A Pentecostal Perspective on Evangelism and Religious Pluralism: The Right Moment for an Important and Unprecedented Document, by Tony Richie

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 the news became public that an important, and in some ways, unprecedented, document on Christian witness and mission has been finalized and published. In the interest of full disclosure, along with several others, I helped write it. That doesn’t mean that what follows is a defense. Although some of us who worked long (5 years) and hard (in Lariano, Italy; Toulouse, France; and Bangkok, Thailand) on it may be tempted to see this document as our “baby,” we also know better than anyone its faults and flaws. However, I must express my deep and profound respect for my colleagues. It was a special blessing to work with them all. And this document is important and unprecedented, and it is the right moment for it. It is important because it addresses some of the most challenging and significant aspects of Christian mission in today’s religiously plural world.1 As a collaborative effort involving representatives of 90% of the world’s 2 billion Christians, it is also unprecedented. It is the right moment for it because global conditions demand we face the reality of interfaith conflict and violence.2 “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct” is literally the first document ever to receive unanimous endorsement from the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) of the Catholic Church, the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA). In a time of interreligious tension, often involving issues of Christian mission, the “Preamble” to “Recommendations for Conduct” unapologetically affirms the mission of the churches in a manner respectful of others, including non-Christian religions.

An Ethical Approach

More of a practical guide than a theological statement, “Recommendations for Conduct” outlines “A Basis for Christian Witness”. This is the most consistently biblical section, and primarily upholds mission as a participation in the mission of God and obedience to the example of Jesus and the early church with a strong emphasis on ethical behavior and responsibility.³ The document also details “Principles” of Christian conduct in bearing witness to the gospel: “Acting in God’s love,” “Imitating Jesus Christ,” “Christian virtues,” “Acts of service and justice,” “Discernment in ministries of healing,” “Rejection of violence,” “Freedom of religion and belief,” “Mutual respect and solidarity,” “Respect for all people,” “Renouncing false witness,” “Ensuring personal discernment,” and “Building interreligious relationships.” True to its subtitle, it also suggests “Recommendations” for guiding relationships between Christians and others as Christians respond to God’s call to do mission: “study” the critical issues involved, “build” relationships of respect and trust, “encourage” Christians to strengthen their own religious identity and faith, “cooperate” with other religious communities for justice and the common good, “call” on governments to respect religious freedom, and “pray” for all neighbors.

“Recommendations for Conduct” ends with an “Appendix” describing the background and process of its origin and development over the last five years. As a participant from beginning to end in that process, I understand that this background is essential for appreciating many of the nuances of the statements of this document. Also, it would be a mistake to divorce the content and tone of “Recommendations for Conduct” from the clear purpose statement in the “Preamble”.

The purpose of this document is to encourage churches, church councils and mission agencies to reflect on their current practices and to use the recommendations in this document to prepare, where appropriate, their own guidelines for their witness and mission among those of different religions and among those who do not profess any particular religion. It is hoped that Christians across the world will study this document in the light of their own practices in witnessing to their faith in Christ, both by word and deed.

Early Response

The early response to “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct” has been mostly positive. Of course, almost everyone can see the need for addressing interfaith conflict, and the role that issues of conversion and evangelism play in that scenario.⁴ Many seem almost amazed that such diverse Christian groups were ready, willing, and able to work so closely for so long and, of course, to succeed in producing a unanimous statement. Some misunderstand. For example, Religion Today Summaries (June 30, 2011) put it like this: “Top 3 Bodies in Christianity Issue Evangelism Rules.” Of course, “recommendations” and “rules” are not the same at all. This kind of oversight sets up potential problems. No one is trying to impose rules on anyone’s evangelism. (Below you will notice that Chris Norton makes the same mistake.) The World Council of Churches press release put it better: “Christians reach broad consensus on appropriate missionary conduct.” This news release is also informative and balanced (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1634/christians-reach-broad-co.html).

Then Francis X. Rocca (Religion News Service, June 30, 2011), in “Ecumenical Accord Reached on Proselytizing: Did You Know?” suggests this historic document is little more than “the latest attempt to assuage sometimes violent tensions over proselytizing in non-Christian societies”. He offered expert testimony that though “not a full-throated apology for such practices, the injunctions are ‘tantamount to an admission that they have been going on.’” While to be expected, these kinds of comments don’t do justice to the strong fiber and vibrant substance of the overall work. Nevertheless, Rocca clearly recognizes the need for peaceful relations among world religions. And that may be the main thing here.

Christianity Today’s Chris Norton’s “Top Evangelical, Catholic, and Mainline Bodies Issue Evangelism Rules” (6/29/2011) is especially interesting. Before looking at it, I will mention that I’m not happy about his exclusion of Pentecostals from the title and the task. The major news releases from participating bodies stressed the inclusion not only of Evangelicals but also specifically of Pentecostals. One of the original organizers and leaders of the whole project, Hans Ucko, told me personally that he considered one of the major accomplishments to be the inclusion of Evangelicals and Pentecostals. While in my North American context I consider myself both an Evangelical and a Pentecostal, these are not necessarily synonymous terms. In many parts of the world they may have quite different meanings.⁵ Christianity Today should’ve been more specific. Yet it is important to note that Pentecostal involvement was more informal and less official than, say members of the WEA, who formally and officially endorsed their participants and the outcome of their work. Kudos to WEA! Right now, too many Pentecostals are still struggling with stepping up to the plate to take their place at bat in the critical “game” of living and serving in a multi-religious world. Accordingly, Pentecostal involvement with this significant document was mostly at the individual level, although with awareness and encouragement of organizational leadership.⁶

Engaging the Issues

One of the things I like about Norton’s article is that it does honestly engage the document and wrestle with the issues it raises. His subtitle, “Missiologists applaud unity effort, but note what’s missing and what will raise eyebrows” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/juneweb-only/evangelismrules.html) sums up its substance well. Not to quibble (again!) about words in the title/subtitle, but I would mention we need to understand “unity effort” in the sense of a united effort. In other words, this was not an effort toward unity, but an effort arising out of unity. One thing that’s most impressive about this process and the document it eventually produced is that fact. An underlying unity already in place made it possible. Admittedly, it was sometimes stretched; but, I also think it was strengthened. Those who don’t think ecumenism can be effective need to think again. Along that line, Norton does a good job of explaining the significance of the release of “Recommendations for Conduct.” As an Evangelical myself, I gladly note that his article rightly points out, from Kevin Mannoia, professor of Ministry at Azusa Pacific University, and former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, that Evangelical involvement in this process signals that Evangelicals are beginning to take their proper place in the broader Christian context—and are even willing to address and discuss interreligious dialogue. To me, that’s a real plus. He also quotes a former professor of mine, George Hunter, dean of the School of World Missions at Asbury Theological Seminary, who calls attention to what’s not in the document. Notably, Hunter thinks the omission of any statement on the sacraments was a major concession by the Catholics. While I can certainly see where he’s coming from, I don’t remember there being a big to-do about it in our work together. My impression is that most of us just thought we were talking about something else: namely, appropriate Christian behavior in doing the mission of the churches in religiously plural settings.

Norton notes that Lon Allison, executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, said the document doesn’t include everything Evangelicals would have liked to see, either. He states that more emphasis on evangelism as verbal proclamation would have been beneficial. He seems to think that too much emphasis on deeds takes away from the importance of words. I just think they both go together. Naturally those who favor one over the other will feel like insufficient emphasis has been given to their preference.⁷ And I disagree with Allison that our work operated from an assumption that Christians “do witness, but do it badly or incompletely.” However, I wonder would he deny that some Christians have sometimes done witness in ways that don’t glorify God or don’t result in saving souls? If so, these kinds of recommendations might be helpful in such cases. Jerry Root of Wheaton College has concerns similar to Allison but agrees that Christians should not be offensive in their evangelism and admits that he likes the “spirit of the document”.

Admitting Some Problems

I personally have more problems with what Norton reports from Craig Ott, professor of mission and intercultural studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He objects to the document’s emphasis on interreligious relations and dialogue as leaning toward the Catholic and Mainline Protestant view that the God of other religions is the same as the God of Christianity. He argues that Evangelicals cannot accept that idea. That totally misses the point. I’m neither Catholic nor Mainline Protestant; I’m an Evangelical and a Pentecostal. Yet I believe that righteous relations with religious others is required of Christians. In a way, it has little to nothing to do with what I think of the other religions’ god or gods.⁸ For me, it’s about being a good Christian through loving my neighbor. Of course, there is an appropriate time and place for addressing that topic; but, I suggest that it isn’t determinative for Christian ethics. Christians should act as Christians should act regardless.

In Norton’s article, Hunter, and also Dana Robert, co-director of the Center for Global Christianity and Mission at Boston University, rightly point out that the word “evangelism” is not even in the document, and that it stresses “changing one’s religion” rather than “converting”. I agree that “evangelism” and “evangelize” are good, strong biblical words that it would have been well to include. That is something that stands out to us Evangelicals but doesn’t so much to other Christians. I’d like to have seen it in there, but I understand that this is a broad consensus statement that includes other Christians. The word “witness” is also a good, strong biblical word; and, perhaps it doesn’t carry as much emotive baggage for some. Further, this document does address conversion, but argues that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit and not a human act. I’d also suggest that Robert’s suggestion that the lack of “activist” language flowing out of the Great Commission assumes that the Great Commission itself is very narrowly interpreted to mean only evangelism.⁹ Most biblical scholars, including Evangelicals, don’t go that far. However, I readily admit that finding the right language is one of the greatest challenges, and I’m sure it can be improved upon. Further, Robert is, along with Douglas McConnell, dean of Fuller Theological Seminary, certainly right that interpretation and perception will play a huge role in how “Recommendations for Conduct” gets applied in varied contexts. But then, I see it as a strong point of this document that its general statements can be effectively adapted to specific contexts. In fact, that’s part of its purpose.

Nevertheless, I share the concern that it is in areas where interfaith hostility is most intense that applying these recommendations will perhaps also be most difficult. After all, how does one enforce these guidelines? Or how are we held accountable? And yet, I can’t help but believe that having them out there, with the full significance of knowing that 90% of the world’s Christians favor some version of morally sensitive evangelism such as it signifies, and that interfaith violence is not acceptable, may bring a little salt and light to what has been a flat and dark situation for too long. I hope so. I pray so.

Affirming the Potential

In any case, as one who helped in a small way in the writing of “Recommendations for Conduct,” I certainly concur with Ott’s general assessment.

What’s valuable about the document is that Christians are letting the world know that they are intending to be respectful, loving, and transparent in their approach to missions and that they do not intend to be seen as violent or coercive… If it causes some groups to give a little more pause to the way they consider others, especially a lot of the real nasty, uninformed rhetoric that is out there, if it somehow calls people to be tempered in their speech, then it is a good thing.¹⁰

Nevertheless, I would be the first to admit that “Christian Witness in a Multi-religious World: Recommendations for Conduct” is not a perfect document. How could it be? Some of what I wanted didn’t make it in, and some of what I didn’t want in did make it! I’m sure my colleagues could each say the same. To an extent, that also sounds a lot like what I’m hearing come through from others who are now reading it for the first time. That being said, I think this is the right moment for such an important and unprecedented document—a unified statement on unapologetic Christian mission and witness characterized by honesty and humility. A world of anger and danger needs believers to bear witness to our Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel in love with gentleness and respect without compromising righteousness and truth (1 Pet 3:15).

Expanding for Pentecostals

What does this important and unprecedented document, and even more especially, the issues it raises, mean for Pentecostal and Charismatic/Renewal Christians in terms of their mission? I’m reminded of the words of Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches (USA), in St Louis at an Interfaith Relations Commission meeting (October 6-8, 2011). He was particularly replying to Pentecostal participation in the process of developing the document “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct”. As I recall, he stated that Pentecostals today are demonstrating that they have longstanding resources in their tradition upon which to draw in leading the way regarding Christian mission in contexts of ecumenical and interfaith relations. I agree. Furthermore, I’d add, our spirituality and theology, particularly our distinctive pneumatology, practically compel us to shoulder our share of the burden of responsibilities in such contexts.¹¹

