Friends,
Since no one else is posting today, I thought perhaps I would share a quote with you that is most interesting. Jacques Ellul’s book The Subversion of Christianity is making a strong case for how the church has not properly engaged culture but has, rather, baptized pagan practices, called them Sacred, and continued on without nary another word. In other words, the church has really failed to engage the real heart of the matter which is spiritual. This quote is from his chapter titled Moralism. In this chapter he is arguing that Christians have substituted a bland moralism for the Gospel revelation of Christ (”The perversion, then, was that of making the gospel into law in order to respond to the challenge offered to revelation by the successive outbursts of immorality and ethical disorder.”, 89) I cannot tell you how important this chapter is, and I wish I could type the entire chapter in for you to read. I can’t say I’m on board with all he says, but I am on board with this quote. Here he is, using the example of ‘anti-feminism’ in the church, to make his case that the church has used poor substitutes in its syncretism of the culture. Consider:
I do not deny that government must make laws or that we need police and the courts. I am simply saying that this is a makeshift that enables us to dam up the evil but that never solves anything. What happened was that Christians and the church adopted this attitude and took this course. All evangelical teaching is against it. What one might have expected of Christians and the church is that they would have replaced false love with the true love that comes from God, that they would have substituted the agape that serves for the eros of the Greeks, that they would have put the spirit of service in place of the spirit of domination, that they would have rejected punctilious legalism in favor of an open and supple human relationship, that they would have boosted the personal in place of the social, that they would have exalted personal appreciation in place of valid rules, that they would have looked on the heart rather than external conduct, that they would have checked sexual disorder by the triumph of true love between men and women, that they would have maintained everywhere a living flexibility in place of the rigidity of order; in short, that even at the cost of unavoidable sacrifices and sufferings they would have embodied and maintained feminine values in the bosom of this kind of society…In itself the gospel is good news; it is grace, joy, freedom, and love; in human relationships it means flexibility, finesse, concern for the little, the protection of the weak, and openness. Its transformation into a morality of duty and judgment, provoked by the immorality of surrounding society, and regarded as the only possible result and response–this is what led to the exclusion of women from their place and vocation, their rejection from circles of responsibility. Men were the ones who carried out this operation, who tried to protect the group in this way, as though they were threatened by violent military aggression.” (92-93)
There’s more to it than meets the eye and, to be sure, some terminology should be better defined. Still, at face value I think we can see that from Ellul’s point of view, we have made a poor substitution. So I ask you this question: Is he right? Should more, as in better, have been expected of the church? How have we failed? How can this problem be fixed? Are we the ones to do it?
Soli Deo Gloria!
40 Comments(+Add)
Ellul??
Prove my point again.
http://solascripturapprovedworkman.blogspot.com/2008/07/july-15the-feast-of-deconstruction.html
http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/ellul.php
The problem at-large is the confusion of the monolith which claims to be the church, and the true church.
Ellul promotes a worldly social order not the kingdom of God.
My first question is how does he define “feminine values”.
Off the top of my head the Bible says God is a God of order, not “flexibility”.
Paul says laws are for law breakers. (1 Tim 1:9).
Women’s role in the church comes primarily from Pauline and Petrine doctrine and Jesus’ lack of choosing any women as Apostles. God chose men. Subsequent church hierachies did not limit men for leadership roles over other men in a moral or Scriptural vacuum.
His reasoning seems to be off here. Where does he consisder working out “Be Holy for I am Holy”. A morality of “duty” and “judgement” based on the exclusion of women from their place and vocation seems far too wide a stretch. And again how des he define feminine values?
how do you define “holy”?
I’m picking up on this simply because it is in my mind. I’m too tired and not with it to think or talk about the rest at the moment.
“Be Holy for I am Holy.” – We are to be like God because of who God is. We can do this because we are in Christ. We do not behave properly because we are supposed to (although we are supposed to). We do not act right for fear of punishment (although there should be a respectful fear of God). We live holy lives because we are in Christ. We love God and love others because God first loved us.
Sorry, I just needed to follow that line of thought.
John,
To be sure, this has nothing to do with the roles of women in the church.
jerry
Holiness is the one attribute about which we have nothing to compare. We can show mercy; we can show love; we can show grace; all of course in finite ways, but still a semblemce.
But holiness is is the complete absence of evil coupled with the complete presence of good. That, my friends, cannot be understaood by a man who is always accompanied by evil with some short bouts of limited good.
Considering my study in cross-cultural communication of the Gospel I become suspicious when any accuses the church of “baptized pagan practices.”
On the other hand most ODM become suspicious if someone advocates being relevant.
I read the paragraph and wondered if I understood him. Would someone serious paraphrase it? And maybe give an example?
Neil
huh…interesting definitions of “holiness”.
Left me scratchin’ my head…..but then I’m just a simple man.
Scotty,
I think I folloewed him, but I’m not sure… that’s why I asked for a serious paraphrase.
Neil
Rick,
I think your definition of holiness is incongruent with the biblical authors very real expectations for christians to be holy. What you are talking about may be descriptive of God’s holiness and the ideal, but it does not follow that we can’t be holy.
We are holy because God is Holy, and we’re remade in to the image of Jesus because we have come to the Cross. When we’re told we must be holy because God is holy, it’s a two-fold statement: We’re already holy because He’s made us so, and we’re to strive for holiness as well, that is, to be more like God in our life.
Joe
My pont was that holiness is the attribute of God that we can least understand. When God says, “Be ye holy as I am holy” what does that mean if not pursuing to becaome imitators of Christ?
We know how to exhibit love, mercy, grace, patience, but how do we “exhibit” holiness? Since we do not have a good understanding of true holiness, how can we display it in our lives? Is it not sinning? Is it feeding the poor? I believe holiness is completely imputed and its working in us is a mystery.
I think I understand what you’re saying. I’m thinking that yes, we’re holy because it’s given to us at the Cross by God, and that also it could very well be a mystery as to how we ‘act’ holy by God living in us. I think really it just comes down to emulating the Character of Christ more and more.
Joe
Rick, sort of in line with Joe saying being holy is emulating the character of Christ, exhibiting love, mercy, grace, patience and all the other attributes of God is being holy.
I think to make “moral righteousness” the essential content of holiness is a mistake and a misunderstanding of the priestly cosmology that generated the “holiness codes” of the OT…
I’m not saying that moral righteousness isn’t a thing that can evince God’s holiness…but it’s a real mistake to equate the two.
To do so means that the “3x holy” God is just a pretty poetic way to say that God is just a really big perfectly behaved being.
Holiness, I believe, means so much more in the texts and the insistence to move immediately to a moral/ethical definition doesn’t do justice to the being and person of God.
I think you’re right nc. It’s not just moralism. It’s not just God being perfect as He is. It’s more than that, all encompassing. Something of a mystery even.
No one can quantify the awesome holiness of God!!
Boom goes the thunder outside my window…maybe I said something heretical!?
I mean…holiness….what else could cause men to fall as if dead at the sight of God before them? What else could cause men to cry out in reverent fear and disgust in themselves at the mere prescense of God? What else could pang our hearts and scream to us “I love you” and draw us closer and closer to Him, other than the holiness of God? What is holiness??
It’s a pretty radical thing to me, if you think about it.
I think to emphasize the moral righteousness of God with respect to holiness puts the cart before the horse…
What do you mean nc, can you explain? I’m not saying I disagree, just a bit confused as to what you’re getting at. Thanks
Joe
Actually it is somewhat incongruous and “out of the divine element” to suggest a “moral” righteousness. From our perspective it is moral, from God’s perspective He just IS.
Morality cannot be adequately defined apart from immorality, so in that God is just holy which is exclusively a divine quality which can only be GIVEN to any other creature. A fallen sinner can love, can show mercy, can feed the poor, but holiness must be imputed to him since he has none.
Agreed, but you’re using ‘holiness’ to only mean perfection (I think?). This is not the limit of what holiness is, in my understanding that is.
Neil, I was agreeing with in your comment in #10
Amen!
Scotty,
That’s how I took it. I didn’t mean to imply that your response was not serious – I included the modifier so try and discourage snide (let’s leave it at that) remarks.
Neil
Full disclosure:
I’m writing my graduate thesis on “holiness” this whole next year…
I guess what I’m trying to say Joe C is that holiness is fundamentally about God’s distinctive, radically distinctive/different, being.
When we say God is holy and really intend to mean God is perfectly righteous we are really talking about what God does…
God’s moral righteousness, ethical perfection etc. etc. is only known by us performatively (i.e. what God does)
So God’s manifested ethical/moral perfection points to a God who is categorically beyond categories (ironically).
the point is not the moral perfection, but that radical difference that that perfection can evince.
All our talk about God’s holiness always seems to default to those categories and I think it fundamentally misses the point of what the term holiness is really getting at with God.
