Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief: Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Comments
See also N. T. Wright's own response, posted at http://trevinwax.com/2009/10/31/n-t-wright-on-protestant-catholic-relations/
I think Michael Bird is correct to point to similarities between Wright and Bucer, especially on double justification. It's interesting that the Regensburg (aka Rattisbon) Concord, worked out between the Protestant Bucer and the Catholic reformer Jacobo Sadoleto, was not accepted by either the Protestants or Rome.