The Ethics of Evangelism

Copyright © 2011 Elmer Thiessen

17 16 15 14 13 12 11    7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This edition first published 2011 by Paternoster

Paternoster is an imprint of Authentic Media Limited

Presley Way, Crownhill, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK8 0ES

www.authenticmedia.co.uk

The right of Elmer Thiessen to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying. In the UK such licences are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1P 9HE

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-84227-724-9

Unless otherwise stated Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. Used by permission of Hodder & Stoughton Publishers, a member of the Hachette Livre UK Group. All rights reserved. ‘NIV’ is a registered trademark of Biblica UK, trademark number 1448790

Cover design by David McNeill

Printed and bound in the UK by Bell and Bain, Glasgow

Contents

Preface

Part I:   Some Introductory Considerations

Chapter 1:   Introduction

Definitions

Academic objections to proselytizing

Objectives and approach

Significance of this study

Chapter 2:   Foundational Issues

Religious impulse to proselytize

Why the growing controversy over proselytizing?

Some examples of immoral proselytizing

Ethical foundations

Consensus and relativism

Part II:  Objections to Proselytizing

Chapter 3:   Epistemological/Ethical Objections to Proselytizing

Persuasion

Arrogance

Truth and religious pluralism

Rationality and certainty

Chapter 4:   Proselytizing and the Integrity/Freedom of Individuals and Societies

Problems of question-begging

Physical coercion and the problem of vagueness

Psychological coercion

Inducements to convert

Coercion and informed consent

Missionary colonialism

Chapter 5:   Liberal Objections to Proselytizing

Intolerance

Consequences of proselytizing

Questionable motivations

Proselytizing and universalization

Proselytizing and pluralism

Conclusion

Part III: A Positive Approach to Proselytizing

Chapter 6:   A Defence of Proselytizing

John Stuart Mill’s argument

Contemporary liberalism

Etiquette vs. ethics

Dignity of the proselytizer

Dignity of the proselytizee

Epistemologico-ethical considerations

Conclusion

Part IV: Distinguishing Between Ethical and Unethical Proselytizing

Chapter 7:   Criteria to Evaluate Proselytizing: Part I

Dignity criterion

Care criterion

Physical coercion criterion

Psychological coercion criterion

Social coercion criterion

Inducement criterion

Chapter 8:   Criteria to Evaluate Proselytizing: Part II

Rationality criterion

Truthfulness criterion

Humility criterion

Tolerance criterion

Motivation criterion

Identity criterion

Cultural sensitivity criterion

Results criterion

Golden Rule

Conclusion

Part V:  Conclusion

Chapter 9:   Some Concluding Considerations

Religious dialogue vs. proselytizing

Encouraging ethical proselytizing: Resources within proselytizing religions

Social reinforcement

Legal reinforcement

Religious freedom

Appendix 1

Summary of 15 Criteria to Distinguish between Ethical and Unethical Proselytizing

Appendix 2

Literature Review on the Ethics of Proselytizing and Related Fields

Bibliography

Subject Index

Author/Name Index

Preface

This book has grown out of a sense that something important has been missing in discussions of evangelism or proselytizing, in religions that are committed to the same. Christians, and more specifically, evangelical Christians, rarely give serious consideration to the question of the ethics of evangelism. This work attempts to fill this gap.

My first serious exploration of the ethics of proselytizing occurred in 1985 when I wrote a paper in response to Jay Newman’s treatment of the subject in a chapter of his book entitled, Foundations of Religious Tolerance (1982; see Thiessen, 1985). A subsequent bibliographical search on the topic, uncovered only a handful of relevant articles on the ethics of proselytizing. In 1999, I hired a student in the Library and Information Studies program at the University of Alberta to do an electronic search for me. I am thankful to Dan Mirau for his careful work. Despite every attempt to broaden the search using a variety of related descriptors, very few relevant articles and books were uncovered, although a few more than in my initial searches. Clearly, there was work to be done on the ethics of proselytizing. Hence, this first book- length philosophical treatment of the topic. (The reader is referred to Appendix 2, for a detailed review of the relevant literature.)

