HOLINESS!

By

John Roberts(2006)

“And an highway shall be there and way; and it shall be called The way of Holiness…….” ( Isaiah Ch 35, v 8).

Before we can commence a discussion on “Holiness”, we must begin by defining our terms.

The general idea of “Holiness” is that it is synonymous with “Godliness”. “Godliness” might be defined as “approaching to the perfection of God!” In another sense, Holiness equates with “Sacredness” or “Sanctity”. We talk about “Holy Places”: churches, shrines, cemeteries, consecrated places. These are all included within the definition of “sacred sites”. Priests of religious orders are regarded as being “sanctified” or “made holy” by the fact of their ordination. This “holiness” can then be transferred or dispensed to other people or objects. Priests are seen, as being the worldly representatives of “God”.

In Australia, the Aboriginal people have a rather unique idea of “Holiness”. Certain sites are regarded as being “sacred” to particular tribes: such as waterholes, burial sites, ritual sites, where sacred rites are carried-on; such as Uluru (or Eyre’s Rock). Traditional rituals are often regarded as being sacred (or secret) and must not be revealed to certain groups. Of course, given the simplistic nature of Aboriginal ideas and the totemistic state of their religious concepts, it might be difficult for a Westerner to comprehend just what, exactly, “Sacredness” means to an Aboriginal person. If the word is, in fact, synonymous with “Secret” it cannot be said to come within the definition of “Holy”. This factor is important, these days, in determining just whether a particular place is “Sacred”, within the meaning of legislation intended to protect Aboriginal Sacred Sites. My own view is that these places should be protected, not because they are “Sacred,” in this limited sense, but because they are of particular cultural significance to the Aboriginal people.

For our immediate purposes, we must rest content with the definition of “Holiness” as being synonymous with “Godlike”.

Such is the generally materialistic condition of most of the major religions of the world, that the term “Holy” is applied, in an extraordinary number of instances, to objects related to or believed to be connected with religious history. Hence, we find that the land of Palestine is referred-to as “The Holy Land”, or place specifically blessed by the Almighty. This is due to its historical associations for the Jews, Christians and Muslims. The fact that its history is one of continuous cruelty (on a massive scale), barbarism and bloodshed, almost unparalleled, is conveniently disregarded. In fact, it could never be objectively regarded, by any stretch of the imagination, as an “Holy Land!” It might much more appositely be referred-to as “The Hellish Land!” Much of the country is desert or semi-desert and it is surprising that such a large number of people, over the centuries, have managed to eke a living, out of its meager resources.

In other parts of the world, religious associations led to the idea that certain places are “Holy” or sanctified in some way. A certain slab of basalt in Mecca, is regarded by Muslims as the most holy object in their world and visited annually by millions of devotees, who believe that they are guaranteed entry into Paradise, by the mere fact of their making a Pilgrimage to the place and undertaking certain rites. (The Mecca site was actually a place of Pilgrimage for Arabs, prior to the Islamic era.) Muslims, however, do not have a monopoly on Pilgrimages, which are, also, a highly valued stock-in-trade of the promoters of such places as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Rome, St James and Lourdes, to name but a few “Holy” places of pilgrimage.

Of particular interest, is the fact that certain writings, believed to be directly inspired by the Deity are referred to as “Holy”. These include, of course, the “Holy Bible” and the “Holy Koran”. The Bible has two principle sections, “The Old Testament” and the “New Testament”. The former contains the original Jewish religious writings, whilst the New Testament is a compilation of early Christian literature. Both the Bible and the Koran are regarded as “Sacred” by Christians and Muslims, respectively. The “sanctity” of these writings is based on the principle that they are directly-inspired by God. For the Jews, the five books of the Pentateuch are regarded as “Holy” and certain other writings as authoritative. The common practice of having witnesses sworn on these books is, presumably, based upon the idea that an oath falsely sworn, on either, will inevitably bring about the punishment of the perjurer by a wrathful deity, even if he escapes the worldly sanction.

In fact, whenever we apply the term “Holy” to anything, whatsoever, in relation to physical objects, no-matter how imposing or historically important they may be, we merely delude ourselves. Relics of the Saints; pieces of the “True Cross”; churches; graveyards (duly sanctified in accordance with religious rituals); water used in religious ceremonies (also sanctified by certain mysterious rites); ritual garments; Priests in their own persons; images and icons of the Saints, together with an host of devotional material: all is entirely destitute, in itself, of any quality that could conceivably be termed “Holy!” All physical things appertain to the physical world and can never be properly regarded as partaking of the spiritual.

At the present time, (2006) we have one “hell” of a ding-dong battle going on in Palestine, between Jew and Arab, all claiming a Divine Right of occupation of the “Holy Land”, which strife has been continuing, on and off, for well-over fifty years. The mere fact that the Arabs happened to have been living there for the last two-thousand years, or so, did not prevent the Western Powers (influenced by Zionist principles and Jewish money) from establishing a new State of Israel within the lands of the Palestinian people, in 1948, leading to a series of murderous conflicts: continuing to the present day. This is a really “Holy” land, is it not?” Well! There are lots of holy places there: Abraham’s tomb; the sites of the birth and later crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth; the Dome of the Rock Mosque (also the site of the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, with its “Wailing Wall”); lots of graves of ancient Patriarchs, whose tombs are very sacred indeed, etc., etc..

