Can I introduce a new topic for us to mentally throw around?  Coming up in January, Dr. Scot McKnight is going to be presenting a series of lectures here at the seminary that deals with the theme of Conversion.  I never delved all that far into the conversion theme before meeting Dr. McKnight, but in working with him over the past couple months I have gained a new appreciation for the scope of the subject. Following is one of the quotes that I found most interesting from Dr. McKnight as well as my own personal question to all of you:

"The very common conversion stories -- being nurtured into the faith and the traumatic conversion of one trapped in a variety of sins -- is not the story for as many Christians as most think. If we learn to think of conversion as a process instead of just a moment's decision, we learn to appreciate how it is that the gospel about Jesus Christ impacts humans in our world today. One of my hobbies is to "map" conversion stories -- why it is that Jews become Messianic, why Roman Catholics become evangelicals, and why evangelicals become Roman Catholic. But I have also recently mapped why it is that some choose to walk away from the Christian faith. What surprised me is that "apostasy" is actually a form of conversion." - Dr. Scot McKnight

So, I guess after reading this, my question to all of you is this:  What is YOUR conversion story?

 

Good Day Folks,

As a "Lutheran" who was baptized as a Roman Catholic as a child, I came to faith in the tradition of "Infant Baptism," church, Sunday school and Catechism. So my "conversion" is more of a "Faith Journey." Martin Luther says we are Re-born everyday as "Saint and Sinner." We look back to our "baptism" daily and drown out the "Old Adam/Eve" daily. I consider my "Faith Tradition" as being "biblical." I am in the line of great Saints of the church such as Augustine, St. Francis etc. And of course, Luther and Calvin practiced such sacramental theology.

It is a sincere theology of Grace where God finds us, we don't find God [As God found Abraham and Israel].

So the whole discussion and event of "conversion" has sort of an Anabapist ring to it for me. I praise the Lord for our Anabaptist Christian friends! But I humbly "agree to disagree" in the view that one must make a "decision for Jesus." From my Lutheran [biblical and confessional] tradition, this wreaks of "works righteousness." This is my own Christian conviction, which I hold dearly. It sustains me in times of joy and sorrow.

The real "awkward" situation arrives when I talk to my brothers and sisters from one of the Anabaptist or Free Will church traditions about my Catholic Aunt. She was born in the old country of the Hills of PA., near Harrisburg. She prayed her Rosary daily. She never "bought" the Vatican II reforms and still did not eat meat on Fridays. She had statues and pictures of Mary and Baby Jesus all over her house [even in the bathroom!]. She prayed for me EVERYDAY while I attended the Lutheran Seminary. She too, is one of the Baptism-->Confirmation mode of salvation types. She was one of the finest Chrisians I have ever known. But she never had a moment of "giving her life to Jesus Christ as personal savior and Lord." She [like me] prayed to God daily and did devotions.

As a Lutheran, I can accept my Anabaptist brothers and sisters in terms of their conversion theology. I say, "Praise the Lord!" I am glad anybody can become a Christian. My open-ended question is, "Can my Anabaptist brothers and sisters accept the mode of the sacraments?" I sort of suspect that some may say, "No."

I am sincere in my [biblical and confessional] beliefs* of this view. I teach it to my Junior High students in Catechism classes [it is part of my "calling" in the Lutheran church].

Thanks,

Dave C., Pastor in ELCA Lutheran Church

* Incidentally, our [conservative] Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod holds a very ultra-conservative view on Biblical Infallibility. They too, hold to a sacramental point of view of Salvation.

Dave,

I said in my last post that I "read the posts". But, I realize that I somehow did NOT read this thread. Finally, an interesting discussion!

I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. I was baptized as an infant, chatecized as a lad, received my first communion and confession as a young boy, and confirmed as a young teen. My experience, however was different than a lot of Catholic folks because my family became involved in the Charismatic movement when I was a young teenager. I remember once, during a period of a self-identify crisis, asking my mother in frustration, "am I a Catholic, a Christian, or a Charismatic"? She told me I was a "Catholic Charismatic Christian". And that answer was satisfactory to me. So, I guess I've sort of grown up being comfortable with a broader definition of what it means to be Christian. I have an aunt who worships in a very fundamentalist sect. One of their primary tenets (if not THE primary tenet) of faith is that all Catholics are beyond salvation. In fact, I get the impression that she believes God has created a very special "hell" for Catholics. I guess other sacramentalists - like you - my Lutheran brother -are excluded from this horrific fate - although I don't really understand why.

Anyway, I still recoil when I hear my evangelical friends embrace a very narrow theology of conversion. To reject conversion as a process is simply an uninformed perspective. As our sister below points out from Dr McKnight: "If we learn to think of conversion as a process instead of just a moment's decision, we learn to appreciate how it is that the gospel about Jesus Christ impacts humans in our world today." Even those who have experienced a "crisis-oriented" conversion cannot - in my opinion - dismiss the prior work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. How would a person even know to call out to Jesus in an hour of crisis if they had not had some prior knowledge of Him?

This "proess" perspective of conversion, however, does not dismiss the need for one's own act of faith in conversion. I embrace Luther's "re-born everyday" perspective, but I must question your argument that one does not need to make an individual "decision for Jesus". My guess is that we are really discussing semantics. By your own admission, both you and your Catholic aunt have a prayer/devotional life in Jesus Christ. Is that not a personal decision for Jesus? It may not be couched in a crisis situation (in the manner in which we evangelicals typically perceive conversion), but didn't your devotional life begin with a decision to pray to God? Isn't that a decision FOR Jesus?

Forgive me for being direct, but I've always found Luther's posiiton "sola fide" to be inadequate. To argue that justification (in this sense I am not making a distinction between justification, rightesousness or conversion etc - I am looking at the end result) is achieved through faith alone seems to me to be an incomplete view. Are we not "saved by grace, through faith not of works lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Yet "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13). Is "calling on the name of Jesus" not a "work" that we must do ourselves? I will concede that "calling on the name of Jesus" can be satisfactorily achieved in a sacramental system - although some of my dogmatic evangelical friends would disagree. I would still argue that the very act of participating in the sacrament is a volitional act.  Do we not "show our faith by our works" (James 2:18)? I am aware that this is a centuries old debate, and the discussion of biblical inerrancy is called into question by some. And again I will suggest that semantics are to be blamed for a great deal of disagreements about this issue. Yet, I would still argue that conversion is not only a topic worthy of discussion, it is a theological question that must be addressed on an intimate and personal level for each individual.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

BLessings,

Joe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave,

Sorry so long in replying.

I would like to respond to your last post. You said, "I would want to stand with the ancient church and church fathers [who were also sacramentalists: Augustine, Terullian etc.]. It is a bit arrogant for the modern pentecostal and anabaptist movements to suggest these ancient church fathers got it all wrong.."