This article was written by Dan Alicea
AOF Contradiction #1 - Holiness or Holeyness?
Shaw’s noble suggestion to take the time to formulate a well thought out theology, reconcile it with Apostolic doctrine while comparing it to the Articles of Faith drowns a minister in theological and paradoxical flood waters.
This quandary deepens when one carefully analyzes the only article of the 23 that a UPCI minister must affirm and pledges to (1) believe and (2) embrace the select holiness standards it lays out while also (3) practice, (4) teach and (5) preach all that it states.
(Digressing, why the Westberg resolution and AS does not oblige the practice, preaching and teaching of the Fundamental Doctrine is baffling.)
The Holiness article from the original merger agreement reads:
Godly living should characterize the life of every child of the Lord, and we should live according to the pattern and example given in the Word of God. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (
Titus 2:11-12).
"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously" (
I Peter 2:21-23).
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (
Hebrews 12:14).
"But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (
I Peter 1:15-19).
The following was added in1952:
“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 or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.
Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church. “
Okay, let’s be real. The issue, in 2009, is this present Holiness article and the Affirmation Statement.
Presently, we find some in the movement pressing forward with an effort to combat the “emerging doctrine” bogeyman. Buzzwords, zealous motifs and feverish battle cries about remaining true to “apostolic identity” and “the message” rule the cyberways and various publications. We find an orchestrated, and coordinated campaign, to re-teach practical holiness doctrines coming from the organization itself and in districts.
Yet, in all this, one must wonder if this very push aligns itself with the Articles of Faith.
Keeping in mind, leaders like David Bernard, have stated the Articles are a “minimum standard of fellowship” and the pledge one makes to keep the unity of the Spirit and not contend for differing views.
In recent years, some have been very vocal in claiming that the handful of stipulated holiness standards, added in 1952, force compliance in relation to what a licensed minister has agreed to, and signed, in the his bi-annual affirmation statement.
At first glance, however, based on the January,1993, letter by then General Supt., Nathaniel Urshan, one would think that there is wiggle room and ambiguity for personal interpretation in regards to the AOF.
In this letter, post-Westberg, he wrote:
“The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.
Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rinks, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint.
Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.”
But, let’s be honest, does not the Westberg Resolution and Affirmation Statement clearly state that one will
1. believe
2. embrace
3. practice
4. teach
5. preach
… the holiness standards of the UPCI “as set forth in said Articles of Faith”?
In the "prioritizing of theology and the ethics" recommended by Brother Shaw must one not also adhere to the Lord’s command that one communication be yea, yea, and nay,nay?
What is one really affirming when one signs the Affirmation Statement?
Can one assume that Urshan’s statement,“ No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications” is dicta, therefore any interpretation is unchallengeable? Or does the literal language of the manual and Articles take precedence?
These are fair questions that a minister desiring to be ethical and forthright faces in the present climate.
This unresolved tug coupled with a few glaring inconsistencies may force a minister to either lie, or be “double-minded”, and/or create uncomfortable situations where elders overstep their bounds by dictating their personal interpretations of these select holiness standards upon another minister.
For example, the Holiness article indicates the wholehearted disapproval of women cutting their hair or the use of makeup, however, in no way prohibits the use of pants on a woman or rules out the use of ornamental jewelry.
A case that pants are no more immodest on a woman than a skirt is highly subjective is plausible? What of those that say jewelry appears to be a biblical reality practiced by men and women of faith in the Old and New Testament; and is used as a metaphorical reward to His children?
Both of these issues, pants and jewelry, are still a taboo to a majority in the movement and perceived as “the rules” and doctrinally sound. As is the Board’s right, such items of dress on women and ornamental adornment, i.e., non-wedding rings, necklaces and earrings are prohibited on the platform of the General Conference.
Yet, it is feasible to foresee a hypothetical situation in which a minister could preach the standards in the holiness article … and utilize a woman in pants and earrings and as long as he preaches, teaches against the practice of uncut hair and makeup … he would be fully compliant to the article of Holiness.
Even the military anticipates hypotheticals, does it not? Was not the litigious nature of the modern day given as a reason for passage of the Westberg resolution?
If a minister were “called out” on such matters and was questioned by his superiors for not complying to the Holiness article, the org would be hard pressed, even post-Westberg, to have a convincing case for taking action against said minister. It would prove disastrous, in my opinion, in civil court.
Moreover, we also have historical evidence that some of these exterior holiness no, no’s were not subject to the same doctrinal interpretation and practical applications by some in our movement’s rich heritage. Ethel Goss, wife of the UPCI’s first General Superintendent, Howard Goss writes in “Winds of God””
"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day, ...silks...satins...jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out, so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducted in the early years.
Linear Mode
