Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Masonic Ritual, Full Body Covering Or Simply Spiritual Error?

Much attention has been given to this video of Bishop Wayne T Jackson of Great Faith Ministries of Detroit,  consecrating 2 gentlemen to the office of Bishop. As you will note, during the ceremony, Bishop Jackson not only covers up the 2 men in effort to simulate burial, but also lays on the men in prayer in effort to symbolize the men being raised with a new spirit or empowerment for their office. Although it is being removed as rapidly as possible due to much internet chatter on the subject, here is the video:

Bishop climbs onto of men during ceremony part 1 by expozethismess

First, The Error

This is certainly in error. The problem I have is not only that the ceremony is out of order as biblically, we don't see anyone laying on top of another in order to consecrate them to office. Although we do observe within scripture where a prophet (Elisha) laid on a dead person and the young boy was healed, 

2 Kings 4:32-35 32-And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. 33-He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. 34-And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. 35-Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
Then there is Paul himself that laid on an individual to speak life into his body when he fell dead in a Christian gathering:

Acts 20: 9-129-And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. 10-And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. 11-When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. 12-And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.
We do not see any association of this type with installation into office or anything similar. 

No one is dead in this scenario, and therefore any biblical example of death and resurrection is misapplied. Of all things, the minister is not a "dead" individual. The scripture says he (the minister) is a "flaming fire" (Ps. 104:4). This represents one who is live and lively and ready for God's use. So at the very least, this is not a representation of one who is "dead" at least in the service of the Lord. So, there is gross error in the representation and the enigma of a minister dying in God's service, yet alone of one laying on another in the service of the Lord.  That type of representation is more akin to baalism than anything else. 

Here are the scriptures dealing with consecration and whether physically or figuratively, 'HANDS" not bodies were supposed to be laid upon the individual to encourage him into office.

1 Timothy 4:14 ~ Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

2 Timothy 1:6 ~ Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

Second, The Danger Of Christian "Blossip"

Since we can readily see that Bishop Jackson erred, or at the very least, needs space to tell why he did what he did from a biblical standpoint, the greater problem I have is that the Christian community has arisen in the promotion of what only amounts to GOSSIP by saying that this ceremony is wrong because it resembles a Catholic, Masonic or Buddhist rite. Then some are saying that the Bishop was performing a homosexual act. Are you serious????

The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE that it resembles either of these accusations and what evidence that does exist is spurious and based on conjecture to say the least.  

Listen, this event is wrong simply because it IS WRONG, not because it represents being gay, or because it is Masonic, Catholic or Buddhist. It is simply out of biblical order, wrong and scripturally unsupportable. That is the answer that the church dedicated to truth should give. 

Third, The Error Filled "Christian" Defense

I can't conclude this without further pointing out that some have arisen to give an apologetic for this act. According to our friends at, one named Bishop Corletta J. Vaughn has arisen to say that what the Bishop was doing was preforming what is called a "a full body covering" in effort to "empower" and strengthen the minister into the service of his new office as Bishop. Although she would not allow this practice to be done to her, when she was consecrated (for obvious reasons) she defends the right of the officials or person consecrating. Her statements: 
Bishop Corletta J. Vaughn
"I don’t know if Bishop Jackson’s Consecration service is available, but if you were to see how he was ordained you would understand what is happening on this video. PLEASE do not disrespect the procedure or this Man of God; nor the men who received this new level of leadership. Pageantry is honorable!”... 
When I was consecrated as a Bishop (this is controversial too) My Chief Presider did NOT lay on me! I was asked if that’s the format I wanted and I said NO. Obviously these men agreed and said yes. Its their experience and their elevation. I have NOTHING to say about it being right or wrong.” 
As stated, in my opinion, that is just as much in error as anything else. Any "disrespect" has been demonstrated by the act and actions themselves. This is not a biblically centered ceremony. It is clearly not the fault of the onlooker that these things occurred, so they should not be blamed for assessing what they see. In addition the Bishop refers to "pageantry" of the consecration event being honorable. Where is that written? In some handbook for consecration or in the bible itself? Pageantry, although not evil in and of itself,  is certainly NOT a Christian or biblically centered moral value. That is a humanistically inspired value that has no or at best very little, place in spiritual things.  So it is hard to get a grip on the defense  of the Bishop regarding these things. 


