We're stronger together - but apparently humans just can't stay united behind a cause. I'm certainly not a member of the Tea Party - though I mutually follow many of these folks on twitter. Apparently they're losing influence because of factions. Sounds like the Christian church - so many pet religions: Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, et.al. And that doesn't even include those far-outside-the-norm factions: Mormons and the other door-knockers, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
How can the Gospel be interpreted so differently by so many? Imagine how influential Christians could be if we were all united!
The Followers of Christ are similar in this regard. I'm not talking about all the in-fighting and disagreements over doctrine (such that there is - watered down and handed down and altered to fit the most influential / bullies). I'm talking about the different FOC churches. The four Idaho FOC churches, which do not get along with each other. The Oregon City FOC, which believes it is the only group of true believers and that the Idaho groups are worse than worldly people.
As far as I know the sister religion, The Church of the Firstborn, is far more accepting of both newcomers and other COFB believers.
This week, I heard a rumor that another Oregon City FOC baby had died - last name of Eells. Turns out that baby was from one of the Idaho groups - a large portion of which have the same surnames as the Oregon City group. Relatives who haven't spoken in lifetimes.
What are the effects of the divisions and fractures in groups, faiths, even political parties? Are we stronger together? How can so many people think differently from each other and still be convinced all others are wrong?
Showing posts with label Church of the First Born. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of the First Born. Show all posts
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
What's with you people in Oregon? Is there something in the water?
I've been getting questions from people in other parts of the country this week about another national news story involving faith healing here in Oregon. Parents, Travis and Wenona Rossiter, members of the Church of the Firstborn, are in prison after their daughter, Syble, died from diabetes. The couple used prayer to treat her, rather than seek medical care. You can read more about their story here.
So, the questions are coming in - what's up with Oregon? Faith healing does not only occur here in Oregon. The national stories coming out in the past fourteen years may indicate this is a new phenomenon here, but it is not. Walking through the Followers of Christ private cemetery, there are countless children who died before the late 1990s, but there was nothing authorities could do about it because faith healing was protected here in Oregon at that time. It was only in the last fourteen or so years that laws have been changing to protect these children.
For those who have been reading this blog since its inception, this will not be news, but the two church groups who make the news here in Oregon are actually related. The Church of the Firstborn and the Followers of Christ are splinter groups.
In February 2012, Darren Russell, an active member of the Church of the Firstborn, wrote about the history of the groups: Monikers of Our Faith and What's in a Name?
Darren has written several interesting guest blogs about church history and faith healing here. Two of his more controversial blogs were: Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians and his follow up story Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians, Part 2.
So, the questions are coming in - what's up with Oregon? Faith healing does not only occur here in Oregon. The national stories coming out in the past fourteen years may indicate this is a new phenomenon here, but it is not. Walking through the Followers of Christ private cemetery, there are countless children who died before the late 1990s, but there was nothing authorities could do about it because faith healing was protected here in Oregon at that time. It was only in the last fourteen or so years that laws have been changing to protect these children.
For those who have been reading this blog since its inception, this will not be news, but the two church groups who make the news here in Oregon are actually related. The Church of the Firstborn and the Followers of Christ are splinter groups.
In February 2012, Darren Russell, an active member of the Church of the Firstborn, wrote about the history of the groups: Monikers of Our Faith and What's in a Name?
Darren has written several interesting guest blogs about church history and faith healing here. Two of his more controversial blogs were: Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians and his follow up story Why I Choose Not to Use Physicians, Part 2.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Brother Dave Hays
This winter has been a season of reflection for
me. I find that, as I close in on my fortieth birthday, I am seeking wisdom,
clarity, and perspective. A small decision I've made - in light of my family's
schedule - is to make a small change to my weekly blogging schedule. I will now
be posting new blogs on Thursdays and Sundays; Wednesdays are my busiest day
and this is just one small change to help relieve a bit of pressure.
As I think about what to post on my blog, I have
a few considerations. The first one is that I cannot post a lot of material
because I've already written about those events in my book and I'm committed to
keeping the two projects separate. The other question I ask myself is:
"What can I add that is new and interesting?"
I was given a few books of informal historical
records by some members of the Church of the First Born (COFB). The COFB and
the FOC were once the same organization, but later separated due to leadership
decisions and theological differences. I have found the members of the COFB to
be open to my questions, kind to outsiders, and willing to help when asked.
Here is a short blurb from one of the COFB
histories. I will post more if the response is positive.
* * * *
A Story Told to Brother
Jack Robinson by Brother Hobart Hays
My
father, Brother Dave Hays, with his family, was travelling from around Mehan
going west to Homestead, Oklahoma, when late in the afternoon he stopped at a
store in Langston to get a few groceries for he planned to camp down the trail
a ways to eat and spend the night.
While
he was in the store another wagon pulled up and the people in it was planning
on about the same thing as my father. They met in the store and sort of got
acquainted and they decided to camp together that night.
The
next morning both families headed west. My father and the other man walked
along beside the wagon and visited and my dad talked to him about religion. I
was just a young lad then and this other man had a son about the same age as I
was so we played together along the way. Later we came to the place where we
were to go to Homestead so we told them all goodbye for they were going west to
Leedy, Oklahoma.
Sometime
later the Homestead Brethren received word that a Brother’s house burned down
in Leedy. The Homestead Brethren took up
donations, bedding, and furniture, and my dad and I took it by wagon to Leedy.
Other Brethren from Vici came and they all decided to stay and help rebuild the
Brother’s house.
The
man that we met at Langston lived just down the block from where the house had
burned down and he came down to work on the house also. When the Brethren
decided that they would like to have a meeting, he offered them his house to
have the meeting in. Later he was baptized, his son that I played with was
later baptized, also, his name was Brother Andrew Myers, who married Sister Mae
Moore. They lived for years in Sapulpa, raised their family in the church
there.
* * * * *
Please let me know what you think of the story...
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Old Memories from Oklahoma to Oregon
As I grew up, I often attended gatherings were older folks would sit around and reminisce about how things used to be. Here is an old story from the Church of the First Born in Oklahoma:
* * * *
A Story Told to Brother Jack Robinson
by Brother Hobart Hays
My father, Brother Dave Hays with his family, was
travelling from around Mehan going west to Homestead, Oklahoma, when late in
the afternoon he stopped at a store in Langston to get a few groceries for he
planned to camp down the trail a ways to eat and spend the night.
While he was in the store another wagon pulled up
and the people in it was planning on about the same thing as my father. They
met in the store and sort of got acquainted and they decided to camp together
that night.
The next morning both families headed west. My
father and the other man walked along beside the wagon and visited and my dad
talked to him about religion. I was just a young lad then and this other man
had a son about the same age as I was so we played together along the way.
Later we came to the place where we were to go to Homestead so we told them all
goodbye for they were going west to Leedy, Oklahoma.
Sometime later the Homestead Brethren received word
that a Brother’s house burned down in Leedy. The Homestead Brethren took up donations, bedding, and furniture, and
my dad and I took it by wagon to Leedy. Other Brethren from Vici came and they
all decided to stay and help rebuild the Brother’s house.
The man that we met at Langston lived just down the
block from where the house had burned down and he came down to work on the
house also. When the Brethren decided that they would like to have a meeting,
he offered them his house to have the meeting in. Later he was baptized, his
son that I played with was later baptized, also, his name was Brother Andrew
Myers, who married Sister Mae Moore. They lived for years in Sapulpa, raised
their family in the church there.
* * * * *
And now a walk down memory lane in Oregon. This picture features the elders from the Oregon City Followers of Christ congregation in 1975. The occasion was the sixtieth birthday celebration of Carl Westerburg.
 |
| Carl is in the middle wearing a yellow shirt. The man on the far right is Glenford Lee. |
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Darren Russell: Women's Hair
In the past, there were conflicts and disagreements among the different Followers of Christ sects so severe that the churches disassociated with one another. One of the major points of contention was over women's hair. Yes, you read that right. A bunch of old men arguing over whether or not women should cut their hair. That sounded crazy to me, so I asked Darren Russell to explain the issue. Here is his response.
* * * * *
It is said that a
picture is worth a thousand words.
Photos of adherents of
Oregon City's Followers of Christ Church have frequent found their way into
newspapers and programs. Selling stories is much easier with grabbing photos of
mug shots or court proceedings. Both sides of the court system know that juries
are often swayed along with the public by first impressions. A defense attorney
asks his client to look the part of a normal every day upbeat true blood
American and the other side leaks and introduces to the court and press the
most vilifying photos. The photos themselves depict whether a person is happy
or stressed, normal or peculiar, and we begin our evaluation of that person
with these impressions.
I belong to a related
church with some differences. And when we see these pictures there is one that
leaps out to us. We don't focus on facial expressions or even much on the
dress. We see the hair. I know my first reaction at seeing some of the
women on trial was, "How do they pray?"
What does hair have to
do with prayer? Let me explain.
In a nutshell we are faith healing sects and rely on prayer for our healing,
for many of us, it is the only recourse. Any hindrance to our prayer could have
serious repercussions. If we have sin in our lives we have to root it out and
confess it. We also have to show ourselves to be subject to the orders God
established.
In I Corinthians 11
Apostle Paul begins with, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of
Christ," It is a plea to some brethren then, and to us today to hear him
out and keep what he says. He continues, "I praise you for
remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed
them on to you."
His
subject is the significance of the head's covering and how it
indicates an order with God. "But I want you to realize that the head
of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of
Christ is God." Then comes Paul's
statement. "EVERY man who prays or prophesies with his head covered
dishonors his head. But EVERY woman who prays or prophesies with her
head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head
shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have
her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off
or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to
cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory
of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was
man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman
ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man
independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of
woman. But everything comes from God."
He reiterates and presents another argument so as to press his point home,
introducing the importance of having a proper relationship with
God. "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray
to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things
teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that
if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a
covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other
practice—nor do the churches of God." NO OTHER PRACTICE...possibly the
Followers Church has overlooked this?
I am not exactly sure how the Followers Church escaped this teaching, but have
an idea. I do know that this doctrine has been a historical bone of contention
among many assemblies, and some have put it aside as if it was an old
coat. Long ago beginning with Charlie Smith women were forbidden to openly pray
in the church. If they are not to pray publicly then their public covering
becomes a moot point. I have heard it said by many men that they preferred
their wives to have shorter hair, for many women it is easier to maintain. The
argument then runs that they are being subject to their husband's will and
therefore in God's order! Hold on a minute, since when were men able to change
God's order? How did man usurp a woman's obligation to pray? How are we – men
or women – to be heard when we have not submitted ourselves to God? How are we
to rely on healing by prayer when we are dishonored by what is or is not upon our
head, or our spouse's?
I would like to see some responses to these questions, perhaps a deeper
discussion is in order.
Darren
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Darren Russell: Why I Choose Not To Use Physicians
Darren Russell, a member of the Church of the First Born, agreed to write an article explaining his practice of faith healing. Please read this with an open mind if you're interested in understanding this practice, but keep in mind that Darren is addressing "those Christians who would like a thoughtful scriptural basis for this teaching, not towards the atheist/secularists who will never accept any biblical argument above scientific consensus."
Next Sunday, I will publish an article
written by Jerry Patton, a former FOC member and the grandson of an FOC
preacher, which addresses this issue from another perspective.
* * * *
Why I Choose Not
To Use Physicians
by Darren Russell
I found Suzi's blog one day while flipping through internet pages on a site called The Apologetics Index, a site supposedly dedicated to scriptural answers for Christians. Before I found the Followers of Christ Church with Suzi's link, I ran across this page at apologeticsindex.org concerning the body I grew up in, which has the same healing doctrine. The site stated we are “a group of churches whose faith healing practices violate biblical teaching on the subject. The church's doctrines and practices on this issue constitute a form of spiritual abuse. The problem of this church's approach is evident from these news items...” Then it went on to cite newspaper articles as the sum of evidence.
I searched the site looking for the scriptural arguments that supported their claim and found this on faith healing what the bible teaches
The Bible does not condemn, forbid, or even discourage the use of medicines or other proper medical care. Matter of fact, Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, was a doctor.
And the apostle Paul advised Timothy to use some wine for his stomach problems:
Stop drinking only water, and use a little
wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. - Source: 1 Timothy
5:23
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
- Source: Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
- Source: Mark 2:17
Some may find these to be decent scriptural arguments,
but I do not find them at all very compelling. I intend to address these and
then give several scriptural reasons as to why I do not utilize modern day
physicians. My response is directed towards those Christians who would like a
thoughtful scriptural basis for this teaching, not towards the
atheist/secularists who will never accept any biblical argument above
scientific consensus.