As should already be apparent, this book has had a long gestation period. I am grateful to Medicine Hat College for granting me a sabbatical leave in 2000–2001, when I began serious work on this project. My thanks also go to the administration and the Board of Medicine Hat College who provided some research funds for this project during my final years at the college.

My sabbatical in 2000–2001 was divided between two universities. I am thankful to the Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto for accepting me as a Research Reader for the fall semester of 2000. It was wonderful to have access to the wealth of research materials in the many libraries at the University of Toronto. I spent many a delightful day browsing through the ornate college libraries that make up this great university.

I am also very thankful to Harold Coward and his colleagues at the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at the University of Victoria, for the Non-Stipendiary Visiting Research Fellowship that I was awarded for the winter semester of 2001. I thoroughly enjoyed being part of a genuine community of scholars, an all-too-rare phenomenon at our universities. I also appreciated the opportunity to try out earlier versions of the arguments of this book in lectures at both these universities.

My thanks also go to Tyndale University College in Toronto, for my appointment as Research Professor for a three-year period, beginning in May 2008. This appointment has given me the needed time and resources to work on the final revisions of this manuscript.

I am indebted to various Canadian and American friends and colleagues for their encouragement, advice, criticisms and suggestions as I worked on this project. In particular I would like to thank Perry Glanzer of Baylor University, for reading a first draft of the entire manuscript, and for giving me ongoing valuable feedback as the project continued. I am grateful to Jill Gatfield, Gary Colwell, Nathan Kowalsky, Henry Hubert, and Roger Martin for the feedback they gave upon reading portions of the manuscript. My thanks also to Harold Coward, Ron Neufeldt, Greg Pritchard, Geoff Wichert, Dallas Miller, and Rod Reynar for helpful conversations, regarding this project.

I have benefited greatly from the comments of several anonymous readers. My thanks also to Robin Parry at Paternoster, for his help and encouragement with this project. I would also like to thank Gregory Thiessen, for his technical help in producing the illustrations. Finally, thanks to my wife, Magdalene, without whose love, support, and ongoing encouragement this book would not have come to fruition. I dedicate this book to the estimated 4,587 students I have taught over the years, and who in turn have taught me so much, as we engaged in philosophical dialogue in what I hope was an atmosphere of trust and openness.

Portions of this book have appeared previously in somewhat different form and are here used with permission.

•   Proselytizing without Intolerance, in Studies in Religion: A Canadian Journal, 1985, 14(3): 333–45. (Permission granted by the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion).

•   Christians and Jews and Proselytizing: a Response to David Novak, in Religious Studies and Theology, 2003, 22(2): 55–63, © Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2003.

•   Religion, Proselytism, and the Air Force Academy, at www.globalengage.org

•   The Problems and Possibilities of Defining Precise Criteria to Distinguish between Ethical and Unethical Proselytizing/Evangelism, in CulticStudies Review, 2006, 5(3): 374–89. (Permission to reprint a substantial portion of this article has been granted by the International Cultic Studies Association.)

Quotations from the Bible are from the New International Version. Quotations from the Qur’an are based on a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, published by Princeton University Press, second revised edition, 1988.

The cartoon appearing in chapter 7 is reproduced with permission of Punch Ltd., www.punch.co.uk.

A brief overview of this work will hopefully entice the reader to continue reading. The first chapter addresses the question of defining the term evangelism showing how it is related to other terms like proselytizing and mission. I also argue that the term should not be seen as restricted to a religious context. Evangelism or proselytizing occurs in a wide variety of contexts, including ordinary conversations, education, advertising, and public relations. Chapter 1 also cites examples, both popular and academic, of a variety of objections to proselytizing.

In chapter 2, I provide some further contexualization of my argument by examining the religious impulse to proselytize. Here I refer to three religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, the latter being used as an example of a supposedly non-proselytizing religion. I illustrate my arguments throughout the book by referring to these three religions. I also refer to the cults or new religious movements (NRMs), though I avoid making the assumption that only they are guilty of unethical proselytizing.

This book has three central objectives: (a) to answer objections that are frequently raised against proselytizing and to defend the possibility of an ethical form of proselytizing (chapters 3–5); (b) to defend the practice of proselytizing generally (chapter 6); and (c) to develop criteria to distinguish between ethical and unethical proselytizing or evangelism (chapters 7 and 8). Various writers have called for a code of ethics for proselytizing, and I trust this work will make a contribution to that end. The book concludes with some suggestions on how to encourage and reinforce ethical proselytizing (chapter 9).

I want to stress at the outset that this work is not a blanket defence of all proselytizing. Indeed, while working on this project, there were times when I felt that with all the horrible things that religions have done throughout history, also with regard to winning converts, it was foolish, if not inappropriate, for me to write a defence of proselytizing. Proselytizing religions don’t deserve to be defended, I would sometimes think to myself. But then again, we need to be fair. We need to go where the argument carries us, as Plato said so long ago. And so I have tried to provide what I hope is a careful and fair philosophical defence of proselytizing, while at the same time, condemning immoral forms of proselytizing, which sadly have been all too frequent throughout the history of mankind.

Since my goal is to defend religious proselytizing against various objections, I would hope that both those making the objections, as well as those who often find themselves trying to answer these objections would benefit from reading this book. The intended readership includes both skeptic and religious believer. I would anticipate that various religious traditions would also welcome my attempt to provide a clear and careful analysis of the distinction between what is and what is not morally acceptable in proselytizing. In a world that seems to be characterized increasingly by religious hostility and conflict, it is my hope that this book will make a small contribution to creating an environment of greater tolerance and harmony.

Elmer Thiessen,

January 2010

Part I:

Some Introductory Considerations

Chapter 1

Introduction

The topic of evangelism (or proselytizing, or the making of religious converts, or missions) tends to stir up a lot of controversy today. There is no better place to get honest opinions about just about any matter, than in discussion forums on the internet. Here, for instance are some comments on proselytizing made by WindListener, prompting 99 additional responses in a religious newsletter, BeliefNet:

I have nothing against the Christian religion itself. But I am tired of evangelical people going around the world forcing their religion on people. It’s just not right! Most other religions don’t have public sermons on TV every Sunday morning or have people going door-to-door trying to get people to convert. This just drives me crazy. Why can’t they keep their belief to themselves? I know (about) freedom of speech and everything, but if I wanted to listen to a preacher I would go to a church or something like that.

Also about missionaries, maybe they can lay off a bit about preaching their religion. I commend them for going into countries and helping the sick, but why do they have to put in their opinions on religion while doing so? Can’t people just help for the damn sake of helping or is that too hard to ask without some other reason for doing so?¹

In another dialogue on the same site, Tix makes this comment: The call for this active, very aggressive proselytizing is what I find one of the most repulsive doctrines of Christianity. Astro5 is even more blunt: Killing is wrong, but Christianizing the world is just as wrong.²

In the United Kingdom, the Department of Health recently published some guidelines defining how far public sector workers can go in communicating their faith in the workplace. The document entitled, Religion or Belief: A Practical Guide for the NHS, is an attempt to give practical advice to all National Health Service organizations to help them comply with recent equality legislation. This document includes a section entitled Proselytising, beginning with the recognition that some religions expect their members to preach and to try to convert other people. However, in a workplace environment, the document maintains, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behavior. Hence all organizations falling under the NHS are to make it clear from the first day of training or employment that such behavior will be dealt with under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.³

