Proselytizing

[Eufrosnia]

In a different thread, we have been discussing the issue of proselytizing. Since it is getting out of topic on that thread, I felt it best to open a new thread.

There seems to be a discussion between two camps of thought.

One camp is saying that living a Christian life in itself is evangelizing. They say that the evidence of those who converted to the faith by seeing such persons is evidence that this is true.

The second camp points out that such conversion does not necessarily mean that the converts were reasonable. In fact, it is unreasonable to convert to the religion of a person we consider to be good or appealing to us. The only reason to convert to a religion is only if there is reason to think that it is true. The second camp says further that charity work can only be part of the evangelizing process at best and not evangelizing in itself. They acknowledge that a good witness can cause interest in those around them. But as said before, they disagree that the interest is reason enough to convert. So it claims that actual reasons must be communicated using words to the interested person.

They point to the Scriptures where Christ’s last words in gospel of Matthew are

‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and** teaching them to obey everything** that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’ – Matthew 28:18-20

They contend that if Christ considered a life of charity as evangelizing in itself, he would have ordered the Apostles and disciples to just continue to live good Christian lives. But that is not what he said.

They further point out how saints such as St. Patrick was engaged in proselytizing an entire country like Ireland. How St. Paul tried to convert the Greeks. How St. Francis and likes of St. Anthony wanted to convert the Muslims.

Therefore they conclude that the view that a life of charity is evangelization in itself as false. They claim that both witness and proselytizing are essential part of evangelizing.

Now I belong to the second camp of thought. I hope we can have a civil discussion on this important subject.

 

[Indyann]

Catholics do not cherry pick a passage from the Bible to try to prove a point.

 

[Lucky7]

Catholics do not cherry pick a passage from the Bible to try to prove a point.

How about the Catechism then?

*905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, "this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world."440

**This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful.**

906 Lay people who are capable and trained may also collaborate in catechetical formation, in teaching the sacred sciences, and in use of the communications media.442

907 "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."443 *

I happen to like paragraph 907 since very often other CAF members will make a point of saying that the laity shouldn’t offer their opinions.

 

[McCall1981]

Catholics do not cherry pick a passage from the Bible to try to prove a point.

I think Eufrosnia’s point is that Christ wants us to spread the Christian faith, not only do good works.

If a Muslim does a good work, it is good, but it is not evangelizing for Chirst. If a Christian does a good work and no one knows it has anything to do with Christ, it is not evangelizing for Christ. If a Christian does a good work in the context of being a Christian (not necessarily using words) it is evangeliztion for Christ. The Christian context is necessary or there is no difference between a secular charity and the Church.

Sure, the work can come first, but without Christ being in there somewhere eventually, it’s not evangelization.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m not sure that “preach” and “proselytize” are the same thing.

I think it might be helpful to start out with some technical definitions, so here goes:

Proselytize:

1: to induce someone to convert to one’s faith

2: to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause

Preach:

1 : to deliver a sermon

2 : to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner

Evangelize:

1: to preach the gospel to

2: to convert to Christianity

Looking at the quote from Matthew that you provided, it doesn’t quite suggest proselytization. In fact it says almost nothing about methodology except baptism but it says little on how to bring someone to the point of wanting baptism. So this strikes me as a bit of proof-texting, with all due respect.

Now I’ll show my feathers here by saying that my own understanding of this topic is firmly rooted in the Benedictine tradition of, in fact, not proselytizing.

Here is my big fear with proselytizing: for many, being proselytized is a huge turn-off. Just look at the visceral reaction when JWs ring the doorbell on a Saturday morning, equally from religious and non-religious folks.

We have, to a certain extent, a huge responsibility when it comes to winning souls. We make little progress if for each soul we win, if we permanently turn off 10 souls through our proselytizing. It seems to me to be something that we will be held accountable for at judgment day.

When you think about it, that’s a HUGE responsibility. That’s why I favour a gentle approach of letting my life speak for Catholicism (I hope it can speak for me…).

The second definition of evangelize appeals to me. It says conversion, but it doesn’t say one has to bore everyone to death with proselytizing.

The two definitions of proselytize definitely are a turn-off for me. “Induce” and “recruit” are aggressive words. The second definition of “preach” is also negative but the first isn’t.

I’m not quite certain that preaching has quite the same connotation as proselytize, but I may be wrong. I do know for myself, being proselytized is a huge turn-off.

