🧪 Case Study 6.3: “What Is True for You?”
🧪 Case Study 6.3: “What Is True for You?”
Case Study Purpose
This case study helps Christian leaders practice respectful ministry when a Scientologist understands truth primarily through personal experience, usefulness, and agreement.
The case requires discernment concerning:
objective truth and personal conviction
agreement and genuine understanding
survival and moral faithfulness
knowledge, responsibility, and control
relational trust
permission-based gospel conversation
Christian ministry boundaries
patience and reliance upon the Holy Spirit
The goal is not to defeat someone in an argument. The goal is to understand the person, clarify important words, ask thoughtful questions, and bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ.
The People
Mark Ellis
Mark is forty-six years old and has participated in Scientology for more than fifteen years.
He first became interested after attending a communication course recommended by a business associate. Mark felt the course helped him become more confident during difficult conversations. He later studied additional Scientology materials and began applying Scientology principles to his work, marriage, and personal development.
Mark owns a small home-repair company. He considers himself practical rather than deeply religious. He is less interested in abstract theological debates than in methods that appear to produce results.
He often says:
“I judge something by whether it works.”
Mark believes Scientology has helped him:
communicate more confidently
accept greater responsibility
manage employees
remain calmer during conflict
establish clearer goals
improve his relationship with his adult son
become less dependent upon other people’s opinions
He does not believe that anyone should impose religious beliefs upon someone else.
Rachel Moore
Rachel is a Christian life coach serving through a local church and Christian Soul Center.
She has completed training in comparative religion, permission-based ministry, spiritual care, and appropriate referral. She knows that her role is not to investigate Scientology, pressure people to leave, diagnose them, or attempt deprogramming.
Rachel met Mark through a neighborhood business association. They have spoken several times about leadership, community service, and the challenges of owning a small business.
Mark knows Rachel is a Christian ministry leader. Rachel has never hidden her faith or her ministry role.
Daniel Ellis
Daniel is Mark’s twenty-three-year-old son.
Daniel does not participate in Scientology. He recently began attending Rachel’s church with his fiancée. He has asked Rachel general questions about Christianity but has not asked her to intervene in his father’s religious life.
Daniel loves his father but sometimes feels that Mark treats difficult family conversations as problems to be managed rather than experiences to be shared.
Rachel understands that anything Mark shares with her must not be passed to Daniel without permission unless a serious safety or legal concern requires appropriate action.
The Setting
The local business association is organizing a volunteer project to repair the home of an elderly widow.
Mark and Rachel both participate.
During a planning meeting, one volunteer raises concerns about whether the project can be completed safely within the proposed schedule. Mark responds that the team needs to stop focusing on barriers and take greater control of the situation.
After the meeting, Rachel asks Mark whether he would like to have coffee.
Mark agrees.
They meet several days later at a public café.
The Opening Conversation
After talking about the repair project, Mark says:
“You Christians sometimes make things more complicated than they need to be. You keep asking what is absolutely true, as though everyone has to see reality in exactly the same way.”
Rachel responds:
“What makes you say that?”
Mark explains:
“In Scientology, you learn that reality has a lot to do with agreement. People can work together when they establish enough agreement to communicate. What is true for you is what you have observed and know to be true. I do not need someone else’s theology imposed on me.”
Rachel listens without interrupting.
She then says:
“I hear that personal observation, freedom, and workable agreement are important to you.”
“Exactly,” Mark replies. “I have tried things that produced results. My communication improved. My business improved. My relationship with Daniel improved. That is more meaningful to me than someone quoting a book and telling me I am wrong.”
Rachel asks:
“Would you be comfortable telling me more about what you mean when you say something is true because it works?”
Mark pauses.
“I mean that truth should be practical. If an idea helps someone become more able, more responsible, and more in control of life, that tells you something. Why would I reject something that has helped me?”
Rachel replies:
“I understand why that would carry weight for you. A practice that appears helpful naturally feels more believable.”
Mark leans forward.
“That is what I mean. You have your truth. I have mine. We can respect each other and still work together.”
The First Point of Tension
Rachel must decide how to respond.
She could immediately say:
“Truth is objective, and your statement is self-contradictory.”
That response might identify a philosophical problem, but it could also communicate that Rachel is more interested in winning than understanding.
She could say:
“You are right. Everyone has their own truth.”
That response might preserve immediate harmony, but it would blur the difference between personal belief and objective reality.
She could avoid the subject entirely.
That might prevent tension, but it would also miss an opportunity Mark has voluntarily opened.
Rachel chooses to ask another question.
“May I explore that with you a little further?”
Mark nods.
Rachel continues:
“When you say, ‘You have your truth and I have mine,’ do you mean that we each have our own beliefs, or that two opposite claims can both be true in the same way?”
Mark answers:
“I mean that people experience life differently. You cannot force one person’s reality onto someone else.”
Rachel says:
“I agree that people experience situations differently. We also interpret our experiences differently. But I wonder whether our beliefs can sometimes be sincere and still mistaken.”
Mark looks cautious.
“Give me an example.”
Rachel points toward the café window.
“Suppose I sincerely believe your truck is parked outside, but it is actually at the repair shop. My belief would be real. My sincerity would be real. But the truck’s actual location would not be created by what I believe.”
Mark smiles.
“That is a simple physical fact. Spiritual truth is different.”
Rachel replies:
“It may be more difficult to examine, but do you think spiritual claims can also contradict one another?”
Mark says:
“Different paths can be useful for different people.”
Rachel does not immediately challenge him. She asks:
“Do usefulness and truth always mean the same thing?”
A Workable Method
Mark explains that Scientology communication principles helped him during a conflict with one of his employees.
The employee frequently arrived late and blamed family problems. Mark had previously become angry and made threats. After studying communication and responsibility, Mark approached the employee more calmly, clarified expectations, and created a written plan.
The employee’s attendance improved.
Mark says:
“That worked. It produced a better condition for everyone. The employee kept his job, the company stayed productive, and I handled the problem without losing my temper.”
Rachel responds:
“That sounds like a constructive change. You communicated clearly, governed your anger, and helped the employee accept responsibility.”
Mark says:
“Then why would you question the system that taught me to do it?”
Rachel replies:
“I would not deny that you learned something useful. I would ask whether the usefulness of one practice proves every spiritual claim connected to the system.”
Mark becomes quiet.
Rachel continues carefully:
“A person might learn a helpful budgeting method from someone whose entire philosophy of life he does not accept. A communication practice might be useful without proving every belief about God, the human person, salvation, or life after death.”
Mark responds:
“So you want to separate the results from the philosophy.”
“I want to examine both,” Rachel says. “The helpful result deserves to be acknowledged. The larger worldview deserves to be considered on its own claims.”
Agreement and Pressure
Mark says:
“Most conflict comes from people refusing to establish agreement. If Rachel and Mark can agree on something, they have reality on that point.”
Rachel asks:
“Can agreement ever be produced by pressure?”
“Of course,” Mark answers. “That would not be genuine agreement.”
“How would you know the difference?”
Mark thinks for a moment.
“You would need honest communication.”
Rachel says:
“I agree. A person might say yes because he is afraid of losing a job, relationship, community, or opportunity. Outward agreement might hide inward disagreement.”
Mark responds:
“That happens in churches too.”
“Yes,” Rachel says. “It does. Christians should admit that. Churches can misuse authority, discourage questions, or pressure people to appear agreeable. That behavior should be corrected.”
Mark appears surprised that Rachel does not defend every church.
Rachel continues:
“Agreement can help people cooperate, but agreement alone does not establish truth or justice. A whole group can agree to treat someone unfairly.”
Mark replies:
“Scientology considers survival across more than one dynamic. It is not only about one person or group.”
Rachel asks:
“That raises an important question. Is an action right because it promotes survival, or should survival be guided by something morally higher?”
The Repair Project
Rachel returns to the volunteer repair project.
She says:
“At the planning meeting, the safety concern was not necessarily resistance to success. The volunteer was worried that rushing might place someone in danger.”
Mark responds:
“We cannot allow every fear to stop action.”
“I agree,” Rachel says. “Fear should not control every decision. But sometimes concern identifies a real responsibility.”
Mark says:
“The project needs to survive. The team needs to complete what it started.”
Rachel asks:
“What happens if preserving the schedule places a volunteer at unnecessary risk?”
Mark replies:
“Then we change the plan.”
“Why?” Rachel asks.
“Because someone could get hurt.”
Rachel continues:
“So safety and responsibility guide the survival goal. Survival alone does not tell us what is just, loving, or wise.”
Mark looks at her closely.
“You are trying to say there are moral principles above survival.”
“Yes,” Rachel replies, “because survival can be pursued unjustly. A company could survive through exploitation. A family could preserve its reputation by hiding abuse. A religious group could protect itself by silencing questions. Survival is good, but it cannot be the final definition of goodness.”
Knowledge, Responsibility, and Control
Mark changes the subject slightly.
“One reason Scientology appeals to me is that it teaches people to stop acting like victims. Knowledge, responsibility, and control are connected. As people understand more and take responsibility, they become more capable of controlling life.”
Rachel recognizes both a genuine insight and a possible reduction.
She says:
“Taking appropriate responsibility can be deeply important.”
Mark replies:
“Too many people blame everyone else.”
“That does happen,” Rachel says. “People may need to admit wrong choices, change harmful patterns, or repair damage. But can I ask about the limits of responsibility and control?”
Mark nods.
“What about someone whose spouse has betrayed him? What about a child who was abused? What about someone who becomes seriously ill despite responsible choices? Should that person believe the suffering occurred because he lacked knowledge, responsibility, or control?”
Mark answers:
“No. People cannot control everything.”
Rachel says:
“That distinction matters to Christian ministry. We need to separate sin committed from suffering endured. A person may be responsible for one part of a situation but not another.”
Mark says:
“Still, people need to focus on what they can control.”
“I agree,” Rachel responds. “Christian stewardship asks, ‘What has God entrusted to me, and what faithful action can I take?’ But stewardship also acknowledges that I am not sovereign. I can act responsibly without controlling the outcome.”
Mark asks:
“So you think surrender is better than control?”
Rachel replies:
“Not passive surrender. Faithful stewardship. We plan, work, tell the truth, establish boundaries, protect people, and accept responsibility. But we also acknowledge that we are creatures. We do not know everything, and we cannot master every result.”
Daniel’s Name Enters the Conversation
Mark looks down at his coffee.
“Daniel thinks I try to control too much.”
Rachel knows she must proceed carefully.
She does not disclose anything Daniel has shared with her.
Instead, she asks:
“Is that something Daniel has told you directly?”
Mark answers:
“Yes. He says every conversation becomes a project I am trying to fix.”
Rachel asks:
“How did you respond?”
“I told him I am trying to help him become more responsible.”
“What did he say?”
“He said sometimes he wants me to listen rather than manage him.”
Rachel pauses.
“What do you think he may be asking for?”
Mark says:
“Probably more affinity and communication.”
Rachel smiles gently.
“Perhaps. He may also be asking to be loved as a person rather than evaluated mainly according to improvement.”
Mark becomes defensive.
“I love my son.”
“I believe you do,” Rachel says. “The question is not whether you love him. The question is how he experiences that love during difficult conversations.”
Mark is silent.
Rachel does not fill the silence.
The Tone Scale Question
After a moment, Mark says:
“Daniel also lets his emotions run his life. He stays in grief too long. People sometimes need help moving out of lower emotions.”
Rachel asks:
“What is he grieving?”
“His mother died three years ago,” Mark says. “My wife. I miss her too, but we have to move forward.”
Rachel responds:
“I am sorry. Grief can remain present for a long time when someone deeply loved has died.”
Mark says:
“I am not saying people should never grieve. But staying there does not help survival.”
Rachel asks:
“Could grief sometimes express love rather than spiritual weakness?”
Mark does not answer immediately.
Rachel continues:
“Jesus wept when Lazarus died. The Psalms contain sorrow, fear, anger, and lament. Scripture does not treat every painful emotion as evidence of inferior spirituality.”
Mark replies:
“But people should not remain trapped.”
“I agree,” Rachel says. “We can help people receive support, tell the truth, remain connected to community, and take faithful steps. But we should not pressure them to perform cheerfulness so that they appear spiritually advanced.”
Mark’s expression softens.
“I have probably done that with Daniel.”
Rachel asks:
“Would you be willing to tell him that?”
“Maybe,” Mark says. “I would have to think about it.”
The Gospel Opening
Rachel senses that Mark has become more open, but she does not assume permission to preach.
She asks:
“May I explain why faithfulness and grace are so central to the way Christians understand life?”
Mark hesitates and then says:
“All right.”
Rachel begins:
“Christianity teaches that survival, knowledge, responsibility, and ability are real goods, but none of them can save us from sin and death.”
Mark asks:
“What do you mean by save?”
Rachel replies:
“To be reconciled to God, forgiven, given new life, and finally raised from the dead.”
Mark says:
“I believe spiritual beings continue.”
Rachel responds:
“Christian hope is different from the survival of a spiritual self apart from the body. We believe God created us as embodied persons. Jesus truly became human, died, and rose bodily. Our hope is resurrection and new creation.”
Mark says:
“And you think only Christianity is true.”
Rachel answers:
“I believe Jesus Christ is truly the incarnate Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that God raised him bodily from the dead. I do not believe those claims become true because I personally find them useful or because a Christian group agrees about them. I believe they describe what God has actually done.”
