Reading Tea Leaves

Tea Leaf Reading: A form of divination or fortune-telling method that interprets patterns in tea leaves.

Once or twice a month, I get an email or a comment on my blog from an enthusiastic Christian who wants to point out the error of my ways. Sometimes it is done gracefully, but more often than not it is proclaimed by someone who has become overly frustrated because I have the audacity to hold a view of God that is different than theirs. If this were the 16th century, some commentators would probably have me burned at the stake - as John Calvin did Michael Servetus. Since present laws and culture will not permit that, they must resign themselves to caustic comments and emails.

The latest comment on one of my Truth Project (a DVD series by Focus on the Family) blogs finished off by warning me not to comment further, lest there be eternal consequences. Interesting theology... but I actually want to focus on the beginning of his comment. He said:

"I am simply amazed at how on earth you got to be on the top of Googles searches regarding the Truth Project but it simply goes to show me how powerful the enemy is and how important things like the Truth Project really are. Your views are not only wrong they are a terrifying example of why the project exists in the first place."

His interpretation of what has placed my articles at the top of Google searches is very typical of how some Christians read random events. He doesn't like what I have written, so he interprets that this blog's high placement in Google searches must be the work of Satan.

However, one could just as easily say that Focus on the Family is spreading a poor interpretation of God though their Truth Project seminars, and God was getting a little tired of the misrepresentation; so He bumped a nobody blogger to the top of Google's list to try to get the word out that Focus on the Family has gone way off the path.

Of course, either view is just Tea Leaf Reading... looking at a random happening and assigning an outside meaning to it. Not too different from thinking that fluffy white cloud bears a striking resemblance to Scooby-Doo.

More Truth Project Feedback

Usually, when I get a letter from a reader of my Truth Project articles, the writer lambastes me for how I am deceiving Christians, or how I am deceived and going to Hell, or that God is going to get me, etc...

The following letter stood out in that it was systematic, and the writer asked me questions that he genuinely seemed to want a response to. I wrote him back and asked if I could answer his questions in a post. Since it was going to require a fair amount of writing on my part, I have a natural inclination to want to post. Also, I feel his questions probably address the thoughts of a number of people who would typically be supportive of the Truth Project view point. So, I have put his questions in blue italics with my answers beneath.

Mr. Hackman,

I am reading your posting on the Truth Project, and I was wondering if you could clarify a few issues for me. I am about to start a Truth Project Study.

1) You state that Christianity cannot have a worldview, and that disagreement between different groups suggest that “Many voices must be heard.” I think that the point of the study, however, is to determine what the Bible says about what our worldview should be. That is, there should be a range of what is a “reasonable” set of beliefs, and what is not, given what Scripture teaches. To determine what the relevant range of worldviews would be, however, you don’t need to interview people. You need to look at evidence. Another way of saying this is that The Truth Project is meant to be prescriptive, not descriptive. In light of this “narrowing” view of the project, why do you need to hear multiple voices? Why do you need any voices other than Scripture?

I need those voices because I do not believe that scripture speaks without them. When my theology was of a more "hell, fire, and brimstone" bent, those were the scriptures I read and those were the ones I quoted. My eyes seemed to skim past "It is your kindness that leads us to repentance".

Everyone brings their vested interests to the table. No one reads scripture cleanly or without lenses. Everyone interprets. Anyone who denies this simply desires that their view be the default view. They want to be able to play a theological trump card. When the Truth Project puts forth that there is "A" Christian worldview (theirs) they are stepping beyond their grounds. I am a Christian. I do not agree with the Truth Project overall. So either, I am not a Christian, or there must be other Christian worldviews to be heard.

It reminds me of a scene at the beginning of Gandhi. Gandhi is about to be thrown off a South African train because he will not leave first class (for being colored). He explains that he is an English lawyer and purchased his ticket at home. He is told by the conductor that there are no colored lawyers in South Africa. Gandhi exclaims that since he is a lawyer and is, as they say, colored, then it can be surmised that there is at least ONE colored lawyer in South Africa.

Have you ever experienced a time when a scripture took on a new nuance or meaning because of something someone said? or an experience you had? Without those voices, yours as well as others, the words sit inert on the page.

2) You state “The presenter states that there is no area where God has not given the answers.” I am pretty sure that he says that there is no area where God has not SPOKEN. This is very different.

When you go through the series, see what the wording is. I thought he said answers, but I could be wrong. In any case, I don’t think that God has spoken clearly on everything (if he had, I do not think there would be 30,000+ Christian denominations and groups). I think it is our natural desire to want a sure fire answer to everything… but I think there is always going to be plenty of mystery when it comes to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

3) About your teacher perspective, you are right that you need to teach your students to think rather than to just get the right answers. However, you need to teach them the correct way of thinking about an issue. I am not necessarily saying that there is only one correct way to think about any given issue, but there are plenty of blatantly wrong ways to think about an issue. This is certainly true in the subject that I teach. By the way, what do you teach?

I teach 6th grade in an inner-city school.

I understand your overall point, but I would never state it so strongly. I would be very leery of teaching someone "the correct way of thinking about an issue." Not to say that I do not have a view, but I feel that any view that gets imparted in that way tends to get very distorted down the road. Again, it seems a short-cut; giving them an answer without the perspective, experience, and ethos that caused me to develop my answer.

4) I am pretty sure that when he says that the culture is anti-God, he does not mean that you should not have gone to the theater to see Dark Knight. Rather, he is saying that our culture is, by and large, built on a bunch of lies. An easy example of this is to look at the unreasonable expectations that society has for women and their bodies, how society says to a girl that she only has value if she will have sex (sorry, my wife watches Tyra, and I am overhear these things, so I have a bit of a bias). Don’t you think that a culture that teaches us that our worth is built on such frivolous things rather than being children of God is, well kind of evil?

I agree that when we objectify women, or teach such things to our children, we need to change our way of thinking. However, I do not think it is simply a matter of broad brush painting present culture as evil. I think this causes us to romanticize or criticize things that are not real. For example, the “old” days are often romanticized by some conservatives when wanting to contrast how sinful our present society has become – conveniently avoiding the tolerance of abuse, slavery, racism, and oppression that was allowed in the “old” days. In that light, society has become much LESS sinful over the decades. So which is it? I would say neither, because each plank of our culture must be judged on its own.

5) Why do you think it is appropriate to quote Yoda in a religious discussion? He is a guru of a form of Eastern religion or philosophy, so what he says must be investigated in that light. I should point out that anger is not necessarily wrong, because Jesus got angry in the temple before he drove the money changers from the temple. Therefore, there is a big divide between Yoda and Jesus.

I have three thoughts on that. A.Why do you think it is inappropriate to use that quote in a religious discussion? For myself, a good quote is a good quote. You yourself state in question 10 that “Truth does not depend on who says it”.

B. My point in that section was that all of the us/them rhetoric creates a fear and paranoia… and that those emotions take Christians down a path we are not supposed to go. Jesus’ anger was not generated as a result of fear, so his end result was not along the same trajectory.

C. I do not find anything inherently wrong with Eastern views. Christianity is Eastern in its origins, we have simply Westernized it.

6) What do you mean by hate? Some in our culture want to define certain beliefs as inherently hateful, and I wanted to check what you mean. Also, you should evaluate a religion on a reasonable outcome of its beliefs, not by the abuse of its beliefs.

I consider hate to be anytime we despise someone else. That is why I have always felt that the line “Love the sinner, but hate the sin” (aside from the fact that it is not scriptural) to be so unhelpful. 99 times out of 100 when I hear someone use that line, the disdain and contempt is right on its heels. I think Christianity and the cause of Christ would be better served with “Love” and leave the but out of it. Since I have yet to adequately master the first part, I see no reason why I should touch the second.

7) Your argument that he is proof-texting is irrelevant, because John 14:6. Jesus did not say that you can look to him for truth, but something far more fundamental. He said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by me.” This is a very bold statement. It says that Christ is the very definition of truth, and that all other forms of truth must be judged in light of him. This is what us math types call an axiom.

