Ship of Fools: The illegitimacy (or otherwise) of manipulation

Thread: The illegitimacy (or otherwise) of manipulation 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=030195

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

On the Tony Anthony thread, there has been some discussion of manipulation. Mark Wuntoo posted and then replied to a reply to his previous post, thus:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Took me right back to the 50's and Billy Graham. Councellors placed strategically so that when the 'appeal' was made they began walking forward, thus encouraging others to follow - thousands responding to Christ, or so it seemed.
You are missing the organ that repeatedly plays 'Just as I am' (accompanying the crying of the repentant to encourage more people to come forward).
Ah, yes, the power of music (and not just the 45 minutes on your feet at the start of a charismatic meeting). I have to hold my hand up - I was a little manipulative this morning from the seat of my keyboard. Good organists are aware of what they hold in their fingers.

It seems to me that some practices are blatantly, deliberately, and abusively manipulative, as have been alluded to in that thread.

At the same time, it seems to me that there's some element of manipulation in all relationships, all the more so in gatherings. If I'm moved by a film or a concert, have I been "manipulated"?

I'm finding it hard to imagine a religious service which, somewhere along the line, doesn't lend itself to a possible charge of "manipulation".

Is "manipulation" always wrong? What precisely makes it wrong? Could it ever be solely in the eye of the beholder? Can it ever be incontrovertibly more than that?

[ 14. August 2016, 13:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not answering this - but I do recall attending a charismatic Anglican church some years ago in which I felt very manipulated. However I am sure that those leading the service weren't in the slightest bit aware of what they were doing - it was just the way they had learned to do things. (I should have said something afterwards but [a] I didn't know them all that well and [b] I was about to move out of the area anyway).

Having said this, any worship leader is surely manipulative to an extent, especially in Nonconformist circles where they can design the entire liturgy. So am I, when leading, hoping to get the congregation thinking in certain directions? Of course. Am I being abusive? I very much hope not - and this is signified by times in the sermon when I will say, "It seems to me that ..." or "You may disagree, but ...".

[ 14. August 2016, 13:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

But isn't even a traditional Anglican service manipulative? The way people face, the positioning, the liturgy and its wording, all reinforce expected roles and beliefs. People high up the candle will rave about bells and smells, and yes Mark Wuntoo, good organ music, but rarely does one hear a charge of manipulation. Why is that?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

For many people, if not most, it is only manipulation if they disagree with the message.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

The sermon this morning was, in part, about encouraging one another towards Christian maturity. It could be put like this, I suppose: 'I know what Christian maturity is and, in order to move towards that maturity, I encourage you to ...... '.

Encouraging and manipulating are closely allied, it seems to me. A difficult path to tread.

When I said that 'Good organists are aware of what they hold in their fingers' I was thinking that they have the power to influence the congregational singing, amongst other things. For example, an organist will follow the words of a hymn and express them in ways he/she thinks appropriate. Surely a good thing. Surely a necessary thing, I think. Up to a point! One of this morning's songs had a verse about the death of Christ. It would have been entirely appropriate (IMO) to change from the major key to the minor for that single verse (and would have been very effective) but the congregational could not be expected to cope so it didn't happen. I had to be content with playing the verse at a much slower speed (although I ran into difficulties when I suddenly returned to much greater speed!). That could have been described as 'manipulation', although I would defend it in terms of an attempt to 'lift' the congregation / to take note of the words / to express the words more effectively. I hope that it was seen as 'encouragement'. Let alone what it meant to me [Biased]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But isn't even a traditional Anglican service manipulative? The way people face, the positioning, the liturgy and its wording, all reinforce expected roles and beliefs. People high up the candle will rave about bells and smells, and yes Mark Wuntoo, good organ music, but rarely does one hear a charge of manipulation. Why is that?

Some good organists probably rely on the fact that congregations don't realise they are being manipulated. [Big Grin]

And perhaps some members of congregations realise but rather like it.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Years ago one of our children went to a summer camp and came back with fears that she would go to hell. The chaplain frightened the children into "giving their hearts to Jesus" and did the whole thunderbolts and hellfire BS. This sort of thing can be child abuse, and the stuff of cults.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To an extent, anything written or spoken has 'designs' on the reader or the hearer. We can't avoid that.

The issue to me is whether there is a deliberate attempt to manipulate or to undermine people's critical faculties. So, for instance, I'm sure I wouldn't find any of Baptist Trainfan's sermons manipulative, particularly when he is careful to use caveats such as, 'It seems to me ...' or 'Can we not conclude ...' and so on.

I have to say that most Baptist preachers I've come across are pretty good that way and don't tend to lay things on too thickly. They'll certainly have a view but the most skillful preachers will make that apparent whilst leaving other options open for their hearers to consider or take away. I know some Baptist ministers who are excellent at doing that.

I've sometimes wondered whether bells and smells and clouds of incense are 'manipulative' in some way - but the conclusion I've reached there is that the effects are more subliminal ... which may be taken to imply a degree of unconscious manipulation.

I think the difference is, though, that in a high-octane bells and smells, clouds of incense and flickering candles atmosphere, the participants know that it's something of a performance. They aren't operating under the illusion that it's all orchestrated in some mysterious way by God the Holy Spirit - however pneumatic they believe the liturgy to be (and yes, they do believe it to be pneumatic) their theology allows room for it to be synergistic ...

I like the phrase you get in some RC and Anglican liturgies which runs along the following lines, 'Lord we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands ...' and it's equivalent phrase for the breaking of the bread.

Why? Because it explicitly acknowledges that there's a natural process going on as well as something deeply spiritually significant.

It's one of these both/and things I keep banging on about ... [Big Grin]

I accept Baptist Trainfan's point about it being possible to be unconsciously or subconciously manipulative and I've certainly experienced that myself. These people aren't coldly and cynically calculating that if we do X, Y and Z we will achieve such and such an effect or achieve so and so a result ... but it is learned behaviour nevertheless.

Ultimately, we must all exercise our own nouse (not 'mouse' as I typed on another post! Although that applies too ... )

[Biased]

It's like films, novels and anything else - we know when we're being 'got at' or if the producer/director is laying things on thick in terms of the weepie factor and so on ... and there's a place for that. We aren't robots.

I suspect we'll all draw the line in different places depending on our own experiences, backgrounds and personality types etc etc etc.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
I'm finding it hard to imagine a religious service which, somewhere along the line, doesn't lend itself to a possible charge of "manipulation".

This idea worries me personally - not that I preach, but I have considered it.

I used to be a lecturer (engineering), and to start with I was scrupulous about pointing out all the holes in what I was talking about, as I went along. The students hated it.

Later I developed more confidence and a technique (which I hope was not cynical, though may have sometimes been lazy, and certainly was more effective) whereby I promoted a way of thinking about something which claimed to be complete - and only later (and sometimes!) returned to discuss its shortcomings.

In teaching, I think my main role was to lend the group (literally, 'lend') confidence - that the subject was penetrable, and that there was a good chance of the group 'getting it'. I thought I was succeeding, when that happened.

I can think of preachers who have a similar effect on me - they lend me the confidence that a Faith which I find inspiring, is possible. But I would be very worried of setting this up myself in the kind of way I used to do it in the classroom - because I fear it would be actively manipulative. Yet those were the fears I started with in teaching, and subsequently got over. I dunno. Can experienced preachers here identify with any of that?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's like films, novels and anything else - we know when we're being 'got at' or if the producer/director is laying things on thick in terms of the weepie factor and so on ... and there's a place for that. We aren't robots.

Except that we kinda are. Films work because they manipulate our genetic and cultural programming.
One can consciously understand the mechanism and still be affected and influenced.

[ 14. August 2016, 16:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

Agree with Gamaliel, on the whole I think people mostly know when they are being 'got at' and cynical manipulation is rare. But.... I think it is possible to inadvertently cross the line between what might be described as creating the circumstances in which a particular response is possible and helping things along a little too much. Sadly, in my experience, once that line is crossed worse things start to happen.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

"Manipulative" is such a loaded word that it's difficult for anyone to accept.

If we strip it of its negative connotation, then I'm all in favour of manipulation (especially if I'm the subject.) I, like everyone else on the planet, am a human being. We are all subjects (whether we realise it or not) and we are all objects (whether we realise it or not.) It might be nice for us to pretend otherwise, but it's not realistic.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
Agree with Gamaliel, on the whole I think people mostly know when they are being 'got at' and cynical manipulation is rare.

This is silly, though. There is a multi-billion £/$ industry that makes that money in direct contradiction to your statement. Called advertising. And everyone will tell you how they understand how it works whilst clad in all the latest.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Only one more letter change to go G! Mute it baby, mute it!

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
Agree with Gamaliel, on the whole I think people mostly know when they are being 'got at' and cynical manipulation is rare.
This is silly, though. There is a multi-billion £/$ industry that makes that money in direct contradiction to your statement. Called advertising. And everyone will tell you how they understand how it works whilst clad in all the latest.

I was speaking about the church context, rather than society in general. Perhaps I should have said relatively rare.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
Agree with Gamaliel, on the whole I think people mostly know when they are being 'got at' and cynical manipulation is rare. But.... I think it is possible to inadvertently cross the line between what might be described as creating the circumstances in which a particular response is possible and helping things along a little too much. Sadly, in my experience, once that line is crossed worse things start to happen.

Maybe motivation is the thing?

If we are being 'manipulated' but the one/s doing it are doing it out of love and with genuine care not to hurt us then that's pretty much OK, I think.

But, in an atmosphere of love and trust a cynical manipulator could wheedle in and cause havoc. I have seen it happen.

"Wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" comes to mind.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Films work because they manipulate our genetic and cultural programming.
One can consciously understand the mechanism and still be affected and influenced.

Yes, and I find that a film can tug at my emotions in a way which real-life events rarely do - even though I know I'm being manipulated and try not to be.

In this respect my wife is a Better Person than I am.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
I was speaking about the church context, rather than society in general. Perhaps I should have said relatively rare.

It is not rare at all, anywhere.
Part of the problem, IMO, is the often negative connotation of the word. Manipulation feels bad when in truth it is neutral in its basic definition.

'to manage or utilize skillfully'

Another problem is that people generally do not care to think they do anything without thought or under influence. we prefer to think we have complete control. The reality is, though we have free will, we utilise it far less than we often think.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

We are influenced all of the time, and some who know how to pull psychological and emotional strings do it often. Is it leadership? Is it harmful or harmless manipulation? I suggest that only vulnerable and/or ignorant people are those being manipulated. Those who are aware of what is happening but allow it are also able to shun it.

<possible tangent> There is another kind of manipulation, which is to set laws which manipulate others. It seems to me that those aware of it rebel, in the end. Nobody likes to think that they are being told by others what they must or must not do, unless they can see a good reason for it <end of tangent>

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I work with words, and so I usually think of this as the difference between cynical manipulation and proper use of rhetoric.

There is a proper use of rhetoric--when you are attempting to move people, for their own good, in a direction you yourself are wholeheartedly committed to and subject yourself to as well. For instance, fire alarms. These are made to sound unnerving (plus lots of flashing strobe lights, etc.) precisely in order to manipulate people out of the burning building ASAP. I'm all in favor of as effective "rhetoric"/manipulation in this circumstance as possible.

A lesser example would be toothbrushing. I know of no parents who do NOT use every trick of rhetoric they can think of to get their kids to adopt this alien practice. [Razz]

In the case of the church, if someone is preaching the Gospel who is wholeheartedly committed to it him/herself, and who is willingly and totally subjected to it him/herself--well, pull out all the stops, baby. I'm good with that, even if it's 70 verses of "just as I am". Don't LIE, of course--cook up fake miracles or whatever--but that would be ruled out anyway by "totally subjected to it him/herself," because one cannot be a cynical liar and a sincere believer at the same time. The two are incompatible, and the rot will take over astonishingly quickly.

This is why I just can't cope with a pastor who does not believe what he/she is saying. Nor a teacher, nor a leader of any sort. If you're not there personally with what you're communicating, shut up and sit down. It's what I do when I'm in situations where I can't agree with the message. Either that or oppose it.

(Note: I'm not talking about doubt or confusion. Those things happen to everybody, Christian or atheist or what have you. I'm talking about a settled firm opinion.)

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Gamaliel: These people aren't coldly and cynically calculating that if we do X, Y and Z we will achieve such and such an effect or achieve so and so a result ... but it is learned behaviour nevertheless.

Indeed. There was a tremendous amount of learned behaviour (and manipulation) in the Toronto thing. Just before that 'spontaneously' appeared I was researching a number of 'New Churches' and found that a lot of 'empowerment' was going on (often through manipulative processes IMO) - but that when a member of the congregation began to 'threaten' the leadership because they had become more confident and wanted to exercise spiritual gifts, for example, through their empowerment, a lot of enfeeblement began, often by marginalising the person. In all, I saw that as manipulative.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I work with words, and so I usually think of this as the difference between cynical manipulation and proper use of rhetoric.

There is a proper use of rhetoric--when you are attempting to move people, for their own good, in a direction you yourself are wholeheartedly committed to and subject yourself to as well.

I'm not sure I necessarily think that there is much of a difference in kind - at least in practice. Some of these movements have been genuinely led by people who were completely sold on the delusion they themselves were peddling.

Perhaps in this context Plato's description of rhetoric as 'pharmakon' is apposite.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Oh yes, absolutely Mark Wuntoo. That was certainly my experience on the inside.4

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I was recently in conversation with an acquaintance regarding the mainstream media and their 'approach' to a certain Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

Apparently, out of everyone, my acquaintance alone was able to pick the threads of truth out of the whole cloth of spin: so wise and perspicacious were they, and so utterly inured to the wiles of the media that their propaganda had no affect on him whatsoever.

I didn't at the time suggest this was the Dunning-Kruger effect played out in glorious technicolour, because I actually like the bloke, but to my mind (given we were both writers, and manipulating emotions is our day job), his assertion was purest bollocks.

So yes. Music especially seems to tunnel straight past conscious thought into the emotional seat of our psyche, but all art and human artifice is designed to manipulate our emotions and hence our responses. It's just a question of whether we use that power for good or ill.

It is, I'd argue, a significant and universal part of being human. As such, it has to, in some way, reflect the mind of the Creator.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I broadly agree with Teekee Misha and Lilbuddha. If I "talk down" an aggressive inmate, that's manipulation - but hopefully with a view to the best for all parties. I maintain that however your church lays out its chairs, it's designed to elicit a certain behaviour. And so on.

I think a part of it is definitely whether there's a deliberate attempt to deceive. Unconscious manipulation might be less culpable but ultimately more damaging. Self-deception is something else again. Much food for thought...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I think a part of it is definitely whether there's a deliberate attempt to deceive. Unconscious manipulation might be less culpable but ultimately more damaging. Self-deception is something else again. Much food for thought...

The problem is that all three can, and often do, exist together. A charismatic leader aware of what they are doing, coupled with a number of self-deluded people who are unconsciously aping behavior that has the same effect.

