Against Shawn McCraney, Evangelical confusion

Introduction: Hear thou, Thomas, the things which must come to pass in the last times: my priests shall not have peace among themselves, but shall sacrifice unto me with deceitful mind: therefore will I not look upon them.… In those days evil shall abound: there shall be respecters of persons, hymns shall cease out of the house of the Lord, truth shall be no more, covetousness shall abound among the priests; an upright man (an upright priesthood) shall not be found.
---The Apocalypse of Thomas

More than a millennia ago, Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist pointed out that honest men “…love only what is true and decline to follow traditional opinions”[1] this being said the question arises how does one find religions truth when all religion claims to derive truth from assorted traditions? This question has been asked by men in all ages that searched for the true manifestation of Christ’s religion and declined to adhere to the traditions recommended to them. Their search for true religion set many men at odds with the status quo.

Where is this religion to be found? Rodger Williams the founder of Rhode Island and plank holder of the Baptist church, desired to attach his name and effort to the Kingdom of God and in 1683 he was baptized with 10 others by a pastor named Ezekiel Hollyman.
Within months of his baptism into the Baptist church, Williams renounced the rite because Hollyman never had the authority to administer the sacrament of Baptism.
Following this event Williams: “…remained for the rest of his life a 'Seeker,' cut loose from all existing Church organizations and usages, longing for a true Church of God, but unable to find one on the face of the whole earth. He conceived 'that the apostasy of Antichrist hath so far corrupted all that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy till Christ send forth, new apostles to plant churches anew.”[2] Williams himself stated: There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking[3].
Elsewhere Williams lamented: "In the poor span of my life, I desired to have been diligent and constant observer in city in country, in schools and universities in old and New England, and yet cannot in the holy presence of God bring in the result of a satisfactory discovery, that either the begetting ministry of the new apostles or messengers from God to the nations according to the first institution of the Lord, Jesus, are yet restored and extant"[4]. According to Williams biographer James D. Knowles: “…he formed the conclusion that in the disastrous antichristian apostasy the true ministry and the whole exterior organization of the church went into ruin, from which, however, as he believed, they shall be restored, and the saviors kingdom shall come to earth”[5]

Williams was not the only notable American who recognized the need for a church governed by apostolic authority. Thomas Jefferson himself stayed aloof of traditional Christianity and even condemned what he saw as corrupt Christian pastors. Jefferson, speaking of New England churches states: “The sway of the clergy in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares develop itself there. If it does, they excite against it the public opinion which they command and by incessant and tearing persecutions drive it from among them”.[6] In his eyes Christianity had corrupted, says he: “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not the precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be- sincerely. Attached to his doctrine in preference to all others”[7] and “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian”[8]
Jefferson’s views earned him the condemnation of zealous Christian pastors. Jefferson felt that traditional Christianity, with its variations and creeds had strayed so far from Christ’s original intent that is was unrecognizable to God. Despite his harsh criticism he felt that he was, above all, an honest follower of Christ and by extension a Christian. In Jefferson’s own words: “A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document [his book of Jesus’ teachings] in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”[9]

In his closing years Jefferson expresses that he was “Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity”, however he must “leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by mythologists of the middle and modern ages”[10] Jefferson, like Williams, looked forward to a Church established by the act of God and not by dogmas and men: “If the freedom of religion granted to us by the law in theory can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his pseudo-priests will again be restored to their original purity…but too late for me to witness it.”[11]

The hopeful view of these great men brings us back to “…love only what is true and decline to follow traditional opinions”. Let us now look at what traditional opinion teaches us about the Church of Christ in these last days.

According to our modern evangelicals the modern church is the church of Christ as established by Christ. In the modern world the church is a loosely knit though interconnected body of professional clergy, devoid of sacraments and rights, dependant souly upon the Bible as their foundations as interpreted by self appointed leaders. Each church is a independent body with its own organization and structure responsible not to a divinely appointed governing body, but responsible souly to Christ. This modern church is characterized by stand alone ministers, many, distinguished by their ability to transfix their audience with their vocal modulation which vary from the loud and emotional to the calm and southing. It is a church which, to capture young minds, lowers the reverence and humility that should define the church to the level of darkened room rock concerts and hip and trendy fashions.

