Power over others: Control and Manipulation.

"If with dung I am embattled, win or lose I am bespattered"- Martin Luther

In New Zealand’s recent political history one of the main maxims of strategy to win the elections, was simply “Don’t frighten the horses”. This simple statement tells us a great deal about the psychological control being exercised. Horses, as beasts of burden, work best when they are unaware of their own strength. They must be kept constantly in an orderly fashion pulling together, working as a team, and they are encouraged to do so. They are not encouraged either to exercise their individual will in any contrary direction but their will must be at the direction of the master. If horses became frightened enough there are at least two possibilities:

1/.They might start making decisions based on their own inclinations instead of the direction of the master, and realize that they don’t have to be in the harness assigned to them pulling in the same direction as the others.

2/.The work they are set to do may not be accomplished because only as horses pull together, concentrating and compounding their energy in a uniform direction are they able to accomplish the outcome the master desires.

Well, fair enough I suppose… for horses, but what are we to think when this sort of language is used by a political leader about the voters? Or what if people we trust start using these sorts of tactics?

This is about power, power over others, whether political or social, power between organizations, individuals, husband and wife, parents and children or ministers over congregations.

Many philosophers have pondered this question and have come up with the idea that in human terms all of life is a struggle for power. What are the common methods of gaining and holding power over others?

In the political sphere, one of the first things that happens when a regime takes political control they ensure they have control over communication. Radio and television, newspapers and telecommunications are the next most important thing to control on the agenda. Whoever controls the media controls the popular mind. Whoever controls what is being said in public will, to a large extent, control the public perception of the regime.

Does this happen in other spheres?

In the book of Acts Peter and John were involved in a miraculous healing which upset the powers that be, the religious authorities. They were obviously upset because this “Jesus” was a threat to their hold and authority over the people. So they were motivated by fear and jealousy. Their power-base was under threat.

Peter wisely used the miracle as a platform for the gospel as public interest in the miracle peaked-

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.  Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.   And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.   But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,   Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.  But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.  And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.   But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.   For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. (Acts 4:13-21)

What happens when those who see themselves as the rightful authority and leaders feel threatened but don’t have a “reasonable” reason” for stopping an activity? It is evident they admitted amongst themselves there was no good reason to prevent the Apostles from preaching about Jesus by the words-

“they could say nothing against it.” And also: “ a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.” 

So what did they do? They attempted to misconstrue the motives of the others through misinformation and shut down communication- and in a threatening manner- “commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” It is indicated that they would have used force and punished them if they could get away with it, and this would have been possible had the disciples not been held in such favour by the people for the miracle.

It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth. Why is this? The truth is what douses and calms a situation, whereas lies and propaganda have the opposite effect, that of inflaming circumstances. The truth has a tendency to peace, but lies tend to escalate a bad situation to a worse one. Lies and hyperbole (exaggeration) therefore are what people enlist in order to further their own hidden agendas.

One of the most potent arguments for how much God holds and values human sovereignty dear to his heart is indicated through Christ’s relationships with others. What do I mean by “human sovereignty”? By that I mean the privilege we as humans share of being able to be self aware, responsible moral beings. Many see the word “responsible” and fail to see that it entails the idea of being able to respond correctly to reason, to what is fair and good and reasonable.  This is one of the chief characteristics that distinguish us from animals. Suppose one were to look at a modern day livestock farm with multiple paddocks neatly fenced off and cattle grazing contentedly on pasture. Without knowing, the uninitiated may ask, “Why aren’t there cattle in all the paddocks? Why do you fence it so that your land cannot be grazed at will by the animals?  The short answer is that animals, unlike humans cannot be persuaded to practice self control, to exercise restraint. Delayed gratification is philosophically fundamental to human nature, not so with cows! If the farm hadn’t all those individual paddocks the livestock would ingest the pasture at an uncontrolled rate and consequently the animals would starve themselves when winter grass growth rates weren’t able to keep up with demand. 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

This call of God to his creatures gives a clear and cogent example of his willingness to enlist our will by the use of reason and persuasion rather than brute force or “lording it over us”, or by conniving and coercion, giving us no way to exercise our wills. His desire is that we are willing followers, he doesn’t call us servants and slaves, but friends. How does He demonstrate this relation with us?

