This has become a popular word in discussions of mission, culture, sociology, economics, and other similar studies.
One simple definition states: “to place in a context”
Within the conversation, challenge, and community that is campus missions (ministry) the word contextualization tends to represent an effort to communicate the Gospel in ways that are meaningful, relevant, and readily grasped by college students. This does NOT mean that we change the message of the Gospel, just the method of communicating and sharing that message (I know, the message-method statement is sounding very cliche these days).
I believe that there are basically two ways of approaching our mission of engaging with college students:
- In ways that reinforce negative stereotypes of Christianity (see Unchristian by Dave Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons) and push students further from God and Church
- In ways that challenge, suprise, and attract students to the Gospel and to Jesus
As I understand Paul’s approach to sharing the Gospel with gentiles, (Acts 17 etc) he did NOT simply regurgitate the Jerusalem Church’s teaching throughout the Roman Empire and Asia minor. He contextualized the method in order to place the message in a particular context.
What makes any of us (especially campus missionaries) think that we can get away with anything less than that? And do we understand the Gospel thoroughly enough (via our own experience and study) to respeak it into our own contexts?
Apparently, John Piper would disagree.
Recent Comments