Three in a blog

Eclectic postings from across the spectrum of arts, science, philosophy and religion.

Thursday 28 May 2009

Faith in Action, Part 1: Conversion

(a second follow up from holiday – most of the time we went walking, honest)

When my friend set up a church community project seven years ago he used to tell secular agencies that ‘faith is our motivation, not our hidden agenda’. He aimed to alleviate people’s unspoken concerns that we might be raving bible bashers, whilst not apologising for our faith. I appreciated the fact that he raised the issue directly, but still felt uncomfortable that we weren’t getting to the root of non-Christians’ feelings or being completely honest ourselves.

The general gist of the secular argument goes something like this: If you are helping vulnerable or young people from a faith motivation then by helping them they might feel indebted to you or psychologically or sociologically pressurised to become a Christian. A faith based charity might have some groups which are ‘non religious’ but there is always another group or event which you need to ‘believe’ to be a part of. Vulnerable people who have experienced friendship and acceptance for possibly the first time will not want to miss out and so will conform to gain acceptance. If evidence of this pressure is limited the sense of unease remains - ‘well, you’re still setting out to convert people’.

And this is the heart of the matter. Yes. Christian based organisations love to see people become Christians. Christians love to see people discover that they are valuable in God’s eyes – to recognise that they were created with a purpose which no other person can fulfil. To hear the excitement in someone’s voice as they tell the story of how God met with them and filled them with His Holy Spirit, about how the anxieties and sin that had held them and weighed them down for years begins to lift from them. To see people’s confidence grow as they start contributing in a meaningful way to a community.

How could any sympathetic onlooker - Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu or Atheist have a problem with this?

It is clear that that person’s life has changed for the better – they are happier, more content and a more active participant in society. Any funder looking to measure the effectiveness of a charity would be delighted to hear of such a ‘success story’.

Unfortunately for some non religionists there is still a problem. The person now believes the wrong thing! They haven’t changed their life to become an ordinary middle class secularist like them, but now fervently believes all kinds of religious mumbo jumbo. They’ve been hoodwinked into happiness and that’s worse than living their former life of poverty and desperation.

I’ve got two suggestions at this point.

The first is go and persuade people by word and deed that your way of life is both attractive and true ( I appreciated Duncan’s comment here) .

The second is: get over it. Christianity’s either true and they’ve hit the jackpot or it’s false and they’re living a life of more-blissful-than-before-ignorance. If it’s not true they may even grow out of it.

Either way there is no third option: people are entitled to choose to receive support that they think transforms their lives without being patronisingly told that they are being converted to something that isn’t in line with the current intellectual hegemony.

Of course not all strands of Christianity are the same; of course there are occasions where people are manipulated or even abused in the name of or under cover of religion. Of course there are churches which promote unhealthy guilt in their congregations.

Sadly there are abuses of power and trust in all walks of life – secular and religious, some deliberate some without even realising it. Nursing homes and schools, shops and billboards, peer groups and parliament – none escapes the scourge of evil and twisted humanity. If you’re concerned about a particular faith organisation or charity and the impact it may be having on vulnerable people then go and see them. Are they open and transparent or trying to hide their practices away? What do those who are helped by the organisation say about it? If you’re still concerned inform the appropriate authorities – we must all look out signs of abuse.

However, the overwhelming majority of churches or Christians who want to set up a faith based organisation whether it be school, charity or hospital are acting from a rubric of compassion and care. They genuinely want to relieve poverty and distress in a broken, lonely society. They are prepared to put time and money into their efforts. True, some churches have the desire to help, but not the expertise producing poor efforts, but that is why we have inspection regimes and frameworks in the UK to regulate and protect.

Many churches have another motivation which is the transformation of people and society’s lives by the power of Jesus. Or as most would call it, conversion.

Occasionally, the two motives are contradictory because people are seeking conversions as trophies and for protection against the long term decline of their dying rules and rituals. But don’t worry as such groups are unlikely to be very successful – few people choose to board a sinking ship where their only value is as a number on a pew.

Often the two motives take time to work through as church’s grapple with their responsibility to proclaim the Good News with sacrificial actions and efforts as well as words.

Most times the two motives come to mingle together in a powerful and passionate way. Both unconditional compassion and a desire for conversions that change lives day in and day out – for good.

Labels:

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My worry (it's not big enough to be a "problem" or "issue") with the situation you describe (excuse my rampant paraphrasing) where Person A has a crummy life and finds happiness and fulfilment through a faith-based initiative and then discovers God and joins that faith, is that they haven't been exposed to the full range of religious options.

As an analogy, if you were starving on an island and someone handed you some brown rice seeds and said they were all you needed to stay alive, then you'd be grateful for the improvement to your life. But, if you ever got back to the mainland, you may well find that other foods suited you better and that chocolate is just darn wonderful.

To me, religion is the same. Person A may well find a God through the faith-based initiative, but is it the right God for them?

I'm an agnostic (and potentially a heretic, but here goes): I know what sort of deity I’d believe in were I to believe in one, but I haven’t seen enough proof to convince me that it does or doesn’t exist. If there is some deity to worship, I believe there’s only one, and humans worship different facets of it depending how they can best conceptualise it. So in my worldview, God and Allah and Zeus and Artemis and Mercury and Gaia are all different names for the same thing.

29 May 2009 at 10:42  
Blogger Chris said...

My comment - Part 1 of 3

Since I have a number of problems with what you say. I thought I better start by saying that I think it's really good that you're honest about wanting to convert people, or at least see them convert. It always annoys me when people say there is no agenda because there just is. Everyone knows there is, especially anyone from the large section of the "secular middle-class" that was brought up in one missionary religion or another. And there actually should be, for the reasons you say. If you believe things strongly, it's normal to want others to believe them too.

The first problem I have is with your rather optimistic suggestions for how a free market for religious converts might function. Of course, as you point out, evangelical atheists are no real threat to you, but almost every other religion is. Or they will be as soon as Western society's in-built bias for everything Christian begins to wain. Do you not suspect that it is easier for Christian groups to set up a community project than a Satanic cult? Given the trouble Muslim groups have had trying to open schools I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the secular authorities are actually reasonably pro-Christian, even if unknowingly through tradition. Even if you experience some sneering at the moment I'm not sure that a truly open, equal right for religious groups to start community projects would be as trouble-free as you think. I suspect that many people on your community projects would react rather badly to the attempts of other religious groups to muscle-in. As society changes, it seems inevitable that these other groups will feel they have a right to run community projects in all areas and thousands of years of history suggests there might be some territorial disputes. Such trouble would have to be cleared up by the secular authorities, so I think society has a perfect right to think about the wider implications.

Secondly, to some extent I agree with the comment questioning how you can be sure that new converts from vulnerable or marginalised groups have got a religion that suits them. Obviously people that have experienced friendship and acceptance for the first time are unlikely to question the moral, philosophical or theological niceties of the community they owe so much to. Is this why the most actively evangelical religions are not, perhaps, the most mainstream? They need converts who are most amenable to their strange and contradictory beliefs. I don't know the most politically correct way to put it, but I'm thinking of that the fact that the Jehovah's witnesses, the Mormons or the ultra-charismatic end of Christianity are more likely to knock on your door on a Saturday morning than say the Jews, Buddhists or Anglicans who outnumber them so massively.

30 May 2009 at 18:25  
Blogger Chris said...

My comment - Part 2 of 3

Following on from that, you seem to say that religion makes people happy. I know you don't really think as simply as that, but I think you may underestimate the extent that the wrong religion can cause suffering. I once talked someone who may have learning difficulties or been a bit "simple", and was Christian. He introduced himself by saying something like "I love God" and then, very nervously and with earnest distress in his voice, "but I don't believe all people are naturally bad". I thought this was quite telling. He was clearly spending a lot of time struggling with the doctrine of original sin. You might think that vulnerable people need friends but they are just as capable as tying themselves in knots over complicated theological problems as everyone else. And personal morality is probably even more likely to cause problems. I can imagine people feeling terrible pressure if their lifestyle, sexual orientation or their existing friends didn't suit the religion that recruited them? I'm quite happy with people believing in things that make them happy, but I'm not sure I want to live in a society where vulnerable people are routinely given yet more things to worry about. I know the first reaction of religious people would be to say "we accept everyone", but this is not entirely true, people are gradually molded to the organisation they are part of and this can be a painful process. It's different for a healthy, functional adult getting interested in a religion through friends, or a child growing up with just another set of parental certainties. But for vulnerable people wouldn't real friends be better? Why don't the Christian groups go and try to recruit greedy bankers, lawyers and stockbrokers? People who may actually have just as much sense of purposelessness, but are not so vulnerable and at risk of exploitation? I suggest it's because it would be harder.

30 May 2009 at 18:26  
Blogger Chris said...

My comment - Part 3 of 3

Fourthly, you seem to do-down the existing system of state provision of services. The welfare state is a British and European success story. Confusing the real limitations of it with a "broken society" is an old trick of the Right. The aim is to dismantle a tax-funded system and replace it with a private or voluntary system. We had a volunteer system for years and the church in the UK should be proud of its history of pioneering hospitals and schools. But it was terribly limited and patchy and in recent times in Europe, the health and education systems have basically been a great success for state control. The NHS is probably the most-efficient health system in the world, and has often impressed me (despite the inevitable problems). And religions have a terrible track record when combined with governments administering services. I'm thinking of abuse in religious children's homes and systematic discrimination against sections of society. There is nothing to stop a religious person being a dedicated employee of a school, hospital or care-home. But when a religious bureaucracy is managing or inspecting these services, there is an overwhelming pressure to put the aims of the religion beyond those of the users. How can impartial advice for unwanted pregnancies be given by someone whose theology equates abortion and murder? Or contraception advice in school that has a policy of abstinence-only? What about a women's shelter run by fundamentalist Muslims who say go back to your abusive husband? And is it only religions that can run these things? Businesses are already allowed to run schools and promote their products there. Arbitrary groups of parents are allowed to take over the running of schools, what is to stop them being a group of racists? Not all voluntary organisations are cosy and nice, but all religions believe that they are, and that can makes them more dangerous. (Child abuse became rife in the Catholic church precisely because they thought it couldn't possible happen amongst their dedicated, loving staff. But I have heard other religionists sneer at the Catholics and say it couldn't affect their religion for exactly the same reasons.)

Finally, you seem to imply that people who believe in a secular society are interested in convincing people to depart from their deeply held beliefs. I am not. But I am interested in the fair provision of services and I simply think that is impossible when combined with either business or religious objectives. Asking why atheists don't set up atheist schools, atheist hospitals, atheist soup kitchens or atheist homeless hostels is missing the point. I want a healthy secular democratic government running universal, high-quality services. That will benefit everyone including the religious. It's our system in recent times and when it works we shouldn't do it down. When it doesn't work we should try to fix it in ways that can include everyone. Going back to discriminatory charity provision supported by the Great and the Good or groups of amateurs instead of a functioning, modern welfare state would be a terrible mistake, but I fear it is one that has unstoppable momentum. Is it the perfect alliance of community-focussed faith groups and cuts-focussed right-leaning political groups?

30 May 2009 at 18:30  
Blogger Jonathan said...

@ xidia: I don't think it's possible to choose from a smorgasbord of religions in a detached way. You have to live a religion to find out whether it's true.

@ Chris 1: you say: "Do you not suspect that it is easier for Christian groups to set up a community project than a Satanic cult?"
All groups should be set up with a rubric of compassion and equality that our society overwhelmingly agrees are important. If this does not happen then that's what government regulation's for.

Yes, a satanic cult might have more difficulty than a Christian group because they would have to work harder to prove that they were in line with this rubric than Christians who have (on the whole) publicly held and practiced for hundreds of years - they have a track record.

@Chris 2: I don't think it's a bad thing for people to grapple with theological issues that give a perspective on our humanity, although all people need to be supported by each other to figure out how that challenges their own lives. It's not necessarily the cultural norm to allow yourself to be personally challenged by ideas that you don't necessarily agree with, but it can be very positive and the process can help form deep friendships.

Christians do evangelise to bankers, lawyers and stockbrokers.
A couple of years ago Alpha courses in London were noticable for the number of white upperclass professionals involved.

I have a friend, very unmaterialistic, who felt called by God about 5 years ago to go and work in the city to model a different way of working or living in that environment. Rather him than me, but God gives each of us different gifts and desires.

@ Chris 3: I don't want to go back to patchy health or education provision - I think these services should be free and available at the point of need. I want a tax payer funded NHS. However, I do think that there is a role for business and charities to deliver some services in a well regulated environment.

More importantly, there are some things that the government cannot do that charities and religious groups can. These tend to be 'low level' services that bridge the gap between families and specialist services. For instance, addressing isolation of older people, mental health issues not serious enough for the statutory sector and projects supporting children struggling in school and their families.

Thanks for the mega comment!

7 June 2009 at 09:08  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home