Converting Other Faith Communities

The Great Commission and the exclusivist tradition provide the strongest theological case for actively seeking to convert members of other faiths — but the practical and moral problems with aggressive conversion-seeking are significant and internally Christian objections.

Jesus' instruction in Matthew 28:19 — "Go and make disciples of all nations" — does not qualify its scope: it does not exempt members of existing faith traditions or restrict the mandate to those of no faith. John 14:6 reinforces the exclusivist case: "I am the way and the truth and the life — no one comes to the Father except through me" — which many Christians read as a direct statement that salvation is not available through other religious paths, making conversion a matter of eternal significance for those who have not heard or accepted Christ. The exclusivist theological framework is internally consistent on this: if Christianity alone offers the means of salvation, then failing to share the Gospel with members of other faith traditions — out of politeness, social conformity, or respect for their existing beliefs — is a failure of love, not an expression of it. The 2002 document Sharing the Gospel of Salvation — cited in the Seneca notes — recommends that "Christians are sensitive to the feelings of others, but they should continue to share their faith with others and aim to bring them to Christ as it is a Christian duty." Paul Eddy's address to the 2006 Church of England Synod frames the issue practically: he argued that Christians had "become too fearful of giving offence, to the extent that they no longer proclaimed that Jesus was the way to salvation, but instead kept quiet and went along with the idea that everyone should be free to have their own beliefs and not be challenged."

However, conversion-seeking in practice has generated serious moral and social problems that constitute internally Christian objections. The historical record of Christian mission includes coercive conversion — the forced baptism of indigenous peoples, the use of colonial power to compel conversion — which is not merely a historical embarrassment but a fundamental violation of the human dignity and freedom that Christian anthropology itself demands. Furthermore, aggressive conversion-seeking in multi-faith societies creates social division that undermines the possibility of the peaceful coexistence that Christian love of neighbour also requires: if Muslim, Jewish or Hindu neighbours experience Christian evangelism as an attack on their identity and community rather than a gift, the pastoral harm may outweigh the evangelistic benefit. The OCR examiner's report notes that "for those Christians who cannot accept other religions as equally true, there is still much to be discovered in the dialogue of daily life or common social action" — endorsing a form of Christian engagement that does not prioritise explicit conversion-seeking.

The exclusivist responds that coercive conversion is a betrayal of the Great Commission, not an expression of it: genuine conversion requires genuine freedom, and the history of coercive mission is a failure of faithfulness rather than a reason to abandon evangelism altogether. On the social division objection, the exclusivist argues that the discomfort of being invited to consider a different theological claim is not the same as social harm — genuine respect for neighbours includes being honest with them about what one believes, which is more respectful than patronising silence.

The exclusivist response is partially persuasive: the distinction between coercive and respectful evangelism is genuine and important, and genuine love of neighbour may indeed require honest sharing of the Gospel. However, the social division objection has force in the specific context of the OCR question — members of other faith communities are not in the same epistemic position as those with no faith at all: they already have a serious, structured, community-embedded relationship with the transcendent that respectful Christian engagement must take seriously. The Great Commission's mandate to "make disciples of all nations" does not require aggressive proselytism but faithful witness — which may take forms other than explicit conversion-seeking.

The Great Commission grounds a genuine obligation to share the Gospel, but the manner of sharing must respect human dignity and the social context of multi-faith society — distinguishing between faithful witness and aggressive proselytism is essential.

Rahner's inclusivist theology significantly limits the theological obligation to convert members of other faith communities — and when combined with the practical demands of multi-faith social cohesion, suggests that faithful witness rather than conversion-seeking is the most adequate Christian response.

As established in the previous topic, Rahner's anonymous Christian concept holds that sincere members of other faith traditions may already be recipients of Christ's saving grace — their religious life unknowingly participates in the redemptive work of the cross. If this is correct, the urgency of conversion for members of other faith communities is significantly diminished: they are not in the condition of persons without access to grace but of persons who have access to grace through a culturally different medium. As the Seneca notes confirm: "an inclusivist may argue that salvation is possible for a believer from a different religious tradition — a Muslim donating zakah is helping the needy and serving God… converting them to Christianity may not be necessary." Vatican II's Nostra Aetate institutionally endorses this: the Catholic Church recognises that other religions "reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men," which implies that members of those traditions are not in the spiritual darkness that would make conversion an urgent salvific necessity. The practical implication is that Christian engagement with members of other faiths is better framed as mutual witness — sharing one's own experience of Christ while genuinely learning from the other's experience of God — than as one-directional conversion-seeking.

However, the inclusivist framework faces a tension within Christian mission theology: if anonymous Christians in other traditions are already saved, the urgency not only of conversion but of explicit Christian faith itself becomes unclear. Why should anyone become an explicitly committed Christian if they can receive Christ's salvation without doing so? — a question that threatens to undermine the visible church's missionary identity entirely. Furthermore, the pluralist conclusion — that conversion is not merely unnecessary but positively inappropriate, since all religions are equally valid — is not entailed by inclusivism but is a slippery slope that inclusivists must carefully avoid. As the Seneca notes confirm, pluralists argue converting others is "not necessary — all religions offer ultimate truths about God and reality" — a position that goes well beyond what inclusivism's qualified respect for other traditions requires.

Rahner responds to the missionary identity tension by arguing that explicit Christian faith and membership in the visible church remain the fullest and most adequate expression of the salvation available through anonymous Christianity — which is why sharing the Gospel is still valuable, even if not urgently necessary for salvation. The goal shifts from conversion as salvific rescue to conversion as invitation to the fullest available encounter with Christ — a shift that transforms the manner of mission without abandoning its reality. On the pluralist slippery slope, inclusivism maintains that Christianity is the normative and most complete revelation of God — which means that while other religions are spiritually valuable, explicit Christian faith represents a genuine and important enrichment of what anonymous Christianity already makes available.

The inclusivist response successfully navigates the tension between missionary identity and respect for other faiths: conversion remains a genuine calling but its motivation is invitation to fullness rather than rescue from condemnation, and its manner is necessarily respectful of the genuine spiritual life already present in the other. The OCR examiner's endorsement — that "the centrality of the cross is more than an abstract concept" and that there is "much to be discovered in the dialogue of daily life" — supports this inclusivist synthesis: Christians bear genuine witness to the Gospel while engaging respectfully with other traditions, not abandoning the missionary call but transforming its character. The most defensible verdict is that Christians should share the Gospel with members of other faith communities — in the sense of faithful, respectful, honest witness — but should not pursue aggressive proselytism that fails to take seriously the genuine salvific value present in other traditions.

Inclusivist theology transforms rather than abolishes the conversion mandate — from salvific rescue to invitation to fullness — which is the most theologically adequate and practically constructive account of Christian mission in a multi-faith society.