There’s No Ceiling on This Church

Wake-Up! It’s time for CHURCH!

These word echo throughout countless homes throughout the world. The idea of Church is now accompanied by images of early Sunday mornings with the family; one less day to sleep in.

Surely this isn’t the approach everyone takes, but there is a good chance that you have felt this way at *least* one time in your church-going career.

But you know now that Church is more than an inconvenience to the sleeping schedule.  But did you also know that Church is more than a building? In fact, the Church has no walls, no ceiling, and no ground!

This is hard for some people to understand. Yet it is true, the Church is not a building for worship, instead, it refers to the commonality of those who are united through the spirit of Christ.

Denominations, buildings, pews…these are man-made items and institutions. Jesus built the church without wood or money. Jesus built his church through faith.

The Christian faith, despite it’s innumerable variations, is still united in spirit by one fundamental belief:

Jesus, the most righteous being ever, is the living son of God, and he died on a cross as atonement for the flaws of mankind.

This very notion is so powerful that it unites billions of people over our great planet. The Church is this unification, the Church is not confined by walls or men, but is inside every human being (even those who don’t realize it).  The Church can’t be confined. It flows like water, dripping its sweet satisfaction on those willing to seek it, quenching the entire soul of humanity.

Is Pulling the Plug Murder?

I was in a conversation the other day about how hard of a decision it must be to tell the hospital to pull the plug on a loved one. I can’t even imagine how tough that must be emotionally. But are their immoral ethics behind pulling the plug for, say, Christians?

The Greatest Sin

It is not uncommon to hear Christians talking about sins, and if one is worse than another. Naturally, it says that all sins are equally detestable to God, but is there a sin that rises above them all?

In short, I would say no (although there is mention of the “unforgivable” sin, which is speaking against the holy spirit). Nonetheless, I heard someone say something very interesting the other day that I want to share. During one of my classes at business school, the professor said something along the lines of:

One of the greatest sins that the Bible harps on is underutilization of potential

Intellectual Honesty or Jesus?

It seems today that when it comes to religion, many people confront an unfortunate dichotomy. The choice is between intellectual honesty and Jesus. Many believe there is no way to reconcile the two.

The purpose of me writing this post is not for me to say why my interpretation is superior, but instead to present an alternate view that often goes unnoticed… too often different views can be silenced by the surprisingly large fundie presence online (i.e. the blog-o-sphere).

If you were in a room of 100 Christians, and asked, “how many of you knew someone that grew up in a religious environment and then walked away from their faith upon leaving for college?” then you would see 100 hands raised in the air.

Let me suggest why I believe this happens.

Analyzing Jesus: Was he really the Jewish Messiah?

Analyzing Jesus
Part Two: Was he really the Jewish Messiah?

In Part One of this series, we analyzed Jesus as a historical figure in history. The second part of this series is to address if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, but in order to do that, we need to understand what Messianic Prophecies are. Scholars (Jewish and Christian) believe that the Bible (Old Testament) contains over 300 predictions about the Jewish Messiah. These predictions do not come from one source, but are from multiple authors in a variety of books ranging about 1,000 years. In other words, what we have here is an enormous “library” of statements made about the Jewish Messiah (what he will be like, what he will do, and so on).

Analyzing Jesus: The Historical Figure

Analyzing Jesus
Part One: The Historical Figure 

It’s about that time again. Time for me to start up a new series regarding religion/faith/Christianity. I can already tell that this series will be a long one, so get ready for the long haul. I will address Jesus on a variety of different fronts, trying my best to be objective (like a lawyer). Granted, I cannot completely rid myself of my preconceived biases, but I hope that you can, at the very least, respect my investigative reasoning.

Christ or Christianity…it can’t be both

It’s either one or the other, but rarely can it be both. Today there is a distinct difference between choosing Christ or choosing Christianity. One is following the divine wisdom of Jesus, while another is adhering to a religious, man-made institution. Too often people defend Christianity over defending Jesus. However, there has been an emergence as of late. Many times you will see that people would rather define themselves as “spiritual” instead of “religious”. Naturally, this has to do with the negative connotations that accompany ‘religion’.

This may be due to the fact that Jesus told us of the harmful dangers of “religion”.

“…How terrible it will be for you experts of religious law! For you crush people beneath impossible religious demands and you never lift a finger to ease the burden.” (Luke 11:46)

“How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest part of your income, but you ignore the important things of the law- justice, mercy and faith…” (Matthew 23:23)

American Christianity has faltered quite a bit from the original intent of Jesus. Does this mean there is zero gain to going to Church? No, but it means relying on Church alone for spiritual development will leave you…well…under-developed.

