David Gibson has written a provocative column for the Wall Street Journal (linked at Mirror of Justice) in which he examines the distinction between “cradle” Catholics and those who convert to the faith. He raises the question of whether converts make for ‘better’ Catholics, and his conclusion is not a yes or no answer but rather, an attempt to blur the distinction altogether:
The truth is, as the sociologist of religion Peter Berger has long noted, that religion today is a choice, and we are all converts to one degree or another, choosing among a variety of religious experiences rather than having them given to us, as in days of old.
As Charles Taylor explains at length in A Secular Age (2007), today it is extraordinarily rare, at least in the West, for someone to be raised in a religious tradition “unreflectively.” That is to say, to be raised in a world in which their faith exists as an unchallenged background assumption espoused by familial, communal, and political leaders; a world in which one does not first have to justify belief itself before one has specific religious experiences. Yet this old reality existed for centuries, from at least the Middle Ages until perhaps the disappearance of village life in Europe (and inner-city ethnic ‘ghetto’ life in the U.S.) at the end of World War II.
Taylor’s implication, and Gibson’s, is that pretty much anyone who is serious about practicing religion today must have had what William James called a “second conversion.” That is to say that everyone, even “cradle Catholics” who follow their faith must have, at some point, recognized the plurality of options in society at large, examined their own inheritance, and either found it wanting or reaffirmed it on terms not originally considered. As Taylor notes in his book, this is, in some sense, a higher burden on believers than what was expected of them in the years a.d. 1500 or 1000.
Is this assertion, which seems to have a distinctly Hegelian flavor, correct? Can—and should—we ever revert to a scenario where religion is woven into the very fabric of life? And does it represent a triumph of a new consciousness in history, or, as some concerned about modernity have claimed, is it primarily a negative movement away from the classical restraints of community and inheritance?
September 20th, 2011 | 10:07 am
Is this really something new? The first three hundred years of the Church’s existence was among religious plurality and fluidity that may have been even greater than today’s. What was their answer? Perhaps that should be ours.
September 20th, 2011 | 11:09 am
David Marcoe, it’s a good question, but my sense is that all of society was much more patriarchal and familial two thousand years ago, and so despite the religious hostility of the culture and the relative “oddity” of the Christian faith, “I am Christian because my family is” might have had a stronger hold on people than we’d imagine. And, BTW, I don’t consider that sensibility wholly illegitimate, provided it is coupled with an understanding of what is really required by calling oneself Christian.
September 20th, 2011 | 11:57 am
True, but you also had high numbers of converts, who were shut out of their families and communities for their conversion (which meant a great deal more in a collectivist honor culture). And we have to consider examples like Saint Augustine, whose mother was Christian and father was Pagan. After making his way through the prevalent philosophies of the day, he didn’t convert until well into his adulthood. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830815724 ) study on these very issues from cultural/social science perspective.
September 21st, 2011 | 8:43 am
Seems to me the question of conversion runs both ways. It’s family- and tradition- influenced and, at the same time, a particular challenge that each of us faces for ourselves.
When the priest preparing us for marriage learned that my wife-to-be was a convert, he looked at me very gravely, and asked me, a cradle Catholic, “Joe, do you really want to go through with this marriage?” I failed to see his point, and blithely answered “Sure! Why?” I’ll never forget his reply: “Because this convert will make you a better Catholic than you ever planned to be!”
Prophetic words. I don’t know about better, but I can truly say more enthusiastic.
So you ask, are converts better Catholics? I answer from experience, yes they are. You ask, are we all converts? I answer, yes I am, and I don’t believe the human heart has changed that much over the past centuries and millenia. The ancient saints were too, I think.
September 21st, 2011 | 9:15 am
What was their answer? Perhaps that should be ours.
Wasn’t their answer to establish a theocracy as soon as they got complete power tied with the death penalty for heretics and many non-conformers?
September 22nd, 2011 | 9:56 pm
Boonton,
“Wasn’t their answer to establish a theocracy as soon as they got complete power tied with the death penalty for heretics and many non-conformers?”
Don’t be silly. You know it was much more complicated than that. For all of its many flaws and missteps, Christianity has had a finer track record than other religions and ideologies.
September 23rd, 2011 | 3:13 pm
Perhaps true, although I think Buddhism could probably compete pretty well with Christianity in that regard.
But I’m not clear what ‘answer’ David thinks Christians of the first 300 years had to the condition of
“The first three hundred years of the Church’s existence was among religious plurality and fluidity that may have been even greater than today’s.”
More importantly, you can’t go home again. You can’t recreate the conditions of 300 AD because even if we somehow recreated a Christian theocracy with the limited religious freedom of that era people will still know more pluralistic arrangements can coexist with Christianity. The Christians of 300 AD did not know that for sure and did not know what the cons would be if they enacted one. If we were to do so now, we could not claim their innocence as a defense.
September 23rd, 2011 | 7:49 pm
I think David’s point was that the condition of Christianity today is heading toward the conditions that it experienced in its first three centuries. In those first three centuries, Christianity was a minority faith that had no political power, standing, or influence, and in fact was actively persecuted. If I understand him rightly, he thinks that if Christianity could survive that hostile climate, it will survive today’s.
As for the record of Buddhism, has it ever challenged state power as Christianity has or promoted social justice?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact