Jesus came into a religious system obsessed with Holiness. The Jews took God quite literally, as they well should have, when he said, “Be Holy, as I am Holy.” So they worked extra hard to make sure that they were holy. If they were going to be holy, it would be hard work. After all, there were ways to become unholy or unclean all around them. They would need to strive for perfection and monitor every aspect of their lives. Holiness became the central idea of their relationship to God. If they could just be good enough, strive for enough holiness, then God would be pleased.
In order to preserve their holiness those who were unholy would have to be cast out from the community. You know, the disease ridden, mentally ill, and those of mixed races couldn’t be part of the holy community of God. Obviously women were less holy than men as well, especially since men were making the rules, and since the beginning of time men have feared feminine hygiene. So women were going to be unclean a lot of the time, and in order for men to be holy, they would need to be sure to not talk to women, those evil seductresses, in public, not to touch any of them except for their wives, and women would have to cover themselves, hide their hair, and exist on the outskirts of the male dominated power structure, otherwise their holiness would be compromised.
Holiness resided in separation. Holiness for them literally meant being set apart. Purity required separation from sin, sinners, and those who scared, worried, or confused the holy. But, once again, this was rooted in this idea of being holy, just as God is holy. The beautiful part of God’s holiness, however, is that God did not require separation to be holy. In fact, the incarnation of Christ is our clearest example of God’s holiness. God did not stay separate; indeed he took on flesh, and maintained his holiness as he lived among us! God’s holiness is not about separating ourselves from the world, it is about immersing ourselves amongst the unholy to demonstrate the love of God. We are not to mimic the world’s standards or lifestyle, but we are to live in the world, fully in the world, to effective demonstrate the love of God.
Consider the life of Christ. Born to poor parents, his mom an unwed teenage mother, in a redneck town, and raised far away from the fine schooling, powerful families, intensive religious instruction and proper up bringing that many would have considered necessary for their child’s raising, Jesus demonstrated a holiness unknown to humanity since Adam and Eve in the garden. We often consider Christ more than human, but in reality he was more human than we are. He is the perfected humanity we were created to know. He is Edenic humanity, free from the sin that enslaves, and the brokenness that marks our lives. And yet, even in this perfect existence, Christ never separated himself from the world or the unclean. Instead, he fully embraced the unclean, flipped the societal and religious power structures on their head, and exemplified the holiness of God.
If we, as followers of The Christ, are to be holy as he is holy, it will begin with our ability to learn how to share God’s love to those who are unclean, those who scare us, and those we dislike or are hurt by. As we consider the holiness of Christ, we are drawn to the image of our savior washing his disciple’s feet, talking to, touching, and healing women, loving the Samaritans, and forgiving those who crucified him. That is holiness. So let us abandon talk about being set apart as if that meant standing away from the unclean of this world. To be set apart is to seek out the lonely, hungry, abused, and powerless and to raise them up through the love of Christ. What good is it for us to be holy if we can not help and love the unholy? How can our efforts to separate ourselves from the powerless and the sinful draw them to God? Be holy therefore as God is holy, and live incarnationally in his world.
October 3, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Paul,
Sorry I hadn’t responded, life in the church will take your time away before you know it!
This post, and possible the reason for our discussion, was specifically aimed at what is usually categorized as the Evangelical and spefically the Fundamentalist aspect of the church. That is where, especially in the circles I grew up, studied, and have spent a lot of time with, I have seen a notion of separation that while it may have maintained standards of holiness in regards to speech, media, sexuality, and the such, did not meet the relational aspect of holiness I described earlier.
A post to Mainline churches would have sounded far different and would have been focused on recapturing the Word of God as a priority and place of authority in our lives.
As far as the notation about pastors, men and women, that doesn’t surprise me at all. I would say, that noting the discrepancy between men and women in the survey, that it is important to note that the only denominations that have been places for women with a calling for ministry to be trained and be employed were often the more liberal ones. So that is probably reflected in that number. Even in the Wesleyan traditions which encourage and train female clergy, there has been a bad history of living into this identity. Thankfully it is changing, there has been a noted change in the number and quality of female pastors in the Methodist, Wesleyan, and Nazarene denominations over the last 20 years. But, more work needs to be done to fix that gap as well. I have worked for, with, and trained female clergy and have been remarkably impressed by their calling, giftedness, and each of their worldviews. So all is not lost, if you know where to look.
October 6, 2006 at 12:09 am
Greg,
So where, specifically, have you seen the Church too often refrain from meaningful contact with unbelievers?
You did not answer that question.
I believe that you are creating a strawman here…Does this situation really exist (at least in the form that you are asserting)?
If so, describe with specifics.
I believe that the evidence (Christian acceptance of false teachers, less than modest dress and unbiblical worldview by pastors and Christians, in part) indicates that the lack of biblical separation has allowed the Church to be negatively influenced by the world. Do you disagree? If so, why?
When only 51% of pastors and only 9% of Christians have a biblical worldview, the problem is much bigger than feeding the hungry and clothing the poor (purge the Church of the false teachers and study the Bible – There is no room for the likes of men that call sin and the cross “false advertising for God”)!
In your original post you stated that separation in the OT (the examples you used were from the Law and not the Mishna) was as a result of fear, confusion, a male-dominated culture, and so forth…But these were not the reasons for separation under the Law (nor are they the reasons for separation in the New Testament under grace).
Why is it that when emergents/liberals want to deconstruct a biblical doctrine, like the doctrine of separation, they mis-characterize the original basis for the doctrine as one of fear and/or one of confusion?
It has nothing to do with fear of other people (maybe a right fear of God) or confusion…Separation (as defined, in part, in my previous post) is commanded by God in Scripture.
I would submit that the Church, today, is having much less of a problem being relational, or in community, with unbelievers than it is being separate unto God. The evidence, in part, is in what they (Christians) believe and in what they (Christains) practice.
And, biblically speaking, with direct citations, what exactly is the “relational aspect of holiness”?
Also, please define “holiness”.
When I look at the words “holy” or “holiness” in Scripture, I do not see this stand alone, “relational aspect” that you are referring to…but I do see a context in which “holiness” or being “holy” is constantly contrasted with sinful behaviors and/or sinful people.
For example:
I Thes. 4:7 – “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.”
2 Corinthians 7:1 – “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
(for this contrast with “holiness” also see: Romans 6:19; 6:22; Eph. 4:24; I Thes. 3:13; Titus 2:3; etc.)
So what does “uncleanness” and “filthiness of the flesh and spirit” look like, today, and how, practically, does the Church, and Christian individuals cleanse themselves from it?
Hebrews 12:14 says, “Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” Therefore, Christians better know what holiness is!
J.C. Ryle stated that:
a. Holiness is the habit of being in one mind with God, according as we find His mind described in Scripture. It is the habit of agreeing in God’s judgement-hating what He hates-loving what He loves…
b. A holy man will endeavour to shun every known sin, and to keep every known commandment…he will have a greater fear of displeasing God than of displeasing the world - “I esteem all Thy precepts concerning all things to be right, and I hate every false way.” (Psalm 119:128)
c. A holy man will strive to be like our Lord Jesus Christ…to be conformed to His image (Romans 8:29), forgiving, loving, unselfish, lowly-minded and humble…A faithful witness for the truth…bold and uncompromising in denouncing sin…He sought no praise of men…
d. A holy man will follow after charity and brotherly kindness…
e. A holy man will follow after temperance and self-denial…
f. A holy man will follow after meekness, long-suffering, gentleness, patience, kind tempers, government of his tongue…
g. A holy man will follow after a spirit of mercy and benevolence towards others…
h. A holy man will follow after spiritual mindedness. He will endeavor to set his affections entirely on things above, and to hold things on earth with a very loose hand…
i. A Holy man will have purity of heart…
j. A holy man will follow after the fear of God…
k. A holy man will follow after faithfullness in all the duties and relations in life…
And why are Christians to live holy lives?
a. God commanded it (I Thes. 4:3; 1 Peter 1:15,16)
b. It is the grand purpose for which Christ came into the world…
“Christ loved the church, and gave Himself up for it, that He might sanctify it and cleanse it.” (Eph. 5:25,26)
“He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him that died and rose again.” (2 Cor. 5:15)
c. Holy living is sound evidence that we have a saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (James 2:17)
I agree with the above.
I believe that the way in which you construct your argument, by deconstructing the legitimate reason for separation, is dangerous.
Separation is a required part of holiness and our good works among men are only one facet of holiness, not the entirety of it.
James 4:4 contains truth pertaining to this issue: “Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
I guarantee you, if we (individual Christians and the Church) would learn, and apply, what the Bible says about holiness and separation, we would not be following the false teachers, and their practices, that are being followed; we wouldn’t dress the way we are dressing; and we would not have the unbiblical worldview that we have…the Church would be a different place.
Respectfully,
Paul
October 6, 2006 at 2:57 am
Paul,
Thanks for all the effort you have put into this discussion. Honestly, I think that we are beating a dead horse at this point. We have made our points.
We need to understand and live out God’s word more. Part of that requirement is a life lived in holiness, a distinctive pattern of life that reflects the heart of God, not the world. This appears as being both separate from the world and working to diligently transform the world through the work of the grace of God.
At this point, let’s leave it at that.
Thanks-
Greg
January 27, 2007 at 2:39 am
Dear gregarther,
Holiness without separation ….. can a church with “history” live into a concept such as this? Because Nazarene churches have been so focused on discipleship of the flock to make sure the flock knows what holiness looks like and lives into it, they have neglected to minister to the broken and lost. How do you find Nazarene leadership that is willing to journey down a path that would switch its primary focus from discipleship of the flock to ministering to the broken of society? I am not sure a Nazarene church is able to accomplish this type of effort. It might make them look more like a Baptist church. Maybe we need to create a new emergent church the NAZBAB church!
Sister,
Sam