I would accept what 'Doc Tor' said in his last post, but I wonder if post-fall some of these things have end up having a power over us that is in some way Angelic.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Woah. Care to unpack that idea?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What's this fall that we're post?

[ 14. August 2016, 21:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Do do your homework Martin.

[fixed disaster]

[ 14. August 2016, 21:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by guthrum (# 8446) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I broadly agree with Teekee Misha and Lilbuddha. If I "talk down" an aggressive inmate, that's manipulation - but hopefully with a view to the best for all parties. I maintain that however your church lays out its chairs, it's designed to elicit a certain behaviour. And so on.

I think a part of it is definitely whether there's a deliberate attempt to deceive. Unconscious manipulation might be less culpable but ultimately more damaging. Self-deception is something else again. Much food for thought...

Motivation is important but so is transparency of purpose. If you are engaged in talking down an aggressive inmate they can probably see what it is your trying to do, at least afterwards in retrospect. In talking with them afterwards you would likely be open about trying to avoid a physical confrontation. The whole episode has the possibility to build trust that you have their best interests at heart.

Were your interaction with them to be something that at face value had the the appearance of an effort to calm the situation, but in fact was a distraction so that someone else could approach from behind and subdue them with a taser, then that would likely damage the prospects of trust between you in future.

In a church setting, if the person leading worship or designing liturgy is doing so to create a sense of calm at some point or to send people out on a high, that is probably fairly obvious to most people if they think about what is happening and how they feel. If asked why do we do this or that during worship, I would hope that those responsible would explain why.

Where I have seen things go awry it has been when a particular set of behaviours have been labelled as indicating God at work and on the instructions of a leader people have deceptively acted out those behaviours in a pre planned way in order to try to convince others of God's activity. The purpose in the case I witnessed was to try to change people's beliefs and worship style to one that matched that of a small group who believed doing so would bring success in the form of attracting others of a similar mind to the church.

It was a crude attempt doomed to failure. Those who discovered what was going on lost trust in the leadership and likely gained the impression that a particular spirituality is fake. I'm not sure how those in the group involved in the deception fared. How does it go when you profess belief that God is acting through you in a particular way when you are shown that at least sometimes it is fakery?

Motivation matters, being open about purpose matters and being very careful that actions can be explained in a way that build trust IMHO make a degree of what we might call manipulation OK. This kind of thing (definition from Wikipedia) is harmful; Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics Link

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
Motivation is important but so is transparency of purpose.

That's a good point.

In my current church setting I certainly place a high value on explanation, and on giving people the tools to analyse things for themselves.

However I think that in some charismatic circles especially transparency of purpose is not enough. Some people seem to sincerely believe that doing certain things in a certain way will result in a certain supernatural outcome. They might explain what they are trying to achieve, but do so in super-spiritual terms ("God has revealed to us that he loves to release his presence in our midst when we do so-and-so") rather than more straightforwardly.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm sure you right ... and you're obviously aware of the language used (which is virtually incomprehensible to those "outside the loop").

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, it's scary. We have a Bethelised church in our pastors' fraternal here, all the leaders of which I know of old. They are mostly very nice people, but seem to be completely unaware that their language these days is made up almost entirely of this gobbledegook. I do think that self-deception that way lies.

[ 15. August 2016, 08:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Woah. Care to unpack that idea?

Not entirely sure I can do so in a coherent manner. It is something that occurred to me a few months back while reading Robert Capon. I would hesitate to make such things Angelic in their own right - but perhaps they end up becoming so due to our attitude to them.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by guthrum:
Motivation is important but so is transparency of purpose.
That's a good point.

I think that's an excellent point - art is transparent: you pick up a book, go to a movie, visit an art gallery, listen to music, and the contract is already in place. The artist has created something for you, and you're ready to appreciate it, and hopefully be moved.

Advertising is less transparent. We know they're trying to sell us something, but they're also trying to engage our emotions in some way. It's permissible, within certain limits.

The media is less transparent again. We suspect they have an agenda, even while we're hoping they actually tell us the truth. We're wary but still lapse into an easy acceptance of their manipulation of us.

Then you have actual criminals - con artists and fraudsters, who attempt to manipulate us with all the skill they can muster for their own private gain. Sometimes, of course, that can be people you trust (family, friends, your own bank) or strangers with a story to tell.

Where the church fits in this scheme is difficult to tell, but also where the church should fit in this scheme is difficult to tell. Is it art, is it advertising, is it media, is it in a category of its own?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But isn't even a traditional Anglican service manipulative? The way people face, the positioning, the liturgy and its wording, all reinforce expected roles and beliefs. People high up the candle will rave about bells and smells, and yes Mark Wuntoo, good organ music, but rarely does one hear a charge of manipulation. Why is that?

One question for me is 'What comes first?' To me there is a difference between 'This verse is sad so I'll play it slowly and quietly' - where the awareness of the sadness precedes the musical choice - and 'Let's ramp up the praise choruses and the pious ejaculations in order to stir up some tongues and slayings in the Spirit' - where the change in worship style is intended to provoke something that doesn't yet exist.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Where the church fits in this scheme is difficult to tell, but also where the church should fit in this scheme is difficult to tell. Is it art, is it advertising, is it media, is it in a category of its own?

Of course it's in a category of its own. The Church uses art, music, advertising, media etc. But it's not about those things. It's about worship and the spreading of God's Kingdom. Does it use manipulation for this end, I'm sure it does.

But, as I said up thread, motivation really does matter. If the Church loves and cares for those it's in contact with - and works only for their good (as far as that is known). Then we don't need to fear too much.

As I also said up thread, there are dangers. If we have an atmosphere of love and trust we need to beware of folks who may wheedle in to become manipulators.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Eutychus, should those pastors you know of old be compelled to take a 'Bethelyser Test'?

[Big Grin]

I'll get me coat ...

Meanwhile, on the issue of cues and suggestibility and so on, a 'Damascus Road' thing happened for me when I attended a friend's indigeneous charismatic evangelical church in Spain on a few occasions during the late 1980s, early '90s.

I found it far more manipulative than my own UK congregation but realised that this was partly because I didn't speak the language - although I could get the gist of sermons strangely enough perhaps - and because I only had a smattering of Spanish phrases remained largely unmoved by the whole thing.

Even allowing for some Latin temperament coming into it, I realised that because I was unfamiliar with the language I could spot the 'joins' and the 'cues' and identify the 'mechanics' of how the whole thing worked in a better way than I could have done had I fully comprehended what was being said. I could spot the 'cues' a mile off and could see how people were being manipulated into crying, repenting or apparently being 'slain in the Spirit' etc.

I found it rather unsettling and it caused me to question and examine my own approach and experience when I got back to my own church.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But, as I said up thread, motivation really does matter. If the Church loves and cares for those it's in contact with - and works only for their good (as far as that is known). Then we don't need to fear too much.

"I only manipulated you because I love you."

[Paranoid]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Motivation and clarity, surely? So people actually know what's going on.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, I think that's what guthrum means by "transparency of purpose".

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But, as I said up thread, motivation really does matter. If the Church loves and cares for those it's in contact with - and works only for their good (as far as that is known). Then we don't need to fear too much.
"I only manipulated you because I love you."

Of course I didn't mean that. You didn't read the rest of my post.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But, as I said up thread, motivation really does matter. If the Church loves and cares for those it's in contact with - and works only for their good (as far as that is known). Then we don't need to fear too much.
"I only manipulated you because I love you."

Of course I didn't mean that. You didn't read the rest of my post.

Of course I read the rest of your post.

