Magic Hair Doctrine - Enough of this Hair-esy!

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. 

Holy Magic Hair

As an introduction, we encourage you to listen to the following videos of a June 29, 2008 sermon by an evangelist named, Lee Stoneking, who teaches a Holy Magic Hair Doctrine.

June 22nd Update

Updated June 22, 2013. Mr Stonekings Magic Hair video's been deleted? (Below)

• Power of angels?
• God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?
• Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?
• A distinct anointing?
• No results in prayer?  Losing authority in prayer?
• The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?
• A woman can gain power with God by having her hair grow long?
  
  Cutting hair is a salvational matter?
  
  

Enough of this Hair-esy!

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. [sic] 

"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."?   

The Bible’s Teaching about Hair Length:

Culture or Command?

Presented by David K. Bernard

The New Testament contains teaching about the respective hair lengths of men and women. Most denominational churches consider it to be merely a cultural teaching that does not apply today. Some interpret the passage in question to mean that women must pray with a type of cloth on their heads. Most conservative churches at one time taught women to have long hair, and some continue to do so today.

All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God** (II Timothy 3:16). We should not ignore any passage of Scripture, for each is precious and important. [Note: The only Scripture Paul is referring is the TaNaCH, (the Old Testament). There was not a NT written, these letters were compiled much later.]  

Bear in mind, the Jewish Scriptures were written in Hebrew, not in seventeenth century King James English. What has made Christian believers so vulnerable to Bible tampering is that almost none of them can read or understand the Hebrew Bible in its original language.

Virtually no Christian child in the world is taught the Hebrew language as part of a formal Christian education. As he and countless other Christians earnestly study the Authorized Version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption that what you are reading is Heaven-breathed. Tragically, virtually every Christian in the world reads the translation of men rather than the Word of God. On the other hand, every Jewish child in the world who is enrolled in a Jewish school is taught to read and write Hebrew long before he or she even heard the name of Luther.

One of many examples of Scripture Tampering.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Bernard and parishioners worldwide, the King James Version and numerous other Christian Bible translations were meticulously shaped and painstakingly retrofitted in order to produce a message that would sustain and advance Church theology and exegesis. This aggressive rewriting of biblical texts has had a devastating impact on Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these corrupt translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder why the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah. [1]

**Please Note:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined "the Scriptures" every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2Pe 3:16  Indeed, he [Paul] speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other "Scriptures". 

Act 17:11  Now the people here were of nobler character than the ones in Thessalonica; they eagerly welcomed the message, checking the Tanakh every day to see if the things Sha'ul was saying were true. CJB

Paul preached for three Sabbaths in the synagogue in Thessalonica. He preached from Scriptures (Old Testament, including Torah). It’s important to understand synagogue worship a bit. The synagogue read from the Torah, and the Writings, and the Prophets on every Shabbat. Shaul was preaching from JEWISH scrolls kept only at the synagogue, as they were too expensive for most to have personal copies of them.

The synagogue was the place where the scriptures were kept and studied DAILY (Acts 17:11) , and especially on Shabbat. The message of Jacob in chapter 15, therefore, is that MOSES would continue to be declared on the Sabbath, and the new Gentile converts would have plenty of time to learn to live their new life.

Verse 11 shows Paul in another synagogue. Verse 17 shows him in yet another in Athens.
Acts 18:1

Next, he’s in Corinth, reasoning with Jews and gentiles in the synagogue on EVERY SHABBAT. Reasoning over what?

What scriptures did he expound? What was he teaching them? He was teaching from the OLD TESTAMENT. At this point, the gospels we know had not even been written! The gospel was preached from the Torah! [the Tanakh ] 

The 15th chapter of the book of Acts, describes how the leadership of the Jerusalem Church disregarded Paul’s claim to prophecy.

History tells us that the Jewish church of James did not survive as a separate entity. By the time Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire, there were almost no Jewish Christians left. The few Jewish Christians which still existed, were persecuted as heretics by the gentile church. All of Christianity as it exists today, was transmitted through the body of the gentile church. The books of Christian scripture were products of the gentile church. They may have included in these books, material which came from the Jewish Christians. But the gentile church was the editor of this material. It was the gentile church who determined the contents of the Christian scriptures, and who transmitted these texts to the future generations.

In order to be convinced that the gentile church is truly transmitting the original message of Jesus, one must determine that Paul’s teachings conformed with the teachings of Jesus. The gentile church only learned of Jesus through the teachings of Paul. If Paul’s teachings were not synonymous with the teachings of Jesus, then the gentile church does not possess the original message of Jesus.

To determine Paul’s connection to Jesus, we will turn to the books of Christian scripture. It is clear that the editors of these books were strongly motivated to present Paul as one who is faithfully transmitting the original message of Jesus. Yet even these biased writers, were not able to do so.

The Christian scriptures describe the basis of Paul’s mission in the following manner. Paul never saw Jesus in real life. Neither did Paul learn of Jesus’s teachings through the disciples of Jesus. Paul emphatically states (in the 1st and 2nd chapters of Galatians) that no living person was involved in transmitting Jesus’s message to him. Paul only learned of the teachings of Jesus through a series of visions. In these visions, Jesus appeared to him and imparted his teachings. Paul’s entire message was the product of these visions.

The only way we can verify the truth of Paul’s claim, is by determining the reaction of Jesus’s disciples to Paul’s message. These men who lived with Jesus and heard him teach, could compare the teachings that they heard, to the prophecy of Paul. How did the Jewish following of James react to Paul’s claim to prophecy?

Paul makes the claim (Galatians 2:9) that the leaders of the Jerusalem Church acknowledged the fact that he was appointed (by the dead Jesus) as a messenger to the gentiles. But Paul was lying. James and the Jerusalem Church never acknowledged the validity of Paul’s visions. It is the Christian scriptures themselves who contradict Paul’s claim.

The 15th chapter of the book of Acts, describes how the leadership of the Jerusalem Church disregarded Paul’s claim to prophecy. Paul had come to Jerusalem. He had been preaching to the gentiles that they are not required to practice the law of Moses. Some members of the Jerusalem Church disagreed with Paul. They felt that in order for a gentile to join their following, he should be required to observe the law of Moses. This question was brought before the leadership of the Jerusalem Church. The elders of the church discussed the question, and James handed down his decision. His judgment was that the gentiles were not obligated to observe the entirety of the law of Moses as a prerequisite to joining the Christian community. But he stipulated that the gentiles were obligated to observe certain dietary laws, and to avoid immorality.

If Paul was telling us the truth when he claimed that the leadership of the Jerusalem Church acknowledged him as a true prophet, then this story makes no sense. Here we have Paul, who was personally appointed by the dead Jesus as his emissary to the gentile world. Whatever Paul taught was personally revealed to him in these prophetic visions. One of the central teachings of Paul was that the gentile world is not bound by the law of Moses. Yet when the leaders of the Jerusalem Church are in doubt as to what Jesus would have said concerning the gentiles, they discuss the question, and look to James for guidance. If there was any truth to Paul’s claim, that these leaders acknowledged the truth of his prophecy, then they should have simply asked him “what did Jesus tell you?” The fact that they considered the question, and the method that they used to resolve the question, clearly tells us that these men did not believe that Jesus had ever spoken to Paul. The author of the book of Acts, his bias notwithstanding, could not hide this simple fact.

