Nachman's conversion Analysed

Conversion: A Historical-Comparative Approach(24914): Autumn 2005-2006
Lectures: David Satran and Steve Kaplan
Final Exam of Antony Michael Hylton

This essay will cover the subject of the re-conversion of Edi Nachman from living among non Christians with non Christian values to the values of a Church again. The basic thesis is that the idea of conversion is very difficult to pin down because of the variety of contexts it is applied to, the variety of meanings given to it, the unreliability of the source narratives, the complexity of the human condition and the bias and partial blindness of scholars who have given themselves to its study. Therefore the definition of conversion needs to be received from those who are involved in the experience, as reflected in a limited way in the work of Lofland and Skonovd and asserted by Rambo (1998) although there is great uncertainty in the field, Nachman is an example of what we might called Providential Conversion. His narrative does not fit into any of the categories of Lofland and Skonovd, nor the concept of Horton, but comes closest to the understanding of Fisher(1985) and the “Devout Opposition” who recognize that the complexity of the human condition allows no one general cause as an explanation of religious change or conversion. Nachman’s narrative seems to be a mixture of different conversion motifs and involves and complex interaction between, personal crises, timing of words received, visions of the future and spiritual experiences. The movement from fellowship with “unbelievers” in discos to “believers” in Churches who accept second marriages and remarriage.

Donham sees Christian conversion presumably in Ethiopia fundamentally as a person identifying themselves in a new way. Like Horton and Peel (1976) he sees that in many cases macro-historical changes appear to precede and have some relationship to “conversion” in Africa. Although Hume might find the supposed causal connections amusing we are not working with a philosophically sceptical definition of causation but a “soft scientific” one based on the acceptance of the methods of the social sciences as true methods of science as opposed to being among the arts. Man can not be placed in a test tube and conditions can not be repeated exactly, but we can apply analysis to similar situations in different places and come out with some general assertions which have limited validity. These comments and many more which we can not explore now have to taken into account when looking at the work of scholars such as Horton and Peel. This said we can continue.
In contrast to Donham’s assumption of new identities, Horton seems to focus on a concept of conversion which sees radical change in cosmological perspectives of the convert. He is uncertain as to whether the word “conversion” fits the person who moves from traditional “polytheistic” animistic beliefs to Islam. His “assumption is that all concerned not only share the same basic two tier schema, but are fully aware of doing so. It is this assumption that leads me to put the term ‘conversion’ between inverted comma’s; for where there is no radical change of cosmology, it appropriateness is at best doubtful”(Horton, 1975,394) . What statistically and to many scholars, such as Fisher will be seen as a conversion, is to Horton a change in focus in an a priori two tier cosmological scheme of a Supreme deity over the wider world and many lesser deities over the local vicinity.
Thus Donham focuses on the concept of assumption of a changed identity and Horton on a radically changed cosmology. Horton admits that his model is not applicable in India (Horton and Peel 1976,484) where the background cosmology is, he maintains, different to that of Africa. He knows that “weakening of microcosmic boundaries produces results quite other than increased emphasis on the supreme being. But this is beside the point. For Hortons’ claim is that, given the structure of the basic African cosomology, social changes of the kind specified will result in a more monolatric emphasis”( Horton and Peel, 1976, p.484). Although he accepts the limited applicability of his thesis on religious change he has in effect side stepped Ifeka-Mollers objection without dealing with it. He does not explain how India’s cosmology for example the Hindu’s one god, many gods two tier structure is different from Africa’s one god, many gods two tier structure. Nor has he answered those scholars such as Fisher who do not believe this structure is any where near as uniform among all of Africa’s 400 million inhabitants and approximately fifty nations, over hundreds of years, and many more tribes as he posits. As Fisher has quite rightly asked “Black Africa presents an immense and bewilderingly diverse panorama. Can we really tease out a “basic” African cosmology?” (Fisher, 1985, 154) The debate can not be finished for there is still much research needed on the causes of religious change or “conversion” in Africa and elsewhere and indeed on the so called “basic cosmology”. In Horton’s mind presumably, if one moved from the polytheism of Africa to the polytheism of India or to the “agnostic”/atheistic scientific materialism of the West one has had a radical change in cosmology and so the word conversion would have applicability. He sees general causes for religious change (Fisher 1985,155) and yet seeks to limit its applicability to a physically or politically defined continent. The legitimacy of the applicability of these nebulous boundaries may perhaps also be questioned, When does the cosmology of Africa into the cosmology of Asia, in Sudan, Egypt or Israel?
