Wednesday, May 5, 2010

#150-Holy Magic Hair (sort of)

Preface: As with many posts, the claims made in this post are far from being definitive to the whole apostolic movement. In fact I has been very surprised and pleased with the openness of many apostolic officials and higher ups to denounce the doctrine of "magic hair" as a heresy in recent months. It must also be noted that whatever controversy may be derived from this post, the thoughts are not really my own. Many men more articulate and intelligent than I have already tried to openly combat this theory and have done so in a far more effective fashion than I could. For the most comprehensive understanding of Holy magic hair, please visit http://holymagichair.com/wordpress/. Also note that this is not a criticism anyway in uncut hair, nor is it advocating hair cutting. I'm critiquing a doctrine that has developed around long hair.




Okay, when I originally started SAL, I had a post about HMH (holy magic hair) in mind. However, after a beloved teacher of mine spoke out against it in an issue of the pentecostal herald, I thought the issue was a dead one (if the UPC is officially taking a stance against it, then it should be a moot point right?). So I moved on thinking people came to their senses about the concept that there is some mystical/magical/protective power in uncut hair on females.




 But the other day I received an e-mail from past contributer Ryan Evans about the following story that really embodies the idea surrounding holy magic hair:


(there was) "A lady who's son was in an accident and she got to the scene and let down her hair and laid it over him and he was healed."


The whole thing derives from I Corinthians 11:10-"For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."


Somewhere along the line people decided that the above line meant that there was magical powers in uncut hair. Also note that anyone who claims that they assuredly know what this verse actually means is a man who wants his own opinions to play god over the Word simply because no one can say with certainty what this verse means. Really, almost every scholar will admit that there is so much ambiguity and confusion about the verse that all one can do is speculate about it.


But what do some misinformed ideologues of our movement do with this verse? Why they did what anyone else would do if you wanted to help polarize an entire movement without actually understanding how to properly interpret the significance of the cross and resurrection of Christ...they made a fascinating doctrine out of the verse!


That's right folks, it is not uncommon to go to camp and revival services in some sectors and find women being lauded to unravel their hair and pray over prayer requests, offering, or people with a terrible and seemingly uncontrollable case of "the swears."


But that's church stuff....Anyone who is apostolic knows that part of the joy of being apostolic is that some really cool stuff can happen in church but as a slight (but still manageable) cost, weird stuff happens in church as well...


But it appears this whole "power" in the hair thing is going mainstream and out of our church walls (hence the story of the mother praying for her son in a car accident)...


And somehow deep inside the whims of my soul, I'm doing this kind of thing in response:





Bottom line, people think there is safety and protection and healing powers in the hair of apostolic female's hair.


And you may wonder why it even matters...


And I posit that this more than many controversies surrounding our movement right now needs to be stopped...because it is the utmost detriment to an understanding of the saving power of Jesus....


Let me tell you a conversation I had with a female very close to my heart not too long ago that I think embodies what's wrong with a belief in Holy Magic hair. The kindhearted lady was retelling a story of how her friend's kid was confident in his journies as a youth that he would be safe because of his mother's uncut hair covering him on his travels.


This is where the conversation kicks off...


Me: Do you think your uncut hair protects your household in some sense?


Lady: Yes, I think angels are watching over my family because of my glory (hair).


Me: So do you think that protection would be lost should you cut your hair?


Lady: Yes.


Me: Do you think God loves you and your family whether you cut your hair or not?


Lady: I have no doubts that he will always love me and my family.


Me: But you are telling me that God's love and his ability to protect you has it's limits?


Lady: What do you mean?


Me: You just told me that God's protection is dependent on you not cutting your hair. Meaning that there are limits to God's love and further his love is limited to you not cutting your hair.


Lady: What does protection have to do with love?


Me: Think about a father who is standing outside his burning house and his two twin boys are standing in their upper story bedroom window as a fire is consuming the boys' bedroom. The boys have but no choice than to jump into the father's arm for safety. Now one of the boys, Marty, is a fantastic young lad. He is always well behaved and very obedient. He jumps and his dad catches him, happy to have his boy alive. 


Now consider the other boy, Jacob. He is less well behaved. In fact he's a brat. He is always wreaking havoc, making kids cry via wet willies, and flat out disobedient, He also has a fondness to poop his pants just to tick his parents off that much more.


Now, do you think the dad is going to think twice about not catching this boy because his son is so evil? 


Of course not. The father's love is not dependent on how misbehaved his child is. 


(end conversation)


The point is, that somewhere along the way, the HMH advocates have decided God's love wasn't enough. They have said the cross is nice and it gets a saved and everything, but the blood of Christ and it's protection and mercy and grace have it's limits. Therefore, they argue that We NEED to do more to ensure God's love. We need to have our ladies not cut our hair, and only then can we enjoy the full benefits of God's love.


Note this has nothing to do with obedience/disobedience. Of course we are supposed to respond to obedience to God's Word on the understanding of God's love for us nailed to that cross and the transformation process that His Holy Spirit will enact in us. But all of this is fully reliant and dependent on the cross and the blood that Jesus shed for us.


What HMH advocates are saying is that we need the cross AND something else for God's mystical powers and His angels to have full power in this world. In such an instance, the cross is not enough. We need more than what Christ offered for us!


As Kurtz would say as he was dying in Apocalypse Now:




"The Horror...The Horror!"



In Galatians, Paul got mad at the Judaizers for saying the cross was not enough for salvation. They said it helped, but to become a fully restored Christian, one must get circumcision.


In other words: Circumcision + Jesus=Salvation


Now according to HMH, God' love and protection is dependent on hair length as well as Jesus....


Not much has changed....


Also if you want a kind of manifesto of holy magic hair check out this video (I have not watched it in over a year because of how mad it makes me...the idea that the speaker uses witchcraft practices as an indicator of truth in power of hair is very sad. I guess that means we should all wear the color red as much as possible too because that is a doctrine of traditional witchcraft as well...)


(source of video: http://holymagichair.com/wordpress/?p=44)


Update: After listening to a part of the message below, he mentions the story of the woman whose son lived from a car accident because of her hair.



Holy Magic Hair- Taught by Lee Stoneking

Holy Magic Hair | MySpace Video

192 comments:

  1. I don't think any of us can fully grasp the power of uncut hair until we've personally experienced it. I am from a large stereotypical fat Pentecostal family. The men in my gene pool are pear shaped and bald. When my grandmother died, she had never put scissors to her hair. I was 18 and I noticed a strand of her hair lying on her pillow and I took it and have slept with it under my pillow every night since then. I am now 33 years old and have less than 5% body fat and a full head of hair. I thank God for that powerful hair in my pillowcase!

    ReplyDelete
  2. hummm...not sure what to say to that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If a woman goes bald is this indicative of God's disapproval or did the angels merely trample it to death?

    I remember we "met" over an article advocating the "Holy Magic Hair". Maybe the only positive thing to come out of the HMH.

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous #1, is that a joke?

    I don't know if i should be laughing. (i'm holding it back in the mean time)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder what the HMH group thinks of a Pentecostal woman who loses her hair going through chemo..

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man.(C)
    10[b]Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, [c]that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them].

    context and content

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, anon #1 is a joke, my grandmother died with very short hair, and I have surprisingly very few pear shaped men in the family.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First of all - thank you for leading me to the concept "Holy Magic Hair." I feel this appropriately describes the work that is so coercively prescribed by many.

    If there's any magic in HMH, it's what it does to the wearer (similar to fasting). This could also be analogous to following a strict exercise and diet regimine to ensure you taking care of the vessel that houses the Holy Spirit, or not drinking a glass of wine, ever, because you do not want to cross the line and be a drunk (a discipline I personally follow - it keeps things simple). These personal disciplines are good things if they produce the desired effect or outcome out of us as individuals. They are a part of our self-management process, not requirements of God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When my cousin first told me the story of the woman with the hair who prayed for her son in the accident (as relayed by Joel in the blog) - I was totally shocked that someone I knew would actually buy into the notion of 'Holy Magic Hair.' From the first time I heard of it (HMH) (Thanks Kim) it has been a joke because it seems so ludicrous. Bottom line, it is blatant idol worship and complete fallacy. God is always the one who deserves credit for miracles, not objects. However, it is scary that the phenomenon seems to be spreading and gaining popularity.

    And to Anonymous #1 - you're the freaking best.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought the title of this blog was "stuff apostolics like" not "stuff we don't like about apostolics" who are you to put down something god has revealed to someone else? Especially a minister who was put into a leadership position for a reason. Once again we confuse knowledge for relationship both are good but I'd rather not over analize doctorine and risk offending someone just so my point can be brought up. this is all your opinion and someone else's shouldn't be criticized. "one final word of counsel, friends. Keep a sharp eye out for those who take bits and pieces of the teaching that you learned and then use it to make trouble. Give these people a wide berth. They have no intention of living for our master Christ. They're only in this for what they can get out of it,and aren't above using pious sweet talk to dupe unsuspecting innocents." this isn't helping anyone..it's offensive and if something your doing is offending one person it needs to stop...

    ReplyDelete
  11. anonymous @ 10:13 your offending me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you, SAL, for bringing this issue once again to the forefront of the Apostolic consciousness. Rooted in faulty exegesis and fallacious apriori thinking ... there is a signficant portion of our movement that has succumbed to false teaching. It has permeated because it supports a cardinal principle some hold offering false hope and promises.

    To me, it's biggest danger is how it can frustrate the believer and marginalizes the movement overall.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @anonymous 10:13

    lets see if i can shake out my theology correctly. scripture is above any human regardless what level of leadership they may hold (even of they do have ex cathedra power-lol). are we following Jesus or people here? "Personal revelations"-i saw Mary in a cheeto, does this mean she is in tortillas as well-scripture holds the rule of faith, and as such is over and beyond any individual's "revelation". im not sure how someone could mistake knowledge for "relationship"(unless by relationship you mean showing up at church and raising your hands during a slow song), now mistaking knowledge and wisdom i can understand, and while your very last statement of caution sounds wise, it fails to have sufficient knowledge with it and so also fails to be wisdom. wisdom seems to have knowledge as a part of it, and so forming a composite, does not work against itself. we point out ridiculous doctrines like this for reason of following Christ- no other person, no other thing. not even HMH. not even personal revelations from leaders. we leave all to follow him.

    steps down from rickety soapbox.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This heresy gives me the creeps. And it's the logical end for the overall misunderstanding of 1 Cor 11 in general. When grasping for straws, go ahead and make large houses out of them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is part of a larger problem in our movement-the idea that holiness is a part of our salvation. While living a holy life is pleasing to God and our reasonable service, we have made it into the fourth step of the plan of salvation: repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and live a holy life. This is a supremely dangerous position.

    If we are saved (in whole or in part) by how long our hair is, by what we wear, by what we abstain from, or by our lifestyle, we are put in a position of power over God. Because if we follow all the rules, then He owes us. If we do everything just right, He MUST save us and provide for us and make sure we never suffer. If we fail to do everything just right, we become depressed and angry at ourselves. If we succeed, we become self-righteous and pharisaical.

    Of course, the message of the Gospel is that we are utterly dependent on God. There is nothing good that we can do to accomplish or secure our salvation. In fact, our righteous acts are like dirty menstrual rags in God's eyes. As evil as we are, the only hope we have is to fall into the arms of a holy and just God, and trust that His love, His grace and His mercy will allow us to survive the encounter.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Sara" Again :)May 6, 2010 at 8:52 AM

    I've seen similar literal interpretations of Paul's use of handkerchiefs. That can get pretty silly as well. Funny though, I haven't yet seen anyone pouring oil on someone's apron! Nor have I seen (I will hold my breath) someone chasing their pastor's shadow to be healed.

    When we make something normative out of what are very unique primary Apostolic miracles, we find ourselves like Simon the Sorcerer, open-mouthed wonder, not at God but at our amulets.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Keep your hair uncut, live an ascetic life, and if you mess up, beat yourself up and/or subject yourself to a mosh pit beating ala some altar calls. Pay your tithes, and don't you get your math confused or you'll live cursed. Salute your pastor or the ground will swallow you up. Fear God and "his man" and don't ask questions. Live as separate from unbelievers as possible -- in fact, if communal weren't so darn stigmatized that would be a consideration too. Talk in tongues or God's grace is not with you. Talk in tongues at least once a week, or you are "carnal" and in jeapardy of the devil killing and destroying you. Dance and shout every service or that carnal spirit will get ahold of you again and you find yourself vulnerable to the ol' devil again.

    Cross your fingers, stroke your wife's hair and "hope to God" you make it.

    Yeah... that's living in grace :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. don,

    That's the best way I've ever heard it put. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  19. this isn't helping anyone..it's offensive and if something your doing is offending one person it needs to stop... -Anon

    Everything you do offends someone.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you once again for a wonderful post.

    Reason #10493 why I left the apo cul... I mean, church... lol... (no offense) "wow" is all I can say.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey John. What scripture did you reference? Just curious. I'd love to share the context with you.

    "I'd rather not over analize doctorine and risk offending someone just so my point can be brought up." This doesn't take too much analysis. And what happened to be like the Bereans, and Timothy's exhortation to "study?" Skip it if it offends someone? False doctrine offends the cross of God!! How's that for offense? This is not just you choosing to chew flavored bubblegum, and me deciding to wear board shorts to the beach. This is heresy and idolatry -- and I believe Paul would be 10 times more colorful in his rebuke.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brandon,

    I tend to agree with your point, but we must be very cautious with your conclusions. Otherwise we end up with a kind of monasticism which denounces any claim of our natural self, like the monks of the second half of the first millenia did (not coincidently the monks added the word "fasting" to Mark 9:29 which was originally not in any of the early manuscripts) . Note The NT is very clear that any kind of meat is permissable but yet many Jewish Christians continued to abstain from unclean meat which they thought wrong. Was this practice of abstainance wrong? Absolutely not. But what can come about very much so is a spirit of pride and self-praise amidst the "withdrawal" of natural things.

    If humilty takes hold of our spirit in our understanding to "refrain" from certain actions, then do so with all dilligence. But as viewed in the video of the sermon above, the message of HMH in general seems to promote all types of self praise and pride without the remotest hint of humilty.

    Lastly, I ask when does the kind of "doing my own work unto God" reach it's limits? If I deem it necessary for myself to dump a gallon of kool-aid on my head daily for God's pleasure and my sacrifice, does this hold the same weight as fasting?

    Lovingly,
    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  23. Don and Hayden,

    I was at work all day and I was kind of having an argument in my head all day with that anonymous above who talks about not offending and honoring the minister.

    Luckily, you saved me from a long and frustrated rant because you both summarized what I was going to say.

    Thank you,

    Joel.

    If I could add one thing, it's on top of Don pointing out that Paul would be upset at this situation. I would also like to add that the book of Jude is written against a heresy that has broken out where the heretics (dreamers) are flaunting authority and the morality commanded in the Word. They are claiming extrabiblical revelation against the Word. And of course Jude combats it quite sharply meaning that there are some revelations that need to be stopped no matter the harm it may cause. We can't sweep this stuff under a rug. We must bring it to the light.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The difference between dietary laws for new Jewish Christians and made-up doctrines concerning "angel hair" are broad and distinct. One is a sensitive beginning of the Church, where as long as the Gospel remained front and center, Paul thought it was permissible to allow them to continue practicing lifestyle habits that they were accustomed to (granted they realized their ascetic practices gave them no spiritual advantage). It was purely for the sake of their conscience.

    To come along 2,000 years later, make up a crazy doctrine and claim the Romans get out of jail free card is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. when i say "angel hair" im referring to the pasta.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have heard of Roman Catholics claims to have prayers answered because they prayed to Mary...using the HMH logic, we should pray to Mary.

    So, assuming the story is true and accurately related, was it really the hair or her faith in Christ? I think it's like a slap in God's face to say "it was my uncut hair".

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comes out of one of the most mis-interpreted scriptures that has completely been taken out of context. Instead of understanding the scriptures for their context, people have tried to prove what they think it should mean and butcher the Greek to justify their points. What do I mean?

    First these scriptures in Corinthians are not about cutting hair. In context, without even touching the Greek, Paul was referring to the custom veiling by married women, especial the Jewish women. This was done because their hair was looked at as sensual, and instead of the men changing their heart as to how they looked at women, the tradition came down that women needed to be ashamed of their hair and cover it for their husbands as to not draw attention to themselves. Women could decide not to veil and just shave their heads.

    Check the history on this and talk to some rabbis about this tradition, you will find this is what Paul was referring to. You even find the practice of veiling kept by many early Christians, you find it in paintings, the literature, painting on catacomb walls. Modern Orthodox women who keep this tradition will wear a covering or shave their head and wear a wig. They can get away with wearing a wig because the idea is that their hair is the sensual issue, so fake hair I guess is OK.

    Paul was accommodating the tradition of the time and was discussing how it was to be practiced if one kept it, but he also made a point not to argue about it if you don't want to keep the veiling tradition, which is why Paul says that her hair is for her glory and it is her covering, he is basically saying hey, don't be ashamed because you show your hair.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mr. Riley if you disagree with the way the apostolic movement works..maybe you should get out of it...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Aaron,

    First, I would like you to remember that I Cor. 11 is not what is being discussed here.

    While this is a completely open forum and will allow such conversation, I think the question of I Cor. 11 and what the covering is, is an entirely different question than what is being raised here.

    Secondly, since you're mentioned what you did, and I love nothing more than this very subject which you discuss, I can do nothing but help myself in regards to addressing your statement. Thus, I will go openly on board and question your interpretation of the covering as a veil to married women.

    We cannot trust the words of a rabbi because of how ancient their traditions are. I would argue the religion of Judaism today is only 1500 years old at best. They have many opinions on many matters similar to ours, but I do not think their voice should be trusted as authoritative whatsoever. (I almost converted to orthodox judaism and have talked with a rabbi about this very subject). I do not want to get lost in this detail too much, but needless to say, rabbinic tradition is definitely not all it's cracked up to be sadly.

    Lastly, I really question your interpretation of the veil as the covering. While the veil was used predominantly in the first few centuries of Christianity (as they interpreted I Corinthians 11 as you have), and Jewish women wore a covering in their synagogues, there are several errors to your assumption. First, we know Paul readily has access to using the word "veil" in greek (see II cor. 3:13). But yet paul does not use such a word here. While the covering may be a veil, because of this point alone we can hardly be confident in a conclusion that the covering is a veil.

    Secondly, there are many busts of statues that demonstrate that women wore their hair "up" and this wearing of the hair up and wrapped around on their head in an elaborate manner counted as a covering in buildings of worship (we have several quotes from Greek ethical philosophers calling wrapped up hair "a covering."

    So to say history confirms your point with 100% validity I think is misleading. I do not have a conclusive answer to the covering whatsoever as I have seen your side of the argument and the other side that says the covering is hair wrapped up. I just say we must be cautious in our conclusions with matters that are hard to be certain about in the vague wording of the text.

    Lastly,I ask about your proofs from the text that it is the married women being discussed in the chapter. I really see such an argument as one from silence than showing what is implicitly in the text.

    I am also very curious to see your source about this choice of "covering or shaved head" that you mention. I just assumed "shaved head" was a stance of embarrassment that no female would want to take. I have never seen anything suggesting such a choice as you mention but do not deny that such an argument does exist (i'm very interested to read it). I have however many arguments about the implications of a shaved head (everything from prostitutes to prophetesses of other religions shaving their head to only lesbians shaved their head). So i am always hungry to read more stances on the issue.

    I know my stance against your post may seem a tad antagonistic, but I did not mean it in such a way.When i debate, my rhetoric becomes very colorless and i apologize. I just think that we need to be very very careful with coming to objective conclusions regarding this text that is clearly about a custom 2000 years back.

