Moore Temple is being systematically eviscerated by some of our National Church leaders right before our very eyes. A church steeped in the traditions and principals of holiness as taught by our founder Bishop C. H. Mason and further handed down to us by our beloved pastor Bishop A. T. Moore, has become a haven for the ambitions and machinations of greedy and spiteful men. What the faithful members thought was an impossibility just a few short years ago has become a bitter reality. Those charged with the oversight and protection of God’s heritage have morphed into complicit facilitators that helped fragment and scatter this body of believers to the four winds. This blog is dedicated to shining the light of truth on the deeds of these nefarious characters and their enablers. Stay tuned……………….
The best way for a man to preserve his legacy is to duplicate himself in his subordinates. It is my understanding that Bishop A. T. Moore was negligent in this area in a number of ways. Is it true that he didn’t have an assistant pastor, or even an administrative assistant? I have also heard that he was not very trusting of the men in his church, and was generally disposed to giving responsibilities to women instead. I’m not against women doing things, but COGIC doesn’t allow women to lead churches, so what could have been done to stop this “evisceration” so eloquently described? Perhaps Bishop Moore should have shown greater concern for his legacy and taken steps to see that it was preserved. I hear that most of his preachers have left. What would you expect the National Leaders to do when a man can no longer serve his mnistry, but he had no assistant, no staff, no cabinet and no knowledge that his own members were asking for him to be emeritized?
God’s heritage is in no danger whatsoever; Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. You apparently are confusing the ministry of a man with the heritage of God, a gross mistake. The Church existed long before Bishop Moore, or Bishop Mason and COGIC for that matter, and will continue to exist long after we are all just memories in the minds of our great-grandchildren, or until Jesus returns, whichever comes first.
Finally, perhaps you might consider researching the ministries of C. H. Mason and A. T. Moore with a little less bias and a little more depth. You might find that Bishop Moore was not as much like Bishop Mason as you might think.
In response to the post “ His Always”. Sir I hardly need to research Bishop Moore’s legacy. I have been a member for over 55 years. Now Dad Mason I only saw him a couple of times. I may need a refresher. My research is real life experience, which tends to be the best teacher I’ve seen us grow as close knit family of believers on a store front corner to the beautiful sanctuary we inhabit today, but more fractionalized than ever. I’m more than qualified to critique the efficacy of his legacy because I’ve been there. I assume by the tenor of your post you could not have known Bishop A.T. Moore; or the source of your information is unreliable at best. If you knew Bishop A.T Moore, we felt we almost knew Bishop Mason.
Oh by the way, someone forgot to tell Maria Gardner “COGIC’s Evangelist Department’s National Elect Lady; We don’t allow Women Pastors. She has been the head of her church for two years or more. I’m sure she will step down if you ask her nicely.
I am aware God’s Church can’t be destroyed; but through blunders and missteps, some
unintentional, some intention; we have been seriously hindered. The Nationals have achieved a result that they consider to be satisfactory (the fracture of the Moore Temple into pieces). With the phrase” We’re here to build on the Legacy of Bishop Moore, dripping form their lips: they have systematically dismantled the basic principals Bishop Moore laid down for this congregation. I’m not talking about procedural differences, These can vary from administration to administration; but core principals that was handed down by our fathers in the gospel which made Moore Temple a special place in the brotherhood. Consider these egregious examples :
1. The question was asked can the church come together and pray a few nights during the week. The response, We have to get permission
from the National leadership before prayer can be allowed. The net result : NO!!!! pray at home. Can you believe that!!!
2. I can’t remember a time when Bishop Moore would allow a service to be closed
without making an alter appeal. Some people come expecting this part of the service.
This is one of the Church’s greatest Missions reaching out to the lost. To our National overseers this seems to be a trivial matter of the
day. After a complete Sunday Service
one of the local Elders pointed out to the National Elder in charge, we were about to close the service without an appeal to the loss. The
National Elders response: My message is not an a alter call message. What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I tell you the truth they could let the
appeal slide to oblivion, but we certainly never got out of service before we raised two separate seed offerings. We tend to noticed what
the main priority was; raising money.
3. Bishop Moore believed in letting the saints testify to the goodness of God this was an integral part of the service. I can understand
modifying the parameters but, the National overseers solution? Cut testimony down to 10 minutes. We take 40 minutes to raise 2 seed
offerings. Can you see a pattern here?
4. We have four Elders that make up part of the congregation 2 of them with 36 or more years in the ministry. One minister with 10 years
and one with four years. All of these Elders were shut down. Some of these men helped build Bishop’s legacy. Bishop didn’t construct
this ministry by himself. Almost to the man each was apt to preach teach and administer to the people. The Nationals solution. for six
month don’t allow these men to be heard during a Sunday Service. We’re not even allowed to conduct watch meeting night without an
outside Elder winging in from places unknown to preside over us because we were totally incapable of raising a proper seed offering.
I concede the point the lack of a properly named assistant pastor would have alleviated
some of our problems But you have drawn a erroneous conclusion by stating ; His Elder’s left the church, he trusted women more , or he didn’t have staff. Bishop did not have a stated assistant, at the local church but he had an Administrative Assistant as the Jurisdiction Bishop and a robust staff.
This brings us to who was the defacto assistant to Bishop at Moore Temple. The local church. This is a critical aspect to understand . It’s imminently clear even to a casual observer who this person was. Anyone from our Jurisdiction could tell you Elder John W. Fleming was the untitled assistant that performed tirelessly behind the scenes work without complaint or compensation. A man of Integrity and vision, principled leadership, a passion for preaching the unadulterated Gospel to the loss. In other words the nearest personification of Bishop A.T. Moore. He followed Bishop Moore as Bishop followed Christ. He probably knew Bishop Moore better than some of Bishop’s own Family. He always strove to put Bishop agenda ahead of his own thinking . He stayed loyal to Bishop and Moore Temple even in the face of horrendously false accusations.
His detractors, if they were really honest with themselves know their assertions were unfounded . He is not a lover of money (this really irks the Nationals because money seems to be the mother’s milk of this church ) but a seeker of loss souls. Superbly educated ,husband of one wife of forty years. Eight college educated children, the highest accolades from his coworkers and peers ,financially responsible in all relationships. He is the very reason the Moore Temple is in existence in its present location with no mortgage on the church. To tell the truth some the success Bishop Moore has enjoyed can be traced to his steps. Given the cursory description above did Elder Fleming not perform the duties of assistant as well or better than a formally named assistant? To not even be considered for the Pastorship of Moore Temple is a travesty.
Elder Fleming is not the only Elder that stayed and was qualified to lead Moore Temple there were others that would have been a good honest choice, but all things considered; Elder Fleming had spent 38 years with us, laboring with our mothers. fathers , sons & daughters in times of crises . He gained our respect through his deeds. He accrued the unique authority to speak for Bishop Moore in churches throughout the state. With qualities such as I have described, is that not the very essence of what we look for in a pastor?
I know we have naysayers and character assassins. Have they done due diligence before smearing an honest man? I challenge any one of them to bring their assertions to the examination table and let’s see if they can stand the scrutiny of the daylight. Anyone that claims to be guided by the Holy Ghost and have the power of the discernment can see this man is just and uniquely qualified to continue to progate this precious legacy on to the next generation and he will although it may be in a different venue .
Bishop P. A. Brooks hands are not clean in this matter He brought Judge Perry to Louisville to address the congregation, and tell the us we had absolutely no input who the next pastor would be. In other words challenging the result would be a waste of time and money. Bishop Brooks knew a canvassing would have yielded overwhelming support for Elder Fleming. Judge Perry being the lawyer he is only told us what we couldn’t do, as lawyers do , he didn’t tell us what we could do. According to the constitution of the COCIC 51% of us could have nullified the outcome. The sly Brooks knew this, therefore no polling was done, although our sentiment would be easily ascertainable because the entire membership was present. Only two things seemed to matter Bishop Brooks. How much tithe money was collected, and make sure Elder Fleming was passed over for any consideration. Why???? By now you all know the outcome. Elder Barry Ginyard of Detriot Michigan was appointed pastor to the Moore Temple COGIC by fiat of Bishop P.A. Brooks. The congregation was stunned and has since split into four different churches. Many members that remain at Moore Temple are yet torn and confused, some only stay out of respect for Bishop Moore and his name being enshrined on the Building. Some left because to stay was in essence giving tacit approval to what they have done.
The coup de gras, occurred the following Monday Night. In his infinite wisdom Bishop Brooks denied Elder Fleming the constitutional right to be considered a candidate for Bishop of the State of Kentucky, although Bishop Sedwick Daniels present at the time, advised Bishop Brooks by COGIC constitutional statute, Elder Fleming’s candidacy was allowed. Why appoint a pastor one week before you appoint a jurisdictional Bishop?(could it be the newly appointed Jurisdiction Bishop would have appointed Elder Fleming pastor of Moore temple? You betcha!!) If allowed to be considered for the Office of Kentucky Jurisdiction Bishop would Elder Fleming have been the New Jurisdictional Bishop of Kentucky( more than likely) .
Now you see this evisceration of Bishop Moore’s legacy is not just about him pre se’, but what the leadership has done to make sure the men that knew him best, handled him and would carry out the core principals of his teachings never get their hands on what they have helped build with their blood sweat and yes, sometimes tears.
Please take note of this Elder Bary Ginayrd of Detriot Michigan seems to me an honorable man, and a fine Gospel preacher I hold no animosity toward him. We love him as we do all the Saints even with whom we disagree. The same applies to our New Jurisdictional Bishop Elder Dwhite Haygood he has been a supportive figure at times, But one almost cannot conceive what the motive of Bishop Brooks was in this matter without coming to the ugly conclusion; he is a petty vindictive person, abusing his power and authority,
conducting an illegal and flawed election by willfully ignoring clear written tenants in the COGIC constitution; and this man is second in command from the top. Is this the caliber of character for any Bishop let alone one in the highest echelons of the church. Should we blindly follow? Give our money time and effort? I know this is church politics but do you think God is pleased?
Let me be clear, we applaud Bishop Brooks’ success and great accomplishments, but his example today speaks volumes about him and his agenda.
Now the National Church was asked to bring some order and leadership, because it was needed. We all recognize their authority Does this give the National Church the green light to run roughshod over the congregation, totally disrespect the laity, the local Elders and their wishes? They have in essence exacerbated the problem. The children have asked for bread , would they give us a stone? The results of their decisions may have irrevocably and unnecessarily fragmented Moore Temple, what a shame because this used to be a very special place to the saints in the Grand Old Church Of God In Christ. Thank the Lord, God will have the final word.
Eugene, perhaps it is not Bishop Moore’s legacy you need to research, but you made the conmparison to Bishop Mason and you admitted you have only seen the man a couple of times. Your real life experience, being onesided, is irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make. I know more about Bishop Moore than you assume and a comparison reveals that while there are many similarities between Moore and Mason, there are enough differences to make a direct comparison, especially your statement that knowing Moore equates to knowing Mason, difficult to support.
Maria Gardner is not the only woman “pastoring” a COGIC church. But this is not the structure or the manner of the church. Just because church principles are being violated does not invalidate those principles. My point was that the national leaders are highly unlikely to appoint a woman to pastor Moore Temple, and I think you realize that. Your point was unnecessarily argumentive and not relevant to this topic.
The numbered examples you provide in trying to solidfy your position are indeed sad examples of the de-spiritualizing of what Moore Temple must have meant to its members, but again, had Bishop Moore taken steps to ENSURE (not just assume) that someone he trusted could step into his shoes, it is likely (though not certain) that the church would have been spared, which was my point all along.
The notion that elders have left the church is not a conclusion, it is a premise, and a factual one at that. Same with the fact that PASTOR Moore had no assistant and no staff. His jurisdictional staff has no function or authority in the local church with respect to the ministry. I did draw a conclusion about his relative trust of the men versus the women, based on information from some of the members. Perhaps they were either lying or mistaken.
Elder Fleming was the defacto assistant, you state. “Defacto” is only relevant to those familiar with a given situation. The truth is, the national leaders, corrupt and greedy or not, did not know Fleming. The splendid “resume” you provided consists of information known to you and others in the congregation, but not to those leaders you are so quick to denigrate. If I were in their position, I would wonder, if Fleming is so worthy, why did Moore not make his defacto status official? Perhaps there was a reason. Saying this was just not Moore’s “way” because of the example of the situation with the State Women’s Supervisor is again, “inside” knowledge. I also understand that there is a group that is just as vehement against Fleming as you are for him. I’m sure they consider their reasons to be just as valid as you do yours. Even an honorable man would be at an impasse and would need to base a decision at least partly on other information.
I cannot disagree that Bishop Brooks’ hands are not clean. It seem like he has an agenda that is not connected to the spiritual health or survival of Moore Temple, or the jurisdiction for that matter. But your assertion that 51% could have overridden his decision is not true. COGIC pastors are appointed by the jurisdictional leader; they are not elected by the congregation. Polls, when they are allowed, are allowed as a courtesy and are not binding. Of course, if your 51% is correct and a poll was allowed, it would have made Brooks’ position rather difficult if he was for whatever reason just dead set against Fleming being pastor. While he could have legally ignored the poll result, he would have had a difficult time justifying it. Consider also that, if that many would have supported Fleming as pastor, why haven’t that many followed him into his new ministry? You conclude that it’s because many are just staying out of curiosity or respect for Bishop Moore’s name. I might conclude differently and someone else might conclude differently still. Who can really say who is right?
Any Elder concerned about “getting his hands on” what he has labored to build is carnal and does not have a good understanding of the work of the Lord. We are not to expect to be rewarded in this life; otherwise the reward Jesus said He is bringing WITH HIM when he returns becomes secondary. Jesus also pointed out that those who expect and receive reward in this life can expect nothing wien (or if!) they come into His kingdom. This is one of the foundational, and much-forgotten or ignored, teachings of Christianity. Further, Jesus showed that no man can earn a position through senority or length of service when he gave the parable of the nam who hired workers at different times of the work day. Those who has worked the least amount of time received the same as those who had worked all day.
You accuse Brooks and the national leadership of some pretty major infractions of brotherhood and godliness. I’m not saying it isn’t so, but a relatively small action by Bishop Moore could have easily averted these major transgressions. Could not or did not the Spirit of God let him know that? You seem intent on minimizing Moore’s contribution to his own “De-Constructing”. To answer the question regarding blindly following a man or an organization, I say emphatically NO. You should not follow any man or organization you believe to be corrupt, and neither should you support it. But the question as to whether God is pleased is not a question anyone is qualified to answer because we do not know the mind of God. Such questions therefore, it is not wise to even ask. Is God pleased with this blog? Is He pleased with the way you have characterized Bishop Brooks? Is he pleased with those who have left Moore Temple? Is He pleased with those who have stayed? I assume your question to be rhetorical, and if so, it is based on your feelings and not on knowledge of what the will of God is. Just because I may feel a thing is heinously wrong doesn’t mean God does. This was the mistake Samuel made concerning Israel’s desire for a king.
You accuse the national leaders of exacerbating Moore Temple’s problem. But the congregation had a choice in how they reacted. They could have come together and responded in a godly and intelligent manner or they could have fought each other. Obviously they chose the latter. As for the “final word”, are you prepared to state that God has not already had the final word? Are you so certain that the will of God has not been ultimately accomplished in spite of the chaos? Do you have such insight into the plan of God that you are convinced that He wanted Fleming to pastor Moore Temple? It seems incongruent to say on the one hand that we trust God and that God is always in control, but when things occur that we don’t like or see as rightly done we assume God’s will has been violated and overridden by men.
I generally do not like long blog posts, I find them tiring. But I wanted to respond to each of your points. There is a reason for all this. You have been baited, I’m afraid. My initial response to your original post was intended to prove a point, and it has been proven. All I did was play the flip side of the matter. I wanted to see if Moore Temple as a whole, not as individuals or small groups, wanted peace and to move into the work of the Lord with hope and fellowship and with glad hearts. I provided a response to your post intended to incite controversy. You responded with a lengthy diatribe full of accusations, complaints and unsupported conjecture. Yet you have offered no solutions, only a desire to undo what has been done, which is virtually impossible. If your initial post and your response to my reply are typical of the feelings and attitude of Moore Temple, then what you want is controversy.
Such an attitude is not conducive to peace. Moore Temple will not have peace until it is at peace with itself. The blaming and accusing, the infighting and bitterness, the underlying assertion that Bishop Moore was somehow more than a man are all contributing to personal and interpersonal turmoil. When God rejected Saul, Samuel was unhappy and dejected. God had to tell him, basically, what is done is done; it’s time to go forward. I can’t imagine Bishop Moore going unloved any more than I can imagine that he and his accomplishments will be soon forgotten. But God’s work cannot stagnate because some don’t like the things that happened, or the way they happened. Leave the unrighteous for God to deal with and get busy building upon the man’s legacy if he really means as much to you as you imply. Since you say you believe this Ginyard to be a good man, why not honor Bishop Moore’s legacy by getting behind Ginyard and helping him bring Moore Temple out of this stagnation? Or has bitterness robbed you of your zeal? I have to believe that there is at least one voice of unbiased reason at Moore Temple. It would be refreshing if that person would speak.
I will try to keep this post a lot shorter than my last in response or diatribe as you call it. I offer no apology for being a person passionate about truth and justice. You didn’t have to use subterfuge to bait me into a response . I would have told you freely, you had only to ask. That is why am on this blog to chronicle the truthful story of what happen in this matter, not to necessarily change the outcome of what has happened, I have no illusion about that, I have moved on. But to document for others what was done here in the name of preserving Bishop Moore’s legacy . The only reason the National was ask to come in was to remedy the situation Bishop Moore was incapable of resolving, especially in his diminished health.
I asked the Lord in prayer almost every night since the decision was made to appoint Elder Ginyard Pastor, please don’t let me be bitter. If you could have been there (my guess is you were there). You could cut the utter hypocrisy with a knife . Most of the saints were literally stunned. Bishop Brooks tried to get a praise going but it fell noticeably flat. I admit I was extremely distraught. But God has delivered me from that hurt, because in all things we should give thanks. I agree with you on one point, if nothing else. This may be the will of the Lord, for this church to separate in order for God to get the greater glory. A united church even in small enclaves has a better chance to carry out the mandate of Jesus Christ; reaching the loss, than a huge church involved in fractional infighting among itself. This may prove to be the proverbial “dividing the wheat from chafe.”
Yes, Bishop Moore has some culpability. I never suggested he was infallible. His legacy is how he taught us, by the scriptures how to live holy by principal, precept and example. This will live on in the true worshipers of the Lord. I respect and honor Bishop Moore in that capacity. What will not live on is the special atmosphere the saints at Moore Temple enjoyed when we came together. We followed the precepts of the founder closely. We were closer as members of a congregation than some families. When others of our brethren in COGIC were beginning to change the dynamic of worship to resemble other reformations. Ie: Praise Teams, Seed offerings, “touch your neighbor and do this or that” The Gospel of prosperity” disparaging of tarry services, an overarching concern with the accumulation of
money. Bishop Moore to his credit did not buy into this mantra . Some of these practices are not wrong within themselves, and some of these things come in with a difference of administration, but taken as a whole, these seem to dilute the strength of the body. If this is not true, can you honestly say the church as a whole is has the impact on the World it once had? Yes were are more prosperous, own more material things, have increased membership and curry more political influence. But real power
comes from continual spiritual feeding the inner man. Not bake sales, flaunting our seven hundred thousand dollar homes, packed out music concerts, fancy cars, and clothes.
I am most disappointed in our national leaders these are educated men, men of stature, no mere novices, leaders of COGIC congregations all over this country. It is their solemn obligation to get to the real crux of the truth, to be real caretakers over this heritage. If they lacked knowledge, they should investigate, question, be diligent in their discovery. With an ultimate goal to preserve protect and defend the body. I have zero confidence in the National Leadership to dispense Justice. They have proven themselves to have a totally different agenda. Bishop Moore is a man suffering with the ravages of Alzheimer’s and we don’t know how many years this had affected his decision making in the past. Even in his diminished state in a moment of clarity I hear he disagrees with what has gone on, and he knows some of this has been caused by inaction. On the other hand what is the national leadership’s excuse? What Bishop Moore has done is water under the bridge, this can’t be undone What the National leadership has done and continues to do is to bring gasoline to a fire they should have put out.
You have assigned an unwarranted degree of validity to the extremely vocal minority of people opposed to Elder Fleming. When they fail to offer any reasoned disqualifiers, all we can depend on is their personal gravitas and commitment to the church’s well being, devoid of person agendas. I personally know almost every one of them. Just because some are opposed to a particular individual doesn’t mean their opposition has any legitimacy. (The Sanhedrin was opposed to Christ’s healing of the sick and raising of the dead.) Most of these individuals would like to see Chairman Hutchins back here and they make the supposition Elder Fleming derailed his chances. The Chairman’s arrogance is where the real blame lies. Opposition to Elder Fleming is their form of payback. Bringing the Chairman back would be an unmitigated disaster. Now he is a man that knows a thing or two about splitting a congregation, just ask the Bishop in Florida. His leadership is totally abhorrent to me.
Please reference you COGIC governing regulations carefully, and notice I didn’t say the congregation has a right to appoint who they wanted or have who they wanted. This authority rest with the Jurisdictional Bishop. I said 51% could have nullified the result. However I don’t think any of us knew this at the time.
I bear no malice to my brothers who have stayed at Moore Temple. I don’t harbor any ill will against Elder Barry Ginyard. Finally my brother, I have peace. I seek peace. I pursue peace. But peace doesn’t mean we compromise the very principals to which we’ve dedicated our lives. I have chosen to remove my self from the confused fray, for to sit under the leadership of Elder Ginyard is to confer tacit consent on all that was done. I don’t recruit, ask, pressure or cajole anyone to change their affiliation. That is for each individual to decide within himself. But I see more and more are coming to the same conclusion as I. Time will ultimately reveal the complete truth of the matter.
The problem with your documentation is that too much of it is conjecture and opinion, which may or may not be truth. You should know that. Therefore, this blog itself is evidence that you have not moved on, that you feel an obligation to put forth what you believe to be the truth.
Asking the Lord not to “let you” be bitter is pointless; that’s YOUR choice to make. God is not into mind or heart control.
Finally (and I mean finally as in no further contribution to this blog from me), if you believe that staying under the new pastor is “tacit consent” of what was done, then I am afraid that you are somewhat naive. I give no examples because this is self evident. What if God wants you to stay at Moore Temple? What if your voice is one of those needed to steady the “boat” that has been rocked by what has taken place?
Are you more concerned with proving a point, making a statement or iconizing the ministry of one man than doing the will of God?
Let me finish by telling you the true story of a little girl named Anna. She was found wandering the streets (this was some 40 years ago) in Scotland and was taken in by a generous family. No one ever found out who she was or where she came from. She was about 6 or 7 years old. She died 3 or 4 years later. There was something very special about her though; she had a keen understanding of human nature that was astounding. When she prayed, she always opened by saying, “Mr. God, this is Anna.” I heard about her from a book of the same name written by the man who’d found her.
She once said this, “People have a point OF view, but God has points TO view. It’s like the petals on a rose. People only have one, but God has them all.”
I was only about 13 or 14 when I read that, and I understood it so clearly that it changed the way I looked at life from that time on. My point is, in any situation, there is always more than one point from which to view it, but most people restrict themselves to only the one they feel most at home with. I have developed the ability to see multiple points of view (I didn’t think this was a quality restricted only to God). If more of us would do this, there would be less polarization, and more forgiveness, which is the door to peace.
I emphatically disagree brother, the Lord can fix a broken heart, can and does regulate troubled minds, heals the hurts that no one can phantom . We just have to let him do it. And he will bring that peace that passes all understanding.
This is not mere conjecture or opinion the church is in its current shape because of its compromising
attitude. Traditions of men can change with administrations, but not Holiness. The way of True Holiness is not a pick and choose philosophical debate or subject to various points of views. It has one path. We were taught that way, we live that way. When we encounter men that seek to deviate from that land mark; entertain and foster confusion, I separate myself. God is not in it ; for “God is not the author of confusion.”
Specious and circular arguments about points of view are great for debate. However, the Lord knows the beginning and the end. All I ever seek is the singular path of his will for my life. As the scripture has said “ acknowledge him in all your ways he will direct your path. I might be a little presumptuous but; I seek to follow that path under the leadership of men of proven integrity, honor and men predisposed to uphold the principals and tenants of holiness wherein we’ve been taught these many years. In this I have peace.
Finally I leave you, with a little story. “ a Superintendent for Louisiana came to Moore Temple about five years ago. He was astounded at the atmosphere he found there. He preached a message from heaven that permeated by being. That message stands out as clear for me to day as the day he delivered it. He remarked a change was coming to Moore Temple, because Bishop Moore was not going to live forever. He left us with a question; “ But when that change does come, would we compromise”?. I said in my heart then ,as I say today. No, I will not compromise. I seek God’s direction in all I do, and with that came peace.
The Lord has carved a new work for me in another ministry. It’s not for me to prove to anyone what the Lord has done or call me to do. When God is in the plan, It will be self evident to others in due time.
Romans 16:17-20
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contary to the doctrine which ye have learned;and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen
Bishop A.T. Moore has been a blessing to the C.O.G.I.C. and he still should be
pastor and bishop no thanks to the national church who promised they wouldn’t take his positions away from him. His church and jurisdiction needs him.
The desired outcome from national leadership has taken place, their work complete. A visitor came in looking for some of the saints that have moved on and describe the spirit of the place as like a morgue. Mission accomplished.
To use the words in the sub-title to Bishop Blakes book “How Long This Madness?” If possible I would like to talk further on this matter. isaiah58.1@prodigy.net
Moore Temple is being systematically eviscerated by some of our National Church leaders right before our very eyes. A church steeped in the traditions and principals of holiness as taught by our founder Bishop C. H. Mason and further handed down to us by our beloved pastor Bishop A. T. Moore, has become a haven for the ambitions and machinations of greedy and spiteful men. What the faithful members thought was an impossibility just a few short years ago has become a bitter reality. Those charged with the oversight and protection of God’s heritage have morphed into complicit facilitators that helped fragment and scatter this body of believers to the four winds. This blog is dedicated to shining the light of truth on the deeds of these nefarious characters and their enablers. Stay tuned……………….
