Tag: Theology

Following the Messiah-No-One-Expected and Very Few Want Today

Carlo Corretto

I have been busy enjoying a visit from some dear, long-time friends this past week, hence my brief vacation from blogging.  But I am back today with this excerpt from the book Why, O Lord? by Carlo Carretto.

The tremendous life-altering challenge of following the real, historical, Biblical Jesus rather than the convenient, sanitized, nationalized Jesus of American evangelicalism is a contemporary version of the New Testament call to discipleship that has confronted every generation (in its own, unique way) throughout church history.

It is no easier today than it was 2,000 years ago.

I have described what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah-no-one-expected (or much wanted) in my book, Encountering Jesus, Encountering Scripture.

My new book, I Pledge Allegiance, describes the life-or-death struggle facing the American church right now in this age of Trump .

Carlo Carretto eloquently makes the same point in his book, and I believe it is well worth sharing.  I do not know Mr. Carretto, but he writes like a man who knows the real Jesus:

“Goodness! How difficult it is to believe in the sort of Messiah that Jesus of Nazareth represents!

 To believe that we win by losing our very selves!

To believe that love is everything.

To believe that power is a great danger, wealth slavery, comfortable life a misfortune.

 It is not easy.

 This is why you hear [people] in the street say, ‘If there was a God there would not be all this suffering.’

 Two thousand years have gone, and there are still Christians whose doctrinal notions belong to those ancient days when the power and existence of God was revealed by displays of strength and the victory of armies. And especially by wealth and having more possessions.

 The real secret had not then been received.

Nor is it received very easily even today.

Hence the blasphemy in general circulation denying the kingdom’s visibility, given the ordeal of suffering and death.

 The old teaching that we, the Church, must be strong still feeds our determination to possess the land and dominate the world.

 We must make ourselves felt. We must keep our enemies down. We must scowl. We must win, and to win we need money, money, money. And to have money we need banks, we need the means and we need clever bankers. How can we do good without means, without money? Let’s have a big meeting, and then any opposition will be shamed into silence. Well, we must defend our rights, the rights of the Church. We must defeat our enemies.

 Enemies, always enemies on the Church’s horizon!

 Yet Jesus has told us in no uncertain terms that we no longer have any enemies, since they are the same people we are supposed to love, and love specially.

 Can it be that we have not understood?

 Don’t we read the Gospel in our churches?

 How long shall we wait before following the teaching of Jesus?”

Indeed…how long?

A Look at Romans 13:1-7, Must Christians ‘Obey’ the Government? Part 2 #christianityandpolitics

I am absolutely convinced that both Scripture and church history demonstrate the necessity of Christian civil disobedience whenever the ethics of God’s kingdom conflicts with the expectations of the state.

Romans 13:1-7 is the standard text cited by those who confuse faithful Christianity with obedience to state power. My book, I Pledge Allegiance,  focuses considerable attention on disentangling the many confusions behind this popular misunderstanding.  For, as the commentator J. C. O’Neill once wrote,

“These seven… verses have caused more unhappiness and misery… than any other seven verses in the New Testament by the license they have given to tyrants, and the support for tyrants the church has felt called on to offer.”

In and of itself, O’Neill’s observation does not necessarily prove or disprove anyone’s preferred way of reading Romans 13.  But I believe that the investigation offered here and in Part 1 of this study, will make the point clear.

This excerpt is from pages 59-62:

“Civil Disobedience”

“We are now at a point where we can recognize three components of Paul’s instructions that offer a solid foundation for the legitimacy of Christian civil disobedience.

“First, by explaining God’s role in ordering the place of government in human relations, Paul subordinates all civil authorities under God, and not just any god,

Roman Christians were thrown to the lions for refusing to obey the law

but Paul’s God, the Father of Jesus Christ. In effect, Paul has desacralized the Roman state and its emperor, both of which regularly received sacrifices from its citizens. Caesar is being told (were he ever to read the book of Romans) that he serves at the pleasure of the Christian God, a revolutionary claim. Rather than propping up the arrogant authoritarianism of Roman rule— or anyone else’s rule, for that matter—Paul is actually taking his theological ax to its woody trunk and chopping it down to proper size. It is difficult for us today to fully grasp the provocative and subversive nature of Paul’s words. He twice describes civil authorities, including the emperor, as “God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4), not because they predictably execute God’s desires as a good servant should, nor because God promises to back up their every decision, whatever it may be, but because they function in a capacity that was “ordered” for them by the God who brings world redemption through the Son, Jesus Christ. Paul is dramatically leveling the playing field between rulers and the ruled. More than that, he has switched the parameters of the Roman playing field for another one entirely. Roman officials thought they stood on political grounds that were established by the gods Mars and Jupiter. To that fantasy Paul’s says, “Not on your life!” Actually, though they do not know it, Roman officials stood on a playing field created and marked out by the Christian God. On that playing field everyone is equal, and all people, no matter their station in this life, will eventually be judged in the same way, by the same standard, by this same God.

“Second, there is a subtle turn to Paul’s teaching strategy that is quite pro- found. Overtly, he is instructing believers to remain cooperative, submissive members of society. Yet, even as he offers this highly conventional message, he is implicitly underscoring the church’s supreme allegiance to the King of Kings above and beyond all other authority figures. The force of this reminder is to enable every Christian citizen to ask a crucial question: Are government authorities behaving like God’s obedient servants in asking me to perform this action? And if I do what the government asks, will I be doing something that I believe is right and acceptable before God? Paul is implicitly reminding the church that obedience to Christ supersedes all other responsibilities. We obey the government when such obedience coincides with obedience to God; otherwise, we submit to governing authority by virtue of our disobedience, accepting the negative consequences, including suffering, of our higher obedience to the King of Kings. Standing alongside the apostle Peter as he defied a direct order from the Sanhedrin, Christians testify with their lives that they “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; also 4:19).

