Such a biblical theology will not demand formulations expressed only in the categories and images of the Bible itself; as we have said, it clearly affirms the place and role of the contemporary communicator. From a redemptive-historical perspective the interpreter affirms not only that he or she stands in the same continuum of the presence of the kingdom as, for example, the apostle Paul; the interpreter also affirms that, just as biblical theology demands fullest justice to the cultural context of redemptive history, so the commentator too must look to his or her own situational content with care. Our contemporary setting is part of that flow of redemptive history that is addressed by the Scripture. (EWCW, pp. 227-28).

The realization of that place of tension should create humility and patience with ourselves and with one another in the work of theologizing in context. it reminds us of the ease with which our perceptions of the gospel can be deeply influenced by unconscious impositions of cultural and socio-structural perspectives on the biblical data. Contrary to Alfred Krass’s opinion, biblical theology does not pride itself on its “objectivity,” its “presuppositionlessness,” its “value-neutrality” [Alfred C. Krass, Evangelizing Neopagan North America (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald, 1982), 95]. The “not yet” of biblical theology should make us “pervasively suspicious” about our ideas, our ideologies, our value judgments. (EWCW p. 226).