When is a testimony no longer a testimony?

[probinson]

In another thread I started, it was brought up that in preparing for an annual "sacrificial offering" at one church, people would testify of how they benefited from the previous year's special offering. Here is the relevant part of the post from Tenebrae;

"...The old church I went to used to have what they called a yearly sacrifical offering. About 7 weeks prior to the offering they started playing clips about how people pinned their prayer request to last years sacrifical offering and God healed them of cancer, gave them the child they were after and other equally emotional guilt inducing appeals..."
​

So I'd like your thoughts on this topic; when does a testimony cease to be a testimony and become an "emotional guilt inducing appeal"?

 

[SarahSaur]

I was curious about this myself! I've written out my testimony but after a while it started sounding like a sob story so I just decided not to share it. I would love to hear other peoples input too.

 

[whatfor]

.

 

[Biblicist]

In another thread I started, it was brought up that in preparing for an annual "sacrificial offering" at one church, people would testify of how they benefited from the previous year's special offering. Here is the relevant part of the post from Tenebrae;

"...The old church I went to used to have what they called a yearly sacrifical offering. About 7 weeks prior to the offering they started playing clips about how people pinned their prayer request to last years sacrifical offering and God healed them of cancer, gave them the child they were after and other equally emotional guilt inducing appeals..."
​

So I'd like your thoughts on this topic; when does a testimony cease to be a testimony and become an "emotional guilt inducing appeal"?

I’m not all that sure that what you quoted was a testimony, it sounds more like simple manipulation to me. I suppose that if someone gave one year and their child died of an illness, the ‘leadership’ of that congregation could always say in the following year that they should have given more. This type of manipulation makes me sick in the stomach.

 

[hislegacy]

One mans praise report is another mans guilt trip.

Sort of like here on CF. if you complain about the flesh, weakness, rampant sin your applauded and called wise. The moment you share praise reports, it's pride and God is not pleased with you.

There are some who use passion for manipulation, but there are some who are passionate a out what God has done and want others to know.

In the end it is a condition of the heart

 

[probinson]

I’m not all that sure that what you quoted was a testimony, it sounds more like simple manipulation to me.

It could be.

But let's forget about the example in the OP for a minute... what if God were to speak to you and tell you to do "X" and "Y" will happen. You obediently do "X", and "Y" happens for you, just as God said it would. Is it OK to testify about something like that, or would you classify it as simple manipulation?

 

[Biblicist]

But let's forget about the example in the OP for a minute... what if God were to speak to you and tell you to do "X" and "Y" will happen. You obediently do "X", and "Y" happens for you, just as God said it would. Is it OK to testify about something like that, or would you classify it as simple manipulation?

That’s certainly a fair question and in my view it can never really be discounted. My concern is that would the Lord have someone stand up on a church platform where they are alluding to how they could very well ‘bribe’ God for a particular outcome. I really struggle in this day and age where many parts of the church have become well known for manipulating its members and I would have thought that it would be more prudent to simply make the need known without trying to ‘trick’ God or ‘bribe’ him in any way.

It’s sort of saying to the Lord, “Look, I will give some money but I need something in return”. We could also take the position that if we give beyond our normal weekly giving that we should keep this to ourselves and if a blessing occurs after our giving, then we are better off not insinuating that God blessed me because I gave and simply declare that God answered a specific prayer because he loves me.

I grant that God can and does certainly bless us when we give, but giving the horrid consumerism of much of our Western church, I tend to take the position that we should give and be quiet about it and if something extraordinary occurs then we should simply give God the praise.

Recently, our church started a fund drive where we are trying to raise $5,000,000 for a new wing; the senior minister thanked the members for the $800,000 that had been received so far but he mentioned that some simply transferred their weekly tithes into this fund which meant that for July we were operating in the red somewhere in the vicinity of $120,000. From memory, in our 12 years at this congregation, no one has ever linked God’s blessing with giving as they simply ask that those who have the ability to give to please do so, but certainly not at the expense of our monthly running expenses.

 

[Tobias]

It could be.

But let's forget about the example in the OP for a minute... what if God were to speak to you and tell you to do "X" and "Y" will happen. You obediently do "X", and "Y" happens for you, just as God said it would. Is it OK to testify about something like that, or would you classify it as simple manipulation?

It's only manipulation if you tell everybody that the only way for "Y" to happen is if you do "X". Or that it's a guarantee of some sorts because that's what has worked for someone else.

It's kind of like taking the focus off of Jesus as the Healer, and putting on the mud He put in the blind man's eyes.

 

[probinson]

It's only manipulation if you tell everybody that the only way for "Y" to happen is if you do "X". Or that it's a guarantee of some sorts because that's what has worked for someone else.

It's kind of like taking the focus off of Jesus as the Healer, and putting on the mud He put in the blind man's eyes.

This is along the line of my thinking on this topic. If God told me to give $100 and He would give me a larger return, then I think the testimony should be focused not on the act of giving $100, but rather in responding in obedience to God's prompting. IOW, instead of encouraging everyone to do exactly what I did, I should encourage them to listen for, and obey, the voice of God.

I also think it has a lot to do with attitude and motive. In the example in the OP, it does sound to me like they're trying to persuade people to give with testimonies. I would stop short of saying they're trying to "guilt" people into giving. In fact, it's my guess that there is no malicious motive intended in what they're doing.

Another reason I've found that people testify is to justify their theology. Especially in debates and arguments, people will offer "testimonies" to bolster their argument. I have been guilty of doing that on this very forum.

I think the goal of a testimony should always be solely to give glory to God, not to persuade others of what they should or should not do. Granted, even if you give a testimony with pure motives it can be misconstrued. But I think that the most important factor in offering a testimony is what the motive and heart behind it is. If the motive is suspect, that is when I think it stops being a "testimony".

 

[Tenebrae]

One mans praise report is another mans guilt trip.

I beg to differ on the guilt trip part anyway

When testimonies are presented in such a way to infer that god will only heal cancer, or give someone a child because they gave to a specific collection, is emotional manipulation at best

Interesting footnote on this. I ended up getting told that I was sinning because I didnt put money in the sacrfical offering.

The pastor was not interested in the fact that I had encountered someone broken down due to no petrol on the side of the road, and used that money to get them some petrol and a couple of essential groceries bread and milk. The person couldnt stop thanking me, ended up telling me how much this meant to him, his wife and lost her job 2 weeks ago, and he was on his way to the first day of a new job and was madly panicking.

 

[Tenebrae]

When is a testimony not a testimony

I dont think it does, however when its used to manipulate people for their own ends.... It saddens me. It infers that God will only move if we give to a particular collection

It could be.

But let's forget about the example in the OP for a minute... what if God were to speak to you and tell you to do "X" and "Y" will happen. You obediently do "X", and "Y" happens for you, just as God said it would. Is it OK to testify about something like that, or would you classify it as simple manipulation?

 

[Tenebrae]

I think the goal of a testimony should always be solely to give glory to God, not to persuade others of what they should or should not do. Granted, even if you give a testimony with pure motives it can be misconstrued. But I think that the most important factor in offering a testimony is what the motive and heart behind it is. If the motive is suspect, that is when I think it stops being a "testimony".

Bravo, well said

 

[andreha]

That pastor sounds like one of those who's going to be told "Go away, I know you not." You've reached out to people in desperate need, and then the greedy pastor calls you a sinner for not enriching him. That's disgusting. You obviously love God a great deal more than this pastor does.

I beg to differ on the guilt trip part anyway

When testimonies are presented in such a way to infer that god will only heal cancer, or give someone a child because they gave to a specific collection, is emotional manipulation at best

Interesting footnote on this. I ended up getting told that I was sinning because I didnt put money in the sacrfical offering.

The pastor was not interested in the fact that I had encountered someone broken down due to no petrol on the side of the road, and used that money to get them some petrol and a couple of essential groceries bread and milk. The person couldnt stop thanking me, ended up telling me how much this meant to him, his wife and lost her job 2 weeks ago, and he was on his way to the first day of a new job and was madly panicking.

 

[probinson]

I beg to differ on the guilt trip part anyway

When testimonies are presented in such a way to infer that god will only heal cancer, or give someone a child because they gave to a specific collection, is emotional manipulation at best

It could be. But then again, maybe not...

What if God spoke to someone and said, "Sow into this offering, and I will heal you of cancer?" Is that out of the realm of possibility? I know some will say that God can heal without us doing anything, and that's absolutely true. But sometimes God requires us to do something. For example, God was perfectly capable of healing Naaman without requiring him to dip in the Jordan seven times, yet that's exactly how He chose to do it. Dipping in the dirty Jordan and being healed of leprosy are seemingly unrelated items, yet that was the means God chose to heal Naaman.

What if Naaman stood up and testified in a church today that he was healed of leprosy after God told him to dip in the Jordan seven times? Would the implication be that the ONLY way God can heal leprosy is by dipping in the Jordan, or would it be an accurate testimony of what God did for him?

I think we should be careful to not discount another's testimony offered in earnest. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that we should be ever ready to believe the best about our brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if the pastor and leadership of the church were using and manipulating those testimonies (as it sounds they were), they may well have been valid testimonies of how God did something for someone.

Interesting footnote on this. I ended up getting told that I was sinning because I didnt put money in the sacrfical offering.

The pastor was not interested in the fact that I had encountered someone broken down due to no petrol on the side of the road, and used that money to get them some petrol and a couple of essential groceries bread and milk. The person couldnt stop thanking me, ended up telling me how much this meant to him, his wife and lost her job 2 weeks ago, and he was on his way to the first day of a new job and was madly panicking.

That's unfortunate. I believe that giving is a personal thing, and scripture is pretty clear that we are to give as we determine in our hearts. You determined in your heart to give to a person that needed help along the road, and that most certainly is not sin.

 

[vitaminC]

When I think of the word testimony , I think about a court of law. We testify about what happened as it relates to providing evidence to build a case.

I think Christian testimony does the same thing. It provides our account of events in order to support the case being built for the Gospel.

I think how we view a testimony depends upon whether or not we view it as truthful and whether it supports the Gospel truth.

 

[murjahel]

II Kings 5:20-27

Gehazi was involved in the ministry, with Elisha to Naaman who had come to be healed of leprosy.

Gehazi carries messages to Naaman, from Elisha, and finally sees that Naaman finally obeys, dips seven times in the Jordan, and is healed of his leprosy.

Naaman offers reward to Elisha, who refuses any compensation. This is so unlike many today who want payment in money for healings, etc... Elisha refused any, and God did not want the 'seed' of faith to be monetary, but wanted Naaman to dip seven times in a river, only.


Gehazi follows Naaman when he leaves, and seeks a talent (200 pounds) of silver, and two changes of raiment for the poorer of the sons of the prophets.

This was his story anyhow. The lie was that he was acting for Elisha, when in reality it was a scam to gain the money for himself.

The failure and sin of Gehazi was to be secret, but Elisha has a word of knowledge from God, reveals Gehazi’s sin, and rebukes him.

Gehazi goes away, a leper, suffering the punishment of God for his failure. Gehazi had a prime opportunity to share in Elisha’s ministry, but had failed.

God does not want monetary reward or payment for healings, they were grace, and there is no retail price on grace.

We see Gehazi later, in II Kings 8:1-6, where Gehazi is called before the king. Gehazi must have repented and been healed, for lepers would not be welcome before the king,
and Gehazi’s glowing testimony of Elisha shows a new attitude and level of new ministry.

King Jehoram had summoned Gehazi, and Gehazi tells testimony of the raising of the Shunammite woman’s son.

As he speaks, the woman arrives before the king, and is there to ask for her lands back that had been taken when she had to flee from them. When she returned, others had taken over her home, claiming they were theirs. Being a Shunammite, she now needed what she once had refused, and that was a testimony on her behalf to the king.

Gehazi, now a sensitive, loving man in ministry for Elisha, and for God, tells the king that this woman truly did own that home, and that this was the woman who had done great things for Elisha. Her lands are restored.

We see in this third instance, that Gehazi had emerged from ineffective, carnal service, to now effective usefulness to God.

He had had an emergence. Had he repented? Had he been restored to favor with Elisha and God? How had it happened? We are not told the details.

What we do see is that the illustration of the dipping in Jordan seven times does not condone or allow the $38 healings that some sell in God's name... God wanted no part of selling Naaman a healing, and I do not believe God is any harder up for cash today than then. Surely Elisha could have used it... but God has prophets live on offerings, not on retail sales of promised miracles.

 

[probinson]

The testimony of Naaman, as relayed to us in the book of 2 Kings, demonstrates that sometimes God may require something of us. We all know that God could have healed Naaman right there on the spot, so why did Naaman have to go dip in the Jordan 7 times? But this is very much along the line of the kind of "logic" we sometimes hear from people today, as if to say that by dipping in the Jordan, this "manipulates" God to move on our behalf. Of course, no one would actually say that about Naaman, since we all have the benefit of reading the beginning, middle and end of that testimony after the fact.

Some people's odd fixation on money causes them to miss the point here; the point has nothing to do with money. It has to do with obedience. While I would agree that there are people who try to "sell" miracles and/or healing, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a person who God speaks to and tells them do "X" and "Y" will happen. For Naaman, "X" was dipping in the Jordan and "Y" was being healed of leprosy.

My point is that just because someone shares a testimony where they say I did "this" and "that" happened for me doesn't invalidate the testimony. But where I believe it becomes suspect is when they not only testify what God did for them and how it came about, but also try to persuade you to do the same.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"when does a testimony cease to be a testimony and become an "emotional guilt inducing appeal"?

When it has an "Ulterior motive", of course. The Church is obviously engaging in a "Bandwagon Manipulation" of it's congregation for an economic purpose.

Wall Street would be proud of 'em.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Recently, our church started a fund drive where we are trying to raise $5,000,000 for a new wing; the senior minister thanked the members for the $800,000 that had been received so far but he mentioned that some simply transferred their weekly tithes into this fund which meant that for July we were operating in the red somewhere in the vicinity of $120,000. From memory, in our 12 years at this congregation, no one has ever linked God’s blessing with giving as they simply ask that those who have the ability to give to please do so, but certainly not at the expense of our monthly running expenses.

What a tragedy. In a down-turned economy, that so-called "pastor" is calling for millions to pour into a dead building rather than to meet genuine needs of fellow believers and the needy in the local community.

Oh, I know. There are ten thousand justifications for building bigger facilities, but none of those excuses will ever justify putting buildings before people.

That's just plain EVIL!

BTW

 

[probinson]

Mark 14:3-6 (AMP)
And while He was in Bethany, [a guest] in the house of Simon the leper, as He was reclining [at table], a woman came with an alabaster jar of ointment (perfume) of pure nard, very costly and precious; and she broke the jar and poured [the perfume] over His head. But there were some who were moved with indignation and said to themselves, To what purpose was the ointment (perfume) thus wasted? For it was possible to have sold this [perfume] for more than 300 denarii [a laboring man’s wages for a year] and to have given [the money] to the poor. And they censured and reproved her. But Jesus said, Let her alone; why are you troubling her? She has done a good and beautiful thing to Me [praiseworthy and noble].