DiscussMormonism.com

Lifton defines “coercive persuasion” as a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s).

Sometimes in staff meetings, our manager, when there is discussion back and forth on pros and cons about the best process of how to accomplish a task (workflow), will tack on the end of the discussion, “We’re all Christians.” In my eyes this is being used as a means of conformity. After all, we are not all Christians and Christians are supposed to show love to one another, and as a result, the watching, unbelieving world will get a glimpse of who God is. In other words, we are to be his imagers in the world.

Do I say something or just suck it up?

msnobody wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:09 am

Do I say something or just suck it up?

If you were to offer words of rebuttal, what would you like to say?

Moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:19 am

msnobody wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:09 am

Do I say something or just suck it up?

If you were to offer words of rebuttal, what would you like to say?

I suppose a combination of what I said in the original post, yet very carefully worded. Like, what is the motivation? Is it an effort to build up the body of Christ, or a means of forcing conformity and shutting people down? If it is the latter, it’s best not to draw attention or make claims of religious beliefs as to cause a stumbling block for the watching world. Maybe something to that effect, but very carefully worded.

msnobody wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:09 am

Do I say something or just suck it up?

You say something, but you don't call him out. Instead ask, "If we don't do it your way, how angry will you be?" Then let his answer dictate your course of action.

I would ask what being a Christian has to do with your work processes.

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 2:01 pm

I would ask what being a Christian has to do with your work processes.

I'm kind of thinking that too, especially in a government job.

Perhaps you could refer to the nonconformity among the original apostles.

In Galatians 2:11, Paul wrote:But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Equally faithful Christians have apparently always been able to disagree strongly.

Physics guy wrote:Equally faithful Christians have apparently always been able to disagree strongly.

Sure, but can they disagree strongly without accusing each other of apostasy?

Your example doesn't seem that much better to me than "we're all christians here". I get the feeling that if you disagree with ms's boss, then he's going to stand firm because you are "condemned". Or if I stand firm against him, it's because from my POV he's "condemned" himself with his words.

Paul goes on immediately to say what he means by calling Peter "condemned": Peter was (in Paul's view) being blatantly hypocritical.

In Galatians 2:12-14, Paul wrote:For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

We don't hear Peter's side of the story, but Paul's argument sounds strong regardless of what one thinks of Peter or Paul. It's a principled disagreement cogently argued, and not just a dismissal by authority.

My advice would be to talk to him about the situation outside of a meeting. If you confront him in a meeting, he could get defensive. Explain that it is not a knock on Christianity to accept that not everyone is a Christian.