Bishop Carlton Pearson preached his final sermon at New Dimensions Church on Sept. 7. The church has been folded into All Souls Unitarian Church, the world’s largest church in that denomination.
Carlton Pearson once presided over a large Charismatic church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. With a seat on the board of trustees at Oral Roberts University, and a working relationship with Trinity Broadcasting Network, Pearson was an influential voice. This was further validated when then newly elected President George Bush consulted with Pearson in 2000.
As XGW reported last year, this changed drastically in 2003 when Pearson began to embrace what he called a “gospel of inclusion,” a fundamental tenant of which is that all people would end up in heaven equally no matter their beliefs or actions on earth. Since a predominant central tenant of Christian faith is a belief that repentance and faith in the sacrifice of Christ is essential for one’s salvation, Pearson’s new direction clashed with most of his contemporaries, clergy and congregant alike.
Person’s own ministry’s “salvation” then seemed to come from gay and lesbian faithful, who appreciated his acceptance of them before God. Pearson began to support gay rights in a tangible way, participating in rallies in support of bias crime legislation in Washington DC. Pearson seemed to find a new direction with his support of gay believers and GLBT causes in general.
In this brief recounting we are not yet sure what happened to bring things to a close for his church. We have left a message to ask just that. It appears that the remaining members of his New Dimensions church, which had been meeting at Trinity Episcopal Church, have been merged with a Unitarian congregation, but we are not sure which one.
I think his personal journey reflected what it seems many in the Catholic faith do, in that they come from privilege but give it all up to serve what they feel is a higher and more challenging purpose. Take a look at St. Francis of Assisi, for example.
Bishop Pearson came from the riches of evangelical America – with a flock of thousands, media prominence, and an in-road to the nation’s highest office – but ultimately left it behind because he felt a calling to serve what was, in his heart, a more meaningful doctrine. His flock dwindled, the riches dwindled, the Prez stopped calling – and now it seems like from the outside he’s been forced by those factors to close his church. But I see what he came from. I also believe he left it behind to pursue a truer doctrine – and, despite the ruckus most Christians will make about his rejection of the exclusivity of those who are not “believers,” it looks like to me he’s following a more “Christ-centered life” than any of the rich big dogs of Christianity.
Hear, hear Emily!
When I read about and saw a film he participated in regarding his sea change in accepting gay people THAT is where I saw the transformative power of LOVE.
I will believe in love, it’s power and the conditions it helps us endure. Whatever Rev. Pearson is experiencing, I hope he remains faithful always in how his love touched so many, to me…the truest way to God of all.
My first thought when I saw this was a quote from the end of C. S. Lewis’ “The Last Battle” – the one where Aslan says that any good deed done, even if done in the name of Tash, was done for him; and likewise any evil deed, even if done in the name of Aslan, was done for Tash. This was the reason why the Tash-worshipping Calormene soldier was allowed into Aslan’s country: he valued goodness and despised evil, and so which particular deity he worshipped became irrelevant.
This seems pretty close to, if not identical with, the theology that Pearson is now preaching – and it comes not only from one of the most highly-respected Christian writers of the last century, but from a series of stories read by millions of Conservative & Evangelical parents to their children.
Anyone else see the irony here?
Isn’t the proof in the fruit? All the great movements in Church history gathered quite a following and grew, with the result a lot of people coming to know God and others to know Him more deeply. What do we use to determine false directions from correct ones?
People use the Bible, David, and the Bible says you need to be saved, and only through specific beliefs. That’s what the Fundamentalists will say.
As a former Tulsan, I can tell you it merged with All Souls Unitarian Church, which I believe is the largest Unitarian congregation in the country (?). At least in Oklahoma. There was an article about the whole thing in the Tulsa World maybe a week ago.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080921_18_A3_Bishop625359
Are you sure that’s just Fundamentalists?
David, I’m NOT sure that it’s just Fundamentalists, but I am sure that it is Fundamentalists.
I’m not an expert on the fine details of the historic Church’s position, but various forms of universalism and inclusivism have definitely been around since the beginning of Church history. Outside fundamentalism and conservative evangelical protestantism, I would guess that this view is actually quite rare these days. Most protestants (not sure about Catholics and Orthodox) would, I think, hold to some form of inclusivism – that while Jesus’ death and resurrection is the basis of salvation, explicit belief in it is not. Therefore, one need not be explicitly Christian in order to be justified before God. This understanding is not rare even in evangelical circles these days.
I’m pretty sure I could build and excellent case to prove my claims here, but I don’t think we need go that far. We can probably both agree that such teaching (salvation through faith) is essential to the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement to which Pearson belonged. That should be enough to serve my purpose in the post, which is to explain to our readers the reaction his peers had to his change in doctrine. To them he had taken a heretical turn.
Dave Rattigan, I believe that Catholics do have a much more inclusive stance; I know they do with Jews, and I think their belief in Purgatory actually allows for a much more inclusive stance than “sola scriptura” religions. But I could be wrong about that.
Embracing love without equally embracing justice and righteousness is the same as attempting to ride a car with four flat tires, it wouldn’t go very far, and very soon the tires and the rims would be completely destroyed. We can compare love with the air inside the four tires in our imaginary car, justice we can liken it to the four tires, and righteousness we can pretend are the four rims on the wheels. Air is what keeps the tire treads and the rims from coming in direct contact, once the air is out of the tires, as the car moves forward friction between the road and the rims will cut through the tires and destroy them, and once the tires are out of the way, the rims will be destroyed by the merciless pounding against the roadway.
In the same way love, which is a direction of the will, must always operate together with justice and righteousness in order to yield wisdom.
If we have love but not righteousness, which means to be morally upright and without guilt or sin, then our love becomes aimlessly misguided and we could end up having sensual love for members of the same sex and just as easily we could end up having sensual love for members of the animal kingdom, or we could end up having possessive love for material stuff.
If we have love, but have no justice, which means to be honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions to God, to one’s self, and to others, and to be free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception, then we can safely say that most Americans in their day-to-day dealings will always ignore wisdom by choosing what is advantageous and convenient. That is why they easily fall in love with members of the same sex, the most immoral celebrities, the most vilest criminals, to the most biased and dishonest politicians, which they have no problem electing into office, with the potential of causing irreparable harm to millions of people, including future generations.
All I a can say from the standpoint of a former parishoner, and huge fan of Bishop Pearson, Is that I am deeply, deeply, saddened. I was once a student at ORU, and attended his church when it was a storefront, and watched it grow into international prominence, and saw his approval as Bishop. I didnt agree with his political affiliation, or his new doctrine..But, I am hurt especially for his children who are now teenagers, and faced rejection from their former friends, and now have the stigma of being HIS children is a reciepe for social hurt and disaster, and a bleak financial future.. I know he was once a millionare, but I really hoped he had a good financial planner, and invested his money in some good growth securities. I still think it is wrong for all of his preaching buddies, and former members that he once stood in the gap for to just totally not have anything to do with him no more..I can see not letting him minister..but to ignore him??…now what up christians.? I read rumor that a movie about his life was being considered..I pray for his financial salvation and that of his kids..this project goes through and become a blockbuster..I really miss the glorious Azusa revivals..he used to host..I still keep him in my thoughts and prayers and wish the best for him..