A certain approach to evangelism emerges: the ministers seem to have well-articulated rhetoric of conversion, without a correspondingly well-articulated rhetoric of evangelism. This plays itself out in different ways across the three culture groups represented in the
interviews. The result seems to be an approach to evangelism that displays a certain
organizational cultural uniformity, and also displays what appear to be varied cultural specific norms. This is essential to conceptualise as I consider developing a liturgy of conversion; I need to pay careful attention to the ministers’ concepts of the subjects of evangelism and conversion. I asked specific questions about conversion and evangelism, and there were signs of the outworking of their mind-set throughout each interview.
Conversion as Transformation/Change
My working definition of “conversion” – which I needed to have in mind as I developed an understanding of contemporary Methodist thinking in Cape Town – was: “ a meaning-
enriching, identity-(re)defining, and commitment-shaping process of change in worldview, initiated by God, described by converts, and experienced by converts in a social context; a
process which enhances the meaningfulness of the convert’s life, confers asocial identity, and enhances their agency” [see 2.3.8 above] . My interest, therefore, was particularly in the
areas of meaning, identity, agency and commitment.
ME001 sets the tone for an understanding of conversion as transformation in my very first interview when he posits the search for “… a moment not so much of conversion as
transformation”180 [ME001: 0632]. ME001 was not alone in wanting to find some other way of
talking about conversion; FE004 explicitly says “…I don’t ever use the word evangelism or conversion” [FE004 2105], and continues to speak of the different aspects of personal and social transformation in our discussion181 [see also MZ009: 3521; ME005 2843; FE004:
3303]. But whatever their linguistic preferences, all the ministers indicated that in their understanding, conversion needed to involve profound changes in attitude and behaviour [ME001: 0530; MA002: 4235; MX003: 3508; FE004: 0743; ME005: 0352; ME007: 3527; MX008: 2041; MZ009: 0853; FA011: 2815; ME012: 3350]. So all the respondents agree on a core issue of conversion: change. But what that change might be, and how conversion might happen, turned up a number of different emphases.
Transformed Sundays: Conversion as Church Attendance?
“Conversion in the terms of a non-church-goer, a person who would
before never enter the doors of a church and suddenly experience Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour – unfortunately we don’t have many of those stories.” ME007: 0424
The most obvious transformation that ministers apparently expect or desire is that people start to attend Sunday liturgy, and to take part in various Methodist activities. ME007 gives a snapshot of a particular type of conversion: a person stops keeping themselves away from attending church services - perhaps because they somehow come to have a transcendent experience of Christ, or for some other reason. Both ME001 and FE004 use the same vortex/funnel image to express this, of people sliding down a slope from disengaged with the church to fully engaged with it182 [ME001: 0133; FE004: 1050]. From that point onwards the
only way to develop one’s spirituality is by throwing oneself enthusiastically into the program
180 It is not clear to me what distinction ME001 has in mind between his proposed term
“transformation”, and his rejected term “conversion”. I guess from the context of the interview that what he means by “conversion” is an antiquated complex of ideas (sin, hell, coercion, fear and guilt, perhaps?) that is psychologically untenable and theologically distasteful. This would require further conversation which I have not been able to have as yet.
181 FA011 is once again an outlier in this regard – she enthusiastically embraces the use of the word-
cluster “convert/conversion”, using the word directly, ten times, without feeling the need to interpret it [Table 3 Liturgy References in the Interviews].
of the church. MX003 virtually defines conversion as “commitment to church” where others might use “commitment to Jesus” [MX003: 0648; 1049].
However, “normal conversion", or the “normal Christian Life”, seems to be defined as willing immersion in the liturgical life of the church. MX008 defines effective evangelism in this way: “…the only way that seems to be working for now. Where people will go and look for
someone, and convert – not even convert – just guide to the church, and then there will be people” [MX008: 0039]. It can apparently be expected that by submitting to institutional tradition processes, advancing through Scriptural instruction via sermons and Bible study group attendance [MX003 0648], a person can be adequately discipled, and grow into an adequately devoted Christian. MX003 very matter-of-factly refers to the fact that only two of his fifteen confirmees have a conversion experience, and that the other thirteen are “part of the tradition”[1616]. Most of the ministers seem to feel they are working with a population of church members many of whom fall into this category183 [ME001: 3312; MA002: 0530;
FE004: 2427; ME005: 2207; FE006:3134; ME007: 4703; MX008: 0204; FA011: 3335; ME012: 0437].
Ministers are very careful to not give the impression that they expect some sort of standard experience or level of knowledge, or even a particularly Christian faith-position before new members are allowed to participate in the life of worship of the community. “I don’t say to people ‘Do you understand and believe every element of the Nicene Creed?’ before I’m willing to baptise their babies”, says FE004 [3345]. Ministers are at pains to stress that the liturgical life of the church is open for absolutely everybody184. What seems to be the
unspoken standard is that potential new members have to buy into a standard of respectability, responsibility and conservative social conformity before they will “feel at home” – people who think of themselves as “decent people” (to use the telling phrase of ME007) [ME007: 5158]. But then it is this group of “decent people”, with different levels of commitment, that the ministers find so frustrating [see above 3.2.5]. “The difficulty we are facing in the church,” says MX008, “is that people are not living their faith” [MX008: 0408]. The question arises as to whether there is an assured path of progression in anybody’s life from “seat-warmer” to “heart-warmer” [MZ009: 4424]. MZ009 and the other ministers all want this – but it seems to be an elusive goal. It seems that the ministers need to develop an operation theory of conversion.
A Transforming Sense of Relationship to God
183 The exception being MX003 with his estimate of active involvement of 90% of his one
congregation [MX003: 2325].
184 Although ME001 does tell a disturbing anecdote of being persuaded to dissuade a homeless man
Ministers acknowledge that certain individuals seem to have had some extraordinary experience of the love and calling of God. MZ009 expresses this well:
“I think [conversion] is the transformation of heart, and then once the heart is transformed, as Wesley says, “I felt my heart strangely warmed”, and it is that experience that me and you are saying we are called, which is an experience that you cannot explain to another person which we are finding too hard. You can try and explain it to somebody else – it won’t make sense. …so you know what you felt. So I think that once the heart receive that conversion, the mind and the action will just falls into place, because it all comes … it all start here” [MZ009: 3521].
Several of the ministers talk about experiences of the ineffable that have deeply motivated some of them, and consider that a conscious experience of relatedness to God through Jesus is a hallmark of a uncontestably converted life [ME005 1754; FE006:1126; FA011: 0757 (a 1,800-word narrative of her conversion and call to the ministry!)]. And most seem to have a typical Barthian conversion-crisis view of the process beginning at a point of
realisation [see above 2.3.2]. ME012 articulates this:
“The Christian faith does require us to respond in some way, to choose to follow Christ, to be Jesus’ followers, so I don’t think
everybody’s now saved, .…I do believe that there is … either a place or a process by which we respond to Christ’s call, and we choose to live the Christ-life” [ME012: 2244].
Most of the ministers seem to expect that a significant experience of the reality of God is something that should be part of a convert’s experience [MX003 1507; FE006 2124; ME005 2805; MX003 4902]. MX003 calls it “that moment of realisation about the love and grace of Jesus Christ” [MX003: 4902]. ME005 is insistent that “…to be truly converted there has to be an experiential part that says ‘I feel and know that something has changed.’” [ME005: 2827]. A result of this experience of the closeness of Jesus is a responsive commitment to him. People “commit their lives to Jesus” [MA002: 0258; 4110; FE004:0416; 2601; ME005: 0352; ME007: 2927; 3527185; FA011: 5500; 11718; ME012: 0649], by which the ministers mean
something like a lasting decision to dedicate oneself to the service of God through faith in Jesus [ME005 3713]. ME007 considers that it might be the task of the church to transform “church-goers” into such “fully committed Christians” [ME007: 4845].
185 I am almost certain that ME007 was about to say “church-goer”, (he got out a “ch” sound), but then
Although the ministers acknowledge that conversion in these terms is a functional reality in the lives of some of their members, they seem extremely tentative about what it is and how it happens. Conversion is perhaps seen as something so mysterious that it could not be planned for or even aimed at [ME005 0500]. But another of its signs, besides the sense of connectedness with God, is a deep repentance of sin.
A Transformation of Ethics: Turning Away from Sin?
As noted above [in Table 2 Bible References in interviews], the ministers are extremely reluctant to frame conversion in terms of sin and forgiveness – but somewhat surprisingly that does not mean they do not think that repentance is not a vital concern when dealing pastorally with people. One minister casts the problem in these terms:
“The world is so broken. People don’t want to be convicted of their sin. People are not in the state to be able to bear the fact that they are sinners. They need to be able to only hear the fact that they are loved and forgiven. And to insist that they can only be forgiven when they acknowledge – you know what I mean?” [FE004: 0438].
FE004 seems to suggest that the topic of sin/forgiveness needs to be avoided tactically because people in general are too sinful to be able to accept that they might be sinful: also, perhaps, that unless introduced with extreme tact the alternatively faithed might easily jump to the conclusion that the Christian messenger is condemning others for sin while at the same time portraying the messenger as exempt from sin him/herself. The ministers appear to be in a logical bind, though; ME005 considers that for true conversion to have happened “…there needs to be an acknowledgement of sin, a desire to change, repent from it, and an experience of God’s forgiveness” [ME005 2805].
This conflict seems to be expressed also in extreme generalisation when talking about the sort of sinful behaviours or lifestyles that people might be expected to convert from as they convert to Christianity. Their range of specific sin-reference is very limited, heavily featuring a fairly limited range of disreputable sins, notably drunkenness and drug addiction. “Sin” appears remarkably like a breach of middle-class respectability186. Socio-political sins are
186 ME001 seems to think that “sitting back and doing bugger all” is close to being a major sin [ME001:
3323], as is reckless driving [ME001: 4023]. For MA002 the big sin is disregard for one’s neighbour in need [MA002: 3749] – which is closer home to respectable Christians. For MX003 the sins to change from are perhaps “drugs and gangsterism186” [MX003:1219; 4902], judgementalism [MX003:1930];
taking advantage of the poor [MX003: 3100; 5725], stealing [5238] and making false and exaggerated spiritual claims [10706]. For FE004, drink and drugs are the classic sin-labels – or at any rate the first thing that comes to mind when I pushed her to specify some particular sin [FE004: 3531]. ME005 targets “drinking and carousing” as landmark sins people might feel the need to turn from [ME005: 0620]. Alcohol abuse is the top-of-the-mind sin for FE006 [FE006:0310], as is deliberately living by double standards [FE006:3247]. ME007 reads drug addiction as the most obvious example of a sin to
referred to mostly impersonally, almost as if the members of the churches are able to address such issues from the outside, without being likely to be victims, perpetrators or implicated parties. There are a few references to sin as the sort of thing that might be in the realm of the respectable Christian – ignoring the poor, judgementalism, and selfishness – but the overwhelming opinion seems to be that sin is what bad people do. The sins of
Christians appear to be considered as relatively minor flaws which only occasionally taint the goodness of the good people.
I shall have to return to this issue after a close reading of Wesley’s Journals, because at first glance it seems that this is an area of high divergence between Methodism in the 18th
century and Methodism in the 20th.
Selfishness Transformed: Energetic Compassion for Those in Need
“’If you love me, follow my commands’... John 15. … people that have discovered the joy of Jesus and for God are the people so
enthusiastic, and on board, because they’re doing this for Jesus, they’re doing this for God. And I think for me the first point or the starter is get people in love with Jesus again. It’s people to get excited when they wake up to talk to God and every opportunity they have to talk about God. And when they do things within the life of the church they’re doing it for God [MA002: 3503]
The ministers seem to see this “conversion” as a very clear break between a former mode of existence and a subsequent one, resulting in an intensification of commitment and energy (cf. Newbigin, 1989, p. 13)[MX003: 0648]. The ministers might be ambivalent or vague about what one is expected to turn away from, in terms of sin. But they are very definite about what they are expecting truly converted people to convert towards. A converted Methodist Christian is expected to enthusiastically adopt a “no harm” [ME001 2952] lifestyle, one that avoids destructive behaviours and promotes the general welfare of society [ME005 2855; FE004 3531; MX003 4902]. Ministers are quite clear that if there is not a visible lifestyle commitment to “holiness”, then one cannot speak of conversion: “… conversion for
be converted away from [ME007: 2927]. ME007 was particularly concerned about socio-political evil that needed its own type of conversion [ME007: 4026]; but he also notes drug-dealing and prostitution as specific sins [ME007: 4600], and judgementalism and arrogance [ME007: 5036], whilst drawing a sharp distinction between decent” people on the one hand and “drug peddlers and murderers” on the other [ME007: 5115]. MX008 is unique in identifying hate and aggression as sins that require change [MX008: 1941]. MZ009 also leads with social sin – in his case gangsterism [MZ009: 0707], but also larger socio-political “challenges186” [MZ009: 3210]. He also has a harsh word for Christian
judgementalism [MZ009: 4810]. Alcohol is the first to feature on FA011’s list [FA011: 0446], followed by “alcohol and partying” [FA011: 2815], drinking and swearing [FA011: 3141], drugs and alcohol [FA011: 4512]. ME012 nominates “selfishness” as his only specifically mentioned sin [ME012: 3728].
me is that there’s got to be a change, there’s got to be a transformation. From selfishness to selflessness” [ME012: 3728]. A transition from selfishness to altruism seems to be a highly significant “conversion marker” in the minds of the ministers. Several of the ministers point to a sense of pleasure and purpose in life that characterises the life of somebody who has converted [MA002 0550, 4219; FE006 2239; FE004 0602]. People who are “converted Christians” – as opposed to “traditional Christians” - are happy to expend great amounts of energy on Christian activities [FE006 2239].
The task of motivating those who have a transformed/transforming sense of a personal relationship to God, and a lively sense of forgiveness of their own sin, then ceases to be a pastoral chore. These determinedly compassionate people are the active core of the church’s altruistic activity. Incidentally, however, this altruism is expected to be normally channelled through projects that enhance the prestige of the church. Ministers seem to be truly proud of their churches’ capacity to care for the poor and needy [MA002: 3503; 3520]. But the takeaway from all this is once again that the concept of Christians caring for those who are not necessarily part of their congregation appears to be an integral part of the church-image of the ministers. Conversion towards God entails conversion towards others. This could be vital for understanding how a liturgy of conversion might conceivably become more prominent in the life of Methodist churches. If one wants that sort of action one needs
this sort of people.
Ongoing Personal Transformation
“… once you have accepted Christ you have accepted Christ, you can’t be more converted than anybody else. But how you exercise that, how you exercise your conversion. Some will be more committed than others, more passionate than others….I mean I just look at, over the years, some people burn with passion for Christ and others are ‘Well, I know him, but he fits into my world’ sort of thing” [FE006:2239].
The ministers, as we have seen, shy away from using the categories of sin/forgiveness in their formulation of what conversion might involve. And they generally prefer to talk of “transformation”, which perhaps allows for a less severe judgement on the present condition of the converting person, so that by a process of incremental improvements they might indeed eventually become very good human beings187. The transformation envisioned
187 It seems that they tend to aim for transformation from “goodish” to better, rather than from
“baddish” to “goodish”. MX008, for instance, sets great store by somebody becoming a “better person” [MX008: 1941].
appears to be more like extreme improvement than radical transformation188. The ministers
often reference Wesley’s idiosyncratic teachings on “perfection in love”, “sanctification”, and “prevenient grace” at this point [ME001: 2810; ME005 3032; MA002: 4235; MX003: 5238; ME005: 2855; 2951; MZ009: 4022; MX003: 5153; MZ009: 4022; FA011:11330; FA011: 11507]. I will need to read this alongside Wesley’s attitude towards sin and conversion as I develop my grounded theory.
But whatever they believe about how a person gets there, the ministers acknowledge and appreciate their members having progressed “… into a transformed lifestyle, living in obedience to God [FE004: 3252]. What seems to stamp a conversion as genuine, in the thought of the ministers, is that it leads beyond itself to this process of lifelong