Do people at your church greet each other with a kiss? If not, why? Do you not know everyone intimately enough? If that’s the case, perhaps your church is too big. Are you afraid of perverts or germs? Perhaps you don’t fear the Lord enough.
I mention this because as I’m giving an increasing amount of thought to house churches, it occurs to me that greeting one another with a kiss would be much more practical in that situation.
Holy kisses: Just another element of “church” — along with baptism, the remembrance meal, and foot washing — that Jesus and/or the apostles called for. Why have we let it fall by the wayside?
Notes:
-
The kiss doesn’t have to be a mouth-on-mouth liplock, but can be something as simple as a peck on the cheek. A kiss is a kiss, of course, of course.
-
There is no biblical limitation on who may kiss who. In other words, fundamentalists who are terrified of men so much as shaking hands with a woman before they are married need not apply. They’re already missing plenty of fun anyway. But this also means that men should kiss men and women can kiss women. Sexual insecurity be damned.
-
Many cultures throughout the world still greet each other with a kiss. Who in America first thought it was a good idea to drop that? Now I feel as though I can’t even hug my friends because I think everyone takes that sort of thing the wrong way these days. Absolutely lame, all around.
-
Enhance Your Blog with Thesis
What do you look for in a WordPress theme? Loads of options? Unsurpassed support? A thriving community?
Look no further than Thesis, the premier WordPress theme framework from DIYthemes.
Rock solid semantics. Bulletproof search engine optimization. Crystal clear typography. And more options than you can shake a stick at. What are you waiting for? Get Thesis today!
{ 20 responses to this entry. Add yours! }
Actually, in many countries (such as in Europe), hugging is considered very intimate, while kissing is common even for two men in a business relationship. I tend to agree with that.
And what happened to the old custom of men shake hands, women curtsey, men kiss women’s hands?
Galatians 2:9 shows that shaking hands (“the right hand of fellowship”) was indeed practiced back then. There’s no biblical mandate for women curtsying, though — indeed, it is questionable whether we should be bowing before anyone but Jesus Himself. Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised if the kissing of hands came about because people became too prudish about kissing each other on the face. (No evidence of that, just a theory.)
Romanticized, old-fashioned customs can be fun, but I’d be just as hesitant equating them to anything in the Bible as I would today’s customs.
With Italian Christains I know, certainly I do this, with North Americans a holy handshake seems to suffice. While I find the former culture to be preferable, I’ve never been inclined to impose a holy kiss on the later.
Still, 4 mentions in scripture is quite a bit, the kiss phobia is probably something that should be reformed. It seems like a side note, but holy kisses may have more importance than I know, and it is always safer to go with scripture.
You’re absolutely right, Jair. People seem so intimacy-phobic. Just look at the Scriptures’ examples of friendship (such as David and Jonathan… or Ruth and Naomi) and then compare them to today’s throwaway relationships (including marriages).
It really is shameful. Look at the intimacy shared between Jesus and the apostles. Between Mary of Magdela and Jesus. And so on. The reformative power of God created sanctified bonds between these people that would not let go. I can imagine the joy they experienced in fellowship with one another. Yet today far too many Christians are comfortable “fellowshiping” in a church with hundreds or thousands of members, half or more of which they may never even interact with.
I totally agree with you, Rick, on your comment on my first comment. I guess I kind of went off on a tangent—I wasn’t talking about whether certain customs were biblical.
I’m not intimacy-phobic, but I do have a problem with the whole ” Alright, it’s fellowship time, now turn around and hug your neighbor.” It’s awkward, especially if I’m sitting with my wife, and my neighbor happens to be a single woman.
Even if I’m next to someone who isn’t female, the forced “intimacy” is not appreciated. Why do we have to have this fake friendliness in church? Some people aren’t receptive to a hug, or even a handshake.
The guys in my Bible Study all hug, for the most part, and we don’t have to be told to do so. It’s a real expression, not something manufactured in the moment. The holy kiss is not a problem. The problem is that fake intimacy overshadows the real thing.
Oh I agree that the “turn and greet your neighbor” schtick ought to go. Church should be much more organic than that, but too many pastors are content to conduct it like a business meeting, with every function arranged in a nice orderly manner — we wouldn’t want to do anything that might offend someone who’s been used to doing function B directly after function A for 25 years, after all.
Oh, and what what’s with the C major scale? Just curious.
C major scale?
Look at the last word before the bulleted points begin.
Ha, that’s funny—so thick of me. Thanks.
I heard somewhere that the holy kiss was given to a man’s beard as a sign of respect. Since we ignore the command about not marring the edges of our beard I am guessing kissing it went out too.
I am in South Bend, Indiana (where is that? I dont know) next June with my wife, and our to-be child. I will greet you with a holy kiss. You won’t like it, ’tis not so fab as it sounds.
I’d have to dig it up, but I’m fairly sure the ancient church only permitted holy kisses between those of the same sex. So there were boundaries in place.
Question is, what do you do with someone who is struggling with homosexuality? Then I think a holy kiss would be a stumbling block.
I’ve read of the early church’s restrictions, but I wouldn’t require anyone to follow them just for the sake of following them; if something is not demanded by the Scriptures, then it simply is not demanded. The early church existed within a quagmire of sexual immorality (ah, the glory that was Rome…), and so the restrictions may have been put in place by protective pastors.
I can see what you mean about homosexuals too, but at the same time, it’s possible that treating everyone within the church as family may help them to grow into a healthy view of sexuality — that the men or women around them aren’t to be regarded as prospective dates but as brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Treating them according to a different standard may cause them to repress the feelings rather than working them out, and repression is almost never a good thing. Still, a case-by-case basis may be in order, with great care taken on the part of the elders to ensure no one is put in any danger of sin.
I guess I should state my position then. I’m not a believer in Sola Scriptura. I believe Scripture has a historical context and when that is neglected, heresies abound (look at all the denominations of Christianity floating about!). I figure it is better to go to the ancient authorities on the subject, those who heard the apostles speak directly, when interpreting difficult matters. But only where they use the Scriptures as a “rule”.
So in other words, I don’t think Paul necessarily expounded upon what a “holy kiss” was when he already taught it to them in person:
This is the reason I have started studying the writings of the Church Fathers, in an attempt to keep “private interpretations” (2 Peter 1:20) out of the Bible, and to understand the Scriptures as the disciples understood them.
I don’t think many people realize that it was the oral traditions of the apostles that held the church together until councils gathered together the apostolic writings and canonized them to guard against doctrinal heresy. So to neglect tradition is to neglect the canon.
Although, again, all traditions must agree with that “rule” or “measuring rod”. That’s where I think the Catholics screwed things up. So I consider myself a “catholic” with a lower-case “c”, in that I think doctrinal unity is PARAMOUNT to proper faith in Christ. :)
I’m not rejecting tradition as worthless, but to say that “sola Scriptura” is at fault for the variations in Christianity is misleading. What makes the various groups in Christendom differ is the traditions they adhere to. “Sola Scriptura” can only lead to one place: biblical faith and practice. Those who don’t make it (and I admit, none of us completely do) fail to do so because of traditions which are kept, practices which are clung to despite not being commanded or encouraged in the Scriptures.
I’m not so sure. For example, Rick, how would you describe a “holy kiss”? Is it straight out necking (French kissing), a kiss on the cheek or something else?
This is where I feel tradition is important, because the recipients of the epistles would have known what he was talking about. And as stated, in the infancy stages of the church, the followers held to both the apostle’s oral and written traditions.
As one example (not related to the holy kiss), early Church history teaches us that the apostle John kept the Christian Passover on Nisan 14. There was a huge issue on this, known as the Quatrodeciman Heresy and Rome excommunicated the Eastern churches because they wouldn’t keep it on Sunday like the Apostle John. Irenaeus argued for a more inclusive view, allowing the East to follow John’s view, but also acknowledging that Polycarp himself, a disciple of John, fellowshipped with those who kept the Passover on Sunday.
“There was a huge issue on this, known as the Quatrodeciman Heresy and Rome excommunicated the Eastern churches because they wouldn’t keep it on Sunday, even though the Apostle John’s tradition was the same as their own.”
Corrected.
The issue with the Passover is sidestepped by the fact that, well, we’re not even bound to keep it — much like Sabbaths. Such days find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
And given the number of kisses between friends and family throughout the Scripture — and given the long-time tradition of familial kisses or kisses-as-greetings — I think we can be pretty confident that the kiss was not “necking.” That is much more than just a “kiss” and I think you know that, exaggeration notwithstanding.
Just my two cents on this issue: I have been to a few countries in which men kiss one another as a greeting, and women kiss one another. I’ve also been to one in which the opposite sexes kiss one another in a sibling-sort-of-way at church. It’s much nicer than a cold, prudish handshake (although I’ve had warm handshakes, and realize that the scriptures also mention the right hand of fellowship).
I’ve asked myself why Paul made a point to remind believers in the early church to greet one another with a holy kiss. Why was a quaint, friendly custom even worthy of his mention? Did he feel that it was dying out? Did he have some personal reason to push the continuance of this particular custom? The scriptures don’t fill in the blanks on this one, but my personal feeling (perhaps prodded by the HS?) is that Judas had notoriously used the kiss of friendship to betray Jesus, and Paul (and I feel certain other church leaders) wanted to encourage the believers to “take it back”. “We’ll show the world how a kiss of greeting is supposed to be used! What Judas corrupted, we will openly continue and redeem!”
Just a thought.
Gil
P.S. I have enjoyed reading the thoughts and opinions on this site. It’s remarkably rare to find believers actually reading the Bible and honestly discussing its contents. Sadly, it’s incredibly common to find people who have NOT read the Word claiming loudly to understand God’s wishes in areas of modern morality, living under rules, etc. It’s heart-breaking.