IS THERE JUSTICE IN THE CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST?

September 29, 2017

COGIC NOW PLACES LIEN AGAINST LOCAL CHURCH

In a stunning display of the Love of Money, COGIC, Inc. has placed a lien against a local church; Greater First Church of God in Christ located in Knoxville, Tennessee. One might think how much money could a local church owe the National for them to place a lien against them? The answer is none; the local church went through the  transfer process (which is why transfers were stopped by the General Board a violation) because they believe there is money to be gobbled up.

There is now a new weapon in the leaderships insatiable appetite for money place a lien on the property and extort money form the local congregation.  This is done under the “Trust Clause”.  Another example of the need for the General Assembly to amend a clause which is noting more than a license to steal.

View Lien as Filed

View Lien Clarification

Advertisements

June 3, 2017

BULLIES AT WILLIAMS TEMPLE IN HOUSTON: CRISIS IN THE PARKING LOT!!!

As has been widely circulated, there are charges before the General Assembly against General Board Member Bishop Brandon Porter brought by Deacon Eric McAdams.  Now this Deacon is catching flak for PAINTING PARKING STRIPES ON THE CHURCH PARKING LOT.  Yes that is what I said, painting parking stripes on the church parking lot.  He had painted them about eight years ago at his own expense and because they were faded he decided he would repaint them; again at his own expense.  In a series of texts which I have obtained, Tim Allen who says he is the church manager  has an issue with a Deacon of the church, using his own time and his own money to paint stripes (parking stripes) in the church parking lot.  He wanted to know who gave the Deacon permission to paint.

I wonder if Tim Allen’s job title is really the HNIC.  The two men exchanged a few texts, and then the manager sent a text telling the Deacon “Be a man an [sic] not a punk come out here, an [sic] we see who man.”  Now we have a church “manager” who appears ready to fight because of PARKING STRIPES!!

Tim Allen then sent a text in which he said “Just talked to bishop [sic] Thompson who contacted bishop [sic] Porter an cari [sic], you don’t have permission to paint.”

Deacon McAdams then texted him, “Sir, you are not the leader.  Since you are the church manger…I want to see our church books/ records. As for the Parking Lot, IT’S NOT AN ISSUE.  I welcome BISHOP Thompson or BISHOP PORTER to call me as they ignored our Request to see our records.  God Bless you and I have nothing else to say to you regarding this Matter, as you are not the LEADER. 

I think that must have really made Brother Allen’s jaws tight because he sent a text which said; “McAdams, I just received a message from the top leader of our church, informing me that you are not allowed on church property, due to your insubordination activities this week.  YOU MAY contact Bishop Porter if YOU have questions.  Also photo documentation has also been forwarded regarding painting activities.  YOU welcome to come pick up your supplies. Be blessed.”

Because of PARKING STRIPES this man doesn’t want to fellowship with nor allow Deacon McAdams to come to church because of PARKING STRIPES.  How can church people be so petty they are offended because of PARKING LOT STRIPES, how about using this focus and energy on winning souls for Christ.

At some point General Board member Bishop Brandon Porter sent a text to Deacon McAdams which said; “Hello Bro McAdams… I am getting reports that you are doing parking lot striping, but you did not get clearance to do so.  Can you share with me who asked you to provide this maintenance?  Bishop Porter”

Really, a General Board Member, they must not have anything to do.  This is crazy, about parking stripes which did not cost the church anything!  Perhaps that manager has to justify his salary, maybe if the manager had taken care of the maintenance then a church Deacon would not have seen a need to do it.  Remember, this Deacon painted the same lot eight years ago.

Perhaps this is retaliation for Deacon McAdams standing up for the members in their ongoing struggle with Bishop Porter.  Texas State law says the books must be made available for review.  Why have they not complied with the law?  To get twisted, tangled up and mad about a parking lot!  Most churches would be glad to have someone take initiative and at no cost to the church, provide a needed service.

As you know, the people at Williams Temple contacted Moses Tyson, Jr. to help them with the host of problems they are experiencing there.  Read his take on this issue:

  Read More 

 

May 11, 2017

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM:

Many of you may not be aware of a situation in the Texas Southeast One Jurisdiction in Houston, Texas.  In an effort to appear tough on clergy sexual misconduct, the Board of Bishops has chosen to violate the very document they vowed to uphold.  They then turn around and virtually tell another bishop in New Mexico go and sin no more.  I have obtained a letter written to Moses Tyson by a superintendent in the Houston area.  One of the paragraphs he wrote was so profound, I thought I would quote it here, I will then post the entire letter.