Also, when you list the other reasons that Christ came into the world, none of them contradict his interpretation. By testifying to the truth, Jesus has saved sinners. You seem to have some beef with the line in the sand. However, Del did not draw this line, Jesus did. One quick example is Matthew 25. There are clearly sheep and goats. The question is where the line is, not the existence of one.

We will just have to disagree on this one. I still contend that it is a twisting of the intent of scripture to imply that the purpose of Jesus coming was to set a truth line in the sand and shove everyone to one side or the other. In fact, I think that goes against his very nature.

As to the sheep and the goats, I think Jesus was speaking to ways of living that bring either life or death… and in the words of the OT, he wants us to choose life. If you take that story as literal, than the evangelical way of interpreting salvation goes right out the window (which I am fine with btw).

8) You are taking Romans 2 horridly out of context. Romans 1 just told the history of the world, that we all reject God. Romans 2 and 3 gets into why following the law alone is not good enough, because we are not perfect.

Actually, I agree with you in some respects. I think Romans 1 lists how we all fail (can we all not place ourselves somewhere on Paul’s list?). I just think Romans 2 is Paul’s follow up, saying how absurd it is for any of us to get too “us/them”, in light of everything he just said.

9) “Our battle is not against flesh and blood…” The Bible uses the war metaphor repeatedly. Of course, it also uses the runner, the boxer, the farmer, and others. I just thought I would point out to you that regardless of how much he uses war metaphors, any reasonable Christian would never take up arms.

That is my point… that our battles are not with flesh and blood. However, much of Christianity is, and is being encouraged, to view their fellow human beings as the enemy. I think the “us/them” rhetoric encourages this view. I believe we turn people away from Christ when they feel they are viewed in this manner.

10) Your ad hominem attack on their interviews are unjustified. I could just as easily argue that you would better understand the Bible if you were disabled, because that one kid seemed to always have the right answer. I know you are trying to strike a race tone here, but that is irrelevant. Truth does not depend on who says it.

I think if that was my only contention, you are probably right. However, it just stood out so boldly to me on top of everything else. That is why I said it “devolved into a bad caricature of itself” at that point. It just struck me humorously.

11) Us/Them thinking. Again, back to the Judgment Scene – Jesus divided the world, the project didn’t. Again, you are quoting Paul in I Tim 1:15 so as to suggest universalism. This seems really silly, given Paul’s rant against false religion earlier in the chapter.

You caught me… I am a universalist. However, I don’t think that necessarily invalidates Paul’s “rant”. Universalism does not say that everything is ok… just that everything is/will be redeemed. But in any case, I still believe strongly that us/them thinking damages the cause of Christ.

Anyway, I was just wondering how you would respond to these questions. Thanks for your time. I am sorry if some people are not nice to you in their emails. I know that there is a behavioral bias that people are harsher in email than in person. Also, some things get lost by being put into text. I hope nothing I said sounded too harsh. I sometimes write aggressive words, but that is just because I am getting excited about the discussion.

Thanks,

David

PS Looking at your profile, why do you need to “abandon your certainties?” There are some things you can take to the bank.

I abandoned my certainties because I found that so many of the things I thought were iron-clad, turned out not to be. Certainty is something our churches emphasize, and in doing so, I think we perpetuate a disservice. Certainty, very often, causes people to live in denial. They have to live in contradiction in order to keep the certainty safe. I have seen too many people jettison their faith because they were taught that Christianity operates in this or that way. When they found that not to be true, they either had to abandon the Faith, or become more fundamental and rigid than ever. I have found fidelity to be a necessary third option. Fidelity applies to relationships. It can withstand the ups and downs, the silence and the paradox, in ways that certainty simply can’t.

David – I appreciate your approach and I hope this clarifies some things. I do not seek to convert you to my way of thinking on these issues, I just hope to more clearly explain why I think the way I do.

