Eph 4:24 NRSV "and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."
I begin with this passage from Ephesians that speaks of the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Here are a couple of observations about this passage. First, when Paul mentions TRUE righteousness and holiness, he is suggesting that there is FALSE righteousness and holiness. Secondly, he mentions in the likeness of God. Since John stated in his first epistle that God is love/agape, then TRUE righteousness and holiness, is centered in love/agape.
I think it is instructive to also cite a passage for Paul in Romans. Rom 10:2-3 NRSV "I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. (3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness." Here we are allowed a glimpse of false righteousness and holiness. It is indeed self righteousness and self imposed holiness. Herein lies the erroneous damage that is perpetuated by the holiness movement. I think it is important in this instance to name names. From my experience, the groups that are most guilty of this are the Church of God in Christ (COGIC,) and the many independent assemblies that have broken off from this movement for one reason or another. The Church of God, the Assemblies of God, Full Gospel Churches, and the Oneness Pentecostals are very similar and equally damaging. All of these denominations insist on self righteousness and self holiness.
The above mentioned denominations are the most cult like. They all tend to add to the gospel of grace by demanding that behavior and adherence to regulations are proof of real conversion. In one way or another all of the above groups actively promote spiritual abuse. I have heard stories of individuals who as children were severely beaten because they did not properly embrace the hard legalistic line of these churches. They operate mostly on fear and shame. If one does not line up completely with what they deem to be scriptural mandate they are shamed, shun, or punished in some way. For the most part, they give lip service to love because they know that it is a command but in reality have no conception of what love is especially agape, the love of God.
Moreover, these denominations erroneously interpret scripture in the most literal terms. They operate with the premise that the bible was written precisely to them and their current culture and generation, and are not interested at all in historical, grammatical, or cultural context. The truth of the matter could not be more different than this. Further, they look at the scripture in the most legal, constitutional way and see it as a life manual that must always be obeyed to the literal letter. The wooden operational manual approach to scripture was not taught at all by the first century followers of Christ. As I continue in this vane over other posts I will include denominations and assemblies that do not embrace the spiritual aspects of Pentecostalism yet demand strict adherence to the literal aspect of scripture because of their stance they call Lordship. These assemblies are equally damaging.
Back to the holiness movement. I have heard of an assembly that ended up shunning their pastor of many years because he got cancer and they claimed that he gave into it because of lack of faith. In otherwords, he admitted the diagnosis, and thereby doomed himself to cancer. One could write an entire book with stories like this. It is common for people to be blamed for illness because of lack of faith. This exemplifies how sinister the holiness movement can be, and how abusive it is toward its adherents.
Let's take a minute to unpack true righteousness and holiness. We know from the multitude of Paul's writings that it is not self righteousness. First off, there is a connotation that is used mostly within evangelical Christianity to the word holy/holiness that is not compatible with the meaning of holy/qadosh. In the Old Testament; the Jewish meaning was set apart for a special purpose. God wanted Israel to be a people set apart unto Him and separated from the rest of the world. It did not mean pious or having piety. So holy would mean set apart and not obedient to law. In fact, God told the Israelites that obeying the commandments would be righteousness to them not their holiness. Further, there is a direct relationship between holy and sanctified. To Israel under the Old Covenant sanctification was ritual washing again set apart for a purpose.
Since most of the apostles of the first century were Jewish, and all who wrote the letters of the New Testament were Jewish, one can safely assume that they held to the Jewish meaning of holy when they used it in their writings. This completely negates the use of the holiness church in their meaning of holy. The see it as super pious and obedient, and quite frankly they are just plain wrong! While I admit that some of the use of holy in the New Testament was meant to set apart the behavior of the saints from the rest of the world, they did not mean to use it in a legal constitutional way. They meant for it to be understood in light of grace being the transforming force that produces love in each individual based on total forgiveness and acceptance of them by God, and that Jesus redeemed them from all... past, present, and future sin once for all time.
The first century saints were set apart by the gospel message that was proclaimed often too them as they assembled. They strove to be more godly based on their understanding of forgiveness and grace and not on the understanding of commandments and law. While the commandments and law were informative of godliness it was never used as a measure of their salvation, redemption and reconcillation. I am convinced that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the law of sin and death written about by Paul in Romans eight was the same law with a different application. It was the law of sin and death because of the weakness of flesh when viewing Deut 6:25 righteousness, and it was the law of the Spirit of life when viewed with a Romans 8:1 understanding.
Let me emphasize... you cannot beat righteousness/holiness into someone, you cannot shame someone into being righteous/holy, and you cannot shun someone to make them righteous/holy. You can only proclaim the gospel of God's grace over and over often, and allow the gospel message used by the Holy Spirit to cause love for God to well up in the individual, and this anointed love will cause a person to want to be ever and ever more godly. To be successful, it requires a community to practice this and the holiness movement has failed miserably, and instead has had the opposite effect.
Let's take a minute to unpack true righteousness and holiness. We know from the multitude of Paul's writings that it is not self righteousness. First off, there is a connotation that is used mostly within evangelical Christianity to the word holy/holiness that is not compatible with the meaning of holy/qadosh. In the Old Testament; the Jewish meaning was set apart for a special purpose. God wanted Israel to be a people set apart unto Him and separated from the rest of the world. It did not mean pious or having piety. So holy would mean set apart and not obedient to law. In fact, God told the Israelites that obeying the commandments would be righteousness to them not their holiness. Further, there is a direct relationship between holy and sanctified. To Israel under the Old Covenant sanctification was ritual washing again set apart for a purpose.
Since most of the apostles of the first century were Jewish, and all who wrote the letters of the New Testament were Jewish, one can safely assume that they held to the Jewish meaning of holy when they used it in their writings. This completely negates the use of the holiness church in their meaning of holy. The see it as super pious and obedient, and quite frankly they are just plain wrong! While I admit that some of the use of holy in the New Testament was meant to set apart the behavior of the saints from the rest of the world, they did not mean to use it in a legal constitutional way. They meant for it to be understood in light of grace being the transforming force that produces love in each individual based on total forgiveness and acceptance of them by God, and that Jesus redeemed them from all... past, present, and future sin once for all time.
The first century saints were set apart by the gospel message that was proclaimed often too them as they assembled. They strove to be more godly based on their understanding of forgiveness and grace and not on the understanding of commandments and law. While the commandments and law were informative of godliness it was never used as a measure of their salvation, redemption and reconcillation. I am convinced that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the law of sin and death written about by Paul in Romans eight was the same law with a different application. It was the law of sin and death because of the weakness of flesh when viewing Deut 6:25 righteousness, and it was the law of the Spirit of life when viewed with a Romans 8:1 understanding.
Let me emphasize... you cannot beat righteousness/holiness into someone, you cannot shame someone into being righteous/holy, and you cannot shun someone to make them righteous/holy. You can only proclaim the gospel of God's grace over and over often, and allow the gospel message used by the Holy Spirit to cause love for God to well up in the individual, and this anointed love will cause a person to want to be ever and ever more godly. To be successful, it requires a community to practice this and the holiness movement has failed miserably, and instead has had the opposite effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment