Conversion converted

Rogier Bos

One of the chief goals of preaching the gospel is conversion. This article seeks to demonstrate that our understanding of conversion has been influenced by the modern philosophical context of the enlightenment. It then puts forward a new paradigm for conversion. The underlying thought is that the way we preach the gospel will change if our understanding of conversion changes.

This article outlines the ideas put forward by Brad J. Kallenberg, as they first appeared in an article by the same name in Evangelical Quarterly,[1] and later in Live to Tell - Evangelism for a Postmodern Age.[2]

A MODERN VIEW OF CONVERSION

Kallenberg’s argues that the doctrine of conversion is in need of a re-assessment. Modern formulations of the doctrine have presupposed modern philosophy, and are deficient to the extent that they have done so. To demonstrate this, Kallenberg examines the doctrine as put forward by American conservative theologian Louis Berkhof, and then outlines three ways in which this formulation is deficient.

Berkhof’s understanding of conversion is soteriological in nature. In his analysis conversion is the second of the three phases that together make up the process of salvation. It follows regeneration, and comes in two parts: active conversion in which God turns the sinner to him, and passive conversion, in which the sinner turns to God.

Kallenberg sees the influence of modern philosophy in three ways.

First, Kallenberg argues that Berkhof’s understanding of conversion is guilty of metaphysical reductionism. This refers to the fact that Berkhof can only see the whole as the sum of its parts. For Berkhof a church is nothing more but the sum of its members: “a believing community is incidental to, and really nothing but, the sum of the individual members.”[3] In a group there is really nothing more than individuals, and so the individual is always logically prior to the group. Kallenberg says this places undue emphasis on the parts and overlooks the objective reality and causal powers of the whole.

If Modernism sought to break things apart to study their function in the whole through analysis, then Postmodernism seeks to study the whole, and how it determines or influences the behavior of the parts. In this mode of thinking, called metaphysical holism, there is a community-aspect to the behavior of the individual that needs to be considered.

[To put it simply, the modern concept of conversion is faulty in that it looks only at the individual. The role of the community in the conversion experience is ignored. Furthermore, a person may be born again, but he is not necessarily born into community. Berkhof’s formulation does nothing to emphasize community, and may in fact encourage individualism.]

The second deficiency in Berkhof’s understanding of conversion is Linguistic Reductionism. Berkhof adopts the modern emphasis on the rational part of human life. Repentance and faith have strong cognitive elements to them. Conversion is the act of believing that certain propositions are true. Thus modern theology falls prey to representationalism, the idea that language is nothing but a picture of the world. Kallenberg does not argue there is no representational element in the truth claims of scripture. He argues that linguistic reductionism fails for what it ignores: that is, the power of language to create experience.

[To put it simply, in the modern world a person was converted if he could agree intellectually to central Christian doctrines formulated in clean propositional statements. This is problematic because it fails to recognize that language has a degree of ambiguity, and it disregards its experiential aspect. Language does not only convey meaning, but can also create feelings and emotions. Berkhof’s formulation, however, ignores these aspects of language, and as a result his understanding of conversion is high on reason, and low on emotions and experience.]

The third deficiency is epistemological absolutism. In Berkhof’s view of the world beliefs are statements about the way things really are. To believe requires absolute certainty. In Berkhof’s thinking such certainty is possible, as Scripture contains the truth of God, and the theologian merely needs to unearth it. What Berkhof fails to take into account, says Kallenberg, is that in the process of unearthing it, the theologian brings his own set of historical circumstances, which are going to color his conclusions. The certainty Berkhof presupposes is in fact not possible, says Kallenberg: the theologian’s historical circumstances are always going to play a part in the formulation of the essentials. As an alternative to Berkhof’s epistemological certainty Kallenberg proposes a distinction made by George Lindbeck between first-order doctrines (historically contextualized formulations) and second-order doctrines (ideas that remain unchanged in successive formulations).[4]

A POSTMODERN VIEW OF CONVERSION

Kallenberg recognizes that Berkhof’s concept of conversion was very helpful in the modern era, and that he cannot really be blamed for defining conversion in what can in hindsight be called a modern fashion. Likewise, Kallenberg recognizes that the understanding of conversion he is about to put forward is also not the new and eternal truth, but will also be impacted by the socio-historical circumstances of our time. His proposal is not meant to replace Berkhof’s concept, but rather to complement Berkhof by making up for the deficiencies.

Where Berkhof’s definition of conversion deals mainly with the transaction between God and man, Kallenberg’s proposal looks at the human or sociological side.

In Kallenberg’s proposal conversion is a process that has three identifiable elements to it. First, Kallenberg seeks to overcome metaphysical reductionism by proposing that conversion is the naturalization into community. In the postmodern world faith is not something you hold, or arrive at, individually; rather faith is held by communities. No community demonstrates this more clearly than the Christian community. To come to faith, it is necessary to enter the community at some level. There is a causal relationship between a person coming to faith and the community where this happens; the community is both the context and the cause for process of conversion.

The second issue, linguistic reductionism, is overcome by proposing that conversion involves the process of language acquisition.

Every community has its own vocabulary or language, and in order to understand the community and belong to it, understanding that vocabulary is important. The Christian community is no exception; it in fact has a well-developed language that can seem like complete nonsense to the outsider. Hence language acquisition is a necessary element of entering the community and starting to understand the community’s beliefs. A person entering the Christian community will need to learn a whole new conceptual language, where words like ‘grace’ and ‘sin’ -to name only two- play a major role. Kallenberg’s proposal overcomes the linguistic reductionism he sees in Berkhof’s teaching by emphasizing the fact that language creates experience, and therefore language-acquisition is a key element in the process of conversion.

Mere translation is not enough. It is no use ‘dumbing the language down,’ says Kallenberg, because in the process you sacrifice much that is of value to your community. Instead, it is necessary to help outsiders who are making their way in understand what is meant by your unique vocabulary. Since language actually creates experience and ‘embodies’ meaning, a word-by-word or phrase-by-phrase translation won’t do: a person needs to acquire the language and make it his or her own.

Kallenberg overcomes the third deficiency; epistemological absolutism or foundationalism, by suggesting that conversion involves a paradigm shift. Following Kuhn and Quine Kallenberg suggest that knowledge can best be regarded as a web of interdependent beliefs that are subject to change. A paradigm is a ‘constellation of group commitments, and in a paradigm-shift one such constellation is exchanged for another. Conversion is such a paradigm shift; as a person enters a community and acquires the language of that community, he also starts to understand the paradigm of that community. If he or she chooses to stay he will have to accept that paradigm, and make it his or her own.

All of the above leads Kallenberg to the following conclusion: Conversion is the emergence of a new mode of life occasioned by the self-involving participation in the shared life, language and paradigm of the believing community.[5]

CHANGING EVANGELISM

Kallenberg suggests that this approach to conversion has implications for how we do evangelism.

First of all, evangelism must be incarnational. The community of faith becomes the bearer of the message. It is through that community that outsiders encounter Jesus.

Secondly, evangelism must be pedagogical. Outsiders who accept the invitation to take a closer look at our community must learn both the language (‘what we mean when we say…’) and the story or beliefs we share. In a day and age in which the general understanding of vital Christianity in the secular world is ever decreasing, teaching others what we belief and how we express that is of vital importance.

Lastly, evangelism must become dialogical. Reducing our faith to a set of formal propositions may have helped us systematize our beliefs, but in the process we loose sight of the fact that every individual is impacted differently, and that every individual is a potential ‘tradition-bearer,’ from our community to the world. Evangelism must take this into account by encountering the individual where he or she is.

WHY I LIKE KALLENBERG’S PROPOSAL

Kallenberg’s proposal is attractive to me for a number of reasons. It emphasizes process rather than event. I find this more consistent with the experiences of conversion I see around me.

It also recognizes the uniqueness of every process. The modern formula provided the same answer regardless of the question: “you must be saved by believing in Jesus.” Kallenberg’s approach recognizes that people come into our community at different places in their life, and the Christian story meets them in different places. I saw this illustrated in the conversion of a friend of mine: he had been a believing Christian for 9 months before he came to understand that he too needed forgiveness.

There is an important role and appreciation for community. Conversion happens not without the community, but within.

The evangelist or preacher becomes a teacher or coach, who gently leads people into the faith over time. This is in marked contrast to the one-stop evangelist as turn-or-burn shock therapist. Evangelism takes time. Says Kallenberg: “the persuasiveness of the gospel must be delivered in a patient dialogue that seeks to inculcate the language by the telling, retelling, and reretelling of the story.”[6]

The proposal further takes into account that we live in a cultural context where less and less people have any knowledge of the contents of the Christian faith.

Kallenberg does not negate the old soteriological paradigm that Berkhof and others have proposed. Rather, Kallenberg’s understanding of conversion as a sociological phenomenon complements the soteriological understanding. This adds a dimension to our understanding and hopefully makes our preaching more effective.

Lastly, Kallenberg is not blind to the fact that understanding of conversion presented is a postmodern approach, which will in time be replaced by ‘the next best thing.’ Kallenberg resists the temptation to come up with a new ‘timeless truth,’ and instead recognizes that ‘any drat (of the doctrine) we generate will be filled with historically conditioned phrases and philosophical assumption.’

SUMMARY

The modern understanding of conversion is deficient because it looks only at the individual and ignores the role of the community; it ignores the complexity and power of language, and it reduces faith to intellectual assent to a few propositions.

Kallenberg, recognizing that every philosophical context brings its own ideas and assumptions, proposes a postmodern view of conversion. He suggests that conversion is a process whereby a person enters a community of faith, learns the language of that community, and adopts the story of that community.

[1] Brad Kallenberg, “Conversion Converted,” Evangelical Quarterly, EQ 67:4 (1995), 335-364.

[2] Brad Kallenberg, Live to Tell - Evangelism for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2002). Kallenberg is assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton (Ohio), and received his Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

[3] Brad Kallenberg, Live to Tell - Evangelism for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2002), 16.

[4] George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1984) 33, 81.

[5] Brad Kallenberg, “Conversion Converted,” Evangelical Quarterly, EQ 67:4 (1995), 358.

[6] Brad Kallenberg, “Conversion Converted,” Evangelical Quarterly, EQ 67:4 (1995), 361.