This page has been split out of Jesus is not a theological construct. – brehaut

Here’s something to ponder- I know numerous people with backgrounds involving drug addiction, alcoholism, promiscuity, mental illness, broken families etc, who have had their lives radically changed by a ‘conversion’ experience (often involving Ray Comfort-inspired spamgelism). All of these people ‘needed’ Jesus and are unquestionably better off from knowing Him; most of them are now fundies of the highest order. Matt and cohorts, I’m curious as to what you think about this. Personally, I don’t think the ‘look after the sick and poor but don’t try to convert anyone’ approach would have helped these people. Also, do you think they’re better off for their conversions? — Greg

Interestingly, I was thinking similar things, when I wrote this post. Those who have had addictions, who have had broken families, mental illness, can easily identify with a ‘your state is sinful and requires repentance’ gospel, because they see themselves as mostly evil. People who have reasonably well constructed lives won’t accept a sinful-state gospel, because they often percieve themselves as part good, part evil. At the time, I thought that a sinful-actions gospel might solve the problem nicely, because it allows both groups of people to repent of evil, without requiring people to repent of things that they may not be ashamed of (e.g. Mr Eko from Lost). So, the reason the fundy / sinful-state gospel powerful in the broken is because it is equivilent to the liberal / sinful-action gospel, which is also powerful in other categories of people. The reason why the fundy / sinful-state gospel seems more common amongst the broken than the liberal / sinful-action gospel is simply because fundys are a lot more vocal than liberals. So that’s how I figured it worked, at a descriptive level.

But you ask, is it a good thing? If people are recovering from stuffs, that’s great! It is a bit unfortunate if they go fundy on us, but I’d rather someone was a fundy than a drug addict. Ideally, fundyism could be substituted for something else - the 12 step program is a good example of a reliance on a higher power, that isn’t fundyism, that seems to do really for people struggling with stuffs. I guess that’s a major challenge for liberalanity - how do you evangelize (if you’ve rejected evangelicalism)? — Nato

It’s been said of alcoholism that you ‘never break the addiction, just replace it with something else.’ Is this a true ‘conversion experience’? I’m not so sure. With regards to what ‘liberalians’ have to offer: I would never claim that there is no need among the kinds of people you listed above, but I would argue that it is better served by helping in practical ways — healthcare, rehab programs, counselling. I want to see people freed from addictions as much as anyone else, I just don’t think that an appeal to Christian magic and a spectacular conversion experience are the healthiest or best-in-the-long-term ways to go about it. — mattw

That’s an interesting point you raise about addiction, Matt, as a good number of the people I mention like to participate in ‘God parties’ (pentecostal worship meetings) where any casual observer would think they were drunk. I still think such activities- as uncomfortable as they make me feel- are healthier than actual drunkenness though.
Another factor worth considering is that a number of the people I’m referring to- despite their empty and unfulfilling (by their own admission) former lives- wouldn’t have had anything wrong with them in the world’s eyes. I don’t think its a given that anyone whose life has been impacted by ‘conversion’ must have been a candidate for rehab, counselling etc.
Furthermore, I don’t think many people who have been delivered from drug addictions and the like would have relied solely on their conversion anyway; for the most part, counselling, rehab etc would have played a part. So Christianity shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to practical solutions in these cases; nor was it a desperate ‘last choice’. — Greg

You make an interesting point with the “empty and unfulfilling (by their own admission) former lives- wouldn’t have had anything wrong with them in the world’s eyes.” However, I think offering conversion/religion as a response is perhaps a diversion; I would argue that it has good effects, but perhaps then the effects should be offered directly.
For instance, if someone’s life seems empty and insignificant, conversion will bring them to church, which might lead them to some form of ministry, which in turn leads to a sense of significance. Thing is, this could be achieved in other ways, ways like “find a job you care about” or “go and volunteer in africa” or “volunteer at a soup kitchen.” Christians don’t have a monopoly on fulfillment. — mattw

I don’t think Christians have a monopoly on fulfillment- but are you saying the only way in which a conversion helps someone is to open them up other opportunities? (Effectively taking God/Jesus and any ‘relationship’ with Him out of the picture)— Greg

That is largely (although not entirely) what I mean by Christianity is not magic. Yes, God is present and active, but I think what he really wants is for us to get off our butts and stop trying to leave everything to his magical superpowers. — mattw

Ok, sorry to harp on, but I want to make sure I’ve got this right. Do you think that prayer or meditation have any benefit whatsoever? What about corporate ‘worship’ (forget the semantics of that word just for now…) Are you saying there’s actually no such thing as a ‘relationship’ with Jesus/God? — Greg

Prayer and meditation have benefit, yes — although only partially ‘God’; I’d say the psychological effects are as significant. Corporate worship I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing, I am just skeptical as to how much change is ever effected through it (the more pente/emotional, the less true any effects has been my observation and experience).
With regards to a ‘relationship with God’, my experience has been that that’s pretty much an illusion; there can be awareness of presence, interaction, and even (mutual?) change, but I think ‘personal relationship’ is a misnomer.
I guess I lean towards the materialist; not because I don’t believe in the supernatural, but because I believe it is essentially unknowable, and exerts a small enough influence that we would do far better to concentrate on concrete, immediate things. — mattw

Dangit Matt, why is it that once I actually get to the bottom of your heretical rantings, I find I’m mostly in agreement? :)
I probably don’t feel quite as strongly as you do on the subject but I’m struggling to find anything to argue with… I think I might go and argue with Nato instead… — Greg