Gospel Preaching and the Carnegie Approach (Part 2) (by J. Curtis Manor)

One Man's Teaching And Another Man's Practice

In the opening study of his series it was suggested that the use of the psychological in methods outlined in Dale Carnegie's book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, are not properly applicable to the preaching of the gospel of Christ. The reasoning was based on the fundamental differences between the aim of the gospel and the operation of the Carnegie technique, the latter being based on an appeal to man's sense of self-importance, whereas the former aims at developing his humility, his sense of unworthiness.

But, lest someone charge that my presentation of the contrast between the Carnegie way and the gospel way is exaggerated and overdrawn, let me hasten to produce the documentation. All quotations, other than those from the scriptures, are taken from How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie: Simon and Shuster, New York, 1952.

Mr. Carnegie says: "There is one all-important law of human conduct. . . . The law is this: Always make the other person feel important" (p. 93).

In laying the foundation for the development of his book, he says that the big secret of dealing with people is to give them what they want.

"The only way I can get you to do anything," he says, "is by giving you what you want" (p. 29). But what is it that most people want?

"Professor John Dewey, America's most profound philosopher. . . . says the deepest urge in human nature is 'the desire to be important.' It is significant. You are going to hear a lot about it in this book...

"Here is a gnawing and unfaltering human hunger; and the rare individual who honestly satisfies this heart-hunger will hold people in the palm of his hand and 'even the undertaker will be sorry when he dies"' (p. 30).

Mr. Carnegie then discusses some ways in which people strive for this feeling of importance, including competitive accomplishments, education, ostentation, crime, invalidism and insanity. Then he observes:

"If some people are so hungry for a feeling of importance that they actually go insane to get it, imagine what miracles you and I can achieve by giving people honest appreciation this side of insanity" (p. 34).

Hence, the basis for the Carnegie approach.

“Don't Criticize"

"Now, if you're going to flatter a man's ego, you mustn't censure or criticize him.

"Ninety-nine times out of a hundred," says Mr. Carnegie, "no man ever criticizes himself for anything, no matter how wrong he may be.

"Criticism is futile because it puts a man on the defensive, and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a man's precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses his resentment" (p. 21). "When dealing with people," he explains on page 27, "let us remember that we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.

"And criticism is a dangerous spark —a spark that is liable to cause an explosion in the powder magazine of pride . . .”

"Avoid the Acute Angle"

In part three of his book, entitled "Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking," Mr. Carnegie calls his first chapter: "You Can't Win an Argument."

"Always avoid the acute angle," he advises ". . . I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way under high heaven to get the best of an argument— and that is to avoid it. Avoid it as you would avoid rattle snakes and earthquakes.

"Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants being more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.

"You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine, But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And —"'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"' (p. 105).

According to Mr. Carnegie, misunderstandings are never ended by argument, but "by tact, diplomacy, conciliation, and a sympathetic desire to see the other person's view point" (p. 108).

"Never Tell a Man He is Wrong"

From this reasoning, Carnegie progresses to his second rule of winning people's thoughts: Never tell a man he is wrong!

Never! For you have struck a direct blow to his intelligence, his judgment, his pride, his self-respect. That will make him want to strike back. But it will never make him want to change his mind. You may hurl at him all the logic of a Plato or an Immanuel Kant, but you will not alter his opinion, for you have hurt his feelings" (p. 110).

"Few people are logical," Carnegie observes. "Most of us are prejudiced and biased. Most of us are blighted with preconceived notions, with jealousy, suspicion, fear, envy, pride. And most citizens don't want to change their minds about their religion or their hair cut or Communism or Clark Gable. So, if you are inclined to tell people they are wrong, please read the following paragraph on your knees every morning before breakfast. It is from Professor James Harvey Robinson's enlightening book, The Mind in the Making.

"'We sometimes find ourselves changing our minds without any resistance or heavy emotion, but if we are told we are wrong, we resent the imputation and harden our hearts. We are incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them when anyone proposes to rob us of their companionship. It is obviously not the ideas themselves that are dear to us, but our self-esteem that is threatened . . . The little word "my" is the most important one in human affairs, and properly to reckon with it is the beginning of wisdom. It has the same force whether it is "my" dinner, "my" dog, and "my" house, or "my" father, “my" country, and "my" God. We not only resent the imputation that our watch is wrong, or our car shabby, but that our conception of the canals of Mars, of the pronunciation of "Epictetus," of the medicinal value of salicin, or of the date of Sargon I is subject to revision. . . . We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to it. The results is that most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do'” (pp. 112, 113).

Among his "Nine Ways to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment," Mr. Carnegie lists as Rule 2: "Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly." Rule 4 is: "Ask questions instead of giving direct orders." Rule 5: "Let the other man save his face." Rule 8: "Make the fault seem easy to correct."

Since it is not within the scope of this article to consider the Carnegie teachings in their entirety, but only those fundamentals which seem to be out of place when used as a pattern of preaching the gospel, I recommend that the reader make a complete study of the book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, and that its principles be applied in their proper place whenever it is possible to use them sincerely. Their workability in the social field is beyond question.

But back to our subject, the use of this approach in preaching.

Didn't God Know These Things?

Do you suppose that God, who made man, and Jesus, who "knew what was in man" (John 2:25) had not discovered these principles of successfully dealing with human nature at the time of Christ's earthly ministry and that of the inspired apostles?

Or do you conclude that Jesus was really trying to make the Canaanitish woman feel her importance when he answered her supplication with these famous words of obvious import: "It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" (Matt. 15:26). Question: Guess who was the dog in this case?

Or perhaps he felt that he was feeding the self-esteem of the scribes and Pharisees when he called them an "evil and adulterous generation" (Matt. 12: 39). Maybe he really intended to "change without offense" when he criticized their errors and called them hypocrites (Matt. 15:1-9), but just didn't know enough about human nature to be able to do it successfully.

Was he trying to make the righteous life appear easy when he said — "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:24) and "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mk. 8:34).

Was it just a slip of the tongue when he flatly told the Sadducees they were wrong?—Matt. 22:29—"Ye do err" and intimated that they were ignorant: "not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." By this episode was he calculating to "avoid the acute angle" and show that he was averse to argumentation or debating as he went on to produce arguments to substantiate the doctrine of a resurrection?

Was it ignorance of the workings of the human mind that caused Jesus to commit such psychological blunders that the most religious people of his time became his implacable enemies, and even many of his own disciples "went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66), and that finally brought about his death as a result of the seething resentment aroused by his words? All of these, when by choosing his words more wisely, being silent in the right places, and flattering the ego of the right people he might easily have had the unwavering support of the entire nation! Is the book of John really inspired, or was the Spirit merely indulging in an ironical jest when he said through the apostle that Jesus "needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man" (John 2:25) — It would appear from this angle that Jesus definitely could have used some lessons on the salesmanship technique as espoused by the latter-day preaching devotees of Carnegie.

Or was John telling the truth about Jesus' knowledge of man, leaving us to conclude that the comparative failure of the Son of God in Winning Friends and Influencing People was due to some fatal inability to put his knowledge into practice, perhaps through inadequacy of personality or shortcoming of oral expression?

It will not ease the difficulty to clamor, as many do, that Jesus did use a Carnegie-type procedure, and to point confidently to parts of the Sermon on the Mount, the multitudes of common people who followed him, and the many instances of his demonstrated compassion and tenderness as proof of the assertion. His departures from the system are too numerous, too flagrant, and too far-reaching in their effects to be ignored or denied.

The undeniable facts of Jesus' ministry can lead but to three conceivable conclusions:

1. He had but a meager knowledge of the principles of successful human relations.

2. He knew the human mind, but was incapable of making a practical application of his knowledge.

3. He both knew men and knew how to handle them, but deliberately chose not to employ the means of persuasion necessary to reach some.

Obviously, either of the first two positions would be unthinkable to a true believer, but before developing the third conclusion, let's examine the preaching of the apostles and other inspired men of the New Testament age. This we shall have to postpone, because of space limitations, until next month. (To be Continued)
- Preceptor, May 1954

(To be Continued)