Looks like my liberal blogger buddy Cory Heidelberger is busy bashing the Truth Project again (have you attended a Truth Project yet, Cory?). This time, Cory treats us to a link to a piece entitled "The Christian Right Goes Back to Bible Boot Camp" by Alexander Zaitchik at a website called AlterNet.
The Truth Project is a 12-week DVD and discussion course on Biblical worldview, or seeing the world through God's eyes as revealed by the Scriptures. It's led by Dr. Del Tackett, who holds several degrees, served more than 20 years as an officer with the U.S. Air Force, and is an adjunct professor at New Geneva Theological Seminary.
If you look to this liberal cesspool called AlterNet, you'll get what you pay for: a lot of anchor-less liberalism. This article oozes with it.
About the only thing the author was correct on is that not only is our culture woefully ignorant of the Bible and the Christian worldview, so is the church. I sadly couldn't dispute that for a second.
The author says the Truth Project seminar contains "more than a whiff of a Holiday Inn get-rich-quick seminar." Really? I haven't seen a single bit of money-hungry talk, or money talk at all, in the Truth Project. I guess the author just pulled that one out of the air to make it sound bad. He does admit that the Truth Project isn't about "financial independence," but the quick mention is enough (he hopes) to taint the Truth Project in the reader's mind.
He calls Tackett "energetic yet predictably dull." That's odd, since I've always found Tackett and the material he presents to be very exciting. I get pretty worked up by things that are intellectually stimulating, logical, insightful, and increase understanding of life. Maybe those things are just dull to Zaitchik.
The cheap shots continue:
Sitting on stage next to Tackett during the length of the seminar is a serious question of adolescent construction: "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?"
Or, as a secular humanist might put it: In your heart of hearts, do you guys honestly buy, or even understand, all this Bible crap?
In case the author or a reader of this post misses the meaning of Tackett's statement, what it means is that if we truly "owned" our beliefs, had such faith in those truths that it was like the faith we exercise when we sit in a chair or drive across a bridge, then we would be acting differently (more boldly, more like Christ) than we actually are. But I understand that such concepts are hard to grasp when one is busy mocking truth.
This might be as close as the author comes to actually forming a coherent criticism rather than crass ad hominem attacks:
This text analysis is often ridiculous, with Tackett probing the possible double meanings of Biblical diction, as if the King James Bible had been transcribed directly from the mouth of God, and was not an artistic creation of a team of 17th-century scholars in Oxford and Cambridge.
If Zaitchik knew anything about the Book for which he holds such disdain, he'd know (like Tackett) that the King James Version wasn't "transcribed directly from the mouth of God," and no serious student of the Bible believes that (though the original Scriptures themselves were inspired by God). He might know that the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, originally in Hebrew. He might also know that the New Testament was written shortly after Christ ascended into Heaven, and was written in Greek and Aramaic. He might know that many copies of the Scriptures were made in the years after the time of the apostles, many of which were translated into Latin. He might also know that the translators of the King James Version looked back to hundreds of these manuscripts, translating them from their original language into the English of the time. He might also know that since the time of the King James translation in 1611, many more manuscripts have been found, providing even more insight into the original meanings of these ancient languages.
He might know these things...if he took more time to learn and less time to mock God.
Even more striking than the production values, though, is how little knowledge Tackett assumes on the part of his committed born-again audience. Even John 3:16 is reviewed as if for the first time.
Well, if surveys have revealed that only 4% of the American population has a Biblical worldview (meaning they understand what the Bible says, and are trying to apply it to their lives), and if only 9% of born-again Christians hold a Biblical worldview, then I think it is quite in order to assume a broad lack of knowledge and conduct a review of the basics. If the basics were better understood, most Christians would have progressed beyond an elementary, pop-definition of Christianity to the "meat" of Christian theology. But they haven't; as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3, they're still stuck on the milk.
Zaitchik is predictably critical of the lesson on "The State," but beyond charges that Tackett "rambl[es]," Zaitchik doesn't explain why he thinks Tackett is wrong here. He doesn't say so, but that seems to be the implication. If Tackett is wrong, why not explain why so from a Biblical basis?
