Ethics of Proselytization

[Maria Billingsley]

It was a card with a picture of sun with sunflowers, I was on the clock and working. I simply took it as a friendly gesture, thanked her for it, and continued working.



I was working. I don't have the luxury of being idle when I am working. As such I was unable to take a closer look until I had the free time to do so.

And as for my reasoning, I provided it in my post. As I mentioned in my post I was raised in a religious environment which actively taught evangelistic tactics, on how to establish relationships with people for the express purpose of trying to proselytize. This included things like "missionary dating", where you date someone with the intended purpose of trying to make them a convert. That means I am firmly aware of using interpersonal behavior with insincerity, as a gimmick and a tactic. Building a genuine relationship with another person and conversation--including evangelistic conversation, as part of that relationship isn't something I oppose; because it's organic and emerges out of sincerity. But I do not regard treating other people as statistics, numbers, or quotas to be an organic, genuine, and sincere way of engaging with other people. I also don't think it is especially Christian to regard my fellow human being as a quota to be conquered, rather than a human person to be loved.

The point I am raising is this: It seemed rather sneaky to deliver a hidden tract disguised as a card. I am not saying she had ill-intentions, but I think it perfectly valid to look at behavior and wonder about it. But given my own experiences and background, I feel confident that this probably was a "hand out these cards at work" tactic, the same as when I was in youth group and we were given tracts/cards/etc and try to find ways to hand them out in our school to fellow students. Perhaps I am entirely wrong, perhaps she specifically went and purchased this card, and specifically wanted me to have it built on a genuine friendly working relationship.

Further: I presented my experience here largely to discuss the larger question of ethics in the context of proselytizing. My experience here is merely the catalyst that wanted me to explore a larger ethical subject.

Perhaps my original post wasn't as clear as it could have been. In which case, I apologize.

-CryptoLutheran

Understood. I guess I don't see how this would be an unethical move by this woman that being said, I guess boundaries within a work environment should be observed.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What would you have preferred them to do? How do you see the charge to evangelize?

Aversion to proselytism seems to be a secular and rather anti-religious dogma. The reason someone within a secular culture would be averse is because they would be taught by secularism that proselytism involves insincerity and an objectification of persons. But anyone who is a Christian believes in evangelization and arguably proselytism, and there is no reason to believe that evangelization must be insincere or involve objectification. Many would take it as a compliment that someone cares enough about them to broach a subject they deem serious. That someone cares enough about you and the faith to take it all seriously.

(I am presuming that this person does not know that you are a Protestant Christian, and maybe that's part of the difficulty here.)

I can't speak to personal experience in how Catholicism fosters a culture of evangelism. But I can speak to my own experiences in growing up within a Fundamentalist culture. I do not base the sense of insincerity and objectification on "secularism"; but on my own personal experiences of my own religious upbringing. Missionary dating, insincere friendships with the goal to "win" someone over, finding sneaky ways to hijack conversations, etc--these were actively taught and encouraged. Usually with a heavy-handed guilt-tripping; literally telling kids that if their friends die and go to hell, those friends will be in hell screaming, "Why didn't you try harder?" thereby making kids culpable for kids going to hell for not being successful in evangelism. That is my background.

It has taken me a long time to sort myself out emotionally, mentally, and spiritually; and fortunately that has happened within the Church, because I found the spiritual tools to work through this in Scripture, in Christian sources, in Christian community.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Colo Millz]

I am likewise someone who has been (you did not explicitly say this I guess, I apologize) harmed by excessive (I would even say brutal) proselytization.

I have a really difficult time with it and with wrestling over my own Christian beliefs in the context of evangelization.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Understood. I guess I don't see how this would be an unethical move by this woman that being said, I guess boundaries within a work environment should be observed.
Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps re-framing this in a different way could be helpful.

If a man at your work engaged in normal friendly work-place conversation, and over time you became comfortable and had a friendly workplace relationship with this person. But then, out of no where, they handed you a card, the outside of the card just something friendly, but inside something romantic and they have their phone number. Nothing prior indicating they had romantic interests in you, so this is sprung out of no where--would it be that crazy to wonder--too feel at least--like what if this whole time they were simply viewing you as a romantic or sexual target, not as simply a casual workplace friend. I mean there are all kinds of possibilities right.

Perhaps you'd be flattered, I don't know you or how your mind works. But I think it'd be perfectly valid for someone to wonder, "Was this the point the whole time?"

Or if that isn't an analogy you can relate to. Replace that analogy with one in which someone is friendly with you, and then tries to sell you something, or tries to get you into their Multi-Level Marketing scheme.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am likewise someone who has been (you did not explicitly say this I guess, I apologize) harmed by excessive (I would even say brutal) proselytization.

I have a really difficult time with it and with wrestling over my own Christian beliefs in the context of evangelization.

The story in my OP is exceptionally mild. I have certainly been on the receiving end of far more aggressive tactics. In that regard, I can relate. I have had my fair share of telling someone that I am already a Christian, only to have them immediately 20-question me, to make sure I am a "Real Christian"--sometimes they are satisfied with my responses, other times they aren't. Either way, being grilled by a stranger as though I have to pass a religious test they suddenly demand I pass in order for them to stop harassing me is an unpleasant experience.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Perhaps re-framing this in a different way could be helpful.

If a man at your work engaged in normal friendly work-place conversation, and over time you became comfortable and had a friendly workplace relationship with this person. But then, out of no where, they handed you a card, the outside of the card just something friendly, but inside something romantic and they have their phone number. Nothing prior indicating they had romantic interests in you, so this is sprung out of no where--would it be that crazy to wonder--too feel at least--like what if this whole time they were simply viewing you as a romantic or sexual target, not as simply a casual workplace friend. I mean there are all kinds of possibilities right.

Perhaps you'd be flattered, I don't know you or how your mind works. But I think it'd be perfectly valid for someone to wonder, "Was this the point the whole time?"

Or if that isn't an analogy you can relate to. Replace that analogy with one in which someone is friendly with you, and then tries to sell you something, or tries to get you into their Multi-Level Marketing scheme.

-CryptoLutheran

Humm, this is turning into something quite different using this new dynamic. Male- female card passing can be taken as a romantic gesture. So am I to assume this was a female to male card exchange?
No intention of derailing.

 

[zippy2006]

In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.

Your whole post attests to the fact that you find the proselytism objectionable and unsettling.

But I can speak to my own experiences in growing up within a Fundamentalist culture. I do not base the sense of insincerity and objectification on "secularism"; but on my own personal experiences of my own religious upbringing. Missionary dating, insincere friendships with the goal to "win" someone over, finding sneaky ways to hijack conversations, etc--these were actively taught and encouraged. Usually with a heavy-handed guilt-tripping; literally telling kids that if their friends die and go to hell, those friends will be in hell screaming, "Why didn't you try harder?" thereby making kids culpable for kids going to hell for not being successful in evangelism. That is my background.

Okay, but the underlying question asks why you are assuming bad faith in your coworker, and whether you have sufficient grounds.

For example, you claim that if someone tries to give someone salvation then their friendship is "insincere" - especially if the friendship is somehow premised upon this desire to provide salvation. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think the reason you wanted atheists to comment is because you share their premise, namely that what is being offered is not in fact salvation. You have a soteriological difference with "fundamentalists" and you therefore deem their efforts at proselytism insincere. Yet I don't see very good grounds for your claims.

Friendship and proselytism are not inherently at odds. It doesn't matter what someone is trying to proselytize towards. Sincerity can be assumed as long as they really believe that their group that they want you to join is good. We generally object to pyramid-scheme behavior because it is selfish: because someone is merely being used as a means to one's own personal end. But I don't see good reason to assume that this is what is happening in cases of proselytism.

I don't think fundamentalists are insincere. I think they have a (mildly) mistaken soteriology. Yet whether your coworker is a fundamentalist at all remains to be seen.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Humm, this is turning into something quite different using this new dynamic. Male- female card passing can be taken as a romantic gesture. So am I to assume this was a female to male card exchange?
No intention of derailing.

In my particular example of myself I don't think gender is necessarily relevant. She is a she, and I am a he. I was merely offering an alternative scenario to recontextualize this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your whole post attests to the fact that you find the proselytism objectionable and unsettling.

Can you provide an example of where it looks like I find proselytism "objectionable and unsettling" in and of itself? Or are you perhaps reading something into my post that isn't there?

I think a valid argument can be made to distinguish evangelism from proselytizing, though that might be beyond this current conversation. So for the sake of argument I'll treat these as largely synonymous. And to that end I will say, straightly and frankly, I not only don't find evangelism objectionable or unsettling; I am pro-evangelism. I believe strongly in the proclamation (and the saving power) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm a Lutheran. The term we, historically, used for ourselves was "Evangelical"; the Gospel and its preaching are central to core Lutheran religious identity. It would be bizarre for a Lutheran to have a problem with preaching the Gospel, since we view ourselves as Gospel-people.

Okay, but the underlying question asks why you are assuming bad faith in your coworker, and whether you have sufficient grounds.

For example, you claim that if someone tries to give someone salvation then their friendship is "insincere." That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think the reason you wanted atheists to comment is because you share their premise, namely that what is being offered is not in fact salvation. You have a soteriological difference with "fundamentalists" and you therefore deem their efforts at proselytism insincere. Yet I don't see very good grounds for your claims.

Friendship and proselytism are not inherently at odds. It doesn't matter what someone is trying to proselytize towards. Sincerity can be assumed as long as they really believe that their group that they want you to join is good.

I don't think fundamentalists are insincere. I think they have a (mildly) mistaken soteriology. Yet whether your coworker is a fundamentalist at all remains to be seen.

I wanted to invite non-Christians (not just atheists) because I wanted an open and frank conversation about this topic.

Another valid perspective, which I have offered in some previous posts in this thread, is the scenario of proselytizing from someone of a non-Christian religious tradition (e.g. Islam).

I have also been very clear that I make a distinction between bringing up religion (and by extension sharing the Gospel) within the context of a relationship (e.g. a workplace relationship, a friendship, etc) and purposefully building a relationship with someone with the goal to proselytize. Is this not a distinction which you make? It seems like a natural distinction to me.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

Can you provide an example of where it looks like I find proselytism "objectionable and unsettling" in and of itself? Or are you perhaps reading something into my post that isn't there?

The subject at hand in the post I quoted was not proselytism in and of itself, but rather the proselytism that you encountered at work. It's pretty clear that you found that proselytism objectionable and unsettling.

I think a valid argument can be made to distinguish evangelism from proselytizing, though that might be beyond this current conversation.

I think it might be precisely what the conversation hangs on. The relevance of this post would be hard to overestimate, even though it requires skimming over some in-house Catholic baseball.

So for the sake of argument I'll treat these as largely synonymous. And to that end I will say, straightly and frankly, I not only don't find evangelism objectionable or unsettling; I am pro-evangelism.

Okay, good, which is also to say that you not only do not find proselytism objectionable or unsettling; you are pro-proselytism.

I'm a Lutheran. The term we, historically, used for ourselves was "Evangelical"; the Gospel and its preaching are central to core Lutheran religious identity. It would be bizarre for a Lutheran to have a problem with preaching the Gospel...

It's very common, though. Many Lutherans nowadays see any effort to convert others as a kind of imposition, which is (again) downstream of our pluralistic culture.

I have also been very clear that I make a distinction between bringing up religion (and by extension sharing the Gospel) within the context of a relationship (e.g. a workplace relationship, a friendship, etc) and purposefully building a relationship with someone with the goal to proselytize. Is this not a distinction which you make? It seems like a natural distinction to me.

Again, the question has to do with whether you have sufficient grounds for your belief (or supposition) that your coworker was acting in bad faith ("insincerely"). Part of my edit:

We generally object to pyramid-scheme behavior because it is selfish: because someone is merely being used as a means to one's own personal end. But I don't see good reason to assume that this is what is happening in cases of proselytism.

Regarding this:

I have also been very clear that I make a distinction between bringing up religion (and by extension sharing the Gospel) within the context of a relationship (e.g. a workplace relationship, a friendship, etc) and purposefully building a relationship with someone with the goal to proselytize. Is this not a distinction which you make? It seems like a natural distinction to me.

Why do you want to make that distinction? Why is the one thing sincere and the other insincere?

From the article referenced:

The same point can be made regarding Ivereigh’s notion of “facilitation.” Ivereigh writes, “we facilitate . . . the encounter [with the Holy Spirit] whenever we listen respectfully to the heart of another who thinks very differently.” Insofar as respectful listening facilitates this encounter, listening becomes a tactic—a move one makes with some end or aim in mind. Certainly, respectful listening is also an end in itself: it conveys goodwill and kindness to the other, regardless of any other outcomes. But in the context of evangelization, respectful listening is also strategic insofar as it is trying to accomplish something. One can imagine, for example, a situation in which a would-be evangelizer senses that her friend is interested in the Gospel. Yet she also senses that her friend is not quite ready to articulate her interest. So, the evangelizer continues to listen. That choice is a matter of both kindness and design. Only our bad conscience about rhetoric makes us think that they are mutually exclusive.

-Toward a Rhetorical Crisis in the Catholic Church

 

[Hazelelponi]

In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.

But I have seen several posters in this thread nevertheless assume I was, which I consider rather curious.

What in my post indicates that I was disgusted?

-CryptoLutheran

It might be something in mixed signals. You seemed to like and appreciate the interaction with the individual until you found your they were Christian (when they handed you a small material)

It was at that point you found every interaction with them insincere or suspect - just because they gave you a tract.