We need not invoke the Masons or some kind of secret rite or ritual to know that Bishop Jackson was in error. The fact is that there is no history of this type of event among Christians. It is not a Catholic ceremony as Catholics don't jump on people on the floor.  Masons that have been consulted, don't find any resemblance to any ritual that they perform and Lord knows about Buddhism. 

So far as the death and burial aspects of this, as Christians we perform baptisms all the time without the inference that we are practicing a Masonic or Buddhist rite. In fact Baptism is representative of the life, death, burial and resurrection to new life that the Christian experiences. So to say that a death and resurrection rite is Masonic is plain old silly. 

If we are critical, at least let us be critical based on TRUTH...not BLOSSIP and GOSSIP. In my efforts of blogging, I can say that I have tried to make sure that every thing that is presented here is indeed fact or is supportable with some credible evidence and most of that is witnessed by more than just myself. My opinions are just that and everyone, including myself, is entitled to them, however, even for that one should usually have some support for as well. 

I would hope that as believers, we could rise to the point that we look for the truth of an issue rather than for a worldly parallel to make a point or an example and all kinds of misstatements of fact. There is no need for false facts. The only thing necessary is factual truths.

John 8:32 ~ And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


Bishop Wayne T. Jackson Response


  1. This video was from the ceremony done several months ago in 2012 (I think). I have watched the video several times and looked at the some of the responses from the Christian community. I am an United Methodist and all of our clergy and bishops are ordained by the laying on of hands at our annual and jurisdictional conferences. This is the first blog post on the ceremony at Impact Ministries (They changed their name from Great Faith) that has given a respectful critique of the ceremony. I was taken aback by blog entries comparing Wayne T. Jackson's act to homosexual lust and all kind of weird conclusions. The act was very out of line according to the Bible and hopefully would never be done again because Jackson has some new Bishop-Elects he will be elevating soon. I read through his website and was surprised that they baptized in Jesus' name. I also was surprised that they are Apostolic in their doctrine. Bishop Jackson has a gift for operating in miracles and his "reformation" focuses on leaders that operate in healing and deliverance ministries. Black pastors and bishops should research the things they do in the name of liturgy to see if the Bible backs up their practices. We could avoid the issues with Bishop Jackson in the future if such study is undertaken.

  2. Johnny,

    Thanks and I agree. Right now the conversation is over whether as Christians we should make spurious claims.

    OK, what are these people saying? Is this man a Mason or is the ceremony just Masonic? Well, how do they know either way?

    There is conflicting info and instead of may church critics sticking to what they know, which is the word of God, they are making statements saying that the bishop is a Mason and he was performing a Masonic ceremony.

    Isn't it true that the bottom line would be that he is in error either way? Why can;t we simply point out the biblical truth of the argument instead of condemn the man as someone who has bought into some grand scheme to destroy Christianity???? Is that even a "Christianly" thing to do?

    OK, as i stated, I have been guilty...looking at everything as some grand scheme to "destroy all Christians", but we give devil and demons too much credit. Folk just get wrong and sometimes do wrong because they are flesh and flesh is wrong. Flesh can think it is serving God and actually serve itself.

    Jackson, in the video (before it was removed) seemed sincere about what he was doing. Sincerity doesn't guarantee "rightness". He , in my opinion, was sincerely wrong about the ceremony and should be advised not to use it again. The question is, where did it come from and what COLLEGE OF BISHOPS also promote this type of ceremony and from whence did it arise?

    THOSE are the questions that should be asked IF our pursuit is truth and betterment of the church and NOT sensationalism.

    Does that make any sense at all oooh people of God???????

  3. Dear Sir,
    Thank you for posting your response to this ceremony. I initialy read it yesterday and after waking up today, I can honestly tell you that your comments have really ministered to me and contributed to restored peace for my spirit. I was more spiritualy disturbed by what I observed more than what I realized.
    With all due respect I can sympathize with other reactions and even the way those reactions were communicated. Since I beleive I am able to approach this much more soberly, my question goes to who posted the video in the first place and why? I am not saying that I am against bringing things to light , I beleive that with the errors and the devastating blows the Body of Christ has been dealt over the last several months rising from Christian Leadership, that we do need to be kept informed. Yet and still I do not want it to be under the wrong pretenses. If we are bringing things to light under the spirit of anger, then it will only add to the pain of what the church is already dealing with.
    At one website the exchange over the video had seemed to become borderline vicious.
    I wonder if whoever was behind posting the video followed biblical instructions in regard to showing another brother or sister their error in private first. If that truly took place and the persons refused to hear then I get why it was posted. I do not agree bringing one's character in question apart from the scripture, and I do beleive there were some comments that approached this correctly. At this point my heart and prayers go out to christian babies, unbeleivers, and those who are victims of clergy abouse, especially of a "sexual nature", who may have seen this video and have become damaged from it.