When a body of Believers keeps changing the rules to meet their needs then they lose their God and then it becomes their body and not the Body of Christ or can I say if we were to act like him, be like him and look like him is this what he would act like, be like, and look like,…”


Good Morning Elder Tyson,

 

On Monday May 08, 2017, I decided to contact Bishop Kirk Thompson to see if it was ok to attend one of the meetings. Because on our website it stated if we had an interest in one of the new jurisdictions we may attend as an observer. So, I called Bishop Thompson and he informed me that it would be in my best interest and that I should attend that meeting to hear what Bishop Tate had to offer. When I arrived at the meeting, they had an area to sign in as an observer.  As the meeting got underway, they ask all of the observers to sit towards the rear of the building and those who were committed in following Bishop Tate to come up front. Of course, I sat in the back because I was an observer. Bishop Tate began to share about the direction of Texas Southeast 1 and the status of his proposed jurisdiction. He continued to share and Bishop Kobe walked in with his group and they introduce themselves explaining to us who they were and why they were there. As Bishop Kobe begins to speak, he wanted to verify that everyone there planned to follow Bishop Tate’s leadership; Bishop Tate told him he might want to verify if everyone attending was in support of this. Then he asked the question. Everyone in support of and following Bishop Tate about 57 out of 58 stood, I was the only one still sitting along with an elder right next to me.

He asked me who I was and I stated, “My name is Superintendent Grayling Alexander of the Rosenberg District of Texas Southeast One”. He asked me if I planned to support Bishop Tate. I told him no, and responded that what he had to share he only wanted to share with those men who are signing on with Tate and then he asked me to excuse myself. 

I explained to him that the jurisdictional website stated that if we had an interest in attending the meeting, we could attend as an observer. He replied by saying that things are progressing or something to that effect, asked me to excuse myself again, and told me I should pray.

 

I walked outside with the other elder that was sitting next to me in the meeting; we chatted for five to ten minutes.  After I was on the road home, I received a text that I could come back to the meeting because it was explained to Bishop Kobe that I am a superintendent and pastor. Later on, I noticed I received a couple of missed calls from Sister Banks and I believe Bishop Tate requesting that I returned because Bishop Kobe assumed I was an elder and not a pastor.

Here is my confusion and hopefully some of your contacts can help explain:

First of all, I am sitting in the back and when ask to speak I believe every one heard me when I said my name is Superintendent Grayling Alexander–even if he did not at least most of them in the room hear and knew my position in the church.

 Is it standard operating procedure to have closed door meeting of this nature and exclude credential holders who may have an interest in supporting that movement since it is not a fellowship or jurisdiction yet?

How can Pastors call for a vote of their membership and make application to leave one jurisdiction for another that does not exist or better yet, how can someone receive Pastors from a jurisdiction if they are not a jurisdictional bishop themselves?

When will someone comes down and meet with those who are still carrying the banner for Texas Southeast #1 and give us a status update?

I know Bishop Kyles is on suspension until he is reinstated or dismissed, but should he not have the right to attend these meeting as an observer in the event he is reinstated so he can be kept informed. He is a still a bishop credential holder and innocence until found guilty.

Last but least, where is Bishop Charles Blake, he came down to preach to us received offerings for his mission work in Africa, where is he when we are confused, scattered, and discourage. We need a Spiritual father that comes down and minsters to us and feed us with knowledge and wisdom and not through a letter or representative.

I am a fourth-generation Church of God in Christ child, my great grandmother, grandmother, and mother all supported this church.  I have had family members who served as Bishops and State Supervisors.  I am from a family of nine with three Missionaries one who is a District Missionary and three brothers who served as pastors and two as evangelist.  Needless to say, that Texas Southeast First was launched from my home church in Port Arthur, Texas.

Elder Tyson, it seems we have fallen into the “Trump syndrome” (because I am in power I can do whatever I want to whom I want to) as it appears.  I am trying and praying to make some since out of this three-year fiasco or least seeking an understanding if our leaders are truly led by God the Holy Spirit or cash or friendship or favors owed to others or flesh, or self-will and last their own standard of righteousness.   

Please don’t take this the wrong way as if I am judging our leaders but considering the facts and the decisions they are making they leave me baffle about their God. Do we really have to destroy the Kingdom to get rid of a leader (it’s like burning a barn to kill a rat) and trying to convince others it’s okay. Again, I am not calling Bishop Kyles or anyone else a rat just using this as an analogy.

