'Deconversion'

I just discovered that Joshua Harris has 'deconverted' (well, and divorced):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...onship-guide-joshua-harris-says-marriage-over

I remember someone bought me I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy Meets Girl when I was younger, and while I wasn't particularly fond of either, I still find it surprising when these people who were once championed as exemplars of Christianity (in a secular world) are now notWhat I find especially interesting is the use of phrases like 'lost [my] faith'.

I have been having a terrible last few months. I am still having terrible months, and that is the case despite the prayer, and despite the Scripture, and despite the effort to be more involved in my local church community. I'm in the worst place that I have ever personally been. My mind is a mess; it's wrecked, and I can only imagine what I might be able to do if only I didn't spend 90% of my mental energy thinking about the same damned thing. I screw up constantly. Unbelievably so. I am stuck between the tension and anxiety of trying to throw myself before Christ, and being pathetically self-accusing. I mean, do I even bother to make an effort?

But I don't see at what point I would 'lose' my faith. I either keep my faith, or I reject Christ and live in the knowledge of that damnation -- and how could anyone live in that knowledge for very long? I mean faith in both senses here: faith as trust, and faith as knowledge.

I thus find myself thinking now that if someone says they've lost their faith, they maybe never really had it in the first place, and I don't mean that such a person is deceiving themselves, or under a misapprehension. They must have a certain kind of faith by necessity of thinking they were faithful, but a faith that doesn't go far enough.

What do we think? Is there such a thing as 'deconversion', or is the profession of a 'lost faith' an acknowledgment of a faith that never was?

 

Sorry to hear of the ongoing struggles. I won't even try to place myself in your shoes.

As to your question(s), my initial thoughts.

I think one can lose one's faith. For example If one becomes convinced in a naturalistic/atheistic worldview way, then (theoretically) one should be fully rejecting any afterlife consequences, therefore not living in a 'knowledge of damnation". That to me suggests retaining that former acceptance in an active way, but it would not be consistent with an atheistic POV. I do not disagree that there are those that never really had a faith (I question myself this almost constantly).

PS. 'deconversion' seems like a weird term.

 

That's been my position historically, but lately, I've been wondering if this concept of faith glosses over the notion that Christian faith is essentially - and necessarily - a participatory way of being between God and the person being saved. Salvation isn't a one-sided affirmation that follows from some kind of wholly human-driven intellectual assent, but instead, the person being saved responds to the saving act of another, who offers salvation both historically and in an ongoing sense. So the question then becomes: if a Christian has made an utterance of faith, and if faith in the Christian life plays out as a way of being vis-a-vis a response to divine grace, then either this conception is wrong, or the idea that one can 'lose' one's faith follows from a flawed premise, and so it may very well be that the individual in question, as convinced as they were, had a religiousness, but not faith proper.

Of course, that introduces some interesting epistemological questions.

It's inelegant to be sure, and imprecise in its implication (that one converts away from some default state, then deconverts back to it).

I'm not OCD, no, and while I do experience anxiety - perhaps even of the Kierkegaardian sort - it is itself a symptom of the larger issue. Jesus already washed away my sin, and I consider daily what it means to fall (note, not fail) in light of the call to follow Him. The reality is that we all fail, and we all fall, and we cannot do a thing about it -- or need to, as Jesus already has. (Of course, I'm not affirming that one has a license to sin.) I think I'm at a turning point, and what I do at this point in my life will playout for the rest of it. That is a terrifying thought, but it is the same for everyone at some point, and likely many points, in our lives.

As for my struggle, that's the subject of another thread. Or you can DM ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

That's a question I've wondered a lot about, and has been on my mind lately as well.

 

I think deconversion is an excellent word. If I take a three bedroom house used as a whorehouse and change it into a nunnery, its building blocks remain while its utility and purpose and value change.

Why couldn't it be returned to its former state?

I tend to agree that salvation is both simpler and more complex than our bumper stickers and Sunday schools teach.

Salvation however, cannot be lost. Scripture, I believe, does show that it can be actively rejected.

Prayers as always, my dear brother.

 

Just thinking out loud.

I was always taught that salvation is transactional.

What if it were not transactional but relational?

 

My thinking is that a return to default state is nostalgic, or illusory. For example, one might start out in the default state, then make a profession of a faith that ultimately wasn't. Is that a converting away from, and then back to, the default, or was that profession of faith founded upon the default's state idea of faith, religiousness, etc.? Then it would be illusory. On the other hand, if one start's out in the default state, then makes an utterance of faith, and then retracts that utterance with a rejection, then in light of their experience from A to B, and the nature of their rejection, how can they truly claim to have returned to A? They are in a new place entirely, with new knowledge, looking back at where they started and wishing they were there.

:bows:

 

It seems to me to be relational.

 

This at least deserved a 'ha!`

 

Having been through the whole "in, out, in" kind of cycle I think there's a lot of stuff said about it that isn't necessarily helpful.

I don't see any reason why someone can't shift from having a belief that something is true, to not having a belief in whether that something is true, to having a belief that the something is false. It may come from exposure to new information, it may come from a reassessment of what is already known and forming a different conclusion and, in a spiritual sense, it may come from a prolonged drift that results in a reassessment of personal priorities. To give some hypothetical examples:

1. I believe my employer values my contribution to the company. The belief holds until I find out that everybody else got a raise this year and I didn't. Now I believe my employer doesn't care about the contribution I make to the company, or perhaps that they think I'm stupid enough to work hard in exchange for soothing words about how great I am.

2. I believe I can trust my friend not to betray me. Perhaps my friend has never done anything new that explicitly challenges that trust but I gradually become aware of patterns of behavior that make me reconsider how strong the friendship is.

3. This time last year I was really involved in the church. I'd lead services, join in prayer meetings and host them once in a while, regularly attended church and Sunday school and so on. Over the last few months I just kinda got busy and cut back on church stuff. Kinda got out of the habit of church and don't really have time for the prayer meetings any more. Truth be told I don't remember the last time I read my Bible and I don't really pray any more. So based on most things that would identify a Christian it's probably safe to say I'm not a Christian any more.

(Just to reiterate, these are hypothetical, please don't read them and think I need urgent prayer!)

The idea that abandoning a faith means you never really believed in it isn't helpful - it implies that a belief can never be changed at all because if you believe how can you ever believe something else? For me, in fairness (and with the benefit of hindsight), it was very much a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater - I'd come to decide that I didn't really want to be like the Christians I knew and started to drift and then, as the people I'd wanted to get away from tried to get me back I resisted harder. Then my reasoning shifted to the notion that I didn't think the claims of Christianity were true but if they were I'd condemned myself and, if I was condemned anyway, there was no need not to avoid all the bad stuff Christianity forbids. From there it was a small step to start experimenting with the occult, which in turn led to increased hostility to anything that looked like an organised religion.

To be honest I think the way a lot of the more charismatic groups insist on regarding all sorts of utterly trivial things as miracles from God, signs from God, proof of God's providence etc, is hugely unhelpful. It seems to create an expectation that God will intervene in our lives in all sorts of little ways, creating more opportunity for doubts when something happens and God doesn't instantly step in to make it all right. I remember at a former church hearing a testimony of a "miracle" this particular woman experienced. She needed new tires on her car but couldn't afford them. Apparently God told her to visit a small independent outfit, who gave her a small discount for buying two at once. The small discount (I'm talking less than $10 here) meant she could afford them after all. Except the small outlets are the kind of place where you can negotiate a little on the price, with or without the hand of God intervening. Even as a Christian I was embarrassed at her proclamations of miraculous intervention - had I heard something so utterly mundane presented as proof of God's blessing during my time in the occult I'd have just regarded her faith with even more contempt, if that was the best that God could offer her. Of course when you're told God will do all these little things for you, it really doesn't help your faith grow when God doesn't seem to do any of them for you.

 

This is partially what I'm getting at regarding faith as primarily intellectual assent and faith as primarily relational/participatory.

I've looked at this from the other side, and even then it would have to be acknowledged that if faith is the latter, then the 'losing' of faith must take the form of rejection, and then live in the knowledge of that rejection. Of course, that's what would be denied. I'm not sure that this can be sustained if Christian faith really does entail God and people interacting with each other. If one really has interacted with God, then I don't think it would then be possible to write off one's faith as essentially mistaken, or having been delusional, etc.

Those are some nasty implications, I admit.

 

The question of faith as mental assent versus a more relational/participatory exercise is certainly one I would say is my biggest struggle.

Born and raised in a Christian family, raising our children in a similar pattern, attending and being involved with the church, and ascribing to the Christian beliefs and worldview and moral/ethical guidelines would probably define me. But is that a real relational faith or involvement? I won't say I've never had those moments when that faith really felt real, but they seem awfully fleeting at times. I sometimes wonder if I'm sort of a Puddleglum-type character.

 

There are times when personal experience simply closes the door to certain beliefs people may hold. For me personally it just isn't an option to reject the supernatural because I've seen enough things that simply defy normal explanation that I have to accept there is something more out there. It does theoretically leave different explanations open as possibilities, and the "god of the gaps" idea suggests that some day science may be able to explain how such things are normal and natural, even if somewhat uncommon. If you've personally experienced something then an argument that simply discounts your experience as if it never happened is unconvincing.

Hisleast's point, as I understand it, suggests something akin to the placebo effect. If you believe it will work then it will work, and if you believe it will not work then it will not work. The pill is the same, but the loss of faith in the pill makes a material and measurable difference to its effectiveness. The fact the placebo no longer works doesn't mean you didn't once believe it would work, nor does it mean that it never worked, just that it doesn't work now because you lost your belief that it would work. Personally I think this is a huge danger where the ultracharismatic churches are concerned, because my experience of such churches is that they promote a sense of euphoria through much upbeat music and then present the euphoria as evidence of God moving. Of course by Monday morning the euphoria has faded and you're left with the weekly drudge, so you figure you must have done something wrong because God isn't close any more and start chasing the experiences rather than seeking God. For me this is a reason I'm particularly cynical about claims of vaguely defined medical matters that got a little bit better after someone prayed. You've probably heard them - "I had this terrible pain and the preacher prayed for me and the pain was easier to bear, he must be a great man of God because he healed me", except for the inconvenient truth that he did nothing of the sort and nobody hears how the pain was back a few hours later.

It is certainly fair to say that if Christianity is false then, logically speaking, Biblical warnings of eternal damnation may also be false. It doesn't logically follow that there is no place at least somewhat comparable to what the Bible refers to as hell - if Christianity is false it doesn't mean atheism contains any truth, it merely means that this one particular viewpoint is wrong and implies nothing about which competing viewpoint is correct. Logically speaking it is possible that the Jews are right, that the New Testament is irrelevant and Jesus Christ was just a regular guy like you or I. It's possible that Islam is right and Jesus Christ was a great prophet but a precursor to a greater prophet. It's possible that any number of other faiths are right, including atheism.

From a purely logical perspective, if you have interacted with God then it makes no sense to reject it as if it never happened. You might as well watch a unicorn prancing in your back yard and insist that unicorns don't exist. You could arguably dispute whether it was God you were interacting with, or just what nature God possesses but, as you suggest, to look at your own experience and argue that it never happened makes no sense.

I can't help thinking that faith takes both sides of your initial line here. A faith, a belief, in many ways is an intellectual stance. My belief that unicorns do not exist is based on considering what evidence is available to me and drawing a conclusion. I can't prove unicorns exist so have to consider the possibility I may be wrong, but this is a position I hold based on my experience to date. My belief that the apple pie my wife baked this afternoon will taste good is based on past experience of her baking, even though I have yet to taste this particular pie. It's possible that she made a complete hash of it, it's possible that she reached for the ground scorpion pepper powder instead of the cinnamon by mistake, but I consider those scenarios sufficiently unlikely that I'd take a generous slice of pie and expect to eat it and enjoy it. In the same way I believe that some kind of deity exists because it is the most logical explanation for our existence, and believe that Christianity is true because it aligns with my observations and experiences more closely than any other religion I have looked at in any detail. My experiences along the way confirm my beliefs, in ways that make sense to me but may make little sense to others.

 

This is a good point, and I think the potential for ambiguity in the tag "atheist" is unhelpful here.

One might argue that the default position is atheism even if it's arguably a passive and agnostic atheism. That is, the belief "I do not believe in god" is in a passive sense of not knowing and not having a specific belief in the existence or otherwise of god. It might be better defined as agnosticism, although typically people in this state often identify as atheist. One might then be persuaded, through reasoning or experience, that some form of god exists (I'm using a small g because in this context "god" refers to a generic deity or deities), and in the process become a theist. If further thought, experience or whatever else resuts in a changing of outlook the result could be a reversion to default (where "I do not believe in god" means that the active belief in the existence of god is replaced by uncertainty of whether or not god exists) or a transition to an active belief in the non-existence of god (where "I do not believe in god" refers to a more active stance that "I believe god does not exist")

If I might ask, what first convinced you of the truth of Christianity?

 

I would further wonder how reasonably we can talk of a 'default' state when the implication of our posts so far has been that the default is a position that can be described, but what is the position prior to coming to terms with language, if there is such a position at all?

Or as I might ask it -- what is the position of the 3-year-old presently whining around my house? It seems he neither thinks about God, or himself, or others, but is almost wholly selfish as if controlled by, rather than broadly controlling, his thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. If we come out of this state 'naturally', then it seems to me that the historical position is some kind of belief in some kind(s) of diety. That is to say that I suspect we ascribe meaning rather than the opposite as it arises from the wonder in which we first discover the world, which is why certain thinkers tend to make it a point that religious thought is only made possible by ignorance, and - praise Ford - science and civilization has done away with such foolishness. So I'd lean more in the direction of agnosticism, or perhaps even paganism, as the default position.

The short version is that I grew up in a Christian home, and at 11 or 12 I met Jesus in what I can only imagine was some kind of vision. I am utterly convinced of that experience, and so any rejection or 'loss of faith' on my part would come by way of thinking that God is able but unwilling, or that He doesn't care, etc. That is, in fact, one thing I'm currently struggling with. I'm sure I've poured tens of thousands of hours of prayer and study into the issue I'm faced with, and it doesn't seem that it gets any better. I think I'm as good as anyone when it comes to the rational arguments, but the question of taking action as a therapeutic response? I haven't been able to win that one with myself. My brain just doesn't care. If Jesus is listening, then right now it seems like the answer is silence, and it's hard to avoid the thought that there's not much of a difference between silence and not caring.

 

I think Soren would poke you for that last line.

Unfortunately, I am very little use when it comes to therapeutic response to the "silence of suffering." Why are the heavens brass, and why does God seem so far away, or uncaring, or uninterested in my/our/your suffering?
I don't have any answers for that.

But alas, neither you nor I are unique in the world, and the Sweet Psalmist himself suffered the same pain. Psalm 10, 13, 42, 74, etc., etc., etc.,,,

If faith = substance of things unseen, then by definition, my faith is demonstrated best not when I trust in the answers or responses or promises that I receive from God, but to the contrary, my faith is demonstrated best when God is silent and I have nothing unseen upon which to rely.

I hate Paul for calling his then and our current troubles "temporary, light affliction," but when compared to the glory of eternity?.... meh?

I have no other options.