Learning in a Time of (Cultural)

War: Indoctrination in Focus on

the Familys The Truth Project
By Randal Rauser

In a world of religious marketing, a growing number of evangelicals have branded 75

themselves as truth defenders.1 While one may think that truth defender is poor
branding in a postmodern culture, there are some signs that concern for truth may
actually be coming back in vogue. Consider for instance the runaway success of
philosopher Harry Frankfurts little monograph On Bullshit.2 One can hardly at-
tribute that books appearance on the New York Times bestseller list simply to the
slick marketing of Princeton University Press or the novelty of an analytic philoso-
pher analyzing the concept of bullshit. Rather, I would propose that the main rea-
son for the interest arises from a growing cultural weariness of the spin, half-truths,
and outright lies that seem to pervade our culture.3 But if truth is becoming a hot
commodity once again, why does evangelical truth branding remain more likely
to repel than attract the wider culture? The most basic reason may be that the wider
culture does not believe evangelicals are especially interested in the truth. Joel
Kilpatrick captures this sentiment in his satirical book A Field Guide to Evangelicals
and Their Habitat when he writes: The purpose of evangelical education, like the
purpose of Fox News, is to dispense with contradictory ideas with as little thought
as possible, resulting in eighteen-year-old biblically literate virgins who vote Re-
publican.4
As Kilpatricks quip suggests, there is a widespread suspicion that evangelicals
are more concerned with furthering a particular political, social agenda than with
the truth per se. Consider for instance the analysis in Chris Hedges entertaining, if
simplistic anti-evangelical screed American Fascists. Hedges warns that

Randal Rauser argues that Focus on the Familys popular lay-worldview curriculum en-
titled The Truth Project fails to provide a true Christian worldview education, and instead
evinces the marks of indoctrination. He begins with the core problem that that the curricu-
lum encourages simplistic binary categories which distort the issues and inhibit the student
from developing skills of critical evaluation. As a result of this binary opposition, the curricu-
lum distorts the complexity of issues, fails to understand and fairly evaluate alternative po-
sitions, and misrepresents the complexities of and difficulties with the Christian worldview.
He closes by considering how the rhetoric of a culture war is used to justify simplistic binary
categories. Mr. Rauser is Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary
(Edmonton).
 Christian Scholars Review

76 homeschooled evangelical children are taught, in short, to obey. They are discour-
aged from critical analysis, questioning and independent thought. And they be-
lieve, by the time they are done, a host of myths designed to destroy the open,
pluralist society.5 This doctrinaire approach to education seeks an abolition of
uncertainty and doubt6 which leaves the conservative Christian unable to cope
with ambiguity, doubt, and uncertainty.7 As a result, the conservative has been
trained to view the world in terms of a simplistic truth/error binary opposition
such that any qualification of these absolutes is viewed as inherently subversive:
They see criticism of their belief system, whether from scientists or judges, as
vicious attempts by Satan to lure them back into the morass.8
There is no doubt that American Fascists has serious shortcomings, not least of
which is its dependence upon simplistic binary oppositions surprisingly like those
of the fundamentalists it decries! Nonetheless, Hedges is correct that many Chris-
tian fundamentalists and evangelicals continue to forgo the truth pursuit at the
heart of education for simplistic indoctrination. While this is a strong claim, I will
seek to defend it by presenting a case study in Focus on the Familys comprehen-
sive worldview curriculum The Truth Project (henceforth the TP). While the TP
presents a particularly bold, even aggressive instance of evangelical truth-brand-
ing, examination of the curriculum illustrates that it bears the classic hallmarks of
indoctrination. But even if this is true, one might ask reasonably why the TP should
be taken to be a bellwether for the evangelical community. In response we might
1
See for instance John MacArthur, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007); Albert Mohler, Culture Shift: Engaging Current Issues with
Timeless Truth (Multnomah Books, 2008); Nancy R. Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity
From Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004); Douglas R. Groothuis, Truth
Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000).
2
Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).
3
For further evidence of this trend see Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch, eds, Bullshit
and Philosophy: Guaranteed to Get Perfect Results Every Time (Chicago: Open Court, 2006); Laura
Penny, Your Call is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit (New York: Crown, 2005).
4
Joel Kilpatrick, A Field Guide to Evangelicals and Their Habitat (New York: Harper San Fran-
cisco, 2006), 131.
5
Chris Hedges, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (New York: Free
Press, 2006), 26.
6
Ibid., 41.
7
Ibid., 35.
8
Ibid., 36. While Hedges is right to challenge an overly confident alethic aptitude, we must
be careful not to fall, as Hedges does, into the opposite error of dogmatic skepticism. In
Hedges view, Faith presupposes that we cannot know. We can never know. Those who
claim to know what life means play God (9). It hardly need be noted that Hedges provides
no argument here but simply assumes (knows?) that nobody can know and, even more bi-
zarrely, that any claim to knowledge is idolatrous by definition. But surely there is a viable
middle ground between I know the truth perfectly and Nobody can know the truth at
all. Also, Paul Numrich observes that fundamentalists are fighters: The battle is typi-
cally portrayed in starkly dualistic termsbetween good and evil, elect and damned, faith-
ful and secular. Fundamentalists and American Pluralism, Journal of Ecumenical Studies
42.1 (2007): 10.
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project
note first that the TP is arguably the single most ambitious and sophisticated at- 77
tempt to produce a worldview curriculum for evangelicals. When it was launched
in 2006, Focus on the Family promoted it as one of the most ambitious and pow-
erful projects in the history of our ministry.9 What is more, it is comprehensive:
the course consists of thirteen one-hour sessions in which Del Tackett, head of the
Focus on the Family Institute, seeks to provide the Christian perspective on a range
of topics encompassing truth, ethics, God, science, humanity, and society.10 The
lessons are presented within a classroom setting of approximately thirty-six adult
students, and while apparently the TP is aimed primarily at adults, many churches
also sponsor the course for families and youth groups. The course is available in a
pack of seven DVDs and is currently being promoted in regional seminars which
are intended to train leaders to run the course in various small group settings.
Finally, the TP has been widely embraced by the evangelical community. In the last
three years, the TP has hosted two-day training events in cities across the United
States and internationally.11 Moreover, they have hosted national simulcasts and
an international one-day satellite broadcast on September 27, 2008. When one con-
siders that the thousands that attend these various events are being trained as
leaders to run TP courses, there is every reason to believe Focus on the Familys
prediction of exponential change within the body of Christ, as we expect that
thousands will be transformed by this curriculum.12
In order to defend the view that the TP constitutes indoctrination, I will begin
with an analysis of the hallmarks of indoctrination. Next, I shall identify the promi-
nence within the TP of a common mark of indoctrination that is evidenced widely
among evangelicals: the simplistic binary opposition. Finally, I will note three ad-
verse effects of this binary opposition that are evident within the TP curriculum:
first, the inability to develop appropriately nuanced assessments of multiple is-
sues; second, the failure to understand (and critically evaluate) the positions held
by ones intellectual opponents; third, and perhaps most importantly, the inability
to assess ones own beliefs critically. Insofar as these problems are evident within
the TP, it provides for evangelicals not the promise of educational transformation
but rather a salutary warning against the dangers of insular indoctrination and a
challenge to embrace the risk of true education.

