Conversion- fast or slow?

[Gail]

i am reading a book entitled, Pagans, by James O'Donnell. It is about the dying out of the traditional Roman religious culture and the rise of Christianity.

I always took for granted that Christianity rose through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Pentacost just continued until the religion settled in nicely and everyone forgot about the former ways. Realistically, though, as the sect grew it was when politicians saw the power to be had through including the Christians and the move to turn the church from home groups to a multinational corporation that really brought about the death of what we now call Roman paganism. That, and some oppressive measures by the Church added to the fact that the traditional ways themselves were suffering from lacklustre. People would do things like pray towards the sun because that is the way it was always done and the way they were accustomed to.

A man named Nectarius was complaining to a young Augustus about Christians coming down with too heavy a hand on the citizens of the modest town of Calama in North Africa in the year 408. A crowd had come out to celebrate an old festival with songs and costumes but not going as far as including forbidden practices like blood sacrifice. The local clergy came down on them and this resulted in a riot. A second and a third clash ensued which brought about the death of a cleric and sent the bishop into hiding.

Nectarius' letter was a call to temperance in handling those who were following tradition. He was a baptised Christian citizen and did not defend anything pagan; he just wanted to keep peace. His point was that the people were peaceful and law-abiding and should not be troubled.

Where should the line be drawn by the church between action and tolerance? Think about modern terms.

[whbae]

While we have what we call "freedom of worship", each denomination/church has own doctrine.  If the church members go out of this doctrine then, the church should take action.

[joeb]

i am reading a book entitled, Pagans, by James O'Donnell. It is about the dying out of the traditional Roman religious culture and the rise of Christianity.

I always took for granted that Christianity rose through the power of the Holy Spirit, that Pentacost just continued until the religion settled in nicely and everyone forgot about the former ways. Realistically, though, as the sect grew it was when politicians saw the power to be had through including the Christians and the move to turn the church from home groups to a multinational corporation that really brought about the death of what we now call Roman paganism. That, and some oppressive measures by the Church added to the fact that the traditional ways themselves were suffering from lacklustre. People would do things like pray towards the sun because that is the way it was always done and the way they were accustomed to.

A man named Nectarius was complaining to a young Augustus about Christians coming down with too heavy a hand on the citizens of the modest town of Calama in North Africa in the year 408. A crowd had come out to celebrate an old festival with songs and costumes but not going as far as including forbidden practices like blood sacrifice. The local clergy came down on them and this resulted in a riot. A second and a third clash ensued which brought about the death of a cleric and sent the bishop into hiding.

Nectarius' letter was a call to temperance in handling those who were following tradition. He was a baptised Christian citizen and did not defend anything pagan; he just wanted to keep peace. His point was that the people were peaceful and law-abiding and should not be troubled.

Where should the line be drawn by the church between action and tolerance? Think about modern terms.

Is Roman paganism really dead? 

[JoeMo]

Gail asks, "Where should the line be drawn by the church between action and tolerance? Think about modern terms."

This is a very timely question.  Circumstances in today's world cause me to ask the same question.  Part of our Sabbath School is a prophecy update whenever one is deemed necessary.  Today we discussed three things that are leading Christians to consider this question.

1. The world's movement towards a cashless society.  EU leaders think this is the only way to "control" the economy. In Britain, they are even considering tracking cash transactions under $20 to see who is passing cash. Denmark has a goal to be completely cashless by the end of 2016.  If electronic transactions are the only kind allowed, the government can "turn" your access to money on and off.  A cashless society is also the only way governments can justify negative interest rates.

2. Gay marriage in the Supreme Court. This is a blatant attempt of government control over morality.  Should the court decide in favor of gay marriage, Christians who refuse to provide services to gays will be subject to fines, lawsuits, and possible incarceration (Can you say persecution?).  A minority of gay rights activists will take this opportunity to sue objecting Christians into bankruptcy.  Churches and faith-based charities could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse services to gays.  Gay activists will have the force of government to impose their moral standards on others.  I say this not as an anti-gay statement, but as a high-probability risk of the consequences of the government forcing the gay activist on Christians.

3. The pope's encyclical on Climate Change.  This is a blatant attempt by the church to attach religious significance to a geo-political issue.  Now governments can say that it is our moral and spiritual duty to spend the world into bankruptcy to prevent an event that is either a myth or totally unstoppable (depending on your point of view).  Should you not conform to drastically reducing your carbon footprint, you will not only be shunned by society and persecuted by the government, you will be condemned to hell.

Number 1 points to a movement towards the mark of the beast.  Unless you conform to the governments edicts, they will cut off your access to electronic transactions (the marketplace).  Unless you have the mark of the beast (conform to the world's rules), you cannot buy or sell. Numbers 2 and 3 point to the merging of religion and government - possibly establishment of a government enforced world religion?  Taken altogether, they point to the ability of world governments to cut off everyone from everything if they don't conform to the world's rules.

Isaiah 5:20 -"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

Are we heading in this direction? Where will denominations draw the line between faithfulness to Christian standards and conformance to society?  Where will we as individuals draw the line between personal conviction and "not making waves"?  That may soon become a life and death question - eternal life and death.

Father God, give me the grace and strength to choose eternal life - no matter what the consequences!

[Gail]

While we have what we call "freedom of worship", each denomination/church has own doctrine.  If the church members go out of this doctrine then, the church should take action.

Our modern equivalent to the traditions kept by the common people in those days would be, say, Christmas and Easter and perhaps Halloween. People celebrate them without any religious consideration at all.

The event described in the OP had to do with the reaction of the church against a public festival. The celebrants were observing a traditional festival and by this time (400s AD) the Roman fervor had waned regarding the old, multi-God system. 

The dynamics were changing anyhow, and I could pick up a pondering from the author as to whether it was wasted effort for the church leaders/civic leaders to legislate morality. I tried to imagine how successful a  modern government would be in trying to outlaw Christmas today. Would it help create faithful Christian adherents out of those who were merely observing the holiday for its own sake?

[Stewart (SDA)]

Good thoughts to ponder, Gail.

A few ideas come to mind. If the work of conversion (or "transformation) is the "renewing of the mind", then this kind of renewal takes time, and it can't be forced. Of course no-one really changes [for the better] by compulsion. Patience is required.

But on the other hand, we are called to be instant in season and out of season. We are warned against engaging in hasty, haphazard,  work, but the church seems to err more on the side of dalliance.

"We must in our work not only strike the iron when it is hot but make the iron hot by striking. Slow, easy, indolent movements will do nothing for us in this work. We must be instant in season, out of season. These are critical times for work. By hesitation and delay we lose many good opportunities...." (Evangelism  p.647).

"The work is before us; will we engage in it? We must work fast, we must go steadily forward. We must be preparing for the great day of the Lord. We have no time to lose, no time to be engaged in selfish purposes." (1Selected Messages p.126)

Edited June 21, 2015 by Stewart (SDA)

[CoAspen]

'Conversion" is between the HS and the individual.  Who are we to 'time' that process?

[Gail]

Individually, yes. But in the years after Jesus ascended, Christianity grew and became first a common, new faith. Then it grabbed the attention of those in power. There were some tolerant caesars until Constantine, of course. But once Christians joined government and the movement became established, then laws were established, etc.

I am thinking of more of a corporate aspect. One reason Christianity was able to gain a foothold was that the traditional Roman religion was becoming old hat. I suppose you could say that Christianity today is waning the same way, perhaps preparing for the next latest and greatest thing to come along.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Gail

[Gerr]

Conversion - fast or slow?  Yes!