If we turn now our attention to conversion in the research in the West the situation appears to be far more complex. Sociological studies done in the USA find a whole plethora of definitions of conversion which are clearly can not be directly linked directly with macro historical changes and cosmology. Here the studies of Beckford, Harding, Lofland, Stark, and Skonovd give us varying perspectives and analyses of narratives of conversion. Because these studies are far more detailed and approach closer to the test tube type activities of the “hard” sciences, byut by no means a controllable or stable, the results do not allow such an attempt at generalization as Horton has done in Africa. Horton perhaps can be seen as looking with a pair of binoculars from the distance to a distant continent but Beckford, Harding, Lofland and Skonovd look with a microscopes from up close, closer to the micro-reality, I believe. We are dealing with the micro level of individual communities and individual converts with in those communities. Beckford (1978) found that narrative accounts of a groups of Jehovah Witness converts was shaped by community expectations, casting doubt on the relationship between the narrative of the conversion and the actual events which had lead to conversion. Lofland and Skonovd (1981) took the ideas of Beckford a step further and analyzed the kinds of narratives people used in narrating their conversions. They analyzed them into six motifs, Intellectual, Mystical, Experimental, Affectional, Revivalist and Coercive . In light of the fact that this analysis is based on studies in the West, its the scope and applicability have to be evaluated before generalizations can be made more so in the case of Beckford. These studies are not done among Muslims or Christians in Iraq or Pakistan, or the Hindu’s of India or the Buddhists in Sri Lanka. We can be sure that we are getting “Westernised” narratives on conversion. As we saw in the Malcolm X even his conversion narrative sounded more like a discovery of the meaning of the American Constitution (arguably a Christian document) and his first narrative was based on the model of the Apostle Paul (another Christian model). The word conversion then has many areas which need further study and, as it stands, I can agree with Rambo’s assertion, “There are also so many different kinds of conversion that it’s very difficult for a scholar to say exactly what conversion is.” (Rambo, 1998).
A number of key problems lie at the root of the difficulty of coming across generally applicable causes behind conversion. Firstly scholars studies on conversion are based on “narratives” from converts. But those narratives are based on memory, which is by no means reliable or uniform, and are shaped by communities. Witness Cantrell’s testimony in Harding (1987), even some of the scriptures he quotes are misquoted , if he does not remember these facts so central to his ministry, how can we be sure he remembers the facts of yonder year, uless he wrote them down at the time. Secondly scholar’s biases are influencing the objectivity of their studies. This may be connected with the controversial nature of much of the content for research. Scholars with this partiality come to the data and interpret it according to their own particular bias. Lofland and Skonovd accept that they are at the third level of reality, analyzing narratives of uncertain recollections of converts. Rambo tells us the sociologists have done the best work in the field but “most sociologists believe that their interpretive method is the truth and so they tend to be relatively reductionistic in their interpretation of phenomena”(Rambo 1998). Horton(1975) accuses Fisher of being among the “Devout Opposition” that is biased by his Christian background, and “Wylie (1980) has carefully examined this aspect of Horton’s argument indicating where Horton’s criticism tends to oversimplify the views of those whom he criticizes, and suggesting that there is substance in the hesitation of the “Devout Opposition” concerning the search for over all causes (Fisher, 1985, 155). Thus scholarship is to say the least under the spotlight as to whether its biases are influencing its results to an unhealthy degree.
In light of these great areas of uncertainty in definitions, in scope, in narratives, and in excessive subjectivity of scholarship it is possible to concur with Fisher’s statement “ I am reluctant to commit myself to an overall causal explanation- a reluctance which can, I believe, be fully justified by realities of the human condition” (Fisher, 1985, 155). I can also concur with Rambo’s equally important assertion, “I begin with the assumption that conversion is what a group says it is” (Rambo 1998). Rambo also makes the point in contrast to other scholars that he does not reject the theological language, this is at least an attempt to counter subjective reinterpretation of the data on conversion.