9
What is Focus on the Familys The Truth Project?, <http://www.thetruthproject.org/
whatistruthproject/>.
10
All quotes of Del Tackett within this paper are drawn from The Truth Project, Focus on the
Family, 2006.
11
For example, Minneapolis, Fresno, Chattanooga, San Antonio, Louisville, Kansas City, Phoe-
nix, Colorado Springs, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, Durban, Johannesburg and Cape
Town.
12
What is Focus on the Familys The Truth Project?, <http://www.thetruthproject.org/
whatistruthproject/>.
 Christian Scholars Review

78 Education and Indoctrination

There is an old debate among philosophers of education concerning whether

it is possible to educate apart from ideology and whether ideologically framed
education constitutes indoctrination.13 For the sake of time I will simply state my
position: all education is from a particular ideological and worldview perspective.
As such, the notion of a value-free, view from nowhere education is a chimera.
Indeed, education is not only formed by ideology but with the intent that the stu-
dent will adopt that ideology: properly speaking the pedagogue is, as Elmer
Thiessen puts it tersely, teaching for commitment.14 Education does not differ
from indoctrination because it lacks ideological commitments, but rather because
it communicates to the student both an awareness of its ideology qua ideology
whilst equipping the student to assess the ideological assumptions critically. This
critical task is captured in the familiar pedagogical refrain but dont take my word
for it! Children, however, are typically not at a sufficient level of cognitive matu-
ration to evaluate the ideological framework of their education critically.15 (Given
that the TP is directed primarily at training adults, the utter lack of nuanced cat-
egories and critical thinking becomes even more egregious.)
By contrast, the indoctrinator is unwilling to yield critical autonomy to the
student; indeed, if anything he is likely to provide a skewed picture of the data to
support and protect his ideological presuppositions. As Tasos Kazepides observes,
The indoctrinator, because he is inculcating doctrines, must resort to some educa-
tionally questionable methods such as failing to provide relevant evidence and
argument or misapplying them.16 Consequently, indoctrination leaves the stu-
dent unable to assess the ideological form of education critically. As Thiessen ob-
serves: Indoctrination...is thought to involve the failure to produce minds that are
open and critical.17 Indeed, indoctrination seeks to suppress critical thinking skills
in order to protect the ideology from introspective analysis rather like a foreign

