The Truth Project, part 1, Critique

Jan 17

theisaacgroupChristians, Church, Critique, fads, focus on the family, The Truth Project 2 Comments

Over the next 12 weeks, I will be presenting a critique of the Truth Project. I will be looking at this with my normally critical eye. The good news, since I have a vast amount of experience with the subject matter, I should not be overwhelmed.

You better not shout!
You better not waiver!
You had better believe!
The Truth Project is coming to town.

After trying to google for information on “The Truth Project” by Focus on the Family, I have found two type of articles. The first, was a whole bunch of stuff by Focus on the Family touting the greatness of Del Tackett and the Truth Project. The second was from churches and other groups announcing they are showing it and how great it is. However, the amount of a criticism or offering a critique of the program are quite scant.

I also found an article from Humanists of Florida writing how bad it is in a press release. That is bright, advertise for them!

I also found a small critique of The Truth Project from Hackman’s Musings.

I have only seen, so far, the first episode, and will be going back for more.

Before, the start the pastor/leader said three things that bothered me.

1. Focus on the Family does not have an agenda.
2. You will be challenged
3. You will be changed.

Of course the problem is several deep. 1. Focus on the Family does not have an agenda? Wow and to think I misunderstood James Dobson for 20 years. 2. I was not challenged. 3. I was not changed. So what does it mean if I was not changed or challenged? Not to sure.

The first problem, is the amount of territory superficially covered. I have a background in much of what was given and lectured on. I easily followed along with the lecture. Let’s be real this is close to two or three classes of what people would receive in a graduate level classroom environment. Here, the Truth Project tries to hit the common person with a high school education or a year of college.

Where are some of the problems?

First, is proof-texting. A proof text is a text that will back up what a person says regardless of context or original intent of the scripture. Most of the texts that were used were proof-texted. The easiest way to spot a proof-text is when a speaker is trying to make a point and they are skipping all over the place. What is proof-texting’s handmaiden?

The ugly twin sister of proof-texting is ripping a verse out of context. This is not a separate point because proof-texting relies on the lack of context. A prime example, using 2Thes 2:11 which says, “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (NIV),” Tackett wanted to point out that people will believe the lie. The problem is that this verse in context refers to end of times, when the BEAST will appear.

Second, what is the right answer? The question was asked, why did Jesus come? There are many verses that speak to the reasons why Jesus came to earth. Well Del was looking for a single answer that proved his point. Truth. Jesus came for truth.

Third, eisogesis, the speaker loves to use eisogesis, which is the reading into the text. Here on creation the devil was present and questioned G-d and the creation. Nowhere does the text suggest the mythical conversation that Del Tackett had suggested. Exegesis is reading out of the text. In other words the text can mean what it means. Del Tackett methods do not allow for good exegesis.

Fourth, is the division among people. Christians love dividing people up. There are Christians and non-Christians. Then there are real Christians and pretend Christians. Of course, it goes even further.

Another thing that drives me a little crazy is when people misuse things they know very little about. As an example, the woman who spilled hot coffee on her lap at McDonalds. The problem is that there was a liability issue involved as the coffee was to hot as compared to other companies. The other issue is the woman who spilled her coffee was not driving and was pulled over to the side. Liebeck (the burned woman) was found to be 20% responsible for the injury. I realize that a straw man is much easier to bash around than the truth.

One of the real problems was view of non-Christians. The people are thought to be ‘captives’ by the enemy, aka Satan. Of course I wonder how the analogy really works? Theologically, all people are in Satan’s camp through ordinal sin. In many was the Christian is the one that is captive.

Of course the odd part was that he asked the definition of truth. Which is of course defined, accepting reality as it actually is. In other words if you do not accept reality you are insane. Since Christians accept the reality and truth about Jesus, this makes non-Christians who do not accept the reality of Jesus, by definition, insane.

The last is of course logical fallacies involved. The straw man leads the back by creating a dichotomy of how the data is dealt with. Faulty appeal to authority was used, as was appeal to masses, and a few others. I counted at least a dozen logical fallacies that were present.

My favorite thing about the video was of course the wonderful staged set that was used. Almost perfect audio, and just do pretty looking. But what else would you expect for a staged set.

Edit: I just looked up how he used truth from the 1828 version of Webster. The creative use of . . . (ellipses) meaning that words are eliminated. He uses these to move from the first definition to the 11th definition.

Edit 2: I need to stop looking at my notes. Faith? Is faith like jumping off of diving board. I know this is a common view of most people. How man times have I heard a blind leap of faith. Faith, as I have viewed it, is taking of a step. A single step of faith not a blind jump into who knows what.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,