GCM Watch urges COGIC withdrawal and denunciation of UN documents

This is a stunning turn of events to an issue we have been discussing intently here for over two weeks. Due to breaking news from the Associated Press, GCM Watch is urging Bishop Charles Blake to withdraw COGIC support of the UDIHR, The Faith in Human Rights Statement as well as any attendant documents and publicly denounce all.
This document, with its original, gay inclusive language was written on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of International Human Rights and calls for acceptance of homosexual marriage inter alia
“Anti-discrimination and protective laws should be enacted to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men including in the context of HIV/AIDS in order inter alia to reduce the vunerability of men who have sex with men to infection by HIV  and to the impact of HIV/AIDS. These measures should include providing penalties for vilification of people who engage in same sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same sex marriages and/or relationships and governing such relationships with consistent property, divorce and inheritance provisions. The age of consent to sex and marriage should be consistent for heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Laws and police practices relating to assaults against men who have sex with men should be reviewed to ensure that adequate legal protection is given in these situations.” [source]

The AP reports the Obama administration intends to endorse this document inter alia specifically to press for international gay rights. The Bush administration and the Catholic Church have heretofore refused to support it because (1) it goes beyond reasonable human rights abuses and (2) it subjects sovereign governments to questionable legal commitments. The Lord’s Church should not support these documents because they (1) conflict with the biblical mandate to evangelize the world on Christ’s specific orders. (2) conflict with our higher, biblical moral standards. Particularly with sexual issues of which such standards are immutable. (3) conflict with biblical absolutes which direct the parameters of Christian living and practice.

We urge Bishop Blake to immediately withdraw COGIC support and publicly denounce these documents.

Yahoo article update:

Gay rights groups hailed the move.
“The administration’s leadership on this issue will be a powerful rebuke of an earlier Bush administration position that sought to deny the universal application of human rights protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals,” said Mark Bromley of the Council for Global Equality, which promotes equal rights for homosexuals.

“This is long past overdue and we are encouraged by the signal it sends that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will now be considered human rights,” said Rea Carey, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.


17 thoughts on “GCM Watch urges COGIC withdrawal and denunciation of UN documents

  1. I wonder what people in the COGIC church do if he does not denounce his endorsement of this document.

  2. Thats a really good question. If he does denounce it that will be an admission that what I wrote was accurate. If he doesnt, well its just a glaring example of failed leadership. Ultimately, the people will have to decide whether they want someone like him to lead them when his term is up.

  3. Wow. Did you see this coming? hmmmm…. This is an interesting development….

    I still do not believe that Bishop Charles Blake endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the goal or intent to support gay marriage. (In fact, I would believe that Bishop Blake’s endorsement of the UDHR has mostly to do with his love in Africa and the desire to be a part of something that helps end the atrocities in Darfur and other regions on the continent)

    To the point, as I am reading the story, this is a separate and “new” declaration that would not have Bishop Blake’s signature on it. It is an interesting turn of events. Should Bishop Blake have known this was coming? I don’t know, perhaps we need a deeper squad in the international diplomacy department of the Church….

    What about those who voted for President Barack Obama? We heard he was a supporter of certain gay rights, but we did not speak out on this point…. Not that it would have mattered – the LBGT community is huge and that equals votes. This is the moment we had in the back of our minds – The moment we disagreed with the administration of President Barack Obama. It is a price we knew we would have to pay in order to get President Obama into the White House… Now we have to face the music…

    Whew, what a turn of events…

    The report says that one Obama Administration official said that “The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world” Human Rights. wow.

    66 of the United Nations 192 member countries signed the declaration. Homosexuality is illegal in 70 UN member coutnries.

    In the end, we have to understand the scope of what we define as human rights. I actually agree wth the Islamic countries that say protection of sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly legalization of deplorable acts”…. This leads to spiritual immorality and corruption within the people… I agree with that.

    But some countries, homosexuality is punishable by execution. Do we want that in our society? No.

    But then how do we protect folk from widespread violence and discrimination while still maintaining or moral position?

    Yes. I am interested in the Church’s position now that this development has formed. I support Bishop Charles Blake, he is a great leader. That stated, I have to admit, the signing of the UN Declaration by the Obama Administration is a big disappointment for me.

  4. Well, I “saw it coming”, but I thought that it would be years in the future. Its shows how fast things can change and why we need to be aware of the devices of the enemy.

    “I still do not believe that Bishop Charles Blake endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the goal or intent to support gay marriage.”

    Perhaps that was not his intent. So we will give him that. But its kinda like speeding. Even if you didnt know the speed limit or didnt intend to speed, if the officer stops you, youre still guilty. Trust me, its happened to me before.

    Clearly, the Obama administration has seen these documents and resolutions as specifically applied to gay rights. I always felt Obama was being duplictious on this issue, but this development and its scope is rather stunning.

    IMO, withdrawing support and publicly stating these documents are not for the church to partner with or be subjected to is the right thing to do.

    Thanks to Bishop Patterson, COGIC has probably the most pronounced public documents on homosexuality among pentecostals besides the Assembly of God.

  5. Bishop Blake does not have to pull endorsement from the original UN Declaration of 1948 or the Faith in Human Rights Statement 2008, because they are documents that have nothing to do with the Gay Declaration of Human Rights. That’s why the French who created the gay document, have asked other countries to sign this separate document, and that’s why the Catholic Church has denounced this gay document, but supports the UN Declaration of 1948…Get the facts straight, before you make a judgement. These documents are all different from each other, and with different signatories.

    GCMW: You really think so?

  6. There have been several organizations here and around where I live that included the term Human Rights in their name. All of them (a handful) were GLBT organizations. If I hear anything claiming human rights I check it closely to see if there is any support (overt or implied) of the sin of homosexuality/lesbianism. Many sincere people may not realize that the definition of human rights has already been extended in the eyes of some. It is one thing to protect people as people. It is another thing when there is the suggestion of laws of protection that could be applied against ministers of the gospel where they cannot exercise their guaranteed right of freedom of religion. The vagueness of some verbiage is what causes trouble for some. For me the vagueness would cause me to not support it.

    GCMW: Thanks Pam, thats called using common sense. Maybe some of these church leaders need to rediscover using it.

  7. It is what it is, and they’re different…I did a little research and below is the gay document, which is different from the UN Declaration of 1948, and the Faith in Human Rights Statement of 2008. They all have different signatories attached.

    This is what the Gay Declaration of Human Rights says:

    “We reaffirm the principle of universality of human rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 60th anniversary is celebrated this year, Article 1 of which proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”;
    We reaffirm that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, as set out in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as in article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
    We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;
    We are deeply concerned by violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms based on sexual orientation or gender identity;
    We are also disturbed that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation and prejudice are directed against persons in all countries in the world because of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that these practices undermine the integrity and dignity of those subjected to these abuses;
    We condemn the human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity wherever they occur, in particular the use of the death penalty on this ground, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health;
    We recall the statement in 2006 before the Human Rights Council by fifty four countries requesting the President of the Council to provide an opportunity, at an appropriate future session of the Council, for discussing these violations;
    We commend the attention paid to these issues by special procedures of the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies and encourage them to continue to integrate consideration of human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity within their relevant mandates;
    We welcome the adoption of Resolution AG/RES. 2435 (XXXVIII-O/08) on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States during its 38th session in 3 June 2008;
    We call upon all States and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity;
    We urge States to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.
    We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;
    We urge States to ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles which prevent them from carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.”

    57 UN nations signed opposint this declaration, unfortunately, the Obama administration has decided to add the United States to the list of those nations who are in support of this document.

    For all those who are sincerely concerned about this issue, please read the Faith in Human Rights Statement at the COGIC website, and read the UN Declaration on Human Rights of 1948. Bishop Blake and the COGIC does not support the gay agenda or any gay declaration. Never has and never will. These declarations on human rights are all different from each other and with different signatories.

  8. The mother document which spawned all of these spinoff “human rights” documents is the UDIHR. That is and remains the source document. They —including the blasphemous religious version– all enshrine the same principle: universal rights for all.

    Compartmentalizing the various documents only shows that you are afraid to acknowledge their relationship with each other and their singular goal: universal rights for all.

    The Faith in Human Rights statement is a religious version of the same principle: universal rights for all.

    To sum, different names, different dates, different signatories but the same goal: universal rights for all. The “all” was made clear at the signing of the FHS by Verhagen the Dutch Foreign minister (which we cited) that no religion can have a private interpretation of the document apart from any other religion. IF David Hall who was present during that speech understood that, why did he not mount a protest? Did he miss that speech? Maybe you did too in your “little researching”.

    Let’s stay focused. Arguing technicalities, red herrings and compartmentalized theories add nothing productive to your pov when all the evidence points to the same thing: each document is fluidly worded to ensure universal rights for all. I know you dont want to acknowledge that all means gay marriage rights, but as you said it is what it is.

    This latest development is just more proof that one of the underlying principles of this collection of humanist documents is an unbiblical assertion that all things and lifestyles are equal and are required to be treated equal.

    GCM Watch has no contention as to whether Bishop Blake (personally) or COGIC (corporately) “support gay rights.” That’s never been our contention. As our original article stated he signed a document and entered in a pact with demonic religions which encompasses the right of homosexuals to marry each other.

  9. Interesting that you support your argument with stating “common sense.” What’s common sense to some, may not be common sense to others. Judas used his “common sense” when he decided to betray Jesus, and Jesus Christ was crucified by religious people who were using their “common sense” and saw Jesus as a blasphemer instead of the Savior, because he did not live up to their expectations of the Messiah prophecy. Isaiah 55:8 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” Those religious people got it wrong about Jesus Christ, because their hearts weren’t in the right place, and it blinded their eyes, and ears.

    GCMW: Just to be clear are you saying that Bishop Blake and company were like the religious people who didnt use common sense and worse were blind and got it wrong about Jesus, the true Prophet?

    There’s no need to fear the Faith in Human Rights Statement that was signed by Bishop Blake. He supported a statement about human rights, and signed his name to it. He did not enter into a “pack” with demonic religions, he signed the statement on human rights to show support of it, not of all of those who signed it – Don’t get it twisted. The Faith in Human Rights Statement does not support the gay agenda, neither does the UN Human Rights Declaration of 1948. The reason why the gay community had to develop a separate human rights document that would support their agenda and seek nations to sign it, was because there wasn’t one previously written or signed anywhere.

    GCMW: We get it that you want to make sure nobody thinks Bishop Blake did anything wrong. But people are smart enough to read and see that you are talking matrix world language.

    “…greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.” 1John 4:4

  10. RIght!!!! Don’t get it twisted!!!

    THe conversation here, however is good brain fodder as we turn over in our minds what human rights should mean to us as Christians….

  11. Anyway, GCMW it appears you were prophetic (speaking forth and predictive) in your assessment. Preachers get anniversaries, cadillacs,(escalades), offerings and praise. Prophets get rejected, vilified and stoned. A lot of us have got your back. Blessings

    GCMW: Elder Jimmy more and more its looking like some things will never change.

  12. I think you and your readers know what I’m saying in my response about “common sense.”

    As your sister in Christ, I’m choosing to raise issues and be critical in my thinking of the issues with out putting people down in my analysis. I simply raised the issue that common sense shouldn’t be the determining factor in drawing an opinion – Facts, prayer and following the direction of the Holy Spirit should be.

    I think it’s interesting that Jesus Christ was accused of being a blasphamer during His day by “common sense” religious people, and today, Bishop Blake is being accused of signing a “blasphemous religious” document by religious people who are forming their opinions based on “common sense.”

    I hope those who are being critical about Bishop Blake continue to be critical of him, but in the Spirit of the Holy Ghost. And in this same Spirit, in regards to Bishop Blake signing the Faith in Human Rights Statement, form an opinion about him, based on facts, and prayer, and not common sense, and fear.

    “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.” Galations 5:25-26

    GCMW: FC, its good to use critical thinking (the confluence of logic, reasoning, rationale, common sense and skilled debate) when approaching these matters. It is also required that we “judge righteously” without respect of persons. Yet when faced with critical thinking you and Bishop Blake’s proxies (he hasnt said anything) have retreated to a narrowly defined technical argument. Which by the way, given the scope of what has been presented is a totally illogical position to take. It is quite political though to reframe another’s criticism in such ways, but is this what we should expect from the PB and company? Bishop Blake so far has a dismal record in dealing with some of the most critical issues facing the American church and COGIC. Preaching aside, that mounting reflection will most certainly be cause for increased scutiny of his policies or non policies and associates in the days to come.

  13. ‘Retreated to a narrowly defined technical argument – Illogical?” And you’ve come to this conclusion by supporting your claim with what grounds and facts?

    We all should be judged “righteously,” not just Bishop Blake. This is why our criticism of our brothers and sisters in Christ should always be done responsibly, without malice, and revenge.

    “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.” Hebrews 10:30

  14. Well for starters, you just wrote:

    There’s no need to fear the Faith in Human Rights Statement that was signed by Bishop Blake. He supported a statement about human rights, and signed his name to it. He did not enter into a “pack” with demonic religions, he signed the statement on human rights to show support of it, not of all of those who signed it”

    One listen to the video he sent to the signing festivities is enough to refute that. That’s besides the 7 indepth articles and numerous additional exposition we provided on here. In addition to that, Supt Harvey Burnett has laid the case bare on his blog.

    What you and others did was find a technical focus (the document doesnt “say” gay rights) and then entrench yourselves on that while ignoring mountains of other issues emanating for the document’s signing. In fact, youre still doing it. Sadly, your red herrings are going to bite you in posterier if you keep depending on them as a fundamental defense. Its illogical, if not downright hypocritical to state you are “thinking critically” yet ignore all the critically presented information youve been confronted with. Youre not thinking critically, youre doing what youve been programmed to do: defend your leader no matter what.

  15. Follower Of Christ,

    I wanted to address a few of the earlier issues. I’m sorry it took me this long to chime in, I’ve been extremely busy, but taking note of a few things here.

    FOC you said: “There’s no need to fear the Faith in Human Rights Statement that was signed by Bishop Blake. He supported a statement about human rights, and signed his name to it.”

    You know from the beginning that’s where this gets kinda sticky. Elder Hall signed the document ON BEHALF OF Bishop who endorsed (and signed, i suppose) the document ON BEHALF OF the over 12,000 churches of COGIC. 2 of those churches are pastored by me. That’s part of the problem as I DO NOT wish to be represented under this document because as I’ve stated there are many social and spiritual problems associated with it. IF Bishop had done this on HIS behalf or on West Angeles behalf, it’s a different story and his actions don’t effect me. However, in reality his actions effect me and others like me. That’s part of the problem.

    You also said: “He did not enter into a “pack” with demonic religions, he signed the statement on human rights to show support of it, not of all of those who signed it – Don’t get it twisted.”

    That’s another interesting perspective, but also one that doesn’t quite represent his actions. He endorsed this document through his emissary in accord with religious leaders who hold contrary positions on scripture and human morality. In fact his ecumenical agreement (captured by the camera) lowers the biblical standards which we uphold while exalting the non-biblical stances and moral concepts espoused by anti-Christ and non-Christ religions. The fact is that as a church, to carry out the biblical mandate we need NOT enter into agreements or take oaths with ANYONE who espouses moral substance less than that of Christ and the Cross. In fact scripture condemns contrary actions of agreement.

    The scripture asks in 2 Cor. 6:15-16a“And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16- And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”.

    The further problems are that the agreement is not religious neutral. It gives the guidelines under which religious belief is spread and taught. It is to be taught with the aim of upholding principles of the UN NOT the bible of the Jesus that told us to preach in HIS name, “Whatsoever things” HE has instructed us to teach.

    You also said: “The Faith in Human Rights Statement does not support the gay agenda, neither does the UN Human Rights Declaration of 1948.”

    EVERY gay advocacy group in the world uses this document as a base to proliferate homosexual equality and NOW homosexual marriage. Name ONE gay advocacy group that does not do this. EVERY gay advocacy group interprets the language of the UDHR to include not only moral rights of homosexuals but civil rights. Those rights are NOT limited to discrimination, wage, housing etc…they are expansive rights greared toward “sexual minorities” or HOMOSEXUALS. they INCLUDE but are not limited to everyday or common human rights.

    COGIC leaders ARE THE ONLY ONE’S IN THE WORLD that limit the UDHR right’s statements to mundane or daily rights as I call them(ie: housing, wage, healthcare etc.) Neither the UN nor gay advocacy groups limit the UDHR in the way COGIC leaders have stated…THAT’S THE PROBLEM.

    I’ll conclude with this. The UDHR has been framed for a certain purpose and has been successfully used by gay advocacy groups to uphold gay rights including the right to marry as a human right. How can COGIC reinterpret the document and limit it’s use in the spirit of the document? Can COGIC reinterpret the document and it’s use to mean what WE (COGIC) say it should mean, no matter what the document framers or groups that use it believe it to mean? If you think this is a permissible thing to do then EVERY atheist on the net will be your friend for life. They will simply use COGIC guidence to reinterpret the bible and do away with God and thank you for the permission to do so. Documents CAN’T be reinterpreted outside of their original content and outside of the use which is CLEARLY pro-homo-agenda.

    As I told Bishop Blake personally, I have been blessed by his ministry for years. So I have no axe to grind, but I feel that I’ve been sold down the drain on this entire issue and agreements have been made on my behalf that I would IN NO WAY have ever made.

    To those COGIC members and others who read this entry:

    Now, Ezek. 3:16-21 and 33:1-20 have been fulfilled both in the ministry that the Lord has given me and in the GCMWatch ministry.

    Elder Foster it is my advice to you that you abide by the following scripture in this matter:
    Rom. 14:16~“Let not your good be evil spoken of:”

    You are not wrestling with a church or even people, you are wrestling with a principality of this world (Ephes.6:12) and this “mystery of iniquity” (2 Thess. 2:7) that has claimed the minds of many. You have proven your faithfulness by earnestly contending “for the faith once delivered unto the Saints” ,Jude 3c this shall not go without GREAT reward, but do not faint. (Heb. 6:10, Gal. 6:9 & 2 Thess. 3:13)

    Nevertheless, shake the dust, and do not allow them to further paint you as an enemy of the church.

    I pass on to you that I am completely satisfied in this matter and have the ultimate peace of God that I have seen this issue clearly and for what it is and have done the watchman work by making note of it and warning others INCLUDING the source. Elder Foster, I invite you to enter into that same rest along with me on this issue and watch the Lord work.

    Thank you and God bless all who continue to stand for the truth of Christ and HIS church.

Comments are closed.