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.
September 22, 2006 at 10:39 pm
THE TITLE OF THE POST
I know that the original post is titled “Holiness Without Separation”, and I myself have not said that being set apart isn’t a part of holiness. But I think (Greg can correct me if I’m wrong) that Greg intentionally titled this post such in order to challenge what “separation” typically means to those in our tradition in regards to holiness.
I think a lot of people in our tradition would agree with you and associate being set apart with not going to the same movies other people do, not going to the same bars (if any), not telling the same jokes, not spending money the same way and so on. While this may be necessary depending on the context, in the end it at best only works if the result is from being set apart in a much higher way.
Too many in our tradition have reduced the idea of being set apart to just the formula of not doing various so called “secular” things. They think the result of not doing these things make them set apart and holy but it is being set apart that should result in our actions and not the other way around. If there are things that we do not do it should be a result of being set apart in the way we reflect the character of Christ. In all my responses I have talked about being set apart by the way we reflect Christ, the way we love, have mercy, grace, patience, kindness, self control and a servants heart. Being set apart by our character may lead us to make practical decisions about many things, like not sharing in an inappropriate joke. But not sharing in an in appropriate joke does not make us automatically set apart in the way God has called us and automatically give us Christian character.
The problem is, being set apart has become associated with one example of possible results of being set apart and not with the root issue of being set apart by our shared character with Christ through the work of God inside of us. When Greg says “Holiness without Separation” he seems to be speaking to those who equate separation with this reduced and formulaic understanding of separation. Without being set apart in the root way of having genuine love of Christ for others many miss the point and set themselves apart in only superficial ways and call this holiness. Real holiness can do without this kind of superficial separation.
LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC OT LAW
I agree with you regarding the OT law being required to be literally obeyed by God’s people. However the purpose of needing to literally obey many of these laws was so they can live out a symbolism and create a context for the coming of Christ; this was the role of the nation of Israel and how it would bless the whole world. They had literal priests and literal sacrifices but these were in reality only pictures of what Christ actually is.
When God declared food clean to Peter that was formally declared in the OT unclean did God change something about the food to literally make it clean? Was the food literally unclean before this time? I am going to take the most reasonable view that the food was never really literally unclean; yet, in the OT Law God commanded his people to literally take part in this symbolic way of being set apart. The context created by requiring the nation the messiah would come through to live out this symbolism was vital. Christ would take the imagery and pictures ingrained in the God shaped culture of the Jews and use them to point to the reality of life in Him. In the time of the OT literally living out this symbolic way of being set apart by not eating certain foods the gentiles did was necessary for the role of creating the context for Christ. After Christ the food was declared clean because we now can show a more substantial way of being set apart by reflecting the love of Christ in our lives.
“WHAT COMMUNITY AND CONNECTEDNESS DO BELIEVERS HAVE WITH UNBELIEVERS?”
Paul, the apostle that shares your name would say that the believers have nothing in common with unbelievers. But that does not mean that community and connectedness is not the goal for everyone, including unbelievers. God desires to be connected with everyone and for everyone to be in community; it is only our sin that can prevent this. You are right then that the gospel is imperative to the unbeliever if they are going to be connected to God. But the gospel is much more than just a proposition of set beliefs, it is the restoration to community and connectedness.
I think a lot of times we share the gospel by only asking people to consent to a belief system. In reality we want them to be restored to God and us in a relationship, yet we often fail to express a sincere desire to really be connected with them. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is here, that connectedness is here and the community of God is present in the world. We need to offer that out to those around us, let them know our desire is to be in relationship with them as God desires for us all to be in relationship with Him. Yes, many will reject it, their sin, hatred, and selfish ways will cause them to reject God’s invitation to take part in this Kingdom community. This does not mean that we should not offer it, model it, and pursue relationships with unbelievers the way Christ has pursued us. I will also add that a relentless pursuit to love and seek restoration of relationships with everyone like Christ relentlessly pursued a relationship with us sets us apart from those outside the Kingdom of heaven who desire to remain disconnected to God and their neighbors.
James
September 25, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Hey James,
Again, thank you for your response.
It doesn’t matter that people in our tradition would agree with you [me] and associate being set apart with not going to…(see formentioned list).
As an aside, how can we live our lives according to Ephesians 5:3-7, without even a hint of sexual immorality, or any kind of impurity, obscenity, foolish talk or course joking (for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.) and not abstain/address the issues on the forementioned list (practically speaking they involve the living of our lives)? If we do not abstain from/address these, then aren’t we risking God’s wrath (on us individually and also on those we shepherd)?
