The Fighting Words of Michael Brown
Tough-talking Pentecostal Dr Michael Brown is the latest Christian leader to be added to Love Won Out’s roster of conference speakers. In this article, we profile Dr Brown, and ask whether the ex-gay movement’s newest friend might only drag it deeper into “culture wars”.
Who is Brown?
Brown is an Old Testament scholar, a revivalist, a Pentecostal apologist, an evangelist to Jews and an unabashed moral crusader.
He is President of the FIRE School of Ministry, a non-denominational Charismatic Christian training college that grew out of the controversial “Brownsville Revival” (also known as the “Pensacola Outpouring”) of the 1990s. After a split between Brown and John Kilpatrick, then Pastor of the Brownsville Assembly of God, FIRE eventually relocated to Concord, North Carolina.
Since then, Brown has founded the Coalition of Conscience, a Charlotte-based network of conservative Christians working together for “moral and cultural change through the gospel,” and who want to “make an impact for righteousness” in the city. Chief among their activities has been opposing the Charlotte Gay Pride Parade.
Brown is a noted apologist for charismatic revival, particularly that which came out of Toronto in the early 1990s - a revival that divided evangelicals and became known for the exotic behaviour of its participants, including hysterical laughter, fainting (being “slain in the Spirit”), “spiritual drunkenness,” shaking and animal noises. He is also a Messianic Jew, and has an apologetic and evangelistic ministry dedicated to persuading Jews of “the Messianic credentials of Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth.”
Dem’s fightin’ words
A cursory glance at Brown’s vast output reveals the strong, aggressive language in which he wraps his message. Revolution! The Call to Holy War is the title of one of his books, for example. His writings are peppered with militaristic rhetoric:
[We] are in a life and death struggle … We really are in a war! … We live in a battle between two kingdoms … [1]
It will be a Jesus revolution, an intense clash between two spiritual kingdoms, a heavenly attack on the enemy’s strongholds, a no-compromise stand for morality and truth. [2]
Yes, the battle lines have been drawn, the enemy is taking ground, and many of us hardly realize that the war is on. The devil is moving forward with energy and aggression. What in the world are we doing? [3]
Brown’s disclaimer is that it is “a non-violent revolution based on purity, compassion, and sacrifice rather than one based on anger, intimidation, rebellion, and force,” but these are hardly comforting words to the targets of Brown’s crusade. Even when such language is clearly not meant in a physical sense, how is one supposed to receive it - especially when used to deny others their rights - if not as angry, intimidating, rebellious and forceful?
Brown and gays
Brown has a forthcoming book: A Queer Thing Happened to America: How a Stealth Agenda Is Changing Our Nation. For Brown, the growth of gay rights is just one more sign that Satan is targetting America. In a long discussion on Warren Throckmorton’s blog recently (a thread that took three nights for this writer to wade through!), Brown characterized gay rights as an infringement on his rights to practice his Christian faith:
[There] are activists who do have specific goals in mind, and some of those goals include the removal of my right to practice my faith before God — at least as it affects homosexual issues. [4]
Challenged on how gay rights violate his rights, Brown gives a lengthy explanation in which he complains that he would be required to “recognize” gay marriage, which would be “a fundamental denial of my moral and religious convictions.” One might ask whether allowing interracial marriage violates the rights of those whose religious faith is offended by the mixing of races? How would Brown would have responded to Kenneth Hagin, Jr, the charismatic preacher who taught his students this very thing? By Brown’s logic, how could the US allow interracial marriage without violating (the late) Hagin’s rights? And of course, Hagin’s children would be taught respect for interracial marriage in schools, and his tax dollars would support interracial marriage, to a degree - all objections that Brown levels against permitting gay marriage. The absurdity of the arguments becomes clear.
Does the ex-gay movement need Brown right now?