These guidelines were the basis of the action taken by North Somerset Primary Care Trust in December of 2008 against a community supply nurse – an evangelical Christian – who engaged in a form of proselytizing on her job.⁴ Caroline Petrie, after she had dressed her patient’s legs, asked if she would like her to say a prayer. The patient politely declined the offer, and Caroline simply wished her well and left. Although Caroline thought no more about it, the patient mentioned the incident to another nurse the next day. Caroline was confronted that day by a nursing sister who told her the patient had been taken aback by the offer. The next day Caroline received a message on her home phone from her co-ordinator telling her that disciplinary action would be taken. She was summoned to an hour-long disciplinary hearing and formally suspended, based on the equality and diversity policies of the NHS.

During a later interview with a reporter, Caroline recalled part of the conversation with the disciplinary panel. I explained the last thing I wanted was to cause patients distress. If they are very anxious then it might not be appropriate. I will never impose my beliefs on people, but I cannot divorce my faith from my job. The patient too told a reporter later, It didn’t worry me, it just struck me as a strange thing for a nurse to do … Personally I wouldn’t want to see her sacked for something like that.

Caroline, convinced her suspension was unjustified, contacted the Christian Legal Centre, an organization that advises on potential conflicts between questions of faith and the law. After hearing the advice of one of its consultants, she decided to go public. The resulting publicity and the national outcry led to Caroline’s reinstatement by the North Somerset Primary Care Trust.

Reports about several Christian organizations readying teams to enter Iraq soon on the heels of the completion of the liberation of Iraq by U.S. and British troops in March of 2003 created quite a stir in the media.⁵ The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the southern United States, and Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse had workers on the Iraqi-Jordanian borders ready to enter Iraq even before the war was over. While these organizations claimed their first priority would be to provide food, shelter, and other needs to war-ravaged Iraqis, they were quite forthright in admitting that when convenient they would also share their Christian faith with the Iraqis. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on Islamic-American Relations expressed concern about the tendency of evangelical groups to obscure their proselytizing agenda with humanitarian aid: They go after them when they’re most vulnerable and hope that can get them to leave their faith. It’s a very despicable practice.

In the spring of 2005, a story about proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, captured news headlines for quite some time. A task force was appointed to investigate accusations that officers, staff members, and senior cadets inappropriately used their positions to push their evangelical Christian beliefs on cadets.⁶ The task force eventually cleared the Academy of overt religious discrimination, but the report went on to say that the Academy had failed to fully accommodate all members’ religious needs, that there was a lack of awareness as to where the line is drawn between permissible and impermissible expression of religious beliefs, and that there were some cases where faculty members and officers were too aggressive in sharing their evangelical faith.⁷

The Dalai Lama stepped into one of the hottest religious controversies in South Asia in January 2001, when he joined a radical Hindu group in India in condemning the Muslim and Christian practice of actively seeking converts. Whether Hindu or Muslim or Christian, whoever tries to convert, it’s wrong, not good, the Dalai Lama said after a meeting with leaders of the World Hindu Council.⁸ One of the objectives of this influential council is to make multi-religious India a Hindu state. I always believe it’s safer and reasonable to keep one’s own tradition or belief, the Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel peace prize, said.

Proselytizing on college and university campuses also frequently makes the news and is most often found to be very objectionable. Carolyn Kleiner, in an article entitled, A Push Becomes a Shove: Colleges get Uneasy about Proselytizing, describes the phenomenon thus:

Stroll across almost any college campus, and it’s likely you’ll spot a flurry of religious recruiting: colorful fliers touting Bible study and Sabbath dinners; tables staffed by bright-eyed young people offering pamphlets on everything from the Sikh faith to paganism.⁹