Christian pacifists held in an internment camp during World War 2

“Third, the thoughtful disciple is now left to deal with questions of personal conscience, a matter that Paul raises himself in verse 5: “It is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” Paul’s argument is that government officials (ideally) ask citizens to do what is right and then (only) punish those who do what is wrong—not wrong as defined by an arbitrary authority, but wrong as defined by God and our God-given conscience. Paul obviously does not believe that paying taxes, even to unscrupulous tax collectors, is either disobedient to God or a violation of Christian conscience, so he emphatically concludes, “This is why you pay taxes” (v. 6). But that conclusion hardly constitutes a blank check for necessarily prioritizing every government policy over Christian conscience per se. “Because of conscience” is a crucial declaration in its own right, especially when we remember that the real world does not operate in the way Paul describes governing authorities throughout this passage. “Because of conscience” becomes the church’s inevitable explanation for its civil disobedience whenever the governing authorities come to believe their own mythology about extraordinary powers, providential selection, and divine right. The long and bloody history of Christian martyrs who died for their faith while defying local government should remind every disciple of the nonnegotiable priority of Paul’s warning—“because of conscience.”

“Several issues of conscience arise when we take chapters 12 and 13 together, as they should be. Paul, in Romans 12:14, 17, and 19, insists that believers must never retaliate, seek vengeance, or resort to violence, but must always leave judgment to God’s wrath. Paul then goes on (in Rom. 13:4) to grant the governing authorities responsibility for exercising the very functions that Christians are commanded to leave with God. Consequently, there are certain government activities that must forever remain alien to the followers of Jesus. Whatever “bearing the sword” may mean, whether it is the power of law enforcement, imposing capital punishment, or sending men to war, it involves some degree of violence and some acts of punishment, all of which must be foreign territory to the Christian.

“Early Christian leaders understood this to mean, at the very least, that Christians could not join the military (see chapter 10) or serve as judges. Aside from the fact that men in these positions were required to participate in any number of idolatrous Roman rituals, soldiers had to be ready to use force in law enforcement; more important, they could be ordered to kill at any time. Similarly, judges were responsible to punish, imprison, and impose the death penalty; but Christians were forbidden to involve themselves in any of these things. A typical discussion appears in On Idolatry (17.2–3) by Tertullian (AD 160–ca. 225). When answering the suggestion that Christians should seek positions of official authority—such as becoming a judge—in order to influence government positively, Tertullian points out that a man would have to find some way “to avoid the functions of his office . . . without passing judgment on a man’s life [i.e., imposing capital punishment] or honor . . . without condemning or forejudging, without putting anybody in chains or prison or torturing.”  In other words, a Christian could only take the job after first deciding never actually to do the job, an obviously impossible scenario.

“In a similar vein, one version of the Apostolic Constitutions 16.10 (ca. AD 375–380) makes an allusion to Romans 13:4 while insisting that “anyone who has the power of the sword, or who is a civil magistrate wearing the purple, either let him cease (i.e., resign his post in government) or be cast out (i.e., excommunicated from the church).” The only way a Christian could honestly serve in the Roman government (and a post-Constantine government, at that!) was by deliberately avoiding all of his major responsibilities. It is apparent that early Christian leaders were not interpreting Romans 13 in light of a two-kingdoms theology, in which a temporal realm and a spiritual realm make parallel claims on the Christian’s attention. Instead, the disciple was a citizen of only one kingdom, the kingdom of God, which is now invading a fallen world. John Howard Yoder explains that “these two aspects of God’s work are not distinguished by God’s having created two realms but by the actual rebelliousness of men.”

“Martin Luther’s two-kingdoms theology allowed him to recommend that Christians volunteer for the civic roles of hangman and executioner because “it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, kills and fights” when the state punishes criminals and goes to war. Unfortunately, Luther merely demonstrates how blind he was to both the role of conscience and the priority of God’s kingdom for every believer. God may well be the ultimate executioner standing behind a judge’s guilty verdict, but that does not change the fact that the Father forbids his children from having anything to do with a process that kills, demeans, tortures, or seeks vengeance against another human being. Government authority is God’s remedial measure to preserve some semblance of order among sinful human beings. Luther was correct to say that God is the one who punishes when a just, properly functioning judiciary renders a guilty verdict; but he was sorely mistaken in assuming that the divine Judge invites members of the church to share in his work of punishment.”

A Look at Romans 13:1-7, Must Christians ‘Obey’ the Government? Part 1 #christianityandpolitics

Vice-President Mike Pence’s speech at the Southern Baptist Convention, thankfully, sparked a debate over whether he should be welcomed or disinvited.  Pence’s defenders predictably quote Romans 13:1 as their argument for welcoming a political speech at the convention.

In Romans 13 the apostle Paul says:  “let everyone submit to the governing authorities.”  So, that means Pence needs to be given the time normally allotted for group prayer in order to deliver a partisan, political speech?

In light of this current debate, I thought I’d post a few serialized excerpts from my book, I Pledge Allegiance, that looks carefully at what Paul actually says in Romans 13:1-7.  The complete excerpt is from pages 56-62.  Here goes:

“Paul had specific concerns in mind as he wrote his letter to the Roman church and describing a comprehensive political theology of church-state relations was not one of them. Recalling the church’s precarious standing with the local government in a time of tax revolt is far more illuminating of Paul’s argument in this chapter. The early church lived within an authoritarian state. There was no expectation that the average person could exert any meaningful influence in bringing about broad-based, systemic social or political change. Neither Paul nor his readers had any conception of participatory democracy. Modern strategies for popular political and social transformation through civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance were inconceivable at the time. Naturally, this does not mean that Paul was devoid of political opinions or that he might not write something of universal political significance for the church, regardless of its particular location in time and space, but it does mean that properly understanding Romans 13:1–7 requires that we keep the actual historical situation foremost in our mind.

Observing God’s Order

“Several details in Romans 13 need elaboration for Paul’s ethical instruction to become clear for the modern reader. The chapter’s opening sentences twice affirm that government authority is put in place by God (v. 1). God has established a hierarchy of civil authority to regulate the otherwise strong tendency toward unruliness in human society. Anyone who rebels against this ordering of authority, therefore, is rebelling against God’s design (v. 2). Two details of Paul’s vocabulary clarify his point.

“First, Paul describes civil authority as part of the way God “orders” the world. This idea of God’s ordering, organizing, appointing or arranging is central to the passage, with several derivatives of the verbal root “to order” appearing five times in three verses (vv. 1 [twice], 2 [twice], 5 [once]). It is clearly Paul’s key concept. God “establishes/orders/institutes governing authorities” (v. 1) not by bringing any particular leader to power—though he may at times also do that—but by providentially creating structures of governing authority that exercise responsibilities delegated by God. When Paul says that “there is no authority except that which God has established” (v. 1), he is not claiming that divine providence places all rulers in their specific positions of power. He is saying that the various stations of authority that make up civil government are put in place by God’s providential ordering of human society.

“Understanding Paul’s use of “ordering” vocabulary helps to answer long- standing questions about Christian obedience to tyrannical rulers. The problematic logic, based on Romans 13, usually goes like this: If every governing authority is put in place by God, so that disobeying the authority is the equivalent of disobeying God, then even a man like Adolf Hitler must have been put in place by God, and disobeying even Hitler becomes the equivalent of disobeying God. This was, in fact, the logic used by many German Christians who swore allegiance to Hitler, the “divinely appointed” Führer.

“Though some additional arguments will be advanced below for addressing the question of obeying Hitler, Paul’s emphasis on ordering rather than personnel makes it clear that God establishes positions of authority, positions that are occupied at different times by different leaders of greater or lesser ability, wisdom, and moral fiber. Paul does not make God responsible for ordaining every leader who ever fills an office. Christians are obligated to respect the role of government per se in their lives, but that is a far cry from being obligated to obey, much less enthusiastically endorse, every wretched leader braying for national allegiance to his every foolish decision.

Subordination vs. Obedience

“A second—equally important—matter of vocabulary arises once we notice that Paul does not command believers always “to obey” the governing authorities (Rom.13:1). Translations that render Romans 13:1 along the lines of “obey the government” (Living Bible, Contemporary English Version, Good News Translation, Worldwide English) seriously misrepresent Paul’s words. Instead of commanding obedience, Paul tells the church “to be subject/to submit” to the way God has “ordered” governing authority. If Paul had intended for the church always to obey the government, he could have used the common word hupokouō (obey) to make his point. But he doesn’t do that; instead, Paul stays with the “order” word group and directs believers to be “subordinate (vv. 1, 5) to the authorities that “have been ordered” by God. In effect, he is reiterating the need for believers to cooperate with God’s design in ordering human society.

“Following the logic of verse 3 is crucial for understanding the full significance of Paul’s refusal to tell the church that they must always obey the government. Notice that Paul’s description of civil authority is utterly idealistic, in so far as he assumes that the church can always count on the government to faithfully enforce God’s expectations. “Rulers are not a terror to those who do what is right but to those who do wrong. If you don’t want to be afraid of the one in authority, do what is right and the authority will praise you” (my translation). Had Paul intended to deliver a lesson on Christian obedience, he missed a perfect opportunity to do so. Notice that he does not say, “Shed your fear of authority by doing what you are told; be obedient.” Instead, Paul counsels the church to free itself from any fear of authority by always “doing what is right.”

“At least two assumptions are at work in this statement. First, Paul’s argument assumes that government authorities will never be corrupt. Their judgments will always faithfully reflect God’s judgments concerning what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust. But we all know better. The claim that “rulers are not a terror to those who do what is right but to those who do wrong” is not always true, and Paul knew it. The civil rights demonstrators who walked across the bridge in Selma, Alabama, with Dr. Martin Luther King in 1965 were excoriated by the state’s governor, condemned by the local sheriff, and beaten with clubs by the local police. It is no secret to us or to Paul that rulers can easily reward those who do wrong and become a terror to those who do what is right, but Paul is describing the ideal, the way things are supposed to be, for the sake of his argument.

“Paul’s second assumption is that when government functions as it should, citizens never need to be afraid about doing what is right because “the right” is always what governing authorities will want from their citizens. Those who do what is right can be confident in their Christian obedience because they are simultaneously being submissive to authority, as God requires. In an ideal world, a believer’s act of submission will be synonymous with obedience because the perfect, incorruptible government will never ask its citizens to disobey God.

“Unpacking these assumptions at the root of Paul’s idealization of earthly authority also exposes the prick hidden in his argument. Paul knows that the Roman government does not measure up to this ideal. He cannot possibly in- struct the Roman church always to obey a government that made public sacrifice

Roman Christians were thrown to the lions for refusing to obey the law

to the Roman pantheon a civic responsibility; but he can tell them always to do what is right. When Christians act on what they know is right and those actions coincide with the government’s expectations, Paul’s argument predicts the happy outcome—“do what is right and the authorities will praise you.” But when doing what is right puts the believer on a collision course with government expectations, Paul’s instructions take on even greater significance: “Still do what is right.”

“God’s own perfect government awaits the coming age, when Christ is seated on his earthly throne. As long as Jesus’s disciples live in this world, however, they must anticipate times when the governing authorities will not praise them for doing what they believe is right in the sight of God. So Paul diplomatically commends the Roman government as much as he is able to in his description of the ideal, but he also assiduously avoids giving the church advice that could eventually lead it to compromise with the ungodly designs of a government that is out of step with God’s vision of truth and justice.

“Christians are not commanded always to obey their government or its laws. The church is told to be submissive and always do what is right. Obedience is one way of showing submission to authority, but submission and obedience are not synonymous. In some circumstances the submission God requires will work itself out as disobedience to governing authority. When a government expects believers to do things that the latter believe are wrong, things that will compromise their relationship with Christ, things that will violate their kingdom citizenship, then godly adherence to what is right demands conscientious disobedience against the government. At that point, faithful disciples remain submissive to misguided governmental authority, not by compromising their Christian conscience, but by freely submitting themselves to whatever punishment the authorities threaten to impose for disobedience. Living out the values of the kingdom of God always comes first for the followers of Jesus.”

The Meaning of Holiness, Part 3B:  Sinners in the Hands of a Forgiving God

We have come to the end of our brief investigation into the Biblical definition of holiness.  We discovered that it is, first of all, a theological term describing God’s nature (here).  Then it becomes a redemptive term describing the results of God’s saving grace (here and here).  Finally, it is a sanctifying term characterizing the ethical goal of a life in relationship with God (here).

But here is where a problem arises.

Any reflective, self-aware believer will quickly recognize that the Lord’s command “to be holy as I am holy” sets an impossible standard, even for the most scrupulously attentive disciple. The distance separating vision from reality could not possibly be greater.  Who in their right mind would ever claim that they are living such a morally pure existence that they are as qualitatively distinct from the world around them as the eternal, Creator God is distinct from his temporal Creation?

The Old Testament addressed this issue straight on.  It was the rationale behind God’s instructions for animal sacrifice.  Leviticus 17:11 says,

“For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

A sacrifice of atonement covered or expunged the guilt created by one’s failure perfectly to obey.

God’s people were expected sincerely to do their best in obeying the law of the covenant.  But knowing full well that no one could keep the law perfectly, God provided a variety of sacrifices (not only animal but vegetable sacrifices such as first-fruit offerings) in order “to cover over” – to make atonement – for the people’s failings.

Offering these proscribed sacrifices, as they were instructed, was also a part of what it meant for Israel to be a holy people.  So, every Israelite was to take God’s word seriously.  Obey the law as fully as possible. Not taking it lightly.  Which included making regular sacrifice as a confession of one’s failings, recognizing the need for God’s forgiveness.

This is the Old Testament prescription for “being holy as Yahweh is holy.”

When we get to the New Testament, both the law and the sacrifices of the Sinai covenant have been fulfilled, completed, realized and thus brought to their conclusion in Jesus of Nazareth. (Obviously, there is a lot to be discussed here, but that is for another post or two or three).

Jesus’ life fulfilled the Old Testament law of the covenant (Matthew 5:17-20, compare 24:35), while his death became the ultimate, atoning sacrifice (Matthew 26:27-28, compare Exodus 24:8; Mark 10:45).  This is both the consistent teaching of the New Testament and the historic theology of orthodox Christianity. Thus, by fulfilling the old covenant Jesus inaugurated the new covenant.

Jesus Teaching a Crowd by Rembrandt

Nevertheless, there is a curious stream of continuity flowing from the old into the new:  namely, the seeming impossibility of fully obeying Jesus’ requirements for his disciples.

Here is only a brief sampling:

If you even speak badly of someone, you are guilty of murder.

If you lust after another person, you are guilty of adultery.

If someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit the other one too. Never seek revenge or go to court.

Love your enemies and pray that your heavenly Father will bless them.

Give to anyone who asks and be so generous that you can’t keep track of where your giving goes (Matthew 5:21 – 6:4).

If you do not hate your immediate family and even your own life (in comparison to your devotion to me), you cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26-27).

If you do not give up everything you have, you cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:33).

The apparent impossibility of living out Jesus’ instructions is the reason several Christian traditions have devised different ways of avoiding the literal intent of Jesus’ words.

Some suggest that Jesus intended there to be two different types of disciples.  One, like priests and nuns, who will obey his teaching literally.  And another, sometimes called laypeople, who are free to adhere to a lesser standard.

Others find creative ways to reinterpret Jesus’ words so that they don’t actually intend what they appear to say.  I criticize this way of dealing with Jesus’ hard sayings in my book, I Pledge Allegiance (pages 38-39).  I believe that we must take Jesus at his word.

It’s true that Jesus’ teaching is rigorous. It’s also true that no one, not even monks and nuns who take vows of poverty, can follow Jesus’ teachings perfectly.  We can see this in the gospels themselves as the devoted disciples who live with him every day are periodically rebuked and corrected for their failures and misunderstandings.

If you want to read a fine discussion of this dynamic, I recommend taking a look at Richard Burridge’s book, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Eerdmans, 2007).  Burridge provides a thorough look at the many ways in which the theme “impossible expectations – failing disciples” plays out in the gospel storyline. The apparent tension is harmonized by taking Jesus’ words and his actions together.

Jesus’ words are hard, but his behavior is merciful.  He asks for the impossible and then extends compassion with forgiveness.  Burridge notes:

“His [Jesus’] demanding ethical teaching was delivered in the context of keeping company with outsiders and sinners, those who had ethical difficulties, yet he seems to have accepted them, ate and lived with them – which leaves us with the challenge of how imitating him requires New Testament ethics to be done within an inclusive community.” (page 179 and throughout)

Jesus Eating with Sinners by Caravaggio

Jesus’ resurrected life is the gift that keeps on giving.

He still requires that we follow him; that we obey his impossible words, conform to his perfect life, and imitate The One beyond imitation.

And when we fail, which will happen frequently, our perfectly holy Lord Jesus will be there every time to pick us up, to forgive us, brush us off and provide the encouragement we need to give it another try.

