Jesus Christ is the light of the world. And in the light, there is no possibility for darkness to be present. In the same way, sin cannot exist in perfect love. To be holy, or free from sin, is to love. However, when I try to wrap my mind around these concepts, I find that the way that holiness and love relate to one another seems slippery. In the same way that it is difficult to grasp that God is light and truth and love and the Word and life all at the same time, I find it difficult to relate purity, obedience, sacrifice, and love.
In the Scriptures that Oord and Lodahl present, it seems as though holiness is rather a preparation for love than love itself. For instance, when interacting with 1 Peter 1:2, which says that God’s people have been sanctified to be obedient, it seems that sanctification and obedience can’t be the same thing. It seems as though sanctification is preparation for obedience to take place. So the question is, where does love fall? Is love in the sanctification or the obedience? Is love the spirit that must exist before action can take place, or is love the action which results from a pure heart? Or is it all love? Love is both? Is there a sequence, or is it all enmeshed in one big overlap?
The mistake of the academic is to force sequence and categories where there should be unity. Though that should be resisted, there still remains the question of neutrality in this relationship between sin, holiness and love. Can love be a neutral state? If one is without sin, is one automatically consumed by love? Or is a lack of sin just fertile ground for love to take place? The comparison of love and sin to light and darkness suggests no neutrality. No middle ground between light and dark exists.
Dr. Phil has said that a person cannot just quit a bad habit, it must be replaced with a good one. Television caricature or not, the concept seems to be common sense. Oord and Lodahl would affirm this, with their assertion that “love excludes sin.” To make the relationship between all these ideas that simple is to create a broader concept of love than ever before. If love and sin are mutually exclusive, freedom is given for an individual to be living “in love” while performing even the most mundane of tasks. More love can abound than emotion or action, love becomes life.
Is it fair to abandon the idea of sequence in sin, purity, holiness and love? From a textual and academic standpoint, perhaps not. But living as disciples of Christ and practitioners of the gospel, there is no other way to pursue any of these concepts without making them the same.
Amanda I really enjoyed your paper. You bring up some very unique thoughts as far as sequencing the above states (Sin purity, holiness etc.) In response I can only speak from what I've experienced on my own journey. Every time I attempt ANY sort of sequence I find myself directly placed in the "Slide model" mentioned in the book rather than the "Adventure model." The minute I release my idea of how this sanctification is gonna go down and begin to just simply love is the minute that this life turns from "Impossibly taxing" to "refreshingly challenging." The sounds of life begin to turn from monologue to symphony. From backsliding to adventuring!
ReplyDeleteLike Robby, I remember my "quest for holiness" looking like the "slide model" when I tried to be "holy" for the sake of personal piety, parental approval, or even personal gain sometimes. However, when we focus on the RELATIONSHIP that leads us to holiness, it's a much more beautiful picture of being on a journey towards Holiness together and for each other rather than any kind of personal measuring stick for our religiosity.
ReplyDelete