Shawn McCraney encourages a walk toward the love of Jesus Christ by focusing on unity and love, transcending divisions such as religious affiliations, and welcoming open dialogue without resorting to personal attacks or labels. He emphasizes understanding and respecting individual beliefs, challenging doctrines rather than individuals, and fostering a spirit of acceptance and unity among all people.
The teaching emphasizes that Christianity is fundamentally about love, which involves serving and loving one another, with the belief that love has the power to lead people into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. It also contrasts Christian beliefs with the strict practices of other denominations, underscoring that love, rather than rigid rules or rituals, is the true priority for Christians, as highlighted by the difference in how the Spirit is perceived within different doctrines.
Shawn's teaching addresses the complexity of religious beliefs and practices, emphasizing the importance of personal interpretation and the ongoing process of salvation through love and obedience to Christ's commandments rather than through ritualistic observances. He critiques Full Preterism by discussing the dating of biblical texts like Second Peter, asserting that these texts were written after the purported return of Christ in AD 70, thus challenging Full Preterism's validity and reinforcing the continued practice of Eucharist as per scriptural teachings.
John's Gospel suggests that participation in the Eucharist continued well beyond AD 70, indicating that material religious practices persisted in the early church. This challenges the assertion that the Bible definitively describes the parousia occurring in AD 70 and the cessation of material religion.
Heart of the Matter from Salt Lake City
Live 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 try and get all people to walk toward the love of Jesus Christ. And I am Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion., your host. Let’s have a prayer.
PRAYER
Last night, building on what we introduced last week on communion and specifically what the LDS call their Sacrament, we went a little deeper on the line in their Sacramental prayer where the LDS week after week covenant to obey His commandments which He has given them THAT they may always have His Spirit to be with them.
Online Comments and Insights
Let’s get to your online comments and emails while we open up the phone lines and invite you to call in.
FROM LAST WEEK'S CALL IN SHOW
Barbara Parsons8 hours ago
excellent … your focus on unity and love is exactly right.
Susan Scow Kresser5 hours ago (edited)
Shawn thank you for helping me leave the Mormon church. Keep up the good work. Knife to a gun fight is amazing, You don’t preach a new domination. Just love.
HOWARD KING
I’m going to read your book cuz Kathy likes it so much!
Gwenneth Schibany4
I LOVE your teaching, Shawn! You have brought me soooo far in my journey out of 40 years' TBM Mormonism. Pity I can't come and visit. It would take too long from Germany! Am enjoying your new videos and the episodes of your book. Great stuff. Thank you!! Love and blessings from Grandma Gwen.
Unity in Faith
ExMormon4 ChristAlone
Amen my brother. This is "the way". There is no more jew, gentile, Greek, Male, female, bond, free, catholic, protestant, Baptist or mormon for those who are in christ. For we are one, just as christ and the father are one. He came to make us one, not with divisions among us. I believe we will come to unity in the faith one day, it is written. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Melissa Bowers
As always, fantastic show my brother in Christ! The idea of unifying each other instead of tearing people apart, wow, what a great concept in this day and age! People like Michael who give you all these essays regarding why they practice, we have to pray for them. Because he doesn't have a great life, all he has is religion and one heck of an inferiority complex if we had to put himself on a pedestal. Might as well be LDS with that mentality. Funny that these people who are so steadfast hate any Pauline letter or doctrine!
Intent Behind Questions
We also had a number of retorts from a brother in England who uses the show and online comments to challenge me. That is fine. All things should be tested and challenged and so I have no issue with questions or rejections of teachings – we are all free and responsible to believe what we wish to believe. This brother’s name is Michael Lee.
My issue is all about intent when it comes to questioning each other. Let me try and explain what I mean. In the past, we have had guests who have come on Heart and shared views amicably and with love. We can all sense this in their presentations, right? We have also had guests who not only want to share their views but insist, along the way, to prove that my views are not only false, but to categorize me and what I teach with a label or two, implying or outright saying: I am right and Shawn McCraney is a Heretic. I am right and Shawn is a walking contradiction. I am right and Shawn is evil, not a Christian, or cannot be trusted.
