Political Pandering For The Gay Vote

The United States, under the Obama administration, and the leadership of Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton, has taken the notion that it should officially state it's accomplishments in support of the gay agenda and gay advocacy, by releasing a laundry list of things that it has done. 

“Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights, once and for all.”

 Secretary Hillary Clinton, June 2010, Washington, D.C.

Only to name a few, such things include:

At the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC) June 2011 session, the United States, South Africa, and Latin American and European Union countries led efforts to pass the first-ever UN resolution on the human rights of LGBT persons.

Read more!

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!    

Read more!

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. 

Read more!

Did Our Bishop Obfuscate?

The word Obfuscate simply is the concealment of meaning in communication, making it confusing and harder to interpret.

In this post I want to make it clear that The Dunamis Word is calling the Presiding Bishop of our church, The Church Of God in Christ, Inc. Mem. TN. in the person of Bishop Charles E. Blake, yet into question again regarding his statements to the General Assembly in April 2009. The statements in question are those centering around the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was endorsed the Presiding Bishop as a matter of positioning the church in unison with the tenets of the human rights document during the later part of 2008, and according to the Bishop in an effort to better align the church with international human rights efforts.

This post is clear and DOES NOT call into question the person or character of Bishop Blake. This post does not imply that the Bishop is either homosexual or partial to homosexuality and does not seek to besmirch his person. However this post does call into question the accuracy of his statements as recorded in written records regarding the UDHR, it's current use, and original intent.

The written record of Bishop Blake's response regarding the UDHR can be found HERE. It is that document and statements made therein that are questioned. I will highlight the statements as made by the Bishop and outline my concerns and what is generally known as common knowledge regarding these matters. Here we go:

The Creation Of The Proclamation Of Human Rights

Regarding the original creation of the document by the United Nations in 1948 and the endorsement of what was then the "Proclamation Of Human Rights" by the Church Of God in Christ, Mem. TN. in 1955, Bishop Blake states the following on Pg. 2 paragraph 4 of his response:

• 
  
  "In 1948, the UN issued the Statutes of the Genocide Convention and “Proclamation of Human Rights,” which was a condemnation of and prohibition of human right atrocities and cruelty. Six million Jews had been killed by the Nazis. Again in 1955, Bishop Mason sent Pastor Delk and Dr. Arenia C. Mallory to sign the UN Charter on the 10th Anniversary of the same."

What Bishop does not mention here is that the "Proclamation Of Human Rights" carried a duel aspect of human rights that included and provided for the practice of homosexuality by addressing atrocities and crimes against homosexuals. In fact as noted in my article Are Human Rights Gay Rights Pt. 2? The University Of Minnesota Human Rights Center addressed this issue as follows:

• 
  
  "The UDHR was drafted in reaction to the inhumanity committed during World War II. Like Jews, gypsies, and the disabled, gay men and lesbians were singled out by the Nazis for slave labor and extermination. As many as 100,000 gay men were sent to the concentration camps where they were killed or worked to death. They were required to wear pink triangles, a symbol that has since come to stand for the international gay rights movement. Several thousand lesbians, considered "anti-social elements" and forced to wear black triangles, met similar fates." The study also notes that "Despite these atrocities, the UDHR contains no specific guarantees of fundamental human rights regardless of sexual orientation."

As for the intent, all rational persons agree that homosexuals should not be singled out or be open targets of crime and violence. That is not in question. However, the notion that the UDHR had NO CONSIDERATION for homosexuals or what we view as the homosexual agenda should be put to rest from this point forward. From it's very inception atrocities against homosexuals WERE INCLUDED in the intents and structure of the UDHR. Homosexuals WERE in consideration when the original documents were created and called the "Proclamation Of Human Rights". By deductive reasoning, since the document DID NOT condemn the practice of homosexuality, one should reasonable assume that the practice of homosexuality including homosexual marriages and personal freedoms WOULD be included at the heart of the document. To suggest otherwise is not lying, but a mere shading of the truth, and gives rise to more suspicion.

Read more!

Propserity: The Gospel Of Excess

"I get so mad when I see these pimpin' preachers driving Rolls-Royces, Bentleys, flying around in their private jets, and making it seem like prosperity and money is the way of God when 90 percent of your congregation is on Section 8 or can't figure out how they are going to keep their lights on or feed their kids." ~Donnie McClurkin by Kenya N. Byrd Essence Magazine 3/26/2009

Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous

In a recent interview with Essence Magazine Donnie McClurkin posed that lifestyles of leaders of churches were out of control and out of hand. He further stated that individuals sometimes preach and place monetary burdens on their congregations while they themselves live a life of luxury. There was and is much commentary on both sides of the issue as to just how a preacher should live and conduct themselves among the congregation.

Now the backdrop is this, for a number of years the church has been under attack for its excess social and moral practices. It would seem that the current financial recession is also bringing much of this to the surface, and I say thankfully.

The lifestyles of the minister and church have caught the attention of everyone both favorable and unfavorable, church and secular. Rod 2.0 Beta reports that not only is attendance at mega church New Birth MB Lithonia, GA. down but tithes are down over 20% since 1993. They also reported this about Bishop Eddie Long and his 2009 Easter Service which normally was held annually at the Georgia Dome:

• "Bishop Long, who routinely preaches his sermons dressed in expensive tailored suits and dripping in diamonds, acknowledges that his members are no longer receptive to his "prosperity" message since many of them have lost their jobs and homes."

The first observation that we must agree with is that there ARE excesses and immoralities that have occurred that have not represented Christ nor his church. There are individuals who "fleece the sheep" for selfish gain and accolades. Secondly, there are yet a growing number of instances in which individuals within the church have caused the church to continue to be seen and regarded in a negative light.

Improper Biblical Insights:

Much of this sort of thing can be raced back to E.W. Kenyon but the whole Word Of Faith prosperity type teachings got it's start, in modern times, from individuals like the late Kenneth Hagin who taught that you can "write your own ticket" with God. Affectionately called Dad Hagin, in his book entitled "How To Write Your Own Ticket With God" which is a expose all fast rack to the throne room of heaven, Dr. Hagin said that the Lord said this to him:

• "If anybody anywhere, will take these four steps or put these four principles into operation, he will always receive whatever he wants from me or from God the father"..."That includes whatever you want financially." The formula is simply, "1- say it, 2- do it, 3- receive it, and 4- tell it" As recorded in Exceedingly Growing Faith 2ed (Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries 1988 pg. 73-74 (Numbers added)

In Hagin's teaching there was no acknowledgement of faith or believing prayer or even the will of God. Another part of the problem that we face within the church today stems from how many individuals misinterpret or just plain lie about their place and position within the kingdom of God. Some tend to think they are Kings, while others claim that they are "special preachers to the nation" (ala: Juanita Bynum) . For a long time now the late, defunct preacher, Bishop Earl Paulk, taught what was deemed as the "Doctrine Of The Kings Meat" which was wrapped in his "Kingdom Now Theology". These teachings allowed him to have congregational excesses such as money and sexual favors over a period of about 40 years, while restricting others to the pews and demanding that they not questioning the "anointing". By the way Bishop Paulk's most recent lawsuit was dropped in 2007. I don't know but I haven't heard that he repented along the way. If he did (before he passed)please let us know by referencing the article.

Some of these individuals proudly proclaim who they are and what they want and do. For instance, there's Dr. Bill Winston who confesses that he is a "prosperity preacher". Many of his supporters go on to contrast by saying what else should a preacher be? A "poverty preacher"?

Although that may be a trite response, the real danger is in his theology. Not only does he fall in the line of faith teachers and the Word Of Faith movement by teaching that faith is a force, he also teaches that believers (members of his church) are kings and he is a priest.

Dr. Winston, a former highly successful IBM Sales Director, has said that the congregation is to go out and get the money and to come in and give the money to him because he is the priest. In reward for this they can then have that new Mercedes, mansion or even an airplane. In other words the promise of God has a material one to one equivalency. Still, there are additional problems. In his book, "The Kingdom Of God In You" Dr. Winston sets forth the notions that even sincerely saved persons can unwittingly live under satan's rule, and that the promises of God rarely come from the outside sovereign work of God, but from the internal kingdom already within an individual. It's evidence that Dr. Winston doesn't recognize the total sovereignty of God both internally and externally and relinquishes and ultimately restricts God's sovereignty to external circumstances only. These are disturbing teachings and suggestions to say the least, and have very serious biblical and theological implications. Dr Winston has a new book coming out called the Law Of Confession which I plan to also review on this site.

For some individuals, giving the benefit of the doubt of spiritual correctness is all based on what ability they have or accomplishments they have amassed. For instance in the recent address the General Assembly of the Church Of God In Christ Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake set forth the following notion and response in defending his action of endorsing and signing the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR):

• I’ve got too much work to do for the Lord, to be obsessed with somebody else’s faults or pursuits. One hundred and fifty eight people got saved at West Angeles on Sunday. I pastor your largest church, and it gives more to missions that any other church in our denomination. Each year for the last twenty four years my jurisdiction has given more than any other jurisdiction in financial reports. Wisdom is justified by her children. Before you believe a person’s allegations, check to see what kind of children that person has produced. What kind of work have they done?

In other words, from the Bishop's statements the gauge that the church should use in discerning right from wrong and truth from error is material success. Whether that be in the ability to create large churches or in the ability to wield massive amounts of money. (I'll do another post regarding The Bishop's misstatements on the UDHR in another post) So in essence, wielding money and drawing crowds is a validate of success when Jesus name is attached. This is not the gospel of the Kingdom, this is the gospel of self and self kingdom pursuit and validation. Neither John the Baptist nor Jesus had churches, buildings or large treasuries, but both were more highly successful than any now walking. Then there are a list of Apostles that follow the same route.

Naturally, we understand that the Kingdom requires material blessing and financial arrangements. The problem is the obtuse rendering of these things and the seeming pyramid structures, schemes and psycho-manipulation that these ministers use to amass money and increase their wealth.

Those schemes never seem to exist greater than when mixed with vacations disguised as spiritual retreats to places such as Las Vegas. Yes, as confirmed by Melvin Jones at Pulpit Pimps, Sin City is where Bishop I.V. "Money Man" Hilliard plans to retreat for spiritual empowerment in July 2009. Now, we know that there is no city that is so called more spiritual than another, however there are some more conducive to sin than others. By it's nickname (Sin City) Las vegas has been labeled as "Whatever Happens Here, Stays Here" and this is quite telling. Last I knew the only thing I wanted kept secret was SIN. On the other hand, we don't minimize that there are good people in Las Vegas. Thank God for Christians trying to win their community by their example, what we point to is the thought that material doctrine usually lead to materialistically based decisions and excesses with materialism and social status at heart.

Then there's the Leroy Thompsons of the world. Dr. Thompson's book, "Money Thou Art Loosed" set forth the notion that "prosperity is a mark of covenant. God desires for His children to live the abundant life financially, and there are things we can do to cooperate with God in faith to cause money to be loosed into our life."

These principles and "things" we can do usually have no regard or preferential treatment for them that are saved. In other words, if the unrighteous do the things that are outlined in most of these books and teaching messages, even they too will receive and overabundance.

One of the more popular ones of them all is Creflo "Crank Dem Dollars" Dollar In his book "8 steps To Create The Life You Want: The Anatomy Of A Successful Life" Regarding the books basic premise he says this:

"For instance, your words produce your thinking, your thinking drives your emotions, your emotions dictate your decisions, your decisions determine your actions, your actions shape your habits, your habits form your character, and your character determines your destiny. Today, I ask, is there anything missing in your life? If so, commit to walking out the eight steps in this book, and you will understand how to position yourself to experience change. What are you waiting for? You’re only eight steps away!"

Heretical Teachings & Metaphysical Beliefs

Another part to this teaching is the flat out heresy that exists among some of the more popular prosperity teachers. As if obtuse materialistic teaching weren't enough, Kenneth Copeland for instance has no idea about the deity of Christ from scripture or otherwise. He levied a long prophetic utterance in his "Believers Voice Of Victory" some years ago in which he claimed that the Spirit Of The Lord had spoken to him and told him the following:

"...The more you get to be like me, the more they're going to think that way of you. They crucified me for claiming that I was God. But I didn't claim I was God; I just claimed I walked with him and that he was in me. Hallelujah. ["Take Time To Pray" Believers Voice Of Victory 15,2 Feb. 1987:9]

The next month he would followup on questions he received by saying that he didn't say that Jesus wasn't God only that Jesus never made that claim here on Earth. [See "Christianity In Crisis", Hanegraaff (Harvest House 1993) pg. 138]

Obviously one can see either the total spiritual deception or total lack of biblical knowledge. Jesus made the claim to be God clearly in John 8:58 for instance

"58-Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59-Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

Jesus' declaration was the reason they (the pious Jews) wanted to crucify him. They considered that Jesus had committed blasphemy by equating himself with God. Not to mention John 1:1-18, Mt. 1:23, Jn. 20:28 and the entire usage of the word Lord (kurios) in Gk. which was the Septuagint (Greek New Testament) rendering of the Tetragram (the 4 sacred letters YHWH) from the Old Testament. Careful examination of this opens a whole new world of Jesus both declaring himself as God and openly receiving from others the same declaration. In fact John the Baptist declares Jesus to be the Lord (ie: God) for whom he is preparing the way according to Is. 40:3. This is confirmed in all gospels (Mt. 3:3, Mk. 1:3, Lk. 3:4, Lk. 1:16, and Jn. 1:23) The disciples ask the "Lord" (kurie, soson) to save them (Mt. 8:25) Peter later cries out the same, "Lord save me" (kurie soson me) when he began to sink after walking on water (Mt. 14:30). Jesus uses the double wording of Lord, Lord (Kurie, Kurie) to to emphasize his title of deity or control in the destiny of souls. (Mt. 7:21-22, Lk. 6:46 and Mt. 25:11) There are a host of other instances but the point is made clear, Kenneth DIDN'T get that word from the Lord Jesus or any heavenly angel at all. What Kenneth did was preach another gospel and we know the penalty for that. (Gal. 1:8-9)

Finally in this segment, there's Mark Chironna leveling prophecies based on one's ability to give, never mind who's receiving...just give. I've documented his false doctrine in "Not My Chironna" This gentleman has a broadcast called "Creating Your World" during which he affirms the metaphysical nature of words, teaches that believers have a "field of attraction" around them, and reduces the move of God to the ability to "make connections". Not to mention the fact that he teaches that everyone has the ability to use words to both shape and create circumstances in their lifves either favorable or non favorable. This goes beyond mere positive confession. It enters into the realm of mind altering creative abilities.

Materialistic Declaration

As Creflo suggests it is because of great character there is great prosperity. Wealth is because some have better abilities than others, playing heavily offf of the scripture of the steward that received talent according to their several ability (Mt. 25:15) one would naturally ask what accounts for the wealth of the atheist, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? In every prosperity preachers arsenal there is a variation of this exact same premise to some degree along with a host of false prophecies.

Speaking of Creflo, I have a friend that was once a member of World Changers in Atl. Pastor Dollar PERSONALLY and SPECIFICALLY prophesied a son over her pregnant womb by the "spirit" and "inspiration" of the Holy Ghost. Several months later when A GIRL was born, pastor was shown to have added at least one more false prophecy to his arsenal.

We Must Stand For Truth At All Costs

Galations 5:1 ~ "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Christ has come to deliver us from the materialistic declaration of the prosperity crowd. These type of thoughts were the thoughts of Jesus day. He condemned those practices now along with his Apostles following suit after him. The scripture said this:

Mt. 6:33 ~ "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you"

Do either of these scriptures restrict us from material gain? NO. Do either of these scriptures require that we use poverty as a sign of righteousness? NO. Do either of these scriptures outline materialism as an indicator of spiritual success? NO. What these scriptures teach is that we, you and I, must prioritize our lives so that Jesus is at the top or the center of the plan. It can't be "me and Jesus" It must be Jesus alone.

Mt. 17: 1-8 ~ "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2-And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3-And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4-Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5-While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 6-And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. 7-And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. 8-And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only"

Blessed!

(Please excuse an earlier version full of spelling errors. Thank you.)
Read more!

The New Truth, Fairness, Justice & Love

"We've shown that truth and fairness and justice and love are more powerful than one man's veto pen," ~
Gay Advocate Beth Robinson (pictured crying center) 4/7/2009 Montpeilier, VT

The Legislature of the state of Vermont overrode the Governor's veto against homosexual marriage by a two thirds majority of both the House(100-49) and Senate (23-5) and has now ordained marriages between gays and lesbians as the law of the state. Although New Hampshire and Maine are on the way, Vermont is the first state to introduce gay marriage through legislative action. Vermont joined Iowa, whose State Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, made gay marriage the law of the land on Friday April, 3rd 2009 (now on furlough due to budget cuts) That case had been circulating through the courts since 2005.

Vermont and Iowa join both Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only four states in the American Union of States (aka United States of America) to sanction gay marriage. There are a host of other states that are considering civil unions or domestic partnerships which are 1 to 2 steps away from gay and homosexual marriage but are certainly steps in a favorable direction of the gay rights movement. So far as President Obama's backyard (ie:the nations capital) Reuters reports:

• "Washington D.C. extended new rights to gay couples on Tuesday [4/7/2009], too, with a unanimous City Council vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the district. Some city lawmakers lauded the move as a prelude to legal same-sex marriage in the U.S. capital."
  

The Nations Capital??? Concerning the Iowa victory, please note the jubilation of attorney Richard Socarides a former Clinton Senior Advisor on gay rights:

• "It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays,"
  

Evidently Richard feels that no matter the will of the people that it is activist courts who should have the final authority to make decisions of this kind and impose those decisions upon the people. Unfortunately, this lawyer must not have read the Constitution Of The United States. If he did I'm sure he'd understand that the Courts of the United States were certainly not given powers at any point and time to make the laws of the country. In fact courts have no law making ability at all.

Concerning the Vermont Legislatures decision, consider former gay House Representative Robert Dostis who had this to say at the news:

• "It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. Then speaking of his 25 year live in lover Chuck Kletecka, he says, "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Now it is obvious that Mr.(or Mrs.???) Dostis has reformulated his/her own brand of morality claiming that homosexuals are "as good and as bad any other group of people", What is that about? Nobody has argued that homosexuals were not human beings. (At least that I'm aware of) The argument isn't about whether homosexuals are "good members of the community" either. The argument is about a paradigm shift in moral values which creates groups of people calling them "sexual minorities" and ultimately exalting deviant sexual practices to equal currently accepted traditional and moral sexual practices. I would like to know from Mr. (or Mrs.) Dostis on what basis has he/she established his/her moral value? What makes his/her sexual preference more preferred, legal and right than that of a pedophile (which I will have an article on soon~ because they are fighting for their rights in a similar manner) who is currently restricted in every state of the union from fulfilling his/her desire for underage sexual partners? Following their pattern, the polygamist, bigamist and even uncontrollable rapist should have the same rights as a "sexual minority" that the homosexual has under these new laws and subjective moral standards. All deviant sexual practices should be rewarded. Sexual preferences are just that, SEXUAL PREFERENCES, not a genetic condition as the gay rights movement wants us to believe.

All of this is shades of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Y'u-know that document that the Church Of God In Christ endorses and has endorsed? In case you didn't, just read HERE and HERE) Which is clearly and unequivocally stated by gay rights organizations and advocates as the backbone or foundation of the gay rights movement both nationally and internationally. The declaration, without singling out or excluding any particular group of individuals allows "human rights" for "sexual minorities" among other classes of individuals. For those who don't already know, the UDHR calls for the world to standardize policies for individuals who claim that they been discriminated against, in every United Nations member country and around the world. (Ooh yea, the cat's out of the bag now, and I won't let it just die and go away, because there are significant implications of a church endorsement of this document.)


Who Are The Playas, Pushas and Pawns?

In Iowa, it's Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization. They filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. According to the Associated Press report, some of their children were also listed as plaintiffs. Why would children be listed as plaintiffs in an adult homosexual discrimination case?

Well, this is the same Lambda Legal who was featured in our article, "Are 'Human Rights' 'Gay Rights'? Pt. 2" who have produced, encouraged and promoted ALLY Week that promotes "safe" school environments by encouraging non-gay individuals to stand in defence of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons in and at the school level. These networks also focus on the re-education and indoctrination of children into greater understandings and acceptance of LGBT individuals no matter what values a parent teaches their children at home. All of that is a product of the National Education Association who in 2007 adopted 3 no-vote executive session recommendations on sexual orientation to implement in public school agenda. The 3 recommendations were:

1. "Develop public and member support" for the "creation, amendment and/or passage of federal hate crimes legislation" that the recommendation says "protects members and students from harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation."
   
2. "Expand the GLBT web page on the NEA website to include all resources devoted to GLBT issues, including but not limited to training, strategies for collective bargaining, legislation and policy, and the legal rights of education employees and students." Another portion of the recommendation asked that "NEA develop training standards for the appropriate inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression issues in NEA trainings."
   
3. "Advocate for more fully incorporating sexual orientation and gender identity/expression within National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education standards and principles."The committee set its sights on the standards set by NCATE in hopes of someday requiring teacher candidates to undergo diversity training related to sexual orientation.

