The Challenge of “Policing” Christian Witness

Defining the often hazy lines between “evangelism,” “proselytism,” and “religious freedom”

Earlier this month, three organizations representing some 90 percent of the world’s 2 billion Christians released a joint statement—“Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World”—which is, in effect, a “code of good conduct” for missionary-minded Christian denominations. The World Council of Churches (WCC), the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) have produced what seems, on first reading, to be a common-sense, theologically sound approach. (Read full text of the document here.) It respects the Christian imperative to witness and yet, at the same time, it aims to protect individuals from coercive or less-than-straightforward tactics that could impair the true freedom of their choice.

It’s difficult to imagine anyone opposing this.

This document addresses a genuine—and increasingly serious—challenge for Christians: How to proclaim the Gospel in a pluralistic world without inflaming suspicion, hatred, and even violence, between religions.

But a second reading reveals some grey areas of significant concern—especially when it comes to religious freedom. 

1.  Are we speaking the same language?

Although the document doesn’t actually mention “proselytism,” this word is, in reality, its animating force. Proselytism has become synonymous with “inappropriate witness” and this document is essentially an attempt to articulate what is and isn’t acceptable when it comes to sharing the Christian faith. But, to adapt an old saying, “One person’s faithful witness is another person’s proselytism.”

Obviously, we can all agree on what constitutes gross violations of integrity; violations which have all too often given Christian witness a bad name. But beyond the self-evident, we find that there’s no sharp, universally applicable definition of proselytism. We may agree on the basics: no material inducements; no coercion or violence; no disrespect of people, religions, or their religious symbols, being careful not to exploit vulnerable people.

However, in practice, things are rarely so clear cut. Our understanding of what’s acceptable and unacceptable will constantly be challenged. And further, our attitudes to acceptable witness will inevitably be shaped by our culture, the values of our faith tradition, and our theological perspective.

Could offering health services in a remote African region—even if provided with no strings attached and without reference to faith—be seen as offering material inducements to look favorably on the spiritual message of a religious group? Could it be seen as exploiting vulnerable people?

What about a country with a dominant or state-sponsored religion? In this context, an “unacceptable witness” may be understood far differently than in countries where changing one’s religion is less fraught with social, cultural, and legal implications.

In other words, the often fine line between evangelism and proselytism, between acceptable and unacceptable witness, is often blurred by both circumstances and cultural conditioning—our own, and that of those we’re trying to reach.  

2.  Is there a danger of trying to “over-intellectualize” a spiritual phenomenon?

The “Christian Witness” document recognizes an individual’s right to change his or her religion, but says that “Christians are to acknowledge that changing one’s religion is a decisive step that must be accompanied by sufficient time for adequate reflection and preparation, through a process ensuring full personal freedom.”i The document seems to be advocating “conversion under control” or “conversion with brakes on.”

Unfortunately, Spirit-led conversion doesn’t always follow a specific template—as the experience of the Apostle Paul attests.   

We must be cautious about imposing any process for ensuring the “genuineness” of conversion, for this is attempting squeeze an inherently personal, subjective experience into a framework of intellectual and objective assessment. And it’s a less-than-comfortable fit.

Yes, we can try to develop objective markers to rule out violations of good mission practices. But we cannot examine the inner-workings of a person’s heart and mind, and we cannot control the Spirit. The conscience is a private, impenetrable space, occupied only by an individual and his or her God. And so, in the absence of obvious coercion or abuses, we have no choice but to accept the decision of an individual—on their timetable, not ours.

3. Does the document go far enough in affirming religious freedom?

“Christian Witness in a Multi-Cultural World” does well in condemning abuses that can taint Christian witness. But is it as forceful in denouncing attacks on an individual’s right to share his or her faith? Is it as vigorous in condemning the persecution of those who choose to change religion?

Sharing religion is a right included in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—it’s a fundamental freedom. And yet we’re sometimes timid in declaring this.  As long as witness is free from coercion, dishonesty, disrespect, or other abuses, an individual’s freedom of religious expression and religious affiliation should be protected. This is simply a question of principle, and we should defend this principle as energetically as we condemn evangelistic practices that can impair free choice.  

As I’ve visited many different countries around the world, I’ve often tried to find people who have been paid to change their religion, but I’ve never met one. In some places, the monetary inducement to convert would have to be very high indeed, because it’s a sure route to persecution and even death.

But, on the other hand, I’ve heard testimonies from many, many people who’ve been forced to leave their family and their country because they changed their religious affiliation. How many are now forced to flee from one country to another one because they’re not accepted as legal refugees? How many have followed their conscience, knowing that it would fracture their relationships, their career, and their future?

Let’s not be reticent about denouncing the discrimination and persecution—often sanctioned by law—that religious minorities experience in many countries. Let’s speak out more clearly against the abuse of the power of those states that deny individuals the freedom to choose and change their religion, and which treat conversion as a crime.

Yes, I accept that the “Christian Witness” document is primarily talking about mission practices. Yet, if such a discussion doesn’t take place against a background of religious freedom issues, it's failed to encompass the full picture.

A positive—but incomplete—step forward

I have a great personal interest in the “Christian Witness” document for it deals with a subject that the International Religious Liberty Association has explored many times through the years.  The very first two meetings of the IRLA’s Meeting of Experts, held in 1999 and 2000, dealt with the topic “Proselytism and Religious Freedom.”  Experts representing different beliefs, academics from various universities, and representatives from UNESCO and the United Nations Human Rights Commission spent a significant amount of time together sharing and discussing the complexities of responsible witness. They produced an excellent document called: Guiding Principles for Responsible Dissemination of Religion or Belief that I believe provides a balanced perspective on the major issues involved. (Read full text of this document here.) The IRLA also published a special issue of our journal, Fides Et Libertas, on the same theme.

As it stands, I believe the “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World” document provides a positive step forward in the ongoing discussion of responsible missionary outreach. Imagine if a statement such as this had been accepted by Christians in the 4th and 16th centuries. How different the course of history would have been.

Yet, I can’t help but wish this historic document had given greater attention to the question of religious freedom and its implications for Christian witness—for in today’s global environment, these two issues are inextricably linked.

I hope these recommendations will be read and studied by religious leaders and implemented everywhere it is possible—where Christians are the majority and where they are a minority; where they are powerful and where they are powerless.

And I hope such a document will help all Christians understand that religious freedom is one of God’s greatest gifts, and it should be promoted and protected also by religious leaders.
      
John Graz

Secretary General, International Religious Liberty Association