Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 4

This is part four in a review and discussion of The Truth Project.

Part IV is “Who is God”

The first part, which is good, tells people they should consider themselves theologians. I know most people hate the word and the idea of being a theologian. People do need to be to articulate about G-d and explain who and what he is.

Next, Tackett goes on a rampage that G-d cannot be known. That we only have the smallest understanding of who and what G-d is. To this I agree. The odd part is that he turns to the Westminster Confession, which has little if any standing among evangelical Christians, and says, these really smart guys did not understand.

That was the end of discussing who is G-d. It was really over in about 5 minutes. However, Tackett goes on for another 45 minutes. After rambling for a bit, he ended up on a journey of his own. Tackett answers, how is G-d a Jealous G-d or in the Hebrew El Qanna.

I am now convinced that Del Tackett has no real knowledge of Hebrew.
El Qanna is G-d(EL) Jealous(Qanna). Not to hard to figure out if one has the most basic understanding of Hebrew.

He gave a few examples of El Qanna. He said he was El Qanna. That we should all be El Qanna. Now, I realize I am picking on a small point. However, he is encouraging people to call themselves G-d or at least god. Tackett used the El as an indefinite article or a “the”. The indefinite article in Hebrew is Ha. So correctly if I was jealous I would be Ha Qanna. I know this is a minor point, yet irritating none the less.

Tackett then moves on to defend the Bible. He picks on The Jesus Seminar and Documentary Theory. The problem here is Tackett does not even explain what Documentary Theory (JDEP) other then to make it a boogeyman.

As far as the Jesus Seminar goes, I cannot believe I am going to defend them here, he misrepresents the findings. It is not a total misrepresentation, just enough of a slide that it sounds right. Hence the red and the pink. However, most teachers and pastors will argue, though never say, that the words of Jesus for the most part are vox Jesus or the voice of Jesus. Again, a light distinction, however it goes to scholarship again.

Tackett then takes a moment to flash on the screen Ezekiel 22:26-28:

Ezek. 22:26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Ezek. 22:27 Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain.
Ezek. 22:28 Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign L-RD says’ — when the L-RD has not spoken.

Now I read this and wonder . . . how does this apply. This to me applies not to Israel but to the Church. Does this not explain the Church in America?

Tackett moves to the next part which is explain a biblical problem. The funny is this answers a question which: 1. No one is asking. 2. He did not ask. 3. Does answer his question at the start.

He finishes with a rah-rah section at the end for the Bible.

That finishes the review. This section / tour / video was so far the worst. He asks questions, give no answers. He answers questions no asked.

I am ready to give up on this whole Truth Project thing.


Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy

Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 3

This is part three in a review, critique, and criticism of Focus on the Family the Truth Project.


What is evil?

The video starts with people trying to define evil. This is as usual rather funny. I have to admit I kinda feel bad for the Unitarian Universalist, as people in the group heavily picked on her.

This was a rather unfulfilling and somewhat confusing for some of the people I talked with. Which again, I had few if any problems with the whole thing.

There are serious problems with much of the logic and usage of terms that Dr. Tackett uses, as in other places, Tackett defines terms that he wants to use in the way he wants to use them. This of course is an issue about scholarship.

Let me take a minute and ask some questions on scholarship. One of the things, I was told about this study, this man is a great scholar. Tackett mentioned that while doing his doctorate work, in every class he came back to Maslow. Well this begs the question, what did he do for doctoral work?

Tackett received a Doctor of Management from Colorado Technical University. First, I have an earned degree from an online university as well as a brick and mortar college so I have no problem with non-traditional schools. The one problem is that CTU is not an accredited school. This does not mean much other then it does not have to meet certain standards of education. The degree is also not accepted by all other colleges. The degree is also a degree in management and not one in philosophy, religion, or anything else similar. Just a simple degree in management. According to his bio at Focus on the Family Institute, Tackett has never served as a professor or taught a classroom full of students at a college or a high school. He does teach a class at New Geneva Seminary (not accredited by ATS) called “The Church’s Ministry to its Culture.” He also has no professional memberships or Awards and Recognition (as of Jan. 31, 2009 at 16:16 CST). His articles include the non-peer reviewed articles in Focus on the Family magazines of various types. He has also published for the USAF. The funny thing is that Dr. Tackett would not qualify to be a chaplain in the Air Force. Dr. Tackett would seem to be more of a management trainer then a speaker for the church at large. So in my mind, Dr. Tackett is a spokesperson or an actor for The Truth Project rather then a researcher or a real professor. This is not an ad hominen attack. With this I am looking at the qualifications of the alleged expert.

Scholarship. Where do I start? Most of the quotes that are cited at second hand quotes. Rather then citing the original source, as in Maslow, he cites Summit Ministries, Understanding the Times book rather than the original sources. Why? This I have not figured out, other than basic laziness and poor scholarship. If Tackett knows the sources then he should provide them. If not, then do not claim with knowing all there is to know about Maslow.

The real question from the video is man evil? The answer has to be no. How can a person who is a ‘sinner’ do a selfless act, such as running into a burning building?

Many moons ago, I did something totally selfless, that was before I ever heard of the name of Jesus. So, how did I do something that was a good deed? Man has to be born at least mostly good. Hence, society may pervert man. Of course this leads to the “The Lord of the Flies” question. Remember though that these boys had already been corrupted by society.

I do believe that people, while not born evil, have the predisposition to evil and hence have the ‘evil inclination.’ Check on the link for the evil inclination also look here and here.

I would also suggest that Tackett define many of words for the average Christian sitting in the pew.

So what have I concluded from the study so far. It is still not at a decent level and moves way too fast for the average Christian. I would also question the qualifications of Del Tackett as the 'professor.'



This next week is Super Bowl, so no study and hence no review.



Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy

Truth Project, Review, critique, Part 2

This is part two of review / critique / criticism of the Truth Project by Focus on the Family. This section is on ethics and philosophy.

Philosophy the queen of the sciences, at least that was the case a century or so ago. One would not even study philosophy until there was an understanding of another discipline or two.

The Truth Project looks at philosophy and ethics.

My first criticism of the Truth Project is a leftover from last week. The amount of area that is covered is 1. to large and 2. too small. The amount of material covered fails to even scratch the surface. What I mean here is, the vast amount of territory to cover is so vast that given one hour to cover philosophy and ethics one cannot even make a dent in the most teeny tiny point. Everything said, he makes only two small points, first, non-Christians cannot think outside of the box; and the idea of particular as opposed to universals. Both of these will be looked at in more depth later on. But how is to small?

The idea sometimes give by some is that this equal to semester of philosophy is absurd, what is given is not even equal to the second class of a semester long philosophy class. Hence, people are thinking they now know more than what they do. Of course my scary story at the discussion time should be an end to that myth.

The ‘lecture’ starts out with picking on everyone’s favorite kicking boy, Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan first comments from Cosmos are given saying that, “The Cosmos is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be,” uses assumptive language. Dr. Tackett went on to say how bas assumptive language is in speech. I lost count after 20 of the assumptive language used by Dr. Tackett. That was my first giggle of the night.

Let’s be real, we all use assumptive language. We have to or we have to explain everything every time. If we go by Dr. Tackett’s assumption conversation would become so cumbersome we would never talk again. Likewise, just because we ‘accept’ something, meaning not challenge it, we are not accepting the underlying premiss.

The bulk of the night was spent on the “Cosmic Cube.” This is the idea there are two differing ways of viewing the known universe. The first, is through the lens of this is all there is and there is nothing outside of the box. The second, of course, is there is G-d outside of the box. In this whole section, there is a cross between Philosophical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism.

Philosophical Naturalism: the belief that the natural world is all that there is.
Methodological Naturalism: the belief that the natural world is all that is accessible for scientific inquiry.

Within this debate, these two are crossed all the time and when that happens it is usually ugly. Hence, Will Provine also has the same problems, since he is a Historian by trade and not a scientist. For the record, I have always enjoyed listening and watching Will Provine in action.

Tackett moves on in his lecture to discuss philosophy and points how the questions that is asked: what is reality, how do I know I exists, et. el. To this end he places the problem of the Universals and the Particulars. Socrates, Confucius, Kant, and the Buddha always tried moved to understand the Universals that applied to people. While admittedly Aristotle tried to understand the Universals from the particulars. Tackett makes the assumption that one the Christian G-d can deal in universals. This of course is about Ethics.

Tackett rightly points out that morality and ethics have merged though they are quite separate looks at life. Ethics deals with, what out to be. And Morality deal with, what is. Hence he moves to Plato.

Plato asks the question, where an act is right because god wills it? or is that god wills it because he knows it is right. If you watch this, you will notice that Tackett does not deal with this question. Instead he points out William of Ockham, pointing out that G-d cannot change. However, this does not answer the question. He answers with a red herring. This in my mind was tossed out to show how smart Tackett is, by asking the question.

Perhaps there is a third option which was not discussed. G-d does not will much in particular actions other then what is found in special revelation, aka the Bible. just a thought.

Tackett spends the rest of the hour, chiding the Church that they have not taken the worldview thing with real desire or forthrightness.

Now for the scary story:
We were in discussion time, and the question of Universals and Particulars come up. The issue was lying. Is it wrong to ever lie? I point out Kant and my wife Corrie Ten Boom who tells the story of telling the truth to the Nazis about hidden Jews. Kant said, that telling the truth is separate from the consequences of telling the truthful statement.

One member said, well maybe you could lie, because G-d will forgive you and it will not be bad (a sin). I asked, rather tongue in cheek, therefore, we should lie so grace will increase? A paraphrase of Romans 6:1 So then, are we to say, “Let’s keep on sinning, so that there can be more grace”? He sat there and thought about it. I further inquired, should we sin more so that G-d can forgive us more? He thought more, and finally thought it might be a bad idea.

Dr. Tackett, the problem is not having a Christian Worldview, it is not understanding the Bible.


Technorati Tags: Truth Project, Tackett, The Truth Project, Evil, Church, Philosophy