Several years ago I asked a Christian colleague, "How do you do evangelism in your practice?" His response was, "I don't believe it is the place of doctor to evangelize. It is both unprofessional and unethical."

That response set me thinking: Does evan-gelism (sharing His Story) constitute an unpro-fessional and unethical act? Should we as Christian professionals disregard the Great Commission? Is a properly placed witness to one's faith unethical?

Evangelism is the act of bringing good news to an individual. Sharing what the Gospel has done in our personal lives is an act of witnessing. By witnessing one is "doing evangelism." Conversion, whereby an individual is given salvation by trusting Christ, is wholly an act of God. No individ-ual can convert another to the Christian Faith. God only asks that His people be faithful witnesses.

Several arguments can be made against sharing one's faith in Christ in the context of a professional practice setting. But before looking at those arguments, allow me a bit of background pertinent to Christian Medical & Dental Society (CMDS) and evangelism. A number of years ago as a Trustee, I was given responsibility for the Evangelism Commission. This was a standing Commission that was to promote evangelism for interested members. It soon became obvious that the work of evangelism in the dental and medical profession was spotty at best. This constituted a double standard. We stated in our policies and materials that witnessing was a biblical mandate, but we were not practicing what we preached in the context of our personal or profes-sional lives. So after soul-searching, the prodding and support of Hal Habecker (then the General Director of CMDS), and sensing the Trustees' agreement with the idea that witnessing was and is a primary duty of every member CMDS, the Evangelism Commission was disbanded.

Evangelism was placed first and fore-most as the operating principle of the Society. CMDS exists primarily to be a witness of Jesus Christ in a dark and needy world. In my personal journey a great deal of credit for correcting my thinking on this matter goes to Yang Chen, M.D., who is an example to me of witnessing in the context of my professional life. His Medical Evangelism Training & Strategies (METS) program is something well-worth attending by those interested in having a hands-on experience in witnessing directly to patients.

Recently, CMDS developed the "Saline Solution" training program. This program takes the fear and ignorance out of our God-given task of developing relationships with our patients. It shows how to put up "faith flags,"1 and teaches how to offer non--offensive comments and actions that draw the patient to Christ. This is an absolute "must attend" for all Society members. But this does not answer the question of whether or not witnessing is ethical.

ARGUMENT: We overstep our professional responsibilities in witnessing to patients.

Within the last decade there has been resurgence in the bio-psycho-socio-spiri-tual model of care. As super-specialty care has declined, "whole person" care has increased as being normative in the public's mind. We are obliged to view the whole patient before honing in on the specific complaint. A physician's (or dentist's) inquiry about allergies is not going beyond the scope of practice but integral to quality care and the safety of the patient. If, in the assessment of the same patient, spiritual issues are uncovered, they should be so noted. It is neither unethical nor manipulative to probe deeper into any issue if it has impact on the whole being of the individual. This is just good practice of medicine or dentistry.

ARGUMENT: Witnessing goes beyond the doctor's expertise. When a problem is assessed that is beyond the expertise of the doctor, consultation can be sought. I have referred a number of my patients to pastors and counselors who dealt with a spiritual or psychosocial issue that I could not handle. However, when doctors who have experienced the grace of God in their life state such a fact and give "witness" to that event they are not going beyond their expertise. I went to a new physician the other day for a health prob-lem. He and I had never met before. During the exam he asked about my family and I said I had a son in seminary. He asked which one and I said Trinity Evangelical Divinity Seminary in Deerfield. He replied, "Ravi Zarahrias has meant so much to me. Are you familiar with him?" He was pressed for time and I wanted to know how to take the medicine he was prescribing, so the conversation changed immediately. But you can be sure as the relationship devel-ops we will be talking further about this matter. When I left the office it suddenly dawned on me, I had just been FAITH--FLAGGED!'

ARGUMENT: The doctor-patient relationship is fragile at best and can be easily broken by approaching "spiritual matters."

Witnessing for the Christian is almost as unconscious an act as breathing. it is part of the "life principle" of our relationship with Christ. However, the doctor should never forget that the doctor-patient rela-tionship is an unequal one in that one indi-vidual possesses greater knowledge, skill, and POWER than the other. Permission is always sought when broaching spiritual issues. Not to do so is analogous to plot-ting a sneak attack on the integrity and personhood of a patient. If this is the case, it is morally reprehensible. A commando raid on a person's soul is absolutely wrong.

Dr. Robert Orr has written an excellent discussion on the difference between secular moral ethics and the distinctives of Christian ethics.2 It forms the basic thinking for this article. For the most part, when patients seek the care of a doctor, they are coming to one who is assumed to be a "virtuous moral agent." This phrase comes from A. MactIntyre, who said, "The ethic of virtue requires a virtuous moral agent whose character can be nurtured and trained and who can be held morally accountable for his/her actions."3

This is all the more true when the doctor is a Christian. If every patient is a multi-dimensional entity, then illness is the frag-mentation of that multidimensional whole. Illness, whether a stubbed toe, cancer, or debilitating chronic health prob-lem fractures the wholeness of the being, the physical, mental, social, and spiritual. What I as a doctor see before me in my patients are not just a lumps or infections, but fractured people who, because of their illness or problem, are disintegrated. My task then is to heal or put the fragmentation of their life back together again. The Greek word for healing or health is "soteria." It means, "to make whole." The word "salva-tion" comes from the same Greek word. We as healers are to make it possible for frac-tured human beings to be brought into wholeness. In other words, a physician's outcome should be an "integer" and not a bunch of fractions.

To be a virtuous moral agent means that a doctor must function in a "virtuous way." Putting it another way, only the redeemed can testify to the reality of their own free-dom from sin and their own wholeness in Christ. A Christian's entire outlook and actions of life are formulated in this. It would be unjust and unloving not to offer healing and wholeness to one who needs it. What justice and beneficence is there in withholding the "Balm of Gilead" from a sin-sick, fragmented person?

Donald K. Wood, M.D. is a general surgeon who lives in Western Springs, 111. He was president of CMDS from 1995-1997.