In 1999 the Maryland state legislature convened a controversial task force to study the effects of dangerous groups at its public colleges and universities. The task force was started after the parents of a University of Maryland student lodged a complaint about their daughter being a victim of a cult recruiter on campus. The girl had gone to a dorm adviser for advice, but the dispensed wisdom came complete with an invitation to join the advisor’s religion.¹⁰ Concerns about this sort of proselytizing prompted the university police at the University of Toronto to carry an article in the student manual warning about aggressive religious recruiting, encouraging them to contact the police if they were having any difficulties with such groups.¹¹

Proselytizing has also become an issue in schools in the U.S., sometimes even leading to court action. An Indiana public school teacher, who was fired after he ignored warnings to stop proselytizing in the classroom, lost his final appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. Helland, a substitute teacher in South Bend, was removed from the substitute list in 1993 after fifth graders complained he was interjecting religious topics into instruction. School officials noted they had repeatedly warned Helland to stop proselytizing and carrying a Bible into class. Helland refused, insisting his religious freedom was being violated.¹² Several cases involving students delivering overtly religious messages during graduation ceremonies have also made their way to court.¹³ In the United Kingdom, a five-year-old girl in a Devon primary school was scolded for talking to a classmate about Jesus.¹⁴

As a final illustration of public controversies regarding proselytizing, I want to mention the many countries in which proselytizing is prohibited. Laws are often simply a means to reinforce what is seen to be highly objectionable or even immoral. Thus most Islamic states prohibit or severely restrict foreign missionary activity within their borders. In countries where the Orthodox Church is dominant, foreign proselytizing is seen as an intrusion or even a subversion of state/church identity. Lest it be thought this phenomenon is restricted to communist and Islamic countries, it needs to be pointed out that legal constraints on proselytizing also exist in Western liberal democracies.¹⁵ Even in North America, there has been much controversy surrounding attempts to introduce laws to curtail the proselytizing activities of various new religious movements, cults, and more recently anti-abortion groups (Sawatsky 1986).¹⁶

Many more examples of controversies concerning proselytizing could be provided. Indeed, more will be provided as my argument proceeds. My intent here is simply to illustrate that proselytizing is often in the news, that it is most often seen as a very controversial topic, and that most often it is described in pejorative terms, even as an immoral activity. This book is an exploration of the ethics of proselytizing. Is it ever morally right to engage in proselytizing? If so, what criteria can we use to distinguish between ethical and unethical forms of proselytizing? These are the central questions to be addressed in this monograph.

Definitions

Proselytizing. I have discovered, when I have tried it out in the classroom, that this word is not familiar to many students. However, Lawrence Uzzell describes the term as having become the world’s most overused religious term, and growing less and less precise the more often the word is used (16, 14). The term has also acquired a widespread pejorative connotation.¹⁷ Indeed, because of its overuse and because it has acquired a strongly negative connotation by those opposed to all forms of Christian evangelism, Uzzell recommends that we retire the term to the linguistic museum where it belongs (2004, 16). However, I still want to use the term, and shall argue for a neutral definition.

As I have already indicated, I am using evangelism, or missions, or the making of religious converts, as synonyms for religious proselytizing. Other words and phrases describe the same phenomenon. Religious recruitment is often used when talking about the proselytizing activities of cults or new religious movements. Evangelical Christians prefer the use of terms like evangelism, witnessing, sharing one’s faith, saving souls, or proclaiming the gospel. Pushing or peddling the faith is how many critics would describe proselytizing.¹⁸

Clearly the words or phrases introduced in the previous paragraph do not all mean exactly the same thing. But, there is a core meaning. I want to focus on the core meaning of these terms – seeking to bring about a religious conversion in another. The Oxford English Dictionary, defines proselytize as To make proselytes. Proselyte is defined as One who has come over from one opinion, belief, creed, or party to another; a convert.¹⁹

But what exactly is involved in conversion? Again, the OED includes the following as definitions of convert:

1. To turn in mind, feeling, or conduct. 2. To cause to turn to a religion, belief, or opinion. 3. To cause to turn from a sinful to a religious life. 4. To turn into something different; to transform; to change in character or function.

