Thursday, November 20, 2014

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

UPDATE: 11/26/2016: I would like to say that we are certainly not pleased with how this disagreement from Elder Carter toward the actions or non actions of Presiding Bishop Blake has taken place. Carter had a right to ask for a clarification, which he and we all did. Once that clarification was delivered, as it was, then what should have happened was that we walk away from the issue and certainly avoid personal attacks upon character. Carter was wrong and remains wrong for how he continues to characterize Bishop Blake. Further, others, with whom Carter fraternized, have also proven to be no more than sensationalists, turning on Carter and others to gain information by which they "think" they can extort money from our leadership. They are vile, evil deceivers, seeking to subvert minds and purses to them and their cause. Certainly these individuals do not march or walk in accord with the Spirit of God. There are many things that the church should do better. I and the Dunamis Word will continue to hold up a standard and push for and promote holiness, renewal of faith through a higher standard of moral and social values, change and improvement of process at all levels of the church, but we will continue to do so in a non-sensational manner, reserving the right to call sin sin, and sinners wrong, even if they wear a clergy. We will continue to do so in a manner in which we can stand before all men unashamed. Do not be deceived, there are men who, in order to avoid claims of defamation, they have called themselves "investigative journalists" and claim that they are reporting "news". However, they are no more than gossipers, reporting lies seeking money and claiming to have received money. Do not believe those lies. Ask them to show you copies of the checks or the bank currency transaction reports which are essential to deal in cash transactions at $3,000 and $10,000. I continue to stand by the statements made in this article, but this is not joke and should not be used to simply make fun and gain as Carter and some who have followed him have. The story cannot be rewritten. From the beginning, Carter was about taking down Bishop Blake as the lead homosexual character of the church.  Those that joined him were clearly in accord with that mission. For the enlightened, repentance is in order. For those that continue, do so knowing that the God observes the good and the evil and rains on the just as well as the unjust. May God continue to bless all of them that wish this church to return to the foundation of holiness in all of its manner, both public and private. ~ Supt. Harvey Burnett

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...

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.  

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
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 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???

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. 

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?

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???

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)


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.



  1. It takes a wise person to win a soul. God will really judge us all, and no man is perfect. Also, God has promised to heal the land if people would pray. Our land is sick and becoming more sick everyday. Folk are telling blaitant lies, fornicating, commiting adultry and all manners of evil. Prayer is needed desperately...a wise person will take the good and leave the bad. God knows the address of every man, woman, boy and girl. In His time, He will let these things be known. Amen.

  2. Also, this might sound a little doubleminded to some, but I agree with both Bishop Blake and Supt. Carter. This is my reasoning: Bishop blake is speaking from the standpoint of "you have to catch a fish before you can scale him" and Supt. Carter is saying, "catch the fish or not, put the knife on him". To me, Supt. Carter's approach was designed for "old Sissies", folk who are seasoned and already in the church....that's just my 2 cents concerning the matter. Amen.

  3. Pastor, what should the Bishop have done?

    While Elder Carter did address a subject on which the church and its leaders must take a firm biblical stand, in the process of doing so, he not only spoke to homosexuals, but he absolutely humiliated, insulted, and embarrassed every woman in his audience. His graphic speech about something that is private and personal to women was so horrible that it was hard to look at him after that! He made it sound as if what women endure by nature was nasty and dirty, and should be used as a curse upon homosexuals; and for that HE (Eld Carter) should have apologized! Elder Carter did not speak from his own local church pulpit, but he said what he said from the world-wide pulpit of the Church of God in Christ, (which was on the world-wide web) which implied that he was speaking to the world on behalf of COGIC!

    Truth must be delivered to the people - especially to our leaders whose primary responsibility it is to disseminate truth. But truth that is void of the grace of God to deliver all who come to Him is no more than a personal rant, and the speaker will always end up in a bad place. The wrath of man NEVER works the righteousness of God. Yes, the truth of God does not always come gently and softly - especially when it comes to correct a sin as great as homosexuality - but it should never be delivered in a way that is disrespectful and vulgar. This is a serious sin that is endangering the souls of individuals and our world. And the revealing of the problem along with the solution to it should be delivered in a way that leaves one with full awareness of truth, along with a way out through the power of the Holy Ghost

    In Christ,

    1. Janice,

      Why did Bishop need to do anything? As I state in the article, he and the church have been silent on issues much more pertinent than this for years. I respect your position but to say that Carter embarrassed and humiliated women is way over the top. His was an analogy, yet crude as it was, was not demeaning to women. He drove the point home. If a man claims to want another man, claiming that God has made a mistake, because that is the homosexual claim, all he wants is the sex without anything else. If God gave that man a menstrual, I too wonder how long he would want to be gay.

      Now, don't transfer the sin to Carter. Place the blame where it belongs. It belongs in this church's failure to provide adequate and clear direction in matters of holiness and matters of issues dealing with perversions from the pulpit and pulpit perversions themselves. We still have leaders who have committed crimes, never been tried, but are still in leadership. That's not Carter's fault. That is the church's fault. To point out the problems is not the sin. Failure to act is agreement with sin and as such those leaders will be held accountable.

      So the VULGARITY is not Carter' is the grand Ole Church's vulgarity which is and has been an offense to God and shame in the world in which we live. How many folk would get saved if we directly deal with the issues of sin in this current and present generation? However, if we compromise as we have become accustomed to, seeking to "mainstream" the ministry, we will continue to become more weak and wore weak in our presentation and power.

      We have become a bald, shaven head, Sampson, who has laid in the lad of Delilah all night long in a drunken stupor, telling all our secrets and now wonder why our influence is being criticized. Believe me, it is not because of Carter nor his message. That is only the revealing of what is wrong. What is wrong is our need to be acceptable to a world that doesn't love our Christ and that has mocked us anyway.

      So it does't matter that one doesn't like Carter's presentation. I can think of many presentations by bible characters that makes one wonder and that would have certainly made one question both the message and GOd. I mean, look at Jesus beating the money changers out of the temple. He did this at least twice in his ministry according to scripture. What did they think about this kind, compassionate Jesus beating people and turning over tables? That must have been something. Now, did those who he beat have souls? Did he loose their souls just because he beat them and turned over their tables? Was that even a consideration for his actions?

      Let God be God, BUT let the church do its part by being a vessel that God can use and one that refuses to conform to this world. THAT'S what the Bishop should have affirmed, not some weak kneed, world centered apology for truth and a clandestine call to righteousness to the leaders and the world.

  4. I stand corrected in this article and others I have done on the subject. Carter is NOT a Supt. neither is he a pastor. He is an Evangelist. The term Supt. was introduced by the church and I followed suit. In addition, Carter is somewhat oblivious to the argument over the message from what I understand.

  5. Replies
    1. Thank you sister, hope you were edified and continue to be. Be blessed!

  6. I said this regarding the so called "division" that the preaching of Carter supposedly produced:

    ...the bible says Lk. 12:51 ~ Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

    Division for the foolishness of man is certainly ungodly. but division for righteousness sake is a biblical command!

    Like Eli, folk in this church have become so drunk and desensitized with flesh, political motives and sin they can;t identify the move, message and call of God. Sorry if that offends, but where do you find ANYPLACE in God's word where a HOLY leader apologizes to the world for the move of God? Now, are we convinced that God leads this church or not? We can't have it both ways. If we are, then he leads the pulpit message too. If not then we are just putting people up and NONE of them can be trusted and all of them should be repented for, because none of them are any more effective than the other.

    YOU SAY, this is "GOd's church"...the place "where the table is spread and the feast of the Lord is going on"...yet when God speaks..."sorry world, we want to apologize, because what was said offends you"...ARE YOU SERIOUS????

    Did God issue and apology when he had just finished delivering the commandments to Moses, written in his own hand, one of the commandments was "thou shalt not kill, Moses see the people's sins, and then commands the Levites to KILL the offenders...(Ex. 32:28)

    Was there an APOLOGY issued by either God or Moses? Wasn't that offensive to the world and to the camp of Israel?

    NO! What was OFFENSIVE was the SINS of the people and their indulgence of sin. Correcting it did not need or exude and apology. It was in order fully!!!! Say what one wants to say about Carter's message or delivery...don;t get lost in the forest looking at the trees. The message was timely, accomplished what God wanted it to do, and if there is division, it only exposes the spiritual MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) that exists within this church and that has existed long before Bishop Blake's ascension.

    Now, tell Jesus that he was in the spirit of "division" when he beat the money changers out...Tell Peter that he was in "division" when he called Ananias and Sappharia to death for their lie...Tell Paul that he was full of "division" when he rebuked Barjesus by blindness in front of a whole city and witnesses condemning him (Acts 13), Tell Peter that he was full of "division" when he rebuked Simon the Sorcerer in Samaria (Acts 8) who had seduced the whole city to follow him.

    In every case, who was worried about how the "world" would perceive the gospel or the message? Whoever they were were of no impact to the kingdom or the proliferation of the message...they were not even mentioned in the text!

  7. We're so worried about what folk say and how the world perceives us as a church and what Carter said about bleeding from the butt, while we have cut and flayed open and taken out their hearts through utter inaction and failure to respond to their hurts. We can plan flowers and pick up garbage, but we can ESTABLISH NOTHING to heal and minister to souls and hearts damaged by some of these pedophile leaders...What we have produced is a handbook, giving teh OFFENDERS and the ACCUSED their rights while NEGLECTING the victims.

    Further, we are so intoxicated with being famous we have sold everybody down the river for our fame and need to be relevant. The secret is that we are relevant anyway. The world is not what it is, if there is any good in it, without the church and God in his church. Like Paula said, "We betta recognize!"

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. I was recently asked to delete a particular comment, which I respect, however it does hold a valuable contribution to the discussion. So in effort to preserve the nature of the comment, I have edited it so that the gist of it would remain in our archives as it pertains to this issues.

      Subject: Bishop Blake speach @ the DNC.
      Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:29:43 -0400

      Greetings Bro. Steve,

      My name is (Name Withheld) , Jr. I attend (name and location withheld) . I recently viewed your comments about Bis. Blake speaking @ the DNC. I appreciate your happiness and glee for an opportunity for your Bishop and Pastor to have been a participant in this occasion. Nevertheless, I do have some what of a problem understanding the position of you and so many other Christians in the Body of Christ in reference to support of such politicians who support and aggressively pursue such immoral policies and behaviors.

      By no means am I trying to take away from anything Bis. Blake or any other great preachers of our "Grand Ole Church" have accomplished. But, as a young Elder, I need some clarification from somebody, somewhere.

      When we look @ the many social groups who support Barack Obama and most politicians like him, the question would arise, "Would I...Could I stand on the same platform as these folks with a clear conscience?" These groups, just to name a few, are NAMBLA(North American Man Boy Love Association), The Gay and Lesbian Alliance, all Pro-Choice Pro-Abortion groups, and how could I forget Planned Parenthood who is responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn babies.

      Someone told me the other day that the only reason why they are voting for Barack is because he is black. One of the largest problems in our communities today is that we are so misinformed about facts. If we examine these folks who we say are for "us", we will realize that we are in terrible error. How can we as a sanctified people, support such devilishment?

      Be it known, sir, That I am neither Democrat or Republican. I am a Christian who votes according to issues regarding our church and our childrens future. Time will not permit me to write too much more. However, I would appreciate some feedback from you and possibly some good dialogue.

      God Bless and keep you forever,
      (name and info withheld)

  9. Thanks so much for having the courage of your convictions brother. I'm quite sure Jesus was a man's man and never...not once...would He compromise and swish for being accepted or expediency's sake. God bless your heart.

  10. First I'd like to address the Carter message. While I wholeheartedly agree with the message, the METHOD was not appropriate. Believe me, I'm sick of it as well. Jesus preached holiness, without which no can see the Lord, but I seriously doubt he talked to sinners or believer's in that fashion.( He did call the Jewish leaders broods of vipers for standing in the way of sinners). Yes, some people were delivered as a result of Carter's message, but just think of how many people walked away feeling suicidal, crushed and hopeless, etc. because the message was not delivered in love.

    The apology of Bishop Blake was both appropriate and necessary. I'm not sure if some of the wording was necessary, but I think he wanted to make it known that this is not the approach that the COGIC as a whole adheres to.

    Additionally, God bless you for your candor and for the advocacy of victims of clergy misconduct. It is so needed. I was a "victim" of sexual misconduct with my previous pastor and it crushed my soul!! I was shunned by the church and publicly debased because of it. It took me 10 years to get over. He and his family moved to another state and continued to Pastor. At that time, I personally mailed Bishop Patterson a certified letter stating my plight. I never received a response. At the time, I was trying to implement an advocacy program such as yours, but people were scared to come out. Scared to participate in fear of personal and spiritual rejection.

    1. Thanks Crystal for your comments.

      I think our Presiding Bishop simply does not want to be associated with this type of message. That is unfortunate and not true to COGIC roots or the rudiments of holiness itself in my opinion. I have heard of no fallout from people being discouraged or depressed because they were gay and listened to the message. That is one of those "touchy-feely" and hypothetical strawmen that many folk who do not like this type of "call it out" preaching and discourse tend to invoke, but as I said, there is no evidence to support the fact that the message discouraged more people than drew them.

      In fact, if we really want to look indepth, the death of Jesus was ugly and made people run away from him and his person. Where were his disciples? However, the promise was in the substance of what was done. That is how people were drawn to the cross and to God. Not because it appealed to the people, but because it was substantive. People don't simply come to the cross because it is not offensive. People come because it is offensive. Paul even states that the cross was an offense to both the Jew and the Greek:

      1 Cor. 1:23 ~ But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

      Now, if our dictum is to not be an "offense" to the "seeker", Paul evidently missed that message. In fact according to our modern day wisdom, he was an absolute embacille. He offended folk when he spoke. He, like Jesus, called devils devils. He told Barnabas that he did not want Mark with him on his journey and that was so contentious that they had an argument and went their own separate ways preaching.

      I guess what I am saying is that God NEVER told us to not be offensive. He COMMANDS us to be TRUTHFUL and to tell the truth, when "in season and out of season" (2 Tim. 4:2) I think we both agree on that...

      What you and some don't agree with is presentation or what you like many say is "appropriate". Now who dictates "appropriate"? Is "appropriate" anything that the Holy Ghost teaches? The bible says that the love does not behave himself "unseemingly" (1 Cor. 13:5) The word "unseeming" means without the proper shape or form. That is to say that love is not without its correct context and boundaries.

      So if that point can be born out, and I believe it can, then love that allows any sin, whether homosexuality or not to simply exist and proliferate or deflate at its own pace is NOT really love. It is called self preservation. Self preservation is what serves our "idea" and human method. God told us if we seek to save our life we lose it. Because saving our life (looking "appropriate" as the world counts it) causes us to lose favor with God.

      Look at the prophets of the OT. Is there any question that any of them were spoken to by God? Then is it or was it "appropriate" for them to do what they did as it pertains to preaching or setting forth the message? I mean, as I ask in the article, what of the Ezekiel as he ate cow DUNG? Who deemed that "appropriate"?

      What has happened is that we have cowered to the culture and as the preacher says, we will pay the price and confusion over the message is part of that price. I am afraid we have been blinded so long, until our sight is off...


  11. Now so far as name calling...what was he to say? Should Carter have called the homosexuals simply what the bible calls them? Then he would have called them "Sodomites", "Sons of belial" (belial meaning worthless and devil) and effeminate whom God rejects...

    Now we can't have it both ways...We can't say what God would NOT have said, when the bible is chalk full of what he DID say and NONE of what he says agrees with the modern day interpretation. You either believe what he said and accept it, or you reject it all. It's simply and plainly that simple.

    This generation wants to be spoken well of by the world and "pretend" that they are no better than sinners. Well, that is not the message of holiness nor is it the message of the bible. We are not "sinners" saved by grace...A sinner is one who continues to practice sin. We are "Saints" which means those who have been called out from the world and who live by standards that the world does not live by. That is what Mason taught and what this church was birthed off of...

    1. Thank you Sir! I agree,we have gone too far the other way in calling sin sin. I also agree with both you and Evangelist Carter regarding true holiness. We need a true revival! Do you think we will ever get "back to the old land mark?"

    2. My Sistah...IF we do, it will take some humbling down for real. Some egos need to be put aside. Then our "craftiness" in dealing with folk needs to change. We can't deliver people. We can only tell them the truth and I agree with you, in love!

      Carter, in his letter says that he was speaking to a certain segment of individuals, and I agree. He said that he was speaking to what I call the "ungodly". The sinner can repent, while the ungodly makes excuses. What is bad in this case is that we have the church making excuses for the ungodly. That is the confusion of man for real!.

      Thanks and keep them comments coming. Tell others to chime in as well. Pro or con. We as believers need to examine the issue from various perspectives. Thanks again.



I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.