The difference between the gentile church founded by Paul, and the Jerusalem Church founded by Jesus, was not limited to the question of the authenticity of Paul’s prophecy. These two institutions espoused two totally different philosophies. The central teaching of Pauline Christianity is, that faith in the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus, is the only valid method through which atonement for sin can be achieved. The entire philosophy of Paul, revolves around this one teaching. Evangelical Christianity is founded upon this basic teaching of Paul. If you were to ask an Evangelical Christian to sum up his belief system in one sentence, he would respond with this point. That faith in Jesus is the only redemption from sin. In fact the entire concept of the messiah-ship of Jesus is basically limited to this one point. Jesus is the messiah of Evangelical Christians, only because they believe that his death provided atonement for sin.

But the Jerusalem Church which was established by Jesus, and which was guided by his disciples, did not believe in this teaching of Paul. They did not believe that faith in Jesus could effectively atone for their sins. This is demonstrated by the testimony of the Christian scriptures. The 21st chapter in the book of Acts reports that the normal activities of the members of the Jerusalem Church included the offering of animals for the explicit purpose of the expiation of sin. The book of Acts describes how four members of the Jerusalem Church had taken a Nazirite vow. This means that they had voluntarily brought themselves into a situation where they would be required (by the law of Moses) to bring an animal as a sin offering. It is clear that these people saw in the temple offerings a valid method for the expiation of sin. If they believed as Paul did, that Jesus died for their sins once and for all, then there would be no point in bringing a sin offering in the temple. The fact that the Jerusalem Church still participated in the temple offerings after Jesus had died, tells us that they did not see in Jesus’s death an all atoning sacrifice. These people were not Evangelical Christians.

The Christian scriptures provides both the theological and the historical justification to the accusation that Christianity has failed in the transmission of its own message. The Christian scriptures tell us that the disciples of Jesus never believed the fundamental teaching of Evangelical Christianity.

These people who lived with Jesus and heard him preach did not believe, that with the death of Jesus, the world is redeemed of its sins. The Christian scriptures also tell us, at which historical point the break in the transmission occurred. These books tell us that Paul, the father of modern Christianity, had no connection to Jesus. Christianity is an edifice erected upon the testimony of one man. All of Christianity stands upon Paul’s word that Jesus appeared to him. The only people that were qualified to verify Paul’s claim, contradicted him to his face. This emerges from the pages of the very books which Christianity regards as true witnesses to its claims.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

"Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2

When Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a fourth century Church which was not?"  -Rabbi Tovia Singer 

Chaya, a kabbalistic feminist, explains why married Jewish women cover their hair! Don’t miss this explanation about what it really means to be a feminist – all put to rhyme and rhythm. Just keep in mind that “female power is found within.” So – watch out Miley Cyrus!

Source:  http://toddweber.wordpress.com/2009/06/

               http://pentecostalpublishing.com/node/5531  UPCI Book Store

Magic Holy Hair - I Corinthians 11:1-16

http://truetwistianity.blogspot.com/2012/11/magic-holy-hair-i-corinthians-111-16.html

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

http://natzrim.blogspot.com/2013/01/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god.html

Holy Magic Hair "the Power of Angels"

9/4/20 Update  

"A woman’s long hair symbolizes that she submits to God’s plan and to the family leadership of her husband. It is her glory. It is a sign to the angels of her commitment to God and her power with God. It is a covering so that she can pray and prophesy publicly without being ashamed. Similarly, a man’s short hair symbolizes that he submits to God’s plan and accepts the family leadership position. For both married and unmarried, this symbol indicates obedience to God’s will."~ David K. Bernard's symposium paper regarding hair doctrine 

 Note: Christian churches are filled with passionate men and women of all ages who love God with all their being, and have a deeply genuine love for other people. Many "Bible believing Christians" believe many unbiblical heresies. The wide acceptance of the beliefs within Christendom does not make it biblical. 

"Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband." 

Question: Hair Length and Religion  (Pagans View)

A reader asks, “I recently explored the option of joining a local Wiccan coven, and was floored when the High Priestess told me that if I became part of her group, I’d have to let my hair grow long. Because of my job, I have to keep my hair fairly short – it’s a safety issue – but she said that it was a tenet of “our religion” to let our hair grow long. She went on to tell me it was a way that Wiccans pay tribute to the goddess and embrace the sacred feminine. Is this true? Will I never be able to join a coven unless I grow my hair long? Help!”

Answer:..."The notion of hair as tied to religious belief is actually a pretty complex one. In some belief systems, hair is associated with magical power. Why is this? Well, it may be purely psychological. Take, for instance, a woman with long hair who wears it up in a neat bun, pulled back from her face, while she is at work. Her hair is kept tidily out of her way while she does her job, tends to her family, and so forth. And yet once this woman steps into a magical setting, she removes the pins and combs, setting her hair free – it’s a liberating feeling, to literally let your hair down. It brings a primitive sense of wildness and raw sexuality to the moment, and that in itself can be very powerful indeed."  From: Does hair length impact our religious practice?

Holy Magic Hair - UPCI Stamp of Approval

Holy Magic Hair

As an introduction, we encourage you to listen to the following videos of a June 29, 2008 sermon by an evangelist named, Lee Stoneking, who teaches this doctrine.

(Update June 22nd 2013 see video above if this one is deleted)

Power of angels?

God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?  

Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?

A distinct anointing?

No results in prayer?  Losing authority in prayer?

The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?

A woman can gain power with God by having her hair grow long?

This picture was taken at the Alabama’s Ladies retreat. Sis Patty Twyman took down her hair to summon the power of the angels over the prayer requests. Many prayers were answered.

One of the endearing points of HMH advocates is that the idea that there is power in uncut hair can be verified in the wicca religion where the witches believe there is power in uncut hair.

Such proof can be seen in the message that is pro-HMH  that I posted under the HMH post....

Another HMH advocate posted in her blog:

Did you know that witches won't cut their hair because they try to tap into the power promised to us in 1Cor 11? Do you know why Indians used to scalp their enemies? Do you know why Nuns and Buddhist monks shave their hair? What does tar and feathering mean? Do you know who it was that first starting the hair cutting trend? What date was that? What about the hippie movement?

What significance is there when hair is found at the scene of a crime?

Daniel Alicea, the man who operates holymagichair.com, found in his research that...

"Most wiccan witches agree that there is no added or extra power in uncut hair while recognizing it is used in ritual magic...but so is eye newt, toe of frog...wool of bat and tongue of dog."

He even quotes one wiccan saying "Hair does not give you extra power and you don't lose power if it's cut."

Keeping in mind, believers on both sides are united against this magic hair heresy.

Some prevailing doctrines in certain circles that I believe have led to the extreme, present-day HMH doctrine can be traced to the teachings of men like  of S.G. Norris and Murray Burr.

As early as the PAJC days in 1945, S.G. Norris, former president of Apostolic Bible Institute, General Presbyter and author, proposed elements now found in modern-day HMH doctrine.

On pages 3 and 12 of The Pentecostal Outlook, Volume 14, Number 9, September 1945,  S.G Norris suggests that uncut hair results in a “special blessing” and power with God because of the angels.  He also proposes that women have always been the leaders in prayer and power with God.

