10
This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia] On: 20 November 2014, At: 09:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Review of Faith & International Affairs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfia20 CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION R. Scott Appleby a & Angela J. Lederach b a University of Notre Dame , USA b University of Notre Dame , USA Published online: 26 Apr 2010. To cite this article: R. Scott Appleby & Angela J. Lederach (2009) CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 7:1, 11-19, DOI: 10.1080/15570274.2009.9523376 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2009.9523376 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 20 November 2014, At: 09:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Review of Faith & International AffairsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfia20

CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE:MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSIONR. Scott Appleby a & Angela J. Lederach ba University of Notre Dame , USAb University of Notre Dame , USAPublished online: 26 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: R. Scott Appleby & Angela J. Lederach (2009) CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE:MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 7:1, 11-19, DOI:10.1080/15570274.2009.9523376

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2009.9523376

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

| 11 the review of faith & international affairs

CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE:

MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

By R. Scott Appleby and Angela J. Lederach

n

The complex challenge of modern evangelism in a pluralist world has been a source of dynamism and division in all Christian tradi-

tions. In the Catholic tradition, for instance, a sea-change has occurred in understand-ings of Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” Over the past 50 years, Catholics have journeyed from a focus on “conversion” of the lost to “solidarity” with non-Christians and non-theists; from “missionaries” saving souls to “missioners” content to give witness through service.

The official turning point came during the Second Vatican Council—on December 7, 1965, to be precise—when the Roman Catholic Church promulgated Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Liberty. That authori-tative conciliar document, signed by Pope Paul VI, solemnly declared that “the human person has a right to religious freedom”:

Freedom of this kind means that everyone should be immune from coercion by individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, no men or women are forced to act against their con-victions, nor are any persons to be restrained from acting in accordance

with their convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recogni-tion in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.1

The slogan “theological error has rights” became the shorthand version of this teach-ing, and many commentators acknowledged, without explicitly saying so, that the Council fathers had, in effect, reversed a millennium of Catholic teaching on the relationship between the properly ordered state (which, the Church held, should be officially Roman Catholic) and its citizens. Previously, accord-ing to Catholic doctrine, only baptized and practicing Roman Catholics could inherit the

R. Scott Appleby (Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1985) is Professor of History

and Director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the

University of Notre Dame. He is the author of The Ambivalence of the Sacred:

Religion, Violence and Reconciliation (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

Angela Lederach graduated in 2007 from the University of Notre Dame,

where she double majored in Anthropology and Peace Studies. Recently she

has worked with peace-building organizations in the Philippines and Ghana.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

12 | spring 2009

rights and privileges of “citizens;” conversely, such rights and privileges could be withheld from non-Catholics. To be confronted with the teaching of Christianity, as authoritatively espoused by the Catholic Church, and to reject or fail to accept that teaching, consigned the person to second-class status, at best, both as an inhabitant of the polis and as a human being. This doctrine on the inferiority of non-Catholics had legitimated outrageous violations of human dignity—violations sometimes committed by Roman Catholic clergy and their appointed state inquisitors.

Vatican II put an end to that way of thinking, though Catholics continue to argue amongst themselves about the relationship of the Church’s affirmation of religious freedom, on the one hand, and the precise nature of its mission to the world, on the other. To speak again in shorthand: Catholics who might accept the adjective “conservative” or “tradi-tional” maintain that the Church should never cease to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ as the full and perfect expression of the will of God for all people; many conservatives would go further and add that the gospel is the “the only authentic expression” of the will of God. Recent popes have followed exactly the teach-ing of Vatican II on this point, namely, that there is one true religion, and it “exists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church.” But, with the Council, they have allowed that there are ele-ments of truth and goodness, and of this one true religion, in other forms of Christianity and in other religions. The fullness of this reli-gion is found in the Roman Catholic Church, however. Anyone who is invited to join the Church and experiences this fullness—but rejects the invitation—places her soul at risk.

In short, do not mistake the post-conciliar Catholic Church for a latitudinarian play-house. Nonetheless, there has been a sea change in ideas and attitudes. Harvard politi-cal scientist Samuel Huntington caught the zeitgeist nicely when he remarked of John Paul II: “Who would have imagined that the world’s leading defender of human dignity and religious freedom in the final quarter of the 20th century would be the pope?” And

yet, it is true: the Roman Catholic pontiff circled the globe (several times) proclaiming the gospel of inherent human dignity and religious freedom. While never backing away one inch from the “Catholic fullness” doc-trine, John Paul II welcomed, in prayer and ritual, representatives from many religions, embraced Orthodox Christian counterparts, and reached out to Judaism and Islam.

More significantly, Catholic educators, clergy, and evangelists took the teaching on human dignity to heart. For the major-ity of lay American Catholics, the result of their warm reception of Dignitatis Humanae and of the spirit of Vatican II in general, for better or worse, was the development of an operative latitudinarianism. This was a generalized and somewhat uncritical accep-tance of religious pluralism as a more or less benevolent fact of life—accompanied by a withdrawal from the “hard conver-sion” model of the pre-conciliar era.

“God is bringing all people to Himself through their own cultures and religions; let it be so.” So far did this sensibility reach into the netherworld of relativism, that John Paul II himself, in his best-seller Crossing the Threshold of Hope, had to remind Catholic missionaries and missioners, in effect: “Jesus is not to be confused with Mohammed, Moses, or Buddha: the Christian gospel remains paramount, and other religions are seriously flawed.” His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, has made the same point, in less ambiguous terms.

Yet American Catholics, by and large, have lost the missionary drive, the evangelical fervor, which remains central to the Christian identity of evangelical Protestants. The more thoughtful of these Catholics give a good accounting of themselves and their transformed attitudes. It goes something like this: If it is indeed the case that the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts and lives of all peoples, drawing them closer to God; if it is indeed the case that human culture is a reflection of this interac-tion between the human and the divine; if it is indeed the case that human nature, created by God, possesses a dignity in and of itself, prior to membership in any particular religious

conversion, witness, solidarity, dialogue: modes of the evangelizing church in tension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

| 13 the review of faith & international affairs

community—then, wherein lie the warrants for proselytism? “Proselytism” is understood in this context as the vigorous dedication of human and material resources for the purpose of facilitating conversion to Christianity, and to a particular form of Christianity.

To put this attitude in slightly different terms: If we genuinely respect the values and cultures of a people, then we would tend to accept those values and enter into mutually respectful dialogue with “the other.” Dialogue, like genuine respect, is not a tactic, designed to minimize the chance of persecution. Nor is it a ploy, designed to lull the other into a mode of discourse and relationship that must end in conversion. Rather, dialogue demands a genuine openness to the other point of view; it risks transformation of either or both parties.2 Less dra-matically, it leaves open the possibility, for Christians, as for others, that one’s own faith will be deepened and practiced with greater conviction precisely through encountering the other as other, and through abiding in genuine acceptance and respect of the values and culture of the other.

To put this point negatively, and sharply: If “tolerance” of other religions and cultures is adopted as a short-term tactic and guise, is this not a violation of the human dignity of the other, as well as a kind of hypocrisy? Is “stealth Christianity” of this sort even more objectionable when evangelists move beyond mere tolerance to empathy, in order to project a studied respect for the culture and religion?

Modes of Christian Witness in Tension

Such difficult questions have been raised repeatedly during the course of the last century. As the reality of “globalization” dawned, bringing with it enhanced speed and range of communication and mobility, Christian churches adopted various modes of evangelization. The mode adopted depended

on the particular church body’s changing understanding of its mission to the world, the host society’s attitudes towards other cultures, the policies of the U.S. or other governments, and the church’s relations to other Christian churches and to other religions. As the modes of evangelization developed, tensions occurred both within communions and across denominations, owing to conflicting views of truth and the nature of truth, competing principles of biblical interpretation, and dis-

parate ideas regarding the church’s role in the world.

The dawning era of globalization has deepened polarization, as has the post-Cold War spike in religious and ethnic violence. In a time of heightened aware-ness of religious diversity and religious pluralism, media-driven activism, and the reduction of reli-gious mission to ideology,

the legitimacy of any form of active evan-gelization has been placed under intense scrutiny. The drama of proselytization and persecution is unfolding on this stage.

