The End of Christian Imperialism
Evangelizing The Nations
Without Converting Them to Christianity
FreeChristians (June 11, 2003)

MUST READ:

Should Christians Convert Muslims?  TIME magazine  June 30, 2003

Mennonites:
Faith Without Preaching Some Christian groups active in Islamic countries avoid trying to convert the people around them

Christian Mission in the Twentieth Century
By: Timothy Yates
Paperback
Published: 1996

“The attempt to make their own religion the ruling one everywhere and for all time is natural to men who incline toward a sectarianism. Therefore they do not want to hear that God is magnanimous in the dispensing of His love, or that His dealings with men are not limited to one blind alley which comes to a sudden halt at one point in history. If ever such a catastrophe should break in upon mankind that one religion should swamp everything, then God would have to provide a second Noah’s ark to save his creatures from spiritual destruction” ( Rabindranath Tagore )

"The missionaries go forth to Christianize the savages -
as if the savages weren't dangerous enough already..." (Edward Abbey)

It is not by the sword or the spear, by soldiers or by armed force that truth is to be promoted, but by counsel and gentle persuasion… Saint Athanasius,  Bishop of Alexandria (ca. 293-373)

PART ONE:
The return of the Good News

Some people say that "hope dies last". To this truism, may we add that the good news (gospel) of God's love as revealed in the life of Jesus Christ, will never die for as long as humanity exists, because in the heart of this gospel, lies the greatest hope of them all, that there is a God and that this God will liberate all humanity from evil and from the biggest enemy of them all, death.

Gospel of joyful hope

In his review of the early success of the Christian religion, the great 19th Century scholar J.W. HANSON pointed out that "early Christianity was a cheerful religion" ( see Second Chapter of his classic work Universalism in the First Five Hundred Years of the Christian Church ). Hanson wrote that early Christianity spread around the depressed peoples of the Roman Empire a message of joyful hope, a contagious hope that was established by the example of Jesus Himself. No wonder the message was coined "gospel". It was indeed good news: "Its announcements were all of hope and cheer. Its language was, "Come unto me, all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice." "We rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Men were invited to accept the tidings of great joy. John, the herald of Jesus, was a recluse, mortifying body and spirit, but Jesus said, "John come neither eating nor drinking, but the Son of Man came eating and drinking." He forbade all anxiety and care among his followers, and exhorted all to be as trustful as are the lilies of the field and the fowls of the air. Says Matthew Arnold, "Christ professed to bring in happiness. All the words that belong to his mission, Gospel, kingdom of God, Savior, grace, peace, living water, bread of life, are brimful of promise and joy." And his cheerful, joyful religion at once won its way by its messages of peace and tranquillity, and for a while its converts were everywhere characterized by their joyfulness and cheerfulness..."

About the spectacular early progress of Christianity Hanson wrote:  "The wonderful progress made during the first three centuries by the simple, pure and cheerful faith of early Christianity shows us what its growth might have been made had not the morose spirit of Tertullian, reinforced by the "dark shadow of Augustine," transformed it... As early as the close of the Second Century there were not only many converts from the humbler ranks, but "the main strength of Christianity lay in the middle, perhaps in the mercantile classes."... Origen (Against Celsus) says: "At the present day (A.D. 240) not only rich men, but persons of rank, and delicate and high-born ladies, receive the teachers of Christianity; and the religion of Christ is better known than the teachings of the best philosophers." And Arnobius testifies that Christians included orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, lawyers, physicians, and philosophers. And it was precisely their bright and cheerful views of life and death, of God's universal fatherhood and man's universal brotherhood--the divinity of its ethical principles and the purity of its professors, that account for the wonderful progress of Christianity during the three centuries that followed our Lord's death... Says the accurate historian, Cave, in his "Primitive Christianity:" "Here he will find a piety active and zealous, shining through the blackest clouds of malice and cruelty; afflicted innocence triumphant, notwithstanding all the powerful or politic attempts of men or devils; a patience unconquerable under the biggest temptations; a charity truly catholic and unlimited; a simplicity and upright carriage in all transactions; a sobriety and temperance remarkable to the admiration of their enemies; and, in short, he will see the divine and holy precepts of the Christian religion drawn down into action, and the most excellent genius and spirit of the Gospel breathing in the hearts and lives of these good old Christians."

According to Hanson, the secret of early Christianity's success lied in its universalistic message and inclusive spirit. People from all walks of life "whether Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or free..." received a warm welcome into the joyful Christian communities that were popping up like mushrooms throughout the Roman Empire, and beyond. Not that early Christianity was without its problems and internal conflicts, but overall, it was indeed a pleasant experience for those who became part of it. In later centuries as Christianity moved away from inclusiveness and universalism, it lost it's "magic". Christianity became a kill-joy religious system: "Christianity was everywhere at first, a religion of "sweetness and light." The Greek fathers exemplified all these qualities, and Clement and Origen were ideals of its perfect spirit. But from Augustine downward the Latin reaction, prompted by the tendency of men in all ages to escape the exactions laid upon the soul by thought, and who flee to external authority to avoid the demands of reason, was away from the genius of Christianity, until Augustinianism ripened into Popery, and the beautiful system of the Greek fathers was succeeded by the nightmare of the theology of the medieval centuries, and later of Calvinism and Puritanism. Had the church followed the prevailing spirit of the ante-Nicene Fathers it would have conserved the best thought of Greece, the divine ideals of Plato, and joined them to the true interpretation of Christianity, and we may venture to declare that it would thus have continued the career of progress that had rendered the first three centuries so marvelous in their character; a progress that would have continued with accelerated speed, and Christendom would have widened its borders and deepened its sway immeasurably."

Not that Christianity did not widen its borders in the centuries following its marriage into power (4th Century AD) and subsequent transformation into an imperialistic religion. The world has since been plagued by what has been quite properly described as "Christian Imperialism". As retired Bishop John Shelby Spong explains, this imperialistic mentality has marked Christianity throughout its troubled history and "it still marks the rhetoric of conservative churches, both Catholic and Protestant". This unhealthy mentality has also fuelled the large missionary programs of Christianity. Spong adds: "In previous eras there was enormous romance connected with this missionary activity in the sponsoring Christian circles. Missionaries on 'furlough' regaled believers with tales of their successes and with statistics of souls won for Christ. They also passed the hat to enlist support for their efforts in those more 'primitive' parts of the world where as one hymn suggested, 'apes swing to and fro'. It was once considered a denial of Christianity itself not to support these expansionist efforts. But a closer and less romantic look at the missionary enterprise of the church reveals the darker side of these religious convictions, which has not yet been fully faced by the Christian church" ( See: A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born by John Shelby Spong, Chapter Ten: "Beyond Evangelism and World Mission to a post-theistic Universalism" )

Spong is referring of course to the the unholy symbiosis between Christian missionary programs and colonial/imperialist agendas of the Christian nations that sponsored them: "much of the justification for those colonial acts of conquest was explained by the rhetoric of religion. The Western nations were not hostile conquerors, it was said; they were rather bringing 'civilization and Christianity' to the uncivilized lost people in these unenlightened parts of the world..."

The "controversial" Bishop Spong reminds us of the famous book by American doctor and sociologist Thomas Harris "I'm OK, You're OK" in which he described various human interactions, including the unhealthy "I'm OK you're not OK", which really meant that "you will not be OK until you become like me". Spong then goes on to say: "surely we recognize that this is the posture of all conversion and missionary enterprise activities. It is quite obviously the stance of the superior to the inferior. It is judgmental, rejecting and hostile. Surely the story of Jesus as the love of God, cannot be told amid judgement and hostility. That remains true, I believe, despite the fact that some beautiful and sensitive people with the best of intentions have, over the years of Christian history, given themselves to missionary enterprises. We must now see those activities as base-born, rejecting, negative, and yes, I would even say evil..." Spong then suggests that if Christians of the 21st Century "are courageous enough" to let go of the tribal mentality that fuels missionary programs and just let such programs die a natural death "without weeping, wailing, or attempts at artificial respiration", Christians will discover that "beyond them lies something... far more appealing"

The march of history has been forcing the Christian religion to gradually abandon its exclusivity and its spiritual arrogance. This includes world evangelism. Like many other negative elements, the imperative to convert the world to Christianity is destined to fade away into irrelevance. When that will finally happen, and it will happen, the only thing left of Christianity will be its authentic spirit of joyful hope. This is not necessarily a return to the innocence of early Christianity, but rather, a move forward to maturity.

Many Christians believe that the Christian gospel is becoming again "good news". As such it may well become again something worth preaching "unto the ends of the earth". As more and more Christians around the world are getting rid of nasty religious concepts like atonement, hell, infallibility, exclusivity, absolutism, etc, they discover that beneath all this garbage lies a priceless treasure. This priceless treasure will once again shine in its original glory inviting all peoples to fully enter and celebrate the life of God without abandoning their own cultural backgrounds. Such an invitation will be free from the negative mentality of "I'm OK you're not OK". It will be an invitation for people to interact, to communicate and to share, each one his/her spiritual treasure: "A new day will thus be born, and Jesus - who crossed every boundary of tribe, prejudice, gender, and religion - will be honored by those of us who, as his disciples, have transcended the boundaries of even the religious system that was created to honor him...".  Could this be the "something far more appealing" envisaged by brave voices like Spong?

In what follows I will attempt to outline the main reasons why the current missionary enterprise has failed and why modern Christians should follow Spong's advice and just let this misguided imperialistic enterprise die its natural death. When this happens, the New Christianity that is emerging will be free to fulfil the Great Commission to "make disciples of all the nations" in a way that Jesus will once again be honored by those who bear His name.

The mainline Churches are moving beyond exclusivism

For 20 centuries the Church has strived to convert the whole world into the Christian religion. The verdict of history is that this "colossal" effort has not only failed but that it has also caused more pain and misery than good. The Catholic church seems to have acknowledged the verdict of history and as a result it has stopped sending out hordes of missionaries "to the ends of the world". The Pope himself has publicly said that Catholic Christians do not have a monopoly on heaven, "even though on September 5, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican body formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition - issued a document reaffirming that the Catholic Church was the only true Christian faith. It said as Christ was the son of God, non-Christians were at a disadvantage regarding salvation"..

Despite the self-contradictions and hypocrisy that are inevitable in a vast institution like the Catholic Church, the fact remains that the Vatican is no longer actively seeking to convert other Christians into Catholicism.  The Vatican is more concerned on "holding on" to its wavering flock, especially in post-Christian Europe, while the Pope continues to speak tolerantly of other Christian denominations accepting them as "sister churches". He does not hesitate to pray together with other leaders in effect calling them "brethren in Christ". Similar views are expressed by leaders of Protestant and Orthodox Christianity. For example, the leader of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, has recognized publicly the need to protect diversity among the peoples of the earth: "Whenever human beings fail to recognize the value of diversity, they deeply diminish the glory of God's creation. Following the example of the three persons of the Holy Trinity--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--all human beings are called to exist relationally to one another, united in the bond of love, as different and unique persons, each endowed with specific talents and characteristics, each created in the image and likeness of God. All human beings--regardless of religion, race, national origin, color, creed, or gender--are living icons of God, innately worthy of such respect and dignity. Whenever human beings fail to treat others with this respect, they insult God, the Creator, as is explained through the teachings of the Christian Scriptures..."

Patriarch Bartholomew does the right thing in his "missionary efforts" as he goes straight to the leaders of other faiths ( ie Islam ) promoting dialogue, co-operation, mutual respect and understanding. Orthodox Christianity has been around for centuries and has had a lot of contact with other faiths like Islam. As opposed to Evangelical Christians of the West who seem to be ignorant of history, Orthodox Christians have managed to live peacefully with their Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East. He adds: " Orthodox Christians throughout the world live side by side with peoples of other religions and Christian confessions. With the rapid rise of advancement in communication and mobility, human beings are increasingly liberated from the geographical boundaries which used to separate them. As a result of recast boundaries, people now find themselves living in a global village amidst new neighbors who represent widely differing world perspectives, histories, and cultures. The realities of pluralism challenge each person in the global village to reflect more critically upon the teachings of his or her own faith, in light of the multitude of differing perspectives. An Orthodox Christian responds to these challenges with the understanding that we must always be tolerant of the perspectives of others, especially when such perspectives differ on the basis of religious, cultural, or historical ideology..."

Regarding the touchy subject of religious conversions Bartholomew says that "the Orthodox Church does not seek to convince others of any one particular understanding of truth or revelation, nor does it seek to convert others to a particular mode of thinking. Rather, she calls all persons from all walks of life to feel the heartbeat of the Church, to sense the breath of life inhaling and exhaling from her body--the body of Christ--and to experience her maternal love and comfort, thereby being at peace while listening openly to the perspective of the other with respect and tolerance. The opposite of the perspective of respect and tolerance is the perspective of fear and self-righteousness. Whenever human beings react to the perspectives and beliefs of others on the basis of fear and self-righteousness, they violate the God-given right and freedom of others to come to know God and one another in the manner inherent to their identity as peoples... Central, therefore, to the teachings of the Orthodox Church is the fundamental belief that Christianity must play an active role in efforts toward the reconciliation of all peoples. This understanding is based upon the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, who preached a message precisely of reconciliation, engaging in dialogue and conversation with peoples from all walks of life with the simple two-fold message to love God with all their hearts and to love their neighbor as they would themselves. The reconciliatory role of Christianity can only be initiated and sustained by and through the voice and ear of genuine tolerance. The virtue of tolerance, together with its twin virtue diversity, reflect the divine attributes of love which God maintains in His essence perfectly, infinitely, indescribably, and inexhaustibly. The Orthodox Church, which heralds this message of love, the Christian Gospel, categorically condemns racism, xenophobia, and all other forms of related intolerance as destructive to the vision of peace which God desires and which human beings, organizations of goodwill, and above all the Church, aim to promote. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church commends all organizations of social, international, and political character which are dedicated to the pursuit of justice, believing that the work of such organizations serves to advance the good of society, and as such is most pleasing before God..."

And his concluding remarks: "Finally, we wish upon all men and women of all ages, religions, races, colors, creeds, and nations of our planet Earth peace and goodwill, beseeching our great and loving God that He grant to all of us the wisdom to truly see one another as we have been created, namely as brothers, sisters, and children of the Lord. May the infinite love of God be with you all. Amen" (See: Statement of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew For the Forthcoming United Nations Durban World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance At the Phanar, March 17, 2001)

The world is getting tired of religious intolerance

There is a strong anti-conversion feeling today, especially as the world seem to be getting tired of religious fanaticism and religiously inspired wars. Many Christian theologians, especially liberal, strongly condemn the practice of proselytizing and "world evangelization". As Professor of Missions at Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology Dr. Ho-Jin Jun explains: "At present, the evangelical mission movements are facing serious challenges theologically and practically around the world, because theological pluralism condemns conversion pursued by the evangelical missions as religious imperialism. The assumption of the anti-conversion movement is that the attempt to convert the adherents of other religions to Christianity is an arrogant religious zeal and idea resulting from a kind of religious imperialism, and at the same time can destroy indigenous cultures. As a matter of fact, as mentioned above, other Asian religions are enjoying their mission activities in some Asian countries and in the West, while Christian missions are generally deterred and hindered by dominant religions who refuse to practice pluralism in their community. The overall attitude of the liberal Christian churches and theologians, including religious pluralists, toward the evangelical missions are ext! remely negative. The reasons for such a negativism can be summarized as follows: (1) The Christian mission movements are the by-products of Western colonialism; and, accordingly, Christianity has benefited from the Western superiority in politics, economy, education, and science. (2) It destroys the indigenous culture, which should be carefully preserved in the mission fields. Other religions and cultures view Christian missionaries as "unwelcome intruder," whose presence served only to prevent indigenous religionists. (3) It contains symbols of arrogance and dogmatism based on the absolute truth claim of Christianity; and, accordingly, the paradigm must be shifted from conversion to dialogue... The critics even deny the value of religious conviction by saying that: "finality of conviction easily degenerates into the spirit of fanaticism, autocratic, over-positive, and blood thirsty."" (See: The Missionary War Between Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions by Dr. Ho-Jin Jun)

Of course there are counter arguments made by Evangelical mission leaders, the main one being that Christians have to obey the Great Commission to evangelize the world "snatching" from the flames of Hell as many souls as possible before the end comes and it is too late for all those "spiritually dead" non-Christians out there...

These type of counter-arguments further intensify the above three reasons for the general negativism against Christian mission movements. Many mainstream Christians simply cannot play along with the absolutist mindset that fuels these missions, especially as they see these movements controlled by fundamentalist churches and organizations. A typical example is the recent world-wide furor over Christian missions "going for the kill" in war devastated Iraq: "At the start of the Iraq war, an evangelical air-wave campaign began against Iraq, and on April 16, Trans World Radio announced a series of Arabic and Farsi programs to spread the Gospel among Muslims. Could this have happened with CentCom approval...? Then, the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant group, had 800 "aid workers" volunteering to help Iraqis, while members of the Samaritan's Purse, a group run by the Rev Franklin Graham, were already in Jordan and Kuwait, brandishing medical supplies. Point to note: Both former SBC president Rev Jerry Vines and Rev Franklin Graham had referred to Islam in very uncharitable terms. Not that I'm debating their views here, just that with beliefs like these, why would "aid workers" aid Iraqis if not to save them from Islam? Another point to note: Both groups are leading supporters of the Bush administration. Thing is, America's weapons of mass deception, viz, CNN and Fox News, haven't yet said a word about the sterling work these "aid workers" must be doing in Iraq -- or even if they are there at all. Well, they are in Iraq, for sure. And that's why America's powerful Conservative lobby is seeking to put the brakes on Time magazine, which, according to an editorial memo intercepted by activists, has planned a cover story on evangelical "special operations" by missionaries working "undercover" inside Muslim countries, especially Iraq. An alert for the US right-wing warns: "This article could put hundreds of American lives at risk... They've been told repeatedly it's a story most Christian leaders don't want told. The risk of imprisonment, torture or death for Christians in the Middle East is just too real. But an aggressive reporting effort continues."... Samaritan's Purse is a rich organization, favored by the US government with contracts to offer humanitarian aid. In 2001, US AID had selected the group to work in El Salvador -- where its "aid workers" forced prayer meetings on the Indian villagers who only wanted to learn how to build temporary homes after an earthquake. In other words, they are "Rice Christians" -- the term used for missionaries sent by The Crown to work in the colonies, who would withhold bags of rice if the heathen peasants of India and China refused to come to church. Their modus operandi was to seek out the most vulnerable sections of people and use power/blackmail/money/deception to coerce people into leaving their faith.. Nothing has really changed..." (See: Stories they don't want told, see also: Invasion of the Bible Beaters by G. McLauchlan , Onward Christian soldiers, to Baghdad , Missionaries Under Cover and Christian Aid and evangelism in Iraq)

Christian Missions are not, can not, simply be a matter of religion. There are also sociological factors to consider. Dr. Ho-Jin Jun quotes Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilization) saying that the evangelical Protestant missions “spurned all consideration for the communal understanding of all religion in the Orient.” Ho-Jin Jun then adds: "This means that Christian missions tend to consider religion as a choice or a persuasion of an individual, while the Oriental world sees religion as a communal aspect in which political, cultural and social structures are very complicatedly intertwined, making it almost impossible or very difficult for an individual to change religion. In other words, this different concept and understanding of religion cause clashes among the religions because “religious individualism” in Christianity is incompatible with “religious communalism” in the non-Christian religions. The sensitive reaction from Islam to Christian missions is a typical example of the conflict of value systems between two religions…" (See: The Missionary War Between Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions by Dr. Ho-Jin Jun)

Another important fact to bear in mind is the obvious impasse that exists in regards to Christianity's ability to convert "en masse" adherents of other large faiths like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Again I quote from Dr. Ho-Jin Jun's insightful analysis: "The Christian churches in general and missiologists in particular in Asia today face a strong challenge from the non-Christian religions in the wake of their renewed awareness of the significance of revival movement and of missionary commitment to their religions. The non-Christian religions began to realize that they have been in along “spiritual” slumber and silence overshadowed by a minority religion of Christianity. It seemed to them that Christianity swept over their country through all kinds of missionary works under the protection of colonialism. However, the failures of Christian missions in Asia inevitably result in counter-actions from the non-Christian religions. In a word, non-Christian religions and cults openly scorn Christianity and Christian missions by appealing to their own missionary strategies and missionary messages..."

The great religious pie of the world seems to have been cut in well defined pieces that are mostly shared between the main religions. The world is running out of "heathen" and "primitive" cultures that can be easily converted to religious systems like Christianity or Islam. If anything, Christianity is losing a lot of ground in the West, which was once Christian, but now has entered the post-Christian era. Christian leaders of the West who speak of great missionary plans to convert the world into Christianity are obviously out of touch with reality...

The need to redefine the Great Commission

All the above facts make the case for "evangelizing the world" quite untenable. Still, many Christians, including some liberal, feel that the Church must somehow obey the Great Commission. Is it valid today to say that the whole world needs to be converted to Christianity? If the Great Commission is "to make disciples of all the nations", what does that mean for the 21st Century?

We are called to redefine the Great Commission as a call for Christian churches and organizations to actively demonstrate the dynamics of Jesus' "earthly" teachings ( social justice, egalitarianism, poverty, charity, compassion, forgiveness, freedom, etc ) without trying to convert anyone to Christianity. Making disciples of the nations does not necessarily mean changing their religions. Jesus didn't care about the religious views of people. Instead, he emphasized the great Christian principles of boundless love, freedom, sharing, generosity, compassion, forgiveness and acceptance of others. The only way such principles can be taught, is by example. Many Christian organizations are already doing this (World Vision, Tear Australia, etc). Thanks to the selfless efforts of such Christian groups, there are people in third world countries who welcome the presence of Christians in their lands since they are not spiritually harassed by them. On the other hand, proselytizing groups that operate under the guise of humanitarian aid organizations are unavoidably seen as religious/cultural predators.

We need therefore to differentiate between the two types of Christian missions that are taking place around the globe. On the one hand we have strictly humanitarian aid organizations that do not engage in proselytizing. On the other hand we have proselytizing groups, some of which engage in humanitarian aid as a means to getting more converts. Lets compare the two:

Humanitarian aid missions are powered by genuine (i.e., without ulterior motives) feelings of compassion and love, feelings no doubt that Jesus shared about his fellow human beings. In as much as these principles are actively promoted or "taught" it is valid to say that disciples are being made and the Great Commission is being obeyed: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me to preach the gospel (good news) to the poor; he has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty them that are bruised" (Luke 4:18). This was Jesus' Mission Statement, and he wasn't talking about changing people's religions... It is time Luke 4:18 becomes Christianity's official Mission Statement... There is no need for someone to change his/her religion in order to become a disciple of Jesus because the kingdom of God about which Jesus spoke had absolutely nothing to do with religion! It had to do with healing the wounded and the sick and with liberating the poor and the oppressed by empowering them through the recognition of being dearly beloved sons and daughters of God.  

Proselytizing missions are powered by a genuine concern for the "eternal well being" of the souls of those they seek to "save". The other side of the coin, as far as this genuine concern, is often described as spiritual arrogance (we possess the truth/they are blind and deceived), and blasphemy, that is, unhealthy notions about God (unless these heathen become Christians like us they will go to hell). The arrogant mentality that fuels aggressive proselytizing programs is clearly expressed in statements like the one made by Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell: "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being". Even worse sentiments have been expressed: "The Army doesn't massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and the Indians are demon possessed; they are communists. We hold Brother Efraín Ríos Montt ( a brutal dictator... ) like King David of the Old Testament. He is the king of the New Testament." ( Unnamed Pastor, quoted in "Sectas y religiosidad en America Latina," pub. Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales, Casilla 16637, Correo 9, Santiago, Chile, October, 1984, p. 23...). Things are a little bit better today, or are they? No doubt, most of proselytizing missionaries sincerely love the "lost souls" whom they are trying desperately to save from the flames of hell, something like a damage control for God's doomed universe, but as many liberal theologians claim, that does not negate the fact that they are sincerely mistaken and unconsciously guilty of spiritual arrogance and blasphemy. With all these missionaries going around the world propagating unhealthy views about God (i.e. God as an eternal tormentor), while telling people that they are spiritually blind and worshippers of demons is hardly the kind of thing that would qualify their religion as worthy of the name of Christ. One of the Christian leaders who are pushing hard for world evangelism, Rev Pat Robertson, is on record saying, "What is Hinduism but Devil worship, ultimately?". How would Christians like Pat Robertson feel if someone went up to them and said "What is Christianity but Devil worship, ultimately"? - or as Ingersoll once said, "could a devil do any worse (than God sending people to hell)?". Since they are driven by the desire to save souls from hell, are not hell-preaching missionaries fuelled by the fires of hell they believe in? Do they not turn their converts "twice the sons of hell"? While Christians in the West are slowly getting over such nasty religious by-products like hysteria, absolutism, narrow-mindedness, prejudice, bigotry, fanaticism, spiritual arrogance, superstition ( gr. "deisdaimonia": dread of demon-gods, including an eternal tormentor God ) a new batch of narrow-minded Christians is being created in the third world countries.  

A third type of Christian missions seems to be very promising. It is slowly emerging from within all branches of Christianity:

Christian "Inclusive" Universalist missions may well prove to be the type of missions for the future (more on that further down...). Already we see the leaders of great denominations like Catholic and Orthodox engaging in "Inclusive Universalist missions" in the form of interfaith dialogue with leaders of other religions.  

PART TWO:
Why the current missionary programs are no good

Reaching the un-reached or sealing their fate?
The unspoken motive for world evangelization.

Luis Bush (International Director of the AD 2000 & Beyond Movement) writes:  "The core of the unreached people of our world live in a rectangular-shaped window! Often called "The Resistant Belt," the window extends from West Africa to East Asia, from ten degrees north to forty degrees north of the equator. This specific region, which has increasingly become known as The 10/40 Window, encompasses the majority of the world's Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists - billions of spiritually impoverished souls. As we approach the end of this millennium, it is imperative that our evangelistic efforts be focused among the people who inhabit The 10/40 Window. If we are serious in our commitment to provide a valid opportunity for every person to experience the truth and saving power of Jesus Christ, we cannot ignore the compelling realities within this region..." ( See: The 10/40 Window, Getting to the Core of the Core  )

World Evangelization programs make the same point. They express an anxiety "to provide a valid opportunity for every person to experience the truth and saving power of Jesus Christ". As Luis Bush explains, a good reason "why committed Christians should focus on The 10/40 Window is because it is home to the majority of the world's unevangelized people. The "unevangelized" are people who have a minimal knowledge of the gospel, but have no valid opportunity to respond to it...". Moreover, the 10/40 Window "includes numerous strongholds of Satan" like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. Every single Christian group that promotes world evangelization cites as number one reason "the need to reach the unreached". Of course, they mention humanitarian reasons as well, but they do this as an afterthought. After all, compared to an eternity in hell, what difference does a little bit of hunger or poverty matter?

Now let us read between the lines. When they say that there is a need for those unevangelized billions to be given a valid opportunity to accept the gospel, they really mean that there is a need to properly shift the blame to those who end up in Hell. Even though they quote various Scriptures to justify the sentence of  the unevangelized to Hell ( i.e.., all have sinned and have fallen short, etc ), they really feel uncomfortable at the thought of billions ending up in Hell without a chance at least to hear and accept the gospel.

Now, these overzealous Christians do not doubt that their evangelistic missions are doomed to fail, as they have been failing for centuries. What really matters to them is that somehow "every person will hear the gospel" before they die, so that if they reject it and end up in Hell, the blame will be all theirs.

This is very similar to handing out a court summons. The people hired to do so, try to track down the "accused party" and personally hand out to them the court order so that they cannot have an excuse if they don't turn up to the court. From the moment summons are served, the accused party has no choice but to face the legal proceedings. In Australia the people who serve these court orders are called "process servers" or "summons servers".

This then is what Christian missionaries are really. They are God's own "process servers"! Once the hapless heathen is presented with the gospel ultimatum become a Christian or burn in hell forever, there is no way out. Especially the Muslims are placed in an extremely dangerous situation. On the one hand they are in danger of the Muslim Hell if they renounce the Prophet and become idolaters (worshipers of Jesus), and on the other hand they are in danger of the Christian Hell if they do not accept Jesus as "the only way" to God. In other words they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. All this would be very funny if it wasn't causing so much hatred in the world.

Not that the evangelist cares. He has done his duty, the load is of his chest, once he has delivered his message of doom (euphemistically called gospel). After all, when you are dealing with an eternal tormentor God, who are you to question His ways? Shut up and obey the Great Commission lest you too perish together with the heathen.

There are more problems with the way world evangelization programs appeal to the Great Commission as an "executive order from God" to act as "summons servers" for a Final Judgment that carries a sentence of eternal torments.

Ex-Christian Emery Lee puts it this way: "Some Christians believe that those who die without hearing the Gospel are not automatically damned. Somehow, in the afterlife, they will be presented with the Truth, and have a chance to repent at that time. This may seem like a pretty fair scenario, except when you consider that Christians have been commanded to spread the Gospel message to as many as possible here on earth, often at great risk to themselves, and the people receiving the message. And the irony of this is, because of one thing or another in their lives, or maybe the imperfect manner in which the Gospel was presented to them, most unbelievers who hear the Message will not choose to believe it. Thus, they are damned to hell, with no further opportunity to repent. So the question arises: when will the Gospel message be more compelling and most accurately delivered–by us in this life, or by Jesus himself in the next? Obviously the next. For then you will already have one foot in the door, so to speak. No need to convince you of the afterlife, because you are already there. No need to make you believe in Jesus (and risk misrepresenting Him), for you can meet Him yourself. And what better way to convince people of the horrors of hell than to give them an actual glimpse into it? So if this is the case, telling someone the Gospel message in this life could well be the worst thing you could do for them. It’s sort of like surgery. Isn’t it better to wait for a qualified surgeon, in a sterile operating room, to perform the procedure?"

Lee adds: "Then there are Christians who believe that once you die, that’s it. There is no chance at salvation in the afterlife. What–you lived in South America in 31 A.D.? Too bad. Unbelievers who die go to hell, period, regardless of whether or not they have heard the Gospel. But then how can we believe that God is fair when He gives some a chance to repent, but not others? Usually those who believe this also add that there is something called "natural law," where even if you have never heard the Christian message, your God-given conscience will tell you what is right, and what is wrong. And the extent to which you follow that conscience will either damn you or save you. But again, that makes the whole evangelism thing meaningless. Why risk the crocodiles and the malaria in the jungles to bring the Word to the savages when they don't really need to hear it anyway? It makes any attempts to spread the Gospel an utter waste of time... And then there are those Christians who believe in predestination. God knows who will be saved anyway. If you are predestined, nothing can stop you from becoming a Christian. And if you are not, nothing can compel you. Again I wonder, what’s the point of evangelism?" Lee then concludes: "Please write to your local televangelist or evangelical pastor, and tell him or her that the money you send them could be much better used feeding the poor, housing the homeless, or filling potholes..." (See: The Great Commission by Emery Lee)

Why Christians should stop converting Christians

In the religious market place we still see today one Christian group snatching members from another Christian group. Some Christians feel the need to save not only the unbelievers, but also their fellow Christians who happen to belong to another denomination. The mainline Christian churches are mature enough not to do that. They all respect each other. They seem to have been taught some very valuable lessons by centuries of troubled history and mistakes.

This means that they accept each other as de facto "sister churches". It means that a mainline Catholic Christian no longer believes that it is necessary for an Orthodox Christian to convert to Catholicism "in order to be saved" and vice versa. With the exception of some ultra-conservative elements among their ranks, big historical churches like the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, the Anglican church, etc., are actively seeking to establish a workable unity.

The problem today seems to be mainly with the "born again" branch of Protestant Christianity. Back in March 2000, Archbishop Michael Sheehan criticized some fundamentalist churches for their expanded efforts to convert Catholic Hispanics in the past decade. Sheehan said the mainline Protestant churches have been very respectful of the Catholic Church, and it has been respectful of them. But he said some fundamentalist churches, whose religious beliefs are based on the literal interpretation of the Bible, have not shown such respect. "We don't appreciate their efforts to undermine the Catholic faith," Sheehan said. "We don't believe in trying to take a good Baptist and making them a Catholic."... ( See: Catholics Oppose Protestant Prosyletizing )

In Eastern Europe, historically the domain of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, we often hear the complaints of Orthodox leaders about the aggressive proselytizing programs of various Christian groups that target Orthodox Christians. This in turn activates a retaliative attitude from Orthodox leaders who try to stop proselytizing groups confusing thus even more the issue of religious freedom. 

Why Christians should stop converting Non-Christians

Large mainline Christian denominations like the Catholic church are no longer actively seeking "to convert the heathen" through systematic missionary campaigns. As I pointed out earlier, the "heathen" are now starting to speak out against any hint of religious/cultural imperialism from Christian churches, including the Catholic church.

A Hindu intellectual complains: "The worst aspect of the proselytisation debate is the Christian stance that it is the only true religion. It comes as an offensive blow to Hinduism that is willing to accept other religions as also valid paths to God. Why should one accept the Pope's claim of being the sole representative of God? Why should everyone be forced to believe that the Bible is divine? Why can't other religions' books be equally or more divine? Why talk of religious freedom and respect for others when you don't accept the validity of other religions in principle? After all, why would someone want to go from an inclusive ideology to a restrictive one?.. Proselytising Churches act in an organized way against Hindu groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parsihad, trying to paint them as intolerant and reactionary. Hinduism accepts that there can be other paths to god besides itself. Christianity claims to be the sole path to god, condemns other religions' followers to Hell for not accepting Christ, and actively seeks to destroy other religions. Who is the real intolerant here?.. This proselytising Christians' attitude of self-righteousness is the fountainhead of intolerance. While throwing platitudes about love and peace, the Christian proselytisers base their ideology on institutionalized hatred and intolerance. Such retrograde thinking is but one step behind the madness of Talibanism, which also seeks to destroy other religions based on divine sanction...The proselytising Church must be made to realize that its schizophrenic attitude of talking tolerance while behaving like a predator does not wash anymore..." (See: Fountainhead of intolerance by Mac Kher )

Another Hindu, Suresh Desai, a writer and journalist who was invited to speak on his perceptions of the Christian Missionary activities at a Seminary trains Christians in priesthood, said the following:

"When you are working in the a land of an ancient and dominant religion and try to preach the gospel of your faith and convert a large member of people who after conversion disown their cultural roots, it is inevitable and also justifiable that all your activities are viewed with suspicion and are attributed to one fundamental motive that is to convert people to your faith.  Such cultural alienation in a country like India where nationalism is based on cultural and civilizational heritage creates piquant situations such as those on the North-east frontiers... In my mind, as in the mind of anybody who is conversant with the history of Europe, the missionary activities and Christianity are inseparably associated with Inquisition, with intolerance of science, with the fate of Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Joan of Ark, killing of lakhs of women on suspicion that they were witches, crusades and thousands of victims in the Goa Inquisition..."

He then went on to complain about the aggressive proselytizing efforts of Christian missionaries:

"One question which continues to plague my mind; why missionaries want to expand Christianity in numbers? There is no evidence that the conversion to Christianity has improved the world spiritually. However the Christianity has helped colonialism and imperialism.  From what I learn from NEFA States, I feel the aims of the missionaries are predominantly political. I would like to be proved wrong in my assessment.  What happened in America in the wake of the assaults of conquistadors like Cortez, Pizarro and Balboa and the Portuguese in Goa and the Goa Inquisition reinforces my theory that their ulterior motive is political power and spirituality is used as means to achieve it.  In Latin American countries, it is a well known fact that the Jesuits were involved in the game of power... Today Europe and America which were the bailiwicks of Christianity have spurned the religion in a large measure. I think missionaries and the church should turn their efforts to first bring them back to Christianity, instead of spending their precious efforts on evangelising the tribals in India.  Why are they not doing it?.. At the same time there are movements like New Religion Movement (NRM) which are weaning the Catholics away from the orthodoxy in favour of Pentecostal churches. Catholics also don't like the sheep straying to Protestant fold.  Trust you have not forgotten their massacre in Paris on the day of St. Bartholomew.  If Catholic missionaries don't like Catholics moving away from their fold how do they expect Hindus to like their people being lured away to Christianity?  Think over this in the context of the Pope saying during his visit to South America that he wanted to save Catholics from Protestant wolves..."

Suresh Desai concluded his speech by inviting his audience to shift their focus from conversion to co-operation with other faiths in the common struggle to better the human condition: "Today it is not the question of how many follow this religion or that. There is a pronounced current of thinking that religion has long outlived its utility... because of the capitalist orientation of the world... Finally, I once a gain bring to your notice that mankind is turning its back on God and that is the real problem.  Conversions from one faith to another in this context are ridiculous.  We should all make concerted efforts to see that citadels of moral restraints imposed by religions and faith in divinity are not shattered.  As priests, a great deal of responsibility devolve on you in this respect..."

Finally, when asked by a Christian why he was so against conversions from one religion to another, Desai replied by turning the question around and asking back: "Why are you for conversions?  What is your objective in converting the people to your faith and expand it numerically? I can understand qualitative improvement of a religion, say from Saguna to Nirguna or from animism to Bhakti.  Religion means an individual's craving and efforts to realise God.  He may do it in the way he thinks is most suitable for him.  That's what Hinduism teaches.  Sarva Deva Namaskara Keshavam Pratigachhati.  It is immaterial whether you worship Jesus or Mohammed as your worship ultimately reaches the Absolute., what we call Brahman... Semitic religions however, whether it is Islam, Christianity or dogma of Marxism, thirst for quantitative expansion, simply because they hanker after political power, a materialistic, mundane objectives and want to exploit religion for the purpose. That's why missionary activities blossomed in America under the patronage of Spanish Conquistadors and in India it sanctified the colonialism of the British and the Portuguese. When I rack my brains about what is the fundamental objective of conversions, I get the resounding reply, "Imperialism"..." (See: A PERCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES,  by Suresh Desai )

But it is not only the Hindus that are furious with Christian "imperialism". The Muslim world is also very angry, even though Islam has historically been a proselytizing religion ( often by force ). In his article The Jungle of Christ Muslim author David Kostinchuk also writes a devastating critique on what many muslims now call: "the massive worldwide onslaught by Christian evangelists to convert non-Christians to their religion using false claims of miracles and deceptive propaganda"

Elsewhere we read: "Since the end of March, Christian evangelism has been making ever-widening ripples in the American press. To the best of my knowledge, it began with a report in the Mercury News on faith-based groups poised to give humanitarian aid in Iraq once the war subsided: "They see it as a golden opportunity to convert this predominantly Muslim country to Christianity, and along with supplies, they carry the New Testament and the message of Jesus Christ." Iraq -- like India -- is in the "10/40 Window," i e, the area lying between latitudes 10º to 40º north of the Equator, stretching from North Africa to China, and containing most of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, nearly a billion Hindus and 350 million Buddhists. This "Last Frontier" is home to the "unreached people groups" -- the term Christian fundamentalists use for ethnic populations that have never heard the message from the Bible... If it were only a matter of acquainting people with the supremacy of Christianity, missionaries would probably be tolerated. Problem is, voicing the message entails converting the listener to Christianity -- by this way or that, usually that. Too, some ethnic populations don't want to hear the message, nor let it be heard in their lands. In most of these countries, there are laws against proselytising, with all the Islamic ones enforcing severe penalties. Buddhist countries like Laos and Myanmar, too, have limitations on evangelism. Red China restricts proselytising by members of state-supported churches. And India -- finally and recently -- began enforcing the 1975 law limiting access to foreign missionaries and enacting laws banning fraudulent conversion... Therefore, to force-feed the Gospel to the "unreached," missionaries are sent by countries like the US, Britain, Germany and Australia as "aid workers," with visas identifying them as "secular workers." To enter countries like Bhutan, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, which do not issue visas to missionaries, they list their occupation as teacher, doctor, nurse, businessperson, engineer, etc. One illustrative result: 27% of the US-based Southern Baptist Convention's missionaries are now stationed in the 10/40 Window -- up from 1% a mere 15 years ago..." (Stories they don't want told)

See also:

• God Wars

• The meaning of freedom of religion Author: Swami Nirliptananda

• The Religion Report - 9/06/99: Jews and Christian Evangelism

• Christian Mission Literature Bashes Indigenous People and American Indians

• Canadian Church Genocide Against Native Americans

• Removing People, Removing Children Boarding Schools Missionary, Leave Those Kids Alone

• Missionaries as Colonial Policy "In Northern Thailand a War of Racial
  And Cultural Genocide Is Being Waged Against The Akha People
  By Predatory Missions and Missionaries" The Akha people say no to Christian Imperialism

• Christian Missionaries Missionaries had always held a heroic and romantic place within the Christian imagination. Even today churches regularly collect contributions for the mission field. The reality, of course, is very different. From its very beginnings, Christian missionaries had inflicted tremendous harm on the peoples they "witness" to....

It is time to drop Hell out of the equation

The doctrine of Hell has a lot to do with the aggressive nature of many mission programs: "On the Evangelical programme of Dutch television, an evangelist recently boasted how he converted Nepalese tribals at a fast rate by giving them a kind of walkman reciting the whole Bible in their own language, a modern equivalent of the trinkets given to African chieftains by Vasco da Gama. It is likewise well-attested that missionaries use deception to over-awe illiterate people, e.g. staged miracle healings. This material inducement or exploitation of gullibility may seem unethical from a non-Christian viewpoint, but it looks very different once you assume that the Christian belief is true. In that case, remaining a Pagan means eternal damnation, while conversion brings eternal salvation, and the greater good of eternal salvation amply justifies the minor evil of bribes and deception needed to lure people into the true faith..." (See: The problem of Christian missionaries by Koenraad Elst)

The irony lies in the fact that Christian missionaries try to save the heathen by means of the doctrine of hell, that is, by means of a heathen doctrine! Those Christians who doubt the pagan origins of the doctrine of Hell, would do well to read Thomas Thayer's: "The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment".

Missionaries around the world should ask themselves, "if there is no Hell, what the hell am I doing here?". This does not mean that the Christian Church shall stop sending missions. It just means that the whole approach to missions must be changed. It may take a while for Non-Christians around the world to get used to the idea that such "hell-free" missions are not out there to rob them from their cultures but only to assist them in any practical means possible, but eventually they will welcome Christian missions as genuine gestures of love. In turn, Non-Christian lands may be encouraged to soften their often aggressive approach against religious freedom, allowing their people to freely engage in dialogue with Christianity.  

Ex Evangelical Robert M. Price claims that it is time Evangelical Christianity gets over its pre-occupation with hell and preaching a "fire-insurance" gospel: "What would become of "Christianity as a message to be proclaimed" in our hypothetical postmodern Evangelicalism? I do not think evangelism would be undermined in the least, though some of the guilt-motivated pressure would be relaxed. The key is to see that "fire insurance" was never supposed to be the only motivation for evangelism and the missionary enterprise. Of course all evangelists and missiologists realize this; they just have a tendency to ignore the fact in arguments about Universalism. "But, if everyone is going to heaven anyway, what is the point of the Great Commission?" They hope to defend belief in damnation by the commonly agreed-upon propriety of evangelism. But there is a logically quite separate reason for evangelism..."

He adds: "The evangelist or missionary is concerned to spread faith in, and glorification of, Jesus Christ as Lord. Even if one held with some Barthians that the objective work of Christ avails for the salvation of all people regardless of their subjective response, this motive for evangelism would remain. For the sake of "the glory of his name" (as the Lausanne Covenant puts it), shouldn't all people be invited to confess his Lordship, even if they will not be damned otherwise? To say that apart from the threat of hellfire, no purpose remains for evangelism is surely a sign of man-centered rather than "God-centered evangelism," in the phrase of one Reformed tract… I would be willing to go farther still. Suppose one wanted to recognize the legitimacy and truth of all the great world religions (and there are theologically coherent ways of doing this-- see for instance Tillich's Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, or Raymond Panikkar's The Unknown Christ of Hinduism). Would there still be a place for evangelism? Would Christianity still be "a message to be proclaimed"? Of course it would. One must only realize that evangelistic zeal does not depend on the logical syllogism "If my religion is true, his must be false." Rather, I should think the genuine desire to evangelize arises from the felt benefits derived from one's commitment to Christ, i.e., "Christ has done so much for me that I want to share him with others." This is what the term "witnessing" implies. This motivation should remain untouched even if the witness allows that others to whom he speaks also might have something to which they could bear witness. Again, the two facts are logically independent. If the Jew or humanist is already happily experiencing what you would call the fruits of the Spirit through his own faith, so be it. Picture it like a testimony meeting where two Christians testify to different blessings they have received from God in the past week..."

He then makes the following valid point: "To rejoice in your own blessing, do you need to deny the other person's blessing? Conversely, to receive encouragement or admonition from your testimony, must your friend renounce the different blessing God has given him? That doesn't lessen the fact that Jesus Christ has given you, and can give others, abundant life… And the pressure would be off. No more worrying, "how can I work Christ into this conversation?" Things would now have the freedom to happen naturally and authentically..." ( See: Chapter 10: Toward Evangelical Maturity Beyond Born Again, by Robert M. Price)

PART THREE:
Towards a new way to evangelize the nations

1. Humanitarian Aid without proselytizing

The best way to preach the gospel is by practicing what we preach. This means nothing else but following the example of Jesus "who went about doing good". When the motives are pure and Christian missions just focus on humanitarian aid they will definitely be welcomed by the nations of the world, and perhaps in this way they will restore honor, trust and respect between people of different faiths. Gandhi wrote in Young India (April 23, 1931): "If instead of confining themselves purely to humanitarian work such as education, medical services to the poor and the like, they would use these activities of theirs for the purpose of proselytizing, I would certainly like them to withdraw. Every nation considers its own faith to be as good as that of any other. Certainly the great faiths held by the people of India are adequate for her people. India stands in no need of conversion from one faith to another." He further explained: "Let me now amplify the bald statement. I hold that proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is, to say the least, unhealthy. It is most certainly resented by the people here. Religion after all is a deeply personal matter, it touches the heart. Why should I change my religion because a doctor who professes Christianity as his religion has cured me of some disease or why should the doctor expect or suggest such a change whilst I am under his influence? Is not medical relief its own reward and satisfaction? Or why should I whilst I am in a missionary educational institution have Christian teaching thrust upon me? In my opinion these practices are not uplifting and give rise to suspicion if not secret hostility. The methods of conversion must be like Caesar's wife above suspicion... "I am, then, not against conversion. But I am against the modern methods of it."

A couple of weeks after this article was posted, TIME magazine run a feature story on the hot topic of world evangelism. The feature story includes references to historical Christian groups that have been peacefully co-existing with the Muslim world. It goes without saying that such Christian groups place great emphasis on "preaching the gospel by living it". We read that in Baghdad, "Mennonite Committee employee Miller feels no impulse at all to share his faith with his clients. Miller is a devout Mennonite; he was raised in various locations in Africa where his parents did the committee's humanitarian work. While he was growing up in his church's "peace and justice" tradition, he says, "there was always discussion about the injustices and inequalities around the world and what we should do about it." But he does not think that Christ's word needs further elucidation in the region. Referring to indigenous churches that Evangelicals tend to ignore or scorn as compromised, he says, "You have to realize that Christianity has been part of the Middle East for 2,000 years. People here know all about my religion and don't need me to explain it. I don't feel I have anything more to teach the Muslims than they have to teach me." ( see: Keeping the Faith Without Preaching It, Reported by Amanda Bower/New York and Aparisim Ghosh/Amman )

2. Interfaith pluralism is not a dirty word: Friedrich Heiler on how modern science of religion demonstrates the Unity between all great Religions

Here is what the great German scholar of religion Friedrich Heiler
(see: The History of Religions as a Preparation for the Co-operation of Religions) had to say about the Unity between all great Religions and what that means for Christianity:

"'Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another?' These words of the prophet Malachi (2 :10) were repeated several decades ago by a Jewish rabbi as he extended his congratulations to a Catholic bishop on the occasion of his consecration. The belief in one God should indeed awaken in the faithful among all the high religions the consciousness of belonging together in one family and their obligation to stand together fraternally. It is understandable that those who profess a divisive form of national polytheism should think of themselves as enemies not only for political reasons but for religious ones as well. National strife is for them also a war of their gods. But at first glance it seems inconceivable that those who profess faith in one God or one divine essence can combine with it a spirit of mutual estrangement and hostility… But thus it has been in the history of religions. The faithful among the higher religions have opposed one another again and again, indeed if not engaging in bloody persecution, then despising the followers of other religions as deplorably ignorant persons who must be led with all possible speed to the true church and religion. How many human beings have become the victims of religious wars, how frequent the oppression of other religious consciences, how numerous are the martyrdoms suffered in courageous confession of individual faith! Two hundred and fifty years before Christ, King Asoka, one of the noblest figures in world history and the great promulgator of Buddhism, proclaimed to his subjects not only tolerance but also love for other religions. He states in one of his famous edicts carved in rock: 'The divinely favored King Piyadasi honors all sects, the ascetic as well as the local. He honors them with gifts and tributes of all kinds. But the divinely favored one does not lay so much weight upon gifts and tributes, but rather that in all religions there might be a growth in essence. The reason for this is that no praise for one’s own religion or reproach of other religions should take place on unsuitable occasions. On the contrary, every opportunity ought to be taken to honor other religions. If one proceeds in this way, he furthers his own religion and renders good to other religions. Otherwise he does harm to his own religion and reproaches other religions, and all of this out of admiration for his own religion When he would magnify his own cause, he rather does all the more harm to his own religion. Unity alone profits, so that everyone will listen to and join the other religion'"

"One will not find too many such admonitions in the history of the Christian religion. Yet among Christian theologians of all periods there have also been those who have noted the revelation of God in the non-Christian world. Thus Justin, the martyr-philosopher of the second century, stated: "All those who have lived by the Logos, i.e., by the eternal, divine World-Reason, are Christians, even if they have been taken as atheists, like Socrates and Heraclitus." (Apology i. 46) Thus Origen, who not only held the view that God had sent prophets to all peoples in all times but also admonished his fellow Christians to respect heathen forms of worship and sacred images. Thus Nicolas of Cusa, a cardinal of the Roman church, who perceived in all religions a longing for the one God. (De pace seu concordantia fidei (1453), ed. Faber Stapulensis (Paris, 1514), I, fol. CXIV b.).. But… the majority of the representatives of the Christian church and theology are exclusivists and that many indeed look upon intolerance as a necessity and glory of Christian doctrine. The reigning tendency of current Protestantism, the so-called dialectical theology, denies every revelation of God outside the Christian Bible and looks upon the non-Christian religions as mere attempts at self-apotheosis which are under the judgment of God. One can hear such exclusivist theologians say over and over again that there is no communion between Christ and Belial, light and darkness, truth and deceit. They say there is no unity of gospel and religions, and a unity of religions is conceivable only in the sense of a perversion of all forms of extra-biblical piety, whether Christian or non-Christian..."

"This gloomy picture of religions, however, does not correspond to the truth. Modern science of religion, analyzing the totality of the religions from their immediate living expressions in word, text, and art, shows us an entirely different perspective. Through the corporate efforts of various modern scientific disciplines such as philosophy, ethnology, prehistory and history, archeology, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, the methods of the science of religion have become increasingly broadened and refined. In this manner we are brought to a more comprehensive and profound view of religion and the religions than was possible in past generations, particularly those of the Enlightenment and Romanticism, which advanced so far in the science of religion. This study, in which scholars of greatest stature participated --men like Friedrich Max Müller, Nathan Söderblom, Rudolf Otto, Tor Andrae, Alfred Loisy, Gerardus van der Leeuw, Raffaele Pettazzoni -- has given us a host of insights by which centuries-old prejudices have been removed..."

"Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims and Mazdeans, Jews and Christians are filled with the same earnestness, sincerity, ardent love, obedience, and readiness to sacrifice. I shall ever keep before my eyes the deeply pious look of perfect devotion of two Muslim boys whom I watched at prayer in a Turkish mosque some years ago. Often enough Christians are put to shame by the deep piety, courageous confession, and active love for one’s brother demonstrated in other religions. Thus did the fiery Florentine prophet Savonarola declare to his countrymen: "Jews and Turks observe their religion much better than Christians, who ought to take a lesson from the way the Turks bear witness to the Name of God. They would have long ago been converted, if they had not rightly been offended by the evil lives of Christians." (Joseph Schnitzer, Savonarola [Munich, 1923], pp. 115 ff.) And in Lessing’s Nathan we read the exclamation, "Nathan, Nathan, you are a Christian; by God, a better Christian there never was!""

"In displacing deep-rooted prejudices, scientific inquiry into religion has discovered more and more of the close relationship existing among outwardly differing religions. Innumerable parallels between Christianity and other religions have been discovered in recent decades by historians of religions. One really must say that there is no religious concept, no dogmatic teaching, no ethical demand, no churchly institution, no cultic form and practice of piety in Christianity which does not have diverse parallels in the non-Christian religions. Examples are the belief in the Trinity, in Creation, in Incarnation; the concepts of a virgin birth, vicarious suffering, the death and resurrection of the redeemer god; the inspiration of sacred scripture; the sole efficacy of grace; the forgiveness of sin; infused prayer; the imitation of God; the glory of paradise; the fulfilled kingdom of God; the priesthood and monasticism; sacraments and liturgical ceremonies, including the rosary. All these not only are Christian but are universally religious and universally human. (29 Cf. Heiler, "Die Frage der ‘Absolutheit’ des Christentums im Lichte der Religionsgeschichte," Eine heilige Kirche, XX [1938], 318 ff.) Non-Christian religions provide the student of religion with countless analogies to the central concepts of Christian faith and ethics; furthermore, the pre-Christian world of religion reveals itself to the student as the source and origin of definite Christian ideas, forms of doctrine, cultus, and organization. It is beyond dispute that postbiblical Christianity took over many elements from ancient metaphysics and ethics, the oriental-Hellenistic mystery religions, and the hermetic and neo-Platonic mysticism, and even from popular pagan piety and legal wisdom… modern studies have shown that it is impossible, in view of the relationship of Christianity to the preChristian spiritual world, to make a sharp cleavage between the New Testament and later Christian literature..."

"The two-volume work of the German theologian, Carl Schneider, which appeared recently, shows that early Christianity was thoroughly absorbed in an oriental-Hellenistic environment and that the entire early Christian thought and life was penetrated by Hellenistic thought and expressed itself in Hellenistic forms… These variegated insights increasingly illumine that unity of religions that Schleiermacher intuitively grasped when he stated in his Reden: "The deeper one progresses in religion, the more the whole religious world appears as an indivisible whole." (Reden, Rede 4, p. 186; ed. R. Otto. p.95.) And as the great Anglo-German scholar of religion, Max Müller, unceasingly proclaimed: "There is only one eternal and universal religion standing above, beneath, and beyond all religions to which they all belong or can belong." (Leben und Religion[Stuttgart, n.d.] p.153).. The faith that God is love and the commandment that men shall become like God in this all-embracing love, which includes enemies, constitute by themselves alone a strong sense of community among all high religions.   …The spreading of the concept of loving the enemy in preChristian times proves the validity of Lessing’s statement, "Christianity existed before evangelists and apostles had written..."

