Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The D.A.'s Office
Facebook

Notices

The D.A.'s Office The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of AFF or the Admin of AFF.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-23-2007, 12:59 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
*** OPs vs. TPs: To Kiss or Not to Kiss? [NCO Exclusive]***

Our very own, JG ... hits another home run ... with his latest satirical blog article at the New Church Order website, entitled, "Greet the Brethren: A Brief Theological/Historical Treatise". You wanna read this one ... it will not disappoint.

--------------------------------
Posted w/ his permission.
-------------------------------

Greet the Brethren
by James Griffin

(A Brief Historical/Theological Treatise)

Some time after the first century following the final canonization of scripture, came a movement to insure that every Pauline edict made to the New Testament church was followed to the letter. The reasons for being so restrictive were numerous. While the Old Testament might be relevant to such mundane things as the history of Israel, typology of Christ and the like, they simply were not germane to modern church governance and post-salvation conduct. Similarly, the four gospels should be relegated to secondary status because they served no purpose beyond leading the “sinner” to Christ. Since those involved in such research were obviously “saved” (having once duly repented, been water baptized, and spirit filled) what mattered most was to study the writings of Paul concerning church hierarchy and personal holiness.

In this spirit all the words written by Paul in the imperative (command) form of Greek where categorized and studied at length and in detail to make sure that church law, especially post-salvation truths, were followed to the letter. One scholar on the project was shocked to discover Paul had thus “commanded” saints to greet the brethren with a kiss no less than four times (and even Peter had commanded it once). It was, therefore, maintained that the kissing should start immediately in keeping with the Apostle’s command. A few scholars pointed out that while this form of greeting was common in Paul’s time, there were relatively few modern countries (mostly European, and Middle Eastern) where this was still common practice. Some even suggested this teaching of Paul was instead culturally relative and furthermore, since it was post-salvation, perhaps these type issues could be, to a degree, open to interpretation. The majority met in council and decided there was only one Christian way to handle such matters. The heretics were crucified.

Theologians and church leaders then, through a series of councils, subsequently concluded that a kiss in most countries currently was defined as full lip contact. The doctrine was then refined on such fine points as duration of the kiss, whether or not a hug was mandatory and such like. This task of refining post-salvation doctrine, of course, involved the best and brightest minds for centuries until there was a basic canonical understanding of what constituted the correct form of apostolic greeting. The final edict was then reduced to a mere three-page document.

However in the early 1600s a monk doing independent research through ancient historic writings found what he believed to be irrefutable proof that in the areas of the world and contemporaneous to the writings of Paul the normative greeting was not a full lip one at all, but rather more like a peck on the cheek.

After much soul searching he documented and published his research knowing full well the rift it would cause. Christendom instantly erupted into chaos and pandemonium. Camps were quickly formed and divided into the “lip locks” and the “cheek pecks”. Lip Locks issued position pieces that Sola Scriptura was the hermeneutical standard. The Cheek Pecks responded they were not adding to scripture but merely using historical texts to better place it in context with its historical meaning and, therefore, application. Of course the fight escalated, and the ensuing mayhem has been well documented elsewhere. Millions of lives lost to both battle and torture, incalculable property damage, and resources expended over the next centuries. (See also Inquisition, Reformation, and Counter-reformation). Eventually an uneasy peace accord was reached and in most areas of the world the LLs and the CPs learned to co-exist. While there is of course no fellowship, at least, the bloodshed has stopped for now.

A more recent but very fascinating phenomenon has been noted among the CPs. Apparently schisms have formed on whether or not the Apostles used one cheek peck or three. Both sides of course still agree on the plan of salvation (the reader will note once again this is a post-salvation treatise), and that a peck on the cheek is how Paul had commanded the brethren to be greeted. While most non-Christians have trouble grasping these nuances, the positions are basically as follows: the OP (one peck) camp believes the legal obligation to be completed with a single kiss thereby fulfilled the spirit of Paul’s edict, the TP (three peck) camp maintains that without all three individual pecks the kissing requirement has not been met and therefore the greeting falls short of Paul’s mandate. Some within the TP camp even maintain that perhaps since the OPs are unwilling to literally fulfill Paul’s commandments that perhaps their very salvation should be brought into question. Obviously, these two schisms within the CP movement no longer fellowship but at least, as of yet, there does not appear to be any bloodshed. This development is being watched with great interest by theologians and non-Christians alike. Who knows what other future discoveries and additions to the plan of salvation may be found? We truly live in exciting times.

EPILOGUE

As groups of believers pass on and find themselves on the other side, they are continually amazed, and some even appalled, to find both LLs and CPs (including both the OP and TP factions) are among them. Horrified by this turn of events and seeking explanation they note a door with the sign ANSWERS hanging over it. Upon entering the room they find tables containing piles of pamphlets separated by topic. Each side runs to the various tables seeking affirmation that they were right. The longest line is invariably for the pamphlets written by the Apostle Paul on standards of holiness.

