| |
|
|
|||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documents Articles EVANGELISM
AND PROSELYTISM — The Mandate of Evangelism Evangelistic mission
is an inescapable mandate of Christianity. Every Christian worth his or
her "salt" (to use a New Testament expression) recognizes that
it is of the essence of being a Christian that one has both the responsibility
and joy of witnessing to one’s faith and salvation. In fact, evangelism
is the spreading of the "good news" of salvation freely available,
by the grace of God to every human being. Evangelism a Suppressed Concept There is a problem in World Council of Churches (WCC) ecumenical circles in regards to evangelism. It is not easy to locate "evangelism" in WCC statements. The terms evangelism andevangelization are infrequently used in WCC documents since the 1961 New Delhi Assembly. The favored words among ecumenists are witness and mission, not evangelism. Presumably onereason for this, is that evangelism implies some form of proselytism and many ecumenists find proselytism and ecumenism to be conflicting and contradictory expressions of religious activity.Furthermore, some ecumenists see evangelism as largely associated with United States evangelicalforeign mission enterprises that tend, it is alleged, to promote U. S. power (see San Antonio Report, 1989, p. 153). The Setting We are living in a newly found climate of religious freedom. Generally speaking, we no longer have government protected (and financed) state churches with religious "hunting reserves." Islamic countries, of course, offer a different picture of their own. Proselytism is an inevitable sign or consequence of religious division and growing religious pluralism. As there will be political campaigns by competing parties where there is democracy, as there will be economic competition where there is an open market, thus there will be religious competitiveness in the religious forum where there is religious liberty in society. I for one, do not believe this is ipso facto bad, as long as there is no hatred, no prestige chasing, no vindictiveness or acrimony. Tensions Between Rights We already mentioned the great new fact of our era—religious liberty. However, there seems to be a conflict between the universality of religious freedom, as supported by the United Nations instruments and other documents, and the concept of cultural relativism of religious freedom. Furthermore, there is also a perceived conflict between the right to freely change religion and the right to freely keep a religion. We mention another evangelistic tension between two rights, which at times are complementary, but at other times are in opposition to each other: the right of the individual person and the right of the institution (e.g. - the church). Of course, every person has the right to determine to which organization to belong or not to belong, and similarly every religious organization should have the right to decide its own membership requirements, including "entrance" and "exit." The problem comes when the religious organization does not want to permit leaving and uses the police power of the state to enforce membership. Van der Vyver says very pointedly: "By submitting to totalitarian control of their internal affairs by governmental agencies, the religious institution forfeits its internal sphere sovereignty and becomes a pawn of religious oppression by the powers that be" (Johan D. van der Vyver, "Religious Freedom and Proselytism," The Ecumenical Review, Oct. 1998, p. 422). Despite these tensions, the UN has clearly upheld the right to spread one’s religion by teaching and manifesting it. The final act of the UN World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna 1993) affirmed that "All human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner...it is the duty of states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights" (Part I, para.5). One reason for anti-proselytism legislation is what I consider to be a false hope and illusion: achieving uniformity or religious homogeneity. Such homogenized societies can no longer exist and keep power in this age of rapid change, travel, and instantaneous communication, except by a holocaust type of approach, religio-ethnic cleansing, use of religious police, and the equivalent of medieval totalitarianism. Disagreements and Agreements Regarding Evangelism There are no doubt significant disagreements among Christians regarding mission and evangelism: Disagreements regarding ecclesiology and sacrament, disagreements between those who are out going and those who emphasize evangelism as internal renewal, between those who think globally and see the world as their parish and those who have an exclusivistic territorial or canonical view of the church and think locally or nationally. There will also be in evangelism/proselytism disagreement between those who believe in the legal equality of all religious bodies and those who claim that historical precedence and/or greater numerical size give them special rights not available to others. There is also the problem of some ecumenists seeing an inherent conflict or incompatibility between ecumenism and evangelism among members of Christian denominations. The WCC’s 1989 San Antonio Report openly states: "Active proselytism aimed at gaining members from another church is contrary to the spirit of Christ" (p. 75).
The implications of this last point are not always fully understood. God is the Author, therefore, when a Christian is hindered in evangelism he or she feels violated, limited, restricted in accomplishing the divine mission, even persecuted. Evangelism Versus Evangelization Some people try to make a difference between "evangelism" and "evangelization." I personally believe that this distinction is rather artificial and at best a matter of emphasis. Furthermore, in the other languages that I know, there is no such difference because there are not two words (e.g. Spanish, French, Italian, German). Some see in "evangelism" a call to conversion, change of life (including at times, change of religious affiliation) and in evangelization, the spreading of Christian values in society without any call that may involve a change of religious affiliation. My own personal conviction is that all authentic evangelism/evangelization involves a call to discipleship with emphasis on change of life, without necessarily calling for change of church membership, but leaving this possibility to the free choice of those evangelized as they respond to the divine call. Anything less is "ersatz evangelism." Evangelism Among Non-Christians: The historical traditional position has been that there is no salvation outside of the Christian church ("extra ecclesia nulla salus"). Many evangelicals hold that there is no salvation without acknowledging Christ as Savior, and that the un-evangelized are lost and die like hordes of lemmings falling after each other by the thousands over the Arctic cliffs into the sea. The ecumenical position is much more open to the idea that salvation is possible in other religions. In Seventh-day Adventism there is a tension between, on the one hand, the urgency of the missionary task of preaching the gospel to the whole world in preparation for the Coming Lord, and, on the other hand, the assurance that God is mighty to save even outside organized Christianity. Definitions of Proselytism Looking more closely at the question of proselytism, we have to remember that the term historically did not have a pejorative connotation, as it generally does today. Unfortunately, there has been for some years a tendency to give proselytism a sectarian connotation, by using it to refer to witness and evangelism by other religious confessions, never one’s own, for, after all, reprehensible methods are never used by "my" church, but only by "other" religious bodies! I would much prefer to use the terms "improper evangelism" or "improper proselytism," than simply "proselytism." Proselytism is an equivocal term, rife with misapplications. There are many different definitions of proselytism, many self-serving, providing a defense mechanism. Here are some definitions: Proselytism is witness and evangelism aiming at conversion.Proselytism is false or corrupt witness, using wrong methods.Proselytism is sheep-stealing with a view to enlarging one’s own church and empire-building, using false motivation.Proselytism is evangelizing the wrong people, using false targets.Proselytism is interfering with the belief and religious life of other people, false tactic.Proselytism is keeping people ignorant about real faith and religion, in essence, keeping them captive in the church of their accidental birth, false confession/formalism.Proselytism is a conscious effort with the intention to win members of another church, false strategy. Improper Evangelism or Proselytism As already indicated, I prefer using the term "improper" or "false" proselytism. It is easier to come to an agreement on this basis, because most people are opposed to what we might call corrupt witness. I believe we have false evangelism and improper proselytism when there is one or more of the following: Use of cajoling, material inducements, and even bribery to win adepts.Use of intimidation, such as a superior in the workplace exerting improper pressure on employees.Offering social or educational inducements.Falsely attributing teachings or beliefs to others, which they do not hold.Any form of evangelism involving fiscal fraud or extortion.Use of slander and libel.Keeping individuals in intensive indoctrination and separated from family and old friends.Consciously and as a matter of strategy taking advantage of people’s misfortune (e.g. poverty, ignorance, sickness, death in the family). I think many and maybe most people would agree that these eight approaches constitute false proselytism (though many would say that all proselytism is by definition false!) There are a number of problems that arise, some ethical, some ecumenical, and some doctrinal. For example, evangelistic activities by members of one church among members of another church are seen by some as ipso facto false proselytism. They would say: if you must, go preach in non-Christian countries. While every Christian has a right and duty to witness, not everyone is called to go to non-Christian countries. Furthermore, Christian witness cannot be limited because one’s neighbors are members of a church. The debate becomes even more difficult when some people advocate that any suggestion to someone that this person might wish to consider changing religion, should be prohibited or at least limited under the law. Who is "Churched"? There is also the fundamental question regarding who is a believer, who is a Christian, who is "churched" and who is "unchurched." Does the act of baptism during the first few days of a person’s life make a person a believer, even though that person never (or almost never) goes to church, has