 |
 |
Greetings! >Let's beware, lest in our own erudition we impose impossible standards of >"right" Christianity. Judging from friends who have converted, it seems >that internal conversion often comes first, followed by the dogma, "faith >seeking understanding," as Anselm said. I think I was fairly clear that I was not trying to say one of these types of Christianity was "better" than the other--I happen to think that both are equally valid, and am in fact more interested myself in the "popular" manifestations of religion (what many used to label "superstition.") We must be equally careful not to assume that the late-20th century conversion experience is equal to the early medieval one. One aspect of late 20th century conversion experiences I've witnessed in friends is the feeling that the conversion results when one feels one has built a special, personal relationship with God, or has reached a deep spiritual understanding about what the faith in general is "getting at." I've never seen anyone convert in adulthood to Catholicism, for example, who has done so simply because (to use a parallel example) their local Congressman is Catholic; most change faiths only after a period of self-examination and at least some investigation of what that particular faith stands for; this has been true for even a couple of friends who have had quite emotional "born again" experiences--they don't just join *any* church, they join one which represents the variety of the faith they find most deeply satisfying. I just can't see this as being paramount when you've got thousands of Franks (for example) converting at once because their king did. Were they devout Christians? I don't doubt it. Did they have a deep internal understanding of their faith? For the majority, probably no. Are there people like this around today? Most certainly. Religious faith fulfills different needs for different people. Susan Carroll-Clark %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%