I was thinking about religious conversion today — or, more accurately, about the means of effecting religious conversion — because I got called upon by some Mormons. There was a dainty knock on my door and, in response to my “who’s there?” I was told that it was “Elder” This and “Elder” That from the Church of LDS.
When I opened the door to dismiss them — very politely — I discovered two young men, half my age, nattily attired in standard LDS uniform of black pants, short sleeve white shirts, and ties. I wished them well, and sent them on their way. They thanked me and left quietly. And that was it.
The reason I opened the door to two strange young men was because I knew these men wouldn’t storm my house and try to rob or rape me. And the reason I (politely) rejected their attempt to convert me was because I knew that these same young men wouldn’t turn on me with the sword for insulting their God. While I’m not in the running for conversion right now (won’t ever be), I came away with a whole lot more respect for these men of faith — men who give two years of their lives to the believe that they can help others through their vision of God — than I can ever imagine having for the Jihadists who use death threats to effect conversions. The Jihadists, incidentally, do not seem to be motivated by a belief that they can improve their converts’ lives. Rather, its more like a pyramid scheme, where they relentlessly push their religion on others in order to increase their own standing in the faith.
My basic feeling when I think about the two modes of conversion, one by words, one by the sword, is that the Jihadists don’t bring new souls to their God. Instead, they bring frightened, reluctant hostages as sacrifices to their altars. Their conduct would be a terrible precedent for Christians of any stripe to follow.
If you’re wondering why I’m even thinking about Christians following the Jihadist road map for gaining converts, I have to admit that it occurred to me only because Heather, at From the Word Go, brought a Bryan Preston post to my attention, challenging Reynold’s prediction that Christians will start using these Jihadist tactics. Heather focuses on Reynold’s argument that Christians will revert to that kind of behavior if they feel that the world rewards those who use it. I think Heather is precisely right in saying that Christians will not go this route because it will never get positive feedback from those who matter — fellow Christians:
This behavior will never be widespread in the Christian community precisely because Christians know they will not be rewarded for it in the manner that Muslims are. Of course self-detonating Christians wouldn’t get sympathy from the media since they aren’t an approved minority with an approved grievance. But it is so much more than that.
Terrorist Christians would not get sympathy from other Christians. Unlike Muslim terrorists, Christian terrorists would not benefit from world-wide excuse making, fund raising, and network forming. Can Christians produce one-off nut jobs who do terrible things? Of course. But that’s all it will ever be. To paraphrase Mao, there’s no sea for the Christian terrorist fish to swim in.
You can read (and, I’m sure, agree with) the rest of what Heather has to say here.
Filed under: Christians, Mormons
It’s absurd to think that Christians will try to convert people with a sword. We’ve already tried it. It didn’t work.
Hey Jihadists get good press from the press because Jihadists threaten to kill the press. So why don’t Republicans use JIhadi tactics given the President’s command of the military if these tactics will benefit the user? Because…. things don’t work like that nor do they scale like that.
Book “escaped from the belly of the liberal beast.” Was her conversion due to 9/11(I’m sure it was)? Was her conversion due to cognition or emotion? Probably emotion(not that there is anything wrong with that . . I understand).
Who and what were the main proselytising influencing agents on her? Who manipulated Book?
My conversion was due to cognition, and I’m talking about religious conversion. After duly weighing the arguments, pro and con, I decided that I would rather accept the Christian worldview and be wrong, then accept the world’s view, and be right.
All I had to lose was some selfish desires fulfilled. I stand to gain the Kingdom of God. Seems like a reasonable deal to me.
[...] [Discuss this article with Bookworm over at the Bookworm Room…] Share Article Mormons, Church of LDS, God, Jihadists, Christians, Christians, Muslims Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL [...]
This is not to say Christians are immune to religious violence, especially if pushed. I recall recently the Archbishop of Nigeria was condemning Islamic violence in his country precisely because it might provoke a reaction. The implicit threat was clear.
Frankly, I can’t be too sorry about that. If Islam wants a religious war — and every indication is that they’re doing their damnedest to wage one — we should give it to them. Remind them why it’s a bad idea to be in front of a bunch of Christians with guns. They seem to have forgotten.
One generally unacknowledged function of the two year mission is to re-convert the missionaries, i.e. to create experiences and form bonds that will last a lifetime. Looked at it that way, sometimes the additional converts seem like bonuses.
Compare and contrast that sense of community with that of the jihadis.
My French grandmother once welcomed two young Mormon missionaries at her door with a deal: they wouldn’t try to convert her from her Catholocism and she would cook them a wonderful French dinner. They became great friends and left my grandmother with wonderful memories.
Book was never converted, she was enlightened. There is a difference.
The process of both enlightenment and conversion, are never entirely mental nor emotional based. And stop stealing big words from greg, he gets testy about that, swamp.
There never really is any one event in a person’s life, such as 9/11, that it alone produces the epiphany. There are chains of events in a person’s life, because people are the sum total of their lives and the pattern of their experiences. Or to be exact, it is the lesson and wisdom a person acquires in a pattern like way, from a specific event or sequence of event. That is unique for every person. Patterns are like waves, they are in constant motion, dynamic rather than static. Events like 9/11 are static events, because most events once they happen, are immutable, they cannot be changed. But perceptions of those events, thinking about those events, do change. Thus the pattern.
It is healthier to have a lengthy period of change, because if a person changes immediately then we know that there was only one variable at work, one thought at work, one fanatical ideology at work. Those types of indoctrination doesn’t take long to take effect.
Going into a cult, produces invariably immediate effects, mostly negative.
This applies in the same way to Islam. If a person has little to no life experiences, goes into a MOsque, and comes out a radical in a few visits, you know that that MOsque is quite effective at doing its little hobby program.
There is a concerted effort to pass along Religious Truth, using the “velvet brick” approach, rather than more obnoxious, less tolerant means of yesteryear.
In the past, those who believed that the Bible is the literal word of God have often been harsh in their attempts to win converts. Not so much now, it seems.
http://www.thestate.com/426/story/75841.html
Hi Ms. Bookworm,
How are things?
Here’s the major point of difference, as I see it:
In Christian theology, the entire idea, as presented in the Gospels is to `spread the Good News’ and provide an enhancement to spirituality. Conversion by force or coercion is not an official part of the equation, although it certainly happened in the past.
In Islam,there are no `converts’ since all human beings are
thought to be Muslims who have staryed from the fold and/or
simply don’t realize yet that they’re Muslims..the term used
for someone returning to Islam is `revert’.
In order to accomplish this, Islam directly mandates that
any means necessary can be used, from dawa , or
persuasion, to jihad and forced conversion.
You might also remember that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, something I feel is highly revealing.
I’m also no candidate for conversion, but I have had some fascinating conversations on theology with Mormon and other Christian missionaries when time permits.
All Best,
ff
A conversion via the sword is never going to be a true one. Only a coversion via the heart is true. Christians, for the most part, have figured this out. Muslims, to everyone’s sorrow, have not.
“Patterns are like waves,they are in constant motion,dynamic rather than static”.
Y,I know there can be a pattern on a shirt,waves in the ocean,dynamic hitters in baseball,static electricity in the air and constant motion on a soccer pitch BUT WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Better you don’t know, swamp. Could shock you.
The key concept in any jihad (religious war) is that the nation-state is illegitimate because it has adopted a set of laws that are an abomination to the Creator. Such an illegitimate nation-state, and the people who support it, are to be cleansed via violence.
We have seen rumblings of this recently in the West only via abortion-clinic bombings. There is a significant, but small, number of Christians who support the practice and defend it via various polemics.
Eric Rudolph had a great deal of support in his area of the country. He evaded capture during his campaign of violence for so many years NOT because of his wilderness survivalist capabilities but because of significant community support in sheltering him and supporting him. This community support of the violent religious extremist can happen even in the West.
However, support for religious extremist violence is right now an ascendant phenomenon in Muslim society and in countries dominated by Islam. What is unusual is the public and legal support given Islamic jihad not just by communities of people, but by the legal system and force of the Islamic (theocratic) government of many countries themselves.