The other thing I noticed not having said plainly as I reread The One Story (see “Who do I argue against?”) is this: doing theology is (or can be) worship—praising God if that term works better for you. Theology is in this sense a work of passion. But that‘s better exemplified than stated, especially since worship that calls attention to itself (look at me!) is not something we need more of.
Theology as worship is an idea that I associate mainly with Geoffrey Wainwright, and it is explicitly developed in another book I reread recently, Karl Barth’s Evangelical Theology. Quoting the latter:

Theology is not a creative act but only a praise of the Creator and of his act of creation—praise that to the greatest possible extent truly responds to the creative act of God.… It is authorized, empowered, and impelled to such praise of its creator. (page 13)

If anyone should not find himself astonished and filled with wonder when he becomes involved in one way or another with theology, he would be well advised to consider once more, from a certain remoteness and without prejudice, what is involved in this undertaking. The same holds true for anyone who should have accomplished the feat of no longer being astonished, instead of becoming continually more astonished all the time that he concerns himself with this subject. When he reconsiders the subject, however, such a man might find that astonishment wells up within him anew, or perhaps even for the first time. And this time such wonder might not desert him but might rather become increasingly powerful in him. That astonishment should remain or become wholly foreign to him is scarcely conceivable. But should that happen, both he and theology would fare better if he would devote his time to some other occupation. (pages 53–54)

Why are there so many really woeful theologians who go around with faces that are eternally troubled or even embittered, always in a rush to bring forward their critical reservations and negations?…. They do not respect the internal order of the theological object, the superiority of God‘s Yes over his No, the Gospel over the Law, of grace over condemnation, and life over death, but instead they wish arbitrarily to transmute this into an equilibrium or even to reverse the relationship.… A theologian may and should be a pleased or satisfied man, if not always on the surface then all the same deep within. (page 84)

And see also Barth‘s chapter 14 (“Prayer,” pages 140–50).
Barth didn’t think all theologians are, or should be, male. It‘s just that academic English of sixty-odd years ago could get away with masculine pronouns and “a man” for the unspecified human.
“Theology” is one of those words used for both what you do and what you have produced by the doing. Evangelical Theology is about the doing, not the results. I‘ve also been reading some grammar lately.