Here are a couple of  the quotes from SG Norris’ Back to Holiness article :

Then Paul tells why a woman can either gain power with God by having her hair grow long or why she loses power with God if she cuts or bobs it (Verse 7 of  this same chapter 1 Corinth. 11)  (pg.3)

But, you women say,why should I leave my hair grow when most all other women are having theirs cut? My answer to you is a wonderful promise of God found in this same chapter we are considering today. First Corinthians chapter 11 and verse 10. Don’t forget that God never asked any of us to pay a price of holiness without offering some grand reward for our obedience, Listen …

“For this cause, or because of this allowing your hair to grow and using your hair as your covering when praying or worshipping at the house of God, then for this cause ought the woman to have power because of the angels.

” Now maybe you never just considered this verse before, but God has angels on this earth not visible to the naked eye, but present just the same, around and near those who far the Lord … the angels encamp around them that fear Him.

So there is a special blessing –a grand reward of power with God and the presence of holy angels around about a godly woman that does NOT cut her hair.

Here is a promise that I wish every woman listening in today would remember. First of all Christ needs you! … the womanhood of any generation that knew God have always been the leaders in prayer and power with God … So women, here is a promise to every godly woman, that you will have power with God because of the presence of angels, providing you use your hair for a covering and not cut it or bob it off.

Burr, in a October 1954 Pentecostal Herald article entitled “The Hair Question” asserts the following views:

1. Cutting hair is a salvational matter.

“This a matter of life or of death, eternal salvation or eternal condemnation”.

2. Short hair affects spirituality.

“Mark these words, you will never find a really spiritual woman with short hair”

3. Cutting affects God’s favor over one’s life

” It is a shame for a woman to pray with short hair. You may not need God now; but one day you will need him more than anything else in this world. Perhaps in sickness, your baby, your husband, yourself. In death, in distress, how will you be able to kneel before him in sincerity with your short hair, a very banner of rebellion, mocking Him even as you try to lay hold of him in prayer’

(Source: http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent…rald195410.pdf)

David K. Bernard, the recently elected General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, has seemingly put his stamp of approval on the increasingly popular practice of laying hair among Apostolic circles,  in  a recent 2009 UGST symposium paper.

Bernard’s symposium paper regarding hair doctrine is available for download here:

http://urshan.ccsct.com/uploaded/Symposium%2F2009%2FPapers/2_Bernard_-_Bible%27s_Teaching_about_Hair_Length.doc 

and also...

 http://truetwistianity.blogspot.com/2012/11/magic-holy-hair-i-corinthians-111-16.html

While condemning the practice under certain conditions, the following quote is being termed as a “free pass” legitimizing HMH doctrine :

There have been reports of women letting down their long hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea was to obligate God to answer prayer or to create a new method of praying, then this action was misguided. If instead it was a spontaneous act to confirm their consecration, then it could have been a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith.

Oneness theologian,  Daniel Segraves,  responded to Bernard’s paper with his own.  It can be found here:

http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposium%252F2009%252FPapers/3_Seagraves_-_Response_to_Bernard.doc

Segraves, who wrote what is deemed as the first official response by a UPCI theologian denouncing this dangerous heresy in an November 2009, Pentecostal Herald, is adamant in his disapproval of this liturgical or prayer practice.

In  Segrave’s 2009 UGST symposium paper, in response to Bernard and those who have taken license to teach this heresy, he writes :

I Corinthians 11:10 is interpreted by some to mean that if women have long hair it gives them some kind of power or authority in the spiritual realm. It has even been suggested that women should let down their long hair, laying it on the altar, on another person, or shaking it in the wind in order to evoke this power. Support for this view is found in anecdotal evidence and reference works related to witchcraft and occultism. To interpret Scripture by anecdotal evidence is dangerous; our final authority is Scripture, not experience. To interpret Scripture by reference to witchcraft and occultism is even more dangerous. Scripture warns us to avoid the influence of these ideas; we are to be simple concerning evil and wise concerning what is good. (See Romans 16:19.)

Concerning the meaning of I Corinthians 11:10, we can say with certainty that it says nothing about evil spirits, it says nothing about how a woman’s hair is arranged, and the word “hair” does not appear in the verse. I will forego further discussion here in view of the fact that my article “Another Look at I Corinthians 11:10: A Plea for Caution” appeared in the November 2009 issue of the Pentecostal Herald just before this symposium. The article addresses this subject in detail, and I commend it to those who are interested in this text and/or concerned about this novel interpretation.

In response to the idea that there is a “magic formula in prayer that enables us to obtain whatever we want when we want it,” David Bernard writes,

Some women have let down their hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea is to obligate God to answer prayer, then this action is misguided. If the purpose is to confirm their consecration, then it could be a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith. We can draw an analogy to the positioning of the sick so that Peter’s shadow would fall on them . . . and the use of handkerchiefs to pray for the sick . . . . Such practices were not mandatory and probably not even typical, but they were legitimate expressions of faith in the apostolic church.

I completely agree that we cannot obligate God to answer prayer and that there is no “magic formula” enabling us to obtain whatever we want when we want it. I can also appreciate the desire to acknowledge the genuineness of any act of faith, no matter how bizarre it may seem or whether or not there is any biblical warrant for it. But my concern is that the teaching that is currently circulating among us does not see the letting down of a woman’s long has as a simple confirmation of consecration. Rather, it is being presented as a technique guaranteeing all kinds of miraculous results from the salvation of lost loved ones to the healing of diseases to the protection of children from any harmful effects of immunization to the ability to win back lost romantic affections. This is in addition to the idea of power over evil spirits. It seems there is no end to this; in one meeting the speaker suggested that God only knows what would happen if all of the Pentecostal women in the world would let down their hair and allow it to blow in the wind.

As my wife and I discussed this teaching, she reminded me of an episode in our life when our daughter was very young and contracted some kind of respiratory ailment. As we rushed to the hospital with our daughter gasping for breath (and with the brakes of our car going out on the way), my wife screamed at God, “You’ve got to heal our daughter! We’ve always paid our tithes!”

We have biblical precedent for the use of prayer cloths, even though we probably don’t use them in the same way that the handkerchiefs and aprons taken from Paul’s body were used. We even have biblical precedent for the possibility that someone could be healed as the shadow of a person of faith passes over them. We have no biblical precedent for a woman letting down her hair as a confirmation of consecration or to express and focus her faith. I do believe that there are such things as “special miracles” (Acts 19:11), and I don’t think the biblical record exhausts the ways miracles may occur. If it were not for the current abuse of I Corinthians 11:10, I might agree to the legitimacy of a woman letting down her hair to confirm her consecration, although God certainly knows of her consecration no matter how her hair is arranged.

But the current climate on this issue is so troubling, so divisive, and so potentially harmful that I do not wish to suggest any degree of legitimacy to a practice that is based on misinterpreting a text, that draws on the claims of the occult, and that promises the ability to control outcomes. Instead, I would rather point people to simple faith in God that requires no props and that avoids any appeal to non-biblical sources for insight. I am concerned that some women, thinking they have found new depth of meaning in Scripture, will be tempted to look further into the realm of the occult for new insights on spirituality.

This has drawn the attention, criticism and ire of those who believe this free pass may threaten Bernard’s vision of  a return to “Apostolic Identity”.

Is it worth losing the Power of Angels?

