Derren Brown – Messiah
I’m wondering if anyone else here saw the programme on Channel 4 a couple of weeks ago. It was fascinating. In case you didn’t below is a brief synopsis of what happened and some thoughts. Derren Brown set out on a trip across America to see if he could pass himself off in a number of roles. Would a recognised evangelist affirm his ‘ministry?’ Would an investigator of UFO abductions see through his ability to read her medical history just by touching her? Could he pass off his ‘dream-catcher’ gadget as radical and proven technology when tested on a New Age expert? On so on… The role of evangelist was of most interest to me of course. In this role, in front a small group of people apparently about 95% unbelievers Derren Brown set out not simply to convince the genuine evangelist that he was the real-deal, but also to see if he could convince his audience to come to a confession of faith in God.
First, Derren takes a firm unbeliever who has traditional reasons for not believing – evil in the world, disasters etc. He asks this person to stand facing away from him. Within a few moments, without any physical contact between them, but by moving his arms alone (similar to Benny Hinn?) the unbeliever falls – Toronto blessing style – to be caught by Derren. When asked directly by Derren Brown about his beliefs, he confesses that perhaps his earlier unbelieving statements had been a little hasty and perhaps there was a God after all.
Then Derren asks the whole group to stand having confirmed that all but one of them do not believe in God. He asks them to close their eyes. Then he encourages them: ‘Be aware of the presence of God filling this room, coming close to you, encircling you, embracing you, receive this presence. Welcome it as it enters you…etc etc.’ After just a few moments all but one of the group slump backwards into their chairs. Upon questioning by Derren Brown they ALL say that they now believe in God. The genuine evangelist is astounded by what he sees and is ready to affirm Derren Brown’s ministry.
Derren Brown admits up front to the camera that he is not now, although he once was, an evangelist. His point is that merely through the power of suggestion he can cause people to alter their beliefs. He suggests that much of what he sees with TV evangelist could be subject to similar techniques. (Although, he is quick to say that they could be completely genuine.)
This inevitably raises issues about how we do evangelism and how we affirm conversion.
· To what extent does the power of suggestion alone influence people to commit to God/projects/church etc? · Are we aware of the power of the ‘techniques’ that we are using within evangelistic settings? · How much emphasis do we place upon the initial confession of faith? · Are we aiming for converts or disciples? · This weariness should I think encourage us to welcome people to belong to the believing community and take their time to come to a commitment to discipleship. · How much do we stake on the BIG event to convince people to come to Christ rather than the ongoing and long-term persuasion of loving relationship with disciples?
Cult Practices?
I would also ask: How much does the power of suggestion, group dynamic and mere habit forming repetition continue to reinforce the conversion in the following years, particularly if the ‘convert’ is very young or emotionaly vulnerable? Not do mention: In these circumstances is ‘de-programming’ required to free them?
De-conversion
Good points. I was interested to note that in the Derren Brown programme there was a note put up to the effect that all the ‘converts’ had been ‘de-converted’ before leaving!! Blessings
A sociologists' observations
You might enjoy reading Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity.” Stark is a sociologist of religion, who began studying the growth of religions by studying the earliest Moonies in America. His book covers a number of interesting sociological issues, including:
- The fact that for Christianity to grow as it did to the point of becoming a recognized Roman religion at the time of Constantine, it need only have grown at the same rate Mormonism has grown.
- The way Christian attitudes toward disease or women would give Christianity an edge, statistically, over typical pagan religions.
- Several ways power politics would help the church grow faster.
I think that the church growth movement has intentionally applied lessons from sociology to ecclesiology (this has been done inappropriately but also quite appropriately). In defending against objections to this kind of move, church growth proponents have pointed out many other ways the church has always used normal cultural elements to grow: Bible translation, good rhetoric, parables based on common scenes, etc.What’s the difference between using a native language to preach the gospel rather than my own, concentrating my preaching on the friends and families of existing Christians rather than complete strangers, or suggesting God exists rather than affirming disbelief?
conversions...?
Hmmm - I think (?) I understand your points about sociology, but I’m not entirely sure how they connect with the original post. Sorry - I’m probably just being dim. I posted the ‘Derren Brown - Messiah’ piece because I think that his ‘skills’ expose the potential shallowness of conversions if we do not train and encourage discipleship as a normal Christian life. Tens of thousands have signed pieces of paper at mass evangelism rallies, prayed ‘the prayer’ as the high point of an appeal, responded to scary sermons on hell and damnation, accepted the simple assurances of classic conservative evangelicalism (you’ve prayed the prayer…you’ll be ok, of course you’re a Christian) etc. But the figures tell us again and again that the number of people who continue their journey of faith coming out of such ‘conversions’ is minimal. I think Derren Brown’s skills beg questions of so much of this and challenges our confidence in our ‘successes.’
Sure, conversions.
When Christians have been interviewed about their conversions, it appears that the number who are “purely” converted are statistically insignificant. Most converts—whether or not they make it through the long haul—are converted through a muddy combination of factors, which typically are primarily sociological but can also be fear-based or economic.
The interesting thing is that, for kingdom purposes, the motives at this point are less important than the nurturing the baby Christian receives shortly afterwards. That is, as long as one is committed to following Jesus, one can be taught how to live this out. We see this in Scripture where people followed Jesus for various motives and often expressed inappropriate ideas (e.g. “Can we sit on your left and right hands?”). We see this in history, where people were “converted” at swordpoint: they may have had inner reservations at the time, but in fact they raised their children Christian and their entire culture was quickly transformed (I’m not saying without problems).
When I read the original post, I slotted this sort of evangelism (“some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife”) into the “Not ideal but still usable” category. Rather than seek re-conversion, I would seek better teaching from where one is.
Peter Wagner said that when “evangelism” is thought of as stopping at conversion, a failure-factor has been built-in. He prefers an axis, with resistant pagan at one end and mature believer at the other; “conversion” comes at 0, but the goal is more like 2—“productive disciple.”
Exploitation
The question is whether it is all exploitation. If people are drawn in to commitment because they have agonies in life, they are being exploited. A weakness is being used in order to add to the numbers and offer something that is something else on top of their real problems.
You can end up with another dependency. The person who adopts especially evagnelical Christianity because of psychological and/ or material problems can, should that Christianity start to be questioned, start to disintegrate even more so than was doing in the first place.
Yes I did see the Darren Brown. He does not use just suggestion. He uses a variety of techniques and he is, principally, a magician. Magic has always been used by a variety of spreaders of religion; the techniques are used by many an Indian holy man to impress an audience.
Superstition and magic feed off each other, but when magic has become professionalised there is an ethical side that Darren Brown admits. He uses magic and psychology.
There are techniques used by Colin Fry, who makes no such declaration, and on every single audience show he finds someone’s past life, and as they nod and nod he uses that affirmation to say something about what the dead person wants to tell them. A chap at an art class had been to his show and he would have no truck with me that these were techniques, and was convinced - “you should see it” - that Colin Fry is able to see and communicate. But there is no reason why, if someone can see into your past life, why that the same person is also able to say what the dead person wants them to do. So it is a dishonest association: a “proof” of one thing to try and claim some ability to see the other side. Frequently the people he addresses start crying and become emotional. I think it is nasty exploitation.
I note that Benny Hinn, for one reason or another, has no uniform acceptance across the fundamentalist wing; Revelation TV for one has criticised him (I’ve just been writing about it in another context in the current affairs section over at Surefish). It is all rather creepy for me. Service is one thing, exploitation another.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Re: Derren Brown - Messiah?
My honest opinion was that it was honestly non-sensical. Do not misunderstand, I do think the overall show with the first psychic and the dream was pretty impressive. However, the pastor, and the alien abduction was rather silly. Both on the part of Brown and the people who were experimented upon.
I do not say this without cause, notice that for neither of the two refered scenarios did Brown related to Christianity or aliens in any meaningful way. Brown said that upon being abducted by alien, he had an ability to read medical information, sure enough, the demonstration was very impressive, but was anything refered to the aliens? For eg, Brown could have said that upon falling into a radioactive pool of gibberlish, and hence got the ability. For example, he could have done the exact trick to, say the psychics, and one would be equally impressed, yet by saying alien abduction was the cause, the casual reader would be fooled into thinking that this had some kind of impact onto how we should think about alien abduction.
I hope the reasoning is not complicated, but the point is, Brown could have attributed the cause to absolutely ANYTHING, and the trick still works, but by attributing to alien abduction, he fools the audience into questioning the plausibilty of alien abductions.
This applies exactly to the convertings, it was absolutely horrendous, Brown making no references to the gospel/Jesus Christ whatsoever, cause some people believe in a diety, and then somehow links it to Christians. And what did the pastor say ? "I know of radical conversions, but it was not anything like what James had done". All that the pastor really asserted was that it was more amazing than anything he had seen. Anyone with a little bit of manners and honesty would say that! Infact, we could have cut out just that part and paste it into a, say, Islamic scenario, with an Islamic leader, with no changes at all. Brown shows absolutely no understanding of the Christian gospel whatsoever, and seriously misleads the audiences, I think it is serious irresponsibility on his part.
It may be selective editing, but I was very disappointed that the pastor did not at all clarify the gospel immediately, but was obviously deluded into thinking that the Christian faith based on fancy mystical experiences instead of the New Testament history. Any experienced preacher should have pointed out and denied that the conversions were not genuinely Christian, because nothing about the cross was said. Again I say that editing might have taken place, but if not, then I can hardly understand why that pastor in question should be qualified at all.
Overall, I am extremely sick of the "I can explain your believes in terms of "INSERT HERE", and therefore it is wrong" atmosphere. Just because one can explain why some body wants to believe in something, has no bearing absolutely on the the truth of that matter. For example, I can explain why you believe in a father, because you want love, but does that mean just because I explained your belief in the existence of a father, henceforth he doesnt exist? It is seriously disappointing, when supposedly educated people say "Ha, I know why you believe in God, because he is just like a father, and give you love. Your religion is false" as Freud do. How is that different from my previous example?
I know I am off-tracked already, but I really would like to sound my protest - Just because someone proposed an alternative theory, it does not mean that existing one is false.
I hope I have not offended anyone, rather, I am just attacking intellectually those people who use pseudo-science/reasoning/philosophy to attack opposing believes. It would be good to quote Niezschte here (probably the 20th million times I spelt his name wrong) : In fighting the beast, one must be careful not to become the beast. Those people who fight the New-Age (a perfectly fine thing to do), dont twist your science into New-Age reasoning.
Re: Derren Brown - Messiah?
This is so interesting. Consider it from my perspective- the power of God without God. Beliefs and faith do not have to be true. Actually, it may be more helpful from the position of conversions to make up unbelievable stuff. People tend to believe the big lie. I have a show where I discuss the big lie in terms of UFOs.