Then there is the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who helped to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and has set a goal of expanding such marriages to all New England states by 2012. Maine and New Hampshire already offer same-sex couples some form of legal recognition. ~Reuters 4/7/09

Even food and beverage companies such as Taco Bell and PepsiCo have entrenched themselves into the cause to normalize the homo-agenda. In fact in one of Taco Bell's most recent commercials a pregnant man dressed as a woman in a blue dress, wearing leggings uncovers his stomach to reveal several affordable Taco Bell menu items. When the second character in the commercial asks him if he is wearing makeup, he simply responds by saying "You Can't Judge Me!"...This message is plain, simple and clearly goes beyond the sell and promotion of foods into a message of social morality and is clearly a message of comfort from Taco Bell to its current and potential customer base of transgender individuals. While Pepsi has given its endorsement and YOUR MONEY to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) ($500,000) to help them oppose Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) which is a group who provides services to help ex-gays transitioning to normative personal, moral and sexual lifestyles. If that weren't bad enough they also gave ($500,000) more to The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to oppose and continue to oppose Prop. 8. This is the same HRC which also uses the UDHR as a foundation to promote the homosexual agenda as stated in "Are 'Human Rights' 'Gay Rights'?"

Additional Problems:

The implications of all this are clear. The family has been redefined and morality shifted to those values that are not objectively based but are only subjectively based on whims and self desires. The church in it's desire to attract, a greater panacea of individuals, has become confused and staggered in an intoxicated stupor awaiting the next program or feel good event to resolve issues and make things "right as rain". I am afraid that the church has failed to reinforce and stand for the value system of the word within their communities. As a church our apolitical stance has allowed ungodly executives and legislators to reign and ungodly judges to proliferate their ungodly and anti-God value systems. Many of our ministers only want to be known by the President, Governor, Mayor, and other local official but do not wish to address anything of significance or substance or call those officials to godly and righteous accountability. We have reverted to "guest list" salvation where we are proud to take the high seats in public gatherings but live in the low seats and gutters of immorality and self preservation. We've stood for more money and popularity but who has stood for the word and righteousness?

It should further be no surprise that the first group effected by this set massacre of morality, is and would be the black community. Why and how? Our homes have been exposed due to lack of leadership. Men have been taken from the home by the droves through drugs, incarceration and immoral sexual practices and disease and bad choices. That has left a burden on women, grandparents and school officials who seek to provide moral substance to a generation that is seemingly destined and bent on shattering HELL right down the middle. The penile system has incarcerated black men at a rate of over 50% of all incarcerations annually. AIDS and HIV has ravaged the black community to the tune of over 50% of all new cases reported annually and over 65% of all young adult cases. This leaves a gap and a moral outcry from both the young and old of the black community wondering why and how we got into such a devastating condition.

Then there's the church, who has only thought about it's next offering or building plan program, and has left the family exposed. The daughter and son have been left open to molestation by the gay and lesbian minister of music, and musicians. Ministers have left our daughters who were once holy, seeking abortions as contraception to cover preachers and deacon's sins. The minister that has been afraid to speak up for fear of the board's decision has been "whipped" by popularity and social acceptance into submitting to the devil and leaving the ministry mission unattended. The members of the church who have supposedly been "waiting on the Lord" while the church and its leadership engages in more ungodliness with the endorsement of the HOLY TITHE that is represent weekly is equally to blame as the sinners that lead them. In short silent endorsement has allowed the innocent to actually partake in the sins of these ungodly self-promoting pimps and prostitutes that claim to have a word from the Lord and lead the people of God into HELL.

What Can We Do?

It is inevitable, the law of the land has changed. As the atheist Borg (Star Trek) chant "Resistance Is Futile!" the church can only REPENT for allowing sleep to come upon it in such an important time as this. it must RETURN back to God in hopes that he will stem this tide of unrighteousness, that has come upon us. The products are a rampant rise in atheism because our bible studies have been of no substance. A new and worse type of immorality, because we have made profit , gain, and association from sons who have no identity and daughters who have chosen material over character. The church has allowed ungodliness to not only sit in the church but direct, dress and control the church. This all MUST be judged by the righteous and holy God that he is. This WILL be judged by the righteous and holy God that he is. You'll find me on my knees asking HIM to help and forgive me!

2 Chron. 7:14-16 ~ "14-If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 15-Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. 16-For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually."

Blessed!

Read more!

Are "Human Rights" "Gay Rights"? Pt. 2

Click Here: Become A Radio Outreach Sponsor

New -----Abortion Rights Trouble In Illinois-----New

As stated in Are "Human Rights" "Gay Rights"?, the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) has taken front and center in a debate over whether The Church Of God In Christ (COGIC) should or should not have signed onto or endorsed the document. Please note that my interest here is not to "bring down" a church or call an individuals (specifically Presiding Bishop Blake's) personal integrity into question. I don't feel that either of those efforts are in the best interest of Christianity in general, however the purpose here is to foster helpful dialogue and provide necessary information as COGIC members and friends examine the issue of the UDHR and what it means to our church, the nation and to all Christian churches in general.

The difficulty of this debate stems over the recognition of injustice in the world and what the church can and should do about that injustice. To be honest, we will have to admit that there are certain injustices that take place and that have taken place against groups of people almost since the beginning of human history. The whole "civil rights" era in the United States focused on the injustice that lingered from the practice of slavery within American society.

The part of this debate that is problematic, is not so much the acknowledgement of injustice, but the segment of individuals that this declaration has repeatedly been used to focus on. That is the homosexual right. While fighting against job discrimination, for equal housing, healthcare access and all the liberties that one should be afforded as a human being, (ie: Human Right), the homosexual lobby has clearly and methodically invoked the UDHR as a means and method of bringing the fight for moral sexual equality into national, international and even world courts.

A Little History:

According to the University Of Minnesota's Human Rights Center,

"The UDHR was drafted in reaction to the inhumanity committed during World War II. Like Jews, gypsies, and the disabled, gay men and lesbians were singled out by the Nazis for slave labor and extermination. As many as 100,000 gay men were sent to the concentration camps where they were killed or worked to death. They were required to wear pink triangles, a symbol that has since come to stand for the international gay rights movement. Several thousand lesbians, considered "anti-social elements" and forced to wear black triangles, met similar fates." The study also notes that "Despite these atrocities, the UDHR contains no specific guarantees of fundamental human rights regardless of sexual orientation."

Special Note: It would seem that even the General Board of our great church was misinformed regarding this point. The General Board Of Bishop's statement in support of the UDHR endorsement shows complete obliviousness to this vital and crucial information. In fact you will see this caveat referenced nowhere on the COGIC web site.

At heart we have a fundamental societal challenge that has some dangerous underpinnings. The church should fight for the poor, disenfranchised, and for those suffering injustices and discrimination when those struggles are about righting the wrongful effects of sin that exist in the world. That in my book is a given and certainly within the mission of the Christian church. However, that is a far cry from struggling for behaviors that are both immoral and unbiblical.

Comparing The Discrimination Experienced

Because Of The Color Of Skin

Doesn't Equate To The Struggle For Sin!

The New "Unequal" Class Of "Sexual Minority"???

Through the use and implementation of the UDHR a new class of "separate and unequal" individuals have been identified called the "Sexual Minority". This is where the "tire meets the road" with the UDHR, because the UDHR is and has been increasingly used to fight for this class of sexual minority on the basis of equality and ultimately "human rights".

Isn't it also true that pedophiles are sexual minorities? What about rapists? They are sexual minorities also. Then there are a host of other sexual relationships that are condemned both by the state and the bible. Many of these classes including polygamists, bigamists, swingers, the polyamorous are all "sexual minorities". Taking the UDHR literally, which is the only way that it can be taken, all classes of sexually deviant behaviors, such as sadomasticist, dominatrix, and even "johns" who visit prostitutes, can be described as "sexual minorities". The only problem is that the law does not facilitate certain classes of sexual minorities based on current societal standards of morality. Under the UDHR, however all it takes is mass appeal for a certain behavior and it could become a "human right".

How Has The UDHR Been Used?

Although I alluded to how the UDHR could potentially be used in my previous post because of it's broad language, there is actual history of how it has been used to promote and allow certain aspects of "gay rights" claiming that they are simultaneously "human rights". Here are a few examples:

• In Canada, that nation's Supreme Court ruled that when the Alberta legislature omitted sexual orientation from the province's anti-discrimination laws, it was violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that such protection should be read into the law. (Article 8 of the UDHR describes the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental human rights granted by the constitution or the law.)

Those with varying "sexual orientation" had to be supported and given consideration as a class of individuals under Canadian law because the country was bound by the standards of the UDHR.

• In Colombia, the Constitutional Court decreed that private religious schools cannot ban gay students and that firing gay teachers is unconstitutional. (Article 26 of the UDHR says everyone has the right to education.)

In this case the UDHR was invoked to change the practice of private religious schools especially as it pertains to what was conferred as "human rights" to gay students and teachers within institutions who held doctrinal beliefs against such behaviors.

• In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee (the body that upholds the International Bill Of Human Rights (IBHR)~ which is the flow INTO entity of the UDHR) ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual acts in the Australian state of Tasmania violated Australia's obligations under Articles 2 (non-discrimination) and 17 (right to privacy) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1997, Tasmania repealed its anti-gay law.

Once again, we have a country that is bound by the UDHR and it's offspring document, the IBHR, that changes and modifies its laws for the entire country to be in harmony with the UDHR document.

The problem is that the UDHR has been invoked to create a level of moral equality resulting in normalizing homosexual activity in particular. Through the UDHR tendencies and preferences take precedent over established, functioning, and exclusive moral values while simultaneously blurring if not obliterating the line and definition of Christian and biblical moral rights in particular. In essence the UDHR has been used and continues to be used to remove rights from individuals and organizations that hold moral values on a higher scale.

Yes, we are going there. in some way shape or form we are heading into a universally sanctioned "human right" for the sexual minority" class of homosexual. Need I remind you what our President stated during his campaign for office:

"I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the mount."

~Sen. Barack H. Obama (Now President)

The Moral Re engineering Of Our Children

As noted in my previous post, "When "Gay Day" Comes Your Way~The Homosexual Rite Becomes Law" one of the areas of growing interest is childhood education and especially early childhood education (ECE). President Obama has declared his resolve to focus on ECE and to revamp the complete educational system of America. As noted on ABC's 20/20 program with John Stossel on Friday March 13th, 2009 the greatest current push of the national educational system is to create and require what is called Universal Pre-K. Although pre-K is currently available to all it is not mandatory for all and neither is it a requirement to be enrolled in a national brand of educational Pre-K. What 20/20 did not go into great detail about was that current efforts will use Pre-K as a forum to begin the educational indoctrination of children centered around what is and will become a national education agenda. Undoubtedly, that agenda will not and can not be shaped apart from the UDHR or the UN Council's directives on human rights.

This is all particularly interesting as we take special note of the group Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund who holds that "human rights" education and awareness should take front and center within our schools because of the recognition of a growing number of cases of physical abuse and harm against "sexual minorities". In fact, their annual event, known as ALLY Week is an effort to teach children as young as Kindergarten that "sexual minorities" are only diversities within society consequently concluding that the morality of such individuals should not be questioned or compared to traditional norms and the safety of sexual minorities should be undertaken by those who are in the sexual majority.

What hasn't been said up until this point is that there is also a UDHR for children. Yes that's right, the concepts and language are broken down so that even a child can understand what's being said. Let's do a little comparison between the child and adult versions to see if there are additional insights gained from the document itself:

Adult Version: Article 1 ~ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Child Version: Article 1~ All human beings are born free and equal. You are worth the same, and have the same rights as anyone else. You are born with the ability to think and to know right from wrong, and should act toward others in a spirit of friendliness.

Notice that Article one establishes the principle of human morality. the adult version calls this being "endowed with reason and conscience", while the child version states that we "are born with the ability to think and to know right from wrong". In essence one can know morality without having to know the moral law giver. Morality is something that one is born with NOT that one learns either through religious or societal experience.

Adult Version: Declaration 16 which says: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

Child Version: Declaration 16: 1) Grown men and women have the right to marry and start a family, without anyone trying to stop them or make it hard because of their race, country, or religion. Both partners have equal rights in getting married, during the marriage, and if and when they decide to end it. 2) A marriage shall take place only with the agreement of the couple. 3) The family is the basic part of society, and should be protected by it.

Notice the language of the child version changes to "partners have equal rights in getting married" as opposed to "they are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage" Subtle but quite effective technique of language acceptance going on. One of the false assumptions about this statement is that reading of "Men and Women have the right to marry". This simply states just that. The declaration DOES NOT restrict endorse or encourage men and women to marry one another cross-gender or otherwise. This is totally open to the exercise of the individuals free and unfettered rights ie: human right.

Adult Version: Article 18 ~ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Child Version: Article 18 ~ You have the right to believe the things you want to believe, to have ideas about right and wrong, and to believe in any religion you want. This includes the right to change your religion if you want, and to practice it without anybody interfering.

This article changes the language in the child version to "and to practice it (religion) without anybody interfering". In other words evangelization is a definite NO-NO under this document (at least in the kids version) Further, far from being religious neutral which is what one would assume would be best, the document establishes the right of practice of religion. For some this is a good thing, but notice that it comes with a price and a deal with the devil himself...Now, we understand that modern religion especially Islam has been the source of many modern problems as it pertains to the promotion of Sharia Law. One could say that the intent of the article is to address Islam, but notice that the article IS NOT restricted to the practice of any religion. Therefore, the practice of Christianity is certainly included in these guidelines. The question is can the Christian, by virtue of the Great Commission not "interfere" in the practice of any other religion? Is our call to remain silent and friendly as it pertains to truth?

Adult Version: Article 26 ~ (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Child Version: Article 26 ~ 1) Everyone has the right to an education. It should be free of charge, and should be required for all, at least in the early years. Later education for jobs and college has to be there for anyone who wants it and is able to do it. 2) The idea of education is to help people become the best they can be. It should teach them to respect and understand each other, and to be kind to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are from. Education should help to promote the activities of the United Nations in an effort to create a peaceful world.

In this article the educational system "shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." in the child version "teach them to respect and understand each other, and to be kind to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are from. Education should help to promote the activities of the United Nations in an effort to create a peaceful world." Pardon me if I sound like a conspiracy theorist here but this sure sounds as if the only thing that our education should promote is the furtherance of the United Nations effort to create a "peaceful world"...Therefore all human efforts are reduced to these efforts. WOW!

Daniel 8:25 ~ "25-And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

Further, the direction that the church was to take was to be able to teach what Jesus said. The concepts that the church was to bring to the world are concepts of Christ, not ecumenism for it is ONLY through the gospel that men and women are saved and set free from their sins. our command superceeds the UDHR articles and tenents of tolerance and peace:

Mt. 28:19-20 ~ "19-Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20-Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

The message of the church is a life saving message that may and will cause divisions for the sake of truth:

Romans 1:16 ~ "16-For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

Removing Human Emotion From Concepts Of Biblical Truth

The part that is confusing to many is that the UDHR plays upon human emotions. Christians want to see individuals benefitted and treated rightly according to both human and biblical standards. The UDHR allows immoral standards to "piggyback" upon it therefore causing it to be the standard bearer for some wrong, unjust and immoral causes.

One is reminded to look at what the scripture teaches about such agreements that are broad in frame, inclusive and not based upon biblical absolutes.

Deut.12:29-32 ~ "29-When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; 30-Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31-Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. 32-What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Prov.6:2 ~ "Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth."

Prov. 22:26-28 ~ "26-Be not thou one of them that strike hands (enter into or make agreements), or of them that are sureties for debts. 27-If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee? 28-Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."

One thing is for sure that within secular, worldly, and universal documents that uplift mankind there are bound to be problems both in application, useage and the ultimate carrying out resolutions to maintain spiritual integrity. In fact biblical consistencies DO NOT exist in worldly and non-Christ centered documents no matter how well they claim to uphold humanity. Why? Because these documents are not based on the true moral law giver or HIS word of truth. The system is under the influence of the enemy of our souls:

1 John 2:15 ~ "15-Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

John 18:36a ~ "36-"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:..."

Summary & Questions:

It goes without saying that this topic is one that must be addressed and redressed within our church and society in general. It would seem that with the use of the UDHR that America is on an inevitable course to relieve whatever soveriegnty that it has left and deliver more power and authority to the United Nations as a whole. It is disconcerting that in light of all of this the church has directly become captive to the document and it's tenents and case law because of it's desire to serve humanity on a more broad and recognizeable scale. These are actions, in my opinion, that nether God nor HIS word favors as it pertains to the place, position and mission of the church to the world.

Through the examination of the UDHR and how it's message is proliferated, we better observe the "mystery of iniquity" that now works and the system by which one of it's elements is proliferated.

2 Thess. 2:7-12 ~ "7-For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8-And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9-Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10-And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11-And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12-That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

In the forum of world courts and councils, which are bereft of God and HIS council, we cannot find safety, shelter or direction as it pertains to the will of God and the direction of our church.

Prov. 14:12 ~ "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

The positions and alignment of the Church Of God In Christ with this document and other world treaties should be immediately examined and in the best case COGIC hands should be withdrawn from such documents and ecumenical efforts that weakens our base and our constituency both in our native land and abroad. Further, in our effort to become all things to all men, we should not forget who we are and what we have become to those millions who live sacrifically adhering to the biblical teachings of holiness (Heb. 12:14). It is to that household that we first owe a great debt and special gratitude of service.

Galations 6:10 ~ "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

Could the UDHR be used to fight for immoral behavior?

YES. When it is invoked to fight for homosexuality under the guise of the homosexual being a "sexual minority" it's is doing just that.

Could the UDHR be used to fight for other types of sexually deviant behavior?

YES, and as it stands there is no limitation to what it can be used to fight for as long as the "state" or nation endorses certain behaviors. In fact the specific language of the declaration is:

Article 2. ~Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind,

In other words, without any distinctions "of any kind", the UDHR sets the standard for morality without naming any potential activity. The standards are based on what society dictates, what people agree to and what the courts, sometimes without legislative actions, mandate.

This should shed some light on WHY in the face of the citizens of California that the California Supreme Court could so easily overturn Prop. 8 and unilaterally make gay marriage the law of the land for at least a time. It should also give us insight into why the gay rights movement feels that Prop. 8 should be repealed because according to their interpretation of the rights afforded by the UDHR, and the direction that the country must go in because of the agreement with the United Nations, restriction of marriages to heterosexual couples is ultimately a violation of both "human" and "civil" rights.

The UDHR DOES NOT mention sexual orientation one time. Why is that important?

TRUE. The UDHR does not mention sexual orientation or homosexuality in any manner. However the language of the document leaves the door open for the homosexual aganda, and further has been used to support the homosexual agenga, considers individuals who are in favor of hetrosexual rights as opposed to homosexual rights, homophobic, and holds traditional moral values and beliefs in contempt in world courts. Further the document revolves around what is called, evolving concepts of human rights. Countries such as The Netherlands, South Africa, Ecuador, Canada, and Colombia, are especially significant because in each of those areas the UDHR has been used to condone portions of international homosexual agenda, including, but not exclusive to homosexual marriage and domestic partnerships.

Does the UDHR hamper or restrict the church's ability to evangelize and preach the gospel message?

Yes it does. In it's most strict sense the UDHR establishes its own brand of religious freedom and promotes religious tolerance to the point that noone should be made to serve in any religion that they do not choose. This is a good thing as it pertains to getting one's head cut off IF they are not a Muslim or being compelled to become a believer. However Christianity, which is proliferated through evangelization and shared faith, IS NOT excluded or given preferential treatment. Many countries that invoke the UDHR also claim that speech against homosexuality and homosexual behavior is to be considered "hate speech". Now, because of UN agreements and treatys, one is restricted on what truths to bring forth in and has to be mindful of what venue a particular set of truths may be applicable. If the CHURCH is signed onto or is in endorsement of the document, I believe that by virtue of that signing, it may place an even greater weight of restriction upon representatives associated with the church or evangelical organization. In short, the UDHR requires that the message is preached according to it's standards with no regard for the standards of Christ.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's certainly worth us asking what affect this agreement has on current COGIC doctrine and policy from this point forward.

Blessed!

3/14/09: NEW DEVELOPMENT AND DISCOVERY WITHIN THE UDHR

3/18/09: The Associated Press reports that President Obama will endorse a UN declaration that decriminalizes homosexual activity around the globe. The basis for this action is the UDHR. The decriminalization of homosexuality is based on the activity being a "human right" as defined under the UDHR. Although this is not a legalization of homosexual marriage, it does place it as an activity that is legal and one that human beings have all rights to within the United States.

3/23/2009: The argument recently laid out regarding the use of the UDHR at COGIC.org suggests that this should be no big deal because the Constitution of the US has been also used to fight for homosexual rights, but the courts have correctly interpreted the Constitution as to NOT endorse homosexual rights up until this point. This statement is an effort to minimize the arguments presented both here and at GCMWatch.org. First, that is a ridiculous argument and what is called a "red-herring". 1- The US Constitution was NOT created with the express purpose of liberating a "sexual minority" or a group of individuals who suffered sexual persecution. Contrarily, the UDHR was instituted with that purpose in mind. 2- The gay rights movement has not successfully argued that the US Constitution liberates a sexual class of individuals. That same gay rights movement has SUCCESSFULLY attached the UDHR and its sister documents to uphold rights for "sexual minorities" INCLUDING but not limited to homosexual marriage, partnerships etc. Subdifusion or pandering on this issue is not flattering. In fact I personally find it totally offensive to suggest that Bishop C.H. Mason endorsed UN agenda in any way. This is totally atrocious and only speaks to the "mystery of iniquity" that works in this issue.

Read more!