Yet, if this conglomeration of loosely nit professional churches represents the church of God, where was this church for over 1,000 years that preceded the Reformation? If evangelical Christianity represents the church of Christ where did the authority to re-institute the conglomerate church come from? If Christ and the apostles were the originals who established the church and it is found again after the 16th century who were those appointed to do the establishing? Martin Luther? No, he never claimed such a lofty title, nor did the other reformers.

To avoid answering such questions modern leaders answer simply rely on the reformers doctrine that the Bible is just the authority they need. To Reformist Christianity in the Bible all questions are answered and all authority is divested in the reader via the translated and written word. To modern reformers it truly does not matter how the church is organized, as long as you believe in the Bible and carry the testimony of the majesty of the Christ. To be Born Again is the entrance paid to enter the Lords house, to be born again is the church of God. To find Jesus Christ is the goal, if these things are done, and you are saved, having relinquished your sinful ways, this brings you into the church. All history aside, Christ is what matters. It is on the whole a buffet of preachers and doctrine, where if the hearer dislikes the style or interpretation of the Word by one preacher, they may trade him in for another who is more to their liking. Trading teachers of the word like automobiles until one finds one that tickles their ears.

Modern Christianity can be well described by one of their own texts which states:
"We believe, in the fullest sense, in the independence of every individual church of Christ. We hold that each several church is a Christian society, on which is conferred by Christ the entire power of self-government. No church has any power over any other church. No minister has any authority in any church except that which has called him to be its pastor. Every church, therefore, when it expresses its own belief, expresses the belief of no other than its own members. If several churches understand the Scriptures in the same way[12], and all unite in the same confession, then this expresses the opinions and belief of those who profess it. It, however, expresses their belief because all of them, from the study of the Scriptures, understand them in the same manner, and not because any tribunal has imposed such interpretations upon them. We can not acknowledge the authority of any such tribunal. We have no right to delegate such an authority to any man or to any body of men. It is our essential belief that the Scriptures are a revelation from God, given . . . to every individual man. They were given to every individual that he might understand them for himself, and the word that is given him will judge him at the great day. It is hence evident that we can have no standards which claim to be of any authority over us.”[13]

Hence most of our modern Christianity holds the Congregationalist view (or a similar view) of the Church of God, which is an invention of the 18th and 19th centuries[14] and represents a grand historical departure from the church of antiquity. As stated above it is a belief in the in the independence of every individual church of Christ, Christian historian Phillip Schaff notes: “The principle of independency calls for as many particular creeds as there are congregations. Each congregation, being a complete self-governing body, has the right to frame its own creed, to change it ad libitum, and to require assent to it not only from the minister, but from every applicant for membership. Hence there are a great many creeds among American Congregationalists which have purely local authority… In this multiplication of local creeds Congregationalism far outstrips the practice of the ante-Nicene age, where we find varying yet essentially concordant rules of faith in Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Antioch, Aquileja, Carthage, Rome.”[15]

In the eyes of today’s modern pastors the church is a collection of : “a number of distinct ecclesiastical organizations, which, while holding fast to the articles of the ecumenical faith of orthodox Christendom, and the evangelical principles of the Protestant Reformation, differ on minor points of doctrine, worship, and discipline.”[16] Yet, says Schaff: “The congregations are related to the Church as members to the body. The denominational and sectarian use of the word is foreign to the Scriptures, which know of no sect but the sect called Christians. Denominations or Confessions are the growth of history and adaptations of Christianity…”[17]

It is the for mentioned Congregationalist, Born Again view which best describes the view of one Utah evangelical preacher named Shawn McCraney. McCraney, a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, received a divinity certificate from the Calvary Chapel and has since established his own ministry, in part to teach a reformist protestant gospel of Jesus Christ and in part to wage a myopic war on the LDS church. McCraney teaches his followers that it matters not what church you attend, it only matters that they are Born Again. He teaches that the Church of Christ is an unorganized body of “loosely nit” churches with the Bible as their foundation. McCraney claims to represent Authentic Christianity as best he can in his teachings so far as it is represented in the Bible, because is the standard of the Christian world; the Bible is the “Infallible Word”, which by the way, is the title of his TV program.

McCraney actually pushes his view of the independence of all churches from apostolic authority farther than many other self appointed pastors; according to his reformist doctrine God himself is separate from any form of religious organization. McCraney is one for performing public “backyard” baptisms which he stresses are not for any church, but simply for a public profession.[18] McCraney holds that all religious rites such as baptism and the laying on of hands are “perfunctory” and only occurred in the New Testament as superficial symbolism.[19] His view deviates from other reformers churches like the many Baptists and the Protestant churches in England who all held that such rites were necessary. McCraney teaches that churches only emphasize the importance of religious rites because they want to control the authority of God, if only the church can ordain then only they have authority in short, the rites and ceremony of baptism into the kingdom of God is a power play.

The problem is not that McCraney and those like him want to teach the gospel, the problem is not that they are modern protestant reformers[20] or that they reject any governing ecclesiastical authority and insert themselves in its stead. The problem is not is vitriolic distain for the Mormons nor is it backhanded condemnation of other organized apostolic institutions; the problem is their sacrifice of historical literacy on the altar of governing Dogma. The great James H. Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary points out that “…emotional attachments to faith has in the past sometimes misled us into presenting arguments that were not carefully developed and even false[21]…Augustine, Luther, Barth and other leading theologians never condoned sacrificing, or even compromising scholarship for faith.”[22] This is the same mistake made by almost all religious antagonists of all faiths (even some dogmatic Mormons).

Like other Born Again pastors McCraney exhorts his followers to find a relationship with Christ and that it is by faith alone in Jesus Christ that man is saved. The God of the Bible, that same God who with exacting and perfectly set calculations set the stars and solar systems in order, is molded into a socially pleasing God who offers untold glory to those who simply believe. Again Charlesworth shines insight upon the current state of Christianity: “A slogan seems to be heard: all the Christian needs to know is that one who is saved by ‘faith alone’. This cliché not only misrepresents the complex theologies of Luther and Paul, but it also masquerades as a mandate to be lazy and forgo historical research. Sadly, these perspectives, now clearly disproved by biblical scholars and theologians, can be heard as ghostly echoes in lectures and sermons”[23].

McCraney has perpetuated this cliché and sacrificed honesty for dogma in (at the very least) two specious claims:
That the Bible is the infallible word of God and the only governing tool in the modern church. The Bible never makes such a claim, this dcotrine was never taught by early Christians who knew nothing of a unique Christian Cannon.
That authentic Christianity can be exemplified in the amalgam of modern evangelistic religion.

These two assumptions of Christianity are the same that were rejected by men like Williams and Jefferson, for if the Bible is the infallible foundation and the congregational churches, with all their variations and divergent tradition, represent the Church established by Christ why was apostolic leadership even necessary? Why did God instruct one group of his children using Prophets, requiring them to have faith in a single man sent with the authority to speak for God and them set up entirely different (even anarchic) laws for his other children? Wouldn’t it require more faith in the eyes of the Lord to be submissive to a man, even a peer who the Lord has called than it takes to have faith in ones of perception, interpretation and “sense” of divinity? Does this sudden alteration of Gods treatment of his children make him a respecter of persons? After all the Christ himself told his followers to keep the law of the prophets, never did the Christ state that prophets and appointed leaders was outdated after his ministry, instead he appointed others to serve in that capacity (and these 12, called others to replace there fallen brothers, I.E. Mathias) It is only according to traditional opinions of modern Christians true apostolic leadership is not needed, as such authority has been replaced by the infallible Bible.

It is the purpose of this exercise to examine some historical evidence that undermine these claims. First we must examine the history of the cannon to ascertain if the Bible truly is infallible, for if authentic Christianity possesses an infallible Bible then the earliest Christians must echo the sentiments. So we must look into what Christian scholars, theologians and historians have said about the Bible history if we are to find the truth. Surely critics of this text will attack the fact that I am in fact a Latter-day Saint and by virtue of being such am an advocate of modern revelation and an open cannon. So that we may avoid this petty squabble for our purposes we will use primarily non-LDS sources. We will also use sources of Christian literature that existed before the Bible was complied, this will give us nearly three centuries of documents to work with.

Secondly we will examine some of the writings of the earliest Christians on the organization and governance of the authentic church. For if modern Christianity is the church of God, and God is indeed unchanging and constant the parallels should be overwhelming.

