I’m in the wrong business. L. Ron Hubbard once said “Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.” Lacking the imagination to develop something like Scientology, the pulpit pimps settle for twisting Christianity and the Bible to satisfy their own greed. They are, as Peter called them, false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (2 Peter 2:1).

The pimps, decieving the ignorant and gullible, can’t be outrageous enough in the things they do. Gullible Christians are so foolish, the blindly follow behind them. And the result? Some pretty outrageous behavior. Take a look at the following photos.

Profits mixing together fast-acting anointing oil for the people to use.

By the way, notice the phrase on the wall behind them. Surely they understand the concept of there being no power in prophecy. Prophecy shows the power of God. They seem to have missed this during the anointing session.

You also get people hanging onto the profit so they can be anointed by the fast-acting anointing oil. Interestingly, the crowd seems to be composed mostly of women.

And apparently, this woman’s child was brought back to her becuase she daubed him with some of the fast-acting anointing oil.

Of course this fast-acting anointing oil only costs $52. Why that’s only a dollar a week! Isn’t the safety of your children worth a dollar a week? You could save that much in hospital bills alone.

But again, there is nothing these pimps can do that is too outrageous to cause their followers to walk away. These fakes can even show up in Hebrew gear and apparently no one gives it a second thought.

Notice even the Daughter of Lightning is wearing one of the shawls. Can any of you figure out just what these Bozoes and Bozettes are doing?

And remeber, this company sold advertising space to the pimp we just discussed.

Click on the image to send them an e-mail and ask them if they would include an advertisement for the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons.

On the other hand, some of you are probably asking “What’s wrong with JW and Mormons? They’re Christians too, aren’t they?”

Pulpit Pimps | Comments Off

When I opened the mailbox yesterday, I couldn’t help but let out a bleat of sheer excitement. My prophecy from Profit Jordan had arrived!. I grabbed it from the mailbox and, clutching the yellow bubblewrap-packed envelop in my trembling hands, I rushed in the house, hurried upstairs to my desk and opened my personal prophecy.

It came on a CD and a DVD!

I slipped the disc into the CD player on my computer, fired that puppy up and sat back and listened. I was immediately hit with four or five commercials in a row. I let you hear a couple of those in a minute.

When we finally got to the prophecy part, I was a little disappointed. It turns out they do more than one prophecy per CD. In fact, they do way more than a one prophecy. I guess the Man of God’s time is too valuable to use a single CD for my prophecy.

Anyway, I skipped through the prophecies. Since they are alphabetical, it didn’t take me too long to zero in on the one he had for me.

Here, give a listen to one of Profit Jordan’s assistant profits (Jordan wasn’t there when my prophecy came forth). Click here.

If you listen to Cleo, you get exactly the same thing. In fact, listen to this next one. I had a hard time telling the difference between Cleo and these pimps.

I keep thinking it doesn’t take a theological genius to see through these people. But no matter how outrageous their statements, people keep coming back for more. Here are some photos from the oil anointing service held by Profit Jordan and his rather large friend. Click here.

But one of the best reasons for rejecting these pimps out of hand is the endorsement they got from this clown.

Of course, if you want to attend one of the meetings of power, and see all the action first hand, including the Sons of Thunder and the Daughter of Lightning, get the details here.

Now, you do understand that the only difference between these pimps and the Word Faith pimps is the Word Faith pimps are a little more polished and a little less obvious. Profit Jordan and his band of Jehovah-babbling religious wannabees are just being more direct. They make it clear that you need not show up unless you have some money. And you need not write them unless you include a credit card number or a check. And then don’t expect to hear back from them until the check has cleared.

Pulpit Pimps | Comments Off

When I say Cashflow teaches heresies, I’m not exagerating.

Check this out!

I’ll add more to this page throughout the day.

Dr. Creflo Dollar | Comments Off

I could be wrong, but I�m still convinced that First Baptist Church of Glenarden is working toward the goal of making the pastor�s wife, Trina Jenkins, the co-pastor. Church leadership has just been intensely involved with several churches doing the pastor/co-pastor thing. And in the past, the more time John Jenkins spends with one of the Big Dogs the more he matches what he does to what the Big Dogs do. It’s Pastor Dollar and Co-pastor Taffi. It’s Pastor Price and Co-pastor (Mrs.) Price. It’s Pastor and Co-paster (Mrs.) Cherry. And it’s Pastor and Co-pastor (Mrs.) Owens (Mt. Calvary in PG/DC).

And don�t forget, Trina is scheduled to speak at the services of at least two different churches, one in New York and the others here in Prince Georges county. I suspect they are building up her resume as proof she has the call to co-pastor. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

What�s to keep the co-pastor thing from happening? The leadership of FBCG has demonstrated it�s lack of concern for doctrinal accuracy just by the cast of clowns eagerly welcomed to speak from the FBCG pulpit (Apostle Greenup [apostle?], Prophetess Bynum [prophetess?], Bishop Ellis (Oneness), Bishop Noel Jones (oneness/Word Faith), Tony (near-secularist buddy to the Adulterer-in-Chief) Compolo, T. Dexter Jakes (oneness/Word Faith) and a host of other Word Faith teachers). Adopting the unsupported concept of co-pastor would just be one more in a long line of compromises.

I can assure you none of the elders, deacons, or ministers are going to say anything. Remember the now-pastor who asked me if trinity was in the Bible? My experience with them has been that of men who are more interested in moving into a $22 million facility and keeping their deaconess wives happy than they are in understanding what the Bible actually says and applying it in their lives. They appear to be more interested in what the pastor says and does than in what the Bible says.

I give the church another year to eighteen months (July of 2006 at the latest) to make the co-pastor transition. I hope I�m wrong, but given the declining history of FBCG over the last seven to eight years, I don�t have much hope that I am.

By the way, if anybody can show me the concept of co-pastor in the Bible (please try to restrain yourself and not get too excited pointing to Priscilla and Aquilla � he was not the pastor of a local church) I will attend the installation of Trina Jenkins as co-pastor myself. But be ready to defend your position.

And take a look at the file I have here.

John K. Jenkins, Sr. | 2 Comments »

As some of you read the articles on this site, you may say “Why is Melvin so antagonistic toward God’s anointed? Why doesn’t he just seek peace and unity?”

The primary answer to this question is the fact that God tells us there is to be no peace and unity between those who stand for the truth, as stated in the Bible and error, as preached by Cashflow, Copeland, and the other pimps who would use their methods to twist scripture and pimp you.) (more…)

Dr. Creflo Dollar | 21 Comments »

It’s been interesting watching church society (I have a hard time calling what goes on these days “Church”) move further and further away from what seem to me to be the clear standards of scripture. A case in point is the growing practice of women as pastors.

Before you shower me with accusations of being a sexist, a bigot, or a Neanderthal, consider why I say what I’m saying. If I understand the Bible accurately, it seems to present a pretty clear standard. Of course, I could be misunderstanding it. But I don’t think so. I have posted a Word and RTF version of a paper discussing it, but the short version is covered on this page.

The New Testament lays out the initial requirements. For starters, it says:

Pulpit Pimps | Comments Off

Help me out here, people. I was looking through GospelToday (sic) and in addition to the ad by Profit Jordan, I ran across this ad. Notice the sponsor for this Bynum extravaganza - Southwest Airlines. Maybe I’m missing something, but why is a secular organization sponsoring a supposedly Christian engagement? Or perhaps a better question woudl be: Why would a religious outfit solicit sponsorship from a secular organization?

I could be misunderstanding the whole intent of Scripture, but doesn’t it say that we are not to be unequally yoked? Most of the time we take that to be talking about the saved marrying the unsaved. But there is also the demand from God that we separate ourselves from the ungodly.

A couple of examples that seem appropriate are Abraham and Ezra. Yes, I know. It’s Old Testament. But hang with me a few minutes and see if this makes sense.

Once Abraham had defeated the kings, he refused to take anything from the people he had worked with (Gen 14:22-24). His reason? He didn’t want anyone to be able to say that Abraham had prospered because of them. In other words, the credit for Abraham doing well was only to go to God, no one else.

When Ezra returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, the non-Jews offered to help in completing the works. Ezra’s people made it clear they were to have no participation in the building.

And I won’t even mention Namaan and the prophet.

Having a secular sponsor does a couple or three things.

First, it decreases our dependence on God. If I can convince someone to help me financially, then it really doesn’t matter what God may want. I really don’t have to listen very closely. I got the money. And as we all know, money talks, everything else walks.

Second, with the money will come obligations. Few things of value in life come without strings attached. And usually, the more valuable the item, the stronger and shorter the strings. And if we’re working from two different world views, the opportunity for compromise increases exponentially.

But I guess the bottom line is this: Is the “Sisters In The Spirit” event supposed to be entertainment or “ministry? Is there going to be preaching? Or is it just sort of like a concert, kind of, sort of?

If it’s simply entertainment, why are we presenting it as if there is some spiritual element to it? If it is intended to be spiritual, then why are we using money from the unsaved to pay for it?

At this rate, with an increasing desire to get money from any source, I could see the search for sponsors going further and further afield. It might even look something like this:

Or maybe, if a church organization buys a building and later on they can’t quite swing the payments, they could do something like this:

Pulpit Pimps | 62 Comments »

The web site has been up for about a week now and it has been instrumental in helping me discover an illness within the Church. The non-scientific name for the illness is �God Bless Cave #32 and To Hell With All the Rest” Syndrome or GBC32ATHWAR Syndrome for short (I love acronyms � even when they make no sense). The syndrome shows itself in the following way.

The members of a particular church are concerned only with what goes on in their own organization. They don�t want to know what anyone else is doing and they don�t want anyone else to say anything to them about what they are doing (unless of course the other organization is going to compliment them or tell them how anointed their pastor or pastorette is). God bless cave #32, period.

If you don�t belong to the church you have nothing to say to the church. A fellow by the name of Daryl Godlock pretty well summed it up in an e-mail he sent to me. I had asked if Daryl was comfortable with the fact that John Jenkins, the pastor at First Baptist Church of Glenarden, had invited a fellow who was a oneness preacher to speak during all three morning services. Here is his response. I�ll include the entire e-mail so you can see the context.

From: DGodlock@XXX.com [mailto:DGodlock@XXX.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 7:30 PM
To: JonesM@XXX-XXX.com
Cc: JKJENK@XXX.com
Subject: Re: Confidence in the PASTOR!!!!!

Melvin, I don�t have a problem with anyone who Pastor Jenkins allows in his pulpit.

He is Pastor of this flock and he has not lead/or will lead us astray��..I have FULLCONFIDENCE in his ability to hear from GOD. Furthermore why???? are you concerned with what is going on at FBCG��did not GOD lead to a new home.??!!

Stop being a tool of Satan/Adversary/Accuser of the brethren!!! �.if you have any issue with Pastor Jenkins contact him at the above e-mail address.
Rev. G.

Notice the question: Why are you concerned with what is going on at FBCG�did not GOD lead (you) to a new home??!!

Apparently, since I no longer attend FBCG, I should not ever say anything to anyone who attends FBCG. But I ask you: is this consistent with the example given in Scripture?

If you would, pick an epistle, any epistle as long as it’s by Paul. These are all letters from Paul to the various churches. Let�s say, for the sake of this discussion, the epistle you are looking at is 1 Corinthians.

Question #1:

Was Paul a “member” of the church at Corinth? That is, is that the place God led him to for a church home? No. His church home, if we can use such a term, was in Antioch (Acts 13:1).

