Dark Holiness II (ish)

First off, let me say 'thank you' to all the people that commented on my last post. I do appreciate all that you've said, and helped me to think about. As such, I wanted to do a follow-up, so to speak.

Both Shane and Dan brought up good points about are ethics really the point, or is it rather more about love. I especially like Dan's bit about perhaps God was applauding the actor and not the action (not least because he used the word 'spunk'). I think maybe that is the key point in the whole thing...while God does desire for us to be made daily in His image, He loves us unconditionally. God loved Tamar, and the fire in her spirit that made her stand-up to the false righteousness in Judah. Keep in mind that Tamar was also not a Hebrew, nor really a worshipper of Yahweh, both facts that add in all kinds of fun complications.

Maybe that is the reason Genesis 38 is thrown in there, a reason we can only truly understand seen through the lens of Jesus. The idea that God loves us, no matter what we've done. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Ethics and 'holiness' are worthwhile and good as guidelines, but they are only just that...guidelines. When the fecal matter hits the air extruder, ethics and holiness are only so valuable. And, maybe, just maybe, that's the point.

I also really liked Jeremy's definition of holiness as the "natural development that stems from an intimate relationship and a deep desire to please the lover of our soul". I think when we think of holiness as just a list of things of what Christians do or don't do, we can really miss the point. Its not just about actions, although those play a significant part. Its about internal transformation, a point that far too many of American Christians miss. Coming up with more rules won't make people holier, rather they'll just end up becoming more legalistic. This is not to say we should throw out all rules, but has regulating everything every really worked?

Perhaps I'm showing my hand a bit too much, but the only exception I take to that definition of holiness is the 'natural' part. On the one hand, I fully agree...if you spend a long time with someone, you naturally become like them, and Jesus is no exception. But, at the same time, the pursuit of holiness often seems like its anything but natural. I fight an uphill battle against myself every day, and I always seem to be losing (how's that for a conundrum?). I so desperately want to be like Him, but at the same time, I'm just as desperately afraid to take the steps of faith.

I wish I had a good ending for this post, that would wrap everything up in a nice, neat little package, all answers included with interest. But, no. That does seem to follow the pattern of the entry, though, saying that we can't answer everything fully, but we just need to go out and meet each day. Holiness is not a list we can check off, but a lifestyle of love. We can't let the expectations of others and our desire for approval shape our lives, but rather the unconditional, infinite love of our Lord and Redeemer guide our steps, one at a time.

Your thoughts?

Dark Holiness

I find myself in a bit of a tailspin after reading Scripture (which is exactly what Scripture should do to our lives, shake them up a bit and force us to rethink everything).

I come from the Methodist branch of holiness teaching, which means that to be holy means that you don't drink, smoke or chew, nor hang around with those who do. Holiness sometimes comes down to a list of things you don't do...but, the Wesleyan Methodists in Australia have started to define it by a heart condition (more akin to what Wesley himself, and even some crazy Nazarene preacher did). But, holiness is a matter of following the dictates of Scripture by being a person of integrity (not lying, cheating, stealing, etc etc) as well as loving God and people with your whole being.

But, then I read Genesis 38, the story of Judah and Tamar.

Now, I've read this before, but for some reason, this time I really began to think about it...why is Tamar commended for being a prostitute, lying, and being a cheat? And, don't kid yourself, she is absolutely commended (if just by being mentioned in all the genealogies and whatnot).

Now, if this was an isolated case, that would be one thing. But, this same craftiness is commended in the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1:15-22. As well as the life of Jacob (almost the whole darn thing...he is chosen as the namesake for the Jews entire). And in Christ's parable of the Dishonest (or Shrewd) Manager.

What are we supposed to draw from this? How are we supposed to define holiness?

I am reminded of a character from the television show, Boston Legal. Alan Shore is a good lawyer, but making ethical decisions is not his forte. However, he does do what is right. In one particular case, he encouraged someone to impersonate a psychiatrist to ascertain if another psychiatrist's patient was homicidal. When queried about if that was ethical, Shore replied "Oh. I'm sorry. If ethics is what you're worried about, then just write a letter as a lawyer stating it is not something ot be worried about, that the client isn't dangerous. You'll both be covered. I didn't realize ethics was the issue...I thought human life was at stake. My apologies."

Is that the attitude that we're supposed to have? Do what is right, even if it means lying or cheating? Doesn't that stray into the awful realm of the ends justifying the means?

Or, are we as Christians called to that kind of discerning and hard style of Christianity, weighing each and every issue individually, but not having the 'hard and fast' rules that we as people love so much?

I wish I had the answer. This is a difficult question, and I really want to hear people's opinions about this. Please let me know your thoughts, and this has very high potential as an issue we'll see again in my blog.

Word.