no living faith, and apparently no living connection with Christ? Is such a person really and effectively "churched"? This question becomes all the more significant due to the substantial inroads of secularism within formal Christian ranks. These are delicate questions, but cannot simply be swept under the ecumenical rug. Pastoral Care The suggestion is made in ecumenical circles that the answer to some of the proselytism problems lies in joint witness based on love and mutual recognition. Where there may be, for example, inadequate pastoral care, evangelical churches should support existing historical churches by engaging in common witness. This makes some sense when applied to situations where there are already well-developed ecumenical relations and mutual respect and equality. But this is difficult to envision where newer (though not necessarily new) churches are looked down upon, discriminated against and at times, treated by some established churches as a sort of religious plague to be vaccinated against, at best, or preferably placed in quarantine by government action! It is also at times claimed that the proselytizing efforts by the evangelicals are nullifying the pleasant climate of Christian love that existed in the past. However, historically this has often not been the case. For example, in eastern Europe before the communist revolution, the minority churches were discriminated against and often persecuted with the conivance of the majority churches, more often than not at the instigation of those state churches. Evangelistic cooperation presupposes respect, conversations, and dialog. This ecumenical potting soil is often lacking. Churches that have been around for well over a century or longer are identified as sects and refused recognition or status as churches. There are cases where churches that complain vociferously about western proselytism, refuse conversations, dialog or any recognition whatsoever. Is it logical to talk about Christian love under these conditions? One can rightly ask whether what is wanted is not so much cessation of proselytism, as the elimination of other religious bodies seen as competition. Right to be Proselytized There is one aspect of evangelism or proselytism that is often overlooked. In dealing with the right to proselytize, one must also consider the right to be proselytized, that is the right to receive information, to be taught, to grow in a new or different religious experience. We should deal not only with the right to witness and impart information, but also with the right to receive information. Any strict anti-proselytism regulations cut off the supply of new and different information, restricting both the dissemination and receiving of ideas. Should we not also listen to the witness and views of those who have been proselytized and converted from one church (usually formal belief) to another church (usually living faith)? This right to receive information is also a right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see article 19). Spiritual teaching, which may lead individuals to abandon their organized religion, of their own free will, is not improper proselytism, as indeed the European Court held in the Greek Kokkinakis case. The crucial issue of proselytism is the question of coercion. If there is coercion, such proselytism is improper and to be condemned as false. Tad Stahnke puts it this way: "Thus, the more that proselytism interferes with the ability to freely choose, the more the regulating power of the state may be attracted." ("Proselytism and the Freedom to Change Religion in International Human Rights," BYU Law Review, 1999, No. 1, p. 327) Violations of Ethical or Moral Norms Recognizing that false proselytism is improper, it must also be said that most wrong forms of evangelism come under the aegis of ethical behavior, not statutory limitations. Much false proselytism is a violation of moral norms not legal norms. Such behavior may be undesirable and morally suspect, not to say reprehensible, but the government is not there to correct faulty thinking or repress false religious witness. The state cannot read minds or consciences and motives. State involvement in this sphere can easily lead to great human right abuses. While we can agree on various definitions of improper proselytism, it is not easy to always know where to draw the line and where just public order and the rights of others are violated. Indeed, the state must protect such rights, but most false evangelism or proselytism falls into the area of moral violations which should not come under the preview of the state. Indeed, the Hungarian Constitutional Court was quite right in holding (1993) that it is not for government authorities to decide what is proper religion, but a matter of "self-interpretation by the churches." (East European Case Reporter of Constitutional Law, 1994, p. 62 in The Ecumenical Review, October 1998, p. 425) Let me present a few tentative thoughts regarding a possible "Code de Bonne Conduite" dealing with principles of proper dissemination of religion and belief. Some of us have been working on such principles in connection with the El Escorial Conference of last May, which is to conclude in Spain next January 2000. As already mentioned, there are two-sides in the matter: the proselyters (outside) and those subject to proselytism (inside). Both sides need to act properly and respectfully. Good Behavior on the Part of Those Outside (Proselyters) There needs to be sensitivity to cultural customs.Not exploit or take advantage of poor, vulnerable segments of the population.Not knowingly make false or questionable claims of miraculous healings or interventions.Not pressure people unduly to abandon the religion of their fathers, risking injury to their religious feelings.Not offer financial or other material inducements or educational benefits in order to "convert" people.Not knowingly spread false information regarding the teachings of other religions or ridiculing their beliefs and practices.Avoid using pejorative terminology (such as "image worshipers," "the harlot of Babylon," "apostate religion").Not accuse large majority churches of having no spiritual or missionary life.Not incite hatred, internecine strife, and antagonistic competition.Not use coercive or manipulative methods of evangelism to get church members, including certain advertising that preys on human gullibility.Not use socio-economic and political power to gain members.Not discredit art used in churches as a transgression of the first or second commandments of the Decalogue. Good Behavior on the Part of Those Inside (Objects of Proselytism) Not exploit or take advantage of members by keeping them ignorant.Not knowingly spread false information regarding the teachings of other religious bodies or ridiculing their beliefs and origin.Not use false tactics to discredit other, especially newer religions, by making alarming statements and unsubstantiated claims about "dangerous sects."Not unduly pressuring members to remain members, by use of open or implied threats and ostracism.Not encourage, but discourage government authorities to discriminate against smaller and newer religious groups and suppress evangelistic witness seen as undesirable.Avoid using pejorative terminology such as "sect," "cult," "satanic group," "heretical group."Not incite hatred of or contempt for minority religions and not encourage ethnic strife.Not use coercive socio-economic or political power to keep members.Not ask for, but on the contrary avoid preferential treatment by the government for one’s particular church.Avoid the religious monopoly syndrome. Good Behavior Applicable to All Build bridges and relationships through contact and conversations.Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).Always be ready to give the reason for one’s hope and faith, subject to the three Petrine conditions: humility, respect, and honesty (good conscience) (1Peter 3:15).See missionary-evangelistic work as involving both spiritual matters (personal salvation) and societal matters (justice and service).Be truthful, transparent, and fair, vis a vis other churches.Keep to convictions and not compromise by subverting self-understanding.Compare the ideals of your church to the ideals of other churches, and not the ideal of your church to the reality of other churches.Verify rumors and alleged happenings in other churches, before believing them to be true.Take account of history, not in order to always fight for the status quo, but in order to understand where people come from. Some Solutions and Conclusions There is a need for dialog between 1) proselyters; 2)opponents of any form of evangelism among baptized members of a church; and 3) those who have been proselytized. Dialog within one side is really a waste of time—like preaching to the choir about the importance of being in church next week. Proper evangelism/proselytism must involve tolerance, not compromise, not a tolerance of condescension, but one that respects the equal rights of others. Conversion should not be presented as closely related to giving up local customs and traditions which are not really in religious opposition to the religion being propagated. Any form of coercion to change or keep one’s religion must be condemned and rejected, for every human being has the inalienable right to adopt the religion of his choice and/or change his religion according to conscience. Evangelism yes, with vigor and with modern, effective means of communication, but with a clear sense of limited knowledge. We may know much truth, but only God knows the truth in all its fullness. Religious views and beliefs that cannot stand up for themselves in a free religious market and survive in a climate of freedom, equality and evangelistic persuasion, may well be on the way to the museum or library. To use the heavy hand of the state to protect such religious groups from the forces of religious persuasion, weakens the moral integrity of such religious bodies. To use the language of the stock market: Such religious bodies may be "ripe for take-over." "The responsibility of fostering religious freedom and the harmonious relations between religious communities is a primary concern of the churches. Where principles of religious freedom are not being respected and lived in church relations, we need, through dialog in mutual respect, to encourage deeper consideration and appreciation of these principles and of their practical applications for the churches." ("Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness," Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, 7th Report, 1998, p. 47. "False proselytism does not liberate, but enslaves and replaces ignorance with subservience to legalism and isolation from the dynamic realities of life. In contrast, authentic evangelism must be liberating—liberation from intellectual and spiritual blindness, liberation from confining ecclesiastical structures, liberation from dead formalism. Such evangelism will lead people to enjoy the freedom Jesus spoke about when He said, "the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) B. B. Beach |
|