Enough of this Hair-esy!
This blog is authored by Todd Weber, minister. You can find his original post here
This doctrine declares that a woman's uncut hair has mystical power to call down angels, and force God to answer prayer requests. The uncut hair is protection from demonic forces in a woman's house, but only if it is completely uncut.
Power Before the Throne, by Ruth Rieder-Harvey
Lee Stoneking states, "This book is a must for every woman of God who wishes to make her calling and election sure in His great kingdom." Ruth Rieder fearlessly raises her voice regarding God's purpose for women. She gives strong biblical reasons for women to have long, uncut hair.
It seems clear now that leaders of the UPCI, and therefore the organization itself, is taking a stand in favor of the damnable heresy known by its opponents as Magic Hair Doctrine, which has flourished in our ranks for many years. In spite of apparently increasing numbers of opponents and the rising din of voices against it, the doctrine continues to advance unchecked by those in leadership.
My ire was raised when reading the first article (after the predictably alarmist editorial) in the July 2009 issue of the Pentecostal Herald titled “Memorials,” authored by none other than the foremost contemporary champion of MH doctrine, Ruth (formerly Rieder) Harvey (p.7). Following four paragraphs describing some of our nation’s hallowed war memorials and the value of remembering the costly sacrifices of our forebears, she stated the importance of “revisiting the landmarks erected by our spiritual forefathers” which “stand in mute testimony to their consecrated lives.” She noted that there has been a “changing of the guard. Our elders are passing the torch to this generation and entrusting us with their memorials.” She then quoted Proverbs 22:28 and 23:10 which warn against removing “the ancient landmark.”
Given the fact that Harvey is known far and wide for tireless and fervent advocacy of MH doctrine, including authorship of numerous books and speaking at countless conferences on the subject, only the most naïve observer would deny that such prominent placement of this article within the official organ of the UPCI amounts to tacit approval of MH doctrine at the highest levels.
Having personally opposed this heresy to the General Superintendent some years ago with a plea for corrective action, I am deeply disappointed that no repudiation has come forth. Meanwhile, this devilish teaching continues to flourish unabated, ensnaring many sincere believers and turning their faith and hope away from the only Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Furthermore, embarrassing and repugnant cultish expressions and behaviors continue to abound across the fellowship bringing reproach upon Christ and the gospel before the world, with many adherents going so far as to quote the writings of witches and pagans to justify their biblically insupportable dogma.
It is long past time for the UPCI to take a clear and unequivocal official stand against MH doctrine, regardless of who may be embarrassed or offended. Frankly, as a member of the generation receiving the aforementioned torch, I refuse to honor and champion any doctrine built on so tenuous a foundation and producing such bizarre and questionable acts as have been witnessed and documented among its adherents. If there is no more serious regard for truth and biblical accuracy among the leaders of the UPCI, then I don’t think I can take their torch without being burned.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Power
Before the Throne, by
Ruth Rieder-Harvey
A
Book Review by Todd K. Weber
I
appreciate and respect Ruth Rieder-Harvey’s love for God and zeal
for holiness. There is no doubt that living in holiness is an
essential element of a right relationship with God. We live in
a fallen world that is horribly corrupted by sin. Jesus Christ
has provided humanity a way of escape from sin, and when a
person is saved by the new birth experience, their life should be
transformed into a holy instrument of godliness, free from the
controlling power of sin, for this is the will of God and the work of
His grace.
The main focus of this review is to address
subject matter in the book which is both unbiblical and potentially
harmful. I am surprised and disappointed that such a spurious
and harmful doctrine is earnestly propagated in books, articles and
conferences. I have waited patiently for some respected
voice to speak up on this, but to my knowledge none
have.
Guardians
of the Glory?
The
real trouble begins on page 55, with the chapter heading: “Guardians
of the Glory.” I quote:
“The
cherubim, one of the angelic orders, seem to be particularly assigned
the responsibility of guarding the glory of God. The verses that
place them beside the throne of God and ever on guard are Psalm 80:1,
Psalm 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16. Thus, Lucifer, as the anointed cherub,
was set forth as the chief guardian of the glory of God.”
Since
when does God need anyone or anything to guard His glory? None
of the verses cited state, either explicitly or implicitly, that
cherubim – or anything else – guard the
glory of God. For one thing, who or what would they be guarding
against? And, is God not able to defend Himself? Consider
the following:
“The
glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in
his works.” (Psalm
104:31)
“For
mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should
my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto
another.” (Isaiah
48:11)
When
Lucifer rebelled, was it the angels who cast him out of heaven?
Of course not. While the angels have served to guard various
things, God’s glory is not, nor ever has been, their charge. By
itself, this point may not be worth debating. However, it is
used here as a basis for further distortions and misrepresentations;
therefore, it is central to the issue and must be discussed.
The idea that God’s glory is so fragile and assailable as to
require both angelic and human (namely, female) protection is
ridiculous. Even a cursory review of scriptures relating to the
glory of God reveals that it is entirely God’s domain, and that He
alone is the protector and preserver of it. In fact, since
God’s glory is intrinsic to His very nature; that is, you cannot
separate God from His glory, nor His glory from Himself; it is
impossible to tamper with the glory of God in any way, shape or
form. To corrupt God’s glory would be to corrupt God Himself,
and since this can never be done, the point is erroneous. This
seemingly innocuous misrepresentation of scripture becomes the
foundation for the doctrinal house-of-cards erected throughout the
remainder of the book. From page 65 comes this disturbing
section, following a quotation of Ezekiel 28:14, 16:
“Lucifer’s
main responsibility was as the covering cherub that guarded the glory
of God. When he was cast out, he lost his covering. God in
His amazing and poetic nature delegated Lucifer’s lost estate
to the woman. “For
this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of
the angels. But if a woman have long hair, it is a GLORY to
her: for her
hair is given her for a COVERING” (1
Corinthians 11:10 and 15). This issue of the hair is of
major proportions. The enemy tempts women over and over to tamper
with the covering because it symbolizes to him everything that
he lost. When he sees a saint of God who is a guardian of the
glory, he gnashes his teeth in frustration and anger…Women are
now the “Guardians of the Glory.” As the aforementioned
Scripture declares, it is a glory to the woman. The glory is not
hers but is the glory of God residing upon her and in her life.”
(Emphasis is Rieder‘s.)
There
are several points in this paragraph which need to be addressed as
follows.
1) Ezekiel
28 is addressed to the king (“prince,“ KJV) of the ancient
Phoenician city of Tyre or Tyrus, on the Mediterranean coast.
This chapter is part of a series in which God declares His judgment
against several heathen kings. The King James syntax has led
some to conclude this is a reference to Lucifer’s fall, but this is
tenuous at best, and certainly not grounds upon which to build a
doctrine.
2) As
previously stated, Lucifer was not responsible for guarding the glory
of God.
3) If Ezekiel
28 were a reference to Lucifer, then, when cast out of heaven he
would not have lost his covering, but his position as
the “covering cherub.”
4)
The Bible never in any place states or implies that God has
“delegated Lucifer’s lost estate to the woman.” That is
utter nonsense. While the statement “because of the angels” is a
point on which there is disagreement among Biblical scholars, there
is certainly no basis for the author’s incredible assertions.
5)
The word “for” in 1 Corinthians 11:15 means “instead of,“ or
“in place of;” thus, the woman’s hair is given to her “instead
of a
covering.“ (Strong’s Concordance #473: “‘anti,’
Meaning: 1) over against, opposite to, before 2) for, instead
of, in place of (something) 2a) instead of 2b) for 2c) for that,
because 2d) wherefore, for this cause“.) This in itself turns
Rieder-Harvey’s ideas on their head, so to speak.
6)
Saints of God, male or female, are not “guardians of the glory.”
7) The
author’s interpretation of “glory” is likewise faulty.
Again, Strong’s Concordance, #1391: “‘doxa,’
Meaning: 1) opinion, judgment, view 2) opinion, estimate,
whether good or bad concerning someone 2a) in the NT always a good
opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory…”
(The full meaning and use of the word is much more broad than this,
but this definition is relevant to the context.) The phrase,
“It is a glory to her” means that it speaks well of her as a
woman who is devoted to God. Her hair is simply a symbol of
her faith relationship – nothing more.
The
author continues to draw out her erroneous points in later
paragraphs, and then makes this unfounded claim on page
67:
“The
woman’s hair is a type and shadow of the covering that Jesus
provided for his church.”
What
is the basis for such a preposterous claim, other than her own
imagination? There is no such thing stated or implied anywhere
in the Bible.
Superstition and Magic
On
page 68, we find this statement:
“When
a woman cuts her hair, she actually severs the glory of God from her
life. The angels will lift and depart, for they are committed to
the glory.”
