Headlines & Current Articles

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

McCulloch, STUPIANI & HOW!

Rudy Stupiani on CNN New Day
Partner In The Firm McCulloch, Stupiani & How!
The former Mayor of New York, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani better known as Rudy Guiliani or Rudy "STUPIANI" on this blog until further notice, not only inserted his foot in his mouth and ate crow with his over the top, ignorant and racist rant against Michael Eric Dyson over the weekend, but continued to display his complete arrogance and utter ignorance through cunningly and meticulously devised fables aimed at appealing to the White "power right" base which were eager to hear him lie, and deceive in effort to get Black people "told". 

Ooh it was easy for STUPIANI to do this because he had an audience ready to swallow his racist, ranting and insults. I mean paint the picture, Blacks in America are out of control...Blacks can't obey the law...Blacks kill one another at epidemic rates...all of which demands that White man, along with tax dollars, have to rescue the world from Blacks right? 

The Backdrop

Although I have already examined and determined that this IS "Open season" on Black men, (WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED WITH THE NON-INDICTMENT OF OFFICER DARREN WILSON) I wanted to take the time to say that STUPIANI'S words were especially poignant and displayed further contempt in light of the totally backwards, cartoon like, nightmarish, and bumbled Grand Jury efforts (if it can be called an effort at all) of the lead prosecutor of STL. County, Robert McCulloch who was sworn to protect the public's interest. 

Robert McCulloch
Although McCulloch has been hailed by his peers, especially them from New York, (would ya have guessed?) for his "top notch" handling of the case in such a "professional manner", one can easily see that his efforts were anything but top notch or professional. It can be readily known that anyone with a modicum of reasonableness can understand that the case, which was supposed to be on behalf of Michael Brown and his family, was destined for failure from day one, and would not see the light of day in a courtroom because the Prosecutor also, mysteriously, became the defense attorney playing both sides, focusing on discrediting witnesses that HE himself presented! LOL!!!!! Can you believe this???

I mean get this, the States Attorney's job is simply to present evidence detrimental to the defense and raise the level of interest and suspicion in order to at least secure a trial indictment. Instead, this cracker-jack box "prosecutor"  discredits his own witnesses, focuses on and supports the killer who said initially that he was struck 8 times by Michael Brown, only to reduce it to 2 times under oath, (without a single ORBITAL BLOWOUT FRACTURE!) focuses on ONE witness, Witness #10, who initially claimed that he/she saw "everything clearly" from "100 yards away" only to RECANT and modify that testimony, like Darren Wilson under oath in the Grand Jury room, claiming at that he saw everything clearly from "50 to 75 yards away" as opposed to his initial 100 yards away.  

Notables: 

1- Under oath officer Darren Wilson somehow either forgot about or lost 6 blows from his original statements, reducing the number of hits he supposedly received from Michael "the Hulk Hogan figure with demon eyes" Brown from 8 to 2.

2- Under oath Witness #10, although he can't remember too much, remembers that he somehow was closer than his original 100 yard distance, by some nearly 50 yards "clearly" seeing it all at least half a football field away...

3- Prosecutor McCulloch, for some strange reason only known to him, excludes all testimony that does not align with officer Darren Wilson's testimony and Witness #10's account. McCulloch even excludes and picks apart witness testimony that HE himself presented to the Grand Jury in "effort" to get the case thrown out...I mean an indictment. 

4- Prosecutor McCulloch then offers an impromptu defense of his affirmative defense of the person he was supposed to be prosecuting, all with a complete rationalization of why the case cannot continue, even claiming that some of the witnesses that he presented lied under oath without any repercussion...

If a LIFE had not been MURDERED in this ordeal, you could call McCulloch's handling of the case the COMEDY SHOW of the year, and give McCulloch an actor's guild award for his "attempt" to disguise his need to both handle the Michael Brown case differently than all others partly because it was a "police shooting", and play to his friends because it seems that the wealthy White authority and establishment has been used to doing what it wants to do in legal cases against Blacks in general and certainly so in this case! 


Then There's STUPIANI

The only thing worse than the deliberate attempt to play the public as ignorant by pretending to "protect" us through enslaving us through the misuse of laws and imprisonment, is the further deliberate attempt to, with malice, forethought and bogus information, paint the entire Black community as lawless, out of control and in need of a 'keeper" to keep us from all the evils that we consistently perform. This was and continues to be the essence of STUPIANI's assertion.

For some reason, STUPIANI has decided to take his case of lies, innuendo, half baked truths to the forefront of the debate over the racial injustice contained within the so called criminal justice system and the Michael Brown decision specifically.  Like an overzealous and unstudied evangelist, STUPIANI is inserting his foot in his mouth while at the same time growing a nose that Pinocchio would certainly be ashamed of. Here's an example: 

STUPIANI Myth #1:

On 11/25/14 on CNN New Day STUPIANI continued to recite, as he had done with Dyson on Meet The Press, that Black people are the number one threat to the lives of other Black people by stating:

"93% of Blacks killed are killed by other Blacks" 

In other words, STUPIANI is suggesting that since a White police killing a Black person is an "exceptional" event and out of the norm, we should be more worried about why Blacks are killing other Blacks instead of why a White police officer killed a Black teen...In other words, the entire argument over why Michael Brown is dead is over the top. 

What STUPIANI did not say...

What STUPIANI did not say, and did not expect us "out of control Black folk" to know, or research, is that that the same report (The 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report) to which he refers, also says, 

"84% of Whites killed are killed by White offenders" 

In other words, most White folk are killed at the hands of other White folk. 

The breakdown goes further to state that 14% of White victims are killed by Black offenders and 7.6% of Black victims are killed by White offenders. Why leave out such important information to place the statement in context? I think the answer is clear...STUPIANI, playing to his audience who want to justify the killing of Blacks for whatever reason, wants mis-information to shape actions, attitudes, fear and ultimately the behavior of his base. Who is his base? Mostly White America who has come to love and listen to the former Mayor who "helped us survive through terrorist attacks".  This is America's mayor and "he certainly can't be wrong" right???? Yea sure!

What else did STUPIANI fail to say? 

Well it seems that it only gets worse for STUPIANI from there. He also failed to mention that a ProPublica report entitled "Deadly Force In Black & White" states that current FBI statistics affirm that Black persons are 21 times more likely to be killed by the police than their White counterparts. The article referring to the report also says the following:
"There were 151 instances in which police noted that teens they had shot dead had been fleeing or resisting arrest at the time of the encounter. 67 percent of those killed in such circumstances were black. That disparity was even starker in the last couple of years: of the 15 teens shot fleeing arrest from 2010 to 2012, 14 were black.
Did police always list the circumstances of the killings? No, actually, there were many deadly shooting where the circumstances were listed as "undetermined." 77 percent of those killed in such instances were black." 
Ooh, one more thing...good ole New York HAS NOT FILED the fatal police shooting report from which this information can be obtained since 2007.  

STUPIANI Myth #2

The next and even more offensive assertion that STUPIANI makes is to present the complete fabrication that most murders, in fact 70% to 75%  of all murders, committed in NYC are committed by Blacks. He specifically states:
"The amount of crime within the Black community is excessive. 70 to 75% of the murders in New York City are committed by Blacks."
Now, one has to consider the source of such a comment. Are there numbers that support that Blacks are out of control murders, and that NYC is somehow an anomaly to the rest of the nation, factual? According to most reports, crime, based on sheer numbers, is equally shared both by Blacks and Whites. Blacks kill at no higher rates nationally than Whites. So where does STUPIANI get his insight from? 

Wouldn't you know that it comes from another New York White elitist...The former NYC police Commissioner Ray Kelly. A 2013 NY Daily News Online article sites Kelly defending his "stop and frisk" policy and stating:
“About 70% to 75% of the people described as committing violent crimes — assault, robbery, shootings, grand larceny — are described as being African-American.
...HOLD UP...

????? DID YOU SEE THAT ?????

Let me write it again:

STUPIANI says:  
"The amount of crime within the Black community is excessive. 70 to 75% of the murders in New York City are committed by Blacks."
Kelley, more than likely the source for STUPIANI'S statement said:
“About 70% to 75% of the people described as committing violent crimes — assault, robbery, shootings, grand larceny — are described as being African-American.
Now, PLEASE tell me you saw and understood that....STUPIANI refers to no source for his statements. In fact Kelly does not refer to a source either. Both simply throw something out. Only STUPIANI changes the statement from "violent crimes" to "murder", further accrediting Black folk for NYC's most devastating types of crime which is murder. 

Of a SURETY we know there are murderers both Black & White in NYC and everywhere for that matter, however, I find it hard to believe that murder would be down nearly 75% in NYC if it weren't for those murderous Black folk. I mean its like an Anti-Purge ("All Hail The New Founding Fathers" right???) 

What we have is a flat out LIE perpetuated on the public by a man who wants to be President so bad he can taste it and by one who simply loves all the attention that he can get. This is further embraced by racists and those who fear Black folk and have no clue about Black culture. For them, the Black family or individual living next door is despised, yet alone the one working with them in the workplace. 

STUPIANI says that he didn't make his statements out of a "racial motivation" but as a "FACTUAL" statement. This is why he earns and deserves the name STUPIANI! His whole "White Night" rant is beyond ridiculous. 

Conclusion, Case Closed!

Yes, America has a problem with both crime and enforcement. Out of all developed countries in the world, America imprisons more of its people than any other nation on earth. Many of those imprisoned are there because of mental health issues as well, which significantly adds to the overall prison population. We remain one of the only nations that imprisons its mentally ill by the droves. So yes, we have a problem, both with behavior and enforcement.

However, for STUPIANI, to say that the problems in NYC and in the country can be laid at the feet of Black people is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY over the top and cannot be borne out by examination of statistics or facts....

I know that there are some class 1 A racists that will read this and hate it even more, but get off your high horse and realize what we're dealing with is an unregenerate nature. It's called SIN and it is alive and kicking in the heart of men and mankind. As long as SIN exists man will need a savior. One things is for sure, people such as STUPIANI do not help and or add to the equation and those who support those like him and statements such as his are clueless and cannot offer a solution because they are blinded by self and hate. 

This Black man is proud to be Black and proud of my fellow Black & White friends who are actively part of the solution of this nations ills and bring it everyday to make a difference in the lives of all men and women. For the cause of CHRIST we continue to fight. We don't need to "pretend" that anyone's sins are greater than the other, for ALL sin stinks in the nostrils of God! 

Blessed!  

Read more!

Thursday, November 20, 2014

An Official COGIC Apology...Sad Day For The Church!

In addition to the statement that was released from the church regarding the 107th Annual Holy Convocation of the Church Of God In Christ, Presiding Bishop Blake decided to take things to an all new level or should I say and all new LOW for the "Grand Ole Church". This short excerpt from from the West Angeles Church service after the Convocation has more than burnt up the internet and especially facebook. The statement is resoundingly clear in uncovering what the Bishop was trying and endeavoring to do...Primarily: completely distance himself and the church both from anything that was said during Dr. Carter's message and anything that happened afterward by way of claimed deliverance by Andrew Caldwell, the person who's testimony is at the heart of the controversy.  

Bishop Blake read part of the initial statement and added some additional information for context. Here is the Bishop's statement: 

The Bishop's Assertions

Presiding Bishop Blake concluded that the speaker, Supt. Dr. Carter, had "used terms and spoke in a way that was offensive and inappropriate". To remind you, Dr. Carter called gay men "sissies", called the Bishops responsible for the proliferation of the gay agenda within the church by allowing them free reign, telling them that they were going to be held accountable for what they had allowed and called into judgement, and also at one point wished, that since gay men wanted to be women, that they would regularly "bleed from the butt" crudely referencing the monthly menstrual that a woman has as a sign of womanhood.  

Distance & More Distance In The Name Of The Church

In his address our Presiding Bishop further removed himself from any association with Dr. Carter's statements by additional disclaimer saying that he, Dr. Carter, was solely responsible for the message that he delivered. In other words, Bishop Blake says that neither he nor the church on any level are in agreement with or condones the message. 

Bishop Blake characterized the speaker's delivery in the following manner: 
"harsh, un-compassionate, disrespectful spirit, on the part of that speaker" 
So, for that, the Presiding Bishop thought it was apropos to apologize to the public. Then in line with even more apologies, Bishop Blake would further go on to apologize to Andrew Caldwell whom he called, "a young seeker for the Lord". It was Andrew Caldwell, who claimed deliverance from homosexuality. The Bishop apologized to him for the ridicule that he is enduring as a result of the event. 