When a body of Believers keeps changing the rules to meet their needs then they lose their God and then it becomes their body and not the Body of Christ or can I say if we were to act like him, be like him and look like him is this what he would act like, be like, and look like, wow

Please try to get some answer for me

Thanks, and May God bless

 

P.S. the above statements are solely my statements and they do not represent my office of a pastor or superintendent nor are they in support of anyone but out concern for my church body COGIC; they are the concerns of my heart that I chose to share with you my brother Tyson. Again, I am the least one that should question our leaders.

 

March 13, 2017

WARNING TO ALL COGIC BISHOPS

Attention All

Jurisdictional Bishops

Who’s Next?

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS!!

In a stunning slap in the face of ALL Jurisdictional Bishops, the General Board has decided to ration off Texas Southeast #1 Jurisdiction.  Bishop Brandon Porter has sent a letter to the Pastors and Superintendents of the Jurisdiction, telling them on March 14, 2017 they will POLL these men to see if they want to;

  1. Remain with TXSE1st and await the undetermined results of the lawsuits and proposed trials  of Bishop Kyles.
  2. To align with Bishop Johnny Tates, as many of you did months ago, as your new leader in the newly requested jurisdiction by the General Board.
  3. To align with Pastor Destry Bell as he seeks qualification for a second new jurisdiction to be formed from TXSE1st.

It is unethical and a violation of the Constitution of COGIC to punish a Bishop without due process.  At this present time, Bishop Kyles has not been convicted of anything.  The verdict was vacated and the case was remanded to the Board of Bishop for a new trial.  Rule 5 of the Board of Bishops Judicial Rules, paragraph (f) states:

(f) “In all instances, unless the matter is deferred pursuant to Procedure No. 3 or action is extended pursuant to Rule of Procedure No. 1, all Complaints notwithstanding its source must reach resolution in the Board of Bishops 545 days from the date of first submission to the Board of Bishops.”

This charges were submitted to the Board of Bishops by the General Board November 12, 2014.

They are now trying to punish him by this unconstitutional poll.  Why are they only going after TXSE1st with all the other Jurisdictions in Texas, maybe other Pastors want to leave and join these “new jurisdictions”.  This is an attempt to find a back door to punish Bishop Kyles.

Bishops, now every Pastor or Superintendent can now ask the General Board to Poll your Pastors to see how many want to leave you.  This has the potential to bypass the Constitutionally mandated transfer procedures.

The two Bishops in Tennessee and many others trying to form a jurisdiction, can now have the Pastors polled.  Because of this precedent, Auxiliary Bishops who are eager to wear the purple shirt can now request, for the Pastors to be polled to see who wants to leave.  With the ever increasing numbers of Jurisdictions forming will your Pastors be the next group polled.  Contact the General Assembly Chairman Bishop Thuston and ask him to put a stop to this unconstitutional action.

 Read 

 

November 28, 2016

A letter of withdrawal from Dr. Edward L. Johnson

Here is a post I found, you can see the complete article at http://truthandtheway.com/featured-articles/


New Cathedral

128 West Hamilton Street, Lincolnville, S.C. 29485
Ministry Line 843-871-6848 Fax 843-821-6148 Email: mynewvisioncenter@gmail.com
Dr. Edward Lee Johnson, Sr.-Pastor

To: COGIC constituents
From: Edward Lee Johnson, Sr.
Re: New Vision Cathedral Inc. COGIC withdrawal and South Carolina certificate of incorporation

Date: 11/18/2016

It is with much spiritual conviction that I submit this letter to you. I cannot continue to support an organization that I truly believe that its leadership is not following basic biblical ethics and spiritual values. I left home at the age of 17 in 1972 for the military as a backslidden teenager who grew up in my parent’s church. A year and a half later I got arrested by the Holy Spirit at a party while smoking pot and drinking with my friends. I was actually in El Paso Texas at the time when God saved and called me into ministry in 1974. I was transferred to Germany that same year after preaching my first sermon at Calvary in the month of July. When I got to Germany, I couldn’t find a COGIC church so I attended the Church of God Serviceman Center in Nuremberg, Germany.

For an entire year I cut my spiritual teeth in a ministry with a White pastor and predominately White congregation. I develop such a great relationship with my pastor—when he took his family vacation with his wife and two small children for an entire week in England, he took me along and I spent the week with them. When I returned home in1975, I became extremely active with my dad at Calvary. The greatest struggle I had early on was the cultural differences between what I experienced in Germany versus being back home in a COGIC church. In fact, when I would preach, people told me I sounded White. I shared that with the late Bishop H. J. Bell who became our Bishop in 1976; and he said to me, “Well brother Ed you have to blacken up your preaching a little.” What he really meant was that I needed to learn how to whoop like Black preachers. He obviously saw something in me that I couldn’t see at the moment because he appointed me to be the Jurisdictional Secretary around 1977, and Associate Pastor of Friendship in 1981. Although I objected to a lot of things that Bishop Bell did—I was too naïve to confront him. That was then—but I’m not that novice in ministry anymore. I believe that the course that I have taken in my ministry over the past 20 years is that “good fight of faith” that the Apostle Paul taught about, “follow peace with all men…”. The foundation that I received from my father’s ministry has kept me on the straight and narrow through the worst of my spiritual test.

I said all of that in order to help you understand my reasoning for relinquishing my ties with the current COGIC structure. I honestly believe that the leaders have taken the church completely away from the principles in which Bishop Charles H. Mason built it. The corruption didn’t start with Bishop Blake—but he has taken things off the rails just like President Obama did by glorifying immorality in a way that no other president in my lifetime has done. For the past 40 years I struggled in my heart about the cultural differences as well as trying to make sense of the denominational division among churches. I couldn’t understand why there wasn’t some kind of working relationship with like minded Christian organizations for the benefit of our communities; and especially White and Black Pentecostal. As the Holy Spirit began to teach me how all the division got started among denominational churches within the body of Christ —He also gave me a real passion to work with churches outside of the COGIC box.

We use scriptures out of context to justify ourselves like, “touch not my anointed” and “let the wheat and the tare grow together”. If you know anything about the anointing, you would know that a man with the practices and culture like Charles Blake is NOT anointed. And, as for the wheat and the tare parable—go back and read (Matthew 13:36-43) the explanation of the text. Jesus said that the field is the “world” and not the church. If you say that you cannot touch the tare in the church in an attempt to justify openly corrupt and vile people serving in God’s church—then any application to spiritual discipline taught by Jesus and the apostles will not be applicable in any church setting. Of course homosexuals, whoremongers, liars, backbiters, people who are full of hate etc practicing a vile lifestyle, should be allowed to exist in the field “world,” but not in the church. That’s the whole meaning of going into the highways and hedges to preach to sinners. If our gospel be hid—it is hidden from those that are blinded by sin. The purpose of the gospel is to transform the sinner into a saint. If our gospel be compromised—we will all be punished by God as wicked servants in the judgment. And, some weak pastors will have their works burned up even though he or she may scarcely make it into the kingdom.


For the complete letter click the Read More button

  Read More 

October 1, 2016

REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF BISHOP KYLES

One of the attorneys for Bishop Rufus Kyles has sent a request to Bishop Sheard for the reinstatement of their client.  It seems the primary reason is the difference in treatment of Bishop Kyles and Bishop Jones.  Bishop Kyles has been suspended for almost two years for his conduct,  Bishop Jones has been given a pass.

[REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT]

June 3, 2016

Bishop Rufus Kyles, Jr.-The JUDICIARY BOARD TAKES A STAND FOR JUSTICE:

cropped-scales-logo_small1.pngThe Case of Bishop Kyles

The Judiciary Board of the Church of God in Christ,  has taken a stand for justice that is unprecedented.  This week they have released two rulings in which they looked at what the document says (what is written) and made these rulings.

In the case against Bishop Kyles of Texas, because of errors by the Board of Bishops, Bishop Kyles won his appeal.  The Judiciary Board did not address his guilt or innocence, they only looked to see if errors claimed by Bishop Kyles occurred in his trial..  These are their findings of errors made by the trial court (Board of Bishops).    Judiciary Board Order

Here are excerpts of the Judiciary Boards Order which only consist of the reason their decision was rendered as it was.  The purpose of these excerpts is so the average person can understand their decision.  Links will be provided for the complete documents.  Links will be provided for the Board of Bishops rules which are mentioned.

I.

Certification, Function and Deliberation of Jurors

The first issue the court will consider pertains to the certification, function and deliberation of the jurors in this case.  The Constitution of the Church of God   in Christ, Inc. as recorded in Section D, paragraph (i) of the Official Manual and  the Board of Bishops Rule 10(r) govern the trial of a Bishop. For a Bishop to be convicted of misconduct, the majority of bishops present and voting must so vote. (See Board of Bishops Rule 10(5) (r)).* Likewise, the sentence for said  wrongdoing must be agreed upon by the majority of bishops present and voting. (See Board of Bishops Rule 10(q))….