    Thanks for comment,

    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  30. What situation was Paul addressing in 1 Cor 11? Women cutting their hair??? :)

    What significance does "when you pray or prophesy" add to this question? Evidently, this was something going on in the context of head coverings. Rather it was a hairstyle or veil, the evidence is scanty to support Paul is addressing women to wear their hair long (even as you suggested, wearing the hair up was much more modest). From art, busts and literature in the first few centuries, it also is quite common that women had long hair, so for Paul to argue for women to have long hair seems pointless, silly and redundant. We have no evidence that there was a "trend" otherwise.

    To pull from 1 Corinthians an idea that is found nowhere else in scripture is troubling. Be it Angel Hair or Uncut Hair Doctrine (which is not the intent of this post). Gordon Fee posits some great suggestions on this chapter that is worth reading by any student of the Word.

    The theories about temple prostitutes, married women, etc... are all theories, and can't be proven. But neither are they needed. Using Seagraves words about not "forming doctrine" on matters that are "not clear" should also apply here. It certainly is "unclear." In fact, stepping away from it, it seems a stretch to make 1 Cor 11 a passage about uncut or long hair. It just doesn't fit. That's not to be insincere with the scholarly work by some Oneness Pentecostals who have looked at this. But I think much of what is "scholarly" from Oneness Pentecostals, is from scholars creatively defending doctrines they grew up with. When held under academic scrutiny, I find their arguments wanting.

    ReplyDelete
  31. anonymous, directly above my last post,

    I guess you missed the preface. Holy Magic hair has nothing to do with how the apostolic movement "works." Almost every apostolic I have talked to after this issue has gone mainstream has come to the conclusion that the idea of power behind hair is just general silliness meant for the little child in us all who wants to believe they possess magical powers.

    The Pentecostal Herald published an entire article against it, and from what I can tell, most, if not all our highest ranking scholars in our movement have been openly opposed to the concept of holy magic hair.

    Like I said, if we are discussing how the "apostolic movement works," then I really can't complain whatsoever on this point, because essentially the movement is working correctly, and it's weeding our heresies.

    While some of us may have differences of opinion regarding some things, is this really enough grounds for me to forfeit the movement as if the movement is a totalitarian dictatorship? Do you really want to be part of a movement that does not allow a voice of dissent (even if the voice is indeed wrong).

    And by your rhetoric anonymous, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that you may be a believer in the idea that there is "power" in either yours or your spouses uncut hair. And I guess if true, it is you who is at odds with how the apostolic movement "works" since there is so much agreement within the powers that be that holy magic hair is wrong(outside of that speaker in the video who goes by the beat of his own drum).

    But yet anonymous, even with this true, I would never have the audacity to ask my fellow brother or sister to leave this beautiful movement just because you disagree on an issue with the rest of the movement. Because that would be a very very rude thing to do. Not to mention unbecoming of my personality.

    Best wishes in all your pursuits,

    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree with them Joel. We should get out. I'm right behind you. RUN.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, Joel your're so right your're SOOOOOO right! your always right. You should be a pastor.

    Ps: I took the liberty of emailing this article to Brother Stoneking.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm delighted Lee will receive this article. After hearing the sermon, it's shameful. I'm appalled this is unchecked and churches (like the one in California) go along with this!

    The Herald may have written (Segraves) an article indirectly confronting this, but there has yet to be an elder rebuke Stoneking. Why? Why are some above rebuke? Then again, this HMH is a logical ends to another delusional approach to the subject of uncut hair anyway. I mean, when the evidence gets flimsy, just go for the kill with "power." That usually works.

    Last anonymous. Instead of being persnickety and cute, why not roll up your sleeves and tell WHY you disagree with Joel. Your drive-by rhetoric and "I'm going to tell the principle" tactic is quite juvenile and only makes you look ridiculous. Of course, you are a product of your environment.

    So Lee, if you're reading this, you are wrong. Repent. Make a public confession. Humble yourself and make it right.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No kidding... It was just a few years ago that we had a huge controversy over Pastor Teklemariam from Ethiopia with doctrinal issues. I wonder if there is talk among the leadership as to how this should be addressed?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous just above chester, my favorite non-HMH endorsing preacher could beat up your HMH-endorsing Lee Stoneking any day.

    -Anonymous #4

    ReplyDelete
  37. its odd to say, but are we really the watch dogs of orthodoxy for pentecost? is there no one else paying attention to these issues AND speaking out on them? is there another major christian denomination where that the young(ish) care more for proper interpretation of holy writ than those who are looked up to as the great speakers and leaders of that denomination? it seems this way to me with my limited experience of the leaders and speakers of this movement. please correct me if i am incorrect or misspoke.

    ReplyDelete
  38. God calls us to live a life separated unto Him. I am having a difficult time understanding how holiness standards are seen as a set of rules. We were always taught that if you do not have the standards and concepts in your heart, you will treat them as a bunch of rules. God's grace does not negate the requirements for a different lifestyle. That said, nearly every action is a representation of our beliefs, and nearly every action has spiritual significance. If the Bible says "Don't cut hair." don't do it. Its simple. If you do it, it is a sin. Sin separates us from God. Living above sin leaves things clear between us and God. That is the true spiritual significance behind anything, including uncut hair. Whether or not there is more can not be seen, but personal experience also should not be mocked.
    Just a few thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just it ! The bible doesn't say not to cut your hair ( nowhere ) it says it's a shame for a woman to have her hair shorn ( shaven past tense ) how can one even obey the scriptures translated in English when they don't even know English terminology to start with ??

      Delete
  39. your personal experience has no bearing on me or anyone else. it is your experience, you can't give it to anyone else. Christianity is not built on personal experiences, they happen, they can be edifying, they arent everything. in my view scripture and its message give us the regula fidie(the rule of faith). i think the most telling piece of your paragraph is "we were always taught"-yes we were taught many things, some of which have no true basis in scripture. every denomination has extra-biblical traditions but many of these at least can legitimately claim some kind of foundation in scripture. HMH has none from my view. and you are right, just because we have god's grace doesnt mean that we can do as we please, we must strive to be virtuous; however, this moral striving can and should only take place under the framework of grace-by this i mean that our salvation or standing with god are not determinate by our failings. grace is a gift we dare not abuse, but everyone must use it for we are all sinners.

    many of us view "Standards" as Rules because they are taught in exactly that manner-"IF you cut your hair THEN god will bop you on the head" this type of cause and effect teaching concerning god and our relationship to him is completely inaccurate. God "bopped himself on the head" so that he wouldnt have to bop our heads i guess you could say, and our standing with him isnt determined solely by rules of behavior. these are important, but they are the most important thing, neither are they meant to be our Rule of Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "but they are NOT the most important thing"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Actually Joel, my discussion about the cutting of the hair does connect. If such an emphasis hadn't been put on the cutting of hair because of taking scripture out of context, we wouldn't have a magical hair issue.

    Regarding shaving the head, check out some historical documents on what the traditions were of the time for hair covering, cutting hair and head shaving, you'll find it an interesting read. Jewish people would shave their heads for a lot of reasons. Sometimes it was in mourning, and it was also done when they finished a vow like a nazarite vow. Shaving the head is something both men and women practiced. Paul wasn't saying it was shameful to shave your head, he asked "But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved"

    Anyway, yes veiling was done by married women, which is why Paul references the husbands because this was directed at married women. The whole text in 1 Cor can be very confusing, which is why it really needs to be put into context of what was going on during that time and what traditions was Paul talking about.

    Regarding Shaven and Cutting:

    I Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.

    Besides the two times shorn is used in I Corinthians 11:5-6, it is also found in Acts 18:18, referring to Paul having shorn his head, again in regard to a vow. The same Greek word, 'keiro,' is used in all three renderings.

    Suggesting that shorn means “cut at all” fails to address what Paul means by covered and uncovered in these verses. As a result, those that have adopted this definition (cut at all) must then argue that when Paul refers to an uncovered head, he is describing the head of a person from which hair has been cut. If this were the case, verse 6 would read as follows.

    1 Cor 11:6
    For if the woman [has cut hair from her head], let her also [cut her hair]…” 

    ReplyDelete
  42. This reading and logic doesn't really make sense. It could then be argued that Paul is saying that if a woman even trims her hair, she might as well cut off all off it. The word uncovered comes from the Greek word akatakaluptos and is used only twice in the New Testament - both times in 1 Corinthians 11. It means “not covered, unveiled” 2 and is a compound word derived from the Greek words kata meaning “down from, through out, according to, toward, along” 3 and kalupto, which means, “to hide, veil.” 4 It is apparent that Paul is referring to the practice of veiling. A few have suggested that akatakaluptos is merely describing the way hair covers a woman’s head. This is highly unlikely considering the prevalence of veiling among women in first century Greco-Roman culture; most Bible scholars have rejected this. There is also historical proof through written history and paintings showing that many followed the custom of veiling.

    If one defines uncovered as a head from which any hair has been cut, then: If a woman that has long hair trims even an inch, she is uncovered. Similarly, if a man has long hair and trims it an inch, he too would be uncovered. Therefore, since a man is to pray or prophesy uncovered (vs. 4, 7), then it would be perfectly acceptable under these definitions for a man to have hair down to his waist as long as he periodically trimmed it because that would make him uncovered.


    Regarding Coverings and Hair Styles:

    Another thing Paul was addressing was the mixing / blurring of the sexes in Roman / Pegan Culture. I have read a few great articles on this, I'll send them to you if you'd like. One thing some men were doing at that time was have their hair similar to women, and women would have their hair similar to men. Men would even veil their hair like women, and women would cut their hair in a style similar to men.

    Chester, thank you for the comment about the prostitute, but it brings up another issue, we often want to label something as evil or unseemly because somebody bad did it. For instance in Jeremiah 4:30 we find that he exhorts that they dressed in scarlet, adorned themselves with gold, and painted their eyes. This means that adorning with gold and painting your eyes is bad, but we neglect that wearing scarlet is also mentioned. It wasn't about what they were wearing, but about their hearts filled with vanity and pride. Often in the Bible hunters were seen in a negative light, and often associated with bad things, yet we don't see hunting as a bad thing.

    Some thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Aaron, I'm not following you. I didn't use "prostitutes" as an example for the whole "bad people did this, therefore this is bad" logic at all. You've lost me.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "this just got good" so you like controversy mr. Riley? Because clearly when you bring up such a touchy subject as standards on a blog that's what your going to get..Do you want all UPC pastors to dislike you? Good luck trying to speak at an apostolic church when you have offended half the congregation..

    ReplyDelete
  45. Chester, oh sorry, no I meant, thank you for following up on the prostitute comment, I was agreeing with you. My comment back to Joel was about him pulling the prostitute card. That is as bad as the Egypt card.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Darla

    i dont think that calling someone out by name is necessarily crossing a line; though i can certainly see where someone would think this. several times Paul himself calls out those in the wrong(I Titus 1:20 for example). He also calls out "Cephas" as well, who was a fellow Apostle(Galatians 2:11 i believe). i understand and agree that caution should be used in "calling" out anyone, however, IF they are indeed teaching a heresy then they should be called out.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Darla

    I'm not sure why you stated that you hoped Joel wasn't a preacher. I don't understand how that's relevant. And as far as an echo coming back, hopefully standing for what's right is worth it. And if there is a "echo" we'll know that those people haven't thought out their point of view correctly. As far as I'm concerned, Joel's doing us a service.

    As far as the preacher being named, if you are promoting a fallacy and false doctrine, why shouldn't you be mentioned by name? People are buying into this nonsense because they are so enamored by the "name" of the preacher rather than the content of the message. And it's ridiculous. Even you stated that you don't buy into the idea of HMH. Let's debunk the myths among us.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ok well last time i checked Joel Riley was not Paul.. so lets stop comparing the two.. bottom line, you never discuss standards on stuff like this and you NEVER EVER use anyones name. Standing for what is right? since when is making fun of other people right? Yes, he doesn't agree with hmh thats fine, but there is a way to go about putting your view out there. I find the posts funny as well, but im almost positive this one has crossed the line and i'm finding it hard to keep my mouth shut, but to each his own, I guess some people just have to learn the hard way..

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Ryan. Good point about the preacher's name being so closely tied to the fallacy. This particular preacher is unashamed and bold about this doctrine, and promotes it everywhere he goes. He is the poster-boy for the doctrine. That doesn't mean he's an evil man, but he's wrong on this issue, and it's an issue to contend with. Normally, this blog sticks to ideas, and I think in content it did so as well. The YouTube clip was an exception, a public sermon where this doctrine is being shared.

    The comments on here were more directed to LS than Joel was, so let's be fair about that. He used his sermon to support an example of the doctrine to which he refers.

    These are the same pulpits that call out the Teletubby's, Democratic Party, Charismatic cowboys and eat their own, but somehow Joel is the one that has broken the secret code.

    So let's keep the passive aggressiveness up... Indirectly write articles taking on, in an oh-so subtle way, his doctrine (which he has not responded to and has ignored as far as I can tell), keep coddling this issue, letting him continue to preach this in pulpits across the world, and tuck our tail between the legs.

    This only shows me how "untouchable" some of our heroes in the faith are. That's scary. But I'll let JR speak for himself on your statements. I'm sure his intentions weren't to head hunt LS. Blame that on those who commented above. When your the poster boy, this comes with the turf. Thick skin.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Ok well last time i checked Joel Riley was not Paul.. so lets stop comparing the two.. "

    Oh, but we don't mind pretending that ministers of the Gospel are intermediaries like Moses, interceding for the flock. The point wasn't that JR is the great Apostle, the point is that the early church wasn't soft-skinned to take up issue with each other on matters of doctrine. Normally, Pentecost isn't either. They'll throw people just as easily under the bus for far less. This is an exception, and it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to address.

    "bottom line, you never discuss standards on stuff like this and you NEVER EVER use anyones name."

    Says who? Never discuss standards? Did I miss the secret handshake? Are we too close to some sacred cows?

    "Standing for what is right? since when is making fun of other people right? Yes, he doesn't agree with hmh thats fine, but there is a way to go about putting your view out there. I find the posts funny as well, but im almost positive this one has crossed the line and i'm finding it hard to keep my mouth shut, but to each his own, I guess some people just have to learn the hard way.."

    Well you have no trouble calling JR out do you. Making fun of other people? I believe JR helped us see how silly the doctrine is. I don't recall him doing a Late Night schtick with Lee Stoneking as the topic. The point of this post is HMH more than it is LS. Let's be clear about that.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Not all the reactions of criticism on here have been in love, but that is the nature of this forum and setting. The concerns, however, are real. It may not have been in best taste to specifically post a Lee Stoneking video, since that will stir up their defenses more than if we were discussing the issue, but as is mentioned, he is the notorious spokesperson almost for this doctrine. That is known. So it would be no huge leap to implicate him on this topic.

    Let's deal with the topic. All of you chiming in, let's chat about HMH. Do you agree it's heretical?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I really cannot help but feel that people who are Godly, filled with the Holy Ghost and have an anointing would write this kind of post. I am not attempting to be judgmental whatsoever, but I am saying God gives people a different perspective on things when they are truly submitted to God. I believe that studying the Word is of great importance, but, as an elder told me, study it in accordance with a strong prayer life. I am honestly disappointed that the name "Apostolics" is attached to criticism of this nature. This post mocks preachers, has a movie clip in it, and smacks of serious bad attitude. It scares me, because if this attitude is the way certain so-called "Oneness Pentecostals" are going, I want zero part of it. I love God, am filled with the Holy Ghost, go to a Oneness church, am called to live a holy, separated life. If my pastor teaches something I do not understand the reasoning why, I pray about it. God will reveal to you, and He has given the authority to pastors to do so. They are very much responsible to God, and it is not the saints job to criticize. It is not worth losing my soul over someone's beliefs about hair. If you feel they are in error,I would suggest not broadcasting it over the internet. This entire post was incredibly disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ryan: The reason I made that statement (about hoping that Joel wasn't a preacher) is because if he is, he will find it very difficult to be critiqued as harshly as he has done with Bro. Stoneking. Perhaps he thinks he is above preaching heresy, but I can guarantee some will think he is. This very blog is an example that he says many things that some people very strongly disapprove of at times.

    That's what I mean by the "echo will come back".

    ReplyDelete
  54. This is depressing, here I am writing final papers in the grad lab all week and I miss out on all of this.

    I'll just say this and then get back to my papers: Shouldn't we be willing to put our Truth to grueling analysis? I just don't understand how so many apostolics can blast other denominations for their readings of the text or lack of revelation (see video above) but become horribly offended and play the holiness card when pertinent criticisms of their own movement are raised. Can we be a little less the hypocrite?

    Further, it's so far been my understanding that this blog is not about glorifying the people who write it or carrying out personal vendettas. It's about examining those representations of our faith that have room for improvement. That should be controversial, it should excite emotion and thought, but not in terms of attacks. I hope you all keep coming back, this place isn't about getting definitive answers, I think we should come away with greater and more pointed questions to ask of God for our personal and communal walks.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Darla

    If you thought this was harsh, you should have seen the article in the Pentecostal Herald. (And again, this article isn't about Lee Stoneking, it's about the false doctrine of HMH. There are other proponents.)

    Also, I've grown up in a minister's home and I can tell you, if you want to be a preacher of any sort, you will encounter pressures and critiques much greater than this. And if you're standing for truth, it's worth it.

    If our faith matters to us and we hold it dear and precious, it should be worth discussing. We should weed through the things that are incorrect so that we end up with a faith that is pure and good, something untainted by false ideologies, traditions, and paradigms.

    As a wise man once said, "God has spoken, the rest is commentary." I'd like to be a part of the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  56. How can mentioning a name of a preacher who believes in HMH wrong. He was willing to express his believe to a church and have that belief recorded and posted on the internet for all to see. Once you make a public statement of believe, there is no reason why it can not be pointed to and the author referenced by name. I know Mr. Riley would have no objection to be mentioned by name for his beliefs. He stands behind what he speaks and writes. This post was not against any standards as he specifically stated in the blog. This was a post about the power of Holy Magic Hair. If someone questions your faith and you turn to anger chances are you do not know enough about your faith to defend it and UPC pastors should not be offended that someone is researching the Word of God and wants answers about his salvation. Without people questioning doctrine of the established church, Catholicism would still be the dominate religion of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  57. John & Ryan: I guess I am fortunate to have the best examples in the world with my pastor and wife. If my pastor were to ever disagree with a doctrine (and he does), he would never mention the name of the preacher publicly. He disagrees - WITH CLASS - but does it with the utmost respect for the ministry.

    This post has gone beyond that. As I said before, it is okay to discuss issues (although I certainly think that publicly on the internet for all the non-apostolic world to see is definitely not the most wise way....). But when preachers are named and - not just the issue - in such a derrogatory way, it does cross a line. And it definitely shows NO class.

    If Joel or anyone has a problem with Bro. Stoneking preaching this doctrine, they would be far better served to write him personally their concerns. I don't believe any man of God can get offended when approached properly and with respect about a controversial doctrine.

    Last point for me on this subject to Mark Painter: I come from a very small district way up North in Canada. I would have had NO idea that Bro. Stoneking preached this message. It may be well known in some circles, but it certainly is not well known where I'm from.

    Let's show some class and respect, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Last point for me on this subject to Mark Painter: I come from a very small district way up North in Canada. I would have had NO idea that Bro. Stoneking preached this message. It may be well known in some circles, but it certainly is not well known where I'm from."

    It's irrelevant whether or not you were privy to Lee Stoneking's rantings. The fact of the matter is, he is spreading an untruth to THOUSANDS of people, causing confusion, spreading lies and going 100% AGAINST what the Bible says. Last I checked, that's a pretty big no-no in God's eye.

    I wish apostolics (in general) would get off this idea that we need to submit our every thought/word/deed/intention to the mercy "the ministry" aka Pastors. They ARE NOT GOD! If a so-called Pastor speaks against the true Word of God to any size assembly, they should be held accountable NOW. Otherwise God help them when they reach Judgement Day.

    I'd rather be judged by men on earth than by God in the final day.

    Lastly;

    "As I said before, it is okay to discuss issues (although I certainly think that publicly on the internet for all the non-apostolic world to see is definitely not the most wise way....)."

    If your doctrine is not rock solid enough to discuss openly for "sinners" to see, I think I'd be seriously questioning my own belief in it.

    I know what I believe is true and I have no worries that if an outsider learns what I believe, that he or she will say "wow, that person has rightful and biblical reasons to believe that way." It's when we start to coward away from any one other than "our own" that we look insignificant and weak.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Let me respond to a few of these quotes:

    "...but I am saying God gives people a different perspective on things when they are truly submitted to God."

    What does that mean? If we are as submitted to God as LS then we will agree with him. Is this like the "Emperor without clothes" argument?


    "I believe that studying the Word is of great importance, but, as an elder told me, study it in accordance with a strong prayer life."

    Same as above. Who is discussing prayer life? What evidence do you support individuals lacking a prayer life?

    "I am honestly disappointed that the name "Apostolics" is attached to criticism of this nature."

    Oh, I assure you, the title "Apostolic" is not new to criticism. The heritage of pentecostal/charismatic movement is on the back of schisms, divisions, splits, disagreements and doctrinal disputes. (Replace "Apostolic" with Jesus though, because remember we all serve and worship Him. The way some throw around the word "Apostolic" you sometimes wonder)

    "This post mocks preachers, has a movie clip in it, and smacks of serious bad attitude."

    Mocks preachers? It depicts the sillyness of a strange doctrine that is not biblical. Have you ever heard your preacher mock Trinnies? Charismatics? I'm not sure what the movie clip has to do with anything.

    "It scares me, because if this attitude is the way certain so-called "Oneness Pentecostals" are going, I want zero part of it."

    And that's how some of us feel about our "ask not, touch not, handle not" culture about these controversies. The depiction of pastoral authority is dangerously incorrect, and it's enough that good people turn off their brains and obey willingly anything they're told to do. The responsibility for truth is each of ours. If I expose a lie, you can blast me for being a cruel person, you can engage me explaining why you think I'm wrong, or you can applaud me for actually not going along with the program and saving people a lot of hurt.

    Let's make each other accountable.

    All of you who are decrying and mourning this post, where are your cries and moans regarding this false doctrine?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't see where Joel mocked LS. I'm not seeing that. You could claim there is some mocking in the comments (maybe), but nothing from Joel. Joel is taking on HMH. He includes a video example of the teaching.

    To the woman who was horrified that the post contained a movie clip, I don't know how to console you, sister. It was a 19-second clip, saying "the horror, the horror." I found nothing offensive with it. I'm not sure why you did.

    If we threw as big a fit keeping each other accountable in doctrine and teaching as we did in "protecting and defending" personalities, we'd be so much further ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The tactic remains the same ... same playbook. Rather than face the issue ... the marginalization of the messenger proves easy.

    I am so glad Dan Segraves wrote his article but believe there is a "blue wall of silence" that refuses to address what would be rejected by the pioneer Apostolic leadership.

    This is the Latter Rain movement of the 21st century and those complicit tow the line therefore are untouchable.

    Kudos to Joel and the SAL gang for standing up to false doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Dan. You are right that part of the failure of the Latter Rain movement is that it went unchecked, got out of control, and no one had the courage to oppose. Even the Toronto Blessing and Brownsville Revivals had mainstream groups like the AOG slowly back-pedaling, but too careful to criticize.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Sam, the response of the Pentecostal denominations like the AOG and UPCI was quick and swift however ... When the likes of Branham and Hoekstra reportedly began preaching "Oil Doctrine" .... or oil literally flowing from their hands ... alarm bells rang. Yet, it was easier to disassociate with them because they were having interdenominational meetings with the "dreaded Trinnies" ... while Hoekstra held PCI leanings on salvation.

    In this case, you have a conservative who preaches Acts 2:38 with a twisted, ancillary doctrine that reinforces the conviction of uncut hair ... how bad can it be?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Look at all these finger pointers hiding behind anonymity.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Nice loving rhetoric directed toward Glen. Is this person representative of the "appalled" group who are upset that Stoneking's "Magic Hair" video was included in Joel's critique of the doctrine itself? If so, way to be hypocritical.

    @Justin. Do you really not get why some hide their identity. Living in an environment, as some do, where disagreement can bring hurt and ruin to their lives, anonymity is a symptom of a culture problem in Pentecost.. the very fact that these must be anonymous.

    Out of all the protesting and people upset, I haven't heard them yet engage the topic of Magic Hair. Care to?

    Those who didn't connect Lee Stoneking to Magic Hair. No harm done. Apparently you aren't too familiar with his ministry. This video wasn't an anomaly.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If Joel is a fellow in the UPCI fellowship, perhaps the public name drop would be questionable. However, to make that your sole criticism of this post is confounding.

    Further, there is no other video that so ably articulates this HMH doctrine than the one that is posted.

    For those that aren't in fellowship with the UPCI, it's all fair game. It's not an attack on Lee Stoneking as a person, it's an attack on the downright false doctrine that he preaches. Part of some people's indignation is a faulty and distorted view about the "man of God."

    ReplyDelete
  67. okay....

    so much to discuss, so much disappointment about the arguments made against this topic...

    First, as per my use of Lee Stoneking's name in the video. I would have gone without his name completely but the video itself was titled with his name mentioned. I cannot retitle the video as it's already embedded from a myspace link. The mention of his name is incidental to the posting of the video itself. Should I then be polite and not post the video in order protect his name or should I link to video in spite of name? Obviously, i think the situation called for the ladder choice. And yes I consider myself part of the UPCI fellowship. I really cannot fathom this being a big deal. It may be impolite, but not much beyond that. Just as a celebrity can expect to have gossip about them in the gossip magazines, I think when a preacher puts himself in such a position as evangelist, he must expect the same. (That goes for blog writers such as myself as well).

    Further, I thesselonians 5:21 says test all things and keep that which is true and in context it's talking about prophets (which in our time means preachers). We need to test these people and should fault be found it need not be hidden for the sake of peace.

    As per the reputation I am getting from criticisms and defenders a like. I hope this is presumed, but let me reiterate, I do not consider myself beyond criticism. I am a fallible human being. Therefore my knowledge will never be perfect, and most of the times I will be wrong. I will think my opinion tends to be the right one, and will consider my opinions more logical, rational and more informed that countering opinions, but in this regards I am no different than any other human being. I think the only difference between me and most preachers then is that I am very hesitant to declare my opinions as divine or the Word of God.

    Also, while some have made the difference between HMH and the necessity of uncut hair minimal, and thus made this topic about standards, I could not disagree more. Whatever one's interpretation of 1 corinthians 11 may be, if one interprets the chapter as being about not cutting your hair, then the issue is one of obedience. HMH is entirely different in my mind. It argues that added benefits comes with the following of a certain work.

    Second to last, I am most disappointed by the criticisms of the post in terms of NO ONE has come to contend on how HMH is an acceptable doctrine. The people against this post try bashing my name, my use of a Stoneking video, my participation as an apostolic, or perhaps most interestingly "If I wanted to be a pastor, I would be a hated one."" No one has touched the actual material itself. And for you critics with all yours displeasure in of me in this post, I plead with you to look at the material itself, and study it, and pray about it, and ask yourself, is HMH what Christ had in mind as a positive value for us when He died on the cross?

    Lastly, as per people's support for me in this post, I thank you greatly, but as a lover of Kierkegaard and his Christian existentialism, you need not worry about me conceding anything, even if Stoneking himself knocked on my door.


    As William Lloyd Garrison said in one of my all time favorite quotes,

    "“I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

    ReplyDelete
  68. Just got slain in the Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  69. You are all so freaking crazy, narrowminded and judgemental- this blog reminds me yet again of why I couldn't stick with pentecost.

    The only reason I stuck with it for the year I did was because MAYBE it was the closest I ever got to God- but you people sure know how to drive Him away, don't you?

    Why do you insist on destroying one another over over every little riduculous issue subject to debate?

    Go ahead and judge me. It's what you're doing already because I've conceded to being a "backslider". Tell me that I'm going to hell because I don't sit on church pews and join you in the nit-picking life.

    It's okay. I know, and I don't care any more. There's no salvation here, and I'll only be further dammed if there is salvation to be found by sitting in the seat of hypocrysiy and judement.

    Have fun, guys.

    Maybe I don't CARE if my hair had power when it was uncut, I don't CARE if some sister thinks it makes her relationship with God stronger, but I do CARE when you fight over the issue. Divide your supposed church body with civil war. I'm no Bible scholar like alot of you, but I'd like to think that this kind of judgemental self-rightousness is not of God.

    Maybe it is, maybe it's not. I guess I ran away too soon to learn. I don't want to know.
    Wow. I'm depressed now. Once again an affirmation of insufficency for religion.

    ReplyDelete
  70. For myself, I apologize for airing my opinion and any disagreement over the internet. "Anonymous 8:01" is the very thing I am talking about when I said that it just isn't wise to discuss these issues over the 'net. These discussions should be kept between brothers & sisters in a private setting. They have too much ability to get out of hand and to cause harm.

    Again, my opinion. But I am definitely signing off.

    All the best.

    ReplyDelete
  71. wow, reading all of this is 45 minutes I'll never get back.

    I once heard a man say, "Arguing online is like running in the special olympics; even if you win you're still...special."

    As for my two cents, among all the outrage, disdain and bombast of the peripheral issues connected with this post the central issue of, not only the vacuity, but the danger in the HMH teaching is being ignored here.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Joel you are one sexy MOFO

    ReplyDelete
  73. Joel, this is your blog. You obviously love the Lord and being apostolic, albeit making fun of it from time to time. I feel that someone who knows and loves the Pentecostal religion so well has the right to do so. You also have credibility through your obvious research which makes your personal opinion a viable one. I have been Pentecostal since I was 3 years old and I'm now 27. I've never been offended by anything here, including this post. I say write what you want to write.
    And to Anonymous: If you hate Pentecostalism so much why do you spend so much thinking about what to write on this blog? And hating religion is fine. Just make sure that you still love God and pursue a relationship with him. Don't let your experience distance you from the Lord.

    Kwoya Maples

    ReplyDelete
  74. Keep writing Mr. Riley, you are doing a wonderful job.

    ReplyDelete
  75. This is hurting people more than helping. Even if it was hurting one person and helping 1,000 feel better about leaving their churches.. this should be stopped. There's no way God is in the middle of this website. But of course you're not going to stop.. because you'll justify it someway. Sad.. really.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Unfortunately this is a widely misunderstood concept. Here is the basic break down on I Corinthians 11 which holds 2 items that are misunderstood: 1) Women's hair and 2) The Lord's supper. Both of these are NOT HOLY. But they REPRESENT something that is holy. That is all. And rather than simply obey (I Sam 15:22), people, as we have done since the beginning of time, take it out of context and really, to worship hair or communion is a form of idol worship.

    Hair: Uncut hair is a sign of submission, which is holy. In Corinthians 11 three words are mentioned: Glory, Angels and Covering. The first time that combination is used in the Bible is at the Ark of the Covenant. Newsflash: Just because you have long hair doesn't mean you are submissive (the context is to authority or a husband, etc.). I've known women who could stand on their hair but need a drivers license for their tongue.

    The Supper: The bread and wine (grape juice) is not holy. It is a representation of the body of Christ, which is holy. It is something that we perform in order to remind us that we are one body. This is an attempt to re-unite us after we get all carnal and want to kill each other because of the other person's sins. How does a body function? When my hair needs shampooed, my hands go to work - beating each other up as they lather up the soap and then rigorously scrub my head. Did my hands benefit? No. Did the hair have to do any work because it was in need? No. So there you have it, we are not a church family (which always has a weird uncle, or you hate your parents, etc.) but we are a body, where parts of us sacrifice to make sure the rest of the body gets what it needs. Christ is the head. Not the actual head because Paul mentions that some of us are eyes and ears, but Christ is the 'mind' who controls what body part should be doing what. In that last example it was me (my mind) that told my hands that they needed to get on it to get my hair clean...

    God Bless everybody and remember: the 'magic' as you call it is in God... he 'magically' created everything we see. If it seems to be more crazy than magic, then that is just humans being ignorant of the Word of God and trying to make themselves more important than they are. There was pride before there ever was a devil...

    ReplyDelete
  77. The truth hurts sometimes. It's pretty faulty logic to say Joel should stop because someones feelings might get hurt. If you believe in blatant heresy you should be told, not swept under a rug because of hurt feelings. This doctrine has hurt and driven away thousands of good Godly women. I'd like to ask them if they care about the hurt feelings of HMH subscribers being called out on bad exegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  78. qforques, I'm glad you feel pretty certain that the first half of 1 Cor 11 is referring to uncut hair. Can't say the same myself, nor can most scholars. Actually, most say that can't be certain. Few that I know of even consider "uncut hair" as an option in this passage.

    ReplyDelete
  79. qforgues,

    I just read your post after "thinking" responded to it.

    While I admire your attempts at a proper service to the scripture, I would urge you to reconsider your sources of which your interpretation is derived. First, holiness is not at all mentioned at all within chapter 11. So to impose a principle of "holiness" into the chapter which is not otherwise there is ridiculous.

    Secondly, you mentioned something to the effect of:

    "Hair: Uncut hair is a sign of submission, which is holy. In Corinthians 11 three words are mentioned: Glory, Angels and Covering. The first time that combination is used in the Bible is at the Ark of the Covenant."

    There is a minister in my area spreading this stuff and it's just terrible exegsis that is based in the belief that the bible was written in english. First off, when the ark is first mentioned in exodus 25, I find no mention of the word glory in the Septuagint or in the Masoretic texts (the hebrew to which our OT is derived from). You can go to Exodus 24 for the word glory but the ark is not up for discussion. You can also go to Exodus 28 for glory but there again, the topic of conversation is no longer about the ark but rather the vestments of Aaron.

    Secondly, We must consider that as mentioned the OT and NT were not written in english. Rather the OT was written in hebrew and the NT was written in Greek. So automatically, we cannot say the words for "covering," "glory" and "angels" are the same because they are in two completely different languages. It is only in english where we can start making such claims of same wordness, but that is a very faulty leap to make in scripture. The only real way we can even being to intelligently speculate at the words being the same in I Corinthians 11 and Exodus 25 would be to have a look at the Septuagint which is the ancient greek translation of the O.T. This way we can begin to have as close of a "one on one" word translation as we can (we can see the Greek of the OT and the NT). Some NT writers even used the Septuagint so it's quite authoritative.

    And lo and behold in the Septuagint, we of course do not see the same words for covering "Katalupto" (in 1 cor. 11) anywhere Exodus 25.

    So I really don't think we should be preaching this point as some kind of "proof" of the holiness of hair....It's just not honest. Please tell your friends.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Please tell your friends. hahaha. awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Calling this a "heresy" is akin to preterists calling dispensationalists propagators of false doctrine. It is not a "heaven or hell" issue. Neither is dispensationalism OR preterism beliefs that can send you to hell. As long as you are reasonable about it and follow the Bible and guidance of your Pastor.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Lynne,
    Should I begin listing the churches that feel one is rebellious, playing with witchcraft and forever doomed if they cut their hair?

    Furthermore, by extending the uncut hair doctrine to include "secret power" is strictly false. Untrue. It becomes heresy when the power of God becomes latent in an idol or amulet. We can't manipulate God.

    Eschatology is a bit different, and has no personal application. Of course, many are the churches where it's pre-trib or go home.

    ReplyDelete
  83. When you make false claims about the way in which God operates, extends his love and protection, and lead people to believe a lie about God it's heresy, plain and simple. If I told you that God would give you an extra jewel in your crown if you tithed 12% I would be a heretic. It's pretty simple.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I have to say at first I didnt get it...I mean you condemn, ridicule and belittle any guidance or direction that is given by Pastors or church leadership....and then turn around and draw the lines yourself..thereby doing the exact same thing you condemn..deciding what clothing is acceptable, making strong suggestions as to what you approve and dont approve of. So I'm thinking,..why is it wrong for a Pastor to draw a line or speak against something, but ok for you. Now I get it. Its the way man has been since the beginning of time. One of our greatest needs is to find someone that we are better than. When you ridicule and pronounce judgement on stands that people take, you have found someone that you feel superior to. If you make someone else wrong, you become right, and all is perfect with the world. It is also a great ego fluff to have people follow a pied piper. So now that I get it and I respect your guidance and counsel let me ask you something. Throughout the winter, my skin becomes dry and needs additional moisturizing. Up until now I have been using products from Neutrogena, however after reading a couple of your blogs, and your intolerance for anyone wearing costly clothes or using expensive products....I was wondering if you could suggest an alternative. Perhaps Walmart has a product that would do essentially the same thing at a fraction of the cost. I anxiously wait you and your panel of judges reply. My skin is dehydrating as I type. Also, I am sure you are hoping that your site really takes off and makes advertising revenue....Maybe you could contact a company that produces a budget moisturizer to advertise on your site, helping to defray the costs that must be piling up.

    ReplyDelete
  85. 's MOFO...you guys are totally cool this is the place to be when you are over the stuffy church thing

    ReplyDelete
  86. I love how everyone is attacking Joel and not the argument. This is what I meant when I said apo's tactic is "ad hominem".. People don't like what he has to say but rather than do some in depth analysis they type posts like this second to last anonymous one.
    When you're ready to discuss HMH I'm sure Joel would love to engage in a dialogue. If you want to attack him personally and dog the blog I don't think he really cares.
    Whether Joel is a priest, a pastor, a lawn keeper or a traffic cop doesn't have any bearing on the fact that HMH is a heresy. Discuss that or go to another website because the personal attacks are petty, weak and completely typical of apo crazies...

    ReplyDelete
  87. To Lengthy Anonymous,
    I picked up on what I (and probably anyone else reading) assumed must have been an attempt at sarcasm in your first post. Regarding the crusty edifice that is your parched skin, I'd suggest dropping your bourgeois predilections for specialized commodities and go with the cheap stuff that's made in the same factory, in a larger sense, however, I’d recommend removing yourself entirely from the discourses on body, image, identity, and performance in late-stage capitalist Western society--that is, if you would truly be free.
    See how I wasted a paragraph focusing on the inanity of one relatively unimportant part of your overall message with what I would subjectively call witticism? Kind of pointless and not really funny, much like your little vignette itself, which had nothing to do with any serious criticism/jest in regards to the original topic itself or the blog as a whole. Then again, I suppose it’s in line with the overall timbre of both your posts; I can’t understand what in the world you’re trying to say. Are you “talking about long hair?” Not really, you never actually do. Are you talking about the epistemological and metaphysical nature of the blog itself? Not in any systematic fashion. If you’re disappointed that no one was offended by the “vulgar” language, then what does that say about your own morality and why did you use it in the first place? Or are you just here plugging other sites that you think are better?
    At 150-something posts it seems to me that we shouldn’t have to continue quibbling over the nature of the blog and whether it has a right to exist/its superiority or inferiority. And yet, here we are. You are correct in pointing out that criticism such as that found in this blog is a negative argument and, therefore, necessarily indicates a positive option, even if not explicitly stated. There is no way to remove this from our writing no matter how hard we try, but, then again, we’ve said as much and no one has ever tried to deny it. So, there you go, you’ve discovered something manifestly obvious—and on the internet no doubt! Go ahead and enjoy some imaginary popcorn or whatever else might sate your onanistic needs.

    ReplyDelete
  88. We’re attempting to raise pertinent questions, not giving answers. I can only speak for myself when I say that the posts I’ve written are very much informed by inconsistencies and quandaries that have emerged in my own walk/those of some individuals and groups in the community of faith I am able to take a part in. I’d like to think that its more or less the same for my fellow posters. If this sort of thinking doesn’t jibe with what your pastor preaches or what you personally feel, then I’d suggest applying that classic refrain that we’ve all heard so many times from guest preachers right before they start their message: disregard it. Accusing this blog of unoriginality is staid and weak, who honestly cares? Please, don’t waste your time here if there isn’t anything useful. Apparently you know of better sites, so instead of arguing over methodology here, go to those sites and follow Michel Foucault’s advice: don’t argue about what we do, try to do what we do and try to do it better. The internet’s a more or less free space and if there are more informed voices out there eventually people will stop reading the stuff here and go there.
    Ultimately no one’s trying to start a fan club or a cabal here; no one’s trying to be “superior.” No one’s ticked off or disgruntled or bitter, but we’re definitely bothered, we’ve invested far too much of our lives to become desensitized. Satirical humor is an easier way of saying things that are often far too difficult to say plainly, those things that bother us, but at base we’re just trying to know Him more and are just putting our own thoughts out there, wondering if someone else in the community of faith has ever wondered the same.
    Basically, let’s just move on.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous for the past 2 posts,

    You made my day when I woke up this morning....

    I think there are 3 things which you are greatly causing your misunderstandings of these texts. Although a simple liberal science course in proper interpretation at any college would heal this effort in a very effective and abrupt manor (although those "postmodern" classes may make it a little a bit more of a challenge).

    Firstly, you seem to be up to some nonsense that we are encouraging the throwing of chains per se of pastoral authority. Never will you find in my posts the encouragment to disobey authority. Surely submission to the death is what is necessary for the cross....But it doesn't mean, that on our way down to our cross we are going to put a muzzle in our mouth and ho hum our way as if the only voice in our spiritual lives are pastors...For surely more important than the role of pastor is that of The Word. The Man of God is and will always be fallible here on earth. The bible is that which is infallible.

    None of this means disobedience is advocated.

    You seem to be thinking that we are encouraging a standard of our own separate from pastors...Outside of the post you referenced about clothing trends, I know not what else you have in mind for this belief. As to that post about clothing trends you speak of....if you read the comments you will see that I was the first one to disagree with the post's author. I think most considered that post to be a bit underdeveloped in the thinking and less about objectivity and more about personal opinion.

    Outside of that I do not see any "standard" we are developing here. Even this HMH post refused to take a stance on the issue other than denouncing a heretical ideology that has developed behind the post...But alas, what a revelation! Those who negate an opinion have an opinion and stance of their own.

    What a surprise!

    Oh wait...this is but no surprise at all...This is obvious. But yet again I'm glad my blog could inform.

    Also, please really take Glen's comment into consideration...you are committing fallacy ad hominem. Meaning you are discrediting the information because of he who presents the information. But of course character has no bearing on truth. I think Richard Dawkins is a pompous arrogant atheist, but that does not take away from his brilliant theories in science...therefore I read him inspite of his opinions....

    ReplyDelete
  90. As you seem to think I do this site for attention and money....

    First as to the money. I have made a whopping $48 dollars through advertisements on this site! And i don't even get to see a penny of it until I get to 100 dollars. That pennies on the hour! I don't know a logical person who would actually do what I am doing for the sake of money...I am making a whopping 31 cents per post! And once I get that check, I will inevitably put the money back in the site (maybe to make some t-shirts?)
    ...

    Also as per my desire for attention...I mean yea...who doesn't like attention? It's at the heart of the human condition. It's like the preacher who would prefer a conference to preach out over a home-missions church (though both are doing the mission of God)....the attention is flattering but not essential...

    But here's the part you are really going to love anonymous.....

    Outside of a link I posted on facebook the first day I made the blog, and the fact that under my facebook info section, I have the blog listed as my website, and a twitter account I have done absolutely 0 self-promotion....

    None....

    Everything this site has come to has been word of mouth...(the facebook fan page isn't even me)...

    SO yea, when so many people visit the blog, it's kind of flattering to know that my voice is hitting a chord somewhere in the minds and hearts of the reader...

    And it's also helped, that I got rid of the whole "wanting to be a preacher at a camp" mentality years ago...My life has been so much easier. I didn't have to worry what other people thought of my opinions. I have from then on been true to myself and that which I believe God planted within me...


    Ultimately anonymous (funny that you hide your identity in such bold talk), I would like you to be my friend and would like your approval. But I will happily settle for your disdain.

    And lastly, as to your question about neutrogena...I'm flattered that you would ask me...I too have had skin problems my entire life. I actually have eczema and it's gotten so bad in recent years I just went to the allergist to ask her for advice. She recommended something called Aveeno over Neutrogena (although the prices are comparable). And it's really worked. I also recommend applying it just after your shower as my allergist also recommended.

    and at your request...please don't leave such vulgarities as the ones you left in the comment right after. There could be children reading this site....

    Godspeed,
    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  91. P.S. You mentioned that you have brilliantly discovered that we ripped off stuffchristianslike...

    Firstly, stuff christians like, ripped off stuff white people like...

    secondly, we have never denied this...My idea literally came from seeing stuff christians like and said, "I could this for apostolics...except it be a little more mediocre!"

    And so it began...

    ReplyDelete
  92. The money thing has been merely a joke....and my whole point of every entry was to attempt the same type of blanket abuse that you and your "followers" project to , apo crazies....And please dont try to come off all innocent about being Apostolic to a fault and this is merely a satirical outlet for the inner turmoil you suffer from some preachers who take things a step too far. I know a couple of people who you have effected in a very negative way. You like to say that you dont attack the church or create confusion or trouble, but I know for a fact you do. I am sure there are people who have respected you and your "search for truth" and admittedly, you are very intelligent. But just like there are pastors or leaders who take it a step too far, there are posts on here that take it too far. In regards to my vulgar opening, I used that acronym because it was on one of the posts I saw...and I believe it was yours....however I could be wrong. But at any rate it is something that has been used on here in complete comfort. In closing I will say I do know a little about the crowd,you are not writing to someone who is completely dumb about everything. And just to make sure you understand where I was coming from, when I referenced the dry skin...it was satirical, and I closed with the statement "you and your panel of judges" (something like that) wanting only to emphasize that you are drawing lines on here every day...taking stands some perhaps healthy and others way out of line. It was only a feeble and simple attempt to point out that you are doing the exact same thing you are condemning. Assuming you know what is in the mind of another person, claiming them to be acceptable or unacceptable by your standards and casting a judgement. And then you have your support group that jumps in and kind of exposes a little more than they should have. I do hope that you get a better grip on this site. I am sure you could do alot of good. But there is just way too much garbage to wade through to get to anything worth while. As to my education, I dont even attempt to compare myself to you...although I am no stoop. With all the posts that you have written though I did maybe touch a nerve. I dont disdain you and anyone on your site. But to approach this like I am absurd to think there is any abuse here is ridiculous. Good luck in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I have read a couple posts on here that have bothered me. they have seemed to be very anti Apostolic and abusive to church members. Are they perfect? No! Neither are you!! I'm glad someone finally took the time to post something that will maybe make you think about what you say. Things we say have consequences. (death and life are in the power of the tongue) Proverbs 6:16-19

    There are six things the lord hates seven that are detestable to him:
    Haughty eyes,a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a faulse witness who pours out lies(you and your cohorts), and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.(once again you and your cohorts)
    just an observation you can take or leave dosent matter but its time people start speaking up on this website.Especially when its regarding hair, for men to be doing all the dialogue its kind of foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  94. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT LET THE REDEEMED OF THE LORD SAY SO!!!!! It's time that the Majority starts talking and help straighten out the minority. You can change your tie, you can change your vocabulary, you can change hairstyle, BUT YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE WORD OF GOD! A wise old pastor once said there would be a day of an untoward generation who would challenge authority and reject bible truth.
    2 Timothy 4: 3 - 4 the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after there own lust shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be unto fables. P.S HELLS HOT!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  95. well i have seen a lot of dislike of this blog....

    but never have I seen someone infer that I'm going to hell...like ameliabedilia just commented

    And quite honestly, while a part of me is flattered (for did not the pharisees crucify Christ in his "speaking out"?" against the religious complacency of the day?)

    But it's also very very sad...

    ameliabedilia and love2bapostolic whoever you are....

    have your dislikes and distrust of this blog...

    but please please reconsider making such harsh judgments next time you encounter someone with a different view than you.

    We should be very hesitant to play the role of judge over people's character, and definitely over people's salvation. This is God's place, not ours. And when we begin spouting such judgments in our distaste of someone's actions, we can really do damage....

    Jesus says to love your enemies. Not to commit judgement on them. Pray for me instead. And I will you.

    ReplyDelete
  96. To the bitter poster who is still licking wounds from the article on fashion,

    "My entry was pretty good."
    Uh... no. it wasn't.

    You purposefully submit a sneaky curse phrase and then point fingers at others for not catching it? Are you even serious?

    Attacking people? This blog is about ideas as far as I've seen. Drawing lines? Who has drawn lines? This isn't a church, it's a blog where people interact, often humorously, on religious topics. Get it? Joel isn't pastoring a cyber congregation.

    If you have something to say, say it. But cyber whining is pretty lame. As far as your fungus skin, was this supposed to be a hypothetical?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anon,

    "I know a couple of people who you have effected in a very negative way."

    Can you elaborate?

    As far as "creating lines" and "judgements." Whatever do you mean? Pastor Riley has not denied me membership to this blog upon condition of total surrender to his whims.

    Let biblical be biblical. You have nothing to say or add here. I find it amazing you think enough of yourself to write such lengthy responses. All hollow.

    ReplyDelete
  98. HAHAHAHAHAHA This is classic! Joel, your blog must've been talked about recently at some Old Fart conference, or at least at the dinner table of "concerned saints."

    Still, there's nothing coming back from the "majority" on anything biblical. Just rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Heads off, emotions on. The Pentecostal vulnerability I guess.

    Stirring dissension? I suppose you should just shut up, Joel. I mean, how dare you spend time on a post talking about a biblical topic, and point out in a creative way how faulty it is. And because I happen to agree with you (and sometimes disagree with you), and chime in, I guess I'm your disciple too. I'll send some offerings your way. Could you post a PayPal link?

    Dissension? These guys want to talk "dissension?" They have mutilated the Body of Christ over every mundane detail they've defended to the death. They spend more time preaching isolation from other believers and sinners than about the love of Jesus. Sermon-after-sermon where you are lucky to even hear the name "Jesus," unless it's in some formulaic, magic formula way to give authority to their statement. Dissension. Hahaha. The History of Pentecostalism is defined by dissension. Schism after schism, split after split. First it was an experience, then they huddled to start defining theologies, thus the splits. Then they changed names to be "more exclusive" and on and on and on. Don't divide the Body of Christ, spit on it, throw your nose in the air and then turn around and call those who are exposing the bologna, as "dissenters." Empty talk. If you're going to bring it, bring it. And don't let your pastor know you're on here posting!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Joel, Great point about the Pharisees getting pouty and twisted sideways when Jesus exposed their vain religiosity.

    Keep it up. People are listening. And don't cater to these detractors. Your blog will be on their "index" soon, and it will be a sin for them to even visit your blog soon (I'm sure).

    But, if they have a point. I think most that chime in here are willing to interact with them. It's just been really point-less.

    ReplyDelete
  100. last few commenters, solid input...thank you...

    and slim, you mentioned the idea of an "old fart conference" or a meeting of concerned saints....

    When I read those three comments in a row... i literally had quite a similar vision of like a group of 3-4 adults in their mid to late 30 gathering around a computer and each successively adding their comment....

    And then as the last comment was left and how I was scorned to hell....

    They immediately broke into a song and chorus of "the enemy has been defeated... And SAL couldn't hold us down!"

    And then excited high 5's went around the room as they pondered the fact that for two hours, these 3-4 individuals gave that SAL blog hell in a handbasket...


    And then after the celebrations grew to an awkward smile...someone realized, this is the internet....and websites can't be destroyed by 3 polemical comments in a row...

    And then it was really awkward

    ReplyDelete
  101. Wow...I haven't been on the blog a lot lately, but really just enjoyed this read!

    Amazing to me how no one really discussed the actual topic...classic example of chasing rabbits to avoid the real subject.

    While I know that I am not a Biblical scholar as some, I do know that my knowledge of the Bible, personal convictions and God-given ability to reason will not allow me to believe such an extra-Biblical 'doctrine.'

    I've not heard of this doctrine before, but it did not take me long at all to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is not something I would ever 'take' to.

    I've grown up in this Apostolic doctrine, and believe it with all of my heart and mind. Growing up in "the church," though, has definitely taught me a few things. One of which is that when you get too caught up in a man's doctrine, or following a man...it's often the beginning of your demise. I'm always wary of groups of people who follow a man (or woman for that matter) without asking for Biblical basis.

    This 'doctrine' is foolishness. Thank you Joel for pointing it out. The fact that you mentioned a 'name' was irrelevant to the actual topic.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I am only going to write back to you what you just wrote. We should be very hesitant to play the role of judge over peoples character. And when we begin spouting such judgements, in our distaste of someones actions, we can really do harm...(me) why arent you addressing mcgee or others for calling someone a heritic. And to Bekki, I owe you an apology. I am obviously not a blogger. I went to this page and saw the ridiculous picture and the ridiculous hmh when I scrolled through alot of the stuff...it said post a comment, which I did. You will notice that only one time did I mention hair, and it referred to peoples belief in uncut hair. The hmh thing is I am sure hugely overblown by this website, by the way they are addressing it you would think it is taught in pulpits nonstop and honestly this is the first place I heard it. Once again I dont blog. I was posting an entry not centered on the ridiculous hmh....but the mean and abusive attitude that is prevalent on this site. And just an aside Joel...I admire your self confidence but to compare yourself to Christ because of this website is a little large, even for you. And when you close that entry it said to love your enemies pray for them, I might suggest that if you did the same and spent as much time in prayer for truth to be revealed as you do upping the numbers of entries on your site, you might even be conforming to your own suggestion. You are also wrong about a few people gathered around the computer but once again a lofty opinion of yourself, that there are only a few people who find this site petty, and they would have to get together for support before they would have the nerve to confront. Like you I will thanked your brigade of programmed respondents I will thank the entries in my support. The reality is Joel. No one I know but the couple I spoke of are reading this site...NOONE.I have no wounds to lick stokely whoever you are, (but certainly one of the sites faithful) And it must have been a little good to get the blogs going.And slim what a hateful judgemental and dispicable comment to accuse concerned people for mutilating the body of Christ. That has to be one of the most vial remarks I have ever heard. and yet your leader has nothing but praise for your entry. Once again, you have proven my point, all you do on this site is condemn and point fingers, making the church your enemy, and then make vial comments to scare people away from your site so you can serve it up the way you want it. The cyber burer king. This site will not be on my index. I wouldnt waste any more time than I have coming back, and not because I wouldnt be allowed. You all have proved yourselves to be nothing but boring clones. On the bright side...hopefully there will be a great church and light to a community where people gather together from this site.I cannot nor would I put anyone in heaven or hell through a comment... follow Christ

    ReplyDelete
  103. One more thing that I keep forgetting, stokely once again, not at all licking wounds. I got on your site, had made an entry that with a hint of sarcasm...then followed it up with and entry stating this is the place to be for those over the stuffy church thing. Did you address the entry with concern over someone that was going to walk away from a tangible community of believers no,because that is what you want to see. You went right for my juglar. Attacking me with ridiculous follow ups and mean spirited comments on my subtle humor..it is you that must be a little ashamed that that one got by. I know I would be. That is exactly what I mean when I say you showed your colors immediately. mcgee was hateful, you were spiteful and rude, setting a precedent that no one is going to get away with dissention. Good luck finding in your search for more of the disgruntled, untrusting, over the church thing crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hilarious,,,just couldnt get back to work till I brought this to your undivided attention. You attacked me on my first entry, because my entry had no content was not on point, had nothing to do with the subject matter....and then I am followed on one of my entries by one of your chosen, who shared that he was SITTING IN CHURCH,TEXTING HIS YOUTH PASTOR, (I know my opinion doesnt mean anything here, but there are a couple of things wrong with just that short part of the entry, was this texter on point?> was he or she in tune with the spirit of the service.) next the entry implies MAKING FUN OF SOMEONES HAIR??? in the text to the YOUTH PASTOR./? He texts back holy majic hair, and the entry praises this site as trail blazing. Why because during a service they found out through texting and making fun of someones hair that the youth pastor had obviously visited your site. (I am sure the texter had no idea that the youth pastor had any knowledge of holy majic hair, even though they had were completely comfortable texting the subject matter to him during service. And the entry ends with KUDOS....like your mission is accomplished. Exactly what you are looking for...someone texts making fun of someone in church and the youth pastor makes this victorious response. You must be proud, you are ground breaking.....I mean who wouldnt want to be sitting next to a texter in church, and who does the leadership think they are anyway to tell us to turn our phones off during service...regardless of a society filled with signs...turn off cell phones. Mission accomplished. Now on to bigger an better things

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous above of the past 3 comments (whether it be one or two people I care not),

    Here is a video to you in honor of my frustration of having to take to the past 9 minutes and read your material...9 minutes which i will never get back...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs

    Just stop coming to the site if it really displeases you....We get it, you don't like me or the readers...We really understand...

    Fondly,
    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  106. I can't keep up with anonmymous' ramblings. It's hard to response. Can you just put in a name. Gus? Something!

    And I quote:
    "... if you spent as much time in prayer for truth to be revealed as you do upping the numbers of entries on your site, you might even be conforming to your own suggestion."

    If I pray hard enough I will see things exactly like you? Is that what it is? If only I'm good enough, fast hard enough, pray hard enough? I have a lot of catching up to do to be as good as you.

    More quoting from ANON:
    "You are also wrong about a few people gathered around the computer but once again a lofty opinion of yourself, that there are only a few people who find this site petty, and they would have to get together for support before they would have the nerve to confront."

    "The reality is Joel. No one I know but the couple I spoke of are reading this site"

    WHICH IS IT? Joel corrected the poster from an entire conference to just a few individuals and he has a "lofty opinion of himself?" Then you contradict yourself and agree with him that no one you know reads the site. Question: If they don't, and you are here out of "concern" and "love," what are you accomplishing?

    "Like you I will thanked your brigade of programmed respondents I will thank the entries in my support."

    Oh yes. It's a big conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Many who say they've never heard the doctrine, may have heard it in less subtle ways.

    "Women your hair is a spiritual glory, there's power on your head! You have supernatural authority because of your hair." That's a more tame way of the basis for the HMH doctrine. The preacher featured in the clip is just one of many who has taken this an extra step. And before we think this is a sermon to some home missions group of 20, this message, in parts, has been preached to throngs and masses of Pentecostals all over. Even at our former Superintendent's church (not to implicate him, as he is no longer the Pastor at that church). But that's just to show what sort of exposure this doctrine has. And if you've never heard of it still, then be blessed, you are equipped to recognize this strange doctrine.

    Why is this post on SAL? Let's face it, some of us want to talk about this stuff. But I think the comical potential of "Magic Hair" makes the subject postworthy on a satirical website. Because us posters are not always in the spirit of satire and comedy, doesn't change the purpose and intent of the blog. It only goes to show the desire of many that really want to talk about these things.

