Several years ago I served as associate minister in a large, downtown church. One of my responsibilities was to dole out the meager social assistance funds our church had for people in need. A steady stream of persons flowed into my office with enough stories to fill several good-sized volumes.
One man claimed to be a deposed minister of public information for the government of Sierra Leone. Another brought me detailed plans for an electronics system, claiming he needed $200 for a patent fee. Still another dropped his trousers in the middle of my office to show me the prosthetic device for which he needed refills.
Amid these dramatic appeals came a number of genuine claims from persons who, for one reason or another, found themselves in desperate circumstances. My job was to distinguish legitimate needs (true stories) from professional con jobs (false stories).
This is not to say the con artists did not have their own legitimate needs as well, but when resources are scarce, it seems a good policy to help first those persons who are forthright with their stories.
Over the three years of my ministry there, I was taken more times than I care to remember, but gradually I began to discern certain identifying characteristics of the con artist’s style that helped me be more certain in my assessments. I offer them here fully aware that no list can ever replace the compassionate judgment that must enter into every decision.
Actions typical of con artists
1. Volunteering irrelevant documents such as hotel receipts, bus ticket stubs, or applications to bolster their stories and create an aura of credibility.
2. Offering an abundance of details not necessarily related to the main thrust of their stories.
3. Name dropping-seeming familiar with well-placed persons or with persons you know remotely.
4. Forgetting, or being otherwise unable to produce, a key fact, the missing link necessary to corroborate their story.
5. Inhibiting the verification of the story: “This must be dealt with in absolute confidentiality” or “Don’t say anything to this person.”
6. Partially answering questions. Attempting to shift the subject. Seeming not to hear a key question.
7. Stressing the urgency of the request, which leaves no time to verify the story: “I must have the money tonight, or it will be of no use to me.”
8. Always manipulating suggested solutions back to their terms. Usually this means they must have immediate cash; no other solution will do.
9. Attempting to produce a sense of guilt in you for doubting their honesty.
10. Appealing to your desire to play an important role in a significant story.
People legitimately in need usually exhibit few, if any, of these characteristics, while the con artist will display most of them.
There are, in addition, some precautions ministers can take to keep from falling victim to the trickster.
Methods to avoid being taken
1. Follow through. Check the story despite the pressures put on you. The honest person will do everything he or she can to help you verify the story.
2. Delay responding to the request until you have had time to think. Is the story plausible? Did you sense the person using any of the above tactics? Could you convince someone else of the legitimacy of the request?
3. Remember the natural tendency to want to play important parts in gripping stories. Don’t let this factor impair your judgment.
4. Vigorously pursue every alternative to giving money. Offer to arrange directly with lodging facilities for a room, or with restaurants or a grocery store for food. Be aware that con artists often try to circumvent your caution with the excuse that they need to travel somewhere, so be especially leery of giving money for travel. Bus and train tickets easily can be converted to cash.
5. If you conclude that giving money is the only possible solution, decide firmly how much you will allocate to this particular situation and do not allow yourself to be swayed from your intentions.
I am convinced that, despite the mistakes I will make, it is better to err on the side of compassion than to turn away a legitimately needy person. But I am equally persuaded that we are responsible as pastors to use our slim resources in the ways that will accomplish the greatest good. Hard-headed screening helps retain resources for those with legitimate need while curtailing the inadvertent funding of nefarious enterprises.
-Scott Campbell
East Longmeadow (Massachusetts) Methodist Church
Copyright © 1987 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
