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.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thoughts from the left hand
Blog Archive
About Me
- Jesse
- I defy description. And convention. And communism.
6 comments:
I'm in class right now and we're studying 1 John. If you read through 1 John the Apostle emphasizes both the reality that we are in Christ and that we should not sin.
The apostle emphasizes being in Christ and also obeying his commandments.
My prof, referencing Bultmann (who may have gotten this right) had this to say about John's perspective (we should note that it may or may not be transferable to your situation):
"the obedience is not the condition of knowing God, but the basis of assurance."
So maybe, we are God's children by belief, faith, and grace, and we assured of this when we live in obedience to the command to love and believe (1 John 3.23).
Maybe?
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I too have been taught that holiness comes from my relationship with God and reflected in my actions. We too don't condone drinking or dancing. My church also places an emphasis on being careful of what you eat and what you watch or listen to. I think that God looks at what we know and why we're doing what we're doing when he sees our actions. I don't know what I'd do if I were faced with a life or death situation. Would I be forced to do something I know is wrong if it meant saving someone else or even me?
When it comes to weighing each issue individually, do you care more about the ethical standar or about the individual human being in question?
Do you care more about the fact that prostitution is wrong, that lepers are unclean, that working on the sabbath is unlawful; or the fact that the woman needs to be shown love, the leper needs to be cleansed, or the man needs to be healed / the disciples need to eat?
Those are just my knee-jerk examples, but it seems to me that Jesus was far more about caring about people and loving them regardless of the ethical stigmas that went with the issues they had.
I definitely recommend reading a sermon by Frederick Buechner called "The Magnificent Defeat," in a book of sermons by the main title. It takes Jacob and talks about how hard it is to make "good moral examples" out of the heroes of the Bible...it's a book that means a lot to me. Give me your address and I'll buy it for you.
And, since my brain is still churning...since when was ethics the core of our Christianity? Maybe God just loves the spunk and spirit of Tamar and that's what he's commending--the actor, not the action. Or maybe he's just saying, look, she didn't have a lot of options, and she didn't let that stop her. And she stuck it to The Man. Go Girl! Go Go, Go Girl! And next time you sneer at a prostitute (or a thief), think about what sort of options she had when she decided to be a prostitute...
To me, the word holiness immediately conjures up negative emotions and images of "mean spirited" preachers telling me all of the horrible stuff that I cannot do. However, I believe the Bible teaches us to "worship the Lord in the splendor of His holiness" Psalm 29:2
Holiness must be a cut above the rest. It must be different, and more beautiful, pure, and majestic that we could ever imagine.
Here's holiness defined by me:
A natural development that stems from an intimate relationship and deep desire to please the lover of our soul.
Post a Comment