God, Is My Obededience Not Enough?: When HH Fails

[Nahum]

Yeppers.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I hope I can say this without seeming callous. (doubtful...LOL)

Anecdotes and stories cannot disprove a doctrine anymore than they can effectively support it. Too many stories, and it becomes sensationalism, unless carefully edited.

Do we stop believing in healing when God doesn't heal someone? Do we believe that people are only allowed to remain ill when THEY don't have enough faith? Sticking to scripture is what will show this doctrine up for what it is--utter folly.

I feel that in our discussions the last few days, there have been some lines blurred between people who believe in uncut hair, and people who believe in magic hair.

What FB's story does present in sad fashion is the discouragement that can befall a believer who has been led to trust in some extra-curricular work, rather than trusting in God. The Magic Hair doctrine is, potentially, a HUGE stumbling block and disappointment to many women, as is perfectly illustrated here.

I keep trying to express what I find troubling about this doctrine, and I have yet to do it in a way that satisfies me.

Miss B said:

Sticking to scripture is what will show this doctrine up for what it is--utter folly.

I agree that this must be refuted by the theologians. It will be their ability to do so that will lend credence to or invalidate this doctrine.

I know PO has advocated that approach and that approach alone.

Here's the dilemma however,

Most that eat this type of doctrine up ... are not concerned about the nuances and theological sticking points, Miss B. Rather the extra promises and the validation it brings in living a "sacrificial" and "separation" through this one act of obedience.

Speaking to a young lady last night ... who bought into this at around 17-18 years old ... this was what appealed to her ... she did not have the theological wherewithal to clearly understand what she was learning at conferences taught by RR in her home district in New Mexico.

She was the only one in church in her family .... she was struggling to keep the faith ... and something like this ... made her feel she walked w/ angels.

Her and FB's story tell what happens when we take a doctrine and try to sell it to those that are in a gullible state ....

RR in her book does promise extra protection afforded by a woman's glory... which of course ... you know ... but not many of our readers.

..... on page 68, the author claims that since the “armor of God” (presumably from Ephesians 6:11, although not stated) does not include protection for the back, God has provided such protection in a woman’s hair, based on Isaiah 58:8 (“…the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.”). If this were true, then what about a man’s back? Did God leave men vulnerable to attack from behind, but made women more secure? Of course not. Then she ties this idea to Titus 2:5 (“To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”) to make the point that women are “to be a guard that will beware of any evil that would try to come into your homes” (p. 69), followed by the statement, “Your uncut hair brings protection to your entire family” (p. 69).

In order to prove her point, the author relates a story involving a young married couple who were Bible school students. Apparently, the husband committed adultery, and “their lives were shattered, and their ministry was completely ruined.” This is alleged to have occurred as a result of the wife’s prior indiscretion of cutting her hair: “the spirit of vanity had caused her to become more concerned about the appearance of her split ends than about her obedience to God” (p. 69).

This is irresponsible, manipulative and misleading. It is one of several anecdotes which the author uses to give credence to her fallacious claims, which amount to nothing more than superstition, making female hair a sort of magic talisman to keep at bay the lurking evil spirits which would otherwise invade and take over the home and family, and against which men are otherwise powerless. But wait, there’s more:

“Can our husband’s hearts safely trust in us to guard the glory and to insure divine protection for our family so that no wicked spirit can enter in to spoil us?” (p. 70)

“Can the Lord depend on you to guard the glory faithfully and diligently?” (p. 70)

“Husbands are put there as a safeguard for the woman as she carries out this wondrously important duty that God has entrusted to her hands…guarding the glory and insuring divine protection for your family.” (p. 72, 73)

There is something to be said about what this teaching means in it's practical application, also. We find women who will, unfortunately, focus one area of their lives and may not realize the bigger picture of God's sovereignty, His Word and His promises.

For this reason stories like these I believe have some weight in this discussion. As corroborating evidence, so to speak of the dangers it poses to the faith community.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Submission to a pastor is the ONLY reason I would not cut my hair and I submit to my pastor so that I will be in submission to God.

Paul stated that his disciples were to follow him as he followed Christ. Should we follow someone who teaches something we don't feel is scriptural?

[Timmy]

Re: submission to pastors.

Are pastors shaking in their boots? They should be! Look at the people who submit to a pastor, who trust him to preach the truth, depend on him for their watching over their souls. Will their blood be on his hands, if he doesn't lead them into the truth?

If a pastor misleads a congregation, say messes up the salvation doctrine in some important detail, will the whole congregation end up in hell? Or will they be shown mercy, since it wasn't their fault? Maybe the pastor will take all the punishment?

No matter how confidently and loudly a pastor may say he knows the real truth, he can't possibly be certain. Look at all the Trinny pastors! Many of them probably are just as sure of their own beliefs as OP pastors are. How am I, a mere layman, supposed to pick which pastor to follow?

If you ask me, when it comes to theology, the level of certainty is inversely proportional to the chances of getting it right!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Miss B said:

I agree that this must be refuted by the theologians. It will be their ability to do so that will lend credence or invalidate this doctrine.

I know PO has advocated that approach and that approach alone.

Here's the dilemma however,

Most that eat this type of doctrine up ... are not concerned about the nuances and theological sticking points, Miss B. Rather the extra promises and the validation it brings in living a "sacrificial" and "separation" through this one act of obedience.

That's true; I understand you fight fire with fire.

Speaking to a young lady last night ... who bought into this at around 17-18 years old ... this was what appealed to her ... she did not have the theological wherewithal to clearly understand what she was learning at conferences taught by RR in her home district in New Mexico.

She was the only one in church in her family .... she was struggling to keep the faith ... and something like this ... make her feel she walked w/ angels.

Her and FB's story tell what happens when we take a doctrine and try to sell it to those that are in a gullible state ....

RR in her book does promise extra protection afforded by a woman's glory... which of course ... you know ... but not many of our readers.

To be very callous indeed, RR's own assertions failed her in the end, at least if we are to assume the example in her book regarding the broken marriage holds true for everyone.

There is something to be said about what teaching this means in it's practical application, also. We find women who will, unfortunately, focus one area of their lives and may not realize the bigger picture of God's sovereignty.

For this reason stories like these I believe have some weight in this discussion. As corroborating evidence, so to speak of the dangers it poses to the faith community.

It definitely does speak of dangers, and I didn't intend to minimize FB's experience.

Stories are good, as long as they are balanced with sound, scriptural refutation.

[Nahum]

Pastors are responsible for what they teach, not for individual souls.

A person's salvation is founded in proper response to the Word, leading to a right relationship with God.

No pastor will stand with you on judgement day. You will stand before God ALONE.

[Bro-Larry]

Bro Larry has been preaching over and over on this Forum, that God does not punish His children, with sickness, disease, disasters, kill, steal or destroy.

Those are the works of the devil, who always tries to get Christians to blame it on God.

We are saved by believing in the finished work of Jesus. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, not by the will of man, not by works lest any man should boast. There's a lot of boasting here about how I've lived right and done this and that to try to please God. God should be so happy to have me living for Him.

He doesn't want any of our works, He wants us to trust and believe that Jesus did it all, and He doesn't need our help. If we could have done it ourselves, we wouldn't have needed Jesus.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Paul stated that his disciples were to follow him as he followed Christ. Should we follow someone who teaches something we don't feel is scriptural?

The reason I said what I did is I'm willing to let a minor point (like not cutting my hair go) even though I don't believe the Bible teaches that a woman can't cut their hair IF I feel God wants me in a certain congregation. In some places in this country there are many many miles between apostolic churches. Going to an Apostolic church which may have outward holiness standards is more acceptable to me than going to a church that doesn't teach full salvation.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The reason I said what I did is I'm willing to let a minor point (like not cutting my hair go) even though I don't believe the Bible teaches that a woman can't cut their hair IF I feel God wants me in a certain congregation. In some places in this country there are many many miles between apostolic churches. Going to an Apostolic church which may have outward holiness standards is more acceptable to me than going to a church that doesn't teach full salvation.

It all depends how 'minor' something is. If it is a standard that puts us in right standing with God then that's not a minor issue. I'm not judging you or your pastor. Just making an observation and asking a general question.

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The reason I said what I did is I'm willing to let a minor point (like not cutting my hair go) even though I don't believe the Bible teaches that a woman can't cut their hair IF I feel God wants me in a certain congregation. In some places in this country there are many many miles between apostolic churches. Going to an Apostolic church which may have outward holiness standards is more acceptable to me than going to a church that doesn't teach full salvation.