A Defense of Ethical Evangelism
How Religion Spoils Everything is the subtitle of Christopher Hitchens’s New York Times best-seller God is Not Great. And there are many who share Hitchens’s feelings about religion. Increasingly, it seems, many see religion as a dangerous thing. Still, the vast majority of people (especially Americans) are religious. Despite the prevalence of religious peoples, increasing pressure mounts nevertheless to privatize faith.
For religions such as Christianity and Islam, such a “closet faith” is nearly impossible—and quite frankly dishonest. For Christians to privatize their faith would defy Scripture’s teachings, which call for a radical transformation of the entire world. Yet there is a concerted effort to end (or at least shame) those who share their faith. The question is, “Is this an intellectually honest response for religions that evangelize?”
In this essay, I will explore the ethical dilemmas of evangelism in a secular society, with special attention to Christian evangelism. Elmer Thiessen’s The Ethics of Evangelism will serve as an occasional guide throughout our discussion.
Proselytization and Its ‘Cultural Despisers’
What does it mean to proselytize? Thiessen broadly defines it this way: “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 persons’ belief, behavior, identity, and belonging” [1]. While this definition may suggest that proselytization is a harmless act, it is potentially one of the most offensive acts in which a person could take part [2].
But what is it about evangelism that renders it so offensive? The Washington Post makes many arguments against proselytizing in its “On Faith” section, for example:
(1) It Is Typically Manipulative and/or Forceful: One argument is that evangelism is often done in a manipulative manner. Susan Smith, a United Church of Christ pastor, writes: “There is a difference between sharing and forcing. Unfortunately, in my limited experience, those who proselytize have merely been trying to force their views and their religion on me. And every time it has happened, I have resented it” [3].
(2) It Is Imperialistic: In reference to cross-cultural evangelism, dissenters also believe that it is imperialistic for wealthy Americans to go to less-civilized, poor countries to spread their faith. Ramesh Rao holds this view, for example. He says that “Bible thumpers” and “Qur’an dispensers” are constantly preying upon the poor and uneducated, “promising liberation, heaven, and the good life, if they accepted the Bible along with the bread” [4]. Rao refers to this as cultural “identity theft.”
(3) It Is Inherently Wrong and Arrogant: Others hold strictly to the notion that attempting to persuade a person to change his or her beliefs about religion is inherently wrong. Jack Moline, a Rabbi in Virginia, takes this approach when he says that educating a person of another faith on your beliefs is okay, but having expectations of that person converting via persuasion is intolerant. Moline writes, “However, when the goal of such sharing is to persuade me that I don’t know how to appreciate the diamond, that is not, as some would have it, an expression of love and concern, but arrogance and dismissal….It shouldn’t be done overseas. It shouldn’t be done locally. And with very few exceptions, it isn’t done by Jews” [5].
Though potent in their initial force, even these objections reveal an inner evangelistic ethos. In other words, evangelism is practiced by those other than the “religious zealots.”
Everybody’s Doing It
Timothy Keller points out that it is impossible to be indifferent regarding worship. The issue is not “will we worship?” Rather, the question is, “What do we worship?” Thiessen similarly argues that it’s not just “radical” religious groups like Christians and Muslims that are proselytizing—everybody is doing it. We are inundated with advertisements enticing us to convert from an existing product to another, for example. Thiessen writes, “[W]hat is really being attempted in advertising is to bring about a conversion” [6]. From Apple’s iPhone to a McDonald’s cheeseburger, there is a lot of proselytizing out there.
Some might say that converting a person from one product to another is entirely different from converting someone from one set of religious beliefs or ethical ideals to another. Even if this objection is granted, it doesn’t take long to find a form of accepted evangelism in the public square that addresses both religious faith and ethical ideals. A clear example of this is political campaigns. While political campaigns are clothed in social and economic garb, they are deeply rooted in values and aspirations. Yet no one is complaining that it is imperialistic, arrogant, or evil for wealthy candidates to attempt to convert Americans to their agenda. Quite simply, we are constantly being persuaded that one idea is better than another.
Maybe Ramesh Rao, Susan Smith, and Jack Moline haven’t noticed it yet, but even they are seeking to convert religious proselytizers to another faith. They are seeking to convert proselytizers to their non-proselytizing religion. Their argument is therefore self-defeating because they are partaking in the very same evangelism they despise. The content of the argument may have changed, but the practice remains. The point is that we are all proclaiming the news that Messiah has come. Some say it’s a phone; some say it’s a hamburger; some say it’s tolerance; and some say He’s Jesus of Nazareth.
Reforming Religious Evangelism
The real reason that postmoderns take issue with evangelism is that it presupposes the existence of absolute truth. Not only does it presuppose absolute truth, the evangelist posits that he or she possesses this truth. And nothing reeks of arrogance more in the modern mind than totalizing claims to truth. But there may also be legitimate objections to unethical and unbiblical forms of evangelism throughout the world. Christians must constantly evaluate the methods they are using to proclaim the good news of Christ and Him crucified to the nations.
