Backed by God or backed by evidence? How institutional assumptions within the Church of England changed through debate

Recent work on language and institutions has highlighted the potential of rhetorical analysis for identifying and studying the taken-for-granted elements of institutions. While this work has generated insight into the performative effects of talking about an institution’s taken-for-granted assumptions, it has not yet focused on using rhetorical analysis to explore how these taken-for-granted assumptions might change. Our historical, inductive case study of debates on the topic of evangelism within the Church of England shows that rhetorical contestation, particularly when it involves transitions between intrafield and interfield rhetoric in an inherently ambiguous context, can result in emergent and unanticipated changes to an institution.