#STRask - Is Church Just a Man-Made Way to Control People?

Episode Date: June 10, 2024

Questions about what to say to someone who believes the Bible and church are man-made ways to control people who don’t want to think for themselves and how to respond to the claim that Christianity “might be true for you, but not for me.” What do you say to an agnostic who believes the Bible and church are man-made and a way to control people who don’t want to think for themselves? How do you answer the claim that Christianity “might be true for you, but not for me”?

Welcome to Stand to Reason. It's hashtag STR Ask podcast. How are you today, Greg? I'm ready to rock and roll here, Amos. All right, great. Okay, let's start with a question from Julie. What do you say to an agnostic who believes that the Bible and church are man-made and a way to control people? It doesn't matter the denomination. One common comment he makes is people don't want to think for themselves, so they let the church do it instead. You know, it's funny that this is a way I was thinking before I was a Christian, too. In fact, as part of my testimony, I say I used to think that Christians

were either dumb or ugly, and they couldn't do their thinking for themselves, so they had to let somebody else do the thinking for them, or they couldn't find acceptance anywhere else. They had to go to church because one of the rules was you got to love one another, you know. Now, as I look back on it now, I'm just thinking about my own point of view. It seems stupid. It just seems dumb. Why would a religion be faulted or any point of view be faulted because it attracted unattractive people, okay? Unattractive people who would find acceptance because that was one of the rules, love one another.

Or even the thing that the people couldn't do the thinking for themselves, so somebody else is doing the thinking for them, all right? So somebody else is doing the thinking for them. All right. That neither of those things tell you anything about the legitimacy of the ideas that are in play. And these kind of pushbacks really frustrate me a lot, because even though I shared them, they're they're just that there's they're baseless or they're groundless or they're silly because they don't address anything significant. Oh, they just want to have somebody else do their thinking for them. You know what's really interesting about the so-called free thinker type? They all think exactly the same. And this is a person who's an agnostic. Doesn't sound like he's an agnostic. Doesn't sound like he's an agnostic.

He's already rejected religion out of hand. Those things must be false because of the motivations people have to go there. Now, this is a classic example of a genetic fallacy. You fault something based on its origin, not based on its content. And I think a fair question to ask in a situation like this, the first two Columbo questions are always appropriate. What do you mean? I want them to explain it further, because I think this is a silly reason to reject any claim. claim. And as C.S. Lewis has pointed out in an article titled, Bulverism, it's in God in the Dock, but it's a very memorable piece because he says essentially there, first you have to show that a person is wrong before it makes any sense to explain why he's wrong. Okay? So if it turns out that Christianity proves to be false,

then you might say, well, why would anybody believe such a stupid thing? Oh, I know why, because they can't think for themselves, so somebody else has got to think for them. Okay? There's actually three objections here. They can't think for themselves, so somebody else has got to think for them. Okay? There's actually three objections here. They can't think for themselves. Oh, maybe two. Man-made in a way to control people.

In a way to control people. And they don't want to think for themselves. Don't want to think for themselves. Okay. Now, that—so there's the claim, and I want more clarification. And the second question is, how did you come to that conclusion? Or some variation. Why would you think it's merely man-made?

Now, we don't dispute that human beings were involved in writing the Bible and recording the information. But what they recorded had to do with details of, say, the life of Jesus and the things that Jesus taught regarding the nature of reality. And so, if Jesus' claims were sound, if we have good reason to take seriously what Jesus said about the world, and he validated that with miracles and a resurrection. And by the way, the word there for miracle in the Greek means attesting signs or wonders, attesting miracle. They give testimony, affirmation of something else. If we can trust that, then this isn't man-made. And by the way, if it was man-made, meaning that human beings, well, I guess he means that it's a total fabrication of human

beings. So it's a total fabrication of human beings that God exists. I mean, that's part of our story, right? Yes. Well, in other words, you don't believe God exists. Well, then you're not an agnostic, first of all. And secondly, why would you say that God doesn't exist? See, first of all, and secondly, why would you say that God doesn't exist? See, this person is taking a position, and we get clarification on the position, then his position requires justification. Why would you think it's merely man-made? Or just a matter of controlling people. Has this person ever read the New Testament? We were just talking before the show started about this issue. And so much of the New Testament is completely sublime when you read the content and you read what's being said.

So the most famous verse, for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life. How is that appeal meant to control people? Oh, that's just to control people. Wait, it's a gracious appeal. It's an offer of forgiveness at no cost. It's either true or false. I don't understand how that could be

controlling. Romans chapter 12, lots of applicational things in there. If possible, as far as it's within your power, be at peace with all men. Well, that's a great exhortation. Is it telling us to act a certain way? Sure. Oh, you're trying to control people. What's wrong with that exhortation? Be at peace with all men. Don't return evil for evil.