After setting forth some ideas, Bishop began to read from the statement that the church initially delivered on their website. I outline some interesting variations from the original statement as you will note:  
Original statement: "Furthermore, the Church of God in Christ wholly condemns acts of violence against and the subjugation of any person to verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their sexual stance"
What he said: "The Church of God in Christ wholly condemns acts of violence against and the subjugation of any person to verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their sexual orientation or their sexual stance"
Now, I would like to know what that means. What is a "sexual stance" and what is the difference between it and a "sexual orientation"? Toward the end he also added:
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. God will judge us all. If you have a love for God, and if you love God's word you are welcome to West Angeles Church and you are welcome to the Church Of God In Christ. 
Since We Are In An Apologetic Mood...

#1:
Since we are apologizing or in an apologetic mood...I would like to know when our Presiding Bishop will apologize to me and the nearly 12,000 member churches and pastors for signing us on the section of the UDHR (Universal Declaration Of Human Rights) which affirms gay unions. May we remind the people that the UDHR is currently a document used to affirm gay unions and the rights of gay to marry all around the world? In fact this document is the pathway to gay rights as gay advocacy holds it, delivering gay rights to the gay community all over the world and the United States.  

#2:
Since we are in an apologetic mood...WHEN will COGIC apologize for the neglect of ALL the victims of clergy and church related sexual abuse? When will COGIC apologize for our church's failure to implement, create, or act upon a SOLID Victim's Advocacy plan? I mean it has only been about 7 to 8 years that I have been after the church about implementing a plan to address the fallout that victims and those who have survived sexual abuse have experienced within this church. In fact, I personally delivered a topical proposal into Presiding Bishop Blake's hands, in Joliet, IL. with a tentative agreement to personally meet with he and certain church representatives in STL. during the 106th Annual Holy Convocation (last year)...Well, that meeting NEVER happened. Is there an apology for either me or more importantly to the victims and survivors for our church's apparent failure to act since we have been so keenly made aware of the problems? 

Bishop Charles Brown
LA.
We are proud that we have planted flowers in STL, gave folk blankets and haircuts and even read books to children while we were there, but what about the terrible weeds that have been allowed to grow around our victims such as those stemming from the alleged perverted actions of a Bishop from Louisiana for example whom the church has never tried in adequate council. I could name many other places and persons. They are self evident and additional information thoroughly posted on ReportCOGICAbuse.com....Are we saying that "flowers" and cleaning up neighborhood garbage is more important that these souls that have survived one of the worst type of attacks from the enemy? 

In conjunction with that, I wonder and listened for additional apology to the church in general for waiting so long to openly address alleged clergy and member pedophiles and sexually immoral persons that use our name and our pulpits to take advantage of the sheep. We have NEVER apologized for the sexual immorality of former General Board Bishop JD Husband, yet alone anyone else. Do I need to remind you that the former elected leader of our church (JD Husband) was a gay pedophile that destroyed many individual lives under the cover of the Grand Ole Church? I know that some of those we need to apologize for have nothing to do with homosexuality, but relieving them (the offenders) from office or at least trying them in front of their accusers in an open and fair forum SHOULD be the standard. Now, shouldn't it? Yet from this Grand Ole Church there is only SILENCE? Why???

#3: 
To the issue of the message at the convocation, As our Bishop states, there were over 15 messages delivered. There was one delivered at a round-table banquet that Bishop Blake annually sponsors for COGIC Charities. The message at that banquet was delivered by a West Angeles member who openly affirms gays and their "right" to marry. I didn't hear an apology to anyone for allowing Earvin "Magic" Johnson to speak to folk who otherwise believe that what he affirms as OK, is condemned by the church. Although we certainly love Earvin, has he ever apologized for his support of gay inclusion in the face of our church's supposed teaching and "stance" on the issue? Did Earvin ever apologize for wanting Prop 8, overturned? Remember, Prop 8 was the gay marriage ban of CA. approved by the citizens of CA. I still remember what "Magic" said in his call:
"This is Magic Johnson calling to ask you to join me and Barack Obama in opposing Proposition 8. Prop 8 singles out one group of Californians to be treated differently - including members of our family, our friends, and our coworkers".... "That is not what California is about. So this Tuesday, vote no on Proposition 8. It is unfair and wrong. Thanks.
I know that's over, (yea right) and the courts of California overrode the will of the people and the legislative branch of the system of government and approved gay marriage, but did the church ever apologize for Earvin's support of gay marriage in any way especially since we are hailing him as a great leader among our ranks? 

It seems to me that IF there are going to be apologies issued, that some of them should be based on this and things like this that the church has allowed. 

#4:
The bible says:

2 Tim. 4:2 ~ Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Now, which and whose is a greater command or commendation? The command to preach the truth or the command of men, to preach something, nearly anything, that accommodates men and their desires? What should Carter have done? Cowered to public opinion, even that of the Presiding Bishop, and the world who doesn't care about the church or God anyway? Should there be an "apology" for a "harsh, un-compassionate, disrespectful spirit, on the part of that speaker" 

I wonder if how "harsh" and "un-compassionate" they thought Ezekiel was when he was commanded by God to deliver a message to Israel and their leaders while laying on his side eating cow manure mingled with certain food and wasting away?  I wonder would our church and those who agree with the Bishop's apology tell the prophet that he was being "harsh, un-compassionate, disrespectful spirit"? So it sounds like that  the "prophet" as Dr. Carter called himself, may need an apology as well, for being called names when his claim is that he was only delivering a message that he received from the Lord?

#5:
Further, I would like to know when, since a message is given or delivered under the rights of free speech in AMERICA, the land of the free, that the message needs to be apologized for. In a free and civil society when no threat was made a person, a group of individuals either based on religion, creed or anything else, would a church associate statements with 


"violence against and the subjugation of any person to verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their sexual stance."

It seems that an apology is in order for the violation of the guaranteed and protected right of free speech. Then, when I examine our church we find that this church has a history of people who have taken the church's largest stage and have either inadvertently or purposefully said something wrong. YET the statements and presentation of a preacher, delivering a message in the pulpit is apologized for??? WHAT IS THAT???

