EMQ » April–June 2019 » Volume 55 Issue 3
By Tamara Henkes
As I prepared to embark on my first long-term missionary journey to Romania in 2006, one question surfaced multiple times from various non-Christian family, friends, and acquaintances: “Are you moving to Romania to proselytize?” This question affronted me somewhat. Rather than address it head on I responded defensively. I did not take into consideration their cultural lens for perceiving the concept of proselytism, nor did I attempt to investigate their definition of proselytism and whether they viewed it as negative, positive, or neutral. Now, after living twelve years in a majority Orthodox Christian country, my eyes have opened to the sensitivity around proselytism while witnessing ongoing battles between Orthodox churches and Evangelical churches. It has disheartened me to see some of the biggest obstacles to evangelism come from leaders and members of other Christian traditions.
I have worked as a Pentecostal Christian missionary serving in Eastern Europe since 2006. To some, the calling of evangelism and discipleship is considered proselytism. Cecil Robeck summarizes this common misperception stating that “one group’s evangelization is another group’s proselytism.”[i] It is not my intention to change anyone’s mind as to the legitimacy of what missionaries do if their worldview of missions is negative causing them to believe that these actions are merely proselytism. Instead, this article proposes a self-critique for Evangelical missionaries to address the issues, concerns, and misconceptions regarding the negative connotation of proselytism. The scope of this article seeks to address common aggression towards proselytism and to outline a response towards hostile reactions from those opposed to the perceived proselytism of evangelical Christian missionaries serving within a majority Orthodox context.
Definition: Biblical Definition and Contemporary Perceptions Towards Proselytism
The definition of proselytism varies widely depending on one’s religious background, cultural context and personal experience. Therefore, seeking a foundational understanding of what other people perceive proselytism to mean is crucial in striving to understand their perspective.
The word proselyte [Greek proselytos προσήλυτος], referenced in the Septuagint (LXX) seventy-seven times, translates the Hebrew word ger, for a stranger, sojourner, or resident alien in the land. Scholars, however, debate whether the use of προσήλυτος in the LXX refers to sojourner or a convert to Judaism challenging its frequent use of the word in the nineteenth century.[ii] The New Testament mention of proselyte can be found four times referring to a convert to Judaism (Matt. 23:15, Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43).
Contemporary use of the word proselytism brings an entirely new perspective. This simple word, typically used in a pejorative sense, although hardly referenced in the Bible, can spark discord, disunity, and antagonism amongst people around the world, especially among Christians. Tad Stahnke defines proselytism as “expressive conduct undertaken with the purpose of trying to change the religious beliefs, affiliation, or identity of another.”[iii] The World Council of Churches defines proselytism to mean “the encouragement of Christians who belong to a church to change their denominational allegiance, through ways and means that ‘contradict the spirit of Christian love, violate the freedom of the human person and diminish trust in the Christian witness of the church.’”[iv]
The word proselytism invokes negative emotions amongst not only those outside the church but also inside the church as many consider it a “derogatory term, depicting the image of coercion, force, abandonment, threats, manipulation, and cults.”[v] Some even consider those who proselytize as “arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical, meddlesome,”[vi] while others have defended the ethical form of proselytism (ethical evangelism) while opposing any unethical form of proselytism (coercion, deception, manipulation or force). Statements from the Geneva World Council of Churches claim that “proselytism…is considered a betrayal of authentic evangelism. To renounce proselytism does not mean to renounce evangelism.”[vii] Nicastro cites Georges Lemopoulos from an unpublished paper that “Proselytism is not the opposite of evangelization but a corruption of it.”[viii] The concern that Nicastro points out is not a matter of the evangelistic effort itself but rather with the attitude, goal, means, and the target population of the proselytizer.
From personal experience, the word proselytism still conjures up negative emotions and, in some cases, antagonistic behavior from one group to another in response to what some consider proselytizing efforts. Many evangelical Christians would not use the term proselytism to describe their mission and calling to fulfill the Great Commission; however, many times it is used to describe other people’s behavior when participating in evangelism with which others may not agree. Some consider proselytism an obstacle to the real work of missions. Robeck declares proselytism, in any deceptive, coercive or manipulative form, to be “a blight on the veracity of the Christian message and on the effectiveness of Christian mission.”[ix] He challenges those who indiscriminately label all forms of evangelistic efforts as proselytism claiming that legitimate evangelism towards persons of other “religious communities” exists.
