Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration

1 Mar

blake2 A Special GCM Watch Report. COGIC leader signs onto document affirming universal rights to homosexual marriage.

  • 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.

    hall2

    hall1hall3Above: (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.

    About these ads

    66 Responses to “Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration”

    1. Frank March 1, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

      I could not read the entire article as it it just too sickening to think that a man that professes to be a pastor or preacher can drag the holy state of matrimony which is a type and shadow of Christ and the church into homosexual unions which are abominable and blasphemy of the Holy Ghost!
      Truly the spirit of antichrist is alive in the hearts and minds of many of the so-called clergy and their thoughts and works bear witness to the mark of the beast being in their hands and foreheads.
      I won’t judge them but the scriptures do and as the word says, judgment begins in the house of God! These men need to repent as they are going against the scriptures and even though the darkening of the beast’s kingdom is prophesied I hope that some may be pulled out of the fire before it is too late.
      Frank

    2. Eric Fredrick March 2, 2009 at 12:15 am #

      Daryl,

      I don’t know if you will remember me, but I’m Eric. I used to work with your wife Dee at the VA. You preached at our old church in Cedartown, Georgia. I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your blog. I trust it more than TV or the Newspaper. I just want to encourage you to keep up the fight and keep exposing darkness. I will be praying for you and your family. I look forward to your next entry.

    3. gcmwatch March 2, 2009 at 1:54 am #

      Hi Eric, Wow God bless you man. Yes of course I remember you and your wife. Thanks so much for supporting this. Its just a small way to say we do care first about what God says. I give God the glory for every eye that is opened and and learns to trust fully trust in God.

    4. djenk23 March 2, 2009 at 2:45 am #

      looks like i left just in time…this is real slick….im thinking that the Gomes episode was no mistake…

      GCMW: We may have to look at that again. Something about that Gomes episode is very telling. Was he testing the waters…?

    5. christian March 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm #

      Not sure what the one world religion will look like since the gay agenda and islam is on a direct head on collision. Although homosexuality is very common in the mid east, it is not the gay agenda version.

      Persecution of the true church is coming to the US very soon. Keep looking up!!

    6. Kyle March 2, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

      Christian,

      You make a good point and I have contemplated this before. It is rather quite simple after doing some research into Islam.

      Basically the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is a long held view by many in extremist Islam. Ultimately WE true Christians are EVERYBODY’S enemy #1.

      Once you get over the idea that a one world religion means total cohesiveness then it’s easy to see how this will play out. Essentially they are united with one common cause even though they have many internal differences amongst various beliefs. And what is that one common cause? Hatred towards the true Christ and his Church.

      Kyle

    7. christian March 2, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

      One world gov’t, one currency, one religion. The muslims will never concede or compromise. They’ll pretend to…the koran promotes lying as a means to an end. I suspect the church will be raptured prior to all these events.

    8. Jon Daniels March 3, 2009 at 12:57 am #

      My thing is this, what about II Corinthians 6:14? And what about Romans 12:2? Even if one was to disregard the “indirect” endorsement of homosexuality (which is bad all by itself), why is he establishing a covenant with God’s enemies?!!! I know I’m probably being redundant, but it trips me out that these leaders can’t see what they’re doing… .

    9. gcmwatch March 3, 2009 at 1:17 am #

      Jon, that’s a really good point. We could take out all the homosexuality issues and still be left with a bizarre covenant with false religions. It really makes you wonder at the apparent spiritual blindness of these leaders. Is it intentional or truly blindness? Either case, its a bad, bad deal for the church.

    10. EnochWalked March 3, 2009 at 1:26 am #

      Pastor Foster,

      Couple of thoughts.

      Maybe Carlton Pearson was not off his rocker after all when he said some of his former ministry friends(Blake and Jakes???to be seen) would join him in the gospel of inclusion. Maybe this explains why Blake has been “silent” on obvious homosexual abuse in his organization. Blakes’s silence means being complicit to these evil acts in COGIC.

      2nd thought: Blake must know that he is on his way out as being Presiding Bishop so in a last great act of desparation, he shoots a spiritual “shot that is heard around the world.”

      Seriously, this is paramount to declaring War against the LORD and HIS anointed! May GOD help us!

      GCMW: EW, Yes, I remember they all vehemently denied it and ran away from Pearson as fast as they could. Now, a little over 5 years later, the same ones are pushing false doctrines equal in blasphemous nature to Pearson’s. Maybe he wasnt lying when he said they agreed with him privately. As you suggested, we have seen that before. These leaders silence on certain issues are very telling. They talk all the holy talk when they are in their denominational circles. But then when you see them outside of “memphis” or their pulpits they embrace all manner of ungodly people and beliefs.

    11. djenk23 March 3, 2009 at 3:09 am #

      Blake was just voted in last year…he has 3+ years left to go…

    12. christianlady March 3, 2009 at 6:11 am #

      That Bishop Blake is a sincere believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, is beyond question. It is unthinkable that he would make a covenant with God’s enemies. And it is just as certain that he would NEVER declare war on the Lord and his anointed. What is more, the Church of God in Christ would never elect someone who would behave like that as their Presiding Bishop.

      Nothing in the Tri-State Defender article suggests that Bishop Blake or COGIC support homosexuality or any weird anti-Christ religion, or for that matter any religion but biblical Christianity. Bishop Blake and COGIC’s position on homosexuality is clear: homosexual relationships are sinful because they are in direct violation of biblical teaching. (Check out the COGIC website: “On Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy.”)

      I believe that as a Christian he sought to respond to the Lord’s call for us to do good to the poor and suffering around the world, not to endorse in any way the other so-called religious leaders who were present, or to endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, which I know he believes are contrary to biblical teaching.

    13. dunamis2 March 3, 2009 at 6:25 am #

      This is a mess Elder Foster. Thanks for the info. I’ve linked to it, if you don’t mind.

      God bless.

    14. gcmwatch March 3, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

      Christianlady let me ask you a question and lets just say for a moment it has nothing to do with Bishop Blake.

      Is it at all possible that a Christian organization can help people without endorsing a document which values the philosophy of man above the Word of God?

    15. elder jimmy March 3, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

      Didn’t I read (here?) that many years ago Bishop Blake gave testimony in his home church of being delivered from homosexuality? Is this a rumor or something that can be substantiated.

      I am not a member of the COGIC but I knew that the election of Bishop Blake was a political error. I was sad to see him elected; NOT because of the aforemetnioned information but because of what I discerned. We are rusing to judgement on many fronts. Nationally, politically, religiously, morally, and on and on. Even so come Lord Jesus!

    16. Paul Alexander March 3, 2009 at 11:59 pm #

      Gay marriage is not a human right.

      When Bishop Blake supported human rights he supported education, healthcare, a living wage, freedom of assembly, democracy, life, liberty, freedom from slavery, security, right to own property, the right to vote….

      But gay marriage is not a human right and never has been. Sexual orientation is specifically not mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding marriage and family.

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

      Most Christians affirm that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and should be protected.

      This in no way supports gay marriage.

      And nothing in the Universal Declaration or in the Faith in Human Rights Statement supports gay marriage.
      By endorsing the statement Bishop Blake affirmed what the Civil Rights Movement affirmed, what America affirms, and what the gospel of Jesus Christ affirms: life and liberty, healthcare and education, a living wage and freedom of speech.

      I’m a Pentecostal minister (fourth generation) and I think Bishop Blake’s endorsement of this statement is holiness in action! Praise the Lord!

    17. Job March 4, 2009 at 12:04 am #

      There are liberal strands of Islam that support homosexuality – and universalism – just as there are liberal strands of Judaism and there is false liberal Christianity. The media knows this, and it is why they promote Islam. Once they make Islam an acceptable religious choice for western people, a liberal, New Agey form of it will be depicted in virtually every movie and TV show, as well as promoted in classrooms. The same with Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other religions. The actual original belief system itself won’t matter just so long that it can be transmuted into a liberal, New Agey, universalist or pluralist form.

      And this is another thing: check out this blog. http://lastrow.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/christian-nations-and-evangelism/
      It describes a Muslim challenging a pastor on how Islam contains a structure for governing nations and societies where Biblical Christianity does not, and the Muslim declares Muslim’s superiority based on it. Well, that is exactly what the one world government/religion types want to keep. They want to get rid of the things about Islam that Mohammed stole from the Bible, and keep the things that are useful for governing societies.

    18. Ethics Prof March 4, 2009 at 12:20 am #

      It’s a real shame that those who claim to be Christian are so quick to uncritically jump on the bandwagon of slander. The posts on this site demonstrate an absolute ignorance and uncritical reading of the Declaration of Human Rights. This is a document specifically and clearly dedicated to the larger concern of human rights. It has nothing to do with sexuality, does not mention sexuality and actually makes a very profound statement for the sanctity of the traditional family. I encourage everyone to read the document, in its context, before making such rash and harsh decisions.

    19. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 12:50 am #

      Per the document endorsed by Bishop Blake it says ” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights celebrates the dignity of the human person, irrespective of religion, race, sex or other distinctions. What do you think, in your critical reading, could possibly be included in the “other distinctions”?
      We noted that the Faith in Human Rights Statement was a religious extension of the UDIHR. Clearly, with the approval of homosexual rights organizations, one of the human rights included in it is the right to marry. You may want to take some time and research before you began dismissing everything as an alleged failure to read critically.
      Here are the signatories to this statement.

    20. Peter March 4, 2009 at 12:55 am #

      I am a member of the COGIC and this makes me sick. I have seen this going on for to long. I know that Bishop Blake is now appointing Men who have divorced there wife, and married women in there church. When will this end? They keep this stuff from us. I see why now. I never would have voted for him if I had known this.

    21. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 1:31 am #

      Right you are Job. Of the 11 signatories on the Faith Statement, almost half are pro-homosexual. It would be hard to believe that they would not have any influence in the crafting of the statement. Nor do I believe they would agree to something which intentionally refuses to recognize homosexual rights as synonymous with human rights.

    22. EnochWalked March 4, 2009 at 2:07 am #

      Pastor, I posted this over at Pastor Burnett’s earlier.

      When I read “without limitation”, that is considered “broad, inclusive language that gives place to the devil, in other words, that gives the enemy access or sinners approval. If the document stated, marriage is between one man and one woman for life til death do you part, THAT IS what the Bible says…CANNOT REFUTE or GAINSAY!

      Then, how can a Christian define marriage for heathens EXCEPT that definition is based EXCLUSIVELY on the Word of GOD? What does light have to do with darkeness???
      The heathens are suppose to be drawn to us, not us to them!

      Forget about the homosexual agenda for one moment, when marriage is defined by this document by leaders of various faiths(????)
      (1) Men and women of full age(?), without any(?) limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

      That goes against the Holy Scriptures. What about Bigamist and Polygamists??? What about those men who divorce a wife after wife when their flesh is no longer pleased. If we, the Body of CHRIST(that includes all of us who belong to the LORD), DO NOT SAY JESUS CHRIST, THE WORD of GOD IS THE WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE…in all our doings, especially as a Bishop, we are NO LONGER SALT, but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Men being the World and the World system! The Church is suppose to be the head(forefront), NOT THE Tail, and I am not talking about financial prosperity …but SPIRITUAL Prosperity!

      I mean could you imagine John the Baptist not confronting Herod Antipas and Herodias(his brother’s wife) because “His Pastor” endorsed a document that says “without limitation”. GOD forbid! John the Baptist could have kept his head LITERALLY!

      I stand with GCMWatch on this one! Willful blindness(or is it?) or a slight overlook of something of this magnitude is not going to cut it when we stand before the LORD! Can you imagine if the three hebrew boys had of took the easy way out and bowed to the “image”?

      Last thing, Who says that Christianity(The Way) is Inclusive and Universal(This word usually means inclusion!)? Answer, The Devil! Our faith is exclusive to those who have repented and have been born again and live and confess through their actions, behavior that JESUS is their LORD and SAVIOUR! Everybody will not enter! I mean tell me, I am missing it, because the Word of GOD says, Strait(Narrow) is the Way and wide is the gate(Universal, Without Limitation) and Broad(Universal, Without Limitation) is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many(the majority) therebe which goin thereat:…

      I mean we must preach and teach the Word of GOD, the Gospel of the LORD JESUS CHRIST and living this faith with ABSOLUTES! When I mean ABSOLUTES, that means NO EXCEPTIONS, NO OTHER WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE, NO OTHER MEANS OF SALVATION, ALL OTHER FAITHS ARE FALSE, and that what you or I stand on, correction, what I KNOW that I KNOW that I KNOW…beyond ALL SHADOW or REASONABLE DOUBT…that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, that GOD(JEHOVAH, YAHWEH) SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, the whole counsel of GOD from Genesis to Revelation….if I for once give an exception clause…then my faith is counterfeit and void!
      It is no longer a pearl of great price!IF that means that JESUS CHRIST is NOT the only way, the only truth, the only life…then I am deceived! But I know HE IS WHO SAYS HE IS! Amen! Our faith must be ABSOLUTE…UNSHAKEABLE!

      Sorry for being wordy, the typin’ preacher man kicked in! SMILE! HALLELUJAH!

      GCMW: lol EW, you okay. Preach on preacha.