We can identify four specific, often over-lapping modes of evangelization that have been prominent to various degrees in world Christianity since the Second World War: conversion, witness, solidarity, and dialogue. We will briefly sketch these four “types” below, assuming the necessary apologies for the distortions that inevitably accom-pany such clustering. The descriptions will situate the conversion mode as one historic choice among others, and will compare and contrast the competing approaches.

ConversionChristians adhering to a conversionist

mode of evangelism seek to bring the world into conformity with the reign of God in Jesus Christ, primarily by spreading the good news of salvation and, whenever pos-sible, converting people to Christianity. The fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and conserva-

as “globalization”

dawned, bringing with

it enhanced speed and

range of communication

and mobility, christian

churches adopted

various modes of

evangelization

r. scott appleby & angela j. lederach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

14 | spring 2009

tive evangelical missions of the Cold War era exemplified this worldview, as do indigenous evangelical movements such as El Shaddai, the so-called “Catholic fundamentalists” of the Philippines. Church organizations, NGOs, and parachurch groups in this mode tend to be highly organized, well funded, and politi-cally sophisticated. Their theology of conflict differs from that of spiritualists, who tend to be pacifists or disciplined practitioners of nonvio-lent resistance. For the conversionists, conflict may be inevitable in a world divided between children of darkness and children of light; “spiritual warfare” is a common theme.3

The Conversion mode, while associated with the evangelical and charismatic movements, pervades most of the Christian denominations. Indeed, denominations as structurally and theologi-cally diverse as Episcopalian, Mennonite, and Baptist churches all have conversionist sectors. Postmodern relativism and religious pluralism are the contexts within which conservative evangelical Christians have renewed their commitment to exclusive truth claims, and the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ. “Pluralism is one of the most serious threats to the integrity of the Christian faith.”4 That conviction, voiced by Ronald Nash, resonated with organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ, who understand conversion of the masses, in obedience to the Great Commission, to be the ultimate Christian calling.

Conversionists feel the weight of the responsibility to evangelize all nations as a personal burden. They view human nature as inherently sinful, requiring redemption that is found only in a conscious, verbalized faith in Jesus Christ. The author Kenneth Richards Samples refers to this position as “restrictive exclusivism,” for “conscious faith in Christ is not merely normative, but neces-sary for salvation [and] . . . the unevangelized [are viewed] as lost.”5 Restrictive exclusiv-ism leaves no room for God’s saving grace

beyond public proclamation of faith in Jesus. Accordingly, the ultimate goal and responsibil-ity of evangelized Christians lies in conversion of the masses through church planting, preaching, baptizing, and tract distribution.

Christian conversionists argue that the act of proclaiming one’s faith in the public forum is a fundamental human right, and they appeal to Western human rights traditions and enforcement instruments to make the mission field safe for their divinely ordained

labors. In their view, “con-flict transformation” means removing impediments to the “free market of ideas” and freedom of assembly, speech, and religion. In post-Soviet Russia, Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, Roman Catholics, evangeli-cal Protestants, Mormons, Seven Day Adventists, and others who continue to

“win souls” often risk their lives in doing so.Christians who promote the Conversion

mode often feel a sense of eschatological urgency, coupled with a belief in the inerrant, exclusive truth of the Scriptures. Campus Crusade for Christ’s mission statement affirms that the Bible is “God’s infallible written word, uniquely, verbally, and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit … written without error in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.” These foundational convictions lead to an emphasis on immediate conversion on a global scale. Eschatological urgency—the conviction that time is short before Christ returns to inaugurate the End Times or Final Age—stimulates aggressive evange-lism, determination, and commitment. This urgency places conversion as the immediate, pressing issue of today, even beyond educa-tion, poverty eradication, and health care.6

Finally, the Conversion mode relies heav-ily on a pneumatological missiology, which focuses on the miraculous nature of the Holy Spirit’s agency through healing, speaking in tongues, and/or dramatic conversion experi-

christians who promote

the conversion mode

often feel a sense of

eschatological urgency,

coupled with a belief in

the inerrant, exclusive

truth of the scriptures

conversion, witness, solidarity, dialogue: modes of the evangelizing church in tension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

| 15 the review of faith & international affairs

ence. Compatible with this mission theology is a paradigm of conversion based on Saint Paul’s Damascus experience. Some evangelical leaders have worried that this pneumatological missiology, coupled with a “Damascus Road” conversion paradigm, results in an emphasis on a simple increase in numbers of the converted, rather than in equally robust efforts to foster sustained discipleship and church leadership.