    ReplyDelete
  108. In regaurds to my post "P.S HELLS HOT!"
    you said....." infer that im going to hell"
    But no where did i say that you or anyone else was going to hell. But misleading statements and down right lies are the norm on this website!
    I was saying this generation does not fear God like they should and as a reminder only a reminder that hell is hot! I truly believe this generation has forgotten that there is a hell!!! I dont know how some of you can sleep at night after the comments you have left on this website saying the things about "Bro.Stoneking"! WOW!!!
    you crossed the line! You should be fearing GOD!
    You should never touch HIS Anointed!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Amelia,

    Read some Church History, you will find discussions like this are mild in comarison, if one can even compare.

    What else are "downright lies" propogated by "this website" (whoever the website is)?

    As much as some posters took the liberty to criticize the teachings of this evangelist, I have to wonder what you and others say about "this website" in private, and in public behind pulpits. Hypocrisy. We cannot say criticism is a bad thing. Thank God for it. Had it not been for bold, courageous criticism and question-asking, you wouldn't be a Pentecostal. You know, that guy Luther who is going to burn in a hot place that defied the Catholic Church and who began the Protestant Reformation, out of which come Anabaptists and later Methodists, Puritans, Baptists and then a few illiterate boys at a country Bible School who knelt to pray for the Baptism of the Spirit. Even the UPCI, WPF, AMF - none of those orgs came without criticism. And don't you think for a second anyone is exempt from this. The only ones that aren't are those scared to death because they fear their soul will be lost, so they just bow their submissive heads and follow a Gospel that has more conditions than a credit app. Sweet people. But those sweet people should be thankful for the others willing to stick their necks out.

    Regarding "touch his anointed" - is SAL hasn't done a post on that, it should soon! Often overused and grossly misinterpreted.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Someone needs to read the anointing post...
    Also, just keep it up. Always go there. It's about time someone apostolic did.

    ReplyDelete
  111. AmeliaBedlia,

    Please take Lee's question seriously about these lies you talk of...

    You have called me and other posters liars and deceptive. What are these "lies" you speak of? Be specific...

    I could call you a vampire, but it has no merit whatsoever, unless I visually see you sucking someone's blood. And then maybe we have a case...

    Don't throw around words to put us in a negative light, if you don't bring something to the table to back it up...

    It's just not displaying good manners...

    and Lee, as for the "touch not my anointed" phrase...I remember a poster on here named Sara mentioned that verse as one of the verses taken out of context in the "taking verses out of context" post....

    But before that comment, I had never heard of that argumentation. But since then, I have seen it used twice now. You may be onto something....although it would be nice to hear it used from an actual person....

    ReplyDelete
  112. Before you go telling the whole world as well as your friends how wrong this preacher was I hope you prayed in the Holy Ghost to be obedient before you totally disrespected the man of God and his message with your message online.. Uncut hair is powerful and YES it is in the Holy Bible!!.. Obedience to the things of God is more important than "your interpretation" of that message.. I'm afraid that you completely missed what the preacher was trying to convey and you've cheapened the message to yous "fan base". This is not a site for things Apostolics like. Its a site for MOCKING Apostolics. In the last days men will be pleasers of themselves and mockers. Just because you can laugh at it doesnt make it right. God said to separate from the world not conform to it.

    I am so aggravated by people who think they know more than our preachers and more than one of the core concepts our religion is founded upon (Holiness Standards). There needs to be a revival of respect and healthy fear of the Lord and those He calls!!!

    Any one who reads this should hear Brother StoneKing's message before you totally discount what he said using this one eye witness.. I heard the message and listened to the whole thing... Bro Stoneking was in fact raised from being dead after 30 minutes. This man has dedicated his life to serving God and because he fears God he has wisdom. God is loving and there is power in the salvation message but there is also power through obedience to God's word even if we dont completely understand the deep things.. God works in mysterious ways. Please show some respect!

    ReplyDelete
  113. "An Apostolic" said:
    "Before you go telling the whole world as well as your friends how wrong this preacher was I hope you prayed in the Holy Ghost to be obedient before you totally disrespected the man of God and his message with your message online.. Uncut hair is powerful and YES it is in the Holy Bible!!"

    And after much prayer, I will be as spiritual as you are and come to the same conclusion? Not by matter of study and objective truth, but by being spiritual. Is that right?

    QUOTE: "I am so aggravated by people who think they know more than our preachers..."

    Really nothing to comment on that. Just worth quoting. Pretty incredible.

    QUOTE: " There needs to be a revival of respect and healthy fear of the Lord and those He calls!!!"

    Scripture and verse of apostolic instruction for this please. Oh yes, let's get back to the place where fear was a sufficient answer.

    So you believe in Stonking's interpretation of "power in the hair." Care to discuss? Let me in on your "secret power" please. Let's not have "private interpretations," instead, let's go back to what was originally said, discover what it was originally intended, and learn what it meant to the original audience. Hermeneutics 101.

    Do you agree with Mother Teresa's doctrine? Benny Hinn? Do you find it disrespectful to post why you disagree? Even if they are a "man of God?"

    Fear, fear, fear, fear.... believe what I say... then back to fear, fear, fear, fear

    ReplyDelete
  114. Drink the Kool-Aid. The man of God knows best. How dare you discuss ideas to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Hey Lee and Riley....follow your own recommendation. CHURCH HISTORY....Truth is like a river....it flows....and in the deep middle is the truth, not on the edges where waters eddy and become stagnant. The truth that was revealed through Luther, the Methodists, the Baptist, etc.....was a flowing river of truth, that, had they remained open to Gods move, they would not have become stagnant Lutherans, Baptists and Methodist. The reason these churches exist today, is because they locked into a revealed truth and called it a done deal, while Gods revelation was flowing. They became satisfied with what was revealed and gathered in a stagnant pool at the side of the river instead of staying in the flowing middle. So you can name these denominational founders as saints if you want, but all you have to do is walk into a lutheran or baptist church today and see what has become of their revealed truth.

    They are dead dormant edifices to a morsel of truth, in God's expansive plan. Interesting how you would be so quick to immortalize these denominational church founders,,,,yet so quick to condemn speakers in your own faith. We thank Luther.....absolutely, but the congregations stuck in a stagnant pool they owe these founders no gratitude.

    You guys are so quick to jump on the band wagon of any other faith, and condemn Apostolics....but it was these people who remained open and fluid to the move of Gods revealed truth. So keep up the good work condemning Apostolics. They are the only people in our day that continued searching for Gods complete plan. I am sure you dont see it, but I think there is something admirable about that

    ReplyDelete
  116. Now I will in advance clarify myself and take it down a notch or two. Imagine a puzzle...and a person has only a couple of pieces....the rest is a mystery..where does that get anyone.

    The incredible thing about Apostolic ministry, if anyone pays attention, there always seems to be a moving truth, and I am not speaking of your interpretation of hmh. When I attend a meeting, and hear a speaker, and know that he has heard from God, and delivered something powerful and moving that seems to take me to a deeper place in God, it amazes me.

    The teacher will come when the student is ready...and you wont ever get it, until you get it. No matter how many times something is repeated one day it may hit you like it was spoken for the first time. Since you are so keen to these denominational churches, maybe you should start checking them out for a fluid move of God. You might be a little disappointed.

    There is an incredible painting in the Louvre, the coronation of Napolean by David. While it is beautiful with some accuracy, it leaned to political correctness of the day. Napolean's mother was painted into the scene, when in fact she was not there, angry because he and Josephine had been living together. Also the painting depicts Napolean being crowned by Pope Pius VII, when in fact he crowned himself.

    So to have a few truths included in a painting,while the important nuances were deleted, does not reveal truth. It is an amazing work or art, but it contains a man's wish or will.

    I hope that these analogies help you to understand the importance of these people Lee that you refer to as "illiterate country boys who knelt and prayed"

    In addition Lee....we dont talk about this website in private, if you havent noticed we confront you right on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  117. This "flow" has flooded even more.... I am the chosen one. The End.

    Your logic doesn't "flow" so nice.

    Early "Pentecostals" WERE baptists, methodists, etc. They didn't see Azusa as a new revelation. They saw it as a restored experience. They didn't think they were getting saved, they thought they were experiencing Spirit baptism.

    Your praised pioneers also were mostly racists, blab it and grab it pioneers, turning what was a beautiful experience into a continual bumpy ride of scandal, schism, false doctrine and embarrassment (see barking dogs at Toronto Blessing). I admire their hunger and their influence to the Body of Christ, but the pride some of the leaders had, thinking they were End Time prophets that had to create new doctrines is where things went wacky.

    I'm not sure which denominational churches you are referring. I can careless about denominations, so quit the college prep sports "my team is better than yours" taunting. It's not important to me. The Spirit was never to be hijacked as a competitive edge. What a tragedy! I'll speak for myself, the Spirit is an active agent in my life, the worship of our community of believers and a very present reality.

    You don't talk about it in private? Or did you mean you don't JUST talk about it in private?

    ReplyDelete
  118. TR said: "When I attend a meeting, and hear a speaker, and know that he has heard from God, and delivered something powerful and moving that seems to take me to a deeper place in God, it amazes me. "

    When I attend a meeting, all prophesy and encourage one another. The exhortation of the elders is founded in apostolic precedent, not just inspired creativity.

    We can get "a Word from God" but don't fool yourself and think you own the block on "Word from God." Neither should you think that "word" is free to collide with apostolic teaching, which is ultimately the teaching of Jesus, the Disciple of these Apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  119. First lets get the unfair questions out of the way. I dont agree with Mother Teresa or Benny Hin. Unreasonable Fear is not my religion. A healthy fear of God and those He anoints is necessary for spiritual survival, growth, and favor in the Kingdom, and that IS in the Bible.

    “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” (Romans 13 :1-2) NIV

    Other Reverance of Authority scriptures: 1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Thes. 5:12-13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Heb. 13:17, Lev. 19:32, Prov. 13:13, Matt. 5: 43-48, Rom. 13:7, Eph. 6:1-3, Eph. 6:5

    *Authority is given to a man / woman of God

    Its not disrespectful to disagree. You should challenge ideas and search the scriptures but you should also search your heart and intentions and see if your responding in love, and in a respectful way, or if you are responding in a nonchalant, disrespectful way. Satire and Jesting is not profitable and it is disrepectful to bash and disrepect a man of God.

    “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor JESTING , which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Ephesians 5:3-5)

    *Jesting = is mockery, or to speak in a humorous, or facecious way.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Even if a preacher is wrong the Bible says "touch not mine anointed" 1 Chron. 16:20-24. This is proven when referring to Saul even though an evil spirit was on him, because David feared God and obeyed God’s ways, by not “touching God’s anointed”, God blessed him and gave him favor. Also with God’s direction we can voice our opinion but always in Respect! If Respect isnt there then we are in the wrong even if what we are saying is right.

    We can not forget to respect and have a healthy fear of the position God places people in . It is aggravating when people blatently don’t respect the office of one of our Apostolic preachers. Do you know what some of these men and women had to go through in order to be where they are today in ministering for God? It’s a sacrifice that we should acknowlegde and NOT takelightly. Discuss your disagreements but do it in respect.

    False Prophets in the pulpit should be discussed and pointed out if need, but NOT IN A SARCASTIC/ JESTING or disrespectful manner. That only shows the lack of wisdom on Joel Reily’s part and his followers and friends who allowed him to put this up with out advising him to be respectful. And to a degree this conduct ruins his credibility.

    We are Apostolic! People who believe in the Holy Ghost. So Let’s use it:

    “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1John 4:1)

    When I was reading the post Joel Reily put up I had a sick feeling and that was the Holy Ghost telling me something is not right. It’s the attitude and sarcasm of a topic. The Holy Ghost will lead and guide you and you should feel conviction when you read, hear, or see something not right. In this case it was, disrespecting a man of God and His message

    ReplyDelete
  121. Joel says “Also if you want a kind of manifesto of holy magic hair check out this video (I have not watched it in over a year because of how mad it makes me...the idea that the speaker uses witchcraft practices as an indicator of truth in power of hair is very sad. I guess that means we should all wear the color red as much as possible too because that is a doctrine of traditional witchcraft as well...Holy Magic Hair- Taught by Lee Stoneking”

    This is why you have to listen to the entire sermon:
    Bro StoneKing’s issue about waving the Hair: The supernatural realm knows there is power in the association of hair.. Where as witches know there is power in their hair and wave their hair as a Pagan ritual. He went on to say , what would happen if Apostolic women, who know the real power associated with their uncut hair comes from God, waved their hair. It wasn’t to get people to submit to witchcraft .. It was a effort to explain how the supernatural realm (inclusive or good and evil spirits) IS REAL and knows that there is power in UN-CUT HAIR . A perfect parallel of the supernatural concept is in James 2:9Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    Also Joel I understand if you may have misunderstood what Bro. Stoneking was saying… even if you did .. you have to start off the discussion with respect not jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I listend to the entire video and found what Bro. StoneKing said to be powerful. Its not that our hair has “magical” powers. That “secret power” that you(Collin) want me to let you in on. (I don’t appretiate your sarcasm. You could get your point across with out that) ..
    …That power comes when we obey God. God has favor when we obey His word- women not cutting their hair. God will sometimes ask women just like in the message Bro Stoneking preached, to step out in faith and lay their hair on the people.. Its not because their hair is “a god” or their hair possess “magical” powers. Its out of obedience to God, and what He told them to do. Obedience unleashes the miraculous.

    As for: the comment including…"Drink the Koolaid" , that comment doesnt adequately relate, and I can't believe that person even wrote that! This is an off color statement and it refers to a man “Jim Jones” who instructed the people who followed him to kill themselves.

    My comment was about respecting and having a Godly fear for the man of God. Not about blindly following a false prophet with out the leading of the Holy Ghost. Be wise in your comments who ever you are.

    “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless” (James 1:26)

    ReplyDelete
  123. First, I was happy this post made it to the second page of links, therefore I assumed it would become a dead post....Oh how I was wrong...

    Secondly, T.R. I don't know when I praised Methodism (although I am a fan of Wesley), nor Lutheranism (although I am a fan of Luther). Following the trajectory of the Spirit is what I am for (as Wesley would not doubt not be able to recognize the denomination he started if he walked into it today)...

    We are on the same page here T.R. I politefully suggest that your history may be slightly off. The reason Luther is luther is because he stood up and recognized that God not be accessed by Papal authority alone. The reason Wesley is Wesley is because he (or at least his first generation followers) recognized that there is a Spirit at work, and that God not be accessed by the Episcopal church alone. The reason apostolics are apostolics is because they recognized that God need not be recognized as a triune God, and that Spirit was even more alive and real and active than what was previously realized. That said, we must be careful of dogma. It is not that dogma is always a bad thing, but dogma, with Christian history in mind, should demand some kind of suspicion, so that we not block out the moving of the Spirit in favor of dogmas (as is the fall of the Lutherans and Methodists). I'm sure you know all this, but I guess T.R., I think you and me are seeing history quite the same, not differently. And I guess I just interpret the permissibility of dogma as something to be suspicious of. But at the same time, we must be suspicious of revelation even more so, for although it could indeed be spirit, revelation has no backing like dogma has with tradition, and therefore is allowed more freedom to impute divine Spirit in us more than dogma ever can but at the same time revelation can impute pure nonbiblical actions that find no backing from even the bible, and even contradict the bible. Revelation, while amazing, surely has it's downfalls in it's subjectivity and it's inability to be measured objectively. But as Lee said, the Bible is the ultimate authority, and while I do allow for extrabiblical revelation in my own theology, I do think HMH is contradictory to the apostolic message and the focus on the cross & resurrection as our soul means to do anything of merit in the kingdom.

    And T.R. I do agree that the SPirit will flow no matter the vessel and thus there will be corrupt doctrines and beliefs and poor ethics here and there, but that does not negate the possibility of Spirit within them.

    ReplyDelete
  124. An Apostolic,

    I don't know how I didn't respond to your comment from last week. I guess it just got lost in the mayhem. I apologize.

    First off, thank you. While I disagree with your allowance to pray in faith with your hair as power, I do really appreciate that you came here with calm arguments and reasons. It was the material you wrestled with, and thus deserves some kind of internet medal if it ever existed (in consideration of the inability for most to do what you did in debating the arguments.)

    As for Lee Stoneking, the man's ministry is more than I could ever realize. He is a tremendous man who has saved and healed many of souls. I do not denounce his authority of nonsense whatsoever. But as you critiqued my argument, I so endeavored to critique one that he was presenting. This in no way takes away from who He is a a minister, but rather just some material that I think demands correction (but as we all are inperfect in our knowledge, we all need correction along some lines).

    If I were to regret anything in my post, it is that I did not give proper respect to Lee Stoneking, as you pointed out. I do not think such authority puts him above reproach for Paul says to test everything and keep that which is true when it comes to the message of prophets. While there is much truth in Bro. Stoneking's message, I just am pointing out something that I really truly believe is not a truth and should not be passed off as one.

    And I would also point out that your "touch not my anointed" is taken slightly out of context. It is a psalm of sorts from David. And he is talking about the success of Israel and the kings and prophets who were kept out of harm's way in a physical sense. I don't think this is enough to merit a decree that we should not question the words of a prophet (and you surely agreed that it is good to question). And please note, that I was not attacking Lee Stoneking whatsoever in the post. I never mentioned his name (the name Lee Stoneking in the post occurs only in that which came through the embedding process of the video (even the stuff just above the video). I was trying to differentiate between the message and the mane on purpose.

    Next up, as to the actual message, I am quite tired so I will try to get as many points in brief that you brought up. First I would like to point out that Daniel Alicia, who I would say is an HMH scholar above anybody has pointed out that witches no longer see any power in uncut hair as Bro. Stoneking claimed.

    Which brings me to the next point, and it is completely where I disagree (though with respect):

    "The supernatural realm knows there is power in the association of hair."

    Firstly, he bases this on I Cor. 11:10. I really have a very very strong belief (based in the greek) that the covering in this verse is a physical hair covering other than hair. Therefore, if there is any power, it is in that second covering. I have yet to read one of one theological scholar who see the covering in verse 10 as hair (and please do not argue that that is because the covering as hair only comes through revelation. As surely proper exegesis and revelation of scripture will agree, not disagree). Please note that while my interpretation may seem odd, it is not be any means considered odd according to a study of the koine greek and an understanding of the hellenistic culture that Corinth resided in.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Secondly, I have a lot of hesitancy about "authority" being translated as "power." I think authority in the sense that it is used is not saying one has "authority" with their covering, but rather when one has a covering in church, they are submitting themselves to the grand authority of the cosmos (God->Jesus->Man->Woman) that is mentioned in either verse 3 or 4 (i forget). And this I say makes all the infinite difference.

    So I just simply literally see no reason to take Stoneking's leap that the supernatual sees power in uncut hair. It's based on one verse (which I strongly disagree with his interpretation of), and on the idea that witchcraft recognizes the power of uncut hair (which is not true).

    Further, while obedience and faith may bring blessings, we must note that in such instances it is never the physical material object that actually brings the blessings (and I would venture to say that Stoneking would say that physical uncut hair does have blessings).

    Lastly, I would want my faith in the healing power of Christ instead of hair. To make it about obedience of hair to me at least, has one focusing on man, and not on the blood which was shed whereby we are saved. It is the blood that protects us. Not hair.

    But alas anon, I will look back at your arguments again in the morning to see if I missed anything you said or misinterpreted anything you said. With no condescension at all, I have the utmost respect for you. While I disagree, you truly are a person of humility (for you have handled a miscreant such as I quite kindly) and have even convicted me at parts.

    Love,
    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  126. I wasnt off on history, I just wasnt going to go on an endless presentation. I am aware what these historical figures represent, and what they contributed. I absolutely believe that revelation be Bible based. The thing that troubles me about some of the people on your site. is their persistent desire to wrap every denominiation in a single cloth. I may be wrong but it appears to be an attempt to convince people...if Luther was right...If they have their place in church history,,,then they are saved. We can embrace their doctrine and if we can embrace their doctrine, like some of your writers have hinted at...we can walk away from the spirit infilling and speaking in tongues, disciplines of holiness, and whether anyone wants to talk about things like this or not, drinking, jewelry, etc. In a sex crazed society, where marriages fail at an alarming rate, sex crimes, rape, etc....I might suggest that by using scripture a Pastor could guide a congregation into disciplines of, "perhaps we should consider covering up." ""

    And because many of the things worn today werent around in the Bible, it is a our jobs as christians, God show us how to be holy, do not let us be a stumbling block, in this PRESENT world.

    In regards to racism, the world was racist, while that is no excuse, it shows that through revelation our humanity does raise its ugly head. I have said for years, the church cannot ,cannot be racist, it cannot even scripturally teach against interracial marriage. Now they may feel that there may be social implications that would create a less than healthy atmosphere....the truth is that is about man....it is not of God.

    None of us have a heaven to reward or a hell to condemn. However we have a Saviour who leads, who longs for us to follow, and lead others to him by what they see of Him in our lives.

    Instead of asking ourselves what is unnecessary, what can I get by without, maybe it should be what more can I die out to. What aspect of this life can I lay down as a sacrifice, that the light and love of Christ might shine through, and the lost see a compelling path .

    I have no intention of trading pieces of a puzzle (poor analogy but just grabbing at it)to be more inclusive or socially acceptable. I have no intention on giving up truth so that the world might find my life tolerable. I dont want to be part of a stagnant, unresponsive,congregation. The Apostolic experience, and a discipline of holiness combined with an open heart for more, and endless love is what the world searches for and needs. If I didnt believe that, I'd be giving in the offering plate at St. Paul's Lutheran

    ReplyDelete
  127. Once again Joel you can voice your opinion. But you shouldnt voice it in disrespect! the truth can be harsh but jesting is wrong and makes your responce tainted. People shouldn't treat hair as "a god" (if this is what HMH purposes, which i think is what your getting at) but they should be obedient to the law of God (women have un-cut hair, and men have cut hair). And in being odedient God can use you, and work through you! Also people shouldnt cater or cowar under harsh sarcastic remarks even if there may be truth in it. God says to speak the truth in love.. Jesting does not promote love, and is referred to a something God does not want us (His people) to do.. Alot of Apostolics , Ex-Apostolics, Non- Apostolics read your posts, and I'm sure you and many reading know that. So I'm asking to please do us all a favor and have a little more reverance and respect for the Topics and People you choose to discuss. I think every one understands your topic but its up to you to explain it in a Respectful and wise way. God's people try to be God like. Portray a spirit of Humility Not Pride.

    ReplyDelete
  128. TR,

    I call Luther, Zwingley, Tertullian and others my brother. Yes. However, I disagree with many of their teachings. One thing I agree absolutely with is "justification by faith."

    TR QUOTED: "The thing that troubles me about some of the people on your site. is their persistent desire to wrap every denominiation in a single cloth. I may be wrong but it appears to be an attempt to convince people...if Luther was right...If they have their place in church history,,,then they are saved."

    You've certainly taken your liberty at the Assumption table on this one. I'm not naive enough to see a single cloth, in the context of ideas. I do, however, see a single cloth in the context of the Church. I don't believe the Reformers to be eternally lost and condemned, nor any of those believers that lived on this planet the last 1,500 years or more without a dogmatized, 3-step version of salvation. And you know what, mine was the view of many of our first brothers in the UPCI. Those were the days when unity actually meant something. Now, guys like me, have to defend ourselves from "not being Apostolic enough" and all sorts of childish name-calling. What's even more outrageous, is when you say those things, others accuse you of not believing in Spirit baptism, tongues, water baptism, etc... Couldn't be farther from the truth. If it wouldn't be so ironic, I'd wager my church has just as much Spirit movement, water baptism and gifts of the Spirits as any other.

    TR: "We can embrace their doctrine and if we can embrace their doctrine, like some of your writers have hinted at...we can walk away from the spirit infilling and speaking in tongues, disciplines of holiness, and whether anyone wants to talk about things like this or not, drinking, jewelry, etc. In a sex crazed society, where marriages fail at an alarming rate, sex crimes, rape, etc....I might suggest that by using scripture a Pastor could guide a congregation into disciplines of, "perhaps we should consider covering up." ""

    I don't get what you're saying here.
    I might suggest that Scripture only means what it meant, and it never means what it never meant. So "using Scripture" to interpret it back to support a doctrine the pastor has is an irresponsible handling of 2 Tim 2:15. If that Pastor finds a principle, then teach the principle. But dogmatizing rules does not Holiness people make. It makes uniforms and a perfect cover for secret sin. None of the topics you referenced, by the way, have any biblical or historical support.


    TR: "In regards to racism, the world was racist, while that is no excuse, it shows that through revelation our humanity does raise its ugly head. I have said for years, the church cannot ,cannot be racist, it cannot even scripturally teach against interracial marriage..."

    I wouldn't blame racism on "the world" on this one. British Israelism was quite prominent among these ministers. In fact, some of the most influential racist movements have come from "people of faith" more than anything else. The "compound mentality" of people like Dowie, the fraud of people like Branham, etc... This isn't unique to Pentecostals, things just got a lot more eccentric during this time. For example, holy laughter and barking like dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  129. TR: "Instead of asking ourselves what is unnecessary, what can I get by without, maybe it should be what more can I die out to. What aspect of this life can I lay down as a sacrifice, that the light and love of Christ might shine through, and the lost see a compelling path."

    A hearty amen. Sounds like good discipleship to me. That cannot be a coined answer to every unbiblical, man-made requirement thrown on people. Sanctification is a God-thing.

    "I dont want to be part of a stagnant, unresponsive,congregation."
    Who does? It may surprise you that the Holy Spirit has its own way and will with us. We've branded the Holy Spirit into a cultural trademark, and have rejected anything that looks, sounds or feels different. I am aware of the Spirit's presence at every time of corporate worship and gathering together with believers. He's with us. This "single cloth" mentality of those who critique cultural memes within Oneness Pentecostalism is quite disengenous.

    Also, the reason why I've critiqued this particular Pentecostal group so much is because it's what I'm most familiar with. Had I been Baptist, chances are, I'd have more discussions about Baptist history and culture.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Hey Apostolic,

    Admit it, dissent itself is disrespectful and uncomfortable to you. Congregants wouldn't dare question their pastor. Most would feel they were being rebellious and would throw out 100 disclaimers in the process of sharing their concerns, if they do that at all. So what you mean by "be respectful" is really, "say nothing at all."

    Jesting isn't wrong. See, it's easy to disagree :) The jest here was not a personal jest against a person (at least on JR's part), but a topical jest. I can hear Paul in Galatians have a much more furious jest about this silly nonsense of Judaizers making Gentiles obey the Law and "cut themselves."

    Youre evidence is lacking that equated uncut hair with the "Law of God." Any hint of it in the Talmud? In the Torah? In historical documents? Any precedent of this doctrine outside the last 60-70 years? Any bible scholar that thinks Paul is addressing an issue of "hair cutters" in the church? "When you pray and prophesy" as the condition for what is going on? Let's not be silly and call this the "law of GOD."

    Jesus was kind toward most everyone... except religious people! Those he called "snakes and vipers" and constantly confronted their contradictions and even hypocrisy.

    You can accuse some of the individuals that post on here of being "disrespectful" but I haven't seen otherwise from JR on his comments.

    Those who divide the body, expell members from their congregation and make people feel like they are unsaved for violating unbiblical commands should be confronted. In a culture of NO QUESTIONS ASKED, a blog like this just puts it all out there.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Apostolic,

    as collin pointed out. Paul certainly does jest. Look also to I Corinthians 4:7-14 as the ultimate example in rhetorical sarcasm to relay a point.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Collin you can read what you want to read, BUT your taking my words out of context to prove your point. The Law of God in the Holy Bible tells women not to cut their hair. Period bottom line. Jesting is wrong and your attitude toward me is wrong. Ask questions but do it in RESPECT: to hold in esteem or honor, in reverence to, in regards to...

    Jesting is clearly an "acceptable attribute" on this site. But this is a Huge Contradiction to the word of God. And if you want to attach Apostolics to the name of this site then you need to change the "Jesting" Purpose.

    Apostolics have a religion founded on the Apostles Doctrine in the Bible, not in the Torah or Talmund. Judaism's books do have similarites in that they include certain books of the Bible. However they (Torah & Talmund)do not include the whole Bible. Apostolics follow the Entire Bible.

    Again even if you and Joel are Apostolic.. You can't justify something that is Biblically wrong- Jesting.. no matter how funny you think it is.

    By all means speak your mind about Topics in regards to the Apostolic Culture but DO SHOW RESPECT OF TOPICS AND PEOPLE OF THE ORGANIZATION. People excpect respect in other venues so it should be no different here, Esp. if you design your whole site with "Stuff Apostolics Like"

    Don't attempt to Validate you or Joel's sarcastic jesting by taking my words out of context and essentially calling me names. What does that edify?

    Salt and light in the earth is what we are supposed to be. If we sin or have wrong attitudes we loose our savor, and then what good are we. As a Christian OUR actions, the words, and the way we speak or type define who we really are.

    Joels Site Introduction:
    "All jesting is in its nature profane, in the sense that it must be the sudden realization that something which thinks itself solemn is not so very solemn after all." -G.K. Chesterton"

    Jesting is wrong no matter how its served.

    We can Have Fun.. But dont think its right to do something that is Biblically wrong.

    God bless!

    -an Apostolic

    ReplyDelete
  133. Joel you chose to discuss the HMH idea and connect the teaching to Bro. Lee Stonekings preaching. That would be fine if Bro. Stoneking's message is in agreement with the HMH teaching you are talking about. But Bro. Stonekings message isn't in agreement with the HMH teaching your talking about: (womens long un-cut hair, being a separate entity containing "magical powers"). His (Stonekings) message is explaining the power of women who are obedient to God's law by not cutting their hair.. And how God miraculous heals when we step out in obedience. I can't explain why God tells people to take down their un-cut hair and pray for someone..I know God has told me to do that before.. and out of obedience i did it. All i know is obedience to God is more powerful that not obeying. Thats why its important to stay intune with What God is saying and stay full of the Holy Ghost .. Just because we dont fully grasp the concept of :

    1 Corinthians 11:10 (King James Version)

    "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

    Doesnt mean we should joke sarcastically about the way God choses to use women with Holy un cut Hair.

    I appreciate healthy discussion with out jesting and sarcasm.

    Let's becareful that we are not trying to see how close we can get to the edge of a mountain, with out falling off.


    Obedience to God and reverence is necessary and relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  134. * God miraculously heals when we step out in obedience

    ReplyDelete
  135. http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-10.htm - Therefore, a woman should wear something on her head to show she is under [someone's] authority, out of respect for the angels.

    -An Apostolic with no name is just another person with an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Apostolic,
    Where do I begin? First, did I actually "call you names?"

    You said: "The Law of God in the Holy Bible tells women not to cut their hair. Period bottom line."

    What exactly is "the Law of God?" Are you suggesting Paul was CREATING law to the Corinthians? That this was something unique? If you reject the value of using historical and canonical references to support this new teaching, then what do you use? Your own viewpoints being read into the Text?

    You said: "Jesting is wrong and your attitude toward me is wrong."
    I'm not sure how to respond. You believe this. You believe your attitude and rebuke and finger-wagging is acceptable, but my own response back is not. Sounds fair to me. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that jesting is wrong either. I mean, I'm perplexed by that. It's a form of communication. Satire, parable, humor, drama, poetry, pick your flavor.

    You said: "Ask questions but do it in RESPECT: to hold in esteem or honor, in reverence to, in regards to..."

    Maybe if you took yourself down a notch and quit demanded reverence and honor it'd come to you easier. Also, could you give me an example? Most of the dissent on this blog so far has been about style and not substance. It's hard to interact with that.

    So how do you respectfully state the teachings of Lee Stoneking are false? Care to give an example?

    You said: "Jesting is wrong no matter how its served.

    We can Have Fun.. But dont think its right to do something that is Biblically wrong."
    Biblically wrong? Are we on the same planet right now?

    You said: " I can't explain why God tells people to take down their un-cut hair and pray for someone..I know God has told me to do that before.. and out of obedience i did it."

    And if God told me that the entire idea if an affront against his own power and authority? What would you say? Whose "word from God" is true? How easily we claim to have God's voice sometimes.

    You've disagreed that LS doesn't teach in magical/powerful hair, but then you proceeded to explain exactly that.

    Apostolic, have you ever realized that the letter to the Corinthians was just that, a letter? And we get only a one-sided discussion. Have you ever stopped to think -- okay, Paul is addressing a problem, and this entire first half of the chapter is directed to that. What is the problem? Instead of approaching scripture as a magical puzzle, why not take the time to ask broader questions first? There is no biblical consistency with women having supernatural power in their hair. None. I appreciate that you at least went for it, and sought to defend your position. You are the first on here to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Since we're all down for posting links:

    http://pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/silly-rollie-pollie.html

    ReplyDelete
  138. Are we now having a full-out discussion on 1 Cor 11? I thought the post was about HMH?

    Let me first add, that nowhere in this text does long = uncut. Before we can even talk about the cultural factors, the principles, etc at work here, we've got to understand that uncut is not even part of this text. Paul's argument starts broad, then he uses an analogy of hair, then he uses the analogy of what is custom/nature. The entire pericope has in view "when praying or prophesying." That's pretty significant.

    ReplyDelete
  139. 1 John 4:1 (King James Version)

    1 John 4

    "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

    Romans 1:22 (King James Version)

    "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"

    ReplyDelete
  140. Do you not see the irony behind the verses you posted apostolic?

    The one from I John 4:1...I would use this verse as a basis to why we are decrying HMH! We are trying the spirit here about the power of uncut hair and we are saying it's not there!

    And then Romans 1:22-I am not claiming to be wise (nor do i believe anyone in this post claimed to be wise). Rather I would argue that it is Lee Stoneking, although is definitely not a fool, but he in his very message claims that we can trust his word about the subject because he "has done the research."

    The sword cuts both ways here on your verse usage.

    Welcome to postmodernism. It's not always fun. But it forces us to look at our claims of superiority and then realize other people making completely different stances are making the same claims and they also think they are right.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Just a few comments to Lee, whoever you are. Luther is your brother?
    Have you ever heard when debating theory you must follow it to its logical
    conclusion and see if it still stands.

    If Luthers revelation is adequate for the church today, then you must go to
    Lutherans and convince them to embrace Catholicism, lighten up on Luther's
    disagreements. Did the Catholic church not preserve some of christianity. Ignore the papal
    authority thing, the bend on confession and penance. You need to convince them
    that when Luther nailed the Castle Church in Wittenburg with the 95 these it is ok
    now to walk away from his revelations. Is that not what you are asking Apostolics to do?
    (just as an aside when speaking of Luther, I would suggest you give special attention to
    number three, and I am quoting from memory but the last part of it went something like,"there is no internal repentance ,that does not often move to mortification of the flesh.")

    I find in your writing the same desire that I see throughout this blog. A sincere
    desire to move Apostolics to a more broad based, ecumenical faith. I dont understand
    why you post on a blog to Apostolics, instead of logging on where Lutherans and Methodist
    might be found. It seems your mission would be better served in moving Lutherans and
    Baptists to more rather than dragging Apostolics to less.

    My father was Catholic, my mother Baptist, and I went from spiritual to studying Kabbalah.
    And I know I can speak for myself as well as my parents when I say that the idea of settling
    for less is unimagineable. Receiving God's spirit ,then convincing myself it was not necessary would not even be up for debate.

    I know that to many of you who are regulars on this site, the infilling of the Holy Spirit with
    the evidence of speaking in tongues is of little importance to you, regardless of what your new blog would suggest. But to many it is what brought their lives back from the brink
    of disaster, it is what saved their families and homes, it is what gives them hope and faith for each day.

    It is interesting that in your quest for spiritual identity, it would take you to denominations that are on the decline across the U.S. and Europe. Who in their desire to conform more to the wishes of the world, have become less attended, less powerful, less influential.
    Why wouldnt you want for Lutherans and Methodist all that God has,,all the you have
    experienced?

    I wont go much at all into your rant on my remarks regarding racism.but British Israelism? Who have been the most hated,enslaved,victims in the history of the world? Are Jews a race
    or religion? Each are both and neither, however if you are born Jew you dont get to opt out.

    If it wasnt for the British and the U.S. millions more Jews would have been lost in the Holocaust,
    and the French who were wagging white flags without being asked to surrender, would be speaking
    German and making Stollen rather than baguette.

    I find it troubling that you are anxious to belittle or condemn an Apostolic minister, but you
    embrace Lutherans, Methodist, etc, many who have literally refused revelation of spirit infilling.

    You may not be aware of this but Baptist, Methodist, etc. are inviting Apostolics into their
    churches to bring their message and their worship.
    Walk in the light as he has shed the light on your pathway, let others see Christ in you and come to Him themselves.

    And one more time...where in the world are you guys going to church where there is a call to absolute perfection?

    ReplyDelete
  142. I apologize for the appearance and separation of my statements, it was completely unintentional. I wrote the comments then tried to post them and it did not go through. I decided to Notepad it copy it and then post.

    ReplyDelete
  143. TR, you have such a linear view of things. And to that end, it would take took long to untangle this mess of logic you just laid out.

    I, sir, have had some contentious discussions with Methodists and Baptists as well. That's where you're wrong. We sit down as brothers and try to hash things out. My experience and belief in the teaching of the Apostles, coincidentally also the teaching of the Messiah, make me Apostolic. My theology and practice share pneumatic expressions making me Pentecostal. I could careless with tidy categories, denominations, etc. I enjoy opening the Word and reading this great Story before us. I enjoy discussions. I've found those from my own upbringing some of the most resistant and inflexible to examine and critique themselves.

    So I post here because I'm Apostolic. You, sir, don't have the market on this trademark. I know that's the intent of some.

    I'm not launching myself toward any group. Pentecostalism is one of the fastest growing segments in Christianity today. It has influenced, as an experience the whole of Christendom. Instead of embracing this spread of the Spirit, many of my brothers have condescendingly called their experience a fraud, using terms like "charismatic" as a pejorative, and suggesting they've received a "false Christ." (We have no problem preaching from their research/study, and singing their songs though)

    I'm not asking Apostolics to move away from Truth. I'm asking them to shed positions that are needlessly dogmatic, that aren't step forwards, but leaps backwards.

    I'm not following your defense of British Israelism, which by the way, affected attitudes against more than just Jews. Just ask William Seymour.

    I do thank you for your interactions though and allowing me an opportunity to explain myself, as an individual, and not representative of SAL, JR or anyone else. There is much diversity in thought on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  144. T R,

    You said: "I find in your writing the same desire that I see throughout this blog. A sincere
    desire to move Apostolics to a more broad based, ecumenical faith."

    What on earth are you talking about? Where has ecumenism ever been an agenda of this blog? Please shed light on this.

    Because if my blog is ecumenical then I gots to get outta here fast....

    ReplyDelete
  145. Holiness Unto the LordMay 27, 2010 at 2:21 AM

    First let me preface the following by saying that I am NOT a minister or leader of any capacity. I am, however, a concerned fellow Apostolic who felt it necessary to weigh in and inject some words of scripture and admonition into the conversation, that will hopefully cause some introspection into the intents and purpose of this blog, as well as some generate some honesty evaluation of the overall end product is that is being produced. And then asking one's self, what to do next with that information? The text is long, so I will break it up into several parts....

    PART 1

    To Darla: Thank you for your comments and taking a stand for saintly discretion. There is much wisdom in your attitude and I and others are in total agreement with your comments on this post. Thank you again...you are my hero and the impetus for the rest of this post!

    To McGee: I am truly saddened that you have met with circumstances which have contributed in your leaving the faith (and cannot help but think your experience with this forum may have somehow played some part in that decision). Remember to the former days when you first were saved and why you responded to the Apostolic message...encourage yourself in God, push out the negative influences and pray through to that Holy of Holies experience again. Fight to keep that precious faith which was delivered to you. This is truly spiritual warfare - Don't become a casualty! I will keep you in my prayers.

    I have gone through my own spiritual battles over the years, as we all do, and have a word for you my friend:

    Matthew 11:12
    12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

    Luke 16:16
    The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

    Stay in the battle, and press forward. You gotta fight to get into this thing (that's why Jesus likened it to a birth), and you gotta be vigilant to not get outwitted and spiritually killed off by the devil who wants to sift you like wheat and discourage the life out of you. Fight every inch and stay fighting!

    Continue to Part 2

    ReplyDelete
  146. Holiness Unto the LordMay 27, 2010 at 2:24 AM

    PART 2

    To Joel: I have read much of your writings on this blog, and your profile, and feel I have somewhat of an understanding of your intentions. I think that you ponder the things of God and seek to do good, albeit, your method and implementation is in error and I believe you have also allowed pride to cloud your judgement, which has resulted in your stepping over a number of very important spiritual lines. I'm sure you are familiar with the saying, "many a road to hell is paved with good intentions". Good intentions do not always produce good results, and I believe this blog (and your other blogs) is an unfortunate example of such good intentions straying way out of line with God's Word.

    Just because you CAN say it, doesn't mean you SHOULD, and there is plenty of scripture to back that. You have chosen to produce a forum via which subjects and issues which should be privately discussed and resolved within the construct of the Apostolic family are aired like so much dirty and private laundry being hung out for the consumption and offense of the general apostolic and non-apostolic public alike. No one is perfect, no not even the early church, as is evidensed in the various epistles to the churches. But the epistles were written by Paul and others for the spiritual admonition and edification -- and PRIVATE consumption -- of the churches, their leadership and their saints... NOT for the unchurched or non-saints. The gospels were designed for the sinners to point them the way to salvation, but the epistles were strictly for the saints. One might ask, "then why are the gospels and epistles published together in the New Testament? To which would be replied that the combining of these various writings into into a single collection that we now publish as the "New Testament" is a relatively modern invention. The early writings were not in fact assembled in such manner until later, but this is a digression of the original intent of this post.

    Continue to Part 3

    ReplyDelete
  147. Holiness Unto the LordMay 27, 2010 at 2:26 AM

    PART 3

    Paul speaks in rather sharp terms and disdain of such public airing of matters which should be resolved amongst the brethren. Granted, the context of this passage has to do with taking one's brother in the faith into a public court of law over a dispute, but even the casual observer would not have to stretch much mentally to see the rather obvious analogy to what is happening in your public blog. Does it matter to you that others who may be spiritually weak in the Lord, or easily offended, would happen onto this forum and be turned away from the very faith that you purport to love so much and would otherwise seek to persuade them towards? I would suggest that we have all already seen examples of this just in this very subject blog itself. And what about your friend McGee? I would ask you to search your heart and ask to what extent such an experience of being in such close proximity to such negative portrayals of the Apostolic faith has had on his and others' spiritual demise? Even if you are not totally at fault, in a court of law, a judge would be asked to determine what percentage of liability you would be responsible for. It's a sobering thought to realize that one was such a stumbling block -- even if only 10%, for what value is even 10% of one's soul? Would you give 10% of your soul in trade? Can you go to heaven on 90%?

    Paul states that even if it meant that a brother would suffer the injustice of being defrauded, it would be better than bringing such problems to the public to be disputed and handled by the unbelieving public.

    1 Corinthians 6:1-7 (KJV)

    1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
    2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
    3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
    4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
    5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
    6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
    7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

    As to whether it is best to air your family's "dirty laundry" out in the street...I'm thinking this is a good verse when arguing whether or not it's best to voice one's dissention privately, rather than publicly?

    Ecclesiastes 9:17 (KJV)
    The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

    Continue to Part 4

    ReplyDelete
  148. Holiness Unto the LordMay 27, 2010 at 2:32 AM

    PART 4

    Joel, you pointed out several times in your blog that this doctrinal issue was in fact previously addressed in the UPCI's own publication, the Pentecostal Herald. I would point out that by the example that Paul outlined for us in 1 Corinthians, such an official periodical of this organization would be an appropriate medium for the clarification and desimination of such information and official views by its leadership to its saints, since this is an official publication BY the brethren TO the brethren. You also ackknowledge so much in your comment that since it HAD been covered in the Herald, you subsequently initially dropped the idea of posting such a blog. It was only later that you decided that when the subject had resurfaced and was not apparently dealt with to your liking that you saw the need to correct this injustice....to which I would again point out that Paul says its STILL better to handle the issue internally, rather than post it for the general public's consumption.

    And it could be safely surmised that having appeared in such a periodical, that this is proof positive that the subject has already been being addressed privately heretofore amongst UPCI leadership (hence, most likely the reason it appeared in the Herald in the first place). Given all this, I believe it to be in order to forewarn you that I believe you are treading upon "thin ice" with God, placing yourself to be an authority to publicly air and arbitrate such matters, and thus placing yourself squarely in a position of contempt of God's authority, supposing that somehow God can't handle such issues without your input or "unique" insights and observances.

    Speaking Evil of Authorities

    Correct me if I am wrong, but who endowed or deputised you with special authority to correct or chasten in a public forum those who would be considered your spiritual elders or authorities? God? Surely not, as this would be in direct conflict with the examples set forth already in the Word. I see no such inference of transference of authority where saints are charged with the ability to castigate church elders publicly or privately; rather, I do see Biblical examples where such matters are specifically either addressed by church leadership to the saints, or directly between church leadership. Even if a Pastor, Evangelist, etc., were in doctrinal error, the Bible is clear by many examples that such issues are to be handled amongst the elders or ministerial leadership. I would suggest that if you are a fellow saint you are treading on very shaking ground in taking upon yourself the mantle of spiritual critic and judge in such matters, and should seriously consider the spiritual ramifications of what you have already done to yourself and others, ask forgiveness for your hubris and ponder how you might be able to make such trespass right before God.

    Continue to Part 5 (Final)

    ReplyDelete
  149. Holiness Unto the LordMay 27, 2010 at 2:33 AM

    PART 5 (Final)

    Some suggested reads on the above matter...(there's WAY much more on this subject)

    Ecclesiastes 10:20 (KJV) (Self explanitory)
    Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.

    2 Kings 2:23-25 (KJV)
    23 And he (the prophet Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. (Even if Elisha WAS having a bad hair day, I guess the joke wasn't funny, lol)

    1 Chronicles 16:21-22 (KJV)
    21 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,
    22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
    (If God will reprove kings for such offences...)

    1 Samuel 26:7-9 (KJV) (David spares Saul, God's Anointed)
    7 So David and Abishai came to the people by night: and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench, and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster: but Abner and the people lay round about him.
    8 Then said Abishai to David, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time.
    9 And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?

    ReplyDelete
  150. lee surely you dont believe British Israelism or Anglo Israelism, which has little scientific support. And I was perhaps assuming that you were referring to black racism which I should not have been so quick to jump to.

    And your opinion of Apostlics needless dogma, and leaps backward, are in fact your opinion. And I know you would find this hard to believe, but the charismatic movement faces issues and problems of its own. I have attended one of the Vineyards the worship is incredible, the move of the spirit, is wonderful, but for you to just make a blanket opinion that there is nothing they could learn from the holiness movement, is once again only your opnion.

    and riley. I will not even suggest that I have read most of the blogs on this site, but there absolutely is more than just a mild undertone of "we are all coming from the same place, just a different angle." The statement from Lee just after mine, where he states Apostolics pushing needless dogma that are leaps backwards is just one example.

    And why is it a linear view to suggest that you carry theory to its logical conclusion Lee?

    THANK YOU HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD FOR YOUR LONG AWAITED INPUT. OF COURSE THE FRONT LINE OF THIS SITE WILL NOT AGREE, BUT THAT DOESNT CHANGE THE RELEVANCE OF YOUR BLOG.

    And just an aside to McGee...one of the last blogs I had read of his after the anonymous blogs, was perhaps one of the most sensitive, well thought out, entries I have read here.
    It was to the point, perhaps still opinionated, but inclusive, almost gentlemanly like, not insulting but seemed much more in the spirit of teaching,humility, and a desire to share. You should be leading this site McGee, I thank you for that post, you stand above the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  151. And Joel, no rush with "I gotsta get outta here" When your 15 minutes are up, they will be up. Wait it out.

    I have to say your blog subject," The Holy Ghost makes you a Superhero" did cause me to wonder if the site had been taken over by the Apostolics, and holding the contributors for ransom. It was so out of place and character for this site. Similar to a plane headed south and the pilot decided to turn north within 5 seconds.

    Your firey testimony? Your joy of speaking in tongues.? Did you explain yourself to your contributors before your posting?

    But soon my mind was put to rest, all was right with the world. There was no crisis, no ransom necessary, and within the first entry a sigh of relief came when I read, what is the sites pervailing assumption, that Apostolics represent all that is wrong with the world. Apostolics demand perfection.

    I would encourage you and your readers,to notice the subject and entries. No one really wanted to discuss your personal testimony and sudden adoration for the Apostolic experience, evident in the number of blogs which at the moment I believe stand at five.

    I would only ask, what was your motivation behind that entry? Were you aware that it would probably make readers and contributors uncomfortable? The testimony seemed to be a complete flip flop of this sites general message.

    I dont know what triggered that subject, but it was extremely awkward and not fun at all for your contributors.

    ReplyDelete
  152. To Holiness Unto The Lord,

    Thank you for speaking to me in love and not judgement. I can respect that, even when I disagree with someone. I'm not leaving God or "apostolic" faith, just certain dogma's, and I don't want to wear the label. I want to be a Christ follower, nothing else. And do keep me in your prayers. I appreciate that.

    TR -

    Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately I don't have the interest much anymore in writing/running the blog. I work 12-14 hours a day, 5 days a week so I'm pretty bogged down.
    I think Joel does a great job, and do be honest he's very, very, VERY misunderstood. Unfortunately he's got the type of personality that doesn't come across in his posts. I have no doubt that some of the harshest critics of the site would wind up being good friends with him if they ever had the opportunity to sit down with a little face to face convo. Sometimes Joel is tongue in cheek, and sometimes he is very very serious. Unfortunately you can't pick that up from just text and if you don't know him personally you can't gauge when he's serious or not.
    Joel is far more adequate than I at running something like this. I have a chip on my shoulder which motivates some of the things I say. I was jaded by hurtful, dismissive leadership and years of bad experiences with the Apo movement. Joel carries no grudge, and has never been spiritually hurt or abused. He is in constant study and daily prayer. He's the man for the job.

    Thanks though, and can I ask which post you read?

    ReplyDelete
  153. I think he was referring to a post I wrote recently. Joel isn't the only contributor. And the point of my post was that the Holy Ghost does NOT make you superhuman.

    ReplyDelete
  154. TR, are you asking me if I believe in British Israelism? Why? Are you not understanding why it was ever brought up (the fact that many early Pentecostal pioneers believed this doctrine). And now I must write 10 paragraphs to qualify that, but instead, I'll just refer anyone back to my original statement.

    TR said: "And your opinion of Apostlics needless dogma, and leaps backward, are in fact your opinion."

    Yes, they are my opinion.

    TR said: "And I know you would find this hard to believe, but the charismatic movement faces issues and problems of its own. I have attended one of the Vineyards the worship is incredible, the move of the spirit, is wonderful, but for you to just make a blanket opinion that there is nothing they could learn from the holiness movement, is once again only your opnion."

    I'm surprised you fellowshipped with Vineyard people. They aren't exactly my theological ball of wax, but my brothers none-the-less. Of course they have unique issues to their movement. I'm not from Vineyard though. I'm writing from my world.

    Yes, your logic about my carte blanche approval of all movements in every detail of their teaching in church history is quite linear. I don't care about labels. I really don't.

    Holiness2TheLord, way to much to respond to right now. I'm thankful you took the time to share your perspective. I would like to point out where I disagree with you -- and more importantly, I'd like to explain why.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I'm a fan of "airing it out." Closed doors don't benefit the person who doesn't have the courage to ask the same question. The church is an open book, free-flowing environment, not a dark, backroom, manipulative machine. Nicodemus may have felt it necessary to "come by night," but Jesus was pretty much an out-and-open teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Jesus didn't try to protect the image of the religious system by saving his corrections and rebukes for private. He did it openly. Paul wrote his corrections in public letter that millions have read and learned from.

    The Jewish midrash was a community discussion,the Mishnah is a public discussion of various perspectives. Jesus was a rabbi after this tradition. He was public.

    Using Romans 13 out of it's context to somehow elevate elders in the assembly to a position of psuedo-deity (some call them a mediator!) is ridiculous. The fact is, my elders would be happy to openly discuss anything. They would even reconsider a position if we were correct. They would confront me if my heart was wrong. It's a beautiful thing. They serve.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Holiness Unto the Lord,

    Thank you for the kind words to each person you address. I could definitely learn a thing or two from your rhetoric.

    Your two complaints...

    As to the privatization of such conversations as these....

    Obviously, I could not disagree more. I think you are misunderstanding the principle behind I Cor. 6. I think the point is not whether the issue is being handled publicly/privately (for surely Acts has many accounts of disputes occurring in public between them), but rather that the Christians are submitting themselves to a public arbitrator when it is the Christians themselves who will be the judges one day, and thus such a lawsuit is embarrassing to the image of Christians. A quick scan, had the idea of a courtroom setting with the words "just," "judge," "judgment" found 9 times in those verses you quoted. It is the idea of judgment that is the difficulty for Paul. Not privacy.

    Therefore, I do not think the issue is about public/private but rather us needing to be our own judge as Christians resolving conflict amidst ourselves and not submitting to a public judge. Having the blog on the internet makes no such leaps as to submit judgments to be concluded by man.

    I think the ultimate conclusion about your problem, at least for me is as socrates said... "to take the argument wherever it may lead." And as C.S. Lewis said, "Christians may protest that discussion can neither build Christianity nor destroy it. They may feel that religion is too sacred to be thus bandied to and fro in public debate, too sacred to be talked of....Clearly (I) think differently...(I) know that this discussion is not (spiritual), but (I) certainly don't believe that religion is only what man does with his solitude....Christianity is not what man does with his solitude....rather it tells a story of God descending in the coarse of publicity of history and there enacting what can and must be talked about."

    Faith in CHrist and discussion of it is not for the secret rooms of our churches. It is something very real, and thus I really believe this "behind closed door mentality" can be quite problematic as nothing ever gets accomplished to it.

    To me the "in the dark, privacy" thing is quite Roman Catholic where decrees are given from the infallible pope who passes the word on down away from self-criticism.

    As Lee said, Jesus' ministry is anything but private. He leaves up His Word for the public to hear and evaluate. He does not let the pharisees "hear his concerns" and let them decide what to do with the information. Rather, Jesus' ministry is to be evaluated by public opinion.

    You mentioned the idea of "the new testament" is a relatively modern invention....If by "relatively" you mean 1700-1800 year old invention then I agree. But I doubt that's what you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  158. As per your discussion of "authorities." While I sincerely appreciate your tone and your concern with the blog (I believe it was 100% genuine), your position here is where I will disagree with you the most. First, Paul reminds us to test those who claim to be prophets. We must test everything the prophet says and keep that which is true (I thes. 5:21). This is not for the authorities to decide, but rather the layman because we are all equals in the kingdom as children of GOd. There is no top-down authority structure (although some may assume leadership positions). Jude and Peter in their letters are reminding us to be weary of those who claim to be prophets and to test their message against the gospel they heard (similar to Paul's message to the Corinthians and Galatians).

    These concerns are not just for "the leadership" but rather for everyone to be on guard about. Jesus of course says many false prophets will come. The church of Ephesus is complemented in Rev. 2 for their ability to expel false prophets. Now do all these apostle writers, when they talk to the church, mean really they are speaking to the leadership of the churches? Perhaps, but then I would suggest we would find such letters more in the line of the Pastoral epistles where Paul gives leadership advice to leaders. However, all the above references are in no way for leaders alone. The need to question and test the prophets (though respectfully which I have failed at doing here), is essential to the apostolic process. No matter our position in the church.

    The voice of Christianity as an egalitarian body I believe is of much more value in light of democracy where each child of God has a voice and must be truly seeking the Gospel message in His life and in what He hears. Whereas I suggest what you are offering is more of an acceptance of totalitarian rule where there is no voice but to the leadership and we leave important matters to them.

    Obviously, this kind of mentality scares me. I would like to really point out that all the verses about "prophets" you brought up are indeed O.T. examples. For surely I have presented enough evidence to show that the N.T. writers called for us to be suspicious of prophets (though not denying they could exist). So we have here a contradiction of sorts. And one that I do settle for the fact that the O.T. leadership was top-down anointed by God, but the roles completely reverse in the N.T. where authority and power work from the bottom-up ("those who are the least will be first").

    We too often use David as the ultimate example of submission. But did not Joab call out David when David got upset that Saul had actually died? Joab basically was like "dude I understand the whole submission thing, but there are limits to this kind of submission."

    Or else we would all be at the hands of the leadership, and thus many would fall to the tyranny that leadership displays at times and under your wisdom, there is nothing we should do about it.

    Secondly, you would have to ask Glen if his stepping away from the UPC is because of the blog. Though, I would highly highly doubt it as he is one of my good friends, and his concerns have been many for several years now.

    I hope that satisfies your concerns (let me know if I miss one).

    ReplyDelete
  159. Lee, DO APOSTOLICS TODAY BELIEVE IN BRITISH ISRAELISM>>>?????? I am pretty sure they dont, so what is your ridiculous point? I went with friends while out of town to their church the Vineyards. I understand you don't care, but not just about labels. You still havent answered why you have a problem taking your concepts to a logical conclusion, which would bring you to pressing Lutherans that Catholicism has its place in the brotherhood,,,at least according to your theory. If you consider that linear..I am following your lead.

    This is fact, while you people are on here sounding off, on any Apostolic teaching you have a problem with, the reality is, I doubt that all of you put together could keep the lights on in a building for two weeks, to be an outreach to a city.

    As long as we are here on earth, we will not be perfect. Your endless rants against Apostolics are so completely insensitive and out of line.
    Many of them appear to be nothing more than a classroom exercise with a goal of using as much hermanutic, philisophical, sociological, hogwash as possible, to reassure the readers that you are more educated than the average Joe.

    That and 99 cents will get you a coney at many places on Wed, but it wont do alot to move opinion. You fluff each other, speak to each other, and spend so much time patting each other on the back, no wonder you can't see anything but your own points of view.

    And Glen...I meant every word of it, you have opened my eyes to realize that there are some other young people out there who have been raised with a little dignity and understanding of respect. Not by any means am I saying you are a pushover. You are well read, well understood, a great mixture of humility and knowledge, that truly does come through the screen. Regardless of where you are, keep up the good work, you have something to say, and we need to hear it. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Glen sorry I forgot to answer your question, I have read most of your entries and have appreciated many of them but specifically since the last post after anonymous on the hmh update page. Referring to the book Letters from a Skeptic. And your comments since. Thank you again Glen....and I couldnt agree with you more, questioning is important. And should always be a part of civil discourse and discovery.

    Allow me though to mention something that is completely irrelevant to today, a comment that Lee makes referring to early Apostolics who believed in British Israelism.....The only thing that I can take away from that comment is a desire to discredit Apostolics based on what some may or may not have believed years ago.

    Why would someone bring it up unless he was hoping it might be the negative morsel needed to agitate a reader and put Apostolics in question based on sketchy history.

    Speak to the people today. Speak truth not sweeping generalizations, i.e. this nonsense that Apostolics expect perfection. It is absolutely absurd broad brush painting.

    Many of the people here need to lighten up, dont take yourselves so seriously. I know it maybe feels good to believe it is all about you, but you really arent that important. Apostolic christians will get up in the morning, they will work and witness. They will have there time of devotion and prayer, they will make sacrifice, and commitment,without demanding perfection of others most of them will be harder on themselves. They will lift up Christ, they will fall, they will make mistakes, they will show that they are imperfect and human. But they will do their best to present themselves a living sacrifice, completely void of the twisted agenda, or preconceived notions that this site projects on Apostolics,and perhaps without even giving this site a second thought.

    ReplyDelete
  161. TR, we are still talking about my example of British Israelism? My whole, entire point was that Pentecost didn't come for a dogmatized group of people, it came to us all. Those who squabbled early on to establish doctrines were some of the most suspect of characters, leading off into crazy and strange groups and doctrines -- one of many was British Israelism.

    TR said: "You still havent answered why you have a problem taking your concepts to a logical conclusion, which would bring you to pressing Lutherans that Catholicism has its place in the brotherhood,,,at least according to your theory. If you consider that linear..I am following your lead."

    Your "logical conclusion" is unnecessary. I never built my argument on that logic.
    The brotherhood isn't determined by linear history, but by a covenant of faith (Romans 4).
    So you can fit that puzzle together however you wish. That's why I said it was "too linear" for me. That also fits in with my "carelessness" with regard to label. You accuse me of far worse (not "caring about anything", but that's okay, I can speak for myself.

    The rest of what you said picks up where anonymous left off. More attacks. I try to sound smart. You may consider my contributions on the posts insensitive, and that's your right. What can I say. Even in the most extreme moments in my posts, I've surely been tame compared to some of the driveby hacks that have dropped their attack bombs on here. These can't distinguish between the argument and the person.

    I find it humorous that someone thinks they have me all figured out without ever knowing me. I'm not sure where you get the "patting each other on the back" argument. If we happen to both agree, maybe we've said "Amen" in the past? I don't know what you're talking about exactly. The only uniform responses has been the incredulity of those who come on here and are determined to be the arbiter of all that is righteous and fair, without any concern of taking on the argument, and they group together every person who contributes here, comments here and reads here. That's just good ol' putting vinegar out instead of honey.

    I bet you and I could sit down to a drink (coffee of course) and actually have a good conversation. Such as it is, you have me pegged down and all, your determined to continue character assassinations. You seem wiser than the Anonymous poster, so I'll give you at least that much credit.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Lee first of all, what we say is about who we are. You refer to people you dont agree with as drivebys who attempt to comandeer a subject matter, that in your opinion is incredulous, and we are guilty of putting vinegar out instead of honey. These topics arent humor or jest, this is who we are as people.

    You said , my logic was unnecessary, because you didnt base your argument on that logic?

    You said Luther was your brother, why? because he bravely went to the door with the message of justification by faith among other things. I would contend, that what Luther contributed to modern day christianity is a drop in the bucket to what the Catholic church preserved in regards to Christian faith. The death, burial, and resurrection, the virgin birth. Repentance and forgiveness,communion. Sacred documents, many teachings of the early church, to say nothing of their modern day commitment to society.

    During the early part of the century, many orphans were left in Catholic orphanages.

    Now Catholics may not fit into your table setting, but your logic regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, completely applies here, and that is all I am asking. What do we tell our Catholic friends and family members, Luther gets a pass for justification by faith,yet all that the Catholic church has done they get nothing>>?

    The reality is, it doesnt really matter what any of us think, including myself. God is judge. But to assume you can begin a train of thought, and then decide where you are going to draw the line, is disingenuous, and confusing.

    You contend that Luthers proclamation of justification makes him your brother, regardless of whether or not he continues his walk in revealed truth, regardless of whether or not he reads words of Christ like Luke 24:49, and then follows that command through to its culmination in the upper room, and the teachings that followed. That isnt necessary because he proclaimed justification by faith. I contend on that same logic that if the Catholic church preserves the largest chunk of christian faith, yet stops short, they have done nothing that Luther did not do.

    So I wont make it a question. You for some reason have decided that Luther is right. I will use your same logic and put the Catholic church on that same pedestal.

    ReplyDelete
  163. TR - thanks for the kind words. I probably should say that I'm not a good representation of my generation in the movement. I have a lot of questions and concerns but I'm also kind of jaded which weighs heavily on a lot of the things I say.
    One thing I should probably say - I have my fair share to say about a lot of people in this movement but I should state that I don't think ill of everyone in the movement. There are some incredible people in the UPC. My Pastor and Bishops are men of integrity, who study, whose shoe leather I'm not worthy to clean. There are others, like Todd Gaddy, Tim Rutledge, Jim Kilgore, Royce Wilson and Danny Rivers who I admire greatly. I by no means write off the whole movement, just a large quantity of bad apples.
    Part of the reason I often take the tone I take is that I grew up in less than desirable conditions. I was taught to worship the infallible word of the pastor, never ask questions because "Gods ways are higher than our ways", advised against reading anything that wasn't by a oneness Pentecostal author, and continually misguided and sometimes spiritually abused.
    After spending the first 21 years of my life giving everything I had to the church I realized it was time to walk away. I left quietly and discreetly (suprisingly), and was permitted to leave with no care or concern shown from my lifelong leadership. To this day I've yet to receive one call, text or email asking "why" or how I'm doing. Once gone I was publicly and privately chastised, maligned, called "A waste" and made a spectacle of.

    It's hard to differentiate between someone who is just conservative and someone who is an arrogant, self serving, pompous nut job conservative because of where I spend so much time serving and all the heresy (there's that word again), and bad teaching forced down my throat.

    I guess I just said all that to help people understand why I come across so crass. I hear things and it resonates back to when the crazy people who used to peddle their nonsense and claim it was infallible. When those same people treat a brother in a way that completely breaks from biblical principles it causes me to do a little Ad Hominem myself and say "Well was EVERYTHING they said wrong because they're idiots?"

    ReplyDelete
  164. TR said:

    "Lee first of all, what we say is about who we are. You refer to people you dont agree with as drivebys who attempt to comandeer a subject matter, that in your opinion is incredulous, and we are guilty of putting vinegar out instead of honey. These topics arent humor or jest, this is who we are as people."

    TR, would you be surprised to know that none of the above concerning "drivebys" was directed to you???

    ReplyDelete
  165. TR, you make such brash assumptions.

    "You said Luther was your brother, why? because he bravely went to the door with the message of justification by faith among other things."

    I'm not sure I said "why" but you went ahead and built this whole engine of "logic" based on what is pure speculation and assumptions.

    Luther is my brother because we both share in the faith of Jesus Christ as the Son of God - period. I've said nothing concerning my position toward Roman Catholics. I'm not sure if that's what you're wanting me to do? I mean, you keep beating a dead horse that was never alive to begin with here.

    Seriously. Your entire response just now was assumptive nonsense. I certainly give no carte blanche agreement with Luther either. I think he helped steer the ship that is the Church back to the waters of faith, but that doesn't mean I agree with every publication and theological statement from Luther's mouth. That I have to qualify that is evidence of HUGE assumptions on your part, because I've said nothing close to support this!

    So your logic machine that you say I'm using doesn't really exist. Either we aren't understanding each other, or you're deliberately attempting to confuse the matter. I vote the former.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Glen, thanks for sharing that. I completely relate with your journey. God is faithful!

    ReplyDelete
  167. There is no sense in repeating things to Lee, obviously he would even have a hard time referring to the pope as brother, and that was the only thing I was approaching. Once you start down a slippery slope, there is no stopping.

    And quite honestly that is the problem that I have with this site. It is easy to sit at laptops and post discussions, and subject matter that is controversial, but the fun stops when you dont know who the people reading are. You dont know where they are in their walk with God, you dont know how they will be effected by what is being said.

    The total disregard that permeates this site in regards to individuals, is disheartening. When someone has grown up in a dead dry Lutheran church and come looking for more, and the first thing they see is that Luther is our brother, it doesnt say much for the light that God has shed on our path.

    Lee your persistent desire to demean and diminish the effect of Apostolic christians and faith, is blatantly obvious, as it is with so many others on this site. We get it, you dont believe the necessity of the Spirit infilling, but embracing catholicism might be just a little too far.
    Why are you so angry, disagreeable, stubborn when God has given you the wonderful gift of His spirit.? You dont need to answer anything else. Any discussion supporting clear, simple, teaching of Apostolic faith, is absolutely futile on this site. Your as adamantly opposed to the doctrine of the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking with tongues as you can be. The problem that some of us have, is this is all happening on a site, that is supposed to be about Apostolic faith.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Glen, you dont do a bad job of representing young people in or out of our movement. Questioning is always important. I have gone through the same processes. It has been my experience though that when discussing issues that are controversial or extremely important, it has always been with brothers, in the church who I knew, people who knew me, there was a trust, and a confidence that we were there for one another.

    That rarely takes place here. That is why I believe even more today in the scripture "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst."

    I know there are situations that exist where people are not able to be in church, although I would also be inclined to believe that many of those people would not be computer savvy.

    There is something about people coming together, their hearts, their minds, their worship, their physical being. Can you really say that your emotional and spiritual experience rises to the same level on a website as it does, when people gather together to worship.?

    I know myself, to be with people, with their imperfections, it is almost like you can see the body of Christ come together. It is not a competition thing, it is just this clean, simple coming together, some are excellent in one aspect, while one excels in another area, even something as simple as making a visitor feel comfortable and welcome.

    I cant imagine leaving a church where I had been for years and not hearing anything from the ministry, But it has nothing to do with the body of Christ, it is merely about the imperfection of man.

    I would hope Glen that you would find a church, that is based on the gospel as you understand it to be truth. You are as much a part and as important to the body of Christ as any bishop or pastor, they just serve in a different capacity. You are too good a man to allow what someone else has done or not done to interfere with your personal walk.

    The truth is there is a group of people that God will lead you to, who cherish your input, your fellowship, and your presence.

    I will tell you a personal testimony that I have never shared, but feel like I should after hearing your experience.

    Years ago, I became disenfrancised with the church, bitter and just left.

    My Pastor at the time was as brilliant as they come. College graduate, always taking classes and expanding his knowledge. He could talk philosophy, psychology, church history, and put anyone on this site under the table.

    A therapist, counselor, Bible teacher and speaker. An incredible human being and an amazing man of God.

    This is the part for me that is truly embarrassing. When I left the church, I knew I was not ready to talk to him. I lived in an apartment downtown, on the third floor. This incredible, Godly man was so burdened for my soul that he stood on the sidewalk below one day, calling up to me right in the middle of the busy afternoon. I was so stubborn that this relentless love couldnt pierce through, until years later, and it was that love that brought me back to Christ.

    I am convinced that there are people of God who are just as burdened for you, but dont have the boldness that this man of God showed for me. He still is a pastor of a fine church, and I am so thankful I have had the opportunity to repair my relationship with him.

    But dont be discouraged Glen, I will tell you again, you have a good spirit, and it comes through on this website. We could all learn something from you, and yes I am speaking to myself also. Thats not bad for a guy who thinks he has come across crass. I will agree that there are some not great people out there, but at the same time, I think there are alot of good. God bless you Glen and have a great weeken.

    ReplyDelete
  169. TR your agenda is clear. Thank you for stopping by.

    You respond with more generalities and assumptions about me as a person, inferring what I do/don't believe. If you have an axe to grind about my personal ideas concerning the so-called "doctrine of evidentiary tongues" let's have that discussion. But to bottle it up and try to frame it as a picture just takes it too far.

    I won't even respond to your charges against me of being "angry, disagreeable and stubborn" and I'm not even sure that wouldn't apply to you thus far. Like all the others you have an issue with the site as a whole, and are disabled from contributing to the site apart from that.

    Yes, person-to-person discussions are much more preferred. As far as we know you are a dirty rotten sinner and hypocrite. But there is a certain beauty in having open discussion with open information. So take what you read with a grain of salt. Read it as content and slow down trying to character assassinate people and assign motives. I know, it's sort of a "hands-tying" for certain types who rely on that when handling discussions as these.

    You're a judge of spirits through the internet, and I'm glad to see you are gracious toward Glen. Forgive me for responding to you with more abruptness. You come in the middle of a barrage of people logging on and attacking the entire website, and shooting idiocy out of their mouths. You may hate me for what it is you think I believe, and even for what I believe, but I'm convinced we'd do much better over a cup of coffee.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Lee, let me make a point here then I completely retire this futile attempt. It doesnt do much good to condemn people who disagree with you as attacking you personally, and the SAL mantra condemn the messenger rather than debate the message, and then turn around and regard to those opposed to you and this site as "shooting idiocy out of their mouths." And this isnt unique language from your side on this site, it has been riddled with that rhetoric since the first day I noticed your site. So even though I am not a podiatrist, the shoe you describe, fits you, if not better, at least just as well.

    I dont require a thank you from you for Glen, the things I have said to Glen have been heartfelt. I certainly hope that you guys are doing all that you can to uplift him, encourage him and help him find a congregation where he can feel welcomed and a part, because as incredible as you may think this site is, it is no replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  171. First, it's not "my site" anymore than it's "your site." I'm not an administrator, nor have I ever met any of the owners of this site.

    Second, the logic of "messenger over message" is precisely how I defined as "idiocy" that has come out in some "drive-by" posts here.

    Third, I do not believe nor even try to pretend that a website replaces the community of believers, fellowship, sharing communion and corporate worship. I don't know Glen. I share more in common with Glen than I do anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  172. I am an editor for Christian.com which is a social network dedicated to the christian community. As I look through your web site I feel a collaboration is at hand. I would be inclined to acknowledge your website offering it to our users as I'm sure our Pentecostal audience would benefit from what your site has to offer. I look forward to your thoughts or questions regarding the matter.

    Vicky Silvers
    vicky.silvers@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  173. To those who don't believe in power of prayer being in womens uncut hair, so what you don't believe it. There are people out there that do. Some people love football, some don't. I think we can agree God gave us opinions and I think where you are wrong is your urging to disgrace and make fun of those that believe to have uncut hair. That is not being in Gods grace.

    ReplyDelete
  174. O no, anonymous. Please stop. I hope they won't see this. They will come for you. THey will find you. They will give you a wedgie maybe.

    What I am saying is that whatever your response you are about to get, for your own health and not wasting hours debating, please don't respond to whatever you see (including this comment).

    Know this, You are correct. We all have opinions. You are entitled to yours. The entire post I wrote was fiction. made up. haha. You get it? Big joke. Run. Just Run.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Just a question why do you care so much if a woman cuts her hair or if she doesnt.

    ReplyDelete
  176. allow anonymous comments and it starts again. Apparently they (the anonymous) are to inept to create a google account under a false name. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  177. Brittanie SidebottomOctober 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM

    THIS WHOLE WEBPAGE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME!! I'M AN APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL AND THIS WHOLE WEBPAGE IS OFFENDING ME!! WHY DO YALL CARE IF WE CUT OUR HAIR OR WHY SAY WE THINK IT'S "MAGICAL"???????? A WOMAN'S HAIR IS HER GLORY!!!!!!!!!!! I'M KIND OF SIDING WITH THE ANONYMOUS PERSON!!!!!!!!!! AND LUCIFER HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH JESUS, ESPECIALLY NOT BEING HIS "BROTHER"!!!!!!!!!! HE IS EVIL AND JESUS IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  178. Oh Brittanie, you're so cute.

    ReplyDelete
  179. did i get off the subject..back to the hair..the video,,well that was the way that preacher sees it..but he did try to uplift empower women with it and i have not seen that attitude in upc specifically long time..so i did like some other parts he spoke on it..in relation to women being powerful in prayer,,but i can respectfully disagree yes...that the power is because the hair is long..is hard for me to percieve but then again there are mysteries in the spirit.......it may seem foolish to us but is it true??..my logical side would say no but then again the mysteries..of the spirit does what he wills....i also liked how he said that a boy finds his identity in the mother,,its just the opposite in the worldly viewpoint is that a boy has to get identity from the father...

    ReplyDelete
  180. i grew up a teen in upc..the not trimming the hair,,no makeup and no pants was hard for me,,some of it i can kind of understand..the principle that a woman should not dress like a man..so if i did not follow those outward rules then does this mean im not pentecostal or just not upc pentecostal..i had to eventually leave to another church that wasnt so strict in areas..im not happy about it then or now all the way cause i like the upc church..the way they use to flow in the gifts of the spirit at our old small church...maybe this new generation of teens can bring some revival on issues inside upc...it should be about life in the spirit...

    ReplyDelete
  181. A woman's hair is her obedience. Whoever related to power in prayer through fasting did a great job because it really is the same. Your hair and your clothes don't make you holy or magic. Its your the spirit we allow to dwell in us that makes us holy. But it is our protection (reguard) and our glory. But WE GET THAT FROM OBEDIENCE. I can see where people have trouble understanding things they haven't studied out when its more complex. BUT what is clear cut and simple is not sewing discord among the brethern. Why would you ever want to denounce someone who is bringing so many people to God? Even if YOU think its not full truth? Yes a half truth will send someone to hell faster than no truth. But people who are hungry for truth once they get a half truth will start looking in the word and studying for themselves and search full truth. Because that's where its at. not in your view or my view.

    ReplyDelete
  182. This is something that Im misunderstanding bout my churches view on cutting of my hair. It made no sence at the time i was taught and still....Im upset to say Ive not been able to find the truth of protection or not from not cutting. Pushed into wondering that God would rather have me in pain of migraines due to heaviness of my hair.....to protect my family. They hafta deal with an unhappy, short fused mom or wife cuz Im in pain. Its not making sence but i dont wanna b wrong and cut it and loose another child or hurt my family

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry, you won't lose a child or hurt your family from cutting your hair. This is called superstition. These people are charlatans and the fear your discussing is the fear by which they rule. Don't give them that control over your life. Life your life as best as you see fit, following God's word as best you know how. Seek out your salvation and don't let anyone else come between you and your God.

      Delete
  183. Do you people realize that the main point of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is that women should cover their heads with a literal headcovering? Yes like the muslims, the Mennonites, amish, etc. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is not even about hair. United Pentecostals who try to make this passage of scripture about hair are missing the whole point. This passage of scripture is about headcoverings. At the very end, Paul essentially says, doesn't even nature itself teach you that women should cover their heads, because even nature has given them a headcovering. True Apostolic Christian women wear a literal headcovering when praying or prophesying. Paul says that a woman who does not cover her head is the same as a woman whose head is shaved, but if it's a shame for a woman to cut her hair or shave her head, then she needs to cover her head. As in with a literal headcovering like muslim, Mennonite, amish women wear, etc. According to Paul, UPCI women who boast about having uncut hair are no better than women in the world who cut their hair, because no UPCI women wear a literal headcovering.

    ReplyDelete
  184. For nearly 1900 years, Christians interpreted this passage of scripture to mean that women are to cover their heads. Nuns cover their heads, Martin Luther's wife covered her head, John Knox taught that women should wear a head covering. It wasn't till the early 1900's that Christian women gradually stopped wearing headcoverings when praying or prophesying. This Holy Magic Hair Doctrine is complete heresy and the UPCI is an apostate denomination. Everytime you hear a United Pentecostal say they are apostolic, know that it's a lie. The UPCI is not a restoration of apostolic Christianity, they are Pentecostals not apostolics. Apostolic Christianity is what you read about in the New Testament, and the practices and beliefs of the UPCI are not in line with Apostolic Christianity as presented in the New Testament.

    ReplyDelete