Holy Magic Hair – Heresy Exposed

Precursors to HMH Doctrine & Tacit Approval

Posted on 01. May, 2009 by admin in What is HMH doctrine ?

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)

The last point (#3) by Burr and the power attached to hair by Norris  are very much foundational to today’s modern-day HMH doctrine. Often proponents say that bring one’s uncut hair, as a covenant made before God, has power before His throne. The notion of the uncut hair covenant to be rewarded is pervasive in the testimonies attributed to uncut hair.

For decades, some preachers have taught that there is a parallel with the idea of hair being a covering and the phrase “because of the angels” with the ARK OF THE COVENANT IN THE OT. In a Because of the Times message, Anthony Mangun makes this analogy in his sermon, “God’s Pattern”. He maintains his father, Elder GA Mangun, taught him this.

See this video to hear him make this correlation between “glory”, “angels” and covering with the ark of the covenant:

http://www.apostolicvideo.net/play.php?vid=139

This ark of the covenant analogy is also taught by Elder James Groce, Because of the Angels 11/24/2008. here:

http://www.inlandlighthouse.com/new/page.php?ID=239

In modern HMH doctrine, Ruth Reider, in her book, Power Before the Throne, gleans from this idea … from the fact that angels, coverings and God’s glory are all mentioned in the 1 Corinthians 11 passage and reasons that the only other time we see these words together is with ark of the covenant. She argues that satan was originally a covering cherub and lost his place. Thus she adduces that “God in his amazing and poetic nature delegated Lucifer’s lost estate to woman.”

Sister Reider writes (pgs.66-67):

” The only other place where you see these three components mentioned together – the covering, the angels, and the glory – is in the Ark of the Covenant. The mercy seat covered the testimony, the law. The cherubims, the angels assigned to guard the glory, covered the mercy seat and, indeed, were attached to it. Dwelling in the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God. If ever the covering, the mercy seat, was removed from the Ark, the angels were removed with it. They were attached to the covering. The glory, mercy, and presence of God were removed as well, leaving only naked law, no mercy. To forfeit the covering was to forfeit the divine protection!.”

“The token of our New Testament salvation is the blood applied through baptism in Jesus’ Name. Without the covering of the blood, we are exposed to naked law without mercy. The woman’s hair is a type and shadow of the covering that Jesus provided for His Church. Not submitting to typology can be disastrous. (Just ask Moses.)

“The woman, as God created her, is a picture of the Church – the Law on the inside; the covering of her submission to that law on the outside; the mercy and the angels covering her; and the glory and the presence of God dwelling over, around, and in the midst of her! The woman’s uncut hair is a part of what makes her visible and recognizable as the covered bride of Jesus Christ

{Todd Weber, in refuting, also quotes Reider saying -}

On page 55, with the chapter heading: “Guardians of the Glory.” Reider writes:

“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.”

From page 65, of Reider’s PBT, 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.”

She also makes this unfounded extrabiblical claim on page 67:

“The woman’s hair is a type and shadow of the covering that Jesus provided for his church.”

In morphing these doctrines: hair resulting in favor, hair being linked to a cherubic covering, and a hair as a covenant type … Reider goes on to establish, on page 68, 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.”).

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).

Lastly, in this author’s opinion, its clear … error begets error.

Consequently, some would argue that these teachings are simply “rogue” doctrines taught by a handful of misled teachers. Yet when one realizes that this teaching is marketed by the UPCI by their official publishing house – PPH … one must wonder if this perhaps is a ringing endorsement?

The caption next to her book at the PPH website reads:

“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.”

Someone, somewhere, clearly believes the reasons in said book are biblically strong.

In their bio of the author … they state:

The writing ministry of Ruth began in a unique manner. It all started in the autumn of 1998 with a session that she taught at the Texico District ladies conference that was entitled “Power Before the Throne.” There was a strong desire on the part of the ladies to know more about the positive power of holiness. Sister Havens, among others, encouraged her to write a book. However, Ruth did not feel capable of such an undertaking. Six weeks later at the Oregon ladies conference, the subject of holiness arose during a time of fellowship following the service. As Ruth began to share the insight that she had received, Gwyn Oakes strongly urged her to put the exciting revelations into a book.

When the Ladies director of said organization encourages that these “exciting revelations” be placed in a book, it should cause one to pause and reflect if this is simply a means to an end. Not surprisingly, this very Division, in 2006, published a miracle attributed to uncut hair here:

http://www.ladiesministries.org/reflections/2006/r0611a.asp

When?

Elder Glass once said, ” Silence is consent”.  Yet, in addition to silence there seems to be elements ecouraging, condoning, appeasing this teaching.  Or is this an ends to a means?

Atleast, three books authored by licensed ministers teaching this doctrine are sold by the UPCI’s Publishing House and from my understanding they are top sellers :

Power Before the Throne – Ruth Reider
http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.com/productDetails.asp?…

Angels Watching Over Me- Reider (Children’s book)

http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.c…44080020B266CA

My Hair, My Glory – Juli Jasinski
http://sales.pentecostalpublishing.c…507&ptc=PPH123

Also the org published this photo, of a district rally, on their website photo gallery with this caption a couple of summers ago
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x290/fuerza410/hair1.jpg

The org has published  at least one article in their official organ about a  hair miracle, The Pentecostal Herald, adding credence to the practice of laying hair on the sick that has been evidenced at some meetings.

Ministers teaching this doctrine have received honorariums from districts and the org itself having taught these teachings at org and district venues.

The org, reportedly, has had various board meetings and have received letters from various pastors and ministers concerning this matter for over a decade and have yet to address this issue as they have other “rogue” doctrines … divine flesh, preterism, etc.

Tacit approval?  It can easily perceived as so.