Thoughts on Holiness #3
So I was thinking today about the Kingdom themes listed above and if they adequately encompass what holiness is. Of course, being a good Wesleyan, I couldn't keep from listing all of the don'ts that we traditionally rally against, and I came to sexual purity. I looked on my list and it didn't seem like that area of our life--or the idea of purity in general--easily fit into these themes.
So as I am wondering why I left out such a central idea of tradtional Wesleyan holiness, I was hit with this epiphany: There is an paradigm or interpretive grid in which holiness in the last hundred years has been understood and articulated. It is the paradigm of purity. We have borrowed it from the Old Testament, attached the values of the early 1900's (in the last couple decades we have updated to the values of the 1950's), and that is how we define holiness. That God is Holy means he is pure and sinless and blameless and without blemish--like the sacrificial lamb.
That idea is true, but it is not necessarily "right"--as in the only understanding of God's Holiness. I think holiness for this generation requires a new paradigm. Rather than holiness as purity, I suggest we consider holiness as fidelity or faithfulness as our new dominant paradigm.
Here is what I like about understanding holiness in light of fidelity instead of purity:
* While purity is individualistic in nature, fidelity is relational in nature. You cannot be "faithful" by yourself. There has to be someone or something we are faithful to.
* While purity is a static state of being, fidelity is a dynamic state, much more context-dependant. Theoretically, one can be pure outside of context. Faithfulness must be re-determined in each moment--not just as an action, but as a belief. It allows for a holiness of the will. It isn't simply that you do it or don't do it--it is also why you do it or don't do it. The consequence, I believe, is that local communities will determine what holiness (as faithfulness) looks like in that context--and as that context changes, so can holiness.
* Purity focuses inward while fidelity gets our minds off of our selves and onto God and others. I am firmly convinced one key to holiness is self-forgetfulness. Learning that this life is not all about you--good or bad. You become more like God not by looking at yourself, but by looking at God.
* Fidelity would shape discussions on alcohol & tobacco in thier proper context--how do they affect our faithfulness to God, home, church, and society. That somehow gets lost in the purity paradigm and A&T becomes about what it does to "me" or what it says about "me" rather than what it does to "us." We would also finally be able to talk about moderation and addiction seperately. I believe addiction would actually take a higher place on our holiness priorities under a faithfulness paradigm because we could distinquish it from simple consumption and see it for the Lordship issue that it actually is.
* Finally, I think that holiness as fidelity is closer to a New Testament understanding of how God is holy. It is his faithfulness that is exemplified more than his purity. And we are called to be a faithful people. I am not suggesting that the idea of purity is not present, but it is not the interpretive grid through which holiness is understood in the NT.
This idea is less than a day old in my mind, so I hold to it tenatively for now.
So as I am wondering why I left out such a central idea of tradtional Wesleyan holiness, I was hit with this epiphany: There is an paradigm or interpretive grid in which holiness in the last hundred years has been understood and articulated. It is the paradigm of purity. We have borrowed it from the Old Testament, attached the values of the early 1900's (in the last couple decades we have updated to the values of the 1950's), and that is how we define holiness. That God is Holy means he is pure and sinless and blameless and without blemish--like the sacrificial lamb.
That idea is true, but it is not necessarily "right"--as in the only understanding of God's Holiness. I think holiness for this generation requires a new paradigm. Rather than holiness as purity, I suggest we consider holiness as fidelity or faithfulness as our new dominant paradigm.
Here is what I like about understanding holiness in light of fidelity instead of purity:
* While purity is individualistic in nature, fidelity is relational in nature. You cannot be "faithful" by yourself. There has to be someone or something we are faithful to.
* While purity is a static state of being, fidelity is a dynamic state, much more context-dependant. Theoretically, one can be pure outside of context. Faithfulness must be re-determined in each moment--not just as an action, but as a belief. It allows for a holiness of the will. It isn't simply that you do it or don't do it--it is also why you do it or don't do it. The consequence, I believe, is that local communities will determine what holiness (as faithfulness) looks like in that context--and as that context changes, so can holiness.
* Purity focuses inward while fidelity gets our minds off of our selves and onto God and others. I am firmly convinced one key to holiness is self-forgetfulness. Learning that this life is not all about you--good or bad. You become more like God not by looking at yourself, but by looking at God.
* Fidelity would shape discussions on alcohol & tobacco in thier proper context--how do they affect our faithfulness to God, home, church, and society. That somehow gets lost in the purity paradigm and A&T becomes about what it does to "me" or what it says about "me" rather than what it does to "us." We would also finally be able to talk about moderation and addiction seperately. I believe addiction would actually take a higher place on our holiness priorities under a faithfulness paradigm because we could distinquish it from simple consumption and see it for the Lordship issue that it actually is.
* Finally, I think that holiness as fidelity is closer to a New Testament understanding of how God is holy. It is his faithfulness that is exemplified more than his purity. And we are called to be a faithful people. I am not suggesting that the idea of purity is not present, but it is not the interpretive grid through which holiness is understood in the NT.
This idea is less than a day old in my mind, so I hold to it tenatively for now.
posted by ben price at 5:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home