    23. leodalion March 4, 2009 at 3:34 am #

      When will people be delivered from this unbiblical blind allegiance to “so-called” Christian leaders even when their actions are against everything Christian. After reading christianlady’s entry it seems to me that she would justify any decision made by COGIC leaders no matter how ridiculous it might be. I know this kind of mindset because I once was the same way. In the early 1990′s I was an associate pastor in a COGIC church in Upstate NY. I was loyal to the pastor to a fault. He dipped into the offerings, had me spy on other ministers using the permise of having a prayer meeting with them and ran the reputation of saints that didn’t agree with him 100% into the ground. This is a small portoin of the abuses that he did but through it all I never questioned him or said anything. Eventually he got to the place that he had total control over our lives. But God was merciful to my family and me and woke us up and helped us to escape. One day I was teaching YPWW and poised a question to a particular sister that the pastor and his wife didn’t like because she wasn’t under their spell. She answered the question correctly but the pastor’s wife tried to say that she had a deeper “revelation”. Her comments were totally offbase so the sister kindly disagreed with her. After that the pastor’s wife ran to the pastor’s office. They both stormed out five minutes later. He took over the class. As he stood at the podium he picked up his bible and throw it against the wall hard. There was dead silence. He rabbled about people questioning the leader and all the usually COGIC scare tactics. At that moment I woke up and came to realize that it was time to leave. This happened during the David Koresh Waco incident. The point that I am trying to make is that Bishop Blake is going to continue to make un Christian decisions in the name of “his” denomination because people like christianlady and COGIC leaders won’t question him or vote with their feet. Either they are under his spell or they are getting a portoin of the monetary gain from the gospel of the Anti-Christ. Strong words but maybe someone who reads this entry will be woke up like I was. Saved In Christ, an Ex-COGIC escapee

    24. Pamela March 4, 2009 at 11:05 am #

      The problem with any Christian signing this is the all inclusiveness of the statement about marriage. Anyone by now knows full well of the debate in the church about homosexuality & lesbianism and their place in the church, especially when it comes to allowing them to become ministers. It may not clearly state same-sex relationships. HOWEVER without limitations is enough to include any kind of so-called marriage union. For anyone to deny this is to either be incredibly naive, willingly ignorant or one that worships the king live forevers called church leadership. Any Christian leader, who puts their name on this, whether they mean to or not, is declaring to the world their support for ungodly marriages. Seeing that the Archbishop of Canterbury is one that is on the list of signatories is enough for me to question the intent of this. It is pretty evident that he agrees with same-sex unions and homosexuals and lesbians in the pulpit. He refuses to say the behavior is wrong and insists on trying to get those that believe the Bible to go along with those that don’t.

      leodalio, thank God you escaped. I spent five years in that group growing up. At 17 I left home to attend college. That was the last time I was affiliated with any COGIC church. I guess I was just a ‘rebellious’ teenager that refused to be controlled. May the Lord open more eyes like he did yours and run away from them like bats from hell.

    25. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

      Pam, I couldnt have put it better myself. This document is pure poison, no matter how you slice it. Many church people arent aware at the coded —and loaded– language the gay movement uses to advance their agenda without giving away the clues. Without limitations? What does that mean in the hands of those who preach that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right?
      Youre also right, the Archbishop of Canterbury would have turned the Church of England into a full fledged homosexual denomination had it not been for the strong protest of our African brothers.
      Do these people not get it?

      Listen to this, Israel. God is calling you to account—and I mean all of you, everyone connected with the family that he delivered out of Egypt.
      Listen! “Out of all the families on earth, I picked you.
      Therefore, because of your special calling, I’m holding you responsible for all your sins.”
      Do two people walk hand in hand if they aren’t going to the same place? Amos 3:1-3 Message Bible

      Its just that simple. God called for us to be separate and holy, not to walk in peaceful collusion with enemies of the gospel. Being separate and holy means if you reject their advances you will be hated and despised. Its about time we followed Jesus and got out of the God-hating system so that we can call them to repentance. Thanks for your comments.

    26. Pastor E. John March 4, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

      I find it appalling and downright disparaging to see you take totally out of context the endorsement of Presiding Bishop Blake and make of it a gay marriages declaration, at worst your article entitled, “Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration” Posted on March 1, 2009 by gcmwatch” is libelous.

      An issue as important as Human Rights should not be misconstrued in light of events that occurred in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and yes, the United States of America.

      Your article is irresponsible and heartless and you should be ashamed for being so lowdown or should I say, thoughtless?

      Our disgusts for the homosexuals agenda should not cause us to kill with friendly fire. So let me kindly caution that a little more care be exercised when reporting the events.

      I must express my gratitude for the watchdogs that surveil the portals of the Church Of God In Christ, but don’t bite the kids.

      Love in Jesus,

      Pastor John

    27. joeland7 March 4, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

      Most churches are catering to the will of the people, state and federal government and not to the will of God. Many of the doctrines of the churches are not in harmony with the Word of God. Jesus said “in vain do you worship Me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.”

    28. Elder Oscar Owens March 4, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

      Brother Foster I speak out against these lies you are telling about my Pastor and Presiding Bishop. I may be mistaken, but I believe I have met you in the past, at a conference, where you spoke of your book that describes your journey out of homosexuality to holiness and sexual purity. At that time you seemed a kind person so I am doubly surprised by the rancor of the lies you are spreading about Bishop Blake. In the title of your blog article, “Bishop Charles E. Blake endorses gay marriage declaration” you are telling a malicious lie. Bishop Blake does not, and never has endorsed gay marriage. Not at any time in the 18 years that I have heard him preach has he ever supported or endorsed gay marriage or homosexuality. He has consistently taught and affirmed the Word of God in the Old Testament and New Testament that homosexuality is a sin which saved and sanctified Christians must forsake through the saving power of the blood of Jesus and the delivering power of the Holy Spirit. West Angeles Church of God in Christ itself has an official marriage policy to marry male and female couples only. Bishop Blake would rejoice in your own deliverance from homosexuality to holiness and sexual purity. He consistently teaches that the only God blessed sexual relationship for born again, Holy Spirit filled couples is within holy matrimony between men and women.

      GCMW: Elder Owens you do indeed know me at least based on that particular conference you attended where I spoke. I am a kind person, but I am also concerned about leaders who partner with ungodly entities to accomplish God’s will. And my kindness doesnt negate me speaking out about that without respect of persons. Should you survey the site, you’ll see that. There’s a lot more I could say on a personal level in regards to what you’ve written but I wont.

      Bishop Blake’s endorsement of “the Faith in Human Rights” statement is not an endorsement of gay marriage, absolutely not! The “Faith in Human Rights” document does not refer to gay marriage or gay rights at all, implicitly or explicitly. It does not imply an affirmation of gay marriage – not at all. The “Faith in Human Rights” document was developed to bring world religious leaders together to affirm the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights which was written 60 years ago. In 1948, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights was written and adopted by the UN General Assembly. It was a landmark document basically declaring that people of varies ethnicities, nations and governments should be treated with dignity and justice. The world had just emerged from two world wars, it was the beginning of the Black Civil Rights struggle in America and the struggle for the independence of formerly colonized nations.

      GCMW: Im well aware of the history of the UDIHR. It was the 60th anniversary which for the most part birthed the so-called Faith Statement. Im sure you agree that all documents are subject to interpretation and perception. Thus, the fluidity of this document has allowed for homosexual groups to openly declare that its inclusive of homosexual marriage. Their insistence that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right fits right into the language of the document. The faith statement (an extension of the UDIHR) employs the same type of open ended inclusivity which unfortunately is what Bishop Blake endorsed.

