Is there any Christian denomination that...

[Papist]

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic church tends to equal it out...mass (called liturgy for Orthodox) has focus on what was brought about by his death, but everyday spiritual life is focused on prayer, repentance, and the path of Jesus's teachings. Many Protestant churches I've been to emphasize not his death, but his resurrection (the Catholic does too but I mean Protestants really are adamant that the resurrection is more important)
-Catherine

Yes, the Catholic and Anglican churches balance the whole thing out.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...values Christ’s life and teachings more than his death?

Yes. There is a Chrisitian denomination that does exactly this. It is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They concern themselves more with Jesus' life and teachings, and with his resurrection as the Living Christ. You will find no representations of crosses and reminders of the suffering Christ anywhere in their churches, and you will find that most members of said church have an aversion to wearing the cross or of having it in their homes. They prefer to remember Jesus' death via the ordinance instituted by Christ for that purpose, the Eucharist, or, as they call it, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (or, the Sacrament, for short). Their websites have a lot of information on them:

http://www.lds.org/

http://[url="http://www.mormon.org/"]www.mormon.org/[/url]

Of course, the downside to all this is that many other Christians feel that this church ranges somewhere from a christian heresy to a cult of Christianity to a non-Christian cult. You must study it out for yourself, from their own religious texts, pray, and determine for yourself where you stand on this issue, if you don't already have a stand you have taken.

 

[Lyle]

Yet alot of the Mormon teaches do not go along with what the Bible teaches....

 

[Miss~Fallen~Star]

The most important thing was Jesus' teachings. Universal is the wish, for love, equality, happiness, and peace. Whether you believe the enitire story or not there is no way to disagree against the teachings. Jesus' death was not the most important thing to humanity his life was. Any person that travels far and wide to help those in need is a heavenly creature. No matter their faith.

i am an earthly creature... not a "heavenly" one, this makes more sense as I can leave the building and be standing firmly and definetily on the earth.... one cannot stand firmly and definetily on heaven because it's not realistic... just a really good fairy tale made up in a crazy man's dream and then he turned it into a really good book, best seller from what i've heard

 

[Rev Wayne]

But it hasn't always been this way: In the beginning, most images depicted Christ as the loving shepherd, holding the lost (and found) lamb. Only later, when the clergy was established and every differring brand of christianity was exterminated, did the symbol of the tortured Christ on the Cross such prominence.

I've always been of the impression that the church early on was more focused on the suffering of the church, and the shift that came was one of personal suffering to vicarious suffering as shown by Christ. I think there are two explanations for why that would have developed, (1) because the church had more leanings toward Petrine theology, with the body that was one church affirming a line of apostolic succession through Peter, and (2) because the church for several centuries faced persecution, which would certainly have placed their own suffering more prominently before them. And Peter's writings have a pastoral focus that is very similar, as he wrote to a church undergoing persecution and suffering.

The biggest shift that came in the church was the Protestant Reformation, and suddenly you have various groups of people who have rejected the powers that be, and a lot of the theology was abandoned hand-in-hand with the practices they rebelled against. It was quickly replaced with Pauline thinking, and most of the influence was Luther's. If Luther had his way, James would have been out of the canon ("I find it a right strawy epistle"), and of course the big rallying cry was "justification by faith." Paul is thoroughly Christ- and cross-centered. "I am crucified with Christ," "I die daily," "dead to sin and alive to God," etc.

But even having said that, I still have to remark that in our sanctuary, directly behind the pulpit, is a large stained-glass window of Christ carrying the lost sheep. That picture, and another one of Christ standing at the door knocking, are the two most prominent pictures I see in Protestant churches. And going back in my mind through the artwork over the years, I don't seem to recall any fewer pictures of a suffering Christ than we have now.

DCP, I'd be interested, too, as I am ignorant on the matter, whether the Mormon Church ritual for the Eucharist carries the traditional words of institution by our Lord, like "This is my body...this is my blood," etc. Most denominations I know anything about have as part of the understanding of sacraments as rituals of divine institution and insist on the ritual being carried out with the inclusion of Christ's words. It was just a thought, as I read your post, and wondered if they followed that usual line of thinking, and thus might not have totally gotten away from mention of His death.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

Yet alot of the Mormon teaches do not go along with what the Bible teaches....

And yet, even here it is a matter of interpretation and faith. As Albert Pike says:

What is truth to me is not truth to another. The same arguments and evidences that convince one mind make no impression on another. The difference is in men at their birth....

That we ourselves believe and feel absolutely certain that our own belief is true, is in reality not the slightest proof of the fact, seem it never so certain and incapable of doubt to us....

The truth comes to us tinged and colored with our prejudices and our preconceptions, which are as old as ourselves, and strong with a divine force, It comes to us as the image of a rod comes to us through the water, bent and distorted. An argument sinks into and convinces the mind of one man, while from that of another it rebounds like a ball of ivory dropped on marble.

(Morals and Dogma, 165-166, italics in original)
​

Ultimately, it is a matter for anonymous and others to determine for themselves.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...DCP, I'd be interested, too, as I am ignorant on the matter, whether the Mormon Church ritual for the Eucharist carries the traditional words of institution by our Lord, like "This is my body...this is my blood," etc. Most denominations I know anything about have as part of the understanding of sacraments as rituals of divine institution and insist on the ritual being carried out with the inclusion of Christ's words. It was just a thought, as I read your post, and wondered if they followed that usual line of thinking, and thus might not have totally gotten away from mention of His death.

Hang on and let me get you a few quotes (I had to strip out the footnotes in order to get this to post but these can be seen and followed at the website in the reference links):

1 THE manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—
2 And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying:

3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

(The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Moroni 4, as cited from http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/4)

1 THE manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said:

2 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

(The Book of Mormon, Moroni 5, as cited from http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/5)

75 It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;
76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:
77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say:
79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

(Doctrine and Covenants 20:75-79, as cited at http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20)

​

So, it would seem that they do not follow the traditional formulary passed down through the ages. They believe that their prayers came by way of revelation and use them in that manner rather than the traditional formulary. Notwithstanding, reference to both the body and blood of Christ are standard fare in this sacrament of the Mormon faith. Additionally, circumstances led to them using water rather than wine in most instances. They have continued that to the present day. Their justification of this is a revelation they claim came from Jesus through an angel. It reads, in part, as follows:

SECTION 27
​

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, August 1830. HC 1: 106—108. In preparation for a religious service at which the sacrament of bread and wine was to be administered, Joseph set out to procure wine for the occasion. He was met by a heavenly messenger and received this revelation, a portion of which was written at the time, and the remainder in the September following. Water is now used instead of wine in the sacramental services of the Church.​

​

***

1 LISTEN to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;
4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

(Doctrine and Covenants 27:1-4 and Introductory Heading, as cited from http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/27)

Thought you might find that of interest. Also of interest is that there is not a lot of evidence to sustain belief that the traditional mode of administering the Eucharist dates any earlier than the third century at best. Elements of it from the second century can be found in Gnostic writings but I am not aware of it being earlier among the Orthodox. Of further interest is Justin Martyr's description of a Christian service in his own day (150 CE), the part regarding the administration of the Eucharist I cite:

...and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings...and the people assent by saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

("The First Apology of Justin Martyr," Chapter LXVII, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, [reprint 1987, Grand Rapids: T&T CLark, Eerdmans], 186)

This is an awful lot like an LDS sacrament service in several components, whereas others in the fuller context differ to a degree. At any rate, there is no evidence of a reading or reciting of the usual passages of scripture during the administration of the eucharist as is found in the traditional Eucharistic service. Anyway, I thought this would be of interest as well. Got to go. I'm out of time for the moment. Take care, Rev.

 

[dnich163]

...values Christ’s life and teachings more than his death?

I believe the two are inseparable. You can't have one without the other..love and marriage, love and marriage etc.

The main thing about the way Jesus lived his life was that we should imitate it, follow his greatest command to love the lord our God with all our might ect, and to love our neighbour as ourselves.

David

 

[Lyle]

And yet, even here it is a matter of interpretation and faith.

The Bible doesn't even seem to agree with that statement...

 

[peaceful soul]

As useless as Moses. Is that what you think of Moses?useless?