  4. Love Of God,

    I think you hit the nail dead on the head. In what spirit are we "correcting" or "exposing" the hidden things of darkness?

    Some are saying that this man is gay others saying that he is a Mason. OK, has anyone asked either of those questions? Does he wear Masonic insignia? Has he ever been accused of having a homosexual lover?

    Yes, the ceremony was wrong, however there is no reason to make unfounded claims on his person unless it is warranted.

    Everybody ain't gay and everybody ain't no Mason.

    What folk are looking for is a way to impugn all the church to make the claim that the church is invalid. The church is NOT invalid. It is yet the institution that God created with the shedding of his blood.

  5. In addition, G.Craig has said that this was Roman Catholicism because the preachers were laid out on their face.

    I wonder have these folk never laid themselves out before God? Do they know scripture? This is what the bible calls "bow down" before the Lord.

    Isa. 66:23~ And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

    Many modern translations say "BOW DOWN"

    Ps. 95:6 ~ O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.

    What does bowing down begin with? KNEELING...

    Micah 6:6~ Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?

    Rev. 4:10-11 ~ 10-The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11-Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created

    Rev. 7:11 ~And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

    Falling on one's face was an act, one of the most high acts of reverence:

    Num. 16:45 ~ Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. And they fell upon their faces

    1 Kings 18:39 ~ And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

    1 Chron 21:16 ~ And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.

    I could go on and on and I am only scratching the surface. Now, the critic either has never gone there, or doesn't know what that's about. If either is the case, the question is, have they EVER worshiped HIM in the Spirit and in the Truth????


  6. Dear Supt. Burnett,

    Thank you for posting the story. Some of our black church traditional has gotten out of order. Mixed with this is the current trend toward chasing titles and multiple locations. Baptist preachers have a habit of calling each order doc/dr when having a casual conversation. I am not a preacher but baptist preachers even call me this when talking to me when we are talking about the Bible. Now many people are chasing the purchased PhD degree and being ordained as a Bishop.

    The person looking for either title holds a fancy ceremony which almost becomes a college graduation type event of sorts. Both types events are in error of common sense. The saints are blessed when an anointed minister studies the word and share it with people not buying a degree. While most pastors I know do not have administrative skills how can they be an effective bishop? The answer is they cannot.

    I respect the position/office that people hold in the church and secular agenda but the bishop thing is getting out of hand. Ordaining the oldest man in the district, the person who is the son of the recently deceased bishop or the person with the most political pull makes the office has less honor.

    Have a good day.


  7. Devils are after this bishop. This is a serious consecration of two people. The dying to self that is seen is what the devil does not like to see. This is what was being shown. The red sheet represents the blood of Christ covering them. Don't believe the railing accusations that do not come from the Lord God Jesus Christ. Sex of whatever kind is not bad, but what was seen in that ritual has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. All recant their harsh speaking against that minister of God apologizing to him.

  8. Jhughes,

    I can understand the symbolism, although I don't agree with the application of it, especially in this sense. We "die" at baptism, not at consecration. Then spirits, especially of people, don't "transfer" in the sense that it was presented here. So jumping on these men is an act totally out of God's order and is not anyplace supportable by the biblical text.

    But beyond that, what is meant by "sex of whatever kind is not bad"? The reason I ask is because THAT is SHO-NUFF NOT please expound, because gay sex, pedophilia, bestiality for example are WRONG and ungodly.

  9. With all due respect Jrhughes and Burnett, neither one of you know what you're talking about:

    "This is a serious consecration of two people."

    NO, it is NOT a consecration at all. There is NO BIBLICAL BASIS whatsoever for an elaborate ceremony of this type, or that even such a ceremony is required or necessary for an elder to be equipped or authorized to do a work.

    "The dying to self that is seen is what the devil does not like to see."

    NO, this ceremony has absolutely nothing to do with dying to self, as that should have already occurred when one chose and persevered to serve Christ. And as far as the devil not liking this, he's actually laughing if anything.

