Heart of the Matter: Addressing Criticism and Interpretation

Live from Salt Lake City, Utah, this is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. where we do all we can to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. I’m Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion., your host.

Viewer Emails and Criticism

Show 8 537
No More Hacking Part VI
February 14th, 2017
Prayer

Every now and again someone will tap into our programs and come to believe, because they hear things that rub them the wrong way, that it’s up to them to straighten us out. I enjoy getting their emails because they are all very much alike – whether from a Mormon, a Catholic, or a Calvinist, the methodologies are pretty close – and with some slight modifications most initially try very hard to appear “above board, fair, level-headed, of good intention, erudite, educated and in the know.” There is always a polite intro and a polite exit – but between the lines there seethes accusation, distrust, and more than ever, a need to correct and challenge. It is so predictable that I have become inclined to believe that we might be able to divide the world into people who live to present ideas and people who live to critique them. With regard to the latter, many write emails.

Case Study: Micheal's Email

Our latest are from a man named Micheal. He’s out of New York. In his first email he had somethings to say about my appealing to Chomsky and his insights. This is what the email said.

(Email #1 from Micheal)

Hello Shawn,
I watched your show & presentation of Noam Chomsky's ideas. His expertise is in linguistics, but his passion is the spread of socialism, which is communism lite. A socialist is a communist without a gun; but policies of socialism end with a gun pointed at you. The policies of communism begin with a gun pointed at you.

And at this point we have to thank Michael for not only defining what socialism is (relative to communism) but for attempting to build an immediate prejudice against someone whose ideas I am using to critique institutional religion. I want to point out that this assessment of Chomsky is unfair and single-sided and while he may in some people's opinions lean toward elements of socialism it is for this VERY reason I am using his views to critique brick and mortar Christianity – because if it is going to exist it should exist with tremendous socialist leanings and be as far from the capitalist as possible.

Back to the email where Micheal writes:

The religion you seem to promote is Christian relativism; a "What's true for you is not true for me & what's true for me is not true for you" approach. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.

You see it wrong, Michael – and this is something I have tried to reiterate over and over but people hear what they want to hear. I have stridently maintained that there is one objective truth known and promoted only by God and it is incumbent upon believers to discover it. Because the discovery process is subjectively experienced we must live by patience and longsuffering with each other until we see clearly – which will only be at deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God.. Therefore, dogma cannot matter, nor denominational claims, simply because there are tens of thousands of beliefs held by really devout Christians that differ. So no, Micheal, you have heard what you have wanted to hear – that I am preaching a gospel of relativism. Not so. But I am preaching that until we see clearly we must allow all people to believe AS THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE – but to embrace them as lovers of Christ.

Micheal's Scriptural Interpretations

Micheal continues, saying:

Many people believe in an invisible church, but Christ said he would build A church (Matt16:18) & it would be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt5:14).

Of course Micheal has the right to his own interpretation of the scriptures that he is using to make his point but he has chosen, as do MANY and MOST defenders of one position or another, to take the scripture LITERALLY (when it suits him) and exclusively (when it suits him too). Notice that he excludes that Paul says the church will be a spiritual building, made without hands, etc. in his presentation. And I could go on and on.

But instead Micheal does, saying:

Jesus also said to appeal to the authority of the Church when in dispute (Matt18:17). An invisible church is like a candle hidden under a bushel basket (Matt5:15). Plus Jesus promised to be with his church until the end of time (Matt28:20), so this church still exists. Here Micheal

The Debate on the Church Age

appeals to understanding the passages he uses through English instead of the Greek (where Jesus words mean to the end of the ageThe close of the old covenant era, fulfilled in 70 A.D.—not the end of the world. (not all time) – a classic error of promoters and defenders of the continuance of the material church make constantly. He then adds the following:

“I understand how the negative example that you see with the LDS church would give a negative view towards a hierarchical church & how that would cause someone to reject all "brick & mortar" churches, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus did indeed establish a visible church that has a hierarchy” (and he appeals again to an improper use of scripture citing Ephesians 4:4-16).

But the real intrigue and irony here lies in the fact that while Micheal “understands the negative example that I see in the LDS church” would create my negative view of material religionA fulfilled system of temples, rituals, and laws—replaced by direct spiritual relationship., Micheal is a Catholic! And my stance and point of view is made in living color. Micheal concludes with a warning – which is what lead me to respond to this email tonight, saying:

“Don't lose your zeal for Christ. I fear that the relativistic approach you're taking may eventually lead you to atheism. After all, if truth is relative what's the point?”

Questions About Religious Merit

I’ve made it clear that the Truth is NOT relative – this is not a position I make. But what really, really, really, really irks me is the overall direction of his email which started of attacking Chomsky as a socialist leaning toward communism (with the implication being he therefore has nothing of merit to say to the problems in Christianity) and the conclusion which is a warning for me not to lose my “zeal for Christ."

Why do we do this in the faith? Why do we appeal to fear-mongering when it comes to divergent thoughts, and approaches, and the incorporation of concepts from others (even, God-forbid, from others who differ with us on economic policy)? When will believers be so confident and rejoiceful and trusting in the living God that we will hear and learn from whomever the truth is spoken!

Micheal really struck a nerve with me because he is suggesting that because Chomsky is different than him on political issues then he certainly couldn’t have merit or value on religious ones. This is prototypical, fear-mongering the flows from the heart of the religiously inclined – right down to the warning that “I don’t lose my zeal for Christ."

Christianity and Political Ownership

Let me remind you Micheal, that Christianity is a faith that is NOT owned by the capitalists. It is not owned by the right or the left. It is not governed by men in ANY ISM OR IST. Jesus is Lord and Savior of all, especially them that believe.

And with that how about a moment from the Word?

(RUN FROM THE WORD HERE)

Tonight’s From The Word is in response to yet another email from our Catholic friend from Long Island, New York – Micheal. Not being satisfied with his email regarding Chomsky, relativism and “my risk of losing zeal for Jesus,” Micheal sent the following:

Hello Shawn,

In regards to the claim that the church age (with it's authoritative ministerial Priesthood) ended in the days of Jesus; have you ever considered what it says in the book of Jude?

He then tells us:

In Jude1:11 he warns about those who follow the example of the rebellion of Korah. Korah's rebellion is mentioned in Numbers16:1-40. Korah & his men rejected the authoritative ministerial priesthood of Aaron & insisted on there being only the universal priesthood of all believers. God destroyed Korah & his 250 followers by sending fire to consume them. Jude's warning is to those Christians who reject the authoritative ministerial priesthood that Christ established & which was passed on by prophetic word & the laying on of hands (1Tim4:14, Acts6:5,6 Acts13:2,3 Acts14:23). The authoritative ministerial priesthood needs a church in order to exist.

Regards,
Mike from Long Island, NY

So let me take a minute and break this email down using the Word. Mike has made a number of assumptions in his question and if people aren’t careful his authoritative tone sounds as if its . . . irrefutable! Mike begins with:

“In regards to the claim that the church age (with it's authoritative ministerial Priesthood) ended in the days of Jesus; have you ever considered what it says in the book of Jude?”

Here is Mike’s premise for writing, stated (in other words):

“Shawn, you propose that the Church Age (with its authoritative ministerial priesthood) ended in the days of Jesus and in light of this have you considered the Book of Jude.”

Let's be

The Fallacy of an Authoritative Ministerial Priesthood

An authoritative ministerial priesthood was NEVER part of the Church Jesus established when He walked the earth. This is the first false premise. In fact nowhere in the true New Testament (which begins at about Acts 10 and continues through the epistles) is the word priest used without a connection to the office of High Priest. An authoritative priesthood was ONLY present in the Old Testament through the Levites. Got that?

And the ONLY authority that was present in the nascent church Jesus established was in the hands of His specially chosen and trained apostles. I make this clear to present a few things: Jesus established a church and He promised to come back and take it from impending doom. That church was apostolically lead until the end of that AGE when everything was fulfilled. Once the last of His chosen apostles died the authority He gave them died too.

Now there is a universal priesthood of all believers (sans any and all hierarchal attempts to impose their counterfeit). This priesthood (held by males and females, bond and free, black and white) is governed by the Spirit which goes where it will and is NOT in the control of men. Got that?

The Context of Jude's Warning

Now to his question (which starts off on the wrong foot as discussed) he presents in six progressive steps. First he says:

• In Jude1:11 he warns about those who follow the example of the rebellion of Korah.

Jude wrote in an age when the church was under tremendous internal division. The passage Micheal refers to says:

Jude 1:11 "Woe unto them! (a group that was out to destroy the faith) for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core."

It appears that the leading charge against those to whom both Jude and Peter wrote, (Peter in 2nd Peter 2) is, that these “denied our Lord,” (verse 4) and that they “were numbered among Christians, and were found in their assemblies.” (2nd Peter 2:13 and Jude 1:12). This is the context of the passage and the purpose for both Jude and Peter to write.

At this present time, armed with imperfect knowledge of the characteristics of these “early false teachers,” it is really hard to determine precisely who they were but the common opinion is that they were of the sect called the Nicolaitanes. We must also note that the internal evidences of the book strongly suggest it was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem, which ought to play into our understanding of it and its limited (and not ubiquitous) application.

Korah's Rebellion and the Aaronic Priesthood

Verses 7 and 8 of the epistle allude to the idea that these who were recipients of the epistle practiced homosexuality. Verses 9-10 compare the humility of Michael the archangel to these brute beasts who were unafraid to speak boldly about things they had no business speaking about, and then we come to verse 11, where again, Jude adds:

Jude 1:11 "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core."

We note that Micheal didn’t mention that Jude also compared those in his day to “the way of Cain,” or to those of his day to “the greed of Balaam looking for reward” (these he conveniently overlooked) but selected the Old Testament failures of a character named Korah, and in his email makes three more points regarding him, saying:

• Korah's rebellion is mentioned in Numbers 16:1-40. (this is True)

• Korah & his men rejected the authoritative ministerial priesthood of Aaron (this is true) & insisted on there being only the universal priesthood of all believers (this is NOT true). And his final point:

• God destroyed Korah & his 250 followers by sending fire to consume them.

The institution of the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical service at Sinai was a great religious revolution. There was an older priesthood expression among the people through the heads of families. The was being done away with and this gave rise to murmurings and discontent and while the Israelites were encamped at Kadesh (for the first time) a rebellion was led by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram against Moses and Aaron and this new administration of priesthood.

Two hundred and fifty princes, "men of renown" i.e., well-known men from among the other tribes, joined this conspiracy. The whole company demanded of Moses and Aaron that the old state of

Authority and Priesthood in Christianity

Things should be restored under the allegation that "they took too much upon them." The next day, Korah and his associates were wiped out by God. Our emailer then makes an application to all he has established and says:

• Jude's warning is to those Christians who reject the authoritative ministerial priesthood that Christ established & which was passed on by prophetic word & the laying on of hands (1Tim4:14, Acts6:5,6 Acts13:2,3 Acts14:23).

And he summarizes his point by adding:

• “The authoritative ministerial priesthood needs a church in order to exist.”

Interpretations and Implications

And right here, we have a prime example of religion using scripture – which most believers do to some extent or another. Let me wrap this up by filling in the things that Micheal ignored or twisted to prove his point instead of seeking the truth:

First, in the Old Testament, Korah was not seeking to establish a universal priesthood – he simply wanted the old guard to remain where the heads of households were the priests. But in order to make the New Testament reference to him play and make a point, Micheal had to twist this. Secondly, Micheal ignored the fact that the apostles were the authority in the apostolic church (they wrote the epistles, etc), and the apostles ended – therefore so did their authority. With it gone, around the end of that age, the authority is now a universal priesthood pouring from a building not made with hands.

Thirdly, Micheal fails to include all the passages that clearly state there will be an end of material religion and all will be written on the hearts by the Spirit. Fourth, in his use of Jude 11 to justify an application of the Old Testament continuance of a priestly administration, he fails to describe how Jude describes the way Korah was being made manifest in them in that day – the King James calls it the “gainsaying of Kore.” What does that mean? The Greek word is antilogea, and it is a compound word with anti being “against” and logea essentially means what has been put forth – especially through speech. Essentially, Jude was utilizing the part of Korah’s rebellion against what was said by Moses to that day, which caused strife, division, and uprising against what the APOSTLES had set forth.

Modern-Day Relevance

Listen – and since the apostles are now gone, and since God governs by the Spirit, and since Jesus has come and rescued His church from destruction, Micheal fails to see the most evident and obvious point in all of this – This was to them then – and not to us today – and he has taken the liberty of extracting one name – Korah – used in Jude – to construct an enormous defense against the invisible, immaterial church.

Okay . . . on to more lessons from the Chomsky. (I hope you all don’t go running into the hills, denying Christ, and embracing Marx for my appealing to these insights into modern religion).

In any case, last week I presented the ten key principles he offers as a means to understand the way the few work to keep the masses under control. They were:

• Reduce Democracy (and we have talked all about why they want to reduce democracy among the masses – it makes it easier for them to manage them).

The question we have to ask ourselves relative to this point is should the Body be considered a democracy? If so, why and if not, why? I have to admit that while I think the few at the top of church governance seek to keep any and all forms of democracy lying dormant, Christianity is not a democracy by any means. It really ought to be seen as an absolute Monarchy with Christ on the throne governing by the Spirit in the lives of His subjects. Unfortunately, this idea is too far-fetched for people to accept. So they insert THEMSELVES into the mix, believing themselves to be princes or liaisons to the Monarch. In this vein, they justify all many of means to keep the masses from going directly to Him.

Church Governance and Control

So this first principle is not an exact fit from Chomsky to the situation in the church. The Church is a Monarchy but nevertheless, the few within it, seeking power, do all they can to keep the masses under their control.

The second principle Chomsky explains is

• Shape Ideology

In the face of more and more special interest groups beginning in the 1960s seeking to rise up and make demands of equal

Analysis of Democratization Efforts

Voice, treatment, and respect—in essence, to seek more democratization, not less—were topics studied by the powers that be on both the right and left ends of the spectrum. They conducted studies and made assessments of these movements. In conclusion, both sides essentially said that ideology needed to be shaped (remember) as a means to keep the rabble in line.

