Proselytism, mission, and the Bible.
Convert, proselyte are synonyms [in that] both denote a person who has embraced another creed, opinion, or doctrine than the one he has previously accepted or adhered to. Convert commonly implies a sincere and voluntary change of belief; it is, therefore the designation preferred by the church, the party, or the school of thought of which such a person becomes a new member. . . . Proselyte basically denotes a convert to another religion. . . . In general use . . . the term may suggest less a reverent or convicted and voluntary embracing than a yielding to the persuasions and urgings of another, be it an earnest missionary or zealot or someone with less praiseworthy motives (ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte - Matt. 23:15). Proselyte is often the designation chosen by the members of a church for one formerly of their number who has been converted to another faith.Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms, 1984
The charge of proselytism is frequently raised against churches and mission agencies, typically coming against those involved in explicit evangelistic outreach. In suspicion about another's motives, however, it may also be leveled even against those who are involved in relief and development activities. "In discussion of the issue, proselytism is often given a very broad definition, such as: Proselytism embraces whatever violates the right of the human person, Christian or non-Christian, to be free from external coercion in religious matters, or whatever, in the proclamation of the Gospel, does not conform to the ways God draws free men to himself in response to his calls to serve in spirit and in truth."(1)
Convert versus Proselyte
In the following study of biblical evidence, we take note of a dictionary's distinction between a convert and a proselyte:
Convert commonly implies a sincere and voluntary change of belief; it is, therefore, the designation preferred by the church, the party, or the school of thought of which such a person becomes a new member. . . . Proselyte . . . may suggest less a reverent or convicted and voluntary embracing than a yielding to the persuasions and urgings of another, be it an earnest missionary or zealot or someone with less praiseworthy motives. . . . Proselyte is often the designation chosen by the members of a church for one formerly of their number who has been converted to another faith.(2)
We can easily agree that the exercise of coercion and the violation of the rights of human persons is not consistent with the Gospel. The most heated objections to proselytism arise when persons are understood to transfer their loyalty and membership from one religious community or church to another. Are such persons converts, or are they proselytes?
In the Greek Old Testament proselytos (proselyte) occurs frequently and is used to translate the Hebrew ger, which means "resident alien" or "sojourner in the land." At this point "proselyte" had not yet taken on the religious meaning it later acquired. Within Israel, there was to be one law for both Israelites and the ger/proselytos (Lev. 24:22). The Israelites were to love the aliens in their midst (Deut. 10:19) and were not to oppress them (Lev. 19:33-34). Uncircumcised aliens were not to be permitted to partake of the passover (Exod. 12:48-49). We note, then, that while the ger was to have full rights to hospitality and justice in Israel, they were not proselytes in the later sense of the term.
By the time of the intertestamental period, the meanings of ger and proselytos had changed. Both were employed to denote "those Gentiles who undertook the complete observance of the Jewish law and were admitted into full fellowship with Israel. For proselytization three things were necessary, (1) circumcision (in the case of males), (2) baptism (for ritual purification), (3) the offering of sacrifice."(3) Proselytes were no longer seen as Gentile "strangers" but as "newborn" members of the Jewish community.
Proselytos occurs four times in the New Testament, always with reference to Gentiles who are recognized by the Jews to be proselytes. Three of the references are to persons who have responded favorably to the gospel message (Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43). The fourth reference, Matthew 23:15, is Jesus' objection to what the Pharisees do to a proselyte in making the person a slave to their laws. (In these texts several recent English translations render proselytos as "convert." This blurs the distinction between "convert" and "proselyte." An individual may become a Christian convert without changing his community identity; a proselyte, however, is one who, by definition, cannot convert without leaving his former community and entering a new one.)
Full-blown proselytes, in the New Testament sense of the word, are remarkably few in the Old Testament. There is not a single report of a male born outside Israel who was circumcised and joined the life of the covenant community; the two most prominent outsiders to enter fully into the life of Israel were women - Rahab the prostitute of Jericho (Josh. 2:1-3; 6:22-25) and Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 1:618; 4:7-22). Another case of Gentiles joining the covenant community involves the Gibeonites, who succeeded in doing so only through trickery (Josh. 9:3-27) and apparently were not circumcised.
We can perhaps account for this lack of examples of proselytes becoming incorporated into the household of faith by circumcision by noting that the Jewish Scriptures do not anticipate that the people of other nations will become proselytes within Israel. Rather, the expectation is that the nations will accept the wisdom of the Torah (Deut. 4:6-8). Through the Torah and the seed of Abraham, God will bless all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). People of other nations are not called upon to enter into the people of Israel; the call to them is, "Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the lands! Serve the Lord with gladness" (Ps. 100:1-2). Israel is to "declare God's glory among the nations" (Ps. 96:3). In this context we can understand Jonah's call of Nineveh to repentance. Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, who confesses that he will serve the Lord (though his theology is not a paragon of orthodoxy), is not required to be circumcised before he returns to Syria. He is simply told, "Go in peace" (2 Kings 5:1-19). Conversion to the God of Israel does not require becoming a proselyte. Converts may remain in their original community.
The call to conversion in the New Testament is similarly not a call to a change of community so much as it is a call to new obedience to God in Jesus Christ. During the years of the ministry of Jesus, followers of Jesus continued to live as members of their own communities, whether Jews, Samaritans (John 4:27-30), or Syrophoenicians (Mark 7:24-30).
On the Day of Pentecost, Peter calls upon the crowd of Jews and proselytes "from every nation" to repent and be baptized, but there is no indication that they are expected to change their community identity. On the contrary, the members of the early Christian church continue to frequent the temple in Jerusalem and the synagogues to worship (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 14:1; 21:26). The Ethiopian eunuch, following his baptism, returns to Ethiopia to serve his queen (Acts 8:39). Cornelius, the Roman centurion, receives the Holy Spirit and is baptized, but he continues to live and serve as a Roman military officer (Acts 10:44-48). The Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia believe the Gospel without a sense of having changed their community loyalties (Acts 13:48-49). Such biblical evidence leads to the conclusion that contemporary objections to proselytism reflect situations that did not come to the fore in the biblical era.
Contemporary Issues
We note three complaints about proselytism. First, in the contemporary world one hears the complaints of one set of Christian churches against the aggressive evangelism or churchmanship of other Christians, who are often charged with "sheep-stealing." One also meets the charge, especially on the part of ancient and often persecuted churches, that newer Protestant sects and evangelists are arrogant and lack respect for the centuries-long faithful witness and worship in those churches. In the New Testament era, these long-term faultlines in the church had not yet arisen. In our modern era, we must continue to heed Paul's admonition not to be trapped into divisive loyalties to Cephas, Apollos, Paul, or Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-17) - or by those divisions that have developed in subsequent history. We must continue to pray with Jesus that his followers will all be one, that the world may believe (John 17:21).
Second, the objection in the Western world to proselytism has shifted from being a political/cultural issue to being a moral issue. In Europe before the seventeenth century, when the religion of the prince was the religion of the people, a change of religious community was a political matter. During the Enlightenment, when men such as Lessing and Locke knew all too well the sufferings of nations and a world torn apart by religious strife, issues of personal liberty and tolerance came to the fore. Aggressive evangelism or public religious pressure began to be viewed as disruptive of peace and thereby bordering on immorality. To the extent that we are children of the Enlightenment, we feel that we are being placed on the defensive on moral grounds when charged with being proselytizers.
Third, objections are raised by followers of non-Christian religions. Their objection often is particularly related to their fear of disruption of their cultures and personal relationships, with special force at the point when persons are baptized and are understood to change loyalty from their own to the Christian community, often accompanied by a change in political allegiance. (In my work as a missionary in India, it was often the case that comparatively little objection was raised when persons of other faiths professed admiration for and even faith in Jesus and participated in Christian worship. But the minute such persons were baptized, a storm would erupt.) The New Testament does not provide us with much, if any, information about the reaction of friends and relatives of Greeks and Romans to the baptism of converts, although it does inform us about the reaction when economic interests were threatened (Acts 19:23-40).
