MATT AYARS, CHRISTOPHER T. BOUNDS, and CALEB T. FRIEDEMAN. Holiness: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023. Pp. 382. $45.00 (U.S.).
In this book, Ayars, Bounds, and Friedeman present an impressive study of holiness. While they are to be commended for their contribution to our understanding of this important topic, their ultimate purpose for the book is to contribute to the vitality of the Wesleyan idea of Christian perfection. They seek to accomplish this by exploring its biblical foundations, unearthing its historic precedent, and offering a creative contribution to the doctrine’s articulation.
The book is divided into four sections. Each section comprises three chapters. The sections address Holiness in the Old Testament, Holiness in the New Testament, Holiness in Christian History, and a Theology of Holiness. While the three authors contribute to the entirety of the book, each section has a primary author.
The first two sections are well done and worthwhile. They offer a substantial yet accessible study of biblical material on the topic of holiness as well as several related concepts. The third section is equally impressive in its breadth, but this naturally means that the depth to which any one historical source is explored is limited. As one might expect, the discussion of the Wesleyan tradition is one of the longest of the historical surveys. For those who may not be familiar with the Wesleyan tradition, these pages could serve as a handy introduction to the most significant names and eras of the movement.
The fourth section is the one I personally appreciated the most. It resembles the approach of a systematic theology where the biblical and historical data are combined and organized by topic. The section addresses the connection between holiness and sin as well as between holiness and redemption. The last chapter proposes a variation of Wesley’s doctrine that seeks to avoid some of the criticisms of the past.
The authors include a recommended reading list but not a full bibliography. However, there are numerous footnotes that should allow the book to be helpful to those doing formal study on the topics of holiness and Christian perfection.
While the book has much to offer, one weakness in my opinion was the notion that there are multiple kinds or grades of perfection. For example, at one point, we read, “The Old Testament begins with a striking testimony of humanity’s grandeur and original perfection” (272), but only a few pages later and while still describing the pre-fall state of humanity, we read, “While created perfect, they are not ultimately perfect” (276). How is the reader to understand the idea that humans are perfect but not really perfect? When the term “perfect” is being used, how does one know if it is in the first, second, or some other sense? At one level, I understand the strategic desire to keep the concept of perfection central, but in my opinion the idea that there are grades of perfection or kinds of perfection is confusing, if not problematic.
There were some things that I was surprised to encounter in the book. A minor one was in the historical section, where John Calvin was discussed, albeit briefly (240-241). We learn that Calvin mentions “complete perfection” in the Institutes at 3.7.3 not 3.3.3 as footnote 29 indicates. While it is stunning to realize that Calvin used the term, it is unclear what exactly he meant by the phrase, especially in light of his general disdain for the idea (see his commentary on Psalm 106:6). It is not clear to me why this was included or how it contributed to the overall goal of the book.
A more positive surprise occurred in the conclusion of the book, where the authors included guidance on how to experience Christian perfection. It is unfortunate that the effort to help readers apply the theology that they have been reading should be surprising, but it is. Perhaps more people who write theology should make a similar effort. The authors are to be commended for this gift.
As indicated previously, the purpose of the book is to contribute to the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection. One way this occurs is by a new articulation of the doctrine proposed by the authors. They call their version a neo-holiness “middle way.”
The ground that the authors are trying to claim as a “middle way” is between what they see as the “shorter way” of Christian perfection and the “longer way.” The “shorter way” is what was common in the “Holiness movement” in America in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This “shorter way” sees the experience of Christian perfection to be readily available to all who are saved. People only need to fully consecrate or surrender themselves. This is in contrast to the “longer way” which is a gradual, life-long struggle with sin and is essentially like a Reformed understanding of sanctification (335-341).
The “middle way” differs from the “shorter way” by its means and timing. The “middle way” emphasizes God’s grace rather than the human act of consecrating or surrendering oneself. Since God is the one who makes it happen, we have no control over when it is experienced. It may occur in an instant and chronologically close to the new birth, or it may happen much later in life. On the other hand, the middle way differs from the “longer way” in that it is able to be experienced in this life and may be experienced instantly.
I have no issue with what the authors have suggested in their presentation of the doctrine. In fact, I find it interesting. More specifically, I think the emphasis on God’s grace and God’s timing is a good corrective to some past practices. So, while I think the articulation of the doctrine is beneficial, I have problems with the rationale for proposing the view in the first place.
The primary reason that the authors articulate their version of Christian perfection is that they seem to accept the criticism that the “shorter way,” or the traditional form, is dangerously close to heresy. In fact, they state as much when they write that the traditional form of perfection “has fallen victim at times to forms of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism” (352). Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have been rejected by the Church as heresy, and the charge of Pelagianism has been a critique of Christian perfection at different moments in history.
Pelagius was a contemporary of Augustine, and the two represent divergent views on the impact of original sin. Augustine believed Adam and Eve’s sin passed along to all subsequent generations both guilt and an irresistible propensity toward sin. We are born guilty, and we sin, which compounds our guilt. Pelagius, however, believed that rather than sinning because we have inherited a corrupt nature, people needed to understand that they were personally responsible for their own sin. Pelagius was not convinced that we received any real impact from Adam and Eve, except perhaps a bad example. As a result, according to Pelagius we are not bound by sin nor are we bound to sin.
Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism understand that the pathway to God begins with the individual. Augustinianism and semi-Augustinianism, on the other hand, believe that humans are dead in their sins at birth and incapable of even desiring a relationship with God, never mind being able to make a relationship happen. In the Pelagian varieties, the human individual begins the relationship. In the Augustinian ones, God must move first, granting grace.
This is relevant because the charge of Pelagianism fails to stick against the traditional form of perfection for a very simple reason: the spectrum of Pelagian-Augustinian views is about justification—the beginning of the relationship with God. Christian perfection is about sanctification. I am aware of no person who has ever advocated Christian perfection who does not understand the experience to occur after justification or the new birth. This means that since the person desiring Christian perfection has already experienced the initial saving work of Christ through the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to suggest that in seeking the experience of perfection the individual moves in the relationship before God does. Consequently, Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism are irrelevant concerns here.
What is more, if Christian perfection is to be a normative Christian experience as the authors believe, then God desires it for everyone. If God desires it for all, but some, perhaps most people, have not experienced it, then it follows that each individual is in some sense the central obstacle or the main reason it has not happened. Rather than the old “shorter way” of Christian perfection succumbing to a charge of Pelagianism, the traditional view seems to be consistent with our experience or even our lack of experience of Christian perfection. All this is to say that while I appreciate the creative articulation of Christian perfection offered in the book, and while it makes a valuable contribution that is worthy of further study, I am not convinced that a rearticulation was ultimately necessary.
This book is a valuable resource for those of us interested in the subject of holiness. The first three sections alone make it a worthwhile read, and the last section seals the deal. Many of us believe that God genuinely desires that people experience real victory over sin in this life. Yet, a significant number of this same group are reluctant to fully embrace the idea of Christian perfection either because it is misunderstood or because of its checkered history. For those of us in this camp, the neo-holiness “middle way” articulated in this book is a welcomed proposal that addresses some of the weaknesses of past varieties. It is worthy of serious consideration and study.