    "We "die" at baptism..."

    NO, the believer does NOT "die" to self at water baptism (and frankly, I'm flabbergasted that anyone serving in the role of pastor or overseer would say such a thing). The scriptures are clear that water baptism is only a symbol of what takes place spiritually. When Romans 6 and Colossians 2 speak of being "buried with Him in baptism", that "baptism" is referring to His sacrificial death and substitutionary atonement. In Luke 12, Christ said "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!" That "baptism" was NOT water, but a "baptism unto death". So in terms of when the believer "died", in one sense the scriptures explain that occurred when Christ died and bore our sins. In another sense, we "die" by "crucifying" daily our passions and lusts. This idea that somehow one can "die" in some other sense than these or through the execution of some elaborate ceremony, I have not found anywhere within the pages of scripture.

  10. NYTN,

    Please...the lack of scriptural depth precedes you is proven with this:

    You said:NO, the believer does NOT "die" to self at water baptism (and frankly, I'm flabbergasted that anyone serving in the role of pastor or overseer would say such a thing). The scriptures are clear that water baptism is only a symbol of what takes place spiritually. When Romans 6 and Colossians 2 speak of being "buried with Him in baptism", that "baptism" is referring to His sacrificial death and substitutionary atonement.

    "flabbergasted"....Yea right....PURE illiterate rambling....

    Bible 101 teaches us that we are buried with him in his death by accepting life in and through HIM. This is a spiritually consistent concept that is nowhere nearly as confused as you make it.

    Christ's death was a substitutionary atonement as someohow you correctly say, however, WE, the believer, are not making a substutionary atonement we are identifying or receiving the benefits (Ps. 104) of his suubstitutionary atonement through FAITH which is further symbolized by the act or rite of water baptism which the believer is commanded to extend (Mt. 28:18).

    Further, scripture says (and I know you all don't too much like scripture, but whatever):

    Gal 3:27 ~For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    Being "baptized into Christ" is terminology for as having received salvation through faith.

    You may be confused and "flabbergasted" (I can see that) but my statement is NOT overcome by your confusion on the issue. So IN CHRIST, yes, the OLD SELF dies and is buried:

    2 Cor. 5:17~Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    Let me guess, according to you, "old things passed away" simply means that we now live according to different set of old things, or that our old life is simply crippled as opposed to "ended" aka DEAD????

    But then there is scripture in the way....

    Romans 6:11 ~ Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Isn't that "FLABBERGASTING"????

    Dead to sins BUT alive in Christ....WOW!!!!

    The ONLY point to which we agree...the ceremony, is NOT essential, but there is biblical precedence for "laying hands" or commissioning certain individuals to certain works. That is clear as I have quoted within the text of the writing. Please dispute those scriptures with a cogent argument if you are against even that.

    Does that "flabbergast" you enough????


  11. Now it is funny how people want to see a scripture for everything and every teaching when it suits their argument, but when scriptures are used to overcome their position, there is too much "logos" and the bible is either wrong or has been tampered with-LOL

    Be consistent....if we are going to implore logos, use it all the way and stand by it....

    Almost anyone reading understood that baptism more closely associates with death than a consecration ceremony.

    The very notion of life (above and in the water), submersion(as an act of dying and denial of self in Christ), and raising up (in anticipation of the resurrection and newness of life) signifies the act of DEATH to this life and expectation of LIFE not only in the resurrection, but in the here and now.

    Folk like to confuse because they ARE confused. But THAT don't play here....don't know it all, but what I do know...I KNOW!

  12. Burnett, you are so irritating.

    Not one single thing you said addresses the claim you made that one "dies" in water baptism. That is INCORRECT and opposed to the consistent teaching of scripture (as previously explained). In neither a figurative nor literal sense does one "die" at baptism.

    The "death" that baptism SYMBOLIZES occurred previous to the rite's performance -- with Christ's sacrificial death being the primary understanding,and one's repentance and "crucifying" of sinful desires being the secondary. If one as a pastor is not teaching that, then I would say such a person is either unlearned or treacherous; and in either case has no business in the position of authority in the church.

    My comments are concluded on this matter. Good day to you, sir.

  13. NYTN,

    You are the one "IRRITATING" because you are ignorant as to what baptism represent and means.

    Baptism OF COURSE is symbolic of Jesus death life and resurrection but also of what else??? The LIFE, DEATH and RESURRECTION which we now live in the HERE AND NOW and live in expectation of because of what he did.

