Thread: The task of undeceiving Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023393
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This sort of emerges out of the "Summer season of miracles" thread.
Suppose you know somebody who is the victim of what, objectively speaking, is spiritual deception - some claim that is spiritual-sounding in nature but that can be demonstrated, objectively, to be a lie.
I don't mean things we might argue about theologically, like whether a healing was a spontaneous remission or psychosomatic or naturalistic. I mean something (not necessarily healing) involving blatant evidence of fraud, to which the victim has committed energy, passion and perhaps money, acting in all good faith in every sense of the term.
To put it in The Great Gumby's terms, these are people who quote:
will almost always believe [...] based on whether they like and trust the people involved and endorsing it, because that's the best argument they have, with the middle ground of cautious investigation more or less ruled out of bounds.
How can such a person be 'undeceived'? It would appear from the "season of miracles" discussion that simply setting out the facts is not enough, and may even turn the deceived against the undeceiver. Is there a better way?
Besides, is it possible to undeceive vitcims without destroying their faith? In biblical terms, how could one "win one's brother" rather than antagonise them?
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
I suppose it depends how well you know them and how long your relationship is likely to last into the future. The saying "There is danger for him who taketh the tiger cub, and danger also for whoso snatches a delusion from a woman." applies in this instance in a unisex fashion. Perhaps rather than attacking a belief that is false but will not willingly be let go one could demonstrate the strength and power inherent in an opposite belief by showing what a force for good it is in our own lives. People believe in things because they think they will make them happy. They may change their position for other belief's which they think might make them happier still.
"Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Great question. The problem is often the direct result of a more fundamental issue however, which is that the brother has not been taught by his church to 'test everything'. To anyone with a moment's engagement with church history or even who has thought to ask 'Who are the Jehovah's witnesses?', it should be blindingly obvious that there are deceivers out there. So perhaps that's the starting point; to raise the idea that there MAY be a problem. And that might be enough; plant the idea and see if it leads the person to make the leap himself. Beyond that, gentle prodding asking 'Why do you believe this person? Where's the evidence? Is it biblically justified? What difference are they making?' may help. But it's not easy; it's hard to admit that you've made an idiot of yourself...
Of course part of the underlying cause of this is that in our individualistic society we are very bad at looking to others to give us advice things; we have been trained by advertisers to make on the spot decisions which are usually 'good enough', without much consideration, with generally 'good enough' outcomes. As a result when faced with a series of easy steps towards a trap, we are most likely to follow the path downward without giving others the chance to offer counsel. So the question in this case boils down to 'who is the person in REAL fellowship with'. And if the answer is noone, then we shouldn't be surprised if they've messed up massively; NB staring at the back of other people's heads and 5 minutes chat after the service does not count as fellowship - if that's all they're getting, then the church is failing to be effective for the person.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can such a person be 'undeceived'? It would appear from the "season of miracles" discussion that simply setting out the facts is not enough, and may even turn the deceived against the undeceiver. Is there a better way?
Setting out the facts will create cognitive dissonance and one would need to be aware of the ways people deal with this. In fact the victims of spiritual deception may have already experienced dissonance and dealt with it by suppressing their critical faculties. There's no easy way out. It's like an addiction - smoking, drinking, drugs, over-eating, or whatever - self-deception is at the root.
Have you seen any of those tv programmes that set out to help people whose eating habits are endangering their health? Even those who've admitted they have a problem, otherwise they wouldn't be taking part, can still put up barriers by minimising the seriousness of the problem or through self-justifying.
To be undeceived, about anything, there needs to be some mental openness, some space where new ideas can come in and be considered. A faith that can't cope with any challenge or change isn't a strong faith and I can understand the feeling that it may be better to say nothing rather than risk destroying what someone has. But the church has a responsibility to proclaim, teach and nurture the faith. Perhaps spiritual tricksters are a sign of the church's failure.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
Interesting one. I'd say atheism is spiritual deception - you ultimately only resolve that one by God's self-revelation. People are more likely to recognise that something has turned out to be false once they've seen the genuine article.
Brings to mind an old friend of mind who was convinced, from theology and experience, that the gifts of the Holy Spirit died out with the passing of the last apostle. No amount of reasoning or scriptural argument could convince them otherwise. What changed their mind was first being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues, and then being healed (medically verified) from a longstanding illness.