That said, the Church has many charisms, and different situations can sometimes call for different methods. Even if you do think proselytization is the way to go, it would be wrong, for instance, to require Benedictines to proselytize. That goes against the charism of the order. Similarly, the Dominicans are know as the “Order of Preachers”.

Both approach conversion in different ways; the goal is the same, the methods adapted to the charisms of each. All methods need to be done with respect and start from a position of respecting where the other comes from (for instance someone born into another faith is not the same as someone leaving Catholicism to join another faith; the former cannot be charged with heresy or apostasy, but the latter can).

Therefore any respectful discussion will have to start with the premise that the different methodologies, assuming that they’re Church-approved, have merit and are suited to the character of those using them and the context.

 

[McCall1981]

I’m not sure that “preach” and “proselytize” are the same thing.

I think it might be helpful to start out with some technical definitions, so here goes:

Proselytize:

Preach:

Evangelize:

Looking at the quote from Matthew that you provided, it doesn’t quite suggest proselytization. In fact it says almost nothing about methodology except baptism but it says little on how to bring someone to the point of wanting baptism. So this strikes me as a bit of proof-texting, with all due respect.

Now I’ll show my feathers here by saying that my own understanding of this topic is firmly rooted in the Benedictine tradition of, in fact, not proselytizing.

Here is my big fear with proselytizing: for many, being proselytized is a huge turn-off. Just look at the visceral reaction when JWs ring the doorbell on a Saturday morning, equally from religious and non-religious folks.

We have, to a certain extent, a huge responsibility when it comes to winning souls. We make little progress if for each soul we win, if we permanently turn off 10 souls through our proselytizing. It seems to me to be something that we will be held accountable for at judgment day.

When you think about it, that’s a HUGE responsibility. That’s why I favour a gentle approach of letting my life speak for Catholicism (I hope it can speak for me…).

The second definition of evangelize appeals to me. It says conversion, but it doesn’t say one has to bore everyone to death with proselytizing.

The two definitions of proselytize definitely are a turn-off for me. “Induce” and “recruit” are aggressive words. The second definition of “preach” is also negative but the first isn’t.

I’m not quite certain that preaching has quite the same connotation as proselytize, but I may be wrong. I do know for myself, being proselytized is a huge turn-off.

That said, the Church has many charisms, and different situations can sometimes call for different methods. Even if you do think proselytization is the way to go, it would be wrong, for instance, to require Benedictines to proselytize. That goes against the charism of the order. Similarly, the Dominicans are know as the “Order of Preachers”.

Both approach conversion in different ways; the goal is the same, the methods adapted to the charisms of each. All ways need to be done with respect and start from a position of respecting where the other comes from (for instance someone born into another faith is not the same as someone leaving Catholicism to join another faith; the former cannot be charged with heresy or apostasy, but the latter can).

Therefore any respectful discussion will have to start with the premise that the different methodologies, assuming that they’re Church-approved, have merit and are suited to the character of those using them and the context.

Thank you for introducing the definitions, I think most of this argument here is becasue people are using different definitions of the same word.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Catholics do not cherry pick a passage from the Bible to try to prove a point.

Catholics very much do that if that is what the passage means. John 6 comes to mind.

Anyway, I also did gave examples of saints.

 

[Rich_C]

I’m not sure that “preach” and “proselytize” are the same thing.

I think it might be helpful to start out with some technical definitions, so here goes:

Proselytize:

Preach:

Evangelize:

Looking at the quote from Matthew that you provided, it doesn’t quite suggest proselytization. In fact it says almost nothing about methodology except baptism but it says little on how to bring someone to the point of wanting baptism. So this strikes me as a bit of proof-texting, with all due respect.

Two observations that might help the discussion:

1. Good points about the three definitions. I saw the last thread the OP was discussing this in, and I think I can safely say that all the OP means is: telling people about the Faith versus refraining from telling people about the Faith.

The context here is that an awful lot of people in other threads this week have come down hard against telling people about the Faith, in favor of the view that it’s better to wait for them to notice it.

1. Per the scripture, quote, (and it’s funny I was just talking about that with Bro JR in the thread that launched this one): the first thing the apostles did in response to Christ’s command was to stand in some kind of market place and tell people to “repent!” Obviously that is not for everyone (St. Paul said we have roles in the Body of Christ) but I think it’s a strong argument that whatever people are supposed to be evangelizing (the apostles would be their model) ought to both live the Faith and speak to others about it.