#6:
In addition, I would like to know why Bishop Blake felt a need to apologize to a person that claims that they need nothing from the church. Andrew Caldwell, like him or leave him, has not asked the church for anything to my knowledge but for a book sale, CD sale and prayers...Why is this church in the habit of apologizing to folk who are not asking for an apology, while overlooking those whom we should REALLY and SINCERELY apologize to? According to the Bishop, it was because we "think" we have arrived when we are criticized by a comic like Jimmy Kimmel? (whom I've NEVER watched nor considered a source of entertainment)

Conclusion:

We have been SOLD OUT for acceptance among the world. It seems that while we are trying our best to "mainstream" the church, because evidently we are ashamed of the message and witness to the world that the church delivers and has traditionally delivered, that we are steadily losing any power we have to facilitate change in this world. 

We cover up this circumstance with thoughts of "love" and "compassion" to the world, saying that a preacher's message was insensitive and that it does not represent the bible.
But what does represent the bible? Is HELL representative of the bible? I don't think there is a COGIC scholar that would object that it is. We all know that the bible says that God loves everyone and that he wants all to be saved. We all agree. However, we find that the loving and compassionate God (and he is those things without a doubt) yet provides a real, literal and eternal HELL to all them that don't repent. 

Now, is THAT message, of a real, literal and eternal HELL for the unrepentant  "harsh, un-compassionate," and of a "disrespectful spirit,"Maybe someone should take that up with God in heavenly council...Please tell him that what he sets forth is "harsh, un-compassionate, and of a disrespectful spirit"

Since we know that those who love sin, even bishops, pastors, leaders and a whole bunch of people will suffer judgement from their choice of evil....And since we know that the Presiding Bishop is NOT what the Pope is to Catholics...And since his words are NOT the final authority on anything, I REJECT the Bishops apology and entire reckoning of the event and reconcile that this church has sought to maintain its status within society over promoting and heeding to the true and real message of holiness. Certainly Carter was not and is not perfect. Without knowing him, I believe he would be the first to say such, but neither are the men that lead this church. If these men cannot apologize for the evident and abundant issues that are before them and that have been before them for years, then this apology can only be considered a joke or more political grandstanding. 

I certainly don't impugn the character of our Bishop, but I do simply say, THIS was wrong and a shameful approach to addressing issues of truth that so widely impact the quality of life for countless millions in the United States and in the world. If the church can only be relied on to be "nice" as the world counts niceness, then were is its real impact to this lost and dying world? 

Sad day for COGIC and for all my COGIC brethren and sisters.

Blessed!   

Read more!

Friday, November 14, 2014

Marc Lamont Hill's COGIC Examination: "Look at This Fxxxed Up Church"

The FALLOUT from preaching HOLINESS and condemning the sin of homosexuality has reached epic proportions and criticisms. Not only has the testimony of a man named "Andrew" been on late night TV shows, mocked and ridiculed by society, because he declared his "freedom" from homosexuality, but but in an interview conducted by Dr. Marc Lamont Hill of Huffington Post Live, Dr. Hill says that the criticism, which should have been leveled, should have been directed towards the church (Church Of God In Christ) instead of being directed towards the young man, by saying that under the right circumstance an examination that people should have been saying, 

"Look at this Fxxxed up church, instead of look at this fxxxed up kid" ~ Marc Lamont Hill (48:16 mark of video)

Although COGIC has tried to lay low, I know of no one in COGIC that has criticized the "kid" However, that has not stopped COGIC from playing the "good guy" role by placing all the "good things" that it has done and continues to do in society on top of and over everything that it does. Yet the "educated" elite and in some cases the not so educated, elite, pious, and worldly, have arisen to examine the church, its ministry and its service and criticizing the church as being patriarchal, misogynistic, hateful, full of brainwashed individuals and out of touch in the 21st Century. 

For anyone wanting to see the complete interview, they can go HERE

Before I get started I would like to say that the testimony of the young man named Andrew, whether authentic or not, is not the real issue. People lie in church all the time and from the looks of it the panelists can relate either by personal experience or observation to that truth. So those who choose to condemn and theorize conspiracy or that Andrew was not real, are free to do so. For me, my examination, the issue was always far beyond any individual testimony. The issue, in my opinion, was and has always been about freedom of the individual, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, censorship, the right to preach and teach the bible and fulfill the mission of holiness as outlined within the word. 

Further, what is of equally great concern, is the evolution of the nation's largest Pentecostal holiness church's biblical position as it pertains to homosexuality and how that position, among others, impacts the church's mission to the community. I wonder will the church cower to the world and its intimidation as represented by these panelists, or will it take an even more broad stand creating institutes and forums whereby gays and lesbians can be ministered to and converted and transformed from sin and sinful lifestyles?   

We Begin With TRUTH

TRUTH is the underlying issue of all things within society and life. This is why Jesus says that he is THE truth, not "a" truth. It seems that this is the first issue that clearly challenges modern society, and it was prevalent on this show. The question of truth exists for the non-religious and through the lens of religion and religious experience. Society instinctively knows that there is such a notion as the notion of truth. However, is truth a relative construct or is truth something that is absolute? Or is truth somewhere in-between the two? In the question of truth I refer to the ontology (or body) of truth, not truth in its semantics. Is there a fixed, set, and plain truth that exists apart from our ability to know it? Secondly, has God, if he exists at all, communicated that truth to us, and if so, what is our responsibility and relationship to the ontology of truth? Further, is biblical truth meant to be subject to societal norms or adjusted to meet what the world deems appropriate? Then finally, can sociological and anthropological studies authenticate or affirm the truth, religion and biblical or moral values? 

So far as the latter, clearly, these panelists seem to think so. In fact it appears that they think that religion and biblical values are the same thing. In addition, from their rhetoric, it seems that they believe that sociological and anthropological values, if there is such a thing, are barometers for what truth is or for what should be embraced, even if by failure of alternatives, within society. The implementation of objective truth and over arching life value propositions based on these sort of examinations falls on the sword of moral relativism and subjective truth values and other carnally inspired notions as I will outline. 

As I watched the panelists who sought to "do good" by evaluating both the actions and response of the church, the church leaders, and even the person with the testimony himself, I could see in each guest, some of whom I personally know, the epitome and over arching premise of moral relativism and morally relativistic values devoid of the benefit of and underpinning of objective moral value standards or standards and values not contrived by the human mind. 

That may seem deep, and I must say that depending upon the issue, moral relativism is not a bad thing out of hand. Not every value has an eternal or overarching premise attached to it. However, when dealing with issues such as how we live and eternal values that we should embrace for living, the well out of which one draws determines the outlook that one has. 

When pursuing overarching premises of truth, moral relativism falls flat on its face.  I will briefly outline why the notions of these panelists and many other sociologically inspired new wave church critics should be rejected as Paul rejected those with similar notions in his day. 

Changes Based On Society
Mal. 3:6 ~ For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The god of the morally relative culture is an ever changing god that seeks to be in step and in accord with humanity, the human will and desires for acceptance and relevance among men. Under a morally relative construct, there can be no truly objective, solid, truth or values and the values proposed as objective are merely constructs of one's own self will and desire. This realization creates a whole set of issues. The primary issue being that if their approach to truth,  and by truth I mean the greater ontology of truth and moral values, is correct then there is not and neither can be a such thing as ultimate and stable truth that reaches beyond society and adopted societal values and norms. Truth is then relegated to what "we say" it is, rather than what God says it is. In other words, we begin with our notions, as noble as they may be in some cases, and build and create our own god around them. the god that we embrace is never higher than our capacity and never beyond our understanding of him and his actions. Our relationship to that god is fulfilled in humanity and relegated to human centered and inspired moral conventions. 

Be careful as not to confuse the issue. We must have healthy, human relationships of a certainty. However, I am talking about the glue that holds it all together. The glue of moral relativism is at best flimsy and temporary. Whereas the glue of moral absolutism is stable and unchangeable. It is those values upon which a truly free society can be built, flourish and endure the tests of time. 

The Acceptance Of Sin Blinds Us To Truth   

Men believe, as the panelists expressed, that we are OK, just the way we are. The term be comfortable in one's own skin, is the theme song of the modern moral relativist. Who does this? Accepts sin? Certainly those who base their lives upon the bible cannot do this...Quite the contrary is true. There is no boundary for the acceptance of sin. Anyone and everyone at each end and in the middle of the socioeconomic and educational spectrum, participates in sin to a certain degree over time whether knowingly or unknowingly. What St. Augustine called or deemed "original sin" is the basis or the progenitor of this disease that causes us to trust "us", our "minds" and ultimately our "intellect" which is not out of hat subject to God, but subject to self, self will and fleshly governance. With the ever and ongoing weakness of man, the acceptance of sin proliferates to a new generation over and over again. 

To say these things to this newly enlightened crowd of examiners immediately evokes issues of condemnation, promoting self-loathing or self hatred. In other words "why believe that we have a problem to begin with?" and "The god that we have constructed loves us anyway and no matter who or what we are". "We are perfect the way we are". The fact of human perfection or our grand design in purpose is not in question for "we are fearfully and wonderfully created" (Ps. 139:14) The fact of loving and embracing ones self is also not in question. For this crowd, it does not understand how one can view themselves as defiled or dysfunctional and yet be still functional, capable and a contributing part of society. That is because the basis for their comparison is a comparison based upon the notions of a god created by man and not a man created by God. 

Secondly, that there must be a correct standard upon which life is built IS in question. For them, that "correct standard" should be in question for all men and mankind at all times. This further leads to the notion that the preaching of the gospel and biblically inspired truth continues to challenge in every society and that religion and religious values of truth are only inspired to serve the needs of the community and society and have very little to do with the authority of God. 

Fact: Man Is Lost

Whether accepted as a part of reality or not, the condition of "lost" exists. Man, by nature, and left to his own conventions, embraces and enjoins the condition of "lost" as is readily proven by his own inescapable desires of self  and self-will. Lost, is defined as a condition in which the soul of man is disjointed and out of union or harmony with his creator Sin is the only thing that brings about this condition and it does so from a theological standpoint through and by "unbelief". For if man cannot believe or be subject to his creator, then man is out of control while believing with all that he is, that he is in control or that he has a new answer. Thus the relationship of man to truth is revealed. 

But then there is another question. Has God revealed his truth and if so can it be known? Many of these do not believe that it can be known and they criticize anyone who claims to know it to any degree. Just as the guest panelists criticized Brandon Porter, even claiming that he was abusive because he spoke authoritatively on many aspects of the subject, they believe that no one, outside of their self-approved circles has the right to any authority, especially when that authority is contrary or contradicts what they believe. In addition, many of them believe that each one has his or her own path to the truth and that many experiences creates one's own version of the truth. It is there that moral relativism seeps in again.     


The fact is that If we can't know truth, then we cannot confidently condemn and or affirm anything. If that is the case, sociological and anthropological studies also mean nothing and can not help us determine the truth of anything or what should be done.  

The Lens

I believe that it was through the lens of obscure and relativistic truth propositions that the panelists spoke, examined and further condemned the Church Of God In Christ and the "kid" who gave his testimony himself. It was the lens of the anthropologically defined, socially relative truth and value proposition secular humanism that displayed its character. As I examined the panelists and their assent to futility of intellectual understanding on the nature of sin and the damage that sin does within society, I understood why the claim of "brainwashing" was an option of the homosexual advocate. He espoused the zeal of condemnation and trivialization of closely held objective moral value standards which were minimized as being un-essential within society and within church. The lack of understanding that  truth exists beyond the intellect was the basis of the claim that the church was embracing "hatred of women", a position espoused by a very long-winded guest panelist on this show. This was and element and basis of Marc Lamont Hill's "condemnation" of the church itself as he said he watched the video and was enraged by what he saw.   

Message To Dr. Hill

Dr. Hill, The FACT is that Truth can be known. If it can't then all we have are opinions and yours is certainly no better than mine or anyone else's. In fact, if you are right, even the most vile opinions among us are equally as valid and noteworthy as any. In other words, if truth can't be known then the whole world is a contradiction. 

One would say, what did any of the panelists say about truth on the show? They were simply critiquing a church and it's approach to culturally relevant and sensitive issues. That certainly was the case, but TRUTH propositions were the basis for their entire critique. In other words, who and what should we believe? 

Should we believe the socially and anthropologically inspired truth of human values set forth by the guests, or should we aspire to believe a higher set of values and standards that are far more reaching in their application?

To me, the answer leads to the heart of the matter. For whatever reason GOD sent the message condemning homosexual sin. No matter what could have been talked about, homosexual sin, which damages society and has an effect on families and the community in general, was the focus of that particular night's message. Ferguson, MO. could have been preached, but it wasn't. In fact climate change in Australia could have been preached, but it too was left untouched!

The SIN of homosexuality was preached and as such I can call it a sin based on its face. That is prima-facie, homosexuality, like all sins, is a PERVERSION of truth. The fact that none of us would be here if homosexuality was the norm and unobstructed way of relationships, is overwhelmingly evident. You may call it hetero-sexism to stand against homosexuality in favor of heterosexual unions, but without a normal relationships, in which procreation occurs, humanity does not continue to exist unless everyone becomes a product of artificial insemination.

Message To The Panelists

For ANYONE to preach against the SIN of homosexuality is not a message of patriarchalism, self-hatred, hatred of women or hatred of effeminence, and certainly not a message of mind-control. It is a message reaffirming the order and regularity that we observe in this world. That order is the recognition that gender differences and a clear delineation between genders is how species continue and that is hardwired into the human species and every other species that continues to exist on earth. It is a message based upon the truth of ALL that we know. 

To cause individuals to recognize the message of order, even in relationships, has nothing to do with shame or abuse. If that is the case, you cannot possibly believe in much that is written in the gospels and or the New Testament itself. Therefore, I find your positions not only unreasonable, but unauthentic IF you say that you are believers. In addition, any message that does not recognize the flaw of alternatives to truth, no matter what those alternatives and perversions may be, does not reach beyond a person's decisions to embrace such things in an attempt to seek normalacy in the world, and it certainly does not uplift hearts seeking to embrace and solving the real issues of life.  

It is for those persons attempting to find normalcy in this world, that the Church exists to reach and teach, and as such, it can only do so as it exists in and as it promotes TRUTH or overarching moral value propositions.

Conclusion

For our "educated" community to criticize something that you know only by books and by fleeting experience does not speak well of you and neither does it secure any of our futures if discerning truth for the masses it is left up to you. For those who cannot perceive foundational elements of truth are not positioned to help change society, yet alone change a church, whose foundation and value premise is on a much higher plane than the plane of subjective, relative, and socially inspired values and moral value propositions, such as those espoused on this show. 

Filled with all the problems that it may have the CHURCH is NOT "fxxxed up" as you said that we should be saying. The church remains God's entity on earth that is designed for the purpose of not making men feel good, but for transforming minds and futures to vessels that can be blessed and used by a real God. 

I am not confused on the issues and what the critique of the panel was really about in this case. The discussion was about a world-view by which man either lives or is condemned. Words happen all the time, but words, as sad as they may be, do not offer a sweeping condemnation of anyone being "fxxxed up" as Dr. Hill said. At the most, I am saddened by the heartless opinions and spineless inaction of the panelists themselves in not standing for freedom and choice of both the church, the preacher and the one receiving the word and exercising his faith. 

It is my desire that all these guests seek truth and the basis for truth before embarking upon such openly blatant and demeaning conversation regarding an institution that has helped shape many families of all nationalities all around the world, giving hope and inspiration to sinners who convert from all forms of life and lifestyle, including those who have converted from homosexuality. It is from the basis of TRUTH that I hope that all Christian churches and the Church Of God In Christ in its mission to the world, continues to speak to this world and its inhabitants.      

1 Cor. 3:18-23 ~  18-Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.19-For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20-And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21-Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;22-Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23-And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

Blessed!

Read more!

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Nations Largest Pentecostal Holiness Church DISTANCES Itself From Deliverance From Homosexuality



Well, this is something that you don't see everyday Chauncey!

When Dr. Earl Carter preached at the 107th annual Holy Convocation, he did 2 things. First he called the homosexual, participating in the church, a "sissy" and said that they need to be delivered. This is not unusual. The late former presiding Bishop LH Ford called homosexuals "sissies" regularly. In fact a HOST of Sr. bishops can be heard referencing homosexuals in the same manner. Some even calling them what the bible calls them, effeminate, or Sodomites (both of which the liberal religious crowd try to reject)

Secondly, somebody came up and "claimed" to have gotten delivered as a result. A young man who declared that he was "delivered" and that he "loved women" admitted the error of his former homosexual lifestyle and not only he but many others came forth seeking to be free and seeking deliverance. Whether his claim was true or not, remains to be seen, but it seems that COGIC...Yes, the Grand Ole Church...is anything but glad to be associated with either happening. 

It seems that MY church (LORD HAVE MERCY) has released the following statement on the whole issue and a video which they refuse to advertise on their website...in other words they are engaging in CENSORSHIP and SUPPRESSION of speech and freedom of expression...then, more importantly, contorting themselves to the culture. Nevertheless, here is what they said:

****************************************************************

Statement on Video Airing From 107th Holy Convocation


Church of God in Christ PR
pr@cogic.org
www.cogic.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Church of God in Christ
Statement on Video Airing From 107th Holy Convocation

During the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) 107th Holy Convocation in St. Louis, MO, November 3-11, 2014, many tremendous things occurred that demonstrated the church’s love for community and for the whole man. 
Through a number of COGIC Cares initiatives, the St. Louis and metro east communities were helped in some of the following ways:
  • During our Health Fair and Job Fair, hundreds received free healthcare services while many unemployed attendees were able to network with St. Louis employers;
  • 5,000 people received assistance in the form of food, clothing, blankets, toys, haircuts and medical check-ups at our Christmas in November event on Saturday, November 8, 2014;
  • Members of our denomination dispersed within the North St. Louis Fourth Ward community to provide cleanup assistance to blighted areas; and
  • Several COGIC leaders visited a St. Louis Public School to conduct “a day of reading” among elementary school children.
Since 2010, when the Church of God in Christ Holy Convocation moved from Memphis, TN to St. Louis, the economic impact to the bi-state, metropolitan area has been over $120 million.
As a Pentecostal, Bible-believing organization, our goal is to edify and care for the entire individual, both naturally and spiritually. Thus, during the convocation:
  • 559 individuals committed their lives to Christ;
  • 97 individuals re-dedicated their lives to Christ;
  • 224 Christians were filled with the Holy Spirit, according to (Acts 2:4); and
  • 227 individuals received divine deliverance from a number of afflictions.
A video, which is now viral, of a young man stating his deliverance from a particular lifestyle does not, in any capacity, speak to all of the remarkable things that transpired during this great church convention.  
We believe that we should reflect the love and compassion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in all that we do.  We do not in any way compromise our biblical position against same sex unions or in favor of biblical teaching on matters of sexual conduct.  At the same time we expect that our clergy and laity will be civil and considerate as they speak to men and women regarding issues related to our Christian faith.  We love all people, regardless of their faith or moral standards.  When we fail to express ourselves with love and humility we contradict our witness to the world.
Furthermore, the Church of God in Christ wholly condemns acts of violence against and the subjugation of any person to verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their sexual stance. Such actions violate entirely the Christian’s obligation to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
The Church of God in Christ will have no further comment on this matter.