Truth Project Feedback

Before I get started, I want to put in a plug for fellow blogger Adam, who has been doing some great summations and commentary of The Truth Project by Focus on the Family. You can check out his writings here.

Somehow in Google's calculations, one of my articles on the Truth Project has moved up to the third item on their search list. Not sure how long that will last, but it is causing my blog to get slammed (slammed for my little corner anyway).

About twice a month I will get emails thanking me or condemning me for my articles. The disadvantage to email, as opposed to commenting, is that no one else sees your response. Most thank-yous are short, but the complaints can get lengthy. I don't mind the complaints, but a lot of them repeat stuff that someone has already taken me to task about.

So, I thought I might post a couple of the more coherent complaints (many are just mindless rants), and my responses so future complaints can deal with topics that nobody has touched yet.
_____

(Letter)

I stumbled across your comments as I was searching The Truth Project, which I have seen. I tried to find out more about you and was disappointed to find that your self-description was very limited. I find that in order to make heads or tail of someone's opinions you need to understand his bias.

Everyone is biased by his upbringing, his life's experience and especially his personality. I find that in order to actually be open to truth, you need an understanding of your personal bias (your personal worldview) before you can really be open to truth. I am glad that you are passionate enough about your search for God that you would spend so much time expressing your opinions. You are obviously an intelligent person. Intelligence alone is not enough when searching for truth. I am disappointed in your methods of interpreting scripture.

Your bias is very obvious. Truth by definition is not relative. It is there to grasp and to provide confidence for your faith. I would be interested in knowing enough about you to see why you have arrived at answers that seem graceful and loving but are actually misunderstandings. As an Evangelical Christian myself I think you have totally misunderstood The Truth Project.

(My response)

I appreciate your taking the time to read my blog and to comment. Although you and I may disagree about the Truth Project, I am sure there are many points of Faith that we have in common. I want to use something you said to explain why I feel the way I do.

"Everyone is biased by his upbringing, his life's experience and especially his personality."

I couldn't agree more. These biases and vested interests are something all of us are subject to and can never fully get away from. That is why I cannot agree with your second statement:

"Truth by definition is not relative."

Every word we utter, every word we hear, is filtered through our biases and vested interests. Not even scripture can be purely distilled. Each of us reads a verse and asks, "What does that mean?" That is why we hear certain verses quoted often by some and little by others. We all weigh into it differently.

God is Truth... the rest of us muddle through as best, and hopefully as honestly, as we can.

I may be wrong about the Truth project, however I can state that I used to think in that format. It is not an unknown area for me.

Blessings to you and all those you do life with this Christmas season!

________

(Letter)

Hi. Just have to say are you kidding me about the men in suits having the right answers and the women having the wrong answers? Seriously, you are reaching. Obviously they are interviewing people off the street when they aren't in suits. The men in suits are prepared and ready to answer the questions and anyone can see that. They aren't trying to fool anyone with that. Plus there is a "respectable" engineer that they are interviewing that doesn't have the "right answers".

Sorry, I just get tired of people ALWAYS trying and reaching to find something wrong when these people are trying to do something so right. We are human and aren't going to get it exactly right and God can give individuals the discernment, but really, do you think you are helping anything by picking apart what YOU think is not right. Well, it isn't. This series is amazing and it's an eye-opener. You don't have to agree with every single detail of every single sentence, but you are going to miss a lot of truths if you are just looking constantly for things that could be right or wrong. I didn't even agree with your other points either just so you know.

In the end, we are both believers, and I'm happy that I'll meet you in heaven some day so we can laugh at the way we both fought thru all this stuff to find truth. Thank God for grace. Ha.

(My response)

If the white men in suits being right were the fulcrum of my argument, I would agree with you. However, I was merely pointing out the ironic ending of the whole thing... the cherry on top, as it were.

Do I think I am helping? Perhaps I am not, but I believe I am and here is my reasoning. It is not enough that the TP is "trying to do something right". When their rhetoric is designed to present "the Christian Worldview", they have taken on the right to speak for a myriad of people, both living and not. I believe in this that they have overstepped their bounds. They of course have every right, even a duty, to present their view as they understand it. However, it is inappropriate to state things with as broad a brush as they do.

Secondly, it is necessary that other views be heard. Scripture is very clear that we are not to judge ourselves by ourselves or compare ourselves with ourselves. In many counselors there is wisdom. The fact is there are many Christians entrenched in the TP style of rhetoric and because they surround themselves with like minded people, they are not even aware that there are other ways to consider these points. If they hear ANYTHING to the contrary, the only thought they will let enter in is that the contrary position is wrong - no wrestling, no consideration. I by no means think people ought to avoid the TP, there are a number of people at my church who teach it; but I do hope they will look at it critically. If you google search the TP, there is plenty of praise for it. I think a critique or two should be allowable.

Blessings and peace to you,

___________

Here are my articles on the Truth Project.

The Mallet of Absolute Truth

I was Google-ing the Truth Project today and found that my blog articles are some, of very few, that critique it. So I started to drift through the many blogs and articles that praised it.

One of the more common praises is a relief amongst Christians that the Truth Project is standing up and defending "Absolute Truth". In fact, I think in many circles, clinging to absolute truth has become synonymous with (or has even surpassed) clinging to Christ.

Somewhere in Christian history the notion that some truth is not relative became NO truth is relative. In fact, the word relativism has become a swear word or an insult. In fundamentalist camps it would be a low blow to refer to someone as a "relativist".

Well, I am a relativist. I think we all are. God sees the whole picture. The rest of us are peeking through our lenses and vested interests from our different perspectives and angles. How could it be any different? The difference between myself and someone who claims to cling to absolute truth is that I recognize that the ground on which I stand is positional in reference to God. Therefore, I must keep moving to gain a better view of God. The absolutists believe their position to BE the baseline and if everyone would just come and stand where they are standing - all would be clear.

This is why I feel programs like the Truth Project can be so damaging. It makes the listener feel they are putting on layers of armor... when actually it is mere papier-mâché. You have all seen this or heard it in action. A Christian who has read a book, or seen a DVD, or heard their Pastor, has become an expert and tries to engage someone from the "other side" - except it doesn't sound like a discussion, it sounds like a lecture. The Christian gets befuddled by the most sincere contradictory questions (because their beliefs have been given, not earned) and goes back to repeating what they have already stated. Finally the Christian, in frustration, walks away muttering something about the other not "having ears to hear the truth" or other such nonsense. The Christian tends to learn NOTHING from an exchange like this because they usually make very poor assumptions:

• He or she already has the Truth
• The other is against them
• Anyone not of the Christian Faith brings nothing of spiritual value to the table
• If the other does have a spiritual insight, it must be tainted

To me, phrases like "absolute truth" are the shield and club of the lazy. They want everything ready made and pre-packaged (like the rest of our lives) so that nothing requires work or effort. We just want to be in the right group with the proper beliefs, and we want an iron clad solid response to anyone who would say otherwise. Mystery and ambiguity leave too many loose ends. Let us simplify God so he can be properly sorted out.

Paul was a relativist. He was completely comfortable being a Jewish believer. He just felt that Gentile believers didn't need to be Jewish believers. Many Jewish believers felt that there were obvious markers to who was in the Faith and who wasn't. Paul rejected this - not the markers themselves, only their enforcement on others. However, he gave grace for people to personally do what they felt they needed to do, "If anyone regards something as unclean... then for him it is unclean." Today in Christendom, we would want to press Paul for a straight answer. He would give none. He would shrug and say, "It is a matter of your conscience". I tend to think most of the Christian Testament writers would be unpopular in Christian circles today.

Paul spoke positively about freedom. Why is the Christian community so afraid of it?

TheTruth Project Revisited

About 25 % of my blog hits each month come from two articles I wrote about The Truth Project. It is, according to the producers at Focus on the Family, "a small group curriculum designed to communicate the Christian worldview". Since Focus on the Family has decided to proclaim THE Christian Worldview, I figure Christians everywhere might want to be aware of it (since Focus has decided to speak for all of us).

