THE BALANCE IN CHRISTIAN HOLINESS BETWEEN LIKENESS AND UNLIKENESS TO GOD

Richard S. Taylor

Nazarene Theological Seminary

When the catechism answers the question, "What is the chief end of man? " by the proposition, "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever," we may rightfully ask: Glorify Him by what means and enjoy Him in what way? It is possible to glorify God by words of praise. We must everlastingly promote this; but we must just as everlastingly insist that God is glorified most of all by likeness to Himself. Tributes without likeness constitute the most shameful dishonor.

Also, we may fall short in developing the right concept of enjoyment. It is possible to enjoy God as the philosopher's object of thought. It is possible to enjoy Him as an admiring subject rejoices in the security of a great and beneficent king. The enjoyment which must be seen as man's supreme good is the enjoyment of fellowship. This involves oneness, love and communion that delightful companionship between friends who know and trust each other well enough to be mutually at ease. In such fellowship is at once perfect bond and perfect freedom.

This was Adam's highest privilege in the garden; its loss was the supreme calamity of the fall. From this rupture of personal relationship came all other evils suffered by man. Note the primitive impulse to hide from God. When "they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:" the guilty pair "hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden" (Gen. 3:8, KJV). Thus began the long night of loneliness and estrangement. For the loss of fellowship with God is the loss of life's meaning and value. Human existence becomes a frantic quest for substitute values.

Holiness the Moral Basis of Fellowship

The recovery of fellowship between God and man is the supreme objective of the redemptive enterprise. Undoubtedly the divine honor is an end, as is also the defeat of Satan in the cosmic conflict between God and the forces of rebellion. But man is still the central figure in the unfolding drama, and his redemption is the primary objective. And a redemption which fell short of fellowship would most certainly be abortive.

In our preaching and teaching, have we shown clearly and persuasively the superlative desirability of this blessing? More desirable than good religious feeling, than miracles or gifts of power, more desirable even than heaven itself, is an unclouded walk with God. Enoch knew this, and we may know it too. When once our people acquire a great thirst for this, when this becomes their ''magnificent obsession," then holiness preaching will draw them powerfully, for they will see holiness as requisite to the satisfaction of their desire.

They will see this because they will perceive intuitively that just as likeness to God in personhood is the metaphysical basis of fellowship, so likeness to God in holiness must be the moral basis. As person to person, communication was still possible with Adam, but now it was communication with out communion. There can be no spiritual union between a despised God and a consciencesmitten defector. A mutual reconciliation must be achieved. This God made possible in Christ. But a recovery of the moral basis of oneness in subjective likeness must also be effected. This too is a provision of Calvary. Holiness in man then must be seen as the moral necessity for fellowship with God, and as a real possibility for real persons.

Elements of Similarity

At the most fundamental level, the holiness in man which may be like God's is specifically that holiness which issues in right conduct. "As obedient children . . . like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior" (I Pet. 1:1~15, NASB). In God's activities and relationships there is neither wrong desiring, wrong willing, nor wrong doing. Desire, design and deed are one, and together conform to that inherent rightness which belongs to God's perfections.

Likewise man's behavior must have in it that inherent rightness which conforms to the goodness of God. An element of that rightness must be a unity between the behavior and the inner motivation which controls the behavior. Thus while the end product is holy behavior, the root is holy character: "obedient children" is the term describing the kind of persons from whom we can expect holy behavior. Inner desire and intention, with man too, must match the behavior, and determine the final quality of that behavior in God's sight. We therefore cannot separate doing from being; nor does a proper emphasis on dynamic relationship rule out a corresponding insistence on state, in the sense of condition. As John puts it: "the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (I John 3:7, NASB).

Holiness UnLike God's

But the holiness possible to man is radically unlike God's as well as like it. The continuity of fellowship with God depends as much on respecting the differences as on experiencing the likenesses.

Certain of these differences are immediately obvious. Our holiness is derived from God and is therefore an acquirement, while God's holiness is His essential and eternal nature. Our holiness, furthermore, is admissible; God's is not. Not only so, God's holiness includes His majesty and divine glory, His "whollyotherness," and what Rudolph Otto calls the numinous. These elements man can rejoice in but cannot share; to pretend to do so would be the instant loss of holiness not just in the fact of selfdelusion but in the repetition of the primal sin, pride. An infinite difference will forever prevail between the holiness of God and the holiest saint.

These various differences may be summarized by saying that man may enjoy the holiness of the creature, God the holiness of the Creator; man the holiness of a subject, God the Sovereign. These differences are not merely academic, for inhering in them are significant variations in the attributes of holiness itself. If holiness is, in its simplist terms, inward love of and outward fidelity to God, then for man this love and fidelity will accept certain elements which are right for man but not right for God. For differences between God as God and man as man create corresponding differences in propriety and suitability.

Let us be specific. Holiness in man will include submissiveness, humility, obedience, and reverence. When God and man are in relationship, these traits are essential to man's side of the relationship, for they inherently belong to his role as creature and subject. But the same traits do not belong to the holiness of God. In God the exercise of sovereignty, including the drawing of the sword, is perfectly compatible with His holiness, for such sovereignty belongs to His Person as Creator and Governor. God's demand for the throne of our heart, then, belongs to His holiness; our demand for that throne belongs to our iniquity. Indeed the very essence of unholiness in man is a secret resentment of God's sovereignty (Cf. Rom. 8:7). We conclude therefore that while holiness in God includes His sovereign rule over us, holiness in us includes not only our acceptance of that rule but an inner adjustment so thorough that we are happy in it.

These vital differences between the divine holiness and ours become more apparent when we look at Jesus. That as Son He revealed the Father is without question. Today's Christian needs to be reminded that Jesus revealed man too, in the sense that He exemplified what man should be. This is to say that the holiness we see in Jesus is primarily the holiness which belongs to man. He said, for instance, "I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matt. 11: 29). As a youth he subjected Himself to His parents because the Scripture revealed this to be the divinely ordained order. He humbled Himself in public baptism at the hands of John in order to "fulfill all righteousness." He lived in constant dependence and equally constant obedience. This is witnessed by his long hours and even nights of prayer, His repeated selfsubjection, His declarations such as, "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5 :30). Thus do we see the character which belongs to that holiness which is proper for man. It is subordination of self to the perfect will of God. It is dynamic devotion to the Father, constant, fervent, and allconsuming. Traditional righteousness, in the sense of morality, is of course elementary; but Christian holiness is much more than a relationship with manit is a profoundly personal and radical relationship with God. This is why Christian holiness cannot be perfect until the root of hostility toward the full will of God is eliminated. Even though the City of Mansoul has capitulated and the flag of King Jesus flies, the hidden pocket of resistance must be flushed out and destroyed.

If Jesus were preached more often as the exemplar of holiness in man it might be easier for our people to avoid that spurious holiness which tends to arrogate to itself prerogatives which belong to God only. Furthermore, they might see more clearly that holiness can be maintained only by the same constancy of prayerfulness of spirit which we find in Jesus. If fellowship with God is impossible without holiness, then we must foster that kind of holiness which belongs to man as man.

Alongside the elevation of Jesus the Man as exemplar, the holiness preacher should also sound more clearly the notes of God's greatness, the propriety of His sovereignty, His repulsion of sin, and the inappropriateness of an easy and flippant familiarity. A proper sense of awe and reverence is missing in too many lives; but when awe and reverence are missing the holiness is defective. Perhaps we should be bolder in our rebuke of some song texts and some forms of music and some forms of visual indecency in the house of God, all of which reflect (and foster) unworthy views of God.

Admittedly there is a paradox here, for the Spirit prompts us to say, "Abba, Father," which is the artless and familiar approach of a child to his father. Yet impressive are the many references in the New Testament to kneeling before God which is symbolic of reverence and subjection. The writer to the Hebrews exhorts: ". . . Let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:2829, NASB). And in the very paragraph in which Peter admonishes holiness like God's he adds: "And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth" (I Pet. 1:17, NASB).

Ananias and Sapphira, apparently, believed there was no place for fear in the Christian life; like many today they presumed on God's love because they misunderstood it. When God allowed them to become an object lesson "great fear came upon the whole church" (Acts 5:11, NASB). True, when in need we are to come "boldly unto the throne of grace" (Heb. 4:12), but not

with that kind of boldness which forgets that it is the throne to which we are coming. If we would enjoy unbroken fellowship with God we must maintain that holiness which is man's, and avoid equally the distance of distrust and the familiarity of presumption. God by His Spirit will then commune with us, and engender a suitable intimacy which is spiritually satisfying, and at the same time enable us to love in return as a submissive worshiper, never as an equal.