13
Many people believe that the ideological character of education is unavoidable. All
societies inculcate customs and beliefs they maintain; the question is not whether but what
to inculcate. Others find this uncritical acquiescence to ideology profoundly troubling.
Students should be taught to evaluate beliefs and practices rationally, they contend, and to
embrace only those that can withstand criticism. Uncritical ideological inculcation is in-
doctrination, not education. Hanan A. Alexander, Education in Ideology, Journal of Moral
Education 34.1 (2005): 1.
14
Elmer Thiessen, Teaching for Commitment: Liberal Education, Indoctrination & Christian Nur-
ture (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 1993).
15
As Harvey Siegel observes: Very young students cannot evaluate their teachers pronounce-
ments for epistemic probity; they do not yet have the language, concepts, or cognitive capac-
ity to do so. Harvey Siegel, Epistemology and Education: An Incomplete Guide to the
Social-Epistemological Issues, Episteme 1.2 (2004): 131.
16
Cited in Elmer John Thiessen, In Defense of Religious Schools and Colleges (Montreal and
Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 2001), 134. Siegel observes that indoctrination
precludes student questioning or demand for reasons (132).
17
Thiessen, In Defense of Religious Schools and Colleges, 134.
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project

invader suppresses the immune response of its host so as to ensure its own flour- 79
ishing. As Michael Merry puts it: Indoctrination involves a process of knowledge or
belief transmission whereby persons are left with crippled reflective capacities with respect
to particular content.18 And as Siegel observes: Indoctrination results in beliefs
which students do not, will not and/or cannot subject to critical scrutiny.19 To
sum up, indoctrination halts and even reverses cognitive maturation in order to
perpetuate the ideology.20
This brings us to an important point: the presence of doctrinaire elements within
a curriculum does not entail that the writers of the curriculum intended to indoc-
trinate. To note but one possibility, it may simply be the case that a person who was
once indoctrinated is now passing on that indoctrination while thinking all the
while it is the truth unvarnished. And so the identification of indoctrination has no
necessary implications about pedagogical intention. With that caveat, we can turn
now to assess the TP curriculum.

The Nature of Binary Thinking

The core of indoctrination is simplistic binary thinking. Such thinking is typi-

cal of children who think in terms of black and white, lacking nuance or qualifica-
tion. But in certain cases an adult may be intellectually arrested at this simple bi-
nary level or may retrogress back to it. Individuals are especially vulnerable to
such retrogression at times of crisis (for instance, war) when there is a perceived
need to restore stability. Those who hold a worldview that posits a perpetual crisis
of good versus evil are that much more susceptible to such binary oppositions.
Thus, as Roderick Hindery observes, this conspiratorial them-against-us mental-
ity21 is common among fundamentalists who propose a simplistic, Manichean
division of people into two classes.22 And so the typical fundamentalist percep-
tion of a culture war renders them vulnerable to seeking security in such bald
categories.23 But we must recognize that this clarity of vision is gained at the ex-
pense of an appropriately nuanced understanding of the world, involving, as John
Kenneth Galbraith puts it, a choice for orderly error over complex truth.24
Often in doctrinaire curricula, simplistic binary categories are introduced early
on as a means to order all that is presented subsequently into absolute categories of
good and bad, right and wrong, truth and error. Such is the case with the TP, which

18
Michael S. Merry, Indoctrination, Moral Instruction, and Nonrational Beliefs, Educational
Theory 55.4 (2005): 406, emphasis in original.
19
Siegel, 132.
20
Thiessen, 141.
21
Roderick Hindery, The Anatomy of Propaganda Within Religious Terrorism, The Human-
ist (March/April 2003): 17.
22
Ibid.
23
Chris Hedges provides many examples of evangelicals appropriating binary militaristic
language. See for instance, American Fascists, 29-30.
24
Hindery, 17.
 Christian Scholars Review

80 introduces a simplistic Manichean division in the very first session on veritology.

Tackett roots this dichotomy in a patina of scriptural references beginning with
John 18:37 where Jesus reveals that he came to testify to the truth and that every-
one who is on the side of truth listens to him. As Tackett explains, with these words
Jesus is actually bifurcating the world into Truth (Reality) and Lies (Illusion),
two diametrically opposed sides that are locked in The Cosmic Battle.25 The real
power of the dichotomy emerges when Tackett intimates that all issues and posi-
tions conform ultimately to one of these two sides, a point he makes by randomly
identifying the following complementary pairs as examples:

Truth/Reality Lies/Illusion Examples of Lies

(stated or implied)
Unity Division Divorce
Diversity Unification Gay marriage
Roles Jealousy Feminism
Responsibility Blame Anti-corporatism
Authority Rebellion Delegation
Tyranny Freedom Bondage

Thus, Tackett illustrates that it is relatively easy to divide reality into Christian and
non-Christian (that is, evil and illusory) elements. To drive the point home he adds:

This is a battle of worldviews. It is a battle between the truth claims of God and the lies and
the illusions of the world of flesh and the devil. On this side the truth claims of God are
consistent and logical. They make sense. They work. And even in a fallen world when we
follow them they lead to peace and prosperity and happiness. And opposed to that, the web
of lies of the world of flesh and the devil. And it is illogical, it has holes in it, it is inconsistent
and it leads to the most grievous weeping, wailing and moaning and death. (session 1)

