 |
| Elder D. L. Foster GCMWatch.com |
"I'm still calling on Bishop Charles Blake to undo the incalculable damage he has done and repudiate COGIC's involvement in the ungodly UDHR. The Church should NEVER partner with demons to do the work of the Lord. Bishop Blake caused great harm to come to the church by the partnership. Bishop Mason brought us out from among them and Bishop Blake is taking us back in." ~ Elder D.L. Foster
In 2008 The Presiding Bishop of The Church Of God In Christ, Bishop Charles E. Blake, vicariously ascribed over 12,000 member churches to the endorsement of the United Nations document called The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. As I have stated in previous posts, that endorsement seemed to be church leadership's way of joining with the "human rights" movement that is seemingly sweeping the nation and the world under the guise of making the world a better and more humane place to live and ultimately relieving oppression where oppression exists. There is nothing wrong with wanting relief from oppression, but please read on, because there are quite a few things wrong with this.
 |
| Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake Church Of God In Christ Inc. |
There were a number of problems with the Bishop's endorsement of this document, not to mention that it (the endorsement) was both presented and approved retroactively by the general church and that was done under the auspences that the church needed to galvanize because it was under an internet attack primarily promoted by Elder D. L. Foster and GCMWatch.com.
The real problem however, was that the same document endorsed by a Pentecostal/Holiness leader was being used to promote homosexual rights and most specifically the proposed right of homosexual marital recognition. A Church Of God In Christ endorsement of this document brought the church to quite an uncomfortable if not flat out contradictory position of endorsing something publicaly that it also holds a specific and public position against.
Now, in 2011, without a doubt, and with the approval of the majority member nations, the United Nations considers that document (the UDHR) to be a firm standard exalting the struggle for homosexual marriage to the level of a "human right" that member nations and ascribees are compelled to rally around and in favor of if they truly endorse the document.
The Warning & The Excuse
This conundrum that the church now faces did not go without ample and thorough warning. Upon hearing the news of Bishop Blake's endorsement, vicariously aligning all member churches, including my own, with this decision, there was a campaign to warn him and the church against what has proven to be a very bad decision. Elder D. L. Foster led the charge calling to question the moves taken by Bishop Blake. Those posts can be found HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.
Let's reexamine some of the reasons that were given to overlook the warnings that were raised regarding this document and its use to promote the homosexual agenda (from my previous post "Are 'Human Rights', Gay Rights?"):
The Apologists
When explaining his involvement in the 2008 trip delivering Bishop Blake's endorsement, Dr. David Hall responded partially as follows:
Dr. David A Hall ~ Presiding Bishop’s Emmissary to the Editor/Publisher of Whole Truth Magazine CEO of COGIC Publishing House
"The Hague group had no other agenda than the signing of a declaration that would speak to religious organizations and inspire them to decisively eliminate those fanatical influences over their practitioners. Religion must never be used as a source for intolerance, hatred, and terror."..." The writer (Referring To GCMWatch) erroneously said the human rights document was about gay rights and gay marriage. Read the document for yourself! There is not one line explicitly or implicitly mentioning gay marriage or gay rights. gay rights." pg. 15
"With God as my witness, not one person spoke about homosexuality and its issues. In fact to my knowledge I never saw one item with a homosexual emphasis." pg. 16
Now we know that the document did not need to specifically mention homosexual marriage to inspire and support homosexual marriage. We also know now that the document will be used from this point forward as a support in the struggle for homosexual marriage and the establishment of laws all over the world to affirm homosexual marriage.
The Reverend Oscar Owens ~Director of Christian Education West Angeles COGIC
"Bishop Blake’s endorsement of “the Faith in Human Rights” statement is not an endorsement of gay marriage, absolutely not! The “Faith in Human Rights” document does not refer to gay marriage or gay rights at all, implicitly or explicitly. It does not imply an affirmation of gay marriage, not at all. The “Faith in Human Rights” document was developed to bring world religious leaders together to affirm the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights which was written 60 years ago." -pg.17
"In 1948, gay marriage was not part of the conversation; on the contrary, this was the time of the affirmation of the traditional, nuclear family in America." -pg. 17
"Furthermore, the document that Bishop Blake is a signatory to is the “Faith in Human Rights” document. Neither does the “Faith in Human Rights” document refer to or affirm gay marriage." -pg. 18
In 2011 gay marriage IS part of the conversation of what constitutes a human right. In 2008 the Document was being used by all parties to conclude that gay marriage was a human rights issue. Reading the words of the document caused these men to misread what the document was saying and what the document meant and they did so in an evangelistic manner, only their evangelism wasn't for truth but for the lie of humanism.
The Reverend Eugene Rivers ~Senior Advisor to the Presiding Bishop
"The Church of God in Christ does not endorse, support or in any way affirm any religion, any spiritual beliefs or positions that are not in accordance with biblical Christianity. In signing the Faith in Human Rights declaration we in no way enter a religious union with any religion or spiritual teaching which is contrary to biblical standards. We nevertheless believe that in the proper context interfaith dialogue that can promote justice and freedom for the oppressed and poor is important for us as Christians who are called to live in the world, even as we are not of the world. (Matt 25:31-46)." pg. 19
"Therefore for the Christian homosexual marriage is not a human right, nor a morally and legally sanctioned entitlement. Sexual preferences do not constitute rights...pg. 20
"The Church of God in Christ supports human rights: all humans, as God’s creation, are entitled to adequate education and healthcare, a living wage, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, democracy, life, liberty, freedom from slavery, security, right to own property, the right to vote….But gay marriage is not a human right; it is a preference. Sexual orientation is specifically not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding marriage and family."-Pg. 20
"And nothing in the Universal Declaration or in the Faith in Human Rights Statement supports gay marriage. By endorsing the statement we affirmed what the Civil Rights Movement affirmed, what America affirms, and what the gospel of Jesus Christ affirms: life and liberty, healthcare and education, a living wage and freedom of speech." pg. 21
Although homosexual marriage may not be a human right for the "Christian" it is now a human right according to the UDHR and all statements attached to it. Once again, reading the document without reading its meaning and what the document was used for, has led us to an ultimate contradiction. A contradiction based on what we desire to affirm as right actions and behavior and who we align ourselves with in the process.
Dr. Paul Alexander, Ph. D. ~Professor, Theology and Ethics Director, Doctor of Ministry Program The Haggard Graduate School of Theology Azusa-Pacific University
"Gay marriage is not a human right." -pg. 21
"I support human rights – education, healthcare, a living wage, freedom of assembly, democracy, life, liberty, freedom from slavery, security, right to own property, the right to vote…. But gay marriage is not a human right. Sexual orientation is specifically not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding marriage and family."-pg. 21
"As Christians, we believe that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and should be protected. As a Christian, I do not support gay marriage. And NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OR IN THE FAITH IN HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENT SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE. By endorsing the statement we affirmed what the Civil Rights Movement affirmed, what America affirms, and what the gospel of Jesus Christ affirms: life and liberty, healthcare and education, a living wage and freedom of speech." -pg. 21
Reading these statements it becomes evidently clear that none of these men understood the use of the UDHR neither in 2008 nor in 2009 when this finally came to light and was addressed. It is painfully clear that one cannot make the UDHR mean something other than it is meant to mean. The document is defined by those who wrote it, those who handle it those who promote it, and those who amend it. It is now clear that the document, by majority decision of member nations means what it says and can be firmly used to support arguments for gay marriage.
The UDHR, that Bishop Blake endorsed in 2008 and that was approved by COGIC at large in 2009 endorses among other things, gay marriage specifically stating that it (gay marriage) is a human right.
Will Bishop Charles E. Blake and the Church Of God In Christ Inc. Memphis, TN, finally withdraw the national church endorsement from this document? It remains to be seen, but I for one, join with Elder D. L. Foster in calling for Bishop Blake to undo the damage done to this church, by being aligned with a document that only strengthens the homosexual rights agenda. This document is now a clear basis for the promotion of what scripture defines as an abomination.
This Elder can only hope that our leadership will respond in the most reasonable manner possible, withdrawing the document, while affirming human rights that are Christ centered.
Blessed!
I hope that our COGIC leadership will get a hold of this and follow suit. We have never needed to unify with anyone to uphold the biblical and godly standards of human rights. We were doing human rights long before the world even knew or recognized what a human right was.
ReplyDeleteNow, maybe through this we can also realize that even victims of sexual abuse have rights, then maybe we can right, or at least address, years of wrongs.
I sat in a service last night where Mr Charles Blake was preaching. His methodology for collecting an offering was manipulative at best. "In order for god to move give" sort of message. His sermon was a hyped up Tony Robbins goals and dreams speech with little biblical backing. It would have been more appropriate for him to be preaching out of the context of proverbs on planning and wisdom, but no. His message was meant to inspire hope of a better living in a material world for a material God. It was very disheartening to see the head of COGIC to take such an approach.
ReplyDeleteI hoped for Biblical training or a message to be preached with eloquence and fear to not misrepresent the text in which was being preached. No, it was topical and bad at that, it was a ploy set out for the simple minded and silly women. Before he got up there were 3 other pastors who gave other simple words. "We need revival, we need to get back to fasting and praying in order for revival to come" No mention of getting the church biblically trained. The amount of ignorance was appalling, from the head bishop to the preachers to the parishioners.
Oh my dear brother Burnett, is there any hope for this once treasured denominatio? Is it time to church plant in the inner cities and move on without them? I know that proper biblical training and proper care for parishioners is what is lacking in today's church, how my heart is yearns to see this.
NONE1221,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your commentary and information.
Supt. H. Burnett,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the function/roll of a Minister in the Church of God in Christ? I’ve notice that the Bishops, Pastors & Elders, Woman, AIM, and Men (All Men) have various Conferences but, what is actually directed towards strengthening, teaching, growing the Minister & (Wives) in the grand ole Church? For the past 10 years I’ve notice only 1 out of the7 Ministers being promoted to the ranks of Elder in the Church I attend. Most if not all of the other Officers of the Church have a Class A & Class B attire to be worn on certain occasions however , there is only one class of attire for the Minister the black suit, white shirt, black tie & black shoes. Yes I am a Minister in the C.O.G.I.C. and I received my Bachelors degree of Theology in 2009.I've worked in and out of the C.O.G.I.C. Before speaking to my Pastor about this, I’m curious of how you would answer the roll of the Minister in the Church? Also… what are the criteria for becoming an Elder? On several occasions I've been asked to perform Elderly functions such as Weddings, funerals, etc.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by.
So far as the role of the minister and the process by which he proceeds or advances in recognition by the church, that is governed by your pastoral leadership.
Recommendations for ordination are given by the pastor to the Jurisdictional Bishop and then passed on to the State Ordination Board. At the pastor's consent and approval recommendation for ordination is generally received and the individual is processed through the system which includes testing and review of church doctrine, history, and certain biblical standards.
Now, some pastors have requirements before they will make a recommendation for ordination. That is usually based on time of service and the ability of the candidate to live right. Example: a minister that has served the church 1 to 3 years may qualify for ordination whereas a minister who has only served for 6 months may be told to wait.
There is no hard and fast rule on when the process must be initiated and noone can ordain a minister aside from pastoral recommendation. he can give you temporary authority as you've experienced to carry on certain ordinances, such as marry, bury and baptize, but that is a temporary and limited power.
What should happen is that if a person such as yourself is continually called upon to do these thigns, the pastor should not be reluctant make the recommendation. If he's comfortable enough to use you on a temporary basis, then he should be able to grant a recommendation to the bishop.
Hope that helps.
Hello Supt. I agree with None1221, is there any hope for this once treasured domination? I always asked myself this question if Bishop Charles H. Mason was to look at this church today and to see in what shape it is now, what would he do or how would he feel?
ReplyDeleteBe Blessed
http://www.truthislight.com/2012/07/mark-of-beast.html
ReplyDelete