In the light of our discussion we can look at the single conversion case of Edi Nachman. Nachman, a 41 year old British evangelist narrates that he accepted Jesus as his savior at 9/10, was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues at 14. At 26 he got married to another Christian but at 29 (1995) contrary to his theological and ethical principles he split with his wife and she began divorce proceedings. Nachman did not fight her. He had believed in no pre marital sex and in marriage for life. He relates that to him the divorce meant no Christian woman would want to marry him, but he wanted to be married. So he proceeded with the help of his evangelical community’s attitudes, to the disco and the pub. He left his call to be an evangelist and his regular Church activities, his fellowship was now with the unbelieving “world”. During 1994 and 1995 he led a mixed life. His life revolved around unbelievers and yet fundamentally he still believed in God but not in the same uncompromising way. At this point things began to happen which he later interpreted as divine coincidences. These lead to a re-conversion back to the Church.
On June 7th 1996 Nachman narrates
I pushed away someone in a sort of dream. And with two other dreams I had objected to certain activities so as not to sin. Then as I pushed away the dream [I awoke] saying ‘I was washed, I was sanctified by the Spirit and the blood’. …I experienced a wind blow on me and then I was taken and washed in water. The wind blew all over me so I had to close my eyes and it was difficult to breath. Then I had joy in my heart and a spiritual song. Thank you Jesus.
The Spirit blew on me. The Spirit carried me. The Spirit washed me.
Later that day in the Bible College, Ernest Glave, teacher of minor prophets, spoke on Gen 12:1-3, my badge, “God took Abraham from one country to another, God takes us from one experience to another experience.”
The first thing we can see with this narrative is that it is linked directly with personal crises. The assumption that personal crises do not necessarily lead to conversion is not supported by the evidence in the studies we have mentioned above. People have many different reasons for converting. Some conversions are connected to personal crises some are not. However Nachman’s “deconversion” experience seems to be definitely tied to personal crises. He was a Christian in fellowship with other Christians. He believed marriage was for life. The breakdown of his first marriage led directly to his walking out of the Church into the disco and the pub. From his theological and psychological standpoint no Christian women would want a divorced Christian evangelist and the Church would no longer accept him. Divorce and remarriage is a very controversial topic in the evangelical world and Nachman had been a vigorous defender of “no divorce” and marriage for life. With the breakdown he believed the communities assessment that if the marriage broke down there would be no ministry. This same personal crises factor was present in the re-conversion experience. Like the Apostle Paul in his internal struggle he “kicked against the goads” of his faith and his ministry. His struggles summarized in the narrative’s three temptations in what was “like a dream”. This internal struggle between theologically based ethical values and real life, played itself out in his dreams and visions.
On speaking with Nachman it was clear that he needed to deal with the hard line he had taken on divorce and remarriage in his past. To re-convert this personal issue had to be resolved. As we see he first dealt with it by a shift in social groups. He joined the nebulous “world” group who believed and practiced, divorce, remarriage and “love” without marriage. However he narrates that over a year or so a number of strange and providential things began to happen which lead to his re-conversion. Firstly people in discos who identified him as Christian one told him he was a preacher, which he denied, another said from a silent dance and no conversation “You believe the Bible don’t you” and the third having heard Nachman suggest they pray cried out “I knew you were different from the moment I saw you”. Nachman began to think he was a fish out of water.
Thus we see a man between two communities both of which judge him as an outsider. Hortons two premises of religious change may give some insight here. “Where people confront new and puzzling situations they tend to adapt to them as far as possible in terms of their existing ideas and attitudes, even though they may have stretch and develop them considerably in the process…Where people assimilate new ideas, they do so because these ideas make sense to them in terms of notions they already hold.” (Horton and Peel, 1976)
These situations were clearly puzzling to Nachman. He claimed that until he was sixteen he would not even listen to pop music on the radio let alone enter a disco. He had not only denied the possibility of divorce but preached it, among the evangelicals marriage to non Christians was also taboo. His original solution of leaving the church and ministry was the “logical” solution to his desire to be married, especially to an unbeliever. But now he was faced with the fact that the unbelievers saw him as part of the Church.