When these communications begin to seep into the conversation I have little time for them. They are ad hominem and aimed are foisting the us verses them mentality which some people admittedly love. So here me clearly: I embrace all people. I accept WHATEVER they choose to believe and respect their choice knowing that it is their choice to make. I seek to understand them and I will challenge the doctrine but not the person. There is no name calling. No assessment of their standing before God. No warning of what could happen if you are their friend. No labels or assigned characterizations.
To me there is a huge difference between saying: I do not agree with the Mormon practice of this, and saying, “She’s a Mormon and is therefore going to…
Love in Christian Practice
"To hell or is a heretic, or a member of a cult or is preaching a false gospel.” That sort of rhetoric is what hurts, divides, and destroys love. That is why I really love emails like the following from Moira in the British Isles, which says:
Contact 3606 hours ago What more, can l say except thank you Shawn. ? By the way, l totally agree being a follow of Jesus Christ is all about love! and serving one another with love, and though love. Only the Lord can change people's hearts! But when we shown love, to others on his behalf! ( l believe) It can open up a desire in them, to want to build a relationship with there savior. It's like the story of the North wind. The more, the wind blow the more his coat was held tighter! around him, but when the warmth of the Sun came out the man removed his coat, and enjoyed the gift of warmth that the Sun was able to shower on him. ? Thank you, for showing the hand of friendship to myself, and many others Shawn! It is truly appreciated. X Moira From England. Ps, l still do attend my church in England. But l know, that I am truly saved! Not by anything l have done, or can do! But because, of the love and grace of my dear savior. Which he has shown me.
Regarding LAST MIGHTS SHOW ON THE LDS COMMANDMENTS
Reflections on the Spirit and LDS Beliefs
Curtis Whitener wrote in and said
Shawn,
I think another big belief difference, I discovered after leaving Mormonism (and becoming a Christian), is the LDS believe the Spirit is "with you" verses the Christian belief of "Spirit living in you." I love the fact that God lives in me.
Such a great point! Thanks brother. You see . . . (explain).
thenowchurch They should update the Word of Wisdom to ban drinking tap water.
3 Itty Bitty Piggies Story Time This was excellent, Shawn! It seems the FAIRisees have a leg up on the Pharisees, for sure. Letter of the law never looked so daunting. Great job Shawn!
Barbara Parsons Don't forget how the Mormons are adamant about the sacrament prayers being recited PERFECTLY, word-for-word, or else the poor guy who messes up by one word has to repeat the sacrament prayer until he gets it right. I used to cringe when I'd hear the wrong word, or hear a word skipped, knowing the guy not only had to do it again, but also had to endure the shame of not being "perfect" in the act of praying. So sad.
The Priority of Love in Christianity
Some churches give priority to commandments and sacraments and covenants, some give priority to speaking in tongues and spiritual gifts, some give priority to soul winning and evangelism, some give priority to pastors, popes, and prophets. The denominational differences are differences of priorities, but Jesus was pretty thorough and clear that the priority of Christian's is to love God and love our neighbor. Without love, we are sounding brass and going though the motions. No love, no Christian, period. Good message again tonight and love the new format!
Justen.d.s Blackburn 1 hour ago Wine is biblical. Water is out right wrong.
John OReardon 7 hours ago What does you're tattoos mean?
Michael Lee. 5 hours ago I think that my comments have been respectful, so I hope that if you respond (which you by no means have to) you will be equally respectful. I have not used ad hominem once. (When I use the phrase "antinomian" I do not mean this as a term of abuse but as a description of a particular position. An antinomian is someone who holds that works of the moral law are not required for salvation. It’s a description like "anarchist" which I think you embrace?).
