Re: Holiness (III)

So once again these conversations keep happening. I think yesterday's brought about the best clarity I've had yet on the difference between obedience to the law as means and obedience as fruit. We were discussing Isaiah 6, and really it kind of just happened...

Legalism is about using the law to get somewhere, to somehow become holy? Well the problem, as we all know, is that we CANNOT DO ENOUGH to become holy, as only God is perfect and holy. Indeed, in the recognition that only God is holy, we become more and more acutely aware of our weaknesses, shortcomings, and sin. We are exposed, completely made bear. Our only response can be "I AM UNDONE!" But what of the hereafter? What of that experience? What of the undoing... of the ruining... of the exposure where He burns away that which cannot be near Him. What next? MUST OUR LIVES NOT BE CHANGED FOREVER? I think so, and I think that is the where I have felt the greatest peace in this ongoing conversation between my heart and His. Legalism is about where I want to go and how I'm choosing to get there. Holiness, in the strictest sense of HIS covering us in His own, is about being near Him. Holiness is not about what we do, but how we be. Is this making sense? It made a lot more in our discussion yesterday, I was pretty pumped to have a conclusion. I've been in His presence before. I've felt that ruining, I've lived in that since then. I've been undone, should I redo what He has undone? Should I continue in my lawless ways after He has purified me to live as He lived? Absolutely not! I wondered if I was slipping into legalism in my enthusiasm for obedience, yet in this reflection I find peace in the fact that it's not because I want to be holy that I obey, nor because I feel the need to compensate my guilt, nor because I simply can obey that I do. More so, it's because I know that in Him I am holy can cannot move against His will if I desire His presence and blessing, that I am innocent by faith in His death and resurrection, and that when it all comes down to it, I just CAN'T NOT.

The freedom of His will is one that removes options, not increases them. That is so contrary to our American way of thinking about freedom. In my simple need to follow and be near, I have found a lack of rights, a lack of choices, a lack of what the world would call options, and yet in His kingdom these things translate into an abundant life of freedom. His freedom is not a freedom that increases options by any means, no, it is a freedom that removes them. It is a narrow way. It is a strict way, not for the sake of the road, but for the sake of His will. It's not the means, it's the fruit, and it's not about where we want to go (that is, to Him) it's about where we've been and still are (that is, with Him). Does that make sense? I hope so... I'm still kinda working it out. I know the semantics won't match up if you infer going towards heaven or anything like that, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the notion that we must be holy in order to come before Him, when such is impossible. We are made holy by Him and we walk in holiness after we have encountered Him (though I wager something about that could be confusing too). At any rate, for whoever has been trying to see the difference, I pray these ramblings might have brought some clarity. Press on...