I get a fair amount of email based on these two articles. Some thank me for giving some food for thought when considering the series. Others denounce me as a tool of Beelzebub, and wish I would just do the world a favor and quit sucking air.

Ahh critics...

Here are the links for your reading pleasure:

Truth Project part 1

Truth Project part 2

The Truth Project? Part 2

About a month ago, I started an article about Focus on the Family's, "The Truth Project". My objections to the first episode were too numerous to list in one post, so I hope to finish up here.

One of the foundational issues that I disagree with is the presenter's assertion that Jesus came to "bifurcate" the world. This is a pretty common view amongst western Christian fundamentalists- that the world is divided into "Us" and "Them". It tends to be a rather thin slice of "Us" because there are many Christians in this equation who do not measure up either. A wrong answer on the orthodoxy litmus test will quickly put you in the "Them" category.

Before any of us spend too much time "bifurcating" our relationships, I think we should consider Paul's advice in Romans 2:

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

The presenter then continued to emphasize the "us/them" relationship by translating scripture into war metaphors. He believes the world is a battlefield and we must defend ourselves. I believe Jesus called his followers to a forward movement of love, rather than a defensive posture of fear. A war metaphor causes Christianity to resemble Islamic extremism, Mao atheism, or Rwanda warlords - submit or be conquered! How is this the good news of the Gospel? Do we submit to Christ because he is the most powerful? How is that different? Did Paul not declare "God's kindness leads us to repentance"?

My next contention would require you to watch the video to get the full effect, but basically, the presenter postulates a "What if?" concerning Satan. Personally, I love what if questions when it comes to theology. However, in the next step, he performs a quick slight of hand and begins referencing his "what if" as if it were now a given. He then uses it to buttress his argument that the entire cosmos is in a battle over these two worldviews (Satan's and God's). If there are only two worldviews, then everything can be neatly separated into "us/them".

I reject the "us/them" postulation. I believe there is only "us". Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:15:

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

Paul does not make a distinction here. He puts himself into the same camp as his neighbor. There is no superiority. The only one superior in the equation is Christ.

Barbara Nicolsi sums up the problem with seeing people in an "us/them" mindset:

I think that, unfortunately, a lot of orthodox Catholics and Christians are either sitting in the cave hunkered down, or they're like Jonah sitting under a Gourd plant waiting for God to vent his wrath on the world—on the ungodly—and they're going to be disappointed if He doesn't. I don't see these people having sorrow for sin; I see them having indignation towards sin. And to me, that's an important difference. Sorrow for sin is "I am a part of this." Indignation for sin is "you are the ones messing up the world!"

They did a man-on-the-street style segment where they asked people about "Truth". People with the "wrong" answer tended to be women, European, progressive looking. People with the "right" answer tended to be old, white men in suits. At this point, I felt the video devolved into a bad caricature of itself.

Toward the end, the presenter stated that he hates the phrase "people of Faith". Unless you subscribe to his standard of Christianity, your searchings are pointless. You are either with us or against us. If you are with us, you are a child of the Father. If you are against us, he says, you are a child of the devil.

I believe Jesus showed a different attitude toward people "outside the faith". The woman at the well in John 4 might have had a different response to Christ if he had called her a child of the devil.

The final question he asked was, "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?'

My answer: What I believe about Him does not change who He is, it never has and it never will. What I believe about Him has changed over time. Many of the beliefs I felt were "unchangeable" have shifted as I learned more about Him. So I now hold many of my beliefs loosely. This does not grant me certainty or security. I have replaced those notions with fidelity. I believe this gives me opportunities to grow.
_____________________________________________

*UPDATE* For some reason, this article comes up very high in Google when searching The Truth Project. However, there are some great bloggers of Faith who have also weighed in with their concerns and observations. I have linked their pages based on a keyword search for The Truth Project.
The Hopper
God, Superman, and the Buckeyes
Recovering Sociopath
Below the Din

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