Todd Weber's Random Thoughts

March 12, 2008

Refuting Ruth Rieder-Harvey

Power Before the Throne, by Ruth Rieder-Harvey

A Book Review by Todd K. Weber   

       I appreciate and respect Ruth Rieder-Harvey’s love for God and zeal for holiness.  There is no doubt that living in holiness is an essential element of a right relationship with God.  We live in a fallen world that is horribly corrupted by sin.  Jesus Christ has provided humanity a way of escape from sin, and when a person is saved by the new birth experience, their life should be transformed into a holy instrument of godliness, free from the controlling power of sin, for this is the will of God and the work of His grace.  The main focus of this review is to address subject matter in the book which is both unbiblical and potentially harmful.  I am surprised and disappointed that such a spurious and harmful doctrine is earnestly propagated in books, articles and conferences.  I have waited patiently for some respected voice to speak up on this, but to my knowledge none have.           

Guardians of the Glory? 

The real trouble begins on page 55, with the chapter heading: “Guardians of the Glory.”  I quote:            

 “The cherubim, one of the angelic orders, seem to be particularly assigned the responsibility of guarding the glory of God. The verses that place them beside the throne of God and ever on guard are Psalm 80:1, Psalm 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16. Thus, Lucifer, as the anointed cherub, was set forth as the chief guardian of the glory of God.”            

Since when does God need anyone or anything to guard His glory?  None of the verses cited state, either explicitly or implicitly, that cherubim – or anything else – guard the glory of God.  For one thing, who or what would they be guarding against?  And, is God not able to defend Himself?  Consider the following:             

 “The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.”  (Psalm 104:31)            

 “For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.”  (Isaiah 48:11)             

When Lucifer rebelled, was it the angels who cast him out of heaven?  Of course not.  While the angels have served to guard various things, God’s glory is not, nor ever has been, their charge.  By itself, this point may not be worth debating.  However, it is used here as a basis for further distortions and misrepresentations; therefore, it is central to the issue and must be discussed.  The idea that God’s glory is so fragile and assailable as to require both angelic and human (namely, female) protection is ridiculous.  Even a cursory review of scriptures relating to the glory of God reveals that it is entirely God’s domain, and that He alone is the protector and preserver of it.  In fact, since God’s glory is intrinsic to His very nature; that is, you cannot separate God from His glory, nor His glory from Himself; it is impossible to tamper with the glory of God in any way, shape or form.  To corrupt God’s glory would be to corrupt God Himself, and since this can never be done, the point is erroneous. This seemingly innocuous misrepresentation of scripture becomes the foundation for the doctrinal house-of-cards erected throughout the remainder of the book.   From page 65 comes this disturbing section, following a quotation of Ezekiel 28:14, 16:            

“Lucifer’s main responsibility was as the covering cherub that guarded the glory of God.  When he was cast out, he lost his covering. God in His amazing and poetic nature delegated Lucifer’s lost estate to the woman. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. But if a woman have long hair, it is a GLORY to her: for her hair is given her for a COVERING (1 Corinthians 11:10 and 15).  This issue of the hair is of major proportions. The enemy tempts women over and over to tamper with the covering because it symbolizes to him everything that he lost. When he sees a saint of God who is a guardian of the glory, he gnashes his teeth in frustration and anger…Women are now the “Guardians of the Glory.” As the aforementioned Scripture declares, it is a glory to the woman. The glory is not hers but is the glory of God residing upon her and in her life.” (Emphasis is Rieder‘s.) 

There are several points in this paragraph which need to be addressed as follows. 

1) Ezekiel 28 is addressed to the king (“prince,“ KJV) of the ancient Phoenician city of Tyre or Tyrus, on the Mediterranean coast.  This chapter is part of a series in which God declares His judgment against several heathen kings.  The King James syntax has led some to conclude this is a reference to Lucifer’s fall, but this is tenuous at best, and certainly not grounds upon which to build a doctrine.   

2) As previously stated, Lucifer was not responsible for guarding the glory of God.   

3) If Ezekiel 28 were a reference to Lucifer, then, when cast out of heaven he would not have lost his covering, but his position as the “covering cherub.”   

4) The Bible never in any place states or implies that God has “delegated Lucifer’s lost estate to the woman.”  That is utter nonsense. While the statement “because of the angels” is a point on which there is disagreement among Biblical scholars, there is certainly no basis for the author’s incredible assertions.    

