The Role of Prayer in God's Will

From the Mecca of Mormonism Salt Lake City, Utah, this is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology., where we are learning together… And I’m your host Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion..

Let’s pray together.

Exploration of Prayer

Show 3L Chompin’ on Chomsky – Part I Taped Sunday October 18th Aired Tuesday October 20th

I was at one time (in my tempestuous search for God) under the impression that prayers are pretty much for learning to accept God’s will and ways in this troubled life. I still think praying is for the most part to get our will in line with his, but I was more adamant in the past that our prayers are not to get him to change his mind on matters or to get our will done on earth but again, just to get our hearts in line with His will.

Recently however, in our verse by verseTGNN’s Bible teaching series—book-by-book, through the lens of fulfillment and spiritual liberty. teachings, something dawned on me and I came upon a realization that may or may not hold water – but I want share it with you in case its right. It seems to me, in the environs of freewill, God is somehow bound to doing what he would expressly like to do.

What I mean by this is there are events that occur on this earth where he is by self-mandate hands off – due to the freewill of people involved. This may be part of the reason why he doesn’t stop every car accident, or homicide or suicide from happening. He must, being good, allow people to make choices and take action according to their wishes.

However, there seems to be a biblical precedence established where God will intervene in peoples lives IF other people, of their own freewill and choice, ask him, or pray that he will intervene.

Biblical Precedent of Intervention

In 2nd Thessalonians 3:1-2 Paul writes to Timothy, saying:

Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

Paul’s recommendation to Timothy so that he and his traveling companions would be delivered from “unreasonable and wicked men” was to have the believers pray for their deliverance. And while whether to deliver or not in the face of such prayers is in the hands of God, perhaps his ability to interfere and assist in this world is fortified when people, of their own freewill and choice, offer up prayers to Him on the behalf of others?

Perhaps, the prayers of believers, sent forth from their will, allows God to step into this realm and override the will of those who are otherwise free to do evil? In the face of this, I see the import of prayer and being more than just learning to accept Gods will in our lives, but perhaps they actually serve to open up the means for our loving good God to act and interfere where evil is being done.

Urgent Call to Prayer

With that being said, I got an email from a dear friend in Los Angeles who writes:

“Brother Shawn please please please pray for Armenia!!!!! It is so urgently needed! The Evil dictatorships of Azerbaijan and Turkey are bullying, massacring, bringing terrorists jacked up on drugs to fight against, spreading lies about and trying to exterminate my people AGAIN! They have proven themselves capable of unimaginable, horrendous things and today our 18 year old brothers are having to live through this to protect our land! All our men are ready to go and are going, but its not fair!

This is a spiritual war as much as physical and allll we can do is pray because the odds are not in our favor to survive. Sorry for being so emotional theres nothing I’ve felt more strongly about in my life! My country is on the verge of being exterminated because the 1915 genocide went unpunished and “never again” meant nothing! Your sister in Christ,

Those of you who know I am not political should understand that I do not see my prayers as politically driven – any more than when I pray for our Nation and whatever President we have in office. I see our prayers as reaching up to God on behalf of suffering, and injustice, and pain, and perhaps as a means to tip the scale on behalf of the tormented, allowing God to intervene.

Over the years people, seeing what they think is a chink in the armor of our ministry, have picked on the meaning of our weekly verse by verse teachings that we call CAMPUS – which is an acronym for…

Christian Anarchists and Classical Liberalism

Christian Anarchists Meeting to Prayerfully Understand Scripture.

And while we say the “A” in CAMPUS really stands for any “A” word that describes you (the individual – artist, academic, aquarian, advocate) I am personally an Anarchist in the Christian sense of the word – which I will explain in a moment with more depth than I ever have before. But at the onset let me say this – most people who criticize the label do so without understanding, and they typically do so as a means to besmirch me for other reasons. The title Christian Anarchist is actually a favorable one, and I want to take the time to establish where it came from and why I use it to describe myself. It’s a VERY important subject to me and if it wasn’t I would have abandoned the title years ago.

Influence of Noam Chomsky

So thirty years or so I have been a fan of a professor of Linguistics at MIT (who is also a noted political dissident) who goes by the name Noam Chomsky. Ironically, I call this genius (relative to linguistics) Nome and get corrected by people who want me pronunciate No-AM distinctly. I am not gonna do it anymore than I am going to start calling my aunt AUNT. So, get over it.

In any case, I can only understand the man so far into the woods because he is super intelligent, and extremely well read so don’t think I am attempting to represent the whole of him but really just his ideas relative to the meaning and purpose of anarchy – especially as a Christian. (remember that, ESPECIALLY as a Christian).

Classical Liberalism

Before we get to the best definition of Anarchy according to Dr. Chomsky, I want to address some historical ideas and actualities in the Nation that will help me ultimately explain why I am a Christian Anarchist. And this begins by my attempting to described what is called “Classical Liberalism” which really got its legs through the English Philosopher John Locke, who was greatly influenced by John Milton, and was promoted by men like Adam Smith, Willem Von Humbolt and John Stuart Mill with all of them espousing consummate freedom in all forums of human experience. Others like Montesque, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson also endorsed this view above others.

So classical Liberalism, which is very different from what people call liberalism today, begins with the all-important notion of seeing “human nature as unconstrained activity.” From an early pamphlet espousing the nature of classical liberalism, we read: “To every individual in nature, is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any . . . no man has power over my rights and liberties and I no man.”

A great contributor to Classical Liberalism is a guy I mentioned named Von Humbolt, born in the late 18th century. Chomsky recites Humbolt on occasion, who said, to some effect, something important. He said: “The craftsman who creates a beautiful work on command, we may admire what he created but we will despise what he is – a tool in the hands of others.” Then adds – “If the craftsman creates out of his own desires, commitment and search we admire both the product created and the man himself.” The idea of Classical Liberalism was to have a society where each individual progresses in his or her own way, according to who they are as individuals, allowing them to ultimately get to a place where they will choose to contribute (who they are and what they think) to the world around them – again, with minimal interference from any outside powers of any kind (government, religion, businesses, whatever).

From this view, a Classical Liberal would naturally believe that any and all social organizations ought to then “encourage every human being to engage in free creative activity which includes self-determination and direction.”

So, this is a super lean summary of the beginnings of Classical Liberalism omitting really essential components and attempts to establish it (like the French Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment). But something happened, folks. It was called the Industrial Revolution, followed by an age of science and mass production, followed by our digital revolution. But it was the industrial revolution that took Classical Liberalism and buried it deep in the rubble of what we called “progress.” The industrial revolution also helped to de-emphasize “laissez faire” economies and to further entrench the demands of Capitalism (or what is better understood as State-Lead Capitalism) which is rife with bailouts and tax provisions to keep the

The Intersection of Anarchism and Classical Liberalism

I am saying all of this neither to really renounce or endorse capitalism but to explain that political Anarchism, at least one form of it, is the attempt to get back to the ideals of Classical Liberalism. What Chomsky focuses on is called, Anarcho-syndicalism, which is the focus on how to get people working in industrial societies to thrive more closely in the Classic Liberal ideal than what destroyed it, State-Lead Capitalism. Now don’t freak out. I am not about or promoting anti-capitalist mentality. I have no dog in that fight. What I am doing is trying to explain the basis for my Christian anarchySomeone who follows Christ as their only authority—rejecting institutional control over their spiritual life. and how it came about.

State-Lead Capitalism and Classic Liberal Ideals

Now, what most people say, when it comes to State-Lead Capitalism (and all that comes along with it) is that “it’s the best thing that we’ve got, and it's better than State-led Communism, and that in the face of it, much good has, is, and will continue to be done.” What they mean to say is that “of the Capitalists out there who are providing jobs to people many, are for the most part good people, and they do provide jobs for others, and they do care for them, and they do treat their employees kindly, and they may even contribute to the betterment of the community through taxation and donations, etc."

In other words, the justification for its existence is that it does “more good than harm.” Chomsky points out that the good it does is certainly a reality but he simultaneously acknowledges that State-Lead Capitalism still strips people of their freedoms along the way, making them “wage slaves.” To illustrate this he says, “Instead of looking at Capitalism, let’s look at another institution that few in this world would say is good. The institution of slavery. He points out that “all the good things that we might say about a good capitalist could be said about a good slave owner too, you know, the ones who also provided their slaves jobs, were nice to them, cared for them and their well being, and may have even contributed to society at large.”

Chomsky points out, ironically, that often slave owners treated their slaves better than free workers were treated who were trying to make ends meet outside of a Plantation Economy. So just as employees and slaves alike can say that their bosses or managers or owners have actually benefited their lives in very similar ways, the reality is both are forms of slavery – and both are therefore wrong and in opposition to Classical Liberal thought. Again, specific slave owners and or employers might be good, but the institutions themselves – slavery and imperialistic corporate empires – are not, and never have been, especially in the face of the principles of Classical Liberalism laid out so well by John Locke, Humbolt and others.

Freedom and Liberty in Classical Liberalism

For Chomsky, who is sold and out completely fluent in the language of Classical Liberalism, the very idea that human beings could be owned or rented is so opposite the basic human rights espoused by Classic Liberalism that he sees anything that smacks of such as inferior, unable to justify its authority, and therefore needing to be destroyed, for when it comes to the individual lives of human beings, all forms of tyranny, slavery, bondage are to be eliminated and replaced with an environment that best represents freedom and liberty. And remember there is a difference between those two ideals – Everyone with the faculties has freedom (as freedom might be seen as something internal, something that each individual possesses). The freedom “to think” what we want. The freedom “to feel” how we'd like. The freedom to “make a decision.” Freedom is a form of self-determination and a form of free will. And I am of the opinion that the Living God holds freedom of human beings at the top of all of his priorities.

Liberty, however, is the right or opportunity to freely express oneself in how they feel, and think and act. Liberty, therefore, is not available to everyone. Liberty is the ability to express one's freedoms without “a controlling influence overlording us” or interfering or punishing us for their own personal interests. In Classical Liberalism, the utmost factor of importance is the freedom and the liberty for all human beings to “self-express.” In both Capitalism and Communism, these factors are at best hindered.

In the 19th Century and the Industrial Revolution, the notion of owning people (slavery) transferred over to people being rented.

The Distinction Between Slavery and Wage Labor

The only difference between slavery and being a person who “rents themselves out to others for pay” is that one is permanent and the other comes to an end at the end of the day. As it is with slavery, where the slave has no say in production, schedules, direction of labor, or into what he or she earns, so it is with most human beings and their slavery to wage by rental. In other words, the boss, owner, or managers over both slavery and wage slavery decide what is done, how it's done, who does it, and what they will be paid for doing it.

In a capitalistic society, the wage slave typically has to agree to the owners' terms in order to eat, make ends meet, feed their family, pay his or her bills, and to feel some semblance of security in this life. Most people will rent themselves out to any respectable job because they are not at liberty or equipped to take their time to really choose.

Understanding Anarchism

Got all that set up material in hand. Okay. So, on to anarchy, which in many cases is an attempt to return to the state of Classical Liberalism. First of all, there is a wide-wide spectrum of anarchistic views in the world, with each of them pretty much differing and/or specializing in their unique take on how to reform the world around us. Right there, we have a problem when we hear the term anarchy and assume that we know all the differences between them or we categorize it all as bomb-throwing radicals.

Sadly, many of our critical brothers decided that “Christian Anarchy was an endorsement for chaos, lawlessness, and disorder.” That is not true of Christian Anarchy (as I see it) nor is it the way even MOST secular Anarchists operate. So, let’s set the record straight – and I am going to borrow from Dr. Chomsky to help navigate the discussion.

What most people think when they hear "Anarchy" is rebelliousness, violence, and chaos, but as a philosophy, its tenets are far more nuanced and orderly than "destruction for destruction's sake." To see this fact alive and breathing all you have to do is take a gander at Dr. Chomsky as he is anything but violent or disorderly. And yet he is an avowed Anarchist in the secular sense, specifically he is all about what is called Anarco-syndicalism.

Unfortunately, most of our views of Anarchism are formed by the guy in the hood with a capital A in a circle on his shirt smashing down doors of business owners in the name of chaos. But as stated, and like most philosophies, anarchism and anarchists come in a large variety of flavors. For instance, did you know that Mohandas Gandhi has been described as an anarcho-pacifist?

Chomsky's Explanation of Anarchy

But let’s step back from the specialty flavors of Anarchy and look at the generalities. And Chomsky explains Anarchy and its role in the following way:

"Primarily, [anarchism] is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can't justify that authority and power and control (which is the usual case) then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."

By labeling himself as an anarchist, Chomsky is stating that he doesn't believe that all the institutions and systems that underpin our society are just as they lack the capacity to justify their assumed position of authority. This is the heart of anarchism; to call out the current systems as illegitimate because they are incapable of reasonably justifying their existence of authority over people.

The Dismantling of Unjust Systems

The follow-up or second part within realms of Anarchy is once a system cannot justify itself as having authority to direct people’s lives, it needs to be “dismantled and replaced with something better.” Popular culture (and reactionary souls) have a tendency to focus on the "dismantling part" of anarchistic movements rather than the first part which demands that institutions or people of power justify themselves and their existence.

Authority and Anarchy

Claim the authority and right to dominate others. Chomsky makes it very clear that it is the duty of those who have assumed authority to justify their assumption. Again, it is the duty of those who have placed themselves in authority to justify their existence of dominance. And if you really think about it, that is not an easy thing to do. I mean really, who gives a government the right to put other human beings in prison camps? Where does that government get such authority over human life? Such domination would be questioned by an Anarchist and the demand for a reasonable justification would need to be presented for an anarchist to comply with the demands of those in charge.

Forms of Anarchy

So again, when it comes to the number of forms of specific Anarchy out there, all of them are focused on:

1. Challenging the powers that be and their claims of having authority to dominate any human life and then
2. Once the authority has proven itself unjustifiable, dismantling it AND replacing it with a better system that can be justified.

Now, where Chomsky is an Anarcho-Syndicalist, and others are Soviet Communists, or Social Democrats – Christian Anarchy – which is what I am – first questions the claims of any and all organized religions of having authority, and secondly, when they cannot justify their domination, I attempt to dismantle them and replace them with a better form that is justifiable.

The Basis of Christian Anarchy

Remember the definition Chomsky gave of Anarchy in general? "A tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified.” “If the system can't justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just."

Anarchism, especially political and social anarchism, are all efforts, unless radicalized and out to destroy for destruction's sake, to return to the nascent ideals of Classical Liberalism, espoused by men like Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Humbolt, John Locke, Adam Smith, and the like.

Christian Anarchy, in some ways, was promoted by Jacques Ellul and Tolstoy. But my specific form was uniquely established by one Supreme Being from the foundation of the World. God.

Next week I will continue with Part II as a means to address the two points of Christian Anarchy – whether any organized religion can justify their authority and 2, how they ought to be dismantles and replaced, if they can’t.

Let’s take a look at your comments from last week!

Write your comments below! And please, I am not interested in political debate. Only on Anarchy relative to Christ and the Good News.

We will see you next week here on Heart of the Matter.