By: Eugene on April 3, 2009
at 2:47 am
The best way for a man to preserve his legacy is to duplicate himself in his subordinates. It is my understanding that Bishop A. T. Moore was negligent in this area in a number of ways. Is it true that he didn’t have an assistant pastor, or even an administrative assistant? I have also heard that he was not very trusting of the men in his church, and was generally disposed to giving responsibilities to women instead. I’m not against women doing things, but COGIC doesn’t allow women to lead churches, so what could have been done to stop this “evisceration” so eloquently described? Perhaps Bishop Moore should have shown greater concern for his legacy and taken steps to see that it was preserved. I hear that most of his preachers have left. What would you expect the National Leaders to do when a man can no longer serve his mnistry, but he had no assistant, no staff, no cabinet and no knowledge that his own members were asking for him to be emeritized?
God’s heritage is in no danger whatsoever; Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. You apparently are confusing the ministry of a man with the heritage of God, a gross mistake. The Church existed long before Bishop Moore, or Bishop Mason and COGIC for that matter, and will continue to exist long after we are all just memories in the minds of our great-grandchildren, or until Jesus returns, whichever comes first.
Finally, perhaps you might consider researching the ministries of C. H. Mason and A. T. Moore with a little less bias and a little more depth. You might find that Bishop Moore was not as much like Bishop Mason as you might think.
By: HisAlways on April 6, 2009
at 9:00 pm
In response to the post “ His Always”. Sir I hardly need to research Bishop Moore’s legacy. I have been a member for over 55 years. Now Dad Mason I only saw him a couple of times. I may need a refresher. My research is real life experience, which tends to be the best teacher I’ve seen us grow as close knit family of believers on a store front corner to the beautiful sanctuary we inhabit today, but more fractionalized than ever. I’m more than qualified to critique the efficacy of his legacy because I’ve been there. I assume by the tenor of your post you could not have known Bishop A.T. Moore; or the source of your information is unreliable at best. If you knew Bishop A.T Moore, we felt we almost knew Bishop Mason.
Oh by the way, someone forgot to tell Maria Gardner “COGIC’s Evangelist Department’s National Elect Lady; We don’t allow Women Pastors. She has been the head of her church for two years or more. I’m sure she will step down if you ask her nicely.
I am aware God’s Church can’t be destroyed; but through blunders and missteps, some
unintentional, some intention; we have been seriously hindered. The Nationals have achieved a result that they consider to be satisfactory (the fracture of the Moore Temple into pieces). With the phrase” We’re here to build on the Legacy of Bishop Moore, dripping form their lips: they have systematically dismantled the basic principals Bishop Moore laid down for this congregation. I’m not talking about procedural differences, These can vary from administration to administration; but core principals that was handed down by our fathers in the gospel which made Moore Temple a special place in the brotherhood. Consider these egregious examples :
1. The question was asked can the church come together and pray a few nights during the week. The response, We have to get permission
from the National leadership before prayer can be allowed. The net result : NO!!!! pray at home. Can you believe that!!!
2. I can’t remember a time when Bishop Moore would allow a service to be closed
without making an alter appeal. Some people come expecting this part of the service.
This is one of the Church’s greatest Missions reaching out to the lost. To our National overseers this seems to be a trivial matter of the
day. After a complete Sunday Service
one of the local Elders pointed out to the National Elder in charge, we were about to close the service without an appeal to the loss. The
National Elders response: My message is not an a alter call message. What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I tell you the truth they could let the
appeal slide to oblivion, but we certainly never got out of service before we raised two separate seed offerings. We tend to noticed what
the main priority was; raising money.
3. Bishop Moore believed in letting the saints testify to the goodness of God this was an integral part of the service. I can understand
modifying the parameters but, the National overseers solution? Cut testimony down to 10 minutes. We take 40 minutes to raise 2 seed
offerings. Can you see a pattern here?
4. We have four Elders that make up part of the congregation 2 of them with 36 or more years in the ministry. One minister with 10 years
and one with four years. All of these Elders were shut down. Some of these men helped build Bishop’s legacy. Bishop didn’t construct
this ministry by himself. Almost to the man each was apt to preach teach and administer to the people. The Nationals solution. for six
month don’t allow these men to be heard during a Sunday Service. We’re not even allowed to conduct watch meeting night without an
outside Elder winging in from places unknown to preside over us because we were totally incapable of raising a proper seed offering.
I concede the point the lack of a properly named assistant pastor would have alleviated
some of our problems But you have drawn a erroneous conclusion by stating ; His Elder’s left the church, he trusted women more , or he didn’t have staff. Bishop did not have a stated assistant, at the local church but he had an Administrative Assistant as the Jurisdiction Bishop and a robust staff.
This brings us to who was the defacto assistant to Bishop at Moore Temple. The local church. This is a critical aspect to understand . It’s imminently clear even to a casual observer who this person was. Anyone from our Jurisdiction could tell you Elder John W. Fleming was the untitled assistant that performed tirelessly behind the scenes work without complaint or compensation. A man of Integrity and vision, principled leadership, a passion for preaching the unadulterated Gospel to the loss. In other words the nearest personification of Bishop A.T. Moore. He followed Bishop Moore as Bishop followed Christ. He probably knew Bishop Moore better than some of Bishop’s own Family. He always strove to put Bishop agenda ahead of his own thinking . He stayed loyal to Bishop and Moore Temple even in the face of horrendously false accusations.
His detractors, if they were really honest with themselves know their assertions were unfounded . He is not a lover of money (this really irks the Nationals because money seems to be the mother’s milk of this church ) but a seeker of loss souls. Superbly educated ,husband of one wife of forty years. Eight college educated children, the highest accolades from his coworkers and peers ,financially responsible in all relationships. He is the very reason the Moore Temple is in existence in its present location with no mortgage on the church. To tell the truth some the success Bishop Moore has enjoyed can be traced to his steps. Given the cursory description above did Elder Fleming not perform the duties of assistant as well or better than a formally named assistant? To not even be considered for the Pastorship of Moore Temple is a travesty.
Elder Fleming is not the only Elder that stayed and was qualified to lead Moore Temple there were others that would have been a good honest choice, but all things considered; Elder Fleming had spent 38 years with us, laboring with our mothers. fathers , sons & daughters in times of crises . He gained our respect through his deeds. He accrued the unique authority to speak for Bishop Moore in churches throughout the state. With qualities such as I have described, is that not the very essence of what we look for in a pastor?
I know we have naysayers and character assassins. Have they done due diligence before smearing an honest man? I challenge any one of them to bring their assertions to the examination table and let’s see if they can stand the scrutiny of the daylight. Anyone that claims to be guided by the Holy Ghost and have the power of the discernment can see this man is just and uniquely qualified to continue to progate this precious legacy on to the next generation and he will although it may be in a different venue .
Bishop P. A. Brooks hands are not clean in this matter He brought Judge Perry to Louisville to address the congregation, and tell the us we had absolutely no input who the next pastor would be. In other words challenging the result would be a waste of time and money. Bishop Brooks knew a canvassing would have yielded overwhelming support for Elder Fleming. Judge Perry being the lawyer he is only told us what we couldn’t do, as lawyers do , he didn’t tell us what we could do. According to the constitution of the COCIC 51% of us could have nullified the outcome. The sly Brooks knew this, therefore no polling was done, although our sentiment would be easily ascertainable because the entire membership was present. Only two things seemed to matter Bishop Brooks. How much tithe money was collected, and make sure Elder Fleming was passed over for any consideration. Why???? By now you all know the outcome. Elder Barry Ginyard of Detriot Michigan was appointed pastor to the Moore Temple COGIC by fiat of Bishop P.A. Brooks. The congregation was stunned and has since split into four different churches. Many members that remain at Moore Temple are yet torn and confused, some only stay out of respect for Bishop Moore and his name being enshrined on the Building. Some left because to stay was in essence giving tacit approval to what they have done.
The coup de gras, occurred the following Monday Night. In his infinite wisdom Bishop Brooks denied Elder Fleming the constitutional right to be considered a candidate for Bishop of the State of Kentucky, although Bishop Sedwick Daniels present at the time, advised Bishop Brooks by COGIC constitutional statute, Elder Fleming’s candidacy was allowed. Why appoint a pastor one week before you appoint a jurisdictional Bishop?(could it be the newly appointed Jurisdiction Bishop would have appointed Elder Fleming pastor of Moore temple? You betcha!!) If allowed to be considered for the Office of Kentucky Jurisdiction Bishop would Elder Fleming have been the New Jurisdictional Bishop of Kentucky( more than likely) .
Now you see this evisceration of Bishop Moore’s legacy is not just about him pre se’, but what the leadership has done to make sure the men that knew him best, handled him and would carry out the core principals of his teachings never get their hands on what they have helped build with their blood sweat and yes, sometimes tears.
Please take note of this Elder Bary Ginayrd of Detriot Michigan seems to me an honorable man, and a fine Gospel preacher I hold no animosity toward him. We love him as we do all the Saints even with whom we disagree. The same applies to our New Jurisdictional Bishop Elder Dwhite Haygood he has been a supportive figure at times, But one almost cannot conceive what the motive of Bishop Brooks was in this matter without coming to the ugly conclusion; he is a petty vindictive person, abusing his power and authority,
conducting an illegal and flawed election by willfully ignoring clear written tenants in the COGIC constitution; and this man is second in command from the top. Is this the caliber of character for any Bishop let alone one in the highest echelons of the church. Should we blindly follow? Give our money time and effort? I know this is church politics but do you think God is pleased?
Let me be clear, we applaud Bishop Brooks’ success and great accomplishments, but his example today speaks volumes about him and his agenda.
Now the National Church was asked to bring some order and leadership, because it was needed. We all recognize their authority Does this give the National Church the green light to run roughshod over the congregation, totally disrespect the laity, the local Elders and their wishes? They have in essence exacerbated the problem. The children have asked for bread , would they give us a stone? The results of their decisions may have irrevocably and unnecessarily fragmented Moore Temple, what a shame because this used to be a very special place to the saints in the Grand Old Church Of God In Christ. Thank the Lord, God will have the final word.
God please help us endure.
Peace be multiplied
Eugene
By: Eugene on April 7, 2009
at 5:59 am
Eugene, perhaps it is not Bishop Moore’s legacy you need to research, but you made the conmparison to Bishop Mason and you admitted you have only seen the man a couple of times. Your real life experience, being onesided, is irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make. I know more about Bishop Moore than you assume and a comparison reveals that while there are many similarities between Moore and Mason, there are enough differences to make a direct comparison, especially your statement that knowing Moore equates to knowing Mason, difficult to support.
Maria Gardner is not the only woman “pastoring” a COGIC church. But this is not the structure or the manner of the church. Just because church principles are being violated does not invalidate those principles. My point was that the national leaders are highly unlikely to appoint a woman to pastor Moore Temple, and I think you realize that. Your point was unnecessarily argumentive and not relevant to this topic.
The numbered examples you provide in trying to solidfy your position are indeed sad examples of the de-spiritualizing of what Moore Temple must have meant to its members, but again, had Bishop Moore taken steps to ENSURE (not just assume) that someone he trusted could step into his shoes, it is likely (though not certain) that the church would have been spared, which was my point all along.
The notion that elders have left the church is not a conclusion, it is a premise, and a factual one at that. Same with the fact that PASTOR Moore had no assistant and no staff. His jurisdictional staff has no function or authority in the local church with respect to the ministry. I did draw a conclusion about his relative trust of the men versus the women, based on information from some of the members. Perhaps they were either lying or mistaken.
Elder Fleming was the defacto assistant, you state. “Defacto” is only relevant to those familiar with a given situation. The truth is, the national leaders, corrupt and greedy or not, did not know Fleming. The splendid “resume” you provided consists of information known to you and others in the congregation, but not to those leaders you are so quick to denigrate. If I were in their position, I would wonder, if Fleming is so worthy, why did Moore not make his defacto status official? Perhaps there was a reason. Saying this was just not Moore’s “way” because of the example of the situation with the State Women’s Supervisor is again, “inside” knowledge. I also understand that there is a group that is just as vehement against Fleming as you are for him. I’m sure they consider their reasons to be just as valid as you do yours. Even an honorable man would be at an impasse and would need to base a decision at least partly on other information.
I cannot disagree that Bishop Brooks’ hands are not clean. It seem like he has an agenda that is not connected to the spiritual health or survival of Moore Temple, or the jurisdiction for that matter. But your assertion that 51% could have overridden his decision is not true. COGIC pastors are appointed by the jurisdictional leader; they are not elected by the congregation. Polls, when they are allowed, are allowed as a courtesy and are not binding. Of course, if your 51% is correct and a poll was allowed, it would have made Brooks’ position rather difficult if he was for whatever reason just dead set against Fleming being pastor. While he could have legally ignored the poll result, he would have had a difficult time justifying it. Consider also that, if that many would have supported Fleming as pastor, why haven’t that many followed him into his new ministry? You conclude that it’s because many are just staying out of curiosity or respect for Bishop Moore’s name. I might conclude differently and someone else might conclude differently still. Who can really say who is right?
Any Elder concerned about “getting his hands on” what he has labored to build is carnal and does not have a good understanding of the work of the Lord. We are not to expect to be rewarded in this life; otherwise the reward Jesus said He is bringing WITH HIM when he returns becomes secondary. Jesus also pointed out that those who expect and receive reward in this life can expect nothing wien (or if!) they come into His kingdom. This is one of the foundational, and much-forgotten or ignored, teachings of Christianity. Further, Jesus showed that no man can earn a position through senority or length of service when he gave the parable of the nam who hired workers at different times of the work day. Those who has worked the least amount of time received the same as those who had worked all day.
You accuse Brooks and the national leadership of some pretty major infractions of brotherhood and godliness. I’m not saying it isn’t so, but a relatively small action by Bishop Moore could have easily averted these major transgressions. Could not or did not the Spirit of God let him know that? You seem intent on minimizing Moore’s contribution to his own “De-Constructing”. To answer the question regarding blindly following a man or an organization, I say emphatically NO. You should not follow any man or organization you believe to be corrupt, and neither should you support it. But the question as to whether God is pleased is not a question anyone is qualified to answer because we do not know the mind of God. Such questions therefore, it is not wise to even ask. Is God pleased with this blog? Is He pleased with the way you have characterized Bishop Brooks? Is he pleased with those who have left Moore Temple? Is He pleased with those who have stayed? I assume your question to be rhetorical, and if so, it is based on your feelings and not on knowledge of what the will of God is. Just because I may feel a thing is heinously wrong doesn’t mean God does. This was the mistake Samuel made concerning Israel’s desire for a king.
You accuse the national leaders of exacerbating Moore Temple’s problem. But the congregation had a choice in how they reacted. They could have come together and responded in a godly and intelligent manner or they could have fought each other. Obviously they chose the latter. As for the “final word”, are you prepared to state that God has not already had the final word? Are you so certain that the will of God has not been ultimately accomplished in spite of the chaos? Do you have such insight into the plan of God that you are convinced that He wanted Fleming to pastor Moore Temple? It seems incongruent to say on the one hand that we trust God and that God is always in control, but when things occur that we don’t like or see as rightly done we assume God’s will has been violated and overridden by men.
I generally do not like long blog posts, I find them tiring. But I wanted to respond to each of your points. There is a reason for all this. You have been baited, I’m afraid. My initial response to your original post was intended to prove a point, and it has been proven. All I did was play the flip side of the matter. I wanted to see if Moore Temple as a whole, not as individuals or small groups, wanted peace and to move into the work of the Lord with hope and fellowship and with glad hearts. I provided a response to your post intended to incite controversy. You responded with a lengthy diatribe full of accusations, complaints and unsupported conjecture. Yet you have offered no solutions, only a desire to undo what has been done, which is virtually impossible. If your initial post and your response to my reply are typical of the feelings and attitude of Moore Temple, then what you want is controversy.
Such an attitude is not conducive to peace. Moore Temple will not have peace until it is at peace with itself. The blaming and accusing, the infighting and bitterness, the underlying assertion that Bishop Moore was somehow more than a man are all contributing to personal and interpersonal turmoil. When God rejected Saul, Samuel was unhappy and dejected. God had to tell him, basically, what is done is done; it’s time to go forward. I can’t imagine Bishop Moore going unloved any more than I can imagine that he and his accomplishments will be soon forgotten. But God’s work cannot stagnate because some don’t like the things that happened, or the way they happened. Leave the unrighteous for God to deal with and get busy building upon the man’s legacy if he really means as much to you as you imply. Since you say you believe this Ginyard to be a good man, why not honor Bishop Moore’s legacy by getting behind Ginyard and helping him bring Moore Temple out of this stagnation? Or has bitterness robbed you of your zeal? I have to believe that there is at least one voice of unbiased reason at Moore Temple. It would be refreshing if that person would speak.
By: HisAlways on April 8, 2009
at 10:06 am
I will try to keep this post a lot shorter than my last in response or diatribe as you call it. I offer no apology for being a person passionate about truth and justice. You didn’t have to use subterfuge to bait me into a response . I would have told you freely, you had only to ask. That is why am on this blog to chronicle the truthful story of what happen in this matter, not to necessarily change the outcome of what has happened, I have no illusion about that, I have moved on. But to document for others what was done here in the name of preserving Bishop Moore’s legacy . The only reason the National was ask to come in was to remedy the situation Bishop Moore was incapable of resolving, especially in his diminished health.
I asked the Lord in prayer almost every night since the decision was made to appoint Elder Ginyard Pastor, please don’t let me be bitter. If you could have been there (my guess is you were there). You could cut the utter hypocrisy with a knife . Most of the saints were literally stunned. Bishop Brooks tried to get a praise going but it fell noticeably flat. I admit I was extremely distraught. But God has delivered me from that hurt, because in all things we should give thanks. I agree with you on one point, if nothing else. This may be the will of the Lord, for this church to separate in order for God to get the greater glory. A united church even in small enclaves has a better chance to carry out the mandate of Jesus Christ; reaching the loss, than a huge church involved in fractional infighting among itself. This may prove to be the proverbial “dividing the wheat from chafe.”
Yes, Bishop Moore has some culpability. I never suggested he was infallible. His legacy is how he taught us, by the scriptures how to live holy by principal, precept and example. This will live on in the true worshipers of the Lord. I respect and honor Bishop Moore in that capacity. What will not live on is the special atmosphere the saints at Moore Temple enjoyed when we came together. We followed the precepts of the founder closely. We were closer as members of a congregation than some families. When others of our brethren in COGIC were beginning to change the dynamic of worship to resemble other reformations. Ie: Praise Teams, Seed offerings, “touch your neighbor and do this or that” The Gospel of prosperity” disparaging of tarry services, an overarching concern with the accumulation of
money. Bishop Moore to his credit did not buy into this mantra . Some of these practices are not wrong within themselves, and some of these things come in with a difference of administration, but taken as a whole, these seem to dilute the strength of the body. If this is not true, can you honestly say the church as a whole is has the impact on the World it once had? Yes were are more prosperous, own more material things, have increased membership and curry more political influence. But real power
comes from continual spiritual feeding the inner man. Not bake sales, flaunting our seven hundred thousand dollar homes, packed out music concerts, fancy cars, and clothes.
I am most disappointed in our national leaders these are educated men, men of stature, no mere novices, leaders of COGIC congregations all over this country. It is their solemn obligation to get to the real crux of the truth, to be real caretakers over this heritage. If they lacked knowledge, they should investigate, question, be diligent in their discovery. With an ultimate goal to preserve protect and defend the body. I have zero confidence in the National Leadership to dispense Justice. They have proven themselves to have a totally different agenda. Bishop Moore is a man suffering with the ravages of Alzheimer’s and we don’t know how many years this had affected his decision making in the past. Even in his diminished state in a moment of clarity I hear he disagrees with what has gone on, and he knows some of this has been caused by inaction. On the other hand what is the national leadership’s excuse? What Bishop Moore has done is water under the bridge, this can’t be undone What the National leadership has done and continues to do is to bring gasoline to a fire they should have put out.
You have assigned an unwarranted degree of validity to the extremely vocal minority of people opposed to Elder Fleming. When they fail to offer any reasoned disqualifiers, all we can depend on is their personal gravitas and commitment to the church’s well being, devoid of person agendas. I personally know almost every one of them. Just because some are opposed to a particular individual doesn’t mean their opposition has any legitimacy. (The Sanhedrin was opposed to Christ’s healing of the sick and raising of the dead.) Most of these individuals would like to see Chairman Hutchins back here and they make the supposition Elder Fleming derailed his chances. The Chairman’s arrogance is where the real blame lies. Opposition to Elder Fleming is their form of payback. Bringing the Chairman back would be an unmitigated disaster. Now he is a man that knows a thing or two about splitting a congregation, just ask the Bishop in Florida. His leadership is totally abhorrent to me.
Please reference you COGIC governing regulations carefully, and notice I didn’t say the congregation has a right to appoint who they wanted or have who they wanted. This authority rest with the Jurisdictional Bishop. I said 51% could have nullified the result. However I don’t think any of us knew this at the time.
I bear no malice to my brothers who have stayed at Moore Temple. I don’t harbor any ill will against Elder Barry Ginyard. Finally my brother, I have peace. I seek peace. I pursue peace. But peace doesn’t mean we compromise the very principals to which we’ve dedicated our lives. I have chosen to remove my self from the confused fray, for to sit under the leadership of Elder Ginyard is to confer tacit consent on all that was done. I don’t recruit, ask, pressure or cajole anyone to change their affiliation. That is for each individual to decide within himself. But I see more and more are coming to the same conclusion as I. Time will ultimately reveal the complete truth of the matter.
Peace be Multiplied
Eugene
By: Eugene on April 8, 2009
at 7:11 pm
The problem with your documentation is that too much of it is conjecture and opinion, which may or may not be truth. You should know that. Therefore, this blog itself is evidence that you have not moved on, that you feel an obligation to put forth what you believe to be the truth.
Asking the Lord not to “let you” be bitter is pointless; that’s YOUR choice to make. God is not into mind or heart control.
Finally (and I mean finally as in no further contribution to this blog from me), if you believe that staying under the new pastor is “tacit consent” of what was done, then I am afraid that you are somewhat naive. I give no examples because this is self evident. What if God wants you to stay at Moore Temple? What if your voice is one of those needed to steady the “boat” that has been rocked by what has taken place?
Are you more concerned with proving a point, making a statement or iconizing the ministry of one man than doing the will of God?
Let me finish by telling you the true story of a little girl named Anna. She was found wandering the streets (this was some 40 years ago) in Scotland and was taken in by a generous family. No one ever found out who she was or where she came from. She was about 6 or 7 years old. She died 3 or 4 years later. There was something very special about her though; she had a keen understanding of human nature that was astounding. When she prayed, she always opened by saying, “Mr. God, this is Anna.” I heard about her from a book of the same name written by the man who’d found her.
She once said this, “People have a point OF view, but God has points TO view. It’s like the petals on a rose. People only have one, but God has them all.”
I was only about 13 or 14 when I read that, and I understood it so clearly that it changed the way I looked at life from that time on. My point is, in any situation, there is always more than one point from which to view it, but most people restrict themselves to only the one they feel most at home with. I have developed the ability to see multiple points of view (I didn’t think this was a quality restricted only to God). If more of us would do this, there would be less polarization, and more forgiveness, which is the door to peace.
By: HisAlways on April 10, 2009
at 10:05 am
I emphatically disagree brother, the Lord can fix a broken heart, can and does regulate troubled minds, heals the hurts that no one can phantom . We just have to let him do it. And he will bring that peace that passes all understanding.
This is not mere conjecture or opinion the church is in its current shape because of its compromising
attitude. Traditions of men can change with administrations, but not Holiness. The way of True Holiness is not a pick and choose philosophical debate or subject to various points of views. It has one path. We were taught that way, we live that way. When we encounter men that seek to deviate from that land mark; entertain and foster confusion, I separate myself. God is not in it ; for “God is not the author of confusion.”
Specious and circular arguments about points of view are great for debate. However, the Lord knows the beginning and the end. All I ever seek is the singular path of his will for my life. As the scripture has said “ acknowledge him in all your ways he will direct your path. I might be a little presumptuous but; I seek to follow that path under the leadership of men of proven integrity, honor and men predisposed to uphold the principals and tenants of holiness wherein we’ve been taught these many years. In this I have peace.
Finally I leave you, with a little story. “ a Superintendent for Louisiana came to Moore Temple about five years ago. He was astounded at the atmosphere he found there. He preached a message from heaven that permeated by being. That message stands out as clear for me to day as the day he delivered it. He remarked a change was coming to Moore Temple, because Bishop Moore was not going to live forever. He left us with a question; “ But when that change does come, would we compromise”?. I said in my heart then ,as I say today. No, I will not compromise. I seek God’s direction in all I do, and with that came peace.
The Lord has carved a new work for me in another ministry. It’s not for me to prove to anyone what the Lord has done or call me to do. When God is in the plan, It will be self evident to others in due time.
Peace be multiplied
Eugene
By: Eugene on April 11, 2009
at 10:30 am
Romans 16:17-20
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contary to the doctrine which ye have learned;and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen
By: apostle on April 13, 2009
at 12:03 am
Bishop A.T. Moore has been a blessing to the C.O.G.I.C. and he still should be
pastor and bishop no thanks to the national church who promised they wouldn’t take his positions away from him. His church and jurisdiction needs him.
By: Daniel Posey on May 4, 2009
at 6:06 pm
What is happening now? Is the church moving forward. Are souls being saved?
By: R.E. Stidham on October 18, 2009
at 4:43 pm
The desired outcome from national leadership has taken place, their work complete. A visitor came in looking for some of the saints that have moved on and describe the spirit of the place as like a morgue. Mission accomplished.
By: Eugene on October 18, 2009
at 6:54 pm
To use the words in the sub-title to Bishop Blakes book “How Long This Madness?” If possible I would like to talk further on this matter. isaiah58.1@prodigy.net
By: R.E. Stidham on October 18, 2009
at 9:36 pm