While the question remains debatable as to the definition of proselytism, it is essential to understand the viewpoint of those with whom one interacts. The remainder of this article will not seek to answer the question regarding whether proselytism is correct or incorrect, moral or immoral. Instead, it will focus specifically on the responsibilities of Evangelical missionaries serving in majority Orthodox countries attempting to balance allegiance to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and obedience to His calling to fulfill the Great Commission without compromise with the concerns expressed by many scholars regarding unethical forms of evangelism which may be rightly caused proselytism.
Response of Evangelical Missionaries
This conflict of proselytism may never resolve as long as the word itself and the perception remains skewed. Evangelicals cannot naively think that a list of simple steps will bring ecumenical unity or to change the perceptions towards evangelistic efforts. However, a change in attitude, behavior, and mindset may help bridge the relational gap. The following section involves a self-critique looking inward towards the motives and thoughts about what it means to serve in missions as Evangelicals in a majority Orthodox context.
Willing to Be Humble
Obedience to God’s command to go into all the world, preach the good news and make disciples of all nations should take precedence above all (Matthew 28:19). The growing concern about proselytism continues to rise as the increase of pluralism could lead to competition towards a “war for souls.”[x] However, proselytizing, defined in an ethically positive manner, can be “a good thing, a natural expression of human dignity and the human desire to communicate…and can be seen as an expression of care and concern for others.”[xi] This expression will require coming to the mission field with humility which recognizes that only Jesus, not missionaries, can save people and cultures (John 10:7–9). Avoid arriving with an attitude assuming one group is right and another is wrong. Also avoid imposing the cultural standards of the sending country upon other cultures by associating any sense of economic or political advancements with spiritual superiority.[xii]
Many articles regarding proselytism have been written at the height when the majority of missionaries were from Western cultures. However, there is now a shift, and more of the countries which, at one time, were fields for missionary activity are now sending missionaries out to proclaim the Good News to other countries. No longer is missions and the “propaganda” it spreads considered now only western but now from all ends of the earth. As a result of this shift, missionaries, regardless from where they come, should also be mindful of ethnocentric tendencies, even subconscious ones.[xiii] Fletcher warns that unethical proselytism expresses “negative judgment of another’s identity” and typically results in one group exchanging ideas from a superior vantage point rather than to consider each other as equals.[xiv]
Willing to Evaluate Motives
Many Christian churches oppose proselytism as they consider it to be “sheep stealing.” In Eastern Europe, the influences of Communism, with a primarily atheistic worldview, will undoubtedly be substantial after an entire generation lived with this propaganda. Once the doors in Eastern Europe opened up after the fall of Communism, Christians flooded in “needing to bring them Jesus.” Regardless of the impact that Communism had on Eastern European countries, now that these countries are open for opportunities to share Christ, missionaries need to recall that Jesus has always been present and avoid the idea that He needs to be brought in. Rather, the challenge, faced, today, is to “Wash the face of Jesus, that beautiful face that has been dirtied not only by Communist propaganda but also by so many compromises our churches – both the established and evangelical – have made through the centuries.”[xv]
There are still many who need to hear the Gospel. Churches fighting against each other distracts us from God’s calling. Be cautious not to pass judgment and assume that those of different Christian traditions are not ‘true’ Christians. Proper motive entails teaching the truth from the Word of God with humility and praying for God to lead those who need to hear this truth to those who will properly share. The focus needs to be on God’s mission while at the same time making an effort to recognize local churches and not substitute them. Churches, whether consciously or subconsciously, need to stop the practice of looking at one another’s church as a potential “field for the harvest.” Horner challenges this fact, arguing that there is evidence for the need to reach nominal Christians resulting in possibly a change of churches if that individual so desires as they pursue a deeper relationship with God. He resolves to ask the question:
Is it never legitimate or desirable to change one’s church membership? That, I believe, is not the question before us. Any valid concept of religious liberty presumes that right, and it must be defended. Such a change for some people may indeed make the difference between merely perfunctory religious allegiance and vital faith – but only when it is an act of free volition, free from any kind of external pressure.[xvi]
Horner also shares the importance for Evangelicals, when serving in countries with more traditional cultures, to understand the complexities of closely intertwined “social and ecclesiastical moorings” and the trauma that can result when Christians break away.
Willing to Change Mindset
Language can reveal a level of humility, or lack of, as some may refer to a missionary’s calling to “bring the Gospel” to a country assuming the Gospel never existed before the missionary arriving. Ion Bria expresses his concern with projections being made about Orthodoxy in Romania saying that those making claims assume that the “traditional Byzantine churches are unable to understand what is happening in this historic transitional period: a crisis of paradigms and the need for new models to interpret and to renew the present realities.”[xvii] A common complaint from Orthodox leaders is the perspective that Evangelicals perceive the Orthodox church as a harvest field of unbelievers or nominal Christians.
