Social Construction of Evangelical Church – A supposition based on Social Constructionism

 

        Long time ago, it is supposed that it may be the time around 1800, it is significant as it was the era after the industrial revolution. There was a discourse, or a set of discourses, irritated the heart of many Christians in gospel preaching. It may be denoted as an awaken. It may be resulted from righteous and good wills of millions piteous believers in Christ. The nature and the initiative were in good intention, maybe.

        It was thrived as the God may like it and believers enthused in this movement. It brought believers together but had not created an organisation. It was a norm circle that believers recognised themselves as a member within but really no membership was needed. There was no entry and quit and no money need to pay. There was also no record of your participation in this norm circle. But people suppose they were.

        It was really a development. The development may not be defined as discursive, but it was impossible to be underwent under great discernment due to the large population of the norm circle and inefficiency in mass communication in the 19^th century. Besides, there was no registration, no regulation, no direction in the social construction in further development of this norm circle.

The origin of the norm circle was from the enthusing in gospel peaching and the insistence of the authority of the Bible. They were converted into the institutional facts and rules in the norm circle. It is good for peaching gospel and loyal to the Bible. It is really the values kept by most of the believers in Christianity. The norm circle is based on these values, and it is made know to the whole world with the bundling of these institutional values in that norm circle. When Christians are keeping the same value, they are considered as in this norm circle. However, it may be no necessary for Christian to be considered in this norm circle even they are keeping these values. But that universal values in the community of Christianity combine with evangelism’s broadcasting of their values too deeply in the whole world, is continue persuade, mislead, and even cheat the Christians with the same values mistakenly regard themselves as evangelist but not ought to be. It seems that you may not be considered as a member under evangelism if you do not peach gospel and do not uphold the Bible. It may further create a mis-understanding that evangelist is a group of people who peach gospel and uphold the Bible. This understanding may give out a wrong impression that other than evangelist nobody peach gospel and uphold the Bible. However, Christians are likely to peach gospel and uphold the Bible no matter they are evangelist or not. By the time, the culture may merge these concepts and create a sense that you may not a Christian if you are not an evangelist. Under the discursive formation, the never defined culture has included all Christians into the great norm circle of Evangelism. But it should not be.

It can be put in this way in apprehension. I believe that my mother is a woman. There is a norm circle created with a name of ‘Mother-womanlist’. This norm circle is based on the belief of mother is a woman. Should I have to be one of the members of this norm circle because I believe my mother is a woman? But the creation of this norm circle, with its symbolic artifact, has bound me into this norm circle. As I am bounded by this norm circle, I need to voluntary obey to its institutional facts and rules even these facts and rules are not directly related to the origin of the norm circle. It is because I need to maintain my identity in this norm circle. Otherwise, I may no longer be considered as participant of this norm circle.

As the development of the norm circle is not regulated and tend to be discursive, it may not go along the route of realism. It might be naive that you considered it is the gathering of ideas of all people, the reflection of democracy. How many percentages of people can wholly re-interpret the issue under symbolic interactionism? How many people can dig out and follow their innermost ‘self’ under existentialism? Would you think that most of the people can make decision without influence from the society outside of themselves? In practical, the real situation is that most of the people form their knowledge under the influence of social inequality and social capital.

It is why I should emphasis it may be happened in the era after industrial revolution. It is the era the people eliminate sacred as supposed by Mircea Eliade. The surprise from the great creations during the industrial revolution had created an in-depth impression to the people in that era. Nobody could erase the impact even some people insisted their usual way in religion. It could be a social capital as most of the people were surprised by the power of invention. This social capital may push the culture moving apart from the traditional values. The forming of new culture was progressing even the surprise was diminished in history. Besides, the main discourse of loyalty to Bible may not help the people who insist of spiritual experience. At that era, many people may be getting richer and richer based on the commodities created from the industrial revolution. Even the preachers insisted not to take the ship of selling opium to China, the social inequality due to unbalance of wealth may induce influence on the culture development. It may not a tangible violent force to restrict the direction, but something intangible, such as mood, feeling, concept repeating in the culture made you accept and move in the direction of eliminating sacred. People may accept the change of era; they need no spiritual experience, but commodities newly created for that era. It is nothing wrong as they had not contrary with the doctrine of loyalty to the Bible, but they may live depended on medicine for mental health and even drug. When people had not recorded how they construct this concept and mislead as it seemed that Bible was contrary with spiritual experience. There created another institutional fact and rule that evangelism contrary with spiritual experience.

There is another institutional fact that bundle with evangelism. However, it is crazy that as evangelism may encourage believers to have personal experience with their God. The phenomenon, at least in Christian community in Hong Kong, shows that the people called themselves evangelist hesitate to touch anything related to spiritual experience. Many scholars may give out plenty of evidence to prove that it is not the characteristic of evangelism, but the phenomenon we can observed easily that many or even majority of Christians call themselves as evangelist voluntary obey the rule of get rid of spiritual experience. It is an in-depth myth that they suppose they are expelled from evangelism if they accept any spiritual experience. The true problem of evangelism may not be caused from its formal definition but the practice of obeying the institutional fact that no necessary bundle with evangelism.

It was already a big problem when people were awakened from the situation that they could not live solely depend on commodity, but the God. Some people started to pursue spiritual experience once the Christianity lost and a new group of people formed. However, at that era, the norm circle of evangelism was already formed. The act of not obey the institutional rule of get rid of spiritual experience irritates the so-call themselves as evangelist to expel the traitors from evangelism. Although there was never an organization of ‘evangelism’, it was an act of expel people from a norm circle name ‘evangelism’. That people recognise themselves as evangelist define those will spiritually experience as Charismatic Christianity. After the ideas had filled up the media, the Christian with spiritual experience was persuaded to believe they were Charismatic, but it was not ought to be.

A new norm circle was created. It was passively created by those not in this norm circle, but those in this norm circle accepted and joined the creation of this norm circle under the situation without utmost discernment. It may also not a matter to accept this new name, but people may not aware that the God hates it.

The further development created institutional fact in the norm circle of Charismatic that they may believe they are the only one with spiritual experience although it is 100% wrong. But the new created institutional fact kept them from evangelist. They may consider evangelist as someone without experience and life of the Lord and even cannot be treated as Christian. The pound created based on that mistake further encourage their insistence in pursuing spiritual experience unlimited, but it may not the original aim of the God. Keeping chasing for spiritual experience may be a way the so-call themselves as Charismatic to keep their identity.

Their institutional facts and rules had filled up the culture in Christianity community. Now, people are perverted by the language established and define those with spiritual experience as Charismatic and those without as evangelist. It is too violent for those stupid enthuse to define people. It is the freedom for people to define themselves. I was defined as evangelist by charismatic and charismatic by evangelist solely because I am an impartial person without deceived by that language game. It is really no necessary to create both norm circles, it is really no necessary to separate both types of believers, and it is no need to keep the grievances for a hundred of years.

Therefore, I propose to abolish both Evangelist and Charismatic – the names. The believers should have freedom to choose their way of Christian life. Yes! I know it may be no good for Christian without spiritual experience and I know, and I come across, case with false spirit and even evil spirit that deceives and perverts the believers. It is the responsibility of the pastors who are well trained in theology to guide the believers professionally. But the present situation is believers self-restrict themselves from customs other than the culture of their church, and the pastors follow the usual way of their culture without clarify whether it is good or not to their congregation as similar as they have never studied theology. Many pastors in Hong Kong restrict themselves from touching tradition other than their own tradition, they might have no ability to judge and help the congregation while they may have relevant need. The pastors and the theological students should be ethical to take the risk to step into other realm from their own culture for the sake of their beloved brothers and sisters. Do not keep yourself from danger and allow your congregation to take the risk. Pastors ought to have true ability for serve the congregation but not keep staying in their conform zone and repeat the unchanged ritual with getting paid.

Christianity is Christianity. Both evangelism and charismatic are forbidden by the God forever.

Started at 17:00 on 6 March 2021 at my study room of Siu Sai Wan

Finished at 17:52 on 7 March 2021 at my study room of Siu Sai Wan