You know, if you're suffering according to the will of God, this is 1 Peter 4, entrust yourself to a faithful creator in doing what is right. I mean, when you look at all of the application of the theology, maybe he thinks the theology is stupid, but okay, here's the application. This is a noble way to live and not an easy way. What's the alternative? Do your own thing? I mean, he doesn't want to be controlled, so that means he's going to do whatever. How is that more noble? Excuse me.

It's just frustrating for me when I see these kinds of responses. So we want to flush out the details in a challenge like this with our opening Columbo questions. And then, again, see if there's any substance here. This is the kind of thing that is said by people who have no understanding about what Christianity is. They don't want to be controlled by being told what's right and what's wrong. That's, I think, what's driving this. And so, oh, that's just man-made to control people. This isn't a cult. The left wants to control people, not Christians. They want people reconciled to God and live the kind of noble life that's consistent with their natures

so they can live richer and more fulfilling lives. Look at the ethics. People even look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and say, that's great ethical teaching, which it is. But, I mean, characteristically, it isn't, oh, look at all the control. So, and by the way, notice that it doesn't matter what denomination. This is a broad-based, broad-brush assessment of all religion. This is a person who knows, I mean, my suspicion, who knows absolutely nothing about not only Christianity, but other religions as well. Greg, when you talk about how you first need to know if it's true before you can know why people are doing it. I think everything in here hinges on the idea that he's

convinced it's man-made. Because everyone accepts the idea that we pass down information, we pass down wisdom, we pass down knowledge. Nobody gains all their knowledge from scratch. That's just ridiculous. We go to universities, we take a math class. Now, does anyone claim that the math class is controlling people because they're giving them the information about math? Of course not, because what they're teaching is true. That's what it all hinges on. So maybe if you encounter this, what you could do is make that clear and say, well, if this is true, if this is really wisdom about the best way to live, and this is the only way to pass down knowledge is to teach people about what's true, as we see in all sorts of different areas of life, and you accept it in all sorts of different areas of life,

what you're really objecting to is the idea that this is false. Because you accept it when people go to school. You accept it when parents teach their children. You accept it when people go to school. You accept it when parents teach their children. You accept it when people read books about wisdom and how to live all the time. So your real problem is that you think this is false. Isn't that really what's going on here? And that needs to be substantiated. Right. Why would you think this is false? And by the way, I wrote a piece.

I'm trying to remember the title of it. It was a shorter piece many years ago when we first started Stand to Reason. It's probably online somewhere. It would be hard to find if I can't remember the title. But the whole point is why would anyone make up this religion, Christianity? Okay, first of all, it's Trinitarian. Who would even think of the idea of a God who is one God in three persons, three centers of consciousness? I mean, who would even come up with that first?

Secondly, who would come up with the ethics of Christianity? What we've done is what Christianity teaches is that God has a moral structure that's impossible to keep. And therefore, we need to bend our knee and seek forgiveness and cleansing and ask for his help by his Holy Spirit to live the way we ought to live. And part of what that entails is the first shall be last and the last shall be first. And anyone who wants to be a leader should be a servant. I mean, there's all kinds of things that are counterintuitive to human nature. If I were making something up, I'd make up Eastern religion. We're all God. High on individual liberty, low on personal responsibility. Karma,

what goes around comes around. I'd be nice to people according to my own standard of what goodness is, and I'll get reincarnated something better, and if I don't do it right this time, I get another chance next time. That's great. All of that seems to comport with the dark side of human nature. That's the kind of religion we'd invent. We would never invent man-made the kind of religion that Christianity is. And anybody who has looked closely at the doctrines and the dictates of Christianity, here's how we ought to live, will see that. Human beings wouldn't invent this religion. They'd invent some other religion, like they've, in my view, they have invented. You know, it's a human production. Paul says, don't be taken captive by philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men rather than according to Christ. The religion according to Christ is not very palatable to a self-centered person.

Who'd make this up? I mean, that's another question. Do you really understand what Christianity teaches? Why would somebody invent that if this is man-made? I always wonder what – when you brought up the gospel, Greg, I think that really is central to this also because I wonder what people picture when they think of Christianity. Do they think people are saying, okay, I'm in control of you. I control your salvation. You have to do everything I say.

That's just not how the church is. It's much more like a family where people are involved with each other's lives. And you have, like say in a family, you have a father who is imparting wisdom to his children. And again, this is a model we're familiar with. I'm not saying that Christianity teaches people, treats people like children per se, but it's the idea of the older people passing on the wisdom and telling them about the truth of the Bible. But the salvation is in the hands of Christ. It's not in the hands of the leaders. So some of this might be just people just not understanding what's going on.

Plus, if people are feeling controlled, all they got to do is go somewhere else. Nobody's keeping them in a church. They just go somewhere else. And by the way, this happens all the time. And what they end up doing lots of times is going to churches that are available that give them a lot more slack in doing whatever they want. Inappropriate behavior, sinful behavior, we see this all over the place. So it might be that this person is saying, well, look at—and I bet you I'm just—I bet you this has to do with sexual things, because that's the thing that really digs at people. I can't sleep with whoever I want to.

I can't do whatever I want sexually, because look at you're trying to control my sexual behavior. And a lot of atheists acknowledge that. I'm an atheist because I don't want God to be real, because then he's going to tell me what I can do in my sex life. And this was exactly my complaint when I was a non-Christian. I wanted my own autonomy. I wanted to be able to do whatever I want. I mean, maybe that's what they think is controlling. I don't know. But that's not enforced in most churches anyway. And again, this all comes down to whether or not it's true, because if it's the case that you are better off following these moral principles, then you're better off. If you conform to God's moral standard and you're better off, then that's a good thing to do.

You want to live in a way that you want to live well. You want to flourish. So, again, it just comes down to what's true. It's kind of like saying, you know, you doctors, you drive me crazy. I come in to you, you charge me money, and then you want me to do what you say. You're just trying to control me. This is all man-made medicine just to control people. I mean, that would be silly because doctors are trying to do their best to figure out what creates health and benefit for patients.

Are there restrictions or parameters for that? Yes. I mean, I've been going to the doctor a lot lately and going to the gym, too, to try to fix things that are not working well because, you know, they're not working well. You're trying to control, oh, you want me to go to physical therapy? That's so controlling. And you're making money off it. Yeah, I mean, this is silly because we understand that, at least in principle, there isn't such a thing as physical health and there's a way to maintain it, but that requires behaviors of a certain sort.

That's a great analogy, Greg. I like it. Okay, let's close in prayer. Let's take a question from Roger. How do you answer the comment, that might be true for you, but not for me? I'm not sure what that means. I mean, I know what it means, but I'm going to ask him now, what does that mean? So is gravity true for me, but not for you? No, we all have gravity. Okay, this is the kind of claim I'm making. I'm talking about the way the world is. I'm not talking about what I believe. I'm talking about reality. I do believe it, but it's not just that I believe it. I'm saying this is true. This is the case, and this

is part of the problem with the word true. It's been so corrupted by relativism that people can say nonsense like that. Listen, if, and I write about, there's a paragraph or so I have about this in the story of reality. Thank you. I almost said mere Christianity, didn't I? In story of reality, because my point there is, wait a minute, either my belief is true or if it's false, or it's false, right? If it's false, then it ain't a truth of any kind. It ain't true for me. It's false for me. I'm believing something false. So what point does it make to say it's true for me? Now, I know that's the slogan. That's the vernacular. I know what they're getting at. That's your belief or conviction. That's really what that amounts to. And then they're relativizing

it. All right. Well, it is my belief and conviction, but all you've done is said something obvious. Now, of course, true for you, this is an attempt to relativize your view. So that's why when you ask, you need to ask the question, what does that mean, true for me? Well, that's your belief. Of course, it's my belief. Now, we know that they mean something more. It is your belief, and it ain't true. It's only something you're convinced of, but it ain't true. It ain't the case, like gravity's the case. If you stop believing in gravity, you're not going to float away.

It's a feature of reality. It still has a hold on you, whether you believe it or not. It's mind independent. And our claims about our religious convictions that these are mind independent, even if I didn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, if he did, then that's true that he rose from the dead.

Even if I didn't believe in God, but he does exist, my lack of belief doesn't affect him at all. He's there. And I use the gravity illustration because I think it's handy. It's a way that we can help people see the kind of claim we're making. And this nonsense, pardon me for saying it that way, but it's nonsense. Oh, that's true for you, but not for me. It's just a way of saying your view is false, but it's a nice politically correct way of saying your view is false. And that's why we want to make sure we get them to flush this out. Well, that's just your belief.

Oh, it is my belief, but what is the just part of it? Well, you believe that. Of course, we've already established that, but you're saying more than that. You're saying that it isn't the case regarding, you know, now you might be saying you believe that, but I don't believe that. Oh, okay, but now we haven't gotten anywhere. We're just talking about I have this belief and you have that belief, okay? But we haven't talked about whether our beliefs are accurate or not, and that's the issue. Are they accurate? Now, a person might say, well, nobody can know. Well, why would you say that? So all these kinds of claims,

all these relativizing claims can be appropriately challenged in conversation to try to flush this out. It seems to me we can know things of a spiritual nature, and there are reasons we can know them. And if a person is saying we can't know these kinds of things, that all we're left with is blind faith, and maybe that's the conviction of some people, then that needs to be addressed. I think in this conversation with somebody like this, I think your goal should be to have them at least grasp the idea that you are making a claim about reality. I think this is such a different concept for so many people that we don't even realize they're not hearing what we're saying.

Even Christians, by the way. Even Christians, sadly, yeah. So one thing you could do is say, well, yeah, like you said, I don't really know what you mean by that. Would you say that it's true for me, but not for you, that we're sitting at this table right now? Well, no, he wouldn't say that. What makes this kind of claim different from a claim about spiritual reality? Or are there different, there are kinds of claims that can sometimes be true and sometimes not be true. I just don't understand what you mean by true in that case.

And then you can really blow their mind by saying, you know, Paul said that if this, if Christianity isn't true, then our faith is worthless. In 1 Corinthians 15, he makes it very clear that if it's not true in the way that we are truly sitting right now at this table, then it's pointless. It's not true for anyone, and it doesn't do anyone any good. Yeah, and the detail he's speaking of specifically was the resurrection. If Jesus' body is in fact still in the grave, then we should be pitied because we're believing, contrary to fact, something that we're basing our whole lives on. And part of the reason why I think people might have this view is because they don't understand what Christianity is about.

They think it's, you know, this goes back to our previous question, They don't understand what Christianity is about. They think it's, you know, this goes back to our previous question. They think it has to do with here are moral truths that you need to know. Here are ways to live. So you might want to live this way. I might want to live this way. A lot of people don't realize that we are talking about an historical event that happened that everything depends on, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15. So maybe you could just say, well, do you understand that Christianity is about something

that happened in history that either happened or it didn't happen and can't just happen for me and not for you? It either happened or it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen, then Christianity is not true for anyone. So those might be ways that you can bring out the idea that we're talking about an actual truth about reality, not just things we like. Yeah, Lewis said that if Christianity is not true in the sense you're talking about it, then it's of no importance. But if it is true in the sense we're talking about it, a fact, and by the way, that may be the best way of talking about it, getting off the truth word and talk about facts. Because that word hasn't been corrupted yet. And I do talk about that in a whole chapter we're dealing with this issue in Street Smarts. But the story of reality opens within the first two pages. I'm talking about this because the problem is when people ask me, for example, what I do for a living,

and then I tell them that I speak and write about religious issues or spiritual issues or Christianity or something, I know what's going on in their mind. And they say things like, oh, that's good. Oh, good. Well, why is it good? I mean, I don't have this conversation necessarily with them, but I might draw them out on this. But in their mind, oh, the characteristics are going to say that's good. And what they mean is, well, you found some activity that makes you

feel worthwhile. They don't mean that, well, religion is true or one religion is true, like Christianity. They think that I found the opiate, as Karl Marx put it, the opiate for the people, religion is the opiate of the people. You found the thing that makes you feel good. Oh, I'm glad you feel good. You know, oh, but they don't have any sense

that it has any application to them because they don't need that. I don't need that. I don't need that. I have other things that make me feel good. And so notice that the entire conversation, or at least perspective coming from their side, is that this is a completely relativistic enterprise. It is totally mind-dependent.

It's dependent on how you feel about it and how you believe about it. And we are not talking about the nature of reality at all. And of course, this is what I'm trying to correct in some measure with the book, The Story of Reality, and not just for non-Christians, but for Christians too. They don't understand the nature of their own story. We are talking about reality. Christianity, what is Christianity? Christianity is a picture of reality. It's a characterization of the way the world actually is. That's why they call it a worldview. They don't call it a fantasy view. They call it a worldview. But nevertheless, even though we call it a worldview, when it's applied to religious

kinds of items, then it's really understood to be a fantasy view. But atheists, when they have a materialistic worldview, that's not a fantasy view to them. That's the way the world actually is. Well, thank you, Roger. That's really a classic question, true for you, but not for me. And we hadn't talked about that in quite a while. So thank you for bringing that up. And thank you, Julie. And if you have a question, send it on X with the hashtag STRask or go to our website at str.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.