tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9206660347169327219.post4169087300261697568..comments2023-05-23T06:10:26.399-05:00Comments on Borderless Blogging: The Oslo Coalition's Anti-Contextualization Stance: My RebuttalAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13991218555078662281noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9206660347169327219.post-78040926135474675422010-12-22T07:26:24.206-06:002010-12-22T07:26:24.206-06:00Thanks, Scott for your comment. Yes, we have to be...Thanks, Scott for your comment. Yes, we have to be careful and intentional about the use of signs, symbols and ceremonies. But this is not just the burden of those who are intentionally pursuing contextualization. Survey church-goers asking them why the pulpit is where it is, why their Bible is leather, why they sit in rows, etc. There is much unexplained symbolism in the Church. We tend only to get worried about it when the symbolism is foreign to us - or when it is non-Western.<br /><br />Oh, and I haven't forgotten the interview. Just backed up at the moment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13991218555078662281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9206660347169327219.post-53607368714816348402010-12-20T09:45:06.247-06:002010-12-20T09:45:06.247-06:00You've probably commented on this elsewhere, b...You've probably commented on this elsewhere, but I think that one source of confusion in peoples' minds about contextualization is when the meaning of signs, symbols, and ceremonies are not properly (re)defined, where needed. I also agree with you that contextualization itself is not the problem, however. Most confusion originates in what you said above-- the idea that specific forms are always linked to one and only one religion.hmsarthistorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06263341820133845291noreply@blogger.com