      The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was a beacon of hope for African American people in their struggle against racism. In 1948, gay marriage was not part of the conversation; on the contrary, this was the time of the affirmation of the traditional, nuclear family in America. In fact article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states:
      Article 16.
       (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
       (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
       (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

      Notice it says, “Without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion” men and women have a right to marry. This statement says nothing about gay marriage. It affirms marriage between men and women without regard to race, nationality or religion who are of full age.

      Furthermore, the document that Bishop Blake is a signatory to is the “Faith in Human Rights” document. Neither does the “Faith in Human Rights” document refer to or affirm gay marriage. Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27) Jesus even said to “love your enemy”, “to bless them and do good to them” (Matthew 5:44). The love we must have for people causes us to affirm their dignity as humans created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26 -27). Affirming the image of God in each person does not mean we affirm the sinful activities of people. The “Faith in Human Rights” document affirms the dignity of human beings created in the image of God. The “Faith in Human Rights” statement reads, “we recognize our responsibility towards our believers and to the world at large and reaffirm our intention to take all necessary steps both within our communities and in co-operation with others to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for each and every person, irrespective of religion or belief.”

      It is right for Christians to support human rights. Christian leaders can, without compromise to our own faith, join with other religious leaders to say that inhumanity should not be perpetrated on human beings. This is what the signatories did with this document. We can agreeably and respectfully, disagree with our fellow human beings, yet affirm their freedom to believe and think as they do. Jesus is Lord and His Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who will believe and receive His truth spoken by our words (Romans 1:16). Dr. David Hall represented Bishop Blake as one who brought the presence of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit inside him, to the gathering at The Hague. He was a fragrance of Jesus Christ in his conversations with the other religious leaders as seen in the pictures. Perhaps few of the other religious leaders had ever interfaced with a Holy Spirit filled Christian.

      GCMW: In order for there to be a consensus, those signatories who support homosexual marriage rights (and there were at least 5 of them) and those who claim not to there had to be agreement. Amos 3:3. Neither Bishop Blake nor David Hall stated that they were opposed to any interpretations of the documents to include homosexual marriage. It doesnt count what you preached back at Holy Temple on 1st Sunday. It matters what you said to the “world religious leaders” on the record.

      The Gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to persuade and stand on its own in any setting and with every religion. Holy Spirit filled Christians should be in the dialogue on the world stage affirming that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, loved all people, even the world of people, yet judged all human sin on the cross. Otherwise, only those who do not know Jesus Christ will establish what should or should not be valued. The “Faith in Human Rights” document says that as religious people of the world, based on our own religious beliefs (in our case, the Holy Bible), we uphold human rights. Injustice, inhumane treatment and violent oppression are not what God our Father, in Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit desires that we perpetrated on any one. It is my hope that from this point on you will cease from writing untruths about Bishop Blake.

      GCMW: Yes the gospel is certainly powerful enough to persuade on its own. But that’s not a fair argument in this context. Are you saying thats what happened? Did David Hall preach repentance from sin and that the gods these people were following were false and that Jesus was the only true way? Did he have an “altar call” just like he does at his home church? If not, exactly what did he say? What did he agree to and what exactly did he protest?
      The Bible NEVER told us to have faith in human rights, the only faith that is valid is faith in the true and living God. Such faith leads us to steer clear of endorsing ungodly events and people because they are not operating in the will of God. This is a perfect of example of that. Im not sure what your definition of “untruth” is, but we have spoken truth and will continue to without respect of persons.

    29. TJay March 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

      Obviously whomever he put in charge of this didn’t READ it before signing it on his behalf. I do not believe Bishop Blake would so blatantly go against everything true Christianity and the Church of God in Christ stands for. We also don’t know the history of the document. Provisos could have been added or other agendas revealed by this council after Bishop gave his support. Let’s see what our Bishop has to say. At worst I think someone dropped the ball.

    30. Elder Keith L. Russell March 4, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

      I believe that Bishop Charles Blake was only affirming to the fact that human rights, in particular, the right to lives free from tyranny and suffering, should be granted to all human beings, and I agree.

      In terms of God’s biblical design for marriage between a man and a woman, “those of us who know Bishop Blake,” we surely affirm that Bishop Blake “stands for and WITHOUT QUESTION believes that marriage (as defined by the scriptures) SHALL ONLY BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!

      The investigators on this report need to check out our COGIC website AGAIN and read the article on “hijacking the civil rights legacy;” (which, by the way, was written AFTER BISHOP BLAKE WAS ELECTED AS PRESIDING BISHOP OVER THE CHURCHES OF GOD IN CHRIST, INC., DURING THESE PAST CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF PROP. 8) there you will find further evidence that our Bishop and our church are in absolute and total agreement with God’s definition of marriage, and that we are TOTALLY AGAINST homosexual groups who would try to liken their plight as that of the plight of african americans during our civil rights trevails.

      Homosexuals have the right to live their lives without the fear of bigotry, tyranny and oppression, just like any other human being on this earth, but please, DON’T TRY TO READ “INTO” WHAT OUR BISHOP AFFIRMS (AND THAT IS BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL) AND TWISTING IT TO SOMEHOW ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT OUR BELOVED BISHOP IS PRO-HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE….HE IS NOT!

      Shame on your groups and shame on your reporters….did you even try to garner a response “personally” from Bishop Blake on this issue??? Probably not! (Rom. 16:17)

      Shame on you!

      Elder Keith L. Russell

    31. Concerned Saint March 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

      After reading your post and the Declaration of Human Rights, I’m wondering if perhaps Bishop Blake’s endorsement of the Declaration was NOT an intentional endorsement of Gay marriage; but another awkward attempt by the Church to appear “involved” and “influential” in international policy, without having really studied the implications of certain articles of the document they signed on to. He probably did not even consider that leaders of the Gay community would praise this document as an endorsement by the religious community of their agenda.

      I’ve observed this trend in the church over the years. There’s an all-out effort by the church (COGIC included) to improve our “image” and “relevance” in the world. Instead of seeking God and yielding ourselves to the power he’s promised us in the Holy Ghost, we’ve “outsmarted” the Holy Ghost, and have come up with our own route to influence and power – a road which always leads us to a “trap” set by Satan himself. We LOVE having our names attached “important” things (documents, the election of first African American Pres, invitations to political events, etc.) so we quickly jump at what appears to be a good opportunity without seeking God’s direction and without using spiritual discernment. We’re just so “delighted” when we’re asked to join the circle of the elite that we stop thinking “GOD”!

      Nearly all the “up and coming – cutting edge” ministers now want to be seen as wielding political and economic “power” in order to show that the Church can compete with the “rest of the world” intellectually, economically, and politically. I believe that this is why so many of our leaders want to be Bishops, to have mega-churches and a mega-“ministries”. It feeds their (and their flock’s!) “mega-egos” when they are able to be seen on TV sharing their “mini-messages”. It gives them a little “respect” when they can boast of their invitations to the White House and their appearance on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the likes! They are not comfortable with the idea of “separatism” as it relates to the people of God and the “world”, just as Israel did not want to separate themselves from the practices and values of the heathens surrounding them. I could go on and on…Of course, this is not true of all leaders, but unfortunately it seems to be more prevalent now than ever.

