It is now almost two decades
since Dale Carnegie first published his famous book, How
to Win Friends and Influence People, a down-to-earth,
easy-to-read, entertaining and practical guide-book on
applied psychology. It contained no new truths or concepts,
the technique it presented was at least as old as Abraham;
but it was a new and refreshing work, in that it condensed
into plain, everyday United States English the essentials of
applied psychology and summarized in the same short volume
the diplomatic techniques of many of the world's most
successful men. The book was a smash hit. It was received by
a depression-ridden, hence competition-conscious public as a
godsend, and Mr. Carnegie soon found that he had become,
through the circulation of this book alone, the most widely
read non-fiction author of this century His book quickly
became the standard modern work on human relations, a
position it retains to this day.
Mr. Carnegie has become so
identified in the minds of many with the "salesmanship"
technique in handling people that he is well nigh given full
credit for having invented it. This is not the case, of
course, nor does he make any such claim. Actually, every
major principle set forth in the book, How to Win Friends
and Influence People is either taught or exemplified in
another and much older Book, by an even more eminent Author,
which also deals to some extent with the subject of human
relations. The Carnegie book has been successful, not
because it is new, but because it is true — true to human
nature, and true to the author's purpose in writing it which
was to produce, as he puts it, "a practical, working
handbook on human relations."
But the purpose of this article
is to deal with the specific question of the "Carnegie
approach" in preaching the gospel. Many a time I have been
advised by preachers and other brethren: "Study Dale
Carnegie's book and apply it to your preaching. Read it over
several times a year and check yourself by it. You'll find
yourself converting more people than you ever thought
possible."
And I know of many preachers who
follow this or similar advice with evident success. The
number of baptisms reported by them in the papers is often
quite impressive, and their ability and reputation for
"building up" a congregation are beyond question. I am
speaking now of preachers who are sincere in their use of
the Carnegie technique; not of those who make an artificial
use of it, so that you can practically see the hypocrisy
dripping from their very pores — although the system is so
effective and so in line with the workings of the human mind
that it will often yield a generous fruitage, even in the
hands of a two-faced flatterer.
A Misfit in the Pulpit
Yet in spite of the undeniable
statistics attesting to the effectiveness of "Win Friends
and Influence People" measures in preaching, I have
maintained, in company, I believe, with most gospel
preachers, that this technique has no place in the Lord's
pulpit. I consider it a gross misfit, and shall continue so
to regard it until convinced otherwise, not by mere
baptismal statistics, but by scriptural arguments and the
concrete fruits of real, steadfast Christianity.
For it has been my observation
that the salesmanship approach in preaching rarely results
in genuine conversion to Christ and loyalty to his doctrine.
I've known of too many "Carnegie converts" who were later
"driven away" when they heard the gospel preached candidly
by some poor uninformed preacher who knew nothing but Bible;
and too many others who, instead of being driven away,
remained in the fellowship of the church only to be the
devil's fifth column in every battle between truth and local
error, apologizing for gospel truth and forming a pressure
group to engage only preachers who will "just preach the
gospel and let other people's religion alone." In addition
there have been not a few "Win Friends" converts within my
own experience that have later come requesting to be “rebaptized”:
they had been won by the power of salesmanship to change
their religious affiliation—simply to transfer from one
denomination to what they had regarded as another rather
than being convicted of sin by the power of the gospel and
offering penitent submission to God's will. They had
previously "joined the church;" now they had learned the
truth plainly and wanted to obey the gospel. Such
developments as these, of course, are seldom reported in the
field reports of the papers to offset the pleasant illusion
created by the swelling numbers.
But, to get straight to the
point: it is all but impossible to really convert sinners
by preaching with the Carnegie approach! And if true
conversions are accomplished, the result is gained in spite
of this method rather than because of it!
Does that sound a little
incongruous? Someone is no doubt read), to say: "Hold on
there, Manor; you just said the Carnegie approach was an
effective, workable system based on true concepts of human
nature, even as demonstrated in the Bible itself. You
admitted that it gets results—and now you jump the fence and
say it can't be used to convert people to Christ! Which side
of this fence are you on, anyway?"
Both sides.
Stay in the Right Field
Let us not forget that the place
and purpose of the Carnegie technique is in the field of
social human relations, and in this field, let me say again,
it is unsurpassed for effectiveness. But remember that the
prime purpose and design of the gospel of Christ is in the
field of divine relations. Its foremost emphasis is upon
man's relationship, not with other men, but with God. Paul
wrote to the Christians at Corinth that God "reconciled us
to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of
reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling
the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their
trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of
reconciliation" (1 Cor. 5:18, 19). All
accomplishments of the gospel of Christ in the field of
social relations are secondary and incidental to this one
fundamental. Any man, therefore, who seeks to reconcile
either himself or others to God by following the directions
of "a practical handbook on human relations" has not only
placed the cart before the horse-he has left the horse at
home in the barn. He has fallen into the trap occupied by
the wicked of David's time, to whom God said, "Thou
thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself"
(Ps. 50:21). He shares the error of the wayward
Israelites, whom God had to remind: "My thoughts are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Is. 55:8).
"Oh, but we don't advocate any
departure from the word of God," someone may say. "We preach
the full gospel, but we use the proven principles of
salesmanship as outlined in the Carnegie book in our
presentation. Certainly the prime objective of the gospel is
to reconcile men to God. But men are human, and if many of
them ever are to receive the gospel, it must be presented to
them in a palatable, inoffensive way, otherwise you'll
defeat your own purpose-and God's-by driving them away. You
just can't ignore human nature and expect to reach many
people."
With this last statement I
agree, and will show in the course of this study that a
rejection of the Carnegie approach in preaching does not
ignore, but rather acknowledges the fundamentals of human
nature. But it is as impossible to preach the full gospel by
presenting it according to the Carnegie system as it is to
ride two horses travelling in opposite directions at the
same time. For in their fundamental workings, the two are
opposites. Like oil and water or light and darkness,
they do not mix. Here's why:
Contrast of Basic Principles
The Carnegie system of
persuasion is biased upon and built around the gratification
of a man's sense of his own importance. It is calculated to
cater to a man's opinion of himself, to feed his ego, to
make his mistakes seem unimportant and his faults negligible
and easy to correct. It presupposes a desired course of
action to be readily compatible with the man's present
outlook and background. It avoids censure or criticism and
flatly rejects direct argumentation. It seeks to woo him by
an appeal to his sense of magnanimity, his desire for
praise, his feeling of power in condescension. It deals with
a comparison between the good and the better,
from a man's own viewpoint of values as applied to himself;
never with a contrast between the good and the bad.
Gospel conversion, in sharp
contrast with the above, is predicated upon a man's sense of
his own unworthiness, and the gospel of Christ is
calculated to destroy his egotism, to bring him to a
realization of the enormity of his sins and of his
own utter helplessness to correct them. It shows the one
accept-. able way to be incompatible with any and all other
ways, regardless of personal outlook or background. It
"reproves, rebukes and exhorts" with a clear-cut
condemnation of all that is sinful, and makes use of
argumentation as a favored method of persuasion. It deals
with a contrast between the good and the evil in respect to
the man himself. It seeks to bring him, not to a
condescension, but to a humble repentance based upon godly
sorrow, lowliness of mind, humility of spirit and a fervent
desire for the mercy of God.
In short, "salesmanship"
persuasion leads a man to change his course of action
"painlessly," because it allows him to retain his full sense
of independence. But, Gospel persuasion aims at a full and
complete surrender of man's independence to the
authority and will of God. For this there is no
substitute. Anything less than this cannot qualify as
true conversion in the Bible sense.
The results of the two methods
of preaching may appear to be identical for a time—at least
long enough to allow the baptismal statistics to be
published for the brotherhood to admire—but when an occasion
does arise wherein the requirements of God's word clash with
the natural inclinations of the human will-as in a case of
church discipline, selection of elders, submission to the
overseers, exposition of denominational error, or "hard"
preaching to the church-the difference in quality between
the products of the two is often quite forcefully
demonstrated.
- Preceptor, April
1954
(To be Continued)
|