Proselytism and Church Relations

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2000 by Veli-Matti Karkkainen

Catholics and Pentecostals reject all claims that the gospel should not be proclaimed by a Christian community simply because another Christian community has preceded it in a particular geographic area.(42) This is allegedly against claims of some Orthodox and Catholic churches to have "territorial occupation". Similarly, the idea that Christian communities or their members should not evangelize people simply because they have lived all of their lives in a "Christian" culture is rejected.(43)

The need for a theological understanding of proselytism

Unfortunately, the problem of proselytism has not received much attention from theologians; usually it has been relegated to the practical questions of missions to be dealt with at the discussion table as part of other "housekeeping" issues. I believe, however, that proselytism concerns the very ecclesiality of the church, that is, on what conditions a church can be called a church with the right, if any, to proclaim the gospel to others.

Of course there could be a useful division of labour. Accordingly, the question of proselytism, as well as common witness, can -- and should -- be dealt with at two levels. The first I will call "attitudinal" and the second "theological". The first level is usually properly done. This is also the case with reference to the Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue. The fruitful discussions in the Final Report reveal that very helpful steps have been taken to accomplish this goal. There is an atmosphere of mutual understanding, humility, and willingness to learn from each other, instead of operating with second-hand information and prejudices. The attitudinal level is a critical one; if two churches are not willing to start from a humble and willing attitude, then not much hope is left for the betterment of relations.

The famous Catholic missiologist Robert J. Schreiter speaks to this level when, in a recent survey of the developments in the Roman Catholic Church towards proselytism, he gives some advice for the future. He suggests among other things that when "competing groups give priority to acknowledging their similarities over their differences ... proselytism loses much of its energy".(44) That has happened in this dialogue: " ... members of the dialogue think that Pentecostals and Catholics already agree on critical points of faith" ([sections] 69).

The second level, which I call theological, begins at this point. Here it is essential to ask the critical question: What, if any, are the theological resources for avoiding proselytism? Or: How does our understanding of proselytism connect with what we think of the church in general?

The Final Report acknowledges the need for a theological orientation to the question of proselytism in the very beginning of its treatment of the subject. It mentions that proselytism exists "in large part because Pentecostals and Catholics do not have a common understanding of the church". Then it adds this very significant illustration: " ... they do not agree on the relationship between the church, on the one hand, and baptism as an expression of living faith, on the other" ([sections] 69).