That Luke was a physician is not contested, but what manner of physician was he? Does the mere mention of his occupation in scripture grant divine approval? I don't think so. One apostle speaks of Rahab the harlot (James 2:25) and Luke mentions Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:22) but I cannot perceive of any making the argument that they are blessed vocations, especially in lieu of the context of other more direct scriptures. Still Rahab was faithful, Cornelius just, and Luke beloved; all descriptions of the person not the occupation. I would also think that Luke, who may have obtained a healing ministry the same as Paul, whom he was companion to, would not have much need to use a medical training in the presence of the Apostles. Luke says so very much himself in recording:
That Luke was a physician is not contested, but what manner of physician was he? Does the mere mention of his occupation in scripture grant divine approval? I don't think so. One apostle speaks of Rahab the harlot (James 2:25) and Luke mentions Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:22) but I cannot perceive of any making the argument that they are blessed vocations, especially in lieu of the context of other more direct scriptures. Still Rahab was faithful, Cornelius just, and Luke beloved; all descriptions of the person not the occupation. I would also think that Luke, who may have obtained a healing ministry the same as Paul, whom he was companion to, would not have much need to use a medical training in the presence of the Apostles. Luke says so very much himself in recording:
And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick
of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid
his hands on him, and healed him. So when this was done, others also, which had
diseases in the island, came, and were healed: Who also honoured US with many
honours; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were
necessary.
- Acts 28:8-10
It was Luke himself who noted the case of a woman who
“had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,”
(Luke 8:43) which is hardly a statement you would expect from “the beloved
physician.”
Concerning Paul advising Timothy to “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.” I do not see that his statement can be inferred to mean anything more than giving a dietary recommendation based upon experience. Paul had already spent considerable time in Ephesus, where Timothy had been left and seemed well aware that the water there was not potable and the source of his sicknesses.
“They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Every use of the word “physician” mentioned by Jesus was in the form of a proverb, a popular saying, and used to refer to himself. The word in fact in the KJV is only mentioned 11 times, with 4 of those referring to Christ “Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). These verses surely do not prove anything concerning the medical profession; Christ healed both bodies and souls through power.
When reading, people do not always sense the sarcasm that seems more obvious when heard. Tones set a context, the spirit of a conversation. In 5 of the 7 other references to “physicians” we find this to be the case. “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” (Jer. 8:22) says God through the prophet Jeremiah to a back slidden nation. “Ye are all physicians of no value” (Job 13:4) speaks Job of his false friends.
Do any of these verses prove that physicians are contrary to God? No. But they do not show them to be approved either.
The vast majority of Christians throughout the world believe in miracles; that divine intervention is possible. Still most use hospitals and doctors where they are available. I choose not to, not because there is a written command against it, but because I believe my faith leads me to that decision.
Concerning Paul advising Timothy to “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.” I do not see that his statement can be inferred to mean anything more than giving a dietary recommendation based upon experience. Paul had already spent considerable time in Ephesus, where Timothy had been left and seemed well aware that the water there was not potable and the source of his sicknesses.
“They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Every use of the word “physician” mentioned by Jesus was in the form of a proverb, a popular saying, and used to refer to himself. The word in fact in the KJV is only mentioned 11 times, with 4 of those referring to Christ “Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). These verses surely do not prove anything concerning the medical profession; Christ healed both bodies and souls through power.
When reading, people do not always sense the sarcasm that seems more obvious when heard. Tones set a context, the spirit of a conversation. In 5 of the 7 other references to “physicians” we find this to be the case. “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” (Jer. 8:22) says God through the prophet Jeremiah to a back slidden nation. “Ye are all physicians of no value” (Job 13:4) speaks Job of his false friends.
Do any of these verses prove that physicians are contrary to God? No. But they do not show them to be approved either.
The vast majority of Christians throughout the world believe in miracles; that divine intervention is possible. Still most use hospitals and doctors where they are available. I choose not to, not because there is a written command against it, but because I believe my faith leads me to that decision.
I believe in God and that he has both the power and will
to heal us. “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he
may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for
you.” ( I Peter 5:6-7) I find it comforting to know that he cares. A minister
in my church recently went to visit his daughter in the hospital who has
cancer. The doctors meaning well explained to him they were powerless to change
her condition. “I believe so,” he told them, “but you don't know my God.” He is
right; he knows that God has all abilities to change her situation. “There is
one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy “ (Jas. 4:12).
I believe healing was specially reserved by God in the same manner forgiveness is. “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” (Ps. 103:2,3) Jesus once asked, “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?” (Matt. 9:5) Both come from God, he is the sole proprietor of these institutions.
I believe faith healing is a sign that follows the believers, giving assurance to the message of the gospel. “These signs shall follow them that believe; In my name ... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover...And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:17-20) “and being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” (Acts 15:22) Luke says Apostle Paul and his company remained awhile in“speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands..” (Acts 14:3) I fail to see how using doctors would promote God's word, it would only affirm the medical industry.
I believe that Christ gave gifts to the church, including healings, for our benefit until that day when we should all arrive to perfection (I Cor.12:28,30; 13:10) and not need them any longer. God wants us to pursue these gifts (I Cor. 14:1) and not be behind in any gift until his return (I Cor. 1:7).
I believe healing was specially reserved by God in the same manner forgiveness is. “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” (Ps. 103:2,3) Jesus once asked, “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?” (Matt. 9:5) Both come from God, he is the sole proprietor of these institutions.
I believe faith healing is a sign that follows the believers, giving assurance to the message of the gospel. “These signs shall follow them that believe; In my name ... they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover...And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” (Mark 16:17-20) “and being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” (Acts 15:22) Luke says Apostle Paul and his company remained awhile in“speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands..” (Acts 14:3) I fail to see how using doctors would promote God's word, it would only affirm the medical industry.
I believe that Christ gave gifts to the church, including healings, for our benefit until that day when we should all arrive to perfection (I Cor.12:28,30; 13:10) and not need them any longer. God wants us to pursue these gifts (I Cor. 14:1) and not be behind in any gift until his return (I Cor. 1:7).
I believe that the same faith toward God that can heal is
the same faith that obtains forgiveness of sins and salvation, giving personal
assurance of God's might. Paul was clear there is only one Lord, and one faith
which saves (Eph. 4:5). This faith which healed (Luke 7:50; 18:42) is the same
by which we are“buried in baptism” ( Col. 2:12). Healing when it arrives is a
very powerful confirmation of God's desire and ability to resurrect us to salvation.
Does any of this mean that Christians never get sick? Far from it. I believe that as a son, suffering and chastisement is from God. “And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?” (Heb.12:5-7). Paul also was afflicted with a physical impairment, “a thorn in the flesh” not because of a sin, but so he would not be “exalted above measure”. Paul says, “ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities” (II Cor. 12:7-10). We should all have this attitude, but I do not see how a doctor fits well into this scenario. Our sufferings are to teach us, and by ameliorating them we may be rejecting what he has to say, even Christ himself learned this way (Heb. 5:8).
