Equipping God's People to Create Missional Culture

Shalom Makers: Development in the Way of Christ – Part IV


The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr
Originally uploaded by Thomas Hawk

Check out the outline, introduction and the philosophical reasons for separation first, as we continue to look at the question, is is more Human(e) to Separate Humanitarian Aid from Faith?

Ethical Reasons for Separation

Professor Saroj Jayasinghe believes that faith-based NGOs that combine proselytizing (seeking the religious conversion of an individual or a group) with humanitarian assistance have potential ethical dilemmas. He raises these concerns from actual examples. For instance, some Christian missionaries allegedly refused to aid some people because they were of a different faith (Jayasinghe 2007:623). Jayasinghe rightly believes this ethical issue must be addressed in medical literature. In an article in The Journal of Medical Ethics, Jayasinghe explores “several ethical issues, using four generic activities of faith-based NGOs:

1. It is discriminatory to deny aid to a needy community because it provides less opportunity for proslytising work. Allocating aid to a community with fewer health needs but potential for proselytising work is unjust, since it neither maximises welfare (utilitarianism) nor assists the most needy (egalitarianism).

2. Faith-based-NGOs may state that proselytising work combined with humanitarian assistance improves spiritual wellbeing and overall benefit. However, proselytising work creates religious doubts, which could transiently decrease wellbeing.

3. Proselytising work is unlikely to be a perceived need of the population and, if carried out without consent, breaches the principle of autonomy. Such work also exploits the vulnerability of disaster victims.

4. Governments that decline assistance of a faith-based NGO in proselytising work may be deprive the needy of aid (Jayasinghe 2006:623).

While Jayasinghe’s concerns might cause some Christians to want to separate faith from development for fear of ethical violations, his concerns might cause other Christians to dismiss him altogether, because he fails to distinguish proselytizing from honest and loving evangelism. Neither approach is wise. The third alternative is to approach development and evangelism in the way of Christ.

In understanding this third alternative, it is important to distinguish between proselytizing and evangelism. Some may consider these words synonyms, but proselytizing has the connotation of trying to coerce or manipulate people into faith using an asymmetric power relationship unfairly for selfish ends. Evangelism, by contrast, is sharing the Good News in a posture of loving servanthood sensitive to the Spirit’s timing and direction. It is helpful to remember that “It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church” (Moltmann 1993:64). We are not required to be salesmen for God, but rather journalists who engage in conversation to share the Good News that we already embody.

Besides this, it should be noted that everybody shares a story either implicitly or explicitly, Christian or non-Christian. See last post for this point.

The next post deals with practical reasons why people separate faith from humanitarian aid.


3 Responses to Shalom Makers: Development in the Way of Christ – Part IV

  1. JMorrow says:

    JR,

    Thanks for your response on the last post. I’ll definitely follow along here. I like the analogy you draw at the end of this post: “We are not required to be salesmen for God, but rather journalists who engage in conversation to share the Good News that we already embody.” More and more, I’m finding the work of proclaiming the Gospel as less about monologues or speechifying and more so being a journalist who tells other people’s stories, asks deep, probing questions and rigorously examines the world seen and unseen.

    As for evangelism vs. proselytisation, I think whether we realize it or not we are always evangelizing consciously or unconsiously to what the Kingdom and Christ are. God will use us either positively or negatively to communicate a message. But how much better is it to be a window for someone else to see and know the Message, than to be a kind of door God has to push out the way so that the Message might be more clear.

  2. jrwoodward says:

    Joe,

    I love your thoughts here about “telling other people’s stories, ask deep, probing questions and rigorously examines the world seen and unseen.”

    I think you are right in regard to the fact we are always evangelizing, in fact I would say that everybody in the world is an evangelist, the question is what we are evangelizing. For as I mentioned in my last post, even the children of the enlightenment share a message.

    I love your window verses door analogy as well.

  3. Dustin says:

    JR, this is a helpful series. I would love to hear you preach it. In due time I’m sure. One of Jayasinghe’s assumptions is incorrect (at least I hope it is) of the posture of NGO’s and other Christian development org’s. He/she says, “Allocating aid to a community with fewer health needs but potential for proselytising work is unjust.” Assuming we as Christians can know that a group of people has a higher chance for being proselytised or converted to Christianity seems a very arrogant posture. I think of Jonah as our primary example. And then Paul and Peter with there focus on people groups (Jews and Gentiles) because of their unique history and God’s work in them and not an assumption that more converts would come from this group or that group. Faithfulness to God’s leading seems the greater matter at hand in the scriptures. Perhaps there’s more to the argument I’m unaware of?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.