i agree with you on the issue of “context” – to truly appreciate the Bible you have to read and understand the passages in their historical and grammatical contexts. interpreting verses out of their context only leads to disaster.

what i find interesting is you accuse macarthur/mohler of exactly that – ripping Bible verses out of context to support their own views/theology. i don’t think this is a fair assessment of their approach to the Word. if anything, these guys are fastidious in the way they handle Scripture, making sure that each passage or verse is understood in its proper context. macarthur has over the years preached and written a number of marvelous texts on how to properly interpret Scripture (which includes, of course, the “don’t-pull-verses-out-of-context” principle).

furthermore, i don’t think they start with propositions and then try to proof-text their way to theological invincibility. i believe, as they claim, that they start with the Word and then work their way to propositions of truth.

if you could show me an example where macarthur or mohler misuses a passage of scripture by ripping it out of its context and using it as a proof-text, that’d be helpful.

again, thanks for dropping by and engaging. i appreciate your thoughts!

I’m quite interested in your hermeneutical methodology in engaging culture and Christian churches that attempt to do so.

Because I believe that while the emergent church can be dangerous making flat out generalizations directed towards a diverse movement will always fall short.

The reason why I ask this is because of the authors that you used for the critique (John Mac Arthur, Albert Mohler etc) since their hermeneutical methodology is using systematic theology where often what they do is they write apologetics in the style of proof-texts which is often the used by conservative Evangelicals to write critiques of movements that they deem harmful or are against their convictions. I think pulling out a series of Bible verses in order to support propositions does not do justice to the Scripture because largely that subordinates the Scripture to propositions or the theological methodology of the one using the passages.

While there are valid criticisms to emergent Christianity I think there is a problem here with defining the word ‘contextualization’.

If we are to understand ‘contextualization’ as a term used in Biblical scholarship it is closely related to the field of hermeneutics which denotes critical reflection upon the process of interpretation and understanding.

It seeks to answer the question of “What the text means” in the both then and now of the person who reads Scripture, which goes something like this:

“What the text meant” is understanding the text in its original context –the Past Context.
“What the text means” – application of the text for the present thus the –Present Context.

With that I think we can say that there is no text without context.

Because we need to analyzing the biblical text in its original context in order to clarify or understand what it means. It is drawing out from the text the meaning of the text. It is allowing the text to speak for itself.

Doing so means that those who would read the Bible are put into a situation where the reader must engage in a cross cultural task, as it involves bridging gaps or distance of time and location, language and culture.

It is only after this engagement that one can then relate the text to his/her present context.
The methodology of MacArthur, Mohler and many apologists that use proof-text however goes the other way it starts with propositions or at times refutations of a theological conviction , movement, tradition which they later try to supplement with Bible verses that often times does not take into consideration the Bible verses’ context in the entire chapter and book to which it belongs to not to mention that verse numberings came in later on in church history thus it is not how the earliest Christians would interpret Scripture.

Don’t get me wrong verse numberings are very good: it is useful in locating and identifying passages. However, verse numbers allow and even encourage the practice of taking each verse separately, which sadly subjects the verses to misuse and misinterpretation. In a sense it is reading meaning into the text. The text is not the basis of the meaning and understanding the text but rather the presupposition is what comes first rather than the Bible. Which I think is no different on how Emergents also approach Scripture.

We have to take the context seriously because biblical Interpretation is the process of carefully studying the biblical text in order to understand its meaning and relevance, first of all in the past, and secondly in the present.

Perhaps a recovery of understanding what context means in Christian theology is the best place to start if we are really going to engage in doing theology that makes it less about us and more about God.

That is truly the beauty of the word of God. Timeless, boundless relevancy. It ceases to become globally relevant (and by globally, I mean how it transcends philosophies and cultures…”globally” sounds nice :D ) when it dressed in the trappings of man centered thought.

amen. it’s essential we understand that. otherwise we tailor our gospel to the culture and the ever-shifting sensibilities of man only to become obsolete when the next big thing comes along. if we simply stick with what the Bible says on major issues, particularly the gospel, and do away with fads, techniques, and pop methodology, then we can be assured of relevancy. because God is always relevant and His context does not change.

And yes, the bible does present a timeless gospel that does transcend culture. Perhaps many a church goer has gotten tired of listening to complex theological presentations wherein God, Christianity and Church end up becoming some concept that becomes harder and harder to fathom. True that at the core of it is Faith. We all start with simple faith, but we are exhorted to grow in maturity IN THE FAITH. Did not Paul, in his epistles, really get ticked off at a group of believers who never progressed in their faith and just stayed as “infants” who were only fit to take in “spiritual milk”?

Lastly, God should not be treated as some culturally bound, philosophical conception that conforms to the whims of man’s (great lack of) intellect. God made that clear to Job (see the book of Job, O.T.). David saw that (as reflected in the book of Psalms). Yet God does reveal His will and Himself to us. Primarily through the Bible. He IS real. He does want to have a lasting and real relationship with us. He does love you and me. As. We. Are. But that doesn’t mean we stay as we are.

There will be undeniable, manifested change in our mind and heart if we truly have a relationship with Christ.

Shalom Urvacha!