A few observations appear to be order, however. First, of course Pentecostal Christians are adamantly and unapologetically committed to the absolute and utter uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the incomparable inspiration and authority of the Holy Bible, and the unique nature and necessity of Christian salvation.12 Second, Pentecostals rightly resist any restriction on the right to evangelize others with a view toward offering them the temporal and eternal benefits of Christian conversion.13 Finally, and this is critical in the context of the present conversation, Pentecostals fervently affirm the essential importance of spiritual discernment in situations of Christian faith and life as well as in all ministry and mission—including settings involving religious pluralism. Really, I think that this is what “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct” is all about anyway: inviting the Holy Spirit to help us distinguish between right and wrong so that we may do evangelism well. Lord, please enable us to bear witness to Jesus Christ in a Christ-like manner (1 John 2:6)! Amen.

Notes

¹ On doing Christian mission in a religiously plural world, see Global Renewal, Religious Pluralism, and the Great Commission: Towards a Renewal Theology of Mission and Interreligious Encounter, Asbury Theological Seminary Series in Christian Revitalization, Pentecostal/Charismatic section, eds. Amos Yong and Clifton Clarke (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2011).
² On religion-related violence and its religious pluralism components, see Tony Richie, Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Dialogue, Asbury Theological Seminary Series in World Christian Revitalization  Movements, gen ed., J. Stephen O’Malley, Pentecostal/charismatic Studies ed., William F. Faupel (Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 2011), 14-22. Religion-related violence is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, global challenges facing our world and its religions today, 220-21. Essential to its resolution is recognizing the responsibility of all churches, including Pentecostal movements, to promote peace through improving interreligious relations, 237 (fn 151).
³ Pentecostals fervently affirm the divine mission of the Church to bear bold witness to the world of Jesus Christ as the only Savior, Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 28. This evangelistic commitment does not lessen but rather increases a responsibility to act ethically toward religious others. See Tony Richie, “A Threefold Cord: Weaving Together Pentecostal Ecumenism, Ethics, and Evangelism in Conversion,” Current Dialogue 50 (January 2008), 47-54.
⁴ Pentecostals believe conversion is essential for salvation, and therefore feel compelled by love to present everyone with an opportunity in liberty to repent and believe, Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 28, and are known as aggressive and active missionaries and evangelists. See Grant L. McClung, Jr., “Evangelism,” New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements (NIDPCM), 617-20 (esp. 617, 620). Pentecostals understand their evangelistic fervor and effectiveness as directly derivative from their experience of Spirit baptism (Acts 1:8). However, it is imperative to underscore that the Church’s mission is broad enough to embrace such wide-ranging activities as evangelism, social activism, and interreligious dialogue, Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 102-03.
⁵ Cp. Vinson Synan: “Classical Pentecostalism,” NIDPCM, 553-55, and “Evangelicalism,” NIDPCM, 613-16.
⁶ Besides me, other Pentecostals involved with various stages of the process include Cheryl Bridges Johns (USA), Connie Au (Asia), and a few Elim folks (UK).
⁷ See Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007. Cp. Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 102-03 and 125 (fn 250).
⁸ Nevertheless, for an intriguing study of this subject, see Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011).
⁹ See Raymond F. Culpepper, The Great Commission: The Solution… (Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 2009). Cp. also to Peter Wagner’s Foreword to Cindy Jacobs, The Reformation Manifesto: Your Part in God’s Plan to Change the Nations Today (Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2008), 10.
¹⁰ See also Hans Küng, “Global Ethics and Education,” The Future of Theology: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Moltmann, eds. Miroslav Volf, Carmen Krieg, Thomas Kucharz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 267-83.
¹¹ On Pentecostals’ biblical, moral, and spiritual obligation to work for mitigation of interfaith conflict, see Richie, Speaking by the Spirit, 29-30.
¹² Ibid: 26-28.
¹³ Ibid: 29.
¹⁴ Ibid: 101 and 124 (fn 247).

This article has been revised and expanded from “The Right Moment for an Important & Unprecedented Document” that appeared in the July 2011 issue of the Pneuma Informer newsletter.