This is real stuff. And while we are not so interested in what was actually studied and discovered (and then suggested) back in the day as a means to reshape ideology, we know that on the right and left there was, as Chomsky says: “an enormous concentrated coordinated business collective beginning in the 1970s to try and beat back the egalitarian wave that went right through the Nixon years.”

The Right and the Powell Memorandum

He continues, “over on the right you see the famous Powell Memorandum sent to the Chamber of Commerce, a major business lobby by supreme court justice Powell warning them that business is losing control over society and that something has to be done to counter these forces.” Chomsky concludes that “it was a call for business to use their resources to carry out a major offensive to beat back the democratizing wave.”

Something I love about Chomsky is he has equal distain for any side that seeks to dominate or control the masses as he then says: “Over on the liberal side we have something exactly similar.”

The Liberal Perspective and the Trilateral Commission

In the first major report of the Trilateral Commission, this report of the Trilateral Commission Report is called, “The Crisis of Democracy.” Says Chomsky, “the Trilateral Commission is liberal internationalists and their flavor is indicated pretty much by the fact that they staffed the Carter Administration. They were ALSO appalled by the “democratizing tendencies of the sixties” and thought that they had to react to it.”

(Listen as Chomsky says) “they were concerned that there was an “EXCESS of DEMOCRACY” (that’s a direct quote from the Trilateral commission Report by the way). Then he goes on and says that “previously passive and obedient special interest groups were beginning to try and politicize and enter into the political arena and the Trilateral Commission said that this imposes too much pressure on the state, it can’t deal with all of these pressures (from people wanting a voice) so they “have to return to passivity” and become “de-politicized.”

(You know, “womens—get them shoes off yer feet and git yerself back in the kitchen or Negroes—back of the bus. Or fags! Back into the closet). Final point Chomsky makes about this liberal side. He says that they were particularly concerned with the young people, they were getting too free and independent (listen) and the way the Trilateral Commission put it is there is a “failure on the part of the schools, the Universities, the CHURCHES—the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young—their phrase, Chomsky says, “not his.”

Chomsky goes on to point out that the Trilateral Commission fails to pick on business. Why? Because they are the power, the general interest, not the small special interests, and they run the show. Business doesn’t need to be subdued, in other words, just all the special interest groups (including the youth).

Impact on Churches and Christian Ideology

So taking the second Principle introduced as a means to control the masses, “Shape Ideology,” and as proven both Conservatives and Liberals were equally in support of it. So how does this apply to the Churches? I believe the reshaping of Christian Ideology began while the apostles were still alive (but was kept under wraps) and then it exploded once John died or was taken in the twinkling of an eye. I contend that the reshaping of the simple Christian commands to “believe on Jesus and to love God and Man” by the Spirit at the reception of the Good News very, very quickly began to morph into religion—big religion, one of the great social powers that the 1% rely upon to control the special interests—especially the young.

Many defenders of the faith insist on saying that all of this “shape-shifting” was part of God’s hand, that the early Church Fathers, and then the Counsels with their Creeds, and all the rest that followed were Goodly, and Godly, Spirit lead, and of Him. I contend that all of it was man “shaping ideology” by “the few who sought to control the many” by and through imposing their indoctrinating views on them. Defenders of the Faith suggest that post

The Role of Apostolic Leaders

Apostolic leaders kept the Christian religion pure, and that amidst all the shenanigans of what became the Catholic church, a true line kept the Body of Christ remained intact. I agree that there have always been those men and women who have represented the faith from the heart since the death of John, but I think it was more often than not they who chose to walk away from the religious powers (often to the loss of their lives) and not because they stuck with them.

The Reshaping of Ideology

Of course, there are exceptions, but corruption (or the reshaping of Ideology from the simple faith in Christ to religion), in my estimation, has been at the heart of all institutional religions since the get-go. If not initially, then inevitably. And this reshaping continues on to this very day! All as a means to keep the masses from being participants (in their own religion by keeping them in the role of spectators), which allows the few to remain in control.

Thus far, we have discussed the need to Reduce Democracy and tonight, to Shape Ideology. Next week we’ll examine attempts (first in Chomsky’s world) to “Redesign the Economy” – and then in the Christian world – which amounts to Redesigning Religions Praxis.

Examination of Influences

It will take us a number of weeks to lay all of this out and then we are going to, in the face of subjectivity, illustrate what has been utterly MAN-ipulated in the faith.

Let’s open up the phone lines:

(801)

And while the operators are clearing your calls, take a look at this:

SHOW SPOT HERE PLEASE