It is difficult to see how Tackett could have made the contrast more absolute.26
Indeed, in maximizing the contrast he overplays the difference. For one thing, con-
trary to Tacketts naive rationalism, Judeo-Christian revelation does not always
appear consistent or logical. (Just think about Yahwehs demand to Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac or the doctrine that the one God is three distinct and equally divine
persons.) Nor is the Christian guaranteed peace, prosperity and happiness in this
life as Tackett implies. (Indeed, Christs command to take up ones cross might
lead one to conclude the opposite.)
While Tackett is correct that Jesus bifurcated the world, there are at least three
critical problems with his take on this bifurcation. First, there is often a lot more

25
Tackett describes Christians as people of the truth (1 John 4:6) while non-Christians are like
POWs awaiting liberation from their world of illusion and deceit.
26
Compare Chris Hedges observation that with Christian dominionists: There are only two
types of people. There are godly men and women who advance Christian values, and there
are nonbelieversmany of them liberal Christianswho peddle the filth and evil of secular
humanism. Hedges, American Fascists, 150.
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project

distance between Christians and Christs Truth/Reality than Tackett seems willing 81
to admit. Harry Blamires comments:

The Christian mind knows that, in any sorting out of the sheep and the goats, of the virtuous
from the sinful, the forces of Heaven would slice through human society at an unexpected
angle. The knife would cut firmly, but certainly not horizontally. What can we say or think of
how it would separate the self-seekers from the fundamentally God-directed souls, except
that it would certainly not leave all the convicts and perverts and public nuisances on one
side, and all the cabinet ministers and business executiveson the other?27

At this point Blamires is tapping into a scriptural theme that Christians overlook at
their peril: though we may believe Christianity, we neither have that knowledge
perfectly nor do we live in accord with it as we should. And our ability for self-
deception on both counts is captured in the chilling depiction of the sheep and
goats (Mt. 25:1-13, 31-46). Thus, the claim that Christians are people of truth must
be qualified by the fact that each individual must test himself to see if he is in the
truth (2 Cor. 13:5). But once we recognize that we must continue vigorously to
pursue the truth that remains beyond us, we find absolute contrasts between the
people of the truth and people of the lie hopelessly marginalized.28
The second problem is that Tacketts binary opposition ignores the extent that
common grace and general revelation are operative in the world. Even if we could
draw Tacketts absolute soteriological boundary, that does not map onto a parallel
alethic boundary. As such, we could still learn all sorts of valuable truths from non-
Christian philosophers, theologians, economists, political scientists, physicians,
historians, artists, and so on. Tacketts dualism reminds me of a Christian rock
music fan I heard declare: If youre not singing for God youre singing for the
devil. I confess that I always found it hard to think of Karen Carpenter singing
Weve only just begun as a paean to the dark lord. Is there not a category for the
Carpenters that is neither divine nor demonic? (Perhaps the purgatorial hinter-
land of MOR radio?) Clearly Tackett needs a category between absolute truth and
lies to allow for the varying degrees of truth (and error) that one finds in different
worldviews. And, in keeping with our first point, Christianity in its many concrete
historical manifestations will find itself at varying places on that continuum.29
Third, Tackett describes one view as occupying the side of lies and deception,
namely the belief that the universe is a closed cosmic cube with nothing beyond
it. In other words, Tackett only acknowledges the existence of two worldviews:
Christianity and atheistic naturalism. Assuming that he is not implying that all
non-Christian religions and philosophies are atheistic at base (certainly an incred-
ible supposition), he appears to have chosen (arbitrarily and without

27
Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind (London: SPCK, 1963), 91.
28
While Tackett recognizes that Christians commit sin (in session three he focuses some time
on Galatians 5:17), this admission is never allowed to qualify his absolute dichotomy.
29
For a disturbing exploration of these themes at an ecclesial level, see Ephraim Radner, The
End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1998).
 Christian Scholars Review

82 acknowledgement) to focus on only two worldviews. While this is clearly indefen-

sible, it has an ideological rationale as it secures the absolute binary opposition
that consigns all non-Christian views to the side of lies (along with all Christian
views of which one disapproves for example, theistic evolution) while protecting
ones own conservative Christian ideology from critical introspection.30

The Effect of Binary Thinking

As noted above, unqualified binary thinking secures an uncritical acceptance

of certain assumptions while inhibiting subsequent critical reflection on those as-
sumptions. We will now consider the way that this binary thinking distorts com-
plex issues, encourages the distortion and dismissal of opposing opinions, and
undermines critical analysis of ones own views and confirmation bias.
Tackett ignores the complexity of important issues repeatedly. Consider as an
example one of the complementary pairs in his truth versus lies chart: Responsibil-
ity vs. Blame. When introducing this contrast, Tackett provides an example of how
people refuse to accept individual responsibility: Thats why we get a woman
who can sue McDonalds for millions of dollars. Why? Because she spilled a cup of
hot coffee in her lap. It must not be her fault, right? We live in a culture of blame
(session 1). Not surprisingly, the facts of the case are much more complex. In Feb-
ruary 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled a coffee that she had just purchased
at a McDonalds drive thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While home-brewed
coffee is generally heated to between 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit, at the time of the
accident McDonalds nationwide was regularly serving their coffee at between 180-
190 degrees. The American Association for Justice reports that McDonalds own
quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food sub-
stance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonalds coffee was not fit for
consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.31 Further, in the trial it
was revealed that McDonalds had settled over 700 claims for coffee burns be-
tween 1982 and 1992.32 As a result of the scorching temperature, Liebeck suffered
severe burns on her thighs, buttocks and genitals, injuries which required eight
days of hospitalization and skin graft procedures. While we can debate the exact
balance between individual and corporate responsibility, the case is not simply
evidence of a greedy grandma trying to shake down a conscientious corporation.
The second example is found in the ninth session where Tackett tells the fic-
tional story of James and Heidi, a happy couple who realize their dream by build-