I believe God's knowledge is complete, man's incomplete. That doctors are trained in their field is not doubted, but still, they lack total comprehension. A co-worker once asked me why I did not go to doctors. Knowing he was not particularly religious but fanatical about his vehicles I asked him who did his mechanic work. “I always take my cars to the factory dealer for repairs”, he said, “they are the ones who made it, they best know how to fix it.” I agreed. And so I choose to go to my maker and not to the “shade tree mechanic” who has something less than a perfect knowledge.
Does any of this mean that Christians never get sick? Far from it. I believe that as a son, suffering and chastisement is from God. “And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?” (Heb.12:5-7). Paul also was afflicted with a physical impairment, “a thorn in the flesh” not because of a sin, but so he would not be “exalted above measure”. Paul says, “ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities” (II Cor. 12:7-10). We should all have this attitude, but I do not see how a doctor fits well into this scenario. Our sufferings are to teach us, and by ameliorating them we may be rejecting what he has to say, even Christ himself learned this way (Heb. 5:8).
I believe God's knowledge is complete, man's incomplete. That doctors are trained in their field is not doubted, but still, they lack total comprehension. A co-worker once asked me why I did not go to doctors. Knowing he was not particularly religious but fanatical about his vehicles I asked him who did his mechanic work. “I always take my cars to the factory dealer for repairs”, he said, “they are the ones who made it, they best know how to fix it.” I agreed. And so I choose to go to my maker and not to the “shade tree mechanic” who has something less than a perfect knowledge.
I find in the bible this same thing is
taught. In the book of Jeremiah the prophet has been sent by God against Judah
to “utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness” (1:16). He
explains, , “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the
fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that
can hold no water” (2:13). They had forsaken the knowledge of God, and replaced
it with the knowledge of the peoples they were around. God asks, “Is there no
balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the
daughter of my people recovered?” (8:22) to illustrate that what they were
dependent upon was not of him and of no value to them.
God tells Jeremiah, “Pray not for this
people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they
offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will
consume them by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence (contagious
disease)” (14:11,12). The people cry, “why hast thou smitten us, and there is
no healing for us? we looked for peace, and there is no good; and for the time
of healing, and behold trouble!” (14:19) and repent, “We acknowledge, O LORD,
our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against
thee “ (14:20). They even realize the cause,“Are there any among the vanities
of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? art not
thou he, O LORD our God? therefore we will wait upon thee: for thou hast made
all these things” (14:22).
Jeremiah at last records the previous sin
and the revelation to God's people. “The sin of Judah is written with a pen of
iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their
heart...Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall be like
the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit
the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed
is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall
be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the
river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and
shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding
fruit....O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed,
and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have
forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters. Heal me, O LORD, and I shall
behealed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise. “
(17:1,5-7,13,14)It is a lesson of how God deals with his people, a lesson with
parallels today.
I believe that knowledge may come from God, but that that physicians and the medical community has obtained its knowledge by using methods forbidden by God. “The LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed” (I Sam. 2:3). Daniel and his brethren were gifted knowledge from God, even in the area of sciences (Daniel 1:4,17) but can the medical industry today make that claim? Probably the greatest source of study, contributing to anatomical knowledge, has been the dissection of humans, both autopsies and living persons. Leonardo Davinci was once expelled from that Catholic Church for this very reason. The bible prohibits touching the dead (Num. 19:11,16), except in burial process which must occur the same day (Deut 21:23), or any deriving of benefit from a dead being. ( Daniel Eisenberg, a Jewish M.D. notes that the primary purpose of autopsies “From a medical perspective, autopsy predominantly serves the purpose of improving quality control in medicine. A physician has the opportunity of finding out whether his diagnosis was correct and whether treatment was appropriate.”(aish.com). Surely one cannot consider knowledge gained in this manner as approved by God.
In fact I believe the ethical problems surrounding the medical community have grown considerably, replacing Godly morality with ethical considerations based on extending physical life. We have scientists experimenting with animal parts in human beings, medically supported abortions, extending lives without any quality, all in the name of science and medicine. It is too bad that many now have extended their earthly existence without coming any closer to God. It is as Jesus said, “He that loveth his life shall lose it”, and we should be considering, “he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12:25) The case of the mother who dies in childbirth with her child at home avoided all the spiritual ramifications of her counterpart who in a hospital is induced to make a “moral” decision to save her own life or that of her child's. Where the decision is left in God's hands, there is no quandary or judgment, just a clean conscience. For me, a clean conscience is preferable to a longer life. The medical industry has blurred ethical and moral standards.
I believe that most of mankind has fallen into idol worship by placing the medical profession and their practices above God and his standards. All too often in life I witness men challenging God and his precepts. Even when that person becomes frightfully ill, he will eschew God's promises and head straight to a doctor. The doctor, he will hear. If he is prescribed medications, or counseled a surgical technique, he will oblige. After all, his health is at stake. Doctors have become the people's new priest. It is a relationship that will lead to downfall, as in the case of King Asa, who once believed in God with his heart, but turned against the prophets of God who warned him of his unbelief toward God and reliance upon men. It is recorded in II Chronicles 16:12“Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.” The verse shows if anything, how diametrically opposed physicians and God are.
There is no warrant in the scriptures to use a physician, but I find many reasons in the scriptures to depend on God and his ministers.
I believe that knowledge may come from God, but that that physicians and the medical community has obtained its knowledge by using methods forbidden by God. “The LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed” (I Sam. 2:3). Daniel and his brethren were gifted knowledge from God, even in the area of sciences (Daniel 1:4,17) but can the medical industry today make that claim? Probably the greatest source of study, contributing to anatomical knowledge, has been the dissection of humans, both autopsies and living persons. Leonardo Davinci was once expelled from that Catholic Church for this very reason. The bible prohibits touching the dead (Num. 19:11,16), except in burial process which must occur the same day (Deut 21:23), or any deriving of benefit from a dead being. ( Daniel Eisenberg, a Jewish M.D. notes that the primary purpose of autopsies “From a medical perspective, autopsy predominantly serves the purpose of improving quality control in medicine. A physician has the opportunity of finding out whether his diagnosis was correct and whether treatment was appropriate.”(aish.com). Surely one cannot consider knowledge gained in this manner as approved by God.
In fact I believe the ethical problems surrounding the medical community have grown considerably, replacing Godly morality with ethical considerations based on extending physical life. We have scientists experimenting with animal parts in human beings, medically supported abortions, extending lives without any quality, all in the name of science and medicine. It is too bad that many now have extended their earthly existence without coming any closer to God. It is as Jesus said, “He that loveth his life shall lose it”, and we should be considering, “he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12:25) The case of the mother who dies in childbirth with her child at home avoided all the spiritual ramifications of her counterpart who in a hospital is induced to make a “moral” decision to save her own life or that of her child's. Where the decision is left in God's hands, there is no quandary or judgment, just a clean conscience. For me, a clean conscience is preferable to a longer life. The medical industry has blurred ethical and moral standards.
I believe that most of mankind has fallen into idol worship by placing the medical profession and their practices above God and his standards. All too often in life I witness men challenging God and his precepts. Even when that person becomes frightfully ill, he will eschew God's promises and head straight to a doctor. The doctor, he will hear. If he is prescribed medications, or counseled a surgical technique, he will oblige. After all, his health is at stake. Doctors have become the people's new priest. It is a relationship that will lead to downfall, as in the case of King Asa, who once believed in God with his heart, but turned against the prophets of God who warned him of his unbelief toward God and reliance upon men. It is recorded in II Chronicles 16:12“Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.” The verse shows if anything, how diametrically opposed physicians and God are.
There is no warrant in the scriptures to use a physician, but I find many reasons in the scriptures to depend on God and his ministers.
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:13-16
Hopefully for the reader, I have presented a biblical case against the use of physicians sufficient to illustrate the spiritual benefits of reliance upon God, and to destroy the myth that our “faith healing practices violate biblical teaching.”
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Holy Kiss
This essay was written by Darren Russell, a frequent contributer and member of the Church of the Firstborn. Want more from Darren? You can read some of his work and research here: http://www.globalsunshine.com/COTFBhistory.htm or click on the "Guest Bloggers" tab to find his email address and contact him directly.
* * * * *
For my friends,
brethren, and sisters, who have been raised in the Church of the First Born or
the Followers of Christ, greeting is not much of an issue. We just always did
it! Or at least we have been taught that, and by faith accept that, since we
can see in black and white that it was what the apostles did. What we perceive
to be a totally natural and godly act among ourselves though has in many
circles become an embarrassment when other outsiders are present. I have even
heard some ministers who refuse the kiss in public claiming it is not right to
"give what is holy to the dogs." Why this modern temperament?
I recently uncovered a handful of newspaper articles that pertained to this specific belief among us. From them I have gathered that we have not only greeted from earlier times, but also that it has not been well received by outside churches for quite some time.
One humorous article titled "Epidemic of Kissing" appeared in the Trenton Evening Times of July 21, 1908 describing an Indiana congregation. It says, "Kissing is epidemic here of late among followers...whose sect is known as the Church of the First Born and measures today are threatened to stop the practice. Every member of the sect has the right to bestow a sacred kiss...and a too plentiful resort to the mouths of the sect's adherents have awakened the authorities to the necessity of action." No commentary needed here.
In March of 1896 around the U.S. in various papers was the headline, "Religious Kisses". It was a fairly small blurb but described how the brethren in Woods and Garfield counties would "after the sermon embrace and kiss each other." It had caused quite an "excitement among the people."
I recently uncovered a handful of newspaper articles that pertained to this specific belief among us. From them I have gathered that we have not only greeted from earlier times, but also that it has not been well received by outside churches for quite some time.
One humorous article titled "Epidemic of Kissing" appeared in the Trenton Evening Times of July 21, 1908 describing an Indiana congregation. It says, "Kissing is epidemic here of late among followers...whose sect is known as the Church of the First Born and measures today are threatened to stop the practice. Every member of the sect has the right to bestow a sacred kiss...and a too plentiful resort to the mouths of the sect's adherents have awakened the authorities to the necessity of action." No commentary needed here.
In March of 1896 around the U.S. in various papers was the headline, "Religious Kisses". It was a fairly small blurb but described how the brethren in Woods and Garfield counties would "after the sermon embrace and kiss each other." It had caused quite an "excitement among the people."
(Anyone wanting
to see a scan of the original article can do so at http://www.globalsunshine.com/COTFBhistory.htm Just look under favorites and find
kissing, it will open up under a pdf file; you can thank Bro. Bill Porter for
all his effort in producing this site dedicated to some Church of the First
Born history and I would suggest looking at some of his other items).
In the Winfield Courier, July 20, 1876 we have a description of " two or
three traveling preachers, who call themselves Christ’s disciples. They are
reported as healing the sick and restoring the infirm to health... and observe
other unusual habits. Several converts have joined them, five of whom were
baptized in the Walnut, near Moore’s mill, last Sabbath." Now explicitly
the "unusual habits" is not known, but it would be a pretty safe
assumption to believe it was the "kiss of charity".
The Arkansas Traveler of May 8, 1878 reported about the
same group that "Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Cochran and the two Misses Moore were
baptized and confirmed into the church of the Followers of Christ, last Sunday.
After the baptizing there was a feet washing and love feast at Mr. E. Osborn’s,
and preaching at the Smith schoolhouse at early candle light." The
brethren followed the same scriptural pattern as the Dunkards, many of whom were
joined to the faith at that time. A typical love feast was a potluck where
everyone could enjoy each other's company, and provided space to make any
confessions or amendments that may stand in the way of communion. The actual
Lord's supper was began in the evening, begin with a foot washing, follow
through with the Bread and Wine and terminate with prayers and the holy kiss.
There were some variations from this scheme, but they were trivial and usually
revolved upon questions of administering the various parts of the Lord's Supper.
One of my favorite and probably the most flattering news stories of them all emanated from The New York Herald in August of 1836. I have two copies of it, from different papers carrying the story that read the same but have not seen the actual Herald copy. So even this favorable story was something of a sensation in its day! The reporter described how he had attended a gathering that met inside a home rather than in one of the fancy cathedrals of New York City. He described how the service was conducted and also how the young and the unconverted, including himself, were set apart from the rest. How he also observed the ordinance supper. He witnessed the culminating greeting with a holy kiss only to reflect that if he wasn't a heathen and disallowed he would position himself between two of the fairest ladies of the group. This writer had an obvious degraded view of the ritual but probably one that fits most concerning it even today. Afterwards he questioned them concerning their name, origin and doctrine. They did not consider themselves as from either the Catholics or Protestants, but as being in a direct apostolic line. They found no scriptural injunction for either cathedrals or paid ministry.
April of 1819 an Elder Ephraim Stinchfield of the Free Will Baptists wrote concerning some independent brethren, whose meetings he had been attending, with the idea of reclaiming them to his denomination. "After attending five more meetings among them in different places, and hearing of another considerable society of the same class, in the town of Arundel, on the west side of Saco river, we went to visit them, and called at a private house in the neigbourhood of the society; inquired after the leading, or most inteligent men among them; hoping, if we convinced any of that description, they might be useful in convincing or undeceiving their neighbors. Having obtained the necessary information as to this particular, we were directed to the house of one of the society who was reputed to answer the above description. The landlady, his wife, met me as soon as I entered the room, and wished to know whether I had the courage to kiss her. I declined, and took a seat, for which she called me a coward."
One Jacob Cochrane was even so far brought down by him that he was imprisoned for adultery, the only genuine evidence against him being that he had acknowledged greeting his sisters with a holy kiss. His wife stood by him throughout the ordeal, and many others who maintained his innocence. After his release he left Maine for New York. His biggest crime, mentioned by Stinchfield in the beginning of his book, may be that he and the brethren with him had converted as many as 2000 souls away from the different denominations in the space of 3 years. It was claimed that it was a revival that surpassed even Whitefield's efforts. These brethren never believed in paid ministry, contrary to all others, and 2000 persons missing off their church rolls left the standing denominations disdaining this intrusion by an apostolic sect.Stinchfield never made progress towards them and later used this incident and other similar ones to calumniate the leading ministers of the sect.
Most of the paper trail dives off at this point concerning the spiritual ancestry of the Church of the First Born, especially in regards to the greeting. That it was practised long before this is really not to be doubted. The brethren were extremely literal in their interpretations of scripture and it hardly seems that a group which advocated literal "laying on of hands" for the sick's recovery would refrain from a simple act of kissing. In fact in the 1730s the only other sect of people to share in communion with the brethren was the Dunkards, which insisted in that part of communion. The Dunkard ministers were on such friendly terms with our faith that they on at least one occasion sent a group of ministers from Pennsylvania all the way to Connecticut to visit their brethren of like faith. When one of the Elders of the faith passed away in Groton, Connecticut a few decades later he was even remembered by them and was honored with an obituary in their own sponsored newspaper, usually reserved for only of their community. To my knowledge the most significant distinctions between the two sects is that the Dunkards immerse thrice for each person of the Godhead, began in Scwarzenau ,Germany in 1708 through a self-baptism, and practised their "holy kiss" only on members of the same sex. I personally believe that their many visits to the brethren were for the sake of rectifying their lineage, but that is off the theme of this note.
So having established the likely use of the greeting by our brethren since its establishment on American soil, and the opposition to it by others for the entire duration, I'd like to share what I have found from the Scriptures down to its standing in previous history.
So how important is it that we practice this?
Psalm 2:12 (King James Version)
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
A cursory reading of Psalm 2 leaves no doubt as to who the Son is. It shows us the penalty as well of not soliciting his favour. In Matthew 7:44-46 we see the comparison of someone who loved Christ with someone who cared not for others. So how do we "Kiss the Son" when he is not present before us?
Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
This principle should apply to all parts of our lives, the manner in which we treat our brethren does reflect our treatment of Christ. So why this demonstration of love among brethren?
1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
One of my favorite and probably the most flattering news stories of them all emanated from The New York Herald in August of 1836. I have two copies of it, from different papers carrying the story that read the same but have not seen the actual Herald copy. So even this favorable story was something of a sensation in its day! The reporter described how he had attended a gathering that met inside a home rather than in one of the fancy cathedrals of New York City. He described how the service was conducted and also how the young and the unconverted, including himself, were set apart from the rest. How he also observed the ordinance supper. He witnessed the culminating greeting with a holy kiss only to reflect that if he wasn't a heathen and disallowed he would position himself between two of the fairest ladies of the group. This writer had an obvious degraded view of the ritual but probably one that fits most concerning it even today. Afterwards he questioned them concerning their name, origin and doctrine. They did not consider themselves as from either the Catholics or Protestants, but as being in a direct apostolic line. They found no scriptural injunction for either cathedrals or paid ministry.
April of 1819 an Elder Ephraim Stinchfield of the Free Will Baptists wrote concerning some independent brethren, whose meetings he had been attending, with the idea of reclaiming them to his denomination. "After attending five more meetings among them in different places, and hearing of another considerable society of the same class, in the town of Arundel, on the west side of Saco river, we went to visit them, and called at a private house in the neigbourhood of the society; inquired after the leading, or most inteligent men among them; hoping, if we convinced any of that description, they might be useful in convincing or undeceiving their neighbors. Having obtained the necessary information as to this particular, we were directed to the house of one of the society who was reputed to answer the above description. The landlady, his wife, met me as soon as I entered the room, and wished to know whether I had the courage to kiss her. I declined, and took a seat, for which she called me a coward."
One Jacob Cochrane was even so far brought down by him that he was imprisoned for adultery, the only genuine evidence against him being that he had acknowledged greeting his sisters with a holy kiss. His wife stood by him throughout the ordeal, and many others who maintained his innocence. After his release he left Maine for New York. His biggest crime, mentioned by Stinchfield in the beginning of his book, may be that he and the brethren with him had converted as many as 2000 souls away from the different denominations in the space of 3 years. It was claimed that it was a revival that surpassed even Whitefield's efforts. These brethren never believed in paid ministry, contrary to all others, and 2000 persons missing off their church rolls left the standing denominations disdaining this intrusion by an apostolic sect.Stinchfield never made progress towards them and later used this incident and other similar ones to calumniate the leading ministers of the sect.
Most of the paper trail dives off at this point concerning the spiritual ancestry of the Church of the First Born, especially in regards to the greeting. That it was practised long before this is really not to be doubted. The brethren were extremely literal in their interpretations of scripture and it hardly seems that a group which advocated literal "laying on of hands" for the sick's recovery would refrain from a simple act of kissing. In fact in the 1730s the only other sect of people to share in communion with the brethren was the Dunkards, which insisted in that part of communion. The Dunkard ministers were on such friendly terms with our faith that they on at least one occasion sent a group of ministers from Pennsylvania all the way to Connecticut to visit their brethren of like faith. When one of the Elders of the faith passed away in Groton, Connecticut a few decades later he was even remembered by them and was honored with an obituary in their own sponsored newspaper, usually reserved for only of their community. To my knowledge the most significant distinctions between the two sects is that the Dunkards immerse thrice for each person of the Godhead, began in Scwarzenau ,Germany in 1708 through a self-baptism, and practised their "holy kiss" only on members of the same sex. I personally believe that their many visits to the brethren were for the sake of rectifying their lineage, but that is off the theme of this note.
So having established the likely use of the greeting by our brethren since its establishment on American soil, and the opposition to it by others for the entire duration, I'd like to share what I have found from the Scriptures down to its standing in previous history.
So how important is it that we practice this?
Psalm 2:12 (King James Version)
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
A cursory reading of Psalm 2 leaves no doubt as to who the Son is. It shows us the penalty as well of not soliciting his favour. In Matthew 7:44-46 we see the comparison of someone who loved Christ with someone who cared not for others. So how do we "Kiss the Son" when he is not present before us?
Matthew 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
This principle should apply to all parts of our lives, the manner in which we treat our brethren does reflect our treatment of Christ. So why this demonstration of love among brethren?
1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Did the apostles ever instruct greeting with a kiss?
1.Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
1.Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
2.1 Corinthians 16:20
All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
3. 2 Corinthians 13:12
Greet one another with an holy kiss.
4. 1 Thessalonians 5:26
Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
5. 1 Peter 5:14
Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Was it practiced by the apostles?
Acts 20:37
And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
So what about the early Christians? Did they continue the practice? Here are some different excerpts showing its continued use.
"When we have ceased from prayer, we salute one another with a kiss."-Justin
Martyr (abt 100-165AD)
"Therefore the kiss should be given with the utmost care, since if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life."- Athenagoras (2d century AD)
"What prayer is complete from which the holy kiss is divorced? What kind of sacrifice is that from which men depart without peace?- Tertullian abt 200 AD
In the Martyrdoms, also written by Tertullian;
"And when the crowd called for them into the midst, that as the sword penetrated into their body they might make their eyes partners in the murder, they rose up of their own accord, and transferred themselves whither the people wished; but they first kissed one another, that they might consummate their martyrdom with the kiss of peace."
Tertullian, advising a Christian woman to not marry an unbeliever wrote:
"For who would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren...to creep into prison to kiss a martyr's bonds? nay, truly, to meet any one of the brethren to exchange the kiss?"
"Abundantly blessed are they who, from your number, passing through these footprints of glory, have already departed from the world; and, having finished their journey of virtue and faith, have attained to the embrace and the kiss of the Lord, to the joy of the Lord himself."- Cyprian's epistle XV abt 240 AD
"Cyprian to Sergius and Rogatianus, and the rest of the confessors in the Lord, everlasting health. I salute you, dearest and most blessed brethren, myself also desiring to enjoy the sight of you, if the state in which I am placed would permit me to come to you...What more pleasant and sublime than now to kiss your lips, which with a glorious voice have confessed the Lord..."
All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
3. 2 Corinthians 13:12
Greet one another with an holy kiss.
4. 1 Thessalonians 5:26
Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
5. 1 Peter 5:14
Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Was it practiced by the apostles?
Acts 20:37
And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
So what about the early Christians? Did they continue the practice? Here are some different excerpts showing its continued use.
"When we have ceased from prayer, we salute one another with a kiss."-Justin
Martyr (abt 100-165AD)
"Therefore the kiss should be given with the utmost care, since if there be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from eternal life."- Athenagoras (2d century AD)
"What prayer is complete from which the holy kiss is divorced? What kind of sacrifice is that from which men depart without peace?- Tertullian abt 200 AD
In the Martyrdoms, also written by Tertullian;
"And when the crowd called for them into the midst, that as the sword penetrated into their body they might make their eyes partners in the murder, they rose up of their own accord, and transferred themselves whither the people wished; but they first kissed one another, that they might consummate their martyrdom with the kiss of peace."
Tertullian, advising a Christian woman to not marry an unbeliever wrote:
"For who would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren...to creep into prison to kiss a martyr's bonds? nay, truly, to meet any one of the brethren to exchange the kiss?"
"Abundantly blessed are they who, from your number, passing through these footprints of glory, have already departed from the world; and, having finished their journey of virtue and faith, have attained to the embrace and the kiss of the Lord, to the joy of the Lord himself."- Cyprian's epistle XV abt 240 AD
"Cyprian to Sergius and Rogatianus, and the rest of the confessors in the Lord, everlasting health. I salute you, dearest and most blessed brethren, myself also desiring to enjoy the sight of you, if the state in which I am placed would permit me to come to you...What more pleasant and sublime than now to kiss your lips, which with a glorious voice have confessed the Lord..."
Cyprian, epistle
LXXX, abt 250 AD
LXXX, abt 250 AD
So you see the early Christians considered the Holy Kiss as a sacred trust, it was
shared between all male and female, and was on the lips. They even viewed it as
mandatory, "Kiss the Son lest ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled
but a little."
Now when exactly did culture begin to attack this holy mandate? I am not sure, I would suspect it started quite early, Satan never wasting time on destroying what he can.
That the kiss was still common in the 16th century can be easily seen by a perusal of Martyr's Mirror, an Anabaptist work which detailed many persecutions. It was written about 1660 and so I would venture to say that even then the greeting was not much of an irregularity. Just one excerpt should suffice to demonstrate. In the account of the imprisonment and eventual death of one Matthias Servaues he wrote a letter to his fellow congregants, he closes with, "I greet all the believers with a holy kiss. Greet one another with a kiss of love. And do not forget us, nor any of the prisoners; but persevere in strong prayer for us to God, for this is highly necessary."
I found this news article written, that shows among other things how the kiss had already changed in the 17th century.
The New World, Volume 6, June 17. 1843
John Bunyan —Pilgrim's Progress, a book which the child and I his grandmother read with equal delight, and which, more almost than any other work, may be said to be " Meet for all hours and every mood of man," was written in prison, where Bunyan preached to his fellow prisoners, supported his family by making tagged laces, and filled up his leisure by writing. The work by which he immortalized himself 'grew from a sudden thought which occurred while he was writing in a different strain. Its progress he relates oddly enough in his rhyming apology, but more curiously in some verses prefixed to the "Holy War."
"It came from mine own heart, so to my head,
And thence into my fingers trickeled ;
So to my pen, from whence immediately
On paper I did dribble it daintily."
But we do not intend writing an essay on the character or works of Bunyan; our purpose now is merely to call attention to a singularly characteristic and amusing passage from his defense against some charges of gallantry and incontinence. It will doubtless be quite new to most of our readers.
"My foes," he says, " have missed their mark in this their shooting at me. I am not the man: I wish that they themselves be guiltless. If all the fornicators and adulterers in England were hanged up by the neck till they be dead, John Bunyan, the object of their envy, would be still alive and well. I know not whether there be such a thing as a woman breathing under the face of heaven, but by their apparel, their children, or by common fame, except my wife. And in this I admire the wisdom of God, that he made me shy of women from my first conversion until now. Those know, and can also bear in witness with whom I have been most intimately concerned, that it is a rare thing to see me carry it pleasantly toward a woman, and the common salutation of women I abhor. It is odious to me in whomsoever I see it. Their company alone I cannot away with. I seldom so much as touch a woman's hand; for I think these things not so becoming me. When I have seen good men salute those women that they have visited or that have visited them, I have at times made my objection against it; and when they have answered that it was but a piece of civility, I have told them it was not a comely sight. Some indeed have urged the holy kiss; but then I have asked why they made baulks; why they did salute the most handsome, and let the ill-favored go? Kisses, how laudable soever such things may have been in the eyes of others, they have been unseemly in my sight."
So here we have it, a self-proclaimed preacher whose work has been idolized by millions since, dispenses with the greeting because he THOUGHT IT WAS GROSS! Culture suppressed the Word of God! But not for all.
Now when exactly did culture begin to attack this holy mandate? I am not sure, I would suspect it started quite early, Satan never wasting time on destroying what he can.
That the kiss was still common in the 16th century can be easily seen by a perusal of Martyr's Mirror, an Anabaptist work which detailed many persecutions. It was written about 1660 and so I would venture to say that even then the greeting was not much of an irregularity. Just one excerpt should suffice to demonstrate. In the account of the imprisonment and eventual death of one Matthias Servaues he wrote a letter to his fellow congregants, he closes with, "I greet all the believers with a holy kiss. Greet one another with a kiss of love. And do not forget us, nor any of the prisoners; but persevere in strong prayer for us to God, for this is highly necessary."
I found this news article written, that shows among other things how the kiss had already changed in the 17th century.
The New World, Volume 6, June 17. 1843
John Bunyan —Pilgrim's Progress, a book which the child and I his grandmother read with equal delight, and which, more almost than any other work, may be said to be " Meet for all hours and every mood of man," was written in prison, where Bunyan preached to his fellow prisoners, supported his family by making tagged laces, and filled up his leisure by writing. The work by which he immortalized himself 'grew from a sudden thought which occurred while he was writing in a different strain. Its progress he relates oddly enough in his rhyming apology, but more curiously in some verses prefixed to the "Holy War."
"It came from mine own heart, so to my head,
And thence into my fingers trickeled ;
So to my pen, from whence immediately
On paper I did dribble it daintily."
But we do not intend writing an essay on the character or works of Bunyan; our purpose now is merely to call attention to a singularly characteristic and amusing passage from his defense against some charges of gallantry and incontinence. It will doubtless be quite new to most of our readers.
"My foes," he says, " have missed their mark in this their shooting at me. I am not the man: I wish that they themselves be guiltless. If all the fornicators and adulterers in England were hanged up by the neck till they be dead, John Bunyan, the object of their envy, would be still alive and well. I know not whether there be such a thing as a woman breathing under the face of heaven, but by their apparel, their children, or by common fame, except my wife. And in this I admire the wisdom of God, that he made me shy of women from my first conversion until now. Those know, and can also bear in witness with whom I have been most intimately concerned, that it is a rare thing to see me carry it pleasantly toward a woman, and the common salutation of women I abhor. It is odious to me in whomsoever I see it. Their company alone I cannot away with. I seldom so much as touch a woman's hand; for I think these things not so becoming me. When I have seen good men salute those women that they have visited or that have visited them, I have at times made my objection against it; and when they have answered that it was but a piece of civility, I have told them it was not a comely sight. Some indeed have urged the holy kiss; but then I have asked why they made baulks; why they did salute the most handsome, and let the ill-favored go? Kisses, how laudable soever such things may have been in the eyes of others, they have been unseemly in my sight."
So here we have it, a self-proclaimed preacher whose work has been idolized by millions since, dispenses with the greeting because he THOUGHT IT WAS GROSS! Culture suppressed the Word of God! But not for all.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Darren Russell: What's In A Name?
This is a continuation
of last Sunday’s blog, by Darren Russell. The Followers of Christ, in Oregon
City, claim that the Church of the First Born is not the same church and
theology. That is not what the history of the church tells, as Darren so aptly
explained in his last post.
What's in a name? That
which we call a rose
By any other name
would smell as sweet.
It's an oft repeated phrase from one Shakespeare's tragedies, the words of Juliet to the thought of Romeo who may have to give up his family name to be with her. Stripped of his name and family fortune, he still would have been the man she loved.
So what does the Bible
say about names?
When God created Adam,
he left it to him to name all the animals of the garden. God knew each and
every one but had no need to name them to distinguish them. There were times
when he gave people names, and they were always significant. He named Abram
Abraham, Jacob Israel and gave the words of the prophecy to Isaiah that the
messiah would be called Immanuel. In fact he gave his Son a better name than
any of the angels. (Heb. 1:4) Before his birth he sent an angel to name him
Jesus, a name meaning savior, a name he lived up to.
He has also promised a
name to his people and to Jerusalem:
Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
And they shall call
them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called,
Sought out, A city not forsaken.
Isaiah 62:11-12
Jesus established his
Church while here, and simply called them “my disciples” (John 13:35). Luke
said in Acts that the disciples were first called “Christians” at Antioch.
Apostle John in his vision referred to the church as “New Jerusalem” (Rev.
3:12; 21:2,10) and this is confirmed by Paul (Heb. 12:22) and is a direct
fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. Paul goes on to describe the “city of the
living God” as a “general assembly and church
of the first born...” (Heb. 12:23). Of course the first born is none other than
Christ (Col. 1:15), and so it is just a flowery way for Paul to say the “Church
of Christ” (Rom. 16:16).
The most common way
for Paul to address believers was as “The Church of God” which he uses a dozen
times with slight variations. He also referred to this same group as “the
churches of the saints” (I Cor. 14:33) but for the most part he simply said
“the church”, and all the believers who read his letters or heard his voice new
which church he was referring to, there is only one, that of “The Redeemed of
the Lord”.
So many names to choose from, so many good names, and people like to hold on to one, as if it had a magical charm to it that will save you in itself. God gave his Son a multiplicity of names (Isaiah 9:6) to describe him more fully, and we should not be surprised that the church, his “New Jerusalem”, the “Bride of Christ” is known by as many different names. As followers of Christ we just need to keep in mind the reputation he earned with God, the name he inherited, and “the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” ( II Tim. 2:19)
So many names to choose from, so many good names, and people like to hold on to one, as if it had a magical charm to it that will save you in itself. God gave his Son a multiplicity of names (Isaiah 9:6) to describe him more fully, and we should not be surprised that the church, his “New Jerusalem”, the “Bride of Christ” is known by as many different names. As followers of Christ we just need to keep in mind the reputation he earned with God, the name he inherited, and “the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” ( II Tim. 2:19)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)