I need to say that it is not our purpose to undermine the authority of the Bible. I hold that the Bible is indeed the word of God and that the Savior Jesus Christ did indeed die as a sacrifice to fulfill the fullest measure of Justice so that men may again enter the presence of the Father. I do not believe however that the Bible has survived centuries of religious conflict and illiterate scribes unscathed. The fact that the texts that became part of the Bible were corrupted from an early age is attested to by Ignatius when he notes “I have heard from some who say: unless I find it written in the originals, I will not believe it to be written in the Gospel. And when I said, it is written; they answered what lay before them in their corrupted copies.”[24] I aim only to call into question the premise that the Bible is a perfect “infallible” document that alone is the foundation for the church and thus makes the need for true apostolic authority a thing of the past.
[1] Justin, Apology I: 5-6, 10).
[2] Phillip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis, Creeds of Christendom Volume I, 6th edition. (need page #)
[3] This statement has been attributed to a text titled Picturesque America on page 502. However I am unable to verify the source. The quote is however verified by James D. Knowles
[4] Memoir of Roger Williams the Founder of the State of Rhode Island by James D. Knowles, 1832 (reprint 2005) p.171
[5] Ibid 172-73
[6] letter to Paul L. Ford written 1816, Thomas Jefferson Works, Vol.10:13 , New York, Putnam and sons 1892-99. It should also be noted that in Jefferson’s “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”, which passed December 26th 1785, Jefferson notes that religion had become, for centuries, the epicenter of power and money; two things Jefferson held at arms length. Jefferson refers to civil and ecclesiastical leaders as “fallible and uninspired men”. Worst yet, in Jefferson’s view too many churches were in the business of God. Declaring their own perception of the Bible each church would collect tithes from the parishioners which too often would go to support the lifestyle of the pastor. Speaking of these ecclesiastical leaders says Jefferson: “[they]Hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world…that compel a man to furnish contributions of money…even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion”.
[7] ibid
[8] Letter to Jared sparks Nov 4 1820, Bergh vol 15 p 288 and again to Benjamin Waterhouse June 26 1822, ibid p 385
[9] Letter to Charles Thompson 1816, Bergh 14:385
[10] Letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse 19 July 1822, Bergh 15:391
[11] Letter to Jared Sparks November 4 1820, Bergh 15:288
[12] It is interesting that even this christain statement of faith recognized that various groups understand the scriptures in different ways. Thus making unity impossible.
[13] F. Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, pp. 13, 14.
[14] It is also to be noted that as time has progressed the confessions and creeds of the protestant churches have become more unclear and liberal Schaff notes that: The creeds of these modern Protestant enominations… are thin, meager, and indefinite as compared with the older confessions, which grew out of the profound theological controversies of the sixteenth century. They contain much less theology; they confine themselves to a popular statement of the chief articles of faith for practical use, and leave a large
margin for the exercise of private judgment. Schaff, Creeds Vol 1, P.733
[15] Schaff, Creeds Vol 1, 741-42
[16] Ibid P. 731
[17] Ibid P’ 737, Schaff, a Swiss Protestant, recognized the problem faced by his own recognition and adds the following cave’ at: …”after fulfilling their mission they will, as to their human imperfections and antagonisms, disappear in the one kingdom of Christ, which, however, in the beauty of its living unity and harmony, will include an endless variety”
[18] Heart of the Matter Broadcast June 24th 2008
[19] Ibid
[20] As time has progressed the protestant churches, once established with creeds and official professions of faith have become so loosely organized that they are unrecognizable from the churches of the reformation see ftn 14. In essence each self appointed pastor who is un-beholden to a set profession of faith or standard doctrine is a reformer in his own right. They are reformers because with no governing body there is no one to keep a set standard, therefore what ever the pastors feeling or interpretation is is what is presented to his followers. Hence, McCraney is a reformer because he presents himself as a authority and then disparages the necessity of religious rites that many his protestant forefathers held as important.
[21] James H. Charlesworth, The Old and New Testaments: Their Relationship and Intertestamental Literature, Trinity Press International, p.62
[22] Ibid p. 69
[23] Charlesworth, Jesus Research and the Appearance of Psychobiography, Revelation, Faith and Reason: Essays in Honor of Truman Madsen, FARMS, 2002, P.58
[24] Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians 2:20