    32. Staying in His face March 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

      I am utterly shocked and appalled at your reporting this grossly misinformed information. Bishop Charles Blake does not, has not and will not endorse Gay Marriage. As the Presiding Bishop of the Church he clearly stands to defend the doctrine of the Church and uphold the resolution of the General Assembly on Same Sex Marriage. Your headline is dirty, ungodly attempt to smear a genuine man of God. The word of God has condemned homosexuality Roman 1:26-27, Lev 18:22 and the Church of God in Christ does not support, endorse or encourage this demonic practice.
      As one delivered from homosexuality, you, should of all people be intentional in your communication. Faith in Human Rights IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT for homosexual marriage. Our global church must have a seat at the table to represent HOLINESS, and the COGIC with all its flaws does exactly that. You sir, do a disservice to your mission by disseminating such false and misleading information. Bishop Blake is a committed man of God, to his wife, family, church and national work. We got souls to save and you spend valuable time and resources on slingling mud and sowing discord.

    33. Job March 4, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

      Elder Keith L. Russell:

      So, if Bishop Blake opposes homosexuality, then why lend his support to a document that supports and promotes homosexual marriage? There are plenty of ways to promote “human rights” (a concept that is not Biblical at all by the way) without signing the UN declaration of human rights. Bishop Blake supports a document that advances the homosexual agenda, period, and none of your parsing negates that fact.

    34. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

      Frankly, there is scant justification for signing onto this document. It is a disgusting display of flesh and ego.

      What does signing this document mean in real terms?

      Will Bishop Blake get money to help the poor?
      Is COGIC now going to be a respected voice among the heathen and idol worshippers?

      What’s the pay-off here?

      Let me answer: nothing except to HELP advance the enemie’s agenda. Its was wrong, irresponsible and ungodly.

      And yes, we’ve already seen your “civil rights” article on cogic.com. Hopefully you will educate yourself.

    35. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

      CS, that certainly is a possibility. And I agree with what you have said. There is something beneath this which indicates a steady drift AWAY from God. This whole scenario smacks of that.

      What keeps being unusal (and we’ve asked this question before) is why doesnt the leader of the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world actually use his what appears to be highly educated staff to do basic research instead of jumping into these situations. Of course this is provided HE DID KNOW and thought no one else cared about the wider implications of his actions.

      This is really inexcusable and a complete embarrassment. He cant keep using the “I didnt know” defense. Instead of COGIC ministers throwing up the COGIC pride wall of defense, they should be asking him about this and demanding a higher level of transparency and accountability in his adminstration.

    36. Elder Keith L. Russell March 4, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

      I’ve learned one thing from our remarks;

      “a man convinced against his will will be of the same opinion still!”

      I will pray for you and you’re organization, (one of which that you will repent from libel and slander) I and will move on to do things that are “more important” than to cause division among the brethren as your organization seeks to do and that is;

      Spread the Gospel of Christ to all mankind, warning them of their sin and providing men and women the message of hope provided through the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ, not only to the homosexual but also to adulterers, fornicators, liars, drunkards, thieves, revelers, etc…

    37. Elder Keith L. Russell March 4, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

      Also, by the way, you didn’t have to put a smiley face behind Prop. 8 and our endorsement of it…the church is allowed to endorse or oppose State ballot measures!

      GCMW: Maybe you dont post on blogs often. Anyone who does know that those kinds of flukes happen if you put some characters together or too close.

    38. Elder Keith L. Russell March 4, 2009 at 8:27 pm #

      It is also very sad that you would accuse Bishop Blake of Flesh and Egotistical motiviation…don’t you think that is a bit judgmental, without discussing, face to face, man-to-man, with Bishop Blake as to what his motives were???

    39. Elder Keith L. Russell March 4, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

      Read the entire document.

    40. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

      How about answering his question?

    41. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

      Thanks Eld Russell for stopping by and sharing your opinions.

    42. CT March 4, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

      Elder Owens,

      Let just assume that this policy is not a back door policy to help support the homosexual marriage agenda which I do not believe, but for agrument’s sake let’s say it is not endorsment of samesex marriage. Their still lies another problem, Why would any Christian preacher who is saved by the power of Jesus Christ put aside all religious differences for a common cause. I have not seen any passage in the bible where the prophets of God aligned with the prophets of Baal to eliminate any kinds of injustice or problems. I have read where God has punished the Isrealittes for actively seeking out the ungodly to help them defeat their enemy or solve their problems. I have never read any words spoken by Jesus or the disciples that instructs the believers to put aside their Christian to reach a common goal or in other words compromise. What ever happened to trusting in God and putting God First. It is amazing how the COGIC which I am a member of has compromised over these years. In fact, many of the churches do not even preach holiness. I think it is a shame and a disgrace that on this website their are pictures of any Christian pastor talking pictures with the various religious leaders. How about doing your job and preaching against sin and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. But I understand, we live in a time where Preachers want to be loved and accepted by everyone. My question, to you Elder Owens, Since you are an Elder could you give us a passage a scripture in which this type of association and behavior is acccepted in the bible.

      thanks

      CT

    43. Rob March 4, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

      How can this guy and his many of his followers baste in such hypocrisy, when they fervently are moved to support and defend the rights of human beings on a global scale, yet when molestation of children, rape of women, abuse of parishioners, and death of gay clergy are right under their noses here, hitting home in their own backyard, in many of the local COGIC assemblies.

      I’ve heard you Pastor Foster, cry with a loud voice through several tragic stories of sexual abuse, and have noted very little reply from COGIC members – I know for sure, many of them read the information you provide on your site, biblically based, and well suited for ministry.

      Yet, when it is revealed that Bishop Blake, endorses a world-wide venture for human rights, many followers of the C-O-G-I-C defend with opinions that are embedded in darkness.

      It is no coincident to me, and should not be to many of us, that just as homosexuality is ignored at home, it would be overlooked – I know, by some minor oversite – worldwide as well. Satan has his hands deep in the molding of many who are deceived.

      Just as the serpent was intentional in his plan to deceive Eve in Gen 3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:”, I truly believe that a lot of what seems ingenious, is intentionally.

    44. Follower of Jesus Christ March 4, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

      CT,

      Matthew 9:10 (English Standard Version) States:

      “And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many [Matthew 11:19; Matthew 5:46] tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples.”

      Jesus Christ was misunderstood during His time and was crucified by the people who claimed to know God best. He was even called a blasphemer by some Jewish leaders who appointed themselves the righteous defenders of the Jewish faith.

      It doesn’t surprise me that there’s confusion surrounding this issue. Satan was very cleaver at creating doubt about God’s command to not eat of the tree of good and evil, and Adam and Eve sinned because they chose to believe in Satan’s interpretation of what God said, instead of the truth in God’s word. Satan’s goal is to have the Body of Christ divided amongst itself. Which is the case here.

      So, what is the truth, and what is a lie?

      Truth: Bishop Blake has never endorsed gay marriage, and has not signed any document that endorses gay marriage rights.

      Lie: Believing that Bishop Blake endorses gay marriage by signing the Faith & Human Rights Declaration is based entirely on interpretation and speculation.

      Don’t believe the spin…It is a trick of the enemy.

      God Bless!

    45. Growing in Grace March 4, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

      Pastor DL:

      Your article was truth! What I’m finding in having this conversation is these Blake supporters on this issue are also Obama supporters. These are the people who are okay with inserting a little humanism into The Word of God. “He was talking about the po people” UNBELIEVABLE!

      Defend, Defend, Defend! You have clearly shown the contrast between the Word of God and what this documents means and STILL churchfolk are going to come to his defense.
      I just thank God that I am no longer drinking the kool-aid and accept The Word “as is” as my truth.

    46. gcmwatch March 4, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

      Rob, you noticed that too? One pastor said he was “shocked and appalled”, but I guess that only applies to when you tell the truth about their leader. Everything else is ignored. Sad. Really sad.

    47. Rob March 5, 2009 at 1:09 am #

      Like I mentioned before, I used to be COGIC and my wife is a PK. The enemy is really tricking this guy, as somehow he feels the need to be accepted by many of these ungodly folks – Gnomes and the like – and these ecumenical, humanist groups and leaders. I just don’t get it. I too am appalled. He really does not have to do these things, but he chooses to do so because of the evils of his flesh, bottom line.

      Even if this guy is dismissed from leadership because of time or death (Let me clarify, I ain’t wishing nobody dead), I don’t know if much would change in that organization. I do admit though, that a leader who is godly can have some impact.

      Keep up the “great” work.

      And like my father-in-law would say…“Let the LORD use you” as you not only tell about the Savior, but expose all who is not for Him…HOLINESS or HELL, my brotha!!!

    48. Follower of Jesus Christ March 5, 2009 at 1:29 am #

      In addition…

      Lie: Human Rights Campaign is the same as Human Rights Declaration – Human Rights Campaign is connected to the gay rights movement, but the Human Rights Declaration is connected to the UN’s statement against racial injustice, inhumane treatment of people during war times, murder and brutality of people based on ethnicity and religious beliefs, the exploitation of the poor for greed and profit, and the disadvantages of women and the abuse of innocent children.

      Don’t believe the spin…These two groups are not connected…The enemy of hell deliberately chose a similar name to the Human Rights Declaration in order to deceive the Body of Christ and cause division between us.

      God Bless!

      God Bless!

      GCMW: If you will, answer a question which is rather looming. Are you saying that Bishop Blake could not accomplish any of this except he enter into covenant with idol worshippers?

    49. ct March 5, 2009 at 2:23 am #

      In my post, I said lets assume that this measure is not in support of same sex marriage, while that is an issue, a major issue I might say, I want biblical scripture that shows Jesus,theprophets, or the apostles coming together, putting aside their religious differences to solve a major social, political or economic issue. In text of scripture that you provided, Jesus is forming an alliance with the unbelievers to solve a problem. Let me just say it as plain as I can, Bishop Blake has compromised the Christian Faith by joining this alliance of false prophets and enemies of Jesus Christ, it is not surprising, he did the same when he spoke at the DNC Interfaith gathering. What I find appalling is how so many Christians are so blind to this compromise. But I understand, no one wants to be out of the good graces of the Presiding Bishop. Also in reference to the above scripture mentioned, I am sure that Jesus talked about the kingdom of Heaven during his time with the sinners and tax collectors.

    50. Carl March 5, 2009 at 3:07 am #

      I don’t understand why so many people are upset about homosexuals being in the church … they have been apart of the church since its inception… just as adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, drunkards etc… there is no religous organization … denomination is without sin.. there is no perfect church except for the one that will be in heaven with Christ ….the earthly church is the place that the wheat and tares will grow together…. as we get closer to the return of Chist we can expect the church to continue to become more flesh…than sprirt…Elohim has always had a remnant!!

    51. leodalion March 5, 2009 at 5:20 am #

      Clearly this is the proverbial piling on by the COGIC damage control in order to shift the focus off this unnecessary and compromising decision by Bishop Blake. If a body of Christian believers are living according to the dictates of Christ there is no need for them to sign or support any government legislation saying that they do so. If anything they should get together with other bodies of believers and reaffirm what the Bible says about treatment of mankind and homosexuality. This would let the world know the position taken by the body without having to lend credence to the unbelievers in the process. When government and quasi-government agencies ask for the endorsement of believers with one of their causes, no matter how good it may be one should be leary. A good object lesson should be the Anti Christ destroying the Harlot Church after he uses it to come to power in Revelation 17:16,17. This declaration is one of many steps that will eventually lead to the politco-religious regime called the One World Church. Sadly I think that COGIC and indeed most Black churches are going to sign their members on to it because they want to stay relevant. I’m praying for you Brother Foster, don’t let the naysayers discourage you.

    52. Peter March 5, 2009 at 6:18 am #

      Bishop Blake has been doing whatever he wants since being elected Presiding Bishop. He is suppose to talk it over with the other members of the General Board, but he has not done that at all. I understand he has made a few new appointments, which he has not allowed the General Board to vote on as of this date (3-5-09). He thinks he can do whatever he likes. The Bishops in the Church of God in Christ are not going to do anything about this but cover it up. They are already sending out letters trying to defend his actions. It is the same old story.

    53. Follower of Christ March 5, 2009 at 8:32 am #

      GCMW:

      Genesis 39:1-6 States:

      “1) Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. 2) The LORD was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master. 3) His master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD caused all that he did to succeed in his hands. 4) So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had. 5) From the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field. 6) So he left all that he had in Joseph’s charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate.”

      Potiphar was an idol worshipper, and Joseph being in service to this idol worshipper, offered his best service to Potiphar without compromising his faith while relating with him. God in His righteous saw fit to bless Joseph for his faithfulness and his good work, and because of Joseph, the Lord blessed Potiphar and those who were under his authority.

      GCMW: So you are saying that Bishop Blake aka “Joseph” has placed the COGIC under the control and authority of pagans?? What an outrageous thought! Nevermind that you have totally butchered the context of Joseph’s story. He didnt end up in Egypt because he was invited by Potiphar, he was drug there as a slave. Bishop Blake was invited to come to idol-fest by Queen Beatrix. Under this wicked woman’s rule, the Netherlands became the first nation to legalize homosexual marriage. And Bishop Blake jumped when she called. You are starting to sound like a follower of Blake, not Christ.

      Let us not be deceived in what is actually the truth…The truth is:

      1. Bishop Blake has never endorsed gay marriage, or signed any document in support of gay rights.
      2. The Human Rights Campaign (the gay agenda) is not connected to the Faith & Human Rights Declaration (the UN’s statement).
      3. Bishop Blake and the other religious leaders who signed the Faith & Human Rights Declaration agreed to stand against racial injustice, inhumane treatment of people during war times, murder and brutality of people based on ethnicity and religious beliefs, the exploitation of the poor for greed and profit, and the disadvantages of women and the abuse of innocent children.

      Don’t believe the spin…Satan is trying to create division in the Body of Christ…

      God Bless!

