Controversy FAQ Interview Question 17

And to the charge of brain manipulation and the participants being controlled?

If we could control people, we wouldn't be having to respond to these sorts of questions and accusations. If we were controlling people, they'd probably be on time for the trainings, and people are not on time. Seriously, it's very clear, based on people's behavior, that we have no power to control them, nor is that our agenda on any level. We are about the opposite: we are about affirming that God has given us the responsibility of choice and calls us into stewarding that gift in a resourceful way. That calls people into making their own choices.

What is meant by control? That's simply not what happens. Often, in one of our trainings, just the opposite happens-people feel out of control. We actually are calling people into a higher level of acting on their conscience to not just go along to get along, but to stand on what's true for them and to contribute that authenticity for the possibility of something greater in relationship with others.

Sometimes people do feel controlled. We've had people tell us that in the training room, and if so, we want to hear it. Because when they're saying that, they're finally stepping out and saying what they really want to say. It's great when somebody comes out and starts to talk about how they felt controlled, and then they usually realize they've felt controlled for a very long time and they haven't been honest about their own experience. Perhaps they've felt controlled when working with their pastor or their friend or their spouse.

They've been acquiescing because they're afraid if they say what they think, they are going to lose what they're getting from their relationship, be it the stability of no conflict or acceptance or something else. Ultimately, in that inquiry, they realize that no, they weren't being controlled, they were just compromising themselves. They could have left at any time, or they could have said what they wanted at any time, and the reason they didn't was because they wanted to protect whatever agenda they thought was getting met in the relationship that would have been jeopardized by being honest. That's usually the revelation that comes out of it.

In our training room, apart from harming another person, people are free to say what they please, go anywhere, and do anything, and nobody's going to jump on them, nobody's going to tackle them, try to stop them. All we do is ask questions, and if they want to talk, they can. If they don't, they don't have to. And if they want to leave, they do.

This sort of accusation-that people are either brainwashed or controlled--is a vicious, circular argument. If you approve of the training, you were brainwashed, and the only way you can be saved is by acknowledging it. But by acknowledging it, you destroy your credibility. If you say, yes, you're right, I was brainwashed and I repent, then you're accepted back in the fold, but you have to give up your position or your influence or your reputability because somehow you made a horrible mistake and you were contributing to other people's demise. This question really has to do with other agendas that have to do with ownership, position, authority, and power.

Back to Controversy FAQ