On my desk lies a recent Sunday bulletin sent to me by the large Pres­byterian Church in Mexico City that my family attended for seven years. The bulletin contains an essay writ­ten by one of the church leaders in which he responds to an article pub­lished in Mexican and Central Ameri­can newspapers criticizing Protes­tants for what it termed "aggressive proselytism." According to the news­paper article, Protestant proselytism provokes division in the Christian family and threatens the social and economic unity of the community.

In reply to these charges, the Pres­byterian writer argues that instead of damaging the Latin American com­munity, Protestant evangelism, which is more successful today than ever before, builds up society by promot­ing the religious, social and moral values that Latin America so sorely needs if it is to shake loose from poverty and corruption. Roman Ca­tholicism had its chance for four hun­dred years, and its failure to provide a moral fabric for Latin American so­ciety is obvious. So now, argues the Presbyterian, let Protestants have a chance.

"Proselytism" is often discussed in the abstract, and therefore I find it interesting to listen to a debate be­tween people who are dealing first­hand with the issues. The urge to evangelize is very strong among Latin American Protestants, as it is among believers in certain other areas of the world. The charge of unfair proselytism is frequently heard com­ing from those whose religion or church is under attack and in danger of losing members.

Though sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, proselytism is not the same as evangelism. Pro­selytism means an unethical kind of evangelism, involving the use of objectionable methods of seeking con­verts. By its nature proselytism is self-seeking and self-serving. It is motivated by a spirit of churchly or reli­gious pride that goes against the grain of the gospel. In common language, proselytism is "sheep stealing," an unethical deviation from genuine evangelism.

Historically, the term proselytism usually refers to missionary activities between different branches of the Christian religion, between Protes­tants and Catholics, and between Protestants, Catholics and members of the Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East. The issues at stake involve articles of faith, liturgy, rites and ceremonies, a mar­ried priesthood and a variety of so­cial and ethical matters. To partici­pants on each side, the issues are serious enough to justify and even require efforts to persuade members of the other tradition to change sides. Activities of this sort have gone on for centuries.

Diaconal Questions⤒🔗

Charges of proselytism have been raised recently in corners of the world where Protestant and Catholic relief efforts are perceived to be exploiting the vulnerability of the poor and at­tempting to win them over to the Christian religion. In this context, the term "proselytism" is used to mean a manipulative form of evange­lism. It involves an unethical exploi­tation of those who are economically weak through such means as schools, hospitals, orphanages and commu­nity development programs. For ex­ample, in parts of Africa, Muslims hurl charges of this nature at Christians, pointing out that much of missionary diaconia is financed by wealthy churches from the West. Likewise, Christians accuse Muslims of using Middle East oil wealth to promote Islam by offering money, scholarships and even wives to young men willing to convert to the Islamic religion.

In a world where Christian evange­lism often takes place among the poor, it is extremely important to dis­tinguish between what must be la­beled as proselytism and what we defend as legitimate, Biblically war­ranted evangelism. Relief and devel­opment organizations such as World Vision, Compassion International, World Relief (National Association of Evangelicals) and the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee rightly insist that they do not attach "strings" to their benevolent activi­ties. Food, clothing and other assis­tance are not intentionally used as "bait" to draw people away from their traditional church or religion. "All forms of proselytism reduce the gos­pel and misrepresent the person of Jesus Christ," says a World Vision policy statement. "World Vision will not proselytize, nor will it work with those who insist on proselytism."

In contrast to proselytism, Chris­tian evangelism avoids taking advan­tage of the weakness or vulnerability of the poor, but treats them with re­spect as image-bearers of God. They may be needy, yet they have dignity and must be given freedom to re­spond to Christ as the Spirit of God gives grace.

Ecumenical Questions←⤒🔗

Related to the issue of proselytism is the ecumenical question and the respect which churches show toward one another. There is never a short­age of fundamentalist missionary groups that show no qualms about proselytizing other Christians. They question the validity of every group besides their own, and feel justified in doing whatever it takes to gain members for themselves.

At the root of the matter is our understanding of the gospel, and who has it. If in our judgment a particular local church or denomination has drifted so far from the gospel that its members no longer hear the truth from the pulpits and the children are not instructed in the Biblical doc­trines of salvation, then nothing should prevent us from addressing those members with a view to win­ning them both to faith in Christ and membership in a vital, gospel-preach­ing-church.

In our desire to avoid the label "proselytizers" there is a danger of the opposite kind that we may fail to be faithful evangelists. Because of their commitment to ecumenicity and their fear of proselytism, mainline de­nominations pulled back on evange­lism and virtually ended their missionary activities. The cause of Christ's kingdom overall is ill-served by such attitudes.

It strikes me that the question of proselytism vs. legitimate Biblical evangelism will be high on the agenda of all Christian groups now working in Russia and Eastern Europe. Some thorny questions will have to be an­swered before we can settle on which churches we can and should work with, and where in good conscience we must draw the line.