Post-Divorce: She Commands Angels

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Barb

Commanding angels is nothing new. I have heard the Word of Faith preachers proclaim this for years...

Only thing is, if the 'seasoned saints' had heard it first from the likes of Copeland or Price, they would have denounced it as "Charismatic teaching!"

The difference is, it is NOT one of 'them' teaching it, AND it is connected with our belief in uncut hair.

Frankly, I do NOT cut my hair because of some imagined power, but because I believe it is right to do so. I don't need any doctrine added to enhance my belief.

Barb, I do remember when this doctrine of being able to command angels was floating around in the Charismatic movement about ten years ago. At that time, they were highly criticized for it. I don't hear it much anymore - except from UPC.

[nwlife]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You'ins is right!! Me and my cousin was just sayin that we hadn't heard such a mean spirited thing in our 20 years of bein married.

Well, Pentecost in america did start in the Kansas-texas area before spreading outward, and you know what they say about those of us who live in Hillbilly country! LOL! So could pentecost be considered a backward inbred theology?





While Pentecost is valid, we have our crazy people!!!! (And no comments for those of you who know me!) LOL!

[nwlife]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Barb, I do remember when this doctrine of being able to command angels was floating around in the Charismatic movement about ten years ago. At that time, they were highly criticized for it. I don't hear it much anymore - except from UPC.

I think in a couple of my books by Verbal Bean, that he mentions preaching similar to that commanding the angels doctrine. I do remember that he was talking about commanding the angels to stand at certain doors of the church he was in once. So it has been in the UPC and conservative churches for many decades.

And as to the orginal topic, the amp. version, 1 Corinthians 11:9-10 (Amplified Bible)
9Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man.

10Therefore 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, that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them].

So I still don't see where they get the idea that only uncut hair gives the lady power to "command" the angels,

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Another problem is the notion that we need 'excitement', which also breeds the "ends justify the means" of many of our so called evangelists.

Bingo.

You pegged the "ends justify the means" paradigm. Richard Heard, who by the way is now a charismatic "doctor"--when he was tossed a softball question about his horror stories, jack-legged prophecy and psychological manipulation when he was a UPC evangelist, simply stated: "I was given a job to do."

As far as "we need excitement"? Very perceptive.

It's interesting to look at things like "Magic Hair" from a historical perspective. When I read your post, I thought of HMH in correlation with what has been a UPC staple that had its seeds in the 70s but really took off in the 80s--"we need excitement and pseudo-supernatural stuff, no matter what we have to do or say to get it."

Thetus Tenney, obviously a very credible figure, began really pushing this Frank Peretti-angels everywhere-with-military-districts thing in Louisiana in the 1980s. Heck, we saw angels behind every bush even in a relatively stable district like Louisiana.

I believe this laid the foundation for Stoneking and a doctrine like HMH to take root and catch fire among a movement with no real theological foundation--just chasing after anything pseudo-doctrinal for a little excitement like a school of gourmis in an aquarium.

Add someone like Ruth Rieder, close kin to Urshan, taking the nonsense further and not called out because of her pedigree, and presto! You have a crazy doctrine spreading like wildfire.

But the roots of this "excitement at any cost" were laid down in the 1980s.

And in a group with no theological moorings, education or even a vague understanding of such, the end results, such as HMH, are inevitable.

[ILG]

Daniel,

I don't know how much you know about me, but, I cut my hair and have been out of the UPC for 5 years. I do not know the woman who wrote this blog.

Please do not pick on this woman. She has suffered enough. If you want to go after someone go after the guys who are feeding her this stuff. This woman has been through so much and is looking for anything to guide her through her difficult times. So, she believes what she is told. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if God IS looking out for her. No one else is. Don't add more to her pain by criticizing her beliefs. Go after the big guns who feed this stuff to people and only gain by doing so.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Bingo.

You pegged the "ends justify the means" paradigm. Richard Heard, who by the way is now a charismatic "doctor"--when he was tossed a softball question about his horror stories, jack-legged prophecy and psychological manipulation when he was a UPC evangelist, simply stated: "I was given a job to do."

As far as "we need excitement"? Very perceptive.

It's interesting to look at things like "Magic Hair" from a historical perspective. When I read your post, I thought of HMH in correlation with what has been a UPC staple that had its seeds in the 70s but really took off in the 80s--"we need excitement and pseudo-supernatural stuff, no matter what we have to do or say to get it."

Thetus Tenney, obviously a very credible figure, began really pushing this Frank Peretti-angels everywhere-with-military-districts thing in Louisiana in the 1980s. Heck, we saw angels behind every bush even in a relatively stable district like Louisiana.

I believe this laid the foundation for Stoneking and a doctrine like HMH to take root and catch fire among a movement with no real theological foundation--just chasing after anything pseudo-doctrinal for a little excitement like a school of gourmis in an aquarium.

Add someone like Ruth Rieder, close kin to Urshan, taking the nonsense further and not called out because of her pedigree, and presto! You have a crazy doctrine spreading like wildfire.

But the roots of this "excitement at any cost" were laid down in the 1980s.

And in a group with no theological moorings, education or even a vague understanding of such, the end results, such as HMH, are inevitable.

Timlan, Although I generally agree with what you write, the last sentence is filled with unsubstantiated assertions. This is very much unlike you, as you usually show reason instead of bias. You are one of the best, if not the best, writers on this forum.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by baron1710

what need do we have for god when we can command angels?

exactly

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by ILG

Daniel,

I don't know how much you know about me, but, I cut my hair and have been out of the UPC for 5 years. I do not know the woman who wrote this blog.

Please do not pick on this woman. She has suffered enough. If you want to go after someone go after the guys who are feeding her this stuff. This woman has been through so much and is looking for anything to guide her through her difficult times. So, she believes what she is told. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if God IS looking out for her. No one else is. Don't add more to her pain by criticizing her beliefs. Go after the big guns who feed this stuff to people and only gain by doing so.

I didn't take the post as 'picking on the woman' as much as showing the damage that this doctrine is doing. Here you have a woman who is troubled, going through bad times, and she's depending on a kooky doctrine like this to bring her through. It's tragic. JESUS is the one who will bring her through, and JESUS is the doctrine that should be preached. False doctrines often prey on the weak. It's so sad.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Barb, I do remember when this doctrine of being able to command angels was floating around in the Charismatic movement about ten years ago. At that time, they were highly criticized for it. I don't hear it much anymore - except from UPC.

Glad to hear it...wish the UPCI could say the same...

[Aquila]

I firmly believe in the ministry of angels. However, this HMH doctrine is very bad hermeneutics. The bondage it puts so many ladies under is terrible. Sadly I Corinthians 11 is interpreted out of context and without regards to the language it was written in.