Evangelism, Mission, and the Unimagined in Christian Discourse I

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 8:08 pm by Robert Hunt

Evangelism, Mission, and the Unimagined in Christian Discourse I 2015-03-13T20:08:03-06:00 Robert Hunt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

At a recent conference I heard a group of theologians express surprise, and indeed disdain, that I had been appointed director of a Center for Evangelism and Missional Church Studies. How, they wondered, could such a thing exist in the 21st century? And how could it co-exist with a commitment to inter-religious dialogue?

I was tempted to dismiss these comments, but to do so would miss an important point.

Their objection is to the form of discourse within which the words evangelism and mission are so hopelessly linked to colonialism and imperialism that working within that world of discourse cannot help but perpetuate the colonial enterprise.

More importantly, this discourse is understood to be so embracing, so powerfully self-referential, that within it an authentic Christianity cannot even be imagined. It isn’t enough to redefine the terms within it. Only a complete alternative discourse can allow authentic Christianity to emerge and express itself socially and politically.

The problem is that various alternative discourses also have a serious problem. To avoid perpetuating colonizing attitudes or behavior these new forms of discourse avoid all language in which the Christian gospel, or indeed any other religious claim, could be regarded as in any way superior. The discourse most suitable for this commitment to equality among all religious options is that which Charles Taylor calls “the immanent frame,” the discourse characteristic of the modern West and particularly its academic institutions. In this frame all references are to the material world and to human action within the larger natural world, but primarily the human social world.

Within this discourse, which either dismisses God or at least dismisses God’s active engagement with the mundane world (through revelation for example) all religious claims are treated as cultural residues of some more general human longing for the Divine, or as the remains of a dying phase of human social evolution. And thus within this world of discourse one cannot imagine why new generations of Christians (except out of nostalgia) should place particular value on hearing the gospel, placing faith in Christ, and joining the Christian community. It is just an option, not the only option and not necessarily the best option.

Small wonder that Christian communities that have placed the gospel within the limitations of the immanent frame are dying. They cannot imagine why they should live – except as yet another social organization dedicated to engaging in humanitarian causes and progressive political action. Christian worship exists primarily to encourage, inspire, or rebuke human beings engaged in these causes. God is simply the name for the sum of human idealism, incarnate in Jesus – the quintessential social/political activist who died on the cross not for our sins, but to demonstrate our righteousness in relation to the oppressive social classes who crucified him and oppose our political agenda, be it liberal or conservative.

(Nowhere have I seen this so clearly as a recent Facebook posting initiated by a former student. She asked her friends, “What would you say to a new seminary graduate?” More than one replied, “Why do you want to work in a church instead of one of the other excellent human-orientied social organizations?”)

Placing all Christian discourse within the immanent frame leads to no shortage of irony. Those who do so have inadvertently placed the Gospel, and all other religious claims, in a free global religious commodity market. Offering no distinctive claim to religious truth all they have left is political, therapeutic, and aesthetic values, or perhaps just style and marketing, to recommend the Gospel and the church to rising generations of non-Christians.

In these realms they cannot compete with social welfare agencies, political action groups, exotic Asian spirituality, and pop culture entertainment. Indeed, apart from recovering the sunk cost in ancient institutions, they cannot imagine why they should try.

Christian Identity

Inter-Religious Dialogue

Previous Post

July 6, 2013

Imagining Democracy in the Middle East

Next Post

August 7, 2013 Evangelism, Mission, and the Unimagined in Christian Discourse II

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christian Identity Christian Muslim Relations Home Page Inter-Religious Dialogue Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 May 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz