An analysis of Bernard's ''Essentials of Holiness'': Difference between revisions
Created page with "{{Top of Page}} {{Top of Page}} Category:Legalism Category:Oneness theology" |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Top of Page}} | {{Top of Page}} | ||
{{Bernard Legalism}} | |||
= Critical Analysis of ''Essentials of Holiness'' by David Bernard = | |||
Bernard wrote this booklet as an accessible primer on holiness for UPCI members and new converts. Much of what he says about the inner life of holiness is genuinely good: holiness flows from love and the Spirit, not from rule-keeping alone; outward conformity without inward transformation is worthless; legalism destroys what it claims to protect. He is right about all of that. But the booklet contains a series of problems that cut against its stated goals. These are not peripheral matters of personal taste. They go to the heart of how to read Scripture, how to apply it, and how to distinguish what the Bible actually says from what we have decided it must say. | |||
---- | |||
== A Proof Text That Carries More Weight Than It Can Bear == | |||
Bernard opens with Hebrews 12:14 as his anchor verse: "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." He uses it to argue that pursuing holiness is an ongoing requirement for salvation, and that the new birth is only the beginning of a process that must be maintained. The call to holiness is real, and Hebrews 12 does issue it seriously. But Bernard reads more out of this verse than it actually says. | |||
The Greek word translated "holiness" here is hagiasmos, which means sanctification or the process of being set apart. The verse is part of a section calling believers to run the race with endurance (12:1), accept the discipline that comes from being God's children (12:4-11), and strengthen what is weak in themselves (12:12-13). The call is to actively pursue Christlike character, not to meet a performance threshold as a condition of salvation. The warning is against falling short of God's grace (12:15), turning away like Esau who "sold his birthright" for immediate gratification. The danger being warned against is apostasy and spiritual hardening, not failure to achieve a sufficient level of holiness by some externally measurable standard. | |||
{{ | Bernard's use of the verse is not wrong in principle but it is imprecise in a way that matters. Grudem is careful throughout his systematic theology to distinguish between positional sanctification (the believer is already holy, set apart, "saints" in Paul's address to ordinary churches) and progressive sanctification (the ongoing growth in Christlikeness that follows). Both are real. Conflating them produces a theology where a believer is never certain whether they have pursued holiness enough to "see the Lord," which is not the confidence the New Testament actually offers. The same letter to the Hebrews that says "pursue holiness" also says "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings" (10:22) and "we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and are saved" (10:39). Bernard needs to reckon with the full weight of Hebrews, not just the one verse that fits his case. | ||
---- | |||
== "All Appearance of Evil" Means Something Different Than Bernard Claims == | |||
One of the load-bearing principles in the booklet is 1 Thessalonians 5:22 in the KJV: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Bernard uses this to mean that Christians must avoid anything that could appear sinful to an observer, including activities and appearances that might simply be associated with worldliness in someone's mind. This is the verse doing the heaviest lifting in his argument that holiness requires avoiding anything that might look bad. | |||
The problem is that the KJV translation is misleading here. The Greek word is eidos, which means "form," "kind," or "variety." Every modern translation reflects this: the NIV has "reject every kind of evil," the ESV has "abstain from every form of evil," the NASB has "abstain from every form of evil." Paul's instruction is to avoid every category of evil, not to avoid anything that might appear evil to an observer. These are very different commands. One tells you to avoid evil itself. The other tells you to manage other people's perceptions of you. | |||
If "all appearance of evil" means what Bernard says it means, then the principle proves far too much. Jesus appeared to be a drunkard and a glutton to some observers (Luke 7:34). He appeared to be a Sabbath-breaker to the Pharisees (Mark 2:24). He appeared to associate with immoral people because he actually did (Luke 15:1-2). Paul ate meat in contexts where some observers thought it was idol worship (1 Cor 8). If the standard is "never do anything that looks bad to someone," then Jesus and Paul both fail it. That cannot be the standard Paul was setting, and building a holiness architecture on a misread translation is not a solid foundation. | |||
---- | |||
== The Logic of "God's Holiness Determines His Love" Does Not Hold == | |||
Bernard argues that "God's holiness is the foundation of His love and gives direction to His love. His holiness determines His love, not vice versa." He is trying to make the point that God's love does not excuse sin, which is correct. But the way he frames it introduces a subtle problem. | |||
God's attributes are not ranked. Scripture does not present holiness as the foundational attribute from which all others flow. It is just as accurate to say "God is love" as a description of his very being (1 John 4:8) as to say "God is holy" (1 Peter 1:16). Both are identity statements, not mere descriptions of behavior. Geisler in his systematic theology is careful here: God's attributes are not a hierarchy where some are more fundamental than others. They are all equally essential and all perfectly unified in the divine nature. They never contradict each other because they are all expressions of the same perfect being. | |||
Bernard's framing implies that holiness is the real God, and love is a secondary quality shaped by it. But the cross argues the other way. John 3:16 does not say "God is so holy that he sent his Son"; it says "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son." The motive for the atonement is love. The means of the atonement satisfies holiness and justice. Both are real, but they are not in a hierarchy. Arguing that holiness "determines" love can subtly shift the portrait of God from the generous Father of the Prodigal Son to a judicial enforcer whose love is perpetually constrained and qualified. Bernard is trying to resist cheap grace, which is right. But the way he does it misrepresents the character of God. | |||
---- | |||
== The Makeup Argument Fails Its Own Evidence Standard == | |||
Bernard makes a striking factual claim: "The Bible always links makeup with evil." He cites Jeremiah 4:30 and Ezekiel 23:40. This is worth examining carefully because his whole case against cosmetics rests on it. | |||
Jeremiah 4:30 reads: "What are you doing, you devastated one? Why dress yourself in scarlet and put on jewels of gold? Why shade your eyes with paint? You adorn yourself in vain. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life." This is prophetic poetry. God is addressing unfaithful Jerusalem using the image of a woman dressing up to attract a lover who has already decided to destroy her. The point is the futility of Israel's attempts to win back the foreign allies she had chased after through spiritual unfaithfulness. Jeremiah is not issuing a command about cosmetics. He is using the image of a woman making herself up vainly as a metaphor for Israel's desperate and doomed political maneuvering. | |||
Ezekiel 23:40 is the same kind of text. It is part of a long extended allegory about two sisters (representing Samaria and Jerusalem) who are spiritual prostitutes. The painting of eyes is part of the allegory's imagery of preparation for an immoral rendezvous, not a teaching about whether eye makeup is sinful. | |||
Bernard takes metaphors used in prophetic literature to describe spiritual adultery and treats them as moral commands about cosmetics. This is not a valid method of reading the Bible. If it were, then Ezekiel's allegory about the prostitute also means that eye shadow is associated with harlotry. But the allegory's content cannot be turned into a moral code by ignoring that it is an allegory. | |||
More importantly, the claim that the Bible "always" links makeup with evil simply is not true. Esther underwent twelve months of beauty treatments before being presented to the king, and the entire account is told approvingly with no hint of condemnation (Esther 2:12). Ruth was instructed by Naomi to anoint herself and dress well to meet Boaz, which she did, and the account is entirely positive (Ruth 3:3). Song of Solomon describes a woman's ornaments and adornments as beautiful and desirable (1:10-11; 4:9). Bernard's "always" is wrong, and it matters because the entire argument against makeup rests on that claim. | |||
---- | |||
== The Cultural Argument Is Applied Inconsistently == | |||
One of the more frustrating aspects of the booklet is that Bernard establishes a genuinely reasonable principle for handling cultural questions, then refuses to follow it consistently. He acknowledges that culture helps determine what "pertains to a man" in Deuteronomy 22:5. He uses the kilt as his example: kilts were exclusively masculine in traditional Scotland, so they did not violate the male/female distinction principle even though they might look like skirts. He also says that beards are culturally flexible, acceptable in some eras and not in others depending on what associations they carry. | |||
This is sensible. Culture does matter for these questions, and Bernard is right to say so. | |||
But then he refuses to apply the same logic to women's pants. He argues that women's pants "pertain to a man," that they "promote masculine behavior patterns," that they "do not distinguish gender clearly," and that they leave men "without a distinctive dress style." Not one of these claims comes from Scripture. They are his own cultural observations, which he has elevated into biblical conclusions. The problem is that by his own framework, culture is supposed to determine what counts as "male" or "female" dress in the first place. If a garment is designed exclusively for women, styled differently from men's clothing, and understood by everyone in a given culture as women's clothing, it is not clear how it "pertains to a man" in any meaningful sense. He is applying the cultural principle when it suits him (kilts, beards) and overriding it when it does not (pants on women). | |||
This inconsistency is not just a logical problem. It signals that the real driver of these conclusions is not the exegetical principle Bernard has stated but prior cultural commitments he is then looking for biblical support for. That is a pattern worth recognizing. | |||
---- | |||
== Isaiah 47:2-3 Is Doing Work It Was Not Written to Do == | |||
Bernard uses Isaiah 47:2-3 to establish that "baring the leg and uncovering the thigh" is inherently shameful, and he builds from this a minimum standard of dress that requires covering the legs. The passage reads: "Take the millstones and grind flour; take off your veil, lift up your skirt, bare your legs, and wade through the streams. Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame will be seen." | |||
This is God pronouncing judgment on Babylon. The image is of a noble queen being stripped of her dignity and forced to work like a slave, exposing herself in the process. The shame is the shame of conquest and humiliation, the loss of privilege and status. It is not a teaching about what constitutes modesty in normal life. Using a judgment oracle against Babylon as a rule for minimum skirt length is a category error. By this logic, you could also use the fact that Babylon's nakedness was "exposed" to argue that exposure of any part of the body is shameful, which would produce absurd results. Bernard is proof-texting: finding a verse that contains the words he needs and stripping them of their context. | |||
---- | |||
== The Television Prohibition Proves Too Much == | |||
Bernard argues that "because violence, illicit sex, lust, evil speech, sinfulness, and vanity dominate television and movies, we should not own a television or watch movies (at the theater or on video)." The argument is that these media "subtly undermine spiritual values and priorities and feed carnal desires." | |||
The problem with this reasoning is that it proves far more than Bernard intends. Any medium that can transmit evil content could be condemned by the same logic. Books, which Bernard presumably endorses for Bible study, have contained pornography, violence, and blasphemy far longer than television has existed. Libraries have sections that, by the same standard, "undermine spiritual values." The internet, now far more pervasive than television, transmits orders of magnitude more corrupt content. The argument targets a specific medium rather than the actual principle, which would be "avoid morally harmful content." | |||
Targeting the medium rather than the content is an error in reasoning. The conclusion should be "avoid morally harmful content in whatever medium it appears and use discretion about what you consume." Instead Bernard condemns the technology as a whole. The same error would have condemned the printing press because it could print anything. The principle of avoiding lust of the eyes does not generate a prohibition on televisions; it generates a requirement to exercise judgment about what you watch. Those are very different commands, and conflating them oversteps what Scripture actually says. | |||
---- | |||
== The Hierarchy of Authority Contains a Hidden Trap == | |||
Bernard identifies three sources of holiness teaching: the Bible (supreme authority), spiritual leadership (pastors and teachers), and the Holy Spirit within the believer. He states clearly: "The Bible is our final authority. God does not give human beings the right to change His message, nor will the indwelling Spirit speak contrary to the written Word He Himself inspired." That is a healthy principle. | |||
But then he says that in areas of "practical application," including dress, adornment, and amusements, believers "should follow the teachings of their pastor in these matters, for God has entrusted him with the oversight and care of the local church." Pastors who refuse to baptize those unwilling to conform to these applications are mentioned approvingly. | |||
The problem is that the applications Bernard places in the second category, the ones he says involve "legitimate differences of opinion" and "not on principles but on a precise application in a specific situation," are exactly the categories where he instructs members to defer to pastoral authority without question. He has just told them there is room for legitimate disagreement, then told them to submit to the pastor anyway. This leaves the member with no meaningful recourse when a pastor's application is wrong, excessive, or simply his own cultural preference dressed up in biblical language. The structure is: the Bible is the final authority, but on specific applications, the pastor is the final authority. That is not the same thing as the Bible being the final authority. | |||
Geisler in his systematic theology on Scripture's authority would note that the practical effect of this structure is that pastoral authority expands precisely in the areas where the biblical text is most ambiguous, which is the inverse of what sound interpretation requires. The Bible's authority should be clearest where Scripture speaks most directly, and human authority should be most restrained where Scripture says least. Bernard has it reversed. | |||
---- | |||
== The Category Confusion at the Heart of the Practical Section == | |||
Section 10 of the booklet lists holiness standards under the heading that they are "biblical, and therefore universal and unchanging." The list runs from attitudes (hatred, wrath, envy), to thoughts (lustful thoughts), to the tongue (slander, lying), to the eye (avoiding lust), to appearance (no pants, no cut hair, no cosmetics, no jewelry), to stewardship of the body (no tobacco, no alcohol, no caffeine addiction), to sanctity of marriage, to honesty and integrity. | |||
Bernard never stops to justify why every item in this list belongs to the same category. Prohibitions on hatred, lying, fornication, and murder are drawn directly from Scripture and are universally binding across every tradition, culture, and era of Christian history. Prohibitions on women wearing pants or trimming their hair are drawn from contested readings of ambiguous texts. Listing them in the same numbered list under the heading "biblical, and therefore universal and unchanging" does the work of equating them without actually making the argument. Someone who accepted everything in the list and someone who rejected the dress standards but accepted the moral ones would look very different to Bernard, but the list gives no principled reason for why the dress standards carry the same biblical weight as the commands against lying. | |||
This matters not just logically but pastorally. When everything is equally binding, everything carries the same weight. The believer who trims her hair is implicitly placed in the same moral position as the one who lies or commits adultery. That is not a reading of holiness that Scripture supports. Boyd, engaging holiness traditions critically in his work on Oneness Pentecostalism, notes that this kind of categorical flattening is exactly what produces the legalism Bernard himself says he wants to avoid. The cure for legalism is not to insist that the rules come from love rather than duty. The cure begins with being willing to say that not everything on the list carries the same biblical authority. | |||
---- | |||
== What Bernard Gets Right That He Does Not Adequately Protect == | |||
It should be said again that much of Bernard's instinct is sound. He is right that holiness flows from love, not fear. He is right that outward conformity without inward transformation is worthless, and that inward transformation without outward expression is incomplete. He is right that legalism produces hypocrisy, inconsistency, and eventually rebellion. He is right that Christian leaders have no authority to add to or subtract from Scripture. He is right that a transformed life is the most powerful witness Christians have. | |||
The tragedy is that the method of the booklet works against these insights. The proof texts that don't bear the weight placed on them, the inconsistent application of cultural reasoning, the conflation of clear moral law with debated cultural application, and the pastoral authority structure that defers to leaders on the very questions where the Bible speaks least clearly all tend to produce exactly the kind of Christianity Bernard says he does not want: externally conforming, internally underdeveloped, and vulnerable to collapse when someone shows the biblical support was never as strong as advertised. | |||
A holiness tradition that can say plainly "here is what Scripture clearly teaches, here is where we are making a judgment call, and here is why we think this judgment call is wise" is far more durable than one that insists every application carries the same authority as the clear moral law of God. The first approach respects the believer's intelligence and conscience. The second, eventually, does not. | |||
----''This analysis engages David K. Bernard,'' Essentials of Holiness ''(Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1989). Counter-sources consulted: Wayne Grudem,'' Systematic Theology ''(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Norman Geisler,'' Systematic Theology, ''4 vols. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002-2005); Gregory A. Boyd,'' Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity ''(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).'' | |||
{{Bottom of Page No Ref}} | |||
[[Category:Legalism]] | [[Category:Legalism]] | ||
[[Category:Oneness theology]] | [[Category:Oneness theology]] | ||