Christian Ethics in Evangelism

THE question of proselyting is being discussed in many Protestant circles today; all of which brings up the question of what we are to understand by proselyting. And further, who is to decide whether one who senses a divine call and goes out to proclaim the message of God, calling sinners to repentance, is actually doing the work of an evangelist or is "sheep stealing"?

Proselyting is not easily defined. The word itself has different shades of meaning attached to it as different groups discuss the issue. Then, too, the matter of religious freedom is definitely involved. Does a church have the right to emphasize what it believes to be truth or is its witness to be restricted under the charge of proselyting? And when or how does a preacher become a proselyter?

If we could be sure of the correct defini­tion of the word it would help in clarify­ing the issue. But no such clear-cut defini­tion seems possible, and for several reasons. One is that any growing language, such as English, is constantly expanding. New words are being added while old words may change their meanings and at times even become obsolete. Shakespearean Eng­lish, while beautiful, is scarcely understood by some today.

Anyone concerned with the use of words naturally keeps a dictionary close at hand, but even a dictionary may not give the complete current meaning of a particular word. That was forcibly impressed upon me years ago when a group of us students were discussing the derivation and pro­nunciation of a certain word. We had turned to several dictionaries seeking the correct pronunciation, but even the dic­tionaries did not agree. Each of those vo­luminous books had doubtless been correct at the time it went to press. Perplexed, we at last appealed to our old English profes­sor, who for years held the chair in English at the Melbourne University. His sage re­ply was surprising. After listening to our perplexity, he said: "You don't expect dic­tionaries to always agree, do you? Actually, a dictionary is only a history of words and their definitions, revealing their use at the time that particular book was published. The correct pronunciation and even the correct meaning of words must be taken not from dictionaries, or even from class­room professors, but from living authorities such as leading lecturers, fo these men by the use of their language set the standard".

It was a new thought to us, and coming from such a high-ranking professor, whose exactness was proverbial, it was all the more impressive. In later years that princi­ple was emphasized anew, for we were called to ministerial work in England, and there we learned that the correct use and pronunciation of words was determined by the speech of the official B.B.C. radio an­nouncers. Not all who spoke over the radio could be held up as a standard, but these official announcers of the British Broad­casting Company were chosen with great care and could be regarded as authorities in the language.

Now let us apply that principle to this word proselyting. If the dictionary is not absolute, but is rather a history of how words were used ten, twenty, or even fifty years ago, then the definition of a word even in Webster's Dictionary may not be exactly correct, for the word may be under­going a change, current usage giving it a somewhat different connotation. And such is actually the case with the word proselyting.  In recent times several different church groups have been discussing this question, and it has been interesting to note the different meanings they have as­signed to the word, each being equally sin­cere.

The following is a case in point. Four years ago one of the leading religious jour­nals of this country stated in effect that the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist de­nomination condemn proselyting as a means of gaining membership. This pro­nouncement caused consternation among a few of our workers and laymen. Some went so far as to charge the General Conference leadership with the loss of their evangelistic vision.

"How can we carry on our work," they said, "without proselyting?"

When asked to define the word they im­mediately turned to Webster's Dictionary, and it was an old one at that. It seemed to be a new thought to them that in thirty or forty years there might be a change in the meaning of the word. Later we asked the editors of that particular journal what they meant by that statement. Were we now ex­pected to close down our public evange­lism? Perish the thought! "What we mean by proselyting," they said, "is when at­tempts are made to undermine people's confidence in their local pastor or even their church organization, and then by sur­reptitious and deceptive methods to lure members away from one church to an­other."

Then this proposition was put to them: What if an evangelist goes to a certain city and by use of right methods of publicity gathers an audience comprised of all types of people—Christians and non-Christians alike. What if during the course of that preaching campaign some who were al­ready Christians felt convicted by the Spirit of God that they should leave their former church and join the church of the evange­list. Would that be proselyting?

"No," they said, "not in our under­standing, provided the evangelist's methods were straightforward and he was not de­liberately trying to undermine the spiritual standing of a fellow minister of another Christian body."

The matter of baptism was brought up as something right to the point. What if the evangelist happened to be a member of the Baptist Church, and some from other churches should come under the convic­tion that baptism by immersion is, after all, the Biblical method, and then presented themselves for baptism, what should he do?

"There would be nothing else to do," they said, "but for this evangelist to lead them forward in this divine ordinance, even though in so doing it meant their severing from their former church affilia­tion. Nor would such persons be regarded as unfaithful apostates from Christ, but rather as faithful children of God who seek only to walk in the fullness of what they be­lieve is revealed light."

The same principle is true concerning other doctrines, such as the Sabbath, which requires that one attend church on a different day of the week. "The right for one to change his church affiliation is a clear principle of religious liberty. But when an approach is made in a subtle, de­ceiving manner, even involving misrepre­sentation, the sole objective being the win­ning of someone away from his former faith to join another church, that we con­sider is proselyting."

A proselyter in this definition then is one who stoops to deceptive methods to gain his ends. It is not so much what he does but his method, the way he does it, that decides his classification.

Such surreptitious methods have always been condemned by us as a people. Even as far back as 1926 the General Conference took action, which was later set forth in the General Conference Working Policy, stating clearly our attitude to Christians not of our faith. And this statement is placed in the hands of every missionary going abroad. We here quote the first five para­graphs, because this points up our position and leaves no room for misunderstanding on either side.

Statement of Relationship to Other Societies

In the desire to avoid occasion lor misunderstand­ing or friction in the matter of relationship to the work of other [mission] societies, the following statement of principles is set forth as a guidance to our workers in mission fields in their contacts with other religious organizations:

1. We recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before men as a part of the divine plan for the evan­gelization of the world, and we hold in high esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in winning souls to Christ.

2. Wherever the prosecution of the gospel work brings us in touch with other societies and their work, the spirit of Christian courtesy, frankness, and fairness should at all times guide in dealing with mission problems.

3. We recognize that the essence of true religion is that religion is based upon conscience and convic­tion. It is therefore to be constantly our purpose that no selfish interest or temporal advantage shall draw any person to our communion, and that no tie shall hold any member save the belief and convic­tion that in this way he finds true connection with Christ. When change of conviction leads any mem­ber of our society to feel no longer in accord with us in faith and practice, we recognize not only his right but his duty to change his religious affiliation to ac­cord with his belief.

4. Before admitting to church membership any­one who is a member of another church, every care shall be exercised to ascertain that the candidate is moved to change his religious affiliation only by force of religious conviction and out of regard to his personal relationship to his God; and wherever pos­sible, consultation shall be had with those in charge of the church or mission with which the applicant is connected.

In emphasizing the need for Christian courtesy and understanding between fellow Christians, however, there must not be the slightest attempt to water down our mes­sage or to soft-pedal any phase of truth. On the other hand, our evangelists and mis­sionaries all over the world are encouraged to go forth fearlessly to proclaim the full message God has entrusted to us. Yet while witnessing before their fellow men and call­ing their hearers to repentance and holy living, they must ever be careful to give no cause for misunderstanding, and espe­cially to leaders of other Christian groups. Enthusiasm to declare the message of God must make an evangelist or a foreign mis­sionary even more guarded not to violate the clear principles of Christian ethics.

The following report from St. Andrews, Scotland, appearing in the New York Times, August 18, 1960, reveals that Adventists are not the only ones charged with proselyting, however the word may be de­fined. We are not surprised that the World Council of Churches should find some problems in this area of relationships. The recommendations by the special committee will be read with interest:

A code of fair conduct to discourage proselytizing between members of the World Council of Churches and to establish a policy of mutual aid was sub­mitted today to the Council's policy-making Central Committee.

A special subcommittee, after studying the ques­tion for four years, reported that there had been a great increase in these appeals for individual con­versions.

Sometimes, the subcommittee charged, the ap­peals had been made with "very little church con­sciousness."

The subcommittee said the principles it was rec­ommending had wide acceptance among the 172 Protestant, Greek Orthodox and Anglican church groups in the World Council.

"But many churches in many areas are troubled by some form of proselytism," the report contin­ued. "And our membership in the World Council of Churches brings us a compelling incentive for working out new relationships to each other."

Among the principles advocated as a guide for member churches were the following:

That Council churches respect the convictions of others and recognize the right of a mature individ­ual to change his church allegiance.

That direct consultations should be held between the churches concerned when an individual wished to change. If sound reasons were apparent, no ob­stacles should be placed in his way.

That when a church "seemed to be inadequate" other churches should first try to help that church renew its strength.

That member churches should aid others by of­fering fraternal workers and sharing resources rather than establishing a "competing mission."

Outline Goes to Committee

The suggestions will be considered by the full Central Committee before its annual session here ends August 24, and may be placed before the en­tire membership.

The problem of what one delegate called "sheep stealing" has troubled the World Council of Churches for years. There have been objections from Greek Orthodox members about activities of missions in the areas where the church is pre­dominant. There have been complaints from the Church of Scotland about the growth of the Churches of Christ in the new housing areas of Scotland.

The World Council has been concerned about what it contends is the continuing suppression of re­ligious liberty [in certain areas of the world where state religions dominate].

We republish this report not because we agree with every statement it contains but because it shows how other Christian groups are trying to find their way through the very real problem in relationships. And little need be added to emphasize the im­portance of our workers being correctly in­formed. Nobody at the General Confer­ence, least of all among the leaders, wants in any way to change our time-honored position in respect to the truth or our worldwide evangelistic concept. And cer­tainly nobody here at headquarters is con­fused on the issue. The opportunity that came a few years ago for thoughtful study and candid discussion of our beliefs with Christian leaders not of our faith has re­sulted in clarification of many vital issues. While ill-informed critics may create doubts in the minds of some as to the pres­ent attitude of our leadership to the won­derful truths that have made us a people, anyone who knows the facts also knows how groundless such charges are. Never in our history have Adventists been so united on prophetic interpretation and doctrine as we are today, and particularly in the area of Christology. Our preaching is cen­tering more and more in Christ, His sacri­fice, His priestly ministry, and His second advent. And this is as it should be, for the messenger of the Lord says: "Of all profess­ing Christians, Seventh-day Adventists should be foremost in uplifting Christ be­fore the world."—Evangelism, p. 188.

To make Christ known to all men ev­erywhere is our only objective, and we pray that in all our contacts with others they may take knowledge of us that we have been with Jesus

R. A. A.