5) The word “for” in 1 Corinthians 11:15 means “instead of,“ or “in place of;” thus, the woman’s hair is given to her “instead of a covering.“  (Strong’s Concordance #473: “‘anti,’ Meaning:  1) over against, opposite to, before 2) for, instead of, in place of (something) 2a) instead of 2b) for 2c) for that, because 2d) wherefore, for this cause“.)  This in itself turns Rieder-Harvey’s ideas on their head, so to speak.   

6) Saints of God, male or female, are not “guardians of the glory.”   

7) The author’s interpretation of “glory” is likewise faulty. Again, Strong’s Concordance, #1391: “‘doxa,’ Meaning:  1) opinion, judgment, view 2) opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone 2a) in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory…” (The full meaning and use of the word is much more broad than this, but this definition is relevant to the context.)  The phrase, “It is a glory to her” means that it speaks well of her as a woman who is devoted to God.  Her hair is simply a symbol of her faith relationship – nothing more.              

The author continues to draw out her erroneous points in later paragraphs, and then makes this unfounded claim on page 67:            

“The woman’s hair is a type and shadow of the covering that Jesus provided for his church.”            

What is the basis for such a preposterous claim, other than her own imagination?  There is no such thing stated or implied anywhere in the Bible.   

Superstition and Magic 

On page 68, we find this statement:            

“When a woman cuts her hair, she actually severs the glory of God from her life. The angels will lift and depart, for they are committed to the glory.”            

This conclusion is based on her faulty interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10, 15, as previously addressed.  First, a woman’s hair is not the “glory of God.”  Second, her hair is given her instead of a covering, which covering Rieder incorrectly associates with God’s glory. Third, our faith and attention should be directed to Jesus Christ, not angels.  While the Bible certainly reveals that angels are “ministering spirits,” our hope, confidence and security should be wholly in Christ alone.            

Also 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)            

This appears to be a new brand of feminism.  The author is promoting a pseudo-spiritual role-reversal under the pretense of preserving God-given roles outlined in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians.  The contradiction is obvious.            

I am very disturbed by the author’s views noted above, and by the eager acceptance of them by many sincere believers.  Such doctrines turn our attention away from the efficacy and sufficiency of the blood and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace through faith, and instead move us toward superstition and cultic fanaticism.   

I wonder if such ideas stem from a sense of inferiority and/or inadequacy.  It seems to be an effort to elevate Christian women to a higher station than some may presently realize for themselves.  If Christian women lack a sense of meaning, purpose or privilege, it is not because the word of God denies it them.  It may, however, be the result of erroneous teaching and practice by spiritual leaders who manipulate God’s word to suit their own predisposition.  Clearly, God has given women a high and honorable role in the family, the church and the world, and equal claim to the divine gifts and calling as their male counterparts.  It is therefore not necessary, nor beneficial, to concoct erroneous theories and dogma in order to give Christian women a sense of empowerment.            

The great salvation received by way of sound Biblical doctrine is a wonderful thing which ought to be shouted from the rooftops all over the world, regardless of what others may think or say.  But, such error as found in Power Before The Throne hurts the cause of the gospel, and casts a shadow of careless Biblical exegesis and cultism upon many believers and churches.  Promoting such non-Biblical doctrines and misinterpretations erodes peoples’ confidence in both the truth and relevance of the Bible and in our ability to communicate it with integrity.  Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take away from God’s holy word.            

I do not doubt that Ruth Rieder-Harvey’s intentions are noble.  Nor do I question her sincere devotion to Jesus Christ.  However, it is disappointing and regretable that she feels it necessary to create such elaborate and fantastic interpretations of the scriptures in order to promote holiness and consecration to God among women.  I have not read the sequels to Power Before the Throne, but if they build on the ideas presented in this book, they will serve only to propagate the errors contained therein, and to turn the hope and confidence of many Christians away from the Lord Jesus Christ, and add to the ammunition of critics of the faith.  God forbid.  

Todd K. Weber (Nov. 2002)



  1. Thank you!

    Comment by Laura Alpuché — May 22, 2008 @ 4:55 am

  2. We invite you to visit this link on this important subject …. We have posted your article.

    Comment by Daniel Alicea — July 8, 2008 @ 8:18 am

  3. Sounds like you are jealous. Do you or your wife allow cutting of the hair. Probably so hence the only disagreemnt you have in this book is about that subject.

    Comment by Big D — August 15, 2008 @ 7:17 am

  4. Reply to “Big D”: Why would I be jealous of someone who brazenly twists the scriptures, applies them out of context, and builds doctrine on false premises? The entire book is about hair! Hello!?

    Comment by Todd Weber — August 15, 2008 @ 10:37 am

  5. Your review is accepted for what it is, a refutation. Perhaps you should have finalized your review by stating, “It is okay for a pentecostal woman to cut her hair”. After all, isn’t that your point of subject?

    Comment by RMcVaty — December 19, 2008 @ 10:24 pm

  6. What would the outcome be if every message you ever preached was refuted and dissected? Ruth, I know but who is Todd Weber?

    Comment by Saundra — March 12, 2009 @ 8:26 am

  7. Saundra, I encourage people to dissect what I teach. Truth need not hide from inquiry or debate. The Bible encourages us to examine what people teach. Please take a moment to read the following: Act 17:11; 1 Cor.14:29; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 John 4:1; Matt. 12:36; 18:16. Only those who build with wood, hay and stubble are afraid of the burning light of truth (1 Cor. 3:11-15). God bless you.

    Comment by Todd Weber — March 12, 2009 @ 8:52 am

    • This is for Todd Weber: You bring up a very valid point in this article, and at one time I completely believed everything written in her book. Though I’ve since matured a bit more, and while I still don’t cut it, I know better then to put my hair on such a pedestal. Now, I am inclined to think the book is downright ridiculous.

      Here’s my question for you: Where do you stand in all of this? Are you of the pentecostal persuasion who think that women shouldn’t cut their hair? Or are you more the mainstream baptist type who thinks the issue of hair is a complete NON issue?
      I gathered by your article that you definitely thought her book was a bit out there, which I agree with but I never quite caught on to exactly where you stood on the whole matter specifically.

      Comment by dawn — November 9, 2010 @ 7:50 am

      • Wow Dawn, how I admire you for realizing your error. Can you imagine how many ppl have been convinced of this false doctrine? And hopefully, a lot of ppl, such as yourself, are waking up. Thank you for doing so, no, wait, thank God!!!!!

        Comment by Suzy — November 9, 2010 @ 8:38 am

  8. Finally! A man of God that has his “pants on right” to speak against herectical writings which are not based on scripture. Thank you Pastor Weber. I hope and pray others stand up against this doctrine that is creeping into our churches! While I am sure Sis. Rider meant well, its not biblical. I dissect any sermon/teaching I hear, no matter who it is, if it does not sound right. Even if its my own son preaching. If its wrong, its wrong. No matter who it is. We should not add nor take away from God’s word.

    Comment by Susana — March 12, 2009 @ 9:12 am

  9. Thank you Bro Weber, I am one who appreciates you coming out and refuting this non-biblical belief that has entered into our churches and is taking away from the power of God. He is and shall always be our sovereign God. He has given us power through the Holy Ghost and nothing should replace that. I too belief this is heresy creeping itself into our churches, and may God rebuke this before it gets out of control.

    Comment by Nury — March 12, 2009 @ 10:35 am

  10. I thought this was kind of ironic in a comical sense.

    Comment by Suzy — March 13, 2009 @ 11:29 am

  11. I just came across this from the Pentecostal Publishing House. Apparently, not only do they “support” Sis. Rider’s “revelations” many of our women leaders also do per the description. The emphasis added is my own. I was taught when I got saved 27 years ago that all revelations should be filtered through God’s word. This is very, very scary.

    Author: Ruth Rieder-Harvey
    . . . Ruth is the national coordinator for Daughters of Zion and Texico District ladies ministries president. . . . she taught at the Texico District ladies conference that was entitled “Power Before the Throne.” There was a strong desire on the part of the ladies to know more about the positive power of holiness. Sister Havens, among others, encouraged her to write a book. . . . Gwyn Oakes strongly urged her to put the exciting “revelations into a book.”
    . . . Power Before the Throne, a book that has brought a deeper understanding of the incredible privilege of being a child of God. . . .

