Recently I had some discussion on Twitter on how we use the terms 'conversion' and 'convert' so I thought I should follow it up with a blog post. What does it mean to be converted? Is conversion the same
thing as regeneration? We often use the term conversion without thinking. Here
are some thoughts on why we should be much more thoughtful on this issue.
Bible on conversion
Modern English translations of the New Testament (I have
only looked at NIV, ESV, NLT, and NASB) use the word ‘convert’ or its cognates
to translate several different words (8 times in NIV, 7 in NLT, 5 in ESV, 3 in
NASB). But a quick analysis of the Greek words that are translated convert or
converted shows that the English words are being used in ways that do not match
the Greek:
- In Matthew 23:15 and Acts 2:11, 6:5, and 13:43 the NIV and
NLT use ‘convert’ to translate proseluton
(from where we get the word proselyte), referring to a Gentile who had become a
Jew. (The AV & NASB renders it as ‘proselyte’ in all four cases and the ESV
likewise in the first three.)
- In Acts 15:3, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:15, and 1
Timothy 3:6, rather than use the word proseluton, Luke and Paul use various expressions
to describe someone who has come to Christ. They seem to be at pains to
distinguish what has happened to someone coming to Christ with what had
happened to someone converting to Judaism. So, they use words that would
ordinarily be translated as novice or firstfruits. But both NIV and ESV render
the words as ‘convert’, ‘converted’ or ‘conversion’ in all four cases. The NIV
is making no attempt to distinguish the experience from that of those who joined
Judaism. (The AV uses ‘conversion’ only in Acts 15:3; the NLT is like the AV;
the NASB is as NIV and ESV except in 1 Corinthians 16:15.)
This begs the question why the translators of some modern
versions have opted to render several different Greek words as convert. The NIV
makes no attempt to distinguish the experience of those who have come to follow
Christ from that of the proselytes to Judaism. I suggest that they have bought
into a modern conceptual framework of religions.
Comparative religions
The discipline of comparative religions emerged in the
mid-19th century alongside that of anthropology, sociology and
psychology. Till this time, the study of religion was largely construed of as
one of reflection on one’s own religion. But the 19th century
witnessed major advances in travel and trade, as well as the development of the
modern missions movement. The unprecedented encounter with hitherto unknown
religious traditions, coupled with the growing power of rationalist thinking
led to the emergence of this discipline in the universities. Now the way
societies thought, worshipped, lived their lives, in short, their traditions
could be compared across the world. Religion became plural – religions. But how
many are there and how are they distinguished from each other? Can we group
them together and can we discover how it is that different groups believe
similar things and carry out similar rituals? And what do we make of our own
tradition? Are Roman Catholicism and Protestantism different religions or two
versions of the one religion? Can we speak validly about conversion from one to
another?
Probably the most obvious thing about religion around the
world is that it is social: people do religious things together. So, are there
as many religions as there are societies? The biggest challenge came in trying
to sort out Eastern religions. Let me ask you a question: are you comfortable talking about
Christian Hindus? William Carey was. But almost no one talks in such a way
anymore. So, what has happened?
The whole development of the study of religions has led to
the creation of religions. So,
Christian and Hindu have become two mutually incompatible categories. And as
social groups in South Asia as well as elsewhere are massively important to the
people, religion must, of necessity, be a characteristic of a social group. And
conversion must be the requirement to change from one social group to another.
Social change
But social change is not a requirement of discipleship to
Christ in the Bible. Paul instructs the Corinthians thus: “…each one should
retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has
called him” (1 Cor 7: 17, 20, 24). And
to make sure no one says, “Well that was just for the Corinthians,” the apostle
adds, “This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.”
Even if the new believer does not say that he has changed
religion or community, his actions will speak louder than words if he rejects his
family traditions.
So, I argue, let’s be very careful how we use the word
conversion. Maybe we shouldn’t use it at all—certainly not in situations where
it will be misunderstood.
See a fuller discussion in Mark Johnson, “
The Yatra in Christ”
