Okay, I know exposure is a word that gets a lot of people riled up, but I'm having an interesting thought. A number of years ago my father in law was doing mission work in Africa. I don't remember the specific area, but it's not really important. As part of that mission work, he performed a small 3-ball manipulation routine. After performing he exposed the method to show that magic/illusion isn't real, that he didn't have magic powers and they shouldn't worship those that claimed too. Having gotten back into magic in the last few years, it brings up an interesting thought. Is it okay to expose in this context?

I would prefer (personal choice) that the "magician" just state that everything seen or performed was by "skill" or by "natural" means, etc.. Kinda takes the lustre off of doing a magic trick if it is exposed. If the audience is so convinced the magician is doing real "magic" in the first place without later exposure, I am not so sure that is an appropriate audience to begin with... Just my two cents worth... Plus, members of the FCM, IBM, SAM indicate they will not expose magic tricks to the lay public.

I'm of the same opinion.

A "disclaimer" should be enough.

If they really believe you have "powers", then don't perform "magic" for them. They are going to be too focused on the medium, and not the message.

- Donald

I've performed in mission settings in Africa. There are situations where a disclaimer isn't enough, but magic is still an effective teaching tool.

"Exposure" is sometimes a difficult term to define in practice. Routines like paper balls over the head are magical to one person, but "exposed" to the audience (and the volunteer, in the end). Is this exposure? On at least some level, yes, but magicians are OK with it. Routines like this can be effective in helping people understand that magic isn't real.

There's also a fine line between unethical exposure and ethical teaching. Teaching people tricks they can do can be another way to help people understand what magic really is.

So was what your father-in-law did ethical? I don't know. Maybe. (How's that for taking a stand on an issue?)

-Brad

Like Brad, I've performed in mission settings in Africa. In some parts, maybe many parts of Africa, they still practice witchcraft. I was very quick to point out that what I was doing was illusion and they could do it as well if they knew the secret. In some instances, I told them the secret. It depended upon the circumstances. If you are there to save souls, then the French Drop no longer seems so important.

Also, in some parts of Africa witch doctors make colorful bracelets and give them to people who follow them. I usually wear a lot of bracelets, (just one of my things). So I took them all off for the mission trip and covered my tattoos by wearing long sleeves. You do what you have to do to glorify God.

If he does it to expose the deceitfulness of witchcraft in their culture to bring them out from darkness then who is anyone to say anything. This is an issue between your Father-Inlaw and God. If he is uncomfortable performing magic and feels that he needs to expose it to justify why he does what he does, then that could be a different issue. Although I'm not against disclaimers, but I feel that if a performer feels they strongly need to make one with a certain crowd, they should really think about not using magic as a tool.

We use magic as a tool, but if that tool needs a disclaimer, it may not be the best tool to use.

Well said Dan!

Thanks for the various input. I think that the intention to expose witchcraft is/was a good one. I don't think that he is uncomfortable performing magic. As a matter of fact he doesn't perform magic on anything close to a regular basis. It was more used as a teaching to combat witchcraft. I hadn't really considered it until recently, but like so many other things, the definition of exposure and if/when it's okay may not be as narrow as I once thought. Dan, I like the sentiment of not needing a disclaimer for our tools.

I think I disagree with that thought somewhat.

I perform shows for both secular audiences and church / Christian audiences.

The church audiences seem to be somewhat more "superstitious", in that they are inclined to believe that there is something supernatural in a magic show. They are more sensitive to that concern, and often more vocal about their concern.

I've had way more Christians ask me about David Copperfield, Criss Angel, & David Blaine, and whether they have powers.

I'm not upset with it. It's the way it is.

It could be because of the way they misinterpret the Bible (think that anything to do with the word "magic" means it is evil, or anything they can't explain must have "forces" associated with it), or some poor critical thinking training that they have had, or ???

That is why I will do a disclaimer at gospel shows in churches, but not at a non-Christian show / secular show anywhere else. It's just not necessary in other venues.

From my experience of working with churches, a disclaimer seems to be enough to settle most people down.

- Donald

In that content I agree with you Donald. I have many times started off by explaining who I am, what I do, and making a point to mention that I do not have supernatural powers. What I do are just tricks and illusions, and only God performs miracles.

This info is now in my flyer/program that the audience gets coming in. I find that most who come are already informed about Gospel Magic, but I can relate with you about those who ask if Blaine or Angel perform real magic. I get that a lot, but mostly only from other christians. My answer is always the same. I tell them that Blaine and Angel don't claim to have supernatural powers, and nor do I believe they posses any. I also get some christians who feel it's their right to know how a trick is done, and insist that you show them. The saying I hear most is this, "If it's just a trick then show me how it's done, and I'll believe you."

In trying to answer the posters question, I was keeping in mind the enviroment that his father-inlaw is in. I feel that if we need to make a strong disclaimer as exposing a trick to prove that we don't have supernatural powers then the use of magic to minister to them may not be the best tool to use.

If however, the person's mission is to help release those who have fallen into the belief's of witchcraft, or warn them about the truth of it by exposing how they accomplish what they do using magic, then I don't really see that as exposure.

I have only once refused to perform at a church. Doing my homework, I was informed that many people in the congregation were very religious and were not comfortable with a magician performing at their church. I talked with the Senior Pastor who admitted that the senior members of the congregation were not pleased that I was coming. I thought at first that I would put a time a side to meet with them and answer questions to hoipefully relieve them of their concerns. Before I was able to sit with them, one of the elders came forward and admitted that they were a still practicing witch and was apparently trying to help my side. With her coming out of the closet, and her trying to defend my cause, I felt it in my heart to pull out and not perform there at all. They obviously had a more serious issue on their hand and I didn't want to get anywhere involved with it.

