“leading someone to Christ” at work

[BathshebaKnickerStickers]

I am on the fringes of my local baptist church - I used to regularly attend and gradually tailed away as various things in my life took over...

I’m still a member of the church closed Facebook group.

Today there is a church member who works in Elderly residential care rejoicing at “leading to Christ” one of her elderly residents...

I’m really sorry but I really think that isn’t on..! I work in a school but I’d be in serious trouble if I started “leading pupils to Christ” and “saying the sinners prayer” with them....

Everyone in the church is replying along the lines of “How wonderful that Jesus used you to save a soul” or “you have been wonderful used by God...”

Whereas i’m thinking “What on Earth, what if your boss found out, or the Health Board.... that is completely inappropriate”....

I agree with you. That is a safeguarding concern. A vulnerable person isn't in a position to make rational decisions and could be an easy target for spiritual abuse. Even if this woman is acting with the best of intentions she doesn't have good sensible professional boundaries.

The good thing is that when there are safeguarding concerns the right thing to do is very very clear. The residential care home will have a staff member in charge of safeguarding. You need to report exactly the facts as you know them to that person. You should not speculate, investigate yourself or take on any additional role, just report what you know to the safeguarding person. This should be in writing, including dates, and your details. Doing this as a safeguarding concern means that if nothing is wrong and no harm is being done then there is no consequence. It is far better to have 50 unfounded concerns checked than to have one genuine issue ignored.

Safeguarding is everyone's responsibility. There is no such thing as a situation where a safeguarding concern should not be reported. This is why you should just say what you know and leave it at that. If this fits into a pattern that means action should be taken, then action will be taken.

Thank you so much.

Like I say I work in a school and your message has just brought home what I know... safeguarding is everyone’s concern and I would be wrong to not report this.

I worry it will be spun as persecution and “suffering for the gospel” but it really is absolutely wrong....

Huh? Whats this about safeguarding and complaining? Frankly if someone tries to lead an elderly person to Christ they are doing them a favour. Unless they are trying to rob them of their worldly goods. What harm is it? If you don't believe then very well but its no harm done. Honestly you get some batshit atheist people on here. Heaven forbid some poor lonely person might be thrown a lifeline.

@Zen, they are abusing their position by proselytising to a vulnerable captive audience. Even the most committed Christian is surely capable of seeing that.

I’m not an atheist but agree that this is a cause for concern. I work in a hospital and this sort of thing (ie ‘leading someone to Christ’ as opposed to chatting about common beliefs and going to church more generally) would very definitely be frowned upon.

Agreed. Imma nurse and there is no place in the workplace for evangelising.

I agree with you.

I know of a GP who got struck off for similar.

This person is taking advantage of a frail elderly person who may not be in 100% command of their faculties, and indoctrinating them. Whether it is religious or not, it doesn't matter. This is appalling.

Isn't this simply a clash of two value systems. Rational morality might say this is exploitation of the vulnerable. Proselytising religions will say that it is saving someone's immortal soul from eternal damnation. If you are believer in that religion then it would be wholly wrong of you not to attempt to do something so good and beneficial to the other person.

I worked for a vicar and he didn’t feel the need to go around collecting souls. Self-appointed saviours are pains on the backside and often not very well versed.

@FiddlesticksAkimbo you're right that saving the immortal soul is a good thing to do if you believe in such things and believe that of someone doesn't get led to Christ they are damned. However, even then there are basic standards of professionalism and appropriate behaviour which apply. If employee A is reasonable to proselytise for Christ whilst at work then employee B who is a devout Muslim has an equal right to proselytise the same audience to bring them to Mohammed pbuh. It is obvious to any reasonable person, however devout they may be, that a vulnerable person who may not have full command of their faculties of rationality is not in a position to weigh up the arguments of the two different religions and choose one. It is therefore inappropriate and abusive for any proselytising to take place in that environment. Both employees can be free to spend all their spare time out of work proselytising to win souls for Christ or Mohammed pbuh from among the general population.

And yet the right to indoctrinate children at school is protected by law.

In fact all schools have a legal requirement to "lead active worship" of a ..christian nature" in the UK.

My children's school was huge on religious indoctrination.

Pity children are not given the same protection as adults.

Well yes that's a good point - but in that case parents usually actively choose whether to send their children to a proselytising school, and parents are supposed to have the right to bring up children in their own religion. The vast majority of state schools meet their obligations about collective acts of worship in as wishy-washy and non-commital a way as they possibility can and most of the schools I've visited including some quite religious ones will teach only "this is what XXX religion believes" not "you must believe XXX". Obviously there are hyper religious schools that actually push the children to believe but they seem rare enough that they can be avoided - and even then parents do have the right to have their children removed from overtly religious activity. Its got to be a different balance for schools than for places like adult residential care homes because of those parental rights which I don't think we should be taking away.

Exactly what harm do you think the knowledge she is loved by Christ will do this “vulnerable resident”?
She may have nobody in her life who loves her.
It could be an immeasurable comfort for her to be in prayerful communion with her loving God.
For us Christians, our faith is a huge source of strength and support.
Yet you want to deny it to a potentially lonely old person. Why? And what do you offer in its place?
How many of you visit care homes to chat to old people?
How do you think a man who loves us so much He was willing to suffer an agonising death on a cross for us, represents any kind of harm?

OP and others who have said this is inappropriate, I agree with you.

You can report this to the care home sensitively to make them aware. They just need that info. Perhaps the elderly person is perfectly rational and can make a religious choice, or perhaps they are vulnerable and confused and need to be protected. You don't know but those in charge of his/ her care will.

I agree you need to report it. This resident, or others, may not be in a position to say no or to complain if they are uncomfortable.

So what else would it be appropriate to “lead someone to”? Socialism? Scientology?

My satanism has brought me a lot of comfort. Can I lead people to him when I visit my dad in his dementia home?

Of course! Why would you want to deny the love of Satan to a potentially lonely old person?

If the person is rational, capable of comprehending their choices, and doesn't need safeguarding protection then they are perfectly capable of seeking religious solace from dozens of churches and other religious bodies, many of whom offer a visiting ministry to hospitals, care homes etc. Of course there is no danger there. That's a different prospect from a nurse or carer or therapist etc taking it upon themselves to combine their professional role with a missionary role, unasked and without oversight. It's not that being led to understand the love of God isn't a good thing, if done in the right way. But being done like this in the a context where professional behaviour is expected is the wrong way to achieve that. It's not a judgement on the contents of the message, but that someone acting professionally to deliver healthcare services is in a position of trust where some people might feel undue pressure to accept, or give the appearance of accepting, that message so as to avoid giving offence - and that could actually do more harm than good in the long run. That's entirely separate from various other risks - eg that the person in question could have painful memories from earlier experiences with religion and trying to proselytise to them in a care home could make them feel permanently unsafe. Or that if this behaviour is accepted from someone who genuinely means no harm it makes it more difficult to differentiate when someone else doing basically exactly the same thing on behalf of a cult, who clearly should be stopped.

I've worked as a chaplain in a hospital and in a hospice. What we were not allowed to do was proselytise. All staff and volunteers were made very aware that this was a non negotiable.

Mostly what I did was listen. It was tough and amazing and a huge privilege.

Cults should not be able to preach at vulnerable people. Or anyone.

@BathshebaKnickerStickers

Did you report it?

This situation reminds me of the case of an NHS nurse who was sacked in response to patients complaining about her proselytising. The difference in the particular circumstances described here is that the care home resident seems to have been a willing participant - although the fact they were in the residential home suggests that they were vulnerable in some way and perhaps particularly in need of protection from such advances.

Some might say if the person evangelised considers themselves to be happy then no harm done. But that person has a past, a heritage, which ought to be respected. They may have been encouraged to accept something that is out of keeping with their former beliefs and which they would have certainly rejected, were they compos mentis or less cut off from former ties. They may have relatives or friends who will feel alienated and upset by the conversion.

I remember hearing about David Livingstone at school. He was lauded as a hero for attempting to evangelise the natives of Africa, to bring them out of the darkness and into the light. Even although I was a nonbeliever, I didn’t question the way the story was presented to me at the time. But now I look back and it seems odd that no one considered that trying to demonise indigenous African spiritual practices and replace them with foreign Christian beliefs might cause tensions within families and communities since not all will ‘see the light’ as one.

Whether it’s in Africa or this country, an attempt to impose new religious views on someone who is vulnerable seems wrong to me.

However, ministering to those in care homes who are already of the flock is an important job for religious leaders and helpers. And most care homes could do with more visitors, whether religious or not, to offer love and understanding to all residents.

To me, trying to convert vulnerable people to a religion is no different to trying to sell vulnerable people some dodgy product.