That’s what it means for a true disciple to be holy as the one and only Son of God is holy.

The Meaning of Holiness, Part 3 #religion #theology

In part 1 of this series covering the Biblical concept of holiness, I (hopefully) explained how understanding holiness begins by understanding the unique nature and character of God.  Holiness is fundamentally a theological category.  God is essentially holy as the One who is Wholly Other, incomparable, the one and only God.

Part 2 then explained the resulting relational dimension of holiness. People and places may become holy when God comes into contact with them. Ancient Israel is called a holy nation because God enters into a covenant relationship with them and only them.

Now, in part 3, the stage is set for understanding the ethical dimension of holiness.  Behavioral holiness, being set apart, being different, is the most common, popular definition of holiness.  And behavior is certainly an important component of holiness, but notice how much Biblical groundwork has been required for us to construct the necessary framework for understanding this ethical dimension properly.

We are finally in a position to grasp the apparent strangeness of a text like Leviticus 20:7:

“Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Yahweh your God.  Keep my decrees and follow them. I am Yahweh, who makes you holy.”

What’s the deal?  If the Israelites became holy when God brought them into the covenant (i.e. I am Yahweh who makes you holy), then why do they need a warning about making themselves holy (i.e. consecrate yourselves and be holy)?  Are they already holy or not?

How can these two seemingly contradictory statements stand side-by-side in the same sentence?

“You are holy, so you must become holy.”  “Make yourselves holy because you are holy.”

It sounds contradictory…UNLESS you understand the multiple levels of meaning connoted by this word – holy/holiness.

Because our holy God is distinctive and unique (part 1), when he brings others into relationship with himself (part 2), he requires that they, too, become distinctive and unique like him (part 3).  So, Yahweh commands the Israelites:

 “Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am Yahweh your God.  Keep my decrees and follow them.”

This is a repeated refrain throughout the Old Testament, especially in the book of Leviticus, sometimes called the book of holiness.  Here is a short list of further examples:

“I am Yahweh your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:44)

“I am Yahweh who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore, be holy because I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:45)

“Be holy because I, Yahweh your God, am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2)

God emphatically presents himself as the model of holiness.  For the Old Testament, the process of making oneself holy, of consecrating oneself, entailed obedience to the Torah, that is, the code of behavior given to Moses for members of the Sinai Covenant.

The Torah included a wide variety of elements that we would see as both cultic/ritual (e.g. what kinds of clothes to wear) and ethical (e.g. do not steal), although no self-respecting Israelite would have considered making a division between ritual and ethics.  As far as Moses, Aaron and every other Israelite were concerned, it was all ethics.

God’s people were expected to live unique, distinctive lives because their God was/is a unique, distinctive Person.  They were to be set apart just as the eternal Creator is set apart from his temporal creation.  And a central component of God’s holiness is his unique, divine character distinguished by personality traits like justice, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, compassion, patience and love, etc.

Yes, God emphatically presents himself as the model of holiness, but God’s people cannot make themselves Wholly Other. (Please, don’t try.  It gets really creepy.)  But we can obey God’s call to emulate his character, to live among others in the same way that he chooses to live with us.

Thus, for God’s people to display his character, to make ourselves holy as God is holy, means that we too must live lives of justice, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, compassion, patience and love – “being perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

So, holiness does eventually become a matter of ethics.

In a world characterized by injustice, unrighteousness, faithlessness, lack of mercy, absence of compassion, impatience and hatred, reflecting the holiness of God’s character will set God’s people apart as a unique community; a stark contrast to the status quo around us.  At least, that is the goal.

I believe that understanding this 3-step unfolding of holiness is crucial to a proper, Biblical Christian ethics.  By rooting our view of holiness positively in God and who God is, we are better able to cultivate a positive, rather than a negative, approach to godly behavior.

Typically, when conversations about holiness begin (rather than conclude, as I do here) with ethics we end up thinking negatively.  Becoming holy is a matter of what we don’t do.  “I don’t drink, and I don’t chew, and I don’t go with girls who do!” as the old saying goes.  Being different from the world around us becomes a primarily negative concern focused on prohibitions; a matter of not associating, not doing, not participating, not sharing in the concerns or behaviors of those around us.

Certainly, abstaining from evil is important if holiness is to mean anything.  But making these sorts of prohibitions the entry point into holiness is wrong Biblically and theologically.  It, therefore, leads to any number of wrong-headed, practical mistakes.  (Perhaps, most significantly, it has a horrible tendency to blind God’s people to the continued reality of God’s Image in every human being, no matter their misbehavior.  But this is an important issue for another day.)

For our purposes in this post, I will only mention one practical mistake:  a prohibitive view of holiness invariably teaches us to view life principally in terms of what we don’t do, who we aren’t.  That is, we are not like them.

That is grossly backwards and upside-down.  Holiness is intended positively to express who we are.  We are God’s people!  And so, we are like our God in the sorts of things we do, in how we love others, show mercy, remain faithful, always being compassionate and patient.

Thus, holy behavior is rooted in our identity as sinners saved by God’s grace.  Only in a derivative sense is holiness concerned with not being like others.  Holiness is first and foremost concerned with being like Jesus, our Lord and Savior in the flesh.

Naturally, anyone who truly wants to live like Jesus will find any number of abhorrent thoughts, feelings and actions to avoid, but that is only the shadow-side of holy living.  The substance of a holy life is not determined by the shadows but by the beautiful light of God’s own presence and by heeding the Spirit’s call to “fix our eyes on Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2; see 3:1).

With our lives fixed on following Jesus, we avoid the shadows without even trying because we will be too busy living out the grace, mercy, righteousness, faithfulness, love and compassion of our crucified Lord.

See the difference?