I suppose I should of said, "We use magic as a tool, but if that tool needs a strong disclaimer, it may not be the best tool to use."

I believe this also falls in line with knowing your audience before hand.

I don't meet many people who are against Gospel Magic.(if I have, they've not vocalized it to me) I meet those who are curious about it because they have never heard of it. But, as far as meeting anyone who is against the use of magic, very slim pickings for me.(lol)

Dan, you've raised an interesting point just now. As someone who is against exposure, I hold my secrets quite close to the vest as I'm sure you do. I was just thinking that I would never reveal my methods to a "normal" audience, but I might in the course of debunking or showing that witchcraft wasn't real. So where is the line? If exposure to debunk witchcraft, in Africa let's say, is okay, is it not okay to expose to an audience in church to dispel that same notion of witchcraft. I've seen a few accounts here at the Café of people wanting to exorcise the magician. Is exposure okay to show that we're not really evil? In general, my response would be no, but in the context of mission work it seems to be ... maybe? I don't know whether I'm walking a slippery slope to even consider it.

A practicing witch was an elder at their church? Yikes. I would have turned tail as well.

I have my doubts that any of us will break the power of and hold of satan by revealing how a magic trick is done. For a culturaly uneducated American to enter another culture and think that doing a few tricks and then by exposeing them they will defeat the hold of the local witch doctor or shaman is somewhat far fetched.

As we have discussed we can not even break the hold of ignorance in our own culture. When "christians" in our country are unable to tell the difference between magic tricks (gospel or not) and spiritual realities how do we think that we can change another culture that we do not even know or understand.

As far as the ethics of exposure are concerned there are none. Throughout the history of magic the unchanging code of conduct has always been that it is ok to expose if we get paid enough. (ie. private students, books, dvds, classes, seminars, magic camps, conventions, the sale of packaged tricks, children's magic sets, teach a trick at a b-day party for extra cash . . .) We all applaud Houdini for exposeing the secrets of the spiritulists in his day (they were using magic theory). He also exposed other magicians in order to make his show seem that much better. When the money is there it is ok to expose has always been the real rule.

Personally, I didn't go to Africa with this intent, but ended up going that way at the specific request of the local Rwandan pastors. (And I didn't simply expose my tricks. I did things like What's Next and In Over Your Head to educate about what magic is, and used that to build an apologetic that they could apply to witch doctors.) It wasn't me as a culturally uneducated American thinking it would be a good idea. It was the local pastors who found it to be a effective and useful tool for their specific situation.

You said that "We all applaud Houdini for exposing the secrets of the spiritualists in his day." If it was good Houdini to use knowledge of magic to expose those using magic principles to take advantage of people or gain power over them, isn't it still good for us to do that today?

Clearly, simply exposing magic tricks is not going produce meaningful results. In most situations no exposure is required. I've never personally encountered a situation on America where I felt exposure was necessary. People generally understand what stage magic is, so exposing it really doesn't accomplish anything. However, in some limited, specific situations, some level of exposure can help people come to an "ah-ha" moment where they can see the world a bit differently. If I hadn't seen it for myself, I probably would have felt differently.

-Brad

My point is that there is more to cross cultural evangelism and spiritual conflict than can be resolved by magic tricks and exposure. I am not saying that situations do not occur where that might not have an impact. My concern is that we might think that it is that simple. I have many friends who are full time missionaries in various places around the world who have to put out fires started by well meaning people who do more harm than good because they do not know the culture.

Concerning the ethics of exposure all I am saying is that in truth there are no rules or ethics. The magic community has always done what was expedient at the time. If the pay off is high enough we expose. That would include, for those of us who are Christians, a spiritual payoff.

In that case, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I have heard stories, and seen a little first hand, of well-intentioned people causing major problems in mission settings. Sometimes they can't separate the unchanging universal core of the Gospel from the way it finds expression in their own culture. Sometimes cultural differences lead to miscommunication. Sometimes it is an expression of a feeling of "cultural superiority," that the way we do it in our culture is the way it should be done.

On exposure, I wouldn't go as far as to say there are no ethics, but it is much more complicated than "never ever do it. period."

Hi Brad- just a personal note. I spoke to MagicBob (President of Ring 211) last night- he is going to India next month to do more Gospel magic shows there. Are you joining him again? He said he saw you doing your full body rope escape there in India- rolling around on the floor- and other kinds of crazy magic stuff. Thanks again for letting us use some of your fine video footage from your DVD for the Now That's Magic! series- currently airing this week on cable access channels in Grand Rapids and Lowell, Michigan. Mucho Appreciato! Roger from http://www.ChristianMagician.org

I haven't been to India in about four years. I'd love to go back sometime, but I'm not in on this trip. Actually, the last time I went there with MagicBob & Suzie, I never even saw them. We flew on separate planes and they worked in South India while I went to North India.

We are going to the Logos Hope ship (www.logoshope.org) with Operation Mobilization in April, 2010, that should be a terrific experience- looking forward to it. We (MagicBob, SuZie and myself) hope to be doing a 45 minute to an hour repeating program with magic, chalk art, Gospel magic "illustrations", etc. in the Logos Hope theatre. If this works out, maybe other FCMers can go there as well to perform in this wonderful setting... Fired Up!