We can be deceived into believing that God's not at work when in fact he is, as well as that he is at work when he isn't.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Interesting one. I'd say atheism is spiritual deception - you ultimately only resolve that one by God's self-revelation.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't mean things we might argue about theologically, like whether a healing was a spontaneous remission or psychosomatic or naturalistic. I mean something (not necessarily healing) involving blatant evidence of fraud
I don't think atheism falls into the above category.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Nice story, Ramarius, but what would you say to those people who have abandoned 'speaking in tongues' because they came to the conclusion that they were simply making it up?
Are they then spiritually deluded?
Now, I'm not saying that to dismiss your friend's testimony - it may very well be legit' and kosher.
These things cut both ways, of course.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thinking about it, I'm not sure atheism is spiritual deception either - it might very well be wrong - in fact if we are theists in any way at all then we must conclude that it is.
I'm presuming, Ramarius, that you are taking a pretty literal rendering of that verse which says that 'the prince of this world' has darkened the minds of unbelievers ...?
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
I understand this question to be about verifiably false claims, such as catching someone rigging up a 'glory cloud' or proving that someone claiming healing had never had the condition they claimed to be healed from.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Exactly, justlooking.
To repeat, this is not about debating the genuineness of things that are subjective (such as healing, conversion, deliverance, and so on), but things where proof of actual fraud can be shown.
I realise this distinction may not be hard and fast, but I'm aiming for the latter set of circumstances and not the former.
(I'm not specifically thinking of just healing fraud, either. This issue is bothering me for another reason, but the actual object of the fraud is not important to discussing the implications of undeceiving).
[ 24. August 2012, 18:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
I've has dinner. Brain in gear now.
Heck, this is a difficult one. The (relevant) example that comes to mind is an occasion where a church leader I know told an outright, verifiable lie. The ostrich-like response of his fellow leaders was disturbing to say the least. What would have persuaded them to think differently? Well to be blunt, if someone more senior in the organisation had said 'that was a lie' they would all have agreed that it was.
So reality is, to some extent, defined not by our ratuonal faculties but by the opinions of other people who we somehow think *must* be right.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's a bit like the joke Frank Muir used to tell about the posh English cleric who is converted to Roman Catholicism and who goes over to the Vatican for a period of study and instruction.
One day, as he and his tutors are strolling around the cloisters, they see a priest holding forth in the corner with a crowd of admirers laughing and swaying with mirth at his every utterance.
The Englishman asks who he is.
'Oh,' says one of the tutors, wiping away a tear, 'That is Fr Guiseppe, he is the funniest man in the Vatican. He is so droll! Everything he says is so well-observed, so accurate, so apposite, his comic timing is impeccable, he has us all in, how you say? in stitches ...'
As they get closer, the tutors observe the Englishman begin to titter, then to chuckle, then to utter great big belly laughs, slapping his thighs with mirth.
After they have walked on by and the laughter has subsided, the Englishman chortles, 'Yes, you were right. He was so witty, so droll. Surely he must be the funniest man in the Vatican. Everything he said was so well-observed, so accurate, so apposite, his comic timing so impeccable, he had us all in stitches!'
One of the tutors asks the Englishman, 'But I don't understand, you no speak Italian, how is it you found Fr Guiseppe so funny?'
'I trusted him.'
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
I probably ought to contribute here, as I appear to have inadvertently started the thread. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think in the situation you describe, I'd be like the Irishman asked for directions and say "well, I wouldn't start from here!"
The reason this is an issue is because asking difficult questions and testing the things we're told is seen as an aggressive, adversarial move by some people and churches. That's why people lose or dismiss the option of cautious investigation, and the possibility of thinking that pastor X is mostly right, but has got this very badly wrong.
If someone's in that situation and genuinely can't question what they're being told without causing a huge fuss, I'd try to make them aware of that fact, and prompt them to consider the potential implications. It's much harder to accept "my way or the highway" when it's clearly acknowledged, and when you consider the things that could be said.
To give a clearer example, if pastor X said "You must do Y", a person might accept it because pastor X is always right, and try to suppress the cognitive dissonance it causes. But if you ask that person hypothetically what they'd do if pastor X said "You must do Y", they'd say they wouldn't do it, but pastor X would never say such a thing. By asking the question first, you ensure that if the situation arises, there will be a strong pull towards a consistent rejection of that teaching.
Sorry if this is a bit rushed, just on my way out.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Nice story, Ramarius, but what would you say to those people who have abandoned 'speaking in tongues' because they came to the conclusion that they were simply making it up?
Me for instance.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'd LOVE to speak in tongues. Never have. Never will I'm sure. I HAVE sung in it. And I made it all up when I did. And the Spirit was with with me in it.
We do so LOVE making up false dichotomies don't we ?
