Friday Funnies!

To Hug or Not? Or, Did Paul Mean it by Greeting With a Holy Kiss?

Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating for kissing in church, so don't expect (worry?) me to pucker up!

I was just reading a thought-provoking article my friend Andy Webb pointed me to today. The author gives some common-sense advice about avoiding sexual sin or even the appearance of impropriety in ministry. There were several things I agreed with like:

• Do not be in your office/church alone with a woman, or
• Do not make pastoral visits alone.

Given the increasing amount of homosexual sin in our culture, that's probably good advice regardless of gender.

Other suggestions did not make so much sense to me, like, "Don't wear cologne." I understand why he is saying what he is saying. A pleasant smell conceivably could communicate a manner of availability that was unintended, though I rather doubt cologne is a major culprit.

Still, a pastor, whose job security (and yes, that is what we are talking about among other things) is tied to his character, has to build wall. He has to build them for the sake of his relationship with the Lord and his wife as well. But one area I am not sure I agreed with was the blanket statement, "Do not hug women." Andy, who is a Brit--need I say more? :p --agreed here, but I am not sure that I do. Completely.

To begin with, we have to deal frankly with the fact that Paul in no less than FOUR places commands believers to greet one another with a "holy kiss." (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; and 1 Thessalonians 5:26) Historically, the holy kiss fell out of use early on, likely because it stopped being holy. Still, we do have to wrestle with what Paul was commanding, especially since the Holy Spirit had him repeat the command not once or twice but three times.

I believe the repetition of the command to three different congregations indicate that we cannot simply dismiss it as something that was culturally unique to Corinth (he commanded them twice--probably because if  ever there was a church that needed some interpersonal warmth, it was Corinth!). So, we have the command. How do we apply it? I think there we can make some cultural modifications.

It is important to remember that even today in the Near East and even in some parts of Europe it is not unusual for men to kiss one another in greeting. Admittedly it is on the cheek...sometimes both...but it is still kissing? What are they accomplishing in so doing? Simply that they are expressing the kind of warmth and affection that is befitting those in a close relationship. Obviously there is kissing and there is KISSING. What Paul was commending was not in anyway sexual, but he is commending physical contact. That cannot be ignored.

Why touch at all? Because God made us physical creatures. We are made to touch and be touched. God, in his condescension, has touched us physically in his Son. Consider how often the gospels make a point of stressing physical contact with Christ:

Matthew 8:3 "And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched [the leper], saying, 'I will; be clean.' And immediately his leprosy was cleansed."


Matthew 8:15 "[Jesus] touched [Peter's mother-in-law's] hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him."


 Matthew 9:29 "Then [Jesus] touched [the blind men's] eyes, saying, 'According to your faith be it done to you.'"


Matthew 17:7 "But Jesus came and touched [the disciples], saying, 'Rise, and have no fear.'"


Matthew 20:34 "And Jesus in pity touched [the blind men's] eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him."


Mark 1:41 "Moved with pity, [Jesus] stretched out his hand and touched [the leper] and said to him, 'I will; be clean.'"

Mark 7:33 "And taking [the deaf/mute] aside from the crowd privately, [Jeusus] put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue."

Mark 10:13 "And [the crowds] were bringing children to [Jesus] that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them."

Luke 5:13 "And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, 'I will; be clean.' And immediately the leprosy left him."


Luke 7:38 "And standing behind Jesus at his feet, weeping, [the sinful woman] began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment." Here it is important to note that he did not reject either the touches or kisses (!) of a woman, despite the fact that his tacit permission caused a scandal! (c.f. verse 39)

Luke 18:15 "Now [the crowds] were bringing even infants to [Jesus] that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them."

Luke 22:51 "But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched [the high priest's servant's] ear and healed him."

Luke 24:39 "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Here Jesus invites the touch of his disciples.

While some might correctly object that these were the actions of the Savior, who was without sin, it is worth noting three things:

1. An incarnational ministry is a physical ministry.
2. Like it or not, we are commanded to touch one another.
3. In order to be obedient the Scriptures and follow the example of the Savior, we have to figure out how to make touching a part of our ministries without being a stumbling block to it.

How? Let me suggest that we apply the command in a warm and culturally relevant way. This might mean I simply offer a warm handshake with a friendly smile. (I'm a big believer in the two-handed handshake with those who prefer it.) There are men in my congregation who would recoil in HORROR if I tried to hug them. In that case it would be inappropriate. I believe it would also be inappropriate to withhold a simple gesture of affection from those would benefit from it. A chaste hug--you know what I mean--can communicate and fulfill the kind of warmth required by the Scriptures. Such contact, IMO, should be welcomed by all parties involved (including onlooking spouses) before being engaged in.

As far as men hugging women and vice versa is concerned, to refrain from hugging simply because of gender differences is probably not the most valid of reasons. Given our fallen natures and culture, a hug between two men or two women could be interpreted just as sexually as that between heterosexual huggers.

Here is the bottom line as I see it. We have to find a way to obey the Scriptures and communicate warmth and affection in a physical but chaste way, be it a handshake or a hug. Let's not be to quick to dismiss all touching as dangerous. The Lord and the apostles didn't.

Limited Atonement: It's a Rap! (Fun and Informative!)

Earth Day 2013--Another Opportunity to Worship the Creation Rather the Creator

If you plan to celebrate Earth Day Monday, Gentle Reader, consider well before you do. I am not a big fan of Earth Day because of its history and goals.

Celebrated each April 22 since 1970, Earth Day is the brain child of Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI). Nelson, who was also a big advocate of the Zero Population Growth movement, believed that stablilizing population growth was a necessary pre-requisite of enviromentalism. He said, "The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become ...We have to address the population issue."

The outworking of Nelson's vision has been a dramatic spike in radical environmentalism, explosive growth in the abortion industry, and the creation of a new-Socialism that seeks to promote its wealth redistribution programs behind cute pictures of polar bears or heart wrenching images of starving, crying children.

In their own words, organizers seek to,

"Mobilize public action and support for effective climate policies and a strong global agreement; large scale investments in renewable energy; a comprehensive green jobs program;poverty-alleviation measures that are compatible with sustainability, and other public actions that will support a resolution of the climate crisis." [Emphases added]

Innocent enough sounding words but their adoption would lead to dramatic loss of freedom and massive increases in taxation, as the highlighted buzz phrases imply.

What is the common denominator in all this? Simply put there are two:

1.    The Creation, and not the Creator, become the focus. Nowhere is God mentioned in Earth Day

literature. Rather the earth is personified in an almost idolatrous fashion, as people everywhere are called upon to help Mother Earth. 

2.     Man becomes the greatest enemy of Creation, and not the steward of it. Modern environmentalism believes that man is the greatest threat to the planet, but not all of us. Reading between the lines demonstrates that it is usually the affluent West (especially the United States) that is the locus of all environmental and social evils in the world.

Both views are unbiblical. Genesis 1-2 clearly teaches that God created everything, out of nothing, by his powerful word, in six days, and all very good. The Creation itself testifies to the existence of God and puts on display indisputable proof of his majesty, glory, and power. (Psalm 19) The problem is that man looks at the evidence and rather than glorifying God in heaven, he turns to worship the Creation rather than the Creator.

The second problem is that the Bible does not cast man as the enemy of Creation, but the steward of it. Genesis 1:28 says:

And God blessed [the man and the woman]. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Far from being the enemy of the world , mankind was created both to use it and to be its protector. Here however, is where Christians need to be careful. In aligning ourselves with Earth Day we align ourselves with a movement headed by idolaters and murderers. That is not the sort of company God's people should keep.

We can, however, by environmental in a redeemed way. Christ died not only to redeem his people but also to redeem Creation. That does lay upon believers, then, an obligation to be careful with what God has given us and to try to leave the Creation in good shape for subsequent generations. But it also reminds us that human efforts will ultimately prove fruitless. In the end, this world and everything in it will pass away. We look for a new heaven and a new earth to appear when Christ returns.

My Reading List

Since I am sort of getting started in blogging again and because I have a newer audience, too, (shout out to the Limon saints!), I have decided to reintroduce my blogroll to my readers. This serves a number of functions:

• It allows people to see the sorts of things that interest me.
• It introduces people to new blogs that might interest them.
• It increases traffic on my blog, too. There is sort of an unspoken quid pro quo out there: you link to my blog and I'll link to yours.

Here is what they are about:

The Aquila Report--edited by PCA minister and President of New Geneva Seminary in Colorado Springs, Dr. Dominic Aquila, The Aquila Report is a digest of news about goings on in Christianity in general and the

Reformed world in particular (though most emphasis is on goings on in the PCA). The Aquila Report generally makes use of contributors whose blog articles are used by permission the Report. (I was even featured once!)

Baylyblog--Written by two PCA ministers, David and Tim Bayly, their blog strikes a definite prophetic tone, especially about some of the liberalizing trends going on in the PCA. While the blog's tone is a bit strident at times, it nevertheless is a good source of information.

Bring the Books--Based on Paul's admonition to Timothy to bring him reading materials while he was in jail, Bring the Books is a good place to stay abreast of good Reformed books to read.

Building Old School Churches--Andy Webb is another good friend of mine. His blog exists to remind people what Old School Presbyterianism was and to call them back to it.

Feeding on Christ--written by Nicholas Batzig, who I met at General Assembly one year, Feeding on Christ is a forum for the discussion of Reformed theology. A great place to lurk and learn or to dive in and participate.

Gairney Bridge--Named after an important landmark to the ARP, Gairney Bridge is the personal blog of another good friend of mine, Tim Phillips. He writes a lot like I do, only more prolifically.

Green Baggins--A bit more of a cerebral site that deals with theological controversies in the Reformed world.

The Rankin File--I met Clifton Rankin at General Assembly a number of years ago and count him a good friend. His blog is an extension of his ministry and is both informative and encouraging.

The Quiet Protest--Written by a good friend of mine, Rev. Kenneth Pierce of Jackson, MS, The Quiet Protest often touches on important issues facing the Reformed world but in a gentle, pastoral way. Ken encourages me a lot.

Twin Lakes Fellowship--This site is not so much a blog but an audio share site of the sermons to come out of the Twin Lakes Fellowship, an group dedicated to planting ordinary means of grace churches around the country.

Back to Blogging

John Calvin once observed, "I write as I learn and I learn as I write." Writing is a good discipline for anyone to possess. Not only does it force one to think in logical, organized ways, but also it teaches one to express themselves well.

While my previous blog ran its course and died a quiet death (largely because I had a year long case of writer's block), I have decided to begin writing again. It's not that I really expect anyone to read or even care about what I write, but because it is a beneficial thing for me to do.

So, what will Reformed Ruminating be about? I suspect, like Seinfeld, it will be about nothing. I may write down devotional thoughts. I might muse on news or politics. I might make pastoral observations that will, hopefully, be of use to some. Or, I might just be silly.

But, if not, that's OK, Gentle Reader, because in the end, the only audience that counts is God. Soli Deo Gloria.