Another thing…God is the Holy of of Israel. That means God’s holiness is performed for another and on their behalf. (I know, I know, the Calvinists are going to LOOOOVE that.)
If we understand these things…we’ll see that the call to holiness to people is not a call to a private standard of moral behavior –as the legalists do today.
It is the call to witness to God’s own radical distinction and how that distinctiveness benefits others.
The holiness of Israel was meant as a witness. That holiness was manifested by a variety of codes that covered a wide variety of concerns that bound the community together.
This is a real ham-handed run down, but my point is that there is a load of stuff happening around “holiness” and we really miss most of it.
For the record:
I believe Rick is right insofar as that The Holy one bestows holiness and/or declares our holiness.
nc – Just to pull it apart a little bit more, I believe holiness is the essence of God as far as “essence” applies to Him. It is the foundation from which all His attributes and actions emanate. The same for us, why are our good deeds counted favorably for us after conversion as opposed to when we were lost? Because those deeds come from our imputed holiness the arbitor of that holiness being the Holy Spirit Himself.
Why did God send the Holy Spirit to inhabit believers? It is thge only way we can be imitators of God. Two men, one saved and one lost, help two old ladies across the street. The believer’s act of kindness draws God’s favor because it has the power of the Holy Spirit in it, the lost man’s deed contains no benefit since nothing can be approved of God that is unholy.
And as we’ve all agreed, this holiness is completely imputed by grace and we are commanded to cooperate with this holy grace.
A central aspect of the admittedly robust definition of holiness (being set apart unto God) is a “rightness of behavior” in both our flesh and spirit.
This “rightness” would logically have to be defined by the righteous requirements of God’s revealed law. As Rick has alluded to there are at least two main aspects of holiness: i.e., the positional sanctification the believer has in Christ [Christ’s merits imputed to him] and the working out of that imputed holiness in one’s everyday walk. Therefore, any approach to the understanding of sanctification/holiness must be undertaken in understanding at least these two aspects. Believers are declared to be absolutely holy [a judicial rendering] as they stand in the merits of Christ.
But we are also commanded to work this out experientially (Ref. 2 Cor 7:1 and 1 Peter 1:16) Further, the admonition to be holy for God is holy is given the context of behavior, not position:
Just because there is [justifiable] disagreement over just what constitutes “holy behavior” does not excuse one to ignore the pursuit of experiential holiness.
Good points, John. very good. I would suggest that our sanctified behavior is not holiness, it is a result of the power of our imputed holiness. God says “I am holy” and the writing of the High Priest headpiece said “Holiness Unto the Lord”
The ark of the covenant rested in the Holy of Holy because the presence of God dwelt there. So the presence of God rests in every believer today, and we are to rend the veil of ourselves and allow the life of Christ to shine forth.
Holiness – every definition we have falls woefully short.
huh…
All I hear in your discussion of holiness is really the same problem:
I don’t think you’re wrong…it’s just that effectively you’re making Holiness a synonym for righteousness.
They’re not the same thing.
What I mean about “not being wrong” is that I don’t think it’s wrong to understand “righteousness” as a way to evince holiness…
what I’m worried about is the effective conflation of the two…
holy behavior in all its forms is meant to evince the radical distinctiveness of God.
.
I fully agree.
I agree, but they are interwoven and I prefenced my comments that holiness is certainly a robust concept.
nc-
that is a thesis I would enjoy reading. I like where you are going with your summary of thoughts.
keep me posted, please.
NC: Also, the Biblical references to holiness in regards to behavior are too copious and central to the Biblical narrative for any sincere reader to minimize at the expense of the Scripture’s teachings on positional holiness. (Not that you are doing that).
I understand and appreciate that you are explaining the “why” behind the admonition.
I appreciate everyone hearing me out on this…
My thing is that it is too easy, when confronted with the totalizing Presence of God and all that that means we move too quickly to “what should I do”…”we must do something”…and run around like chicken’s with our heads cut off.
We don’t sit under the weight of God’s being (glory) but move to really domesticate it (HA!!!) by alot of “right sounding” and “righteous” action.
It’s too easy to argue about each other’s behaviors when we haven’t been overwhelmed by the being of God.
nc – an incredibly insightful and deep comment. You have put your finger on one of the fast food problems with western Christianity.
We attempt to provide God the space He deserves in our well rounded and fast paced lifestyles. Apparently we haven’t figured out that we should seek to be in His space, not give Him a seat in ours.
Again, a great comment.