Your last couple of questions are indeed sidebars that I dont want to get into right now in detail other than to say in the context I have written the season we are in has caused an accelerated use of the UDIHR in key “human rights” cases on the international spectrum. To me it is a push pin in a broader eschatological (sp) framework.

I could only imagine some of what might have occurred at the “Holy” convocation. I am still somewhat appalled with the leaders inviting a known “ONENESS” in Jakes to plant his feet in the holy pulpit at this supposed sanctified and sacred event.
Talking about “ecumenical”. I guess it was their (COGIC) ploy to usher in a new charisma so that a good time can be had by all. And for those who would support this garbage, I say like you – “There are quite a few bible illiterate Christians in the church today”. SAD!!! Heep the faith my brotha/sista.

and that’s the bottom line…..

As we all know, Bishop Blake is attempting to spur the COGIC into a new era of social action… trying to again put our faith into shoe-leather. He is very concerned, for example, with issues of poverty, hunger and disease on the African continent… and he wants to inculcate an urgency about these issues in the rest of us. But as a COGIC member, I have some trepidation about the alliances he has been willing to make to further these humanitarian causes. As you have excellently reported in past blogs, the Gomes fiasco was an example of such an alliance biting Bishop in the posterior. And there are more dire risks than just bad PR, obviously. At this pivotal moment, we in the COGIC need cogent, level-headed analysis to reference as we engage our leadership and other members about the dangers of a strategy of alliances. Sad to say, it will now be difficult to reference GCMWATCH, given how the exaggerated claims in the original post in particular made it easy for leadership to dismiss the messenger (if not the message).

As an aside, do you really believe the UDIHR has practical authority? Sixty years after the UDHR was signed, have the signatory nations even made much of an effort to end human rights abuses within their borders?

I would just say be careful and stay prayerful about your cause. I have never found a time when I was directed by God to do something or help someone and I had to join the world to get it accomplished. Scripture says to be with the world is to be against God. I just don’t believe you need both; symbolism or not.

Ironic that you have to join the world to rid it of it’s worldly behavior. All of the injustices you want to fight are rooted in the lack of Jesus Christ…

I know what the Holy Spirit says to me and it is not that we should sit in our pews and do nothing as world tyranny, poverty, atrocities and the like just run rampant in the community and the world. I mean, God is in me and when he says move, I move… I believe in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit and in it I am directed to move about the community building peace, love and working to promote social and economic justice, and alleviate poverty as tangible expressions of the Kingdom of God…

These days people are seeking God more desparetly than ever, isn’t that evidence that the Holy Spirit wants us to get busy in the direction of combatting the evil principalities in the world and promoting peace and love?

quote: What in us needs to be slain so that the Holy Spirit can work through us. We need to also ask the LORD for discernment so that we can discern the things of GOD.

what needs to be slain is complacency in the body of Christ. We need to get out of our pews, get from behind the walls of our churches and get out in these streets and advance Christ’s agenda.. Be demonstrative to the masses that which is the commandment of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ – love one another. In today’s world, we cannot show love sitting up in our churches with our hats and suits, we have to hit the bricks whether it’s in our communities or on the world stage…

As to the argument that we should not be associating with other religions, that in and of itself is an interesting conversation. Maybe we don’t need some document, that’s for you denominational scholars to debate, and judging by some of these posts, it feels to me like folk are reducing the issue down to spritual gangbanging….

All I know is that you will not lose any portion of the light that burns inside you if you share it with the world… In fact it is that light that will attract the world to you so you can be a witness to the essence of God in Jesus Christ…

For me, the symbolism of joining the world in making a stance against genocide, tyranny and injustice is powerful to me.

And I stand with Bishop Blake…

Greg J.

I could have not said it any better. One thing this shows me is that there are quite a few bible illiterate Christians in the Church today. As a member of COGIC, I am deeply saddened by the actions of this Presiding Bishop and the Ecumenical approach that he is taking. It would be nice if one of the Bishops in the Church would speak out against his actions. The COGIC website used to have a comments section but they removed it after the Convocation in November because some of the members in the church were crying out against some the mess that was happening during the convocation.

As we stated in our most recent report, Bishop Blake’s proxy writers have framed their entire defense on technicalities. Wow, what an impressive political move. Its just like the gay christian movement’s technical assertion: “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality”. So if you agree with the technical defense of Bishop Blake, you’d also have to agree with the gcm’s technical defense of their homosexual sin. Technically, they are both the same rationale.

Also, I guess you didnt read the latest revision of COGIC’s response where they cited a case in Sudan where the UDIHR was used to enforce and issue an arrest warrant. If its just a benign resolution, why did a judge in Uganda cite it repeatedly in ruling against police there? How could an arrest warrant be issued off a powerless resolution? Something doesnt add up with that logic.

But lets say your assertion is correct and the UDIHR is pointless and powerless. In his video presentation, Bishop Blake didnt seem to think that. He called it the possibliity of a “new epoch”. Said it would kill “intolerance and bigotry”. And why spend money to send Dr. Hall to something so insignificant? Im not sure how much but I think it costs money to fly from Memphis to Amsterdam. And why didnt he inform COGIC pastors before he signed up all 12000 churches? Isnt Dr. Leonard Lovett COGIC’s official ecumenical officer? Why wasnt he sent as emissary? Was he even consulted? Did Bishop Blake obtain even minimal General Assembly authority to do this in the name of the church? Why was he the ONLY protestant invited? Were they at all suspicious that this was conceived, organized and executed by a nation whose dubious distinction is that they were the first nation in the contemporary world to legalize homosexual marriage? I suggest you answer the serious ethical, biblical and administrative breaches attached to this rather than grasp at straws about alleged exaggeration, overstatement and sensationalism. That’s too much of a cop out considering the scope of this issue.

Pastor Foster also wrote the following in that original blog: “But much more than just an affirmation of basic human rights, the manifesto is a stunning snapshot of what a future one world government and one world religion would look like under the rule of the antichrist.” There is no skeletal structure of one-world government in the UDIHR. There is no explanation of how signors are to be held accountable for keeping their promises regarding human rights. There is no enforcement structure whatsoever. The document has all the practical authority of a Congressional resolution.

But the broadest overstatement I find in the piece is the charge that, by endorsing the UDIHR, Blake is advancing the ecumenical movement. To your first question, I think this charge against Bishop Blake is clearly made. And I think it is a stunning overstatement.

On the other hand, isn’t that a different argument than the debate here? The fact that he did sign it does not is simply not and endorsement of gay marriage ot gay lifestyles… …

So why all this conjecture and argument?? What is the purpose of promoting misinformation? Where does the administration of the church belong on the world stage?? Does the administration of the church belong there??

Do we fight the battles of injustice and tyranny by staying within our walls? Or stand idly by…

I’m just asking….