    Comment by Suzy — March 13, 2009 @ 11:41 am

  12. Mr. Weber,

    Having read your book review on “Power Before The Throne”, my heart was stirred.Sister Ruth Harvey is a wonderful precious sister, and I believe she is a praying woman of God. You mentioned that in the past you were of the Catholic faith. My husband was also of the Catholic faith before he was born again of the water and of the Spirit. However, from a child, I have known the Holy Scriptures. As a woman doing her best to serve the Lord as humbly, honestly, and as sincerely as I can, I try to seek the Lord for understanding and knowledge of the scriptures as best I can. Those who are born of the Spirit and wear the name of Jesus Christ trust in HIM. It is important that we reason together and search out a matter with diligence and lovingkindness. The author of the Word is the utmost authority on his Word. God alone is the revealer of secrets as he was to Daniel. Writers write books out of their love and admiration for the Lord and from their desire to know HIM in a greater measure. That is commendable for all. I firmly believe there is a undeniable spiritual connection between a woman’s obedience to the Lord and not bringing a cutting instrument near her hair. I do believe it gives power because of what the scripture says. God has given beautiful hair to the woman and if it is treasured as one of his gifts to her, it should remain in the natural state that God created it. He covered her head with it. Everything God created was for a purpose and for HIS glory. It is evident that the world has no clue why there is even a connection, but God did indeed use references to hair throughout the scripture. There are multitudes of mysteries within the Word of God that I believe are not fully explainable by the human mind. In fact, they are not meant to be understood by us…that is why they are HIS mysteries, even the mystery of God and Christ being One Lord, which he chose to reveal as stated in the Book of Romans. One prophet was told to shave his head and sit outside the city…that God would bring judgment to that city. God used the subject of hair in his Word. During the years of the Flappers, women began to cut their hair and with that came the baring of the thigh and the rest of the body. Women rose up in rebellion against morality. Magazines blatently encouraged the young to disobey their parents. Now, in our present world, anything goes. As a woman of God, I firmly believe there is a direct connection between the cutting of the woman’s hair and our present immoral condition? I believe God loves the woman he created so much more than she could ever know. He has an awesome and magnificent glory, far above any comprehension of ours. All who are born again of the water and the Spirit must be patient with others until they come into the full knowledge of his Truth, including an understanding of his statutes and ordinances. They searched the scriptures daily….He is an awesome God.

    Comment by Linda Schreckenberg — March 16, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

    • First, I’m not sure where Linda got the idea that I’m Catholic, unless by personal revelation, since I am not and never have been Catholic. I agree with Suzy’s response. There is great danger when we accept personal revelations and insights above the clear testimony of the Bible, regardless of how highly esteemed or well-intentioned a person may be. No human is infallible, therefore all teaching must be measured against the scriptures. Unfortunately, many have chosen to put personality ahead of prudence.

      Comment by tkweber — March 18, 2009 @ 9:40 am

  13. My Dear Sis. Schreckenberg: I love how sincere you sound. But to be honest with you, a lot of “sincere” people who had revelations from the Lord, turned out to be false. I am not saying Sis. Harvey is false. But I have read what she wrote. I cannot beleive something that is NOT IN THE WORD. I am still waiting for someone to show me where that is? I did a dissertation in the Greek and there is nothing in that book of the bible that even suggests what Sis. Harvey writes about. We need to read the text as it is written, and keep it in the context. There is no special POWER on my uncut hair. IT IS SILENT. I am not the KEEPER of God’s glory.

    Writings such as this should not be allowed, no matter who writes it. ALL REVELATION SHOULD BE FILTERED THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD. Period.

    Comment by Suzy — March 17, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

  14. As to Sis. Linda’s remarks: Please keep the text where it belongs. Yes the Bible talks about “HAIR” throughout, however,not about women’s hair until 1 C?Corin 11. We are not “Samsons” nor are we Nazarites. We are not “prophets”. So keep the text in the context it was written. No “new” revelation from God (or mystery) should go against His sacred word. Sis. Rider’s books go against it all. As a matter of fact they sound like fairytales. That we are “keepers of the glory.” Would you please reply with the scritpure on that? And page 72 (referenced above) really distubs me? What about umarried men? What are the men who are not married unprotected? and where is the scrpture that says I am the “guardian of the glory?” Please send me the scritpure. Thank you.

    Comment by Susana — March 18, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

  15. Let’s go to Scripture: In Sis. Rider’s book, page 55: “Guardians of the Glory.” I quote:
    “The cherubim, one of the angelic orders, seem to be particularly assigned the responsibility of guarding the glory of God. The verses that place them beside the throne of God and ever on guard are Psalm 80:1, Psalm 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16. Thus, Lucifer, as the anointed cherub, was set forth as the chief guardian of the glory of God.”

    MY REFUTE: Psalm 80:1 . . . thou that dwellest between the cherubims. . . .
    The word in Hebrew “dwellest” is: yashab: its A primitive root; properly, to sit down (specifically as judge. In ambush, in quiet); by implication, to dwell, to remain; causatively, to settle, to marry — (make to) abide(-ing), continue, (cause to, make to) dwell(-ing), ease self, endure, establish, X fail, habitation, haunt, (make to) inhabit(-ant), make to keep (house), lurking, X marry(-ing), (bring again to) place, remain, return, seat, set(- tle), (down-)sit(-down, still, -ting down, -ting (place) -uate), take, tarry


    Psalm 99:1: . . . he sitteth between the cherubims . . .
    The word in Hebrew “sitteth” is: yashab (same as Psalm 80:1)
    Isaiah 37:16 . . . that dwellest between the cherubims. . .
    The word in Hebrew “dwellest” is yashab (Again same as Psalm 80:1)

    I don’t see where Sis. Rider gets this idea: “and ever on guard” . . . Thus, Lucifer, as the anointed cherub, was set forth as the chief guardian of the glory of God.”

    I don’t see that in those 3 scriptures. Do you? If anyone does, please tell me where.

    Comment by Susana — March 19, 2009 @ 8:00 am

    • Nobody has shown me either. All I get is emotional accusations, that satan has lied to me etc. I am waiting for the scripture. Anybody out there can handle it? I DO NOT CUT MY HAIR. But there is no power on my uncut hair. JESUS SAID ALL POWER IS GIVEN TO “ME”. . . not my uncut hair.

      How dare any woman or man compare themselves to our Lord and King? Show me in the Bible please.

      Comment by Suzy — July 20, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

  16. To many well-meaning adherents to the so-called “holiness standards” teachings, the scripture is not as important to them for authentic truth as it is for proof texting. Only eternity will reveal the broken hearts, wounded emotions and perverted ministries caused by obstinate ignorance of some (not all) Pentecostal preachers who seem to delight in offending sensitive souls by twisting the word of God.

    Comment by James B ell — April 1, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

    • Actually, most of the broken hearts, and wounded emotions are caused not so much by the “standards” but by the mean and angry attitudes of the other members. But you can’t convince them of it because they think THAT is actual love and the other stuff is just weak, sugar coated, wishy washy.

      Comment by dawn — November 9, 2010 @ 7:56 am

  17. The scripture is very clear on the subject of hair…I would be very very scared to be standing in your shoes. This woman is a woman of God…I know her personally…She is a woman of prayer…you are causing division, so how can you be right. Open up your eyes, the devil has blinded you to the truth.

    Comment by Tanua Riley — July 15, 2009 @ 12:11 am

    • Sis. Riley: Sis. Ruth began the division by writing “revelations” that are not Biblically based. If you can show me where it says that I am the keeper of God’s Glory in the Bible, I will be most happy to accept it. That is not division. That is rightly dividing the Word of God, which I jealously guard. If my own son preached something out of context, I would rebuke him and not accept it. Period, the end. Dont get emotional, instead get the facts. Several years ago I had a friend that preached something “off the wall” and we questioned him about it, to the point we no longer fellowship with him, and we love this man very dearly. My friendship with him did not blind me to the fact what he was saying was “unbiblical.”

      Comment by Suzy — July 20, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    • If the woman was in the world, she would be considered a witch. Come to think of it, the Bible calls her a witch. Galatians 3:1 says this type of garbage is done by people who are trying to manipulate God’s Word.

      Comment by tv — November 11, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

    • Thetus Tenney is a woman of prayer yet she doesn’t bloviate such nonsense.

      Comment by tv — November 11, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

  18. Even Jesus caused division (Mt. 10:35). Unity is an ideal that often becomes a golden calf. No one is immune from error simply because they are religious or prayerful or highly esteemed by others. Whatever else Ruth Rieder-Harvey is or has done does not diminish the fact that she wrote a book full of error, manipulation, misrepresentation, and superstition. I hope you will some day see the truth of the matter.

    Comment by tkweber — July 17, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

  19. The magic hair doctrine is a demonic doctrine. Studies suggest Jezebel’s grew her hair long because she thought her strength was in her hair.

    Comment by TV — August 5, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

    • I’ve heard in witches grow their hair long also for this same reason.

      Comment by dawn — November 9, 2010 @ 7:57 am

  20. TV: If Jezebel’s hair grew or not, is not my concern. My ONLY concern is that if its NOT in the Bible, don’t teach it. Do not take away or ADD to the word. This is how strange doctrines start showing up. We have to right divide the word. I don’t go by history, I don’t go by studies, I go by His Word, which is forever established in heaven. SHOW ME. ;D

    Comment by Suzy — August 7, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  21. I have asked sincerely for like 4 times for someone to show me the scripture where it says I am the keeper of God’s glory bc of my uncut hair, and nobody replies. Which means, there aren’t any scriptures that back that doctrine up. So why do people still believe in that false doctrine?

    Comment by Suzy — August 7, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

  22. there is another flaw in the ‘theology’ she puts forth. my intention is not malicious…she states (i don’t remember which book at the moment as I have read several of ms. harvey’s)…she states that a woman she knew of had a cheating husband and it was chalked up to the woman cutting her hair…that in itself is just unbelievable. But, with that reasoning, what did she do to be disobedient to God that caused her marriage to dissolve? I am sure the answer is ‘nothing’…just as it was not the first womans fault that her husband cheated.
    I have regretted and repented that I ever believed her MH doctrine, showed the video and taught it to others.

    Comment by Sherry — August 14, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

  23. Wow Sherry: It takes guts to say something so honest like that. This is what happens when folks prefer to follow/believe a “friend” rather than the Word. I never believed in the MH Doctrine. I can’t believe folks actually do and teach it! Well at least u realized it. Better late than never.

    Comment by Suzy — August 15, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

  24. The magic hair doctrine is the least of the problems existing in that movement. Legalism is a spirit of witchcraft according to Galatians 3.

    Comment by tv — November 11, 2009 @ 10:36 am

  25. TV: I agree its wrong, but Gal 3 doesn’t say anything about a “spirit of witchcraft.” In the Greek it translates to being bewitched, (Gal 3:1) in spanish its “fascinated” or persuaded. Paul was asking them who persuaded them not to believe the truth. So again, I keep the text in the context. Even with this. 😀

    Comment by Suzy — November 11, 2009 @ 10:58 am

  26. I have been in Pentecost all my life and it is amazing to me to look around and see how the pentecost religion has become a business. Whether it is books, tapes, cd’s, or children inheriting the pupit. In my opinion this woman has found a way to make a profit and people all over are falling for it. Like the liberals in politics, leaders in pentecost have adopted the attitude do as I say not as I do. As others on here have said, I will say also, we’d better rightly divide the word, because if not we will trust man instead of trust God. I believe in Godly leadership, but sometimes it is difficult to find these days. God bless all.

    Comment by Darlene — July 20, 2010 @ 4:16 am

  27. Well I left the Church 10 years ago and seeing the way you attack each other and throw each others names out there its obvious not much has changed. If you want to see the worst of Apostolic Gossip and Slander go the Apostolic Friends Forum. There are licensed ministers in there who attack aged men of God discussing their thoughts about them for the public to see. Come back? No Thanks!

    Comment by Jason — August 25, 2010 @ 5:56 am

  28. The question facing every female sinner is not how she can become holy by (not cutting her hair, not wearing makeup, not wearing jewlery, not wearing pants) but how can she be found not guilty of breaking God’s Law (the Ten Commandments) of which she has been guilty of doing every moment of her sin-tried life!!!! Holiness standards are powerless to save sinners from the punishment that they have earned by their lawless deeds (Romans 6:23). The Battle Cries of the Gospel: Sola Christus! Sola Scriptura! Sola Gratia! Sola Fide! Soli Deo Gloria!

    Comment by Gary Verdecchia — August 26, 2010 @ 11:42 am

  29. The UPCI church, (I speak of the organization as a whole, with the understanding there are many individuals who this does not apply to) have been shouting “WE HAVE THE TRUTH” for so long, they have deafened themselves to hearing they have erred on any matter pertaining to the Word of God, and they have been judging everyone by the outward appearance for so long, they have blinded themselves to the ability to look for truth in the inward parts in anyone, and I speak this to their shame.

    How easy they have made it for Satan to disguise himself amongst them. All he has to do is find a most devout UPC member, who prays, walks, talks and dresses the part, and deceive them as he did Eve by a subtle twist of the Word of God, and sit back and watch as they pass out his deadly fruit to anyone lacking the willingness to “examine” the fruit, instead of readily accepting it based on the appearance of WHO offered it to them. The proof of this is evident in all i`ve been hearing of “what wonderful men and women of God have given us Gods Word on hair!” It began with Gods Word alright, but His Words has been twisted until all thats left is another spin on the serpents “you will be like God” (Gen 3:5), and it reeks of decaying flesh and stinking pride.

    Lee Stoneking and Ruth Harvey and all other proponents of this ‘Holy Magic Hair’ teaching need to repent of their sorcery.

    2Co 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
    2Co 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
    2Co 11:14 And no wonder, for even SATAN DISGUISES HIMSELF AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.
    2Co 11:15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

    2Co 13:5 Keep examining yourselves to see whether you are continuing in the faith. Test yourselves! You know, do not you, that Jesus Christ lives in you? Could it be that you are failing the test?

    Col 1:28 JESUS CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory. HIM we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ.

    Gal 1:5 To Jesus Christ be the glory forever and ever! Amen.
    Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ to follow a different gospel,
    Gal 1:7 which is not really another one. To be sure, there are certain people who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel about Christ.
    Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that person be condemned!
    Gal 1:9 What we have told you in the past I am now telling you again: If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that person be condemned!
    Gal 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of people or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant.

    Thank you Todd for an excellent review!

    Comment by Shelly Carrier — September 28, 2010 @ 8:36 am

    • Sis. Shelly: I would not accuse anyone of witchcraft. That is a very strong thing to say bc afterall these are brothers/sisters baptized in the name of the Lord. So we need to b careful not to fall under the condemnation of God either, & not disrespect an elder nor an annointed person. However, they are in error as to doctrine. But there is nothing new under the Sun. Book of Acts, there was such division amongst the great apostles, they had to go separate ways. So you see, as long as there are imperfect people, there will be imperfect churches. Until He comes & cleans the mess up. However, I will continue to filter through the Word of God. BTW I am still waiting for someone to answer me as to where are the scriptures that back up the fact that I am a keeper of God’s Glory, bc I do not cut my hair? HELLO, ANYONE OUT THERE? 🙂

      Comment by Suzy — September 28, 2010 @ 8:50 am

  30. Sis Suzy, it is good that you are willing to filter everything through the Word of God. That being so, would you tell the Lord Jesus to be careful not to fall under condemnation for having spoken these words to His ‘brother’ who was baptized in His own name? “Get behind me, Satan! You are an offense to me, for you are not thinking God’s thoughts but human thoughts!”

    Paul neither held to the cliche` ‘as long as there are imperfect people, there will be imperfect churches’ to avoid having to speak out against ‘sin’ in the church, and cleaning the mess up ourselves like we were told to.

    Rather he said:

    1Co 5:2 And you are being arrogant instead of being filled with grief and seeing to it that the man who did this is removed from among you.
    1Co 5:3 Even though I am away from you physically, I am with you in spirit. I have already passed judgment on the man who did this, as though I were present with you.
    1Co 5:4 When you are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus and my spirit and the power of our Lord Jesus are present,
    1Co 5:5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.
    1Co 5:6 Your boasting is not good. You know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough, don’t you?

    ‘Holy Magic Hair’ teaching is most certainly witchcraft, the question is, if we are hearers of the Word, will we also be doers?

    Comment by Shelly Carrier — September 28, 2010 @ 9:49 am

  31. U know Sis. Shelly, I kind of have to agree with you on this one. I still would not accuse an elder, but would prefer God to do that, like David did with Saul. The Lord will take care to rebuke the elders in due course. I am very outspoken about the HMH thing. I dont believe, I cannot teach it, its ridiculous. To call it witchcraft is going too far though. But its a sad thing to see so many ppl blinded by this foolishness. Sometimes a preacher will come by our church is say something about this. Scares the daylights out of me. And most of the saints agree with me, like “why did he say that?”. Still, I will not accuse an elder of witchcraft w/o proof. That they have the wrong doctrine, yes, but witches. No Sis. Shelly. I was involved in witchcraft before the Lord, totally different. Thanks for your post. Suzy

    Comment by Suzy — September 28, 2010 @ 9:58 am

  32. May I add we should rebuke in love and not over zealouness, and be humble ourselves, less we get an arrogant spirit as well. God forbid.

    Comment by Suzy — September 28, 2010 @ 10:00 am

  33. Do you propose one has to have been involved in Witchcraft to recognize the teaching of demons, or is having the discernment of the Spirit enough? Is witchcraft not defined as the use of strange powers? If I teach a person to use strange powers, am I not as condemned as them, or does my Christian title or position hold me above reproach by God and man? I`m not sure what you would deem as ‘proof’, but if as you say, you are outspoken against this teaching, I am guessing you have familiarized yourself with it, and the proof is in the teaching itself. Have you watched the videos of the Holy Magic Hair Doctrine by Lee Stoneking?

    1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons

    Comment by Shelly Carrier — September 28, 2010 @ 11:14 am

  34. Re: Elders

    God would prefer we obey His instructions:

    1Ti 5:19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.
    1Ti 5:20 As for those who keep on sinning, rebuke them in front of everyone so that the others will also be afraid.
    1Ti 5:21 In the sight of God, Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels, I solemnly call on you to carry out these instructions without prejudice, doing nothing on the basis of partiality.

    Comment by Shelly Carrier — September 28, 2010 @ 11:35 am

  35. I just happened upon your website and wanted to offer my “2 cents.” I agree with your comments about Ruth Reider’s beliefs. I read her book years ago and became really concerned at the time (I still am) that United Pentecostals are getting farther and farther out there.

    The fact that even some ministers would pick up this concept means that aren’t focusing on the internal spiritual issues that are destroying people. Why are they dwelling on the bizarre when they could be teaching something much more important, like just living honestly before God and their fellow Christians, not cheating others, paying their debts, or not hurting each other. Do we need magic, superstition or fear to get up every day and do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God?

    I no longer attend a United Pentecostal church. I saw so much bizarre behavior, backstabbing, nepotism, and dishonesty that I couldn’t come up with a reason to stay. I gave it a good shot – 40 years.

    Anyone who wants to base their beliefs on a particular turn of phrase in the Bible should read about the origin of the King James Bible and how it was compiled. It did not drop out of the sky. There’s an excellent book called “In the Beginning” that outlines the history.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment

    Comment by Yvonne — December 8, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

  36. It sounds like most of you opened the book to find fault so you could cast criticism without knowledge. There are many scriptures that proves God’s complete design for woman and such topics like Oh My Word I’m gonna say it the “Uncutting of the Hair” The hair is the glory and if you were to cut the hair you might as well shave it off. A womans hair holds power and authority under God by the OBEDIENCE of HIS Word. Some of you are talking about fantasy HELLO Our minds can’t comsume even a forth of God’s power and what HE is. You need to get your heads out of Disney and realize this is the real thing and God has a reason for everything.

    Comment by Steph — June 14, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

    • Steph, not to be rude but, it really doesn’t seem as though you’ve studied the subject for yourself and have only taken at face value what others have told you. Also, it’s “fourth” not forth.

      Comment by sherry — June 15, 2011 @ 8:24 am

  37. Steph: Please quote me the scriptures that proves God’s design for woman’s uncut hair? I think there is only one. 1 Corinthians 11. I DO NOT CUT MY HAIR. But I do not believe in this holy magic hair nonesense either. There is NO SCRITPURE that says I am the keeper ofGod’s glory, nor that I have some magical power on my uncut hair. PUT IT IN WRITING.

    Thanks Suzy

    Comment by Suzy — June 15, 2011 @ 8:34 am

  38. Dr. Bro. Weber,

    As it is obvious you do not agree with Sister Harvey on this subject I would ask that you put forward your own research into the subject of Holiness and womens hair. While I can respect your position on this matter, I have also learned through bitter experience that there are many in the church who are content to merely complain about the doctrine of others and provide no direction after attempting to discredit the teaching of others. You have made it clear you disagree with Sister Harvey, however, I am left to wonder if she (in your opinion) is so wrong what is right? Please teach.



    Comment by Joel — July 30, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

    • I think what Todd Weber is clearly saying is not to put your own spiritual significance above God. As for holiness standards, it is the Holy Spirit within me that will guide me to a life that is pleasing to God. Why are we so afraid to let God have control over every issue? Guardians of glory? Does that not say your power is greater than HIS? Come on already!

      Comment by Laura MacDonald — March 28, 2015 @ 8:26 am

      • Where does it say we are the keepers of God’s glory? Like God really needs us to keep anything for Him? Seriously. Who came up w that one?

        Comment by Sue — March 28, 2015 @ 1:29 pm

  39. You really make it seem so easy along with your presentation but I in finding this matter to be actually something that I believe I might never understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me. I am having a look forward to your subsequent publish, I’ll try to get the hold of it!

    Comment by Local Churches — September 8, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

  40. I for all time emailed this webpage post page to all my friends, for the
    reason that if like to read it then my contacts will too.

    Comment by abstract algebra — April 19, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

  41. I constantly spent my half an hour to read this web site’s posts daily along with a cup of coffee.

    Comment by mercado forex — April 24, 2014 @ 2:20 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: