The Church of Israel was recently refused Insurance Coverage because of our Biblical Doctrines and beliefs.  Below you will find a copy of the letter refusing coverage from the insurance company and a response letter from Pastor Dan Gayman to them.

Response to Mr. Vining


Church of Israel

3161S 2275 Rd

Schell City, MO 64783



31 December 13


John E. Vining, CPCU

Underwriting Central Regional Manager

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company

POB 2228

Fort Wayne, IN 46801


Dear Mr. Vining:


          Thank you for a quick response to my 20 December letter where I asked to know “the specific underwriting guidelines that the Church of Israel (COI) fails to meet.”


          My purpose in responding to your decision is not to seek a second look, not at all. My purpose is to inform and draw attention that we stand on biblical ground not allowing Media and Political correctness to dictate our theology. Our theology seeks to be Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone) as God gives light. Modern Christianity seems to have chosen to trade this Martin Luther concept for Media and Political Correctness.


          You stated in your 27 December letter to me why Brotherhood will not give an insurance quote to COI: “Your organization’s foundational beliefs, including, but not limited to racial segregation and the call to racial purity, are well outside of mainstream of Christian belief.” You have stated our position correctly though we are a church not an organization.


          Let me focus on the two specifics in your response: “racial segregation…racial purity.” In 1950, Brotherhood would likely not have used these as reasons. Back then churches and America understood racial segregation was necessary to prevent the sin of miscegenation which would have been gleaned from knowledge of world history and scripture. They understood that the decline of the great Empires of Egypt, Greece, Rome, for example, were directly related to miscegenation. Also, that miscegenation violates the law of “kind after his kind” stated ten times in Genesis one for all living life and is the first law of the Bible. It is the only law stated prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. This law cannot be ignored and be pleasing to God. God said his creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The way to keep it very good is not to miscegenate any of it. Only in the decades since then has the church changed from a biblical position of racial segregation and purity leaving Sola Scriptura behind.


          Let us presume Jesus returns tomorrow. He looks at Brazil, for example, an excellent modern example of miscegenation of Whites, Blacks, and Indians mixing. Would he say, do you think, Brazil is a wonderful example of diversity or would he say the law of “kind after his kind” was not obeyed? COI says, he would be sad, maybe mad. He would be pleased, however, with those Whites, Blacks, and Indians who maintained their kind” heritage void of the Brazilian look. Those Christians who did not miscegenate he could say they did: “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). If Brazil, would be chosen in your view, what double witness of scripture would he use in defense, yet not violating God’s Original Creation Design of “kind after his kind” or in modern parlance like begetting like? It cannot be done. You, representing the modern church, as witnessed by your underwriting decision, must do business with these scriptures: 1) “All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). 2) “For I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). 3) “God, that can not lie” (Titus 1:2). 4) “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8).You see, the law of “kind after his kind” remains a law of God.


          Anti-miscegenation laws first appeared in North America from the late 17th century in several of the Thirteen Colonies. This was followed by the States and US territories. Many remained in force until Loving vs Virginia (1967) held them to be unconstitutional. After WWII, some of ¾ of the states that had anti-miscegenation laws began to repeal them until Loving vs Virginia which overturned all the remaining anti-miscegenation laws of the South. In many cases these laws covered a period of 300 years. All of a sudden they were deemed to be wrong. What? The Bible did not change. The Constitution did not change. History did not change. Man leaving the absolutes of the Bible changed.  


          Beginning shortly after 1950, the country chose to not be guided further by the King James Bible allowing the following additional sins to gain a blessing from government in some cases and the church in other cases: same gender marriages, open door to same gender lifestyle, removal of prayer and Bible reading from public schools, removal of Christian crosses and Ten Commandments from public places, rock music in churches under the oxymoron Christian Rock, some churches accepting Islam on an equal plain with Christianity to name a few. Additionally, look at the moral decline in America as the nation has moved away from the Bible. Live-in relationships are replacing marriages. Abortion is legalized. Children are born out of wedlock being 40% of births, appalling. Illegal drug use is so common it is hard to find a non user. Child abuse is beyond description. Finally, there are multiracial congregations. This is a key step to multiracial marriages. THERE IS NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR MULTIRACIAL MARRIAGES. Yes, Mr. Vining, COI is “well outside mainstream Christian beliefs.” Thank God; for mainstream Christian beliefs conform more to the world than the Bible.


          What is the result of a multiracial marriage? Such will bring curses to the couple, a nation that allows it, and any church who solemnizes mixed marriages (Deuteronomy 11:26, 27). Children born to such unions do not know which race to identify with. The “very good” aspect of the creation is gone as man has by procreation made a non-biblical man. Look at the difference between North America and South America. Both have great mineral wealth, had great Indian populations, and were settled by European Whites. Upon the arrival of the Whites, one became great on the world scene and the other didn’t. North America, the great one, held until recently to no miscegenation. South America encouraged miscegenation. Mixed children represent an altering of God’s Original Creation Design. God did not create any Heinz 57 kinds. Man is forbidden in Genesis one to procreate outside the original kind by mixing kinds. If man is not to mix seeds creating hybrid seeds, then how much more important is it to Jehovah that man not mix. Listen, “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed…and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled” (Deuteronomy 22:9). “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed” (Leviticus 19:19).


          The Israelites of the Old Testament realizing their error in committing miscegenation said: “We have taken strange wives of the people of the land….Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of the Lord (God’s law word)” (Ezra 10:2, 3) and thus they “separated from Israel all the mixed multitude” (Nehemiah 13:3). The fact that the children of these unions had to leave with mother proves that mother was a non- Israelite kind.


            I might add, sir, a reading of “Our Sacred Cow History” would enlighten anyone who is ignorant of the attempts in America to maintain racial purity and keep God’s racial order. It is written by L. Regan O’Carroll and available on Amazon.


          COI, sir, has chosen to stand on biblical truth on many fronts not just this one. The modern church would not be recognized by John Wesley the founder the Methodist Church for example. The same is true for Luther. Your parents and grandparents, I would believe, would be appalled at the state of America today and the church of their days on earth. It is the church that has failed to hold a biblical line that has allowed government to give a free pass to many sins. Where is the united church effort against aborticide? It’s left to Randall Terry and a few right-to-life groups to fight.


          You state that the Church of Israel is “well outside mainstream Christian belief.” You bet we are. Decades ago when this church began to see the decline of biblical influence in the nation and Christianity loosing its zeal to live by the word of God, sought “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Theological lines were drawn to avoid the sins and trends that the mainstream church supported. The question who is correct “mainstream Christian belief” or COI? We can defend our theology from the Bible can they? The church of today appears eager to conform to New York Times editorials. The mainline churches are leaving the hymns of the faith and have left the King James Bible for any number of spurious modern translations like the NIV and NKJV. Mainstream churches have chosen to follow the Roman Catholic Church who changed Sabbath worship to Sunday worship. Ministers no longer know how to dress at church and neither do those who go to church, dressing like the world. In many of these churches one can hear a rock concert for free. Then we have women ordained as pastors which is a mark against manhood loosing zeal to lead in God’s word. Church services today have become entertainment. Modern Christianity believing the laws of the Bible were nailed to the Cross, for example, allows them to eat ham dinners and catfish fries, yet the Bible teaches against such foods in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Celebrating Pagan Easter for biblical Passover or Pagan Christmas for the true biblical birth season of Christ’s birth, Tabernacles, comes easy when the God’s law is put on the Cross. Here is the truth on the law of God and the cross. Jesus: “Redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). He did not redeem us from the law. COI decades ago chose to opt out of the unbiblical theology of modern Christianity which is more out of step with scripture than this brief look.


          Again, thank you for a timely reply.


          For the truth of God’s word, I remain, respectfully,



          Gray Clark, minister


The following article by Pastor Gray Clark is given because of the total disregard by the Christian world for Biblical truth.  And the dis-honoring of our Lord and Savior Jesus by worldly thoughts and practices that occur in this false celebration of His birth.  The practice of commercialism and revelry during the so-called season of  'christmas' brings shame and dishonor, not glory or praise to our Lord Jesus Christ!








          The most significant personality in the world to Christianity, Jesus Christ, yet his birth is grossly misplaced by date as 25 December and season, winter. Though the exact date seems to be unknown, the season is known. Ask, what would you think if your birthday was celebrated on some arbitrary date? December 25 and winter were arbitrarily determined by the Roman church being void of biblical and secular facts. The New Testament account gives no evidence of the Apostles and Christians of that time celebrating Christmas (Mass of Christ) on December 25. In fact, celebrating his birthday is not directly mentioned. But all the feasts are alluded to in Colossians 2:16 which reads: “Let no man therefore judge you …in respect of an holyday” which includes Tabernacles which holyday will be important to this study as it is the birth time of Christ. Holyday (Psalm 42:4) is a lesser used term for the feasts of the Bible stated in Leviticus 23 and other places. Since the Ascension of Christ, the biblical festivals of the Bible are mentioned by name such as Pentecost (Acts 2:1) or simply feast ten times and celebrated. Such as Paul who said: “I must be all means keep this feast” (Acts 18:21). All feasts of the Bible, therefore, were celebrated by the Apostles and Christians after Christ left this earth.


          According to the account of the “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles” (book V) page 443 ) of Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 7, the Primitive church, mostly in the East, in keeping with the Apostles, did not celebrate 25 December as the birthday of Christ either, but continued to celebrate the festivals. The actual date of the following account is unknown, but scholarship puts it about the second half of the third century AD. Notice that all festivals were to be observed and this account puts the birth of Christ in the Tabernacles season on the 25th of September. From Section III—On Feast Days and Fast Days. XIII: “Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead, and let it take place on the sixth of the tenth month.” This early account of the Primitive church teaches that 1) the festivals of the Bible are to be observed, which agrees with Colossians 2:16, I might add, 2) the birthday of Christ was on the 25th of the ninth month, September. 3) and the Epiphany was in early October. The Autumn season is clearly in play here for Christ’s birth. This account cannot be taken lightly being so early in the history of the post New Testament era.


          What biblical festival falls in the September/October season? Tabernacles. Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:33-36) is an eight-day festival in which Christ was born the first day and circumcised (Luke 2:21) on the eighth day, both days being holy convocation days. December 25 has no accounting of the circumcision of Christ. It is simply a day. But Tabernacles does. Fits like a glove. Passover is about the death and resurrection of Christ, Pentecost about the coming of the Holy Spirit, and Tabernacles completes the Triunity of the godhead with this festival focusing on the Father sending his son to tabernacle (John 1:14) with his people via the birth of Christ. Or we could say these three biblical festivals feature Christ: Tabernacles-his birth; Passover-his death and resurrection; Pentecost—Holy Spirit being that other Comforter the Father sent in Christ’s name. The church at large has accepted Passover though wrongly called Easter today and Pentecost, often wrongly called Whitsunday as Christian events to celebrate. So what happened to the third major festival being the time to celebrate the birth of Christ? It got canned for 25 December as a Roman Church move of convenience, but wrongly so, to the Pagans coming into the Faith who were accustomed to this winter celebration time that included 25 December.


          E. W. Bullinger made a study of the priestly courses of the Bible and found that about 25 December is the begotten day of Christ and 29 September a historic birth date for Christ. His work on this topic is found in Appendix 179 of the Companion Bible. He supports 29 September as the first day of Tabernacles in the year of Christ’s birth. Bullinger identifies this date is also known as “the Festival of Michael and All Angels” (p. 199; Appendix 179) and it “has been from very early times the 29th day of September” (also p. 199). A synopsis of his work of the course of Abia (Luke 1:5) builds a strong case for 25 December being the begotten day and 29 September the birthday. Quoting from Appendix 179, p. 200: “This was the eighth of the priestly courses of ministration in the Temple (1 Chro 24:10), and occurred…twice in the year. The ‘Courses’ were changed every week beginning each with a Sabbath. The reckoning commenced on the 22nd day of Tisri or Ethanim…This was the eighth and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles….all courses served together at the three Great Feasts, the dates for the two yearly ‘ministrations’ of Abiah will be seen to fall as follows: The first…was from 12-18 Chisleus=December 6-12. The second…was from 12-18 Sivan= June 13-19. The announcement… to Zacharias in the Temple as to the conception of John the Baptist took place between 12-18 SIVAN (June 13-19)….The day following the end of the “course of Abia” being a Sabbath…,he would not be able to leave Jerusalem before the 20th…..He would…arrive at his house on the 21st or 22nd. This leaves ample time for the miraculous ‘conception’ of Elizabeth to take place on or about the 23rd of SIVAN….June 23-24 of that year….hence the 23rd SIVAN would henceforth be associated with the conception of John Baptist.”


          Bullinger offers this timeline. Remember, John the Baptist preceded Christ by six months (Luke 1:24-27) being conceived about June 24 and six months later, Jesus begotten about December 25.

          *Conception of J. Baptist about June 24 & 9 months later

             *Birth of John Baptist about March 25-28

          **Begetting of Christ about Dec 25 & 9 months later

          **Birth of Christ about September 29


          Bullinger continues to argue a Tabernacles, September 29, date for Christ’s birth by saying: “The earliest allusion to December 25…as the date for the Nativity is found in the Stomata of Clement of Alexandria, about the beginning of the third century AD. Christmas was a pagan festival long before the time of our Lord is beyond doubt. In Egypt Horus (or Harpocrates), the son of Isis (Queen of Heaven), was born about the time of the winter solstice. By the time of the early part of the fourth century A.D., the real reason for observing Christmas as the date for the miraculous ‘begetting’ of Matt 1:18 and ‘the Word becoming flesh’ of John 1:14 had been lost sight of….Thus ‘Christmas Day’ the birthday of the Egyptian Horus (Osiris) became gradually substituted for the real Natalis Domini of our blessed Saviour, viz. September 29, or Michaelmas Day.”


          Joseph and Mary with child traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-4) about 80 miles distance to pay Roman taxes. This would have been a mountainous trek with an average elevation of about 3,000 feet. According to the December 25 birthers, this trek was to have Christians believe that Mary with child would have traveled many days in winter that could be cold, rainy, and snowy. Not likely for a lady with child walking and perhaps riding a donkey. Her travels were actually in Autumn. A season void of hazards of winter, the rainy season.


          Luke 2:8 tells us there were “shepherds abiding in the field…by night.” It is not likely shepherds would have been out in the elements 24/7 in the winter at night. Biblical Commentator Adam Clarke (1760c-1832) offers this account: “It was a custom among the Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts (wilderness), about the Passover (sic), and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain: during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As the Passover (sic) occurred in the spring, and the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole of the summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light on this disputed point. (Clarke’s Commentary, vol.V, p. 370).


          Let’s think about the Roman taxation requirement (Luke 2:3-5). This would be like all other taxes, not liked. Therefore, would the Romans choose the worst time or the best time to collect it? The best which would be in Autumn when crops are being harvested, money would be more available, and travel the easiest for the year with accommodating temperatures and weather.


          The Puritan view of Christmas in Colonial America was that it hijacked a Roman winter festival embracing many pagan customs. They believed it to be idolatry. During the 16th century, Puritans banned Christmas celebrations in Colonial America for 22 years. Those who disobeyed the ban were fined. Those who did not work on Christmas day were also fined. Puritans did not believe December 25 to be the birthday of Christ. In England the Encyclopedia Britannica 11th edition, Christmas page 294 states: “In 1644 the English Puritan forbad any merriment or religious services by act of Parliament, on the ground that it was a heathen festival, and ordered it be kept as a fast. Charles II revived the feast, but the Scots adhered to the Puritan view.” This same encyclopedia reports that in the West many dates were given over time for the birth or Christ: 25 December, 25 March, 6 January, and 17 November.


          The Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia offers this view of December 25: “How much the date of the festival depended upon the pagan Brumalia (Dec 25) following the Saturnalia (Dec 17-24), and celebrating the shortest day of the year and the ‘new sun’…cannot be accurately determined. The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence…The pagan festival with its riot and merrymaking was so popular, that Christians were glad of an excuse go continue its celebration with little change in spirit and in manner. Christian preachers of the West and the Near East protested against the unseemly frivolity with which Christ’s birthday was celebrated, while Christians of Mesopotamia accused their Western brethren of idolatry and sun-worship for adopting as Christian this pagan festival.”


          More on the paganism of Christmas from Encyclopedia Britannica (1949), Christmas follows:“Clement of Alexandria (about 200 AD) mentioned several speculations of the date of Christ’s birth…When the Fathers of the church in AD 340 decided upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely chose the day of the winter Solstice, which was firmly fixed in the minds of the people, and which was then the most important festival.” This account makes it clear that in the West 25 December was a date of convenience. The Encyclopedia Americana (1946) gives this analysis: “In the 5th century the Western Church ordered it (Christmas) to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol (Sun)…Among the German and Celtic tribes, the winter Solstice was considered an important point of the year; and they held their chief festival of Yule to commemorate the return of the burning-wheel (the sun)…The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log and the wassail bowl are relics of pre-Christian times…The Christmas tree has been tracked back to the Romans.” Further, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (written between 1908-1927) teaches: “Most of the Christian customs (related to Christmas)…are heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the church. The Christian feast has inherited these customs from the two sources: Romans and Teutonic paganism.”


          Since the Christmas tree was mentioned in the above account, let’s see what the Bible says about downing a tree and decorating it. Jeremiah chapter 10:1-14 denounces decorating a tree calling it an idol and a heathen practice. “For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with an ax. They deck it with silver and with gold: they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not….the stock is a doctrine of vanities” (v 3, 4, 8). This passage is about as clear as it gets in describing the modern Christmas tree in biblical language and setting. It seems the Christian world pays no attention to what the Bible says. In actuality modern Christianity is not much different than when the Pagans came into the church with their customs and the church gave them passage.


          Santa Claus is a corruption of St. Nicholas, a Roman bishop of the 5th century. The Encyclopedia Britannic a reports: “St. Nicholas, bishop of Myra, a saint honored by the Greek and Latins on the 6th of December…A legend of his surreptitious bestowal of dowries of the three daughters of an impoverished citizen… is said to have originated the old custom of giving presents on the Eve of St. Nicholas (Dec 6), subsequently transferred to Christmas Day, Hence, the association of Christmas with Santa Claus” (Volume 19, p. 648-9). Juggle the letters of Santa and you get Satan. And what did Satan say to God, “I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:14). Via Santa, Satan, takes center stage for blessings in the minds of children but in truth God is the source of all blessings (Deuteronomy 11:27; Ephesians 1:3). Santa’s blessings are steeped debt; God’s blessings come without sorrow (Proverbs 10:22).


          Entered into the Congressional Record by the Honorable Louise Day Hicks of Massachusetts on December 14, 1972 (E13461) is this account of Christmas: “the idea of celebrating on or about December 25th was born among ancient peoples long before the birth of Christ. People who were close students of the astronomy and who knew that the last days of December were the time of the winter solstice when the sun dwindled and the powers of darkness seemed to be gaining over the forces of light. December 25th was the turning point at which the sun began to reassert itself, and its power gave new promise of life and fruitful harvests. In Rome, it was the ‘dies invieti solis’—the birthday of the unconquered sun…the sun-feast, now transformed and hallowed the faith and prayer of the Christian commonwealth.”


          Most Christians seem to be aware that Christmas is loaded with Pagan trappings. Mistletoe was part of pagan winter solstice celebrations, considered sacred to the sun as were holly berries, and had healing powers. A kiss under it began the revelry and drunkenness celebrating the death of the sun and the birth of the sun moving north again. To the Celts, it was a fertility symbol. Yule means wheel, a Pagan symbol of the sun. A yule log was burned in Nordic lands at the first sighting of the sun. Exchanging presents was part of the Saturnalia celebration. In the original story of the birth of Christ, the gifts were brought and given to the Christ child. Exchanging gifts stimulates personal debt an affront to scripture. According to Adam Clarke, he records in his Commentary, Vol 5, page 46 this about gift giving: “The people of the east never approach the presence of a kings and great personages, without a present in their hands. The custom is often noticed in the Old Testament, and still prevails in the east, and in some of the newly discovered South Sea Islands.”


          These thoughts are not a full exposure of Christmas. I trust it provides sufficient insight that it is of Pagan origin. Further evidence was given to support Tabernacles and the Autumn season as the time of Christ’s birth. September 29 has some support as being the date but it is not conclusive. Finally, the Roman church made a decision of convenience to date Christ’s birth at 25 December totally void of biblical truth.


          The glorious and miraculous conception and birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is celebrated here at the Church of Israel every Tabernacles. During this annual eight-day biblical Tabernacles we sing the historic hymns of the birth of Christ such as “Joy to the World.” Further, the Messiah has often been presented by our choir and orchestra. Then too, the congregation enjoys a presentation of the biblical story of the birth of Christ. So, in summary, the Church dedicates the full eight days of Tabernacles to the Lord Jesus Christ coming to tabernacle with his people. “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).


Pastor Gray Clark

2 January 2014






Scroll to the bottom of the home page to learn about upcoming events and to find new updates!

Contact Us:

Church of Israel

3161 S. 2275 Rd.
Schell City, MO 64783



Phone: 417-432-3119






Print Print | Sitemap
© Church of Israel