Google Play Now 8 hours ago
Hi Shawn, I have a couple questions that I don't think you've touched on (please point me in the right direction if I missed them). Do you think "Satan" has or will be reconciled to God, back to (his) original intended purpose as "Lucifer" as (he) is also "creation"? Or, do you consider this adversary as our sinful nature or…. Would you be willing to share your position on this? 2nd – As regarding the Second ComingChrist’s return, fulfilled in 70 A.D., ending the old covenant—not the world. in 70ad… Because of this fulfillment having already taken place, do you think the Earth will remain always or at some future
Abandoned Beauty
Hey, it's good to always hear you talk. Can I ask for some advice? Firstly, I'm not a Mormon. I did go to their church just to see what it's like, and it was scary. But I've been baptized as a child in a Catholic church, but I didn't know anything about it or what I was doing or what was going on. But as an adult, I know why now. However, I don't believe in any religion or church, but I do believe in God. I do want to be baptized, but I don't know where or who by. Could you give me advice on this?
LDS Church and Spiritual Beliefs
MICHAEL LEE
I can agree with you that the LDS Church uses guilt and shame to control and manipulate its members to live according to "commandments" which have either a tenuous connection to Christ (such as the prohibition against pre-marital sex) or no connection to him whatsoever (such as the prohibition against drinking tea and coffee and alcohol). I was raised a Mormon, so I know from experience that the "commandments" are not only burdensome but spiritually and psychologically damaging (I know a lot of repressed and guilt-ridden Mormons and even ex-Mormons). However, I would disagree with you that the commandments of Christ are not necessary for salvation. Salvation is not an event but a process; and we are justified by works (of love) and not by faith alone (as James says). You do not like labels, but I think that "antinomian" is an apt description of your position if you hold that obedience to the commandments of Christ (love God and neighbor as yourself) are not required for salvation. The "works of the law" that Paul inveighs against are ritual observances of the Halakhah, not the moral law.
Interpretations of Christ's Return
I disagree with Full PreterismThe belief that all biblical prophecy—especially “end times”—was fulfilled by 70 A.D. More. You suggest that Christ has already returned with the destruction of the second temple in AD 70; and that this is "as the bible clearly describes." When pastors and ministers use the phrase "as the bible clearly teaches or describes," I am immediately suspicious. I apply the hermeneutic of suspicion to every such claim since the interpretation of an inter-textual text such as the bible is an inherently complex process (one which defies such statements as "clearly describes" or "clearly teaches") and there is an almost infinite number of valid interpretations. What you have is an interpretative construct—one which cannot be proven in any straightforward manner. I think I can deconstruct your interpretation (or at least undermine the certainty with which you claim to hold it, i.e., your "clearly describes").
You claim that the parousiaGreek for “presence”—refers to Christ’s fulfilled return in 70 A.D., not a future event. occurred in AD 70 but there are very good reasons to suppose that you are mistaken. Second Peter is usually dated between AD 90 and AD 150. Second Peter ch 3 talks about "scoffers" who point out that Christ has not returned as promised; and the author goes on to reassure that Christ will return. Thus: if Second Peter was written between AD 90 and AD 150, then it follows that Full Preterism is false (unless you want to remove Second Peter from the canon, which you might).
You claim that the Eucharist is no longer necessary because Christ has returned in AD 70 ("do these things until he returns"). Obviously, if the argument from Second Peter is correct, then your claim about the Eucharist is incorrect (as you yourself mention: "If Christ has not returned then communion ought to be continually practiced by believers"). But there is a further reason for supposing that it is incorrect. I think that all scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written around AD 90 (even secular scholars such as Bart D Ehrmann are happy to agree with a late first century dating). In John ch 6, we have the "Bread of Life discourse." This discourse is as profound as it is multidimensional; but one dimension of it is its "profound sacramental theology" (Raymond E Brown). The basic idea is that divine life is communicated and received through the body and blood of Christ as received in the Eucharist. John nowhere claims that this was only the past. He is telling Christians who are contemporary with him that in order to participate in divine life, we ought to receive the body and blood of Christ sacramentally. Therefore, if the consensus of scholars regarding the
Main Topic: The Dating of John's Teachings
Dating of John is to be accepted, then it follows that John was teaching participation in the Eucharist long after AD 70. Indeed the church never ceased practicing the Eucharist. I am not claiming that these are "knock down" arguments (or defeaters) but rather that the are sufficient to deconstruct your claim that "the bible clearly describes" the parousia in AD 70 and the end of "material religion".
