I come from a Christian culture that defined “holiness” (being like God) as the ability to follow imperatives or rules. These were affirmed by the Christian story I was formed in, which of course was said to be BIBLICAL. I think the church is badly in need of (or perhaps it’s the church experience I came from), is badly in need of a re-definition of what constitutes “holiness”; but to get to this re-definition we need to begin at the beginning.
To be human is to be created in the image of God. Very few would argue with this statement, but many would argue with this next one: To be human is good!
If to be human is to be like God, then whatever causes us to be unlike God, i.e. all the sin ideas, is to de-humanize or de-image ourselves. I wonder if the most simple of definitions of “holiness” is: Whatever lifts up our true humanity – that is holy; and whatever diminishes our true humanity, or de-humanises us – that is unholy.
Where am I going with this? With this equation, whenever I judge, exclude, villainize or in any other way de-humanize another individual or group, I am participating in an unholy act. I am also diminishing and de-humanising myself in these acts. This gives me pause.
No wonder holiness has been difficult for us. It’s not because we are so unable to hold to our moral convictions; it’s because we have allowed our moral convictions to de-humanize.
And in those moral convictions where we have de-humanized ourselves, we have also de-humanized anyone else who doesn’t measure up to our standards. The effect is a trap, for when I de-humanize another, I am de-humanized. And in light of that, no wonder we have defined holiness as following a set of rules, because to be truly holy would require me letting go of all of my judgments and what I have been taught is biblical.
Sadly, I think a lot of my Theo (God) ology (thinking), with the very best of intention, led me into deeply unholy places. Because it allowed me to do other than love.