur of God, like shining from shook foil, a world without end.”26 Second, Kevin DeYoung presses home the implications of his study of the alternate accounts on the civil magistrate in British and American versions of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “If American Presbyterians in particular want to look to their confessional past for a model of church-state relations, they will have to determine if they are going back to London or back to Philadelphia. They cannot be in both places at the same time.”27

2.3. Readability

Regrettably, “scholarly writing” is associated with dense, complex prose and half-page footnotes (or worse, endnotes). Yet in a boldly titled book Stylish Academic Writing, Helen Sword argues “that elegant ideas deserve elegant expression; that intellectual creativity thrives best in an atmosphere of experimentation rather than conformity; and that, even within the constraints of disciplinary norms, most academics enjoy a far wider range of stylistic choices than they realize.”28 She calls scholars to blend style and substance, jettisoning jargon and expressing complex concepts with clarity, care, and even creative flair.29 Current and aspiring writers can hone their craft by consulting classic works like On Writing Well by William Zinsser or Elements of Style by William Strunk and E. B. White and by reading great writers like C. S. Lewis and Marilynne Robinson. In general, employing the active rather than passive voice, eliminating unnecessary words, and preferring short, crisp sentences to long, complex ones will go a long way towards improved writing.

With admittedly varied success, Themelios aims for such substantive, “stylish” academic writing. Daniel Strange’s editorial column regularly blends theological depth with witty turns of phrase. Take thought-provoking titles like “A Wiser Idiot” or “Praise and Polemic in Our Global Pandemic” or “Coming to Our Senses: The Case for a Civil Elenctics and an Elenctic Civility” or “Dr Strange in the Multiperspectival Paradox” (distinct from the Marvel multiverse). Of course, the journal’s longtime editor D. A. Carson has for decades masterfully written probing biblical reflections with straightforward clarity of expression. Consider the closing lines of one column on pastoral leadership:

Just because a person is an able preacher does not necessarily make him an able pastor/elder/overseer. Indeed, if he shows no propensity for godly oversight, then no matter how good a teacher he may be, he is not qualified to be a pastor/teacher/overseer. It is not for nothing that Scripture applies all three labels to the one office.30

I conclude this section on style with John Frame’s sound counsel to aspiring theologians: “Learn to write and speak clearly and cogently. The best theologians are able to take profound ideas and present them in simple language. Don’t try to persuade people of your expertise by writing in opaque prose.”31

3. The Significance of Theological Articles

So what? This question of relevance should linger in the minds and hearts of each author, editor, and reader of theological articles. I do not have in mind formulaic conclusions with three points of application that begin with P (though I appreciate apt alliteration) but deep thinking about why and how careful and biblical-theological scholarship matters for the church. What is the significance of this study? What should readers take away from this article? How might it encourage or challenge how we read our Bibles, retrieve the wisdom of the past, reflect on God’s character and ways, respond to critics of the Christian faith, faithfully live as the people of God, and carry out Christ’s mission in the world? Does the prophet’s prayer—“Let us know; let us press on to know the Lord” (Hos 6:3)—express the longing of our hearts as we read and write works of theology?

Theology is, after all, the study of God—the true, living, triune God who has revealed himself in the sacred Scriptures as Creator and Redeemer that we might know him, glorify him, and enjoy him forever. Theologians who work with words should consider Pierce Taylor Hibbs’s challenge: “God gave his Word for the world; the least we can do in attendant response is give our words, ourselves, to our readers by striving to faithfully image the Triune God in our prose.”32

Many Themelios articles effectively show the significance of theological study. Here I limit myself to two complementary essays—one exegetical, the other dogmatic—that reflect deeply on human speech.

First, Eric Ortlund explores the pastoral implications of wise and foolish speech in Proverbs. Ortlund recognizes that Christians may speak and act foolishly by gossiping, by spinning things in their favor, by avoiding reconciliation, and by graceless interactions. Yet “the righteous-wise of the new covenant” do not pursue self-justification or senseless quarrels about his or her relative merits “because doing so amounts to swimming upstream against God’s redemption of all things.”33 Instead of justifying themselves in the court of public opinion, those who are wise “wait for God to intervene among his people as King, to establish his kingdom, to purge his people. And when wise people do so, they do nothing more than mimic Jesus, who went as a sheep to the slaughter silent, who trusted God to vindicate him when unjustly condemned. This is how God wins victories for his kingdom.”34

Second, we turn to Robb Torseth’s careful study of the late John Webster’s work, “Sins of Speech.” Torseth explains, “Spoken language and truth claims must be weighed against the character of God and what is known about his presence and self-revelation in the world and in humanity.”35 Further, our speech should be marked by “edification and moderation” flowing from a love of neighbor and from the virtue of humility. Torseth concludes that as Christians seek to speak the truth with love, “the speech of the church is further sanctified in accordance with the nature of its Creator, and the character of the gospel of Christ is better clarified and vindicated before God and neighbor.”36

4. Conclusion

One of my colleagues sometimes explains that as a professor of theology he teaches students how to read.37 In the same vein, we could say that editors teach people how to write, how to communicate their research clearly and compellingly for the benefit of their readers.

This column has reflected on the substance, style, and significance of theological articles. I have chosen to focus, under three headings, on seven characteristics of “good” theological articles: (1) fidelity, (2) freshness, (3) fitness, (4) focus, (5) rigor, (6) readability, and (7) relevance. Of course, I write as the editor of one journal with particular doctrinal commitments, past and present affiliations, and aims, and I deliberately draw examples from the pages of Themelios. Editors of most academic journals would similarly insist that authors have a defined thesis, a rigorous argument, a distinctive contribution to scholarship, and alignment with the standards and scope of their publication. They would also likely prefer readable, well-written essays to opaque, jargon-laced prose. Editors of premier technical journals might protest my emphasis on biblical, doctrinal, and missional fidelity in order to expound and defend the historic Christian faith. Yet remaining faithful to biblical doctrine and building up the church of the Lord Jesus is (or should be) fundamental to the vocation of all theologians and biblical scholars. As the apostle reminds us, we are “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Cor 4:1–2). As scholar-stewards, we seek above all what is πιστός and ἀληθινός, not just what is καινός, because our Lord and his word are “faithful and true” (Rev 3:14; 19:11; 21:5; 22:6).

---

[1] As one editor insists, “There’s no such a thing as ‘a good paper.’ … A good article is always good for a certain journal.” Eloísa Martín, “How to Write a Good Article,” Current Sociology 62 (2014): 949.[2] For an explanation of the journal’s legacy and aims, see Brian J. Tabb, “Themelios Then and Now: The Journal’s Name, History, and Contribution,” Themelios 44.1 (2019): 1–5.[3] Andrew F. Walls, “Themelios—a New Journal,” Themelios 1.1 (1962): 1.[4] “Confessional Statement,” The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/#confessional-statement.[5] Cf. Nijay K. Gupta, Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019), 64. For reflections on publishing journal articles, see pp. 118–25.[6] Wayne C. Booth et al., The Craft of Research, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 93.[7] EJ Davila, “Love, Hope, Faith: Christopher Nolan and the Apostle Paul in Dialogue,” Themelios 47.2 (2022): 303–15.

[8] Ed Wright, “Live and Let Spy? Thomas Aquinas and the Basis for Christian Engagement in Intelligence Work,” Themelios 48.2 (2023): 381–94; Nathan Cantu, “‘Do Not Think It Is Impossible for Anyone to Please God While Engaged in Active Military Service’: An Augustinian Critique of the Narrative of the American Military,” Themelios 49.2 (2024). 296–309.

[9] Melvin L. Otey, “What Christians Need to Know about ‘Legalized’ Marijuana,” Themelios 48.2 (2023): 395–403; Dennis M. Sullivan, “Contraception and the Church: Making Sense of the Debate and Some Pastoral Advice,” Themelios 49.2 (2024). 388-409.

[10] Andreas-Christian Heidel, “The Agonistic Imagery of the New Testament and the Paradox of the Cross,” Themelios 48.2 (2023): 342–53; G. K. Beale, “The Greco-Roman Background to ‘Fighting the Good Fight’ in the Pastoral Epistles and the Spiritual Life of the Christian,” Themelios 48.3 (2023): 541–51.

