Timothy Stoner

A Necessary Tension

Posted on 17. Jun, 2009 by Tim Stoner in Christian Life, Christianity, Essays

Tension is Good: Being in and for but not of the world.

I am responding to some chapters entitled: “Holiness–Above and Apart” from Threshold of the Future, by Michael Riddell as well as and some chapters out of The Post-Evangelical, by Dave Tomlinson. I found these articles extremely stimulating and challenging. They provided me with the pretext I’ve needed to think carefully through the issue of how shall we then live in this post-modern world; a question my wife Patty and I have had to confront head-on these past few years as four of our children transitioned out of early adolescence into young adult-hood. With it came the need to help them navigate the perilous waters of following Jesus in a culture devoted to pleasing self. Patty and I come from a fundamentalist background which can be both help and hindrance in coming up with a biblically sane answer to: how shall one then live in the world?

The call of Riddell and Tomlinson to fearless engagement in the world is laudable. Though their intent is good, I believe their sidestepping of conflicting biblical material weakens their argument fatally. After spending perhaps an inordinate amount of time reflecting on Riddell’s thesis I think I understand pretty well what he is trying to accomplish and what he is attempting to avoid. I agree with what I think is his primary intent (to stimulate compassion for lost people and fearless involvement in their world to reach them with the love of Jesus). However, I disagree with how he gets there.

If I can distill my initial critique to a few sentences I would say this: I believe it is error to teach that we are to feel at home, “safe” in this world; i.e. that true holiness reduces the Christian’s tension in and with the world. According to the NT, our primary identity vis a vis the world remains “stranger”, “alien”, and the redemption/reconciliation accomplished through the Cross does not erase this fundamental distinction with its implicit and explicit dualism (cf. I Pet. 2:10,11–we are a chosen-out race, king-priests, a set-apart nation–called out of darkness into participation in his marvelous light…aliens and strangers–those who have settled down alongside of pagan people. Wuest Expanded Translation). St. Peter, I think gives us the biblically sane balance: driving your tent pegs down among pagans yet maintaining a distinct identity and a superceding loyalty as citizens of a kingdom that is of a different world.

Wuest’s rendition of I Pet. 1:17 is also very helpful: “… with a wholesome, serious caution order your behavior during the time of your residence as a foreigner [a citizen of a heavenly kingdom for the time being among the unsaved on this earth which is foreign territory governed by the god of this world.]” (With regard to this incontrovertible and critical tension which the Jesus follower cannot avoid, see also II Cor. 6:14f.)

Thus, Riddell’s assertion of a radical new identity brought about by the Cross as it relates to the believer in the world is grossly overstated. Riddell is too eager to distance himself and Jesus from their Jewish roots. I believe a biblical perspective would argue instead that Israel misunderstood her role as light to the world, not that the entire OT model was faulty and has been jettisoned by Jesus. Further, it is an ad homonym argument to assert that because a separatistic world-view has led some to isolationism it is contrary to the ethic of Jesus and severs the church’s missionary impetus.

A key Scripture which graphically displays the ongoing tension (”psychological pressure”–Riddell) of our condition as a distinct (holy) race, in the world while not of it, is found in II Pet. 2:7. “He rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men–for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard”. I would argue that a correct definition and experience of holiness will lead to a greater not a lesser “torturedness” or “distress”. Contrary to what Riddell implies, I would further contend that a greater love for sinners resulting in a deeper involvement in their lives would produce a greater grief over their sin, and a deeper repugnance at their sinful behavior while, at the same time, evoking greater compassion: “I hate the fact that your father abused you. I grieve over his sins against your innocence. My heart is broken for all the pain and confusion you’ve suffered, but you need to stop throwing your body around as though you are simply a trashy, sex-object. You can be freed from the burden of guilt, of shame and of your wrong responses to what was wrongfully done to you. You were sinned against but you are responsible for your sinful response to it.”

Acts 17:16 describes Paul’s reaction as he traversed the streets of Athens and took notice of the idols which infested that great city. It says that “his soul was exasperated beyond endurance,” (Phillips). The Amplified renders his reaction thusly: “his spirit was grieved and roused to anger.” Wuest is even stronger: “his spirit was constantly provoked and irritated in him, viewing with a critical eye the city which was full of idols.” That corresponds well with Lot’s inner turmoil as he struggled with the excruciating tension of being in Sodom but not of Sodom. These examples make it impossible for me to accept Riddell’s thesis that in order to be faithful disciples who fearlessly and compassionately love sinners we must cease viewing the world as a dangerous enemy. I disagree that since the world has been made clean to us by the Cross it is to be embraced as friend. I believe he confuses two very distinct entities: world and sinners. A biblical view of holiness requires that these be recognized as distinct.

Clearly Jesus loved sinners (who make up the world) but he was at war with the world and it with him. So far is the world from being regarded as a safe place, even by Jesus the friend of sinners, that in His final prayer He intercedes for our protection from it. Recognizing its extreme hostility to believers, and our great danger while in the world, Jesus asked that the Father not remove us from it but that while remaining in it, “protect them from the evil one.” (Jn. 17:15) Rather than jettisoning us–most intriguingly–Jesus states that He is sending us into the world just like the Father sent Him into the world. “And on behalf of them I am setting myself apart, in order that they themselves also, having been set apart to God in the sphere of the truth, may continually be in that state of consecration.” (Jn. 17:18-19-Wuest)

As a result of the teaching of their Rabbi, His followers concluded that “friendship with the world is hatred toward God.” (Jas.2:15). They warn the young disciples who have joined the new movement: “Do not love the world or anything in the world, for everything in the world: [lust, envy, pride] …comes not from the Father.” (I Jn. 2:15; see also, 3:10-11)

This is not an argument for culture bashing, culture-fleeing or culture-avoidance. These Scriptures are not to be understood as a basis for justifying fear and loathing of culture. What is to be rejected is not art, or music, or film or writing or dance, but that within culture that is in rebellion against God. None of the activities listed are in inherent opposition to our Lord, but are in fact, viable means for Him to communicate His glory to the world. They are also powerful vehicles for the blessing of humanity and the enriching of a creation that God tells us He still loves. Though fallen, it never ceased being “good”.

I further disagree with Riddel’s redefinition of holiness as exclusively positive: i.e. separation unto God. That is plainly indefensible from a biblical perspective, although it does have superficial attractiveness to ex-fundamentalists, like myself, who desire to be free of heavy-handed, confining, legalistic traditions. There are numerous Scriptures which disprove his thesis that an axiology based on the example of Jesus is opposed to the Jewish separatistic model of holiness.

While agreeing with the danger of isolation and fear-based attitudes it seems to me that Riddell shuts his eyes to the full biblical message in an attempt, on the one hand, to flatten out the intrinsic distinctiveness between believers and the world and then, on the other, drive a wedge between OT and NT conceptions of holiness. The message of the Scriptures is that holiness is both set apart for God and separate from all that pollutes body and soul. It is simply unbiblical to state that NT holiness no longer is concerned about contamination.

Take Paul for example, not only does he specifically admonish believers against contaminating influences (II Tim 2:19-21) he goes further to actually advocate separation (there’s that nasty word) from individuals, as well. He commands: “Stop being yoked to unbelievers in a common state of endeavor, for they are of a character different from and diametrically opposed to the state of a child of God. For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness….[and there's that explicit dichotomy again]. Wherefore (because God dwells in and among us and has called us His people and made us His Temple) we are to come out from their midst and separate ourselves at once and stop touching that which is unclean.” (II Cor 6:14f–Wuest.) In this passage St. Paul expands the circle of separation by advocating separation from all who claim to be believers but are living persistently, unrepentantly, sinful lives. “With such a man do not even eat.” (I Cor. 5:11). The contention that fear of pollution is antithetical to post-modern Christians is also disproved by this definition of true religion: “to look after the orphans and widows and keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (Jas. 1:27)

To counter Riddell’s assertions that holiness has nothing to do with anything we do (”it is identity not behavior”–his words), that we are no longer to waste energy worrying about worldly pollutants since the NT ethic has done away with the archaic OT fear of God, Paul goes on to exhort: “Let us cleanse ourselves from everything that contaminates and defiles body and spirit and bring our consecration (separation) to completeness in the reverent fear of God.” (II Cor. 7:1–Amp.) Clearly, Paul recognizes the duality of matter and spirit but instead of elevating the latter over the former–i.e. the spiritual is superior to the material (as Riddell contends separatists inevitably do), Paul warns that both need to be kept pure. And he bases this exhortation on the well-established OT motivation of reverential fear of God.

I do not believe that the ‘in and not of dilemma’ is resolved by simply sawing off the ‘not of’’ tuning peg at the opposite end of the guitar string. The only thing you have left by that expedient is a listless strand of flacid cat gut incapable of any musical resonance. The eradication of tension, though having a form of wisdom, is antithetical to the possibility of making beautiful music as well as to living a beautiful life. Jesus, the friend of sinners, who liked his drink and mutton such that he was disparaged as a “wine-bibber and glutton”, was also known as “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”.

Easing the inner turmoil–if such is advisable–of living in a rebellious world in which the Kingdom of God is both already and not yet (talk about tension!), in which we pray, “your will be done as it is in heaven” yet frequently observe Satan’s will being done as it is in Hell, can only be done on explicitly biblical terms. We must be wary of well-intentioned attempts to alter biblical categories, most particularly when these attempts flow so effortlessly along with the comfortable current of the prevalent zeitgeist.

I really do believe Riddell’s and Tomlinson’s intention is good. They want to warn against an extreme and legalistic perspective of separation which winds up isolating believers in a sanctified bunker erected with bricks of pride and the mortar of fear rendering them utterly irrelevant and useless. However, the enemy they are fighting is not the enemy we confront in most of the culture-current “(cutting-edge”) churches in America. They seem to me to be flailing at the wrong giant.

It seems patently obvious to me that the opposite extreme is where we should be launching our strongest attack. I find it extraordinarily perplexing that the foe who is making the greatest, most damaging inroads among us (most overtly among our youth)–the spirit of worldliness/lawlessness/compromise; antinomianism, call it what you will, is the one at which we seemingly turn a blind eye. Rather than flinging  stones against that enemy who subtly infiltrates our ranks under the pseudonym “tolerance” we tolerate it and give it permission to undermine conviction, courage and a radical commitment to righteousness. Rather than mustering the troops proclaiming an all-out holy war: “let us encourage each other to love and to external and internal holiness, let us not foster a climate which tolerates personal compromise, let’s commit to being vessels of honor set apart for the highest purposes”, instead, we thunder against the danger of intolerance. Something is dreadfully askew.

So, I make a plea for a fraternal, open and serious discussion on the issue of being holy in an unholy world. We could borrow a wiser man’s question and ask: “How shall we then live?”

Tags: holiness, separation