I don't understand that. What do you look from acquaintances?

I suppose I don't have expectations really, most people never move from acquaintance to friends, it's nice when it occurs but I don't have any expectations that extend towards that end from people I don't really know. So I don't feel hurt if they don't end up in the friend category.

It almost seems like you had expectations of actual friendship that ended upon finding out they were Christian and being hurt by it.

But I think shoe on the other foot - are you really wanting to be their friend? Something more lasting than a couple conversations about that which has no substance, now that you found out they are the kind of Christian that hands out religious material?

It kind of seems not. So I'm unclear where the hurt is coming from or why it's there.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Being disgusted because a person tried to get someone saved, is disappointing to say the least.

I think the thing is that without knowing the targeted person, there feels like a certain amount of judgment involved as in "I am and you're not." It can come off like self-righteous condescension to someone who is already Christian.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I do not base the sense of insincerity and objectification on "secularism"; but on my own personal experiences of my own religious upbringing. Missionary dating, insincere friendships with the goal to "win" someone over, finding sneaky ways to hijack conversations, etc--these were actively taught and encouraged. Usually with a heavy-handed guilt-tripping; literally telling kids that if their friends die and go to hell, those friends will be in hell screaming, "Why didn't you try harder?" thereby making kids culpable for kids going to hell for not being successful in evangelism. That is my background.

My background is a Muslim who grew up in the Bible belt.

I have never even heard of these things so I don't look for them. I just thought most people are nice.

I always thought the downside was thst no one who evangelized me or tried to could ever explain why Jesus had to die on the cross to forgive people.

I always thought people ought to be able to tell you that.

 

[RDKirk]

In my post, at several points, I highlighted that I wasn't upset, angry, or offended in any way.

But I have seen several posters in this thread nevertheless assume I was, which I consider rather curious.

What in my post indicates that I was disgusted?

-CryptoLutheran

Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:

And I guess here's the point: When I thought about this, I felt a kind of betrayal. As though this person had been insincere in their interactions with me, I felt like a target, or an objective--not a person. And again, I wasn't angry, I wasn't particularly offended, but I felt dehumanized--even if just slightly.

If you say someone has made you feel dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, you can't then say you were "not upset, angry, or offended in any way."

If you felt dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, that is an offense.

Does this person have reason to think you are also a Christian...or not a Christian? That makes a difference, and a judgment can't be made about their intentions without the answer to that question.

 

[RDKirk]

“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1

So the proselytizer’s personal motives don’t negate the gospel’s efficacy. If the message is true, God can work through it. From a Christian perspective, the distinction between “evangelism” and “proselytism” is primarily about method and intent of the messenger, but the spiritual benefit to the hearer does not depend on the messenger’s purity of motive.

In other words: even if a “proselytizer” acts selfishly, manipulates, or seeks personal gain, as long as the gospel is proclaimed faithfully, the listener can still encounter Christ. The spiritual outcome for the proselyte depends on receiving the true gospel, not the proselytizer’s inner motives.

 

[rambot]

Your words were conflicted (perhaps reflecting your feelings). You said:



If you say someone has made you feel dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, you can't then say you were "not upset, angry, or offended in any way."

If you felt dehumanized, betrayed, treated with insincerity, that is an offense.

Does this person have reason to think you are also a Christian...or not a Christian? That makes a difference, and a judgment can't be made about their intentions without the answer to that question.

Those are "OFFENSES" for sure. But to feel offended has it's own specific emotions associated with it (hurt, annoyed, resentful).

Seems tough to parse out the minutae of every feeling of someone we don't know triggered by a situation we weren't privvy to. It seem likes we could simply trust the person telling their story is aware of their emotional state.

 

[rambot]

“Some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” -- Philippians 1

Oooo....I'm not convinced that representation of the text isn't affected by context...

The full quote:
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

This particular observation seems VERY particular to Paul's situation of being in chains.

I mean, 12 vrs later is....

"27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ."

Not sure how being insincere and selfish reflects that.

 

[Sif]

I could have put this in a Christians-only section, but I wanted this open to non-Christians.

Somewhat recently I had an experience at my work; for context I work at a popular retail warehouse store, I don't work for them but I do work in that warehouse, along with vendors of other companies who operate in the same space. A lot of people from different companies all operate within the same space, and naturally we interact with one another on a regular basis. As such I've built up friendly relationships with a lot of people who I interact with regularly.

