What does conversion look like?

Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail makes interesting observations about how most Anglicans and most evangelicals view the process of conversion.

Evangelicals tend to emphasize the importance of making a decision to believe in Jesus. Anglicans (And for purposes of discussion, lets confine this to orthodox Anglicans.) tend to see conversion as more of a process, ideally beginning with infant baptism, proceeding through childhood religious education, leading to confirmation. So Anglican conversion typically is something a child grows into. (Of course, Anglicans also acknowledge that people as adults repent of unbelief and believe.)

The book points out that the evangelical emphasis on making a decision has the weakness of not explaining well those children who gradually come to faith at an early age. It also can raise doubts and pressure for a decision from people who have already come to faith but can’t remember a moment in time when a “decision� was made. It can also pressure for a decision when someone just isn’t ready to make a decision. Sometimes that pressure can even push someone away from Christ.

And I think the book is correct. But I don’t think the book adequately looks at the weaknesses in the typical Anglican position on conversion.

First, the Bible is very unclear just what occurs in an infant baptism. Most Anglicans believe the infant is regenerated. I do not.

I’ve noticed many Anglicans seem to believe that if you were infant baptized then confirmed, then you’re in. In fact, the preacher this past Pentecost Sunday at Small Continuing Anglican Church said that if you are baptized and confirmed, then you have the Holy Spirit. If confirmation includes a sincere heart trust and belief in Jesus, then I’d say yes. Otherwise . . .

I think the typical Anglican position opens the door to serious self-deception. It seems too easy for someone who doesn’t really believe to think that if they were baptized and confirmed, they are saved. The view is something akin to those who think going to church all their lives means they are going to heaven.

I grant that the evangelical “decision� model is open to self-deception as well. My Dear Ol’ Dad told me he once “went forward� as a boy.

I don’t think it took.

But at least Dad doesn’t have any illusions of being heaven-bound. Sadly, many do trust in the mechanics of “going forward� or “slipping their hand up� or reciting a sinner’s prayer or some such "decision" for their salvation. It’s Christ we must trust for salvation, not the mechanics of going forward or whatever. The mechanics will look different in different people. But all must trust in Jesus.

I don’t think we should trust too much in either model of conversion. As Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.� (John 3:8) There’s a lot of people who trust in Jesus, but even they couldn’t tell you exactly how that happened.

And the scriptures in different places have different (but not contradicting) descriptions of what conversion looks like. So whether we tend to hold to the Anglican process view of conversion or the evangelical decision view, we should have the humility to realize we don’t know just exactly where the Spirit “comes from and where it is going� in conversion.

Anyway, what do you think of the strengths and weaknesses of these two (or other) views of conversion?