The Copeland/Huckabee Love Affair


Huckabee & Copeland

Billionaire evangelist oilman cattle rancher Kenneth Copeland, who sits so high atop the “prosperity gospel” pyramid that he has hundreds of “franchise” churches whose pastors send money back up the pipeline, spent much of his annual ministers conference last week talking about how he stonewalled the Senate Finance Committee, then boasted about having Mike Huckabee on his team.

“Kenneth Copeland, I will stand with you!” Huckabee yelled over the phone, according to Copeland. “You’re trying to get prosperity to the people, and they’re [the Senate] trying to take it away from ‘em. I will stand with you anytime, anywhere, on any issue!”

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialise correctly.

You can watch the whole speech here, but basically Copeland is saying that he offered to hide his close relationship with Huckabee—the ex-governor had recently recorded a full week of televised “Bible studies” with Copeland, who constantly huckstered Huckabee’s ten-year-old book—but Huckabee said he would gladly oppose the Senate’s investigation of Copeland and others because “they only have an 11 percent approval rating.”

Every year Copeland invites about 1,000 fellow prosperity-gospel ministers to his church/broadcasting facility/ranch/natural gas field/airstrip in Newark, Texas, a few miles north of Fort Worth, for a three-day conference. This year he shut down the conference after two of the days and convened some kind of separate session with the same ministers that would protect his 501(3)(c) tax exemption while he raised campaign funds for Huckabee. Reports on Thursday morning were that he’d come up with $111,000 in immediate cash, plus an additional million bucks in pledges, which would work out to around $1,000 per pastor. (These sorts of fundraising efforts with the Copeland “family” are fairly common. About 30 pastors raised $2.1 million for Copeland’s 70th birthday celebration a year ago.)

The Door left messages for Huckabee and his press secretary over the weekend, but they were not returned.

Copeland spent much of the three-day ministers conference reassuring his fellow pastors that all their ministries were safe from the prying eyes of the Congress. He repeatedly made a distinction between the Congress and the Internal Revenue Service, saying that he recognized the executive branch but not the legislative when it came to oversight. He was especially upset by a request that he reveal the donors to a “special offering” made to himself and his wife for the 40th anniversary of their ministry and said that he’d “promised to God” never to give any information to anyone about that, even if it means prison or death. He frequently mentioned receiving direct instructions from “the Lord,” including instructions to put Mike Huckabee on his television show, Believer’s Voice of Victory.

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialise correctly.

During his six programs with Huckabee, airing in November, the two men reminisced about their friendship and Huckabee’s political career in Arkansas, with occasional excursions into scripture. Neither of them distinguished themselves as Biblical scholars, but Huckabee’s comments were especially lame as he seemed to be sucking up to “Brother Kenneth” in discussing passages like James 1:3: “It is the trying of your faith that works patience.”

Huckabee’s read on that passage was that he used to think “trying” meant a trial of faith. (This is what 99 percent of commentators for the past 2000 years have also believed it meant.) But then, the more he thought about it, the more he thought the key word was “try.” It meant to “keep trying,” and every time you fail, to try again. “I tried tithing and it didn’t work. Well, try it again. I tried it three or four times. Well, try it again.” Huckabee’s view: it doesn’t mean to be patient when God sends trials, it means to assert yourself—in other words, the opposite of its apparent meaning. Since the Greek word for “try” as in “trial” and the Greek word for “try” as in “attempt” are two different words, Huckabee’s exegesis of this particular scripture is not only demonstrably wrong as a matter of fact, but he seems to be insisting on it as a way to support Copeland’s emphasis on tithing, which is the source of his fortune.

There are other examples scattered through the week, including some statements by Huckabee that, no matter what office he holds, “my only client is Jesus.”

Other highlights from the minister’s conference:

• Copeland seems puzzled by the fact that Senator Charles Grassley, who is spearheading the Senate investigation, was also the author of the Church Protection Act.

• Copeland talks about his natural gas company and says that the Senate’s suspicions about the source of that wealth are “bull.”

• Copeland’s characterization of his answer to Senator Grassley: “We gave them a several page lesson on ‘No’. . . . We gave them the address of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington, D.C.”

• Copeland assures everyone that he’s personally been a billionaire “a long time” and that his ministry has taken in $1.3 billion over 41 years. “I’m the seed of Abraham. The seed of Abraham are known for being rich. I’m a Jew. I’m a rich Jew backed by a richer Jew. God loves me just as much as he loves Jesus.”

Editor's note: Confronted about the Copeland statements on "Meet the Press," Huckabee did not deny that he said what Copeland said he said.

(This story includes reporting by John Bloom, Pete Evans of the Trinity Foundation, and Harry Guetzlaff of the Trinity Foundation. The Trinity Foundation press release can be found here. See our Copeland Collection here.)


Bouldergeist | 09:31 am on 1/30/2008

Do you honestly expect your god to do anything, Bill?

Life isn't a John Wayne movie; the cavalry never comes over the hill in the nick of time. Jesus is dead or worse, as clearly proven by his insatiable and unabashed thirst for injustice.

It's all about you, and what you are doing. If you find this kind of exploitation offensive, then get off your arse and do something about it. But be prepared to pay a terrible personal price.

Been there, done that.

that calvinist doug | 01:53 pm on 1/30/2008

Wow. If pessimism were contagious, I'd be leaping from a bridge.

Bouldergeist | 08:41 am on 1/31/2008

All you have to do is look at Jesus' record. Makes the old Tampa Bay Bucs of the '70s look like world-beaters.

Jesus is indistinguishable from a stone idol. Just how things are.

that calvinist doug | 09:08 am on 1/31/2008

His followers have certainly been at times wrong, ineffectual, and un-Christlike; myself included. Also, there have been many who claim to be followers but are not; and so therefore, their errors have been wrongly credited to Christianity.

Jesus has certainly been effective for me (on too many levels to elaborate here) and countless others. If you disagree, that is your option. You are free to believe and state what you want.

Jesus bin Dead | 05:05 pm on 1/31/2008

Some witches say their spells work, too. They might, if you consider the talismanic effect.

I challenge every Christian to prove that his god -- and no other -- exists. And they always lose.

that calvinist doug | 08:36 am on 2/01/2008

Prove that George Washington was a real person; not just made up in our history books...go ahead, "prove" it.

Besides, you're right. I can't "prove" God exists. Conversely, you cannot "prove" he doesn't.

Bouldergeist | 10:20 am on 2/01/2008

Simon Greenleaf is known to law students more for his contributions to the American law of evidence than he is for his evangelism. His treatise on the subject is the first of its kind, and was the gold standard for much of the nineteenth century. I would submit that he sets the standard for how the Gospel claims ought to be evaluated:

All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination.

In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated:

A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, reprinted at

If our enquiry is to mimic a legal proceeding, as Professor John W. Montgomery suggests that it should, then Anglo-American rules of evidence ought to be applied in a substantive manner. And this, in turn, causes an insuperable problem for the Christian advocate: namely, that every shred of the Gospel testimony is inadmissible hearsay. The problem is crystallized well by C.S. Lewis:

Believing things on authority only means believing things because you’ve been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent. Of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I haven’t seen it myself, I couldn’t prove by abstract reasoning that there is such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood -- because the scientists say so. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing by mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.

C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity (New York: MacMillan, 1956), p. 53.

By that standard, it is quite easy to prove that George Washington lived. Conversely, it is impossible to prove by that metric that the Jesus of the Gospels ever existed. The authors of the Gospels are not reliable witnesses, as they can't even agree as to where Jesus is alleged to have appeared to the Endeka after his purported crucifixion. The stories cannot possibly be reconciled.

Remember that in a courtroom, the proponent has to establish the bona fides of evidence before it can even be considered. According to no less of an authority than Simon Greenleaf, the Gospels are useless. As he correctly notes in his landmark treatise on evidence, the Gospels would be classified as “permanent testimony” (or for those with a fetish for Latin, depositions in perpetuum rei memoriam), admissible “only in case of death or incapacity of the witness [which we obviously have here], and against those only who have had opportunity to cross-examine, and those in privity with them.” 1 Greenleaf, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence §321 (8th ed. 1857). Every bit of potential evidence just went into the round file. And without credible evidence that Jesus even existed, we'll never get to the clear and convincing evidence standard (I think Greenleaf set the bar too high).

By contrast, it's easy to prove Washington's existence to legal tolerances via admissible evidence. His obits would be enough.

that calvinist doug | 11:27 am on 2/01/2008

Wow! Further evidence (as if any were needed) that lawyers are indeed the spawn of satan!

Kidding aside, I can't convince you; I'm not trying. I said from the outset that I cannot "prove" God (or the claims of Christianity) to the satisfaction of one who is predisposed to disbelieve. I do believe. So sue me.

Bouldergeist | 04:03 pm on 2/01/2008

Who's "predisposed to disbelieve?" I'm just inclined to, as the late Bob Passantino used to say, "insist upon evidence."

Let me illustrate my point this way: A simple question for Christians to answer: Why should I kiss Jesus' biblical transport, and not Hank's?

And I wouldn't call lawyers the spawn of Satan -- Satan might sue you for defamation. ;-)

conservativemama | 10:07 pm on 2/02/2008

Who is this God you don't believe in Bouldergeist?

Bouldergeist | 10:14 pm on 2/02/2008

We're all atheists in a sense; I just happen to believe in two less gods than you.

