Saturday, September 15, 2007

The Truth Project? Part 1

I learned an important lesson recently. Never sign up to teach a curriculum that you have not reviewed. I know, that sounds self evident. What can I say?

The curriculum I signed up to teach is called "The Truth Project". It is a 12 part series produced by Focus on the Family and it is designed to teach the Christian worldview.

I do not think that "Christianity" can have a worldview; people have worldviews. Since Christianity is made up of people, and since people have various perspectives of worldview, then worldviews within the community of Christianity will vary. If you were to probe the various views within my church alone you would get a cacophony of perspectives. If one were to take into account Catholic, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, Charismatic, conservative, liberal, traditional, progressive, liturgical, emergent, etc.; you would have to conclude that one voice alone may not speak for the Christian community. Many voices must be heard.

The Truth Project is a response to a decline in basic knowledge of scripture and doctrine amongst evangelical Christians. A Christian pollster concluded in 2005:

"Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our research found that most [professed evangelicals] have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life."

Stephen Prothero in his book, Religious Literacy, says:

"Ironically,the United States became a nation of forgetters at the same time it became a nation of evangelicals. Believing in Christ became more important than knowing about Christ. To evangelicalism, therefore, we owe both the vitality of religion in contemporary America and our impoverished understanding of it."

Having only watched the first hour teaching, it seems the Truth Project is attempting to GIVE the answers to Christians so they can have "a response". The presenter states that there is no area where God has not given the answers; and that these answers will be presented so the Christian will know what is "True" and what is "False".

What first came to my mind was that this premise was in contradiction to Paul who said that we only know and prophesy "in part". Paul seemed to feel there were aspects of our story that we would only know after death. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12).

In addition, the approach of the video may have unintended consequences. If the Christian community lacks education about its own theology, the solution is not to "give" them the answers. Teach them to study. I have taught for 16 years and each year I have students whose only interest is the right answer. They have no interest in understanding, comprehension, or application. They just want to know if they got it right, so they can be done. Christians need an education, not a list of answers.

I am going to list some of my disagreements in the order that they occurred in the video.

One of the first things the presenter does, and continues to do throughout the video, is refer to culture in a negative light. Culture is portrayed as "anti-God". I do not tend to agree with Mark Driscoll, but I think this quote by him is apropos:

"Fundamentalism is really losing the war, and I think it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emerging church. Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hardcore fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture. But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house."

In addition, I think culture needs to be critiqued and looked at objectively, but it is neither good nor bad on its own. A demonizing of culture leads to an unhealthy view of those outside of the Christian subculture. This creates a fear response and often paranoia amongst many of the Christian populace. Yoda said:

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering".

A fictional character, but I think the quote is valid. It could be argued that the Christian fear of people outside their subculture has often led to hate. This is never a Christian response.

At the beginning the presenter poses the question "Why did Jesus come into the World?" His "class" gave varied answers, many of which could be justified scripturally, but he stated that they were wrong (he might argue that they were wrong in reference to his particular scripture reference, but he never made that clear). He uses Jesus' statement in John to build his case.

"In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37b

The video seeks to prove to the listener that Truth is the point of everything God ever did and that one is either for or against it. Much of his argument throughout the video relies on proof-texting. Henry Neufeld gives a good definition of proof-texting:

"By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances."

To discuss the scriptural reasons of why Jesus came would not have helped his argument. He wanted to divide everything into black and white terms. Therefore, other reasons were not mentioned and the answers of his class were dismissed.

Here are a couple of other reasons Jesus came: (these are just a few of the more blunt ones; inferred would be much longer)

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." 1 Timothy 1:15

"Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrew 10:9-10

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."John 6:38

These scriptures, and others like them, do not lend themselves to drawing a line in the sand. As I will get into in my next post on this topic, the purpose of this video was to bifurcate (his word) humanity to those who follow the Truth (by his definition) and those who do not.

I simply do not believe that is the way of Jesus. More later....

Read Part 2


Carrie said...

Unbelieveable...I have no idea how you are going to teach that curriculum in good conscience. I am going to have to look up Henry Neufield. I've never heard of him but I really like that quote about proof texting.

Brook said...

so... what did you do? how did that first night go? are you being blacklisted at your church as we speak?

Andrew said...

I was let off easy from this wrong turn. There was only one family who signed up for my group and they had to cancel altogether due to work conflicts. Mary Lee and I were able to watch the first episode along with the couple we are co-leading this group with. Afterwards, I was able to share some of my concerns and we had a great discussion. Whew!

I still want to watch the rest, but I don't think I will blog on it too much. This blog only covers about 20% of the notes I took for EP 1, so I see a few more blog entries on this episode alone. I don't want to spend any more time on it than that since I need to finish writing about McLaren's book... that comes out in two weeks. BTW, I got linked on his website. Cool!

Chad said...

Andrew, Your comments are always so insightful. I love your critical thought process and the ability to break things down. How I so wish I had you in my back pocket growing up LDS or as a Scientologist during my 20's. You would've saved me alot of wasted time. Thanks for doing life with me and I hope "they" allow you through the doors next Sunday.;)

Mystical Seeker said...

In addition, the approach of the video may have unintended consequences. If the Christian community lacks education about its own theology, the solution is not to "give" them the answers. Teach them to study.

I think that when the name is "The Truth Project", that pretty much says it all. The idea seems to be not to inspire people to think and to encourage discussion and exploration, but rather to tell people what to think. This is par for the course, unfortunately.

Interestingly enough, the "Living the Questions" seminars that I have been going to also form a 12-part series. Makes me wonder if "The Truth Project" represents a response by the Christian Right to that series. The interesting and valuable thing about "Living the Questions" is that it encourages discussion and thinking by people after they've seen the video, unlike what you are describing about "The Truth Project".

The approaches seem to be like night and day--encouraging people to think versus telling them what to think.

Anonymous said...

The Truth about Andrew's comments regarding The Truth Project is that what he says is mostly a series lies.

I have viewed all 12 "tours" and can tell you that his portrayal is completely fabricated. Case in point. There is intense discussion after each video and nowhere does the narrator tell anyone exactly what to think.

By the way Andrew. You'll have to keep deleting my comments and I will put them back on your blog - daily or more often if necessary. In reviewing your other topics, your agenda is becoming clear.

Andrew said...

Barry - What are you talking about? I have never deleted your comments. Perhaps you are commenting on the two different articles, but each would only place under its own article. On part two I responded to you.

I have no "agenda", I have life and thoughts and I share them. I am afraid your attitude simply confirms my suspicions about the truth project. Your need to put people on the other side, rather than to dialogue with them is a perfect example.

Alan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

You raise good questions for dialogue. But it seems curious to me that having decried hard lines in the sand over the nature of truth that you reject, you mount a carefully constructed argument against a particular position. One of the other commentators to your post, Chad, noted this positively by observing that your post was "insightful. I love your critical thought process and the ability to break things down."

Your post leads the reader down a particular line of thought whose conclusion is that there is a "true" way to view Christianity and all that it entails. That is, that Christianity is a view that permeates (or ought to) all of one’s life and should guide one in their decisions in all of their day-to-day living out of that life. If I am reading your narrative correctly, it advocates that rather than retreating to a Christian ghetto, believers need to be in the world while remaining 'not of the world' so that they might be salt and light in the world in a manner that is attractive and communicates value and worth to others so that they might establish genuine relationships that produce meaningful dialogue about life in a broken world. All of these things resonate with me and with my interaction with a broad reading of the biblical text within my faith community.

All this noted, what struck me was that your line of thought leads one to conclude that those involved in the Truth Project are wrong and that a view such as the one you advocate is right. However, your use of sequential argumentation and critical thought leads you to conclude that something and its opposite cannot both be true in any meaningful way. Yet, this is the very thinking underlying the Truth Project--the hobgoblin of the Enlightenment--rational, logical thinking that marginalizes and oppresses opposing views. It seems to me that if we are to celebrate diversity and differing traditions and narratives among believers rather than obsessing over the oppressive metanarrative tools of the marginalizing categories of "right/true" versus "wrong/false" that a community or individual might tell a different story that embraces and affirms difference. If we want people such as those behind the truth project to abandon their marginalizing narrative that they believe is a metanarrative, then we need stories that resonate with the themes of inclusion for the minority voices rather than one that tries to marginalize the marginalizers.

