Towards an Ethical Code of Conduct for Religious Conversions
Hans Ucko
The following reflections have grown out of many years in interreligious dialogue and in intra-Christian discussions on the understanding of the witness of the church in a religiously plural world.
1. To convert to and to convert from
We differ in relation to the issue and reality of conversion. Christians have fairly easy conversions into and out of the faith, resentfully accepting people leaving Christianity for another faith. Jews have difficult conversions into and even more out of the faith. Muslims have easy conversions into the faith but have major difficulties with conversion out of the faith. When Dalits in great numbers decide to convert from Hinduism to Buddhism or Christianity it creates tensions and there are calls for legislation against conversion. A Theravada Buddhist-Christian consultation organised by the WCC in 2004 addressed the question of conversion in the following way:
Conversion has become a threat and tension for religious diversity and harmony. We need to understand that conversions take place in different socio-economic-political contexts for different reasons. It can happen due to dissatisfaction with one’s own religion, life-changing experiences, but also through the use of force and aggression. … While some conversions may be genuine and spiritual, some others may not. … We express our concern learning about increased tensions and expressions of intolerance between Buddhists and Christians in some Theravada Buddhist countries.i
The issue of conversion into the faith is understood as an integral part of both Christianity and Islam. Although the concept of conversion is understood differently in Islam and in Christianity, it is a complex reality in both religions. Both religions advocate “conversion to” but oppose in very different ways “conversion from”. The Qur’an is very clear about no compulsion in religion (2:256). And yet, as we have seen in the very recent controversy around Pope Benedict’s lecture “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections” in Regensburg in September 2006, there are quite a few Christians, who want to tell Muslims what Islam is all about and polemically insist that Islam is spreading the faith through the sword or teaches the killing of apostates, quoting words like “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”ii The Western world and quite a few Christians are cashing in on words like these and neglect the Muslim struggle how to interpret such a sentence.iii In this context it is interesting to read what Iqbal Ansari recently wrote in an editorial in the publication Interreligious Insight: “Islam as a proselytizing religion began by preaching the basic doctrine of the right of the individual to choose his religion freely. It was the insistence by the tribal lords of Makkah on adherence to the ancestral creed, and the rejection of this insistence by Muhammad, that led to conflict and to Muhammad’s prolonged persecution – including the plot to assassinate him – which drove him to seek asylum in Madina.”iv
As Christians we need to remember before anything else embarrassing texts in the Bible or parts of the uncomfortable history of Christian dealings with people of other faiths. It is a question of the log in the eye.v
Conversion out of Judaism is looked upon as next to a mortal sin. A convert is almost seen as a traitor. Conversion reduces the Jewish people, already a dwindling minority. Jewish scholar Emil Fackenheim once said that continuing Jewish life and denying Hitler a posthumous victory was the 614th commandment. Catholic theologian Gregory Baum, himself a convert from Judaism, elaborated on Christian views toward conversion and building upon Fackenheim, saying: “After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust”.vi
Jews, Christians and Muslims would do well to recall the story about Abraham’s conversion from idol worshipper to becoming a worshipper of one God. The father of faith, the one who brings Jews, Christians and Muslims together is himself a convert.
If Christians and Muslims have a particular sense of mission in the world, other religions have other visions. There is certainly a Buddhist mission to the West but is does not have that absolute ring about it as do conversions to Christianity and Islam. Other religions are either not explicitly witnessing to make people convert or through the course of history they have given it up or they never engaged in seeking to bring the other into their community.
2. Obliged to invite to conversion?
The conversion of the other is definitely an objective in traditional Christian self-understanding. The statement by theologian Elton Trueblood is said in many different ways and by very many Christians, when the issue of mission and witness is discussed: “There is no such thing as a non-witnessing Christian.” The topic of conversion has today become divisive. It has the potential of not only putting people of different faiths against each other but also creating frictions among Christians themselves. It is a problematic issue within the church. Yes, everyone should have the right to change his/her religion. This issue needs rethinking in many faith traditions but equally important is the question of whether we should be involved in making others change their religion. There are those who feel that seeking out others to convert them from their religion is divinely ordained and nothing can thwart this heavenly injunction. I remember one of my first experiences in Jewish Christian dialogue, meeting a Christian theologian actively involved in a society for Christian mission to Jews. I asked him if the church could honestly and with integrity continue advocating mission to Jews, considering what had happened fifty years ago in Germany. Should not the Shoah rather convert the Church in its relationship to the Jewish people? Could the Church go about its business as usual after the Shoah? The theologian said to me: “I realise what you are saying. What happened in Auschwitz was terrible. It was an atrocity, it was dreadful, but it does not change anything. The gospel tells us that there is no other name by which we can be saved”. He told me that he might personally regret that there was no other way for him to go but to seek the conversion of the Jews. But he had to obey the Gospel. He said, “I wish it were different, I wish I could say: There will be no more mission to Jews but I cannot”.
The ordinary man or woman in the street in Europe is likely to consider mission seeking the conversion of people of other faiths as something bigoted, intolerant and aggressive. But there are also Christian theologians who feel that the conversion of others is no longer the business of the church, given the history of forced baptism and mission enterprises in the accounts of colonial and other subjugations of people of other faiths.
They are seeking to formulate the mission of the church not in seeking converts but in converting our world to become a world, where justice reigns and human dignity is a commandment. They prefer talking about Missio Dei, the mission of God, to which the church as well as people of other religious traditions may be called to participate. But such a view is controversial and contested, and by those advocating mission as inviting people to convert often labelled as post-modernist relativism.
3. Conversion through mission or proselytism
I want to claim that seeking the conversion of the other or targeting the other for conversion, is for me the same as proselytism. Many Christians will object and will claim that it is their obligation to follow the so-called Great Commission in Matthew 28, 18-20 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” They will say that not only do they have an obligation; it is also their right to seek the conversion of the other.
Am I avoiding the Great Commission? No, I am reading the same text but cannot make a clean cut between these words and the effect of these words in history. Conversion is not a result of proselytism per se but tensions regarding conversion are often related to proselytising activities by another actor, individual or organisation. The word has changed meaning. A prosēlytos in the New Testament refers to a convert to Judaism hinting at a time when Judaism too was involved in seeking converts.vii The Acts of the Apostles mention the first Pentecost; there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. One region after the other in Asia Minor, Asia and North Africa is mentioned and finally it is said that there were also “visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” (Acts 2, 10).
To proselytise has today gained a very loaded meaning. “To induce someone to conversion is to proselytise”, says the WCC Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (1991, p.828). Proselytism has become such a negative word that even those who are involved in the conversion of others would prefer using other words than proselytism. What they are doing is, they say, an invitation to others to join the Christian faith. They say that they do not proselytise but they have the right to manifest, the right to teach, the right to express, the right to impart religious ideas. And they would say that the right to issue such invitations is supported by the world community having signed on to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is a question of freedom of religion.
4. UN declarations on freedom of religion or belief
The most important international legislation on the freedom of religion or belief is article 18 in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) from 1966. It in turn builds upon article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (DHR) from 1948, which says,” Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”viii Other statements support the DHR and CCPR, e.g. the considerations in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981). There is also a special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in the UN system.
The wording of CCPR article 18 says
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion, which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
There can be no question about the right to communicate one’s faith. And no one shall be coerced to maintain his/her religion or belief. No one should “impair” the right to change religion; yes, the state has an obligation to actively ensure the right to change religion or belief. Included in the freedom of expression is also a right to seek and to receive information. The freedom of assembly and the freedom of association are important expressions of the UN declarations.
But, those who rightly quote the right to change religion and the right to persuade others to change often forget that the UN declarations also talk about the right to maintain one’s religion or belief. No one shall be coerced to change his or her religion or belief. The right to religious freedom is actually limited by other human rights. In addition, one person’s religious freedom may be limited by the religious freedom of another. Thus one interesting field for exploration is the interaction between the freedom to propagate religion on the one hand and the freedom to practice one’s religion without interference on the other. The CCPR has a clause on the right to privacy in article 17, which, for instance, will protect the home from forced invasion by people seeking your conversion.
The question is of course how to balance the right to engage in faith persuasion against the right to maintain one’s religion or belief. How do we protect the juxtaposed claims of majority and minority religions? How do we consider the relationship between material aid and missionary activities and questions of unequal distribution of material resources, sometimes along other lines than numerical minority and majority situations? It is important to remember the vital role that factors such as power (cultural, financial, mental etc.) of the proselytiser plays in the relationship with the one who is the object for faith persuasion or conversion.
5. Common Witness and Proselytism
Christians want to make distinctions between what is called “bearing Christian witness” and improper proselytism. Therefore the former is rather called “true witness” or “true evangelism”, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. Improper proselytism represents a corruption or deformation of true witness. According to the same report, improper proselytism may take the form of activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a Church or exerting improper pressure on people in distress or in need. It may even entail the use of violence or brainwashing; more generally, it is not compatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others. The Third Joint Commission of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church drew up a document entitled “Common Witness and Proselytism”. The Joint Commission says,”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”.ix
The commission document emphasizes these ideals:
A common witness is given when Christians recognize the spiritual gifts in other churches and testify to what they have in common.
Christian witness must be coherent with the spirit of the gospel; it should not offend ongoing inter-Christian dialogue.
God-centred Christian witness focuses on His glory and man’s salvation, not on the advantage of one confession over another. It always respects the freedom of those to whom it is addressed; it never exploits their weakness or their poverty; it never offers material or social benefits resulting from a change of confession; it excludes all methods of compulsion, including the uncritical use of mass media.
Christians bearing witness to their faith do not denigrate the faith of others. Witnessing Christians do not spread prejudices about other Christians. They do not distort their own spiritual convictions to attract others.x
Although the document does mention non-Christian faiths, it is obvious that the document first of all is an agreement between Christians belonging to different confessions. And we are still not able to say that we have implemented these ideals in inter-Christian relations let alone in interreligious relations.
Following the implosion of State Socialism, many Christians, not only from evangelical churches and para-church groups but also from mainline churches in the US, in the Nordic countries, in Korea went to Russia to proselytise among Russian Orthodox Christians. Soup-kitchens were established offering soup and bread and the invitation to conversion. Orthodox Christians ask the WCC what it means when advocating “partnership in mission” when the WCC seems unable to make Protestant Christians aware that Orthodox Christians are also Christians. And Protestant missionaries in Russia retort and claim the right to religious freedom.
6. Proselytism and mission in WCC interreligious bilateral dialogues
Proselytism has been and is discussed in bilateral interreligious dialogues. A WCC-document “Striving Together in Dialogue - A Muslim-Christian Call to Reflection and Action says”:
While recognising that mission and da’wa are essential religious duties in both Christianity and Islam, Muslims and Christians need to uphold the spiritual and the material well-being of all. Many missionary activities, and the methods they use, arouse legitimate suspicions. There are situations where humanitarian service is undertaken for ulterior motives and takes advantage of the vulnerability of people. Thus the clear distinction between witness and proselytism become crucial. It is the basis for the recognition that people of faith can enjoy the liberty to convince and be convinced and, at the same time, respect each other’s religious integrity, faithfulness to one’s tradition and loyalty to one’s community.xi
The issue of mission to the Jews has been a recurrent theme in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. The Ecumenical Considerations for Jewish-Christian dialogue are explicit on the issue:
Christians are called to witness to their faith in word and deed. The Church has a mission and it cannot be otherwise. This mission is not one of choice.
Christians have often distorted their witness by coercive proselytism - conscious and unconscious, overt and subtle. Referring to proselytism between Christian churches, the Joint Working Group of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches stated: “Proselytism embraces whatever violates the right of the human person, Christian or non-Christian to be free from external coercion in religious matters”. (Ecumenical Review, 1/1971, p. 11).
Such rejection of proselytism and such advocacy of respect for the integrity and the identity of all persons and all communities of faith are urgent in relation to Jews, especially those who live as minorities among Christians. Steps towards assuring non-coercive practices are of highest importance. In dialogue ways should be found for the exchange of concerns, perceptions, and safeguards in these matters.
While Christians agree that there can be no place for coercion of any kind, they do disagree - on the basis of their understandings of the Scriptures - as to what constitutes authentic forms of mission. There is a wide spectrum, from those who see the very presence of the Church in the world as the witness called for to those who see mission as the explicit and organized proclamation of the gospel to all who have not accepted Jesus as their Saviour.xii
I referred earlier to a document, the result of a conversation between Christian and Buddhist religious and political leaders in Theravada Buddhist countries.xiii Similar conversations have taken place between the WCC and Hindu leaders, although the WCC has not yet formulated specific guidelines or principles for the relationship between Hindus and Christians.xiv Attempts have been made. A workshop on issues in Hindu-Christian Relations was held in Madurai in October 1995, to draw up some preliminary guidelines in examining how Hindus and Christians live together in India.