Just my 2 cents…

 

[Lucky7]

telling people about the Faith versus refraining from telling people about the Faith.

It sure does seem that there is less of a focus on conversion in recent years…to the point where many Catholics seem to think that it doesn’t matter what religion you are…as long as you are a good person (and they think this is what the Church now teaches!)

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m not sure that “preach” and “proselytize” are the same thing.

I think it might be helpful to start out with some technical definitions, so here goes:

Proselytize:

Preach:

Evangelize:

Where do you define these terms from? The dictionary states that Proselyitize = to convert or attempt to convert. Preaching maybe for proselytizing or something else. Evangelize seems to equal proselytize.

So I think we can stick with Proselytize, yes?

Looking at the quote from Matthew that you provided, it doesn’t quite suggest proselytization. In fact it says almost nothing about methodology except baptism but it says little on how to bring someone to the point of wanting baptism. So this strikes me as a bit of proof-texting, with all due respect.

It says TEACH. As far as the word is understood, one cannot teach using ambiguity. Ambiguous teaching is bad teaching. Actions and the way we live our lives do not communicate clearly but ambiguously. So that cannot be what Christ meant. I mean how hard is it for Christ to just say “Live as good Christians, that is all”?

But if we ignore the part where he says “teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you”, then yes, we can say maybe he means to perhaps do charity and just live.

Also, the Church has said that we are not to present our faith as blind faith without reason. We must give reasons for our faith. That means we must give reasons to convert. Not just become an appeal to others to consider Christianity. No?

I
Now I’ll show my feathers here by saying that my own understanding of this topic is firmly rooted in the Benedictine tradition of, in fact, not proselytizing.

Here is my big fear with proselytizing: for many, being proselytized is a huge turn-off. Just look at the visceral reaction when JWs ring the doorbell on a Saturday morning, equally from religious and non-religious folks.

But here you speak of a particular method of proselytizing. When someone says that you must use words to proselytize, why do people always assume going door to door to random people and shoving down the faith down the throat?

Also, what about St. Patrick who went to Ireland and preached the faith? Or St. Paul who went to the Greeks? There are always places in, if its not a Muslim country, where you can legitimately have these sort of discussions. That will be the place where you give reason. I see nothing wrong with that.

We have, to a certain extent, a huge responsibility when it comes to winning souls. We make little progress if for each soul we win, if we permanently turn off 10 souls through our proselytizing. It seems to me to be something that we will be held accountable for at judgment day.

Again, if done properly, there is nothing to worry about. We can say the same about being good. Someone might take it as Christians trying to look all pious and helpful etc and consider that a turn off.

When you think about it, that’s a HUGE responsibility. That’s why I favour a gentle approach of letting my life speak for Catholicism (I hope it can speak for me…).

The second definition of evangelize appeals to me. It says conversion, but it doesn’t say one has to bore everyone to death with proselytizing.

The two definitions of proselytize definitely are a turn-off for me. “Induce” and “recruit” are aggressive words. The second definition of “preach” is also negative but the first isn’t.

I’m not quite certain that preaching has quite the same connotation as proselytize, but I may be wrong. I do know for myself, being proselytized is a huge turn-off.

That said, the Church has many charisms, and different situations can sometimes call for different methods. Even if you do think proselytization is the way to go, it would be wrong, for instance, to require Benedictines to proselytize. That goes against the charism of the order. Similarly, the Dominicans are know as the “Order of Preachers”.

Both approach conversion in different ways; the goal is the same, the methods adapted to the charisms of each. All methods need to be done with respect and start from a position of respecting where the other comes from (for instance someone born into another faith is not the same as someone leaving Catholicism to join another faith; the former cannot be charged with heresy or apostasy, but the latter can).

Therefore any respectful discussion will have to start with the premise that the different methodologies, assuming that they’re Church-approved, have merit and are suited to the character of those using them and the context.

I agree that one has to adopt the charism of each. But I disagree that there are TWO distinct methods of evangelizing. I contend that there is only one evangelizing where witness through ones life and proselytizing are two parts of the same process. We need both and neither can be said to be evangelizing by itself.

What I disagree with is the position that “doing charity work and living a good Christian life” is evangelizing in itself. It is not evangelizing in itself because it alone gives no reason for anyone to think Christianity true.

So some in the Church will do charity work while the effective communicators do the giving reasons part of the equation. But both together make evangelizing and not both by themselves.

 

[Lucky7]

That said, the Church has many charisms, and different situations can sometimes call for different methods. Even if you do think proselytization is the way to go, it would be wrong, for instance, to require Benedictines to proselytize. That goes against the charism of the order. Similarly, the Dominicans are know as the “Order of Preachers”.

I suspect this is why Brother J spoke the way he spoke in the other thread. He was probably speaking as a Franciscan…and we all know the famous quote of St Francis.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It sure does seem that there is less of a focus on conversion in recent years…to the point where many Catholics seem to think that it doesn’t matter what religion you are…as long as you are a good person (and they think this is what the Church now teaches!)

Exactly. This thought process comes when you consider living a good life as evangelizing by itself. Because essentially what you are trying to do is attract people by a appealing to them without reason.

But then they realize that people in other religions DO find their own religions very attractive and there are these “good” people in those religions too. So they are at a loss on how to proceed. What do they do? They conclude that maybe all religions are just as good as long as people are good according to that religion. Now it does provide some discomfort when the Muslim faithful blows himself up in the name of their faith and kills somebody or when one sees the Imam who issues a fatwa to kill someone who insulted the religion or converted. But then they rationalize thinking maybe its not the religion but the interpretation. But they forget that the lack of an authoritative interpretation is one of the major reasons why the religion is problematic too. Still, what can these men and women do for all they know is of appealing without reason and they don’t know if there is any other way, now that it does not work. So they then blame it on God’s grace

 

[Eufrosnia]

How about the Catechism then?

905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, "that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life." For lay people, "this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world."440

**This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful.**

906 Lay people who are capable and trained may also collaborate in catechetical formation, in teaching the sacred sciences, and in use of the communications media.442

907 "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."443

I happen to like paragraph 907 since very often other CAF members will make a point of saying that the laity shouldn’t offer their opinions.

I like the bolded part of your post quoting the CCC!!! It is exactly what I am trying to say but put much more eloquently than I can.

 

[OraLabora]

Where do you define these terms from? The dictionary states that Proselyitize = to convert or attempt to convert. Preaching maybe for proselytizing or something else. Evangelize seems to equal proselytize.

So I think we can stick with Proselytize, yes?

It says TEACH. As far as the word is understood, one cannot teach using ambiguity. Ambiguous teaching is bad teaching. Actions and the way we live our lives do not communicate clearly but ambiguously. So that cannot be what Christ meant. I mean how hard is it for Christ to just say “Live as good Christians, that is all”?

But if we ignore the part where he says “teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you”, then yes, we can say maybe he means to perhaps do charity and just live.

Also, the Church has said that we are not to present our faith as blind faith without reason. We must give reasons for our faith. That means we must give reasons to convert. Not just become an appeal to others to consider Christianity. No?

But here you speak of a particular method of proselytizing. When someone says that you must use words to proselytize, why do people always assume going door to door to random people and shoving down the faith down the throat?

Also, what about St. Patrick who went to Ireland and preached the faith? Or St. Paul who went to the Greeks? There are always places in, if its not a Muslim country, where you can legitimately have these sort of discussions. That will be the place where you give reason. I see nothing wrong with that.

Again, if done properly, there is nothing to worry about. We can say the same about being good. Someone might take it as Christians trying to look all pious and helpful etc and consider that a turn off.

I agree that one has to adopt the charism of each. But I disagree that there are TWO distinct methods of evangelizing. I contend that there is only one evangelizing where witness through ones life and proselytizing are two parts of the same process. We need both and neither can be said to be evangelizing by itself.

What I disagree with is the position that “doing charity work and living a good Christian life” is evangelizing in itself. It is not evangelizing in itself because it alone gives no reason for anyone to think Christianity true.

So some in the Church will do charity work while the effective communicators do the giving reasons part of the equation. But both together make evangelizing and not both by themselves.

The definitions are from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (first up in the Google search).

You said though: “why do people always assume going door to door to random people and shoving down the faith down the throat?”

My answer, in way that’s what the modern usage of the word has pretty much come to mean (sort of like “gay” doesn’t mean what it once did…).

To teach the faith, you have to have someone willing to listen, otherwise you’re teaching a brick wall. That’s the key, making them want to listen to your message.

And that’s where, I think, action rather than words are needed. Does a farmer plant the seed, before plowing the field?

In our secular world I think we have an awful lot of plowing to do first, not the least of which is restore the Church’s reputation (ref: sex abuse scandals, Vatileaks, corruption, money laundering at the Vatican bank). Whether all those scandals are entirely true or not are irrelevant in a sense; if that’s what people perceive then we have a huge bit of plowing ahead of us before we can even think of planting.

 

[OraLabora]

I like the bolded part of your post quoting the CCC!!! It is exactly what I am trying to say but put much more eloquently than I can.

Read farther though:

906 Lay people who are capable and trained may also collaborate in catechetical formation, in teaching the sacred sciences, and in use of the communications media.

That’s reinforces what I mean about it being a huge responsibility. We can do more harm than good if poorly trained at it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Read farther though:

That’s reinforces what I mean about it being a huge responsibility. We can do more harm than good if poorly trained at it.

Sure, but your solution seems to contradict the bolded part by saying “therefore we should refrain from it”. It is that which I object to.

I would contend that the solution is to get better training or leave it for those who can, while supporting them in every way possible instead of telling them to stop too.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The definitions are from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (first up in the Google search).

You said though: “why do people always assume going door to door to random people and shoving down the faith down the throat?”

My answer, in way that’s what the modern usage of the word has pretty much come to mean (sort of like “gay” doesn’t mean what it once did…).

Ok but still, I see no problem with the use of the word recruit either.

To teach the faith, you have to have someone willing to listen, otherwise you’re teaching a brick wall. That’s the key, making them want to listen to your message.

And that’s where, I think, action rather than words are needed. Does a farmer plant the seed, before plowing the field?

As I said before, I do not disagree. I say that to farm means to plow the field and also to plant the seed. You cannot just say plowing the field is farming. If someone just plows the field without ever planting seeds, all you have is a plowed ground at the end of the day. Someone else might throw some other type of seeds in to it and you will have missed the opportunity to grow what you plowed it for.

So what I am against is people who say just that and try to claim that doing good works by itself constitutes evangelizing. It cannot.

In our secular world I think we have an awful lot of plowing to do first, not the least of which is restore the Church’s reputation (ref: sex abuse scandals, Vatileaks, corruption, money laundering at the Vatican bank). Whether all those scandals are entirely true or not are irrelevant in a sense; if that’s what people perceive then we have a huge bit of plowing ahead of us before we can even think of planting.

But that is an opinion and depends on also what you are capable of. The Church will always have sinners. Always! Even the early Church had a member like Peter who denied Christ, Other Apostles except John who deserted Christ, and it was soon after Judas had betrayed Christ. If Peter first tried to plow the field before preaching on day of Pentecost, things might have been very different…

So my point is that both the plowing and seeding are needed at all times. We cannot neglect one or the other. Both together is what we call farming. Neither by itself can be called farming.

 

[Lucky7]

Read farther though:

That’s reinforces what I mean about it being a huge responsibility. We can do more harm than good if poorly trained at it.

That part of the CCC was referring to catechetical formation (ie. CCD); not evangelization in general. Of course, we need to make sure we know what we’re talking about when we evangelize with words. Part of the problem is that many lay folks are not properly catechized themselves. It’s a tangled web we weave, huh?

 

[Eufrosnia]

That part of the CCC was referring to catechetical formation (ie. CCD); not evangelization in general. Of course, we need to make sure we know what we’re talking about when we evangelize with words. Part of the problem is that many lay folks are not properly catechized themselves. It’s a tangled web we weave, huh?

Perhaps the reason for that too is because parents reasoned that they should catechize their children by example rather than words as well. So Catholicism for many today has boiled down to doing charity. They were never catechized or never catechized their children because they didn’t think it was needed. Doing good works became the end all and be all. Everything else became secondary to the laity.

 

[Lucky7]

Perhaps the reason for that too is because parents reasoned that they should catechize their children by example rather than words as well. So Catholicism for many today has boiled down to doing charity. They were never catechized or never catechized their children because they didn’t think it was needed. Doing good works became the end all and be all. Everything else became secondary to the laity.

I would agree it is probably part of the reason.