Holy Crap

Anyone who follows the Reformed branch of Christianity knows that one of the things we really pride themselves on is our high view of the Holiness of God.  We often act as if this is what separates the real Christians, the holy ones, from the nominal Christians, those who are just like the world.  I would like to consider a few points on this subject though.

 Unapproachableness; the state of separation from, and elevation above, things common, profane, or sensual, first in a physical and external, and later in a spiritual, sense; moral purity and perfection incapable of sin and wrong. -The Jewish Encyclopedia

I don't think that I will get any major objections when I point out that the standard Christian view of holiness has no deep differences from the Jewish understanding of holiness.  Holiness means being separate, usually in the sense of moral superiority, from the world.  It is the division of the Universe into Him and Us and is usually developed in such a way that we find a way to be on His side against everyone else.

⁴⁴ For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. ⁴⁵ For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. Leviticus 11

Fully accepting the oneness of God is to accept that He is distinct from everything else. It would not suit God’s majesty and glory to associate the limited attributes of His creation to Him because He is not restricted in any way, while His creation is. He is the First with no beginning and the Last with no end. Everything in the universe was created by His will. He is not confined by space or time and He is the only One who is in control and provides for His creation. -from Whyislam.org

This concept is identical to what is known in Islam as Tawhid, or the Oneness(Uniqueness) of God.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Muslims, the Mormons, and the Charismatics have generally gone much farther in behaving morally, and separating themselves from the world, than we ever have or probably ever will.   I submit that this is not because of superior moral effort but because Christianity has always had, and generally hid, deep suspicions about this sort of holiness.  Why have we hid our misgivings?  Because such a concept of holiness is obviously true.  It is clear that God is very different from us and the desire to be on His side is congenital, especially when paired with a fear of judgment for those who fail in this task.  But what is the source of our misgivings?

¹⁰ Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. ¹¹ And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
¹² When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. ¹³ But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matthew 9

 ¹⁹ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”Matthew 11

I can't help but think that it is because of the almost complete lack of holiness teaching in the teachings of Christ and in the Four Gospels.  Almost without exception, in the Four Gospels the word "Holy" is used as part of a name, generally "Holy Spirit" or "Holy One of God" or "the holy angels".  There is almost no unambiguous teaching on holiness in the Gospels.  What we do find are very paradoxical hints about holiness such as those quoted above from Matthew.  Our view of holiness is that God is separate from Creation and especially from sinners.  But the "Holy One of God" is typically found to be very at home in their company.  Christ, quite deliberately, reversed the paradigm.  He snubbed the religious and preferred the sinners.  He clearly taught that God, both personally and officially, preferred the Sinners, the Last, the Least, the Lost.  I said above that traditional holiness teaching, of whatever flavor, is obviously true.  It is.  But this teaching misses half of the point, and I have to say it misses the bigger half.

  I have no objection to teaching the God of Philosophy.  I have no objection to teaching God as He appears to us in the Scriptures.  But I require that both of these teachings submit themselves to God as revealed in the teaching and practice of Jesus Christ.  It is not just we who are fallen, the whole creation is subjected to futility, and that includes reason and logic.  I will not say with Luther that, "Reason is the Devil's whore.", rather Reason has been to us a faithful companion and has fallen even as we fell.  Which means that not only are our ideas about who and what God is going to be wrong most of the time, but that they will be wrong in ways that we cannot explain or understand.  In fact, where we are most sure we are right is where we will be most wrong.  But we continue on, trying to shove Christ into our ideas of what God is like, rather than letting our ideas of what God is like be informed by the revelation of His Express Image.

While we are working so hard to maintain the transcendence of God, we forget the way in which He transcends us the most-His immanence.  The holiness of God in Christ is greater than the holiness of God qua god.  The glory of God is best seen and best understood in the glory of the Only Begotten-full of Grace and Truth, that is Immanuel.  If that is true then what we really need to see in this world is not a Glorified Holiness such as we imagine, but a Militant Holiness such as Jesus Himself practiced.  What does that mean?  It means that holiness is not separate from the world, it is in the ditch with us.  It not only parties with the drunks and loves the hookers, it gives the drunks something to celebrate and the hookers someone who loves them.  It isn't concerned with its own holiness but with making the unholy holy.  It has been well said that cleaning is the task of transferring dirt from the thing being cleaned to the one doing the cleaning and that is certainly true here.  Cleaning us is a job that made God Himself sin(noun not a verb as in "He became sin who knew no sin.).

And that is a nice theology, but here's the rub.  What does that say about sanctification, about personal holiness, about a relationship with Christ?  It at least suggests that such things have nothing to do with an advancement in moral living.  If we begin to live more moral lives as a result of being with Jesus, and based on the lives of the Twelve Apostles we could certainly make a case that we don't, it is at most a side effect, an unintended and possibly undesirable side effect.  Then what does being more like Jesus mean?  What does it mean to be closer to God?  It doesn't seem to have anything to do with being approved of and liked by the religious.  In fact, it involves deliberately pissing them off and doing things that they consider sinful, sometimes just to make the point that you can.  It involves drinking enough wine that fair minded people don't hesitate to call you a drunk.  It involves considering almost all charitable activities hypocritical shows that God despises.  I am simply describing the man you say you want to be more like.  If this doesn't sound like something you want to do, then you are right.  You won't like it.  I don't like it.  It is called a cross for a reason.  It is even a foolish and offensive cross.  I am not going to try and make a case for living this way, or try and make it more palatable.  All I am saying is that it is the way Jesus lived, and it is the only kind of holiness that we will ever see in this world.