Guilt by Association

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am thinking about the Elmer Gantry syndrome. A fictional character played by Burt Lancaster in the movie, Elmer Gantry. I wish not to name names. I wanted to use the fictional character as an example. He was a tent revivalist. As crooked as they come. He used religion, Christianity in this case, to fill his pockets at the expense of those, who looked to him for hope. Faith. Comfort. But, he was a crook, and he took them for all he could get.

For every "Elmer Gantry", I can name several church pastors who spend their lives following the one whom they believe in. By following, I mean, visiting hospitals to comfort the sick. Visiting the elderly and simply giving them someone to talk with. Establishing programs to feed the hungry. Having free clothes stores so people who are low on money can get some things to wear. Creating youth activities so young people can have a place to go and enjoy themselves as an alternative to spending time on the streets. I could go on and on. These church pastors, by in large, have modest salaries. They often drive used vehicles. They have modest accommodations. They do not get rich. Their lives, quite often, are spent below the middle class as we define it.

So when we see a tv preacher, a fat cat, we probably should not make a sweeping statement that all religion is about money. It simply is not true. They are a minority. They are not representative of church pastors as a whole. That is why I entitled this, guilt by association. The damage done by these high profile people is enormous. But the reality is, the victims are not only the church pastors who really believe in what they do, but also, those who have developed a biased perception of something that is not altogether true.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 770 • Replies: 11

No top replies

@Elmud,

Well, the association surely does exist. Any religious organisation has some power to disown (defrock, excommunicate, etc) a member of that religion. Being a priest, for instance, is not only an occupation but an endorsement from the Catholic church that must be earned, and the Catholic church regulates its own. Same goes for other religions and denominations. So why are such opportunists allowed to prosper?

2 Replies

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

So why are such opportunists allowed to prosper?

Willful ignorance. But, I think i may understand the why. People still are attracted to the charismatic. The extraordinary. Something that goes beyond the norm. Entertainment may be a factor. I don't know. Didymos probably has a better explanation than I.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Elmud, Bones--

Power of mystery, power of charisma, I suppose. We let charismatic people get away with a lot of stuff, so why not have a person who preaches hope but gets fat off corruption? The Elmer Gantry Syndrome, as you're calling it, ironically enough makes a compelling case for the idea of karma. And yes, I think it's incredibly important to know your minister well, for, after all, the kinds of "ministries" people like Gantry lead (because of their nature) tend not to have the same congregations week by week.

I also think the televangelists have replaced the tent-revivalists in terms of sheer corruption.

0 Replies

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Well, the association surely does exist. Any religious organisation has some power to disown (defrock, excommunicate, etc) a member of that religion. Being a priest, for instance, is not only an occupation but an endorsement from the Catholic church that must be earned, and the Catholic church regulates its own. Same goes for other religions and denominations. So why are such opportunists allowed to prosper?

Some denominations just aren't organized in that way. Most of the TV evangelists and charlatans of that kind don't answer to a regulatory authority. So it isn't a question of permissiveness, if that is what you are suggesting.

But as for the guilt by association, look at other occupations. Is the situation any better with lawyers, politicians, even doctors? They are all regulated and sanctioned in various ways, but plenty of them still get away with murder.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Some denominations just aren't organized in that way. Most of the TV evangelists and charlatans of that kind don't answer to a regulatory authority. So it isn't a question of permissiveness, if that is what you are suggesting.

Even regulation isn't necessary, simply a vocal disowning would suffice. If you belong to a church that warns of the evils of TV evangelism, wouldn't you stop watching it? Speaking of which, have you (or has anyone) seen the Werner Herzog documentary 'God's Angry Men'?

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Well, the association surely does exist. Any religious organisation has some power to disown (defrock, excommunicate, etc) a member of that religion. Being a priest, for instance, is not only an occupation but an endorsement from the Catholic church that must be earned, and the Catholic church regulates its own. Same goes for other religions and denominations. So why are such opportunists allowed to prosper?

But we cannot expect a religious organization to remove its very leader, founder even, from his or her position. And that's exactly the case with many of these charlatans.

Not all religions and denominations have that sort of structure. Many Churches are completely independent in operation.

Bones-O! wrote:

Even regulation isn't necessary, simply a vocal disowning would suffice. If you belong to a church that warns of the evils of TV evangelism, wouldn't you stop watching it? Speaking of which, have you (or has anyone) seen the Werner Herzog documentary 'God's Angry Men'?

But who's voice are we to rely upon? Disgruntled parishioners? They do speak out. They simply do not have the audience.

That pastor from Church A criticizes Church B for TV evangelism will do little to discourage parishioners from Church B from continuing their practice.

Elmud wrote:

Willful ignorance. But, I think i may understand the why. People still are attracted to the charismatic. The extraordinary. Something that goes beyond the norm. Entertainment may be a factor. I don't know. Didymos probably has a better explanation than I.

Entertainment is part of the equation. As I understand it, it goes something like this: Everyone has spiritual needs. People also tend to stray away from difficult work when an easier path appears to be of the same quality. Televangelists, self-help style ministers, these people offer an easy path, 40 day programs for knowing God and what not. Because they offer the easy way, and because what they offer is packaged in such a way as to appear to many to be of real spiritual quality, these sales men attract plenty of business.

Meanwhile, the monk in his robes offering honest teaching, who will openly tell you that following Christ's example is trying and difficult, these men are largely ignored.

It isn't so much willful ignorance as it is the ability of certain people to trick others: the ability of certain people to play the role of Satan, the creature who tries to trick Jesus. A charismatic figure offers salvation with the wave of his hand and most people will swoon. It isn't that these people are ignorant, stupid or anything like that: it's just that they are not paying attention. Paying attention takes practice.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

But who's voice are we to rely upon? Disgruntled parishioners? They do speak out. They simply do not have the audience.

Then how do you know they speak out?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That pastor from Church A criticizes Church B for TV evangelism will do little to discourage parishioners from Church B from continuing their practice.

Who said anything about discontinuing the practice: the topic of the thread is guilt by association. Church A criticizing Church B is not going to lead to Church A being tarred with the same brush.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Then how do you know they speak out?

You might meet them. I've met a few disgruntled parishioners who have left their church. It's not uncommon. What these people lack is a public platform from which they can further their message.

Occasionally, one such dissident manages to capture a fair degree of attention, but those who they criticize still maintain a base.

Bones-O! wrote:

Who said anything about discontinuing the practice: the topic of the thread is guilt by association. Church A criticizing Church B is not going to lead to Church A being tarred with the same brush.

You mentioned a scenario wherein people who go to some church stop watching televangelists because at their church they were warned of the "evils of TV evangelism". My point is that other parishes can speak out against televangelists all day: them doing so will not reach those who prefer the televangelist, much less convince them against televangelism.

Of course Church A would not be criticized in the same fashion as Church B, but that's not the point. The point is: what can Church A really do about televangelism? And the answer seems to be very little.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You might meet them. I've met a few disgruntled parishioners who have left their church. It's not uncommon. What these people lack is a public platform from which they can further their message.

There are many platforms of communication. All it takes is a little effort.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Of course Church A would not be criticized in the same fashion as Church B, but that's not the point. The point is: what can Church A really do about televangelism? And the answer seems to be very little.

No, that is the point. The question is about guilt by association.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

There are many platforms of communication. All it takes is a little effort.

And people use those platforms. If you have a television, you probably have access to channels on which people do communicate such ideas.

Bones-O! wrote:

No, that is the point. The question is about guilt by association.

Then explain to me how Church A, by speaking out against the practices of Church B, will significantly reduce the influence of Church B, the televangelist congregation.

That's all I'm saying: there isn't much that Church A can do.

Even if Church A does disparage the practice of Church B, Church A will still be branded guilty in the eyes of many based on the practices of Church B. It's illogical and ill informed, but I hear that sort of nonsense everyday: it happens a great deal on this very forum. People take an example of religion which is destructive, hateful or egotistical and conclude that all religion is such even in the face of clear counter examples.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

And people use those platforms. If you have a television, you probably have access to channels on which people do communicate such ideas.

Precisely. So it isn't hard for Church A to distance itself from Church B.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Then explain to me how Church A, by speaking out against the practices of Church B, will significantly reduce the influence of Church B, the televangelist congregation.

As I've said at least twice, the question of this thread is not about the magnitude of the televangelists' influence but on the association of other religious practitioners with them. But as we've both touched on, those whose only religious practise is televangelism aren't going to be deterred by another other church. However, of those who do belong to other churches, the influence can be reduced simply by denouncing such practises: give the punter the choice. It's not like televangelists can really do the same and be taken seriously.

0 Replies

Guilt by Association

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know