WitnessThe proselytizing-centered approach to

evangelism leaves many Christians disil-lusioned and demanding a more integrative mode for evangelism that emphasizes socio-political and economic issues as well as salvation. The Witness mode attempts to integrate both personal conversion to Christ and transformation of unjust socio-political and economic structures, thereby offering a more holistic evangelization paradigm.

Although the Witness mode maintains exclusive truth claims and a mission emphasis, it often lacks the eschatological urgency that drives the Conversion mode. Furthermore, disillusioned with the imperial or neo-colonial overtones often accompanying the Conversion mode of Christian mission, the adherents of the Witness mode seek to respect and uphold indigenous religious and cultural traditions among the people they seek to convert. They confess a God who is already at work within the unevangelized, thereby creating a sustainable evangelistic model that stresses continuity with the host culture and tradition.

To be sure, Christians operating in the Witness mode, as we define it here, are not content “merely” to stand in social solidarity with the people they are evangelizing. They want to share the gospel in an explicit doctrinal way, while refusing to separate the theological from the social. Both Roman Catholics and evangelicals, uneasy with a straightforward conversionist mode, moved toward the Witness mode in the post-1960s, post-Vatican II period.

Among Catholics, for example, the term “missioner” replaced or complemented the traditional term “missionary.” The import of the shift was that the new generation of

Catholic mission workers cultivated a more profound respect for the integrity of indig-enous cultures. This shift, moreover, was seen to be in keeping with three themes of Vatican II: religious freedom, inculturation, and People of God theology. We have already discussed religious freedom. “Inculturation” refers to the planting and flourishing of the gospel in particular cultural settings and the consequent requirement that mission work-ers develop sufficient understanding of and empathy for the cultures they are evangelizing. As for People of God theology, Vatican II, while reaffirming the necessity of Christian baptism for salvation, acknowledged that people lead a moral life without knowing the Christian God. This shifted the spotlight from the missionary to the work of God among all peoples, emphasizing action over words and underscoring the need for humility and the ability to listen to others of different beliefs.7

Inculturation, taken alone, could be seen as a tactic of fruitful convert-making. Coupled with the People of God theology—which softens the distinctions between baptized members of the Christian church, on the one hand, and all the “people of God” who respond in faith to the Holy Spirit, on the other—an emphasis on inculturation also opens the way to understanding Christian mission as solidarity with all of God’s chil-dren, whatever their religious affiliation.

Mennonite Mission Network (MMN), straying from a proselytizing-centered approach, provides another example of the Witness mode. MMN engages in church-planting and preaching the gospel as well as working at the grassroots level to alle-viate poverty, treat disease, and provide basic human services. For these Mennonites, this is the way to fulfill the Great Commission and create disciples across the world. Moreover, organizations like Youth With A Mission (YWAM), traditionally based on the Conversion mode, now present a three-tiered evangelism effort: Evangelism, Mercy Ministry, and Training & Discipleship. The latter two tiers focus on “declaring the good news practically and verbally” while

r. scott appleby & angela j. lederach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

16 | spring 2009

being the “’hands and feet’ of making God known,” through working with poverty, drug addiction, domestic violence, and educa-tion. In recent years YWAM has adapted a more holistic approach based on the Witness mode through integrating socio-political and economic activities, as well as those that are more spiritual and evangelistic.8

Unlike the Conversion mode, the Witness mode seeks not only to “convert the masses,” but also to create disciples. Those adhering to the Witness mode believe conversion requires that people not only accept Christ, but also follow the example and lifestyle of Jesus. They place a strong emphasis on servanthood and compassion. The Great Commission remains the ultimate Christian calling, but fundamental understandings of conversion have changed. The paradigm for evangelism no longer lies with Paul’s dramatic Damascus conversion, but with the long-term changes seen within disciples, culminating in their evangelistic efforts in the book of Acts.9

The Witness mode strays away from a Western-dominated form of evangelism to a global, more holistic approach. Operative is a cyclical rather than linear approach to evange-lism. The sign of the fulfillment of the Great Commission, contends Witness theologian Wonsuk Ma, appears when planted churches begin planting their own churches. Like the Conversionists, the Witness Christians also hold that salvation lies exclusively with a conscious proclamation of faith in Jesus. But the process does not culminate with the initial conversion; it continues, and continues to be tested, in ongoing works of discipleship.

SolidarityDespite the differences between the

Conversion and Witness modes, and the inevitable tension that arises from those dif-ferences, they share a fundamental belief in the responsibility of Christians to convert the unevangelized through accepting the infallible and absolute truth found in Jesus Christ. The most intense conflict derives from differences in their respective understandings of truth, mission, evangelism, and the church’s calling.

The Solidarity mode of evangelism dif-fers drastically from both the Conversion and Witness modes. Solidarity Christians tend to be uncomfortable with exclusive truth claims, literal readings of the Bible, and even the term “evangelism.” They prefer the more inclusive language of service and solidarity, as opposed to evangelism and mission. The Solidarity mode does not place emphasis on the Great Commission, but rather on the humanity of Jesus and the responsibility of Christians to live in imitation of Jesus’ life, whatever may be the results in terms of attract-ing other people to official membership in the Christian church. Rather, Solidarity Christians give priority to transforming corrupt socio-political and economic systems. For them, the Christian vocation is to live in solidarity with suffering people, who are made in God’s image. Exemplary organizations include the Catholic Worker House, Mennonite Central Committee, and Catholic Relief Services.

The Solidarity mode champions a Christocentric approach, recognizing that the teachings and example of Jesus have direct implications for decisions Christians make on a daily basis. The imitation of Jesus leads to a new emphasis on alleviating poverty, providing services to meet basic human needs, and building a sustainable just peace in areas ravaged with warfare and violence.

Within this broad rubric, approaches to evangelism-as-solidarity vary, from the estab-lishment of intentional local communities of faith and service, to proactive, grassroots organizations such as Mennonite Central Committee, Pax Christi, and Catholic Relief Services. In the latter camp, for example, the Mennonite Central Committee seeks to “demonstrate God’s love by working among people suffering from poverty, conflict, oppression, and natural disaster … striving for peace, justice and the dignity of all people.”10

Christians who embrace the Solidarity mode are more comfortable with ambiguity and less committed to an absolute understand-ing of truth. Religious pluralism is not a threat to be countered but a blessing to be celebrated. Unlike the Conversion and Witness modes,

conversion, witness, solidarity, dialogue: modes of the evangelizing church in tension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

| 17 the review of faith & international affairs

Christians who adhere to the Solidarity mode prefer inclusive, dynamic views of truth, leav-ing room for the mysterious work of God’s grace in the world. The Solidarity mode affirms openness as a mark of apostolic love, and it accepts a certain amount of ignorance or living in the “unknown.” Accordingly, salvation rests not so much in a conscious, public proclamation of Jesus as Savior, but rather in cooperation with God’s unpredictable and unplotted agency among all peoples and nations. “Jesus commissioned his disciples to go into all the world … to go beyond the boundaries of nation, tribe, and religion,” maintains the liberal cleric John Shelby Spong, and “proclaim the gospel—that is, the infinite love of God … love that recognizes no barriers.”11

A certain epistemological and ethical humility charac-terizes the Solidarity Christians; conversionists might see this trait as reflecting a lack of con-viction or commitment. In any case, Christians who embrace solidarity “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7) and welcome in partnership the faith of others, whatever its origins or setting. Catholic Relief Services (CRS), for example, declares that the “funda-mental motivating force in all activities … is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Yet the organization is run by non-Christians (and non-Catholics) as well as Christians, and it depends on local partners who hail from various religious back-grounds. In keeping with the Solidarity mode, CRS views Christian responsibility as consist-ing not in saving the unevangelized, but rather in using “talents and resources … to encourage active solidarity on behalf of one human family and to creatively promote more just societies.”12

DialogueAt the far end of the spectrum are

Christians who have so deeply internalized teachings on human dignity and the spiritual dynamism of all cultures that they find pros-elytism of any kind to be antithetical to their

understanding of the gospel. If the other is to become Christian, it will be by her or his free choice, completely uncompelled, and as the unintended side effect of Christians stand-ing in solidarity and engaging in a “dialogue of hospitality.” In a world torn by religious warfare, intensified recently with the War on Terror and the apparent conflict between Christianity and Islam, a new commitment to personalized dialogue among religions and inter-religious partnership has arisen.

Accordingly, the Dialogue mode of evangelism focuses on reconciliation and unqual-ified forgiveness as the sine qua non of Christian witness.

Indeed, the goal of the Dialogue mode is not the conversion of non-Christians, but rather the creation of peaceful relationships in an inter-religious world. Adopting an inclusive

Christology, Dialogue Christians emphasize the truth found in each religious teaching. As the Task Force on Christian Mission in an Interreligious World concluded, “The place of the church … is as guardian of a revelation about a universal God. It shares a revelation even as it is open to the signs of God at work in other faiths and cultures.”13

Christians in the Dialogue mode not only respect other religious communities, they acknowledge the sovereignty of God among all humanity, resulting in open, inclusive relationships among diverse religious com-munities. They see truth as dynamic and transformational. In extreme forms, the Dialogue mode seems to reject evangelism completely, creating an entirely different paradigm for Christian mission. Spong (ref-erenced earlier under the Solidarity mode) would add here: “That is the challenge of our time in history: a religion-less Christianity must be born; a humanistic Christianity must come into being. That is the vision of the reformation that I see beginning to dawn.”14

Dialogue Christians have responded to and helped create the enthusiasm for religious

r. scott appleby & angela j. lederach

the goal of the

dialogue mode is not

the conversion of non-

christians, but rather

the creation of peaceful

relationships in an inter-

religious world

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

18 | spring 2009

pluralism as well as religious peace-building. Organizations such as the World Conference on Religion and Peace, Pax Christi, the Catholic Community of Sant’ Egidio, and the Christian Peacemaker Teams operate on the basis of dialogue, mutual sharing, and reconciliation within religious communities. Dialogue Christians view the commitment to reconciliation and conflict transforma-tion as a self-authenticating gospel mandate. Silsilah, for example, a network of primar-ily Roman Catholic sisters and laywomen living in the southern Philippines island of Mindanao, have dedicated themselves to rec-onciliation with Muslims during a time when religious extremism has gained a foothold in the region. Like other Dialogue Christians, the women of Silsilah view reconciliation as a spirituality, not a strategy, and still less as a technical or professional process.15

Fostering dialogue among peoples is the Christian way of life in conflict settings for groups of this mentality. While conversant in the literature and some of the techniques of conflict resolution, these groups tend to be loosely organized and low-maintenance, their members often living an apostolic lifestyle of poverty or modest means. Although Dialogue Christians leave concrete outcomes to the Holy Spirit, the relationships they promote between erstwhile or potential antagonists can contribute to the stabilization of societ-ies plagued by economic inequalities and communal tension. The historic Christian peace churches, for example—the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren—attempt to retain the ethos and piety of this outlook even as they have moved decisively in the direction of ends-oriented, world-transforming modes.16

Religious Human Rights: The Challenge of Finding Common Ground

The co-existence of these modes within various denominations and organizations fos-ters tension and conflict. The Dialogue mode, for example, appears as virtually the opposite of the Conversion and Witness modes. The

aggressive evangelism of the conversionists can create barriers to ecumenical partnership. Indeed, there are fundamental differences in how these groups view truth, and these differ-ences exacerbate divisions in already polarized Christian communities. For example, finding truth and the Divine presence in all religions, as the Dialogue Christians do, undermines a more conversionist belief in salvation exclu-sively through conscious, public proclamation of Jesus as Savior. On this and other issues, the Solidarity and Dialogue modes contrast sharply with the Conversion mode, while Witness Christians attempt to bridge the gulf between proclamation and conversion, on the one hand, and social solidarity, on the other hand.17