Zaitchik also seems critical that Tackett finds a Biblical basis for contending that our current tax rates are too high (if God only demanded 10%, doesn't 39% to the government seem a little outrageous?), a lack of Biblical justification for the welfare state, and the Bible's clear statements that homosexuality is wrong. Again, if Zaitchik believes Tackett is in error, why doesn't he point out the contrary evidence in the Bible?
The author then attempts the predictable and obligatory effort to rewrite history and claim that America was not founded by Christians on Christian principles:
He also provides an orgy of selective quotation from America's overwhelmingly Deist founding fathers, as well as genuinely Christian revolutionary B-listers like Benjamin Rush and Noah Webster.
This might just be the biggest lie in the whole article (most of the others are couched in ambiguity and veiled insinuations).
While there were a handful of deists among the founders, and Tom Paine did pretty much walk away from the faith later in life (and Benjamin Franklin took him to the woodshed for some of his anti-Christian writings during this time), all the rest were committed Christians beyond a shadow of a doubt. This includes George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and a host of others. Even the lesser-religious ones such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin at the very least recognized the Christian religion and worldview as the best one and paid it every respect.
Anyone who says the Founders were not overwhelmingly Christian in their faith and worldview is either profoundly ignorant or a brazen liar.
We also receive the obligatory bashing of business and the free market from Zaitchik:
The Truth Project devotes much energy to warnings about the greedy state becoming a monster, but the modern corporation makes not even the briefest cameo.
As I have endeavored to point out to a number of socialists who never miss an opportunity to bash the free market while singing the praises of the "Government God," the Bible does not condemn business or the free market, and you will find businessmen and entrepreneurs spoken of favorably throughout the Bible--not because they are entrepreneurs, but because they were men of character. God condemns evil business practices, but not business. The Bible does warn about oppressive governments, though. And the Founders, who had a solidly Christian worldview, had much to say about the dangers of powerful government, but little to say about the dangers of business. Maybe because business do not make the law and exercise police authority, but governments do?
The author gets in a jab at opposition to unionism and minimum wage laws. The Bible clearly indicates that God recognizes and honors property rights and authority. When the state forces a business owner to negotiate with a group of workers against his will, or forces him to pay more than the labor may be worth, property rights and authority go out the door. The Bible admonishes bosses to be fair with their employees, but it does not does not advocate using the power of the state to extort property from the business owner. After all, the employee is free to go find another job if the wages aren't to his satisfaction.
Again, Zaitchik somehow misses the opportunity to tell us where Tackett has departed from the Bible in this view of market and state. I wonder why?
You know what I find most humorous (and sad, at the same time) about this writer's tirade, and Cory's apparent embrace of it? He spends 2,141 words telling us he doesn't like the Truth Project. Not a single time does he explain where Tackett and the Truth Project have gone astray theologically or Biblically.
Zaitchik is entitled to his opinion, of course. But if an opinion can't be backed up with some kind of evidence, it's pretty much worthless. And if a theological opinion can't be backed up by Scripture, it's not only worthless, it's heresy, which is dangerous to one's life here on earth and to one's eternal soul.
If I told you I'd been elected King of America, you'd want some evidence before you'd believe me, right? Without evidence to back up my claim, I'm either a monumental liar or a nut. Zaitchik doesn't present any evidence whatsoever that the Truth Project is not in harmony with Biblical teaching. What does that say about him?
Could it be that there is really nothing amiss in Tackett's presentation or the Truth Project itself? It seems that the only thing really wrong with the Truth Project, from Zaitchik's perspective, is that it doesn't fit very well with his secular, socialist worldview.
But that's the whole point of the Truth Project: helping Christians develop the discernment to tell the truth from the lies.
It looks like the author badly needs to sit through the whole Truth Project, with an open mind instead of one struggling to justify his hate of what God has to say. He might need to sit through it a few times in order to get it, but it'd be worth it.
As a wise man once said, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" (But He was a little more than just a "wise man," wasn't he?)
9 comments:
Thank you, Bob, for this thorough and well-written rebuttal. I imagine Cory has never seen anything like the Truth Project before so I can understand why he feels so threatened. As Christians start realizing that their system of philosophy and theology accounts for reality better than anything else out there, the smoke screens that Cory and his ilk throw up won't fascinate us nearly as much.
