Religious Conversion: Theory And Practice

Great Debates
1

When is it okay/required/not okay to try to convert others – both according to your “official” doctrine, and as a matter of etiquette? Why? If there is a difference between the official doctrine and the etiquette view, why?

I’ll define “conversion” as “persuading or attempting to persuade someone to adopt your religious belief system.” I think this means even atheists can participate here if they are okay with the idea of persuading others to adopt atheism. The only answers I’m not particularly looking for are: (a) conversion’s always wrong because any religion is a dangerous fraud; and (b) conversion’s irrelevant/unnecessary because all religions are equally valid/invalid.

On one hand, how can it be a bad thing to try to persuade a consenting adult to accept your views on whatever subject (obviously you’d set some politeness limits on persisting when someone expresses disinterest)? And if you believe your religion is the One True Path (true for most monotheist creeds I think, subject to loopholes such as baptism by desire), don’t you have an obligation to evangelize?

On the other hand, even some nominally evangelical (small e) churches seem in practice to have really deemphasized evangelization/conversion efforts (obviously other churches have accelerated their efforts). I’m thinking here of, say, Lutherans or Anglicans or RCs (Jews aren’t evangelizing but I don’t know that they ever really went in for that). I’m not saying they’d turn converts away if they showed up at the door, but they don’t seem to be sending out the missionaries or affirmatively pressing the issue either (and even when they do go on missions, I’ve gotten the impression it’s sometimes more Peace Corps than requiring the natives to accept the creed).

Is this the result of: (a) ecumenical movements making conversion seem inconsistent with pluralism; (b) tacit acceptance of, if not henotheism, a doctrinal view that the One True Path really isn’t, or that the loopholes mentioned above are sufficiently broad to guarantee salvation/non-damnation to pretty much everyone who’s “good,” regardless of creed; © bourgeois discomfort with “forcing” one’s ideas on another, or even with discussing religious matters in public; (d) something else? What sort of middle ground (in both doctrine and practice) would a bourgeois monotheist offer for whether and when he would support conversion efforts and how much is too much conversion/proselytizing?

2

When it is not okay to try to convert someone else:

  1. In the middle of dinner.
  2. In the middle of a business meeting.
  3. In the middle of childbirth.
  4. In the middle of sex.
  5. In the middle of Wal-Mart.
  6. In the middle of a funeral.
  7. While you’re both standing there watching his house burn down.
3

I would add,

  1. In the middle of a wedding,
  2. In the foyer of another denominational church,
  3. In traffic,
  4. Anytime a person says “leave me alone, I’m not interested.”
  5. When ther person answers the door naked or in underwear.
4

It’s always okay to try to convert someone else:

  1. When they’re trying to convert you.
  2. When they’re being intrusively obnoxious with their religion, e.g. when they’re handing your kids Jack Chick pamphlets on Halloween or when they’re burning crosses on your front lawn.

Sometimes in the latter case it is recommended that you use a “conversion stick” (shotgun) to expedite the process.

5

LOL at DDG and photopat’s posts.

As an Episcopalian (Anglican) who is sincere about evangelism, I need to give my take on it.

It’s one of the things I agreed to do when I took Jesus as my Savior and Lord, and among the things I regularly renew my promise to do in my Baptismal Covenant. (Which I again pledge to day after tomorrow, by the way.)

However, IMHO what evangelism is supposed to be is not to figuratively grab you by the collar and tell you about Jesus’s Plan of Salvation[sub]TM[/sub], but rather to treat you as Jesus said to treat you, helping where I can, and be totally honest about why I’m doing it – which is, among other reasons such as the personal enjoyment of doing so, because I am a Christian doing what I’ve been ordered to do – to treat you with dignity and respect, as God’s son or daughter by adoption and grace, whom He loves enough to die under torture for, and try to convince you that the life I’m living is one you’d enjoy living too, that being a participant in the community of those gathered in His love and in mutual love of each other is much more fun than life juggled on your own.

It is emphatically not my job, or the job of any other Christian, to try to mandate the life you should live, the choices you should make, the things you should refrain from doing, or to try to compel this by law, because according to my or their understanding of the Bible it’s what God said to do.

I got free choice to accept His love and love Him back. You deserve the same. And part of His orders was, “Don’t judge, because just as you judge others you too will be judged – by Someone Who knows every sin you’ve ever committed.”