I feel the impulse now to howl and cry in the Spirit. I won't don't worry. But just to speak would seem ... odd, meaningless. I can't see the need. The crying impulse comes back. Just mild depression or something I'm sure, it's normal for me. Only NOW I do it in the Spirit. Whether I sing in tongues or not. In my head (as in the dentist's chair) or outloud.
Am I deceived ? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I have no idea.
The issue I'm trying to address in this thread is (say) more the one of you giving money to the ministry of an unschooled Brit with an amazing spiritual gift of tongues which enables him to speak in (say) Old French, which he says he knows nothing of humanly speaking, and "prophesying" XYZ.
Somehow I find incontrovertible evidence of said someone going to night school and learning, in the usual way, Old French, and perhaps wearing a little earpiece with a crony feeding him appropriate phrases during his "ministry time". I also find that his "prophesying" is done based on a careful reading of church notice sheets pinned on his host's fridge*.
In other words, irrespective of our beliefs about tongues and prophecy, the guy is clearly and incontrovertibly a fraud.
The trouble is, you are a big fan of his, and say things like "every time I see him minister, I see something of God*".
How do I undeceive you?
==
(*these things in this post are based on actual fact, although not about the same person).
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How do I undeceive you?
Do you have material evidence, or is it basically your word? Is your aim simply to make your friend aware of what's going on? Do you mind if he continues to hang on the words of this fraud, even if acknowledging that he's wrong in this case, or do you hope to break that connection completely? I think all these are relevant in determining the best course of action in your hypothetical.
What I was trying to get at earlier (and will try to explain better now that I have more time) is that people will act and react in such a way as to minimise the shock to their belief system, self-esteem and so on. In the case you describe, if you simply told your friend of what you'd discovered, he may well refuse to believe it, he may criticise you for being deceived or even lying, and your friendship would suffer bad, possibly permanent damage.
If you told him while providing clear evidence, he may be unable to ignore what you say (although he would probably try), but he would probably continue to say and believe that "God speaks through him" in some way (God works in mysterious ways, He spoke through an ass, we're all broken vessels, pick your cliche). If that's the case, he may still resent your involvement in some way, and your friendship could still suffer.
The best way out of this bind, ISTM, is to get your friend to state a view based on hypothetical details well before making your case. That would allow your friend to form a position without feeling any cognitive dissonance or threat to his worldview. If he says it would entirely invalidate this man's ministry if he was using such techniques, that statement will draw him strongly in the same direction if he ever discovers the truth, because anything else would be a very obvious example of inconsistency. It will still be hard to accept the information, but that will be opposed and possibly trumped by the difficulty and loss of face involved with publicly displaying inconsistency.
Handling that isn't easy - if it's an obvious "gotcha", you'd run the risk of your friend flying off the handle at a clear case of deceit and subterfuge, and burying the cognitive dissonance under an avalanche of righteous anger. But if carefully handled, I think it's the best option if you want someone to be undeceived from a strongly-held belief or attachment.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
It's amazing to me how some people can blatantly ignore or even demonize 'incontrovertible' evidence. Often enough, those who are deceived are so because they have faith, hope, and love in the person/group doing the deceiving; it's hard, if not impossible, to argue against infatuation.
The decision to even try and undertake the task of undeceiving is a difficult one, but how to go about the task itself?
I suppose one could invite them to a real church and let them experience genuine Christian worship where God is the center of attention. It may take a while for them to understand the value of such an environment, especially since the deceiver will have told them that normal churches are flawed because... well, they don't have all the deceiving going on in them. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
The flip-side is that no church is perfect, and all churches lie somewhere on the spectrum between cult and heaven: how much are the deceived in church 'A' worse off than going to your church? Is it worth risking their faith in God to get them out of their current environment?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The best way out of this bind, ISTM, is to get your friend to state a view based on hypothetical details well before making your case.
That's interesting. If I may wax biblical for a minute, it had already occurred to me that this is exactly what Nathan did with David's self-deception, and it seemed to work. (I note though that Nathan does not appear to have been involved in the pastoral after-care: the text says that once he'd delivered his "you are the man" message, he "went home"!).
You rightly guess that this is a real-life situation I'm skating round here, but unfortunately I really can't supply more details, if only to say that it does not concern a personal friend and yes, there is material evidence (in an All Saints aside, prayer for more light to break forth would be most welcome ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
).
I'm interested in pursuing the general discussion, though - for instance, more thoughts on the various outcomes of cognitive dissonance and the pastoral and ethical implications of dealing with them would be welcome.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Re cognitive dissonance--this is probably the most effective way to go, particularly if you aren't in=your=face about it. I mean, dropping a question now and then ("really? but I heard that...") sometimes gets them thinking better than a fullscale frontal assault.
One thing that really worries me is that people who have invested way too much emotionally in a fraud are likely to have a dangerous backlash when/if they discover the fraud-hood. You don't want them rejecting Jesus along with whatever crap the fraudster has added to the Gospel. So one thing to really work on during the not-yet-clued-in period is giving them an ever stronger connection with a faithful community/tradition/person (as it might be you, even ). Not to be aggressive about converting them, but (for example) to invite them to musical events at your congregation, or potlucks, or just to have them to dinner with others from your faith background (multiple times, so they start forming friendships). You want them to be as close to feeling that they "belong" in the faithful context as possible before their eyes are opened and they see that the house they are currently occupying is built on sand. That way, they can hopefully just pack their bags and move next door, into the house built on a rock. Much better for them than marching out the front door into a howling wilderness with no idea where to go.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
One thing that really worries me is that people who have invested way too much emotionally in a fraud are likely to have a dangerous backlash when/if they discover the fraud-hood. You don't want them rejecting Jesus along with whatever crap the fraudster has added to the Gospel.
Ah, now this is moving away from the idea of exposing an obvious deceit and towards subjective personal preferences again. I don't see this as a necessary goal (well, I wouldn't), and in fact, I could make a case that this is just substituting one form of manipulation for another. It would worry me if the exposure of a lie (even the form of that exposure) was conditional on how the person would react. Ulterior motives are dangerous, and I think it's important to accept that people can make their own minds up without being nudged one way or another.
The wider point about what can and should be done is that the church should make a big deal about integrity, whether it's a live issue or not. It's that emphasis that ought to innoculate people against deceit. When your whole identity is tied up with being scrupulously honest, it's a very big leap to throw all that away and defend someone who's been exposed as a liar, and the cognitive dissonance in such a situation would be absolutely massive.
The trouble is that too often, churches say little about integrity, and worse, sometimes even justify lies and deceit if it's "Furthering the Kingdom". In the long term, that's what needs to change.
Posted by Shiprat (# 12808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus: I mean something .... to which the victim has committed energy, passion and perhaps money, acting in all good faith in every sense of the term.
When a person has made substantial personal investment and sacrifice for a cause or ideology, they are in some way fused with it, and it is much harder for them to step back and look critically at their assumptions. Cults know this and encourage sacrifice, it sorts out who are the most pliable, and increases their commitment to the group. If they want to walk away then they must be willing to write off everything and deep down most will always retain the hope that there was something of God in it, and walking away means giving up all hope.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus: Besides, is it possible to undeceive vitcims without destroying their faith? In biblical terms, how could one "win one's brother" rather than antagonise them?
I don’t know. In my experience the power to “undeceive” people does not sit exclusively with 3rd parties. Rather, the one deceived must also play some part in being open to correction. No easy answers to my understanding.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Shiprat:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus: I mean something .... to which the victim has committed energy, passion and perhaps money, acting in all good faith in every sense of the term.
When a person has made substantial personal investment and sacrifice for a cause or ideology, they are in some way fused with it, and it is much harder for them to step back and look critically at their assumptions. Cults know this and encourage sacrifice, it sorts out who are the most pliable, and increases their commitment to the group. If they want to walk away then they must be willing to write off everything and deep down most will always retain the hope that there was something of God in it, and walking away means giving up all hope.
This is exactly right. My only reservation is that while sacrifice increases the level of commitment to a cause, thanks to the Sunk Cost Fallacy, any perceived cost to changing your view is a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo.
In many cases, the cost of changing your mind will be expressed not so much in actual costs of time or money, but in the loss of face and consequently self-esteem from a public admission of error. That's the common factor in all cases where people cling to their beliefs, and it applies even when there's no sacrifice involved.
(Apologies for the blog pimping, but I wrote it just recently on pretty much this subject.)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In many cases, the cost of changing your mind will be expressed not so much in actual costs of time or money, but in the loss of face and consequently self-esteem from a public admission of error. That's the common factor in all cases where people cling to their beliefs, and it applies
I agree with most that been said here. And for all I know my atheism is 'spiritual deception' (whatever that means). However one issue related to the above hasn't been mentioned: where do you go when you change your mind? Jumping ship isn't a great idea if it's into a shark infested ocean - the presence of a lifeboat works wonders. So, if there is a real person involved here, making sure they have somewhere to go spiritually if they do change their minds might be helpful.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In many cases, the cost of changing your mind will be expressed not so much in actual costs of time or money, but in the loss of face and consequently self-esteem from a public admission of error. That's the common factor in all cases where people cling to their beliefs, and it applies even when there's no sacrifice involved.
