
Proselytizing is generally understood to be the act of converting one to a specific religion or belief. Marquette has had an evolving policy on the issue, but now uniformly bans active proselytizing by any University affiliated individuals or organizations.
Dr. Christopher Miller, Vice President for Student Affairs said the policy is “more of an operational, logistical piece…it’s not a single entity, it’s a broad based policy.”
The Office of Student Development (OSD) updated the Religious Activities Policy last year, adding the phrase, “and their activities,” to its description of protocol regarding religious event approval.
The inclusion of “activities” in the scope of the University’s proselytizing policy has been felt by evangelical Christian student groups on campus, who say that since the change, OSD has restricted many of their outreach events. One student organization, the non-denominational Christian group, Campus Crusade for Christ was also asked to change their mission statement and re-submit their constitution.
Campus Crusade was asked to remove phrases from its purpose statement that Dr. Jon Dooley Senior Associate Dean of Student Development said, “could appear to contradict the University’s Religious Activities Policy” including, “winning, to lead others to personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” and the organization’s mission as “turn[ing] lost students into Christ centered laborers.”
Michael Waller, a junior in the College of Engineering who runs Campus Crusade’s Men’s Ministry and is on the organization’s core leadership team said this year there has been an increase in OSD and Campus Ministry restrictions and stipulations to their outreach events.
“We have engaged in outreach/evangelism activities in the past which have never clashed with MU’s proselytizing policy before…even though these policies have always been here, they have never been enforced as they are this year,” Waller said.
Dooley said the addition to the Religious Activities Policy did not represent a change in how the policy was implemented, but rather just clarified the existing expectations that were in practice. “No changes were made in how those events were reviewed or approved, it was simply an addition to help organization leaders,” Dooley said.
Student Development does consult and collaborate with Campus Ministry regarding the University proselytizing policy and approval of religious events, but Campus Ministry declined to comment on their role in the implementation of the policy.
Although OSD says there has been no change in the approval process of religious events, other campus Christian groups say they are experiencing a tightening in event rules as well.
Matthew Gerhard, a senior in the College of Engineering and president of the non-denominational student group, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Marquette said that although his organization was not required to resubmit their constitution, OSD and Campus Ministry are “enforcing their rules and regulations much more strictly than ever before.”
Gerhard said earlier in the semester OSD cracked down on a survey the group was distributing because it was interpreted as proselytizing and therefore “unacceptable.”
“They had us redo the survey and make it completely anonymous and we weren’t allowed to talk to anyone taking the survey. They said this had mostly to do with survey policy,” Gerhard said.
While activities such as “personal witnessing, Scripture study, worship, discussion, faith sharing” are appropriate, they “cannot be done for the purpose of converting others,” Dooley said. “The goal of “winning” people for Christ or “changing” or “converting” them is proselytizing and is contrary to the Religious Activities Policy,” he said.
Both Waller and Gerhard agree that Marquette’s ban on proselytizing through the Religious Activities policy is too restrictive. “Personally I think Marquette’s proselytizing policy does go too far in curbing student’s religious freedom on campus. Christians are commanded by God to spread the gospel in both word and action,” Waller said.
“I think what OSD is comfortable with in terms of evangelism is to allow students to come to us and then we can say what we want to say; they don’t want us going to students and saying what we want to say,” Gerhard said. “They want a very passive form of evangelism.”
The Definition Debate
The University’s evolving definition and classification of proselytism has been a contentious issue at Marquette for decades with much of the debate has focused on Marquette’s Catholic identity and obligation as a Catholic institution.
The current Religious Activities Policy currently provides two definitions for proselytizing:
1. “the University does not allow any other individual or organization to actively proselytize its members…That is, no individual or organization can coerce or pressure others or misrepresent themselves,”
2. “No individual or organization…may hold activities on campus the specific purpose of which is to proselytize, that is to make converts of members of the university community to another church or religious affiliation.”
The University’s classification of proselytism has been debated in years past and remains a point of contention for student groups like Campus Crusade and InterVarsity.
“Not only does Marquette’s policy on proselytizing curb students’ freedom, but it also is difficult to understand exactly how they define proselytizing,” Waller said. “In one sentence they refer to proselytizing as coercion and pressure while in another it is referred to as making converts of a person, which are two very different things.”
Dr. Christopher Wolfe, Marquette Professor Emeritus of Political Science and current co-director of the Ralph McInerny Center for Thomistic Studies, said the policy is well-intentioned, but not very coherent or precise.
Wolfe said that while he agrees with the University’s prohibition of coercion or misrepresentation of any kind, the policy goes too far in equating all proselytism with any effort to convert others – “even, apparently, if there is no coercion or pressure or misrepresentation,” Wolfe said.
“…Isn’t it an obligation of all Christians to help others come freely to see the truth of Christianity as they understand it? I think the answer is clearly ‘yes,’” Wolfe said.
Wolfe also disputed the policy back in 1988 when changes were made by Campus Ministry to restrict proselytism that did not include coercion or misrepresentation. In a 1988 memo to then Director of Campus Ministry, Fr. David Haschka, Wolfe disputed the University’s across the board ban on proselytism, writing, “I think a bald prohibition of proselytism would be incompatible with the Catholic, Christian and Jesuit character of Marquette.”
In his letter, Wolfe cites the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, stating that the Declaration “asserts the right of religious communities ‘not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.’” The Declaration also indicates that there are reasonable limits that should be considered.
Dooley said that Marquette does support the Declaration on Religious Liberty and that the University is committed to the quest for truth, “which implies the need for investigation, conversation, and dialogue,” Dooley said. “Religious questions are part of that search and part of students’ development of a religious identity.”
But for Wolfe, Marquette’s definition of proselytizing and Religious Activities Policy remains muddled.
“I think what has happened is twofold. First, people have rightly become more sensitive about coercion, pressure, misrepresentation, and harassment. That’s good. But, second, many people have come to adopt a position of religious indifferentism: it doesn’t matter what you believe, but only that you are sincere. That is a deep misunderstanding of Christianity,” Wolfe said, “Sincerity is good, but believing the real truth matters.”
“Accept Jesus, save yourself from the hell you deserve.” The shouts rise above the noise of traffic on Wisconsin Avenue as “Good News” pamphlets are extended to hurried students on their way to class.
Know what proselytism is? If not, you do know. You’ve just experienced it
.
Proselytizing is generally understood to be the act of converting one to a specific religion or belief. Marquette has had an evolving policy on the issue, but now uniformly bans active proselytizing by any University affiliated individuals or organizations.
Dr. Christopher Miller, Vice President for Student Affairs said the policy is “more of an operational, logistical piece…it’s not a single entity, it’s a broad based policy.”
The Office of Student Development (OSD) updated the Religious Activities Policy last year, adding the phrase, “and their activities,” to its description of protocol regarding religious event approval.
The inclusion of “activities” in the scope of the University’s proselytizing policy has been felt by evangelical Christian student groups on campus, who say that since the change, OSD has restricted many of their outreach events. One student organization, the non-denominational Christian group, Campus Crusade for Christ was also asked to change their mission statement and re-submit their constitution.
Campus Crusade was asked to remove phrases from its purpose statement that Dr. Jon Dooley Senior Associate Dean of Student Development said, “could appear to contradict the University’s Religious Activities Policy” including, “winning, to lead others to personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” and the organization’s mission as “turn[ing] lost students into Christ centered laborers.”
Michael Waller, a junior in the College of Engineering who runs Campus Crusade’s Men’s Ministry and is on the organization’s core leadership team said this year there has been an increase in OSD and Campus Ministry restrictions and stipulations to their outreach events.
“We have engaged in outreach/evangelism activities in the past which have never clashed with MU’s proselytizing policy before…even though these policies have always been here, they have never been enforced as they are this year,” Waller said.
Dooley said the addition to the Religious Activities Policy did not represent a change in how the policy was implemented, but rather just clarified the existing expectations that were in practice. “No changes were made in how those events were reviewed or approved, it was simply an addition to help organization leaders,” Dooley said.
Student Development does consult and collaborate with Campus Ministry regarding the University proselytizing policy and approval of religious events, but Campus Ministry declined to comment on their role in the implementation of the policy.
Although OSD says there has been no change in the approval process of religious events, other campus Christian groups say they are experiencing a tightening in event rules as well.
Matthew Gerhard, a senior in the College of Engineering and president of the non-denominational student group, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Marquette said that although his organization was not required to resubmit their constitution, OSD and Campus Ministry are “enforcing their rules and regulations much more strictly than ever before.”
Gerhard said earlier in the semester OSD cracked down on a survey the group was distributing because it was interpreted as proselytizing and therefore “unacceptable.”
“They had us redo the survey and make it completely anonymous and we weren’t allowed to talk to anyone taking the survey. They said this had mostly to do with survey policy,” Gerhard said.
While activities such as “personal witnessing, Scripture study, worship, discussion, faith sharing” are appropriate, they “cannot be done for the purpose of converting others,” Dooley said. “The goal of “winning” people for Christ or “changing” or “converting” them is proselytizing and is contrary to the Religious Activities Policy,” he said.
Both Waller and Gerhard agree that Marquette’s ban on proselytizing through the Religious Activities policy is too restrictive. “Personally I think Marquette’s proselytizing policy does go too far in curbing student’s religious freedom on campus. Christians are commanded by God to spread the gospel in both word and action,” Waller said.
“I think what OSD is comfortable with in terms of evangelism is to allow students to come to us and then we can say what we want to say; they don’t want us going to students and saying what we want to say,” Gerhard said. “They want a very passive form of evangelism.”
The Definition Debate
The University’s evolving definition and classification of proselytism has been a contentious issue at Marquette for decades with much of the debate has focused on Marquette’s Catholic identity and obligation as a Catholic institution.
The current Religious Activities Policy currently provides two definitions for proselytizing:
1. “the University does not allow any other individual or organization to actively proselytize its members…That is, no individual or organization can coerce or pressure others or misrepresent themselves,”
2. “No individual or organization…may hold activities on campus the specific purpose of which is to proselytize, that is to make converts of members of the university community to another church or religious affiliation.”
The University’s classification of proselytism has been debated in years past and remains a point of contention for student groups like Campus Crusade and InterVarsity.
“Not only does Marquette’s policy on proselytizing curb students’ freedom, but it also is difficult to understand exactly how they define proselytizing,” Waller said. “In one sentence they refer to proselytizing as coercion and pressure while in another it is referred to as making converts of a person, which are two very different things.”
Dr. Christopher Wolfe, Marquette Professor Emeritus of Political Science and current co-director of the Ralph McInerny Center for Thomistic Studies, said the policy is well-intentioned, but not very coherent or precise.
Wolfe said that while he agrees with the University’s prohibition of coercion or misrepresentation of any kind, the policy goes too far in equating all proselytism with any effort to convert others – “even, apparently, if there is no coercion or pressure or misrepresentation,” Wolfe said.
“…Isn’t it an obligation of all Christians to help others come freely to see the truth of Christianity as they understand it? I think the answer is clearly ‘yes,’” Wolfe said.
Wolfe also disputed the policy back in 1988 when changes were made by Campus Ministry to restrict proselytism that did not include coercion or misrepresentation. In a 1988 memo to then Director of Campus Ministry, Fr. David Haschka, Wolfe disputed the University’s across the board ban on proselytism, writing, “I think a bald prohibition of proselytism would be incompatible with the Catholic, Christian and Jesuit character of Marquette.”
In his letter, Wolfe cites the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, stating that the Declaration “asserts the right of religious communities ‘not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.’” The Declaration also indicates that there are reasonable limits that should be considered.
Dooley said that Marquette does support the Declaration on Religious Liberty and that the University is committed to the quest for truth, “which implies the need for investigation, conversation, and dialogue,” Dooley said. “Religious questions are part of that search and part of students’ development of a religious identity.”
But for Wolfe, Marquette’s definition of proselytizing and Religious Activities Policy remains muddled.
“I think what has happened is twofold. First, people have rightly become more sensitive about coercion, pressure, misrepresentation, and harassment. That’s good. But, second, many people have come to adopt a position of religious indifferentism: it doesn’t matter what you believe, but only that you are sincere. That is a deep misunderstanding of Christianity,” Wolfe said, “Sincerity is good, but believing the real truth matters.”
Popularity: 3% [?]