New COGIC Rule...Are Bishops Beyond Critique?

I want to be the first to say that within the Church Of God In Christ, there are various and varying opinions on politics and political, social and even moral issues. It seems that within the church there are even varying interpretations on what holiness is, what the Bible says and even how it should be interpreted to a varying degrees. 

While the church's Statement of Faith seeks to unify her basic tenets of doctrine and belief, there is little that unifies the church politically and socially, or even morally other than what the General Assembly, the only policy making authority within the church, seeks to affirm. 

Quite naturally, since COGIC is built on a "Faith Mission" concept and is "Episcopal" as opposed to congregational in its leadership structure, the door appears to be open to allowing some to state various  kinds of positions and when they are in some sort of position, or office, they can be being given credibility as a "spokesperson" of the church on particular subjects. 

The Leadership Of The Church

To be clear, in absence of the General Assembly, the ONLY individual entrusted with the ability to make and act with full and indiscriminate authority on behalf of the church is her Presiding Bishop. Bishop J Drew Sheard. He is the only one who affirms the official position of the church, and may appoint members of the General Board either in lieu of himself or in addition to himself to perform certain tasks. However, even in all of that, his authority is ultimately subject to the General Assembly when it is in session. So, in an ultimate sense, not even the Presiding Bishop of our church has unencumbered or unchecked power and authority. 

Unchecked Power???

Evidently Bishop Talbert Swan, who has been given authority to act as the church's leader of "Social Justice Ministry" feels that, not only has he been authorized by the church to speak on and even make official statements on Church policy and positions of social justice but that he is also above everyone, irreproachable and that all individual, ministers, elders and other clergy, who are not in the Bishopric class, are "beneath" him. 

In a statement to one, Elder Chris Turner, who was critical of Bishop Swan's statements in a recent message called "Who Are You Calling Garbage?" regarding President Trumps recent statements regarding Somali residents of MN, specifically them who had taken part in the recent and ongoing public fraud scandal that has cost tax paying citizens of MN and the United States over 2 Billion dollars and counting.

In response to Elder Turner's commentary or disagreement, on December 11th,2025 the alleged Bishop Swan said this on Facebook:

"CLAPBACK: “STAY IN A CHILD’S PLACE” EDITION 

Chris Turner has now elevated his desperation to calling a Bishop in his denomination a “fraud” who “doesn’t know the truth of God’s word.”

Read more!

A 3 Minute Revolution: Ministry vs Family or Both?

 1 Pet. 3:7 ~ Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Col. 3:21 ~ Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Read more!

Pastor's Call For National Victim's Advocacy Associates

"Church leadership, the lawsuit says, failed to properly screen associated church leaders for criminal and sexual misconduct. They also failed to institute a system in which victims could file formal complaints
against abusive church members."

This was from an article in 2020 that exposed the sexual abuse of a COGIC Pastor(s) in New York. Everyone loves to sound courageous. We are seeking servants of Christ who are looking to do more than sound good. We are not seeking individuals who believe sexual abuse within the church is a matter of "family", or that resolution of the issues should be  "kept it in house". We are seeking them who wish to make a stand for the hurting and ultimately make a difference.

BREAKING:

VICTIM'S ADVOCACY

Supt. Harvey Burnett
IMBKCAC Founder/Director

Pastor Harvey Burnett is currently calling for volunteers to be a part of a national movement in support of survivors of church related sexual abuse.

"It is time to take victim's advocacy to another level and do all that we can to heal the hurting and hold those responsible accountable." 

I Am My Brother's Keeper Christian Advocacy Council is seeking saved, spiritually mature and committed men and women (minimum 24 years of age) interested in sexual abuse prevention within the context of the church and in presenting appropriate and proper ministry towards those who have been victimized or suffered church related abuse to assist in helping individuals regain their faith and a sense of normalcy.

LOCATION: We are seeking to create an advocates network of individuals across the country who care about the plight of survivors and who will aid in this cause. 

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Individuals must be able to pass a background check and sign an NDA (Confidentiality Agreement) due to exchange of sensitive, private and proprietary information. 

ORGANIZATIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Can be a part of COGIC, BAPTIST, APOSTOLIC or OTHER CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BEING A PART OF THIS NATIONWIDE MOVEMENT TO RESTORE THEM WHO HAVE SUFFERED AND BE A PART OF A SOLID PLAN OF PREVENTION AGAINST ABUSE, RAPE AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE CHURCH, CONNECT WITH US:

EMAIL: imbkcac@gmail.com
CALL: (800)730-2990 x 802

Blessed!

Read more!

Donnie's Fall Down/Get Up Continued...

Recently, Donnie McClurkin took to the internet to rebuke internet bloggers who "expose" the sins of some of the more popular gospel entertainers, artists and ministers. 

While I will not go into what led to the need for Donnie to take to the internet to rebuke folk on the internet for rebuking folk on the internet, all the while contending that the godly way to speak up on issues would be to "go to" the individual (as opposed to talking about it on the internet) I want to look at the theology behind his statements rather than the personalities he was attempting to defend aka: his fellow gospel entertainment artists. If you would like to hear Donnie for yourself his diatribe and rebuke can be found HERE.

Continuation Of Fall Down/ Get Up Theology

In his retort, Donnie invoked Micah 7:8, which certainly caught my attention (as outside of scripture I could really care less what any of these folk who use the gospel to make a living while presenting shoddy lifestyles do [Donnie excluded as I believe he lives saved])...What I thought was interesting, was that he chose to invoke a part of scripture in which the people (Israel) have gone into sin, been rebuked and judged by God for their sin, and are awaiting their deliverance and ultimate vindication by God for their circumstance. We all know this from basic OT bible study as the "sin cycle". So it is very familiar to many of us. 

What most people do not realize however, is that Donnie appears to build on his "fall into sin/get back up" motif popularized by a former controversial hit "We Fall Down". Donnie uses the scripture in Micah to suggest that a "fall" is tantamount to sin similar to what he did with the song "We Fall Down".

My Response

In response to what I believe was Donnie's misapplication and abuse of scripture, I wrote the following on my Facebook site and our In Defense Of The Faith forum:

************************************************

Donnie McClurkin absolutely BUTCHERED Micah 7:8 which says this:

"Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me."

Now, according to his suggested interpretation the word "fall" would include falling into sin and shame or the condition of sin. 

Now the context links "sit in darkness" to "fall"...this begs the question...if this is referring to a condition of SIN, then how is it that when we are in this condition that "the Lord" is a "light" unto us? 

Now one can go through some fanciful twists to try to convince us that God is a light or abiding presence even in sin, and it is he that brings us out etc...but look further at the context of the chapter.

Micah was not talking about an individual condition of sin, but about turmoil or national upheaval as a result of sin, in which people and families were suffering due to circumstance and resultant judgement or correction from the Lord, NOT due to ongoing immoral or sinful behavior.

V.9 says, "I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness"

Some conclude that because this says "I have sinned" proves that this was about the condition of sin. 

Well the fact is this, as 1 John 1:8 says if we say that "we have no sin" or that the condition of sin has not touched, effected or even controlled our lives, or is not a struggle today, we deceive ourselves greatly...

What Micah acknowledges is the job that sin has done on us (aka Israel) to cause us to suffer as a people, and that we have sinned as a whole, in need of a savior (which points to JESUS our Savior in the text) what is not alluded to is that we have fallen into or regressed into sin as a lifestyle or have been overwhelmed by sinful behavior aka: fallen into sin. 

Donnie builds upon his misapplied "fall down, get back up" narrative in which he took a song in which the message was about a servant falling down before God on behalf of and for strength to continue to serve the people and do the mission of Christ. In Donnie's application it was about saved folk consistently sinning (fall down) and repenting (get back up) to do the "work of the Lord".

In short, Donnie does the Saint, gospel singers, the church and the gospel itself a great disservice and displays why one cannot trust feelings, emotions, crowds or personalities for the direction or truth of God's word and must seek sound discretion and council for light and guidance. 

I only hope that this new generation is not deceived by this seeming continued diet of false gospel interpretives as entertainers seek to cover or minimize their sins that they so abundantly embrace in the name of "nobody's perfect".

************************************************

Now, can we acknowledge that the scripture was referring to people (Israel) who had egregiously sinned and was suffering as a result of their sin? YES

Can we say that any of this scripture suggests that the believer or people of God could be content to practice sin, and still yet claim the "light of God" (aka: Christ) NO.

In fact to do so would be sacrilege and certainly ungodly and unholy before the Lord. 

The part that I find particularly problematic is Donnie's association of this scripture, which is probably one of the most upbeat parts of Micah, to the condition of the modern "minstrel" who has not only failed, but openly and publicly, cheated, been in homosexual chat-rooms, showed their private parts on the internet, cussed and otherwise played a harlot, and even reverted back to ungodliness in both lifestyle and presentation, all the while yet claiming to be a "servant of God". 

Yes, we ALL have faults...and my picture is in the dictionary under the word, HOWEVER, those of us who are SAVED are not content in simply reverting in and out of sin when it is convenient and demanding others to "accept me anyhow"...No that is manipulation, not scripture. 

A Final Word & Pushback: 

"Pastor, the bible says love COVERETH the multitude of sins and faults" (1 Pet. 4:8 from Prov. 10:12)...

YES, it does say that. However, it does not suggest that believers embrace an effort to encourage the saints to bypass sin or the judgement of sin as wrong. It does not encourage believers to overlook the fact that sin is ungodly and is still something that breaks fellowship and union with Christ. 

The scripture is clear...NOONE can "cover" sins but God. It is also clear that those of us who do "cover sins" are condemned for it:

Prov. 28:13 ~ He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

Now, one may say that Proverbs is referring to "others" covering the sins of individuals (which Donnie I suppose would be suggesting by refusing to even accept that his colleagues are doing evil and will be judged) but the scripture is clear...to sin and simply walk on with cursory repentance is also ungodly and condemned. 

Now, PLEASE, don't give us this, "go to such a one and restore them in the spirit of meekness"...OK, how possible is it for us "ordinary folk" to go to these stars and moguls? They hide their phone numbers, make themselves inaccessible unless they are making money off of us, and REFUSE to listen to anyone rank and file who may have a word from the Lord for them...ie: they SELECTIVELY hear and don't care to listen to us!

The very nature of their "entertainment status" makes these people off limits and they only listen to their colleagues who sometimes are also ungodly. So unless it is for bloggers, youtubers and others, many of these folk would not hear, and most of the time they claim they don't listen to or read anything on the internet (or at least nothing that criticizes or examines them). So how are they reached? 

THIS is going to them and I hope they can understand that. While many of us could be wrong about our assessments and ultimately our opinions, we all can't be wrong. Everybody ain't stupid neither is everyone deceived into believing that the sins that many of them present and want us to accept are just "seasons in life" that they experience. 

No, these men and women, regardless of how they sing, entertain and or act, and no matter how much money they have, need to be SAVED like everyone else, to the point where they leave and come out of the world too. Anything less simply expands hell and fellowship with the original, now doomed heavenly crooner...the artist and angel formerly known as lucifer, now satan destined for the Lake Of Fire himself!

Blessed! 

Read more!

The TRUTH. An Offence To The World

We often hear the sad song of "That's why people don't go to church today" in response to a teaching or biblical position in which the church is unwilling to compromise with the world or worldly (aka: secular) practices.

Then of course, there is always finger pointing...the "you let them do it, so why not pick on them instead of me"...ie: "My sin ain't no worse than the sin of others, therefore leave me alone"....

Well, this sentiment, "leave me and my sin alone" (Mk 1:24, Lk. 4:34, Mt. 8:29) was the exact sentiment of the devil biblically. According to the scripture, when Jesus came on the scene, before he could do anything, the devil felt "tormented" because of his very presence.

In short folk don't go to church, not because the church is so wrong, but because they choose not to. medical malpractice and negligence is the 3rd leading cause of death, yet nearly everyone has or has gone to a doctor. Not even the fear of death can stop some folk from being faithful to participating in medical practice.  

The modern "uncommitted" individual is uncommitted because he or she is not committed to the truth. Plain and simple. We all know that the adage of "staying at home and finding Jesus for myself" flies in the face of scripture, (Heb. 10:25) but we have individuals who have placed their sense of morality, right and wrong, ahead of God and whom have reconstructed god and rearranged his word to challenge biblical truth as if it, (truth) doesn't really exist. 

It is called relativism. ie: if "I think" it is right, that's what I should follow. Under a

"relativistic" framework, there is no ultimate or universally binding truth, right, or wrong. Each person has "their truth" and if other opinions are not in accord with what self has contrived to be truth, right and wrong and when there is conflict, especially spiritual conflict, then what I have contrived to be truth and believe is best is to be followed. In this framework, the individual becomes god and the center of the universe and everything revolves around individual thoughts, ideas and values.

Then There Is The Teaching Of Holiness

Then there are those of us committed to the TRUTH and fidelity of the biblical message such as Bishop Patrick Wooden of The Upper Room COGIC in Raleigh, NC. recently bishop wooden took to provide a response to some who had been shunned from leading praise and worship during a service and he touched on the "Christian Entertainment" business that has grown like wildfire around the church as well...Certainly his response went viral and clearly displays a deep chasm between those who read the bible and those committed to its precepts and concepts and moral values.

The next 2 videos, we view the Bishop's response and the response from some young people to his response. This is an interesting examination of the culture and why the church must continue to preach and stand for truth.

  

 The Young Person's Response & Further Context

   

 Now, sorry, but it should be clear, that the BISHOP CERTAINLY AIN'T WRONG ABOUT THIS ONE!

Read more!

Is All Sin And Reconciliation Of Sin The Same? Pt. 1

Please allow me to shed light on a particular subject. This is for those who are bible believers. I would say that this is not for the general public in the sense of examining what is right or wrong outside of a biblical context. This article has no regard for governmental legislation on court process in determining truth, right and wrong. So if I may...

The Case

Some have taken to task to say that "all sins are the same" and that there is no sin greater or worse than another. Therefore, we should treat all sin and all sinners the same.

Sentiments such as these are invoked in particularly as it pertains to homosexuality within the church. Some say,

"Since we have adulterers and fornicators in the church and some of them are in position, if there is a homosexual, they are no worse off than some others caught in sexual sin and therefore should be allowed to participate in the church and in church leadership like any other person."

Bishop O C Allen &
1st Gentleman
Rashad Burgess

Because of this, some conclude that to exclude homosexuals from opportunities within the church, such as the opportunity to lead congregations and various aspects of ministry, that such restrictions are no more than an arbitrary standard of men where closeted and even open sexual impurities are rewarded while openly gay men and women are discouraged and held down. In fact, some say that at least the open gay is living their truth and to say that they are worse than anyone else, including those perverts hiding behind the pulpit, is simply hateful and from a secular point of view, discriminatory.

Now, at first glance, this argument and the relevant issues, seem to have some merit. We would have to admit that although the sin of homosexuality has been around for quite some time, we have known adulterers, fornicators and other sexually immoral persons among our ranks and some of them fill positions, and some even do their deeds openly. There are pastors and bishops and other church leaders, who have not just simply failed or committed sins, but who actively live and lead lifestyles contrary to biblical teachings. 

Look at the men caught on video and film, having sex with both women and men in recent times. Then, there are baby and even adult child scandal dramas regularly. The Greenleaf series on OWN, the source of much recent controversy, is said to deal with and expose the ultra lavish lifestyle and sins of former COGIC Presiding Bishop J O Patterson, who fathered children outside of marriage and lived opulently while the majority of the church was filled with common and ordinary people dedicated to living godly and holy. As stated some of them are "leaders", caught in open heterosexual sins, aspire and achieve to the highest heights of the church.

Because noone sins alone, there are women, within the church, who feel that they are confirmed and affirmed to live in and out of the bed of individuals to whom they are not married. Some even feel that it is their mission and duty, to seek out men for illicit relationships and then "expose" them for what they themselves have contributed to, and spent a great deal of time creating. Recently a woman, seeking to expose a married Bishop, made a videotape of him in a hotel room naked. Although she created the video, if it wasn't for her voice you would never know she was in the room. Certainly he was wrong, but she was a willing agent in destruction, making herself available for sex with a married man. What I am saying is that neither of them had anything to brag about or be proud of.   

To be frank, the church must admit that we have some nasty, slimy, filthy dogs (both male and female) that make it a sport to go through the church, manipulate both men, women and even children, and keep on moving under the pretense of "serving the Lord" in some fashion. 

What We Know:

I would say that although the act of sin has changed, expanded and gone to new levels of perversion, none of the sentiments regarding perversion within the church is new to the scriptures or the church:

2 Tim. 3: 5-6 ~ 5-Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6-For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 

Phil. 3:18-19 ~ 18-(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19-Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) 

In fact, the church has known for years that it has adulterous, fornicating and gay singers, and even other leaders within the church that live immorally. Knowing that sexual immorality and impurity exists within the church does not allow or extend a license in any way for such immorality to continue to exist, thrive or proliferate. God's plan is still one of purity, sanctification and holiness within the life of the believer and ultimately within the context of the church. 

1 Thess. 4:3-8 ~ 3-For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4-That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5-Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6-That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7-For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 8-He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

"No need to single out gays and lesbians". Sincere critics, who make this assertion, assume that to single out the gay and lesbian is an act of injustice and man made judgement and therefore not "Christlike" because, "all sins are the same" and heterosexual sin is no better or worse than homosexual sin. 

This is and can be rather complex, and there are some believers who sincerely believe in a holy lifestyle that struggle with this observation and these sentiments. So let's examine this for a minute.

Questions:

Is it unjust to address homosexuality within the church, while being silent about heterosexual sins? Does God view that all sexual sins are the same? Is it not "Christlike" to call homosexuality a sin and exclude homosexuals from service within the church? Should the church be an open field of opportunities in leadership to homosexuals embracing the homosexual lifestyle? These are some major questions and issues within many of our churches today and many leaders are struggling with the issues. 

I will attempt to wade into these waters of church introspection. In a couple of parts, I will address and attempt to answer the following issues:

Bishop Allyson D, Nelson Abrams

I ~ Are there varying degrees of both righteousness, sin and reward, punishment or judgement?

II ~ Is homosexuality from a biblical perspective a sin?

III ~ Is there a difference in the nature of homosexual sin, vs. the nature of sin in general in church and within society?

IV ~ Should the church embrace active homosexuals as leaders within the church?

Section I 

A ~ Are there varying degrees of both righteousness, sin and reward, punishment or judgement? 

B ~ Are all sins the same? 

Rev. 20:12 -14 ~ And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13- And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.14- And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Admittedly, there is a lot about judgement that we don't know. Just the unimaginable scene of judgement itself is beyond our capacity to fully understand. However, there is a lot that we do know and are told from scripture. 

For sure all people and sins will be judged. There will be a day when all men will give an account for their sins. The Saint will give an account through and by the grace and mercy of God from a blood-washed condition. His/her sins will be thrown into the sea of forgetfulness, because of their faith in Jesus. Those sins will not be used against us in judgment and will be remembered no more.

According to 1 Cor. 6, the believer will also have part in judgement of angels and will be called to witness against the sins of the world as well. Believers will receive a reward as Jesus referenced in John 14:1.Unbelievers will receive their reward also and will know exactly what and why they are being judged...for rejecting the saving work and power of the Son of God. 

For both sin and for righteousness, there will be a reward. What is often not considered is that scripture indicates that there will be rewards commensurate to sins and there will be rewards commensurate to righteousness as well. 

We often associate our faith or our level of blessing in heaven with a "reward" or commensurate with what we have overcome on earth. Jesus says as much in Mt. 5 in his sermon on the Mount as he was encouraging those who would suffer persecution for the Lord's sake:

Mt. 5:11-12 ~ 11-Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.12-Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

"Great is your reward in heaven" specifically points out that not only will a person be rewarded with heaven itself, but shall be rewarded in a comparatively great manner with additional rewards aside from heaven only. 

In heaven, there are four and twenty elders who sit around the throne. (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 14, 7:13, 11:16, 14:3). In Mt. 20:20-23 when responding to the request of  the mother of Zebedee's sons, aka the "sons of thunder" Jesus indicated that only God had the power to place anyone on the right and left, indicating the place of great reward, recognition and honor. As Jesus explained this "position" or honor was commensurate with the work of suffering that would be done by the individual and by the will and command of God. 

Jesus responds to Peter's "we have left all" after speaking to the rich young ruler saying: 

Mt. 19:28-29 ~ 28-And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29-And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life

Jesus reveals who at least half of those 24 elders were and would be that sat upon thrones in heaven and on his right and left hand saying that not only would they receive "everlasting life" but also the reward of "an hundredfold" which was Jewish idiom of the day to indicate a great or wonderful blessing.  

Then there is Paul in 1 Cor. 3: 11-15. Paul here speaks of the works that we do and how some of them would be "burnt up" and others remaining. He indicates that both individuals who present works will be saved, but only the one whose works are not burned up will receive "a reward" (1 Cor. 3:14b). Yes, the ultimate reward is heaven, but there are degrees of gifts that shall be received by each believer. 

On The Flip Side

We often, however, overlook that sins and failure will be met with the same degree of temperament and reward as well. Here is what Luke records:

Luke 12:47-48 ~ 47-And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.48-But he that knew not, and
did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him
they will ask the more.

In Luke, Jesus illustrates that the one who "knew" the will of the lord, but failed in that was beaten with "many" stripes, while the other was beaten with "few" stripes simply because those who had been given much to work with shall have a greater responsibility for their failure in refusing to do what God has said to do (in this case an earthly lord would even be cognizant of this difference). This is a principle that Jesus outlines that cannot simply be overlooked. 

I believe that this is a direct allusion to the varying penalty for sin and wrongdoing. For one, there is "less" of a judgment or penalty to pay, even though there is or has been a violation. For another there is a greater punishment or penalty, because the person, though equipped, refused to prepare and hear. Men appear to be judged according to what they have received or been given.   

David cries that the Lord will reward the wicked according to their own works and evil deeds: Ps. 28:4) Yet other scriptures agree that men shall be paid according to their works (Mt. 16:27, Rev. 20:12,13, 2 Cor. 11:15, Rom. 2:6 (the repetition of Ps.28:4) 

B) Are all sins the same? 

Obviously, what is sin is sin. There is no question about what is wrong being wrong. However, if there are different or varying degrees of reward, punishment and judgement about both righteousness and sins, then not only is every reward the same but neither is every sin is equal. Because of justice neither is every sin rewarded the same.

"Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15, Deut. 5:19) We all know the command. However, there is a difference between a parent who steals 3lbs. of ground beef from a grocery store to feed his family, and a person who steals from individuals to enrich themselves. 

Yes, both have violated both natural law and the law of God. However, like Jesus' views on the Sabbath, Jesus often views the application of the law through the lens of humanity and human experience. Not that he is soft on sin, but he tempers his judgement with righteousness.

David & The Shewbread (1 Sam. 21:6 & Mt. 12:4)

We all remember David in escaping from Saul along with his men. They became hungry and went into the temple at Nob asking to eat bread that was dedicated to the use and consecration of priestly service. (1 Sam. 21) In this scenario, David was reminded of the Law which restricted the use of the bread. However, the priest after giving a very minimal test regarding holiness, gave to David and he ate the bread along with his companions and was not chastised by the Lord for doing so.

Jesus, in Mt. 12:4, when confronted about doing good on the Sabbath Day, argued that although it was unlawful to eat the bread, the bread served a greater purpose and that was to fulfill the will of God toward HIS people. As a type, the bread actually represented Jesus himself, who by the breaking of his body (bread) would actually sustain the word and allow a new Kingdom to enter the world giving us life by his reign.

In this case, what was obviously a "sin" according to the literal interpretation and rendering of scripture, was not judged as so. The reconciliation of the event was in accord with the purpose and command of God.

By Contrast

Adolph Hitler and many with him were responsible for the extermination and genocide of over 7 million Jews and people who sympathized with the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Families were destroyed, broken up, children, boys and girls, raped, property stolen and people left to suffer. Even over 70 years removed from the events, the atrocities are yet being revealed.  

Is there anyone willing to argue that Hitler's reward in his judgement will be the same as one who has never murdered or broken up families nor embraced racism? Or the same as a person who has not offended humanity on the scale of Hitler's offense? Certainly Hitler will be made to pay for and be judged according to his sins.  The same with Caesar Nero, Stahlin, Pol Pot and a host of others that have used and abused humanity. They will not escape neither judgment nor the reward of their sins! However, their sins will not be rewarded on the same scale as one who stole a biscuit or a pack of ground beef or steaks because they were hungry.

At this point, I can say with confidence that I don't know how God will judge and adjudicate all situations. However, I can say with confidence that God is a JUST judge and he will judge justly.

Final thought in this section: During the Mt. Olivet discourse, Jesus spoke of adultery. Prior to his missive, people thought that there was a difference between their actions and their thoughts. (Mt. 5:27-28) Theirs was a strict, literal interpretation of scripture's teaching against such sins. However, they missed that an evil heart is ultimately equally as bad as wicked actions. Jesus said that if a man, "looks upon a woman" with intent  "to lust after her" has committed adultery. Those who thought that they can lust inwardly without judgement, were caught in their sins with the realization that God saw them and was a judge of the "intents" of the heart as well as the actions of the flesh. So they would not escape judgement by embracing sin on any level.

However, sin by a man's actions creeps into other parts of a person's life. Sin in the heart is worthy of judgement, but sin acted upon could be even worse. A man thinking about an affair, takes it to a new stage of unrighteous reward by acting out upon his thoughts. A man thinking of murder, may be guilty in his heart, but by acting out takes his unrighteous reward to a new level. Same with any sin. Carrying these things out create and produce a greater level of unrighteous reward. 

Yes, in an ultimate sense, sin is sin. All sin is unworthy of a holy God. However, there is a difference and additional penalty for those acting out on their sins or lust. A man looks at a woman and has an inordinate desire. The same man pursues the object of his lust, establishes an illicit relationship. Judgment comes. BOTH will be judged in their sins, but God will distribute the reward as well, as he has promised to personally judge "whore mongers and adulterers I will judge" (Heb. 13:4) It is there that God will look at and see the heart, intents and actions and judge righteously. The actions of unrighteousness will not receive a pass, but God will correct and set the record straight.

All sins are not the same. Some are worse than others. Only God will distinguish the difference in judgment and with regard for unrighteous deeds. However, on earth we can obviously see that all evil does not have the same outcome even though all evil is offensive to a holy God. The other problem with sin and evil is when people seek to normalize it and make it seem right or just. This in and of itself is a great evil and a sin. To rationalize sin as righteousness, is an offense! 

Summary

In this part, I believe that I have established from a scriptural perspective that although heaven in and of itself is a reward, there are additional rewards in heaven that will be given based on faithful service and the work of the believer. I have also established that there is a variation of punishment and judgement that will be delivered as well. So on its face, if there is a variation of the punishment of sin as we can see from scripture, all sins are not the same.

The ultimate reconciliation of unrepentant sin is the same. Hell. However, the rewards and degrees of punishment is unequal and based on the depth of sin that a person embraced, even in their unbelief.

In Pt. 2 I will deal with homosexuality and reconcile the actions of a practicing homosexual with the actions of the heterosexual and with those who engage in various types of relationships and answer the questions, "Is homosexuality a sin? Should homosexuals be promoted or encouraged in ministry positions within the church?" and more.

Blessed! 

Read more!

Election Countdown & The Future Of American Freedom & Morality

Prov. 12:7
The wicked are overthrown and are no more, but the house of the righteous will stand.

The 2016 Presidential election season is drawing to a close. In what has arguably been a hotly contested and probably the most contentious campaign in American history, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have outlined their positions which in many areas are in sharp contrast to one another. Of course, all of this has confused many who carry the same bible causing some to pit themselves against one another for one reason or another.

One thing is for sure, the candidates themselves both have serious issues. Hillary has email issues and a low value of confidence or trust among most non-democrats. Even among many democrats, Hillary is simply unable to connect and untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump has issues such as his characterizations of women, immigrants and his continued statements of the election being rigged which has caused many to distance themselves from him. The career politician is enraged because Trump is not a career politician and has seemed to amass a great deal of support without their assistance, support or political pandering. 

Voting "For" Or "Against"?

With all the confusion, many individuals have shrank away from the personality of the candidates. With neither personality being particularly appealing, some have taken the thought that they are not voting "for" any particular candidate, but voting "against" ideals and ideologies that are offensive and unsupportable. In other words, some are now looking to vote on the issues that concern them as opposed to voting for the "person" that they like or that appeals to their idea of being Presidential.   

Issues at odds:

Immigration & Immigration Reform...Republican Donald Trump has outlined an America that will do more than ever to secure it's boarders. He has even promised to build a wall that Mexico will "reimburse" America for. At the same time ratchet up pressure on individuals from foreign countries hostile to America and opposed to American interests. In a controversial plan, Donald has said that immigrants, in the country now illegally, could suffer deportation while others could come under greater scrutiny simply because of where they came from. Democrat Hilary Clinton has proposed a version of immigration reform which includes a "path to citizenship" which is tantamount to the Democratic ideal of amnesty, granting immediate and unquestioned citizenship to immigrants already in the country whether here legally or not. Amnesty is something that not even the Supreme Court has upheld in recent times and is not likely to pass until another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. 

Religious Freedom... Probably the most fundamental part of this election is religious freedom and what it means to be free religiously. Some of what this comes down to is who's bathroom do you believe men and women should be allowed to enter in public, and do you want to take rights away from a woman and give them to a man born a man by gender? In addition, do you believe that the State should impose state values on religious organizations and subdue their practices effectively forcing the churches to operate according to State values? 

Democrat Hillary Clinton claims to value religion and religious freedom as a deep part of the American experience. However, she has repeatedly said that she believes that religious values and beliefs are not static, but changeable to cultural values and therefore should be flexible in accommodating values that she and others in her camp believe are better suited to be called American values. recently, When speaking of Christians and Christian values as they oppose LGBT rights, she spoke of Christians (not merely Trump supporters) as "deplorable" and "irredeemable". While the media spun the commentary to infer that she was simply be speaking of "Trump supporters, the comments were actually in reference to committed Christians living out their faith, holding to the biblical mandate that same gender relationships are morally unacceptable.

Recognizing the nature of her commentary, Breitbart reported:

"So what kind of “religious liberty” does Clinton and the Obama administration believe is acceptable? As conservative giant Ken Blackwell wrote this week in an article for The Hillpicked up by the Drudge Report, during his time in Latin America, Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine became a zealous advocate of “liberation theology,” which is “a radical, Marxist-based ideology at odds with the Church, the pope, and the United States, but supportive of (and supported by) the Soviet Union.”

So theology that calls for government-run socialized healthcare or government redistribution of wealth is okay, but theology that adheres to millennia-old Christian teachings on human life, other social issues, and religious liberty are “deplorable,” so much so that those who hold such views are “irredeemable” in the eyes of a woman who wants to become the most powerful person in the world. That was why in 2015 she said in a speech that orthodox Christian views on these issues “have to be changed.” [ARTICLE HERE]

It seems that Hillary has gone to great lengths to associate a Trump candidacy with Russia and even Vladimir Putin, while minimizing her acceptance of Marxism which is a solidly communist ideal and value. Even the Pope, in his zeal to enter the Presidential race, sold out the Catholics to the Marxist ideal and religious freedom value.

While Donald Trump, who was not in tune with religious issues and value arguments at the beginning of his campaign, adopts the Republican platform of religious freedom which not only includes religious right of worship but is also inclusive of carrying out religious values within the public square and in all that one does. Even though Donald has been victim of an impingement upon religious freedom and personal privacy, by saying that he would allow men to enter women's bathrooms in his Trump Tower, based on gender identity, rather than birth identity, his acceptance of such ideas appears to be a business decision rather a closely held view of religious freedoms. While Hillary's acceptance of limited and restricted religious freedoms, and no personal freedom (Marxism) when gender identity is a factor, is staunchly aligned with the DNC policy of accepting and promoting the LGBT agenda and even communism itself. In fact, advocates of the DNC's position consistently call traditional values discrimination and bigotry. Hillary's version of suspended religious freedom, is limited to religious worship, and not the bearing out of one values within the public square.  Hillary's views are clear, and encourage a rolling back of religious freedom, demanding change in every proposed religious freedom extending to healthcare, the workplace, employment, contraception, childbirth and other areas. Under Hillary's vision, a stand for religion is bigotry and discrimination. To teach values contrary to the state and what the state accepts as law or right, could be un-American and subject to penalty. This is called fascism and is the exact policy that Hillary embraces and has fought for for years. I strongly believe that the Hillary's version of Religious freedom is anything but American. Unfortunately, she is hardly subject to change in this area.

So the question is can ANY committed Christian vote FOR a Clinton Presidency knowing the implications of her views and how they will be played out in the executive branch of government. 

Abortion...Donald Trump has appeared to align himself with the Republican party line of anti- abortionist rhetoric, even to the point of promising a defunding Planned Parenthood which is the leading organization in the US providing abortion services or referrals for abortions to women under the guise of "women's health services". For the Black community abortion is an issue of special importance, as the Black community has disproportionately been target with abortion services, especially the Planned Parenthood organization, some say to the tune of aborting over 13 million children since 1972. In fact, abortion has become so popular that it is and has often been marketed as a contraceptive alternative especially to low income Blacks and minorities. On the contrary, Hillary has seemingly doubled-down on the funding of Planned Parenthood (as she believes that this is one of those religious views that must change) promising that a woman's right of choice overrides any right of the unborn. Her view is in step with the 1972 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that declared than an unborn child did not have 14th Amendment rights, and therefore no constitutional protections. It is really quite amazing that someone that claims to be a champion of the rights of women and those who are underserved, is in abject disregard that a fetus is a human and therefore deserving of a right to life. Nonetheless, Hillary's position is an extension of the DNC's position and President Obama, who also sought to expand abortion even late into the 3rd tri-mester of pregnancy even up until the point of partial birth, ( a procedure that Democrat President Bill Clinton endorsed as well) which allows a child to be killed as long as his/her head remains within the womb. In essence, babies have no rights, little value and at the end of the day it's all about dollars and funding. Now which position sounds more Presidential? 

The War On Terrorism...Hillary clearly believes that doing what we are doing now will defeat terrorists as long as we continue to employ and recruit Muslim regimes to secure their own countries and fight for their own freedom. The problem is that as this writing is being published, what we are doing now is not working. Look at Mosul for example...under the plan that the President outlined, ISIS was expanding in the Mid-East. What seemed to be a small, extremist group, nearly doubled in size and sophistication. The Mid-East required an adequate response. A response much better than what we had been given by the Obama administration and a State department led by Hillary. Therefore, and as a result we are currently sending more and more soldiers back to war to engage the terrorist enemy when President Obama had committed no American troops back in the military venue or theater.  Donald, on the other hand makes no bones about it...he has said that the military must be ramped up to a level that is able to unequivocally defeat ISIS and terrorists threats in a hands-down manner. In other words, the level of troops or resources to defeat ISIS, under a Trump regime, is not nor has ever been defined. If we think that we will be out of the business of war, under Trump or Clinton, that is an illusion.

Foreign Trade...One of the problems with the American economy is our weak or inept foreign trade deals. Many have called our current agreements a disaster, and if we look at them, we must be honest and question what the motivations were to get into some of these deals that restrict us, while expanding the interest of others. The empty factories and closed businesses could be the best argument that the deals were bad and devestating to the American economy. It is here that seemingly both political parties agree, but with differing opinions on how to bring about a fix. While we must remember that both Republicans and Democrats agreed to these deals, that it is the republican platform reaching out with the most radical approach to the solution...AMERICA FIRST!...While that chant may not resonate with all Democrats who worry about the world's response to such sentiment, it certainly resonates with the American public, both union and factory workers who were put out of business by agreements such as NAFTA. Trump has promised to scrap the trade agreements and impliment a system of tariffs, while Clinton, realizing the system is bad, seems to seek to renegotiate the agreements and penalize companies seeking to leave the country to take advantage of deals left open by the agreements. (Remember NAFTA was signed into law under Republican George Bush)

The Economy...One can hardly separate the economy from foreign trade but we will note that while both candidates promise that their plans will improve the economy, we are yet left with the same and similar ideas that have existed for years, both failing and succeeding to some degree. Though President Obama inherited a devastated economy, the national debt of the United States has nearly doubled since he has been in office. In response and as a fix to our ills, Hillary makes war on her own social class, (the wealthy) promising more taxes from the rich elite, to whom Donald promises tax cuts and a trickle-down effect from the elite to the rank and file, similar to Reagan's economic plan. Hillary's version of economic fairness is a throw-back of Bernie Sanders style socialism where the wealth of the wealthy is seized through complex law and requirements to fund the needs of the masses and in particularly the working poor. Teasers such as "free education" is highlighted as a benefit to the poor, with no or little regard to who is actually going to pay for it (because it is NOT free) The fundamental problem is that this whole approach assumes that the poor can never get wealth by any other means than taking it from the wealthy and that the wealthy should be penalized in some fashion for success and wealth even if it is inherited wealth. In the effort of the Democrat to speak against classism, they actually CREATE and promote classism and class dissent through their efforts and rhetoric. This is similar to what republicans did under Reagan with the implementation of stricter community policing and the so called "war on drugs" which was more tantamount to a war on classes of individuals more than the drugs themselves. 

The Supreme Court...While philosophies on the use and purpose of the Supreme Court is evidently and obviously different on both sides of this campaign, this is probably one of the most critical elements of the election. Many say that the next President may appoint up to 3 Justices over his/her term. Therefore, clear guidance and a theory and view of legal precedence is in order. Why? With the passing of Antonin Scalia, who was, by all accounts, a conservative Justice, the court is currently split evenly between alleged liberals (who supposedly favor democratic arguments) and conservatives (who supposedly favor republican ideals and values) What is certain is that Hillary believes that Supreme Court Justices should be able to legislate from the bench, creating law as opposed to merely examining the constitutionality of certain legislation and questions. Therefore, under Hillary's vision the Supreme Court there would be a law making body, responsible for telling all citizens what the law is after it has reviewed a case. Whereas under a Republican vision,  the Supreme Court is a body entrusted to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. These are two totally different  philosophical approaches to the bench and legislative law in America, and will have an effect on American jurisprudence and values for generations to come, especially due to the life-time appointments of the justices.  

Conclusion

Yes, there is enough fanfare for everyone. Emails, alleged sexual misconduct,potential jail time,  threat of suit...There is more than enough to choke a horse. However, for the next 4 years we will either be bound on a worse path of values reduction than what we have seen under an Obama Presidency or we will put the brakes on some issues in an attempt to reverse what many see as a moral decline and a reversion to ideals that will not build, but that will ultimately destroy us as a people. Certainly, neither candidate will destroy or build anything over night, but each one will have an impact that will have a long lasting effect upon the plight of our nation. 

While Trump's in your face style may be offensive to some, and others claim that he is a racist, one must ask if the moral setting that Americans find themselves in currently is worth going unchecked another 4 years.

Remember, it was a Clinton State Department that hailed proliferating the homosexual agenda all over the world when she left office. She was in part responsible not for gay rights, but for gay preference that we are witnessing across the country. It is Christians and biblical values that are being put to open shame. Christians are being told that they are bigots and that they are out of step with even being American and in some cases "patriotic" simply because they accept the values upon which our nation was founded.

It is at that juncture that personalities mean nothing...only TRUTH matters in the end. It is TRUTH that builds and TRUTH that strengthens. The LIES that we have been told this election cycle are sad. Both democratic and republican lies STINK...However, the truth is that we need a reversion to traditional moral values and this false sense of a "new morality" must be challenged. What we will find is that doing the right thing, the biblical thing, will always stand and come out on top, building a nation. 

Prov. 24:3-4 ~ 3-Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: 4-And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

I am Pastor Harvey Burnett and I approved this message...in Jesus name! Amen!!!

Blessed!

Read more!

FOR ALL THE "FIRE-BREATHERS" WHAT SPIRIT ARE YOU OF?

BROUGHT DOWN AND EXPOSED HUH?

In my article, "What God Through TRUE Repentance Can Do" I noted the following:

"Prior to 1988 Pastor/Evangelist Jimmy Lee Swaggart, known by millions simply as "Brother Swaggart" was preaching all over the country and traveling overseas conducting what we now call mega conferences. He was pastoring over 7,000 members at his church, Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge, LA. (then a part of the Assemblies Of God), bursting at the seams with a thriving Christian bible college, and receiving donations, from an estimated 8 million weekly American TV audience, (over 500 million viewers world wide) Donations were estimated to be in excess of $150,000,000 annually (that's over $500,000 per day). He was achieving all of this while preaching against sin in all forms from the White House to skid row."

What I did not mention in the article was that when Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart stated that Jim Bakker was a "cancer" in the Body Of Christ that needed to be "cut out", it wasn't long before Swaggart himself was caught with prostitutes not just once, but twice. This exposure led to a scene of repentance on a national TV broadcast that was so heavily broadcast that stations interrupted their regularly scheduled programs to televise Swaggart's repentance live.

Though Bakker went to jail for atrocities centering around financial mismanagement, he lived to repent and wrote a book called "I Was Wrong" and explained the sinful details of his own life. Currently, Bakker is thriving with a completely different ministry and approach, and still repairing the damage of his sins. 

Swaggart, having repented, is still moving on strong as well. His TV and radio networks are expanding and he has a new message singularly focused on redemption through the cross which is a good thing. He certainly preaches against sin and sinful activities and behaviors, but there is no vitriol in his messages.   

Read more!

Bishop TD Jakes, The "Hollywood Spirit" & Preachin' Fame...Hmmmmm!

As comedian Arsenio Hall used to say...in life there are some "things that make you go Hmmmmm" This is simply one of those things...

In a recent interview with EEW, from rags to riches preacher, entrepreneur and HOLLYWOOD MOVIE PRODUCER Bishop T D Jakes said the following regarding the "Hollywood spirit":

“I am so sick of this Hollywood spirit that has overtaken the church!”...  

“We do not have to have big names to have a big move of God.”... 

“I was saved for years and didn’t see anybody who was on TV,”...  

“We gotta put this Hollywood spirit out of the church and go back to moving in the power of the Holy Ghost."

What Bishop Jakes refers to as the "Hollywood spirit" is the star and super important mentality that he has in part been responsible for delivering to the doorsteps of the modern church. I'll speak more on that later, but this is also the same "Hollywood spirit" that Juanita Bynum (now Juanita II) declared to be dead in 1999 at the last Soul Winner's Conference held by the late Bishop G E Patterson in Memphis, TN. (before she became all the way Hollywood oriented herself) 

Read more!

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: 9-12 ~ 9-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 GCMWatch.com, 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. 

Conclusion

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.

Blessed!

Read:
Bishop Wayne T. Jackson Response

Read more!