Mark asks:
“What if that is only true for you?”
Rachel replies:
“My belief is personal, but the claim is objective. Jesus either rose bodily from the dead or he did not. My belief does not create the event.”
Mark leans back.
“At least you are honest about what you believe.”
Rachel says:
“I want to be honest without pressuring you. You are free to disagree.”
Grace and Responsibility
Mark asks:
“If salvation is a gift, does that mean responsibility does not matter?”
Rachel answers:
“Responsibility matters greatly. Christianity teaches repentance, restitution, truthfulness, justice, and changed conduct. But responsibility is our response to God’s grace, not the method by which we earn salvation.”
“So people can do anything and be forgiven?”
“No,” Rachel says. “Grace does not make sin unimportant. The cross shows how serious sin is. Forgiveness does not erase the need to protect people, report crimes, repair harm, or accept consequences.”
Mark replies:
“But you say responsibility cannot save.”
“Yes. Suppose I seriously harm someone. I should confess, repent, make appropriate restitution, and accept accountability. But I cannot travel backward and make the wrong disappear. I need forgiveness that I cannot manufacture.”
Mark says:
“You believe Jesus provides that.”
“Yes. Jesus faithfully did what we could not do. He gave his life in love and rose from the dead. Salvation rests upon his completed work rather than our spiritual advancement.”
The Decision Point
The conversation has lasted nearly an hour.
Rachel must decide how to close.
She could press Mark to accept the gospel immediately.
She could ask him to renounce Scientology.
She could use Daniel’s church attendance as leverage.
She could warn him that refusing Christianity proves he is spiritually deceived.
Each of these responses would violate the permission-based posture Rachel has practiced.
Instead, she says:
“Thank you for trusting me with this conversation. What part of our discussion would you like to keep thinking about?”
Mark answers:
“The difference between something working and something being true. I still believe results matter, but I can see that one helpful result does not prove everything.”
Rachel asks:
“Would you be willing to read one of the Gospel accounts with me sometime and examine what it claims about Jesus?”
Mark says:
“I am not promising that I will agree.”
“You do not have to promise agreement,” Rachel responds. “Only honest reading and conversation.”
Mark says:
“I might be willing to do that.”
Rachel asks:
“Would you prefer to contact me when you are ready?”
“Yes,” Mark says. “Let me think.”
Rachel respects his answer.
She does not pressure him to schedule another meeting.
Before leaving, she says:
“I also hope the conversation with Daniel goes well.”
Mark replies:
“I think I need to listen more before trying to improve him.”
Rachel smiles.
“That sounds like a meaningful place to begin.”
Ministry Analysis
Rachel practiced several important ministry principles.
She Identified the Human Longing
Rachel recognized Mark’s desire for:
practical help
personal responsibility
improved communication
relational cooperation
freedom from manipulation
greater ability to respond to life
She did not mock these desires.
She Distinguished Usefulness From Truth
Rachel acknowledged that a communication practice may produce a helpful result.
She also explained that the usefulness of one practice does not prove every philosophical or spiritual claim connected to it.
She Distinguished Belief From Reality
Rachel respected Mark’s personal convictions while maintaining that sincere belief and objective reality are not identical.
She did not tell Mark that his experiences were imaginary.
She questioned the conclusions drawn from those experiences.
She Refused False Agreement
Rachel did not say that Christianity and Scientology teach the same thing.
She clearly explained the Christian claims concerning:
God
Jesus Christ
sin
grace
bodily resurrection
objective truth
salvation
She Preserved Relationship Without Hiding Disagreement
Rachel communicated respect without pretending theological agreement.
Affinity did not require dishonesty.
Communication did not become manipulation.
She Compared Survival With Faithfulness
Rachel showed that survival is a real good but cannot define every moral duty.
Justice, truth, protection, sacrifice, and love may require actions that threaten personal or institutional success.
She Distinguished Stewardship From Control
Rachel affirmed responsible action while acknowledging creaturely limits.
She did not encourage helplessness.
She also did not promise that greater knowledge or responsibility would produce control over every outcome.
She Honored Grief
Rachel did not rank grief as proof of inferior spirituality.
She recognized that sorrow may be a fitting response to love and loss.
She Protected Confidentiality
Rachel did not reveal private information received from Daniel.
She worked only with what Mark voluntarily disclosed.
She Asked Permission
Rachel repeatedly asked whether Mark was comfortable continuing the conversation or hearing a Christian explanation.
Permission remained active rather than being requested only once.
She Offered an Invitation Without Pressure
Rachel invited Mark to read a Gospel.
She did not demand an immediate decision, use family relationships as leverage, or pressure him to leave Scientology.
She Trusted the Holy Spirit
Rachel understood that her role was to listen, clarify, compare, proclaim Christ, and invite.
She did not attempt to control the outcome.
Discussion Questions
Understanding Mark
What genuine benefits does Mark believe he has received through Scientology?
Which human longings appear most important to him?
Why does Mark place significant weight on whether a practice “works”?
How have knowledge, responsibility, and control shaped his relationships?
How might grief be influencing both Mark and Daniel?
Objective Truth
What is the difference between saying, “This is what I believe,” and saying, “This is true for me”?
Why does sincere agreement fail to establish objective truth?
How did Rachel distinguish a genuine experience from the interpretation of that experience?
Why was the truck illustration helpful?
What public truth claims does Christianity make about Jesus Christ?
Survival and Ethics
Why is survival a genuine created good?
Why can survival not serve as the highest moral principle?
How did the repair-project example reveal the limitations of a survival-centered ethic?
How could an organization promote its own survival while acting unjustly?
What does the cross reveal about faithfulness, sacrifice, and survival?
Knowledge, Responsibility, and Control
What parts of Mark’s emphasis on responsibility can Christians affirm?
What danger arises when suffering is automatically attributed to insufficient knowledge, responsibility, or control?
How does Christian stewardship differ from mastery?
What responsibilities belong to a person who has done wrong?
Why can responsibility not produce salvation?
Emotion and Grief
Why should grief not automatically be treated as a lower spiritual condition?
What do the grief of Jesus and the laments of Scripture teach Christian leaders?
How might pressure to “move up” emotionally harm a grieving person?
How can Christian leaders encourage hope without dismissing sorrow?
Ministry Practice
At what points did Rachel request permission?
Where could the conversation have become manipulative?
Why would using Daniel’s church attendance as leverage have been inappropriate?
How did Rachel preserve both truth and relationship?
Why was inviting Mark to read a Gospel more appropriate than demanding an immediate decision?
What should Rachel do if Mark never contacts her again?
Ministry Leadership Exercise
Imagine that Mark agrees to meet again and read the Gospel of John.
Develop a ministry plan addressing the following questions:
How will you explain the purpose of the Gospel reading?
How will you preserve Mark’s freedom to disagree?
Which terms may require careful definition?
How will you distinguish Jesus’ identity from a general spiritual teacher?
How will you explain bodily resurrection?
How will you respond if Mark says that Christian teachings are only “true for Christians”?
How will you prevent the conversation from becoming a debate?
What role should prayer play?
What information should remain confidential?
How will you remain accountable to your church, Soul Center, or ministry leadership?
Leadership Principles
Agreement Is Not the Same as Truth
Agreement can support cooperation, but it cannot create objective reality.
Usefulness Does Not Prove an Entire Worldview
A practice may provide a genuine benefit without establishing every religious claim connected to it.
Respect Does Not Require Theological Agreement
Christians can honor people while clearly explaining important differences.
Responsibility Must Be Distinguished From Blame
People should accept responsibility for their choices, but sufferers must not be blamed for wrongs committed against them.
Stewardship Is Faithful Action Within Creaturely Limits
Christians act responsibly while acknowledging that God alone is sovereign.
Grief Is Not Spiritual Inferiority
Faithful ministry makes room for lament, sorrow, and patient healing.
Gospel Invitations Must Remain Voluntary
The Christian may invite, explain, pray, and bear witness without pressuring the person.
The Holy Spirit Controls the Outcome
Christian leaders are witnesses, not spiritual technicians.
Personal Reflection
Complete the following statements:
The part of Mark’s viewpoint I understand most clearly is:
The part I find most difficult to answer respectfully is:
A question I could ask without creating unnecessary defensiveness is:
A Christian truth I must communicate clearly is:
A form of pressure I must avoid is:
A ministry boundary I must protect is:
A way I can trust the Holy Spirit rather than control the outcome is:
Closing Principle
A respectful Christian leader does not answer “what is true for you” by dismissing personal experience or pretending that all beliefs are equally true.
The leader listens carefully, recognizes genuine benefits and human longings, distinguishes experience from interpretation, explains objective truth, presents Jesus Christ clearly, invites without pressure, and trusts the Holy Spirit with the outcome.
Central Principle: Personal beliefs are real, but they do not create reality. Christian ministry seeks truthful understanding, faithful love, responsible stewardship, justice, and voluntary gospel witness under the lordship of Jesus Christ.