Bait and switch. You've heard of it. The phone company tells you, "Man, have we got a great deal for you!" And it really looks like it. So you go in to grab it quick and then find out that you're getting that great deal ... along with taxes, fees, service agreements, and more that make that "great deal" something not so nice. They bait you with promises, but when you go to take them up on the promises, they yank them away and switch it for something else. Bait and switch. Most memorable are the car dealership ads. "You can get this amazing car for only $12!" Of course, when you rush in for that car, they tell you, "We're sorry; that car already sold. But, look! You can have one just like it for only $20,000!" Sorry, "$19,999." Because that's much more reasonable, right? Bait and switch.
As it turns out, Christians are often accused of this technique. We will, for instance, open a food line to help the homeless ... in order to give them the Gospel. We'll open a shelter for battered women ... and hit them with the Gospel. We'll hand that guy on the corner some cash and a tract. Bait ... and switch. One blog tells the story of a horrendous "bait and switch" in which a ministry-based choir came to town and gave some wonderful, secular performances in local schools. Then they promised a concert and "pizza blast". But when the town showed up for the fine, secular concert and pizza, they got a brief secular performance which then transformed into the Gospel message instead. With "disastrous results". Bait and switch. Lure them in with something they want but you never intend to give them and then give them something else.
Is it? Is this a fair evaluation? Are we guilty of the same thing? Is that what we're doing? I'm going to offer two reasons why this fairly common approach is not "bait and switch".
First, bait and switch requires an offer of something that you do not give in order to give them something else. So, for instance, if you offer a homeless man a meal and give him that meal while you give him the Gospel, you gave him what you promised. You gave him what he expected (the meal). If you give the guy on the corner money for a meal and a tract, you gave him money. You gave him what he expected. In both cases, you gave him more, but not less than what he expected. In this sense, then, it cannot be called a "bait and switch".
Here's the other, perhaps more important reason it cannot be called a bait and switch maneuver. Let's say your youth group has an outreach night. They encourage their friends to attend for a "night of fun", knowing all along that this "night of fun" will also include the Gospel message. Now, in order for this to be of any use at all, they are actually going to have to produce a "night of fun" in some way or another. It has to be fun, or it won't work. They want them to come back, if only for the fun. So, as in the first explanation, they are not failing to provide what is promised. But here's the other important thing. When they tack on the Gospel at the end of the "night of fun", they have not "switched" (because the fun was delivered) nor have they shortchanged anyone. Indeed, what they have done is provided so much more. It's as if you invite a homeless guy in for a bowl of soup and then provide him with soup for an appetizer followed by a steak dinner and pie. "Bait and switch!" Right? No, not at all. He got the soup and much, much more. You cannot imagine offering a battered wife a place to stay and then handing her a million dollars and she would complain, "No! You promised me a place to stay" (which you actually provided) "and you're giving me too much more!"
You see, we far too often miss the point of evangelism. We aren't trying to score wins. We aren't trying to make converts. We aren't hoping to chalk up some more notches on our biblical guns. We are trying to snatch fellow human beings from the fires of Hell. We're trying to save our neighbors from the wrath of God. Frankly, there is precious little benefit to us in doing so and great gain to them if they believe.
If you went to that car dealer and asked for that $12 car and he sold it to you and, "Oh, by the way, as a bonus we'd like to give you this $19,999 car as well", would you complain that it was a bait and switch? You could, I suppose, but it wouldn't hold water. You got what was promised ... and much, much more. These evangelistic tools like feeding the poor or helping the homeless or the like can provide help and offer something much, much more than temporal assistance. That's not "bait and switch". Is it possible for some evangelistic efforts to be "bait and switch"? Sure. When they don't give what is promised. Or when they do evangelize to score more wins. But when the standard of "doing good to all men" is exercised alongside "make disciples", it is not bait and switch. It is "give them what you promised and so, so very much more." And that's not a bad thing. Now, remember, we are not commanded to "make converts". And if this event is all you do, rather than working at making disciples, then you're selling them short with your evangelism. That is a matter of sin on your part, a faulty heart for Christ. And not all of these techniques are equally effective. Serving among people, for instance, is typically far more attractive (in its literal sense) than throwing a "youth fun night" to lure them in. Some things are better than others. But it's not "bait and switch". Don't accept that false accusation without question.
8 comments:
Stan,
You're right. the 2 examples you gave are not bait and switch. But they are a form of deception. If I invite someone whom I know is not interested in hearing the gospel message to a "potluck and game night" at the church and I know there will be a gospel message at the end and I specifically don't tell them about that part, I've omitted information deliberately in an attempt to deceive them. I don't think that is OK to do. If a Mormon or a Scientologist did that to me I would consider them not so much of a friend.
I guess I see your point, but I'm still not sure ... on two counts. First, if I invited you over to share a meal and didn't tell you I had a movie to watch, too, would that be deceptive? Now, of course, I'm only thinking here from my own experience, but I often invited school friends to outreach functions at church that were couched in fun, but it was at my church, so wasn't it obvious? I would guess that it could indeed be done and even intended as deception, but I'm not sure how common that is.
Here's the other thing, and I'm going here from your "Mormon or Scientologist" example. Let's say I have what I believe to be the finest, most honorable yet successful money-making scheme of all time and I'd like to share it with you, but I know you wouldn't bother listening if I told you about it like that. So I invite you over to dinner and a movie without telling you the movie is about this scheme. Would it be deceitful? My aim is to provide you with something wonderful that you might not, at first blush, want to know about but, I'm quite sure, you will be glad to have once you know about it. Is the only right approach to present it in such a way that I know you will reject it without even hearing about it? At what point does the immense value of what I'm trying to give you outweigh the "sleight of hand" I'm using to give it to you?
Those are questions, you see, because I DO see your point. I'm just not sure how far.
I think that is a fair analysis of the "bait and switch" claim. This passage comes to mind with respect to our approach. I think the question we must ask ourselves is whether our approach would violate v. 2:
2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
I think the real bait and switch is when churches water down the message to attract people with the idea of telling them the truth later. As bad as that idea is, what makes it worse is that they never get around to switching. It is all bait, no switch. As the saying goes, whatever you do to get them to come to church is what you'll have to do to keep them. I think a lot of pastors rationalize that if they preach the word too thoroughly that they'll scare off the people who are helping pay their big mortgage. That would harm the church and its ministries, so the best thing -- in their minds -- is to water things down.
Oh, yeah, all "bait" no "switch" is worse, isn't it?
I'm not personally much in favor of the approach that I'm "defending". As I indicated in the post, it is possible to do this stuff wrong or for the wrong reason, and "not all of these techniques are equally effective." I'm not at all sure that a "fun night for the youth" with a secret dose of the Gospel is an effective tool. But I'm not at all sure that standing on a corner calling all sinners to repent is an effective tool, either. On the other hand, I've seen God use both, so I'm not willing to rule them out.
And the church has been about making converts for years.
Disciples, not so much, but converts absolutely.
From the law, show them their sin, give them the gospel and allow the Holy Spirit to bring conviction. Then teach and train them, making disciples so they can teach and train others.
Remember, the laborers are few and the harvest is great. Get Busy.!!!.
Well, whether I would end up liking what you presented in the end is irrelevant regarding it's deceitfulness if you think about it. If my wife asks me if she looks fat and I giver her the answer she wants to hear rather than the truth, she is pleased, but I still lied.
The only reason I commented on this is it brought back memories of a violin player we have on our worship team at church. She is also a music teacher and would have "recital" at the the church. On Sunday mornings and include all of us in it as well. If the kids' parents wanted to hear their kids play in the concert, they had to come to church. Well, I was the worship leader at that time and when I saw her brochure calling it a "stringed concert", I nixed it right away. I told her she needed to call it the Sunday morning worship service or she could use the church building and sound equipment any other time but Sunday morning. She insisted she was evangelizing. I insisted she was trying to trick people into coming to church... Ever since then, I've paid more attention to the tactics that are used to manipulate people into doing things they ordinarily would not do.
I think it's more honest to say, "wanna come to a night of fun at my church? It's a blast. We do a lot of fun stuff and at the end there's a short message about what we believe and why, if you're interested". Or something to that affect
I'm a little unclear on this, Mike. It would appear that your view is that the only way to be honest is to tell the whole truth -- to tell all. If you are putting on a "stringed concert" at church and you don't mention that there will be a few words said at church about what church is about, it's dishonest.
The problem with the "your wife asks you if these pants make her look fat" example is that there is a fundamental difference between saying "No" when they do (which is an intentional untruth stated with the intent to deceive) and having a concert at a church (at a church) in order to encourage people to come in, enjoy themselves, and hear the Gospel is that one is a lie and the other may have withheld all the information but shouldn't be regarded as an intent to deceive because it's at a church.
Seems to me that the failure to "tell the whole truth" doesn't require that it be classified as a lie. If I tell my wife, "I'm taking you out for dinner" and then treat her to dinner, a movie, and a nice stay at a hotel, I haven't lied to her. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have grounds to say, "You lied!"
But I will say, again, I'm not at all sure that church gatherings intended for evangelism couched in "let's have some fun first", with or without a "and we'll hit you at the end with the Gospel" admission, is the most effective means of evangelism. I think the most effective means of evangelism is the "walk alongside" type. I get to know you. I live Christ in front of you. And whether, at that point, I invite you as my friend to come to my church to hear the Gospel (with or without "fun") or I just tell you the Gospel as my friend without the benefit of "church" or "fun", I think it's much more effective. But, hey, that's just me. (I'm not a big fan of "church programs" to woo people through the doors in order to "win them to Christ". I don't think that's the function of the church. I think the function of the church is to build Christians, and the function of Christians, among other things, is to evangelize.)
(And I like that whole "two cents" picture on your profile. Says it all, doesn't it? Thanks for your "two cents" on the topic.)
Stan,
Thanks for your insight on this. As always... keen.
Post a Comment