Any “sanctity” possessed by any of these individuals, objects or places, is purely delusory and can exist solely in the minds of people who are taught from infancy upward to revere such things, as of importance both to God and to Mankind. I would venture to affirm, on behalf of the Deity, that nothing of this nature is of importance and merely reflects the prevailing ignorance of generations of human-kind; continuing to the present day. “Holiness” can only be an abstract quality; deriving from consistent selfless and loving human behaviour. If such a principle, as is enunciated here, were to be acknowledged world-wide, it would remove enormous obstacles from the path of human progression.

It is in this struggle to attain perfection that mankind progresses and not otherwise. Holiness, therefore, so far as the individual person is concerned, involves a striving forward after the goal of “Perfection” which must, prima facie, be synonymous with “Holiness”. The Quaker, George Fox, recognized this clearly in the 17th Century, when he established the Society of Friends (Quakers) on an utterly honest, uncompromisingly non-violent basis. Here was a genuine attempt at attaining “holiness”: an attempt that rejected entirely all false claims to holiness in persons, objects or things and dispensed with the external trappings of religion, as generally accepted by the various Christian denominations of the times. Fox also rejected, absolutely, the idea of the superiority of any one class of persons: denied the validity of aristocratic titles of distinction. In this, he was, again, quite correct. In doing so, he gave the lie to the myth of the “Divine Right” of Kings. This lie has been repeated over and over again, in human history, to justify the imposition of cruelly unjust laws upon the poor of every nation. In the early 21st Century, we still observe various cults of personality in operation, to blind and deceive ordinary people, as to the fact that there is no basis for the existence of such social distinctions. There is nothing Holy or Spiritual in the idea of Monarchy: nor any additional merit accruing to aristocratic persons by the fact of their adoption of “titles of distinction”. Such a proposition invokes the suggestion that the social system, dependent upon such class distinctions, in some way has the approval of the Deity.

Individual persons, by the mere fact of their possession of a religious title, such as that of “Pope, Archbishop, Priest, Vicar, etc., cannot, thereby, acquire a certain measure of “Holiness”. All are subject to the universal law of cause and effect. If my works are evil, then I, myself, am evil. It must come as a great shock to sincere Christians, when their revered religious are involved, as they sometimes are, in molestation or maltreatment of children who may be committed to their charge. It then becomes only too clear, that even ordained clergy do not, thereby, necessarily acquire the requisite degree of spirituality. After all, we are all merely human and subject to the weaknesses of the flesh that become apparent, from time to time, in our behaviour towards others.

Some religious denominations adopt a system of “Sanctification” of individuals, after death, where it is observed that they have led a blameless life or have been “martyred” in the cause of “religion”. They are declared to be “Saints” or to have achieved the status of “Sainthood”. (A “Saint” was originally a member of the congregation of the Faithful in the early Church). A lengthy and elaborate system of evaluation has been developed by the Catholic Church, that leads, in appropriate instances, to first, “Beatification” and later to “Sainthood”. Those who posthumously attain this status are, indeed, privileged, and take an exalted place in the realms of the Heavenly Kingdom. They may now be invoked by the faithful, as intermediaries between God and Man.

This is, no doubt, a wonderful idea, as it reveals just how much influence the leaders of that religious denomination have when it comes to dealing with the Deity. It must be added that other Christian denominations also support the concept of Sainthood and there are also Muslim Saints, although I have no personal knowledge of whether or not there is any type of selection process, in their case. Whatever may be the position, with regard to “Saints”, it is entirely fallacious and rather ridiculous, to be candid. No man is able to add-to or detract-from the individual spirituality (or absence thereof) of any person, nor can he be placed in a position in which he is able to promote or retard the progress or regression of anyone, once departed from this physical sphere of activity. “Sainthood”, therefore, is a sham, like so much that is associated with the Church in our latter days. It is a part of the colourful pageantry, that presents in place of sincere religious expression in our day and age.

"Holiness", then, is attainable by everyone but is an abstract concept, associated with goodness and honesty in individual life. We are not likely to be able to attain such a status in this world of ours: a place certainly fit for the habitation of Mankind, yet polluted and corrupted by human wickedness, to the verge of self-destruction. Happily, all is not lost: we have the call to perfection that tells us that we are capable of becoming “Holy”, even though it is going to be a slow and steady slog. In the meantime, we have to learn to differentiate between what is valid and what is false in our belief systems. It is time to discard the detritus and search for the holiness that we see around us, every day.

Finis

John Roberts

Sydney,

Australia.

30th August 2006

mailto:robertsjno@gmail.com