The Beauty of Holiness 

The Lord commands holiness:

"Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the LORD your God. And you shall keep My statutes, and perform them: I am the LORD who sanctifies you." (Leviticus 20:7-8).

A 'saint' is a 'holy one,' a member of a holy convocation, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5). All Christians agree in aiming for this goal, and holiness is to be expected from those who truly love and follow the Lord: "Commentator Donald Grey Barnhouse said, 'Holiness starts where justification finishes, and if holiness does not start, we have the right to suspect that justification never started either.'" (Let God Change Your Life, Greg Laurie, p. 239). But what does 'holiness' mean? Is it a dress code? In pursuit of holiness, some 'Oneness' Pentecostals enact a detailed set of Taliban-style regulations governing sleeve length, facial hair, articles of clothing and the like. Is this approach Biblical? Can these 'standards' be found in the Bible, or are they man-made?

Does Neatness Count?

Some earnest believers fall short of the 'holiness standards' - and always have: "Then he said to them, 'What kind of man was it who came up to meet you and told you these words?' So they answered him, 'A hairy man wearing a leather belt around his waist.' And he said, 'It is Elijah the Tishbite.'" (2 Kings 1:7-8).

"Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey." (Mark 1:6);

"But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings’ courts." (Luke 7:25).

"They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented -- of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth." (Hebrews 11:37-38).

Hedge for the Law

The Pharisees prided themselves on erecting a 'hedge' for the Law: i.e., surrounding the Law's general precepts with a thicket of regulations specifying exactly what conduct was permitted and what prohibited. The Lord had every opportunity to praise them for their scrupulosity. However He passed this opportunity by:

“And He said, 'Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.'" (Luke 11:46).

"'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15:8-9; Isaiah 29:13).

Given the Lord's failure to endorse this approach, why revive it?

Long Hair

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." (1 Corinthians 11:5-7)

Read the 'Oneness' Pentecostal way, this passage comes out, 'if a woman has not unshorn hair, let her also be shorn.' Wait a minute: if she has not unshorn hair, then what's to be shorn? They interpret both head coverings in the passage as the woman's own hair, an incoherent and untenable reading which nevertheless leads them to their rule against women cutting their hair. ('Shorn', in their lexicon, includes even trimming.):

"We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music." (UPCI Articles of Faith).

Paul is taking it for granted that a modestly apparelled woman is wearing a scarf or similar head covering, a traditional element of Christian propriety which is widely ignored today, mostly through ignorance and inadvertence rather than any inconvenience attached to its observance.

How long is long hair on a man? It's difficult to say. The Bible does not really give any exact standard; Absalom, David's son, seems to have had a very luxuriant growth of hair:

"But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.  And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year's end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king's weight." (2 Samuel 14:26). 

Hebrew tradition, which has little historic value, records likewise of David's fighting men,

"David had four hundred young men, handsome in appearance and with their hair cut close upon their foreheads, but with long flowing curls behind, who used to ride in chariots of gold at the head of the army. These were men of power (men of the fist, in the original), the mighty men of the house of David, who went about to strike terror into the world." (Kiddushin, fol. 76, col. 2, Hebraic Literature: Translations from the Talmud, Midrashim and Kabbala, Kindle location 3438).

Here we are back to our familiar problem that different ways of grooming seem to mean different things at different times and places. Perhaps it would be best to be cautious about imposing arbitrary standards in light of this circumstance.

Filthy Clothes

"For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, 'You sit here in a good place,' and say to the poor man, 'You stand there,' or, 'Sit here at my footstool,' have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?" (James 2:2-4).

Naked Fishing

Modesty in dress is a valid Biblical objective. All Christians agree, or should agree, in commending modest attire and condemning what is immodest:

"Blood-bought saints of God, never dress or carry yourself in such a way so as to be an object of sexual appeal to other men or women. Never allow yourself to be a stumbling block to the save or to the unsaved." (Michael L. Brown, Go and Sin No More: A Call to Holiness, Kindle location 1347).