Thiessen gives an extensive list of guidelines for evaluating whether or not evangelistic methods are ethical or unethical:
1. Dignity Criterion: “Proselytizing becomes unethical when it reduces the proselytizee to the status of an object or a pawn in the proselytizing program of any religious organization” [7].
2. Care Criterion: “Ethical Proselytizing that respects the dignity of persons must always be an expression of concern for the whole person and for all of his or her needs—physical, social, economic, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual. To only care for the salvation of souls of persons is unethical” [8].
3. Physical Coercion Criterion: “The freedom to make choices is central to the dignity of persons. Moral proselytizing will therefore allow persons to make a genuinely free and uncoerced choice with regard to conversion” [9].
4. Truthfulness Criterion: “Ethical proselytizing is truthful. It seeks to tell the truth about the religion being advocated. It is truthful also with regard to what it says with regard to what it says about other religions. Integrity characterizes the ethical proselytizer” [10].
5. Humility Criterion: “While I disagree that proselytizing is inherently arrogant, there is a danger that it becomes so. And thus it is legitimate to require of ethical proselytizing that it be done in a humble manner” [11].
6. Motivation Criterion: “The primary motivation for ethical proselytizing is love for humanity. For religious proselytizers who believe in God, love for humanity will obviously be couple with a love for and obedience to God” [12].
7. Cultural Sensitivity Criterion: “Ethical proselytizing is sensitive to the culture of the persons being proselytized. It values the uniqueness of each culture, and attempts to retain what is good or neutral within each culture, while at the same time seeking to convey the good news that is part of any attempts at proselytizing….To impose a particular cultural expression of a religion on another culture is similarly unethical.” [13].
8. Results Criterion: “It is precisely the focus on results and success that leads to manipulation in proselytizing” [14].
At first glance, the zealous evangelist may chafe at these numerous criteria for ethical evangelism. However, as we look deeper, we see that they are rooted in Scripture. And we can now practice evangelism with a much freer conscience, knowing that we are engaging in it with a God-honoring orientation.
Conclusion: Moving Forward with Ethical Evangelism
Evangelism is no simple thing. Yet Christians know that Christ willingly laid down His life so that mankind could be reconciled to God. Christ commissioned the Church to take this good news to the nations—and we must. But in this present world even evangelism can be distorted and turned into a sin against the very God we proclaim. Charlemagne, the Crusades, and the Inquisitions didn’t help the popularity of Christianity in secular minds, but we must daily set aright the record of what it means to live, love, and share Christ’s Gospel. Make no mistake: No matter how ethical one’s approach may be, the ridicule will never be removed. For as they persecuted Christ, so will they also persecute Christians. Yet the command remains (Mt 10:28-30): Let us evangelize ethically with the ethic of love.
_______________________________________
[1] Elmer Thiessen, The Ethics of Evangelism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 11.
[2] This became very evident after Brit Hume of Fox News suggested that Tiger Woods should seek forgiveness for his sins through Jesus Christ. Nearly every news outlet criticized Hume for his “shameful” behavior.
[3] Susan Smith, “Too Many ‘I’s’ in Proselytizing,” http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_k_smith/2010/03/no_proselytization.html, accessed on 30 October 2011.
[4] Ramesh Rao, “Proselytizing as Cultural Imperialism,” http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/03/proselytizing_as_cultural_imperialism.html, accessed on 30 October 2011.
[5] Jack Moline, “My God’s Better Than Your God” http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/jack_moline/2010/03/my_gods_better_than_your_god.html, accessed on 30 October 2011.
[6] Thiessen, 15.
[7] Ibid., 161.
[8] Ibid., 165.
[9] Ibid., 167.
[10] Ibid., 188-189.
[11] Ibid., 197.
[12] Ibid., 200.
[13] Ibid., 204-205.
[14] Ibid., 206.
November 28, 2011
Warren Cole Smith, in his book “Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church” has a intriguing section on the negatives effects of what he calls “Body Count Evangelism.” It was quite beneficial to read that, and then read this wonderful post on ethical evangelism to cultivate my thinking even more. Thanks, Jesse!
December 1, 2011
Chris,
Thank you for the kind words and the book recommendation. I will look into the book sometime over the next few weeks and get in touch with you so we can discuss it more. Keep up the good work at fwb21, brother.
March 21, 2013
Jesse,
Request permission to copy your article above, “A Defense of Ethical Evangelism” and make it available to my RELI 200 – Evangelism undergraduate students here at Charleston Southern University. Thank you for such wonderful scholarship and your prayerful consideration of this request.
Blessings,
Brother Mike
REV. MICHAEL T. PEYTON, EdD, MDiv, BS-Business
Adjunct Professor of Religion, Charleston Southern University