Paul wrote a scathing letter to the Corinthians. He told them they were carnal, they were doing things even the Gentiles didn�t do. He told them he heard their worship services were an embarrassment, that brothers were suing brothers, and that there were a bunch of cliques. He goes on to tell them he was well pleased he hadn�t baptized any of them. And then he remembered a couple he had baptized.

And when he wrote to the Romans (a group who apparently had it going on), he told them “WE are one body in Christ” not YOU. He included himself in the body.

But please don’t think I am equating myself with Paul.

Question #2:

Since Paul was no longer at Corinth, was he wrong to write them a letter telling them to straighten up? Did Paul limit his comments and observations to just the church he attended? Or did he in fact edify the entire body, local and distant? And since he had NEVER been to Rome, why in the world was he poking in their business?

Question #3:

The church at Corinth, did they dismiss what he had to say simply because he no longer attended church there? Or in fact did they listen to him? Did they examine the truth of what he was saying? Or did they dismiss him out of hand?

Notice the response Daryl Godlock, and several people I have communicated with have:

Furthermore why???? are you concerned with what is going on at FBCG��did not GOD lead to a new home.??!!

Is this response consistent with the response we see in the Bible? If you say it is, please explain to me how. If you say it is not, then who is talking to Godlock and the rest to address this huge inconsistency?

GBC32ATHWAR is simply a knee-jerk response to embarrassing questions. A better, more mature response would be to consider the questions and even more carefully consider the answers.

The Church is a body. And each of us IS responsible for the other. Rom 12:5

John K. Jenkins, Sr. | Comments Off

Elijah then came near to all the people, and said, “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” The people did not answer him a word. (1 Kings 18:21)

Israel wanted it both ways. They wanted to worship God when it pleased them and they wanted to worship Baal when it pleased them. But they didn’t want to fully commit to either one. Elijah, as is usual for a person paying attention to God, insisted that Israel stop being wishy-washy, in effect playing at religion. He told them to pick one. (more…)

Christian Living | No Comments »

Everything we do should in some way or another edify those around us and help them to understand God and His relationship with man a little better. And in this section of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he goes out of his way to help the Corinthians (and today’s Christians as well) understand the best way to do this. The gifts are good. They are given to the Church by the Holy Spirit in order to edify the Body (1 Cor 12:7). But we often think the gifts are an end in themselves; that they are prepackaged and ready to go. They’re not. (more…)

Christian Living | No Comments »

Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor 13:7)

So far, we have looked at several aspects of love. And again, we are not talking about the romantic love popularized in movies, books, and people’s surface relation with each other. We are talking about the kind of love that prompted God the Father to give His son on our behalf and prompted God the Son to die on our behalf. (more…)

Christian Living | No Comments »

Love is Not Arrogant

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant (1 Corinthians 13:4)

How many times have we looked at someone on television, or at school, or in the news and thought “That guy sure is arrogant”? And when we thought that, what exactly did we mean? (more…)

Christian Living | No Comments »

So far we have looked at a couple of aspects of Love. We have determined that it is patient and it is not arrogant. And while this one doesn’t sound nearly as exciting as some of the other qualities of love, we’re going to look at the fact that Love does not rejoice in wrong doing, but rejoices in the truth (1 Cor 13:6). (more…)

Christian Living | No Comments »

So far we�ve talked about three aspects of the fruit of the spirit. Those three are: Love, Joy, and Peace. Love was briefly described as looking out for the best for those around us. Joy and peace are tied to our acceptance of God�s will in our lives and are totally independent of our circumstances. Each of these is driven by God working in our lives. Working from the list God provided in Galatians, chapter 5, verses 22 and 23, we have six more characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit to take a look at. Continuing to follow the characteristics in the order they are presented, the next one is patience. (more…)

Christian Living | No Comments »

It’s interesting to watch various preachers work a group’s desire to be obedient to God, and then use that desire to pimp the group. They pick out phrases and use them to turn their followers into quiescent little sheep, afraid, apparently, to think on their own.

Question a preacher of any significant status in the community and you are instantly hit with “Touch not my anointed.” The implication being that this person is somehow special to God. And you, you miserable little commoner, had better not even think about trying to correct him or to call him (or her) out for anything. After all, he’s anointed and you’re not.

But if you do a little research in the Scripture, I think you�ll discover that this is not a good defense.

Unlike many things people say that don’t appear anywhere in the Bible (you know, things like ‘faith is a substance and words are a containers for your faith’), this phrase is actually there.

I did a little bit of research and came up with some interesting bits of information and observation. See what you think.

The phrase shows up in a couple of places. In 1 Chr 16:22 Asaph and his relatives (vs 7) sing a song that mentions the fact that Abraham and his entire family were protected when God instructed the kings of the countries he wandered through to leave him and his family alone. Notice God said �anointed ones.� We�re not talking about a �Man of God� or anything here.

It appears again in Psalm 105:15. But this is actually a repeat of the text Asaph and his clan sang in 1 Chr 16. Again it�s talking about Abraham and his folks. It�s not talking about a single leader or some mystically special person.

In Psalm 132 God talks about His anointed, but it doesn�t take seem likely He�s talking about a preacher or pastor here. It seems more like we�re being told about the Christ, the Son of God.

In 1 Samuel 12:3 and 5 the Bible refers to Saul as the anointed. But this makes sense because in 1 Sam 10, verse 1, Samuel literally anoints, or pours oil on Saul. Saul is the man who has been anointed, or marked, as the king of Israel. Nothing particularly mysterious there either.

In 1 Sam 24:6 we see something interesting. David came upon Saul asleep in a cave and had a perfect opportunity to kill him. But instead David says
�Far be it from me because of the Lord that I should do this thing to my lord (little ‘L’), the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the Lord’s anointed.� And with that, David refused to allow his men to physically harm Saul. Notice, David did not do physical harm to Saul.

Later, David came upon Saul asleep in a camp. Abishai offered to pin Saul�s head to the ground with a spear. David said �Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed and be without guilt?’ 1 Sam 26:11

David describes Saul as God�s anointed once more 1 Sam 26:23.

When we�re talking about the Lord�s anointed as a single individual, notice who we are talking about: Saul, a man who consistently disobeyed God, tried to kill David, tried to pin his own son to the wall with a spear, and eventually killed himself. God in fact ripped the kingdom from him and gave it to David. So I guess the question is: Do we really want to use this phrase in relation to a pastor or a Big Dog televangelist?

First, Saul was the king, not a pastor. Granted, some pastors might think of themselves as kings, but that’s a different issue. Saul had done evil in the sight of the Lord and had been told the kingdom would be taken away from him. Likewise David had been told he would be the new king.

David, in refusing to kill Saul, was not admonishing his men to avoid disagreeing with the king. Rather, he was basically showing his faith in God’s promise to remove Saul as king and install him. He was telling them not to KILL the king. Had he killed Saul there, it would have been murder. David would have compromised in his walk with God. His kingdom would have been illegitimate.

So when a person says, in a knee-jerk manner, �touch not God�s anointed� are they saying this is a disobedient person, but we should wait for God to remove them the way He did Saul? I think not. Surely those who would say we shouldn’t criticize Eddie Long aren’t implying that he is wicked and will be taken out by God. And what of Clarence McLendon? Should he not be criticized because God will eventually remove him for disobedience?

When these clowns blackmail you with TNMA, they’re pimping you. If they were to use the phrase in context then they would have God saying ‘don’t do any physical harm to this person because he is evil disobedient and I will take them out permanently in a little while. Just be patient.’

Calling these phonies out on serious doctrinal issues is not ‘touching God�s anointed.’ Calling them out is simple obedience. And those who call them out are not going to be punished by God. In fact, it�s quite the contrary (Romans 16;17; 2 Thess 3:14; Gal 2:13, 14; Titus 1:9). However, those who insist on preaching error, serious error, will have to answer for their disobedience.

Pulpit Pimps | No Comments »