Conversions "easier"?

[FabiusMaximus]

I was just thinking:

I’ve read about a lot of famous conversions in the past, whether from Protestantism to Catholicism, or vice versa, or from either one to Orthodoxy. I imagine in the era before television and the Internet, it would have been more difficult to find the appropriate information to help sway someone to convert one way or another. I wonder if conversions were perhaps more simplistic?

Is it easier to convert now, or are conversions more “convincing” now that we have such great access to more information, like Church history, for example?

 

[DJK100]

I think it is harder to convert now simply because it is harder to discern the truth. When you have over 30,000 competing Protestant churches each with their own spin on the bible, New Ageism teaching that all “Gods” are the same or we are all “Gods”, etc… it is harder to figure out what the actual Church really was. It is like flooding the market with competing brands. Also, you contend with todays Secularism which oftentimes tries to limit religion and therefore you have less exposure to what the truth and the Church actually teaches. When one does actively try to seek the truth for oneself then there is more information for them out there that is correct, ie on the internet etc… however there is just as much disinformation and finding the truth becomes almost like finding a needle in a haystack. I think it takes a lot more for a truly discerning indivual to convert today than in the past because that individual has to more actively participate in finding and understanding the truth now, whereas before there was less standing in the way.

 

[Publisher]

I was just thinking:

I’ve read about a lot of famous conversions in the past, whether from Protestantism to Catholicism, or vice versa, or from either one to Orthodoxy. I imagine in the era before television and the Internet, it would have been more difficult to find the appropriate information to help sway someone to convert one way or another. I wonder if conversions were perhaps more simplistic?

Is it easier to convert now, or are conversions more “convincing” now that we have such great access to more information, like Church history, for example?

“Converting to what?” For me it would have made it a lot easier to facilitate my “convincement” concering Quakerism if I’d had all the resources we have now…it took a long amount of study for me to be convinced a Friend thirty some odd years ago.

 

[puzzleannie]

I disagree with OP’s thesis that only with modern media can apologetics and catechetical resources be readily available for use in evangelizing.

Since obviously the apostles including most obviously Paul did just fine converting the known world within 300 years modern media were not required. Bear in mind that throughout history evangelists and preachers have committed large portions of scripture and writings of the early fathers to memory, and that monasteries were the repository and preservers of sacred as well as secular books.

Yes you can google anything and find 100 hits, but how long will it take you to wade through each site and separate the weeds from the chaff? It is also very tempting to make searching for resources a substitute for actually using them and putting them into practice. All the time spent browsing is time away from personal contact with people.

Ultimately it is and always has been personal contact, personal example, personal invitation and engagement that draws and inspires potential converts.

 

[I_Thirst]

I imagine in the era before television and the Internet, it would have been more difficult to find the appropriate information to help sway someone to convert one way or another. I wonder if conversions were perhaps more simplistic?

St Paul, a great convert, didn’t need the internet to find appropriate information. Did St Thomas Aquinas (not a convert, but his work is used by apologists and forms a bulk of Church theology) turn to EWTN for the appropriate information about transubstantiation or google “the Trinity” as he wrote his Summa Theologica? Another great convert, St Augustine, never even heard of Catholic Radio, yet he was still able to find the appropriate information and convert. How did these poor souls ever find appropriate information?

When we think of the past as being more simple or simplistic, we will believe anything about the present and how advanced and sophisticated we are (it’s a form of pride). Conversions were not more simplistic in the past – no more so than they are today. Some conversions (of course) may be simplistic, but it has nothing to do with the era and the access to technology.

When one converts, one’s heart and mind are changed. The change doesn’t happen because of appropriate information gleaned off the internet, but by the grace of God.

 

[Bezant]

I was just thinking:

I’ve read about a lot of famous conversions in the past, whether from Protestantism to Catholicism, or vice versa, or from either one to Orthodoxy. I imagine in the era before television and the Internet, it would have been more difficult to find the appropriate information to help sway someone to convert one way or another. I wonder if conversions were perhaps more simplistic?

Is it easier to convert now, or are conversions more “convincing” now that we have such great access to more information, like Church history, for example?

Doubtlessly easier, especially when you consider the stigma on inter-Christian conversions is far less than it used to be.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

St Paul, a great convert, didn’t need the internet to find appropriate information. Did St Thomas Aquinas (not a convert, but his work is used by apologists and forms a bulk of Church theology) turn to EWTN for the appropriate information about transubstantiation or google “the Trinity” as he wrote his Summa Theologica? Another great convert, St Augustine, never even heard of Catholic Radio, yet he was still able to find the appropriate information and convert. How did these poor souls ever find appropriate information?

When we think of the past as being more simple or simplistic, we will believe anything about the present and how advanced and sophisticated we are (it’s a form of pride). Conversions were not more simplistic in the past – no more so than they are today. Some conversions (of course) may be simplistic, but it has nothing to do with the era and the access to technology.

When one converts, one’s heart and mind are changed. The change doesn’t happen because of appropriate information gleaned off the internet, but by the grace of God.

I don’t mean to allege that our ancestors were less intelligent. I just meant that perhaps, if someone is, for instance, discerning Lutheranism or something, that being able to access the Concordia on the Internet, for instance, might be of significant help in his studies on whether Lutheranism is correct or not.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The information age is probably going to have a similar effect on Religion as the printing press did in the 16th century. There is already quite a great deal of diversity in thought which is starting to emerge. Whether it will lead to schisms, we shall have to wait and see.

But to answer the original question, it probably makes conversion harder if anything. The idea of truth has been so watered down in modern society that people feel closed-minded if they decide to accept any sort of dogma. Seeing the contrasts between all of these different branches of Christianity probably makes it very easy to doubt that any of them have it right. Is it really any surprise that agnosticism has become so prevalent?