I believe a unique process must take place for someone to make a major life-view change. Specifically with faith, this process is one that involves searching, questioning, doubting and pain. In many modern faith circles, a conversion experience is one that is drummed up in a moment, often accompanied by a frenzy of emotion. The problem with this approach is that no major decisions are made in a moment, or at least decisions that last.
I would argue that for a person to go from an anti-theist or a non-believer (pardon the term) to a theist requires a process in the mind and heart. In Christianity, which is my spiritual background and study, the very foundation of the faith is a process. Jesus taught that it began with believing that he was who he said he was. From there, the faith is fleshed out by the process of following him and taking part in the new way to live that he represents.
Many times, people believe that a life-view takes place when someone has discovered a new insight or realized a truth they didn’t know previously. While these could be used to describe the Christian conversion experience, they seem a bit abstract and vague. Rather, I believe the heart of the Christian conversion experience takes place when someone grasps the nature of God.
It is when people experience something greater than themselves, and encounter a love that goes beyond what they have experienced before. I have heard people make claims along the lines of, “I don’t know if I buy the Jesus story, but what you guys are doing is something I want to be a part of.” What they come to understand is that the very thing they couldn’t put their finger on was the nature of a loving and generous God. It isn’t a rationalized, calculated equation that leads someone to changing a life-view that leads them to theism, but rather an experience of the heart.
RESPONSE:
I think I agree with you too much for this to be a Conversation with a clear-cut controversy. But a conversation need not be controversial, eh? I read your views here as coming from first-hand experience, even though they weren’t written as such. I almost wish they had been; I feel like this is such a gray area in which to find footing for a nice counterpoint. I definitely have some questions though. Maybe those will spark conversation enough. Anyway, that being said…
Yes. Naturally, any change of perception is going to be, as you said, a process of the mind. I would say, however, that a process involving “searching, questioning, doubting and pain” is not specific to faith, but is an integral part of finding one’s place in the world (i.e., a necessary part of life). There’s one exception I would have on that list, though: pain. I see pain as more of a stimulus, a reason to start searching, questioning, etc.
And in my experience, faith was one source of that pain. Or at least the source of enough discomfort in discrepancies to trigger the process of reconciling them. The preliminary seeds of that divergence were sowed while studying world religions in college. (Actually earlier, if you count those little doubts we all had as to God’s existence, but this was the first “macro” view, if that makes sense.) Like, “Shoot, I just happen to be of the predominate faith of my geographic region. Interesting…” And those thoughts weren’t fleshed out until a bit later in life, but for me it highlighted further what I (probably still subconsciously) saw as a lack of authenticity amongst those of the Christian faith.
And let me talk about that for a sec. I’m not talking about the lack of authenticity as it’s increasingly discussed in newer churches across the United States. The odd, self-conscious, youth-oriented push for accessibility that has everyone scrambling to almost change the Christian doctrine at times. I’m talking – and I don’t mean to offend here – about the inherent ability, yea, necessity, of faith to alienate its adherents from what the vast unwashed see as reality. Sometimes I wish (likely in vain) these people would act more like what they’re apparently trying to attract: fuck-ups who found their own way to deal with things. I mean, they’re onto something in terms of realizing that the whole “in and not of the world” thing hasn’t always been the most effective/endearing cover, but they’re missing the point that “authenticity” and not being “of the world” are mutually exclusive for those they’re trying to get through to. I suppose this is also an issue of scriptural interpretation.
Which brings me to another thing you wrote: “I believe the heart of the Christian conversion experience takes place when someone grasps the nature of God.” This makes me wonder. How do you know their “abstract and vague” truth is not the real truth? Or conversely, how do you know yours is The Truth? Does this again boil down to how you interpret the Bible? How do you know, as you seem to, that you have indeed grasped the nature of God? How is this different from one who has grasped the true nature of a different God, or perhaps, an equal love from a different source? Would you say that someone who finally recognizes this one true higher power is instantly converted, or are more factors involved? Just some of the questions you brought to my mind.
That’s all I got for now, though. I’m sure you and others will add plenty to make me think some more and maybe ask some more awesome questions!
And now we turn it over to you, readers, what do you think? Let’s discuss…
1. The Conversation: In the Beginning
2. The Conversation: Faith vs. Science or Faith & Science?