And isn’t Ephesians 5:3-7 a “formula” as you put it?
Are you suggesting that Christians can live like the world, doing all of the world’s “cultural” things, and maintain holy living?
It only matters with what God’s Word says on the topic and that we then comply with God’s Word.
God’s Word says to separate ourselves from things things, from even just a hint of these things, because these are improper for God’s holy people.(Ephesians 5:3-7)
Not doing these things are right and proper for a Christian…that is the primary reason for doing it (It is right, holy living, before a holy God, as He has commanded it).
At the premise of your posts, you seem to be equating separation, (or maybe incorrectly defining) with “right Christian living” in its entirety. While separation is a subset of “right Christian living”, it is not the whole of “right Christian living”. The whole of “right Christian living” is also inclusive of the character traits that you have mentioned: the way we love, have mercy, grace, patience, kindness, self control and a servants heart.” Again, separation and “right Christian living” are not mutually exclusive…both are definitely required.
So what does separation look like? Your denomination has defined some of it in their Manual. And even if some people use those rules as a checklist, and wrongly consider themselves to be in step with the biblically defined standard for “right Christian living” (when they don’t genuinely love, or so forth), we should not re-define requirements that are clearly commanded in Scripture. In such cases, the Shepherds/Pastors, in each congregation, need to recognize the sin in their midst; Pray about it; Preach on the sin with a call to repentance; And even carry out discipline, if necessary…but don’t re-define terms, words and/or clear biblical requirements/commandments (less the actual some problem not be dealt with).
As to the OT Law, Romans 7:12 states: “So then, the law is holy, righteous and good.” This description of the law is in stark contrast to how it was portrayed in Greg’s original post, which stated that the law included certain separations (which were listed) that had their origins in: “a male dominated power structure, fear, worry, and confusion”…none of which are accurate. These assertions set up a false premise in which the topic of separation is then wrongly dealt with.
In your response you rightly state that the Apostle Paul (via the carrying along by the Holy Spirit) states that believers have nothing in common with unbelievers…but you failed to define, in accordance with my request, what “community” and “connectedness” means as they relate to Christians and unbelievers.
Given your statements it might be good if you also specifically define the “Gospel” via the Scriptures (it has nothing to do with a person being “restored to us in a relationship).
And the Kingdom of Heaven is not here on Earth as you implied…Jesus said that: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) If it was (which it isn’t), why would Jesus teach his Disciples to pray “your Kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10 – future summation of the kingdom); And why isn’t Jesus Christ on David’s throne, ruling from Jerusalem (Isa. 9:6-7; Zech. 14:9; Zech. 8:3; Rev. 2:27); And why can’t flesh and blood inherit it (1 Cor. 15:50; John 3); And why does the Bible declare it a future event (I Cor. 15:50-54)?
Undefined “Community”, undefined “Connectedness” and wrongly defined God’s Kingdom…seems like too much Mclaren or Jesus Seminar!
Where does Jesus say that “connectdness is here and the community of God is present in the world”(and what is the community of God)?
(I wonder…was “community and connectedness” for Judas, the Son of Perdition)?
Again, you close with a false dichatomy/dichatomies. We don’t pursue unbelievers with the Gospel to restore them to fellowship with us and you seem to equate the call to biblical separation with “those who desire to remain disconnected to God and their neighbors.” This is just a false equation, which fails to properly address the issue (not helpful).
Regards,
Paul
September 26, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Paul, thanks for the continued conversation. You asked me, “Are you suggesting that Christians can live like the world, doing all of the world’s ‘cultural’ things, and maintain holy living?” I wonder how it is that you thought that I in any way was calling for a lower standard of holiness; if anything I am trying to raise the bar for holiness beyond the reduced version that only separates itself in superficial ways with out being truly set apart by having the love and Character of Christ in our lives.
You mentioned Ephesians 5:3-7 and use it to justify having a “formula” for holy living. The problem is that it is only reduced to a formula when you look at a small part of scripture without understanding the broader concepts of scripture in its entirety. You said that the primary reason for separating ourselves from these things is because God commanded it here in Ephesians 5:3-7, yet the primary reason given in the two verses before this in Ephesians 5: 1-2 is because we are called as God’s children to be like Christ in love and life. Ephesians 5:1-2, says, “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us…” This verse puts the scripture you quote in context and helps us understand that the motivation and the root way we separate ourselves is by our love, just like Christ loved and gave himself up for even his enemies.
You accuse me of trying to “re-define requirements that are clearly commanded in Scripture”. I am not trying to re-define but correctly define in the context of Scripture as a whole. You are correct in pointing out that right “Christian Character” and “separation” are not mutually exclusive, but they have a relationship to each other greater than just both of them being biblical requirements. The context for all of the law and instructions for living in this world found in scripture is loving God and our neighbors. Even the instructions to be set apart in this world is in this context. Unless we understand this context we reduce these instructions to formulas for living that miss the point. We will not know how to properly separate ourselves from the world unless it comes out of truly loving God and people like Christ.
I am sorry that I have failed to connect the dots for you that link the gospel message to a call to be connected to God and people. If you see holiness as nothing more than just personal piety, without being in the context of communing with God and others I don’t know what else I can do to make you see what should be an obvious relationship. Loving other people is greater than just not doing them harm or committing a “sin” against them. Loving other people as Christ loves them goes out of the way to connect with them, to be apart of their lives, and have an authentic relationship with them. Christ went so far out of his way to have a relationship with us that he died on the cross; we are called to love others that much.
I am sorry that you feel that God’s desire for everyone to be connected to Him and each other is a “false equation”, and that you don’t think that this is what Jesus died to achieve for us. I think it is ironic that you are fighting so hard to argue against something that just may well be the entire point.
You said that you thought it is a “false equation” to recognize that God’s call for redemption is to be restored to Him and each other in community. You said it is not “helpful” to understand that refusing to be connected to God and our neighbors is at its core not meeting the purpose of the law to be in a loving relationship with God and our neighbors. I think a false equation is leaving out the most important variable of being connected to God and people in loving relationships when we talk about the gospel and holiness. Certainly, failing to remember the context of scripture is love and relationships when talking about the Christian message isn’t helpful.
I think this was the point of Greg’s original post. When people “separate themselves” without doing it in the context of loving even their enemies like Christ loved his enemies then this is not holiness. This kind of superficial separation is not helpful for holy living or spreading the gospel. If we just separate ourselves on the outside without being separate from the world at the core with our Christian love and character than we are white washed tombs and are dead. This is not helpful.
I never said that I think that Christians should live sexually impure lives or take part in impurity, obscenity, foolish talk or course joking. I only said that being set apart is far greater than these things and starts with the heart. I said that the purpose of being set apart is to be and love like Christ for the sake of the gospel and not for separation for its own sake. Jesus prayed concerning his disciples in John 17:15-19, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” Truly we are to be set apart from the world, but we are also set apart for the world, so that others also might enter into fellowship with Christ and the Church.
Greg was right to point out the incarnation of Jesus as a counter to an over emphasis on separation; the truth is Jesus was both “incarnational” and “set apart”. We are also called to be “in” but not “of” this world. Finding this balance can be tricky for the disciple of Christ if we do not understand that all of this is based on God’s love and his desire to be reconnected to all of us
James
September 27, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Good afternoon, James.
Thank you for that lenghty response.
On some things we agree and on some others we don’t.
Along with the verses that I have already mentioned in my above posts, the following will hopefully assist in clarifying where I am coming from as it relates to separation:
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world…For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” (John 2:15-16)
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” (Titus 2:11-14)
So…How do Christians “love not the world”? How do we say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions? How do we be “eager to do what is good”? And why should Christians do these things?
From Acts 20:27, we have the Apostle Paul’s example of not hesitating “to declare unto you the whole counsel of God.”
So what does the “whole counsel of God” declare on the matter of separation?
Separate in all manner of conversation -
“But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation.”
Separate from iniquity/sin because God hates it
“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity… (Hebrews 1:9)
“…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
Separate from darkness
“Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness…” (Eph. 5:11)
Separate from teachers of doctrinal error/false doctrine
“A man that is a heretic, reject…” (Titus 3:10)
“Now, I beseech you, bretheren, mark them which cause division and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them.” (Romans 16:17)
Separate from the evil/appearnce of evil.
“Avoid every kind of evil.” (1 Thess. 5:22)
Separate from a every brother who is idle and does not live according to biblical teaching.
“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)
Separate from the wicked person in the congregation
“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”" (1 Cor. 5:12&13)
Separate from unbelievers
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers…”
Separate in dress
“I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety…appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”
These are some of what God calls us to be separate from.
Why?
For the protection of the true Church
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6-7,13)
For protection of the Christian individual
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.” (2 Peter 2:1-2)
For obedience in that which was commanded by God
see: 1 John 2:15-17; James 1:27;4:4; Romans 12:2; 1 Cor. 6:19-20; 1 Peter 2:11; Titus 2:11-12; Romans 13:13-14; Galatians 5:16; 2 Timothy 3:1-5
Out of reverence for God
“Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates the body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of revernce for God.”