OK, there has to be a 5th installment.  Next time: The Meaning of Holiness, Part 3B, “Sinners in the Hands of a Forgiving God”

The Meaning of Holiness, Part 2B

OK, so, I lied. I originally said that this would be a 3-part series on the biblical concept of holiness. But, as happens with much of my writing, it has grown into at least a 4-part, maybe even a 5-part, series.  This is the 3rd installment.

In part 1 I explained how a proper understanding of holiness is rooted in God’s nature, God’s being.  Our Creator is the one and only God, an incomparable God who is utterly unique in every way.

Part 2 then looked at the extension of God’s holiness to others through personal contact and continuing relationship.  Persons, places and things may become holy when God makes contact, particularly by establishing a personal relationship with select individuals, like Abraham and Moses, or with groups of people, such as Israel.

In part 2 we also discovered how God’s extension of holiness is a one-way-street.  Holiness “travels” in one direction only, from God to others.  Furthermore, that holiness is maintained by following God’s directions.  Violating the Holy One’s instructions can lead to immediate punishment and destruction.

However, my description raises a number of questions.  Such as:

What about God’s numerous personal encounters with folks like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the book of Genesis?  Abraham enjoyed several intimate encounters with Yahweh (Genesis 12:1-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-20;  17:1-8; 22;1-18), yet he was never warned, as Moses was, about the dangers of “standing on holy ground” (Exodus 3:5).  The patriarchs were never ordered to “step back” or be killed, as were the people of Israel standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai.  Why?  What changed between Genesis and Exodus?

Similar questions are especially pressing for Christians when reading the New Testament gospel stories about the life of Jesus.

Historic, orthodox Christian theology has always insisted – because it is the consistent message of the New Testament – that the human being named Jesus of Nazareth was both fully human and fully divine.  That belief is at the heart of the Christian doctrine of the incarnation – the eternal God becoming an historic, individual human being named Jesus.

How does divine holiness fit into all this?  For instance:

How can an intrinsically holy God take on inherently unholy humanity such that the two (divinity and humanity) coexist for a lifetime as the single individual, Jesus of Nazareth?

Various theologians have offered a variety of thoughts on that question, but I must pass over them here. I will only note that my friend, Sǿren Kierkegaard, referred to this incarnational mystery as the primary stumbling-block, THE principal “offense” requiring the famous “leap of faith,” confronting anyone who wants to follow Jesus.  (You might want to read more about the offensiveness of Christian faith and the need for a leap of faith in my book Encountering Jesus, Encountering Scripture).

Furthermore, if (a) Jesus is God and (b) God is holy and (c) those approaching the Holy One must do so very carefully, in exactly the way prescribed by God if they hope to survive, then (d) how could Jesus be as open, accepting and approachable as he is in the gospel accounts?

What happened to the necessary limits, the barriers, the warnings and prohibitions – and most of all, the dire Old Testament consequences! – that always circumscribe the Holy One?

How can this particular “holy one of God” (Mark 1:24) remain so flagrantly cavalier about mixing and mingling with society’s outcasts, who remain outcasts precisely because they do not obey God’s instructions?

How can he crash through every social barrier while freely touching and being touched by despised untouchables?

How does he eat and drink with sinners, using the very same bowls, plates and cups as they?

How did he tolerate the wicked, unholy abuses of human depravity that were heaped upon him at the cross?

MOST OF ALL, how can any of these (apparently unacceptable) encounters – at least, from an Old Testament perspective – occur without every one of these abhorrent, disobedient sinners (and this is what we all are!) being fried by lightning into charcoaled, crispy critters like the flippant sons of Aaron in Leviticus 10:1-3?

I believe that the only answer can be God’s grace.

It was only by God’s grace that Abraham became the friend of God.  After all, it was Yahweh who came to Abraham and initiated their kick-off to salvation-history (Genesis 12:1-7).  It certainly wasn’t Abraham’s idea.  Until that conversation, he was still bowing down to the gods of Ur!

God is not an automaton.  He does not execute His programming.

God is a divine person with a divine will, and scripture teaches us that God wills to be loving, gracious and merciful. So, even Moses required protection from the revelation of Yahweh’s glory, but both the revelation and the protections making it a survivable experience were acts of divine grace (Exodus 33:18-34:7).

I think that we must assume that the same gracious decision-making explains the preexistent Son’s life on earth.  As the gospel of John says,

“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14)

The gospel writer provides a New Testament commentary on Moses’ experience described in Exodus 33-34.  The second Person of the Triune God traversed time and space, so that Jesus’ entire life could become both the ultimate revelation of God’s glory AND the final protection for sinners seeking God’s face.

To revisit my parable from part 1 – Mr. Ball entered into Flatland and became Mr. Circle so that Madame Triangle, Mr. Line and Miss Square might all be elevated into the 3rd dimension with Him.

The Meaning of Holiness, Part 2

Andromeda galazy

We discovered in Part 1 that the entire notion of holiness begins with the understanding of God as being entirely distinctive and unique because he is the one and only God.  Now in Part 2 I will explain how holiness as a description of God’s nature expands into holiness as a description of personal relationship.

As the Holy One, God can make things holy by bringing them into relationship with himself.  God is able graciously to bridge the chasm separating the fallen creation from himself and share his holiness with others.  People and places may become holy when God draws near.

For example, the famous burning bush that confronts Moses makes “the ground holy” because Yahweh is there (Exodus 3:5).  The land of Canaan

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.com

becomes “the holy land” because Yahweh chooses to live there with his people, Israel (Psalm 78:54; Ezekiel 45:1; Zechariah 2:12).  Mt. Zion becomes a “holy mountain” because God dwells there in his temple (Psalm 2:6; 3:4; 15:1; Isaiah 57:13; Ezekiel 20:40; Joel 2:1).