“You cannot AFFORD to cut your hair. Is it worth losing the power of angels? Is it worth losing authority in prayer? Is it worth losing your identity as an apostolic woman? We are known for uncut hair because it is what the bible teaches. My sister in love Courtney told me a story about a lady in her church,A blogger, by the name of Kendra, has joined the ranks of deceived believers who have fallen prey to a heretical doctrine that attributes power of angels and anointing to one act of obedience … in a plea initially addressed to herself, she states extra-biblical reasons taught by several in recent years, for why she NOT should commit this act.  In the following post she also shares a “miracle” in which God is compelled to pour out His Spirit through the reminder of personal consecration and the laying of hair:

Her son was trying so hard Sunday after Sunday to get the Holy Ghost. For some reason he could not pray through. Finally one Sunday she took her hair and laid it on her son. She began to remind God of the power that she had because her hair was uncut, and you know what happened almost instantly? Her son received the Holy Ghost!!!

Does God come on the scene immediately for you? Whenever you want him to? Just let down your hair?

I know personally of apostolic women who gave in and cut their hair. As a result, they were miserable, depressed and regreted ever going it. You undergo a major spiritual catastrophe by cutting your hair. You will not receive the same results in prayer. You will not have the same anointing you once possessed. Uncut hair is serious business. OH GOD give us revelation and understanding!
Sister, DO NOT cut your hair, I repeat PLEASE don’t do it! [sic]

Consider this: why is it that when a woman backslides, the first thing she does is cut her hair?? The devil knows that we carry the glory of God upon our uncut hair. The devil knows that there is POWER in our hair. We have a distinct anointing when we have uncut hair. I remember the first time I walked into a Pentecostal church where the ladies had uncut hair, you could FEEL the difference in anointing on the women! There was something about them that was so beautiful, holy and radiant. They almost looked like angels to me (that is no exaggeration). ”

SOURCE: http://kendrathaler-hair.blogspot.com/2011/03/chronicles-of-natural-apostolic-do-not.html

Power of angels?

God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?  

Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?

A distinct anointing?

No results in prayer?  Losing authority in prayer?

The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?

They almost looked like angels?

The post encapsulates what effect the teachings of men, like Lee Stoneking, are having on some within the Oneness Apostolic movement.  A woman by name of Harvelia testifies on Kendra’s site that it was Stoneking’s influenced her towards similar views:

“Just recently I attended a conference where Bro. Lee Stoneking was speaking. His message was coming from 1 Cor. 11:5 and he was speaking about how the woman’s uncut hair being their glory – I was not raised in Pentecost/Apostolic; however, about three years ago the Lord led me to leave my former church which was is a prodominately [sic][ black apostolic church which I was a part of for over fifteen years. I had never receive such teaching - and it just left me wondering why the black apostolic churches are not teaching this. I had to call my sister because she's been apostolic/pentecost longer than I have - but she's never receive the teaching. I currently wear my hair naturally and have done so off and on for years. I felt bad when Bro. Stoneking was teaching because I recall cutting my hair - but this was never taught in my former church.Then it also leaving me wondering why it is not being taught in the african/black churches?   " (http://kendrathaler-hair.blogspot.com/p/hair-testimonies.html)

Error begets error.  The pat answer given by some who tell the Body of Christ that these forms of consecrations and personal convictions are not salvific … may need to reexamine what is really being taught in their ranks. [sic]

THE HAIR ISSUE. 
Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards’  by Ricky Guthrie
UPCI teaches that it is sin for a woman to cut their hair, trim it or in any way break it. They take this teaching from the 11th chapter of I Corinthians.
If we look at this scripture we find that at the beginning of this chapter the Apostle Paul was dealing with a literal hair covering or veil. Later on in the chapter he mentions that long hair on a woman is considered part of her covering and that there is power in that long hair. Yet, if we look at this scripture we cannot find anywhere that Paul declared how long a woman's hair was to be.
We know historically that in Corinth the temple prostitutes wore their hair as short as the men did. Some even shaved their heads, which some of the Jewish tribes considered shameful. This is why Paul kept speaking of if a woman did not wear a head covering then she should have her head shaved. He did declare that it was shameful for a woman to have all of her hair cut off, but no where did he say she could not cut her hair. Matter of fact, it declares that a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because of the angels.
UPCI says this covering on her head is her hair and yes, Paul said long hair was given to her as a covering, but it would not make sense that this whole chapter is dedicated to long hair because he said if she refused to wear a head covering then let her shave her head. [Also See Article The Issue Of Head Covering ]
Long hair on a woman has always been dictated by society. We don't know what length a woman's hair was in those days. Also let us look at something else.
It is obvious that in Paul's day it was considered shameful for a woman to shave her head but that had not always been in Israel. We read in the law that God told Moses that if they conquered a country and captured women and a Israelite man found one of the women attractive and wanted to marry her that she was to shave her head and pare her nails. (Deuteronomy 21:12.)
Also in studying Jewish history, we find where in some of the tribes it was a custom that when a woman became betrothed to her fiance she would shave her hair and wear a wig until the day her hair grew out after she was married. The reasoning for this was that hair was considered part of what attracted men to women and these women did not want to be attractive to any man than her husband to be. If any other man tried to seduce her, she would remove her wig and show him her shaved head which repulsed him and let him know she was betrothed.
If a woman cutting her hair was sinful, why did God allow these heathen women to shave their heads before marrying an Israelite husband?
It is not the cutting of the hair that is sinful. It is when men and women want to emulate one another and look like one another until you cannot distinguish man from woman. God hates unisex.
If we study the lifestyles of the people during the life of Paul and the Apostles, we find that the prostitutes of the temple cut their hair as short as the Greek and Roman men but the male temple prostitutes wore their hair long. It is obvious that Paul, in dealing with the Christians in Corinth, was using his surroundings for his message. If what he said was fully true about men, then his own people would be sinning for the men never trimmed the sides of their hair and wore it long, as under the law.
We must understand that God wants men and women to be separate in appearance. Women not to cut their hair so short they look like men and men not to wear their hair so long they look like women. 

THE HAIR ISSUE. II
 Double Standards and Eisegesis’ By Stephen Mann

1. OVERVIEW OF THE TEACHING OF HAIR LENGTH 
The doctrine of uncut hair is thought of by many in the United Pentecostal Church International as being 'revealed' to them by God and is seen as one of the pillars for identifying people as the 'true Apostolics' or 'Pentecostals'. In following this teaching many extra-Biblical rules and guidelines have been developed which are as complex as any of the many 'hand-washing' ordinances invented by zealous Jewish believers of Christ's day. These modern extra-Biblical rules regarding 1 Corinthians 11 I will address in depth.
This teaching, followed to an extreme, results in a heavy burden of guilt to ladies under it especially since some even teach that a lady not ever trimming or cutting her hair prevents evil, deception and rebellion from entering her home or father and mother's home and so if adultery and sin enters a home some will blame the lady for cutting her hair. It can also be used as the reason any tragedy, sickness or calamity has come on individuals.

2. EXEGESIS OR EISEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11 
The reality is that this so-called 'exegesis' (bringing out the meaning) of 1 Corinthians 11, as meaning 'no cutting', is really 'eisegesis' (reading a meaning into the text). The 'no cutting' doctrine just isn't there. That's why, instead of studying, many are merely encouraged to pray for a revelation of this teaching and stay within the organizational 'fences'. This illustrates what happens (mostly through ignorance) once one starts departing from and adding to the Scriptures even in what may be considered good ways. [See Section Reading and Understanding Your Bible ]
Over a period of several years as a licensed minister with the UPC, I looked more deeply at the no trimming teaching comparing it with the Bible passage. It became more and more obvious to me that the UPC teaching was very complex in its 'interpretation' of what is cultural (not for us today) and what is universal (for all people everywhere) in that passage. It wasn't until after I was led by God to leave however, that I was able to clearly see how 'no cutting' ignores the real teaching of the passage (Paul teaching wearing a physical veil, saying that if the woman isn't covered she may as well shear her hair, and comparing long hair on men and long hair on women to encourage veiling). This is more than likely because while in the UPC it is very difficult to look without bias at the passage and just be open to what the Bible teaches. It is so clear now to me that anything beyond the Bible's clear commands, by implication, must be omitted by God for a reason. If He wanted to make uncut hair important (as He did with many other issues) He would have made it clear in the Bible. I personally have no problem with any lady choosing freely to not cut her hair or any organization making it their distinctive but I believe it is Pharisaical and legalistic to put the traditions and desires of men on the same level of authority as the teaching and Word of God.

