Approach to Christian Truth-Claims

This program is being presented in an effort to investigate all Christian truth-claims by comparing them with a contextual understanding of the Bible and its original intent. We are not interested in supporting or promoting any tradition, person, practice, culture, or denomination that stands contrary to this reasonable and contextual approach to scripture. Nothing is so sacred that it is exempt from scrutiny. Nothing so popular and accepted that it won’t be discarded if found wanting and unreasonable.

This is Heart of the Matter . . . where we make every effort to worship God in Spirit and Truth.

Reflections on the Bible and Its Context

Show 6 432 – The Bible part IV
February 10th 2015

“Live from Salt Lake City, Utah, this is Heart of the Matter where our aim is help all people worship God in Spirit and in Truth.”

I am your host, Shawn McCraney.

I have gathered and prepared hundreds – possibly thousands – of pages of information that we need to consider in our topic on the Bible and its place and purpose in the Body today. I’m really excited to be involved in this study with you all this year. But I couldn’t keep from typing out thoughts I had on our meeting with Pastor Wallace last week, and so I want to cover some things I believe are really important NOT ONLY to the Christian life we are all seeking to live but to making the path to understanding clearer.

Engagement with Different Christian Perspectives

If you aren’t aware, last week we had the honor of sitting with Pastor Jason Wallace from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church here in Utah in a first attempt to bridge the gap between our very divergent worldviews on Christianity today. For those of you who don’t know, Jason hosts a show called, “Ancient Paths” and appeals greatly to religious tradition, including an absolute allegiance to Calvinism – but I must add (out of respect for Pastor Wallace) that the Calvinism he gives his allegiance to is the Calvinism that is clearly understood and not the form that has been adulterated over time – essentially, it’s what Jason would consider pure Calvinism. I, on the other hand, reject all religious orthodoxy and believe that Christianity since 70 AD is subjectively lived and understood by individual believers by the power of the Holy Spirit. I am building my case for why I see Christianity in these terms on the show this year.

I’m very grateful for the opportunity to engage with Pastor Wallace and thank all who participated or contributed no matter what side of the fence you are on. Jason has promised to air the meeting on his program unedited and showed the first half last week as promised. The second half will air tomorrow night here in Salt Lake City on channel 20 at 8 pm.

There are a couple of main points I want to reiterate about our time together last week. First, I want Jason to know I love and respect him and consider him a devoted Christian brother, even though I wince at some of the things he believes. This is one of the major points of what I call Subjective Christian – doctrines of disputable matters ought NOT divide followers of Christ Jesus – ever.

What are NOT disputable matters – in other words, what are the non-negotiables? The Gospel – the Good News. Outside of this, everything else seems to be sort of up in the air as far as I can tell. I realize that my saying this will really get peoples' dander up, but try and understand what I am really saying. I teach the Bible emphatically and do not back off on what it says. But no matter how emphatically I have and will continue to teach the Bible, I refuse to make other people accept my views but instead give everyone the liberty to decide (by the Holy Spirit) what they are going to accept or reject and LOVE them as my family in Christ.

Core Biblical Truths

So Sunday comes. And I stand and I teach that there is only one God, that Jesus is God in the flesh, that He suffered, died, was buried, that He rose on the third day and was seen of many witnesses, that a person must be born-again to see the Kingdom of God, that there is no other way to heaven than through faith in the finished work of Christ, and three hundred and twenty-two thousand other biblical truths.

Of those who hear me, one percent agree with everything I say, ten percent agree with 60% of what I…

Perspectives on Faith and Doctrine

Say, twenty percent might buy into half of what I believe and the other 70% remain unsure on one point or another. So what. So freaking what! We are all there, we are all seeking to worship God in spirit and in truth and if we all walk out motivated toward greater faith and toward greater love what’s the big cause for concern? I fully trust the power of the Holy Spirit as it works in people’s lives who have received Christ and do not have to sweat the transitory stances people take as they grow in Him.

The Debate on Denominationalism

Denominationalism and unauthorized religious men say: This is the way to see this disputable matter and there is no liberty or getting around it. Sign on the dotted line, become a card-carrying member, pay your tithes, and you will be accepted as a worthy believer – challenge our way and your Christianity is false. This is what I mean by doctrine doesn’t matter. Again, I teach doctrine – constantly. But the point is each individual has the right and the responsibility to do what they want with it remembering that what does matter is continued abiding faith and love.

The Question of Love

Speaking of love, from the email responses we got about the show the pivotal moment seems to have been when Jed Casper got up and asked that anyone who loved him to raise their hand. At this invitation Pastor Wallace declined and when asked why he said: “I don’t know Jed.” Immediately thereafter my daughter Cassidy followed up by asking Jason, “What do you need to know about Jed to love him?”

This series of short events led to a whole bunch of emails and discussions this last week with most of them reiterating that Jesus commanded that we even love our enemies and so not knowing another could never, in the Christian sense of things, be an excuse to not love them. While I absolutely agree with this opinion I must personally apologize to Jason. I am apologizing for shaking my head in disbelief over his response. For a man who claims subjective Christianity is the way I have to accept the fact that Jason feels justified in withholding love from some people and that this attitude – while I believe is unbiblical – is between him and God. He has the right. And I do not have the right to mock him for his choice.

So where we can and will teach that love is the end desire of everything in Christianity we must realize and accept that every individual believer has the right to reject this notion . . . and it is incumbent on us to love and respect them anyway. I failed to respect Jason. I am sorry my brother.

Brick and Mortar Churches: A Historical Perspective

Finally, while admitting from the onset of our meeting that these types of engagements typically accomplish very little between opposing parties, we are all still left with two widely divergent views represented by Pastor Wallace and myself. Admittedly, Pastor Wallace has the weight of history on his side which readily illustrates that physical brick and mortar institutions (and the men who claim authority in God’s name to oversee them) have been the norm.

On the other hand I’d like to point out that this “brick and mortar pseudo authoritarian approach” (while present in various forms for a thousand plus years) has been more than a fail when we consider what Jesus stood for and then compare what these historical, physical churches have done in his very name. We are going to continue to provide supports for my stance in the coming weeks and months but I would really appreciate it – I’m seriously requesting this – I would really appreciate it if SOMEBODY could just reasonably explain (using the Bible and not conjecture) how they justify denominationalism, brick and mortar churches replicating or trying to replicate the New Testament model, and the claims those who work in these churches have toward authority (by ordination).

Please – don’t write me and tell me your “version” of what you think is historical truth. Substantiate your position in clear simple, biblical terms.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. I received an email from one David who admonished me (like the LDS are guilty of doing) “to come back to the fold.” He insinuated that I have fallen prey to false teachings and need to rejoin what he called the flock. At least when the LDS do it they are speaking specifically of an

The Nature of the True Fold

actual singular flock they want me to rejoin – but what about David’s invitation? What fold does he want me to come back to? In my opinion it is entirely driven by the Spirit and by my definition I have never left the fold.

Isn’t the fold I am in – that with other believers is constituted on the shed blood of Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, a fold that loves and teaches the bible, the fold that seeks to love God and Man, a fold that shares the same Good News? Am I not in this fold? What removed me? Or is David suggesting I come back to a brick and mortar fold of some sort. If that’s the case we have to ask, “which one?” If the historical church continues on as it was intended . . . and it truly represents one faith, one lord and one baptism captured in brick and mortar and governed by men of authority, which one is it?

Challenges in Identifying the Physical Church

The Baptists – and which flavor of them? The Methodists – again, which type? The Presbyterians- which one? The Catholics, the Church of Christ? Using this very argument the LDS missionaries a thousand times a day tell people that this brick and mortar church is The LDS! It is for these very reasons that Christianity in this day and age reject all brick and mortar applications as being requisite and to now admit that doctrine and tradition CANNOT take precedence over love garnered by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit.

LISTEN – It is this position – no matter what the Calvinists and King James onliests, and other dogmatist maintain – that will take the wind right out of the LDS sails who too insist that Jesus established a brick and mortar, authoritarian church which was supposed to continue forward from His death until now. To suggest that all these disputable doctrines matter and the continuance of a historical brick and mortar church matters, then what is the correct doctrine and where is the historical church located – cause that’s the fold I want to come back to.

(beat)

Spiritual Construction of the Church

Or, or, or David . . . could it be that the fold is made of believers, that doctrinal disputes do not matter, and that the historical church is spiritually constructed rather than physically maintained? Pastor Wallace intimated that I think I am the only one in two thousand years have realized these points. Quite the contrary – true believers and followers of Christ – since Constantine have for nearly two thousand years pursued Christ by the Spirit and have shunned the trap of playing church – often to their own demise.