******************************************************

Now, THAT was interesting! First to call homosexuality "a particular lifestyle" is an UNDERSTATEMENT. In fact why even do that. Simply say what the young man said he was delivered from. He said he was delivered from being GAY...not delivered from a"particular lifestyle"! Then to say that his deliverance is not a "reflection" of all the wonderful things that happened during the week...ARE YOU SERIOUS?

The man said that he was delivered from a SIN that has swept the nation, changing laws and uprooting the will of the people in nearly every state through the judiciary and by the promotion of a President who affirms gay as being "normal" and gay relationships as "just as admirable as heterosexual relationships" 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

Get this COGIC PR team...by the very fact of your statement you have COMPROMISED you biblical position. That is a FACT!

In addition, to call out SIN in no way displays a lack of love. In fact to call out sin is the highest display of love considering the backlash and the resistance that will be obtained as a result. To do what you do in placating the sins of a generation and seeking to conform to this world not only insults God, it is an affront to HIS nature and being as a HOLY GOD! Further is is an absolute departure to the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints through and by the ministry of the late Bishop CH Mason. 

If we love all people regardless of their moral standards, we are doing more than Christ did himself. God has no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, he will destroy them because of their acts and actions:

Ps. 154:20 ~ The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

Nahum 1:3 ~ The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

God says that he "hates" a proud look.(Prov.6:16-17) This is a lifestyle that is contrary to God and his nature. Yet he never separates the sin and what he hates from the person. In fact, in the New Testament, both James 1:6 and 1 Pet. 1:5 says that God "resists" the proud. The word "resist" is the Gk word ἀντιτάσσομαι or "antitassó" which is a military term that means "to rage in battle against or to set one's self against" In other words, God FIGHTS against the proud and those with no humility and who live a lifestyle contrary to himself. 


Now, is this God not the SAME God who came to seek and to save that which was lost? Is this God not the same God who "loved the world that he gave" to save it? To suggest that there is ANY difference between this God and the God of the Old Testament, and the God that Peter believed upon when he condemned Ananias and Sapphira to DEATH (Acts 5),  or when Paul turned one over to satan for the "destruction of his flesh" (1 Cor. 5:5) is to suggest that the bible can be thrown out as a guide for rule and practice of the believer and the church, and has nothing to do with revealing the nature of God. This will NOT happen. 

But if I was ever ashamed of my church, in addition to the SHAME of it not serving victims by victims advocacy and the implementation of victim's rights, I am ASHAMED in this! I am ashamed of a communistic approach to a church within a free society. The reflections of a "Presidium" and the implications of that word which suggest state control, are in full effect within your statement.  

I find that you, in releasing this shoddy statement, are in violation of both your obligation to God and men by holding the truth in unrighteousness! 

Sad day for our church everywhere that it should release such a statement and to hold such a pitiful position!

I AM Blessed!

Read more!

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Lion Hath Roared! Reflections Of The COGIC 107th Annual Holy Convocation

Amos 3:8 ~ The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?

New, New, New 
Can You Ride A Donkey Pt. 1 ~ Supt. Earl Carter
Can You Ride A Donkey Pt. 2 ~ Supt. Earl Carter
New, New, New

Normally, I do an article prior to the annual Holy Convocation of the Church Of God In Christ outlining some points of interest and some fairly hot issues that the Saints, in general, should or could address in their largest annual meeting of the year.  

Since 2007 it has been the mission of this ministry to shine a bright light on the issues of sexual abuse and the lack of effort of the church, and more specifically the Church Of God In Christ in providing any respite, healing or reparation to victims of sexual abuse and church related abuse other than opening a checkbook, and implementing gag orders.  

Fast Forward

Not to labor on any ongoing or current efforts by me or this ministry, through I Am My Brother's Keeper Christian Advocacy Council, this year I want to note that God, being the God that he is, sent his word through another vessel, calling the church's attention to issues of integrity, morality and sexual purity within the church at higher levels. 

For those of us Bishops, Pastors, and Elders who were present last year at the 106th Annual Holy Convocation, we remember that it was Larry Stockstill through his book, "The Remnant; Restoring The Call to Personal Integrity" [Charisma House 2008] who was invited to speak to thousands of us delivering a simple message of restoration in the areas of sexual relationships and integrity within ministry in general. 
Supt. Dr. E. Carter
"How many Convocations you need before you get delivered? How many notes you need to take? How many prayer meetings?"  ~ Supt. Dr. Earl Carter 11/9/2014 COGIC Holy Convocation
This year the message of "Can You Ride A Donkey" (I gave it that name) and "get right church" came even closer and was more pronounced through a message delivered by Supt. Earl Carter who was the highlight speaker Saturday night Nov. 9th.  For your reference and as of this writing, Dr. Carter's message IS NOT available for download at OneCOGIC.org which provides instant messages of all of those who spoke at the Holy Convocation...(In other words, you will not find Dr. Carter's message on the COGIC site)

Nevertheless, Dr. Carter took the time to outline some of the problems associated with disintegrating values towards holiness and personal accountability focusing on the modern acceptance of homosexuality and other forms of sexual impurity among those of us who have been called out of darkness and into HIS light that serve within the church. Yes, his message certainly was for all, but it was specifically directed towards COGIC and COGIC leaders and leadership. 

Dr. Carter exclaimed that some preachers are no more than "Candy-men" trying to "make the world taste good" (a takeoff on a an early 70's Sammy Davis Jr. hit song) by dressing up the acceptance of homosexuality and sexual immorality within the church under the guise of love, care and concern. Further, Dr. Carter stated that too many preachers within our church have lost their integrity due to financial kickback and perks such as cars, houses and church salaries asking "how much is that pastor in the window?" (a takeoff on the old song, "How much is that doggy in the window?" sang by the late Patti Page) and stating that even though some pastors can ride in the finest of automobiles and off of accounts set up by the church for them to live, can they "ride a donkey?" like the Lord did when he triumphed over sin.  

In all Dr. Carter's message resonated with many due to his boldness in addressing serious issues that are normally left unspoken during the church's largest annual meeting. Even though COGIC may have scrubbed the message, one can click the above links or go HERE and HERE for the FREE audio of Dr. Carter's message and judge for one's self the effectiveness and depth of the word and whether or not he should have said what he said.   

To The Detractors

It is amazing to me to see the dissent or cognitive dissidence of people when the truth is preached. There will always be some who don't like the message or what is said but this message came with a whole host of controversy. First, the message is and was controversial for at least 4 primary reasons as I assess them:
1- Because the message was directed at and towards clergy it is claimed that it was disrespectful, after all, the clergy are "God's business" to handle right?
2- Because the message was directed in a pronounced manner towards homosexuals and homosexual sin so strongly it is claimed that it was bigoted and hate speech, especially calling folk "sissies"
3- Because some say that because it didn't go far enough calling out all "COGIC sins", that it was a waste of time, and merely a way to get attention. 
4- Then finally, because some say that it (the message) will not be accepted that it will not effect change (as the critic critically asserts) it should have been kept to itself. 
All I can say to these and other criticism is WHATEVER! NONE of those things are reasons to not pronounce or set forth the truth among men and or mankind. In fact we are called to preach the truth because of those instances and thoughts, not in spite of them.  

Then there are other so called concerns. They are the concerns of the "seeker sensitive" crowd, who have no understanding of the teaching of holiness or the method of teaching and preaching holiness, as outlined within the bible, and why the true gospel message and method is different than other message and methods embraced within society. The seeker sensitives would probably say, "What would Jesus have said or done?" This comes with the assumption that Jesus would have taken a much more measured, compassionate, and subdued approach in telling the truth. 

I beg to differ greatly...The Jesus of scripture was anything but a Jesus that conformed to the standards of care of this world...Here are some examples of what I mean:

  • Jesus called those who judge unjustly "hypocrites" (Mt 7:5) and workers of hypocrisy (Lk. 12:1
  • Jesus called detractors such as the Sadducee and Pharisees and other such religious elites, hypocrites (Mt. 16:3, 22:18, 23:13, 14, 15, 23,25,27,29.; Mk. 7:6; Lk.12:56)
  • Jesus called the Sadducee and Pharisees a "wicked and adulterous generation" (Mt. 16:4
  • Jesus called many of the same religious leaders vipers (Mt. 3:7)
  • Jesus called many religious leaders a "brood" (or offspring) of vipers (or devils) (Mt. 12:34)
  • Jesus called the followers of Pharisaic "hypocrites", "twofold children of hell" (Mt. 23:15)
  • Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees, the religious and social leaders of his day, liars and bearers of false witness, even at one point claiming that their "father" was the devil himself (John 8:44) based not on their nationality or race, but on their acts and what was coming from their hearts through their actions and acts. 
  • Jesus beat the money changers out of the temple on at least 2 occasions (John 2:15, Mk. 11:15. Mt. 21:12)...Was this a calm, casual, love and accept anything Jesus? Or was this a righteously indignant Jesus indignant because of the sin and abuse of the people?
  • Jesus chastises Peter, right after commending him for his spiritual insight, calling him satan (Mk. 8:33, Mt. 16:23,)
  • Jesus called people who were "seeking" him, unfit for his service because they wanted to go home and address their families (Lk. 9:62
So the question of "What would Jesus say?" or that Jesus would have been "more kind and compassionate" is kind of settled since Jesus didn't mince words but called things, situations and people as they really were in spite of individual and or group feelings on the issues. Agreement with his assessment or with truth was not an issue for the truth; meaning that one did not have to agree with what was said for the truth to be told and for truth to be effective.

In addition, I find it the most irrational criticism to say that telling the truth was senseless or useless. In other words, because some "may not change, don't tell the truth"??? that is a silly notion that has no practicality in preaching the gospel. To question the messenger as one who is simply seeking attention, is about as STUPID as one can get...There are all kinds of ways to get attention other than preaching a message with such a deep and riveting impact such as this one. 

In short, the attitude of the detractors in dissent, whatever that dissent may be based upon, is not a compelling reason to deny the effectiveness of what was said, preached and delivered not only to the church, but to the world through this message. The fact that those entangled with the world is a sure sign that the message was sent from God, because the world does not understand, love or want Jesus as long as they want their idolatry too.  

The TRUTH Shall Make You Free (Jn. 8:32)

Ezekiel 33: 7- 9 ~ 7-“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 8-When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for a their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 9-But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.



At least 2 places in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 3:16-19 and 33:7-9)  the prophet emphatically warns the preacher to warn the sinner of his sins and if the sinner repented that a soul would be saved. The prophet also warned that if one did not warn, the sinner would die in his sins, but the blood of them lost would be on the prophets hands. In other words, the forth-telling of God's word includes warning to the sinner of both their sins and the consequences of their sins. 

The interesting thing is that the world is so morally weak, that it cannot take correction and or truth and screams, like the devils that many of them are controlled by, when the anointing truly happens and is sent to address and deliver them from their sins. 

I find that only them that love their sins, were offended by Dr. Carter's message. Did he go far enough? YES! He went as far as god allowed him to go. To question otherwise relegates the pulpit to an instrument of men rather than the edict or sacred desk of God. People questioning whether he said enough question whether God is God and whether he can speak to HIS people as he deems. 

Sinners, or those who practice sin, can repent only when there is truth and that truth has struck its target. We are in need of mass restoration in this church and the Christian community in general. Only TRUTH will make the sinner repent and we saw shades of that repentance that night. 

Conclusion & Commission

As to why others haven't spoken so boldly...First, we don't know that they haven't. Plenty of others have told the unadulterated truth at each and every opportunity, some without the benefit of being broadcast in a setting such as the Holy Convocation. However, we know others haven't been so bold. To that I would suggest that maybe they weren't commissioned as Dr. Carter was. Who knows the mind and God and why he uses who he uses when he uses them? All we can do is be ready and hear what God is saying, for in that we do save our souls and the souls of countless of them that are counting on us as a source for truth, inspiration and encouragement in the Lord.
No matter how the message came, I am wondering will we hear what the message is saying? Forget the vessel for a minute. What about the truth? The fact is that HOLINESS is right and that when we stand before God, we shall all give an account for the things done in our body (Heb. 14:3, 2 Cor. 5:10) After all the debate, what will we do with that? Shall we stand in righteousness or cower in obscurity? That is the question.     

Rev. 2:7 ~  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.


Blessed!

Read more!