Regarding the One True Way bit, I like what the Orthodox say: “We know where truth can be found – here [in our church] – but we do not claim to know where it is not found.”

6

Full marks for etiquette (I certainly hope none of those ever happened to you, either). But that’s kind of my point: it’s taste/deportment/courtesy, and not anything about religious truth/doctrine, that tells us these aren’t appropriate. Arguably, doctrine has nothing to do with, and may be at odds with, deportment. In fact, a good portion of the “blessed are those whom everyone’s p.o.'d at for My sake” verses seem to assume that you’re going to cross the line etiquette-wise at least.

I take Polycarp’s point about conversion-by-witnessing-through-the-righteous-life, but doesn’t that sound a bit . . . passive? Wouldn’t the old time conversion have tolerated, nay expected, grabbing your neighbor by the lapel and persuade him to change his mind (I agree, unless you can persuade him, there’s no point telling him how to live) to save him from the tragedy of not knowing the Good News?

I suspect John the Baptist was far from socially suave and committed some or all of the no-no’s that DDG and others enumerated.

7

Baha’i point of view: We believe in teaching through action, which is to say, trying to live our lives as we believe God wants us to. We certainly mention the Faith to people, but do not give more info than any individual wants to receive. In fact, proseletyzing (sp?) and fanaticism are both banned by our Holy Book. Also, FWIW, while Baha’is believe we have truth, we don’t believe we have the ONLY truth. But when someone asks questions, we answer. If the want more info, we can supply them with pamphlets, magazines, books, etc. or invite them to informal gatherings called “firesides”. I like to share the truth as I know it, but only with someone who wants to hear it.

8

it’s never okay to try to convert someone to your religion. If you want people to join, convince them by your actions, not by telling them to.

9

I see your point, Kalt.

Everything I do on this board, I do as a Christian. Even if it’s playing off a double-entendre comment for laughs or answering some question in GQ that I happen to know the answer to but which has nothing to do with Christianity, I know that people know me as a Christian trying to live out what that means in my life.

I welcome and encourage you to seek out and find the joy in God’s love that has been my experience as a Christian. I would be false to my Lord’s commands if I did otherwise.

But to coerce or pressure you about it is also not what He commanded – I am to show by the tone and content of my posts that it’s something you will come to want, or else I’m falling short of what He wants me to do. Your choice is completely up to you, now and for the duration of your life – and I am morally obliged to respect that choice.

Does that make sense to you – both from the point of view of what I’m supposed to do in terms of evangelism and from the point of view of how I am supposed to treat you as a fellow human being?

10

I was taught that proper person-to-person evangelism requires a two-part approach. First, you decide which person you want to witness to, and you begin praying for that person, praying that the Holy Spirit will open his ears and help him listen. Then, when you feel the time is right, you say to the person, humbly, “I’d like to tell you about Jesus. When would be a good time for us to discuss it?” And if he says, “Never”, then you smile, drop the subject, and keep praying.

If he’s willing to listen, then you present your witness in a non-confrontational way (“this is what Jesus means to me”), but without pushing him for a “yes” or “no” answer. And then afterwards, you don’t nag him about it.

You can ask him if he’d like a copy of a tract, maybe The Four Spiritual Laws–and you may make fun of Chick Tracts, but the comic book format works for some people, and they aren’t all foaming-at-the-mouth Creationist politicized “everybody else is going to Hell” idiocies. One of my favorites is Cleo. Yeah, it’s mawkish and over-simplified, but it gives you an opening, is the important thing. It’s a springboard for discussion.

But you don’t just hand somebody a tract out of thin air and demand, “Read this.” You have to pray about it first, and then ask the person if he’d be interested in reading something.

An alternate approach, instead of the direct “let me tell you about Jesus” approach, is to simply invite him to come to church with you. This is easier for many people who aren’t comfortable with mano a mano witnessing.

But you still are supposed to pray about it first. See, the general idea is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to do all the heavy lifting–all you do is direct traffic, by praying and by being the mouthpiece.

And, needless to say, your life should be lived in such a way that it’s not an earthshattering surprise to your witnessee when you say to him, “I’d like to tell you about Jesus”.

11

sorry, but if someone gets converted to a religion because of a comic book, they need to be shot. they’re a danger to themselves and to society, and need to be removed from the gene pool. They’re capable of believing anything, which is really scary.