My wife is a living Truth Project. To paraphrase Gandhi, I think the Christian worldview is a wonderful idea: Bob Ellis and Del Tackett should try it sometime.
Cory, I don't quite no how to respond to a comment so devoid of relevant apologia.
So I'll just wish you a blessed Lord's Day today!
Well, let me clarify the relevance of my comment about my favorite theologian: my wife has actually been to seminary, and is pursuing ordination as a Lutheran pastor. She has more formal theological training than Dobson and Tackett combined. When you exhort me (and your other readers) to get my theology from the businessmen peddling the "Truth" Project DVDs, I respond by declining and instead relying on a somewhat more authoritative Christian source. Perfectly relevant, and no bashing of Christianity or even a call for liberal humanist relativism; just a perfectly rational assessment of the quality of theological sources.
Short form: my theologian can beat up your theologian! She's cuter, too. ;-)
There is no better source for our theology than the Bible itself.
If our theology doesn't line up to what the Bible teaches, it's in error and probably worthless, regardless of who's peddling it.
That offer to examine exactly WHY you think Tackett is in error is still open, by the way...
I've got a stack of Bibles already. If I'm looking for someone to help me understand them, I'm going to maximize my resources by asking first for credentials. My wife, with one full year of graduate level courses in theology, has more theological training than Del Tackett, whose "several degrees" are a BS in computer science, an MS in software engineering, and a doctorate in management (the latter from the less than impressive Colorado Technical University). Hmm, so let's see: continue to engage in deep, rewarding, insightful conversations with my wife (which are often followed by kissing), or spend $179 on 12 DVDs to hear someone with no theological training. Tackett is going to have a hard time rising to the top of my viewing/reading list.
But far be it from me to expect academic rigor from Focus on the Family. Their founder can't even get his child psychology right, and that's what he has his degree in.
While I don't know your wife and have no desire to say anything bad about her, it doesn't look like you're getting much benefit from her theology degree, based on what little you've shared with me about your theological views (which so far seem confined to ad hominem attacks against Tackett and me, without explaining what specifically you find un-Biblical about anything he or I have said).
If a degree was the only way to understand the Bible, then Hell would be even more full than it is. As the Bible points out in Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, Luke 21:15, Acts 6:10, Romans 1:22, 1 Corinthians 1:19-21, 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, etc, you don't need a degree in theology to understand what God wants to teach us. The scribes of Jesus' day even noticed that a bunch of uneducated men like fishermen and tax collectors had wisdom--not because they'd been to seminary, but because they'd been with Jesus and learned by the Holy Spirit's instruction.
Education is great, and I pursue it at every opportunity. But you're putting too much faith in formal education and the trappings of degrees. Seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness, and all the rest will come later.
Take a look at the Truth Project. See if it stands with the Bible. If it does, then you've enriched yourself. If it doesn't, then you can say with knowledge, not just pettiness, that it isn't biblical.
Ran across your blog, here is a conservative discernment response to The Truth Project.
Activist PPMs [post-modern ministries, ed.] are attempting to wean evangelicals from their addiction to the modern era with its dogmatic truth claims by a process called 'transformation.' 'Transformational thinking' and 'managed change' have become the machinery with which to re-tool the evangelical church. A whole industry of congregational consultant/coaches are teaching congregations how to be 'transformed' (cross over) into the postmodern worldview in order to make the changes presumed necessary to impact the 21st century. But how does one lead evangelicals, born and raised on objective and unalterable truth, into postmodern thinking? How do change-agent coaches effect this transformation? They employ a version of belief and behavior modification using the dialectic (arriving at 'group-consensus') rather than the didactic (teaching of unchangeable truth claims)."
(Dr. Orrel Steinkamp, “Cross Over To The Otherside,”
The Plumbline, Vol. 9, No. 2, http://op.50megs.com/ditc/orrel17.html]
QUESTION: Do you have a Christian/Biblical Worldview?
ANSWER #1: Define Worldview.
ANSWER #2: Define Christian. Define Biblical.
You may think that you know the answer to the question above. But the question is most often asked as a classic "bait and switch." That is why it is necessary to define terms. What you think you are responding to affirmatively will most likely turn out to be something quite different. In the Church Transformation movement, these questions are posed as a way to hook you, or lure you, into an pre-determined set of answers. Below are some examples of post-modern (Second Reformation, New Apostolic Reformation, Emergent, etc.] uses of the term worldview:
“'In the last six months, Rick and I have spent a lot of time talking with one another. We have the same vision, but he’s got a bigger one and a great capacity to pull it off and we are going to work together and we are going to give him whatever expertise that we have and we are [to?] teach worldview to people through his churches and it the fulfillment of my life’s dream.'”
(Chuck Colson, speaking in Spring 2004 about his new partnership with Rick Warren's "Second Reformation" Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan, http://tinyurl.com/s3dvt )
"Another key component of the partnership is the opportunity for Warren and Colson to collaborate on materials to help communicate a biblical worldview to Christians around the world. Colson’s passion on the subject stems from a similar passion to help prisoners, since he is convinced that a breakdown in biblical worldview leads to an increase in crime. Colson believes with his organization’s background in studying biblical worldview and Warren’s unique teaching ability, the materials could have a broad impact on the culture."
("PD, Prison Fellowship announce partnership for prisoners and their children," Tobin Perry http://www.pastors.com/article.asp?ArtID=8206)
"As media moguls scramble to keep Americans entertained, Christian leaders in the mass media are reaching for innovative methods of communicating a Biblical worldview from within the mainstream media, as well as with Christian media. . . . A renewal movement focused on establishing the Lordship of Christ in both individuals and institutions. . . . 4) Changing the worldview of the general culture."
("A Surprise-laden Survey of the 30 Foremost Movements of God in America," David Bradshaw & James Rutz, http://www.myideafactory.net/bigpict.html)
"Allelon Ministries was established for the purpose to resource and encourage the Church, 'the whole people of God.' to become the kinds of people who can, as God's creative instruments, embody, announce, and demonstrate the Gospel of the Kingdom for the sake of the world. As a ministry we are cognizant of the small role God has called us to play in the adventure of discovering new ways of being Christians and doing church. It is our desire to "deposit rich kingdom blessings" into your lives as we endeavor to take this journey with you. Our wish is to continue to do so in a way that is simultaneously faithful to our story in Scripture and more in tune with the opportunities and threats associated with our current cultural worldview shifts.
("ABOUT ALLELON," http://www.allelon.org/about/index.cfm) [All emphases in above quotations added]
Obviously, from the sample quotes above, the term "worldview" is one that is loaded with an "agenda" in evangelicaldom today. It is one of the hottest fads to come down the pike. In fact, the "worldview" agenda is set to go center stage in the global church arena with Chuck Colson's new partnership with Rick Warren. Therefore, believers need to know what "worldview" is before succumbing to all of the hype and hoopla.
"Worldview" is is inextricably connected with the dominionist "mandate." It is a term used by the mission groups, the prayer warfare groups, the emerging church, and the New Apostolic Reformation. But in particular, this term has gained the greatest ground by being promoted by the political dominionists. It is here that the use of the term has gained an almost "sacred cow" status.
STOP!
Before you answer that question. . . .
Before answering the question at the top of this post, read the seven "Characteristics of TRANSITION" description posted at the end of this section. Simply asking the question above immediately sets the stage for the "Transition" process to begin! As soon as one uses the term "worldview" it begs to be defined, and thus opens the process to "determine right and wrong."
In fact, most "worldview" examples currently in vogue in evangelicaldom are clearly in the Transition stage. Below is one noteworthy example:
"Whether conscious or subconscious, every person has some type of worldview. A personal worldview is a combination of all you believe to be true, and what you believe becomes the driving force behind every emotion, decision and action. Therefore, it affects your response to every area of life: from philosophy to science, theology and anthropology to economics, law, politics, art and social order -- everything."
("What's a Worldview Anyway?" Del Tackett, Focus on the Family, http://tinyurl.com/l3l4n)
Focus on the Family has launched a project called "The Truth Project," a DVD small group curriculum to train believers in a "biblical worldview." This quotation above is an example of the psychological use of the term, which gets into the realm of feelings and emotions, i.e. "Transition." This quotation also brings in the political/cultural use of the term.