We are God’s witnesses to the world
See: Acts 1:8 and etc.
It is what God accepts as pure and faultless
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
“Separation, summary: (1)Separation in Scripture is twofold:(a) from whatever is contrary to the mind of God; and (b) unto God Himself. The underlying principle is that in a moral universe it is impossible for God to fully bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil. (2)Separation from evil implies (a) separation in desire, motive, and act from the world in the ethically bad sense of this present world system…; and (b) separation from false teachers, who are described as being “vessels…to dishonor” (2 Tim. 2:20-21; 2 John 9-11). (3) Separation is not from contact with evil in the world or the church, but from complicity with and conformity to it…” (New Scofield Reference Bible, page 1257)
This is what I believe the “whole counsel of God” teaches on the matter of separation.
Regards,
Paul
September 27, 2006 at 10:43 pm
I struggle with your interpretation of scripture that says we should be separate from unbelievers because we are instructed to “not be unequally yoked.” That interpretation seems to be a bit of a proof text if by separation you mean to not share any part of our lives with or to not be in relationship with. Paul more literally is saying stop being yoked to unbelievers. From the verses that follow it seems clear that the yoking, or partnership that exists between the believers and the unbelievers around them is detrimental to their pursuit of perfecting holiness. But, Paul is not demanding that there be no contact between the two. The idea of the passage seems to be an intimate partnership of equal standing, which by definition can not occur between those in whom the Spirit of God dwells and those who live in the darkness. Once again, it seems like we are trying to communicate similar ideas, but coming from different sides.
Paul you seem to be coming from the side of protecting our holiness by refraining from relationships that can in anyway hinder our pursuit of God. James and I are coming from the perspective of having seen the church too often refrain from any meaningful contact with unbelievers and therefore being less effective in our pursuit of holiness. Jesus came and spent time among both the sinners and his followers. He ministered to any who would seek him and showed mercy on those who needed it, regardless of the sin in their lives. But, he invested the majority of his ministry to discipling believers and raising them up as leaders in this world. Seems we should follow a similar model of not divorcing ourselves from unbelievers completely, but maintaining a healthy distinction in our relational focus between believers and unbelievers.
September 28, 2006 at 12:34 am
Amen.
September 28, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Hey Greg,
There is no interpretation on my part relative to being unequally yoked with unbelievers. For the most part, I agree with your statements relative to this passage…but this still represents a level of separation from unbelievers.
I think that the entirety of separation, as mentioned in my previous post, assists/protects the Christian individual, and the Church (body of believers), in their relationship with God and sanctification process. Separation, in itself, is part of holiness and being holy.
In all of my posts on this subject, I have not advocated divorcing ourselves from unbelievers completely. Obviously not, we (Christians) are the feet that are commanded to carry the Gospel in love.
Again, I think that the New Scofield Reference Bible does a good job of summarizing on the doctrine of separation: “It is impossible for God to fully bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil.”
Thank you for your comments.
September 28, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Greg,
One more question (maybe)…
As I re-read your last post I wondered…Specifically, where have you seen the Church too often refrain from any meaningful contact with unbelievers…“?
Isn’t it possible that Barna’s research findings regarding only something like 9% of church-going “Christians” having a biblical worldview contradict your premise that the Church too often refrains from any meaningful contact with unbelievers?
To me, Barna’s research data/results indicate that the Church is having way too much unholy, non-separated contact with unbelievers, and the unbelieving world, in a manner in which the Church, not the unbeliever, and their culture, being influenced toward the gospel and true salvation, is being influenced toward worldliness and false teaching.
How do we explain current “Church” trend towards less than modest dress and also towards the acceptance of clear false teachers/false teaching (Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, etc.)(isn’t this due to the lack of biblical separation, for starters)?
Is it possible that these findings and trends demonstrate that the “Church” is in the world and of the world…that it is conforming to, and complicit with, evil?
Just some thoughts and questions.
Paul
September 28, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Greg,
As a clarifying note to my above post as it relates to Barna’s research findings associated with born again Christians having a biblical worldview, the research was based on six core beliefs:
- the accuracy of biblical teaching
- the sinless nature of Jesus
- the literal existence of Satan
- the omnipotence and omniscience of God
- salvation by grace alone
- and the personal responsibility to evangelize
By the way, only 51% of Protestant senior pastors had a biblical worldview when questioned on these six core beliefs.
October 3, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Hey Greg,
Do you not have any thoughts on the questions raised in posts 18 and 19?
(Incidentally, the 51% of Protestant senior pastors were men…when it came to women pastors, only 15% had a biblical worldview!)
Regards,
Paul