3. DOUBLE STANDARDS IN TEACHING FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 11 
This non-Biblical teaching of 'no cutting' has developed a lot more than splitting hairs (pardon the pun) and has led to more and more complex rules and double standards to try to cover up the glaring omission of 'no cutting' from the text (basically teaching it is hidden inside the passage). Here are some of the double standards that I now see in their view of 1Corinthians 11 that I ignored for years thinking there was some other explanation for them:
If the word 'long' in 1 Corinthians 11 really means hair without any cutting at all (to let grow),
It follows that...
If a woman has hair to her waist but trims her ends, her head is uncovered and her hair is not long. BUT if a man has hair to his waist but trims his ends his hair is long!
Many teachers of this doctrine would consider men like the men in Megadeath, or even the Beatles, as having long hair, and if converted to their church, would teach them from the same passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that they should cut their hair 'short' (measured to above the collar) out of the same verse saying it's a shame to have long hair. (I wonder how it is that Samson's long hair pleased God?)
In other words, for these teachers, trimmed is not long enough for women but it's too long for men. This is clearly a double standard.

4. NON-LITERAL AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE 
The two different meanings and applications are taught from the one same word in the Bible, and in context clearly refer to the one thing...long hair. If this were another Greek word such as is used for baptism (baptiso) the same teachers would be acting very differently. Such teachers, on topics such as baptism, often make it very clear that to them there is only one way to translate, interpret and apply Scripture (literally) yet here they overlook the omission of clear apostolic teaching on the matter and overlook historical Biblical practice. They have a double standard and so must take the word in both a literal and a non-literal double meaning.
If the same Greek word 'komao' (only used in these two verses of the whole Greek New Testament) can be translated into two vastly different meanings (as hair 'let grow-ness' for women and in the same passage as hair 'shortness' for men) without anything in the passage to justify or confirm it, then it's little wonder that 'no braids' is interpreted to not really mean no braids but 'no jewelry' in the same Bible passage is interpreted to really mean no jewelry! (1 Timothy 2:9-19; 1 Peter 3:3)
It's also little wonder that when the Bible clearly says we are saved 'not by works of righteousness' this kind of adding to the Bible is used to say that it really doesn't mean 'not by works'...in their Bible eisegesis it is explained to mean not JUST by works, because if you don't have works then you will be lost.
What's even more amazing to me is the teaching not only implies Biblical good works are salvational, but also that extra-Biblical works such as not trimming dead ends, not wearing pants, and not wearing jewelry at all, are 'good works' and without which show one doesn't have faith (unless one is a new believer -then it's mysteriously overlooked)! This sounds like the Pharisees with their extra rules and exemptions for washing hands, Sabbath prohibitions and 'separation' from sinners and Samaritans!
With this complexity and confusion (continually reinforced by three to four services per week, books, cassettes, videos and conferences), these kind of teachers keep souls from grasping the simplicity that is really in Jesus: Salvation is a gift and not a result of our keeping standards (even Biblical ones which we are, by the way, encouraged to keep and which we will grow to do as a result of being saved and filled with God and not the means by which to be saved or earn more of God).
The Pharisees of Jesus' day were double standards experts and had filled books with complex rules, commentary, etc. on what was allowed and what wasn't, what the passage really means and what it doesn't.

5. NON-ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTES? 
These modern teachers explain the word 'long' in 1 Corinthians 11 to mean that any woman who ever trims her hair even once by definition doesn't have long hair since it is not 'let to grow' and she has an uncovered head. This is absolutely and clearly what the word 'long' in the Bible means to them.
These absolutes are further 'explained' to mean that ladies and girls can never trim dead ends since that is not letting the hair grow as 'taught in the Bible'.
Yet the interesting double take and complexity fog index is applied when these teachers supersede their previous absolute interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and allow cut hair to be considered 'long' (since the majority of women today have cut their hair) and mysteriously recognise what was once an uncovered head as having been transformed mystically through their faith somehow into a covered head (where there is no Scripture indicating any thing of that nature or any loop-holes in the previous absolutes).
They do this through many complex maneuvers where the Bible passages supposedly clear teaching of 'long' as always meaning 'to let their hair grow' is superseded in certain circumstances.
(In other words they turn a blind eye to this absolute 'no cutting' rule sometimes.)

6. CONTRADICTIONS AND DISPENSATIONS 
Dispensation for a woman NOT having 'long' cut hair (or an uncovered covered head) is granted only in the following MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
• a) hair cutting before conversion
• b) hair cutting in preparation for surgery
• c) hair cutting in an emergency rescue or life threatening situation
• d) hair cutting if another attacked the person and perpetrated it
• e) hair cutting if you were backslidden but have since repented (although one cannot cut and repent too often or too frequently or when one's hair is too tangled since that is an unforgivable sin)
• f) having an uncovered head if you were accused of adultery in the Old Covenant (Numbers 5:18)
• g) hair shaving if you were a captured enemy female about to marry an Israelite (God commanded it in Deuteronomy 21:12)
• h) hair cutting, shaving and plucking if it's hair that's on your legs, eyebrows or under your arms
• i) if you were a female and took the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:18)
So in summary; to the double standard teachers, 'long' means 'to let grow', EXCEPT if one is unconverted, backslidden, sick, attacked, in the OLD TESTAMENT as a captive wife-to-be or in mortal danger and can only be saved by cutting the hair.
Only in these certain cases is the non-'long' cut hair 'long'.

BUT THEN DOUBLING BACK AGAIN SAY 
However 'long' can NOT be interpreted to mean it's allowable to trim it from an inability to care for it (example: disability etc.), or when elderly and unable to maintain it, or to ever make the hair healthy and get rid of split ends since that is clearly not in the Bible and the Church has clearly ruled that it is sinful, rebellious, worldly and virtually unforgivable.

