The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Carlton Pearson was a televangelist that was very influential in the Florida evangelical Christian community. He was mentored by Oral Roberts, spent time at ORU, and was eventually seen as a legitimate voice because of her poise and manner.

His ministry collapsed, however, when Pearson got a "revelation" from God that hell doesn't exist. He began preaching what he called "Inclusion", the theory that everyone goes to Heaven and that there is no hell. Pearson says that people create their own hell here on Earth by the lifestyles that they live, and therefore have no worries of "weeping, wailing, or gnashing of teeth" because he cannot wrap his mind around how a loving God would send people to this place. Pearson says his "experience of God was not that way."

Pearson's teachings immediately drew controversy. He began loosing the influence he had built, and within time, he lost his Higher Dimensions Worship Center because his congregation fled. His alliance with the College of African-American Pentecostal Bishops and the Church of God in Christ dissolved, and he was eventually declared a heretic by both groups.

Anyone familiar with Pearson's "Inclusion" doctrine?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Gotta be pretty bad on the level of heresy when even TBN rejects you. :lol

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

It's called "universalism", been around for centuries if not millennia.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

One could even argue it goes back to the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve decided that God didn't really mean they "shall surely die".

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Where in Florida?

Was that when he was in the Everglades with the Miccosukee? or maybe when he was in Merritt Island Florida training with NASA?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I like the good old seclusion doctrine better.

Had an individual tell me recently that he hated religion due to it being so much focused on separating people. I told him that makes sense. Everyone who is into something excludes the other. It is natural. Boston Red Sox fans believe that their team is the best and therefore exclude all other teams. Die Hard Harley enthusiast believe in that one brand of motorcycle and wouldn't be seen on any other brand. Republican vs Democrat, Conservative vs Liberal, lines drawn, boundaries created. Agreeing to disagree just doesn't even come into their mind. It's all normal function of the human experience. Yet, inclusionists try hard to make a system where everyone is able to join. Be part of the group, while it may sound good in theory it always fails in practice. One church believes in tithing, while another one does not, one is able to pay their bills, keep their lights on, while the other one has to conduct meetings on a park bench. Yet, the two couldn't come together because of that one point. They believe in 3/4s of teachings but on that one point they can't get together. Is that just religions? No, it is in everything. I hate GM, despise Chrysler products even though they have great paint jobs, everything else about them is horrid. But that is just me. We are all different, and we tend to search for sameness in others. We want to be liked, we want to be loved. Therefore we seek out those who agree with us. Yes, look for those who agree with us. Anyone who disagrees with us we slowly (or quickly) place distance. It's all totally normal, it is normal behavior. To agree to disagree only works when the things we disagree on are never mentioned, in a religious group, a marriage, a business partnership, in government. Can we all just get along? Sadly, no. We try, we try our best, but over time Jack is going to tell Jill, she can go fetch her own pail of water. Or Jill telling Jack she is sick and tired of him busting his crown. She will no longer come tumbling after him. Common ground, vs agreeing to disagree. coming to common ground means work, debate, hurt feelings, frustration, hair pulling contests at time, but when done, refusing to hold a grudge. Things no one likes, because its miserable hard work. A doctrine of inclusion is just wishful thinking, and wanting to please all of the people all of the time. But you can't. You just can't please everyone all the time. In my studying of religions I found that not one of them (in their true forms) are inclusionists. They all have rules, regulations, and by nature of being a religion...legalist? Only the devotee, the very devote, win the door prize of any religion. The slacker, or part timer may have to get reincarnated as a house fly, or end up burning in fiery torments, or wandering through levels of untold torments. Two paths, always two paths, two choices, it's just a normal circumstance of how things are.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

When are we going to eat at Gators?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I'm supposed to be heading your way soon. I just need to get the dates together and I'll be in your front yard. :thumbsup

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I’m not really familiar with his inclusion doctrine, but I would say from your description that it is classic universalism as Esaias has said.

I have thought about this subject in reference to the Old Covenant versus the new, and I’d like to share my thoughts. Maybe someone will get something out of it that’s worthwhile.

Under the old covenant (Mosaic Covenant) access to the holiest place (Holiest of Holies) was increasingly restricted the closer a person got. In other words it became increasingly exclusive. I may not get it exactly right, but Gentiles could only come so far, Hebrews could come closer, then the women could come only so far, then men, and Levites, priests who were Levites, and of course, ultimately the high priest who only was allowed to enter the holiest place and only once a year. As you can see it was increasingly exclusive the closer you got to God.

So when we juxtapose that with the New Covenant, we have the situation described in Hebrews below.

Hebrews 4

[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Not only was the salvation to the Gentiles news to the Hebrews, but the doctrine that a common Hebrew could go boldly before the throne of grace was new to them as well. I think we sometimes overlook the fact that Hebrews was written to the Hebrews and we read it and study without applying that perspective.

So the exclusivities that were commonly accepted for Hebrews AND Gentiles were totally shaken up with the advent of the New Covenant. Paul mentioned that the partition between Jew and Gentile was removed. It was no doubt harder for Jews to get used to than Gentiles. Remember . . .

Acts.10

[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

They of the circumcision (the Hebrews, or Jews) were astonished! They were not merely surprised, but were astonished that the Gentiles were given the gift of the Holy Ghost. They thought it was reserved for them . . . Exclusively.

So there was a lot going on, a lot of changes were taking place, a lot of traditions were being disrupted and MANY were not happy about it. They were jealous, they were threatened, they felt insecure. In fact, when you think about it, it is only because of the fact that the Gentiles spoke in tongues as the Hebrew Christians did that they accepted that they were eligible to be baptized. And this is the church. The Hebrew non-Christians were mostly not willing to accept Christians, whether or not they were Jews.

So, what does this mean to the church today? I think that we sometimes are too willing to apply Old Covenant principles to New Covenant times. Pastors are considered by some to be the replacement for the Levitical priesthood. The church building is considered by some to be the temple. Sacrifices are largely considered to be financial. If you think about it there are many traditions from the old covenant that should be left there, but we insist on dragging them forward, giving the cross a wide birth, and plopping them down in the big middle of the New Covenant, regardless of the fact that they are conspicuously out of place.

We justify being exclusive by the OLD covenant, we even quote the Old Testament when we do so. SOMETIMES we focus on the exclusive attributes of the old covenant instead of . . .

Rev.22

[17] And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Of course there is the proverbial ditch on both sides of the road. We all agree (probably) that the doctrine of Carlton Pearson is the epitome of the blind leading the blind. Both the leader and his following are destined for the ditch. But we shouldn’t overreact and be too exclusive either. That’s just the opposite ditch on the same road. IMO we are in more danger of being too exclusive across the board, than we are in being like Carlton Pearson. Both ditches should be avoided. Paul said it like this . . .

Rom.14

[4] Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

It ALMOST sounds like some of the saints were being a bit TOO exclusive. Sorry for the long post. What do y’all think?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Also need to change the fuel injector in my Ford. :heeheehee

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

This doesn't accurately reflect his teaching, at least at the time.

He did not indicate that there is no hell. He said hell is remedial, and for the purpose of purification unto reunion with God in heaven. How long one spends in hell is not known, but it is not eternal.

His quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Pearson

Of course, dude has moved even farther away than just the above:

https://www.bishoppearson.com/beliefs

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Netflix made a movie about him, “Come Sunday.”

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Jimmy Buffett has a song, "Come Monday."

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I wonder what he means with:

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Pearson changed his doctrine and lost his church. He was kicked out of his organization and congregation. Being alone he found that his inclusive doctrine was homosexual and pervert friendly. Since sinning was no longer an issue. Pearson cashed in on the whole "church going" homosexual movement. He was able to gain a church back, with another following. Look, Pearson was raised to do one thing. Sing, preach sermonettes, and collect money from his audience. He did that with Oral Roberts, and when he had his own church. He came to a place where he thought he could fly any sort of teaching over his pulpit and his people would step in line. Like so many others before him and after him, he was wrong. The saints might say "we just love you pastor" or look like they will love you for ever. But, they have time honored traditions. Once a man starts moving the furniture too many times, or changing the color of the cross on the pulpit. Sister Biddy Jean, and Mother May I, might start raising an eyebrow over those horned rimmed glasses towards the pastor. Then all of a sudden he gets voted out, or tossed out. That's what caused Pearson to find his new haven backing up homosexuals. Anyway the inclusion doctrine is just plain vanilla and Pearson is no longer really a topic of discussion. At a Christian book store you can probably pick up his book at the discount table for 10 cents.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

If he means the human organizations created purely by man...yeah they can make their own rules...but if he's referencing The Body of Christ called out, redeemed, set free, living in holiness and filled with His spirit then he doesnt make the rules about who is included and who is excluded
If the apostle Paul was around, his answer after efforts of correction would be to deliver them over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. If they repented then they could be welcomed back.


Bout as old school pentecost as it gets.


It was never about being a big tent...it was about "Be ye holy for I am holy."

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

If I recall, one of CP’s best friends came out as gay. They covered the issue of homosexuality in the movie, however the gay character in the movie was fictitious.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Is that what Paul would do, really?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Did he not in Corinthians?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Does he say it is a problem but not sin, or that it is normal and must be celebrated?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Either one is contrary to the Word of God, so it's a distinction without a difference.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I have heard of some Christians believing that homosexuality is the judgment of God in the sense that it is not a sin but a mental disease. Then, there is the other group that without shame affirm homosexuality. The former is a mis-interpretation, the later is perversion.

I am not trying to defend him, just trying to understand what he believes as an universalist. What I can tell from his quote I posted earlier is that it is not clear to me what it is his position regarding homosexuality.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

First, there's a lot of closet homosexuals in the black church. Pastors, Bishops, singers, and musicians it's very prevalent.

IMO, he's advocating for acceptance/tolerance. He specifically says to confront, not combat, the issue and then says if all the gays left they wouldn't have a church.

Remember that "Day Without a Mexican" political fail from years ago? All the Mexicans were supposed to not show up for work and show how terrible it would be without them here in the US.

Pearson calling for a "Day Without a Homosexual" event in church.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Yeah, it makes sense. If he were those that believed in it as a simple mental disease he would be taking about it as a minority problem and as a call to compassion on them (as mentally ill people), and help with their repentance so the healing can come.

The way he talks about it points more towards affirmative/celebration approach, which is pure perversion.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

It just seems to me that the bar is constantly lowered for homosexuals. For some reason we don’t lower the bar for alcoholics to the same extent that we do for homosexuals. We do in fact raise the bar from where the scripture sets it. We make it sinful to even drink, which the Bible doesn’t do. Do we believe that alcoholism is something we are born with? Even if we never take a drink?

What about heterosexuals? Fornication is sin for them too. We don’t excuse their sin. I guess the idea is that if you lower the bar enough, everyone can get over it. (universalism?) The problem is that it’s really not our place to set the bar. It’s not our place to lower it or raise it. And we really can’t do either. We just pretend to.

Being tempted is not a sin, otherwise Jesus wasn’t without sin because He was tempted in all ways that we are. Homosexuality is an abomination. If we decide it isn’t, that’s just a reflection on us and our confusion. It doesn’t change God. But sometimes we are arrogant enough to believe it does.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Amen. It is social pressure. It is easy to call it sin when everyone sees it as bad, like the example of alcoholism.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Tithemeiser,

This is the interpretation I have seen before:

Romans 1:24
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

So, some people understand the “gave” here as saying God gave them to be homosexuals, like a mental illness, as a judgement.

What is really happening here is related with this:
Genesis 6:3
And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

The Spirit of God strives with men even if they don’t worship Him, to move them to repentance but also to contain evil in a community to some extent by persuasion. So the judgment of God mentioned in Romans is not the giving of homosexuality, but abandonment, or removal of all restrain to their lusts.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Actually I do believe that some people, even ethnicities of people are more susceptible to certain weaknesses. For example, I understand Native Americans have a weakness where alcohol is concerned. My grandmother recited an incident that happened when she was a child. She described an “Indian” that was such an alpha male that he intimidated the locals in her small town. He would go to the bar and they would serve him liquor, in spite of the fact that it was illegal to serve alcohol to an Indian!? I was intrigued. That law certainly wouldn’t be politically correct today.

So life isn’t fair. Some of us are tempted by different things and in different ways. I believe that. But we are called by one God to strive for perfection. Our paths won’t be the same but our ultimate destination is. I’ve often looked at alcoholism and thought “I wish alcohol was my weakness, because I could handle that much easier than say, being tempted by women”. But I don’t have a weakness for alcohol and I understand that others do. So we don’t pick our battles, we can only pray for strength to overcome our temptations.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I watched that on Netflix. Not entirely sure how accurate it was, but it was an interesting look.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

I very much agree. :thumbsup

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

You watch Netflix???

It’s not grandpas church anymore son.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

:lol

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

What I don't get from the Universalists is this:
OK, the people and the devils are punished from their sins, and when the punishment is done, they are taken out,.... then what? where would they go? what makes them think they would repent and turn to God, and love and fear their Creator, and apologize for all their evil deeds? Not turning to their Creator is already unrighteousness. Would they be sent back to destruction until they learn to do and love righteousness and holiness from their heart?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Watched as in past tense.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Okay :lol

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Yeah right :lol

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

Does your wife preach against Netflix?

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

No, I just don't watch it.

I'm more of Hulu or Amazon Prime kinda guy, that's when I watch those... Which ain't often.

Re: The "Inclusion" Doctrine
 

What is that? Sounds like something from Hawaii.

I understand Amazon Prime for which I am a member. I love 2 day shipping.