In Horton’s terms before he could return to the Church he would need to understand how to deal with these internal contradictions. Like Robert Duvall’s apostle his unacceptable actions meant he had to move out and make new sense of his life and identity. Like the apostle, but on a spiritual level, he would go through another baptism, as narrated, leading to higher calling. Like the Apostle Paul in his internal struggle he kicks against the goads of his Christian upbringing and calling and in the end submits to the call.
Secondly Another series of providences occurred over the period which would place his narrative under the “Mystical” motif in the analysis of Lofland and Skonovd (1981). A series of visions and timely scriptures began to occur in his life. For example he narrated that he had “left his body” and gone and seen a distinct black and green pub in a street called George Street, and in the dream immediately afterwards his life was destroyed. It was around nine months later that he moved to a town called Blackpool and saw that very pub. When he had the vision he had never been to the town. However he claims the path to destruction was paralleled by another path. On Sunday 15th Oct 1995 he was on his knees in the back of a Church in Blackpool. He thought to himself “Why am I so satisfied?” and “the Spirit” said in his heart “Because I am about to speak to you”. Then the Pastor got up and read “Now the Lord had said to Abraham: Get out from your country, from your family and from your father’s house to a land that I will show you, I will make of you a great nation and make your name great and you will be a blessing.” Nachman understtod that the scriptures was speaking to him he was perplexed as he had just moved to Blackpool. He had intended to stay but the text seemed to be telling him to move on. When the same scripture was given to him, with accompanying signs on Wed Nov 29th 1995, in Manchester and on Thurs Feb 1st 1996 in Swansea, he was convinced the message was for him. He began to call the verse his badge.
Thirdly his way to the Bible College of Wales in Swansea, where he had the conversion experience had also been marked by strange coinidences, this time personal and on the most micro of levels, no preachers were involved. He and his friend John decided to visit Swansea on Boxing Day. John had had a dream indicating he should go and so invited Nachman. That night Nachman went home and picked two books out of the house library, almost randomly. He awoke in the morning and opened the first, The Intercession of Rees Howells, randomly and read what was written. It said something like “I remember that Boxing Day back in 1934 in the Bible College of Wales in Swansea. Rees Howells came running out waving the Bible saying “We’re going to preach the gospel to every creature in our generation”. Nachman was amazed at the coincidence between his conversation the night before and the content of the page. He picked up the next book and opened it at random. It was about a Pentecostal minister called Smith Wigglesworth who had raised fourteen people from the dead. The page Nachman opened to was a letter to the writer of the book, W. Hacking from Wigglesworth. It told him to take a look at this report about this man called Ree’s Howells, it didn’t seem to be not his line of faith but it would encourage Hacking. To Nachman the page on the second book told him to read the first book, both of which had been chosen randomly from different bookshelves. Nachman was amazed and rang John. He told him God was sending them to Swansea. John responded “Oh, if it had said Africa would you be off to Africa”. Nachman had no money and boxing day came and went, John just rang and said he could not go to Swansea. After a few days Nachman narrates
“I felt pressure on my head. I said “Lord if you want me to go to Swansea, John’s going to have to ring me to confirm it. Within half an hour the phone rang, John said “I get the feeling I’m in the middle of one of your fleeces. Why did you want me to ring you?”. “To confirm we are supposed to Swansea” I said. John replied “Maybe your meant to go to Swansea but I’m not”. So I prayed once more. “Please Lord can you just confirm once more that I am supposed to go to Swansea”. Again in a few minutes the phone rang and at the same time John rang the door bell. The phone call was Enricho six hours away in London. He asked me, have you got your driving license yet. I said no. He said “Go to Swansea and get it”. I told him to say to this guy [John] what you said to me”
We see then a series of coincidences, dreams, visions, scriptures which were operating on the micro level Nachman’s life leading him to Swansea where he had the baptismal experience related in the Narrative recorded earlier. All these worked together until Nachman could deal with his puzzling situation and accept that despite his divorce, he could still have a ministry and a call and despite his strong desire for remarriage he was still acceptable to God and could be a part of the Church.
What do we see here in these narratives leading to the final mystical baptism on June the 7th? In terms of the studies we have looked at we see and amazing array of the varying factors which are put forward as factors in conversion. Lofland and Stark (1965) noted the importance of connections and respect for members from the group. However in Nachman’s case his closest friend, John, was completely unhelpful in interpreting Nachman’s return. He was an unwilling and in that sense unhelpful. He some how sensed that he was supposed to call Nachman almost immediately after Nachman had prayed for the sign.. In the same vein when Nachman arrived at the Bible College of Wales he was received by the leader, Mr Mayton, but opposed by a number of students. But these failed interpersonal and micro social relations were overruled by the “new sense of local situations” which were taking place as the conversion was reaching its completion. In terms of the Motifs of Lofland and Skonovd we find elements of the mystical in the narrative. This motif includes some kind of spiritual experience and is seen as classically exemplified in the “conversion” of the Apostle Paul. The person is some how passive and the spiritual experience happens to him (Lofland and Skonovd, 1981). We see this in all the narratives, the persons in the disco, the reading of the books, the three temptations all took Nachman by surprise. However at the same time the narrative also has elements of the experimental motif. Nachman asks the Lord to confirm if he is to go to Swansea, twice. He is in a strong sense “learning to act like a convert…Genuine conversion develops later …after intense involvement”(Blach 1980:142 in Lofland and Skonovd). However in this conversion we see no crowds just Nachman and a few people and a host of providential coincidences which serve to “reposition” him to accept notions which were initially unacceptable to him.
In the journal narrative we see how he personalized the scripture. Like Cantrell he was not exactly accurate. “I was washed, I was sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood”. But we see like St Antony or Martin Luther a scripture came to mind in the midst of his changes, but we also see an underlying scripture throughout the changes. The second stage was the blowing of the Spirit and his being carried by the Spirit/Wind to the baptismal bath. The third stage is the bapstismal ritual itself. In this experience the role of the baptismal ritual is quite interesting. Some how Nachman’s feels as though physically sprinkled and cleaned with water and yet it was a vision.There is no human involved in the experience just wind water and a white bath. He had internalized the ritual though with no expectation that this experience was about to happen nor that it would happen the way it did. These are all notions which are all familiar to the evangelical, and yet are usually outward activities and not necessarily connected with the testimony or narrative. Baptism is usually seen as a step of obedience after salvation. The fourth stage is the joy and the new tongue. Thus we see that he is converted to the understanding that God has accepted him despite his odd situation of being called and divorced at the same time.
Donham asserts “new identities are enacted primarily through the adoption of new narratives that reposition people by making new sense of local situations that promise new dignity”. However in Nachman’s case we see “old narratives” from the scripture followed by a new experience and application that repositions him. We notice from the overall narrative that whereas his Christian community were felt to have rejected him and the world had continued to see him as part of the Christian community, it was his mystical acceptance by the “Spirit” and by the leader of an obscure residential Bible college with twenty or so students which allowed him to return and to accept his call. Once in the Bible college he was quarantined for a good five months near the end of which he had the conversion experience. And thus he could assert “Then I had joy in my heart and a new song, Thank you Jesus!”
Interesting in the micro cosm of Nachman’s life we may perhaps see elements of the Fisher model which he used to describe Islam in Africa but which may be applicable in the case of Nachman’s move to the Church in the UK. First we see Nachman leaving the Church and leading a mixed life. By mixed I mean he was still at times praying and reading the Bible but at the same time he was in the discos seeking a non Chrsitian wife, both of which were taboo in his community’s ethics. He then after the series of coincidences and experieces on the micro level moved into the Bible College of Wales where he was effectively quarantined. The College was situated far from town, it was residential and the day began at 6AM with prayer and ended at 9:30 pm with studies and he had no money. It was the move to the college which lead to him leaving the disco and the pub. Finally with the baptism by the Spirit on June the 7th was enacted the final reform. When Nachman left the college he never returned to the disco and the pub, but went to help in a number of Christian camps in England and Wales. From there, after a series of dreams and words, moved to preach on the streets of Dundee where John Knox’s teacher, George Wishart had once preached. It was his first time there. Dundee was known as the city of Churches and Nachman turned up there, sent