Welcoming Words by Rev. Dr. Hans Ucko to the Participants of the Conference

Welcome to this second phase of a project of the PCID and the IRDC.

…

For quite some time in our contacts with our constituency we have had the same experience: the issue of conversion as an issue in interreligious relations is increasingly problematic for some of our member churches. In some parts of our constituency the fiber of peaceful living together between Christians and Hindus, Christians and Buddhists and Christians and Muslims has begun to unravel. There have been attacks on churches. There were legislation proposals against conversion or stringent measures to be applied when a person wanted to convert from another religion to Christianity. In some countries, there were initiatives to reconvert Christians back to the religion of the land.

In some cases local Christians pointed to Christians from abroad having come to do mission work and the contacts between the local Christians and those from abroad were not the best.

…

In other parts of the world, the Christian churches felt targeted by the authorities. The freedom of movement and expression was curtailed. Who would define what was the ordinary life and witness of the church and what was illegitimate and unethical proselytism? How was one to deal with legislative action and threat when someone converted to Christianity?

Questions emerge relating to the interaction between the right to religious freedom and respect for other religious traditions. The right to religious freedom is limited by other human rights. One person’s religious freedom may be limited by the religious freedom of another. An emerging question is the equilibrium between a freedom to propagate religion on the one hand and the freedom to practice one’s religion without interference on the other.

The issues related to conversion are thus legion. They concern our relationships with people of other faiths. They concern our solidarity with Christians in situations seeing their freedom of movement curtailed. They concern the limits to freedom of expression and whether the right to propagate one’s religion is a right, a privilege or a responsibility.

When addressing the issue of conversion we wanted to bring in these different aspects. We didn’t want to be apologetic. That is why we first of all invited people of different faiths, all of whom we know and trust, people who have for years been involved with the PCID and/or IRRD and who trust us enough to be open and vulnerable. We invited these friends for a multifaith hearing to listen to their concerns and grievances in relation to the issue of conversion. Out of this meeting in Lariano in May 2006 came the report, which is a report and not a received or adopted document. It is a report produced by people in our network. We wanted to listen and remember what they told us that it could accompany us in our process. It is a report, which sets some of the parameters for us. It tells us that we as “dialogue institutions” have a particular mandate, i.e. that of looking at the issue with an interfaith perspective.

…

Building upon the multifaith hearing we are now in the second phase of this project, which is one of an intra-Christian reflection of what could or should be part of the code of conversion that we are aiming for, some kind of considerations that we could offer to our constituencies in their attempt to be faithful and respectful. Such a code of conduct would have no other weight or authority than the impact it may have in the hearts and minds of people who read and study the code of conduct. We hope that the final outcome would be so persuasive that the code of conduct on conversion might commit Christians in their relations with people of other faiths. We hope that people in other religious communities might benefit from the way Christians have committed themselves to this code that they again could trust Christians in their life and witness. We hope that a code of conduct could be picked up as an alternative to legislation against conversion, which to us seems such a blunt instrument. If Christians in dialogue with authorities could say, we stand by this conduct; maybe it could ease tensions and make Christians less defensive about their life and witness. We hope that the code of conduct could be a source of inspiration in other religious communities, in a way also obliged to rethink their modus operandi in relation to Christians.

In whatever we do, we need to ask ourselves the question of who is at the table. It would have been a different ball-game if at the table were sitting the representatives of the WCC constituency and the Roman-Catholics. It would still be difficult but we would constantly be tempted to tell Hindus and Muslims that the reason why we have ended up in a situation of distrust and legislation and discrimination etc. is because others and not we are the ones guilty of the crusades, proselytism and unethical conversions. Often we would be tempted to say that it is those Pentecostals and Evangelicals who are to be blamed.

We are only the innocent victims. But it wouldn’t be true.

This has become tragically clear these last weeks; the plight of the Korean hostages in Afghanistan. These young Christians come from Saemmul Presbyterian Church in Seoul, part of the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea (PROK), a member church of the WCC. While we all pray for the release of these young people, there are questions as to the raison d’être for such a mission into Afghanistan. It is obvious that it wasn’t only the concern for the social and human plight of the Afghans that brought them to the country as was first said about this journey. The question of transparency and honesty cannot be dissociated from our assessment of what is taking place right now.

We are glad that we around the table today have managed to get representatives of the Pentecostal and Evangelical communities and we thank you for engaging with us in addressing the various dimensions of the issue of conversion. We are grateful that some of you have been with us from the beginning, in Lariano and in our brainstorming for this meeting in Toulouse. We are now together at the table and we need to address together the issue of conversion. It is on our table and our hope is that we will be able to address the issue carefully, learning from each other and with respect for each other.