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 then 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.
To read my review of Ruth (Rieder) Harvey’s teaching, see my post of March 2008.
Kari Anna Quijas
Jun 27th, 2009
I just finished the blog, “Enough with this hair-esy’. I am a member of the United Pentecostal Church, International. I wasn’t aware of the “Magic Hair Doctrine”. So I am taking the liberty to believe you are referring to a woman’s uncut hair. (New Testament: I Corinthians 11:10 & 15. passage by Paul).
So please give me the liberty to address this in sections according to your “thoughts”. I am familiar with Ruth Rieder’s articles. I know her to be very conservative with her views, and also very Bible based, in the hopes of pleasing God, and directing young woman. I wanted to read the complete article before going any further. I have never read the description of “magic hair” in her writings. Obviously, as a Pentecostal woman I don’t engage in any “magic”. Nor do I believe my “un-cut” hair is “magical”, able to enchant or be used for sorcery. I’m down-loading the section you point to as “Magic Hair” from her article.
Ruth Rieder’s thoughts:
“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.)
Hum. Ok, I see where you are going with this. Let me say this; my sins were taken away at Calvary’s cross, for Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain for the foundation of this world. I was bought with a price, I could not pay. I am not my own, now. I belong to God for his fellowship, communion, and for his servitude; to be “light”, and “salt” in this present evil world. I am to be separate and holy. I am his chosen vessel to bring him glory. I am asked to be “holy”, as he is “holy”. I am commanded to abstain from worldliness; corruption, and vanity of this world. I am not to be entangled in this world’s system. I am to lay aside all sin that does so easily beset me, and run with patience, this race that is set before me. Are those statements correct?
So let us, as Christians discuss the idea of a woman’s “un-cut” hair.
First: ask yourself, why did Paul the Apostle even address a woman’s hair, or a man’s hair, or the “headship” of Christ in I Corinthians 11, beginning with this statement:
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” I Cor 11:1-2
Second: Who were the Corinthians? What was the significance of addressing this topic of hair, with them, and their church? Remember, Paul started churches, but he also acted to correct churches who were going in error of the original doctrine. Why would Paul say in verse five, “But every woman that prays or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were “shaved”?
Third: When in the Old Testament, was a woman’s head “shaved”. What was it a sign of? Captivity? Bondage? Shame? Mourning? “being defiled”? It makes for very interesting reading to do a word search in the Old Testament regarding it. Remember the Old Testament and the New Testament walk hand in hand together, in order to get the full understanding. Some call it “revelation”. So let say, to obtain greater knowledge of the mind of God.
Truly, with so many customs, feasts and traditions that were dropped because of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice on Calvary; being the LAMB of God that takes away the sins of the world, why should “hair” even be brought up, addressed, and considered an “ordinance” to be followed?
Chapter 11 is said to be the “veiling of a woman”. (KJV Nelson Study Bible). Another question, would be in chapter 11 after the order of authority, it ends with the Lord’s supper? Kinda clever that it’s brought together like that: you know, “head-ship, Christ, Man, Woman, (Hair), and fellowship in the Lord’s Supper. Just a thought.
Let me read this out from the Nelson study Bible vrs. 11:3 The concept of headship does not denote qualitative or essential difference. It denotes responsibility and accountability, not superiority.
vrs 11:5 commentary reads: Head Uncovered: The covering is symbolic, indicating the authority that exists above the woman, yet still under Christ.
vrs 11:6 In Corinth it was not uncommon for prostitutes and loose women to shave their heads and wear wigs, signifying their availability to the men in the streets. Just as no respectable Christian woman would go out in public dressed as a prostitute. (Right, I think).
It is equally important that she not participate in public worship without a head covering. vrs. 11:7 the image and glory of God: This does not infer that the man is in the image of God, and the woman is not. Paul uses the term image here in a restricted sense. This refer to the authority that she has been delegated.
vrs 11:10 Angels: the reference is to the holy angels, who elsewhere are spoken of as “ministering spirits” (see Hebrews 1:14). The keynote of Paul’s thought is “submission” to God in recognizing their true position and fulfilling its claims, as do the angels who know nothing of insubordination among their ranks.
Wait a minute: did you read that? Hair has to do with perception of a woman’s role; either “prostitute”, “loose woman”, or “submissive” to the ordinances when she comes to the house of God?
And it is stated: Authority given her for her submission to those ordinances, and because she is a follower of Paul, as Paul states, “he follows Jesus Christ”.
So then could you say, that a woman coming to church with cut hair and not abiding by the written ordinances given by Paul to the Church would lose “authority” of God in their roles; and further, that the appearence of the styles of the world, are not within the “ordinances”?
Could cut hair, colored hair, styled hair; which is meant to allure, or be provocative to the opposite sex in church act as a distraction to pure worship to God?
Do these “saved” individuals look to God as “prostitutes”, or “loose woman”? (Take the idea of Make up). What did God think of Jezabel’s makeup? Or any painted woman, as “He called them”. Ouch.
Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? Does God change his views with the fashion of the world. Some Christians believe, “Oh, I know the God of the Old Testament said they look like harlots”, but the New Improved God of the New Testament, is more “with-it”. He evolved like we did to embrace such adornments as beauty and attractiveness”?
Can I say, that I believe a lot of people are going to be surprised when God tells them what he really thinks of their worldliness, vanity, and accessories. I could be wrong. But, speaking of my earthy father, who raised me in love; when he first saw me with makeup, he said, “you look so old”. “you don’t even look like yourself”. Anyway. Let’s discuss your article further.
I believe that if you feel she is promoting a false doctrine, it should be addressed with Brother Mullings, who is the UPC Superintendent of the Western District, so that he could review your thoughts, and her writings. As well as writing Ruth Rieder personally and asking her to support her thesis of “Lucifer’s Lost Covering”, scripturally.
I believe that Ruth Rieder-Harvey has a zeal for her belief in un-cut hair and the authority of God given her, in her role as a “submitted woman” of the ordinances as they have been delivered to her.
The Bible says let us come together and reason with one another.
You stated:
“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.”
Wow, that’s a mouth full. I am sorry that you feel that way. You obviously have a zeal for your beliefs as well. The goal is that we want to make it to heaven. And, too, if you feel your brother is overtaken in a fault, to restore such a one, in a spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
I love my un-cut hair. It is a sign that I believe the scriptures, and obey the scriptures as they have been delivered to me. My whole being as a holy woman is a offering unto the LORD. You may say, “what do you mean by that”? I will say this. Many, many scriptures for woman in the New Testament have to do with their “appearance”. Because it is the one area that we struggle with greatly. “Vanity”. We want to be seen as beautiful, young, attractive. Our looks can be a stumbling block to sincere men who want to worship God, but can’t stop staring at the decorated sister in the tight top, with her breasts hanging out, and her butt sticking out the other way. I believe we have a responsibility to show ourselves with dignity, and purity of mind. How we dress, says a lot about us. It declares, “this is what I am trying to achieve”, “Position”, or “to attract”, etc. I believe that God honors a woman who covers up, for the sake of not being a stumbling block, (you dear men, are so visual). And also, it pleases God when we trust that how he made us is beautiful in his eyes. “It is good”.
Sincerely,
Kari Anna Quijas
Cornerstone Church
Morgan Hill California
admin
Jun 29th, 2009
Sister, Quijas much to be said about your theological interpretations and some poignant issues holes in them but that is for another matter.
It is clear that you have some questions also about the false doctrine that is HMH as expressed in this soberly worded response … however, the implication that somehow Todd has not taken the proper measures can be interpreted as accusatory and inflammatory.
Again, Todd took proper recourse in writing the board and the General Supt., as is his right, and the proper channel as the book is being sold and promoted by this vehicle, nor was a district matter, per se.