The greatest tragedy that exists, however, between orthodoxy and liberal Christianity is that we all have received and believe the SAME GOOD NEWS. Isn’t that the baseline by which we judge matters and embrace people as spirit brothers and sisters? I understand questioning the Christianity of an ardent LDS member because in the end Mormonism does teach “another gospel. But there’s not one bit of difference between the gospel that I embrace and the gospel that Jason, or James White, or David, or any of these guys.

Maybe we ought to ask, How does the Bible define the gospel? This good news?

Paul defines it in 1st Corinthians as faith in the fact that:

• Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
• that he was buried
• that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
• that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, and
• After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once

Is there any more? I think that the Bible (specifically the writings of Paul) includes more factors in describing the elements of the good news.

These include (and are found in Romans 1)

• “Justification by faith” and

• Sanctification by the Holy Spirit

I am a sold out believer in the biblical Good News – COMPLETELY!

So how can we ever think we have the right to attack and ostracize or shun others over thoughts on things NOT included in the Biblical description of the Good News?

Ask yourselves – Is accepting the man-made concept of Trinity and all the man made words to define it part of the Gospel? Is believing Jesus is going to come back or has come back already part of the Gospel? Is whether or not someone thinks God will punish the unbelieving forever with fire or NOT part of the Good News? No, no, and no. So why are those of in the Body biting at each other’s backs, and

Criticism and Acceptance in Christian Discourse

Contending with each other over unknowable disputable matters? I understand teaching and criticizing teachings – I will forever criticize the doctrines of Calvin. But to take a Calvinist brother or sister and shun them, and call them non-believers? Never. Perhaps an illustration on the whiteboard will best illustrate the idiocy of our trying to demand doctrinal and theological adherence from each other. Before I go to it, let’s have a Word of Prayer.

Navigating Criticism

As with most things in this world, amidst support come the criticisms. One I’ve read a few times this past week (from supporters of Jason primarily) is the criticism or claim that I am mentally ill and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously. Even former supporters of our ministry, when I was focused on Mormonism, are saying things like, “If we go back and watch his video history he shows obvious signs of extreme mental illness.”

So let me address this very topic for a moment. I think it is very important to our growth as Christian people. In a capitalistic society, where conformity is mandated in order to feed the machine, mental illness, instability, disabilities, erratic ideations, volatility, and just plain old artistic temperaments are not tolerated for very long.

I would suggest that capitalistic societies cater to systems that echo their overall objective of order as a means to produce peaceful returns and that such systems (which include corporate empires, organized religions, governments, educational facilities, and the like) naturally not only reject the alienated and odd but vilify them, their ideas, minds, and behaviors. Often, standing on these very objectives, the masses suggest that “square pegs” would truly be happier and would truly serve the world in a much greater way if they would only allow their edges to be rounded.

As a result, the difficult, strange, or odd are constantly criticized by the masses as never measuring up and needing to be fixed. Even the successful difficult ones (like Van Gogh or Joplin or Hendricks) are always thought to have had the potential to have been greater if they would have only been able to normalize out and found stability in life and mind. We tend to ignore the fact that if any of these types had been or become normal they would never have created or contributed to the world the art that we love and appreciate them for.

Even when we look back and appreciate their contributions today, the systems, as a means to ensure that we don’t have too many Van Gogh’s running about, continue to use demeaning labels toward them as a means to gently assassinate the character of those who color outside the lines as they did – “Mentally ill,” “Weird,” “Bipolar,” “Emotional,” “Temperamental,” “Passionate,” “Artistic.” At the same time those whose natural bents and skills feed and benefit the system are told they are stable, productive, and accomplished.

The trouble with this approach is that when we embrace it, we myopically ignore the importance that friction, divergence, uniqueness, oddness, and the difficulty provide to the established system of things. Listen, stability has its merits. Conformity, its virtues. But so does instability and non-conformity. It is the discomfited and the rebellious who challenge archaic notions and create the dialectic that functions to raise us to new levels of perspective, whether they be in our corporate, government, science, or religious traditions.

Embracing Divergent Perspectives

Finally, the presence of the odd and ill create opportunities for all of us – especially in the Christian world – to love, teaching us that harmony is what brings balance and unity, not conformity. Take all the weft threads in the world – without the warp you’ll never weave a fabric.

Am I mentally ill? Absolutely. Have been since a child, worse as a teen, manageable but still present as an adult. Like your ability to do higher math, or to wait patiently at a stoplight or to run a successful corporation, God has gifted me with what systems like to call mental illness but what I have long known to be nothing more than a blessed ability to see the inane and to conceive and see acceptable but alternative approaches to life on this earth – especially life as a devout Christian.

So if I, as ill as I am, not only accept but appreciate your innate corporate mentalities, your Calvinisms, your laws and orders and systems of conformity, is it really so wrong for you to accept my divergent views, my unorthodox ways, and my refusals?

The Essence of Love and Truth Seeking

Think about this stuff because what we are really talking about is not me nor you but about love. About all of us and our respective differences. About making love the locust of our Christian lives. Loving for the strange and normal, the enemies and the friends, loving everyone no matter who or how they understand the world around them.

The Definition of a Truth-Seeker

I had a man ask me in passing last week to give him “my best definition of a truth-seeker.” I explained that first of all, there is probably no more important title a person could have in life as Jesus himself said to the woman at the well:

John 4:23-24

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Again, Jesus said, “the Father seeketh those who worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH.” Hard to do this if a person is not a seeker of truth, right?

So how would I define truth seeker – especially from a biblical sense? I would say that a genuine Truth-Seeker:

• Will not allow anything every to come between him and knowing the truth:
• Not traditions
• Not established doctrines
• Not accepted practices
• Not parents, not spouse, not children, nor family
• Not job, status, position, the honors of men, luxuries of life.

(Matthew 10:37) “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

(Luke 14:27) “And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

When He said:

(Luke 9:58) “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”

(Luke 21:17) “ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.” When He talked to a rich young ruler who could not part with them When He told another who wanted to follow Him but first bury His parent to “let the dead bury the dead.” Truth seekers would never let anyone, anything, or any idea get in the way of their implementing the truth once they find it.

Jesus summarizes the attitude of the truth seeker in two parables, saying in Matthew 13:44-46:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Instead of it being a singular event of selling all and purchasing that which is true, I would suggest that truth-seeking is a daily event or at least a willingness to give everything up each time a new truth is discovered that trumps a former – no matter how beneficial retaining to the former might be to the individual’s life and well being. Truth-seeking defined? A committed willingness to sacrifice ANYTHING and EVERYTHING for truth.

Reflection and Response

1st Corinthians 13
If I have not love I have nothing….

I see a man without deep love and compassion Shawn. I am sad that even with all that knowledge there are still people that will not see the very reason we exist. For God and for others. His way of doctrine is what he sees as a ladder that requires a struggle to climb to reach the prize but God's new way is easy and light….the way of love. Love needs no knowledge of a person …it

God's Love and Christian Life

just loves .God's love isn't found in a book it's found on our hearts and it's what the world is so desperate for. When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well he revealed himself in love. He didn't bring condemnation he offered what her spirit needed not words but life. Too many Christian brothers use the word love like the priest that crossed the road when they were confronted with a need they never know what it really means. True love is always action. To say that he doesn't know if you are a Christian only God knows is grieving not only to me but it must be to the Holy Spirit also. How do we know Jason is living a Christian life we don't. We must see the fruits and not a tree covered in leaves. Love is all that matters and is the only way the Holy Spirit can move in this world. It's God's conduit…his arterial system to which this world can have what Jesus offers….LIFE.

Simplicity of Christian Faith

I know you love this man Shawn, and you should. I love him and don't know him. So why can't he love like that because the clanging and knowledge he has has blinded him from seeing. I pray that the eyes of his understanding may be opened and his heart may be renewed with God's unconditional love. Sometimes the Christian faith is just too simple for man. Where all the strife comes from is what man adds to it. When we see him we shall be like him for we shall see him face to face and the things of this world will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace. May each day we turn our eyes apon Jesus. Love you brother. Mark.

FROM STEVE H.

I'm wondering if you're familiar with the concept that we do not go to heaven or hell upon death but rather we are dead in the ground until Jesus' return and we receive our new bodies. The most difficult aspect of this for most people is that it is strongly ingrained into our minds that those places are "spiritual" and earth is "physical," but the Hebrews did not make this distinction and do not teach a separation between the body and soul. It's actually Greek thinking from as far back as Plato, and you can see it at work in the church in Corinth in Paul's first letter that we have to them. And this view has prevailed as we are very Greek-oriented in our thinking, and we read this into the text but after having heard that and having re-read scripture I've come to believe it's true.

The Resurrection Belief and Greek Influence

I know you'll have other reservations about that since you believe Jesus has only come back (which is another area I'd be interested I talking to you about if you're at all interested), and I'll agree with you that your current doctrines are more coherent than the average American Christian, but this body/spirit business is among the chief reasons I can't quite wholly agree with you. But I still love your show and value you as a brother. Also, if you haven't seen it, I recommend you watch Luis Buñuel's "The Milky Way" from 1969. It's a bit hard to find, but worth the effort. Sometimes it takes an atheist to makes us take a sober view on how we conduct ourselves.

From: Adnan

Subject: RE: Willful sin

I recently saw the video with you and Jason Wallace, one thing stuck out a little more than the others – it was the idea of being a Christian and willfully sinning. Pastor Wallace pointed out that you were wrong for believing the idea that a Christian who willfully sins, but loves/ has faith in Christ, and loves his fellow man, is still a Christian. Wallace used the story of the Lesbian that you brought up, he said that you were wrong for implicating that she could still be a Christian if she lives as a Lesbian, because she is willfully committing a sin. Now I completely understand the difference between a sin that is committed willfully, and one that is committed because one had a slip-up of the flesh, I am certainly not trying to say that the person committing willful sin is just having slip-ups… It would be interesting to note however, that there is a sin we are all committing willfully, especially in this day and age. I guarantee that even pastor Wallace commits this sin, and commits it willfully. (I do not purposely want to single him out, but hey, he threw the first stone, so let’s examine the beam in his eyes.)

Let me give background on this sin

Willful Sin in the Technological Age

That all of us in the 21st century commit willfully. Do you own a smartphone, computer, video game system, or tablet? Have you EVER installed software or updated software on any of those platforms? Do you have an account on a social networking site or posted a video/pictures on sites like Instagram, YouTube, etc.? Well, if you answered YES to any of those questions, congratulations you have probably committed a willful sin!

If you have done any of those things that I have mentioned above you are probably familiar with a LONG contract called the "USER TERMS AND AGREEMENT CONTRACT." Now like any other contract, it is legally binding. At the bottom of this contract, you are presented 2 options: you can decline the agreement to the contract, and not have access to the software you are trying to use, or you can click the "I have read and agree to all the terms and conditions" so that the software can then be functional. Therein lies the willful sin, unless you actually read the entire contract before clicking that "agree" option, then you are willfully LYING. And with all the technology, all the apps, all the upgrades, and all the software we go through in order to use our devices, it isn't presumptuous to assume this: NO ONE reads that contract before clicking; I have read and agree to ALL terms and conditions." Boy, how many Christians, (including Wallace), are living a willful sin of LYING!

As Wallace's interpretation of scripture shows us:

8. Liars will not inherit the kingdom of God and are doomed to the same fate as the fornicators and the effeminate! (Rev. 21:8).

And if you didn't realize that you were committing willful sin, by my pointing it out in this email, you now have no excuse!

Approaches to Overcoming Willful Sin

Now if you believe that willful sin equates to unforgivable sin, here is how you can approach this dilemma:

REPENT! Technology is obviously of the devil, and therefore must be abstained from in all aspects of life, because the devil is using those contracts to get Christians to willfully lie.

If you need the technology the other approach is to:

REPENT! And from here on forward you must ACTUALLY READ the entire contract, every single time it is presented, before clicking the agree button.

A More Biblical Approach

The third approach, (AND MUCH MORE BIBLICAL APPROACH) is to accept the fact that a Christian is not a Christian based on their lifestyle, or whether or not they commit sins (willful and otherwise), but rather based on two commands: Faith/love in Christ Jesus and Love for all mankind. Do not learn or focus on being a "sinless Christian"; instead, learn to Love and focus on having stronger faith in Christ in all aspects of your life. Christ truly said it best when he said all the Law and prophets hang on those 2 commands.

Anyways sorry for being long-winded. Look forward to more of your vids brother! God bless.

-Adnan, Moreno Valley CA.

From: Launa Willis

Subject: Debate with Ivory Tower Preacher (Jason)

Message Body:

Dear Shawn and Staff,

I watched yesterday's discussion with the ivory tower preacher (Jason) and continued to feel the hope in Christ I have yearned for since being removed from the LDS community. My favorite part was the question posed "What do you need to know before you can love him"?

That was the summum bonum of the discussion. And yes, I felt the "spirit" (an emotion provoked by the witness of something I care deeply about) when she so rightly asked that very valid question. Would Jesus have asked anything different?

Jason was no different than my current LDS problem, just a different variety. What is the difference between his "authoritative body" (of men) and the authorative body of the LDS? Are they not all men deciding how other men "should" live?

The hope I have is in YOUR ministry, I can't risk another LDS experience.

Launa~