They are universally shocked, however, by one he had written entitled “A Simple Handshake Would Have Been Fine!” It went on to explain that while Paul was overjoyed that his writings had been used to direct sinners to the gospel, he was heartbroken that the guidelines he had written had been used as weapons to turn Christian against Christian. He explained, again, themes such as agape as the foundation of Christianity. Holiness is a state of being, not a code of conduct. What you wear, eat, drink, and watched are superfluous without love. That the same act can be sin to one and yet not to another. If the fruits like gentleness, kindness, meekness, longsuffering are missing, then standards mean nothing. Preaching standards without demonstrating love is legalism. And finally if you choose to live by the law, you will be judged by the law.

As these truths are still being absorbed, the crowd is ushered into a great auditorium. There, for the next several thousand years they are made to view the destruction wrought by Christian attacking Christian because of differences in interpreting the proper standards Christians should follow.

Every life affected by the Inquisition, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation is shown in detail. From those literally tortured and killed merely for expressing their views to those who had their spirits killed from within because they were refused fellowship. Then the display changes to show how the world would have been different if love and tolerance had reigned. Not only would so much pain and suffering have been avoided within the Christian community, but by Christians demonstrating love and unifying their efforts millions more would have been won to Christ.

When the viewing finally ends, the pain and anguish in the room is palpable. Every single soul is crushed and devastated by the destruction they had wrought.

One cries out, “I never knew heaven could be a place where you would feel such pain!” A laugh breaks out from the rear of the room. The projectionist reaches for the replay button and is heard to proclaim, “Who said you are in heaven?”

----------------------------------
Dang!!! Talk about being inciteful/insightful.

Comments, questions ... need someone to decode it for you?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-23-2007, 01:39 PM
Rev Dooley
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
I won't kiss any of my brothers or sisters. It just isn't something that I would even consider since there are so many germs that can and will be transmitted.
This transmission of germs would eventually morph into a super germ that would wipe out all christendom if this concept of kissing were to be universally accepted.
Then, our great leaders would have to issue an edict declaring the heresy of not kissing others as actually being correct. This would be done under the guise of protecting the church.
Then again, maybe science would be able to come up with a speedy solution so that we could continue to slobber on each other with great affection; especially the good looking ones!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-23-2007, 02:11 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,787
I've known just as many TPs that will have nothing to do with an OP...not a holy kiss or a hug or a hand shake. It's a two way street.
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-23-2007, 04:10 PM
bdlooney's Avatar
bdlooney bdlooney is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 155
Just exactly who is James Griffin and who does he think he is???

I may be taking this wrong but as a thankful Licensee of the United Pentecostal Church and an Apostolic that has standards because of holiness, I feel like I have been insulted by this article. I am saddended that the NCO continually endorses articles that are dripping with disdain for the UPC and are so flippant in their casting off of things they seem to label as "bondage."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-23-2007, 04:17 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,787
He posts here I believe :-)

Fire away!!!

BTW Thanks DA for getting permission first
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-23-2007, 04:21 PM
Encryptus Encryptus is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: "New" Mexico
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdlooney View Post
Just exactly who is James Griffin and who does he think he is???

I may be taking this wrong but as a thankful Licensee of the United Pentecostal Church and an Apostolic that has standards because of holiness, I feel like I have been insulted by this article. I am saddended that the NCO continually endorses articles that are dripping with disdain for the UPC and are so flippant in their casting off of things they seem to label as "bondage."
No need to respond if you don't want to, but I'm just curious about what was insulting and why you believe it was talking about the UPC?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-23-2007, 04:30 PM
freeatlast's Avatar
freeatlast freeatlast is offline
the ultracon


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: smack dab in da middle
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encryptus View Post
No need to respond if you don't want to, but I'm just curious about what was insulting and why you believe it was talking about the UPC?
My thoughts egg-zactly.
__________________
God has lavished his love upon me.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-23-2007, 04:45 PM
bdlooney's Avatar
bdlooney bdlooney is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 155
Like I stated in my previous post, I may be reacting incorrectly or reading too far into the article but I felt insulted not by anything the article said but the overall feel of it. I just felt it to be equating standards with legalism which is not necesarily always the case. It is not too much of a stretch to realize:

OP= One peck= Oneness Pentecostal
TP= Three peck= Trinitarian Pentecostal

But I may be inventing this connection myself.

I think that anything from the NCO is slanted (a little) against the UPC or at least there perception of the prevailing mindset of the UPC.

These are humble opinions but I may a little touchy right now.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-23-2007, 04:46 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Actually, I would place some of the Oneness crowd w/ the 3-peck mindset.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-23-2007, 10:13 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
There's more here than just the doctrine of osculating .... anyone want to dig deeper into this article???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I have a situation about my son and need advice.......KISS HeavenlyOne Fellowship Hall 130 10-05-2007 10:30 PM
Heavenlyone please post a pic of the KISS shirt!!! COOPER Fellowship Hall 0 10-05-2007 12:58 PM
<<<BREAKING!!!!!>>>Thad and Kansas Preacher Make Up -- But They DON'T KISS! Kansas Preacher The Tab 15 10-01-2007 11:38 PM
The Curse and the Blessing of a Kiss... revrandy Fellowship Hall 2 08-09-2007 04:58 PM
First Kiss! rgcraig Fellowship Hall 202 03-09-2007 11:14 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by jfrog
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.