Over several months I have interacted with a certain individual, it's always casual always friendly, but they work for a different company than I do. However several weeks ago this individual gave me a card, it had a pretty picture of sunflowers on it, and I didn't think much of it, I smiled, thanked them, made a comment about needing more sunshine in my life, that sort of thing. I slipped the card away and didn't really take a look at it until after work. Well, it was a Gospel tract disguised as a card.

Receiving religious material isn't the weirdest thing that's happened to me at my job, but usually it's customers leaving things on a cart, or slipped between food items to be found by a random passerby.

But this particular experience gave me pause and a thought: Has this individual's actions and behavior toward me, their demeaner, their friendliness (etc) been part of an attempt at proselytizing. I mean, I'm a Christian and the card/tract was generically Christian enough that I have no idea what denomination they are part of. I wasn't offended obviously, but it led me to wonder to what degree their interactions with me came from sincere comradery, or whether it is a kind of "missionary" tactic.

I may not have thought this except that, growing up in a particular kind of Christian environment, missionary-friendship and missionary-relationships were considered a valid "tactic" at trying to make converts. So that background does mean that I am aware that this is something that exists. It's not part of my current religious practice, but it was in the background I was raised in.

And I guess here's the point: When I thought about this, I felt a kind of betrayal. As though this person had been insincere in their interactions with me, I felt like a target, or an objective--not a person. And again, I wasn't angry, I wasn't particularly offended, but I felt dehumanized--even if just slightly.

As I was thinking about all of this again this evening, I wanted to open up this topic more broadly. Because I have a feeling many people--especially people outside of my religion--know exactly the feelings I felt, and I thought this could be a good topic of discussion. And ideally, a way for Christians like me to learn more, take feedback, and consider the ethics of religious outreach.

A secondary thought I had in all this: In some ways I feel like I would prefer a total stranger leaving a tract or pamphlet than someone who has been regularly interacting with me. There is a sense in which now I question and doubt the sincerity in friendliness of this person that I didn't before. And that's kind of an awful feeling to have. I'm not angry with them, or offended, but I now doubt their authenticity toward me. And I feel like this experience I had might provide me with a slight amount of insight and empathy with those who experience this more regularly.

-CryptoLutheran

Work environments, at least in my experience, are somewhat sterile when it comes to friendships. In my current work environment and in most I've been in it is place were the issue at hand must be discussed and there can be legal and financial ramifications due to the decisions made. That is not to say there are not conversations that involve things of a personal nature. I know one coworker is a Christian for certain as he has mentioned being an usher at his church, or he is attending some function/activity or another. I have been asked a few times about my faith by one coworker or anther and I tell them it is none of their business or concern. That has always shut down further discussions on the topic immediately. Only ever had one person try to hand something to me. I said "no thank you" and when they left it on my desk I merely returned it to their desk later. Nothing more came of that. There are extremely few people I will accept something from.

Outside of work I shutdown any attempt to proselytize/evangelize me instantly. I am polite but firm at first. If the person persists I will become harsh, but that is extremely rare. Most take the hint and go about their business. It is part of their Christian faith and they have a Constitutional right to practice that faith. They also have a right to freedom of expression, I also have a right to not participate in it.

 

[RDKirk]

Those are "OFFENSES" for sure. But to feel offended has it's own specific emotions associated with it (hurt, annoyed, resentful).

ViaCrusis said "not offended in any way."

Are you really trying to argue that feeling offended does not include feelings of being offended?

It would be different if someone detected that offense was intended but not felt. But if offense was felt, then that's a negative emotion.

ViaCrusis is apparently feeling in conflict at feeling offended by something that as a Christian should not have created a feeling of offense.

I have Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses approach me on occasion. Rather than feeling at all offended, I'll stop to tell them my favorite bible passage, which I'm always ready to share with anyone who claims Christ.

A pastor once said that you can tell a person's most important interest by what they're most willing and ready to get into conversation about. So many times, we're constrained by the situation and not as bold as Paul preaching the gospel to Agrippa and Festus when they expected him to be pleading for his life. So, in those times, we might prefer to talk about Jesus, but instead talk about less socially offensive subjects.

However, if someone gives us as Christians reason to think they'd enjoy discussing Jesus...maybe we should ponder why that's so.

 

[RDKirk]

Oooo....I'm not convinced that representation of the text isn't affected by context...

The full quote:
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

This particular observation seems VERY particular to Paul's situation of being in chains.

I mean, 12 vrs later is....

"27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ."

Not sure how being insincere and selfish reflects that.

"Whether from false motives or true" is pretty exhaustive of circumstances.

Paul certainly also instructs Christians to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, but the gospel has its own power beyond the manner of presentation.

People have been saved by the gospel even as uttered by hucksters.