By way of example, let us assume, arguendo, that there is a God out there who is “powerful, intelligent, and moral.” Norm Geisler contends that if we reach that conclusion, it should inevitably lead us to convincing proof for the god of the Bible:

Is this the God of the Bible? At the burning bush, God told Moses His name and said, “I AM WHO I AM.” This signifies that the central characteristics of the God of the Bible is existence. His very nature is existence…. The Bible also calls God eternal, unchanging, infinite, all-good, and all-powerful. Since these beings are the same in all these respects, and there can’t be two infinite beings, then this God that the arguments point us to is the God of the Bible.

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990) at 29 (biblical citations omitted).

It’s difficult to make a more ludicrous argument. What Geisler conveniently failed to mention is that the Bible tells us that the God of Israel is also a jealous god (Deut. 4:25). Granted, God may be powerful, intelligent, moral, and even sovereign, but that would hardly imply that God is also jealous. Quite to the contrary, one would presume that any God who possesses those other formidable characteristics has no cause to be jealous. Therefore, as the God we would logically postulate could not possibly be the god of the Bible, the god of the Bible must necessarily be a false god.

Bouldergeist | 10:21 pm on 2/02/2008

[continued] But it gets worse. Even if we postulate that God must be moral, it is difficult to credibly say that the god of the Bible is moral. The continued existence of Copeland, Larson, Hinn, Crouch, Dollar, et al., ad nauseum, and their failure to face justice for the consequences of his acts ought to be essentially conclusive in that regard, but even if it isn’t, your bloodthirsty ancient tribal sky-daddy’s covetous and genocidal nature is difficult to square with any concept of objective morality with which I am acquainted. After all, the Bible is replete with examples of his “infinite compassion”:

On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times in the same manner, except that on that day they circled the city seven times. The seventh time around, when the priests sounded the trumpet blast, Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the Lord. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.”

When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

It is an act that would have brought Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot to tears. Your ancient tribal sky-daddy ordered an objectively unnecessary act of genocide. Every man, woman, suckling child, and donkey was eradicated like vermin … and their only known “sin” was in being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What’s more, the god who supposedly has everything has a curious fetish for gold. Selfish, covetous, unjust, capricious, jealous … not the kind of attributes we would naturally associate with God. It seems, rather, that we are not so much made in the image of God as your god is made in the image of man.

I don't believe in a lot of gods -- ElRon Hubbard kind-of tops the list. And for that matter, you probably feel the same way. It is just that, based on the evidence before me, Jesus logically belongs on the list of false gods.

Anonymous | 09:06 am on 1/30/2008


Perhaps, Kenneth Copeland has sought the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and now "all these things" have been added to him?
Who are we to judge?



Bouldergeist | 09:07 am on 1/30/2008

I pimped this story on Daily Kos. Hope it gets legs.

Bouldergeist | 10:01 am on 1/30/2008

It got front-paged. A lot of Democratic pols and staffers read it, and more than a few newsfolk (e.g., Keith Olbermann posts there now). Hopefully, it will stay there long enough for it to get someone's attention.

J | 01:26 pm on 1/30/2008

Bouldergiest, I am a conservative I hope it get legs too. I am sick of the Copeland's and Rick Warren and Doug Pagitt types who hijacked christianity for their own agendas.

Bouldergeist | 09:23 am on 1/30/2008

Yep. You're all accountable. Accountable to us heathen.

How can anyone put any credence in what you preach, when you show us that you have the collective discernment of a stone? The "new man in Christ" seems, on average, to lose about 30 I.Q. points.

Anonymous | 10:14 am on 1/30/2008

This is so silly -
If I pastor a church, does the mayor of my town have the right to come in and see all my church records, just because he wants to? and if I don't comply, Does it means I am hiding somthing or does it mean it is none of his business?
What if the mayor has somthing against churches, and wants to close me down even though I have done nothing wrong? should I give him everything he wants? give me a break.
Do we know Sen. Grassleys movtives? Why can't the Sennate get ALL the records they want from the IRS? Why doesn't the IRS audit MR Copeland.
Does Mr.Copeland's Ministry do anything to proclaim the gospel and help people. You may be surprised!

I am sure that all who have responded to this forum wouldn't want to share thier tax records with just anyone

Do you remember Phil Driscoll, was sentenced to a year in prison for tax fraud. (because he claimed 2 parsanages on his taxes) If Copeland, Dollar, Meyer, or any others have done wrong, they shoud be audited and prosecuted as according to the LAW! Not according to a Senators whim.

God Bless

Bill | 07:20 pm on 1/30/2008

Presumably your hypothetical church is a 501c(3) organization.

So it is a matter of public policy to see where you're spending those tax-free dollars, so donors can make an informed decision (beyond you saying "trust me")

That's perfectly within the purview of a Congressional committee.

You can always give up your favored tax status and not be accountable.

Margaret | 10:39 pm on 1/30/2008

I've yet to meet a preacher I thought was 100% trustworthy, same as politicians.

Copeland doesn't seem to be making any bigger deal than any politician would be making if his character was being questioned.

I don't see anything wrong with the investigation, what is wrong is those who are so quick to judge a man guilty just because he is being investigated.

And I have yet to ever, in my entire life, met a christian who wasn't as capable of lying, stealing, cheating and just downright unrightous behavior on some issue or other and it grieves me to no end to hear those who seem to be covering themselves with the Christian coat here judging this man before the facts are all in.

I read the bible, I even pray sometimes, but call myself a Christian, never. I don't want to be associated with the likes of them. They seem to quick to condemn their own, always in a hurry to forget their saviors admonisments to "judge not, lest ye be judged" and "to be above reproach" but still they are quick with their judgements.

Nope, a Christian is not something I would want to be. No honor in it.

Margaret | 10:25 pm on 1/30/2008

Senator Grassly already stated his motives, in a roundabout way at least.

He stated " I'm not proposing any new legislatons on Charitable organizations or the way the legal system handles their business until the outcome of this investigation is through, then and only then will I consider proposing new legislations concerning tax exemptions and such of these kinds of organizations."

So yes, we do have some inkling of his motives. He is on a fishing expedition because he got a few sad letters from idiots who didn't know enough not to give all their money away and then they died penniless and unhappy and apparently without gaining any extra goodies that Copeland claimed they would get from God if they gave.

Don't get me wrong, I feel somewhat bad for people who are so stupid they can't seem to stop giving all their money away to some charimatic preacher on TV but I don't think Copeland is the blame. He does preach that tithing will increase your lot in life but the bible says that too and I've never walked in a church that didn't pass the tithe basket around, so what?

Bottom line is the man is not preaching anything that isn't in the bible and anyone who says it is is just a plain jealous liar. Hey, I don't like that some people have more wealth than others in this life either but that is just the way it is and you shouldn't judge a man guilty just because he is wealthy, and nowhere in the bible does it say anyone has to be middle class or poverty stricken to be a Jesus Freak.

BoycottTBN | 09:18 pm on 1/31/2008

You're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start.

1. You said, "He does preach that tithing will increase your lot in life but the bible says that too and I've never walked in a church that didn't pass the tithe basket around, so what?"

Please show me whee it says that in the bible.

2. You also said, "Bottom line is the man is not preaching anything that isn't in the bible and anyone who says it is is just a plain jealous liar."

He's preaching the Prosperity Gospel which is nothing but his own agenda, made up and twisted scripture. These people have mansions, body guards, plastic surgery, designer clothes, country club memberships, private jets, motorcycles, luxury cars, yachts, bling, fancy titles, vacation homes, ranches, etc. that they have stolen from their congregation.

Jesus said, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt 10:8).

Innocent, trusting, good, believing people are being CONNED out of their hard earned money by these so-called pastors.

Bouldergeist | 10:47 am on 1/30/2008

The Senator is gathering information, to inform him as to whether tax laws should be changed to prohibit the kind of con games that the Copeland-types run. That is his job.

Margaret | 10:36 am on 1/31/2008

That might be the Senators job but lets not be intellectually dishonest here either friend.

Any changes in the tax exempt status will not do very much damage to the now wealthy minstries such as Copelands, Dollars and the others, what it will do is pave the way for the government to get even more money from other smaller ministries who just might end up in the fortune 500 or possibly not even that hight up on the financial scale.

The Senator and his political cronies know that religion is seeing a revival in this nation, not sure why myself, I deplore religion, but it is seeing quite a reversal from the recent past and larger churches are being built and filled all over this nation.

Just in my own hometown we now have several churches that seat well over a thousand people and drive by the parking lots any Sunday or Wedsday of the week and they are filled. And this is happening in alot of places and the political system in our nation wants in on some of that money going into these mega churches.

You all can bet that if Senator Grassley and his political cronies are successful in changing tax laws, changes they will promote by handing over to us, the people, by handing over to us the most extreme cases such as these Copelands, Dollars and the like of televangelist so as to get out support than these others smaller, but still mega churches, will be among the no longer tax exempt status if they manage to bring in over a certain amount.

Any legislative proposals offered up for consideration is not solely based on whether Copeland or others is skimming off the top, or bottom, but instead is based on how the government can get more of the tax excempt monies going into these churches.

And that is all this is about.

That being said, for the christians here, you morons who are supporting the governments fishing expedition against these ministries leaders are playing right into the governments greedy hands and you should seriously think it over instead of permitting your jealousies and unjust judgements getting in the way and lending support to something that will eventually affect you and your local churches in the end.

