Comments on: What is Contextualization?

By: Mark Williams

Mark Williams — Wed, 06 May 2009 07:15:46 +0000

I want to “second” the motion that Erickson has “one of the best” descriptions of “contextualization” – written by a theologian. His concept of “length,” “breadth” and “height” (Erickson 1998:79) has not been adequately followed up by other theologians and missiologists writing on contextualization, in regards to strategies to reach the unreached. Just as the world is not flat, I believe Dr. Erickson is really on to something as he describes contextualization in a three-dimensional conceptualization.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:28:47 +0000

PL
That’s exactly my point, and Erickson’s as well. The message cannot change. It’s not about making everyone happy with the message by twisting the form and the content- it’s adjusting the form so that the true and right content can be understood, even though that content is both foolishness and a stumbling block.

I would submit, however, that it is just as necessary to engage in neighborhood cultures the way missionaries do in foreign countries, because there is no one culture in America. Philadelphia is different from Louisville is different from Charleston, West Virginia. Those who go on foreign missions are no more missionaries that those who invite their neighbors over for dinner. The same Gospel is to be proclaimed and lived out in both scenarios.

By: Puritan Lad

Puritan Lad — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:43:21 +0000

Contextualizing, in it’s valid form, means that missionaries who go to foreign countries don’t wear America clothes or eat American food. They interact with the culture in order to evangelize.

However, the message itself cannot change. Too often, “contextualization” efforts attempt to present the gospel in a “non-offensive” way. In otehr words, it becomes a seeker-sensitive gospel which is really no gospel at all.