The variety of attitudes toward prosely-tism and conflict found in contemporary Catholicism and Protestantism has its coun-terparts in Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Yet at the same time, as Robert Traer writes, the new “fact in the field” is the widespread support for human rights among religious leaders, a support he describes as “global, cutting across cultures as well as systems of belief and practice.” Clearly, Traer continues, “something new is occurring when women and men of different faith traditions join with those of no religious tradition to champion human rights.”18

None of the religious traditions, includ-ing Christianity, speaks unequivocally in its sacred texts about “human dignity” or “human rights.” The sacred texts and canons devote much more attention to commandments and obligations than to rights and freedoms. Additionally, prelates, supreme guides, theolo-gians, and jurists have cultivated human rights norms while resisting—paradoxically, in our view—their application to the religious body itself. Yet human rights discourse has become the moral language of cultural modernity, in part as a result of its justification and advocacy by members of different religious traditions.

This does not mean religious traditions always agree on principles or methods. Each religion (and its schools or sub-traditions) has justified and advocated human rights and some form of religious freedom in its

conversion, witness, solidarity, dialogue: modes of the evangelizing church in tension

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: CONVERSION, WITNESS, SOLIDARITY, DIALOGUE: MODES OF THE EVANGELIZING CHURCH IN TENSION

| 19 the review of faith & international affairs

own distinctive way and on its own terms, notes John Witte, Jr.19 More specifically, each has its own ideas about what religious freedom means when it comes to evangelism, which in turn affect how persecution related to evangelism tends to be interpreted. The respective frameworks, or doctrines, or models of emulation are not readily reconcilable in

every respect; even where different religions proclaim essentially the same luminous core truths, this basic unity is not always transpar-ent to themselves or to others. The challenge of the next phase of the human rights era will be for religious leaders from these different traditions and sub-traditions to identify and enlarge the common ground they share. !

1. “Declaration on Religious Liberty,” Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, chapter 1, “The General Principle of Religious Freedom,” in Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents (Northport, NY: Costello Publications, 1996 pb), 552-3.

2. This point is elaborated, under the rubric of “hospitality,” in Martin E. Marty, When Faiths Collide (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005).

3. R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

4. Ronald Nash quoted in Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 161.

5. Samples, 184.

6. Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

7. Appleby, 268.

8. Youth With A Mission International Communications, www.ywam.org.

9. Richard V. Peace, “Conflicting Understandings of Christian Conversion: A Missiological Challenge,” Bulletin of Missionary Research, (2004): 8. Richard V. Peace makes the distinction between the unevangelized becoming Christians as opposed to being Christians, recognizing their own contributions to the Missio Dei. Here, the emphasis is not solely on numbers, but on creating sustainable churches in indigenous communities, who also begin participating in the Great Commission.

10. Mennonite Central Committee, Mission Statement, www.mcc.org/about/.

11. John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture, (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 295.

12. Catholic Relief Services, Mission Statement, www.crs.org.

13. The World Council of Churches, Mission Statement, www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html.

14. Spong, 231.

15. Appleby, 277.

16. David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991).

17. Christians disillusioned by the severity of Christian polarization view intra-Christian dialogue and reconciliation as the pressing issue of our time. Organizations such as the World Council of Churches have emerged to bridge the gulf among the Christian churches. The mission statement of the WCC addresses ways to “recover the urgency of the search for Christian unity as a key missionary witness … reconciliation includes a neces-sary dialogue between conflicting mission movements.” The renewed emphasis on ecumenism within the Christian church derives from severe polarity caused by conflicting views on the mission of the Church in the 21st century. Unfortunately, without reconciling fundamental theological convictions, intra-Christian conflict will continue to persist.

18. Robert Traer, Faith in Human Rights (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1991), 1.

19. John Witte, Jr., “Introduction,” in John Witte, Jr. and Johan D. van der Vyver, eds., Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives (The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 1996), xxi.

r. scott appleby & angela j. lederach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:29

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14