Tag Archives: Church of God in Christ
GCM Watch has obtained an original copy of an article written 35 years ago by then Elder Charles Blake, now COGIC’s highest episcopal officer. Entitled “Is there hope and help for the homosexual? 1 Cor 6:9-11″, Blake authored the piece for the denomination’s “official organ”, The Whole Truth (Volume VII, No IV, May 1974). The mere fact that he was willing to write and publish such an article during this time suggests that he was deeply concerned about men and women who struggle to overcome homosexuality, and in most cases, without the assistance of the church they were born into. But does the article reveal anything about the Presiding Bishop’s personal perspectives on homosexuality? You might be very surprised reading it. The May issue contained part one, but its not clear whether a “part two” was published in the June issue as indicated.
Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions we can’t cite the whole article. Here are some interesting statements made in the article. Please don’t complain about “context” quotes.
“Hope and help” was written when Blake was 34 years old and just five years after he was appointed pastor of West Angeles in 1969. As pastor of the growing church, Blake saw homosexuality as a rising controversy which the church had been negligent in addressing. In his article, Blake is very adamant about speaking out and educating the COGIC and its leadership.
“…because it [homosexuality] seems to be on the increase, I feel we make the problem more severe and pressing when we ignore it. It does not go away. And by our silence we would appear to condone it or advocate it. If we fail to deal with it then many who might otherwise escape, will find themselves entangled in the midst of its antagonizing complexities.The people perish for lack of knowledge.”
I agree completely that silence about deliverance from homosexuality helps to keep struggling people in bondage. As an example, although I was born in COGIC, I can only remember once my formative 19 years hearing about anyone being delivered from homosexuality. That person was a female evangelist named Charlotte Reynolds from Ohio. If Im not mistaken, she had a testimony in one of COGIC’s “souvenir journals” published for a Women’s Convention in Houston. The lack of role models led me to believe that there was no one who had been delivered and thus in my mind, not a real possibility for me. We can only hope that now that Bishop Blake is at the apex of power in COGIC, he would remember what he wrote and challenge the church and many of his fellow pastors and bishops to openly share their testimony of deliverance from homosexuality.
Apparently anticipating that clergy members in his denomination would reject his bold assertions, Blake rebuked them and challenged them to openly deal with homosexuality “from the pulpit”. There was a broad misapplication of Ephesians 5:3 which caused people to believe such things should never be talked about openly.
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness let it not be once named among you as becometh saints.
In its literal interpretation, these sins should not have been “named” (or mentioned), but only because they should have never have been part of the lifestyle practices of God’s people, not because Paul attempted to standardize some code of silence. In essence, he was demanding a zero tolerance policy. Instead it was said that sexual issues among the saints should never be discussed openly. This is a tragic example of not dividing the Word rightly and its clear what this has led us into.
Most likely, Bishop Blake accurately saw the pulpit as a place of authority in the black church and unless homosexuality was addressed from a place of authority by a person in authority, it would continue to remain taboo.
And to those who would feel that this subject should not be dealt with from the pulpit, I would say that the Bible deals with it, God has revealed his mind regarding it and Jesus Christ has provided a means of dealing with it. And thus the preacher who ignores it is either blind of forgetful of his mission.”
Amen! In other words, there remains no excuse for any preacher not to speak out on this issue. Any preacher who ignores the serious and pervasive issue of homosexuality is blind and has forgotten the mission of the preacher of the gospel.
There were more strong words of rebuke for leaders who fail to openly minister truth to homosexuals (caps his):
Jesus’ death on the cross was for the whole world. And thus the Church of God in Christ must be an extention [sic] of the love of God and the redeeming concern of Christ Jesus to all who need, including the homosexual. And if God has conveyed to us a good word to those involved in sexual variances, then we are guilty of EXTORTION if we keep silent and fail to pass it on.”
Extortion is a strong word,but it is what it is. And unfortunately it appears COGIC leadership did not heed these words. Blake himself may have become discouraged fighting against a system so ingrained with ignorance and at some point became complicit. Its no secret in COGIC that ascendancy to the upper levels of leadership comes with a price. In fact, seventeen years later, Blake found himself in the center of one of COGIC’s most infamous homosexual church trials when allegations of widespread homosexual conduct and sexual abuse came to light concerning fellow General Board member John D. Husbands (deceased 1991).
The article also contains a rather controversial section of Blake’s research and commentary on homosexuality and gender issues where he quotes Sigmund Freud as an authority on the subject.
This is the Bishop Blake the church needs now. Thirty-five years have passed since he wrote this and things have only gotten much worse. Homosexuality is running rampant in the church (including the one he presides over), threatens to completely obliterate the social landscape of our nation (including the state he resides in) and has birthed an illegitimate movement of “gay christians”. But Bishop Blake is now silent. Instead of living by what he once openly preached and advocated, he now refers to “official positions” when questioned about the issue.
Although unconfirmed, several individuals have attested that Blake was delivered from homosexuality, even testifying to it at his father’s San Diego church. But in 2003, he denied that saying “Homosexuality has never been and will never be my temptation.” If the witness of those who heard him testify is true, it would be such an awesome inspiration for the thousands of young people in COGIC who struggle to overcome homosexuality to know their Bishop is an overcomer and not ashamed of what God has done in his life. Interestingly, the scripture he cited in his article title is the only one which specifically acknowledges not only the reality of freedom from homosexuality through the cleansing blood of Jesus but also those in the church who have been delivered from homosexuality.
Even as COGIC is set this week for $200 ticket, red carpet inauguration of its newest leader, a man who has based his administration on the hope of a brighter future for COGIC, now seems the best time for him go back to what he once believed.
If you’re interested in reading the entire article, The Whole Truth is published by COGIC Publishing House. Dr. David Hall, who was sent by Blake as an emissary to the signing of the Faith in Human Rights Statement, oversees the paper and its archives. Although there’s no guarantee, the issue in which this article appeared may or may not be available but you can call @ (901) 744-0477 to inquire.
The Southern Maryland News is reporting that COGIC is now in the legal crosshairs following a sexual abuse case we told you about in January:
A woman has filed a $100 million lawsuit against a Waldorf church, claiming her son was “sexually harassed” by one of its ministers. The woman faulted the church for the conduct of Tony Ray Malbrough, who was charged in January with criminal offenses for allegedly molesting a different child.
The victim told police that Malbrough, 44, formerly a minister of music at the New Community Church of God in Christ, sexually assaulted him on numerous occasions during keyboard lessons at Malbrough’s Indian Head home, court papers show.
After the 14-year-old victim came forward, three more people reported being sexually abused by Malbrough, said Diane Richardson, police spokeswoman. Richardson didn’t disclose whether the woman’s son was one of the victims who reported being molested by Malbrough.
“There is sincerely no amount of money that could heal the wound for the damage that has been afflicted,” wrote the woman in her civil complaint. The Independent is not identifying the woman because to do so would identify a victim of an alleged sex crime.
The woman is suing the Waldorf church for pain and suffering. Also included in the lawsuit is the national Church of God in Christ Inc.
“The New Community Church of God is responsible,” wrote the woman in her complaint, adding that parents trust the church with their children. “We are not expecting that our children be violated by sex offenders whether known or unknown.”
On March 10, the New Community Church of God in Christ filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The church’s pastor, Willie Hunt, asked the court to dismiss the complaint because his notice didn’t contain a case number or writ of summons.
Malbrough has been charged with second-degree child abuse, third-degree sex offense, two counts of fourth-degree sex offense and filming child pornography.
Hunt and the woman filing the lawsuit couldn’t be reached for comment.
h/t to Trisha
Some interesting new developments in the controversy over Bishop Charles Blake’s endorsement of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights and the so-called Faith in Human Rights Statement.
COGIC has changed the web link for the third time. We’re not sure what that’s about but hopefully they are finished tinkering with their response. In the latest revision to the original 22 page document, the church cites a recent African case using the UDIHR as a basis for legal action. Such a citation, they assert, is proof the statement is only about protecting egregious human rights abuses and nothing else.
The original Declaration provides a basis by which the International Criminal Court has ordered the arrest of President Omar al‐Bashir of Sudan for his complicity and leadership in the murder of 300,000 Africans, and the displacement of 2.5 million Africans from their homes in Darfur.”
And COGIC (Use of the denominational acronym is only because its not clear exactly who’s writing these responses) asserts again that the word “homosexual” nor the phrase “homosexual marriage” was mentioned in the document(s) which is further proof that our claims are “malicious lies, …for devious ulterior motives”.
Technically, they are correct. As a matter of fact, Bishop Blake and those writing for him have framed their entire defense only on technicalities. Its not a trump because (1) GCM Watch never made a claim that the word or the phrase is explicity mentioned in either of the documents. As a matter of fact we said it was an implied endorsement and (2) Technical arguements are problematic. Think of the gay christian arguement that “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality”. Technically true, but false due to motive. Our original perspective was an interpretive one based on research which shows the document is used (and intended) to be interpreted in its broadest application which is of course inclusive of homosexual marriage rights.
Unfortunately, COGIC refuses to acknowledge the rather obvious existence of this reality.
Having said that, let’s examine this claim as if it were true. If one can argue that the IDUHR is a document which is a basis for human rights abuses, claims and applications, then the question must be asked does it cover all human rights abuses, claims and applications. Even if we do not agree with other parties’ claims on the application of the IDUHR does that nullify its intent? As much as I would like to say the humanist document doesnt apply to gay marriage, it does.
Also in Africa, the UDIHR was cited as the basis of his awarding a legal victory. This one was for homosexuals in Uganda.
Justice Arach called upon the international conventions and emphasised that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enjoins us to respect and protect them in a spirit of brotherhood, which includes sisterhood.” The final judgement on the case was issued yesterday to a court full of Ugandan lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people. Counsel Rwakafuzi recounted the historic moment that occurred yesterday when Justice Arach declared: ‘Human rights must be respected. It has been found that the actions of the officials that molested Victor Mukasa and Oyoo were unconstitutional, inhuman, and should be condemned.’
While the judge accurately applied the UDIHR to the particular case, the plaintiff described the ruling as “one leg inside victory”.
“The fact that the Ugandan High Court is relying on international human rights conventions is a good sign that justice will come to everyone in Uganda some day”, said Victor Musaka.
Thus, the UDIHR is understood by the international community which subscribes to it to be fluid and encompassing of a plethora ofa gay rights. What are gay rights? Well just ask the gay community. We’ve already cited their near universal agreement that homosexual marriage is a fundamental human right. Its the same argument being used in this country and was successful in both Massachusetts and Connecticutt.
At the ceremony, attended by David Hall, COGIC’s emissary, one speaker emphasized the all inclusiveness of the Faith Statement and the UDIHR.
Again, there was no verbatim utterance of the h-word. But given his anti-church support of homosexual rights, there’s no mistaking what Maxime Jacques Marcel Verhagen, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs meant to convey in his speech to the cosigns of the Faith Statement.
When the Catholic church refused to endorse a UN initiative on gay rights, Verhagen summoned the Papal Nuncio of the Netherlands and publicly chided him for not falling in line with the Dutch government. The Catholic church refused endorsement because it understood that the document went beyond the goal of ending violence against people.
When Verhagen addressed the signatories of the Faith Statement (of which Dr. Hall was in attendance) he told them in no uncertain terms that all rights meant all rights and all people meant all people.
It transposes important values, such as justice, equality, human dignity and liberty, into rights to which everyone is entitled. These are the birthright of all human beings; regardless of where they were born or to what cultural or religious tradition they belong. They reflect our common humanity, from which no person may be excluded.”
Although COGIC argues in its defense that they only signed to fight “suffering, abuse, and extremism”, Verhagen clearly articulated to them at the time that “…no restrictions may be placed on human rights in the name of religion”. The foreign minister then tells Dr. Hall that his religion (COGIC) may not interpret human rights to mean something different than everyone else.
There are people who argue that human rights can be interpreted differently within different religious traditions. I believe that such relativism seriously undermines the international human rights legal system. So I am very glad that you, as representatives of different world religions, are endorsing the Universal Declaration today and proclaiming that your religions recognise and support human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone, irrespective of religion. You are telling the world that religion and human rights are not conflict, that in fact religion can be a major source of legitimacy for human rights.”
Plain and simple it is the concept of univeralism or diaprax in this case of a religious umbrella that is being applied to this entire event. Consequently, if COGIC signs onto the statement then comes back home and says we dont interpret it to mean that, someone either is being disengenuous, duplictious or grossly uninformed.
Read Verhagen’s entire speech to the signatories of the Faith in Human Rights Statement. Its rather stunning considering the context of what has been discussed thus far.
We are extremely disappointed but perhaps we had little hope to expect much more.
Through his public relations firm, Bishop Charles Blake has released what appears to be a response to our articles here and here sharply criticizing his endorsement of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights and the Faith in Human Rights Statement.
The 22 page document is posted on the denomination’s main website. Read it.
GCM Watch intends to issue a full examination of the response later on this site.
Bishop Blake’s address to the gathering of world religious leaders December 2008. The following are points of contention we’d like to address:
Attendees addressed as an “august” and “extraordinary” body?
The word august means “Inspiring awe or admiration; majestic”. Are we to accept that the signatories of the Faith in Human Rights Statement who worship and pray to demons and idols and propogate doctrines of devils are majestic and inspire awe? What about them exactly should we admire? The bible tells us to turn away from such people because they have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.
Faith Statement declares that “essential to religion is the struggle of human rights”
In what biblical context? The stuggle for human rights maybe essential to man’s humanistic religion, but it is not “essential” or the essense of the gospel. Human rights is not the message of the gospel, neither is a so-called social gospel the focus of the gospel. It is the preaching of the gospel which shows a fallen world that their only hope for redemption is in the acceptance of Jesus Christ. There is no other way. Jesus said unto him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me (John 14:6) He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber (John 10:1).
“with this proclamation we possibly usher in a new international epock”
An epock designates the beginning of a new and important period in the history of anything. This is more social humanism. Under the spirit of the antichrist, which is already at work, these new beginnings signal a turn away from God to man’s desire to rule himself. No solution irregardless of how noble it may seem is worth partnering with workers of inquity. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; Eph 5:11
“This could be the day that intolerance and bigotry begin to die, the inglorious death these foes deserve”
Who exactly is on the receiving end of this “intolerance and bigotry”? Is it the poor peoples of the earth who have no food? Is it those in the teeming slums of the world who have no money? Or is it those who arrogantly demand that homosexual marriage is a inherent right? Those who are poor, hurting and hungry have no concern for “intolerance and bigotry”. They only want to eat and have clothes to wear.
No matter how the world terms it, its not “intolerance and bigotry” to stand on God’s Word.
“To protect and affirm the human rights and human dignity of all people everywhere”
Inclusion is a loaded word. Does all mean all or is that just to pacify the inclusionists? Does all include those who who adamant support homosexual marriage? Gays believe that the Universal Declaration of International Human includes their right to marry among other things. Are we bound to support their definitions of what constitutes human rights, whatever that might be?
Bishop Blake’s enthusiastic endorsement and association with this ungodly document is shameful and a poor representation of the faith once delivered to the saints. We are to contend for that faith, not to form partnerships or even agree to the work of people who’s motives are diametrically opposed to the Kingdom of God.
We challenge Bishop Blake to come from among them and be separated. We challenge Bishop Blake to be careful that his intent to do good is not attached to evil people. We challenge Bishop Blake to be sober, alert and a true watchman on the wall to prevent the enemy from launching an inside attack on God’s flock.
- Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration
- Humanism blackens Blake speech
- Bishop Blake releases UDIHR defense
- An unholy covenant: our response to Bishop Blake’s defense document
- New UDIHR controversy developments
- UN document advocates gay marriage; pedophile access
Just over two months ago, Bishop Charles Blake appointed Dr. David Hall, a midlevel church official, as his “official emissary” to the signing of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights . The Faith in Human Rights Statement was issued in conjunction with the anniversary of the UDIHR.
The Memphis-based Tri State Defender said Blake’s invitation came at the behest of The Netherlands Queen Beatrix whose nation in 2001 was the first to grant full marriage rights to homosexuals. Queen Beatrix assembled this diverse religious gathering on the 60th anniversary of the document’s signing. And everyone was giddy with ecumenical joy. But peel away the feel good humanism and you are left with a bizarre collusion of world religions and political religionists whose goal is to enact universal law governing humanity and its “rights”. According to the Tri-State Defender:
The meeting took place in the Peace Palace during the International Inter-religious Faith in Human Rights Conference. Sponsored by The Carnegie Foundation and the government of The Netherlands, the event attracted an entourage of 10 supreme authorities of various world religions, political leaders, heads of state, and high-level UN officials.
Invitees were asked to sign the 2008 Faith in Human Rights Statement, which, in essence, pronounces and confirms that true religion, irrespective of religion, gender, race or other distinctions, defends the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every human. [source]
Blake, in a video message aired at the event, could barely conceal his excitement at this opportunity to prove his ecumenical credentials.
“As Presiding Bishop of the Church Of God In Christ, International, it is my great honor and privilege to attach my signature to the 2008 Faith in Human Rights Statement. On behalf our 12,000 plus Church of God in Christ congregations in America and in 60 nations of the world, I endorse and encourage the great ideas and ideals of this document.”
The gospel of inclusion, part II
Im curious about this. Although lauded as a monumental occasion, a historic first, not one slither of it was noted on the COGIC’s main website nor any of its subsidary sites. The Tri-State Defender, an African American newspaper with a regional audience and small circulation, was the only publication to carry the story. Why did COGIC only release the information to this small newspaper? Why not the much larger Commercial Appeal which is arguably COGIC-friendly?
Secondly, Im not that familiar with COGIC polity, but does the Presiding Bishop have that much authority to sign up his entire church up for something like this without approval from the General Assembly? After all this is an indirect endorsement of homosexual marriage. Does COGIC really want to reverse the work of GE Patterson? And incidentally, Patterson did need to approval of the GA to issue its historic marriage proclamation. Read it.
Third, what’s in this package of “great ideas and ideals” that would prompt Bishop Blake to shower it with such glowing praise?
For one, the UDIHR (and its accompanying faith statement) is a mark of achievement for homosexual rights advocates who have pressured the United Nations for years to enshrine gay rights into its official positions. Read carefully. Gays want the UN to “afford same-sex partnerships full protection of the law, equal to marital and other legally recognized mixed-sex partnerships, with regard to pension, inheritance, taxation, social security, custody and adoption, donor insemination and other services, in which discriminatory policies and practices currently exist. Additionally homosexuals want to “stimulate the development of positive images of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people and lifestyles as role models for young people.”
In short, homosexual activists have invested much into the declaration because it would give them broad international leverage against any nation who refused to legislate acceptance of homosexual rights. Armed with the Declaration they could pressure the UN to impose sanctions against such nations. Although the Declaration has no legal power, it nonetheless is a powerful weapon (particularly Article 16) against non-participatory nations.
Calling the general assembly statement a ”powerful victory for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, the Human Rights Watch gay and lesbian faction said the ”statement confirm[s] that international human rights protections include sexual orientation and gender identity. It is the first time that a statement condemning rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people has been presented in the General Assembly.”
The Faith Statement in essence is an extenstion of the UDIHR. What the UDIHR does not address about the religious aspects of human rights, the Faith Statement does. And it follows the same path of securing universal acceptance of homosexual marriage among religious entities.
A snapshot of the antichrist and his false prophet’s world religion
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. In our opinion this is what characterizes the ecumenical ideology of Bishop Charles Blake. Its dangerous, unbiblical and works against the goals of the kingdom of God.
How could any minister endorse and promote a message of the right to ___________ (fill in the blank)? Should we preach rights or should we preach the message of the kingdom of God? If youre unsure of what that is look here. If you don’t agree with that, let’s try a rewording of the Great Commission to see the effect. Can you imagine Matthew 28: 19-20 rewritten to say this?:
Go into all the world and preach the right to commit sin. Teach them all things that the United Nations has deemed is of human value. Teach them to respect other religions and lifestyles. And most importantly, dont try to change the world, just live in peaceful coexistence with them. Respecting human rights is greater than doctrine or biblical directives. And lo, in return, they’ll respect your religion too. Amen.
You may consider that far fetched but that’s exactly the lie David Hall is pushing with Blake’s approval. “Peace is the way the Lord would want us to live and respect each other’s rights and dignity,” said Hall. “The Human Rights Accord speaks louder than our politics or our religious affiliations. We embraced each other and talked about issues that face humanity.” (our bold)
As you can see the Faith in Human Rights Statement espouses a humanistic “gospel”, contrary to the kingdom of God and its righteousness. It reduces the glory and divinity of our Lord Jesus to the diaprax heresy. It encourages God-less solutions to the issues of humanity, and instead elevates man’s own solution as better than God’s. It arrogantly declares that “true religion” is one where no religion is superior, thus enpowering it to “defend” any ungodly definition of human rights. This is what Charles Blake enthusiastically endorsed.
Above: (left) David Hall, Blake’s special emissary smoozing with “his holiness” Sri Swami Davananda Saraswati who teaches”vedana” a demonic belief that all humanity is divine, thus there is no need for God or Christ. The center picture is of Hall with Muslim Dr. Al-Shekih (center), a representative of Hawza Al-Najaf. Hawza is a Muslim political organization which has been criticized for religious tyranny inside Iraq.
The right picture is of Hall with “his holiness” Drikung Skyabgon, Chetsang Rinpoche, the supreme head of a variation of Tibetan buddhism. Adherents practice what is termed “Phowa”. The practitioner learns how to expel his/her consciousness or mindstream through the fontanel at the top of the skull at the moment of death. This practice is said to aid the practitioner in remaining aware through the death experience, thus aiding one in attaining enlightenment in the Bardo (the state in between death and the next rebirth).
We are supposed to respect these demonic beliefs and encourage people to remained enslaved to this insanity?
And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:4,5).
Clarification update 03.02.09:
Wiley Henry, a senior staff writer at the Tri-State Defender said the text of the article was submitted by someone who represents COGIC and was edited by TSD staff.
Update 7:45pm Links to faith statement and Bishop Blake’s video message added.