Maybe you only have a small, hundred seater church at this time but as I've stated earlier, larger churches are going up all over due to a recent revival in religious participation in this nation and this is about nothing but using extreme cases like Copelands and the Benny Hinns in order for the government to get their hands into the collection plates of the revived churches pockets.

Personally it will be just one more laugh for me for awhile, at least until I am forced to be at the governments mercy on some other issue. They came for everyone else, and I did nothing, I even supported them, but then they came for me and there was no help, because there was no one left to support me against them.

Think before you point your fingers at your own Christian people. Think long and hard and stop hanging the man until you have facts of whether he has broken any now, current tax laws.

Bouldergeist | 05:10 pm on 1/31/2008

Technically, they're not "my Christian people"; I gave up that silly superstition for Lent. And no, I don't think it is quite right for a minister to have his secretary (with whom he is having an affair, even though he is married) write "his" best-selling novel on the Ministry's dime. By examining Copeland, Hinn, Larson, et al., the Senate would learn how to close those loopholes.

As for me, I'd like to see the tax-exempt status of churches pulled in its entirety. No deductions, period.

Conservativemama | 11:44 am on 1/30/2008

I knew The Door would eventually come out against Huckabee. That's why I didn't renew my $30 a year subscription. Don't get me wrong I think that someone needs to hold these ministries accountable. I like the work you are doing. However, I knew you would find something to go against Huckabee because your magazine is extremely liberal. At times, it's more of a proponent of the liberal agenda than for Christianity or Spirituality or whatever the buzz word of the day is.

For the first time in my generation, we have a person running for office who is unabashedly a Christian. Who says Jesus Christ on national television and isn't using it as profanity. Not only is he a qualified conservative candidate, he is a proponent of issues that aren't typically conservative such as conservationism, poverty, and education. Mike Huckabee is a Christian's dream candidate.

As far as Huckabee's love affair with Kenneth Copeland, I highly doubt it. Given the very little money, the campaign has had, Huckabee has cleverly used any free media outlet he could find. Early on, it appeared that Kenneth Copeland would be a way to reach out to Evangelical voters. Huckabee's comments about opposing the Senate because they only had an 11% approval rating sound like Huckabee's classic sense of humor which you might have picked up on if you had watched any of his other interviews with people that are actually taken seriously.

So basically, this article has only confirmed my suspicions about The Door and erased any regrets I had about not renewing my subscription.

SRebbe | 12:02 pm on 1/30/2008

Regarding the whole "he who has no sin..." This is about confronting and accusing unjustly. When Christ confronted the mob, it was to show that the adulterous woman was being accused unjustly and also it was to trap Christ. We don't know what he began writing, but whatever it was, it shut them all up and they began leaving. The Copelands, the Dollars, the other 4 televangelists have been confronted politely and they have all responded in kind by sticking a particular gesture up at their authorities and demanding that their god free them from these accusations because they are being "persecuted." Persecuted? For showing proof of their expenses???

And for that, they are whiny, bratty children with childish, stunted faith and we are allowed to call them on the mat for it.

Other organizations have to show documentation and follow the same guidelines. Accountability, it's called. Ethics.

This is about following the law and when you do not follow the law and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's as Christ taught (including taxes), it is sin. This is a very small, very minor point. Not hard to follow. G-d is not a white collar Republican whose goal in life is to make your pockets fatter.

Margaret | 10:49 pm on 1/30/2008

This sounds like more religious doctrine and not biblical matter.

The woman was not being accused unjustly, she was an adulteres, Jesus was making the statement that if you were without sin then and only then did you have any right to cast the first stone.

While it may be so and we could make a good arguement against his meaning that we shouldn't toss murderers in prison, etc, etc, but we mustn't get overzealous with outright lies and try to make a passage in a story say something he didn't say. That is called adding or taking away.

The woman had less than rightous morals in the sexual department, period, but Jesus was trying to tell us and those willing too stone her to death that we should be paying closer attention to our own faults, even if we think they aren't as bad as the next persons, because that is the way we learn and become what we are capable of becoming.

We can't very well be perfecting our ownselves when we're constantly on the look out and using our time and resources worrying about everyone else's faults.

The religious organizations might have made it seem that all that was required to receive eternal salvation was to profess with ones mouth that they believed something but anyone who really knows the bible knows that this just isn't so.

And it is for this reason that Jesus stopped these people from stoning this woman. They were sticking their noses where it really didn't belong because they hadn't attained the perfection level that they have always been capable of and they never would if they continued in their unrightous behavior of judging and punishing others all the time.

Joshua | 12:39 pm on 1/30/2008

Kenneth Copeland and Rick Warren and Doug Pagitt and hundreds of other mis-leading folks astray pastors like them and the folks at

are all fulfillment of

2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Rich | 01:27 pm on 1/30/2008

Copeland is a false teacher PERIOD. He embraces the 5 false tenets of the Word of Faith movement written in Kenyon's books and propagated by "DAD" K. Hagin. His biggest blasphemy is claiming to be a little god. To quote Copeland when he reads God (YHWH) saying "I AM" , I just smile and say I am too.
So what does this have to do with Huckabee? As a Christian he should know that the New Testament teaches that he should shun a heretic....not even eat with him. Instead they embrace each other openly.As a Pastor he has no excuse for ignorance. That makes him a blind guide.
I would rather have a pagan president who upholds the constitution as chief executive rather than a religious impostor who operates under the delusion that his decisions have some "speak positive things into existance" annointing.

LadyT | 10:07 pm on 1/31/2008

Amen bro! You've got the best post on here!

Anonymous | 06:28 am on 2/02/2008

Amen again Rich! Kenny's material things are one thing,his whole "WOF" theology is wacked! God has a way of giving people enough rope and then judgement comes quickly!

Jess | 01:31 pm on 1/30/2008

Wouldn't it be something if a man who made millions in his own business went into ministry and took NO salary? Wouldn't it be great if he even insisted on paying his own way? What kind of creditability would he have with everyone if he never asked for a dime or a perk? Let a Jewish firm audit the books? Refused tax-exempt status to keep the church unencumbered by government? Told people to vote their conscience and not their religion? Told people to pay off their credit cards before sending his ministry anything? Directed attention away from himself to those who are persecuted and martyred? Wouldn't that be great?

ZZZZZZZ..... oops! must have dozed off there... had an incredible dream.....

Anonymous | 02:05 pm on 1/30/2008

This article is false and completely biased- the author must have a personal vendetta. The author and this website are only trying to smear two godly men, Huckabee and Copeland. Let God be the judge of them- tend to your own business.

Anonymous | 11:23 pm on 1/30/2008

This comment is false and completely biased - the poster must have a personal vendetta. The poster is only trying to smear a godly magazine. Let God be the judge of him - tend to your own business.



Anonymous | 11:13 am on 4/03/2008

Perhaps you have not heard that the Bible teaches us that we are supposed to judge false doctrine and false teachers. Huckabee seemed okay until he got in bed with Copeland, Hagee, etc. as his desperate attempt to become president. I wouldn't vote for him just for that reason!!

Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles all judged false teachers. Is that not a good enough example for you?

Anonymous | 02:16 pm on 1/30/2008

The Huckabee event held at KCM on Jan 23 was NOT a Copeland or KCM event of any kind. None of the Copelands personally, nor anyone who works for their ministry was either a host or sponsor of the event.

It was a totaly independent event that was conceived, planned, organized and moderated by a local Huckabee supporter/volunteer who has hosted other Huckabee events and who thought that perhaps some of the 1800 ministers in town for the KCM event might be social conservatives and therefore likely suporters of Huckabee. It presented a unique opportunity for interested persons to conviently learn more about Huckabee's postions on the issues, and possibly contribute to the campaign.

The Huckabee volunteer/supporter made arrangements for the Campaign to rent meeting space at the KCM facility, for one hour, during a time when the Minister's Conference was NOT in session. People were invited to attend the Huckabee event on a purely voluntary basis. After the KCM event was dismissed and everyone had left the meeting room, about 1000 of the 1800 people chose to come back to the Huckabee event for the purpose of learning more about Huckabee. Printed invitations were provided that informed each atendee that this was an event in support of Huckabee. About 700 to 800 remained for the full 45 minutes of the event.

The same person who conceived and carried out the idea (not the Copelands) also contacted the Huckabee campaign ealrier in the day and asked if the Governor could conduct a phone call-in during the event. Huckabee agreed and called in and spoke to the audiance for less than 15 minutes. After Huckabee's call ended, people were asked by the meeting organizer (Kenneth Copeland was not even present anymore) to contribute to the campaign if they liked what they heard. Checks and credit card contributions were collected from those who chose to give, just like any other campaign does.

It was VERY above board. There were NO minstry endorsements of any kind by any one and nothing was inappropriate in any way. There was NO request for "pledges" or anything even remotely similar to that. The report of "pledges" of another MILLION dollars is a wholly fabricated and totally false statement. Only about 170 people made contributions of any amount. They ranged for $10.00 to $2,300 per person.

The contributions were NOT flown to Little Rock on a ministry plane. That is a lie fabricated and perpetuated by people with an axe to grind - not bu people interested in truth. Late that evening, the Huckabee volunteer drove the contributions "to the airport" (DFW)to the FedEx dropoff box to try and make the 10:00 pm cut off - he missed it by 5 minutes and the contributions went out by FedEx the next day.

There is absolutely NO truth that the Huckabee campaign, or Mike Huckabee personally ASKED the Copelands to hold this "emergency" fundraiser as has been falsely reported. The entire event was conceived and put together by a volunteer supporter contacting both parties. It was grass roots politics at it very best.

I know ALL of these fact to be true. I was there.

JustMe | 06:23 pm on 1/30/2008

So should we congratulating the Door editors on their excellent video editing? After all, it looked like Copeland, it talked like Copeland, it quacked like Copeland...

Bouldergeist | 08:37 pm on 1/30/2008

SURE, you were! An anonymous witness, who can't really have both oars in the water in any event (the short definition of a Kopeland Kool-Aid Kommando), claims that it didn't happen? Yah, right.

Ole's usually pretty good about getting his facts, and it would not surprise me if he had someone in there who got a tape of the event. If you've done work with him (and I have), you know how he is.

In Attendance | 02:18 pm on 1/31/2008

Yes, in fact I was in attendance. I was there as a supporter of Mike Huckabee and I am the person who wrote the message to which you replied. As to me being an "anonymous" witness, every posting on any blog is essentially "anonymous" because no one posts their name, address, phone, etc. on the internet - including you - and in today's environment, it would be foolish for anyone to do so. Posting as "Bouldergeist" (even if that is your true last name) is just as anonyomous as any other posting on this site. Therefore, your response lacks credibility and does not make sense:

"An anonymous witness, who can't really have both oars in the water in any event (the short definition of a Kopeland Kool-Aid Kommando), claims that it didn't happen?"

I do not refer to you as an "Ole Kool-aide drinker". Your reference to me is unjustified and unfounded. I made no comment whether or not I agree or disagree with any of Copeland's teaching; therefore, YOUR assumption that I am a "Kopeland Kool-aide Komando" has no basis. For I am not. I am a Christian, but I can assure you there are many persons (speakers and attendees) at the KCM meeting with whom I would have numerous differences in religious belief. There are also many with whom I would agree.

But this entire Huckabee event had NOTHING to do with ANY religious beliefs, or with whether someone was pro or anti Copeland. It was a separtate meeting from Copeland's conference, and as I mentioned before, it was simply an opportunity to reach some likely social conservatives. It is no different than an Obama supporter knowing that the Painter's union was in town and trying to shedule an Obama event to tap into a potentially liberal audience for support. Furthermore, there's nothing useful or productive in making salacious, derogatory, name-calling remarks about Copeland or Ole or about anyone who posts on this blog either pro or con - including you. So why not leave out the vitriolic name-calling attacks and stick to facts.

If you don't like Copeland, or Billy Graham or any other preacher - don't listen and don't contribute to them. If you don't like Huckabee, don't vote for him and don't contribute to his campaign - but don't begrudge any individual American their right to organize grass roots efforts to support a canidate of their choice. That's what freedom is all about.

Everything done at the event was wholly legal and above board as an independant political activity separate from KCM or the Copelands. Do you think that Clinton or Obama have ever even one time paid for meeting space at a church where they seek support? Have they dismissed the congregation from Sunday services and reconveined a separate political meeting AFTER the services ended, only for those who choose to attend? I seriously doubt such has EVERY occurred.

The telephone call-in by Huckabee was NOT at the invitation of Copeland. In fact, Copeland was not even told that the organizer of the event was trying to get Huckabee to call-in until noon on the day of the meeting. So, it was not Copeland who asked Huckabee to call, or vice-a-versa, but even if it had been, there's nothing wrong with such a request. But do you think a liberal-leaning preacher has ever been criticised or attacked like this by the left (or by Ole) for inviting Hillary or Obama to come speak? I have never seen it.

I simply stated the absolute FACTS regarding the grass roots event that took place that day. NO ONE will be able to disprove what I wrote because it is simple truth regarding eEVERY matter I stated - from how the meeting came about, to how it was conducted, to how many people contributed, to how the funds were sent via FEDEX to Little Rock. All Truth, not assumptions - even though it does not fit the mold of those who are looking for a more sinister chain of events.

I know, I was there for the event.

Bouldergeist | 04:56 pm on 1/31/2008

Says you. I'm merely pointing out the obvious: that you have made a claim without any credible evidence to back it up. I don't need to be known to make that observation, though the Doormice surely know who I am.

Knowing what I do about Ole, he's not about to stick his neck out like this without thoroughly documenting his claims. I've exposed these charlatans before, and learned that even if you have enough evidence to convict O.J. in South Central, it isn't enough for the Kook-Aid Crowd.

Think C.S. Lewis: "I believe it because reliable people told me so." Ole is reliable and credible; you are an anonymous, faceless person. Am I inclined to believe Ole over you? Every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The best way to resolve this dispute would be to have both sides reveal all of their evidence, but how is that ever going to happen?

As for me being an "Ole Kool-aide drinker," I'm not even a Christian; I don't carry water for anybody these days.

In Attendance | 01:45 am on 2/01/2008

As to "evidence", the false claims that I refuted are the ones wholly made without ANY evidence. That was WHY I responded in the first place. I was there and I knew the truth. I have never in my life posted any comment on any blog about any topic until this issue. A friend told me that there were erroneous reports on this site about how the Huckabee event transpired, and about all of the things I originally tried to set straight. I came. I read. I saw numerous errors, and I provided a true first hand report.

I made one big mistake as a novis to this type of website, and as someone with no axe to grind. I thought the original article was an honest misunderstanding and that people might actually care about the truth. You obviously do not. I see now these sites are fields ripe for salacious name calling and false accusations.

I specifically DID NOT call you an "Ole Kool-aide drinker" but your own words have proven you to be just that by admitting that you are inclined to believe Ole "every day of the week and twice on Sunday". You sir are exactly and BLINDLY carrying the water for Ole.

I wrote not one word in defense of any Copeland doctrine. I did not defend any of his teachings, yet because I did not also include a vitriolic debasing of Copeland with my comments, you attack me and my comments about the grass roots Huckabee event. Attacking Copland's religious teachings has no place in this specific discussion. His teachings are irrelevant to Hucakbee event that took place and to the way in which it actualy occurred.

I have plenty of facts including: the exact dollar amount raised, the exact number of contributors and amount given, the FEDEX shipping details including place and time of shipment, the host information (in writing on the invitation), the person who took the call from Huckabee at the event, names of numerous witnesses out of the hundreds in attendance who could testify that Copeland was NOT even present when funds were raised, etc., etc. but it is clear that YOU SIR would not really let facts get in the way of your pre-conceived ideas (i.e., prejudice). So, there is no need to continue this dialogue with you.

I'm sure there are other more reasonable people than you who are reading this site and will see my comments and discern that they contain truthful representations of the grass roots, fully legal, INDEPENDANT fundraiser that took place, separate from whatever anyone may think of Ol' Kenneth.

Bouldergeist | 10:32 am on 2/01/2008

The problem is crystallized well by C.S. Lewis:

Believing things on authority only means believing things because you’ve been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent. Of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I haven’t seen it myself, I couldn’t prove by abstract reasoning that there is such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood -- because the scientists say so. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing by mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.

C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity (New York: MacMillan, 1956), p. 53.

I know Ole's methods, having collaborated with him on televangelist exposes. I know how careful he has to be. If I have to compare your word with his, I'll accept his, for the reason Lewis expounds. How that is "blind" acceptance is not at all clear, good Sir.

If you have proof, you should take it up with Ole directly. Contact Pete Evans at, and I'm sure it can be arranged. I've never seen Ole ever have to retract a story -- he's just too careful -- but there can always be a first time.

In Attendance | 06:17 pm on 2/01/2008

Thank you!!!

You have made my point very well for me, i.e., that YOU ARE the water carrying kool-aider. For now you have cited references that explain concepts of trust and belief in "someone you think trustworty". You have wholly explained that your followship of Ole is "TRUST" based (kool!!!!), not EVIDENCE based - and, in this case, it has to be for there is NO eveidence that you have cited or that Ole has provided regarding the specific statements that I correctly refuted.


You're done.

You are right that Ole IS "careful". After re-reading his posting I see he is VERY CAREFUL. Careful, that is, to word his statements so as to GREATLY mislead by inaccurately connecting bits and pieces of information that do NOT belong together. For example by stating that "Copeland recieved a call during the meeting from Huckabee"; with the inference being that Huckabee called Copeland during the Minister's Conference - something which did not happen. The Minister's Conference was broadcast on the internet, and if such a call had occurred during that Conference, you can bet that Ole would have posted it on Wittenburg - as EVIDENCE!!! He did not. The call took place, during the wholly separate Huckabee Event, and the call was made to, and answered by, the Event HOST not by Copeland. Facts are stubbord things. There are more examples of this "careful" distortion than time and space permit.

Bouldergeist | 07:01 pm on 2/01/2008

You haven't "refuted" jack, cowboy. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Comparing the weight of Ole's evidence to the weight of your evidence -- and anyone associated with Copeland has to have his sanity questioned -- the nod goes to Ole.

Methinks you are parsing your words too closely again, President Clinton.

Anonymous | 07:16 pm on 2/01/2008

You are a bitter little boy when check-mated

Side Line Observer | 07:25 pm on 2/01/2008

I must agree. The Boulterguiesty is a testy little name caller when challenged. He has not been able to say why Ole has not posted any evidence of the point challenged. I'd say truth must have reigned in this chess game. And the name called lost.

Another sideline observer | 01:55 pm on 2/02/2008

There's nothing to refute. All "In Attendance" made was an unsubstantiated claim.

Richard Field | 05:00 pm on 2/02/2008

Ole's claim is the one thet was unsubstantiated. That's the point.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.