Quote:
Originally Posted by triumphant1
I can't help myself….I must weigh in….
The thing that doesn't reconcile is exactly what RRH put in her HMH book. That if the wife doesn't cut her hair, the angels protect her family and marriage. She then validated this by telling a story of a PREACHER's wife who secretly cut her hair--thus removing the protection--and caused her husband to have an affair. According to Rieder/Harvey's book, the cut hair WAS responsible for the adultery in the home.
Those who espouse the Holy Uncut Hair doctrine continue to propagate this "angelic protection" doctrine as a means of maintaining the uncut hair standard through fear and manipulation.
LS propagates this and has done so in most of the churches he has preached in over the last 10 years. I would assume that the Memphis church is no exception.
Rolling the tape forward…there has never been an explanation by RRH as to how HER FIRST HUSBAND could of had AN AFFAIR while she maintained the uncut hair protective order against the wiles of the devil in her home. She is the one who propagated the doctrine--yet the doctrine did not work to protect her own marriage.
The same question is obviously being asked by some in the debate circles concerning this circumstance. LS is a RRH proponent and is a preacher of the "angelic protection because of uncut hair" doctrine. He also preached every year in this particular church. How then did TB have an affair if his wife, and other women in the church, were providing an angelic protective order against it?
That is what those who preach the uncut hair protection doctrine need to reconcile and what those who don't preach it want answered.
As for Bro. Black…I personally believe in restoration and sincerely pray he finds both accountability and restoration in his ministry.
|
Ha! You make an excellent point!
I don't know who he had an affair with, don't want to know because my observations from the past that the majority of OP men had affairs with women who cut their hair and wore makeup and slacks. Quite the opposite of what they say that they believe a woman 'ought' to look.
Ya know, I've never even heard of HMH until I came on these forums. I've gotta post what I have been refraining from posting. This HMH stuff sounds like a fairy tale that some church leadership is demanding grown, adult supposedly sensible people to believe! You know like...Repunzle. They take a couple verses from the entire bible and blow it up in a doctrine all it's own and make it more important that the shed blood of Christ.
I am glad that God identifies his people by the blood covering of Jesus Christ, not because of the physical appearance of men and women.
Threaded Mode