30
It is also troubling how malleable Tacketts complementary pairs are. For instance, while
he tendentiously invokes roles over jealousy to chasten feminism, one could just as well do
so to silence womens suffrage or the civil rights movement. So how does one discern what
the proper application of the truth position is?
31
American Association for Justice, McDonalds Scalding Coffee Case, <http://
www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx>.
32
Ibid.
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project
ing and tending a bucolic farm. After setting up the idyllic scene, Tackett then asks 83
the class whether they would consider it stealing if a gang charged in after James
and Heidi died and took half of their estate. Not surprisingly, there is unanimous
agreement. Next Tackett asks the class whether they would change their view if
the governor passed a law that declared this act legal. Of course the class is unde-
terred: it would still be stealing. If anybody has missed this less than subtle refer-
ence to the estate tax, Tackett then says: Well do you know that we have a law like
that in America? That gives the state the right in certain situations to take half of a
dead mans property? Is that stealing? Clearly Tackett believes so, as he draws a
comparison with Ahabs seizure of Naboths vineyard in 1 Kings 21 and then
launches into a diatribe against government taxation that sounds like a speech at a
Michigan Militia convention.33 Even a child could discern the obvious differences
between a roving mob and a democratic state seeking to account for systemic ineq-
uity by the programmatic redistribution of wealth.34 Tackett does not even acknowl-
edge the existence of a rationale for taxation, leaving the single impression that it is
an unambiguous instance of stealing. As such, one is left with a bald proof-texting
of Scripture to support libertarian, laissez-faire capitalism.
When Tackett turns to discuss the United States in session ten, he warns of the
anti-Americanism of certain educated elites: It is in vogue today to hate America.
there is a deep hatred of America within liberal academia.35 While acknowl-
edging that this anti-Americanism also is widely felt abroad, Tackett dismisses the
possibility that it may have anything to do with such factors as military invasions,
CIA-led coups, trade blockades, internment camps, Guantanamo Bay, WTO, IMF
and World Bank policies, Abu Ghraib, and the proliferation of McDonalds, Coca
Cola, Britney Spears and Baywatch reruns. Instead, he marginalizes all anti-Ameri-
canism as rooted in an aversion to the Puritans 1643 declaration to advance the
kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ. As Tackett puts it,

Thats why they came, and I think that it is because of that foundation, it is because of those
roots, that we see that it is now in vogue to hate America. Oh, theres a lot of things that are
wrong with this country and my heart grieves for it, but that hatred is not because of that. It
is because of something else. (session 10)

33
After noting Samuels warning that a king in Israel would take one tenth of the citizenrys
possessions (1 Sam. 8:15, 17), Tackett comments sarcastically: Now I know this is probably
hard for you to imagine, that the state would take ten percent. Then he comments: Inter-
esting statement by God who is warning them what this government will become: a behe-
moth that will take the best your first fruits that will take ten percent of your goods, it will
redistribute your wealth to others a warning you will become its slaves.
34
For a fascinating account of the origins of American wealth inequity, see Meizhu Lui, et. al,
The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the U.S. Radial Wealth Divide (New York: New Press,
2006).
35
As a side note, there is little evidence that Tackett has read any liberal academics. Indeed,
the research behind the TP appears to consist largely of quotes lifted from Josh McDowell,
David Noebel and Francis Schaffer.
 Christian Scholars Review

84 This binary opposition is so simplistic and absolute that surely it must border on
willful self-delusion.36
A second casualty of Tacketts simplistic binary categories is found in the re-
peated distortion, conflation, and dismissal of opposing views.37 Consider for ex-
ample session three, where Tackett mashes together incompatible views under the
title of Naturalistic Philosophy Implications. To begin with, Tackett quotes PETA
founder Ingrid Newkirk as saying A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Next, he ex-
plains how this view leads to the controversial views of Finnish environmentalist
Pentti Linkola:

Linkola goes so far as to say that he has more sympathy for threatened insect species than
for children dying of hunger in Africa. Now does that seem to shock us? It shouldnt. If a rat
is a pig is a dog is a boy then why shouldnt we be more concerned about an insect species
thats about to go extinct? Weve got lots of human beings, and so if lots of them are just out
there dying, thats no big deal.

Tackett then explains how Newkirk and Linkolas views are linked to the human-
ist beliefs of people like Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz again says If man is a product of
evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then mans
option is to live for himself.
Now it is not hard to identify an uneasy tension in Tacketts juxtaposition of
these three individuals, for while Newkirk appears to treat human beings as equiva-
lent to other terrestrial life forms, Linkola apparently views them as inferior to
certain other life forms and Kurtz as superior. And that initial assessment of in-
compatibility is correct. Newkirk is an animal liberation activist whose preemi-
nent concern is with the cessation of the suffering of individual sentient creatures.
As such, her central point is not, as Tackett interprets it, that We are no different
than a rat or a pig but rather that their suffering is of no less significance than
ours.38 While Newkirk is concerned with liberating chickens from their battery
cages, Linkola is a deep ecologist whose primary concern is the overall health of
planet Earth. This cashes out in a concern to maintain the harmony between Earths
various animal populations within their respective ecosystems. As such, for Linkola,
the suffering of individual animals is of less importance than the survival of the

36
For a more balanced assessment of empire (American or otherwise), see Reinhold Niebuhr,
The Irony of American History (New York: Scribner, 1952); and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warn-
ing to the West (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1976). As a Canadian myself, let it be
noted that north of the border we have nothing to brag about. See Noam Chomsky, Under-
standing Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, ed. Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel (New York:
New Press, 2002), 290.
37
For instance, Tackett refers to Carl Sagan erroneously as an atheist when in fact his views
ranged between deism (Contact: A Novel [London: Century, 1986]) and agnosticism (The Vari-
eties of Scientific Experience [New York: Penguin, 2006], 31).
38
It saddens me that I have heard this single Newkirk quote repeated innumerable times by
evangelicals with nary a concern to understand the view being expressed or its motivation.
In doing this, evangelicals prevent themselves from learning from Newkirk, as in her inter-
esting book 50 Awesome Ways Kids Can Help Animals (New York: Warner Books, 1991).
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project

species, and an individual animals value decreases in inverse proportion to the 85

increase of the species destabilizing influence upon Earth. It is for that reason that
an endangered insect population figures higher on Linkolas moral radar than the
starving offspring of a dangerously abundant and destabilizing species like hu-
manity. Bluntly stated, to say that Newkirks animal liberation activism leads to
Linkolas deep ecology is like saying ultramontanism leads to Anabaptist church
polity.39 As for Paul Kurtz, as an excellent exemplar of the modern humanist tradi-
tion, he elevates the human species as a normative standard bearer of value, an act
that both Newkirk and Linkola would dismiss as morally repugnant. For instance,
in the Humanist Manifesto 2000 he writes: Humanist ethicsdoes not require agree-
ment about theological or religious premises we may never reach that but it
relates ethical choices ultimately to shared human interests, wants, needs, and val-
ues.40 To this, Newkirk and Linkola would reply in one voice: A pox on you and
your house!
To make matters worse, convinced that the views of Newkirk, Linkola and
Kurtz are linked with Darwinian evolution,41 Tackett quotes with approval atheist
G. Richard Bozarths claim that

Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly
made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the
sorry remains of the son of Godand if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins,
and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (session 3)

Like the logical connection between Newkirk, Linkola and Kurtz, this claim is ut-
terly ridiculous. Even if one disagreed with the opinion of so eminent an evangeli-
cal scientist as Francis Collins that Darwinian evolution and Christianity are com-
patible, evolution certainly does not mean that Jesus was not the redeemer who
dies for our sins. And to quote such a statement with approval only perpetuates
the very worst of the warfare model of science/religion (no doubt much to the
delight of Richard Dawkins).42
Tacketts absolute binary opposition leads to those with whom he disagrees

39
For more on the distinction between animal liberation activism and deep ecology, see Rob-
ert Wennberg, God, Humans, and Animals: an Invitation to Enlarge our Moral Universe (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 46.
40
Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifesto 2000 (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999), 24.
41
His slide on Linkola is headed with the title Implications from an Icon of Evolution.
42
Further, Tackett caricatures the naturalistic view of human persons as imago goo and
concludes that on the view we are now left with the logical conclusion that we are nothing
but a straw man, in a straw universe, looking for a straw brain (session 3). Unfortunately
the only straw man here is Tacketts own characterization of naturalism. This is truly a lost
opportunity, given the sophisticated critique that Christian philosophers have launched
against naturalism in recent years. See, for instance, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland
eds., Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, Routledge Studies in Twentieth Century Philosophy (Lon-
don: Routledge, 2000); Michael C. Rea, World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of
Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); and Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliafero,
Naturalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008).
 Christian Scholars Review

