The Affect of Conviction or the Affect of Disappointment?

It seems counterintuitive, to say the least, for a movement that desires to attract members, a movement that in fact wants life-long devotees, to stress the utter reprehensibility of all humanity in their main publicity techniques. Yet this message--humanity is wretched--headlines the evangelistic narrative of the Way of the Master (WotM), Ray Comfort's popular quasi-formula for street proselytizing.

I have criticized this technique's main narrative arc--its dramaturgy, if you will (dramaturgy in this context referring to the way in which parts of a dramatic plot are selected, arranged, and presented). The WotM typically leads a the person being proselytized through several of the ten commandments, showing her not only that she's sinned (for example, that she's told lies on occasion) but also that, as a result, she is indelibly marked with that sin (that she's a liar because she's told lies). God, whose standard is perfection (i.e., Godself), is therefore fully justified in condemning to eternal Hell all liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers, blasphemers, etc.

The point, for WotM folk, is to lead the person into a state of conviction (or, rather, to prepare the way for the Holy Spirit to convict them) where they accept that, yes, they do deserve Hell. WotM evangelists, in their many sample evangelical encounters, listen for and highlight the moment when the person being evangelized shifts their tone or affect: becoming somber, ceasing to argue or joke, perhaps even shedding a tear.

And indeed, in radio and television replays of such encounters (on podcasts like Last Words Radio or on TV shows such as Way of the Master or Wretched), the subject often does go through such a change. Where the conversation had begun with an easygoing (if a bit wary) question-and-answer. But all this changes by the time the evangelist finishes the "good person test" and presents them with the standard question: "So, by your own admission, you're a lying, thieving, blaspheming adulterer. If you were to stand before God right now, would he judge you innocent or guilty?"

Any answer but "guilty" is wrong, evidence that the person is not yet ready to receive the good news of the gospel. It's essential, in the WotM's underlying theology, for the person to accept that they are guilty and God is righteous for judging them.

Here's where my criticism of WotM and other judgment-first proselytizing techniques comes in. I've argued that these techniques, the script that leads from conviction to fear to grateful salvation, make God into a strikingly unlikable figure--a divine tyrant, in fact.

The WotM people seem to believe that, when the person being evangelized shifts into serious mode, this change proves that they have been convicted of their sins, that they realize their wretchedness and need of salvation. Perhaps. I can't read the minds of all their subjects. But it seems just as likely to me that the shift in affect has a different subtext.

For instance, by the time that the subject's shift in affect happens, the evangelist has also shifted their "character." Whereas they began with conversational give-and-take, listening to what the person says and responding in sensible ways (like any good improv actor will), they have by the "you are wretched" part of the conversation commandeered the conversation. The subject by now knows that the rhetorical conventions of the conversation are different: this person is going to preach to me, and I'm not expected to respond except in particular ways.

In other words, the conversation changes from open questions that may be answered freely ("What do you think happens to us when we die?") to rhetorical questions that, like the faux-casual exchanges between an elementary school teacher and his students, have only one proper answer ("So since you're a murderous blasphemer, do you think that righteous God who condemns all sin will judge you innocent or guilty?"). The silence on the part of the subject may have less to do with honest conviction than with their adaptation to a conversation whose underlying tone has changed vastly. They may, to put it another way, just be waiting for the sermon to end.

But--say the person isn't just waiting to get away. Say the person is quiet because they realize that, yes, in the eyes of God, they are filthy and guilty. I submit that this situation isn't so great for the evangelist or for Christianity in general. The WotM kicks into gear with some variation of the question, "Do you think you are a good person?" This question invites the subject to create--on the spot--a set of criteria that they consider reasonable. Most people will allow that they are not perfect, but they try. They would not, in other words, condemn themselves to eternal Hell.

The point of the WotM is to get the person to replace those personal standards with God's impossibly perfect standard. Subjects of WotM seem good to themselves, but God thinks differently. Now, the quietness, the tears--all of these shifts the evangelist interprets as the person realizing yes, I've been wrong. I really am as wretched as God sees me. But again, it seems just as likely to me that the subtext is something like What a tyrant this God is. If he were my boss, I'd quit before he could fire me. But since I can't, I guess I'll have to submit to whatever plan of salvation God offers. It's not like I have any other choice.

See the difference? The first (the WotM's ideal situation) is honest conviction and triteness plus a real desire to be reconciled with a just God. And again, maybe that's what some people experience. But much more likely in my view is the second scenario: the disappointment of finding out that, at the end of the day, the Boss of the Universe is crazy-mean. You can't quit, so you just have to grin and bear it, saying "yes, sir--of course, sir--thank you, sir" to whatever insane demands that Boss has.

And the WotM invites this response by beginning the conversation by asking, "What set of ethical standards seem reasonable to you?"--only to follow up with "Sorry--it turns out the real standards are impossible, but you're stuck with them anyway. So you better deal with it." Why would you invite a person to create an image of justice only to shatter it? Because, let me be frank: the image of justice and love that most people come up with when asked to describe God makes the "real" God of the WotM into quite the cosmic let-down.

More tomorrow,

JF