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. (John 15:12-15)

The most notable way in which we know of his commitment towards us and of his friendship is in knowing he lays his life down for his friends. This “laying down” his life is not just (and I do not wish to minimize it at all) in the way he went to the cross on our behalf, that is the extreme expression of it; but also in countless other ways he showed his love. When his mother was watching him expire painfully on the cross he asked John to take care of her. This seems ordinary enough, given the situation, but the significance of it is only apparent when we revisit the circumstances of his statement- he was in agony. Such is the intensity of pain involved in dying on a cross a new word was invented for it, “excruciating” is a direct reference to the pain of crucifiction.   When you bang your finger with a hammer or jamb it in a door, when you are in pain- how much concern do you have for others right at that moment? In much the same way a mother will (at the expense of being unpopular) order her children to bed. And this may be the most legitimate spiritual expression (at that particular time) of her love for her child. She lays down her life (in terms of her popularity) for the love of her child, and that is just one of a myriad of ways in which her love is expressed. And it is the future happiness of the child that is firmly in her sight. Delayed gratification.

The writer of Hebrews urged us to follow the example of Christ and said:  

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. (Hebrews 12:2-3)

He endured his short and tumultuous life culminating in an ignominious death on the cross for the joy he knew and was fully persuaded of that lay ahead.  He practiced Delayed Gratification.

In addition to these things Jesus taught:

 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known.

Jesus shared openly what he knew, this is the basis on which he showed his commitment to his friends and family. People do not keep confidence with those who are not friends, they are not open with them. In particular, people who want to keep an advantage to themselves do not share personal things with others who they wish to keep in subjection, to those they wish to keep at a distance. They wish to keep them in ignorance of certain things, they wish to keep people in ignorance to keep the upper hand. To keep control. When people speak of " a need to know basis" what they are really saying is "I will keep key things to myself in order to keep the advantage". They cut the lines of communication. This is the very opposite of what Christ did for his own. Christ was often so forthright and straight with people even at the risk of offending them. It is indeed a strong test for a relationship to say something that is not pleasing to your friend, even sometimes to a family member:

            When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.  But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (John 6:61-66)

 People in right relationship are not afraid to speak frankly and openly the truth even if it places some risk to the relationship as long as their motives are for the good of the other, even if their comments are misunderstood.

Another method people constantly use to gain and keep control is to play one lot of people against another, agitating strife- turning away people that previously were in good standing while keeping in favour with the people they wish to manipulate, poisoning relationships. This is evident here: The situation is that Pilate personally saw no evil in Christ, and rightly, no reason to detain him, and so wished to let him go:

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!) But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. .(John 19:12-16)

The people opposed to Christ raised opposition to him by claiming he was an enemy of Rome and therefore an enemy of Pilates authority, when this was not true. They took his Kingship out of context, it was not an earthly kingdom using the power of might and force. Didn’t he heal the centurion’s servant? A centurion was a soldier in the pay of Rome, in service and loyal to the Emperor of Rome- Caesar.

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,  And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. (Matthew 8:5-7)

And didn’t he guarantee the rights of Caesar over his own domain when he said (to the consternation of those who sought to trap him):  

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22:17-21)

People twist things to their own advantage and to the detriment of those relationships they wish to destroy.

   

In conversation with others Christ was frequently asked questions which were designed often to trap him into incriminating himself. People were waiting for an opportunity to make him appear bad before others. His response was not to call down fire and brimstone, or to use language as a character assassination, he responded in turn with a question that very often was calculated to make the hearer aware of their own character shortfalls and their own biased assumptions.

As a part of the strategy to disadvantage others and keep control, the medium of language and culture may be employed. This is illustrated by the practices of the Roman Catholic Church as in the days of Martin Luther. In those days the scriptures were written in Latin and the public were quite unable to access any of the Holy Scriptures for themselves. Not only was the language of the scriptures inaccessible to the people but the people were banned from trying to access and understand them on the pretext that only “ordained clergy” were authorized to interpret and teach the sense of scripture. All influence of the scriptures was mediated to the people through the “Church” which became an absolute authority. This remained a stranglehold for centuries. In this way the public or those kept ignorant are denied the “Love of the Father” and God was almost universally seen as a judgemental avenging God who couldn’t wait for his children to give him an opportunity to avenge his wrath upon them. So through communication lines cut by the misuse of language a false understanding is instilled in people who would be at the mercy of those who were in control. 

 Evil is not the domain of any particular culture since in all cultures it is present. Evil is a result of fallen human nature and it is expressed in different ways through different cultures. It is not for nothing that “In the beginning was the Word…”

In this context of parents struggling to do right by their child and not knowingly meaning to be manipulative; it is informative to ask another question. Where do God's children grow up? It was the mistaken belief of the Jews that all of God's children came from Jewish parents. (That is not to say of course that this is an exclusively Jewish thing!) They jealously guarded and manipulated events to maintain their culture, their traditions, and their family lineage. This was the Jewish mindset, and God used some extraordinary circumstances to change the views of the Apostles, who, being Jewish- were all steeped in those traditions. While Peter was sleeping he was repeatedly given a vision about God's ability to "cleanse" what had previously been understood as unclean. And from this Peter was eventually able to understand that the Gospel was for all who believe irrespective of their ethnicity or other distinguishing characteristics. The idea of the "goyim' a word often disparagingly used by the Jews was to distinguish the Jewish people from all others, a blanket statement based on their perceived special relationship with God through being the physical descendants of Abraham. In one respect they were right, that God's children do enjoy a special relationship with Him. What was wrong was how that was worked out in their lives believing that this relationship came to be through being born in Jewish homes. Being "born again" was not understood.

 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.(Galatians 3:28,29)

God's children grow up in Muslim homes. They grow up in atheistic Communist homes, in Jewish homes and Palestinian homes. They grow up in the homes of secular naturalism, Hindu and Buddhist homes. They grow up in the homes of headhunters and cannibals. I'm not saying these homes are without evil, but the world is evil, everywhere. But know this: 

 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.(Ephesians 1:4-6)

If God has successfully chosen his children from before the world began, to come into time, into existence and into families, into cultures, into a geographical area, into adoption into Christ  and into glory, do we need to fear what the world can do?

Another strategy to gain and maintain control is the misuse of special relationships. This was especially evidenced in the Second World War. Many God-fearing people in Germany were opposed to the government of the day, knowing deep down that things were morally wrong with government directives and policies. By leveraging off loyalty to the scriptures the politicians and leaders of the country used religious language and authority for their own advantage- and so people continued to be loyal to the government when they should have been opposing it. The loyalty of people to the scriptures where citizens are urged to obey civil authorities in no way relieves the people of their responsibility to obey God first. (Go to this post for social experiments conducted as a result of the Nuremburg trials to see how strongly people are influenced by authority at the expense of morality)

            Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. (Romans 13:1-4)

This is a general rule for life- obey those that have legitimate authority over you, remembering that God is over both them and you. The limitation of authority is always conditional on whether the authority is used lawfully and for good. The limiting factor is seen in the words “rulers are not a terror to good works” When one knows that the authority of a leader becomes unlawful and ceases to be for good one is relieved of the obligation to be under it. We see in Acts that the Apostles were in direct opposition to the civil and religious authorities because they had exceeded and violated the God- given mandate to rule. What was their response when questioned ? They reasoned this way-  

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than  unto God, judge ye.) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19,20)

It is clear when leaders exceed the authority given them by God, and it becomes evil, subjects (those under that authority) no longer are bound to obey that authority. This is just as applicable when a parent abuses the God-given authority over children as it is for a man over his wife or pastor over his congregation or government or any other institution over its subjects. God cannot be usurped of his final and ultimate authority. So God gives authority to special relationships to protect and help those relationships flourish in peace and harmony. They start with a husband and wife and then with parents and family, family and community, pastors and congregations and  government relationship with its subjects and of course supremely with God and his creation.  

Toxic relationships are those in which the one in authority demands absolute and unquestioned authority. One ploy is to use guilt over loyalty to that relationship at the expense of others. It is well known that cult leaders demand all of their subjects attention and loyalty especially in the indoctrinating phase. They are to focus intensely on that relationship above all others, relationships with family members are cut off, obstructed or discouraged, they are persuaded that family do not have their best interest at heart.