Here some of the challenges in the relationship were boldly addressed. The document says: “The Hindus find the absolute claims made for the Church, for Jesus, the traditional methods of missionary activity and the labelling of non-Christians as sinners etc., very offensive. There are also such accusations as extraterritorial loyalties, deculturalisation, etc. already levelled against Indian Christians.” It goes on to speak of how “Christians are uncomfortable with the tendency of their Hindu friends to minimize the differences that exist between religious traditions and make Hinduism as an all-inclusive umbrella of truth. Likewise, they find it difficult to understand the Hindu’s proclivity to play-down the reality of suffering, oppression and discrimination by reducing them all to Karma and fate. The age-old problem of Untouchability, socio-economic exploitation, and gender injustice still persists in the name of religious sanctions.”
The document called for sensitivity “to the sensibility of peoples to their respective faith traditions. For example, it is customary for Hindus to understand Jesus Christ as one of the avatars. But they must understand that Christian view of Incarnation is historical and so much more than the mythological assuming of a form by God. Similarly, when Christians easily dub Hindu idol worship as idolatry, they must understand that not all Hindus are idolatrous in using idols in their worship.” On the issue of conversion, the document stated that any “form of manipulation or enticement to win over others to one’s own faith community is immoral and irreligious. So also to use religion to gain economic, political or any other form of favour and advantage is equally immoral and irreligious.”xv
The document, although more than 10 years old, would merit another reading and seen as a basis for an ongoing conversation, not only because it is a good piece of work but because it is the situation in India that in many ways has sparked off the many-faceted WCC interest in this issue.
7. The WCC is prompted by its constituency
Member churches in India were worried by the attempts in some states to legislate against conversion. They felt that they were the victims of what para-church groups, often with foreign funds, were involved in. Their evangelisation campaigns and crusades antagonised Hindus, who either did not want to distinguish, or could not distinguish, which church proselytised and which church abstained from aggressive evangelism. Member churches were afraid that their diaconal work, their schools would be considered instruments for conversion and banned by law.
Intra-Christian discussions followed in the wake of legislative proposals or implementations. The issue of conversion is an interfaith issue. How does a convert relate to that community, religion, which s/he has left? The Indian lay theologian M.M. Thomas said once that a convert to Christianity should remain in solidarity with his original community. But more often the convert learned consciously or unconsciously to denigrate the faith or religion of origin or to allow a polarisation between the religion one had left and the religion one had entered.
The mainline churches find themselves in a dilemma, accused by evangelicals for not fulfilling and living up to the great Commission of our Lord. Their question rings in the ear: “Does the ecumenical church still have conversion on its agenda?”
Although most of the spectacular calls for conversions are made within the so-called “evangelical” camp, it is probably not so easy to dissociate oneself clearly from the proselytism of these Christian brothers and sisters. xvi For Christians conversion is a command. Their opponents see conversion among the poor as an act of Christian cowardice. Gandhi is reported to have said: “Why are you Christians converting the depressed classes? Come and convert us instead.”
8. Aid-evangelism
The issue of conversion in the discussion has focused on so called aid-evangelism. It is a recurrent theme. The relief work following the earthquake in Gujarat, India led to suspicions that Christians and Muslims got less help than Hindus. On the other side of the fence, there were suspicions that Christian relief work was connected with conversion. At the Millennium Peace Conference in August 2000 in New York, I was part of a small group addressing the particular issue of conversion in India. We agreed upon an “Informal Working Understanding - Freedom from Coercion in Religion.”
We agree that the free and generous preaching of the Christian Gospel is welcome in India.
We condemn proselytism; we particularly reject the exploitation of the issue of poverty in religious outreach and missionary work.
We agree that the giving of aid to those in need is a primary commandment of all our religious and spiritual traditions; we are resolved that this act of justice should never be tied to compulsory conversion.
We commit ourselves to a continuing dialogue in the spirit of interreligious harmony, mutual respect, and the co-operative common effort to build a better world. In this way, we will discover trust in one another that any altruistic work will not be a means for conversion.xvii
The issue of aid-evangelism does not go away. It is not made up. It is practised and there are many who, following the post-tsunami relief work can point to flagrant examples of proselytism that cannot be properly understood unless prefaced by the word ‘coercive’. It is coercive proselytism.
Christians in India were reluctant in the end to have the WCC enter the conversation on conversion. It might underline, they said, a Hindu perception of Christians in India being more linked to the West than to India and to have their ultimate loyalty in Rome, Jerusalem or Wittenberg than in India.
9. Is there a conspiracy to convert Muslims?
Conspiracy theories, particularly rampant in the Middle East, about Christian Church organisations having secret meetings with CIA or Mossad in order to strategize the evangelization of Muslims mar relations between the WCC constituency and its Muslim neighbours and prompt the WCC to seek ways to explain the complexity of Christian churches. In such situations the WCC affirms and reaffirms religious freedom and condemns methods of coercion or “seduction” used for missionary purposes but also needs to say that Christians are not a monolithic block. Of course there are Christian churches and Christian groups involved in evangelisation campaigns directed at people of other faiths. Most of them perceive the WCC as liberal and secular. The groups would consider membership in the WCC as a betrayal of the Gospel. Conservative Christians criticize the WCC for having neglected the obligation to obey the “great commandment”. We should however not forget that the numerical success of Pentecostal and Evangelical churches throughout the world may be a temptation also for main line churches witnessing their numbers going down.
The 1976 Christian-Muslim conference on Mission and Da’wa sought to find ways where Christians and Muslims address together problems related to conversion and their impact on relations between communities. There have been conversations to establish a Christian-Muslim body whose task would be to protect Christian-Muslim relations from the pernicious and long-lasting effects of sensationalism, exaggerations, misperceptions and politically suspicious propaganda as a follow-up of the conference. The fundamental principle affirmed in the conference was the rejection of all forms of coercion, pressure or undue enticement, direct or indirect, aimed at leading groups or individuals to renounce the religion of their parents and join another religious community. And yet, stories abound about the WCC strategising for the conversion of Muslims worldwide.
10. Conversion as an issue in interreligious relations
At yearly staff meetings between the staff of the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue (IRRD) of the WCC and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue of the Vatican (PCID), we exchanged news from our constituencies. One topic came back: conversion. It concerned above all relations between Hindus and Christians in India and Christians and Muslims worldwide. We heard the same stories about unethical conversion, about aid evangelism, about conspiracy to overturn Islam and we realised that our counter-parts in dialogue or their constituencies were not always able to distinguish between Christians. The WCC tried to articulate the dilemma in its recent Ecumenical Considerations for Dialogue and Relations with People of Other Religions:
Although dialogue by its very nature is direct encounter, there are invisible participants on each side in every dialogue. Our dialogue partners will every so often hold us responsible for what fellow Christians have done or neglected to do, said or not said. While this in some ways is inevitable and even sometimes understandable, we are well aware of deep disagreements within religions and we know that the dividing lines do not always go between religious communities but often within religious communities. The differences may be not only theological, but relate to social, political, and moral issues. We may for various reasons find ourselves in opposition to some of those with whom we share a common faith. We learn that religious communities are not monolithic blocks confronting each other. Plurality of positions on each side should not be ignored or suppressed while defending what is perceived to be the interest of one’s community. Commitment to a faith does not entail identification with what is done or not done in its name. Therefore, we should not be defensive, but remain confident of the potential of dialogue to changing deeply held opinions or prejudices.xviii
In an effort to address the issue, the two offices on dialogue initiated a project entitled “Interreligious Reflection on Conversion - From Controversy to a Shared Code of Conduct”. Although the project is to focus mainly on ‘intra-discussion’ among Christians on the topic of conversion, the project was initiated in May 2006 through a multireligious hearing, assessing the reality. What are the memories, experiences, reactions and comments from our counterparts in other religious traditions on the issue of conversion? What are the issues? What should we as Christians bring to the table from the interreligious reality on the issue of conversion? What do Muslims, Hindus say about conversion? How do we address the fears of people wanting to become Christians but living in countries, where another religion is dominating the religious landscape?
Our intention with this project is to assess the reality of conversion in relations with people of different faiths. The project should then through intra-Christian conversations lead us to conversations with Pentecostals and Evangelicals about conversion? How do we understand together what it means to live and witness in a religiously plural world? Can we arrive at a code of conduct on the issue of conversion? This should be the end result, where we try to respond to the multifaith reality and the theological concerns we have explored.
The report from the interreligious consultation on “Conversion – Assessing the Reality”, held in Lariano, Italy in May 2006, stated among other things:
That inter-religious dialogue, to be meaningful, should not exclude any topic, however controversial or sensitive, if that topic is a matter of concern for humankind as a whole or for any section/s thereof
That freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. 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.
That while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s rights and religious sensibilities. At the same time, all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.
That freedom of religion enjoins upon all of us the equally non-negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vilify or misrepresent them for the purpose of affirming superiority of our faith.
That errors have been perpetrated and injustice committed by the adherents of every faith. Therefore, it is incumbent on every community to conduct honest self-critical examination of its historical conduct as well as its doctrinal/theological precepts. Such self-criticism and repentance should lead to necessary reforms inter alia on the issue of conversion
That conversion by “unethical” means is discouraged and rejected by one and all. There should be transparency in the practice of inviting others to one’s faith
That humanitarian work by faith communities should be conducted without any ulterior motives. In the area of humanitarian service in times of need, what we can do together, we should not do separately.
That no faith organization should take advantage of vulnerable sections of society, such as children and the disabled.
That we are sensitive to the religious language and theological concepts in different faiths. Members of each faith should listen to how people of other faiths perceive them.
That there is a need to collectively evolve a “code of conduct” on conversion, which all faiths should follow. We therefore feel that inter-religious dialogues on the issue of conversion should continue at various levels.xix
Media attention on the common project on conversion of the PCID and IRRD has been beyond expectation and put the WCC in the headlines in a way that it has seldom experienced. Not only church or religious media covered the project but secular media throughout the world wrote about the project, interviewed participants and solicited comments from the organisers. It would be interesting to explore more in depth why the issue of conversion raises this kind of interest in circles that go well beyond the religious communities.
The second consultation in the project, an intra-Christian event in Toulouse, France August 2007, welcomed the company of participants, who had often been referred to in the Lariano-meeting but who were not physically present. The only Pentecostal representative ait the Lariano-meeting made us all realise that we all need to work with our prejudices. There are Pentecostal theologians wrestling intensely with the issue of religious plurality and doing so from a Pentecostal theology of optimism and hope. The consultation in Toulouse benefited from representatives of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), Christians from the Assemblies of God and the Church of God in the USA. Together with charismatic Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians from the Oriental as well as the Eastern traditions, the Toulouse consultation provided quite a good range of Christian participation. And the discussions proved that we are headed in the same direction. While we may differ (and we do) in terms of understanding our mission and witness, we were of the same mind that conversion is the prerogative of the individual and God. I convert. You cannot (or should not) convert me). The same was emphasised in one of the keynote addresses: “(w) e all agree that we cannot convert someone. We can witness, we can explain to him what conversion means, we can call him to conversion, but we cannot convert him. A human being can only convert his own heart to his creator and this conversion is only possible because of God’s grace and the wonderful action of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the saying ‘I converted him’ easily slips from our lips, even though it is both theologically wrong and can easily be misunderstood by outsiders.”xx The discussion in Toulouse focused on some issues that are likely to be addressed in the third and last consultation in the project on conversion:
1. Family and Community
2. Respect, Transparency and Honesty
3. Economy, Marketing and Competition
4. Violence, Politics, Coercion and Manipulation
These headings and what they might signify in various contexts and encounters will most likely play a leading role in what we hope will become an ecumenical ethical code of conduct on religious conversion. It is around these topics that Christians should articulate their basic beliefs in encounter with people of other faiths.
11. A Critical Moment on conversion
The question of conversion emerged as one particular issue during a major interreligious event, the Critical Moment-Conference organized by the WCC 6-9 June, 2005 in Geneva. The charge was made by several participants that the WCC needed to be much clearer on the question of conversion as a problematic issue in interreligious relations. If one wanted to be serious in interreligious dialogue, one needed to speak out against those who sought the conversion of others. A Muslim woman from Egypt said: “It is my assumption, that we have moved beyond the conversion mentality and that we share a post-conversion mentality. We believe in the freedom of religion and everybody must enjoy the freedom of expressing and practising his or her religion and calling others if he or she wishes others to do so. It is my conviction that we should recognise the conversion mentality, that either you are with me or against me as something of the past”.xxi The report from the conference addressed the issue of conversion and said:
In our relationship in dialogue we need to address also issues of controversy as difficult as they may be. But we cannot pretend that they are not there. In many of our dialogues there is an asymmetry, which we must be aware of and attentive to.
The issue of conversion remains for many an issue of pain. The question of mission and conversion is highly sensitive, yet at the centre of some religious traditions’ own sense of self-understanding. Making distinctions on the issues of conversion could be a topic for interreligious dialogue. Such dialogues may help clarify what conduct should be identified as proselytism, and perhaps also lead to greater understanding as to why witnessing is so highly valued within some religious traditions. In addition, Christians and Muslims, above all implicated in mission and da’wa, might through interreligious dialogue be encouraged to pursue this question through intra-religious dialogue within their own communities.