as he undersood it by the Spirit, to preach. Thus Mixing, Quarantine and Reform seem to describe the three phases he went through in his conversion. In contrast to this the elements of purpose in conversion given by Horton applied differently. Explanation, prediction and control all recieved new meaning and relevance with Nachman’s repositioning and “New sense of local situations”. He began as we can see from the narratives to explain his whole life in terms of the “guidance of the Holy Spirit”. He explained to people that the “Holy Spirit” had lead him to the Bible college. That the Holy Spirit had lead him to Dundee. When he recieved the dreams and the visions he did not initially understand them nor that he was seeing the future until they came to pass. Then he understood they were real. However he clearly was not controlling them, nor was he himself making any predictions. This too was the work of “the Spirit” in his mind. So when Simon Macpherson opposed him vigorously in the Bible college he was about to argue with him. However he claims the Spirit said , “Leave it to me I will deal with it”. So Nachman went silent. After two months Macpherson called him into his room and told him the Lord had chllenged him. How could he love God who he had not seen and hate his brother whom he had seen. They reconciled and lived in peace. Nachman understood this to be the Spirit dealing with it. Thus in terms of explanation, prediction and control he engaged in explanation of his life and the way things worked but the predictions and controls he interacted with the “Spirit”. He would recieve a dream, pray for and explanation and respond as he understood. Despite this the role of the Christianity in his life was far beyond the communion which Horton’s predicts as the future of Christianity in Africa. And yet Nachman is a Westerner. His conversion is by no means an isolated case. Indeed contrary to Horton’s view of Western society as a place where Christianity only has the role of communion, things are in the process of change, as evidenced by the religious element in the election of George W. Bush, religion in the Phillipines, Israel (Both Christian and Jewish) and even in unbeliiving Norway, and the predictions of such prophets as the Kansas City Prophets.
In terms of the issues raised at the outset we can say that here we have a narrative based on a journal written the same days as the experience. This increases its reliability no end. It uses the language of the saved but is personal to Nachman for it is a personal diary entry. In terms of conversion motifs it does not appear to fit any one kind of narrative. I think the term Providential conversion would fit all the coincidences and timing of the “subliminal” messages he received over the 18 month period. He was attempting to run away but providence convinced him over an eighteen month period that he was accepted. Indeed the house he lived in Swansea just after he found the dreaded George Street pub in Blackpool was that of a missionary and was located in George Street Swansea, what Nachman called “God’s alternative George street”. This data is on the most micro of level and illustrates the complexity of data which any scholar dealing with conversion needs to take into account. This conversion is a Western World narrative although Horton’s premises and Fishers observations helped us to understand aspects of it. Perhaps we can say that Nachman’s evidence also points to personal causes as being a fundamental part of some kinds of conversion even if not in most cases.
Conversion is a complex multidimensional concept. It is imperative for researchers to base there research on reliable sources if they are to speak intelligibly about it causes. It is one thing to reseach the actual causes of conversion and another to analyse data based on late recollections of converts. A way forward but by no means the end of the journey is to find diaries of converts so as to compare what they wrote at the time with what they narrate months or year later. Then at least there is the possibilty of getting close to the real event, the unmodified original narrative untouched by later experiences and development and written for the convert himself.


Reference List:
1 Rambo, L. The Psychology of Religious Conversion at the International Coalition od Religious Freedom Conference, on “Religious Freedom and the New Millenium”. Berlin Germany, May 29-31, 1998
2. Beckford J.A., Accounting for Conversion,” British Journal of Sociology 29 (1978) 249-262.
3 Harding S. F. “Convicted by the Holy Spirit: The Rhetoric of Fundamentalist Baptist Conversion, “ American Ethnologist 14 (1987) pp.167-181

4. Lofland, J. and Stark, R. “Becoming a World Saver: A theory of Conversion to a Deviant Perpective, “ American Sociological Review 30 (1965) 862-875.

5. Lofland, J. And Skonovd, “Conversion Motifs,” Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 20 (1981) 373-385)

6 Horton, R. “On the Rationality of Conversion,” Africa 45 (1975) 219-235, 373-399

7 C Ifeka-Moller, “White Power: Social-Structural Factors in Coversion to Christianity, Eastern Nigeria, 1921-1966,” Canadian Journal of African Studies 8 (1974) 55-72

8 Fisher H. J. “The Juggernaut’s Apologia: Conversion to Islam in Black Africa,” Africa 55 (1985) 155-73
9 Ifeka-Moller, C. “White Power: Social-Structural Factors in Conversion to Christianity, Eastern Nigeria, 1921-1966,” Canadian Journal of African Studies” 8 (1974) 55-72