The descendants of Abraham become Yahweh’s “holy people” simply because Yahweh chooses to bring them into an intimate, covenant relationship.  Yahweh repeatedly says such things to Israel as, “I am Yahweh who makes you holy” (Exodus 31: 13; Leviticus 20:8; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32).

If you recall the Old Testament storyline, Israel’s holiness certainly did not consist in their being an especially obedient, law-abiding people (cf. Deuteronomy 7:7).  Quite the opposite.  Israel became holy for one reason and one reason only.  The LORD had decided that they and they alone would become his “treasured possession…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6).

So, first, holiness is God’s alone by nature.  But, second, holiness becomes a relational term describing those whom God “sets apart” by making them his own.

In this regard, holiness is a gift of God’s grace, and he alone can decide how people come into and then maintain a relationship with him.  No one is free to waltz up to the Creator and say, “Hey, God.  I like the way I happen to think about you.  I have decided that we will become chums.”

Scripture tells us that such hubris is the road to ruin.  When people invent their own ways to approach God, disaster always follows.  Remember the crowds of Israelites watching at the base of Mt. Sinai, waiting for Yahweh to speak with Moses?  Moses was warned to erect boundary markers to keep the people safe – safe from the dangers of divine holiness.

“Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it.  Whoever touches the mountain will surely be put to death…warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the LORD and many of them perish” (Exodus 19:12, 21).

Even when the Holy One reaches out to make contact with sinners like us, God alone decides how that relationship will work.  When, where and how may we come close?  Only God makes those crucial decisions.

No one approaches God willy-nilly, as they see fit.  And anyone who does not follow the Holy One’s instructions for that encounter will pay the price.  Remember Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, who decided to get creative one day and mix it up in the way they offered the LORD incense (Leviticus 10:1-3).

They were immediately struck dead, and the LORD reminded everyone watching, “Among those who approach me I will show myself holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored.”

Destroying Aaron’s sons was not an act of whimsy or spite on God’s part.  Do I blame the fire for burning my hand when I stick it into the flames?  God is holy.  We may become holy only by answering the call to live with him and following his directions.  But he is the only One to decide how, when and where we can get close.

The possibility of relationship with God is his gift to give.  It is a gift of grace and mercy.  We can only receive it.  We cannot bargain over it, reshape it or negotiate new terms.

Thus, Jesus’ words are in lock-step with the graciousness of the Holy One when he says, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  This has always been a hallmark of the Christian gospel.  The heavenly Father adopts as his child anyone who surrenders to Jesus Christ, and to him alone, as Lord and Savior.  There is no other way available.

This is also why the apostle Paul repeatedly calls the members of his churches, no matter how stubborn and rebellious they may be, “holy ones” or “saints” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1 for a selection).  Today’s “holy nation and kingdom of priests” is the universal church of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:9-10).

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!  Who has known the mind of the Lord?  Or who has been his counselor?  Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?  For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)

The Meaning of Holiness, Part 1

I can’t remember the last time I attended a church service or heard a Sunday message that dealt with the subject of holiness.

I have heard many messages warning Christians to stay away from sin. In these sermons, holiness is typically explained in terms of “being separate,” which usually translates into avoiding the dangers of The Big Three – sex, alcohol and money (more specifically, the sin of not giving 10% of my money to the local church).

I will summarize this popular understanding of holiness by quoting an old (inappropriate?) saying, “I don’t drink and I don’t chew, and I don’t go with girls who do.”

But such an approach to holiness grabs the wrong end of the stick, and a very flimsy stick at that.  It’s like grabbing a lizard by the tip of its tail and saying, “I’ve got it!” as you watch the greater part of the lizard scurry away to hide.

So, I thought I would write a series of 3 posts explaining (what I understand to be) the Biblical concept of holiness.  There are 3 aspects to holiness in the Bible.  Each post will deal with 1 of these 3 inter-related elements, explaining how they build on each other.

To begin with, holiness is not about us.  Holiness is about God, who God is and what God does.

The Bible insists that God is utterly unique.  There are no other gods around for comparison.  No one can suggest, for instance, that Yahweh is an especially tall god, as far as gods go.  Because there are no other gods.  How tall would a tall god be in comparison to an especially short god?  Such talk is nonsense, for there is only One God, and He is what He is.  That’s it.

The prophet Isaiah asked rhetorically, “To whom will you compare God?” (40:18). The answer is:  to nothing and to no one.  Yahweh is it.

God is the sole, absolute standard for Himself.  God defines Himself as He is. (Yes, I know. I am committing the modern faux pas of using masculine pronouns for God.  But that is how both the Old Testament and Jesus refer to our Father in heaven.)

God exists in a category of One.

Whatever we might compare God to is, by definition, not-God. We are left to fumble with the inadequacies of language, for no description of God will ever prove sufficient. We are limited to using analogies, metaphors and similes for our descriptions (e.g. “God is like such-and-such”, “God’s eyes see us”, etc.), and even these efforts only work, in a limited sense, because human beings are created as God’s image. (Now we are dealing with the theological pros and cons of the “analogy of being,” the analogia entis, which we may explore some other time.)

Some theologians have referred to God’s essential uniqueness as His “Wholly Otherness.”  Since Yahweh is the only divine Person inhabiting the category of “God,” Yahweh is Wholly Other.

THIS is where a proper understanding of God’s holiness must begin.  God is holy as the One who is Wholly Other.

Let me explain by way of borrowing the plot-line from Edwin Abbott’s famous story, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions.  Imagine living in a two-dimensional world.  That is, your universe has length and width, but no depth, no height.

Your world is like a flat piece of paper.  All of its inhabitants are also two-dimensional.  So, you walk to work each day as a stick-figure.  As you pass by, you wave to your neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Circle, as well as the Straight-Line family and Madame Triangle.

One day, you all hear a friendly disembodied voice calling, “Hello!  How are you all?”