But to get down to cases, what does that mean, in terms of inches and seams? Does the Bible itself provide a 'dress code,' and if it does not, with what degree of dogmatism and assurance can the church write one, and who gets to decide what is included? For instance, can it be proven from scripture that the apostles understood this to mean not wearing short sleeves? Not readily. Peter was so far from awareness of this 'holiness' standard that he went fishing in his birthday suit, according to the KJV:

"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes." (John 21:7-8).

The KJV is refreshing in its candor, but some translations handle it differently. The Revised Standard Version has "stripped for work." How many layers men wore while doing hard physical labor is open to dispute. Certainly in any language 'naked' need not mean buck naked, but unclothed, relatively. Short-sleeved, maybe?

Peter's concern for practicality here is refreshing. Some 'Oneness' Pentecostals, in pursuit of modesty, insist that a woman flying an Air Force jet must wear a skirt. Yet if she parachutes from her stricken jet wearing a skirt, she is not dressed modestly. For that matter a woman whose job involves climbing utility poles, or a playing the cello or riding a horse, cannot be dressed modestly while wearing a skirt.

This is by no means to deny that modesty in clothing is a Biblical value. Nakedness is not encouraged, either in scripture or in Jewish tradition. The Jews came into conflict with Greek culture as pushed by the successors to Alexander the Great, in part because the Greeks insisted on exercising in the nude, which was not acceptable: "On this account, it is prescribed on the heavenly tablets as touching all those who know the judgment of the law, that they should cover their shame, and should not uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves." (The Book of Jubilees, Chapter 3, 31-32, R. H. Charles). The Talmud, a very late compilation, shares the same value: "Said R. Pornach in the name of R. Johanan: Who handled the Holy Scrolls, while naked, will be buried naked." (The Babylonian Talmud, edited by Michael L. Rodkinson, Volume VIII, Tract Megilla, Chapter IV, Kindle location 35096). But exactly what that means, and under what circumstances work clothes are suitable, are subject to discussion and should not be the topic of arbitrary legislation. Room must be allowed for conscientious objection.

Does She or Doesn't She?

Many of the early church authors were vehement in their detestation of face-painting:

"Tell me, have you no fear, seeing you are such, that at the day of resurrection your Maker will not recognize you, but will set you aside and shut you out, when you come for His promised rewards, and will with the sternness of censor and judge severely say, 'This is not My work; This is not Our Image?' Your complexion you have polluted with false coloring, your hair you have altered by unnatural dyes, your countenance is captured by a lie, your natural appearance lost, your look is not your own. You will never be able to see God, whose eyes are no longer God's workmanship, but the devil's craft." (The Treatises of Caecilius Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and Martyr, Charles Thornton, Treatise IV, On the Dress of Virgins, Kindle location 3918).

While Roman Catholics consider some of these writers to be authoritative some of the time, Protestants generally do not. Specific Biblical injunctions against the practice are missing. The wicked pagan queen Jezebel painted her face before her miserable end:

"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window." (2 Kings 9:30).

It is certainly significant that this is mentioned. But what is the significance? The message may be that pride goes before a fall: Jezebel met her end as a queen, not as a penitent. To offer this passage as a blanket condemnation of face-painting requires adopting a rule, 'everything Jezebel did, do not do,' which people may or may not find compelling.

The justifications offered by 'Oneness' Pentecostal preachers for banning the practice are often more imaginative than historical. Though you'll hear from these preachers that only prostitutes wore make-up in ancient times, this cannot be confirmed by inspection of ancient portraiture, which shows lofty Queens like the pagan Nefertiti dolled up with eye-liner:

The funerary portraits of Fayum provide a window onto a cross-section of the women of late antiquity, most of whom appear to be wearing modest make-up:

Not only can it not be confirmed that only prostitutes wore make-up in antiquity, but in some times and places, the prostitutes themselves favored a distinctly less flamboyant look, namely the veil: "So she took off her widow’s garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife. When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face." (Genesis 38:14-15).  One can only speculate as to why a prostitute should be veiled; perhaps as a prudential measure to avoid being picked out of a police line-up?

