Talking Context in Theological Interpretation (2)
Notes on Bo Lim's New Book
Bo H. Lim, Contextual Theological Interpretation: An Integrated Model for Reading the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2025). ISBN 9781540968890. 168 pp.
[Background: I’ve been hosting a fortnightly Theological Interpretation Reading Group, first in our living room, now on Zoom, since 2008. Our focus in January–February 2026 is Bo Lim’s book, Contextual Theological Hermeneutics. I am posting notes from our discussions.]
What is theological interpretation of Scripture? Start here. For contextual matters in theological interpretation of Scripture, see also here and here.
Notes from 13 January 2026 (pp. 1–43).
27 January 2026 (pp. 45–83).
Ch. 4. The Need for Contextual Theological Interpretation
Thesis: The aims of theological interpretation of Scripture, however much we might celebrate them, are undermined by the failure of theological interpreters to account for (1) moral objections to the Bible itself, (2) the church’s blindness to its history of ethical sins, and (3) the needs and perspectives of the global church outside the West.
Questions:
Lim draws on Moore and Sherwood’s account to claim that biblical scholarship’s fixation on history arose from its strategic avoidance of theological and ethical objections to the Bible. Is this a valid reconstruction of the history leading to the modern focus on historical questions? Explain. How does the historical rise of historical inquiry set the stage for the re-emergence of theological interpretation of Scripture?
Although Lim is clear in his call to embrace a range of contextual challenges and perspectives in the theological interpretation of Scripture, he is less forthcoming on why theological interpreters are mostly from the UK, US, New Zealand Aotearoa, Canada, and Australia (see p. 48). How would you account for this reality? How might the next stage(s) of theological interpretation of Scripture address this state of affairs?
“I write so that readers might understand the current landscape of biblical interpretation, assess what opportunities and challenges they face, and effectively read the Bible for multicultural ecclesial contexts.” (Bo Lim, Contextual Theological Interpretation, p. 12)
Ch. 5. Contextual and Theological Interpretation in the Global Church
Thesis: Theological interpretation of Scripture in the global church requires a postcolonial reappropriation of “the church’s doctrinal tradition” that neither uncritically rejects the Western theological heritage nor perpetuates colonial ideologies.
This is achieved by theologians like Kwame Bediako (who recovers pre-colonial patristic theology rooted in African primal religions) and Renie Choy (who develops a glocal hermeneutic that critically engages colonial history while affirming the translatability of the gospel across cultures), with both approaches demonstrating that authentic theological and contextual interpretation must integrate ecclesial tradition, indigenous cultural resources, and postcolonial critique to serve the global church’s missional vocation.
Questions:
Lim presents Kwame Bediako and Renie Choy as representing two distinct approaches to engaging “the church’s doctrinal tradition.” Which approach offers more promise for theological interpretation in global contexts? Do these approaches represent fundamentally different theological commitments about the relationship between gospel, culture, and colonialism? Explain.
Lim concludes: “What will be the future of biblical scholarship when biblical scholars live far removed from the contexts of those who actually read the Bible?” If actual Bible reading has shifted (is shifting) to the Global South and East, should Christian colleges, seminaries, and doctoral programs in the West restructure biblical studies to avoid cultivating scholarship out of step with the Bible’s primary readership? What would this look like?
AI-Generated (but Edited) Summary of the Group’s Reflections
In conversation with Lim’s chapters 4–5, and noting his apparent focus especially on academic discourse, what do we see as theological interpretation of Scripture’s key limitations?
Lack of contextual and diverse voices: The academic discourse tends to be white, Anglophone, and Western, with insufficient engagement with global and marginalized contexts (e.g., women, scholars of color, churches in the Global South/East).
Insufficient attention to readers and their contexts: The academic discourse is insufficiently theological because it lacks theological reflection on and with readers and reading in their contexts. Theologically, it has yet to take seriously the wide, truly catholic readership of the global church.
Structural pressures in the academy: Women and scholars of color often must prove themselves by doing “real biblical scholarship” (i.e., guild-accredited and guild-rewarded scholarship), and this generally works against contextual-theological interpretation.
Limited visibility of non‑Western theological interpretation: Contextual-theological work is taking place, both in and beyond the Anglo-American world, both academically and, especially, in local Christian communities, but this work is largely invisible to academics. This reinforces the perception that theological interpretation of Scripture is predominantly a Western enterprise.
What do we see as the key limitations of Lim’s analysis in these two chapters?
Lim’s dependence on non-representative sources like the Scripture and Hermeneutics Project and Moore/Sherwood skews his analysis. Some in the group wanted a more compelling historiography of modern biblical scholarship and broader engagement with the field of theological interpretation.
Lim does not seem to recognize or acknowledge the diversity of theological interpretation happening globally (including the West) in academic discourses and in ecclesial communities. Specific examples were cited in India, the Philippines, Colombia, Ethiopia, among Native Americans/First Nations peoples in the US and Canada, among immigrants in the US from India, etc. And leading theological interpreters in New Zealand Aotearoa, for example, are regularly engaged in contextual-theological work with the Māori, Papuans, et al. Does Lim’s critical focus on the Western academy keep him from seeing and/or appreciating what is happening globally? These chapters don’t differentiate between scholarly discourse and theological engagement with Scripture beyond the academy; nor do they explore the challenges arising from the degree to which Western-educated leaders have shaped non‑Western contexts.
Lim’s critique of theological interpretation in the West sounded important notes, but did not seem to appreciate the degree to which even that work is contextual. Some in the group wondered whether the critique should have focused more directly on how Western scholars often mistake their work for global and fail to recognize its contextuality. The group recognized, too, that the West is not “one culture.”
Lim seems not to appreciate the degree to which theological interpreters in Western colleges, seminaries, and doctoral programs are already introducing global perspectives. Many already underscore the need for the heightened practice of hospitality to interpretations from other contexts, for heightened cultural engagement, and for constructive criticism of the structures that work against contextual-theological interpretation; as well as promote a concern that we not impose our own contextualizations on other cultures—all with an eye toward cross-fertilization, not homogenization.
Overall, there was a concern that Lim’s critique, while raising important questions, was overly negative and didn’t recognize the positive developments and self-correction happening within theological interpretation; the group thought his analysis was too blunt and didn’t match our actual global complexity. There was a sense that he could have engaged more charitably with several of the theological interpreters he discussed, and more constructively with the theological interpretation movement as a whole.
Thank you for posting these notes from your discussion. I am reading the book as well for an upcoming DMin seminar.