But none of you can see anything.  Where is that voice coming from?

“Hello,” it calls out again.  “My name is Mr. Ball!”

“Mr. Ball?,” you all wonder.  “We have never heard of such a thing. What in the world is a ball?”

The voice answers, “Well, a  ball is also a sphere.”

“What’s a sphere?” asks Madame Triangle.  “Is it like a circle?”

“Well, yes and no, but not really,” replies Mr. Ball.  “Why don’t I come visit you in Flatland and show you who I am,” he suggests.

Mr. Ball then proceeds to enter into Flatland.  But still no one sees a sphere.

At first, everyone notices a small dot that appears out of nowhere.  Then the dot morphs into a tiny circle.  The circle expands, becoming larger and larger.  Then it abruptly stops growing and reverses itself, becoming smaller and smaller. Finally, the circle becomes a dot again, and then vanishes all together.

“There you go,” cries Mr. Ball.  “I showed myself to you!  You have just seen me.  Now do you understand what a sphere is?”

Obviously, the answer is No.  Two dimensional creatures may perceive something of the three-dimensional creature’s “personal revelation” – in this case, an ever expanding and shrinking circle – but fully grasping or comprehending Mr. Ball’s self-disclosure is impossible for folks living in Flatland.  The difference between a two-dimensional and a three-dimensional existence are too great.

Mr. Ball is wholly other than Mr. & Mrs. Circle.

So ends my feeble attempt at describing the essential nature of divine holiness.  And when we combine God’s Wholly Otherness together with the alienation created by human sinfulness, we are left with a yawning chasm separating humanity from God that Sǿren Kierkegaard calls “the infinite qualitative difference.”

An infinite qualitative difference looms large between sinful human beings and our Wholly Other God.

Recall Moses’ experience at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19).  Yahweh is calling Israel into a deeper, more intimate relationship with Himself by way of a new relationship described in the Sinai Covenant (see verses 5-6).  It is a time of celebration as Yahweh “comes down” to reveal Himself more fully, more intimately and personally to the entire nation.

God is not angry with Israel.  He is not arriving to judge or to condemn a wayward people.  Not at all. Yahweh is giving Himself over to His chosen people, so that they may all enjoy deeper covenant fellowship together.  This is the beautiful “marriage ceremony,” if you will, between God and his chosen people!

Yet, as Yahweh appears atop Mt. Sinai,

“…there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled…Mt. Sinai was covered with smoke, because Yahweh descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently, and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder” (verses 16-19).

Yet, God is still not angry.  He is just showing up for the party.

Our heavenly Father is the Holy One, the One and Only God who was and is and is to come, Whose perfect ways are entirely beyond our fallible, frail, fallen human (in)ability to (mis)understand.

What can we do but fall down or tremble in awe and wonder to adore Him in His Holiness?

What else but to join in with the heavenly, six-winged seraphs who cry out,

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Isaiah 6:3)

Praise is Not the Same as Applause

I admit that I can be a bit quirky.  I am a news junky. I don’t eat bananas. And my wife teases me for nibbling chocolate chip cookies around the edges so as to maximize the number of chips left in the center.

Regular readers will find a lot of my personal quirks popping up in this blog.  So, if you think that my postings become an unusual stew of oddly mixed ingredients, well, you have been warned.

Some of my quirks are religious, and I want to talk about one of them today.  I happen to believe that when Christian people use Biblical vocabulary they ought to do their best to (1) understand the original Biblical sense of a word and (2) try to use that word accordingly, in ways that cohere with its Biblical meaning(s).

So, here is my pet-peeve for today: Praising God, whether in church or elsewhere, has nothing to do with raising your hands or giving God “applause,” as often happens in churches today.  If you attend a church

where the worship leader [another seriously misunderstood term, but that is for another day] concludes a song by shouting, “Give the Lord some more praise!”, and everyone understands that as code for another round of applause, then your song-leader doesn’t understand the Biblical meaning of praise.

The Old Testament book of Psalms defines praise as a public declaration of either (a) the greatness of God’s character and/or (b) the greatness of His actions/behavior. If a reader understands how to interpret the Hebrew poetic device called parallelism, even a casual reading of the Psalms will make this clear.

Here are two examples from Psalm 9:

Verse 1, I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart; 

                                   I will tell of all your wonders.

Verse 11, Sing praises to the LORD, enthroned in Zion;

                                  Proclaim among the nations what he has done.

The psalmist first tells the people to praise the Lord (first line), and he then defines what he means by that (second line). The Lord is praised whenever his people, individually or collectively, “tell of all his wonders and proclaim among the nations what he has done.”

Consequently, praising God can be risky business.

It is not just a matter of being careful that we don’t hit the person standing next to us in the head as we wave our hands.  Actually, praise has little if anything to do with lifting up our hands and everything to do with lifting up our voice in public.

Praising Jesus Christ requires stepping outside of your comfort zone and running the risk of being thought a fool for sharing your beliefs and experiences with someone else about how Jesus Christ has worked to save you, heal you, guide you, answer your prayers, worked miracles, and directed you into the service of others – especially when those others are people with whom you would not naturally associate.

Yes, we praise God the Creator when we openly marvel at the fantabulousness of creation, as we stare at a

 

sunset or hike in the Rocky Mountains.  But we also praise God the Redeemer when we explain the good news of Jesus Christ with someone who has yet to experience that salvation for themselves.  We praise God when explaining to a friend how the Lord Jesus has taken care of us in troubled times.

You can do this while sitting on your hands or stuffing them into your pockets, if you like.  Or, go ahead, lift them up and wave them about if that feels better to you.  But don’t forget that this is all window-dressing and ephemera when compared to the God-stories and exclamations that we share with others.

So, go out and praise the Lord Jesus today.  Tell someone new about all of his wonders and proclaim among the nations what he has done.