This
conclusion is based on her faulty interpretation of 1 Corinthians
11:10, 15, as previously addressed.
First, a woman’s hair is
not the “glory of God.” Second, her hair is given
her instead
of a
covering, which covering Rieder incorrectly associates with God’s
glory. Third, our faith and attention should be directed to Jesus
Christ, not angels. While the Bible certainly reveals that
angels are “ministering spirits,” our hope, confidence and
security should be wholly in Christ alone.
Also
on page 68, the author claims that since the “armor of God”
(presumably from Ephesians 6:11, although not stated) does not
include protection for the back, God has provided such protection in
a woman’s hair, based on Isaiah 58:8 (“…the
glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.”).
If this were true, then what about a man’s back? Did God
leave men vulnerable to attack from behind, but made women more
secure? Of course not. Then she ties this idea to Titus
2:5 (“To
be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own
husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”)
to make the point that women are “to be a guard that will beware of
any evil that would try to come into your homes” (p. 69), followed
by the statement, “Your uncut hair brings protection to your entire
family” (p. 69). In order to prove her point, the author
relates a story involving a young married couple who were Bible
school students. Apparently, the husband committed adultery,
and “their lives were shattered, and their ministry was completely
ruined.” This is alleged to have occurred as a result of the
wife’s prior indiscretion of cutting her hair: “the spirit of
vanity had caused her to become more concerned about the appearance
of her split ends than about her obedience to God” (p.
69).
This
is irresponsible, manipulative and misleading. It is one of
several anecdotes which the author uses to give credence to her
fallacious claims, which amount to nothing more than superstition,
making female hair a sort of magic talisman to keep at bay the
lurking evil spirits which would otherwise invade and take over the
home and family, and against which men are otherwise powerless.
But wait, there’s more:
“Can
our husband’s hearts safely trust in us to guard the glory and to
insure divine protection for our family so that no wicked spirit
can enter in to spoil us?” (p. 70)
“Can
the Lord depend on you to guard the glory faithfully and diligently?”
(p. 70)
“Husbands
are put there as a safeguard for the woman as she carries out this
wondrously important duty that God has entrusted to her
hands…guarding the glory and insuring divine protection for
your family.” (p. 72, 73)
This
appears to be a new brand of feminism. The author is promoting
a pseudo-spiritual role-reversal under the pretense of preserving
God-given roles outlined in the eleventh chapter of First
Corinthians.
The contradiction is obvious.
I
am very disturbed by the author’s views noted above, and by the
eager acceptance of them by many sincere believers. Such
doctrines turn our attention away from the efficacy and sufficiency
of the blood and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and salvation by
grace through faith, and instead move us toward superstition and
cultic fanaticism.
I
wonder if such ideas stem from a sense of inferiority and/or
inadequacy. It seems to be an effort to elevate Christian women
to a higher station than some may presently realize for themselves.
If Christian women lack a sense of meaning, purpose or privilege, it
is not because the word of God denies it them. It may, however,
be the result of erroneous teaching and practice by spiritual
leaders who manipulate God’s word to suit their own
predisposition. Clearly, God has given women a high and
honorable role in the family, the church and the world, and equal
claim to the divine gifts and calling as their male counterparts.
It is therefore not necessary, nor beneficial, to concoct erroneous
theories and dogma in order to give Christian women a sense of
empowerment.
The
great salvation received by way of sound Biblical doctrine is a
wonderful thing which ought to be shouted from the rooftops all over
the world, regardless of what others may think or say. But,
such error as found in Power
Before The Throne hurts
the cause of the gospel, and casts a shadow of careless Biblical
exegesis and cultism upon many believers
and churches. Promoting such non-Biblical doctrines
and misinterpretations erodes peoples’ confidence in both the
truth and relevance of the Bible and in our ability to communicate it
with integrity. Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported
by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take
away from God’s holy word.
I
do not doubt that Ruth Rieder-Harvey’s intentions are noble.
Nor do I question her sincere devotion to Jesus Christ.
However, it is disappointing and regretable that she
feels it necessary to create such elaborate and fantastic
interpretations of the scriptures in order to promote holiness and
consecration to God among women. I have not read the sequels
to Power
Before the Throne,
but if they build on the ideas presented in this book, they will
serve only to propagate the errors contained therein, and to turn the
hope and confidence of many Christians away from the Lord Jesus
Christ, and add to the ammunition of critics of the faith. God
forbid.
"Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take away from God’s holy word."?
No comments:
Post a Comment