7. CHURCH LEADERS LEGISLATING ON EQUAL AUTHORITY WITH SCRIPTURE 
The church leaders take on an authority to rule in their member's lives beyond that which the Bible gives them. The hair cuttee ONLY receives the 'imprimatur' by the Church in said circumstances which have been ruled on. Mysteriously in those circumstances the non-'long' hair is transubstantiated into 'long' hair and the head deemed 'covered' by the powers-that-be.
To the modern (double) standards teachers, such cases mysteriously don't mean the Church has equal authority with the Bible or that they apply the Bible one way for one person/situation/time and another way for another person/situation/time. In their view they are simply 'rightly dividing the Word'.
In fact many teachers teach both contrary teachings of 'long' and think that both contradicting positions are taught at the same time in the same passage without ever seeing the contradiction. The Organisation brainwashes members to think that it's the other teachers (who to some are not even considered Christian) that are soft and have itching ears and don't understand the truth that the UPC has (known as 'the revelation'). These Organisational leaders, as kinds of vicars for Christ on earth, have an infallibility and unquestionable authority equal with Scripture and alone can interpret such mysterious contradictions of literal and non-literal interpretations of the same passage.
Saying people need to believe it while it seems contradictory and arbitrary, solely because the church leaders say it is Biblical and is not contradictory, reminds me of the White Queen saying to Alice in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland -- "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
 before breakfast."
8. THE SIN OF PRIDE Many tend to think, like I did, that since they are (supposedly) the only ones who really understand, teach and obey God's revelation in the Bible, that they must therefore be spiritually superior to other Christians who don't understand or obey it, or even the only 'true Christians'. Although humility is emphasized, many proudly believe that because 'their ladies' are more 'feminine' and more 'modest', that it is proof very few outside of the denomination will be saved and also is proof that they alone are God's elite whom God will use to lead other Christians to the truth they have.
Jesus compared the prayers of the proud Pharisee who relied on his works and left in his sins with those of the humble sinner who humbly relied on God's mercy and left justified. Friend what importance do you think God really places on their hair length? If the one crying for mercy were a female with cut hair would God have refused to justify her because she cut her hair? I think not. How would the story go if the Pharisee of Jesus day were a modern UPC woman praying, "I thank you for the revelation of 1 Corinthians 11. I thank You that I have never cut my hair, not like this other sinful lady"?
For about ten years I proudly believed that I taught (what I thought was) Biblical doctrine in Australia and overseas; that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches ladies not to ever cut or trim their hair. I now see I was wrong and apologise to any of you that have carried, or still carry this extra-Biblical yoke through my teaching or influence. I am sorry for misrepresenting the Word and character of God and I humbly thank Him for His grace to help me see my pride and errors. Please study and pray about this teaching.
I appeal to you my brother and sister, even if at this point you still disagree with me on what 1 Corinthians 11 teaches, that you agree with me that it is by no means related to the gift of Salvation, and that you agree God can and does and will forgive His prodigals whatever their hair length.
He accepts us all unconditionally as His children through our believing that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was substitutional and that His blood paid in FULL our sins, not in ANY way through our works of 'obedience', and especially not through any 'obedience' to something not clearly taught in the Bible or practiced in Jewish or Christian history.
Your brother in His Kingdom, 

THE PANTS ISSUE! 
Scriptures Prohibiting the Wearing of Pants by Women?  By Stephen Mann
A) Verses Teaching No Pants
I have cut and pasted all five verses prohibiting women wearing pants from my KJV. Please study the five verses below with an open mind and you will see what the Bible actually says about women not wearing pants....
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.
• 5.
(That's right, friend, there are absolutely no verses at all that prohibit pants on women!)

B) Deuteronomy 22:5
Ah, but you say what about this verse...
• The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
Well quite simply, there are four reasons why I have difficulty with the no-pants interpretation from this passage...
• 1. The passage doesn't clearly prohibit pants on women but there are very clear prohibitions for eating pork, not keeping Friday/Saturday (Sabbath) holy, not wearing mixed apparel of linen and wool etc., so even if there was (which there isn't), it still wouldn't mean it is for us today if it isn't taught to Gentiles in the new covenant.
• 2. If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be seen as a law to be obeyed today, then a consistent interpretation would mean the prohibited mixed threads, Kosher foods and other laws in the same chapter should also be followed. Why are anti-pants teachers overlooking these others?
• 3. If the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle, it should also be applicable to prohibit other male garments on women such as t-shirts, boots, underwear, scarves, gloves, sneakers, etc. Why is this principle not followed to its natural implications?
• 4. Lastly, if the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle for today (and the previous three points are overlooked), then it remains to be proved that pants are men's clothing. Culturally they were on women in China long before the Western men left off wearing tights (which by the same principle should be called men's apparel!) and hence fail on historical grounds as well.

C) Hebrew for the word translated 'garment' 
Let's look at the Hebrew word that 'garment' is translated from: 8071 simlah (sim-law'); Strong says: "perhaps by permutation for the feminine of 5566 (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress."
Some would focus in on the word Strong uses above (dress), saying that the word in this passage teaches that the dress is female attire. They overlook the fact that Strong goes on to say...
• "especially a mantle: apparel, cloth (-es, -ing), garment, raiment. comp. 8008."
Strong says the majority of times it is translated raiment, clothes and garment (as it is here in Deuteronomy 22:5 in the KJV). Not once is it translated into the English word 'dress'. Rather similar to when we say men and women's dress sense, we are not talking about only female attire. The word means clothes, not dresses!
Some commentators teach the passage is specifically prohibiting women wearing men's armour, but whether it's apparel or armour there is no teaching here that pants are for men only.

D) Skirts 
While Deuteronomy 22 verse 5 is often quoted, verse 30 is often overlooked...
• "a man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt" Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV
If ladies wanted to legislate doctrine for men, here's a good place they could have started!
Did men wear skirts back then?
• Yes!
Is it Biblical?
• Yes.
Here in verse 30 you have it straight from the KJV Bible that all you women wearing skirts are cross dressers! This is really men's apparel. Consider this verse...
• Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily 1 Sam 24:4
There are many more Bible verses for men wearing skirts than women wearing them! The Bible speaks of men's skirts twelve times: (Dt 22:30, Dt 27:20, Ru 3:9, 1 Sa 15:27, 1 Sa 24:4, 1 Sa 24:5, 1 Sa 24:11, 1 Sa 24:11, Eze 16:8, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:12, and Zec 8:23).
If you're really going to follow the Bible literally and get back to Biblical men's and women's garments, then get those sewing machines buzzing, men, and stop those women from wearing your skirts!! (Yes I am joking.)

E) History 
In ancient Egypt their normal clothing was a loincloth wrapped around the hips and girdled at the waist. A cape was worn on the shoulders and later a long garment called a kalasiris was introduced. Men wore this as a skirt around their waist; women wore it over their upper body, or as a full-length garment that sometimes had sleeves.
The Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians all wore a long, sleeved garment similar to a nightshirt, with cloaks or kalasiris-like overgarments. These clothes appear to be stiff, with fringed and tasselled borders and square or rounded corners.
For thousands of years in history we don't find pants and it is a relatively modern and culturally brief period of history where there was a distinction of pants only on men and dresses only on women.
Even today in the Pacific and other areas of the world, many continue to wear a sarong or robe on males and females with only a small distinction between them.

F) Summary 
There is no verse in the Scriptures prohibiting women wearing pants or saying that a dress was all a female could wear. Instead we find, in the Bible and in history, men wearing similar garments to women (what we would call dresses today).
There is also no Biblical precedent or teaching regarding males alone wearing pants. Although there may be some cultural norms in some countries today, there is no prohibition by God and it is never referred to (as many falsely preach today) as an abomination to God. This is a sad example of denominational ignorance and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (reading the text's meaning). 

STANDARDS FOR MEN 
Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘ by Ricky Guthrie
The UPCI teaches standards for men when there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that deals with dress codes for men except a man should not wear a woman's clothing.
Many of the hardliners say men have to wear long sleeved shirts or they are being immodest. Where they get that teaching I have not the slightest idea.
In their manual they say that their young men cannot suit out for gym because it is immoral or immodest. They say that men cannot bare their legs in public, like wearing shorts, because it is immodest.
Again let us look at history.
There were ancient pictures found in a Babylonian ruin of a Hebrew man working in the fields. This was after the law was given on Sinai. This man was wearing only a long tunic that went from his waist to his knees. Another showed a man wearing a tunic below the knees. Both men were bare-chested and bare-footed. They were working in the fields.
It has been proven that in ancient Egypt, because of the extreme heat, the Egyptian men wore no shirt. Slaves were only given tunics to wear as they worked. We know that Joseph was sold into slavery. Do we contend that he was given special privileges? I don't think so. Does this mean Joseph sinned against God?
What about all the Israelite men in slavery in Egypt? Did those who died in slavery lose their souls?
What about the fact that King Saul danced so much in the spirit that he danced his clothing off?  The people saw this but none said he was immodest.  The same thing with David.  We know he did the same when bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem. UPCI contends he sinned and that is why Michal rebuked him, but notice it was not because he had sinned it was because Michal thought the King of Israel should be above such displays of emotion.
Then we have the story of Peter. After Christ rose again, Peter decided to go fishing. The KJV said he was naked. Other translations say he was stripped for work, which tells us he was bare-chested. Historically speaking, we find that Israelite men in the heat of the day when fishing, stripped down to their tunics. This is what Peter did. It was old habit and acceptable. UPCI begs to differ because they say he was embarrassed because when Jesus called, he put on his coat and jumped into the water.
What they don't understand that at the time the waters were still cold and even then a fisherman's coat was expensive and a very valuable part of their wardrobe. It kept them warm in the winter when they had to survive. No fisherman would leave their coat in the boat.
If this was due to the fact that Peter was backslid and sinning, why did not John write and tell us that Jesus rebuked Peter for being immodest? He did not because that was not considered immodest or sin.
There just are absolutely no standards in the Bible for men except the fact that a man is never to reveal his private parts in public. This is why God had the priest put on linen breeches when going up to the altar. Israel came out of slavery in Egypt and when the Egyptians wore robes they wore no under clothing, so if they climbed something you could look up their robes and see their private parts.
Are there rules and regulations in the Bible for us to live by? Absolutely! These are well documented in the gospels and epistles. We are told that we are not to lie, steal, cheat, gossip, tell tales. We are not to abuse one another, be deceitful. We are not to live in anger and bitterness. We are not to curse or cuss or use profanity. We are not to tell dirty jokes. We are not to commit adultery, fornication or homosexuality. Men are to be masculine and women effeminate. We are to be obedient to man's laws as long as they do not try to force us to sin against God. We are to love one another as Christ loved us and to forgive each other immediately of any wrongdoing.
We are to live in peace and to owe no man anything. (Which means to pay our bills) We are not to slander one another. Be obedient to parents. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the head of the house, but men are to honor their wives, not abuse them or misuse them. Women are to dress modestly. These are just some of the rules of the Christian life. 

MAKE-UP 
Excerpt  from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘ 
by Ricky Guthrie
The only true argument they can use is the same old stale argument that prostitutes used make-up to seduce men and Jezebel wore it the day she tried to seduce Jehu.
Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband. Also many of the women in the tribes wore heavy make-up when working in the fields because it protected their faces from the harsh sun.
Nowhere in the Bible do we find where the wearing of make-up is prohibited. This again lies with the fact that the ministry of the UPCI wants women to be subservient to men in all aspects, and as in a lot of their teachings, this comes back to human sexuality.
This constant fear of sexual sins. Nearly everything they teach basically comes down to what they think is immodest or what will lead their members to commit sexual sins.
They feel if they allow their women to wear make-up they will attract other men, so if they keep them looking like plain janes they will not commit sexual sins.  It does not matter how many times someone in their movement falls into sexual sin, they don't change their stand.   

Make-up 
by Jason
The Scripture mostly used to support the teaching that one is not to wear make-up is:
• 2 Kings 9:30: 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.
Proponents of this teaching will say that we really don't want to be a part of anything that has to do with Jezebel.
According to Thayer’s & Smith’s, ‘tired’ here is the Hebrew word ‘yatab’ which means, in short, ‘to be good, be pleasing, be well, be glad’. In other words, she combed her hair.
I can’t say it enough. If because Jezebel put on make-up, then make-up is a sin, then combing you hair is, too. This an just one more example of the lack of Bible scholarship in the UPC. I was always taught that Jezebel was trying to seduce her enemy here. But a basic reading of the text reveals that Jezebel knew she was going to die and was simply mocking her soon to be captor by fixing herself up for her death. She wasn’t putting on make-up to seduce anyone and neither do 85% of the women in the world!
Here is another good one:
• Jer 4:30 "‘And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do ? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.'"
Three things are cast in a negative light here (supposedly): 1) Jewelry 2) Make-up 3) The color red. Now the UPC condemns two of these things and they use this scripture to back themselves up, but they, like with braiding, choose to ignore part of the scripture. So, tell me, is it now a sin to wear red too?
I read where someone stated that "looking at a pattern of things in the Word of God, we can safely say that a Godly woman should not wear make-up. If Paul wrote to not wear gold, pearls, or costly array, do you think that make-up would be pleasing to God?"
Oh, so women should not braid their hair, either. I noticed they left that part out. The UPC’ers always say that ‘plaiting’ meant weaving gold into your hair. That might have applied at times, but most often women simply braided their hair without anything in it and I’ve yet to find anywhere that says it means anything other than braiding in general.
An adherent of the no make-up rule might state that the main point in this is actually not the make-up, but the spirit or attitude that would make a woman want to wear make-up that's a sin.
If an 80 year old, happily married grandmother put on little lipstick, which of her motivations are comparable to Jezebel or prostitution? Are you actually suggesting that she is trying to incite lust? Give me a break! But you just about have it – it is the ‘spirit or attitude’ that makes something a sin, not the make-up itself! If a woman puts on make-up to attract men, she is in sin, but if she puts it on simply to look nice, like when she combs her hair, where is the sin?
Often a proponent of these standards teachings will bring up an extreme during a conversation, saying something to the effect that homosexuality will soon be socially accepted and that just because something becomes socially accepted, it is not a reason to do such things as wear make-up or for women to wear pants.
One big difference here. The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality , it does not condemn cut hair, pants or make-up on women.

JEWELRY
Refuttation of the UPCI Teaching on Jewelry by Ricky Guthrie
According to the UPCI the Bible frequently associates jewelry with a proud attitude, an immoral lifestyle, or pagan worship. They take this stand based on the story of Jacob and the story of the golden calf. This is one of the reasons they say the wearing of jewelry is sinful.
In Genesis we find that Abraham sent his servant, Eliezer, to find his son Isaac a wife. Abraham sent him to some of his kinfolk. Eliezer met a young girl named Rebecca. When she told him whose family she was with, he gave her a gold nose ring and two gold bracelets. Later on we read where he gave her more jewelry, etc.
We all know that Abraham was called the friend of God. It is obvious that he did not think the wearing of jewelry was sinful or he would not have sent Eliezer with jewelry for the young future bride of his son, Isaac.
We also know that Rebecca was the mother of Jacob. The same Jacob the UPCI claims did away with the wearing of jewelry.
Jacob left his home because he took his brother's birthright and went to his mother's brother's home. Here he married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. We have to understand that Laban did not worship Jehovah but worshipped household gods as we find in Genesis when Rachel stole her dad's household gods.
It was in worship of these gods that the women wore certain types of jewelry. They wore amulets and charms also to ward off evil spirits. Jacob, who served Jehovah, knew in God's sight these article of jewelry were wicked so he had them buried. This in no way tells us that the wearing of jewelry is sinful. The wearing of jewelry worn to ward off demonic spirits or worn in worship to false gods is wrong.
• 1 Peter 3:3, 5 – “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel...For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:”
Above, Peter instructs women to adorn themselves as the holy women of the ‘old time’ did, right? How about Rebecca? She was unquestionably a holy woman of the old time. Was she not one of the most prominent female figures of the Old Testament? Of course. So then, let’s look at some passages about Rebecca:
• Genesis 24:47, 53 – “And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands….And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebecca: he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things. "(KJV)
What? One of the women of old wore jewelry? Is the Bible contradicting itself? I hardly think so. So then Peter is not forbidding jewelry outright, he is forbidding excessive use of it and telling us not to let our outward appearance be what we are known by, but instead to be known by our meek and humble spirit.
In the passage below, God himself is putting jewelry on His people and referring to Israel’s beauty as ‘perfect through my comeliness.’ In fact, this passage even seems to suggest that God was glorified to the heathen as a result of Israel’s beauty.
• Ezekiel 16:9-14 – “Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.” (KJV) .
Later on when Joseph, Jacob's son, was sold into slavery and became the second man in command in Egypt, we read where Pharaoh put a ring on his finger and a gold chain around his neck. We know that Joseph did not commit adultery with Potiphar's wife for it was considered sin. If Jacob his father considered the wearing of jewelry sin, why did Joseph accept these articles of jewelry from Pharaoh? The reason is clear as a bell. His father did not think the wearing of all jewelry as sinful.
If Jacob had taken this stand, then he would have stood against his Grandfather and his own mother. We know his Grandfather gave his servant jewelry to give to Rebekah and she wore it.
When God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, he told Moses to have the Israelites borrow jewelry from the Egyptians and for them to wear it. In his omniscience, God knew the Israelites would take this jewelry and wear it and later would take the jewelry and have Aaron melt it down and the golden calf would be formed and they would worship this calf as their god. Did this stop God from telling Moses to borrow the jewelry? NO!
Even though, after they had committed this grave sin, God did tell them to remove their jewelry it was not permanent.
We know that King Saul wore gold bracelets for this was told to us at the time of his death and again at the time when David composed his most famous song about Saul and Jonathan, he spoke of Saul who adorned the people with jewelry.
The Song of Solomon tells us that King Solomon wore gold chains. Also Daniel was given a gold chain by the King of Babylon.
We also read in the Book of Jeremiah where God said "Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number." (Jeremiah 2:32.) Also in the Isaiah 61, God spoke of a bridegroom wearing his ornaments.
The UPCI speaks of the time that God accused Israel of committing adultery against him in the same book of Isaiah as other proof that the wearing of jewelry is sin. Here in Isaiah 3 we read where God spoke of Israel as if she were a literal woman committing harlotry against him.
He speaks of all the jewelry she was wearing and said he would take away all of it from Israel. God also spoke of head-bands, cloaks, undergarments, bonnets, scarves, mantles, hoods, and veils. All this he was going to take away from Israel. Yet when you read UPCI's stand on outward adornment and jewelry they say it is sin to wear jewelry but okay to wear headbands, undergarments, veils, scarves, etc. Doesn't make sense does it?
When we turn over to Ezekiel the 16th chapter, when God again likened Israel to a real woman, he said he had clothed her in fine clothing and put rings on her fingers and rings in her ears and in her nose, and bracelets and gold chains and a gold crown.
This was Jehovah who said he had adorned Israel this way, and even though later in the same chapter we read where this same Israel used this jewelry to attract other lovers, God still said he would adorn her with all this jewelry.
If throughout the Old Testament we find that God told Israel to wear jewelry, why does UPCI teach something blatantly different?
Both Peter and Paul wrote that women should not put so much emphasis on outward appearance, so they both mentioned the wearing of gold or pearls. If you read their writings in the original language, you come to the understanding that they were not forbidding jewelry from being worn but were saying things such as a meek and mild spirit etc. was better adornment. They both were speaking of moderation. If we took what Peter said in the light of how the UPCI interprets what he said in I Peter the third chapter, we would come to the conclusion that Peter was telling the women not to wear clothing.
UPCI tends to have this attitude that if something has ever been used for evil then it becomes strictly evil. People have used jewelry for sexual purposes or for prideful purposes so they say it is a sin to wear it. If God felt that way about everything that has been used to sin with, he would have destroyed the world a long time ago.
One good example of this is the act of sex. It is one of the greatest sins committed daily in life (adultery and rape etc.) but God has not forbidden the use of this act in marriage just because mankind has used the act to sin with.
The wearing of jewelry is not sinful, neither for men nor for women. Also, for those who take a stand against this trend of men wearing earrings or women wearing nose rings, the people of Israel wore both.

"It is a rule in the UPCI that no licensed Minister may publicly contend for any view that may bring disunity to the organization, the mouths of Prophets within this group are gagged and the pens of scribes are forbidden to write. With this form of ecclesiastical censorship lording over the rank and file of this organization, there will never be a public questioning of Dr. Segraves's beliefs which he publishes to be true when they are false. Since there can be no publicized dissent of his opinions and theories from within the ranks of the UPCI, someone outside of this organization must take up the responsibility to call his prophetic beliefs false." - Pastor Rev. Reckart

Brief History

The roots of Oneness Pentecostalism can be traced in the North American Pentecostal movement during the early 1900s. During a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California in the late 1913 or early 1914 conducted by the Assemblies of God (AG), one minister by the name of John G. Scheppe revealed that during his night of meditation it was revealed to him that baptism must be done "in the name of Jesus only" and not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Several AG ministers including R.E McAlister, Frank J. Ewart, Glenn A. Cook, and Garfield T. Haywood, began teaching this "new issue."

While this "baptismal formula" began as a friendly debate it developed into a fierce controversy over the nature of Godhead. This "new issue" made a rift between the AG movement that prompted J. Roswell Flower to oppose Oneness theology and baptismal formula in their Third General Council in 1915. In their Fourth General Council in 1916, the AG ministers adopted a "Statement of Fundamental Truths" that forcefully maintained the Trinity doctrine, that banned the 156 of the 585 AG ministers.

The Nature of the Trinity is Essential Nicene Christian Doctrine.

The June 1997 issue of Charisma features an article by executive editor J. Lee Grady entitled, "The Other Pentecostals," reporting on the estimated 17 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide with 2.1 million in the United States.

Grady calls Pentecostalism a "house divided." While Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals alike trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of  l906, Oneness Pentecostals have been "separated from their brethren by a nasty doctrinal feud that split families and churches." Today younger leaders in the Oneness movement hope to end the feud and lead their movement into the mainstream church. "It is disturbing enough to read that 17 million Oneness believers are following a theology that rejects the biblical doctrine of the trinity. Even more troubling is the article's suggestion that among many evangelicals this Oneness error is not terribly significant!" [sic] 

Witchcraft (also called witchery), in historical, anthropological, religious, and mythological contexts, is the use of alleged supernatural or magical powers or spells.

Please Note:  Direct Relationship:

You can enter into a deep, joyful and fulfilling relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth without having anyone else involved in that relationship aside from the two of you: God and yourself.
Don’t let anyone tell you that your Creator is “unapproachable”. You don’t need anyone to stand between you and Him. He is close to all who call upon Him in truth (Psalm 145:18). - Rabbi Eli Cohen