Almost all of my students come from evangelical churches, about half form my own denomination--The Wesleyan Church. These students are both the thermometers and the thermostats of the church. They are thermometers because they reflect what the church has been the last decade or two--for they are totally a product of the church experience of the 1980s and 90s. They are also thermostats, or at least becoming thermostats. In the future they will increasingly control the temperature of the church, not just reflect it. Watching college students is both a good way to see what the church has been for the last decade or so, and a good way to see where the church is headed.

Which brings me to "conversion." Evangelicals have sort of specialized in calling people to a born again conversion --it is one of our trademarks. For many evangelicals this has meant a one-time repentance that results in a "born again experience." That may be changing if you read the thermometer of my evangelical college students. I see three different models of conversion widely accepted among my students.

This is the traditional revivalist model of conversion. A person feels guilt for their sin, comes to a point of confession and repentance, and in a single moment "receives Christ." This is the model on which the "Four Spiritual Laws" and other personal evangelism is based. It is also the model that brought us the "altar call" popularized by Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, and now Billy Graham. It also brought us "personal soul-winning" the camp meeting and Fall/Spring revivals (and their college equivalents "Spiritual Emphasis Week"). The instantaneous model proposes a person might move from darkness to light in a single transaction on a single day or moment in time. One moment they are an "unsaved person" on their way to hell. A moment later they are "saved and on their way to heaven." A person converted like this knows both how and when they were converted--they remember the experience and the place. They might even know the date and day and be able to sing, "It was on a Sunday." This "Damascus Road" model has been the prevailing model among revivalist-evangelicals for at least a century.

Many of my students have a more gradual mode of conversion. This model admits that some people might be saved in a single "hour of decision" but believes that most folk come to Christ through series of decisions over a longer period of time and it is hard to know which decision is the actual moment of conversion. This increasingly popular model of conversion takes a "Faith development" approach to evangelism--nurturing a person along in their faith development "fanning the sparks that are there" until that person develops a fully mature faith. People with this model approach evangelism as if it were discipleship. What once was called "friendship evangelism" is now more popularly called "friendship mentoring" and the focus is on development not decision. Gradual conversionists develop long term relationships with people, helping them to grow and develop, taking their scores of little decisions as "mileposts" of their faith development. As to when the actual moment of conversion occurs, they are little interested. As one female student said, "Who can know when they actually become a Christian--only God knows that…my job is to help people along on their journey." Indeed, "journey" is an important metaphor for those with this model. They are quicker to talk about a person's " faith journey" than their "conversion story." Trouble sometimes emerges when a person with the gradual model of conversion runs into a person with a hard line instantaneous conversion position who is seeking a "conversion story." The instantaneous conversion interviewer is searching for a datable conversion. The gradual conversion person has none. What do they do? "Just pick one" said one Senior student to a Sophomore, "Just pick one of your many experiences and call it the time you were saved--that will satisfy them." The gradual conversion model sees conversion as a long term process, not a one time event.

 But there is yet a third model among my students. Horace Bushnell proposed this model many years ago. Most evangelicals have rejected it for years but it is now more common--at least among the evangelical students I teach. This model proposes that one can be a Christian without ever becoming one. It is most common among students raised in Christian homes, who have faithfully attended Sunday School, VBS, youth camps and every youth convention since they were in the 7^th grade. It is more common among woman than men, and among preacher's kids than children of laity. Those with this model of conversion say, "I've always been a Christian--I was raised a Christian." When asked. "Was there ever a day in your life when you would have gone to hell?" they usually answer promptly, "Not one day." They argue that they are Christian because they have never rejected Christ--having responded to His call every time they heard it as a child. While they have stories of "commitments" and "recommitments" they do not have a conversion story. They believe none of their many commitments brought them from "darkness to light" for they were always in the light--they were raised in the light. They accept a "Damascus road experience" for others, but it was just not their own experience. They are a Christian but never became a Christian.

___________

These three models of conversion are the ones I see among my students--almost all of them Evangelicals. A more serious and thorough study needs to be done, but from my preliminary results I can make some generalizations. Only about 15% of my students claim an instantaneous conversion. A full 70% claim a gradual conversion, though they are able to "pick one" as their "real" conversion if pressed. A final 15% claim the "Christian Nurture" approach. 90% of my students believe all three models valid ways of conversion, though 10% reject the Christian nurture approach as invalid.

These figures are from a small sampling of mostly "good kids" many headed for pastoral ministry or youth work--that probably skews the results. . And the results are preliminary and not broad-based. Nevertheless they provide us something to think about. So, what do you think? Is this emerging broader definition of conversion a good thing or not? Is it even a new thing? What in the church experiences of these young people has contributed to their views? What do these indictors tell us about the church? How do they come by these views--through explicit teaching or has all this been implicit in our actions--it was "caught not taught." Do these students' views reflect a wider shift in the evangelical church's view of conversion? Is that good or bad? How will these three views affect these students' approach to evangelism and outreach when the thermometers become thermostats? Which story do you have? Were you saved in an instant, gradually, or "brought up Christan?" Do you accept all three of these models or reject one or two of them? What other "instantaneous models" of spiritual life have crumbled n the past two decades? How has the culture influenced this--e.g. "Twelve Steps groups" or "recovery models" of change? Is there any connection between our changing view of healing or Sanctification with our changing view of conversion? If the instantaneous model of conversion fades away what will become the new trademark of "Evangelicals?"

So, what do you think? 

To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to Tuesday@indwes.edu

Keith Drury March, 2002. Revision suggestions invited. May be duplicated for free distribution provided these lines are included.

Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday