Falling Towers Coming Down Pt. 2

As Continued From Falling Towers Coming Down Pt. 1

Gulfstream G650 $58.5 Million in 2012
Necessary For Preacher Luxury and Ministerial Performance 

In modern times, Pastors and leaders are commended, praised and held in high esteem because they have personal and private jets and expensive cars as opposed to having personal and public commitments to the well being of the body of believers. The member, overwhelmingly of low to moderate income, is pumped and primed to give so that they can be blessed. Then certain expenditures present themselves so that the giving can be seen and made known. For the extremely opulent "ministries" on the other hand, spending what is given is sometimes directed toward the acquisition of private jets, Bahama vacations, luxury automobiles or some other personal cause, which is almost expected by and from some in leadership. For some it's the equivalent of executive privilege because mistakenly, some think that they "are" the church or that they are "the ministry". Only where is that outlined within the bible? What is the biblical mandate, endorsement or approval for such status.

"I need To Take This Trip To Win Souls"

One other thing, then I'll move on because many of my preacher friends get uncomfortable talking about these sort of things: I've heard of more and more pastors and leaders who supposedly go on "missions trips" without their spouses and families. These trips are almost never to places like Bosnia, Croatia or Antartica. They are almost always to places like the Bahamas and Jamaica. What makes it even worse is that many times these pastors only take certain selected members from the church along with them. (Does that remind you of anyone in the news recently?) Nonetheless, in most of these cases all expenses are paid by the church without question. Under normal circumstances that wouldn't be a bad thing, however what we are witnessing is flat out usury and pimpery among some of the leaders facilitated by the natural entity or the physical church itself.

In Memory Of Bishop J.O. Patterson Jr.

Supt. Harvey Burnett and the Dunamis Word pauses to pay tribute to the passing of General Assembly Chairman Bishop J.O. Patterson Jr. (5/1935 ~ 6/2011). The Bishop was the grandson of the late Bishop C.H. Mason, founder of the Church Of God In Christ, and son of the former Presiding Bishop J.O. Patterson Sr. He was also the cousin of the former Presiding Bishop G. E. Patterson. The Bishop was not able to recover from a heart attack suffered on Father's Day 2011

Not only did Bishop Patterson have a tangible record of community service, serving in many of Memphis's political roles, he also made history by becoming the first Black Mayor of Memphis.

Within the Church Of God In Christ, Bishop J.O. Patterson Jr. was Chairman of The General Assembly. The General Assembly is the only legislative authority within the church empowered to establish rule of doctrine and practice for the national church. It's membership consists of COGIC members and certain other delegates.  This Assembly is of vital importance to the church especially now and we are praying that the right individual will be appointed as replacement for such an important time as this.

The Contemporary Movement aka: The New Prosperity Movement?

This is from 2009, but I think the message the confusion, is very curious and applicable to today. Are we any better 2 years later? Please chime in on the issue.

The Call For Bishop Eddie Long To Repent?

In a stark contrast to Bishop T.D. Jakes who said that there is nothing that can be done regarding Eddie Long except prayer (and we know that prayer is always in order), and that he along with everyone else just needs "the blood of Jesus" while pointing to his "blood bucket" both for himself and others to cover all of our sins; Bishop Paul S. Morton, however has joined many of us in calling for Bishop Eddie Long to repent regarding the recent sex and ethical scandal that has enveloped and threatens to destroy his ministry. Here's a recent message regarding the issue:

Surprisingly, ministers such as Creflo Dollar have stated that Bishop Long simply had a "wreck" and that he should keep on moving and everybody should go home because in essence, like a Keystone cop, "there's nothing to see here". Bishop T.D. Jakes assesses the situation as a "recent tragedy" and that Bishop Long is under a great amount of "scruitiny". This is language that certainly softens the emphasis of what has really happened and doesn't really point toward repentance of any kind.

Ministry Leader Calls On COGIC Leadership To Withdraw UDHR Endorsement

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!    

Where Are We Going Wrong In The Gospel Music Industry?

Recently, Pastor Donnie McClurkin hosted a discussion with Pastors Andre Crouch (Sandra Crouch too), Pastor Marvin Sapp, and Pastor Kim Burrell on TBN. Note that the question was pretty simple and straight forward:

"Where are we going wrong in the (Gospel) music industry?"


Aside from the laughter the question generated among the audience and the refusal of the Pastors to initiate the conversation, and Sandra saying that she doesn't like to talk about what's going wrong...


Donnie said it's about "honoring God" and "not imitating"...OK, does that mean producing videos wearing pink lipstick as men, or producing so called gospel videos in lingerie? 


Could you guys be a little more specific please? The church and the world would like to know. Was the question ever answered?


Lord Help Us As A People!


Blessed!

Falling Towers Coming Down Pt. 1

Matthew 16:15-19 ~"15-He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16-And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17-And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18-And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19-And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Frank Viola, in his response to Dr. Ben Witherington over Ben's review of his book, "Reimagining Church", stated the following on pg. 4 pt. 9 of his rebuttal:

"The main point of all of this, of course, is my contention that the church is a spiritual organism and not a human organization." 

While Frank's books are certainly on my personal wish list, I couldn't help but conclude that although the gates of hell will not prevail against it, the "spiritual organism" known as the church, in it's modern form and under its modern composition,  is sick, afflicted, in pain and in serious trouble. If I were a Doctor I would send it home for a permanent vacation and bed rest. My reasoning is because what is currently transpiring in the body of Christ is nothing less than an epidemic.

First, as Frank states, the modern church is being built inversely of scripture. No matter the organizational affilliation, it has become a top-down or hierarchical entity. At the local level there is a considerable amount of  pressure placed on a single leader, usually the Pastor, to perform in an almost a superhuman manner. Balancing business acumen with social skills, all while finding time to give himself to God, and seek and deliver a word. Unfortunately even that word has been reduced to more of a motivational speech as many modern pastors do not preach against sin and have even reverted to calling themselves "Life Coaches".

The UN Declares "Homosexual Rights" A Human Right

In 2009 Elder D.L. Foster of Gcmwatch.com with me and the Dunamis Word in tow, took a considerable amount of heat and condemnation by calling the actions of Church Of God In Christ Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake into question as he vicariously signed the entire church leadership on to the endorsement of the United Nation's Declaration Of Human Rights. 

In the multiple articles done on the issue, both of us pointed out the fact that although the Declaration Of Human Rights did not say homosexual nor did it outline homosexual behavior as a "human right" it had been and was currently being used as a support for homosexual marriage and gay civil unions all over the world and in the United States by homosexual advocacy groups such a The Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal and those seeking to overturn PROP 8 in California.  

Of course there were all sorts of apologetic fiasco's including a diversion stating that the Grand Ole Church Of God In Christ was simply under a viscous "internet attack" by certain web sites (GCMWatch.com) that were delivering "false information" and "distorting the truth". In fact GCMWatch.com was named specifically in a multiple page rebuttal that was produced by some of the upper eschalon adjuntancy.

The Truth Has Been Confirmed


Well, I don't hate to say that WE told you so and had GOOD reason to question, but we can say that with confidence. 

Inside Edition: Prosperity Preacher Opulence!

Can you believe this? I had seen this before when it originally aired, but forgot to post it then. It aired again Saturday and I couldn't resist.


K. Copeland: "My lifestyle follows the scripture..."
K. Copeland: "We give, we believe...we're open?"

IE: You have a fleet of private jets. Why is that necessary, you're a minister. How many private jets do you have?"

K. Copeland: "That...is none of your business."



Well, in response they say what should preachers preach..."Poverty"

I simply say how about preaching THE GOSPEL,  and how about exemplifying that with a holy life and a lifestyle given to serving the people instead of being served and having attitudes like Rock Stars.

Strategy: How about either getting paid a percentage of annual church revenues, or an average percentage of income of congregants? You'll still receive expense allowances too, but that may keep you from looking silly and saying ..."We're Open?" like you're a McDonalds or a Walmart. Please!

Blessed!

Special Bonus:

The Bundle:

Is Smile...A Celebration Of Gay???

Now, could someone please tell me why this man is wearing pink lipstick? Is this camera sensitivity or a camera trick?

Then there's former gay, Donnie McClurkin and I stand corrected, this is T.J. Holmes another CNN anchor. I don't think he's gay however.

Question yet stands, what is this...a Gay festival?

 Then who is it that fell from heaven?

"A power from heaven that I can't explain, fell from heaven like a shower".  

By the way the background of this video matches the Gay Pride Flag colors that was designed by Gilbert Barker. Is Kirk simply sending a message that Gays have no reason to be discouraged, or is he sending a message of gay inclusion?

I think some answers are in order.

Blessed!