Also, this issue has been approached to Reider directly in various communications. When Jim Yohe’s NFCF forum wrote various scholarly articles about this matter in 2002-2003, an invitation was extended to Reider to respond. Her unabated answer in term to her writings was:
“Respectfully I decline your invitation to descend into the religious foray that has been unleashed against my writings. Instead I would follow the council of the Apostle Paul given in 2 Timothy 2:23 concerning this sort of matter. My response is already contained on the pages of those volumes and I continue to abide by all that has been written, believing it now more than ever especially given the situation in my life at this point.”
It would seem redundant and unfruitful to continue to dialog this matter with the author. Jasinski has expressed that she also stands by her statments in My Hair, My Glory in a communication to me.
Lastly, this is an issue of doctrine that has been expressed through the public and it is well within scripture to address doctrine in a public fashion.
Kari Anna Quijas
Oct 21st, 2009
I just received November 2009 issue of the Pentecostal Herald from the United Pentecostal Church, International. On page 54 is an article written by Daniel Segraves, “A Plea for Caution”, another look at I Corinthians 11:10.
In the article, Daniel Segraves states that he had just become aware of a teaching on I Corinthians 11:10 that takes its cue from reference works on witchcraft. He declares, “This teaching is misguided and dangerous. 1.) Scripture says nothing to support this notion. 2.) Scripture opposes this idea. 3.) This teaching will result in disappointment, and perhaps despair. 4.) This belief may influence some to further investigate the claims of witchcraft in order to discover other “insights” into the spiritual realm. (UPC Pentecostal Herald Renouncing that doctrine),
When I, myself had heard of the doctrine in June 2009, it checked my spirit. I inquired; and engaged in dialogue with the man who brought it to my attention. Daniel from Texas, downloaded it on facebook, and let the discourse fly, with no regard to who it hurt.
I believe in healthy research. I believe in seeking prayerfully. I believe in the Christian body. I believe how Jesus spelled out dealing with areas of concern, should be our ways too.
“Blessed are the peace makers, for they are the children of God”.
The tone of an impressed idea can be felt. It can also “provoke”. In a day and age, where we are far more educated than we are obedient to the Word, we have to be on guard of our “flesh” responses. We have to ask ourselves, “how would I feel, if I received the response?” I believe we have a responsibility to safeguard our brother’s reputation, for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ. To have names thrown out there, and chewed up, is wrong.
I believe as the Christian body we should make every attempt to talk directly with the person that we feel is in error, (via email, other correspondence, etc – but best person to person in a spirit of humility) to “reason” together. The Bible is specific on the channels. First, to the person. Second, to bring two witnesses. Third to go to the Church. (It doesn’t state to the international body of internet and facebook unbelievers and believers). People who have not been “born again” do not have the spiritual discernment or understanding.
In this end time; and I truly believe we are in the end days; we have to spread the gospel: Jesus life (ministry), death, (crucification for our sins), and resurrection, (the New life in Christ) . If we allow Satan to side track us with bantering over non-salvation issues”, we lose. We lose time, we lose energy and we lose focus. But more importantly, we lose souls, and we lose face with unbelievers. In Matthew 5, 6, and 7 is what Jesus thought and felt about life; about one another, about his Father’s kingdom. This is the holy ground I go to when I feel strongly about an issue.
First, does it bring glory to God Almighty; second, does it promote brotherly love, and third, does it demonstrate the love of Christ Jesus in my heart? To be a follower of Jesus, means that we act and speak like Jesus, our Shepherd; the Lover of our Souls. It grieves God’s Spirit to see us fighting, with emulations, and strife, debating, etc….The Holy Word of God speaks expressingly against it. I have children. When my children are in the back seat of the car fighting with one another, it sickens me. I am just a human being, how much more would God feel about his own beloved children?
In closing, I go to I Corinthians 11 where it began:
“Doth not even nature itself teach you,
that, if a man have long hair,
it is a shame unto him.
But if a woman have long hair,
it is a glory to her:
for her hair is given her for a covering.
But if any man seem to be contentious,
we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.
Now in this that I declare unto you
I praise you not,
that ye come together not for the better,
but for the worse.
For first of all,
when ye come together in the church,
I hear that there be divisions among you:
and I partly believe it.
For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be
made manifest among you.
(I Corinthians 11:14-17)