“‘I want to repent, on behalf of the 1%, for viewing the 99% of the church not in professional ministry as existing to support our ministry. This couldn’t be more wrong.’

These are the words of apology of Michael Oh, the Global Executive Director and CEO of the Lausanne Movement, published by Christianity Today.

He continues, ‘You don’t exist to help professional ministry leaders fulfill the Great Commission. We exist to help you do it.’ Later this month, the Lausanne Global Workplace Forum will seek to do just that by turning the church’s attention to empowering the 99%.”

The words of the Executive Director of the Lausanne Movement of which I have been a translator/interpreter for the last years are, to say the least, revolutionary. In the same article he raises four points of apology:

1. You don’t exist to support our ministry; we exist to support yours.
2. The Great Commission can’t be fulfilled without you.
3. You may not be a minister or a missionary, but you have a ministry.
4. We have given lip service to your ministry, but we’re going to do more.

The Global Workplace Forum was held in June 25-29, 2019, in Manila, Philippines. The preliminary report says:

This gathering was the first of its kind in Lausanne’s history, where the majority of the participants, 65 percent of the near 900 participants from 110 countries were Christians whose primary place of work is outside of churches or ministry organizations. They represented a landscape of the global workforce, from manual laborers to CEOs, entrepreneurs and investors, blue-collar, white-collar, ‘pink-collar’, as well as ‘no-collar’ workers, those who work as homemakers or caregivers in the often unseen workplace called home. Included were 200 virtual participants interacting with the programme and each other online.

The aim here is to achieve a healthy balance that does not exist at present. When we think about it, the vast majority of Christian sermons, books, articles, biographies, audio and video recordings we hear come from people who hold leadership positions in Christian churches or institutions. And it is impossible to pretend that a person who has been on one side of the counter or who has been in a hierarchical relationship fully understands the person on the other side of the counter or relationship. Today nobody disputes that it is not the same for a man to talk about the situation of women as if a woman did. Or for an employer to comment on the situation of workers. Or for someone to speak about discrimination or a disability of any kind if they have not experienced it themselves.

On the other hand, as reflected in Oh's heartfelt apology, there are a lot of Christian conferences, meetings, seminars, etc. are aimed at leaders. Conferences on leadership, on the life of the leader, the training of leaders, etc. Conferences, meetings, seminars, etc. for and organised by led people are non-existent or rare. We have not even coined a word that expresses the sense of belonging to the group of led people that is equivalent to “leadership” for leaders. “Followship?”. What do we have to learn, how to be better led (as leaders suggest when they talk about us) or, for example, how to better control leaders?

The book “Pastor Pastor - Feed my Sheep' addresses this issue in a number of ways. The back cover, talking about the author, says:

His aim in writing this novel is to help provide answers to many of the issues that need to be addressed in order to have a healthier body and be a more positive influence in society. His perspective as a grassroots member of different churches is especially sensitive to the divide between leaders/institutions and followers/members in churches where there is much to be done in a collaborative way to reduce the number of disenchanted leavers and recover them fully for the Kingdom.

Any statistic of the huge and worrying number of people who have left Christian churches in recent years will show an overwhelming majority of ordinary members, many of whom have left because of mistakes or mistreatment of leaders. So why do we give so much more importance and significance to leaders who have left the faith than to the hundreds or thousands who have done the same as a consequence of those leaders? It doesn't seem to be what the Bible teaches us:

The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honourable we treat with special honour. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. (1 Corinthians 12:21-25)

It is a profound passage, part of a deeper one and a whole letter centred on the unity of the church. There is much to analyse, but for now I would like to highlight just a few phrases: “those parts... that seem to be weaker”, “the parts that we think are less honourable,” “the parts that are unpresentable.”. Apparently, what seems to us does not seem to God. What is the purpose of treating everyone equally? “That there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.”

Today, much of the Lord's church is focused on those who seem strongest, those who seem most honourable, and those who seem most presentable. I believe it is time that, not only in theory but in practice, each member should have equal concern for each other, because we are all equal before the Lord. Only then will we have a truly united body.

We all manipulate, and we are all manipulated. There is no one who does not try, in one way or another, at some point or another, to get someone to do something without asking them directly, and without them being fully aware of the request. We see this in the youngest children and also in the elderly. The former seem to have been born with this ability, while the latter have years of learning to use pity and guilt to keep us close and fulfil their wishes. Between the cradle and the grave, we suffer daily from the manipulation techniques of our parents — many of which we have surely replicated with our children— of our spouses, friends, media, politicians, bosses, subordinates... The list is endless.

We all manipulate, and we are all manipulated. It is inevitable, and in normal doses it should not be a big problem. There is a very interesting dialogue in the book "Pastor Pastor", p. 351, between Mabel, one of the participants of the Camp Poimén and Honorio, the instructor, in which she has doubts about the training, which is quite strange and secret, by the way:

“Tell me what's wrong, Mabel.”

“Look, this is all very strange... There's a part of me that says, ‘go ahead,’ and that's why I came, but there's another part that's extremely suspicious. Why can't we know what's behind all this? Why should I open up to you if I don't even know who you are? I've been to many intensive training courses like this one. And you always, in one way or another, end up realizing that you are being manipulated, that you are like a puppet... And I don't like it. I don't like it at all.”

“I understand you perfectly. But we're all constantly subject to attempts at manipulation in life. Advertising, politicians, the media, people at work, spouse, children, relatives. We can't help it. We can only try not to be manipulated. It's like sin. It's everywhere, we know it is, even inside us. The solution is not to turn away toward a perfect world, which on the other hand doesn’t exist, but to get along without being contaminated. I wouldn’t be afraid if I were you. The one who should be afraid is the one who isn’t aware of these attempts at manipulation.”

The theme of manipulation runs throughout the book, in the various personal and group interactions. The readers will have no problem identifying the situations and relating them to their own experiences. But there is one situation that is particularly worrying, that of manipulation in religious settings. Let us look at another example, taken from the same book, on pp. 121-122. The manager of the publishing house, Nita, is giving the presentation of the talk-debate "Manipulation or reality — the rise of cults" and she says,

“We all know that there is manipulation in different areas: in politics, in the media, at work, even in marriages. What is manipulation? I propose this definition: Trying to get us to do something we don't want to do, without our realizing it. Perhaps later in the debate we can improve it. But, while we are used to manipulation in the areas I just mentioned, we find it harder to think that it can happen in an environment as... sacred... as religion. To think that religious concepts can be used to force the will of a person, or a group of people, precisely in a field where freedom, the fulfillment of the human being is pursued, is shocking to us, isn't it?

Why do we manipulate? Because we find it difficult to be transparent, we are not straightforward, we do not value the other person, it is easier for us, we know that we achieve things like this... Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated? Because we don't realise it, because we don't value ourselves, because we accept that this is the normal way to achieve things, because it is installed in society...

The reasons may be these or many more, but I think we have to say clearly that manipulation is wrong. Even though we all do it, it is wrong. Because it denatures human relationships and devalues human beings. The good thing is that there are alternatives. I propose replacing it with its healthier variants: frankness and persuasion.

Frankness means saying what we want. No twists, no frills beyond social and cultural conventions. "I’d like you to visit me more often" instead of "Nobody loves me" or "I know I'm a nuisance to everyone". Or, in a larger setting: "We need so much money to support the church" instead of "God promised to bless the one who gives money" or its more fearsome counterpart: "God punishes those who aren’t generous". In politics: "If you vote for me, I will do my best to reduce poverty by 10%" instead of "If you vote for my opponent everything will fall apart".

Persuasion is valid. It is not bad. I want something I need, and the other person can give it to me or help me get it. At this point he is not willing to do so, but if I give him enough arguments, he can change his mind. If I do it correctly, we will both look good, feel respected and valued. There is nothing wrong with the persuasion of a salesman or a politician, when we know they are in that role of wanting us to buy them something or give them our vote. What is wrong is when sales or politics appear in the context, for example, of a church, disguised as other things.
​
Let's look for healthy relationships, where we say what we want frankly and accept that the other person responds freely.

Todos manipulamos y todos somos manipulados. No hay nadie que no intente, de alguna forma u otra, en algún momento u otro, que alguien haga algo sin pedírselo directamente, y sin que sea plenamente consciente del pedido. Lo vemos en los niños más pequeños y también en los ancianos. Los primeros parecen haber nacido con esta habilidad, mientras que los segundos tienen años de aprendizaje en usar la lástima y la culpa para tenernos cerca y cumplir son sus deseos. Entre la cuna y la tumba, sufrimos a diario las técnicas de manipulación de nuestros padres —muchas de las cuales seguramente hemos replicado con nuestros hijos—, de nuestros cónyuges, amigos, medios, políticos, jefes, subordinados… La lista es interminable.

Todos manipulamos y todos somos manipulados. Es inevitable, y en dosis normales no debería ser un gran problema. Hay un diálogo muy interesante en el libro “Pastor Pastor”, pp 361-362, entre Mabel, una de las participantes del Campamento Poimén, y Honorio, el instructor, en la que ella tiene dudas acerca del entrenamiento, que por cierto es bastante extraño y secreto:

—Decime lo que te pasa, Mabel.

—Mirá, todo esto es muy extraño… Hay una parte de mí que dice que siga adelante, y por eso vine, pero hay otra que desconfía tremendamente. ¿Por qué no podemos saber qué hay atrás de todo esto? ¿Por qué me voy a abrir ante vos, que ni sé quién sos? Yo he estado en muchos, muchísimos cursos de capacitación intensivos, como éste. Y siempre, de alguna forma u otra, terminás dándote cuenta de que te manipulan, que sos como un títere… Y no me gusta. Para nada.
​
—Te entiendo perfectamente. Pero todos estamos sujetos constantemente a intentos de manipulación en la vida. La publicidad, los políticos, los medios, gente en el trabajo, esposo, hijos, parientes. No lo podemos evitar. Solo podemos intentar no ser manipulados. Es como el pecado. Está por todas partes, sabemos que está, aun dentro nuestro. La solución no es apartarnos a un mundo perfecto, que por otra parte no existe, sino convivir sin contaminarnos. Yo no tendría miedo si fuera vos. El que debería tener miedo es el que no es consciente de esos intentos de manipulación.

El tema de la manipulación recorre todo el libro, en las distintas interacciones personales y grupales. Los lectores no tendrán problemas en identificar las situaciones y relacionarlas con sus propias experiencias. Pero hay una situación que es especialmente preocupante, la de la manipulación en ambientes religiosos. Veamos otro ejemplo, tomado del mismo libro, en la página 123. La gerenta de la editorial, Nita, está haciendo la presentación de la charla-debate “Manipulación o realidad: el auge de las sectas” y dice:
​
Todos sabemos que existe la manipulación en distintos ámbitos: en la política, en los medios, en el trabajo, aun en los matrimonios. ¿Qué es la manipulación? Propongo esta definición: tratar de conseguir que hagamos algo que no queremos hacer, sin que nos demos cuenta. Tal vez más adelante en el debate podamos mejorarla. Pero, si bien estamos acostumbrados a la manipulación en los ámbitos que mencioné recién, nos cuesta más pensar que pueda ocurrir en un medio tan… sagrado… como la religión. Pensar que se pueda usar conceptos religiosos para forzar la voluntad de una persona, o un grupo de personas, justamente en un campo donde se busca la libertad, la realización del ser humano, nos resulta chocante, ¿no es cierto?

¿Por qué manipulamos? Porque nos cuesta ser transparentes, no somos directos, no valoramos a la otra persona, nos resulta más fácil, sabemos que conseguimos cosas así… ¿Por qué permitimos que nos manipulen? Porque no nos damos cuenta, porque no nos valoramos, porque aceptamos que es la forma normal de conseguir cosas, porque está instalado en la sociedad…

Las razones pueden ser estas o mucha más, pero creo que tenemos que decir claramente que la manipulación está mal. Por más que todos los hagamos, está mal. Porque desnaturaliza las relaciones humanas y desvaloriza a los seres humanos. Lo bueno es que hay alternativas. Propongo reemplazarla por sus variantes más saludables: la franqueza y la persuasión.

Franqueza significa decir lo que queremos. Sin vueltas, sin adornos más allá de las convenciones sociales y culturales. “Me gustaría que me visites más seguido” en vez de “Nadie me quiere” o “Ya sé que soy una molestia para todos”. O, en un entorno más grande: “Necesitamos tanto dinero para sostener la iglesia” en vez de “Dios prometió bendecir al que da dinero” o su contraparte más temible: “Dios castiga al que no es generoso”. En la política: “Si votan por mí haré mi mejor esfuerzo para reducir la pobreza en un 10%” en vez de “Si votan por mi oponente todo se va a venir abajo”.

La persuasión es válida. No es mala. Yo quiero algo que necesito y la otra persona me lo puede dar o ayudar a conseguirlo. En este momento no está dispuesto a hacerlo, pero si le doy los argumentos suficientes puede cambiar de idea. Si lo hago correctamente, ambos quedaremos bien, nos sentiremos respetados y valorados. No tiene nada de malo la persuasión de un vendedor ni de un político, cuando sabemos que están en ese papel de querer que les compremos algo o le demos nuestro voto. Lo que está mal es que un contexto, por ejemplo, de una iglesia, aparezca la venta o la política, disfrazada de otras cosas.
​
Busquemos relaciones saludables, donde decimos lo que queremos francamente y aceptamos que el otro responda libremente.