What Does Conversion Entail?
In light of the above, we must now turn our attention to the question, To what extent should conversion to Jesus Christ entail or require a change from one human community to another?
Conversion and baptism did not mean a change in human community or citizenship in the New Testament. As we have already noted, throughout the New Testament, Jews who are baptized remain Jews and continue to identify with the temple and the synagogue. The Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and Cornelius the Roman do not change citizenship when they become followers of Jesus. Rather than a change of affiliation in the human community of converts, the undergirding idea of being "in Christ" is to experience a new birth "from above" (John 3:3) and to gain citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20).
Baptism today is often viewed both within the church and by those outside as the rite that symbolizes the breach in relationships whereby a person leaves one community to become a member of another. Baptism in the New Testament, however, did not have that character.
In the case of Jesus himself, baptism is said to be a baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15). Jesus' words can be understood to mean that in his baptism, Jesus was totally identified with his people in their sins rather than cut off from them by his sinlessness. His baptism was a baptism into solidarity and identification with the people rather than a distancing from his people. Baptism for Jesus was thus an "ecumenical" rather than a "sectarian" rite.
In baptism the followers of Jesus become united with him in his mission of salvation and redemption (Mark 10:38-39; Rom. 6:1-4). In their union with Christ as the Servant and Son of God, they participate in his ministry of justice to the nations (Isa. 42:1-4; 49:6), bringing good news to the poor, proclaiming release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and setting the oppressed free (Luke 4:18-19).
Likewise, those who are joined to Christ are not to cut themselves off from their own communities and families. On the contrary, they are to consider their baptism the beginning of a mission of solidarity with Christ and with others.
How, then, are we to deal with the dilemma that becomes apparent when conversion to Christ entails a way of life that may threaten vital interests and arouse opposition? Within the Jewish community in the New Testament era, the issues revolved around circumcision and the law (Romans 2-3). In the Gentile communities, issues of sexual ethics, worship of idols, eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 5-10), and relationship to civil authority (Rom. 12:14-13:8) became flash points. Apart from the tension that might arise over these issues, the followers of Jesus were constantly urged to seek peace with their neighbors, to live obediently to the laws of the land, and to pray for the emperor. Their suffering should be for the sake of faithful witness to Jesus Christ alone (1 Peter 4).
In conclusion, the New Testament evidence can be said to (1) encourage the followers of Jesus to bear faithful witness to Christ and his righteousness; (2) call people to repentance, conversion, and baptism into the name of Jesus Christ; (3) encourage people to participate in the koinonia around the Lord's Table and to build up the life of the church; and (4) to live as obedient, peaceful, and fruitful members of the human community and the communities in which they have their family and social relationships.
Nevertheless, believers may be faced with the reality of being cut off by their own communities as they identify with Christ. On the one hand, we must oppose the sectarian spirit that calls people to leave their human communities in order to join us. On the other hand, to be converted to Christ is also to enter into the koinonia of the church and to encourage cultural, social, and political patterns of life at odds with one's native culture and nation - sometimes even with the Christian denomination or church in which one was raised. This dilemma cannot be avoided so long as the City of Man remains intermingled on earth with the City of God.
Notes
1. World Council of Churches, "Common Witness and Proselytism: A Study Document" (May 1970), in Mission Trends No. 2: Evangelization, ed. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 178.
2. Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1984), p. 189.
3. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 2d ed. (London: Tyndale Press, 1952), p. 85.
Eugene Heideman, Secretary for Program, Reformed Church In America (retired), was a Reformed Church missionary in south India.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Heideman, Eugene P. |
|---|---|
| Publication: | International Bulletin of Missionary Research |
| Date: | Jan 1, 1996 |
| Words: | 2522 |
| Previous Article: | Mission and the issue of proselytism. |
| Next Article: | Mission and proselytism: a Middle East perspective. |
| Topics: | |