An Evangelizer's Code of Conduct

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Church_Militant

Guest
An Evangelizer’s Code of Conduct
Leaders Making Guidelines on Sharing the Faith

TOULOUSE, France, AUG. 22, 2007 (Zenit.org).- A code of conduct on Christian evangelization is one step closer to being established after ecumenical leaders honed suggestions for the guidelines.

The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the World Council of Churches began the project of establishing the code last May, seeking to develop a set of guidelines that could help maintain the balance between freedom of religion and freedom to explain and promote one’s faith.

As a further step, some 30 representatives of various Christian denominations gathered in France from Aug. 8-12 to discuss the code of conduct, the World Council of Churches reported.

Archbishop Robert LeGall of Toulouse, a participant in that meeting, says he hopes the code will ensure the “mutual respect of those who are engaged in a religion” while at the same time preserving the “right to spread and explain one’s faith.”

When the Vatican met with the World Council of Churches in May 2006 to begin the establishment of the code, certain conclusions were reached.

“Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and nonnegotiable right of every human being in every country in the world,” states the report of that meeting.

“Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice,” the report continues.

Concrete suggestions

According to the World Council of Churches, the report included some concrete suggestions, such as “discouraging and rejecting ‘unethical means,’ avoiding taking advantage of ‘vulnerable’ people like children and disabled persons, and doing humanitarian work ‘without any ulterior motives.’”

In Toulouse, the World Evangelical Alliance, an association of organizations and churches that reports a membership of some 420 million Christians worldwide, said they were ready to join the Vatican and the World Council in supporting the code.

The World Council of Churches said that certain elements were identified in Toulouse as key concepts upon which the code of conduct should be based. They include “common understandings of conversion, witness, mission and evangelism, and concern for human dignity; a distinction between aggressive proselytizing and evangelism; the balance between the mandate to evangelize and the right to choose one’s religion.”

Organizers expect the code to be finalized by 2010. The next step of the process will be a meeting in 2008, when the code of conduct will be drafted.
 
Here is the code:

We are all sinners. Rom3:10
We need a savior. Eph2:8-9
We need to repent of our sins. Acts3:19
We need to accept Jesus as our Lord and savior. Rom 10:9

Whatever it takes to get that message across effectively is valid.

I will not abide by any government ruling dictating to me what is politically correct when spreading the Gospel.
 
DaisyD said:
I will not abide by any government ruling dictating to me what is politically correct when spreading the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Where was a government ruling even mentioned? I read the first post three times and did not see such a statement.
 
I should have said any ‘governing body’ such as the World Council of Churches
 
DaisyD said:
Here is the code:

We are all sinners. Rom3:10
We need a savior. Eph2:8-9
We need to repent of our sins. Acts3:19
We need to accept Jesus as our Lord and savior. Rom 10:9

Whatever it takes to get that message across effectively is valid.

I will not abide by any government ruling dictating to me what is politically correct when spreading the Gospel.
Click to expand...
We need to obey the Church. Matt 16:19.

It’s so interesting to see how differently non-Catholic Christians see the role of the church. I plan to obey whatever rules God’s authorized representatives enact. I won’t supersede their judgment with mine.
 
DaisyD said:
Here is the code:

We are all sinners. Rom3:10
We need a savior. Eph2:8-9
We need to repent of our sins. Acts3:19
We need to accept Jesus as our Lord and savior. Rom 10:9

Whatever it takes to get that message across effectively is valid.
Click to expand...
I will not abide by any government ruling dictating to me what is politically correct when spreading the Gospel.So then, let’s get specific Daisy.
**
Acceptable or not?**
  1. Rudeness?
  2. Derision of another’s beliefs or lack thereof?
  3. Coercion?
  4. Misrepresentation of another’s beliefs?
  5. Lying about what another person believes?
  6. Mistreatment, refusal to meet physical needs unless one converts?
  7. Use of physical force?
  8. Legal restriction by force of law?
Please…enlighten me?

When the Vatican met with the World Council of Churches in May 2006 to begin the establishment of the code, certain conclusions were reached.

“Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and nonnegotiable right of every human being in every country in the world,” states the report of that meeting.

“Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice,” the report continues.

Concrete suggestions

According to the World Council of Churches, the report included some concrete suggestions, such as "discouraging and rejecting ‘unethical means,’ avoiding taking advantage of ‘vulnerable’ people like children and disabled persons, and doing humanitarian work 'without any ulterior motives.
 
DaisyD said:
Here is the code:

We are all sinners. Rom3:10
We need a savior. Eph2:8-9
We need to repent of our sins. Acts3:19
We need to accept Jesus as our Lord and savior. Rom 10:9

Whatever it takes to get that message across effectively is valid.

I will not abide by any government ruling dictating to me what is politically correct when spreading the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Seriously, whatever it takes? What are the boundaries you won’t cross in spreading your version of the gospel?

I loved this quote from the Archbishop of Toulouse:
Archbishop Robert LeGall of Toulouse, a participant in that meeting, says he hopes the code will ensure the “mutual respect of those who are engaged in a religion” while at the same time preserving the “right to spread and explain one’s faith.”
Click to expand...
Did he really say anything so radical that would cause you to disagree with him? 🤷
 
Here is some Catholic teaching on the subject:

Second Vatican Council:

Gaudium et Spes

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.(11)

Dignitatis Humanae:

The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith.(37) All is to be taken into account-the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.

St. Pius X

E Supremi:
  1. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. “For the Lord is not in the earthquake” (III Kings xix., II) – it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: “Accuse, beseech, rebuke,” but he took care to add: “with all patience” (11. Tim. iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. “Come to me,” we find Him saying, “come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you” (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: “I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax” (Is. xlii., 1, s.). This charity, “patient and kind” (1. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. “We are reviled,” thus did St. Paul protest, “and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat” (1. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill-advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it.
 
By the way, CM, thanks for starting this thread. It does my Christian heart a world of good when I see evidence of cooperation and promises of mutual respect from religious leaders who disagree on so many important issues.
 
djrakowski said:
By the way, CM, thanks for starting this thread. It does my Christian heart a world of good when I see evidence of cooperation and promises of mutual respect from religious leaders who disagree on so many important issues.
Click to expand...
👍

I also appreciate Genesis315’s contribution, which also pulls it all into context for Catholics. I cannot answer for others, but I must answer for me.

As the Japanese poem says, “When your own heart asks…”
 
One hopes they’ll remember the commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbor.

That alone would be a gigantic reform, based on the perpetual lies regurgitated regarding the Catholic Church’s practices, teachings, and history.
 
Teflon93 said:
One hopes they’ll remember the commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbor.

That alone would be a gigantic reform, based on the perpetual lies regurgitated regarding the Catholic Church’s practices, teachings, and history.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I don’t think the really anti-Catholic groups will care what the WCC has to say–they tend to think they are part of some one-world-religion conspiracy along with the Catholic Church.
 
Laudatur Iesus Christus.

The concept that seems most dangerous to me in such a “code” is the notion of “freedom of religion.” This is a very dangerous concept, within the Church. Its place in restraining secular government is appropriate and easy to understand. The fundamental concept of the freedom of the Church is appropriate and necessary, though little honored today. However, when a notion of “freedom of religion” is applied to individuals or to other organizations than the Catholic Church, there is a grave danger of the idea becoming incoherent and delusional, like an assertion of a right to choose or reject gravity.

One of the quotes from the article was, “Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.” This seems to fall into the category of “freedom of religion” which has been rightly condemned as insane.

Would the Church allow the practice of human sacrifice in the form used by the Aztec or Maya? What of religions who incorporate aggressive and even violent control – like certain extremists’ interpretations of Islam – would the Church allow this as “the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith?”

What of the doctrine that “outside of the Church there is no salvation” and the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the Conciliar Fathers from Vatican II: “those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it,” (Ad Gentes, 7). Can these be reconciled with an “individual” right to “embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice”?

Whatever this phrase “freedom of religion” is intended to indicate, it seems far to broad to be useful. On its face it invites mistaken understandings and opens the field for violent conflicts over its proper interpretation. If it were adopted by a secular government as a standard, one could foresee a requirement that the concept of “hell” be abandoned as a terroristic threat intended to intimidate and limit one’s freedom to choose another religion. After all, does not the quotation from Vatican II above amount to a threat of eternal damnation toward anyone who abandons the true faith?

This “code” seems like a dangerous and probably unworkable idea, precisely because agreement on catch phrases such as “freedom of religion” are likely to give the illusion of unity, while concealing fundamental disagreements which are likely to become vicious when they come to light in a concrete encounter.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
John Hiner,

I did notice that too. Catholic teaching on Religious Liberty has to do with the state fostering an environment where man is free to come to the true faith. Creating this environment is a balance: on the one hand, the state cannot coerce people to the faith. On the other hand, the state must protect against actions and idoleologies of others that may hinder or prevent someone coming to the true faith. Likewise, religious practices that disturb the just ordering of society, like the Aztec ones you mention, should be suppressed by the state. The objective moral order must be respected by the state and its citizens.

The way the WCC states it seems too broad–there would have to be some sort of limiting language. Likewise, language like that can often be misinterpreted to mean that man is not morally obligated by God to choose the true religion and conform himself to it, that any religion is acceptable or that religion is just a matter of private, personal choice.

We have rights and liberties so we can be able to freely fulfill duties. I think it was Pope John Paul II who said true freedom is not moral license, but the freedom to do what’s right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top