Using a classic "bait and switch" technique, the article leads believers through a set of questions that disarm them into accepting the "biblical worldview" of Focus on the Family. No one dares answer "no" to any of these questions. But readers are told that their own "personal worldviews" are likely to have been corrupted by the "world" and that therefore they need to "capture and embrace more of God's worldview" (however that is defined by Focus on the Family) so that they can begin to make "right decisions" about their life.
Notice also the evocative technique that utilizes George Barna's polls. Barna plays a pivotal role in helping neoevangelical leaders "create a crisis" with his polling. Once he establishes that there is a "need" then people respond to these "felt needs" by being sucked into the Transformation process. The "solution" to this "crisis" is, of course, more worldview training.
There are many examples of this new emphasis coming from all quarters of Church Transformation and, not surprisingly, most of them are interconnected.
The Truth:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:7-8)
Are you in the throes of Transformation?
What constitutes "transformation." Below is a "thumbnail" outline summary which many will find helpful.
“Transformation” is the end-goal of a process that moves from TRADITION through TRANSITION to TRANSFORMATION. This is sometimes called a “Paradigm Shift,” which means that Transformation shifts one’s worldview (paradigm) from the old to a new. This is a dialectically unfolding PROCESS in which the THESIS is continually challenged by ANTITHESIS, evolving into ever-unfolding SYNTHESES. Transformation is engineered, orchestrated and/or manipulated. Transformation involves changing over a person’s values, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and even their behaviors to that of the new paradigm/worldview.
How to tell if it is “Transformation” --
Characteristics of TRADITION:
1. Education (teaching) is didactic
2. Cognitive
3. Right and Wrong
4. Focus on “what is”
5. “I know” statements
6. Facts, TRUTH
7. Respond to change by standing on THESIS
Characteristics of TRANSITION:
1. Education is facilitation
2. Affective (feelings), psychological
3. Must “determine” right and wrong (up for grabs)
4. Experience (dialogue)
5. “I think” or “I feel” subjective statements
6. OPINIONS
7. Respond to change by adapting to new SYNTHESIS
Characteristics of TRANSFORMATION:
1. Education is modeling, spiritual formation, mentoring
2. Esoteric (mystical)
3. No absolutes
4. Common ground, coevolution, collective unconscious
5. Intuitive, “I sense,” imagery, imagination
6. ANTITHESIS supplants THESIS
7. Continual, perpetual change
How to spot the PROCESS of “Transformation.” Look for:
A. New Language:
1. Newly coined words, terms, phrases, slogans
2. Old words given new meanings
3. Old definitions discarded
4. Intentional deception, misleading statements, half-truths, ambiguity
B. New Worldview/Paradigm
1. A new way of seeing or interpreting reality—events, circumstances, history, causes and effects, etc.
2. Creating a new reality using envisioning activities
3. Revisionist history: altering the facts, distorting prior events to fit new paradigm
4. Creating a new reality through psycho-social change mechanisms
C. New Structure
1. New authority structure, system of governance, new forms of accountability
2. New physical structure
3. New forms, formulas, formats, formations
4. New liturgies not based on doctrine or Scripture
D. New Mission/Vision
1. Subjective, constantly changing, relative
2. Strategic
3. Not tied to Biblical absolute Truth or Word of God
4. Subject to continual urgency, crisis, acceleration, etc.
E. New Values
1. Subjective, relational, situational, abstract
2. Irrational, illogical, irreverent, irrelevant
3. Tolerance for everything but absolute Truth
4. “The end justifies the means”
F. New Methods
1. Bait and switch, marketing, manipulation, machinations
2. Statistics, census-taking, databanking, assessing, monitoring
3. Orchestrated consensus, common ground, deceptions
4. Peer-driven, compulsive, coercive
G. New Doctrines
1. Man-oriented, culturally relative, contextualized, programmed
2. Anything that erodes the sovereignty of God
3. Utopian-sounding
4. Authoritarian in implementation
Anonymous, this whole thing looks like a highbrow psychobabble attempt at saying, "I don't like the Truth Project."
Which, in the end, seems to have a postmodernist flavor to it: cast aspersion on truth without seeming judgmental.
Post a Comment