An unusual subtitle perhaps, but it get's to the core of much of the confusion and debate that rages through the religious community.

Let me explain.

One of the best "how to hypnotise" workshops I ever attended started out with the exercise I am about to share here with you. Now, you may be wondering why this is filed under the Religion section ... the answer is simple: truly understanding the implication of the exercise will forever change the way you judge meaning - in your own religious worldview and in your view of the beliefs of others.

... then I'll give you my take on it. You may or may not agree with my view, but I hope the exercise will at least provoke a thought or two.

The meaning vs. method exercise

There are two video clips below. The exercise is to watch both of them with the sound turned off. Each is about 7 to 8 minutes long. Since you don't have the sound turned on you might even want to play them in parallel.

The key is to 'suspend' judgment - in other words you need to take your beliefs and 'put them to the side' for the moment.

We'll do a bit of analysis after you've done the exercise.

(Note: I'll just ignore any comments from those who haven't really taken the effort to do the exercise and want to just regurgitate their belief system).

Before you watch the YouTube item to the right, make sure that you turn the sound off. Now, stop for a moment, and ignore what you do and don't believe (if you can) about the content or message. I'm not interested in entering that minefield :-).

As you watch the clip, take the time to look at what the evangelist is actually doing - with his body, with his hands, with his gestures. Then shake yourself and go onto the next step of the exercise below!

Again, before you watch this YouTube item to the right, make sure that you turn the sound off. Now, be sure to look for the 'similarities' (not the differences) with the previous clip.

The key with this exercise is to suspend any beliefs you have about the 'content' or 'meaning' of the two clips ... and look purely at process. The stronger your belief about the 'meaning' the more challenging it will be to honestly compare the similarities without throwing in a "but ..." statement in.

This is as much an exercise in your belief systems as it is in learning about hypnosis.

• Hands up those who believe both the evangelist and the entertainer use trance
• Hands up those who think that there is no way that these two 'stars' can be equated
  
• Hands up those who can see that the method (trance induction) is the same but the meaning is different
• Hands up those who believe one video is God acting and the other is Satan acting through the 'star' on the stage (the evangelist and the entertainer).
• Hands up those who are frothing at the mouth at the the implication that a "Man of God" could use 'mind control' or trance.

The real challenge here is that how we attach meaning to things totally colors how we 'judge' what is happening around us. I can Guarantee that there are those out there who will see one of these events as good and one of them as evil ... and yet the same method has been used to 'kick-off' the experience.

The fundamental thing we learned from that first exercise in that workshop I attended in 'how to hypntoise' was simply this:

Content (meaning) and process (method) are not the same - and never confuse them.

If you divorce yourself from the context and content then what we have here are two situations in which an expectation is being setup for the audience ... once the first person 'undergoes' the experience (the falling backwards) this reinforces the expectation in the rest. The 'laying of the hands' or the intent to do so, the 'falling' backwards, the altered state ... are identical in terms of process in each of the videos.

Our trainer (and I agree) said that this is a standard 'body drop' trance induction. I've attended both evangelical revival meetings and stage hypnotist shows and can verify the process first hand (not the meaning).

The difference is in the context and meaning attached to the experience.

Trance is just that, trance ... but what you do with it makes all the difference in the world. It can be used as a way of providing entertainment by manipulating the participants perceptions. Or it can be used as the doorway to a religious experience by ... by what? Is this a self-induced hallucination, something suggested by the evangelist and expected by the participant? Is it a doorway to a real spiritual experience?

In my view, the only difference between the evangelist and the entertainer (in this instance) is in how the individual makes sense of the experience they undergo and context in which it is experienced.

Does it matter? If you believe that the evangelist is doing God's work then what he is doing can in no way be equated to what the entertainer is doing. Does the evangelist have the power of God working through him during these 'experiences'? If so, then so must the stage hypnotist - doesn't he?

• The contexts are different.
  
• The 'trance induction' process is the same.
  
• What is done with the 'hypnotic state' is different or the same depending on what you think this is (i.e. a hypnotist might say that it is the same as suggestions, whether implicit or explicit, are given in each case to the individual undergoing the experience).
  
• The meaning given to the experience is different.

The debate in and around religion gets sort of nasty when people equate meaning with method, when they equate content with process ... and then have silly debates "my method is better than your method" or "my God symbol is more correct than your God symbol" or "my God-given laws are more correct than your God-given laws". Because I can guarantee to give you a 'religious experience' while out for a cup of coffee ... would you then say that that particular brand of coffee you were drinking at the time is important or is it the experience itself?

A final note: I am not invalidating any spiritual experience that someone gives meaning to or the beliefs that the evangelist or the entertainer have about what it is they are doing. I'm simply providing a way of looking at the separation of process and content, method and meaning - and raising some questions and I believe can and should be explored further.