Lawrence Uzzel shares the frustration experienced by Orthodox Russians in the early 1990s how Americans “swept into Russia … as if it were a land of pagan savages who had never heard the Gospel …” Unfortunately, Orthodox views towards Evangelicals point to similar perceptions. Christianity Today reports on an interfaith marriage encyclical, in which Archbishop Lakovos of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America labeled Assemblies of God and Pentecostal members as non-Christians.[xviii] A resolve to this mistrust involves each group learning the other’s beliefs, traditions, and rituals and to have a willingness to change ones mindset towards the other.
Willing to Listen
James chapter one refers to the importance of taking time to listen. As a skill, listening is crucial for all relationships. Between Evangelicals and Orthodox adherents, taking the time to listen to and learn each other’s perspective and foundational beliefs is essential. It is risky to say that one does not care what others think and approach conversations with an arrogance believing one holds the truth and it is a duty and calling to tell others this truth. This attitude will serve only to build up more walls and confirm the negative perspective other have towards missionaries. Jay Newman shares strong opinion towards missionaries, whom he lumps together in the same category as proselytizers stating:
We usually do not like the people who come to convert us. We often find them arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical, meddlesome. One does not have to be a religious relativist to resent the fact that missionaries and proselytizers have made little effort to understand the depth of our own personal religious commitments. We are prepared to listen to them, but we soon lose our patience when we find that they are not prepared to listen to us.[xix]
Newman articulates the need for open dialogue between those of different religions in order to establish “ecumenical activities,” however, he feels the impossibility of constructive, open dialogue if conversion remains the missionary’s sole purpose. Listening to the voices of others, especially those opposed to proselytism helps to understand that in many cases a desire for open dialogue exists. Thiessen, although agreeing that dialogue may facilitate mutual understanding, gives caution to the use of dialogue as a form of persuasion and a potential “tactical maneuver” used to accomplish the end purpose to convert. A desire for everyone to hear and to have a chance to respond to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ does not equate to free reign regarding the ends justifying the means. Ultimately motives of those serving must be pure with a priority on relationship, value, and the dignity of people.
Willing to Learn
Learn to share the gospel within the context of the culture one is serving in. Take the time to learn the language and culture. From personal experience, serving twelve years in Romania, many doors of conversation opened up because of the time I spent learning the language. Interactions led to curiosity – why would an American learn their language – and as a result this opens hearts for sharing life stories.
Take the time to understand the Orthodox Church and their beliefs. Zernov states that “The quarrel which has divided the Church for so many centuries has impaired its understanding of true Christian teaching, for each branch has been able to see only one side of the whole paradoxical truth.”[xx] Zernov elaborates on the importance of both western and eastern Christians investing in the lives of each other, living amongst each other learning how the other lives, worships, and values. This process to “interchange church leaders” leads to richer mutual understanding moving forward towards reconciliation. Vassiliadis also challenges the church to set aside “selfish theological preoccupations and proceed to a ‘common’ evangelistic witness” knocking down denominational walls and placing emphasis on rediscovering:
The catholicity of the church; … because the ultimate goal and the raison d’être of the church goes far beyond denominational boundaries, beyond Christian limitations, even beyond the religious sphere in the conventional sense: it is the manifestation of the kingdom of God, the restoration of God’s ‘household’ (οίκος), in its majestic eschatological splendor; in other words the projection of the inner dynamics (love, communion, sharing etc.) of the Holy Trinity into the world and cosmic realities.[xxi]
Achieving all this requires self-critique and a willingness to question the theology and practice of missions while stepping out of a traditional missiological structure bringing incarnated love onto the mission field crossing denominational boundaries for the common purpose of reaching the world for the Kingdom of God.
Conclusion
No step-by-step checklist exists in order to bring about unity and collaboration amongst Evangelicals and the Orthodox Church. Regardless of whether or not one is Evangelical or Orthodox, faithful obedience to God’s calling in teaching His truth and reaching the lost remains paramount. An understanding exists, especially in majority Orthodox countries, that evangelistic efforts may be portrayed negatively as proselytism. A responsibility of Evangelical missionaries lies in an awareness of the complexity of the cultural dynamics and to make every attempt to understand the perspectives of the Orthodox church towards evangelistic efforts.
