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!

5 comments:

  1. The problem is, where are our COGIC leaders? ALL of them should have condemned this man, Lamont Hill and called for an apology or for his FIRING from Huff Post and other venues, for suggesting that the church was "fxxxed up"

    I claim Hill to be an IDIOT and unworthy of a degree...maybe one from Cracker-Jack, but for him to approach the issue as he did only displays his arrogance and why WE must preach the gospel to reach sinner like him to let him know his sin STINKS in God's nostrils too...and if it wasn't for HIS mercy his life would be equally as jacked up as he thinks the church is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen brother I believe Brother Carter had an assignment by God to preach what he did. He was appointed to it and therefore he had to deliver it lest he come under condemnation himself for not speaking what God gave him. It was a weighty message that was meant to bring transformation to the hearers and evidently it did so to at least one young man. The love of God is being perverted in our generation calling good evil and evil good. Even in 1 Corinthians 13 concerning Paul's admonition to the Corinthians concerning the gifts being accompanied by love he also states in that same chapter that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth. I to am trying to speak out more concerning these issues any advice you may have would be greatly appreciated! Also for the record as I have preached recently with some of my African American pastor friends, same sex marriage is not a "civil right" it is a "civil wrong". Gay couples are not being barred from restaurants, restrooms, etc. This situation is coming before the supreme court soon, if this is legalized in all of the states I believe this could be the entrance of an outright widespread persecution of american Christians which is already happening in the form of christian business owners being sued because they follow their faith concerning this issue. We can't be a secret society church any longer we must speak out, their voice is louder than ours yet there is more with us than they are of them. Blessings ~ Pastor Chad

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. I'm sorry Tonya, please try again. The other that said the comment didn't post went through as well, but I don't see another direct comment in the holding bin. Please try again. Thanks.

      Delete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.