How do we balance the right to individual and collective self-understanding linked to the notion of religious freedom with that of self-defence in the name of preserving often long historical religious traditions? It goes without saying that interreligious dialogue should enable us to share fully our beliefs but at the same time we must be mindful of sharing in a way that will not offend others. There should be no coercion in religion and we need to reflect on how to refine the ethics of conversion.
Many of us feel that religions should overcome the mentality of conversion as a strategic mechanism to convince people to change religion. A mentality of conversion fails to recognise the integrity of the other and the other’s religion. The subject of conversion is complex. It raises tensions within and between religious communities. Violence and anger are not uncommon results. Although our religions provide tools with which to tackle this problem (e.g., ‘there is no compulsion in religion’, Qur’an 2:256), we have to acknowledge that conversion is a reality present in our religious histories. However conversion can not be the goal of and is contrary to interreligious dialogue. We denounce conversion by unethical practices such as using threatening behaviour, material benefits (bribes?) or any forms of coercion. Conversion does have a role in religion but historically we need to recognise the instances when it has taken place under duress.
To this end, we need to emphasise less the old meaning of conversion as a change of belief, and practice instead the kind of conversion that requires a change of heart. Without this new kind of conversion process, fears will not be overcome and the building of a stronger interreligious agenda for social transformation towards the common good will remain outpaced by the growing crises of our world. A politics of conversion of the heart is a sine qua non for an honest dialogue that includes the development of joint cooperation for peace and justice….
We recommend that the WCC looks into the question of conversion as an issue in interreligious relations and in particular initiates conversations between our faith communities. An outcome for such deliberations could be to formulate a protocol on conversion. Participants from the Critical Moment Conference will continue a similar conversation in their own communities. Such conversations should not undermine the particularities of our faiths but embrace the divinely-given diversity of religion.xxii
12. Thoughts of a convert
What is conversion? It is the transformation of one thing into another. We find the term used in many walks of life. A particular event may result in a transformation or conversion. Europeans may have to convert from Fahrenheit to Centigrade in order to understand how hot it could be in the US. We must be familiar with currency conversion from rupees to Euro. Conversion is also understood as a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to enter another religious tradition. In psychiatry it can be understood as a defence mechanism repressing emotional conflicts which are then converted into physical symptoms that have no organic basis.
It would be interesting to discuss philosophically whether the different usages would allow us to look upon the convert, be it in relation to degrees, currency or change of religion, as basically the same as before, only seen with other glasses or from another angle. But these may be only the naïve wishes of a convert that after all the heat remains the same, the Euro the same, etc.
The convert is looked upon with suspicion by those s/he left and those he joined. There are of course reasons for this. The history of Jewish-Christian relations knows of many cases, where converts from Judaism to Christianity became more anti-Semitic than their new-found Gentile brothers and sisters. Anton Margarita converted from Judaism to Christianity in 1522. His book, “Der gantz Judisch Glaub” (“The Whole Jewish Faith”), greatly influenced Martin Luther, who cites it frequently in his late tract, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (“Of the Jews and their Lies”). Margarita, the son and grandson of rabbis, had a “checkered” career, having denounced his own community to the non-Jewish authorities two years before his conversion. After his conversion he became an instructor in Hebrew at the University of Vienna. At the command of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Margarita debated Joseph (Joselmann) b. Gershom of Rosheim, a leader of the German Jewish community, at the Diet of Worms in 1530.xxiii
It is true that many converts become more Catholic than the Pope as the saying goes. I recall Catholic priests in Sweden not very happy with the converts from the Church of Sweden, who left the Swedish church because they could not deal with women ordination. My Catholic friends said; “We don’t want these converts. They are more conservative than the Vatican and are actually stuck in a pre-Vatican II spirituality.”
But is it the whole truth? Is a convert someone who will have to prove his/her credentials by being more Catholic than the Pope or by denigrating that which s/he left? Is a convert per definition a renegade, someone who looks down upon that which s/he has left? Is it not more often that converts usually come from the periphery rather than from the centre and that their conversion is not first of all a conversion from the core of a religion but a move to the core of a religion? Of course, it is difficult to put all converts together as if they were all of one mind. What I want to say is that not every convert hates the religious tradition s/he left. S/he is probably more at home in that s/he found but not necessarily in opposition to what s/he left.
I have mentioned earlier Gregory Baum as a different kind of convert. One could add others. There are reasons to recall the impact of converts on the change that took place in the Roman Catholic Church in relation to Jews. Many Jews, converts to Christianity, brought about the conversion of the church in relation to the Jewish people. When celebrating Nostra Aetate, we should remember that this document would not have existed as it is today, were it not for people like John Oesterreicher and Bruno Hussar. Did not Cardinal Lustiger in many ways support the French Bishops in their work on changing the teachings of the church in relation to the Jewish people?xxiv The question is whether conversion a priori suggests that accepting one religion means rejecting another religion?
Can one be a convert without endorsing conversion? I would like to paraphrase a Swedish stand-up comedian, who said about the prayer, “’And lead us not into temptation…’, thank you very much, you don’t have to lead me, I can very well walk myself into temptation.” Applying it to conversion, I do not think I need to be converted by someone, I can convert myself. What I mean to say is, the problem with conversion is the arrogance of those who think that they have a right to convert others and particularly so when they refer to UN declarations as a support. Claiming the right to seek out the other for conversion is nothing else but turning the other into an object for my design. It is meeting the other as an object, not interested in the encounter and where it might take us.
There will always be people who, for various reasons, will want to break up and look for other pastures. One cannot erect walls high enough to prevent them from leaving. The wall is not built that will hinder their flight. It is better to let them leave without clipping their wings. We live in a world, where encounters and dialogues will lead some to seek other ways than the ones just travelled. This is the right that UN declarations talk about - the right of and in each of our religious traditions.
-----------------------------
i Towards a culture of religious diversity and communal harmony - Report from a consultation of Theravada Buddhist and Christian leaders, http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd43-08.html
ii The Pope in a lecture about his own struggle with faith and reason in Europe deviated into an unwarranted verdict of Islam by referring to Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". http://tinyurl.com/j7uuh
iii Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law? http://tinyurl.com/qomuy
iv Interreligious Insight, No.3, July 2006, p.6
v Karen Armstrong: “We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam”
The Guardian September 18, 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1874653,00.html
Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-Semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.
vi Ed. Gregory Baum, The Twentieth Century. A Theological Overview, (Orbis Books Maryknoll, New York - G. Chapman, London 1999)
vii The Greek word used is how Septuagint translated the Hebrew word ger, sojourner’ or ‘resident alien’.
viii http://www.idir.net/~cnc/UN_UDHR.htm
ix www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/jwg/doc/e_jwg-n3_06.html
x Cf. “Report on common witness and Proselytism,” Annex II to the Third joint Report adopted May 1970, in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung 1931-1982, pp.625-634.
xi http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/striving-e.html
xii http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/j-crel-e.html
xiii Towards a culture of religious diversity and communal harmony - Report from a consultation of Theravada Buddhist and Christian leaders, http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd43-08.html
xiv For the dialogue between Hindus and Christians, se e.g. Wesley Ariarajah: Hindus and Christians, A Century of Protestant Ecumenical Thought, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
xv http://www.hvk.org/articles/0397/0080.html
xvi Conversations on the topic conversion with representatives of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) and representatives of different Pentecostal churches have made it clear that labelling Christians as Evangelicals is a very blunt way of referring to people. We have allies among people from the WEA and the Assemblies of God and the Church of God in dissociating ourselves from aggressive proselytism and unethical evangelism.
xvii http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd43-01.html
xviii Ecumenical considerations for dialogue and relations with people of other religions -Taking stock of 30 years of dialogue and revisiting the 1979 Guidelines, WCC 2002
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/glines-e.html
xix Report from the interreligious consultation on “Conversion – Assessing the Reality” organised by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican City, and the Office on Interreligious Relations & Dialogue of the World Council of Churches, Lariano (Italy), May 12-16, 2006, http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd47-18.html
xx Thomas Schirrmacher, World Evangelical Alliance, Toulouse, August 2007
xxi Changing the Present, Dreaming the future – A Critical Moment in Interreligious Dialogue, ed. Hans Ucko, Geneva: WCC 2006, p.22
xxii ibidem, p.81
xxiii Margarita, Anton, Der gantz Judisch Glaub: Mit sampt einer grundlichen und warhafftigen anzeigunge, aller satzungen, Ceremonie[n], gebetten, heymliche und offentliche gebreuch, dere[n] sich die Juden halte[n], durch das gantz Jar, mit schonen unnd gegrundten Argumenten wider jren glauben / durch Anthonium Margaritham Hebreischen Leser, der loblichen Universitet unnd Furstlichen Statt Leyptzigk, beschriben unnd an tag gegeben. Franckfurt am Mayn, 1544