Everything on my résumé is true, and I'm not trying to misrepresent who I am or what I did. I'm trying to emphasize the aspects of my time as a missionary that would be relevant to a potential employer. Moreover, "missionary" might mean different things to different people, so I selected terms that would more neutrally convey what I did. Note that on my blog (where I have more space; linked on my résumé) I go into greater detail about my time as a missionary.
No employer (should) care that I was a missionary—but they would be interested in the community service I rendered and the skills I learned in leadership positions. Hence, I emphasize what is relevant in this context.
That you say you find this "extremely disingenuous" makes me think that you would be off-put by service as a missionary and are annoyed that I am supposedly somehow trying to obscure that fact. Are you trying to be hostile? Your tone is definitely aggressive and you're making a lot of assumptions.
> No employer (should) care that I was a missionary
This is a two-fold motte-and-bailey defense. Legally employers should not care. I can imagine a gay, anti-theist very much would, whether or not they can do anything about it legally.
Second, you are claiming more than "I was a missionary". As you said, "missionary" might mean different things to different people, so what you put in your resume greatly affects how people interpret the word. And your implied definition is far different than what you actually did. For example, someone could say,
"I play an integral part in the fiduciary responsibilities necessary to run a multi-billion dollar franchise,"
but it's much more honest to say,
"I work the till at McDonald's."
I don't think yours is nearly so egregious, but I find it difficult to believe you are not trying to misrepresent who you are. As I mentioned in the parent comment, almost everyone misrepresents themselves on applications, or even outright lies! I don't, and so it's really frustrating to see the signalling game break down like this.
It's not disingenuous, don't worry. Even if there were some reason that proselyting was a juncture for some employment decision (hard to see how there would be, legally, but hypothetically), they could ask you to simply elaborate on that role at an interview.
I mean, my point was kind of that they didn't mention the word "proselyting" at all. If that's what you're doing for the majority of your time, it feels like a lie of omission to not even mention it. It'd be like putting:
"B.S. in Computer Science (2013–2017); attended classes at MIT; 4.0 GPA"
when the reality is I went to Wellesley and cross-enrolled in a couple architecture classes. I entirely understand only selecting information that's relevant to the job. I think it's disingenuous to only select information that's relevant to the job and puts you in the best light. It's even worse if that implies you have more experience in a relevant area than you actually do.
Yes, people can ask you to elaborate at an interview. But that wastes their time, and makes it so people who actually have the experience you claimed might not fit in the interviewer's schedule.
No employer (should) care that I was a missionary—but they would be interested in the community service I rendered and the skills I learned in leadership positions. Hence, I emphasize what is relevant in this context.
That you say you find this "extremely disingenuous" makes me think that you would be off-put by service as a missionary and are annoyed that I am supposedly somehow trying to obscure that fact. Are you trying to be hostile? Your tone is definitely aggressive and you're making a lot of assumptions.