I want to test this definition and see if we can tighten it somewhat. There is obviously some arbitrariness in doing so, since the understanding of religious conversion varies across religious traditions and over time. But I believe there are still some essential commonalities. Each of the four dictionary meanings just considered begins with to turn or to cause to turn. Everybody, I’m sure, would agree that change is at the heart of conversion. Most people will also agree that a religious conversion involves, amongst other things, a change of beliefs. Jay Newman, for example, restricts the meaning of proselytizing to bringing about a change of beliefs (1982, 88–9). This would seem to be the primary focus in our understanding of conversion, but surely changes in behavior are normally assumed to follow from a change of belief. Thus the OED refers to a change from a sinful to a religious life, or a change in character or function. Implicit in such a change of belief and behavior there is also a change of identity, of who you are. Finally there is a corporate dimension to conversion – a re-socialization into an alternative community. Hence, a change of belonging. Thus Alan Kreider has described a genuine religious conversion as involving a change of belief, behavior, and belonging (1999, 1–2).²⁰ Proselytizing or evangelism therefore involves any activity in which a person or an organization is trying to convert another person or group of people in the four senses just described.

Here some further distinctions might be in order. Conversion can be brought about in a variety of ways. Sometimes the lifestyle of a person can lead another to inquire about that person’s religious faith, eventually leading to a conversion. Does proselytizing occur in this case? Well, in some sense, yes. Surely covert proselytizing is still an instance of proselytizing. Proselytizing can be intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect, and overt or covert. These qualifiers can be attached to proselytizing, but interestingly the word proselytizing is still being used in all these expressions.

However, most often what we are thinking of when we use the word proselytizing is the intentional, direct, and overt communication that results in someone’s conversion. Even in the examples of covert proselytizing in the previous paragraphs, it is most often the communication resulting from inquiries regarding an attractive life-style that will finally lead to conversion. So proselytizing in the full sense must involve some explicit verbal communication. Consider another example. Sometimes people are converted as a result of humanitarian aid. Mission agencies are often engaged in educational, agricultural, and medical activities as part of their missionary activities. These activities and acts of charity can lead to people being converted.²¹ Is this proselytizing? Again, this can be classified as indirect proselytizing. But, typically, these activities will be accompanied by some form of verbal communication, and it is only here where we would begin to talk of proselytizing. While we will need to explore the connection between humanitarian aid and proselytizing, the focus in this book will be on proselytizing in the form of explicit verbal communication that is intended to lead someone to convert.

We are now in a position to provide a formal definition of the central meaning of proselytizing which will be the focus of this study.

Proselytizing = (def.) The deliberate attempt of a person or organization, through communication, to bring about the conversion of another person or a group of persons, where conversion is understood to involve a change of a person’s belief, behavior, identity, and belonging.

I would now like to compare this understanding of proselytizing with words often associated with or used instead of the word proselytizing. First of all, it should be noted that proselytizing is only one facet of the mission of various religions. Judaism, while it tends to de-emphasize proselytizing, nevertheless sees itself as having a mission. Israel’s vocation is to be a light to the nations.²² This broader sense of mission is also shared by other religions. Closely related to this mission of upholding the good and calling the nations to return to what is just and moral is the social mission of the various religions. The Torah, for example, commands the children of God to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and the needy in your land (Deut 15:11). Again, the question arises as to the relation between this kind of a social mission and proselytizing. Clearly they are different, and yet humanitarian aid as an expression of social mission can lead to proselytizing and conversion. There is also a political dimension to the Islamic understanding of mission, which again has its parallels in other religions. This brief review of other dimensions of religious mission must suffice to help us better understand the central focus of this book, which is on proselytizing. Proselytizing is only one part of the mission of most religions. Other aspects of the broader mission of religions will be dealt with only insofar as they relate in some way to proselytizing.

As already suggested, many Christians prefer to use the word evangelism instead of proselytizing. Evangelism too has a variety of connotations. These vary from evangelism is social action, to evangelism is announcing the gospel to non-Christians with a view to faith and conversion and their eventual incorporation into the Church by baptism.²³ We see in the latter connotation the core meaning of my definition of proselytizing. Proselytizing, for Christians, includes the task of proclaiming the gospel. In the Middle Ages, the word propaganda was even used to describe the mission of the Roman Catholic church (Marlin 2002, 15). Given the pejorative overtones associated with propaganda today, this term is no longer viewed by the church as a suitable synonym for evangelism, though critics would no doubt disagree. It should be noted, however, that in Latin countries propaganda simply means advertising, with no negative associations attached, although with time, the term will no doubt be affected by one’s perceptions of what is being propagated (Marlin 2002, 16).

Another very important use of the term proselytizing merits some comment. As already noted, the term is often used as having a strongly pejorative, even sinister, connotation by those opposed to all forms of Christian evangelism.²⁴ Even in Christian circles the term is used in a pejorative sense to denote evangelistic malpractice (Anderson 1996, 1). A Catholic study of the problem of the defection of new immigrants from Catholicism contrasts Christian witness and proselytism. Proselytism is a corrupted form of witness according to this study (King 1991, 14). Now clearly one can choose to introduce different words to describe the positive and negative forms of the same phenomenon. But this seems rather arbitrary. Surely it is better to use the same word to describe the same phenomenon, and then distinguish between moral and immoral expressions of this phenomenon. To introduce two different words to describe efforts to convert another encourages a tendency to skirt issues needing to be faced. This in turn leads to charges and counter-charges being made, with issues seldom being resolved. As has been noted by several writers, what is evangelization to one person or group is proselytizing to another.²⁵ I have therefore chosen to define the word proselytizing in a neutral way, which then allows for the possibility of ethical and unethical ways to proselytize.

Another special and narrower sense of proselytizing needs to be brought to the fore. For the last four decades the problem of proselytizing in this narrower sense has been the special concern of ecumenically minded Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic leaders.²⁶ Here proselytizing refers to the attempt to attract Christians from a particular church tradition to another church. Opponents to this kind of evangelistic malpractice sometimes refer to it as sheep-stealing, i.e. stealing members (sheep) from someone else’s church. Criticisms of this war for souls have been raised recently and most vehemently by the Orthodox Church since the break-up of the former Soviet Union (Witte/Bourdeaux 1999). For example, in August 1992 the heads of the two most venerated Episcopal sees in Armenian Christianity issued a joint encyclical entitled Fatherly Advice. The two patriarchs objected to the notion that Armenia was a field ripe for proselytism. Armenia is not a mission-field for Christian evangelism, they insisted. They spoke of proselytizing as soul stealing, the illicit conversion of Christians from one confession to another within an already Christianized nation. This activity is a threat to Christian unity … and to national unity (Guroian 1999, 231).²⁷

One of the problems with the repeated condemnations of proselytizing in this narrow sense is that this pejorative and narrow notion of proselytizing is invariably loaded with other nuances, which then make it easy to condemn proselytizing or sheep-stealing. For example, in a case study of a major ecumenical effort at evangelism in Russia, Nicastro concludes a discussion of definitions of proselytizing with a synthetic definition: aggressive targeting and winning of converts from their (recognized) church to one’s own, especially through improper means (1994, 226). In a study document of a Joint Working Group of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, the term proselytism is applied to activities of Christians to win adherents from other Christian communities, based on unworthy motives or done by unjust means that violate the conscience of the human person (1996, 216).

Definitions such as these simply confuse the matter. We need to separate the issue of trying to convert someone already belonging to a church, from the issue of using unjust or improper means in doing so. Obviously the use of unjust or improper means such as coercion or distortion of other churches’ beliefs and practices is immoral. But is the attempt to convert someone when he