Rihanna ~ "Man Down", BET & Parental Duty

This is the opening part of the new Rihanna "Man Down" video which was originally aired on BET last week. In this part, the character played by Rihanna, kills a man in the response to the man's actions which were revealed in the end of the video which I will post as time allows. In the later part of the video, we discover that the character played by Rhianna, killed the man in response to a rape, or sexual assault. Rihanna claims not only does the video offer a "positive message" for those "like me" , but she also claims that  these type of images empower women who would not otherwise speak up. The question is, is that so and do her assertions have any bearing on reality?

Pt. 2 ~ The reason for the murder (what appears to be rape or sexual abuse)



Rape, Sexual Abuse & A Higher Standard 

As I have stated, we understand the seriousness of this issue. Sexual abuse, rape and molestation are not subjects to be minimized or overlooked as being problematic within the secular or church world. The problem, however is vigilantism as portrayed within the video in exchange for the hurt and pain. In this video there is no healing and there is no call to a higher moral standard by anyone, rapist or victim. This video is simply a display of cold and calculating revenge where the realization is that someone has lost control and a mother has lost a son. What is not identified, is that humanity has lost it's value all together.

The Push-back

A group known as the Parents Television Council, along with the public decency advocacy groups called Industry Ears, and  the Enough Is Enough Campaign has deemed the video as inappropriate stating the following:

‘Man Down’ is an inexcusable, shock-only, shoot-and-kill theme song. In my 30 years of viewing BET, I have never witnessed such a cold, calculated execution of murder in primetime. Viacom’s standards and practices department has reached another new low,”...“If Chris Brown shot a woman in his new video and BET premiered it, the world would stop. Rihanna should not get a pass and BET should know better. The video is far from broadcast worthy,” ~ Paula Porter spokesperson PTC former BET voice

Another PTc representative stated the following regarding the video and it's presentation and ultimately its purpose:

“Rihanna’s personal story and status as a celebrity superstar provided a golden opportunity for the singer to send an important message to female victims of rape and domestic violence. Instead of telling victims they should seek help, Rihanna released a music video that gives retaliation in the form of premeditated murder the imprimatur of acceptability. The message of the disturbing video could not be more off base,” ~ Melissa Henson, director of communications and public education PTC.

The BET Angle

Rihanna's video premiered on BET, which allows us to further ask does BET even like black people? The reason is that not only does this video provide a controversial response to a very serious subject, the question has been raised does it actually violate the media standards claimed by the Viacom media giant as declared through their CEO of BET , Deborah Lee. Mrs. Lee stated in the following interview that she (BET) had to be the "grown up in the room" in denying opportunities for the airing of certain video imagery deemed inappropriate for television such as material by Kanye West and Ciara and others and particularly the "women" of Hip-Hop fame.

Mrs. Lee, has also vowed to set forth a better image of the Black Community in general in the following interview:

Rihanna's Response

In Response to all of this Rhianna has claimed the following:

"I'm a 23 year old rockstar with NO KIDS! What's up with everybody wantin me to be a parent? I'm just a girl, I can only be your/our voice!" she wrote early Thursday afternoon. "Cuz we all know how difficult/embarrassing it is to communicate touchy subject matters to anyone especially our parents!... And this is why!Cuz we turn the other cheek! U can't hide your kids from society,or they'll never learn how to adapt!This is the REAL WORLD!... The music industry isn't exactly Parents R Us! We have the freedom to make art, LET US! Its your job to make sure they don't turn out like US" ~ Rihanna to critics

Certainly the pain of teh past experiences cannot be denied and Rihanna has not been healed in any sense from her past beyond Chris Brown. The problem is that not only does Rihanna blame parents for not being attentive to their children's needs, she takes absolutely no responsibility for how your child interprets anything that she does or says, whether it is in video or music. In addition she claims that it's the parents job or duty to make sure that your child doesn't turn out "like US", indicating that there are more in the industry messed up like she is. 

Question: Does any sane parent need Rihanna to make that pronouncement? Is there any sane parent on the planet who would like their child to aspire to BET imagery or the imagery as seen in the modern entertainment or hip-hop industry? 

To me, this all adds up to even more reasons to avoid this industry or any association with it (as in hip-hop gospel) When the industry and artists are only given to money, wealth and fame at the expense of their own audience, and without any responsibility of the message, it's a dangerous and sad day. We've known this all along, but now the artists speak for themselves. 

Blessed!