Evangelistically Speaking – in Religion and Politics
I find it interesting (and somewhat sad) that pastors and evangelists have exaggerated so much for so long, that people have actually created a term for it: “evangelistically speaking.” When Christian leaders – the people who should be the most honest – have such a history of exaggeration that we generate a special term for it, that’s rather embarrasing to say the least. I’ve seen it many times. I’ve filmed religious events with audiences in the hundreds, but the evangelist reported later that “thousands attended.” Others where thousands showed up, but he described it later as “tens of thousands.” It’s rather ironic that so many try to build their reputation by lying…
But religious leaders aren’t the only people who speak “evangelistically.” I thought about the phenomenon during various addresses from President Obama. So many of his quotes have been memorable for their exaggeration:
Early on, the President lambasted an unnamed group who he said believed: “A philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all.” The question is – who’s philosophy is this? Who (other than an anarchist) wants to see the government dismantled? Many Americans think the government is too big, but that’s doesn’t mean anyone (except perhaps Islamic militants) wants to toss it out.
During a news conference when he was defending the first term stimulus, he decried another unnamed group who opposed the congressional stimulus as “a set of folks who – I don’t doubt their sincerity – who just believe that we should do nothing.” Who exactly wants to do nothing? I couldn’t find them back then. Even his most strident opposition had an alternative plan. But since those days, the president’s list has grown.
The truth is – whether it be preachers or politicians – the idea of “evangelistically speaking” has to end. Great leadership is about trust, and trust doesn’t happen without radical transparency.
I would like to add, I’ve always heard that phrase taken a step further to “EvangELASTICALLY speaking”… 🙂 Also, why they gotta lie about it… God condemns lying not “only reaching two people”…
This is definitely a good topic to tackle, as it’s also sad to me that we allow preachers and others to get away with such statements. After all, if they were held accountable for such comments, they might be a bit less likely to inflate numbers or create false opponents. As it is, we are all too likely to laugh it off as "just" an exaggeration.
I had heard it called "ministerially speaking" and it’s a big no-no at my church.
I think part of the desire to inflate numbers is a pride thing. I want to be seen as effective, so I’ll make sure the numbers are large enough to cover that impression.
For politicians, it’s different. It’s competing ideas. It’s much easier to employ the old "strawman" and distort the opponent’s viewpoint to the ridiculous than to actually engage in the kind of complicated, detailed discourse really necessary to hash through issues. No one thinks people will pay attention to lengthy analysis anyway, so over simplify.
Excellent points John Upchurch & Mediaslinky.
"…sad … we allow preachers and others to get away with such statements. After all, if they were held accountable for such comments, they might be a bit less likely to inflate numbers or create false opponents. "
"It’s much easier to employ the old "strawman" and distort the opponent’s viewpoint to the ridiculous than to actually engage in the kind of complicated, detailed discourse really necessary to hash through issues."
THANX!
Lier, lier, pants on FIRE of HELL… see Rev. 22…
Phil…you’re insightful. I like it.
When a TV preacher says, The wealth of the wicked shall go to the righteous,Does it have to mean always, The wealth of the naïve shall go to the covetous? The only transaction, Being discernable,Is cash to the preacher, From the gullible. (Another evangelistically speaking example)
I had heard it called "ministerially speaking" and it’s a big no-no at my church. I think part of the desire to inflate numbers is a pride thing. I want to be seen as effective, so I’ll make sure the numbers are large enough to cover that impression. For politicians, it’s different. It’s competing ideas. It’s much easier to employ the old "strawman" and distort the opponent’s viewpoint to the ridiculous than to actually engage in the kind of complicated, detailed discourse really necessary to hash through issues. No one thinks people will pay attention to lengthy analysis anyway, so over simplify.