We owe it to ourselves to read beyond surface considerations of Jesus’ teachings in the effort to find the spiritual truths God wishes us to discover for ourselves, for it is a truth that will eliminate the burdens of religion, law, guilt and death.

How to Practice Faith at Work Without Offending Others

 I ran across this little article and thought it was interesting. Here’s how some employers integrate religion into the workplace without offending others (and of course, facing some outrageous lawsuit). I was not aware of these initiatives, but I suppose I may see them a bit more as I enter into the corporate world upon leaving graduate school.

What do you out there think of religion in the work place?

CLICK HERE TO READ STORY

I need some feedback on this Idea…

I’m in the process of creating an online community for clergy to utilize for their blogging.  I feel that there needs to be a centralized place for these individuals for discussion and support.  Anyway, let me know what you think.  I’m playing around with a logo and a name (Clergy Blogs, Pastor Blogs, Minister Blogs)…Something along those lines.  The community will also provide advice on how to promote the blog to the public and/or Church community.

 Let me know your thoughts…

PR for the Pope’s Recent Comments

[This is a follow-up to my post entitled, "Jesus doesn't save - the Pope does"]

After I wrote the post I went through and read the comments you all suggested. One of you (Justin II) went ahead and sent me an official “Q and A” released by the Vatican in response to the backlash that resulted from Pope Benedict’s decision that Catholicism is the true church of God/Jesus.

I went ahead and read the document. I was happy to see that some of my questions were asked and that the Vatican was making an effort to answer some of the issues caused by the Pope’s religious assertions. I’ll admit that I came off kind of harsh in my last post, and the document sent to me helped me approach the issue with more of a level head.

However, despite the helpful PR handout that “Justin II” gave to me, I still found myself shaking my head (with a hint of disgust) at the actions of the Vatican. I took the liberty of pulling out a few areas that I found concern with.  If you want the full document, please email me via the Contact section.

So let’s begin.

In the intro of the PR document (as I will call it from this point forward), it says the following

“Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.”

I can agree to an extent about the “universality” of the Catholic doctrine on the Church [I interpret "Church" as believers in Christ]. Still, what is meant by “universality”? If they are referring to various rituals like the Eucharist, then they are only half right as many churches don’t view this the same way despite going through the same routines. For example, Catholics believe in transubstantiation while others believe it is a ritual based on symbolism. In fact, many sects emerged because of beliefs behind the Eucharist alone.

Moving on from the introduction, I was particularly interested in the answer to question two. The question was the following:

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

The response to this question was quite lengthy, so I am only going to pull out certain parts. Here is the first part I want to address:

Response: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community,”[5] that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic []. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”[7]

Now when I read this, the part that stuck out the most was the reference to Christ establishing one Church being a “visible and spiritual community”. I agree 100%! The church is spiritual (all of those in Christ) and it is a obviously a community (i.e. Christians). The problem emerges because the Catholic church is asserting that their religious institution is the “one Church”. However, I strongly contend that Jesus was not about establishing religions, He came to abolish it; to free humankind from its oppression. Hierarchies within any denominations involve politics, a human invention.

I should also note that all the numbers in the brackets reference a decision made at a Vatican council. It looked like this:

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, “Lumen gentium,” 8.2.

This was disappointing because when I saw the numbers, I thought they would reference actual Biblical passages for support.

In the effort to further answer the second question, the following answer was included:

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]“

 Again, for one to accept this argument, they must accept that the Vatican Councils are divinely inspired, that is, the hand of God. If one does, then concluding that the Catholic church is the “one” Church would be quite easy. I still contend that the “one” church still exists, but as those spiritual in Christ (and note that not all who profess Jesus are of His Church…as He quite clearly lays on in the Gospels).

Last, I want to look at question five. The question and part of the answer are below:

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: “According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.[20]“

What bothers me the most is that the Catholic Church is claiming that other sects “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery”. Again, this goes back to what I said in response to the first question I analyzed. It makes me wonder what they meant by the “universality” of Catholicism, because this statement excludes those who do not believe in transubstantiation.

To put it simply, the Catholic Church is saying that the way you view the Eucharist (eating bread and drinking wine) dictates whether you are part of the true body [Church] of Christ. Very sad reasoning indeed.

Like I said, I am happy to have gotten this document from “Justin II”. It did clarify some things that I may have misunderstood, and it allowed me see the Catholic side of the story.

So perhaps I have not lost “all” respect for the Pope…maybe just a “great deal” of respect.