Philip Oloruntola

What really should constitute acceptable methodologies of missionary activities, particularly proselytisation, are germane to global justice. Thus, in Problemitising Religious Freedom, Arvind Sharma interrogates, for instance, the complex intersections of global justice and proselytisation, particularly with regards to the methodologies adopted by religious organisations, most importantly, Christianity. In order to bring his imprint to the debate, Sharma devoted a whole chapter to examining two questions. The one - an objection: ‘Must Christianity missionise?’ led to the other – an inquiry: ‘What would be the proper paradigm for pursuing Christian missionary activity today?’ (Sharma 2011:217). The essence of the discourse was ‘to create guidelines for missionary activity' within the contexts of ‘global justice’, ‘religious freedom’, and ‘proselytisation.’ Sharma’s concern is whether religious freedom (as a global justice ideal) is compatible with proselytisation – technically involving attempts ‘to convert (someone) to one’s own faith or beliefs’, or actions taken ‘to encourage or induce people to join a religious movement’ He further contends that non- mission religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, are more likely to promote global justice than mission religions such as Christianity and Islam, whose emphasis is on making converts. He hinged his proposition on a possibility that, proselytisation, as a practice, is prone to undermine certain ideals of human rights, especially religious freedom, if its goals and methods are not aligned with the ideals of global justice. An example is the issue of unsolicited proselytisation, which has been classified as a form of interference. Sharma contends that intrusive proselytisation not only has the capacity to infringe on freedom of religion, but may actually constitute a breach of justice under certain conditions. An instance is when the targets of proselytisation feel intimidated, or actually are frightened on account of an imminent apocalyptic punishment that their refusal may incur. Another, but a worse kind of infringement, happens when a method is premeditated, primarily, to induce the individual or group being targeted to violate known legal provisions, or when their will power is deliberately manipulated and weakened to the point that they become incapable of taking rational decisions that are based on conviction. Overall, Sharma's viewpoint shares similarity with consensus in discourses of freedom of religion and global justice, in which the use of subtle inducement or coercion is adjudged antithetical to the pursuit of justice and freedom of religion. However, barring possibilities of extreme proselytisation that the book draws attention to, and their importance to global justice, it fails to provide answers to some salient questions, such as: Should proselytisation rely on moral suasion or theological expediency alone? Should it employ social actions, such as provision of health care, literacy programs etc., where necessary, to provide safety net for the people being targeted? What should be the limits of social engagements in order to avoid being misinterpreted as ploys to ‘win hearts and minds through good works’, thereby interfering with freedom of religion? Should proselytisation involve combinations of the strategies? These, and more, are some issues that I think the book should have addressed. Even so, the issues raised in the book would continue to generate debates within the circle of missiology studies for some time to come.