That's interesting. Lance Armstrong was mentioned in the circle of people with whom I'm working on the issue that's currently of concern to me in this respect - as an example of how the perpetrator might well react when unmasked. I think you could well be right as to how the 'faithful' in question might react too. More food for thought...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Ah, now this is moving away from the idea of exposing an obvious deceit and towards subjective personal preferences again. I don't see this as a necessary goal (well, I wouldn't), and in fact, I could make a case that this is just substituting one form of manipulation for another. It would worry me if the exposure of a lie (even the form of that exposure) was conditional on how the person would react.
Whilst that is true to an extent, there is also the person themselves. The most charitable approach has to consider how one would then help to put their faith/belief back together again.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
People believe in things because they think they will make them happy. They may change their position for other belief's which they think might make them happier still.
I was about to argue with this, and say that some people believe what they think is true, whether it makes them happy or not (I for one don't want to be happy in a delusion), but we're clearly not talking here of people for whom truth is such a motivating force.
Although maybe it is, but they just haven't learned to think critically - they believe something because they think it's true (regardless of whether it makes them happy or they like thinking it's true), but they believe it's true for invalid reasons - such as "That's how I was raised" or "That's what grandma taught me."
This is all the more interesting, because familiarity tends to reinforce information, true or not, and familiarity can be achieved through repetition. This blog/article here has a lot of interesting things to say about that process (including links to studies), and, relevant to our discussion, offers this:
quote:
Prior research from Schwarz has found that attempting to debunk myths by presenting contradicting facts can easily backfire. In one study, researchers hung up fliers listing myths about the flu vaccine and corresponding facts contradicting them. Three days later, participants who had read the flier reported less favorable attitudes towards the vaccination than control participants who hadn't read the flier. The research indicated that any repetition of misinformation -- even if the purpose is to debunk -- can serve to perpetuate it.
(In case the link goes away when this thread winds up in Limbo, the above is from a post by someone named Ross Pomeroy. Credit where credit is due and all.)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I agree with most that been said here. And for all I know my atheism is 'spiritual deception' (whatever that means). However one issue related to the above hasn't been mentioned: where do you go when you change your mind? Jumping ship isn't a great idea if it's into a shark infested ocean - the presence of a lifeboat works wonders. So, if there is a real person involved here, making sure they have somewhere to go spiritually if they do change their minds might be helpful.
Yes, this is what I was trying to say. I thought it went without saying that a would-be undeceiver would need to behave with the highest integrity him/herself--perhaps my naivete is showing.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is it possible to undeceive vitcims without destroying their faith? In biblical terms, how could one "win one's brother" rather than antagonise them?
Didn't the Pharisees consider killing Lazarus so as to try and 'undeceive' Jesus' followers ? I'm guessing they thought better of it .
If someone has been happily deceived then they are best left alone . Whereas if someone has been unhappily deceived all we can do is offer support.
Deception is coming at us from every conceivable walk in life, not just to those of us who chose to follow or explore faith.
If someone can be proven to be employed in the art of deception , like the bogus Seance post WW1, then by all means bust their collective arse.
However even doing that doesn't cut all the ice . There are still those who believe David Koresh was genuine despite the Waco debacle.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Re "If someone is happily deceived they are best left alone"--
I'm not so sure of this. If it's a minor thing and has no real life consequences (Did people land on the moon or not?), I suppose you may be right. Though if it were me, I'd still want someone to undeceive me. Truth is a valuable thing.
But if there are serious consequences (or even eternal ones--yes, I know this evaluation is wholly dependent on the faith or lack thereof of the would-be undeceiver)--well, then, simple kindness and concern for the individual pretty much requires us to try to help. Even if we know we'll probably fail.
Seriously, to know that someone is deceived in a way that can seriously harm him/her, and to do nothing, is pretty clear proof that we don't give a crap about him/her.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If it's a minor thing and has no real life consequences (Did people land on the moon or not?), I suppose you may be right. Though if it were me, I'd still want someone to undeceive me. Truth is a valuable thing.
Sure, though sometimes the immediate aftermath of being told the truth is a feeling that their world is falling apart - and psychologically, that can be an accurate description of what happens to them.
Which isn't advocacy for never ripping away illusions - but rather an argument for taking time to do it correctly.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
This could be a case where EVERYBODY involved is immature, not knowledgeable about the situation/goal.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re "If someone is happily deceived they are best left alone"--
Seriously, to know that someone is deceived in a way that can seriously harm him/her, and to do nothing, is pretty clear proof that we don't give a crap about him/her.
I do give enough of a crap about people to try and help them, if I know they have been willfully deceived . Often though most of us can only pick up the pieces afterwards .
Take someone who has been convinced by a Preacher to sell all their belongings and give the proceeds to the poor, because The Rapture is imminent .
Nothing I say or do will make any difference . When the dead-line has come and gone without so much as a flicker, then maybe that person will allow themselves to be helped in their destitution.
[ 27. August 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
This could be a case where EVERYBODY involved is immature, not knowledgeable about the situation/goal.
Tried hard to word it less arrogantly, but it began to lose the sense of the communication.
Maybe an example would explain the view better. Let's examine one of the participants in the situation: the deceiver.
One would assume his motive was wrong, but was it, really?
We have Moses deceiving the people with a veil because he did not want them to think his ministry had lost its effectiveness:
2 Corinthians 3:12-13 NET
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective.
Is this the same problem troubling the "deceiver" in the situation discussed by the TS?
[ 27. August 2012, 16:10: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think that's pretty adventurous exegesis given the context in Exodus 34.
And even if it were to be admitted, Paul writes that he does not do as Moses did.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that's pretty adventurous exegesis given the context in Exodus 34.
And even if it were to be admitted, Paul writes that he does not do as Moses did.
Exodus 34 teaches that Moses allowed the Israelites to see God's glory and then veiled his face . Jewish commentaries offer fanciful explanations of the incident.
Paul teaches that the Law of the letter was ministered with glory, a fading glory, to indicate its temporary effectiveness. The Law of the spirit, the Law that Christians minister, needed no veil. Paul therefore did not need to worry that the effects of Christian ministry was temporary, because the results were dynamic, written on hearts of flesh, growing by the day. God's glory was ever present, in the faces of those who heard and obeyed.
This leads us to conclude that the ministry of signs and wonders are to be accompanied by the ministry of the Word. It explains many things about the place of signs and wonders in holistic ministry, the disappointment Jesus expressed about the dullness of hearing of the Pharisees and Paul's views about the charismatic gifts:
1 Corinthians 13:1-13 NET
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.
Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Something all the participants in the situation need to study.
[ 28. August 2012, 01:41: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Exodus 34 teaches that Moses allowed the Israelites to see God's glory and then veiled his face.
What I understand you to be trying to argue is that Moses, who was a good chap, engaged in some deliberate deception so we shouldn't be too harsh on others who do so too.
However, as far as I can see nothing in Ex 34 suggests this, and even if one accepts the tenuous interpretation of 2 Cor 3 (in which Paul changes his train of thought in seemingly every clause) that Moses was being deliberately deceptive, this is not at all condoned.
I can just about see how one could read Paul to think that Moses was engaged in a literal cover-up operation, but even if one assumes that, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the text says he and his associates are not acting like Moses in his face-veiling: "We are not like Moses..." (v13). Whatever it was Moses was doing and why, this is not how these ministers of the New Covenant behave.
I'm not sure what 1 Cor 13 has to do with all this unless it is to say that we should try to be loving when undeceiving others, which I think is a matter of general consensus here.
Can I suggest that we now leave extended discussion of bible passages to Kerygmania and get back to discussing whether, and how, we might undeceive people who have been led astray by others who material evidence shows are being demonstrably, deliberately fraudulent?
[ 28. August 2012, 05:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Well you could advise them to check for fruit, doctrine.
This could be an eye opener for all concerned. The deceiver may actually be able to produce fruit.
Jesus called those who never went beyond gifts "lawbreakers", that He never knew them. These issues were raised for our benefit, so that we should not be found disobedient.
PS Paul equates love with teaching.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Jesus called those who never went beyond gifts "lawbreakers", that He never knew them.
Perhaps, but I specifically said in the OP that I did not have fraudulent spiritual gifts specifically in mind. The deception I'm bothered about in real life has nothing to do with supernatural gifts at all.
Besides, the issue on this thread is not how to discern character in spite of apparently authentic spiritual gifts but what to do about people who are the victims of actual fraud by others and who are persuaded of the latter's good faith.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If someone has been happily deceived then they are best left alone . Whereas if someone has been unhappily deceived all we can do is offer support.
Rolyn, what do you mean by 'happily deceived' and 'unhappily deceived'? Can someone be happily deceived unless they don't actually realise the deception? I'm struggling to imagine how someone might know they've been deceived but still be happy about it. Maybe if they thought it was for the greater good in some way, I suppose...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
2 Corinthians 3:12-13 NET
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective.
I think the problem that Eutychus is picking up on is that this passage seems to give the impression (perhaps unintentionally), that Moses started off veiling his face to hide the results of 'the glory' but latter kept doing so even though there was no effect.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If someone has been happily deceived then they are best left alone . Whereas if someone has been unhappily deceived all we can do is offer support.
Rolyn, what do you mean by 'happily deceived' and 'unhappily deceived'? Can someone be happily deceived unless they don't actually realise the deception? I'm struggling to imagine how someone might know they've been deceived but still be happy about it. Maybe if they thought it was for the greater good in some way, I suppose...
I would imagine that this refers more to apparently harmless delusions, the sort of which you might say "It makes him happy" and so on, rather than a specific explicit request to be allowed to believe a load of bollocks. I was about to say I don't like that idea one bit, but I'm hesitating now.
There are at the very least times and places where we all allow, collude in, or even initiate acts of deceit. We judge that it's the wrong time, or it's not really a big deal, or it's not worth wrecking a friendship over. We lie to our children (or at the very least present the truth in our own way, for reasons of simplicity or tact), we pick our moments for discussing things, and I bet every one of us has friends who have delusions that we've decided to just let go, whether that's horoscopes, acupuncture, conspiracy theories, belief in the Gambler's Fallacy, or whatever.
Despite that, I still don't feel completely comfortable with the idea of leaving a "happily deceived" person alone, but I can't put my finger on why. We must obviously balance the harm of the deluded belief against the harm and difficulty of demonstrating it to be a delusion, but something feels wrong. I think it might be the word "deceived", as that implies an ongoing and deliberate action by someone, rather than a passive and careless belief, but I'm not sure.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can such a person be 'undeceived'?...Besides, is it possible to undeceive victims without destroying their faith?
I was thinking a bit about this last night as I read the thread.
I think that in the end we aren't responsible for either undeceiving the person or for making sure that their faith isn't destroyed. These things are out of our control.
We are responsible to not hide information that someone has a right to know (i.e. that pastor x is in fact gambling the weekly offering or whatever), but not responsible to share all our speculations and opinions. We are responsible to do so tactfully and respectfully, and not to continue forcing the information on someone who is indicating that they clearly don't want to know.
And then we can only pray.
Whether the deception makes them happy or not, in our view, doesn't entitle us to leave them in the dark if we think they like it. We cannot predict from their current happiness whether they like being deceived or not.
If delivering that information results in a loss of faith, then that was always going to be an inevitable outcome in that situation. And if they don't listen I think we can do no more. Trying harder is only going to be counter-productive.
That's my simplistic take anyway.
[ 28. August 2012, 15:34: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
2 Corinthians 3:12-13 NET
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective.
I think the problem that Eutychus is picking up on is that this passage seems to give the impression (perhaps unintentionally), that Moses started off veiling his face to hide the results of 'the glory' but latter kept doing so even though there was no effect.
I'm guess I'm trying to convey that Moses realised that the Israelite's confidence in him needed to be reinforced.
Here he was, at the head of the group, in the wilderness, and his gift looks like its vanishing.
Why was God doing this? He gave them a sign and now He takes it away? Moses tries to convey to the people that the gift is still in place, so that the Israelites will stay strong.
It's a deception, but the intention is good.
Is it possible that the friend received strength from a genuine manifestation of a gift?
Then he must be taught that the sign was a precursor to a deeper truth.
Is it possible that the worker of the sign had previously worked a true sign?
Then he must be taught that the people who witnessed the sign should seek a deeper truth.
Prophecy will pass, but love remains, and love rejoices in the truth.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Rolyn, what do you mean by 'happily deceived' and 'unhappily deceived'? Can someone be happily deceived unless they don't actually realise the deception?
I know the term 'happy deception' can seem like an oxymoron, yet it's one I'm comfortable with.
Say someone has recently come to Christ , filled with the Holy Spirit and everything. Then they watch a televangelist doing healing etc and their faith is consolidated and deepened.
Is it right for someone else to point out this Healer may be a fake who uses stooges ? Would that person even listen to criticism of an individual who actions make them feel more assured in their faith ?
Besides that, the art of deception is used day on day by advertisers and sellers ..... "You need this product or concept in your life in order to feel happier" and so on and so forth.
If someone really really believes they are happier with there big car, big house or big boobs, then they are . It's absolutely no use anyone else trying to say otherwise.
Please excuse me if I'm still not getting this across very well.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Right firstly a declaration of self interest. I have been victim of deception and suspect not too disimilar to the type Eutychus is talking about. It happened in a church setting, it was not primarily spiritual in nature but these were an adjunct to the situation.
I think deception comes in a variety of guises. There is the parent who is economical with the truth in order to do damage limitation for a child. Handing them enough truth to be going on but not the whole truth until the child is old enough to have the ability to handle it. At the other hand is the extreme when the deceptions takes over the whole of a persons reality, their livelihood and their relationships.
On that scale mine was more towards the big end of the scale but it was not total.
Firstly I don't think you can undeceive. You can only cause cognitive dissonance. People will normally react to reduce this, but how is not within your control. People can choose to disbelieve you or to rationalise it. A postmodern attitude may make dissonance easier to live with and if there are already high levels elsewhere in their lives they might not even register the problem. I suspect that for someone to accept it they must be ready to end the relationships involved anyway.
Secondly you must ask why they should believe you rather than the deceiver and I am afraid saying "because I am telling the truth" is not good enough. How do they know you are telling the truth? Almost certainly if they are you need to develop a relationship where you are known to be trustworthy and reliable. You must also be prepared that if they believe you, to provide at least emotional support as they work through the process of grieving.
Thirdly you need to be very aware that when the deception is at the top end of the scale there is a huge psychological demand placed on a person to accept they have been deceived. The only way I can put my experience is that it felt like madness. If, as in my case, it involves a significant relationship, then the price of being shown that this relationship involved deception is to unsettle all your other relationships as you ask how much do I actually know. It gets less with time but it does not disappear ever.
Jengie
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think the problem that Eutychus is picking up on is that this passage seems to give the impression (perhaps unintentionally), that Moses started off veiling his face to hide the results of 'the glory' but latter kept doing so even though there was no effect.
I can't respond more fully right now to the other posts, but I just want to make it clear that it was footwasher that advanced that theory, not me. I'm far from convinced.
My point was that even if it were true, Paul distances him (and thereby those ministering under the New Covenant) from it.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Paul taught that the deception Moses initiated is still being perpetuated, the blindness to the ineffectiveness of the Law of the letter. Jews still believe that eternal life is encrypted in the Torah, that it had supernatural power, because Moses hid the temporary-ness of the Law. To encorage the Children of Israel to have confidence in the Law. In which exercise he succeeded. Which was their stumbling block. Which God intended!
Likewise, men today have faith in the signs and wonders. They believe it will lead them to fulfillment.
Thats where we have to up our own game. We must buy oil for our lamps from God:
Isaiah 55:1 NET
“Hey, all who are thirsty, come to the water!
You who have no money, come!
Buy and eat!
Come! Buy wine and milk
without money and without cost!
Then you will be in great demand:
Isaiah 55:5 NET
Look, you will summon nations you did not previously know;
nations that did not previously know you will run to you,
because of the Lord your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he bestows honor on you.
Try it. I have and am getting extra pulpit time! Its nice to see my name on the roster, but its even nicer to know that I'm able to contribute, that my letters of recommendation are walking around! Even my study groups are getting crowded.
Most teachers are happy I'm saying the things needing to be said, as I don't have tenure to worry about! Gods promises are indeed coming true:
Isaiah 55:6-13 NET
Seek the Lord while he makes himself available;
call to him while he is nearby!
The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle
and sinful people their plans.
They should return to the Lord, and he will show mercy to them,
and to their God, for he will freely forgive them.
“Indeed, my plans are not like your plans,
and my deeds are not like your deeds,
for just as the sky is higher than the earth,
so my deeds are superior to your deeds
and my plans superior to your plans.
The rain and snow fall from the sky
and do not return,
but instead water the earth
and make it produce and yield crops,
and provide seed for the planter and food for those who must eat.
In the same way, the promise that I make
does not return to me, having accomplished nothing.
No, it is realized as I desire
and is fulfilled as I intend.”
Indeed you will go out with joy;
you will be led along in peace;
the mountains and hills will give a joyful shout before you,
and all the trees in the field will clap their hands.
Evergreens will grow in place of thorn bushes,
firs will grow in place of nettles;
they will be a monument to the Lord,
a permanent reminder that will remain.
On seeing the genuine article, the deceiver will have to up his game too:
Mark 9:39 NET
But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me.
Paul put it this way:
Philippians 1:18-19 NET
What is the result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and in this I rejoice.
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
[ 29. August 2012, 12:12: Message edited by: footwasher ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0