"With respect to this great unity of the high religions, one can only repeat the prayer of Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa: "It is Thou, O God, who is being sought in the various religions in various ways, and named with various names, for Thou remainest as Thou art, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. Be gracious and show Thy countenance. . . . When Thou wilt graciously perform it, then the sword, jealous hatred, and all evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious customs [una religio in rituum varietate].’’ (De pace seu concordantia fidei, loc. cit.).. Whoever recognizes their unity must take it seriously by tolerance in word and deed. Thus scientific insight into this unity calls for a practical realization in friendly exchange and in common ethical and social endeavor which the British call "fellowship" and "co-operation.".. This unity and this fellowship are as little a syncretistic mixing of religion as is a conversion from one system of religion to another. Schleiermacher’s Reden contains the sincere warning: If you want to compare religion with religion as the eternally progressing work of the world spirit, you must give up the vain and futile wish that there ought to be only one; your antipathy against the variety of religions must be laid aside, and with as much impartiality as possible you must join all those which have developed from the eternally abundant bosom of the Universe through the changing forms and progressive traditions of man. (Reden, Rede 5, 241,p. 123)"

"Joy in the individuality of another religion is the ultimate joy in God Himself. Schleiermacher asked whether Christianity was destined to be the only religion of mankind. Evidently he held that Christianity was against this despotism. It is not a main tenet of Christianity to seek uniformity in religion by destroying other religious systems. Rather it honors all forms of religious expression because all have necessary ingredients for what Schleiermacher considers "the religion of all religions." However, Schleiermacher judged this too optimistically. Not many Christian theologians have followed him in this, but among them are to be found such men of renown as Nathan Soderblom and Rudolf Otto. Most Christian theologians fear nothing so much as "relativism." I have a way of answering such theologians that the greatest of all relativists is God himself, the Absolute, for he is fullness in itself and his fullness is revealed in the immeasurable diversity of nature and the spiritual life..."

"The deeper our reverence for God, the deeper also must our reverence for other religions be. More than two thousand years ago, King Asoka, Buddha’s zealous disciple, made it clear to his people that whoever honors another religion honors his own, and whoever disgraces another disgraces his own. His admonition still holds good for our day. He who has penetrated the mystery of religion will cease wanting simply to convert the believers among the other high religions; moreover, his desire is twofold, to give and to receive, to represent the purest form of Christianity to others and in turn to learn about the most intimate character of the belief of others. He does not want to conquer those religions, but unite with them at a higher level. He would not "destroy" them but "fulfill" them (Matt. 5 :17); he does not want their death, but (as Rudolf Otto said) he wants no religion to die before its ultimate and most profound meaning has been told. (Vishnu-Narayana, p. 224) The meaning of true mission is not propaganda or conversion or domination of others but brotherly exchange and brotherly competition. "Mission means that the encounter between the great human cultural types, that is the great povvers of human ideas, becomes as deep and central and manysided as possible." (Heiler). In this sense we must not only wish that Christian mission continue among the religions of the East (Max Müller said that for every missionary he would rather send out ten more), but also that the religions of the East send missionaries to us, as Leibniz had already desired in the introduction to his Novissima Sinica.  Such a mission does not lead to syncretism and eclecticism but to "such growth in the essentials" as Asoka had demanded from the different religions, and that means nothing other than growth in love toward God and man..."

"On this basis there naturally follows a co-operation of religions in "life and work," to extend this expression which Soderblom used of the Christian ecumenical communion to the ecumenical union of all religions. In the last decades various organizations have grown up on this basis, such as the Universal Religious Alliance, International Religious Peace Conference, World Parliament of Religions, World Congress for Free Christianity and Religious Progress, Union of All Religions, World Congress of Faiths, and Fraternity of Religious Mankind, founded by Rudolf Otto. In 1956 this latter organization joined the World Congress of Faiths founded by Sir Francis Younghusband as the German branch. The World Harmony founded by Hossein Kazemzadeh Iranschähr serves a similar purpose..."

"None of these movements aims at an unorganic syncretism of religions. No, each religion shall continue to unfold its individuality. But through friendship and common co-operation among the religions we develop mankind more and more. All high religions are distinguished from the lower nationalistic religions of mankind. They have realized only imperfectly, however, the concept of humanity toward which they strive because they have detached themselves from other religions striving for the same goal and because they have looked upon one another as competitors or even as enemies instead of brethren and children of the same family of God... If the religions thus learn to understand one another and cooperate, they will contribute more to the realization of humanity and thereby to world peace than all the noteworthy efforts of politics. A torn humanity which has passed through so many catastrophes, which has ruined itself through so many wars, which is still bleeding from so many wounds, can be saved by one thing only, which is rooted in and proceeds from divine love as it lives in the high religions, primarily in their saints and martyrs. Co-operation in the conquest of racial, national, economic, and social problems will by itself lead to the securing and maintaining of world peace. Responsibility before the eternal God and selfless love for one’s brother, these alone warrant the greatest security…" ( Source: The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology by Mircea Eliade and Joseph M. Kitagawa (eds.) )

3. Christian "Inclusive" Universalist missions?

The only other type of Christian missions, except from "humanitarian aid missions" and "interfaith pluralism" that can hope to be relevant in the future is the good old traditional Christian Universalism, which unfortunately has never been seriously tried in the past as a missionary enterprise.

Inclusive Christian Interfaith Minister Rev. Ken Allen explains what "Inclusive Christianity" is: "Inclusive Christianity" affirms the presence of God's will and power to save in non-Christian religions while still maintaining that Christ is the definitive and authoritative revelation of God. It couples the Christian's confession of Jesus Christ with genuine openness to the truth and goodness found in other religions. God being revealed definitively in Jesus Christ does not imply that He is not working in the wider world and in other religions... John Milton ("Christian Doctrine"), said: "The ultimate object of faith is not Christ, the Mediator, but God the Father . . . So it does not seem surprising that there are a lot of Jews, and Gentiles too, who are saved although they believed or believe in God alone, either becasue they lived before Christ, or because, even though they have lived after him, he has not been revealed to them. In spite of this they are saved by means of Christ" ( See: What is Inclusive Christianity and Interfaith Ministry? By Rev. Ken Allen, Th.D )

See also:

• Preaching the Gospel - From "Counsel and Encouragement: Discourses on the Conduct of Life", by Hosea Ballou, 2D., D.D. Written in 1866.

• Tract: The Glorious Gospel
  by Jan Antonnson

• What Do Inclusive Christian Universalists Believe?

• Evangelism - By Don Smith

• The Good News Gospel - by Joseph E. Kirk

Universalistic evangelism:
Common Objections Answered

As is always the case, conservative Christians react to Universalist/Inclusive claims by quoting "exclusivist" Scriptures or Church Canons. As it turns out however, such Scriptures don't necessarily oppose Universalism. Rev. Ken Allen adequately replies to common objections raised against a Universalist approach to evangelism. In regards to the often quoted "There is salvation in none other, [human] for neither is there any other name UNDER heaven, that is given among men, in which we must be saved! (Acts 4:12)", Ken Allen writes: It is true that there is no other name UNDER heaven in which we must be saved, but there is also God IN heaven that anyone can call upon in faith and be saved: Peter opened his mouth and said, "Truly I perceive that God doesn't show favoritism; but in every nation he who fears [reverences] him and works righteousness is acceptable to him (Acts 10:34-35)… Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him. (Heb. 6:11)

Regarding the other often quoted Scripture "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me (John 14:6)", Ken Allen says:

As Jesus stated, "No one comes to the Father but by me" is true. Anyone that comes to the Father, anyone that has access to the Father, is by FAITH and is assured by the universal result of Christ's redemption for EVERYONE. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, WHO GAVE HIMSELF A RANSOM FOR ALL; the testimony in its own times" (1 Tim. 2:5-6)... Robert Brow, an Anglican (Episcopal) Priest and an Inclusive Christian, was asked, "How can you believe the exclusive words of Jesus: 'no one comes to the father but by me' (John 14:6)? He replied: "Before explaining how I understand those words, I have to reject what is often added to this statement. Some evangelists tell us that no one can be saved unless they hear about the death of Christ, believe he died for them, repent, and make a decision to accept Jesus as personal savior. If that was true then we would have to consign to eternal damnation Abraham, newborn children, retarded persons, the ignorant, and all people born into other religions. None of them could make a decision to accept Jesus as personal saviour... "What the text actually says is that every single person who is taken through death to enjoy the Father's heaven will discover that he or she only got there through the personal intervention of the Son of God." [See his complete answer by clicking here]

See also:

• What Good Will It Do To Preach Universal Salvation? Contrasts preaching or teaching Universalism with Calvinism (predestination) and Arminianism (free will). Published in "The Herald of Salvation" - Saturday, Dec. 18, 1824.

• Why teach or preach Universal Reconciliation if everyone is eventually to be saved? - Some answers from members of True Grace Ministries

• The Gospel -- Faith, Unbelief

• What If Some Do Not Believe? - From the "Universalist Herald and Progressionist," October 7, 1859