The 'Tammy Faye' look was not popular in the Roman world, where even the prostitutes saw the virtues of the natural look. The Roman comedian Plautus has an aging courtesan tell her youthful successor so:

Philematium.  Powder, please.
Scapha.  But why on earth do you need powder?
Philematium.  For my cheeks, of course.
Scapha.  That would be like white-on-white; no need to gild the lily, dear.
...Philematium.  All right, pass the rouge to me.
Scapha.  I won't.  You know, you're not too bright. Do you want to overpaint an absolutely perfect picture? Blooming girls like you should never use false colouring.  Never rouge, or cream from Melos, never any paint at all." (Plautus, The Haunted House, 256-264)

Below is a portrait of a fourth century Christian lady with her children done in gold leaf on glass (p. 28, Chapter 2, The Class Basis of Early Christianity, The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark). Comparing mom's eyes with those of the kids, she appears to be wearing make-up. A Christian prostitute? The 'Oneness' Pentecostal claim that 'only prostitutes wore make-up' does not fit the facts:

Of course what women happened to do at any time in history establishes no ethical norm. But neither should doctrine be based on demonstrably false 'historical' claims: like that, in antiquity, only prostitutes wore make-up. Where the Bible is silent, should man make haste to legislate?

It is true that many voices in the early church endorsed the 'no-makeup' viewpoint which is part of the 'holiness' standards:

"And when thou art in the streets, cover thy head; for by such a covering thou wilt avoid being viewed of idle persons. Do not paint thy face, which is God’s workmanship; for there is no part of thee which wants ornament, inasmuch as all things which God has made are very good. But the lascivious additional adorning of what is already good is an affront to the bounty of the Creator. Look downward when thou walkest abroad, veiling thyself as becomes women." (Apostolic Constitutions, Book 1, Section 3, Chapter VIII, pp. 782-783, ECF_0_07).

What is not clear is why 'Oneness' Pentecostals should view these voices as decisive. Certainly there is no Biblical argument to be made in favor of face-painting, as if it were a good or godly thing, but the lack of any direct scriptural prescription leaves it in the realm of liberty of conscience.

Hellivision

"Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes." (UPCI Articles of Faith).

One can find everything on TV nowadays, from hard-core pornography to the Weather Channel. One can find everything on the internet nowadays, from hard-core pornography to...'Oneness' Pentecostal ministries. In both cases, the choice of which 'programs' to tune into remains in the viewer's hands. Yet one is allowed, the other prohibited.

Straining at Gnats

One common behavior pattern associated with legalism is making much of little things, while letting really big things sail on through. An example of this familiar to observers of 'Oneness' Pentecostalism is the phenomenon of divorced and remarried pastors, often thought by fundamentalist churches to be ruled out by Paul:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . ." (1 Timothy 3:2).

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Timothy 3:12).

"If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." (Titus 1:6).

According to some, these verses have nothing to do with divorce and remarriage, but only with assuring pastors are not active polygamists. According to these people, polygamy was very common in the Roman Empire, and in no way proscribed for the laity; it was preferred, however, that the clergy be pure from this very common practice. Or so they say. In reality, for a very long time before the New Testament, a male citizen in Athens could only register as a citizen son the offspring of a marriage with one free-born woman, his lawful wife. Children born under any other circumstance did not enjoy civil rights, unfortunately. Polygamy was not only not practiced in Greece and Rome, but the man who did practice it might find himself accused of bigamy. Divorce was allowed, and common, but concurrent plural marriage was neither.

Rome was justly proud of her laws. In some regions of her empire, Roman law held sway, in other parts, such as Israel prior to her destruction, she allowed the natives to retain their own law system. But in all cases there was pressure, subtle or intense, to conform to Roman mores. Consider, for example, the case of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. His questioners sought to lay a trap for Him, because the Jews were allowed to enforce their own law, but not in capital cases: "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. . ." (John 18:31). Here is the trap: the Messiah must execute the law. The law lays down capital punishment for adultery. But capital jurisdiction belonged to the Roman overrulers, whose own law did not prescribe death for adultery. Adultery, though common, was a criminal offense in Rome during this period; the emperor Augustus' own immoral daughter Julia was banished to an island through the exercise of this law. But adultery was not a capital crime; the Romans would have thought stoning her inhumane, as would we. So going to the Romans, hat in hand, would not result in Moses' law being executed, but following Moses' law to the letter without consulting the civil authorities would be an extra-judicial lynching, for which there might be consequences. Jesus surprises them and evades the trap. In fact Jesus' own teaching allows neither polygamy nor capital punishment.

In an empire in which polygamy was not endorsed by the ruling authority, it cannot have been common. Maintaining polygamy requires diligent attention from the rulers. In the Munster Commune, polygamy was made mandatory, but quarreling was soon thereafter made a capital offense. Given polygamy's inevitable unpopularity with one half the human race, maintaining the system required the suppression of female quarreling. So the assumption that the Greek-speaking churches were filled with active polygamists, under no legal pressure from a civil law which only recognized monogamy, nor under any pressure to conform their behavior to Jesus' marriage teaching, who were however barred from leadership roles owing to Paul's innovative teaching, is fantasy.

Women called 'univirae' played an important role in the Roman marriage ceremony. These 'one-man women' were not women who were not at that moment practicing the (unknown) custom of polyandry, but women whose cumulative total of marriages was one. Paul is universalizing a familiar concept: while people in the Roman empire thought it a shame for women to be divorced and remarried, they did not think even open adultery and debauchery disgraced a man. Paul evens the score. Pagan Roman law and custom required good conduct from the woman, but was far more tolerant of bad behavior on the part of the man:

"If you should take your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death without a trial; but if you should commit adultery or indecency, she must not presume to lay a finger on you, nor does the law allow it." (Marcus Cato, quoted in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, Book X, Chapter XXIII).

While polygamy existed in the world, in the Near East outside the Roman empire, in various barbarous lands, and even in Israel, it is not likely that Paul's Gentile churches included practicing polygamists. Paul would rather pastors not be divorced and remarried. Some people would rather invent novelties to concern themselves with, rather than share the Bible's concerns.

Peter the Hermit

If you want to hear a scorching exhortation to war to make even Peter the Hermit blanch, certain UPCI ministers will deliver the goods. Yet incongruously enough, the UPCI holds an official position of advocating its members practice conscientious objection:

"CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES

"We recognize the institution of human government as being of divine ordination, and, in so doing, affirm unswerving loyalty to our Government; however, we take a definite position regarding the bearing of arms or the taking of human life.

"As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we believe in implicit obedience to His commandments and precepts which instruct us as follows: '.. that ye resist not evil. . .' (Matt. 5:39): 'Follow peace with all men...' (Heb. 12:14). (See also Matt. 26:52; Rom. 12:19; James 5:6; Revelation 13:10). These we believe and interpret to mean Christians shall not shed blood nor take human life.

"Therefore, we propose to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizens, but are constrained to declare against participating in combatant service in war, armed insurrection, property destruction, aiding or abetting in or the actual destruction of human life."
(UPCI Article of Faith)

The requirement of conscientious objection found in the UPCI Articles of Faith seems to be on its way to becoming a dead letter, with many members of this group feeling free to serve in military combat roles. Nevertheless one cannot imagine a more despicable display of cowardice than is witnessed from certain UPCI ministers, who fan the flames of war while secure in the knowledge their own will not pay the price. Traditional pacifists like the Quakers and Mennonites are also consistent advocates of peace and thus cannot be accused of cowardice or inconsistency.

Modesty

Modesty is an affirmative command for the Christian:

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10).

What is modest apparel and what is immodest? Do not ask the world around us. A pole dancer who makes videos, Britney Spears, convinced a generation of girls that they were not stylishly dressed if they did not look like they charged by the hour. Her successors have kept that flame burning bright. Our society assures us that we are dressed modestly enough if we cannot actually be arrested for indecent exposure. But this is not all that God expects of Christians.

Part of the problem with "pearls," as John Chrysostom realized, is that the woman wearing them, as she steps over huddled homeless people on her way to church, could relieve their distress very easily by the wealth she is flaunting:

"But do thou show me what gain could be derived from these pearls, rather what harm would not happen? For in order that you may wear one pearl drop, countless poor people are pinched with hunger. What excuse will you hit upon? What pardon?" (John Chrysostom, Instructions to Catechumens, Second Instruction, Chapter 4).

This indeed is an area where the church is falling short today. The solution, however, cannot lie down a road Jesus has purposefully blocked off, the road taken by the scribes and the Pharisees.

Christian Liberty

For matters of Christian conduct not clearly spelled out in scripture, Paul recommends Christian liberty:

"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." (Romans 14:2-10).

It often seems as though advocates of the 'holiness' standards have no concept of any sphere of Christian liberty at all. If you tell them, 'I do not see where the Bible proscribes women's make-up,' they understand you to be saying, 'Women must, or ought to, wear make-up.' The Biblical ideal, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind," leaves them scratching their heads.

Priesthood of All Believers

A disproportionate number of 'Oneness' Pentecostals are former Roman Catholics, who tend to be more skeptical than is warranted of familiar Reformation doctrines, like the priesthood of all believers. This idea: that the church is not divided into 'clergy' and 'laity,' but that all believers are priests, is biblical:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Whoever is to make decisions pertaining to dress codes and the like, it cannot be one man, the pastor, who is given more authority in some church polities than he is allotted by the New Testament, nor can these decisions be made arbitrarily by a small, unaccountable group of men. Though starting out with the best of intentions, the UPCI give a shining example of how not to do it, arbitrarily imposing non-Biblical rules on a powerless flock.

Open Theism

The teachings of John Calvin have been controversial since he first enunciated them 500 years ago. But people who talk to 'Oneness' Pentecostal pastors will often find them much exercised about 'Calvinism,' which, the listener will discover, is the idea that God foreknows His own from eternity past. If that is what 'Calvinism' is, then what is 'Arminianism?' Their own ideas are closer to Open Theism, which describes God as endlessly surprised at how things turn out.

TULIP: Is it Biblical?

Alcohol

What about alcohol use? On the one hand, the 'Oneness' Pentecostals should be commended because they have successfully persuaded their people not to drink alcohol. On the other hand, they cannot be commended because they have over-sold the Biblical basis for what is after all an optional rather than a mandatory observance. Here again is the familiar pattern, where good and commendable ways of behavior are upgraded into a rule-book. Since Jesus specifically condemned the Pharisees for doing that very thing, it cannot be assumed that He commends it here, even though a world in which alcohol use was rare and counter-cultural would be an improvement over the world we inhabit:

Tattoos

I can't really say why tattoos are so popular with young people today. They are not necessarily so with God, who forbade them to Israel:

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:28)

The law, we know, has been nailed to the cross, but can this preference on God's part still be assumed to be valid today, or was His opposition to it in the first place predicated on His dislike for pagan funerary practices? As ever, that is the $64,000 question. As ever, Christian liberty must enter into the equation.

Women

The inquirer who talks to 'Oneness' Pentecostal preachers and people will discover their views on the status and role of women run the gamut from the 'Quiverful' or Bill Gothard type of concept to the more moderate views commonly found in evangelical churches. My own view, should anyone care to hear it, is that while women may not preside as pastor of a church, because of 1 Timothy 2:12,  "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence," there are many other ways women can serve for which there is New Testament precedent, such as being a deacon for instance. Since the office of pastor, shepherding souls, is pretty much unique in human experience, it cannot be assumed this is a principle to be generalized into all other fields, so that if a woman cannot be a pastor, she also cannot be a dentist, etc.

Misogynists seem to find an easy time fitting certain verses into their system, and take delight in so doing, but the plain fact is that misogyny is not Biblical and cannot be shoe-horned into the Bible, which says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).

Return to answering 'Oneness' Pentecostalism...