86 being misrepresented and dismissed rather than being treated as serious inter-
locutors. For instance, in session three Tackett dismisses Abraham Maslows hier-
archy of needs with the ominous warning: Can you hear the hiss of the snake?
Convinced that Maslows view of self-actualization as the highest aspiration reit-
erates the primal sin in the garden, Tackett never considers the possibility that we
might appropriate insights critically from the hierarchy of needs. In contrast to
Tacketts closed stance, Christian psychologist Ronald Philipchalk suggests that
the Christian might adopt the hierarchy while positing a sixth level beyond self-
actualization: that of spiritual need.43 Or rather than supplant self-actualization,
perhaps one could reinterpret it in theological terms (for instance, an Augustinian
view of self-actualization in God). But the main point concerns not how Maslow
might be appropriated, but rather that Tacketts absolute binary categories inhibit
a critical dialogue from even beginning.
The final effect of Tacketts simplistic binary opposition is the inhibition of
critical introspection, a move that blinds us to the arbitrariness and inconsistency
of our beliefs and which is masked typically by unexamined confirmation biases.
Raymond Nickerson explains that the confirmation bias connotes a less explicit,
less consciously one-sided case-building process. It refers usually to unwitting se-
lectivity in the acquisition and use of evidence.44 As a result, one selectively gath-
ers, or gives undue weight to, evidence that supports ones position while neglect-
ing to gather, or discounting, evidence that would tell against it.45 While this ten-
dency to seek only to support ones beliefs is pervasive, it must be kept in close
check. As Nickerson warns, If one is constantly urged to present reasons for opin-
ions that one holds and is not encouraged also to articulate reasons that could be
given against them, one is being trained to exercise a confirmation bias.46
Needless to say, Tacketts dichotomy is ideally designed to reinforce the most
regrettable aspects of ones confirmation biases, his treatment of evil in session
three being an excellent example. Tackett begins by asking, Why is there evil in
the world? Although this question is posed to Christians often, Tackett avers that
it really should be presented back to the world not to us. We really do have a lot of
answers for the issue of evil. But, he adds: The world does not. Then Tackett
argues that according to an atheistic naturalist anthropology, human beings are
basically good. But this gives rise to a dilemma: if human beings are basically good,
then why do we do bad things?

Do you understand this question that is constantly laid upon us? The question of evil? And it
is usually asked of us in somewhat of a smug way, and I dont mean to be trite about it, but
a smug way that implies that not only has the questioner stumped you as a believer but they

43
Ronald Philipchalk, Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Controversial Issues, rev.
ed. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), 123.
44
Raymond S. Nickerson, Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,
Review of General Psychology 2.2 (1998): 175.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., 205.
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project
have somehow toppled Christianity, when in reality we have a lot of answers for this ques- 87
tion, and the truth is they have none. If man is basically good, if his instinct and his nature is
basically good, then why is there evil in the world?

According to Tackett, the Christian has no such problem:

The question of evil is not an easy one. And I dont mean to trivialize it from the standpoint
of the answers that we have because in reality the ultimate origin of evil is somewhat puz-
zling for us. But in reality you and I have been given that universal answer to the question of
why there is evil in the world and what is evil.

And so, while human depravity confounds naturalisms anthropological optimism,

it accords perfectly with the Christian view of the fall.
Any claim that Christians have all the answers to the problem of evil is, at
best, grossly misleading. Indeed, in one respect at least, the Christian has a greater
difficulty with evil than the naturalist. Note first that the typical naturalists view
is not all sunny optimism, as will be evident to anyone who has read literature on
evolutionary biology. Indeed, naturalists actually have quite a good explanation of
human evil: we evolved first to perpetuate the species, not to do the right thing.47
But while atheists can accommodate the origin of human evil in the terms of our
blind evolutionary origins, Christians have a much more difficult time explaining
it, given divine origins.48 And in addition to moral evil, the Christian must explain
the vast amount of natural evil that predates the appearance of human beings on
the earth, including the carnage of Tyrannosaurus Rex and the digger wasps ma-
cabre habits of reproduction.49 These are hardly trifling concerns, and so Tacketts
dismissal of them can be attributed only to an egregious perpetuation of his own
Christian confirmation bias.
Our second example concerns Tacketts treatment of the formation of Scrip-
ture. Here if anywhere, nuanced, critical thinking is required, as became obvious a
few years ago when Dan Brown sent many evangelicals into fits of angst upon the
realization that the canon developed gradually. But rather than take the opportu-
nity to provide a properly nuanced historical account of Scriptures development,
Tackett attempts to discount it by presenting a distorted and ahistorical account
which appears oblivious to contemporary scholarship. When it comes to the for-
mation of the Torah, Tackett apparently will not countenance anything less than
Mosaic authorship while dismissing the JEDP hypothesis as a tendentious product

47
Indeed, many Darwinian naturalists have a more pessimistic view of human moral poten-
tial than Christians since many believe true altruism is impossible. See Andrew Brown, The
Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man (London: Simon and Schuster, 1999),
chapter 1.
48
As David Hume observed famously, if God really is omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
whence then is evil? Even if one believes Humes logical problem has been answered, one
can still puzzle over the amount and distribution of evil.
49
For discussion of the latter, see Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: Basic Books,
1995), 95.
 Christian Scholars Review

88 of liberal, skeptical scholarship (session 3). Even more disturbing is his treatment
of the New Testament in session six when he presents a chart titled Ancient Works
and Their Oldest Manuscripts (apparently drawn from Josh McDowell, Evidence
that Demands a Verdict50). This list illustrates the time-gap between the initial com-
position of various ancient writings and the earliest extant copies:51

Homers Iliad 500 years

Julius Caesars Gallic Wars 1000 years
Plinys History 750 years
Thucydides History 1300 years
Herodotus History 1300 years

With those points of comparison, Tackett then turns to address the time gap be-
tween the composition of the New Testament and our earliest extant copy: Lets
look at the New Testament. What do we have? Twenty-five years. Only twenty-
five years to the first and earliest document that we have. Thats pretty signifi-
cant.
Note first that this chart creates a misleading impression that the New Testa-
ment is a unitary document parallel to Homers Iliad or Herodotus History. This
grounds a second, subtle distortion that the process of canon recognition was a
relatively straightforward manner of recognizing this single documents author-
ity. However, the most serious distortion concerns the impression that we have a
(relatively) complete New Testament manuscript that dates to within twenty-five
years of the New Testaments composition. In fact, the earliest relatively complete
manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to between 330 and 350. Perhaps then Tackett
was actually referring to P52, the earliest extant manuscript which dates to about
AD 130. But far from being a manuscript of the whole New Testament (as a layper-
son would assume), P52 is a small fragment (2.5 by 3.5 inches) from the Gospel of
John (18:31-33 and 37-38).52 While this fragment provides powerful evidence for
the antiquity of John, it says nothing directly about the fidelity of the later extant
manuscripts of John that we have, let alone about the rest of the New Testament.
While I do not know his intentions, it looks as if Tackett is trading off the laypersons
ignorance of the semantic range of the technical term manuscript as referring to
everything from parchment fragments to complete codices, thereby conveying the
impression that we have a copy of the New Testament centuries earlier than is in
fact the case.

50
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (USA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972),
48.
51
Tackett explains the comparison as follows: What I want you to do is compare the oldest
manuscript for each one. Lets look at one. For Homers Iliad the earliest manuscript we
havelets assume that Homer is writing his Iliad on this date [points at the ground]. The
oldest manuscript we have is one that was written five hundred years after Homer wrote the
Iliad in the beginning(session 6).
52
In contrast to Tackett, McDowell is forthright that P52 is a portion of the gospel of John
and a little fragment. McDowell, 48.
Learning in a Time of (Cultural) War: Indoctrination in Focus on the Familys The Truth Project

Conclusion: Education During Wartime 89

In session six of the TP, Tackett points to the case of Rigoberta Menchu, a hu-
man rights activist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who fabricated a number
of events in her bestselling, critically acclaimed autobiography An Indian Woman in
Guatemala. Tackett notes that one defender of Menchu dismissed the charge of fab-
rication thusly: Whether her book is true, I dont care. What is important is that
we teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military, the horrors
of capitalism and so forth.53 Tackett intends the example as a sober warning of the
error in attempting to defend truth through the perpetuation of falsity as if one
could win the battle for good through the perpetuation of evil. And he is surely
right. Menchus defender illustrates the sobering fact that some ideologues will
engage in that final irony of sacrificing truth in order to save it.
The task of educating the Christian laity is an enormous one, and I commend
Focus on the Family for shouldering this most difficult task. But this cannot change
the fact that the TP echoes the fault of Menchu by subverting the pursuit of truth to
its own ideological ends. Frankly it is astounding that after spending two million
dollars on the production costs of the TP,54 Focus on the Family apparently never
bothered to undertake even a rudimentary vetting of the curriculum itself. And if
the TP demonstrates little concern for pursuing the truth, one can hardly expect
more from its participants. The first thing we need in the midst of a perceived
culture war is sober self-criticism to ensure that we truly are people living out the
truth (1 John 1:6).55 In addition, we need to recognize that the battle is the Lords, so
that we do not capitulate to the tempting pragmatism that seeks victory at the
expense of truth.56 Only then will evangelicals reach intellectual maturity in which
they stand for the truth in all its complexity. Sadly, the TP reflects instead more the
pragmatism of the soldier in the film Flags of Our Fathers who defends the ideologi-
cally-driven war bonds campaign with the quip: We need easy-to-understand
truths and damn few words.57

53
Unfortunately, Tackett gives no reference for this quote.
54
Dr. Dobson Introduces The Truth Project, <http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/
culturefocus/A000000118.cfm/>
55
Nicholas Wolterstorff argues that we can describe both a proposition and a person as true
relative to a common concept of measuring up in excellence: When we speak of a true so-
and-so, we are implicitly measuring a contrast between this so-and-so that measures up and
other so-and-sos that do not, or would not, measure up. Nicholas Wolterstorff, True Words,
in But Is It All True? The Bible and the Question of Truth, eds. Alan G. Padgett and Patrick R.
Keifert (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, MA: Eerdmans, 2006), 42.
56
As Bert Gordijn observes: On a surgical ward during an operation or in the army in a
battle situation, more dictatorial forms of consensus formation with regard to the next ac-
tions to undertake are appropriate and justified. Bert Gordijn, Regulating Moral Dissent in
an Open Society: The Dutch Experience with Pragmatic Tolerance, Journal of Medicine and
Philosophy 26.3 (2001): 227.
57
Thanks to an anonymous reader at Christian Scholars Review for helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this paper.