For a term that is thrown around a lot in religious conversations and mindless banter, "holy" is certainly complex. It makes me want to ask those who use it, "What do you mean by "holy"? Next time I hear someone cuss with it, I'll be sure to ask. I will probably be sure to receive some pretty peculiar glances and responses, but I will do it nonetheless, just because I like to do such things.
Think about it, though: What is "holy"? The question itself is not aimed at knowing what particular things can be called holy but rather the nature of holy itself. Some synonyms for holy could be "sacred" and "revered". But I would suggest not considering them at the moment, for reasons of my own. Let's just discuss "holy" pro tempore.
Rudolf Otto is generally considered one of the major thinkers concerned with the nature of holy. His book, "The Idea of the Holy", is one of the best on the subject. It is responsible for conceptualizing the holy as a mysterium tremendum (literally, tremendous mystery). The holy is a mystery because it eludes are attempts to grasp it as the holy is truly transcendent. It is tremendous because of the response it causes in us. Otto adds that the response it causes in us makes us aware of our "creatureliness". Our "creaturely-feeling" is the recognition that we are finite, that we will someday die. The experience of the holy, according to Otto, also causes us to recognize our shortcomings and impurity. This is why we seek atonement, to be united with that which we lack. Otto goes on to say that only Christ can offer us the true atonement that we so desperately want and need. Therefore, Christianity is the truest form of religion.
I hope this short summary of Otto makes sense to you. I read it only last year and have not had sufficient time to deal with it more extensively. But I want to offer my own response to his profound thought.
I agree with Otto that the holy is in a sense a mysterium tremendum. I only disagree with his theory of atonement. I am a Christian, for sure, but the experience of the holy in my thinking is completely ineffable, meaning that one cannot ascribe the origin of the holy to any particular deity nor can the holy be described. For this reason, one cannot seek atonement through any particular religion. Our experience of the holy defies any attempt to understand it. We can only be thankful that the holy deigned to touch us. Our response to the holy can either be that it gave us gravitas that we do not deserve or a feeling of inadequacy, but we must never let our notion of the holy be directed at a particular 'object' or 'subject'. The holy defies the object-subject distinction.
So does this make the holy completely transcendent since we cannot describe it? I would say no, because the holy avoids the transcendent-immanent distinction as well. In fact, the holy ecplises the transcendent-immanent distinction. It is only our minds and our own limitedness that ascribes the holy to transcendence or immanences.
What does this make of the "holy" though? Is it some life-force or energy beyond our conception? Is it some World-Spirit (Zeit), as Hegel thought? Once again, our experience of the holy does not permit us to ask such questions. As such, our need for atonement, because of some inadequacy on our part, is something we must avoid in the holy. For sure, Otto's conception of the holy gave it a special, attractive quality since our expereince of the holy drives us to becoming one with the holy. I do not deny that this is certainly an attractive proposition.
But the reason we must not seek atonement in the holy is that we do not know to whom or what we are seeking atonement. If the holy eludes our attempts to describe it or ascertain its origins, we cannot seek atonement with it, since we have no idea where we are going.
So, where does this leave a Christian like me? I know many might say "in a horrible place." I do not think so. And here is why: As a Christian, I believe in the special revelation of Christ, which is the center of all Christian belief. Part of being a Christian requires me to accept what Christ has done for the world through the Cross. I accept this and I will believe it until the day I die. But if you ask me, when you experience the holy are you experiencing the Triune God since God is holy? I would say not necessarily. The reason for this is that the holy is a unique category, a sui generis if you will, that can be experienced within any religious system. That means that the holy does not transcend God, but rather that the holy transcends religious expression of God. Religion is just the language we give to our experience of the holy. Does this mean that all religions are wrong? No, because we need religion to give shape to our beliefs. Does this mean that one religion is better than another? No, the experience of the holy does not lend itself to knowing the answer to that question. This and, well, our inability to truly know what is the truth.
Another important question to ask is: Is Jesus Christ holy? To avoid giving a complicated answer I will say this: Jesus Christ is holy because our experience of Him echoes our experience of the holy. Remember, the holy is a unique category (sui generis) that forms the basis for all of our experiences of the holy. Therefore, Jesus is holy, but only because our experience of the holy is echoed in Him. What I am trying to say is that we can experience the holy in any person or thing, or in Jesus Christ Himself, because the holy is not confined to any one thing (the "sacred" in this regard is only confined to certain things because it is contrasted with the "secular"--the holy only has positive existence in that it does not have a mirror opposite. There is no such thing as the "unholy" only experiences that lack the holy).
Well, that was crazy, sorry for the long post. I would appreciate responses and maybe even your own ideas as to what the holy is. I am sure they will not be as confounded as yours! Haha.
My own view of holiness, is that to be holy is to be set apart. What that means is that those who are holy are not like other people. We do not seek our own good, we do not seek our own advancement. Rather than living selfishly for ourselves, we seek the advancement of others. We love others, and serve them, not out of what we would get in return as the spirit of this world leads so many people to do, but out of a real, genuine love, a love of God that overflows into a love for other people.
ReplyDeleteNow, obviously not all Christians are like this, and there are those who are not Christian who are like this. So we are left with the question, what is holy, were do we find it? It can change our entire way of looking at the Church. We think of, rather than who is in the Church, we view the Church as being among us, and ready to brought out.
I really like what you said about there being holiness and the absence of holiness, but not unholiness. It sounds Neoplatonic.....like darkness is the absence of light. And you know what often takes the form of Neoplatonicism....mysticism!!!!! :)
ReplyDeleteI am currently reading several books on mysticism. For example, I am reading E. Underhill's "The Mystics of the Church". Good book. She often separates the mystics into 2 catagories: Christocentric (focus on humanness of Christ and personal relationship with God)and Theocentric (focus on transcendent aspects of God). (I tend toward the Christocentric side) I'm sure you are familiar with Meister Eckhart. Tell me about his beliefs about the holy and transcendent and what you think of them.
One of the goals of mysticism is to see the spiritual in everything. The mystic seeks to merge an idealized/spiritual world with the physical world in which he lives. One might say that the mystic attempts to see the sacred/holy in all of life. They recognize that holiness can be experienced through people, animals, creation, thoughts, and every other part of life.
I am now about to throw a few ideas out there and see what you think. I haven't really made up my mind on what I believe about it, but here it goes anyways. Hope it doesn't suck.
Are all things sacred? Yes and no. All of life is sacred because it bears the fingerprints (or some other unconceivable prints) of something or someone holy. But I wonder if it might be that an object's holiness depends upon just how much it reflects the image of the holy God. In an of itself an object is not holy. It is just a vessel in which holiness can reside.
I think what you are describing is the difference between Pantheism and Panentheism.
ReplyDeleteBoth Gwahir and Coppess, I do not think that holiness can reside in any thing or place. We have sacred objects and places, but we do not have holy objects and places. I try to distinguish between sacred and holy so as to show that the holy is not contained in any particular thing.
ReplyDeleteErgo, we worship a holy God because God echoes our experience of the holy. That is to say, when we experience the holy we come to terms with our "selfs", meaning that in the holy we become fully known to ourselves. Thus, when we experience God we experience something like our experience of the holy--we become fully known to ourselves. This is why we can call God "holy". True, to be "holy" is to be "set apart" in the Christian tradition, but the only reason we say that to be holy is to be set apart is because we experience the holy as an Other, as something other than ourselves. In the holy, in other words, we experience what it means to be present to an Other other than ourselves. That in essence is the experience of the holy.
To clarify, as I said in the post, we are not permitted in our experience of the holy to ascertain its origin, whether that be in nature or in God. We simply have an experience of the holy, and sometimes out of this experience we attribute it to God. But what we need to realize in this is that WE attribute our experience of holy to God. There is nothing in the experience itself that would suggest this, we simply want to find its origin, and more often than not it leads us to a particular deity or some aspect of nature.
I want to avoid this.
We can ascertain the origins of the sacred--like that Icon of Jesus is sacred--but we cannot ascertain the origin of the holy. There is a difference, and this difference makes a huge difference in how we approach God.
Does that then mean that it would be improper to call the Bible The Holy Bible in your view? If so, good luck hehe. You'd have fundamentalists screaming bloody murder out the wazoo.
ReplyDeletePeace,
Gwahir.
Haha, yeah, Gwahir, I would say that. At the same time, I would say it is sacred. So they might be not as angry with that. Though they get upset with everything!!!
ReplyDeleteWell, that's not going to be easy. Especially since traditionally the Hebrew word Qodesh from the OT has been translated as Holy a lot, and it's talking about both the people and the things and places that have been set apart for God. In the way that you define Holy Qodesh is better translated as Sacred.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue you'd get into is Hagios. Hagios is holy, and used in Holy Spirit. But it's also used to describe a holy place in Acts 6, and holy ground in Acts 7.
yeah, Gwahir, I realize that the Bible frequently uses the word "holy" for the Spirit, for God, for places, etc. I am not saying that those are incorrect uses of the word but rather that the holy in those cases is more used for titles or for things that are sacred.
ReplyDeleteI think people can experience the holy in anything that can produce the Other.
But, yes, it is difficult reasoning about the uses of holy in the Bible according to my idea of what the holy is.
It's a good question, man. While you are often over my head, as I read, I wondered about something I believe I heard or read somewhere. I have heard that Jesus' command in Matthew 5:48 to "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" could also be translated to say "Be holy as your heavenly Father is holy."
ReplyDeleteAs for this non-seminarian, I am not sure. But I think maybe holiness is that which has been redeemed. In which case, I would have to say that perhaps things can be holy. Who knows though.
I value you, Caleb. How 'bout them Cubs?