Category: uncut hair for women | Page 2

The ‘Standards’ Lie – They are really Laws

I always felt like I was being a little dishonest in my days as a legalist when I spoke of the rules and regulations of the faith I belonged to, particularly in trying to explain them to new converts or questioning prospects. Our ladies weren’t allowed to cut their hair, color their hair, trim their hair, perm their hair, wear short sleeve shirts, tights/leggings, wear metal of any kind in their hair, or any form of jewelry/ornamentation, etc.

The same rules applied to me, as a man, with other requirements as well, such as abstaining from facial hair or allowing my hair to grow past a few inches long. And when people questioned these, saying things like, ‘Sounds like you guys are still under the Old Testament Law’, the response was always, “No, it isn’t laws, they are Standards.”

To illustrate this, I want to start off with pics (pictures prove I haven’t altered the text in any way) from two exchanges I’ve had with people on YouTube content in the past week.

In both cases, we are discussing the Oneness (Apostolic) Pentecostal Holiness movement, of which I was part of for 15 years, and their dogmas (standards) on dress. I won’t take the time to reiterate all of those things, but read these blog posts to learn more: Men and Womens Apparel in Ancient Days, The Commandments of Men, & Out of Context: Without Holiness No Man Shall See The Lord.

In both cases, the individuals are defending their church dress standards, but claim things that aren’t true, and then do what I used to do, and that is to be dishonest about what the ‘standards’ really are. These are Oneness Pentecostals responding to my videos and other videos on the same topic – Dress Standards being Law.

This one is one of the more interesting conversations because this individual does what most Apostolic Pentecostals do. He/She initially relates their dress Standards to the commandment of being “Holy”, and then declares that the only other side to the coin (in layman terms) is that you’ll just go wear mini-skirts and paint your face, which makes you a harlot. (Yes, the Apostolic Pentecostal church teaches that you can’t wear makeup and make it to heaven.)

This highlights the disease of this belief set – because it gets rooted in their heart that if you don’t dress like them, you are a harlot.

Then of course, when asked how they make the connection between ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’, and ‘Without Holiness, no man shall see the Lord’ and their dress rules, he/she says what I used to say.

“It’s not a dogma its preference you make it a heaven or hell issue out of it’.

That baffles me because it is actually the Apostolic Pentecostals making a heaven/hell issue out of it. In a recent conversation with a young man, he said, “Look, they are standards, not laws, and the local pastor has the right to set standards for his church. (even on things not taught in the Bible, so long as they don’t contradict the Bible) I went and talked to the pastor and even he admitted, these things like facial hair, short sleeve vs long sleeve shirts are not heaven or hell issues.”

That sounded good, but then the pastor said this, (this is not verbatim, but accurate) “But, if I set the standard here, and you don’t obey me, you are sinning the sin of disobedience.”

That my friend is a Law.

This one became even more interesting and this is just a small portion of the whole conversation. What always intrigues me about these ‘defenders of the faith’ is how rude and arrogant they tend to get.

All at once, Carson declares that women in the 1st century would have worn dresses like we would think of a dress today, as completely different from a man’s clothing, that the Apostle Paul taught this very simple idea, attempts to use Greek words to prove that women wore dresses, intently implies anyone who doesn’t believe this lacks basic intelligence (in another post, Carson said, “If you struggle with this simple principle you must struggle with a lot of things in life lol”), and then goes on to say, “I dont believe a woman is going to hell because of pants.’

This is just a sampling of the fervor you will find defending the dress standards of the Apostolic Pentecostal faith. So I did a little social sampling/research, asking questions like this one.

“The Bible says not to take away from, or add to the Word. Jesus made it clear in Mark 7:7 that men who created their own laws (let’s call them standards) for the people, things outside of God’s word, were hypocrites and that worshiping Jesus in those things was vain and useless. Nowhere in Scripture does it say the Pastor has the right and duty to make up his own church rules, required for membership, that are outside of Scripture, and we aren’t talking about carpet color and instrument selection.

So, if your pastor says that men wearing facial hair is unholy – would I be allowed to be a full-fledged member of the church if I continued to wear facial hair? Would I be allowed to be a member? Would God be able to use me? Could I participate, in Choir, outreach, etc.?”

The answer, of course, is no. Unless you abide by that pastor’s standards, you have no legal standing in the Faith. So then I ask this question, “If there is no other Apostolic church in this town, and I can’t be a member of yours, how can I be saved since the majority of Apostolic Pentecostals think they are the only saved people on the earth?”

What is the difference between a Standard and a Law?

A law is something that is written into statutes that all people must obey. Disobedience to these laws results in penalization. In this simple example, the white background speed limit sign is a posted law. If you exceed this limit, you can be subject to penalties including traffic violations and fines. Normally (In the U.S.) you’ll have to appear before a judge and defend or plead your case. You are sentenced from your infraction and you pay the fine or duty that the judge imposes on you. That is how Law works.

The yellow background speed sign is a Standard. It is an Advisory Speed sign. You’ll normally see this when coming into a space of road that has a lot of curves or is windy. They will post a sign that is the suggested speed for which it is safest to drive that stretch of road. Exceeding this limit may place you in danger of not handling the road well, but it is not a traffic law violation to exceed this speed. If you are doing 35mph in a 25mph advisory zone, you have broken no laws and will not be judged for your behavior.

This highlights the simplistic distinction between Law and Standard.

You see, while we/they can claim that the Standards of the Apostolic Holiness movement are not Laws, they (and I was this way) are being very dishonest. I know people who defend these standards in this fashion who are not intentionally being dishonest, in fact, most aren’t, they are just regurgitating what they are being fed from the pulpit.

People will say, ‘Our dress standards are not laws’, and yet, they will in the pulpit (and I’ve heard it hundreds of times) say, “No woman wearing pants and lipstick is going to make it to heaven.” In the first conversation image I posted, these people always backlash when you question their standards, by saying things like, “Fine, go find your self a church where you can be a harlot (wear makeup)”.

If something you do keeps you out of heaven, it is because you have violated God’s law. So if the claim is, ‘You can’t go to heaven if you aren’t obeying the standards’, then you know assuredly, that those are Laws, not Standards.

Now, a church and pastor may make a standard, something like, “Our church has held the standard that we do not want any married men or women in a room alone with another married person. When I (The pastor) counsel, I will not do it alone with a woman, my standard is to always have my wife with me when I counsel someone of the opposite sex. We ask all of our church members to be careful in this way.”

This is a Standard. This is something based in principle, that you are not judged for, that you are not legislated by, and your membership to the church does not depend on. Would following the example set before you be extremely wise? Absolutely! but it is not a Law.

God alone, if you believe in God and in His Word, is the only one capable of creating Laws. Those Laws were written. The faith was once (and for all) delivered unto the saints. What is going to keep you out of the Kingdom of God was clearly written in Scripture. To add to that is such a dangerous thing.

Conclusion

Let me end by saying this: If you, for yourself, believe that wearing a certain piece of clothing, or worshiping at a certain time helps keep you closer to God, than by all means, do it!

“The faith which you have [that gives you freedom of choice], have as your own conviction before God [just keep it between yourself and God, seeking His will]. Happy is he who has no reason to condemn himself for what he approves.” – Romans 14:22, AMP

I am not judging you, or anyone for the personal standards and convictions they want to keep. Paul made it clear that you are blessed (happy) for those things you allow. Your own personal convictions.

What I am coming against, is entire organizations making ‘standards’ that keep people in or out of the church, and to their set of beliefs, also keep people in or out of heaven. If it wasn’t written in Scripture, and it’s taught as something you must do, it is a man-made law and should be called for what it is, an error and fallacy.

‘They worship Me in vain [their worship is meaningless and worthless, a pretense],
Teaching the precepts of men as doctrines [giving their traditions equal weight with the Scriptures].’ – Mark 7:7

Getting Out the Old Books: The Literal Word by M.D. Treece

Probably the most scholarly words in the Oneness Apostolic churches I have ever seen written on 1 Corinthians 11- otherwise known as the “hair chapter”- is from The Literal Word by M.D. Treece. Most writings on the subject are filled with anecdotes and circular reasoning and don’t very much address the claim that women’s hair must be uncut. It is often mentioned with little evidence. I have to give M.D. Treece credit for trying to tackle this issue.

(Disclaimer: The verses in 1 Corinthians 11, taken by themselves, do not address the fact that women were allowed to shave their heads in the Old Testament when they took the Nazarite vow. The actual meaning of the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 are a widely debated topic among scholars and what is demonstrated here is simply how M.D. Treece’s own logic does not make sense within itself. It does not demonstrate or argue whether or not M.D. Treece is right or wrong about his beliefs and translations otherwise concerning hair/veils/having hair down the head/customs of the day or any other assertion.)

He translates verse number 4 “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head” as “And every man praying or prophesying having hair down his head disgraces his head.” (pg 247) I have a photo of his comments on this so you can read his comments on it for yourself below.

So, he translates the word covered as “having hair down his head”. On page 249, he begins to look at the word “uncovered.” He says the covering is hair and not a literal veil. He says “That is the central theme of this discourse.”

The real focus here is going to be on vs 6 “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” He translates this as “For if a woman is not covered, let her hair be cut; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, let her be covered.”

Let’s look at this closely a minute. He defines “covered” for a man as “having hair down his head.” So, let’s insert that definition into his translation and see if it works:

“For if a woman doesn’t have hair down her head, let her hair be cut, but if it’s disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, let her have hair down her head.”- Doesn’t make much sense does it?

First of all, I have read that some people want to say that the word shorn means “to cut.” There is a difference between the words shorn and shaven. We know what shaven means but what does it mean to be “shorn?”

According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, it means “absolutely, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head”. See below:

STRONGS NT 2751: κείρω

κείρω; (1 aorist ἐκειρα (Acts 8:32 T WH marginal reading)); 1 aorist middle ἐκειραμην; from Homer down; to shear: a sheep, Acts 8:32 ((cf. above) from Isaiah 53:7). Middle to get or let be shorn (Winers Grammar, § 38, 2 b.; Buttmann, § 135, 4): τήν κεφαλήν, Acts 18:18; absolutely, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head, 1 Corinthians 11:6 (cf. Winer’s Grammar, § 43, 1).

It means to shear like a sheep, or like a military haircut.

Let’s look at M.D. Treece’s translation and see if it makes sense when we insert these definitions:

“For if a woman doesn’t have hair down her head, let her hair be shorn like a sheep, but if it’s disgraceful for a woman to have her hair shorn like a sheep, or shaved, let her have hair down her head.”

This makes much more sense, doesn’t it? If these definitions are used, not only does the translation make sense but it also means that there is no prohibition against women cutting their hair.

Every single argument for uncut hair is based on the idea that the word shorn means a little trim, but we can clearly see that this is not what the word means simply by looking at the definition in the Greek Lexicon. If you read arguments for women’s uncut hair, this foundational argument is often skimmed over and the anecdotal arguments and circular reasoning begins with a lot of fear sprinkled in about what is going to happen to you if you disagree. But when we put aside the fear and traditional teachings we can clearly see that the word shorn means to shear like a sheep and does not mean what some are saying it means.

I have provided photos of four pages. Page 247, page 248, page 249, page 250.

(Written for the Facebook group Breaking Out.)

Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed
Getting Out the Old Books: David F. Gray
Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney
Getting Out The Old Books: Larry L. Booker
Getting Out the Old Books: Power Before the Throne
Getting Out the Newer Books: Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion
Search For Truth On Holiness

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

My Church Experience After Leaving

This is a brief summary of the first seven years of my church experiences after leaving the United Pentecostal Church. Understand that for several years afterward, I still believed the main salvation teachings of the group.

When I left my former UPC church in late 1993, I’d already been introduced to a church in West Orange, NJ which had not long before voted to pull out of the organization. When I resigned from my church, I would attend as I was able (it was two hours away). There was only one other local UPC in my area. I knew my former pastor still had feelings against that UPC pastor and church. (Before I ever started attending, there had been a split in the church which eventually led to this other one starting in a nearby town.) Even though I would have been accepted at this local church, even in not upholding standards, I knew that to go would be upsetting to my former pastor. During the time I was a member, my pastor would periodically say negative things in sermons about that church, some of the people, and its pastor. This went on for years after the split had taken place. If it upset him to have to stand behind and pray for this man at his UPC ordination (he didn’t like that Wayne Trout, the District Superintendent, had him do this), it wouldn’t have helped the situation had I left our church and joined this one.

Several months after I left, the pastor was told by one of my friends that I’d written some findings on the hair teaching. He called pastors to warn them about me. This isn’t hearsay as I heard it directly from one of the pastors he called, which was the nearby church. I have no idea if he just called the churches in the southern part of the state or if it was more widespread. Because of his actions, other than this local church that had started after a split, there would be no way I could have attended any of the others. While I did meet with the pastor of the nearby church and even gave him a copy of my writings on hair, which he asked to keep, by that time I knew I couldn’t live what I considered a lie. I’d be welcomed there but could never be used other than in giving a testimony, helping clean or raise funds, or something similar. At the time, I knew I’d want to be active anywhere I attended and to do so would necessitate adhering to all the things that I no longer saw as biblical. I simply couldn’t do it.

All this time I was still attending the church two hours away when I could. As the weeks went on, there were others who became upset with things happening at my former church (that had to do with the pastor) and more left. We contacted the pastor from the West Orange church to see about starting a cell group locally as his church had several of these. I started attending more regularly there and some of us attended a class for this type of leadership. However, during this same time there were all kinds of things happening at my former church and they hit me very hard. I had many emotions and feelings I was dealing with, sometimes not very well.

I felt that while I was grappling with all that, I shouldn’t be in a leadership position. I was supposed to help with the cell group (they call them life groups) and another couple would lead them. To be in a leadership position in these home groups, you had to join the church as a member. I didn’t attend a membership explanation meeting and due to the the way the pastor approached me about missing it, it didn’t sit well and I was feeling pressured. He already knew how I was feeling and never shared prior to it that it was necessary for me to attend.

So they started the group and I didn’t join the church. The pastor didn’t attend our home meetings, but made the lessons for them. At the very first local cell gathering, there was something odd introduced there which I’d never heard before and questioned, though I didn’t do so at the meeting. All of the things combined led me to stop attending. Eventually, everyone from my former church who had gone there left for one reason or another.

As shared at the beginning, at the time I was still very much UPC in doctrine with the exception of standards. Because of this, every Trinitarian church was automatically put out of the picture, sight unseen. There were only a handful of UPC churches in the entire state, so for any smaller Oneness Pentecostal group, there were even fewer, if any at all. I called different places that others would share about and they just didn’t line up with the doctrine in one way or another. Eventually I just gave up looking.

Years later when I saw error in the main teachings, so much time had passed in not attending a church that the thought of doing so brought about a bit of apprehension. I had no idea how other churches operated or what would be expected of me as a member or attender. All I’d known was the UPC. This is why church attendance was a problem for me during this time.

When one exits an unhealthy church, it is important to take the time and effort to examine the teachings. Had I looked into the main salvation teachings then, I wouldn’t have been extremely limited in potential new places of worship.

Part 2.

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed

I always find it fascinating how the issue of control comes out in a supposed form of submission. This is evident in the uncut hair issue and I will demonstrate this with quotes from the booklet Guardians of His Glory by Linda and Gary Reed.

The booklet starts out talking about Lucifer and his fall to give a foundation for the rest of the booklet. After talking about Lucifer they write “In the same manner, a wandering star in the kingdom of God spirals out of control.” (pg 7) There is a lot of talk about wickedness, hell, deception. “Beauty queens will appear in this performance as nightmarish monsters….sinners and hypocrites will be tortured together…” (pg 10) This sets a foundation of fear.

Later, it talks about being a chosen generation and a royal priesthood. It talks about how we can “shine or irradiate others, as the glory and power of God’s electromagnetic radiation is refracted in our lives….let us leave illusion and self deception…then we will truly be refractors of His glory!” (pg 22).

As many of the books that we have looked at, a foundation of fear is set and then a way to escape the wrath of God…..if you follow the writer’s teaching.

Chapter three begins with talking about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers and the power of holiness. It talks about setting “boundaries on our flesh”. (pg 23) Here is where they begin to talk about a woman’s hair. “The woman’s authority from God is symbolized by her personal glory-her long uncut hair……the entire spectra of God’s glory on earth is clouded when women cut their hair….” (pg 25)

It would appear that they try to address some previous teachings (no name is mentioned but I think I know!) when they say “Some teach that we, human beings, have replaced these guardians of God’s glory of God in their homes. This is not substantiated by scripture….” (pg 26)

Here is where the issue of control begins to be addressed. “Women have always sought control. In centuries past they were subservient to men…through witchcraft they (pagan cultures) obtained control of kingdoms…they learned how to reverse God’s divine order….(pg 27)…they shaved their heads…abortion and infanticide were regularly practiced…women…have used sex to wield power over men…(pg 28)

Now pay attention here: “Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason…she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!” What??? So, if a woman desires to control and manipulate, she should not do it by sex or witchcraft but by not cutting her hair?? Amazing! Confounding!!

They go on about how women can have “power”! Power on her head because of the angels! The word power-exousia means “Force-Capacity-Competency-Freedom and Mastery” When a godly woman (read-woman who does not cut her hair!) is at her wits end, feels totally inadequate, needs protection and power and is threatened with bondage…when she faces Satan’s forces, she becomes a superwoman! “If women only knew what power they would possess by accepting God’s plan, they would readily accept it”! (pg 30) Astounding! If you feel out of control…here is a way you can have power and control! Don’t cut your hair! This issue is not about submission. It’s about power and control.

Then, the scary stories ensue about a girl who went insane when a father pushed a girl into the barber’s chair. “When he finished the girl literally went insane, as evil spirits took control of her youthful mind and body.” (pg 30)

“A woman’s uncut hair creates a channel of glory in which the angels are empowered to minister. Women especially need an escape valve. This channel is a spiritual hotline to glory. Wow!” (pg 30-31)

The booklet wraps up with more supposedly convincing arguments.

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to United Pentecostal Church theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

I have provided photos of four pages. Page 27, page 28, page 29, page 30.

(Written for the Facebook group Breaking Out.)

Getting Out the Old Books: The Literal Word by M.D. Treece
Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed
Getting Out the Old Books: David F. Gray
Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney
Getting Out The Old Books: Larry L. Booker
Getting Out the Old Books: Power Before the Throne
Getting Out the Newer Books: Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion
Search For Truth On Holiness

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

UPC Unpardonable Part 2

Continued…

Well sure enough, we got a call from the assistant pastor to come into his office before church the following Sunday night. The pastor was out of town but was grooming his son to take over the church and since he came on board, the church took on a stricter tone. One night, he was preaching and began boasting about measuring his wife’s hair and how long it was. I remember being sickened by this talk. I knew God was bigger than the length of my hair! We went in to see him that evening and he told us due to the fact that I had cut my daughter’s hair, my husband would have to step down from his position in the church leadership and I could no longer teach Sunday school. You can call me naïve or stupid, yes, I admit to being both concerning what would happen if I broke the rules or maybe, by this time, I just didn’t care.

Now, during this period of my life, I was just beginning to hear the message of God’s grace. I heard the story of the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus told her “to go and sin no more!” One of the grace filled preachers I was listening to on the radio put it like this “the only one worthy to condemn you, won’t.” I was not stepping down without speaking my mind, so I pulled out some of my new found grace speak. I told the assistant pastor that I felt like the woman caught in adultery except instead of “saying, go and sin no more, you are saying pick up the stones and throw them.” He did not like my protests and insubordination, it was plain to see. To reinforce his position of dismissal, he told me that he knew of my past experience with scissors in cutting my oldest daughter’s hair. Then he proceeded to tell me that cutting my suffering baby’s (not even two years old) hair was just as bad as if I had given her alcohol and cigarettes! (In a works based church, alcohol and cigarettes rank right up there with lying, cheating, and stealing.) Yes, that I had harmed her in the same way as if I had given her abusive substances! It is interesting to note here: the senior pastor called me when he got back in town and told me that he would never have done what his son did!?!

We left church after the meeting, not staying for the service, went home, and went to bed. While lying there in the dark, a certain kind of death like silence fell between my husband and me that would affect us for the next two years that we stayed in this church. We could never tell our family members who did not go to a United Pentecostal Church what happened. To verbalize such a trivial thing as cutting a baby’s hair to cause such a reaction was unthinkable and would have made our church look bad to those unfamiliar with the rules. We did not get support from our relatives or friends in the church either. I remember one family member, who is a pastor’s wife saying, “We would have done the same thing.” Other friends said, “They knew the rules.”

To stay in this church for two more years was one of our biggest mistakes. I bravely wore the scarlet letter on my chest and grew further and further away from this ideology and these people, as they drew away from me. I wasn’t cutting hair and I still looked the part but inwardly I came to see that there was no love in this church. By the end of these two years, my depression over my baby’s illness and the death of all that we had lived for up to that point caused me to want out of my marriage and out of life as I knew it. The pain my husband and I were going through kept the veil of silence over our marriage; we were just going through the motions. If we hadn’t left when we did, I firmly believe our marriage would have ended as did the marriages of many of the couples we knew in this church, including the assistant pastor; who eventually took over the church.

Later, I would learn what church discipline should look like. Jesus didn’t leave us clueless about how to handle discipline for believers who were truly sinning. It was so important that He gives us step by step instructions. Reflecting back on the teachings of the United Pentecostal Church and all the things I have learned since leaving makes me realize that they never really emphasized Jesus that much. Oh, they loved His name for distinction purposes but His death on the cross or any of the words He spoke, not so much.

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17 NKJV

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.