Are you understanding what I am saying in context of Christ. I did not mention Moses. Moses brought a law directly from God. Christ fulfilled it all. He was the only one in flesh to keep all of it. His fulfillment of it was the will of God so that we could be brought out of bondage to the Law, and once again have a chance to be restored to our spiritual state before Adam and Eve's sin.

If there is no salvation in Christ, Yes, He is useless because there is no escape for me of my spiritual darkness. There is no way I can regain my status with God. I can not be saved without a sacrifice, perfect and pleasing to God. Before Christ, a scrafice and atonement (covering) had to be done once per year to remove the burden of sins from the Israelites. If the sacrifice was inadequate, the high priest would be killed, and no atonement could be had for that year. If the sacrifice was pleasing to God, He would give them remission of their sins for that year. Christ was the propiation and expiation for all of our sins (Romans 3:20). The death and ressurection of Christ covered us all and removed that burden of proof from us forever.

 

[EviStar]

Is there any Christian denomination that...

...values Christ’s life and teachings more than his death?

I would have to say no. The reason? Because Christianity really just focuses on death. Period.

 

[coyoteBR]

I beg to differ, EviStar. Take a look on this thread, you'll see lots of opinions that state otherwise. Even the most Ortodhox, Sola-Scriptura Protestants have the Life and Teachings of Jesus as a permanent Light on their lifes.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I beg to differ, EviStar. Take a look on this thread, you'll see lots of opinions that state otherwise. Even the most Ortodhox, Sola-Scriptura Protestants have the Life and Teachings of Jesus as a permanent Light on their lifes.

Well, yes and no. In the end, they just ramble on about his sacrifice and how it redeemed us all. That's the point: Being a Christian is not about being virtuous or really following the example given by Jesus. First and foremost, it's about accepting the sacrifice, since everything else is futile anyway, and everybody's an irredeemable sinner.
And that's the point: Ethics have no part in it. You can be the worst chap around, and WHOOSH, once you accept Christ, it matters not. Or you can be the most virtuous man around and burn in hell simply because you've never heard of the Christ. This whole religion is somewhat nonsensical because there's so much more emphasis put on the Cross than on the actual life and teachings of Jesus.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

The Bible doesn't even seem to agree with that statement...

I asked the question above because any three people will see the same Bible verses and often interpret them according to their own understandings. Our perceptions color what we think the ancient text says or does not say. We cannot avoid it.

When you read John 1:1, for example, do you read it as a first century reader would read it or do you apply post-Nicene theology to help you intepret it accordingly? Does John 4:24 says that God is a non-corporeal spirit being, a corporeal being composed of spirit, or is it saying something about his nature without drawing attention to either identity or composition? Your theology will govern the text unless you read it according to the cultural and grammatical backgrounds, insofar as they can be recovered. And, so, it is exactly a matter of interpretation and faith. Anyone who denies it is selling something.

 

[EviStar]

This whole religion is somewhat nonsensical because there's so much more emphasis put on the Cross than on the actual life and teachings of Jesus.

I agree. Not enough "practice".

 

[BookerB]

Lyle,

The teachings of Christ are the teachings of the Bible... His death is what set men free from sins, not His teachings.. He's teachings further a Christian to grow in grace.. But don't look to denominations, look to the Bible.. What does it say is more importent? Or what it focus' on?

I somewhat disagree with the statement: "His death is what set men free from sins, not His teachings.." Of course all of the words of Christ are important, but I see a few sayings as the essence of his teachings. First is the saying, I AM the Way. Who is the Way? The Word of God. The way to what? To eternal life. Jesus came into the world for several reasons, not just to die on Calvary's cross. As in my signature, he also came to set the captives free. He did this through his teaching. "I AM the Truth." If you know the Truth, it will set or make you free. Whose Truth? The truth of God's Word. And, what is this truth of God's Word? Since the beginning this major truth has been, those who love God with all their heart, soul and strength shall gain eternal life. Why? Because this Word from God gives Life!

