Do we proselytize, evangelize or apostatize? Should we just shut up about the gospel because it is too exclusive and offends some people? These are questions which have sparked some lively discussions around the internet.
Is there even a difference between proselytizing and evangelizing someone? Both words mean to seek or persuade someone to convert to something else. Obviously the word evangelize is specifically used in the context of persuading someone to accept Christ as their Savior. However, some professing Christians draw a distinction between the words and frown on proselytizing non-Christians. They will typically argue that proselytizing is persuasion done without love and in arrogance.
I first came across this attitude in a forum when I was reprimanded by an Orthodox Christian for being “combative.” The topic of discussion was a book about Jesus written by a famous yogi. Two Christian ministers had given glowing reviews of the book while one had applied the yogi’s teachings in his sermons. The reasoning was that the yogi spoke so lovingly about Jesus. I responded that while the yogi spoke lovingly of Jesus he also distorted His teachings and denied that Jesus nailed our sins to the cross. Hence that love was misdirected and dangerous.
My Orthodox friend claimed to be a student of comparative religions. He took issue with my practice of quoting Scripture claiming that it was arrogant given these people didn’t place any importance on it. I pointed out that the yogi was proselytizing and had cited and misinterpreted hundreds of biblical references as support in his book. In which case, as a Christian, I was obliged to respond.
During the interaction I discovered that this Orthodox Christian was a fan of Raimon Panikkar. Panikkar is a proponent of Multi Faith Dialogue and The Religious Encounter. In the religious encounter one does not proselytize another. The encounter must be free from particular or general apologetics. According to Panikkar:
The truly religious person is not a fanatic who has all the answers but a pilgrim who is always open to the experience of grace and truth….Much damage has been done by well intentioned western scholars who assume that only western philosophy has appropriate categories for understanding the world’s religions. If anything, eastern philosophy has a more sophisticated system for appropriating religious truth. (Emphasis ours)
According to Gerard Hall:
Panikkar holds that the encounter of traditions through multi-faith (and multi-cultural) dialogue is crucial in the new situation of radical pluralism that confronts our world since no single religion, culture or tradition holds a universal solution for either our theoretical or practical human problems.
In essence Panikkar’s religious “truth” cannot be constrained to the Bible or Christianity. You can read more on Panikkar’s thinking HERE, but that gives you the gist of it.
In a previous column I mentioned Harvey Cox’s book “When Jesus Came to Harvard.” Cox would be classified as a liberal theologian with much in common with Panikkar’s views. Both reject the reliance on biblical Scripture. Both scorn fundamentalism while emphasizing the understanding of other religious traditions.
Dan Phillips wrote a polemical response to Harvey Cox’s thoughts on Fundamentalism HERE (some links are broken). His following assessment of Cox hits its mark:
I think it isn’t Fundamentalism that people want to see vanish. On such sneering lips, “fundamentalist” is a polite swear-word, a contemptuous and dismissive stand-in for Christian. And what is a “Christian”? A student of, slave of, believer in Christ Jesus…And there’s the real problem for the fundamentalist modernist. The problem isn’t fundamentalism…The problem is Jesus. What they really want to wish to the cornfield is Jesus. (Emphasis ours)
Read the article and then read the comments below it. As one person wisely observed:
The doctrines that are fundamental to the Christian faith are what stands in the way of ecumenical unity and therefore they are considered dangerous and detrimental to the apostate movements of our day. This is why they are caricatured as something ugly – that which divides rather than unites. (Emphasis ours)
Paul Knitter is another influential “Christian theologian” who looks for his truth in various places and encourages inter-faith dialogue. He’s written “No Other Name?“, “The Myth of Christian Uniqueness” and “Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian“, among others.
In the Buddha book he notes:
So far as this “big picture” is concerned I’m primarily a Buddhist. Buddhism gets the big picture right much more lucidly, coherently, and centrally than Christianity does. In fact, if someone were really to prove to me that this non-dual Buddhist picture were incompatible with Christian experience and teaching (that hasn’t happened, and I don’t think it can), I would have to abandon Christianity for Buddhism. (Emphasis ours)
Cox and Knitter represent a growing number of leading, self-described “Christian” scholars who openly reject and/or question the uniqueness of Christ and the Christian faith. In Knitter’s example, he desperately wants to hold onto some Christian identification. Yet he essentially admits a preference for his Buddhist assumptions over Christ’s teaching.
But let’s get back to the question of proselytizing. On two occasions Pope Francis spoke out against proselytism. Catholic apologists quickly scurried to explain what the pope really meant. You can find examples of these HERE and HERE. Catholic priest Longenecker offered what I believe to be an out-of-context excuse by saying that:
[Proselytism] infers some kind of force being used to convert people. The most obvious use of force is physical force of the sort we see being used by ISIS in Northern Iraq.
Most of the responses assumed there was a right way and a wrong way to convert and that proselytism involved doing it in a forceful unloving way – and allegedly that was what the pope was getting at. However, the context of one of these occasions remains problematic for Pope Francis’ apologists. Atheist Eugenio Scalfari recalled bantering with the pope in which the latter joked that he’d been warned that the atheist would try to convert him. The atheist told him: “My friends think it is you who wants to convert me.” Here is how the pope responded:
Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good.
Where was the rush to get the gospel message to an unsaved sinner destined for hell? Did the pope know there was plenty of time for evangelism after socializing? Or did he think the atheist didn’t need saving? How would a Franklin Graham or John MacArthur have responded to Scalfari?
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36
The Apostle Paul wasn’t reticent in speaking the truth to his Athenian audience. He was an activist who was not afraid to speak the truth. You can read more on his Mars Hill address HERE, HERE and HERE
Christian Post guest columnist Greg Stier gives us Three Reasons why Christians should proselytize. We do it because: Jesus told us to; it’s good news and it saves people from hell.
Stier finishes by noting:
So let us proselytize. Let us do so in love. May we never use it as an excuse to be obnoxious, unloving or manipulative. Instead may we speak the truth in love, earnestly pleading with those around us to repent, embrace Jesus alone for their salvation and then start sharing that same good news with others.
Unfortunately, there is an Ecumenical drive for Inter Faith (Multi-Faith) Dialogue. On the table are global issues such as war, health, poverty and the environment etc. Many theologians place more concern upon these than in reaching the lost with the gospel message.
We agree that these issues are important. Yet Jesus doesn’t mince words:
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels. Mark 8:36-38
The Apostle Paul wrote:
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel 2 Tim 1:8-10
In conclusion it doesn’t matter what celebrity theologians say about proselytism or evangelism. Don’t let them determine your truth. What does the Bible say, and do you believe and act upon it?
That’s what ultimately matters.
And time is running out for this world. We only need to look around us.
Note: The above is a slightly edited re-post from a 2015 article. Since then we’ve seen paganism filtering into many churches under the guise of “interfaith dialogue,” social justice issues, mysticism and the environment. The emphasis is on these issues instead of the eternal destination of unbelievers. I wonder what sort of letters Jesus would write to His churches now.
Further reading:
Christ’s Call to Reform the Church
Sharing is caring!
