Thoughts on Holiness #2
In the Wesleyan church there are about a half dozen or so defacto rules that become our benchmarks for both membership and holiness.
I think there are two big reasons: one, the hijacking of Evangelicalism by the Republican Party and the Religious Right. Really though, I think they seized a trend that was present long before Pat Robertson ever opened his mouth. The combination of an Ardent Natoinalism in the 19th century (all over the western world) exemplified by European colonialism and the US's manifest destiny, and later the evangelical emphasis on personal salvation as being primarily about heaven and hell. When we stopped talking about the Kingdom of God on this earth, it is no wonder that Evangelical loyalties shifted to another kingdom, the laissez-faire, conservative one.
The other reason I think this happens, and has happened throughout church history--though with different issues--is that we have used these issues as boundary markers for who is in and who is out. The thing about markers is that there cannot be too many or it is too hard to sort the "ins" and the "outs." That is why the Sneetches were only concerned about stars on their bellies--they had to keep it simple to keep it straight. So that is what we do, we pick a couple positions that are "non-negotiables" in our minds and use those. This is nothing new since Constantine. What has changed are the issues. And this is where I am calling for a shift in the tone of the conversation.
I am no longer interested in arguing that my set of boundary markers are better suited than anothers. The Pharisees spent all of their time talking about boundary markers; Jesus just kept saying, "walk with me." I like that.
"But how do we know who is in and who is out?" the unified holiness voice screams! I don't know--and they don't really know either. So they create boundaries that make sense to them, all the while Jesus seems to think we are spending too much time thinking about it. That is my problem with "membership requirements" or holiness as we currently understand it--it seems that there are only three options: either throw everything in including the kitchen sink (Pharisees) and overburden everyone, or only use things that would be common to all believers (then whats the point of membership?), or arbitrarily pick certain boundaries and leave others out. When this option is chosen the boundaries that are picked are based on the Bible and Tradition, but perhaps as much as anything they are picked because of the culture in which they are written.
That is why we don't have a membership requirement in the Wesleyan church that prohibits owning slaves--it isn't an issue in our culture anymore. But then cultures change, and the boundaries do not change quickly enough to speak relavently to the new culture. So now we have boundaries that no longer make sense to most of the culture (dancing, cards, etc), and we don't have boundaries in places that would really speak to our culture (ie internet abuse and coffee drinking ).
The mistake we have made is that these "principles" have become absolutes(not for salvation, we would say, but belonging)--and in so have become our Lords. They have become so important to us that questioning them becomes the spiritual equivalent of treason.
That is why re-thinking the way we see and talk about holiness is so important right now. Not so we simply replace these principles with new and improved ones, but so we can step out of this cycle of boundary making and spend that time and energy working on and living in the kingdom themes I mentioned above.
I think there are two big reasons: one, the hijacking of Evangelicalism by the Republican Party and the Religious Right. Really though, I think they seized a trend that was present long before Pat Robertson ever opened his mouth. The combination of an Ardent Natoinalism in the 19th century (all over the western world) exemplified by European colonialism and the US's manifest destiny, and later the evangelical emphasis on personal salvation as being primarily about heaven and hell. When we stopped talking about the Kingdom of God on this earth, it is no wonder that Evangelical loyalties shifted to another kingdom, the laissez-faire, conservative one.
The other reason I think this happens, and has happened throughout church history--though with different issues--is that we have used these issues as boundary markers for who is in and who is out. The thing about markers is that there cannot be too many or it is too hard to sort the "ins" and the "outs." That is why the Sneetches were only concerned about stars on their bellies--they had to keep it simple to keep it straight. So that is what we do, we pick a couple positions that are "non-negotiables" in our minds and use those. This is nothing new since Constantine. What has changed are the issues. And this is where I am calling for a shift in the tone of the conversation.
I am no longer interested in arguing that my set of boundary markers are better suited than anothers. The Pharisees spent all of their time talking about boundary markers; Jesus just kept saying, "walk with me." I like that.
"But how do we know who is in and who is out?" the unified holiness voice screams! I don't know--and they don't really know either. So they create boundaries that make sense to them, all the while Jesus seems to think we are spending too much time thinking about it. That is my problem with "membership requirements" or holiness as we currently understand it--it seems that there are only three options: either throw everything in including the kitchen sink (Pharisees) and overburden everyone, or only use things that would be common to all believers (then whats the point of membership?), or arbitrarily pick certain boundaries and leave others out. When this option is chosen the boundaries that are picked are based on the Bible and Tradition, but perhaps as much as anything they are picked because of the culture in which they are written.
That is why we don't have a membership requirement in the Wesleyan church that prohibits owning slaves--it isn't an issue in our culture anymore. But then cultures change, and the boundaries do not change quickly enough to speak relavently to the new culture. So now we have boundaries that no longer make sense to most of the culture (dancing, cards, etc), and we don't have boundaries in places that would really speak to our culture (ie internet abuse and coffee drinking ).
The mistake we have made is that these "principles" have become absolutes(not for salvation, we would say, but belonging)--and in so have become our Lords. They have become so important to us that questioning them becomes the spiritual equivalent of treason.
That is why re-thinking the way we see and talk about holiness is so important right now. Not so we simply replace these principles with new and improved ones, but so we can step out of this cycle of boundary making and spend that time and energy working on and living in the kingdom themes I mentioned above.
posted by ben price at 5:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home