It’s a curious thing that when a good or necessary thing is being communicated, one feels justified in imposing it to an unwilling recipient.
Equally curious are dialogues in which where one is quickly accused of imposition when it comes to debating a particular thing (usually for a religious or political position), where anything more general in its place would have been perfectly acceptable.
Imposition is imposition when an intellect wills a thing onto another without regard for the hierarchical order of things (be it stages or order of conduct or relationship), or for place and/or time, and without recognition of the dignity of another intellect; that of the human person.
Hence proselytizing, which the contemporary society is quick to label as an imposition, is in its truest sense the very opposite of it. This is the case because proselytization in the true Christian sense necessarily involves a regard for the hierarchical order, place and time, and recognition of the dignity of the intellect, the human person; in other words, a respectful and respectable dialogue. Without these characteristics, it cannot be called truly Christian. Indeed, it not only regards and recognizes them, but promotes them actively and fervently against philosophies which negate them. This is the paradox, one which Chesterton himself would have been proud of!
Thus, there are two extremes which both the Christian and the post-modern man must avoid: for the former, calling imposition proselytizing, and; for the latter, calling proselytizing an imposition.
It must also be said, somewhat unfortunately, that the Christian is often also the post-modern man, and thus he must realize that his duty to evangelize is not in conflict with his duty to respect the human person, and vice versa.