I suggest that it might be more relational and dialogical to invite those whose narratives embrace the verbiage of oppressive exclusivity such as "true" and "false" to dialogue with us rather than rejecting their story as wrong. I would rather say that in our faith tradition that we would not embrace the story of the "Truth Project" and that we think differently within our local Christian narrative—we have a differing story in our community of faith. While I might mourn over the choice of others to employ confrontational language that is exclusive rather than inclusive, I would be unfaithful to my community's narrative if I were to condemn those of the faith community that produced the Truth Project. Employing negatively loaded verbiage by labeling the other with linguistic tokens that are read by many as negative (such as "fundamentalist") would be word play that would marginalize the other.

A more welcoming and affirming tact would be to abandon labels, for even those labels motivated by graciousness are still labels that divide rather than unify. A "generous orthodoxy" still communicates that there are views that are orthodox and others that are not orthodox. But to label the traditions of another community as lacking orthodoxy is to declare them heterodox and thus make a play to marginalize their message. To advocate for a, 'wideness in God's mercy' is to label those traditions we would not embrace within our community of faith as lacking 'mercy.'

As you noted, there are many voices within the Christian tradition. For me to attempt to impose my community’s story on another community does not empower other, but rather seems a totalizing power play. While we might not want to tell the story that another community has embraced and tells, it is yet the story that resonates with them, giving them purpose.

Andrew said...

Alan - Thanks for your comment, it has given me some food for thought.

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with some of your thoughts. Maybe not so much disagreeing as wondering how to implement them. My purpose in writing this was to give another view of the videos. The church culture I grew up in would have been very positive on these videos, one would not have been allowed to view them any differently. Although my intent is not to antagonistically raise the rhetoric bar, I do want to let Christians who are immersed in these cultures with no other voices know that there are other Christian views.

I also struggle with (and I have no answer) what to do with bad culture. Though I affirm that many voices must be heard and I want to validate traditions and practices that differ from my own, I also think it is necessary not to validate traditions and practices that produce harm. I don't see all cultures and traditions as being on equal footing. Some cultures or aspects of culture are just harmful. Some cultures need to be read about in history books, but never should be endured by another living creature again.

And perhaps, as you say, I am arguing for a different goal (unity rather than disunity) but by using arguably similar practices I end up supporting their position. This is something I am wrestling with.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the criticism of this project. My mother went thru it at her church and now our church is doing it. I jumped in at lesson 10 and have some concerns about it. I think it is really interesting but that unless people delve into all the resources the "instructor" cites, we cannot really discuss the material intelligently. My mother's view was that the videos were good but the discussion ended up being mostly cheerleading i.e. "Yeah, what he said!" not actual discussion or deepened understanding.

Anonymous said...

This course is not designed to teach it without going through the Focus on the Family Seminar on the Truth Project. So by not "reviewing" it first you assumed a lot and were poorly educated in the details. This course provides a lot of time to review and discuss the issues brought up. In Christianity there is not right or left but only Gods way.

Andrew said...

Please Dean... your rebuttal only works for those who already agree with your take. It makes too many bad assumptions (or "poorly educated" to use your phrase).

First, you assume that no one can commentate on an episode unless they had taken all of the preparation classes. Absurd.

Second, I never taught it. I was to co-lead a group (with a couple who did go through the "training") but it never materialized. Again, are you saying that no one can have an opinion unless they have been through the training? Would you be making the same argument if I had nothing but flowery compliments?

Susie said...

Andrew, I am on Video 4 and absolutely love them. I am not "drawing any lines with you" but I do disagree with you and your view on "The Truth Project". My prayer for you, especially since you are teaching others, is that the words that come out of your mouth will be the words of God Himself and not yours. I promise I am not singling you out with this prayer because I pray the same thing for myself when speaking to others about Jesus, my Lord and Savior.
God Bless!

Bret said...

Andrew, I'm a late comer to your blog, and this post in particular. I would agree in general with barry's assessment -- the series doesn't tell anyone what to believe (to possess for themselves), but it does describe a belief system about the world within a Christ-and-God based (a Biblical) perspective. The series leaves it up to the participant to decide for themselves.

However, I do disagree with barry's tone. That's just rude, dog.

In both times I've been through the series, it sparked incredible dialog after each episode. This was even among "the churched", so the personal perspectives you describe were all brought to bear - sometimes with great intensity and passion.

For my part, it was hard leaving the discussion, knowing some people were still in denial of "the truth" -- not Tackett's truth, per se, but some rather obvious truth evinced in the episode which demanded an answer -- and people, friends, would leave the discussion without having made that decision, in denial about having confronted that truth. It wasn't hard for me because they were "disagreeing" with me (which they weren't), but because its hard to see anyone living less than a full life, living in denial of anything.

But I digress.

I am prompted to write because of your citations relevant to Christ and his statements of HIS reason for coming. And I see you guilty of the very proof-texting which you accuse Tackett, and which I never saw Tackett actually do.

On that point, in most if not all cases where Tackett quotes scripture, he gives the back-story or puts the quote in context if even slightly. Part of the point of the series is for the viewer to LOOK THESE SCRIPTURES UP, read them for themselves, in context, then apply that context to Tackett's teaching, and come to their own conclusions (there are substantial study guides and episode summaries available which list the scripture references).

But that is a side-bar: my concern is that several of the proof-texts you offered are other people's statements of why Jesus came. I will not dispute the validity of their statements nor the validity of scripture as a whole as the inspired Word of God, however, I think if you are looking at the reason for the Son of God coming to earth, the Son of God himself is probably the most authoritative source.

Given that, lets look at the Jesus-attributable proof-texts you offered:
Two of them state that he came to do God's will, but out of context it doesn't explain what that will might be. We can gather from the other quote that it might be in part or whole "that they might have life", but that statement doesn't (by itself) suggest how that might be achieved.

When we look at the quote which Tackett supplied, "to testify to the truth", we see a direct, positive statement. If you explore scripture with this succinct statement from Jesus himself, you will see that testifying to the truth IS God's will, and that exposing mankind to that truth through testimony is what brings them "life".

Don't rely on my statements alone, but ponder this hard. My response here is a result of my having done so, and I did so as a result of the Truth Project. I've been a Christian for decades, but had never considered the rigors of this kind of Biblical study of "why Jesus came".

In conclusion, I agree with you that giving people answers isn't the answer: "Knowledge easily gained is easily lost". But I never for a moment saw this series as THAT KIND of series, nor has anyone I know who has been exposed to it. I think that is probably because the people I know tend to be thinkers, and not spoon-fed -- as you also appear not to be... so thus my concern:
How did you come to this conclusion, again?

In any case, thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions, and providing this opportunity to the community for dialog!

Andrew said...

Bret - I don't think the Truth Project really puts it to people to decide for themselves. It is like the child who grows up in a Baptist home becomes a Baptist... surprise, surprise. My Hindu friend down the street has children who are... Hindu! :) The TP educates people on their view and gives one conclusion to arrive at. So I don't consider it a "decision" in the typical use of the word.

Your view of those who leave not agreeing kind of shows that - they were in denial and therefore not living a full life.

But every group who feels they have a superior handle on the truth feels that way of those who don't buy in. I have heard my Mormon friends speak of folks who have decided not to become Mormon use the same words and thoughtlines as you have.

I actually don't deny proof texting... it is what people do, because the Judeo Christian scriptures do not speak for themselves. They are a tool that will reflect the wielder. Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Evangelicals, JWs, Left, Right, etc... all use those same texts, and all come to different conclusions (of course, each being assured that the others using the text are using it incorrectly).

I hope you find meaning in your faith, but let me assure you that there are plenty of souls out there who lead rich full lives, who do so without Jesus, or God(s), or Joseph Smith, or any of the other myriad of beliefs out there. I know also that people find richness and fullness inside of them as well.

Gpascua66 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gpascua66 said...

Alan, I find it interesting that you decided not to answer Brett's question. "How did you come to this conclusion, again?" I also find that as a post-Christian, your words, you fail to recognize that Christ points to Christianity without the labels of Catholic, Baptist, or any other name that is put forward by any other group. I believe that the fundamental question that people fail to answer, is if the WORD is either all true or all false. It is a black or white question that needs to be answered. For if the Bible is the inspired WORD of GOD, then all other musings are false. If the WORD is True, then you that is not of the WORD will fail to truly believe in GOD. That little portion that is in all of us that we must come to terms and say GOD is beyond my understanding, yet his Love is something I believe in and I have Faith that his plan for me is better then anything I can believe in, is what is lacking in all that choose not to believe in him. The want not to face the truth that we are not in control of anything other then our own decisions.

I once posed a friend a question, "Why do you believe in GOD?" and his answer is probably one of the purest that I can understand. "Because Science cannot explain LOVE." With all of your critical thinking, did you not notice that Dr. Del Tackett incites people to think beyond what the world has presented and to dig down into the truth behind what people are saying. He gives his audience a taste and understanding of where the world is coming from and how GOD's TRUTH has been twisted. Del has helped me to pose or turn the questions that the world hurls at me, "How can you believe in GOD?" to "Please explain to me How is it that you do not believe in GOD?" Del has helped me to understand that my job isn't to convert anyone, but through understanding of where people are coming from, cause them to explain how they came to their conclusion of what they believe, and through the use of critical thinking, unravel their thought process and lead them back to GOD's TRUTH. Again, a black or white question.

Andrew said...

Guy - My not answering his question came from two points, A. There was a good possibility is was rhetorical. B. I was not sure what his pronoun "this" was referring to. In any case, he is always free to follow up.

"I believe that the fundamental question that people fail to answer, is if the WORD is either all true or all false."

No, I don't think that is the point at all... for one, your statement is put in an either/or concept that implies a dichotomy that is only present for the person of that religion. Mormons make the same proclamation concerning the book of Mormon... as I am sure many religions do concerning their texts.

It is this proclamation that sends so many religious folks to Atheism - they have been taught that is is all true, or it is garbage. The moment they discover it is not all true, they fall back to their training... must be garbage. As much as I am happy to have someone leave religion, I don't want them to do it under a false paradigm. The either/or concept is distorted view of reality.

When I approach a religious text, it does not get the pass of being by default true, or the unnecessary condemnation of being by default false... anymore than any other poetry, story, or philosophical writing. It flies or falls on its own merits.

I have memorized most of Paul's epistles, and it is clear to me that Paul had his cranky unreasonable moments and his gracious moments... one does not cancel out the other, they just have to be taken for what they are.

You have an appreciation for Del, but you do not come at his teaching with critical thinking. Critical thinking can take you anywhere, but your destination is already set. That is fine, you are free to believe what you want... but a pre-set conclusion is in no way critical.

For myself, I left behind black and white questions... they force notions into places they do not truly reside in order to accommodate the questioner who needs them to be one or the other. I think addressing things as they are allows for accuracy. Calling 70% 100% or 20% 0% is by its action going to lead to miscalculation.

Andrew said...

Also, I am not sure how I fail to recognize that Christ did not give those labels... I never insinuated such a thing...

Gpascua66 said...

Andrew, you are assuming what people think, you are assuming what I think. You stated, "It is this proclamation that sends so many religious folks to Atheism - they have been taught that is is all true, or it is garbage." under the assumption that is what I am thinking. The question of whether the Bible is All True or All False bares on the fact of where that persons Truths lay. The answer to that question lays the path of how our conversation proceeds.

I would hope that my previous statement alone proves that I approach TTP and your blog with Critical Thinking. If you also memorized most of Paul's writings, then you would also agree that Paul wrote that amongst Christians, we are not to argue about the Gray things (paraphrased). But where you are coming from does not lie in the Gray areas of a Christian. That gray area expands into the difference between Baptists, Catholics, Protestants, etc. that take GOD's Word and how they Wield it as you put it. The Word stands on it's own and when it is prescribed to, transcends the Religions that you listed. You tie the Word to them as if it is dependent on them, yet is is actually the other way around.

There is no condemnation on my part if you believe that the Bible is All False. That isn't my job. My job is to try and be your friend and be an example of how Christ shines in my life. The beauty is that we are given the ability to choose the path we decide to follow, and I am given the opportunity to have this open discussion with you.

I love how you are so pointed in saying that my destination through my path of critical thinking is already preset. Yes, to get to where I want to be, it is through Christ, yet the time and calling has so many variations that you cannot determine when anyone's path is set given the ability to choose. I may know where my path leads, but it is exciting that I only see my path on a day-to-day basis. Today, my path led to you because of the choice I made to lead a group on The Truth Project. I chose to take the time to have this conversation with you. I am not going to assume that you find the Bible to be All False, that is for you to say. But I do find it interesting that you take to subterfuge by saying a lot while not answering the questions laid before you. So I again will reiterate what Bret asked. "How did you come to this conclusion, again?" and "Do you believe that the Bible is All True, or All False?" Remember, a lie is still a lie even if there is a little bit of truth mixed in it when taken as a whole.

Andrew said...

Guy... I am not assuming anything, I just repeated your statement.

Do I think the bible is all true or false? Neither. It is like arguing the taste of blue, it is completely irrelevant to frame the question that way. Only religious people tend to think in such terms because they want quick measures to decide who is or is not on their team.

The bible was written by dozens of authors each reflecting on events and ideas from their time.

When "God" told the Jews to kill every man, woman, and child of their enemies... but to keep the virgins for themselves, do I believe that was a command of a deity? No, that is an obvious reflection of the culture of the time and the use of a Deity to give authority. Do I think Jesus, Peter, or Paul would ever say kill everyone but keep the virgins? ... doubtful.

Love those that hate you, be a blessing to others, turn the other cheek... all wise things that I believe give life to those that heed them.

To answer Brett's question, again, I need clarification... What conclusion do you believe I am arriving at that is not addressed?

Paul was very into gray thinking, he simply didn't want fellowship broke over what he considered to be trivial matters.

Gpascua66 said...

Andrew, how apropos for you to cite a small passage from Judges 21:11 but fail to lay the ground work for the passage with Judges 19 and 20 on the wickedness of the people of Gibeah and Jabesh Gilead. Very typical to cherry pick that which seems to make valid your argument yet when brought to the light only proves how much time I waste with trying to have a meaningful dialogue with you. I hope you live well with your merriment of cloudiness and inability to answer with straight forwardness. I hope you find cheer in your revelry of how smart you are while closing your mind to others. Good life to you and the decisions that you make.

Andrew said...

Guy - My usage of Judges was not meant as part of an argument. I am sorry that you interpreted our discussion in that manner, because it seems you took my explanation in response to your question as some kind dodge or hustle. I was merely answering your question. You wanted to know whether I felt the Christian scriptures were true or false. I did not feel I could answer at either pole, and that my response needed a little clarification. I can honestly say I was simply trying to answer your question in good faith.

Peace to you and yours.

The Cary said...

I have watched the series all the way through. And I can say that it is all Truth.
He does not sugarcoat things about the christian life. He says that you should be learning God, not just saying you know about him and acting like that's enough.
On the topic of the "proof-texting" he actually talks about that in a later lesson. He shows that there are many things that can be taken out of context and used against Christianity.
He discusses the christian life style and how we are INSTRUCTED to live. Not how we do live.
I have seen many people do as you do saying, "oh, we are men, we will sin naturally."
What Tackett does is take that and say "It doesnt matter if you are human, God commands to live like this, this is how we should live."
He teaches like this throughout the whole Series.
When he tells the students that they are wrong. He means that they were not completely right. As a professor of theology he was looking for a completed answer. That completed answer is truth. God wants us to learn the truth. Sure, Jesus came to save the souls of men, but is that not the truth? How you said a lot of your argument kind of confused me as I have seen the rest of the series.

Unknown said...

We have just started the "Truth Project" at my church - and it's fabulous. The learning/growth/enthusiasm of our participants has been outstanding. I highly recommend the series.

Just a piece of practical advice for everyone. Look at the Truth Project series and see who is endorsing it. I'll go with the endorsements of outstanding people like Ravi Zacharias and RC Sproul every time.

"Considering the source" is a very wise practice.

Related Posts with Thumbnails