Christ's death simply re-opened the doors to the kingdom of God for those who obey his Word. So, once again it is possible to have a one on one relationship with God. That door had been closed and guarded since the fall of man in Eden. Jesus, the Christ, died on Calvary for the sins of all mankind, not just for those who profess Christianity as their religious belief. Because, whether you hear it or not, salvation without obedience to the teachings of God's Word is simply folly. However, obedience to God's Word will always justify the doer. Therefore, eternal life is there for all who do the Word of God. This is the message that Jesus preached, "the kingdom of God is at hand."

So, the Word of God is the Way. The Word of God is the Truth. The Word of God is Life. No one comes to the Father except by the Word of God. This is essence of Jesus' teachings, and his words are of paramount importance. They are the way to the kingdom and all truth; in them you will find life.

 

[Rev Wayne]

salvation without obedience to the teachings of God's Word is simply folly. However, obedience to God's Word will automatically justify the doer,

Booker,

This is only a guess as I'm no mind-reader, but I'm inclined to believe you'll have a hard time getting amens to this one. Most of the ones I've run across in here, if observation by dialogue means anything, are of the persuasion that it's simply faith in Jesus that does the trick. I am probably closer to being in agreement with you than most, but even I have a bit of a problem with the second statement of the quoted portion. My Bible simply doesn't speak to the issue of "justification by obedience," but "justification by faith" is a pretty common theme. If it had been by obedience, I doubt that I'd have even got there yet, as I tried to mend my ways for a number of years. Trouble was, when I started trying to get free, I was trapped in a drug habit that lasted for 14 years. I had tried many times by resolve, by diminishing gradually, by any means I could think of in an effort to quit, but nothing worked. At a time when I had just about given up, I committed it in prayer to God as best as I knew how. Not long after, sitting at home alone one evening, the Lord came speaking to me from every avenue you can think of. When I realized it was Him, I was scared at first, but eventually surrendered, and my life has never been the same. That was a Saturday evening, and the next morning I was in church, and have been ever since. That ministry call I had been running from was renewed in no uncertain terms, and off we went, 35 years old and going back to school, wondering if enough of a mind was left to retain anything after 14 years of drugs, and 4 straight years strung out on methamphetamine at the time of conversion. Four things I had sought to be rid of--the drugs, the drinking, the smoking, the filthy mouth--were all instantaneously taken away, and "I woke, the dungeon flamed with light. My chains fell off; my heart was free. I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."

I had always heard people of different persuasion than myself describe their belief as, "Salvation is by faith; but if it is genuine, then when you are saved, the obedience will be there with it." My own experience of that has been a glorious confirmation of what I was told. So I guess I am less inclined to put the obedience first, and it bringing about the justification, as I am to put it the other way around.

But God is not required to work by my model (or anyone's for that matter). And so I affirm the genuine nature of the salvation received by people I have met, who testify that they were always in church from the earliest they can remember, and can never recall a time when they did not believe they were a child of God.

Then there's C.S. Lewis, who says he was "dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom. . . ."

 

[Papist]

Hallelujah!

 

[Papist]

You can be the worst chap around, and WHOOSH, once you accept Christ, it matters not. Or you can be the most virtuous man around and burn in hell simply because you've never heard of the Christ. This whole religion is somewhat nonsensical because there's so much more emphasis put on the Cross than on the actual life and teachings of Jesus.

The point is, once you accept Christ, you (a) are not supposed to carry on being the worst sinner going, and (b) you are given the Holy Spirit to help you. There are plenty of testimonies to that.

The other point is that, under orthodox Catholic teaching, which is there in Paul's writings, God will judge all people according to their response to whatever inklings of God they have had. That is the answer to the fundamentalist Protestant view that those who have never heard of Christ will burn in hell. God is merciful and slow to judgment.

Christianity is for ALL -- not just the virtuous. Especially not the virtuous. Jesus said "the healthy do not need a doctor".

 

[BookerB]

Rev. Wayne,

My Bible simply doesn't speak to the issue of "justification by obedience," but "justification by faith" is a pretty common theme. If it had been by obedience, I doubt that I'd have even got there yet, as I tried to mend my ways for a number of years.

Then re-read the story of Good Samaritan. Which one was justified?
Love, trust, and obey, there is no other way.