…The record is silent as to the number of bishops that voted for conviction. That deafening silence renders a review impossible. In  the absence of numbers, there is no way that this court can accurately calculate the existence or absence of a majority.  If this court is unable to confirm the existence  of a majority, it cannot affirm a conviction predicated thereupon.  As  for  the penalty  phase,  the  record  reflects  that  46  (+5)  voted  for  removal  from  office.

Simple arithmetic clearly indicates that the sentence cannot stand as is does not reflect a majority of the certified number of bishops present. It  is  largely  irrelevant, however, because without a valid conviction, the sentence cannot stand. As a result, both the conviction and the sentence must be vacated.

This court is at a loss as to why the specific voting results were not recorded and incorporated into the official record of these proceedings. The failure to do so denies the respondent fundamental fairness and impugns the integrity of our church’s adjudicative process.

[(from Official Manual Article VIII, Section D, paragraph 2(i))]

(i) It will take a vote of the majority of the members of the Board of Bishops, present and voting, to sustain the charges or charge. If less than a majority, present and voting, fail to vote to sustain the charges, the accused Bishop shall stand acquitted.

II

Grievance Committee Members as Jurors

It appears from the record that bishops who served as grievance committee members also served as jurors. (See transcript of Day 2, Page 7, Line 6). For  bishops to serve in this dual capacity denies the respondent due process and fundamental fairness.

First, the Grievance Committee members serve in an investigative capacity. As such, they are privy to information pertaining to the allegations that may or may not ultimately be admitted at trial. Additionally, their function is not merely to collect data, but they must evaluate that data. They not only determine whether charges should be brought, but they actually issue the charges. (See transcript of Day 1, Page 3, Lines 22-24; Page 4, Lines 1-5).

…Additionally, as investigators, they may be called upon to testify as to some portion of their investigation, in much the same way that a police officer is subject to be called upon to testify during the course of a criminal trial where he conducted some portion of the investigation.

In summary, not only does such a circumstance deny the respondent due process by tainting the jury pool, but it also compromises the legal process as it allows for the potentiality of grievance committee members to serve both as jurors and as witnesses in the same proceeding.

III

Arguing in Opening Statement/Standard of Proof

The next allegation to be addressed is whether allowing the plaintiff/prosecutor to argue during his opening statement was reversible error.   It   is fundamental that arguing during opening statements is improper. It is also fundamental that arguing during opening statements is generally not a basis for reversible error. However, in this case, the prosecutor did not merely argue in his opening but he effectively charged the jury which, of course, is improper. (See transcript of Day 1, Pages 17-19)….

Given that multiple standards of proof were provided to the jury, there is no way to ascertain if the jurors utilized the applicable standard of Clear and Convincing Evidence or the lesser standard of Preponderance of the Evidence.  As a result, the conviction cannot stand.

IV

Removal as Pastor

 The respondent also argued that he was illegally removed from his post as pastor. Pursuant to the Board of Bishops Rule No. 3, paragraph (b) “[I]f the Complaint is being brought against the Bishop for his conduct in his capacity as a pastor of a local congregation, the Complainant must certify in writing that the Complaint is being brought by a majority of the members of the  local  congregation. (Emphasis added).” A review of the record from the proceedings below reflects that no such certification was ever referenced, presented or made  part of the record.  Furthermore, the order entered by the Board of Bishops does   not include any language that pertains to restrictions or reprimands pertaining to   the Respondent’s role as Pastor. Accordingly, no action taken against  him as  Pastor can stand, as no charge was levied against him in that capacity and no order has been entered against him infringing upon his functioning in that role. Furthermore, any action taken against the respondent in his capacity as Pastor is void ab initio.

V

Admission of Evidence of 20 year old trial

The final issue considered for review by this court is the admission of evidence of a charge from twenty years ago where the respondent was accused of similar offenses, but was ultimately exonerated. This court is unable to see the probative value of such evidence. Moreover, any probative value that it may have had was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact.

We find that such is the case here; it was plain error to allow the jurors to hear and consider that the respondent had been similarly charged over two decades ago.

For the foregoing reasons, the “Final Order and Judgment” of the lower

court is vacated and the matter is remanded for a new trial.

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.