To Evangelize is NOT to Proselytize
In Liberating News, missiologist and theologian Orlando Costas denies that evangelization and proselytization are equivalent, complementary, or compatible. Instead, he argues that they’re radically opposed. Here’s Costas’s argument in context.
To reflect on evangelization in a theological context is to approach it as a divine calling rather than a humanly initiated activity. One does not participate in evangelization because one so chooses but rather because one is part of a faith community that has been summoned by God out of darkness of alienation and unbelief into the marvelous light of God’s liberating grace and covenantal fellowship, and sent forth to declare God’s wonderful deeds (1 Pet. 2:9-10). Therefore, evangelization is a labor of love rather than a proselytistic crusade. To proselytize is to try to get people to change from one religious belief system, ideology, or political party to another, usually through the offer of psychological, social, cultural, political, or economic incentives or through application of pressure. In contrast, to evangelize is to share with others lovingly and respectfully the joyful news and liberating grace of the gospel, to extend its invitation to faith in Christ and participation in his fellowship, and to commit the person or community’s response to the Holy Spirit. Authentic evangelization refuses to be coercive and is always respectful of human dignity and freedom because it is an act of love. It is, therefore, against proselytism. (Emphasis added)
Ever the ecumenical Christian, Costas links his claims to an endnote included in a 1970 report by the World Council of Churches on the evils of proselytization. I conclude by sharing the report-quotations that Costas flags.
First, proselytism takes place when our motive is unworthy, for example when our real concern in witness is not the glory of God through the salvation of human beings but rather the prestige of our own Christian community, or indeed our personal prestige.
Second, we are guilty of proselytism whenever our methods are unworthy, especially when we resort to any kind of “physical coercion, moral constraint or psychological pressure,” when we seek to induce conversion by the offer of material or political benefits, or when we exploit other people’s needs, weakness or lack of education. These practices are an affront both to the freedom and dignity of human beings and to the Holy Spirit whose witness is gentle and not coercive.
Third, we are guilty of proselytism whenever our message includes “unjust or uncharitable reference to the beliefs or practices of other religious communities in the hope of winning adherents.” If we find it necessary to make comparisons, we should compare the strengths and weaknesses of one church with those of the other, and not set what is best in the one against what is worst in the other. To descend to deliberate misrepresentation is incompatible with both truth and love. (Pp. 90-91)