    54. JB March 5, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

      I am appalled that some, by their own admission, would stop reading the article because it was “sickening” to them. THAT’S A PROBLEM!!! We MUST be sure to get the FULL story. Not reading, or not reading completely can leave us in a place where we are deceived! Please do not so quickly travel down the “holier than thou” road. That Pharasaic, religious attitude of “catching” someone in their wrong MUST stop. That said as a preface, this is an interesting article one which could cause quite a stir, if one hysterically jumps to a conclusion that Bishop Blake has gone insane and lost his mind and if the same individual reads no further than the article (i.e. fail to actually read the Declaration. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.) When looking at this “declaration’ it is important to note its date of creation. December 10, 1948. Those who deem the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights as pro-homosexual and an endorsement of same-sex marriage are falling into the trap that the LGBTQ population has intended: to have people read this declaration in the contemporary context ignoring its creation SIXTY (60) years ago! Specifically, the aspect of of the declaration that has raised concern is Article 16. However, read in its historical context, the real meaning is abundantly clear. At this point in our history, the law of our land and others actually prohibited any “miscegenation” (marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race). So it would make sense that as part of the attempt to assure everyone human rights marriage would be allowed between men and women of ANY RACE. Article 16 reads:
      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

      Unfortunately, read in the context of our contemporary society it could be construed as “men and men” and “women and women” … of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage… etc. This was a RACE issue that the opportunists of the LGBTQ lobby has utilized to further their message.

      Bishop Blake would OBVIOUSLY NOT endorse gay marriage, nor does the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights or the recently written preamble – “The Faith In Human Rights Statement.” In fact, sexual orientation is not even mentioned as a protrected class. Bishop Blake is not crazy nor has he committed apostasy. But it does highlight the necessity to be careful that one’s “good is not evil spoken of” (Romans 14:16). When pointed out to him (if he hasn’t already) there will be a clarification of his intent to endorse the United Nations attempt to secure the rights of all people, not the distortion the Biblical definition of marriage of one man to one woman. Let’s extend our “right dividing” of God’s Word to “rightly dividing” the words of others and FULLY read. To not read completely renders us ignorant and subject to misinterpretation and misinformation. STOP!

    55. gcmwatch March 5, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

      JB, thank you for your words. They appear to be well thought out, but lets weigh the merit of your comments.

      Its our contention, per the headline that Bishop Blake endorsed a document which affirms homosexual marriage. Its not our contention that Bishop Blake endorsed homosexual marriage. In terms of reading misinterpretation, it looks like you missed that.

      Having said that, your argument is interesting because it reveals even the more the flawed judgment of this bishop. You contend that an interpretation of the UDIHR as a document which affirms homosexual marriage is a result of people not reading the entire document. That is a bit arrogant because you have no idea whether people are reading the document or not. I do. I could quote the exact numbers, but its beside the point. Just because a document was written 60 years ago, does not mean it has no fluid application in contemporary society. If we were to accept your logic we would have to trash the US Constitution and (God forbid) the Holy scriptures! I think that is exactly what the writers of the UDIHR had in mind. And as a footnote, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the chief contributors was certainly homosexual friendly. Homosexual activists have rightly interpreted the Document as inclusive of homosexual rights. Their obsession with gaining equal rights means they have a heightened sensitivity to anything which might encumber that agenda. Indeed, the International Humanist and Ethics Union cites the UDIHR as a primary vanguard of homosexual rights, to wit they contend the UDIHR:

      2d. 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.

      That being noted, you said people who come to like conclusions are “falling into a trap”. If it is indeed a trap, set by gay activists, isnt it an admission that Bishop Blake also fell into this trap? I would contend this is the second time he has “fallen into a trap” set by homosexual activists. This excuse is getting really old for someone of his stature. Both times, it has been because Blake has been attracted to some promise which remains to be seen what is. Consequently for us to alert people, honest constituents of the COGIC that they are being subjected to such unholy convenants by their leader is a service to the body of Christ. Who wants their leader tricked over and over?

      You also argue that the UDIHR is in its historical context only intended to address race miscegenation. It would be nice if we could all lock in contextes of documents like this only to its historical context. Unfortunately you dont have that ability. The simularities of race and so-called sexual orientation is one of the hottest debates in the country. And take a guess who first raised the issue? It certainly wasnt black folk. As a matter of fact in Bishop Blake’s home state, a monumental battle is raging over this very issue. Incidentally, when can we expect Bishop Blake’s personal –and public– support of Prop 8? You are naive JB if you think this is a slither issue which is about whether or not Bishop Blake endorsed homosexual marriage. It runs deep and Im afraid youre congratulating yourself for scratching the surface.

      Finally, let’s look at your contention that the phrase sexual orientation wasnt used in either of the documents, thus it is proof that the document has no connection to homosexual marriage rights. To that I would say that the word “trinity” isnt used in the Bible, so do we automatically discount its major theological bearing on our faith? Its like you are advocating strict literalism of the “text”. I thought that the “spirit of the letter” was an important component in determining its impact on our human understanding.

      Perhaps Bishop Blake isnt crazy, but its clear he is deceived whether intentional or not. You seem to indicate he will issue a clarification. We welcome that and hope that he will also announce his public support for Prop 8. Hopefully, he wont just release the information to the Tri-State Defender.

    56. CT March 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

      Follower of Christ,

      When I read your post, I actually laughed. I seriously hope that you are not a preacher because you killed the text.

      Let me give you a better analysis of the Text;

      “1) Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. ( Several things about this verse of scripture, Joseph was brought down to Eypt meaning he did not go freely, Secondly Potiphar, who from reading the verse we immediately learn that he is a powerfully man in the Egyptian government, so he buys Joseph. If Joseph was bought then of course he did not have any freedom, other words he was a slave)

      -Bishop Blake was not bought by Queen Beatrix, in fact I though when one gets saved they are a slave to Christ.
      - Bishop Blake is a man is a position of authority, Joseph was not an authority figuire when sold into slavery

      2) The LORD was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master. ( Interesting statment here, The Lord was with Joseph, in other words Joseph had a relationship with God and he knew God and because of this relationship with God Joseph became successful while working for Potiphar)

      - Bishop Blake is claims salvation and we know as Christians the Lord is with us and we have a relationship with God. Now knowing this, we know that Lord will make us successful in certain areas of our life if it is his will. I don’t read in the text that Joseph compromised his beliefs to become successful or to accomplish something. Bishop Blake on the other hand did by fellowshiping with the prophets of Baal.

      3) His master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD caused all that he did to succeed in his hands.( Also interesting statement here, Potiphar , the Eyptian, heathen, sinner whatever you want to call him saw through observation of Joseph that God hand on him and he even realized that the God that Joseph served, the one true and Living God caused Joseph to succeed at everything he did)

      - Bishop Blake should take notes from Joseph, just serve God and do his will and the sinners will have to admit that God has caused his success. The false prophets he associate with will not even acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

      4) So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had. ( Because of Joseph’s lifestyle, work ethic,
      God gave him favor with his Eyptian Master which led to Joseph being promoted)

      - Was it Bishop’s Blake godly lifestyle to cause the Queen to invite him. NO, the Queen probably already knew he would compromise the word of God.

      5) From the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had the LORD blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field. ( Interesting thing here from this verse, a lesson that America could learn, Because Joseph was overseer of Potiphar’s house, everything in the house was blessed for the Joseph’s sake, this is because of the relationship that Joseph had with the Lord; I say this if America would put someone in charge of this country who really has a relationship with God, the Lord would bless this nation; and let me add this, A person that has a true relationship with God makes godly decisons and because of this relationship the Lord can give them wise counsel)

      - Bishop Blake, if you stop compromising the word of God, the COGIC could become a blessed organization.

      6) So he left all that he had in Joseph’s charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate.” ( verse speaks for itself)

      - Bishop Blake, if it was up to me, I would not leave my spirtually growth in your hands becuase you have compromised the gospel

      Well Follower Christ, I am still waiting for someone who agree with what Bishop Blake did to provide a scripture reference, and please do not kill the text.

      ct

    57. Follower of Christ March 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

      GCMW:

      Trying to reason and speak with you intelligently is futile. You twist words around and accuse people in the Body of Christ unjustly for your own personal and earthly gain.

      Satan is also known as the accuser…I suggest you evaluate the spirit that motivates you on your quests…Jesus Christ does not get the glory in accusations, misunderstandings, and confusion. God will hold you accountable.

      Paul states in Philippians 2:12:

      Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

      Get to work!

      God Bless!

      GCMW: It would be much better to just answer the questions posed to you. Unless of course you cant.

    58. Missionary Robinson March 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

      It’s sad that we (people) even have to write up a documet on how we should treat (people). As sanctified people we are not obligated to put our signature anywhere to show the world we agree with treating people with humanity. Our actions should speak for us as people of God. It is commanded that we love God, our neighbor and our enemies. We don’t have to agree with them or socialize with them, just love them. We are required to tell them what God says about human issues, etc. when we are confronted with it. I believe Bishop Blake should have declined the invitation to participate. Hopefully it was a mistake on his part. In any case, let us pray for him and our church.

    59. HVB March 5, 2009 at 10:04 pm #

      TJay:

      Dr. David Hall signed the document. Have you reviewed any of his recent publications? I encourage you to gain some familiarity with his beliefs about homosexuality and same sex marriage by reading his treatise on Gay Rights, which appears in his most recent publication “Essays to the Next Generation.” Reading this piece will position you to make better judgments about the principals in this development. Keep in mind: Nothing can replace the bringing of current, well-argued, accurate information into play.

    60. Jerri Moore March 5, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

      Time is winding up it’s time to pray for the world. We are all human and make mistakes Let not dwell on mistakes but pray to correct the wrongs.

    61. HVB March 6, 2009 at 1:24 am #

      TJay:

      What is more, Dr. Hall clearly is in support of neither gay rights nor same-sex marriage. Please take a look at his research before you attempt to comment on his moral consciousness regarding the signing of this Declaration of Human Rights.

    62. gcmwatch March 6, 2009 at 2:13 am #

      HVB, Im just a little confused. From what I see Tjay basically said someone dropped the ball.
      I think that’s a fair assessment, so Im not sure why you are objecting to something that’s really not in his comments. I see nothing where he is commenting on Hall’s “moral consciousness”.

      If youre suggesting that we are somehow unqualified to assess this situation because we have not read Hall’s writing, sorry to say but youre mistaken.

      What may be more appropriate to say is that Dr. Hall should not have agreed to enter into this unholy alliance based on what he knows. Or what you say exists in his research and writings. If he is truly versed in this issue, it was a mistake on his part to be party to this. Again it sounds like Tjay said somebody flat out dropped the ball.
      And there were only two people associated with this debacle: Bishop Blake and Dr. Hall.

      BTW, can you provide some links to these “works”. I’d like to review them.

    63. HVB March 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

      Dear gcmwatch:

      Gcmwatch:
      Let’s try this again. TJay said: “Obviously whomever he put in charge of this didn’t READ it before signing it on his behalf.” Through this statement, T Jay implies that the signer of the document practiced a degree of moral and/or intellectual irresponsibility by agreeing to a document without being aware of its ethical contents. Unawareness of a moral circumstance goes directly to the issue of moral conscious. Tjay, therefore, is making a claim about Dr. Hall’s unawareness of the ethical contents of the document’ hence Tjay is making a claim about Dr. Hall’s moral conscious.
      I am very concerned about your thinking that you are qualified to speak with any type of moral authority about this matter. At this stage of the game, you simply are not prepared for the conversation. What is clear to me from reading your post is that a massive absence of intellectual capital is present, and that virtually no sustained philosophical, logical, theological, or serious biblical exegetical work or legal hermeneutics regarding the interplay between religion and social ethics are in play.
      Staying current on the literature published by a particular thinker on a subject position you to issue a better critique of that person’s position on a subject. Dr. Hall’s book is on sale in different places throughout the USA. Call the COGIC Seminary in Atlanta. It is my hunch that they have copies of his book, and that they will sell you a couple of copies of it.

    64. gcmwatch March 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

      Thanks, HVB. Well let’s try it this way:

      What specifically are we not current on, that you and Dr. Hall seem to have mastered? Is it his book(s)?

      Tjay as well as numerous other commenters (not sure why you are picking on that one comment) just made a practical statement: somebody dropped the ball. That’s average people talk which requires no intellectual revisioning. And yes, that is irresponsible. I would agree with Tjay that Hall wasnt aware. With the information available there is no concrete evidence he was aware that the two documents we cited were open ended affirmations of homosexual rights to include gay marriage. I’d be interested in hearing from him what his awareness was going into this. Perhaps you can facilitate that.

      Since you seem to believe we common saints are not “morally” qualified (which btw way is a rather strange assertion), am I to assume that you believe yourself to be qualified? If so, what authority has qualified you? Be specific.

      Im willing to hear your specific refutations of anything here –logical or theological— which you have in your wisdom found to be wanting. In this context, your philosophy is inapplicable:

      Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:8

      I do understand you may sense a duty to help with damage control by attempting to demean and dismiss honest discovery and discussion surrounding this issue, but be dont let your self declared intellectualism make you miss the simple yeas and nays of the scripture.

      Thanks and while we’re at it, could you give a brief synopsis of your position on homosexuality?

    Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. Gay Rights: A moral and spiritual conflict… « Greg J’s World - March 18, 2009

      [...] criticized for signing the document. The criticism started with a headline that said “”Bishop Charles Blake endorses gay marriage declaration “  This headline is a misleading, untruthful, slanderous statement which was widely [...]

    2. The Error That Led To COGIC Leader Charles Blake’s Joining Hands With Sodomites « Jesus Christology - April 7, 2009

      [...] by Job on April 6, 2009 Major thanks and blessings to Pastor D. L. Foster for covering the issue of Church of God in Christ leader and head pastor of the West Angeles Church of G…. Many supporters of Charles Blake have gone to his website and also to my Youtube site where I [...]

    Comments are closed.

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 45 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: