I recently came across a blogsite devoted entirely to publicly denouncing the so called “Holy Magic Hair” doctrine preached by Apostolic giant Lee Stoneking. The administrators of this blog weren’t even conceived when Bro Stoneking began taking his anointed message to the world. These people would rather make a public spectacle smearing Bro Stoneking than have the guts to contact him and have a one on one discussion about this issue. I don’t subscribe to the doctrine myself, and my wife does(gasp!) cut her hair from time to time. However, the Bible forbids me to publicly rebuke an Elder such as Bro Stoneking. If I felt as strongly as those who’ve devoted so much time to combating this doctrine I would contact him personally and search the Scriptures with him on this subject. It’s a lot easier to take public potshots at a man of God than it is to bite the bullet and have a respectful private dialogue with him.
May these people repent and learn respect for their Elders and may God richly bless the Ministry of Bro Lee Stoneking.
Yes, the anonymity of the Internet allows too many people to simply wage war. Of course, before the Internet, people just create schisms, again, though, that goes to the respect of elders that people seem to lack, or rather have such a distaste for that they readily attack those in authority, as if the attack is a religious requirement.
By: Polycarp on July 9, 2008
at 10:19 am
Brother Stoneking is a tremendous man of God. There are few like him.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15
14″Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
Clearly women should have longer hair than men.
I don’t think it’s a sin for a woman to trim her hair
though.
I don’t agree with Bro. Stoneking on the “no makeup, no pants for women” doctrine, but I would not blast his name publicly for it.
He has a right to his opinion on the matter. He is just trying to keep christians from falling into sexual sin.
By: ritdm on July 9, 2008
at 1:51 pm
I am not exactly sure what blog you maybe referring to, but I do belong to a forum that has discussed Stoneking and his magic hair doctrine at length many times.
I think what the problem is, for one a recently preached message by Stoneking not long ago seems to condone the magic hair doctrine has been made public.
Two, when ever there is mention of the magic hair doctrine on the internet(well at least the forum I belong to), there is mention of 1 of 2 name and one of them is Bro. Stoneking.
I am aware many people are offended when his name comes up and feels like it’s a lack of respect for him and the ministry.
While others feel they are voicing their opinion on what they feel is a distorted view on long hair and it’s so called power. They feel they are not trying to make it a personal thing (against Stoneking) or downing the ministry but bringing to light the inconstancies of this doctrine-
For many years, people have not been able to “question” authority in anyway knowing they get tagged as a rebel.
Well, with the advent of the internet, many are now able to discuss publicly what was once discussed privately. I feel like this positive thing and not a negative one, because everyone can have a voice. Not that everyone has to listen.
So I do not so much see it as rebuking Stoneking as I do discussing the issue of the magic hair, unfortunately he is associated and has taught this doctrine.
You are right they could take their gripe to Stoneking himself, I just wonder if he would listen.
By: Elizabeth on July 9, 2008
at 7:13 pm
“Well, with the advent of the internet, many are now able to discuss publicly what was once discussed privately.”
This issue should have been discussed privately before being made a public spectacle for unbelievers to say “Look at those ignorant redneck Apostolics fighting over hair!”
“You are right they could take their gripe to Stoneking himself, I just wonder if he would listen.”
How about finding out if he would discuss it before attacking him or calling a doctrine he preaches “occultic” or “witchcraft” in front of the whole world?
By: Ev. Duane Williams on July 9, 2008
at 11:18 pm
I think I found the website you are talking about-have you contacted the creator about your concern?
I totally understand where you are coming from. I just think this whole “Holy Magic Hair”doctrine gives fodder for those on the internet that like to discuss the traditions (good & bad) of the Apostolics.
Again, perhaps you can make mention of your concern regarding Stoneking to the author of the blog.
btw-I think your website looks great-good job!
By: Elizabeth on July 10, 2008
at 12:38 pm
Bro. Lee was in our services last week. I want to clarify a few things: it is not ‘his’ doctrine, and it is not an opinion. Hair falls under the subject of holy/holiness. Holiness is taught extensively in 50 books of the bible. 16 of those most often say: be ye holy, for I am holy. One place God speaks of it as law, to make a distinction, or, separate yourself from uncleanliness; that is for beast, fowl, and all creatures, including human. Aarons priest garments were ordered to the color, we are the priesthood now. To come to the altar, we must be holy or we are an abomination in the sight of God, that is speaking of santified saints. Hair is the issue, but the real issue behind it is obedience. It is God’s ordained order. If we are filled with the Holy Ghost, we then follow his leading, if we start to decide what we want and don’t want, we fail just as Eve and Adam in the garden. Disobedience.
A lady friend of mine, praying about certain standards she was being taught. You couldn’t take a power saw and cut her hair now, as God spoke to her it was the sin of immodesty. But, she was a person willing to let the Holy Spirit lead her. Most often when one is despiteous toward the ministry, they are fighting conviction, or, openly being rebellious. Sounds like the site is full of young people that don’t want to line up.
By: lanis on July 10, 2008
at 5:11 pm
Quoting you: ” ‘his’ doctrine, and it is not an opinion. Hair falls under the subject of holy/holiness.” could you be kind enough to share the scriptures?
“.. as God spoke to her it was the sin of immodesty.” All convictions should be filtered thru the word of God. No matter who prayed, who preached etc.
Bro. Stoneking is a fantastic preacher, but he is not perfect. I do not listen, however, when he preaches Ruth Reider’s doctrine. I do not cut my hair, but I do not believe in the magical powers either. No scripture. I’ve been asking for saints to SHOW ME THE SCRITPURES specifically about what he talks about. There are none. NO special power on my head, I am not the keeper of His Glory, etc. etc.
thank you.
By: s on October 13, 2009
at 11:32 am
I forgot something, Tertullian taught on Hair, makeup, dress, appearance in public, etc. He nailed it to the cross! I was blown away to discover it was as bad then as it is now, but why should I be surprised, it is the same demon pushing the same ole sin at people. [He called makeup plastering…LOL..oh God, thats funny!
By: lanis on July 10, 2008
at 5:22 pm
“Again, perhaps you can make mention of your concern regarding Stoneking to the author of the blog.”
I tried to comment but that blogsite makes you jump through many hoops to leave a comment. I kept getting an error message. I will continue trying to contact this person. There was another blog seemingly dedicated to the same cause by a different author who I was able to contact. The next time I checked his blog, it had been removed.
By: Ev. Duane Williams on July 10, 2008
at 11:42 pm
I want to thank you Evangelist
WardWilliams for your concern here and at HMH about this issue. I myself had stumble on this blog before you left your comment on my blog.Hence, I was awaiting your open rebuke about what you perceive as a personal rebuke. (Tongue firmly in cheek)
I want to assure the issue you are concerned about is a weighty matter; and viewed and approached as one.
There is a lot of historionics you may not be familiar with … including the prevalence of many opining openly on the net over this matter for well over a decade on such popular Apostoic forums as Jim Yohe’s Faith Child Forum, New Faith Child Forum and now, Apostolic Friends Forum. Spiritual Abuse.org has had a page dedicated on this subject for quite some time. Various articles have been written and published for public consumption about the two books written that laid the foundation for this
Many have expressed concerns to their elders. There have been letters written. Elders have spoken to some of those that support this in private yet little has been done openly on the matter to bring correction to an evolving issue that has lasting effects in a movement you and I both love.
You may not agree on the approach, granted. I find it a bit ironic that as a movement we seek to discredit Trinitarians and others in the Body …. (as I see that you have here and later retracted) but when an issue that may isolate us more from the Body is sought to be discussed we shy away.
I assure you that no words on a personal basis are leveled against those who teach these things but if you read each article on the blog you will find that the doctrine is examined.
Surely, we can compartmentalize the two.
The following is part of the purpose of the blog, in case you missed it:
In recent years,however, a dangerous heretical doctrine has emerged claiming that an added reason why a woman’s hair should not be cut is because it gives her power with angels citing this one verse. Proponents teach that a supernatural power and authority is bestowed by her obedience in not cutting her hair. Some claim this directly results in angelic protection, miracles,healings, special revelation, God’s favor and blessing in their loves … and even can affect one’s salvation. Sadly, occult writings are offered up as substantiation for this paradigm.
This blog is an effort to uncover the untruths of this dangerous heretical doctrine that replaces Jesus and the power of God’s sovereign Spirit with hair and legalism. We seek only to warn the Body of Christ of this teaching and not to undermine God’s call on the lives of those who teach or believe this doctrine. Believers on both sides of the hair issue are standing against this extrabiblical heresy.
Lastly, your calls for me to repent and learn respect do not fall on deaf ears. I know you say so in love. Please realized that having lived in and around ministry my entire life … and most importantly in love w/ the lover of my soul I do not dismiss the need to live a repentant life and grow in matters of faith and ethics.
Rest assured, the issue here is of great importance to many, including myself on many a level. It deals with love for our own.
I understand your love for our heritage and giants. This is a common thread you and I share.
I kindly ask that we can agree to disagree on this issue.
In His and your service,
D. Alicea
P.S. Thank you Liz for bringing some balance and perspective to this issue on this blog
By: Daniel Alicea on July 11, 2008
at 10:20 am
Correction on your getting your last name wrong, brother Williams.
In retrospect, I chuckle at my lengthy response to you …. knowing that many will have divergent views on this issue … and there are many who will disagree.
I can’t make this a habit or I’ll spend my whole day putting out small fires, lol.
BTW, you have a lovely family and are blessed and favored of God.
By: Daniel Alicea on July 11, 2008
at 10:38 am
Good discussion! Another thought on the topic of hair; If we are claiming to be strict followers of the Bible, why do we as Apostolics ignore that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 uses the example of women having long hair to support his position that praying women should wear a veil on their head?
By: ritdm on July 12, 2008
at 2:12 pm
The issue is not about long hair, but about whether power is derived from that long hair, and that is spiritual witchcraft. You speak of rebuking not an elder. Any man who preaches a false or heretical doctrine should be challenged and called out on it. Stoneking is no exception.
By: William Price on July 13, 2008
at 6:25 am
Bro. Price,
If Stoneking is to be “challenged and called out”, perhaps it can be done in private and preferably by someone of quite a bit more stature than yourself. It wouldn’t surprise me to see you preaching the “holy magic hair” doctrine in full force within a month or so. I believe it would be best for you to actually figure out once and for all what it is you actually believe before “challenging” or “calling out” anyone.
May the Lord Jesus Bless and Keep you
Evangelist Duane Williams
P.S. I’m glad to see you have left that demonic preterism doctrine behind. It’s a good start.
By: Ev. Duane Williams on July 14, 2008
at 3:09 pm
Bro Daniel,
Confusing me with a man of Pastor Ward’s stature in the Faith is a compliment, if an accidental one. He Preached a groundshaking message on Elijah and Elisha last Friday night.
Will you at least try to contact Bro. Stoneking for a personal discussion of this issue? Other than that I will agree to disagree. Although I don’t agree that all those you are saying are in the Body are actually in, I must admit you seem to conduct yourself as a humble servant of our Lord, and I respect you and the Anointing God has placed on your life.
May the Lord Jesus continue to richly Bless you and the Ministry with which He has entrusted you.
In Agape,
Evangelist Duane Williams
By: Ev. Duane Williams on July 14, 2008
at 3:19 pm
Duane, forgive me for inserting myself into your conversation again, but I really have a question?
Does Daniel and William have the Holy Ghost? If so, when did Jesus Christ leave the “Holy” part of his Spirit/persona for us to decide and intrepret? Never! Daniel, William and their followers, you are not even in league with the mindset of God. You can only take instruction, not dictate it. You can only learn from God thru his leading, as Bro. Lee Stoneking has. Indeed, if he was desparate for a message, he would have chosen something to even tickle your ears. When you and your followers find yourselves like other Pentecostal entities that walked away from holiness, [you wont have the spiritual strength to know it as they didn't] ,call on Bro. Stoneking and he will surely pray for you as well as Duane and I.
Ritdm, let me offer you an article written by Quintus Tertullian in early 200 A.D. I’ll look it up and provide the link to it..it deals with “Ladies Apparel in the Church”. He wrote this after being converted to Modalism, in which he defended Christians being myartrd in that time frame. I’ll get back to you or remind me at: http://lanis.wordpress.com
William, that is as cheap a shot as I have seen in my time, witchcraft? Sir, please re-consider your attitude toward the word of God.
By: lanis on July 15, 2008
at 3:37 pm
Please read 1 Corinthians chapter 11 in it’s entirety, dont stop at verse 15.
Study to show thyself approved.
By: Joe on July 17, 2008
at 3:05 pm
Specifically 1 Corinthians 1-16
By: Joe on July 17, 2008
at 3:25 pm
Joe,
From your two responses, you seem to be emphasising verse 16
1 Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
So was Paul just blowing hot air in verses 1-15? Would you paraphrase this verse as “If anyone is contentious about this, just toss out everything I just said.”? This is one area where the KJV is a little confusing to those who haven’t studied to show themselves approved. Paul was saying “if anyone is contentious, too bad, we have no other way of doing things.”
NASB 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
AMP16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
HCSB 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.
NIV 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Now just who needs to study to show himself approved?
By: Ev. Duane Williams on July 17, 2008
at 3:56 pm
PRAISE THE LORD!!!
By: lanis on July 17, 2008
at 10:02 pm
Thank you for your response.
While I was not emphasizing verse 16 specifically, I think verse 16 reinforces 1-15 emphatically as you point out. My intent was to reemphasize a studious look ICor 11:1-16, though that did not come across well in my first two entries. My hope in partaking of this discussion is to encourage those with an Acts 2:38 experience and who are growing unto perfection to take the matter into study…and not study only but more over prayer and contemplation.
It’s clear that many who have written in are obvious studiers and that’s to be commended. In addition to study, Apostolics/The Church is blessed to have the anointing of God teach us all things. Through prayer, fasting, submission, giving, Church attendance, etc. the anointing is given place to flow. Despite all our discussion and point counter point; rest in that the Lord will confirm His Will in this matter when sought.
The testimony of countless Saints is of the power given to women and The Church through obedience to uncut hair. (Keep in mind that many women and some ethnicities don’t grow extremely long hair, but the Lord honors the obedience to it being uncut.) The testimony of the Saints speaks for itself and cannot be debated. Examples: The Lords Glory falling in an international airport as a Saint is required to let her hair down for a sarcastic search. Healing bestowed upon the sick as a mother lays her uncut hair across her child. Doctors weeping as a woman lets her hair from of her bun while given a diagnosis. As Apostolics we need to be obedient to every good work, we are Gods separate and peculiar people.
On another note, our Women should maintain style, without compromising Holiness. Pictures of from the 1800’s showing women with long hair are a long cry from a UPC camp meeting where the women are beautiful through and through with style and with powerful moves of the Holy Ghost.
I am certainly not trying to debate the issue, nor would I have likely success against those who have done mind numbing research persuading themselves that the Church need not obey these scriptures (as meaning uncut). My intent is to simply testify of the power of uncut hair in my own families Christian walk.
May Hope Abound,
By: Joe on July 18, 2008
at 7:04 pm
Joe,
I apologize for the misunderstanding. So many have used verse 16 in the King James to try to undermine the preceding 15 verses, not understanding the meaning of Paul’s assertion. Though I haven’t been persuaded by the Holy Ghost either way on this issue of power from uncut hair, (my wife has long hair but she does trim it on occasion) I can understand your Scriptural stance on it. I posted this article because Brother Stoneking was being trashed (it was being implied that he was teaching witchcraft) by people with considerably less mileage in the Faith than he. I thought that was out of order and posted my opinion accordingly.
May God continue to Bless and Keep you in Jesus Name.
By: Ev. Duane Williams on July 18, 2008
at 7:52 pm
Joe, what a redemption post, really good comments on our faith. I too, am of the mindset it is not our call. The angels in heaven are chanting holy! holy! holy! for a specific reason. How can we decide less? My whole point in the matter is seek God; even if it takes weeks of fasting/prayer, know his will for it is of most importance.
I also, read early writings such as this link that gives first hand history very beneficial to our understanding scripture.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian27.html
By: lanis on July 18, 2008
at 8:23 pm
Duane, I want to stress, I am not coming down on your stance at all; God forbids me from doing such and I have too much respect for you and yours to be so blatant. I can only give as I have been given.
Daniel sent me two invitations to his forum, I declined as he surely don’t want me there with my convictions in which I live by wholeheartedly! I didn’t feel led of God to partake.
By: lanis on July 18, 2008
at 8:28 pm
Thank you
By: effochehawl on August 3, 2008
at 3:10 am
Duane, if the Web site you are referring to is holymagichair.com then I did not see anything on that site that made me think they were attacking Lee Stoneking personally. They were discussing the general doctrine of “magic hair.” They did make reference to a sermon that Lee Stoneking preached on the subject, but I didn’t get the impression that they were attacking him.
I haven’t read through the whole site, so maybe you’re speaking of an article that I haven’t read.
Regardless, I think that saints have a right to take a stand when incorrect doctrine is being taught. If they feel that a leader is drifting into false doctrine then they have every right to respond.
P.S. – The Scripture that says “rebuke not an elder” (1 Tim. 5:1) has to be read in context. In 1 Tim. 5:19 Paul makes it clear that it is OK to receive accusations against elders “before two or three witnesses.”
By: joshspiers on August 22, 2008
at 4:19 pm
“Regardless, I think that saints have a right to take a stand when incorrect doctrine is being taught. If they feel that a leader is drifting into false doctrine then they have every right to respond.”
Yes, they do have the right to respond directly to said leader in a private conversation, and not in a public arena to create a spectacle in front of believers and unbelievers alike. The True Church of Jesus Christ is being publicly embarrassed by those who would air this to the whole world without ever taking it straight to Brother Stoneking. The Lord requires us to first take the matter directly to those with whom we disagree, before ever letting anyone else in on it. This was not done in this instance and such is unethical and disrespectful.
By: Ev. Duane Williams on August 23, 2008
at 2:54 am
You are to make a open rebuke before all men. Read Proverbs 27:5. If what this man is teaching is truth than truth will prevail. If it is not then it will all to the ground.
By: Brian Foulks on August 23, 2008
at 8:17 am
1 Timothy 5
1Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
Matthew 18:15-17
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
By: Ev. Duane Williams on August 23, 2008
at 4:10 pm
Brother not to get int o scriptural sword play with you but the scripture your propose is based on personal offense of another brother not a doctrinal offense. When one subverts from text than Matthew 18 is throown out of the window. (See Galatians 2:11-14)
In that same chapter of timothy that you point out it clearly says that the same elder that you speak about should be openly rebuked before all.
Now what comes into play here is that we both stand on opposite sides of the fence on this doctrine. I see it as bad doctrine and error which is wrong and misleading to the people. So an open rebuke is needed and warranted. You on the other hand hold this man in high esteem and believe that this doctrine is valid.
His messages were spoken openly before men which would warrant a rebuke openly.Even the beloved Apostle John named Diotrephes in 3 John, and promised that when he came to that church he would publicly correct the offender in person.
By: Brian Foulks on August 23, 2008
at 10:51 pm
“You on the other hand hold this man in high esteem(TRUE) and believe that this doctrine is valid(FALSE). I do not hold this doctrine. My wife trims her hair and I don’t object. I hold to the doctrine of respecting your Elders, even when you think they are wrong.
1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
Is Bro. Stoneking committing sin? If so, are you and the rest of those casting stones at him without sin?
“and promised that when he came to that church he would publicly correct the offender in person.”
This has yet to be done in this instance. None of you “heresy hunters” have been man enough to say any of these things to Bro. Stoneking’s face either privately or in public.
No Scripture is ever “thrown out the window”. You and your colleagues took personal offense to Bro Stoneking’s message, and Matthew 18 applies perfectly. Now concerning Galatians 2, did Bro Stoneking preach one “hair” doctrine to one group and change it for another? Did he ever act with the type of hypocrisy that Bro Peter did in this instance?
By: Ev. Duane Williams on August 25, 2008
at 5:37 pm
Are you positive that no one has taken the opportunity to rebuke this brother in private. if he holdstothe same doctrine as you then he would feel he was above reproach. Here in lies the problem with that doctrine becasue it sets one above another. If I as a brother can not tell another he is wrong then where is the line in the sand drown. Next thing we will have is pastro tell parents that they need to give their daughters to the chruch so that the pastor can produce God centered children. That is a bit on the extreme side but this is the problem with these man dominated doctrines.
By: Brian Foulks on August 25, 2008
at 6:08 pm
“If I as a brother can not tell another he is wrong then where is the line in the sand drown. “
The line is drawn right where the Lord Jesus Christ drew it in Matthew 18. You can tell an Elder he is wrong. In private. That’s the respectful way to do it as opposed to plastering it all over the blogosphere.
By: Ev. Duane Williams on August 25, 2008
at 8:55 pm
Truth be told brother I never blasted the Stoneking. I just think he is wrong and will continue to alert people of this error and any other error I see. That is being a pastor.
Peace and Grace to you and your family.
By: Brian Foulks on August 26, 2008
at 12:31 pm
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 shaven, let her be covered.
I Corinthians 11:6
shorn-of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head
For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
I Corinthians 11:10
blueletterbible.org
By: Jeremy on April 9, 2009
at 3:07 pm