People in church aren't children. Or if they are children, they're in the care of their parents. So to suggest

quote:
If the Church loves and cares for those it's in contact with - and works only for their good (as far as that is known). Then we don't need to fear too much.

is still taking away people's agency. The Church Temporal is made of fallible humans. The temptation is to use whatever means we have to increase our number, when that's the Holy Spirit's work: always has been, always will be.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do do your homework Martin.

[fixed disaster]

Ohhhhhh yeah. You never got back to me there. And thanks for fixing the disaster. Most godlike of you.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The reason I didn't was because I didn't consider you to have answered my question.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Motivation and clarity, surely? So people actually know what's going on.

Not how it works. Motivation is merely your intention, not the validity of your path. Clarity. Many cult leaders have been clear as to their intentions.
With the major world religions, and subdivisions thereof, motivation and clarity are relatively equal. So does Hinduism = Christianity? Would you say Buddhist might as well be Baptist?

Motivation and clarity aren't sufficient to themselves.

TBH, I think a lot of what is being expressed here, consciously or not, is that manipulation isn't so bad if one agrees with the message.

[ 15. August 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

While I take your point, perhaps I should explain is that I didn't mean "clarity of purpose for the manipulation" but "clarity in the people knowing that are being manipulated". That may not work though as I can be aware of being manipulated (in a film etc.) yet do little to resist it.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

When I was at college, I went to a Billy Graham meeting with the Christian Union, of which I was not a member. We were issued with clear instructions that none of us were to go forward, as the coach was booked for a certain time to get us all back in time for signing in.

I found myself sitting on a low wall at the front of the crowd.

I didn't agree with all of what Graham preached, and, having become a church member of my Congregational church had already accepted Jesus as Lord, so going forward, with or without that instruction not to, wasn't in my intention.

But I certainly felt the pull. I only needed to stand up and take one step, and I felt strongly drawn to do so. And I couldn't work out why.

It was only that order from the CU that stopped me.

The music? Maybe. The use of the voice, the timbre, the pauses, the rise and fall? Probably.

And, getting away, and realising that I had been manipulated to put my mind out of the circuit, I became rather unhappy with the experience.

[ 15. August 2016, 16:44: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I take your point, perhaps I should explain is that I didn't mean "clarity of purpose for the manipulation" but "clarity in the people knowing that are being manipulated". That may not work though as I can be aware of being manipulated (in a film etc.) yet do little to resist it.

The bold bit is exactly my point. How many people would choose to watch a home-invasion horror movie just before sleep, despite knowing it is fake?
Now consider our susceptibility when we believe.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

But I certainly felt the pull. I only needed to stand up and take one step, and I felt strongly drawn to do so. And I couldn't work out why.

Charisma

[ 15. August 2016, 17:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Charisma? Not sure. Charisma can be very off-putting to some. More likely to be group pressure / suggestion I would think.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

These things work on all sorts of levels.

I've only once been to an RC Benediction but found the experience at once quite moving and also unsettling ... I wasn't sure what to do and how to react, whether even to look at the Host in the spikey monstrance thing they used to display it for veneration. It felt a bit like the Eye of Sauron to some extent ...

But I suspect this was a tussle between my Protestant and more 'catholic' selves ...

Or a reaction in terms of knowing the theology but feeling uncomfortable with the practice.

I suspect familiarity helps with all these things. I don't feel freaked out by anyone venerating icons in Orthodox services, for instance - but then, I've been to more of those.

I once went to an Orthodox service where they were venerating the Kursk Root icon, which was here on a UK tour ...

I threw caution to the wind and venerated it and sang the Akathists - as much as I could follow them, but the chant was quite easy to pick up - but didn't do so under any sense of compulsion or feelings of tussle so much - not like Penny S feeling the 'need' to 'go forward' at the Billy Graham rally.

I suspect, in the Billy Graham case, that the prohibition from the CU acted in a kind of reverse psychology way. When we are told not to do something many of us will instinctively want to do that very thing.

With the Orthodox veneration thing, I didn't feel manipulated in the least, I took a conscious decision to get stuck in ... partly because I thought it'd feel like a waste of time if I simply stood by and watched what everyone else was doing and partly out of a sense of 'when in Rome' ...

In some strange way it did 'feel' as if I were entering something very old and very profound, tapping into hundreds of years of Russian spirituality and reaching beyond that in some way to events in Palestine 2000 years ago ...

But not in a vatic kind of sense or a spooky, heeby-geeby one.

For instance, whilst I don't have a big issue with Marian devotion or beliefs, I don't for a moment believe that the Kursk Root Icon was miraculously discovered in an oak tree or whatever it was ...

But that felt irrelevant. Sure, there were things going on that I took to be superstitious but overall it all felt perfectly 'normal' in that kind of context.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Charisma? Not sure. Charisma can be very off-putting to some.

Charisma is a compelling attraction. Generally one feels it or not. One can distrust even should one feel the pull, but it still feels odd to say charisma can be off-putting.

quote:

More likely to be group pressure / suggestion I would think.

This is likely a factor, but given Penny S also said this:

quote:
The use of the voice, the timbre, the pauses, the rise and fall? Probably.

the cult of personality likely played a part.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

I have observed many charismatic preachers and have been repulsed on many occasions at the same time as hundreds / thousands have been enthralled.
Of course, I could be prejudiced! [Devil]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I have observed many charismatic preachers and have been repulsed on many occasions at the same time as hundreds / thousands have been enthralled.
Of course, I could be prejudiced!

What I find charismatic, you might not. In that case, what you are being repulsed by is not charisma as you would not be feeling it.
It is possible to feel the pull and not be comfortable with that and the discomfort repulses.
So, one could genuinely say that one is repulsed by charisma, but it is still awkward, incomplete statement. IMO.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thinking back, my conscious brain was not much involved with the urge - it was a below the neck thing, so I'm not so sure about reverse psychology.

It would have been so easy to get up. Something like hypnosis, I suppose.

I didn't know the CU people well, and I can't remember if any of the others owned up to feeling it.

My sister had some much more obviously manipulative stuff at a meeting at Roehampton where she was at college. The people who were not obviously joining in with the hand waving and glossolalia got looked at, and preached at, and no-one could get out because there were stewards on the door. She is not currentky a practising anything.

[ 15. August 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I have observed many charismatic preachers and have been repulsed on many occasions at the same time as hundreds / thousands have been enthralled.

It could be down to differences in personality, or to differences in (temporary or permanent) psychological needs. Many of the people attending might be quite happy to be 'manipulated'. Those who regret their youthful curiosity will move on.

Unless you're doing some kind of research, or getting paid to be there, I don't know why you'd go out of your way to listen to charismatic preachers over and over again if you find much of what they do repulsive. Inoffensive sermons are usually available at some other venue.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Research - you got it in one.
At other times I was MW'ing. [Eek!]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If my memory serves, I think Mark Wuntoo has carried out studies in this area.

Even if he hadn't, I've known people who've remained for years in charismatic settings despite feeling uncomfortable with it all. If your social network is built around it and you've been told repeatedly that this is where it's at then it can be difficult for people to leave.

I know. It happened to me.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I have been trying to work out the connection between what I felt and the movement to minister in Meeting for Worship. Engagement of brain in the latter seems the most obvious thing, and absence of external compulsion. But the getting up has some sort of relationship - tricky to tell with a very long gap between Graham and the Quakers, and only a few calls to minister.

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :

Interesting thread, I`m doing some work in this area at the moment with young people who attend the chuch I go to. There is an expectation, from some quarters, that we educate them in a certain manner in order to give them information rather than allowing them to explore. This comes from the control parents have over their children and wanting them to become good christians like them and because we seem to be unable to get away from didactic styles of education.
I come to the table with an agenda, I want the YP to know God, yet I want them to explore it more, to see what it means to them personally and collectively, but it still feels like an amount of manipulation.

On another tack there is someone who has been manipulated by, of all places, youtube. He now has many interesting theories he feels are true that he has seen there and down the rabbit hole he goes. Is he just misinformed or do the people who believe such guff really and fervently believe in flat earth, chem-trails and illuminati?
Why did someone start these things, what on earth did they expect to get out of it?

Lots of stuff to ponder

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

My take on the wilder conspiracy theories is that they're Gnostic heresies. All the evidence to the contrary is in plain sight, yet the initiates are invited in to the deeper knowledge that only a few are privileged or worthy to receive.

Basically, it makes them feel special. They may be simply more gullible than usual, but there's often more to it than that.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have been trying to work out the connection between what I felt and the movement to minister in Meeting for Worship. Engagement of brain in the latter seems the most obvious thing, and absence of external compulsion. But the getting up has some sort of relationship - tricky to tell with a very long gap between Graham and the Quakers, and only a few calls to minister.

Re Billy Graham: Could the 'getting up' have a physical element? We sit and listen to a long sermon and then our bodies need to change position, so we stand. An 'altar call' gives permission / provides an excuse for changing position. Once we are on our feet we walk forward.
I have heard people say 'I had no intention of responding but I just found myself going to the front'. Often it is said to be the work of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't work for me.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Often it is said to be the work of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't work for me.

I'd be as careful in denying the works of the Spirit as I would be ascribing actions to Her.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If my memory serves, I think Mark Wuntoo has carried out studies in this area.

Even if he hadn't, I've known people who've remained for years in charismatic settings despite feeling uncomfortable with it all. If your social network is built around it and you've been told repeatedly that this is where it's at then it can be difficult for people to leave.

I know. It happened to me.

If there are churches with that level of hold over people in our secularising society then I doubt they'll stop being manipulative any time soon. Not when they see other kinds of church shrinking rapidly because it's so easy to walk away from them.

But maybe Mark's studies show that in some churches the techniques and rituals are changing. For example, if some charismatics are experiencing less and less pressure to speak in tongues, then that's one less avenue for manipulation. If people are fiddling with their iphones rather than concentrating on every second of the 50 minute sermon is it quite so easy to be bamboozled by the oratory?

Ironically, I also get the impression that some of these churches attract too many young people. What I mean is that with the experiences that many young people bring with them today - porn, family breakdown, diverse sexualities lived as normative, permanent connection to online networks, etc. it can't be as easy to manipulate them as it was in the 80s or 90s. They enjoy the churches' liveliness and the friendships, but it must take a herculean effort from the churches to control the influences that the youngsters absorb. Many churches probably don't do it as well as they think.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Often it is said to be the work of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't work for me.
I'd be as careful in denying the works of the Spirit as I would be ascribing actions to Her.

Ah, I'm glad to say that I don't have those constraints. [Biased]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have been trying to work out the connection between what I felt and the movement to minister in Meeting for Worship. Engagement of brain in the latter seems the most obvious thing, and absence of external compulsion. But the getting up has some sort of relationship - tricky to tell with a very long gap between Graham and the Quakers, and only a few calls to minister.
Re Billy Graham: Could the 'getting up' have a physical element? We sit and listen to a long sermon and then our bodies need to change position, so we stand. An 'altar call' gives permission / provides an excuse for changing position. Once we are on our feet we walk forward.
I have heard people say 'I had no intention of responding but I just found myself going to the front'. Often it is said to be the work of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't work for me.

That seems a bit of a stretch (no pun intended) to me. Someone makes a prominent public display of faith conversion with potentially life-changing implications, simply because they need to stretch their legs??? I doubt it. We're talking large athletic stadiums where it's not hard to get up and use the restroom or walk out the front gates. No one was being held hostage there.

There's been lots of research on this phenomenon, and yes, there are aspects of group mentality at play, wanting to be part of something larger than yourself. Lots of individual differences along the spectrum between to responding to emotion and making a considered rational decision. But I don't think "I was tired from sitting so long and wanted a stroll" was much of a factor.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

otoh, now that I'm taking the time to think about it more (morning coffee beginning to kick in, but of course, too late to delete/edit post) I'm starting to see more validity in the theory. There is that weird mind/body connection that we tend to discount but shows up in all sorts of unexpected ways. It sounds too simplistic to just say "they needed to stretch"-- but as one factor among many, who knows?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Lots of individual differences along the spectrum between to responding to emotion and making a considered rational decision.

This is the sort of thing I was thinking about when I raised the idea of manipulation potentially being "in the eye of the beholder" in the OP.

Some (but not all) things are "obviously a bit of fun" or "part of the act" for some people and "evil manipulative abuse" for others.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Someone makes a prominent public display of faith conversion with potentially life-changing implications, simply because they need to stretch their legs??? I doubt it. We're talking large athletic stadiums where it's not hard to get up and use the restroom or walk out the front gates. No one was being held hostage there.

I remember reading a biography of Billy Graham which said that he had been accused of exerting emotional pressure by getting the choir to sing "Just as I am" at the altar call. So he skipped the music but was now accused of manipulation through the very fact of silence. The verdict was that he couldn't win, whatever he did.

Granted, he could have omitted the call altogether and simply asked people to go home and think about what they'd heard; that would have been a good Calvinist position and would possibly have avoided "false" or "frothy" conversions. On the other hand St. Paul talked about using "all means" to "persuade some" - so he didn't feel a great deal of compunction about it.

Michael Griffiths, the former missionary who became Principal of London Bible College, told a story about a Japanese friend who he took to hear his evangelist. At the altar call, hundreds of people were streaming to the front, due partly to the fact that Japanese culture apparently doesn't like to disappoint someone who has made a request. The friend turned to Griffiths and said, "Will he be upset if I don't go forward? Is that OK?" One mustn't ignore the power of cultural (not just emotional) norms.

I have to see that cynical me was a bit dubious about
this report which appeared on my denomination's website recently.

[ 16. August 2016, 15:25: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
St. Paul talked about using "all means" to "persuade some" - so he didn't feel a great deal of compunction about it.

Here's my last thread about this topic (which was actually inspired by the same original individual as this one...).

quote:
The friend turned to Griffiths and said, "Will he be upset if I don't go forward? Is that OK?" One mustn't ignore the power of cultural (not just emotional) norms.

We have friends who "have a farm in Africa" run as a Christian business. One evening some passing evangelistic team screened the Jesus film and gave an altar call. Just about everyone went forward apart from their cook. Quizzed, he said "but I already did that".

quote:
I have to see that cynical me was a bit dubious about
this report which appeared on my denomination's website recently.

Uh-oh. What is it about the summer months (and or places named Redding? [Biased]

). My initial guess is a serious-minded mission that is now falling victim to evangelical hype fuelled by a desperate desire for this sort of thing to actually happen (see innumerable past threads such as here, here, here and here...)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
One mustn't ignore the power of cultural (not just emotional) norms.
We have friends who "have a farm in Africa" run as a Christian business. One evening some passing evangelistic team screened the Jesus film and gave an altar call. Just about everyone went forward apart from their cook. Quizzed, he said "but I already did that".

Martyn Lloyd-Jones of Westminster Chapel (who never gave altar calls, believing that the Spirit would work in peoples' hearts without them) told the story of a man who came to see him. This man had gone forward at an evangelistic rally because the preacher had urged his listeners "not to miss the boat". Trouble was, this poor fellow hadn't the faintest idea about the boat that he had apparently avoided missing - the evangelist's message had all been superficial with little content. (And this was decades ago, when the common memory of the Christian story would have been much stronger than it is nowadays).

[ 16. August 2016, 15:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The past is another country, but I find it hard to believe that the altar call, questionable though it is, is anything much to worry about in modern Britain. Don't most of the participants already attend church anyway? And I can't believe that French sophisticates fall for it in significant numbers.

It seems to be a way of revitalising a faith that already exists rather than being a significant form of evangelistic activity, and I was under the impression that a lot of Pentecostal-type churches recognised and largely accepted this.

The problem is that other forms of evangelism that involve engaging with people who are completely outside the church require much more work, for much longer, and the returns are usually low. Going for quality rather than quantity is perhaps more difficult for some churches to commit to.

[ 16. August 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have to see that cynical me was a bit dubious about
this report which appeared on my denomination's website recently.

After five minutes' Googling, I'm wondering whether one of us should buy the book by the pastor behind this "outpouring"...

Manipulation, Domination and Control

[Eek!]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Premier radio coverage including a "script" to be used. I note from the comments that Yinka Oyekan says he was "too busy" to return a Premier journalist's calls... not a good sign.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
At the altar call, hundreds of people were streaming to the front, due partly to the fact that Japanese culture apparently doesn't like to disappoint someone who has made a request. The friend turned to Griffiths and said, "Will he be upset if I don't go forward? Is that OK?" One mustn't ignore the power of cultural (not just emotional) norms.

This is precisely why we have to discourage baptism (!) when people first bring it up. All too often they are asking for it as a way of "repaying" some kind of help we have given them, e.g. filling out paperwork or something.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

For clarification: do you mean someone asking for "Believer's baptism" or for their children to be baptised?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Premier radio coverage including a "script" to be used. I note from the comments that Yinka Oyekan says he was "too busy" to return a Premier journalist's calls... not a good sign.

To be fair, I should think he was rather busy at the time, if he had 100s of new people to minister to (assuming that just a fraction of those who responded to the campaign wanted further assistance).

The link does say that several local churches got involved with the campaign (which at least proves that Mr Oyekan is ecumenically-minded), so the journalists could have contacted one of the other ministers to discuss what had happened.

[ 16. August 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I can't tell much more, but I think the literature used and a review of the comments indicates that whatever else it may be, it's extremely decisionist.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
otoh, now that I'm taking the time to think about it more (morning coffee beginning to kick in, but of course, too late to delete/edit post) I'm starting to see more validity in the theory. There is that weird mind/body connection that we tend to discount but shows up in all sorts of unexpected ways. It sounds too simplistic to just say "they needed to stretch"-- but as one factor among many, who knows?

There are all sorts of things that can influence a "spontaneous" reaction, some of them not directly connected to, or occurring in, the event resulting in the reaction. Eliminating a need to stretch being a tiny factor in such a commitment might be less than complete, but attributing it to just or mostly that is ridiculous.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
due partly to the fact that Japanese culture apparently doesn't like to disappoint someone who has made a request.

This might be a stronger factor in some cultures than others, but it is present in almost all. Especially in large groups.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Premier radio coverage including a "script" to be used. I note from the comments that Yinka Oyekan says he was "too busy" to return a Premier journalist's calls... not a good sign.

From the article:

quote:
Today the number is said to stand at around 1200 and Mr Oyekan estimates that 80% of this figure represent prayers for "salvation or rededications". [My bold.]

Ah, yes, rededications, the best way to inflate numbers since Soviet statistics on tractor production.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

It's pretty close to home for us. Some people are talking og going over to see what's happening - my first reservation is the sales pitch of the script. It comes on strong. I'm also war of the American bloke behind it all: being bankrupt can be down to all sorts of causes but where's the repentence for those who he can't pay?

I want to see people saved, I believe in God working on the street but what's the change in the community, what's the change in the churches?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm sorry, I'm firmly with Gamaliel on these things. Just look back at places like Cwmbran and Dudley. They have basically morphed into hosting pentecostal/charismatic conferences.

Even assuming (which is I'm afraid a generous assmuption) that these "outpourings" were not started with that in mind, that is where they end up. The evangelical/charismatic media have been raised on a diet of revivalism, coloured it with Billy Graham/Welsh revival nostalgia, have now added a nice UKIP/Brexit dose of "make this a Christian nation again", get their summer fix of New Wine or similar, and are simply desperate for God to "do it again". It's hype if not worse.

For the nasty underbelly of, say Cwmbran, consider this testimony. (There are a number of pretty rabid blogs out there on this topic, this is one of the less florid ones. The first post tells you pretty much all you need to know, I think).

[ 17. August 2016, 11:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Ah, yes, rededications, the best way to inflate numbers since Soviet statistics on tractor production.

Well, he was honest enough to admit that they weren't all utter heathens before!

It's been argued elsewhere that reaching out to people who were raised in the church, or who've had positive Christian influences makes a lot of sense for evangelists in a society where labourers are extremely few and the harvest vast. Chances of making a difference to hardened atheists or avowed secularists are very low.

Regarding the crib sheet thing, I don't that's necessarily bad. Street evangelism is a terrifying idea for the average, slightly introverted pew-sitting Christian. Not all of us are Oxbridge graduates with the gift of the gab; but some of us could perhaps improvise if we have something to work with.

And the fact that this man apparently got large numbers of church members to give up their free time to talk to strangers in the street is pretty impressive in itself - even if the real response 99% of the time was '@*!# off!'

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's been argued elsewhere that reaching out to people who were raised in the church, or who've had positive Christian influences makes a lot of sense for evangelists in a society where labourers are extremely few and the harvest vast. Chances of making a difference to hardened atheists or avowed secularists are very low.

This fails the "transparency of purpose" test. To evangelical ears (and this church is clearly evangelical) evangelists are in the business of making new converts, not simply recycling existing ones.

It's as dishonest as the altar calls that start out with "does anyone here want to give their life to Christ for the first time" (nobody moves) "does anyone here want to make a recommitment" (nobody moves) "who wants to get blessed by the Lord" (rush to the front).

quote:
Regarding the crib sheet thing, I don't that's necessarily bad.

Have you read it? It's bad first and foremost because it pushes for an on-the-spot commitment to Christ. There is no other scripted option. That is manipulative*.

quote:
And the fact that this man apparently got large numbers of church members to give up their free time to talk to strangers in the street is pretty impressive in itself

Not if it's distracting them from more regular activities that will make a real difference in the long term. Would you really prefer all eveangelism to look like this?

==

*To put this in perspective, in the days when I did open-air evangelism, after a sketchboard presentation team members would say "hello, I'm with the person who spoke. Would you like to tell me what you think about what he said?". This could quite easily end with a prayer on the street, but we didn't go around claiming conversions as a result.

[ 17. August 2016, 11:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have to see that cynical me was a bit dubious about
this report which appeared on my denomination's website recently.
After five minutes' Googling, I'm wondering whether one of us should buy the book by the pastor behind this "outpouring"...

Manipulation, Domination and Control

Being fairly familiar with the area and a number of the churches named in the article I'm rather similarly dubious about the whole thing.

Reading in some ways is a very odd town - it has a particularly varied set of churches, and in addition a large population of students - many international - due to the university.

It's very easy to see - given this context - how one could get large numbers of 'conversions' by talking to cafeteria Christians and getting some indication of greater 'commitment'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Eutychus

AFAICS there's a lot of ambiguity regarding evangelism and its purposes in general. Any number of positions and approaches are possible.

One man's Christian is another man's vaguely spiritual agnostic whose nan went to Sunday School in the 1930s. We live in an age of 'fuzzy faith', where it can be hard to say who belongs and who doesn't - and even attempting to do so can cause offense.

The altar call serves for people who see themselves as lapsed Christians, or those who are struggling with doubt or anxieties, as well as people who don't see themselves as Christians at all.

Some denominations are happy to see conversion as a decision of the moment; others think there should be months of preparation, led by a theologically qualified person.

All this being the case, I can't see any unity about what should be done, or who should be the focus of evangelical effort. This means there will and should be many different ways of doing evangelism. But most British denominations and their members are pretty poor at it regardless of which method is under examination.

[ 17. August 2016, 12:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eutychus

AFAICS there's a lot of ambiguity regarding evangelism and its purposes in general. Any number of positions and approaches are possible.

Take it from me, if you say "evangelism" in the ecclesiastical context of that church, you mean "aiming for conversion". They are honest enough to include "recommitments" in the small print, but that's not what the headlines say or imply.

quote:
The altar call serves for people who see themselves as lapsed Christians, or those who are struggling with doubt or anxieties, as well as people who don't see themselves as Christians at all.

I'd be willing to bet I've been at more altar calls than you've had hot dinners. Indeed they vary in scope. Some are honest, many follow the process I outlined above.

In the context of this thread, my takeaway is that if you give an "altar call" or train people to respond to it, you should be crystal clear about just what you are calling people to and not change your mind half way through when too few in your declared category respond.

quote:
Some denominations are happy to see conversion as a decision of the moment; others think there should be months of preparation, led by a theologically qualified person.

Yes, and I'm increasingly unhappy with the process/prayer outlined in the crib. Is it even defensible? Would you defend it?

quote:
All this being the case, I can't see any unity about what should be done, or who should be the focus of evangelical effort. This means there will and should be many different ways of doing evangelism.

There should be unity as to the spirit in which it is done:

quote:
we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God

(2 Cor 4:2)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
For clarification: do you mean someone asking for "Believer's baptism" or for their children to be baptised?

As we are in a missionary situation, that's a difference which is no difference. We're basically talking whole family baptism, or at least baptism of whichever random bits of the family haven't been baptized yet. Sometimes that's a grandma in her 80s along with assorted grandbabies!

And we only discourage baptism in the sense that we are surprisingly cool to those who know us for a short time, have received some benefit from us, and immediately say they want baptism. We certainly don't tell them straight out "no" but we do put them through a cooling down period* of Christian instruction** which tends to weed out the people who thought of baptism as the equivalent of sending us a bunch of thank-you flowers.

* Not, of course, when the person is sick or otherwise in danger of death
** Of course the learning and faith development is the main point of the instruction, but the time and effort it requires is a Good Thing when we suspect pay-you-back baptism motives.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Take it from me, if you say "evangelism" in the ecclesiastical context of that church, you mean "aiming for conversion". They are honest enough to include "recommitments" in the small print, but that's not what the headlines say or imply.

Yes, but what even qualifies as 'conversion'? In a 'Christian country' most claim to be Christians. And what counts as the moment of conversion? According to you, it doesn't happen after a short discussion or prayer (even if the latter have been preceded by a long period of personal reflection?). These are the issues I was highlighting.

Lamb Chopped's situation is illuminating, in that it's much easier to establish who's a believer and who isn't.

quote:

In the context of this thread, my takeaway is that if you give an "altar call" or train people to respond to it, you should be crystal clear about just what you are calling people to and not change your mind half way through when too few in your declared category respond.

I agree. Or at least, there should be a clearly expressed theology of the hybridisation of the altar call, as some might see it.

quote:
I'm increasingly unhappy with the process/prayer outlined in the crib. Is it even defensible? Would you defend it?

TBH, my first thought is that as it stands, not many people would take much notice. Why would the average secularised British person doing their shopping hear those words out of nowhere and meekly follow along? It's not as if they were in a church service, having chosen to attend due to a predisposition to be manipulated, or whatever.

The crib sheet is not really my cup of tea, but I'm assuming that it acted as a spur to conversation. Individuals would've had to open up about themselves and talk about faith. You may tell me that such discussions were unlikely to happen, in which case I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge of people's utter lack of curiosity!

I suppose I'm thinking about the importance of context. But if folk who were thinking of nothing holier than what they might find in Poundland that day could be persuaded to pray to Jesus on the way there it does suggest that there's a spiritual longing in that city. The churches now know that, and they must address it properly.

quote:
There should be unity as to the spirit in which it is done:
quote:
we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God
(2 Cor 4:2)

Ah, if only it were so 'plain'!

If I'd been raised more evangelically, like my extended family, it might seem less complicated. (But I would have witnessed far more altar calls....)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Yes, but what even qualifies as 'conversion'?

That's irrelevant to the context of this thread, which is about manipulation.

As it is, I think that when pushed, even the most "decisionist" evangelicals think it requires more than simply "praying the prayer" or following a set order of words (which is how I understand Muslims to view conversion). But the fact is that this kind of technique can quickly lead to "scalp-hunting".

quote:
I agree. Or at least, there should be a clearly expressed theology of the hybridisation of the altar call, as some might see it.

It's not theological. It's commmon courtesy. If you ask people to come forward, you should be clear on why you're asking them to come forward.

(To take a non-Christian example, I hate it when speakers ask for a volunteer without telling them beforehand, at least in broad terms, what they are expecting the volunteer to do).

If you're not doing that, you're not displaying "transparency of purpose".

quote:
TBH, my first thought is that as it stands, not many people would take much notice. Why would the average secularised British person doing their shopping hear those words out of nowhere and meekly follow along?

They might well do if they want to get a religious lunatic off their backs.

quote:
The crib sheet is not really my cup of tea, but I'm assuming that it acted as a spur to conversation. Individuals would've had to open up about themselves and talk about faith.

That's precisely what it's not designed to do. (For the avoidance of doubt, here it is again (part 1, part 2)

quote:
If they do not say "I have Jesus in my heart/I am born again" go with the script

It's designed to elicit a decision and nothing else.

quote:
You may tell me that such discussions were unlikely to happen, in which case I'll have to defer to your greater knowledge of people's utter lack of curiosity!

I'm with former Restorationist apostle George Tarleton here when he pleaded for Christians to stop evangelising the world and start loving it.

In my experience people are largely happy to be prayed for and to discuss spiritual matters - provided you don't have an agenda, overt or covert, to convert them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Eutychus

A few waffly points in response, but we're not coming from the same place, and obviously have different experiences. And I'm just a simple layperson.

1. If you're manipulating people into conversions then being aware of what it means to be or not be a Christian is very relevant, I would have thought!

2. I did look again at the crib sheet so I know what it says. Maybe it's just me, but I'd be inclined to want some sort of engagement, and not just take 'If B, do C' as the be all and end all of what to do.

3. We'll have to disagree on people in the street agreeing to pray just to get rid of a 'religious lunatic'. There's quite a bit of street preaching in my city, and that wouldn't happen here, although it may be your experience. I'm imagining a passer-by's sarcastic 'prayer voice' that the evangelists, a dopey bunch of manipulators all, utterly fail to notice!

4. With regard to there being too much evangelism, I can tell that you're speaking out of your experience of the evangelical world. In British terms, my world is mainstream MOTR Protestantism, with evangelicalism slightly overlapping. In my world, there is in no sense too much evangelism.

5. The mainstream Christian world here yearns to help the disadvantaged. Churches are setting up food banks, proclaiming their solidarity with refugees, getting involved with schemes for the homeless, raising money for countless charities at home and abroad, inviting in speakers to talk about NGOs, problems in the Middle East, the environment, and so on. It's not enough love, but it's happening.

There's also ecumenicalism rather than rivalry, and even some inter-faith work; the other day I attended a concert of Muslim music in a beautiful old church. Christians and Muslims were singing along together.

6. The problem is that without evangelism, the labourers will always be very few, and the burden on those who remain to do the work will be very heavy indeed. Just being loving and doing the social justice things isn't enough, sadly. I know this from experience. We need some churches to be willing to evangelise, or else the whole thing will collapse. Maybe not where you live, but I can see it happening in parts of the UK in the next few decades.

7. Manipulation: IMO the way to deal with this is for the non-manipulative churches to be better at defining and pursuing their own mission, at supporting each other and at speaking to the world. Complaining about what other churches from completely different traditions do doesn't seem to be productive (although it may be a natural form of 'Christian unrest').

8. If these altar calls and revivals are barren exercises, the churches that prioritise them will ultimately fail. And in the British context what happens in churches outside the CofE and RCC is of little interest to the wider public, so their antics will generally pass unremarked.

[ 17. August 2016, 15:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Eutychus lives in France, SvitlanaV2. Not a place known for teeming multitudes of evangelicals.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Yes, I know that. He frequently comments on both French and British evangelicalism.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok, so why did you write, 'Maybe not where you live ...?'

You know very well where Eutychus lives. Presumably you also know very well that France isn't exactly awash with evangelicalism and evangelicals.

Sure, not all of us live in inner-city areas like you do, but I don't think any of the UK Shipmates posting here live in places where revival is happening or where the churches are all holding their own. No such place exists here in the UK.

Neither do I think that anyone is questioning the need for evangelism, what people seem to have an issue with is 'manipulation' in its various forms.

I can foresee widespread collapse across a whole range of churches, and not only liberal and MoTR ones either - many evangelical and charismatic outfits will implode when the realisation comes that their hype and over-egged expectations are unsustainable.

That said, I can see some morphing and adopting a more holistic approach. It all depends on how they are geared up to respond and what inner resources they have - as well as by how closely or otherwise they are connected to the 'grand tradition.'

Sure, people can find a genuine faith through even the whackiest of settiings or the most crass approaches. But that doesn't mean that we should go out and attempt to manipulate people with the hope that a greater good will come of it.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so why did you write, 'Maybe not where you live ...?'

You know very well where Eutychus lives. Presumably you also know very well that France isn't exactly awash with evangelicalism and evangelicals.
.

Well, for a start, Eutychus is obviously rather concerned about what evangelicals do. This suggests that it's an important issue for him, and it may be a particular concern in his area, if not throughout France.

Secondly, he's implied on other occasions that French evangelicals are beginning to outnumber France's traditional mainstream Protestants. The impression I get is that for Eutychus this is a problem, because the evangelicals tend to have behaviours and attitudes that are undesirable. I think he feels more positive about the traditional Protestants, but he actually says very little about them.

But as I said, if manipulative evangelism is fruitless and its proponents failures then there's not much point in worrying it. We all seem to be on a level, and 'manipulation' is just one little problem amidst a jungle of others!

BTW, I don't live in the 'inner city'. I live in a city. My particular interests and experiences relate to faith in an urban context, which includes inner city areas, as well as inner suburban and outer suburban areas.

[ 22. August 2016, 18:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, Eutychus is an evangelical, so he's naturally concerned about what evangelicals do.

Anyone who has a concern for the Gospel and for evangelism is going to be concerned about these things.

Even if evangelicals are beginning to outnumber traditional or 'mainstream' Protestants in parts of France then they are still very much in a minority.

I don't think it's an issue that evangelicals are intrinsically 'undesirable', it's more a concern that they amend their ways in some respects and modify their practices.

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm more than happy to see evangelicals evangelising ... but I'm not happy if they are being manipulative or under-hand in the way they do it.

That's why there's a great deal of point in worrying about it, because it can be counter-productive and people get hurt.

If manipulative techniques didn't hurt anyone then we wouldn't be getting exercised about it.

Of course, there's a 'jungle' of other issues and no Christian tradition is free of problems.

But this thread is about manipulation.

And the examples many of us have encountered happen to have been within an evangelical context.

People from other traditions would have other examples from their own context.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm a bit bemused by this fascinating exchange of views about my churchmanship, location, and preferences. Since nobody's actually asked me anything here, I'll just keep being bemused.

[ 22. August 2016, 19:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Big Grin]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, Eutychus, it's just that I get a bit fed up at times with SvitlanaV2's consistent mantra about how some of us might live in places where our experience may differ from hers and how it's all very well for us to criticise aspects of evangelicalism when the MoTR and liberal churches are closing down at a rate of knots and how ...

[Help]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I just give my own experience. You give your experience. That's what a conversation is.

The whole 'your experience may be different' thing that I do is me accepting that I don't speak for everyone, just myself. But it seems to give the opposite impression from what I'm intending; you insist that I'm dismissing your experience. I don't know why you think that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
how it's all very well for us to criticise aspects of evangelicalism when the MoTR and liberal churches are closing down at a rate of knots and how ...

[pedantry]
That is faulty logic. If x has problems, it is legitimate to call attention to them even if y and z have issues as well.[/pedantry]
Not that I am taking sides in this particular battle.

[ 22. August 2016, 20:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes. Which is fair enough but the way SvitlanaV2 trots this out can aggravate me somewhat, as I'm sure some of my comments aggravate other people too.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I just feel that 'trotting out' criticisms of evangelicalism alone is somewhat lopsided - especially if evangelicalism has no future in any case.

Generations to come may have as little to say about the distasteful aspects of evangelicalism as we have to say now about the distasteful aspects of Methodism, etc. But we're obviously not at that stage yet. Soon, soon!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don' think I've ever said or implied that evangelicalism has no future.

Where did you get that from?

Evangelicalism will continue to morph and develop.

Some of the routes it may take may well be unpalatable.

Others will be more palatable.

What I'm concerned about is the Gospel and the degree to which that is preserved or compromised across the various Christian traditions or expressions.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I can foresee widespread collapse across a whole range of churches, and not only liberal and MoTR ones either - many evangelical and charismatic outfits will implode when the realisation comes that their hype and over-egged expectations are unsustainable.

That said, I can see some morphing and adopting a more holistic approach. It all depends on how they are geared up to respond and what inner resources they have - as well as by how closely or otherwise they are connected to the 'grand tradition.'

What the above says to me is that the evangelical churches will either collapse, or else they'll become less evangelical. These outcomes fit in with historical patterns. To some they would both be forms of failure, or of a failed future.

The hope may be that the those which persist with theologically and culturally undesirable altar calls and street evangelism will collapse, being increasingly beyond the pale, and those that reject them in favour of the 'grand tradition' will become normative and appealing.

However, the 'grand tradition' hasn't protected mainstream traditional Christianity from corrosive forces, and I hardly suppose it'll protect a modified, modernised evangelicalism either. Perhaps it's a case of each constituency choosing to face its demise in its own way. Those few that survive or are born in the process might do so for any number of reasons.

[ 23. August 2016, 15:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Some might become more evangelical.

The possibilities are endless.

Do I believe some outfits will implode? Yes I do.

Do I believe that people will continue to be evangelical despite that? Yes, I believe that also.

Do I believe that in it all some people will adhere to and draw strength from the 'grand tradition'? Yes, that too.

Do I believe that some movemens will veer off into whacko jacko territory? Yes, that too.

We'll see all of this at one and the same time.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0