[11] I published two articles related to my PhD research and revised my thesis as a monograph: Brian J. Tabb, “Is the Lukan Jesus a ‘Martyr’? A Critical Assessment of a Scholarly Consensus,” CBQ 77 (2015): 280–301; “Salvation, Spreading, and Suffering: God’s Unfolding Plan in Luke–Acts,” JETS 58 (2015): 43–61; Suffering in Ancient Worldview: Luke, Seneca, and 4 Maccabees in Dialogue, LNTS 569 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017).

[12] Martín lists “too school-ish submissions or articles formatted as a dissertation” as among the most common blunders in academic publishing (“How to Write a Good Article,” 951)

[13] Booth et al., The Craft of Research, 39 (emphasis original).

[14] Scott R. Swain, “B. B. Warfield and the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” Themelios 43.1 (2018): 10–24.

[15] Similarly, Michael P. Jensen, How to Write a Theology Essay (London: Latimer Trust, 2012), 54–55; Booth et al., The Craft of Research, 232–45.

[16] Nijay Gupta, The Writer: A Guide to Research, Writing, and Publishing in Biblical Studies (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2022), 58. While his comments focus on writing books, the point applies to articles as well.

[17] Will N. Timmins, “Why Paul Wrote Romans: Putting the Pieces Together,” Themelios 43.3 (2018): 387–88.

[18] Robert Golding, “Swimming in a Sanctimonious Sea of Subjectivity: A Proposal for Christian Authenticity in a Made-Up World,” Themelios 49.1 (2024): 159.

[19] Golding, “Swimming in a Sanctimonious Sea of Subjectivity,” 166.

[20] Paul R. House, “J. I. Packer and the Next Wave of Evangelicalism: Foundations for Renewal,” Themelios 47.3 (2022): 527.

[21] House, “J. I. Packer and the Next Wave of Evangelicalism,” 529.

[22] House, “J. I. Packer and the Next Wave of Evangelicalism,” 532.

[23] Hallur Mortensen, “Seeing Is Not Believing: Apocalyptic Epistemology and Faith in the Son of God in Mark’s Gospel,” Themelios 48.1 (2022): 92–105.

[24] Booth et al., The Craft of Research, 232.

[25] Jensen, How to Write a Theology Essay, 66.

[26] Hans Madueme and Robert Erle Barham, “Stories That Gleam like Lightning: The Outrageous Idea of Christian Fiction,” Themelios 46.2 (2021): 390. The authors here deftly allude to Gerald Manley Hopkins’s “God’s Grandeur.”

[27] Kevin DeYoung, “A Tale of Two Texts: How the Westminster Confession of Faith Was Changed by American Presbyterians to Reflect a New Understanding of the Civil Magistrate,” Themelios 49.2 (2024). 281–95.

[28] Helen Sword, Stylish Academic Writing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), vii.

[29] Sword, Stylish Academic Writing, 5, 7.

[30] D. A. Carson, “Editorial: Some Reflections on Pastoral Leadership,” Themelios 40.2 (2015): 197.

[31] John M. Frame, On Theology: Explorations and Controversies (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2022), 4.

[32] Pierce Taylor Hibbs, “We Who Work with Words: Towards a Theology of Writing,” Themelios 41.3 (2016): 463.

[33] Eric Ortlund, “The Pastoral Implications of Wise and Foolish Speech in the Book of Proverbs,” Themelios 38.1 (2013): 17.

[34] Ortlund, “The Pastoral Implications of Wise and Foolish Speech,” 17.

[35] Robb Torseth, “‘The Sanctification of Our Speech’: The Theological Function of Truth and Falsehood in John Webster’s ‘Sins of Speech’,” Themelios 47.3 (2022): 579. His essay engages John Webster, “Sins of Speech,” in God without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 2:123–40.

[36] Torseth, “The Sanctification of Our Speech,” 580.

[37] Andrew David Naselli, How to Read a Book: Advice for Christian Readers (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2024), 1.

 

---