    This is KINDERGARTENISH of you to "try" to find some way to rebuke me on the issue, while displaying your utter ignorance in general on the subject.

    Baptism is linked with death in resurrection in that it is linked with repentance (from sin and dead works) and newness of life (expectant resurrection). That is a SIMPLE concept to grasp.

    Baptism represents the mortification (PUTTING TO DEATH) of the deeds of the body Rom. 8:13, Col. can a person walk in newness of life while not dying to sin?

    That may be for you and your followers, but not for anyone believing the bible and determined to live and walk right in this present life:

    Rom. 6:4 ~ Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    So it seems that your understanding of baptism is NOT as complete or sound as you thought it was. But rather than learn and consider, you try to condemn, which is an act of total ignorance to truth. Well, I guess I can't expect you to understand a doctrine as such since you have no respect for the church, biblical doctrine and teaching, or anything else associated with it.

    Be "through" please...Nobody made you comment to begin with and we are not in lack for your commentary whatsoever. This blog has no magnetic attraction to make the lead in your head and fingers respond and obviously you refuse to learn what you obviously don't know because it comes from a "pastor"....If your position wasn't so full of ignorance it would be funny.

    Good day and good riddance!

  14. Some website named FBC Jax Watchdogs were obviously miffed because I didn't set forth any notions that Bishop Jackson was gay because of the video.

    Once again, one needs not make accusations of immoral character to know that the ceremony was wrong. All one has to do is appeal to what we know, and we know according to the word (if it is that they even know that)that this was out of order and an ungodly presentation.

    I simply say, if anyone wants to go further and say that this man was gay or draw his personal character into question, make your own case and support it with truth. If you know something don't be a PUNK, and pretend that others are responsible for not talking. I will present what I can support with evidence or make conclusions that are reasonable. It's called dealing with TRUTH and reason. I guess this is the day of the untruthful and unreasonable generation...SMH!!!

    This is my response to the Watchdogs:

    "If you are going to post what I say, at least post the whole thing IN CONTEXT....I wrote this:

    "We need not invoke the Masons or some kind of secret rite or ritual to know that Bishop Jackson was in error. The fact is that there is no history of this type of event among Christians. It is not a Catholic ceremony as Catholics don't jump on people on the floor. Masons that have been consulted, don't find any resemblance to any ritual that they perform and Lord knows about Buddhism."

    Now, I didn't deal with the homosexual aspects that you claim exist within this. If you are CONFIDENT, by suggesting that this bishop is a homosexual, then stand on your own to do it instead of looking for someone else to stand behind from which to throw stones. The only caution is that if, according to your methodology, men jumping on men are gay, then all football players, wrestlers, and a bunch of other athletes, for example, are gay as well. I know that is not the case. I have learned not to make rash and broad assumptions based on appearances, but since YOU are entitled to carry out and make your own opinion, simply do that.

    Since the word of God is more accurate and and has more authoritativeness than any opinion, even yours, I chose to simply review his actions in accordance with the word and I find that he is in error. Is there a problem with that? Is he not in error? If it is sin, what sin did he commit? Name it. What we plainly see is that it is error because of some kind of deception, but I can't call it and I can see that you can't either.

    One more word, so far as your assessment of Jackson is concerned, I think you do yourself well to know what slander and libel is and the implications of both as it pertains to blogging. That may save you some time and energy in the future and help you make sure that your assessments and conclusions are more artful and supportable when made.

    Finally, I would suggest that if you have specific information regarding this man's lifestyle, and can support that with facts and not mere internet speculation and gossip, then place it out there for all of us in the peanut gallery to see."

    Watchdogs...make your own case and draw your own conclusions on subject matter. That's how freedom of speech works!

  15. Salutations Pastor Burnett and Happy New Year!
    I concur with what you, Love of God, Johnny Hopkins ... I was disappointed when I realized a few other sites didn't allow open forum. And not just keeping caustic and vicious opposing view points monitored. I'd post agreeing there is no Bible to support XYZ, but then they inaccurately inferred something else was sinful/carnal based on the title, and half the Amen chorus took that portion and ran with it in their responses. I guess the spirit of Jezebel got in me or I was too use forums like here and GCM, and I wanted to offer clarity but my post never appeared on the stream, I never got a response via email, and from then on my comments were monitored/took longer to post. I also never noticed a retraction/amendment to the article that would indicate any follow up to my assertion that they had it incorrect.
    As I continued to follow the site I realized only comments 100% in agreement are posted, and just made me feel some kind of way and I stopped participating.
    And the response might be well we address all this in our videos or weekly services, and we were just showing another of example that what we're saying is true... But the Twam and FB Fam that only have a portion of understanding act real mobby, and that definitely hurts the impact of the ministry.

    The video was altogether suspect, my word of choice for stuff like this. I wonder if this were TD Jakes ordination practice would men be lined up on the floor. NO! In 10 more years he won't be flinging himself on nobody elses back if he is still bishop, so what then? I guess this Impact Ministries should be thankful the public is just outraged as to the method of the ordination, if we could get more righteous indignation when there is evidence that an ordination candidate has extra marital affairs, illegitimate kids, fiscal irresponsibility ...

  16. LaPreghiera,

    Now, you've hit on something. Some people think that "telling it like it is" entails making all kinds of over the top statements and absurd connections to certain subject matter and saying all kinds of speculative and gossipy things in the name of the Lord.

    Yes, and they do run in groups and packs and use "group think" and "internet mob behavior" does take over. My highest thread count comes from stories in which certain "personalities" are being discussed, or that it is perceived that "they" (whoever they are) are being exposed for ungodly behavior.

    In fact, in THIS THREAD some commentors were flat out mad that I didn't call names, which is something that I don't regret doing.

    Exposing darkness is not simply about exposing people, it is about exposing works and behaviors even that contribute to the darkness and ungodly behavior, and doing that TRUTHFULLY without exaggeration or embellishments, or at least making it clear when one is speculating.

    That leads to another issue of "internet mob behavior"....I remember (and have a copy of the thread as proof to prove it) I was dealing with some folk who "appeared" to be standing for truth linked to the NYTN (the Not Your Typical Negro) page on Facebook. Some of the members of that page and I ran into a disagreement over biblical doctrine etc...before you know it, one cussed and said some silly and even hateful things to me. One even threatened me physically (as if I was a bit concerned)They were totally disrespectful...

    Before too long in the same thread, others, both men and women, began to show their behind by adding more of the same. It was like someone struck a match and the fire just kept getting bigger and bigger.

    It was "mob behavior" only it was on the internet. It was simply an appeal to the audience or mob and those who would not otherwise speak wanted favor of their favorites. That's all it was....Now, these folk were "claiming" to be saved, and claiming to have the answer to "redeem" the church, but the evidence clearly spoke otherwise.

    This is the same with Bishop Jackson. You had some folk that would rather speak certain things because it appeals to their "audience" and to their friends or people they are trying to impress.

    Like they have done with Bishop Trotter, baby in the bath, they take partial info and run with it to make a whole case and come up with all kinds of weird speculations and sentiments and hold those things out as truth that are as far from the truth as night and day.

    Look, one can look up certain records and confirm the truth of those situations. If someone has been divorced, or gone to jail etc. But to see a video or a picture, and make all kinds of conclusions and hypothesize all kinds of situations, I can only ask, what's in a person's heart to make them automatically go there especially when info is speculative like that? Some folk just can't get enough of it, they swear by the words of their favorite "exposer".

    It is really something to consider and I will be preparing a piece on that specifically. Thanks.

  17. I was checking online about the controversy and Bishop Jackson has taken to the local news media in Detroit defending the act he did to the two Bishops-Elect. He claims to have done this for 20 years and never had any problems until now. Of course, the Internet crowd started making all kinds of comments about his sexuality. The only thing that matters is that the act cannot be supported by scripture. If he finds a better way to consecrate bishops that would be in order but he said that he was not going to stop "full body covering." If Bishop Jackson truly feels strongly about what happened then instead of taking the clips down on YouTube, he should address the body of Christ and not on the Impact Network.

  18. Johnny Hopkins,

    Yes, that is disturbing that if this man intends to do right that he cannot listen to and understand the criticisms because, like you said, the ceremony is not supportable in any manner by scripture.

    That is sad that he would rather hold onto a flawed and unbiblical practice, try to sanctify it, and all the while he's causing and setting a stumbling-block before millions.

    Somebody (Bishop Jackson) needs to read Psalms 1 and place the impact on the body of Christ ABOVE his desire to perform any ceremony, especially one as RIDICULOUS as this one.


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.