Try to avoid entering into a mission field blind to this complexity and reframe from ignoring the conflict. Enter into the mission field with humility and willingness to listen, to learn, and to change one’s mindset if needed. No longer can the Evangelical Church ignore the Orthodox Church, nor can the Orthodox Church ignore the Evangelical Church. Christians have a call to be servants and to approach this call with pure motives in the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ calls all followers of Him to be one (John 17:21). Not one as in united as one organizational structure but united in love, obedience to God’s word, and to follow His will for this world to know Him. Zernov makes a call for unity for the purpose to work together and reach the lost in this world and how much more powerful the efforts would be:
If the barrier between East and West is to be broken down there must be a definite movement to overcome this mutual ignorance and misunderstanding. It is obvious that there must be a missionary movement for the reunion of the Church similar to that for the conversion of the heathen; and it is probable that the two movements will work in close contact, for the reunion of the Church and its missionary activity are strongly interwoven.[xxii]
Collaboration displayed through powerful evangelistic efforts as Christians look beyond denominational, governmental, structural and ecclesial walls and celebrate inter-ecclesial relations as one body of Christ serving the mission of God (1 Corinthians 12:12). A challenge established for the church’s focus not to argue doctrinal differences or attempt to reach an agreement on “church government or administration of the sacraments” but for the hearts of the Christians to be freed from the “spirit of superiority and self-satisfaction which at present makes friendly relations almost impossible.”[xxiii]
Tamara Henkes is pursuing her PhD in Intercultural Studies at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield MO. Since 2006 Tamara has served in Romania co-directing Kidz Romania ministry team. Their scope is to partner with Evangelical churches throughout Romania assisting with children’s ministry through evangelistic outreaches as well as equipping and training children’s workers.
[i] Robeck, C. M. “Mission and the Issue of Proselytism.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 20, 2, 1996. Accessed November 6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/239693939602000101.
[ii] Moffitt, D. M.; Butera, C. J. 2013. “P.Duk. inv. 727r: New Evidence for the Meaning and Provenance of the Word Προσήλυτος.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132, 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/23488242.
[iii] Stahnke, T. “Proselytism and the freedom to change religion in international human rights law.” Brigham Young University Law Review 1, 251, 1999.
[iv] You are the Light of the World”: Statements on Mission by the World Council of Churches 1980-2005 World Council of Churches, 2005.
[v] Stalnaker, C. “Proselytism or Evangelism?” Evangelical Review of Theology 26, 337, 2002.
[vi] Newman, J. Foundations of Religious Tolerance. Univ of Toronto Press, 1982.
[vii] Robeck, op. cit.
[viii] Nicastro, Vito R. Jr. “Mission Volga: A Case Study in the Tensions Between Evangelizing and Proselytizing” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31, no. 3-4 (Summer-Fall): 223-43, 1994. Accessed November 12, 2018. https://0-search-ebscohost-com.swan.searchmobius.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000888060&site=ehost-live.
[ix] Robeck, op. cit.
[x] Witte, J.; Bourdeaux, M. Proselytism and Orthodoxy in Russia: The New War for Souls. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009.
[xi] Thiessen, E. J. The ethics of evangelism: A philosophical defense of proselytizing and persuasion. InterVarsity Press, 2011.
[xii] Uzzell, L. A. Guidelines for American Missionaries in Russia na, 1999.
[xiii] Uzzell, Guidelines.
[xiv] Fletcher, J. “Proselytism.” Ecumenica 7, 67, 2014. Https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/ecumenica.7.1-2.0067.
[xv] Volf, M.. “Fishing in the Neighbor’s Pond: Mission and Proselytism in Eastern Europe.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research\ 20, 26, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/239693939602000107.
[xvi] Horner, N. A. “The Problem of Intra-Christian Proselytism.” International Review of Mission 70, 304, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6631.1981.tb03109.x.
[xvii] Bria, I. “Evangelism, proselytism, and religious freedom in Romania: An Orthodox point of view.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 36, 163, 1999.
[xviii] “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness.” Pneuma 21, 11, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1163/157007499×00035.
[xix] Newman, op. cit.
[xx] Zernov, N. “The Christian Church of the East.” International Review of Mission 23, 539, 1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6631.1934.tb04777.x.
[xxi] Vassiliadis, P. “Mission and Proselytism: An Orthodox Understanding.” International Review of Mission. 85, 257, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6631.1996.tb03485.x.
[xxii] Zernov, op. cit.
[xxiii] Ibid.