We have seen an increasing politicization of the ex-gay movement over the past few years. Ex-Gay Watch has regularly documented how the leaders of Exodus and other ex-gay groups have consistently subjugated pastoral ministry to the pursuit of political goals, chiefly opposing gay rights. This has already cost them in Europe, where the organization’s increasingly political agenda led to several ex-gay ministries withdrawing their membership. Does Love Won Out, of which Exodus is an affiliate, need to bring on board such a bombastic personality who will lead them only deeper into the culture wars?
Filed under: Exodus, Focus on the Family/FRC, Profiles, Religion
Thank you for the profile, Dave.
This perspective on Michael Brown helps to explain the political message that he delivered at his general session of the Exodus Freedom Conference last summer. If my memory serves me correct, he called for ex-gays to “share their testimonies” openly and often, in order to demonstrate that orientation change is possible for those who seek it. Such a testimony, he contended, should undercut the notion that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic deserving of legal recognition and protection (according to logic shared with Randy Thomas).
Even if I’ve made an error in recalling his precise message, I remember clearly his call for those of us willing to “fight in this culture war” to stand at the end of his presentation and take an oath. Needless to say, it was the most chilling and uncomfortable moment at the conference for me.
I can’t imagine that his message will be much different for Love Won Out.
Thanks, James. I wasn’t aware Brown spoke at the Exodus conference last year, so I will look into that. Interesting that he appears to have made the same argument Randy made.
I’ll be doing at least one follow-up article on Brown, as there a few other things we’d like to draw attention to.
In my opinion, most missionaries that are “Jews for Jesus” are charlatans anyway. Figures he’d work for an ex-gay organization. Thank you for identifying his faith as “Christian.” That is indeed what it is.
Emily, could you please clarify the meaning of this statement:
I’m not sure that your comment, which communicated nothing but bitterness, does much for your credibility as an author here (at least, in my opinion.)
I’m sorry you interpret me that way, James.
Messianic Jews are not Jews. They are Christians. specifically, they are evangelical Christians backed by evangelical organizations. Most Messianics are gentiles trying to get “closer” to Judaism, but in fact many end up farther away, b/c the theology of Messianic Judaism is no different from the fundamentalist theology of evangelical Christianity. Most of the tactics missionaries like Dr. Brown use include dressing up fundamentalist Christian beliefs to look like what could be called Ashkenazi Judaism - Eastern European Judaism, like what you see walking down the street in Brooklyn. In addition, this is how most would picture a stereotypical religious Jew: black hat, long black coat, skullcap, maybe side-curls, beard, brisket on shabbos, bagels for breakfast… which frankly, is insulting to the diversity of the Jewish culture.
My explanation might be a bit lengthy; but I feel it is necessary to explain Messianic Judaism from the traditional Jewish point of view. This sect of “Judaism” is almost entirely a modern phenomenon, not an ancient one as they would have you believe - and as a result, it’s had a devastating effect on my people - especially young people who are in college, like me. It is a subject very close to my heart.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
I didn’t see Messianic Judiasm as an alternative for identifying Dr. Brown as a Christian. Hence my puzzlement at your original comment — I perceived your use of Christian as a derogatory moniker for people with fundamentalist Pentecostal beliefs like his.
Dave,
Thank you for writing this.
Jihad??
That’s a very good question Dave. I guess it depends on what Exodus is looking to accomplish. It seems to me that Exodus has been on the offensive against gay people from the beginning. Isn’t thier purpose to eradicate the gay thing? With Exodus new goal to add 10,000 churches to their membership roster, looks like they’re building and army. The purpose of an army is to destroy, take over and dominate, not save. So I would say: “yeah, they can use all the “bombastic” ‘warriors’ they can get.
Okay, that clarified, let’s not get derailed by the Jewish question - on this thread, anyway!
Hi, Paul,
I fixed your blockquotes for you.
It does rather make you shake your head in disbelief that Brown can use such militaristic language and not expect people to make the connection, yes.
Michael Bussee, who was a founding member of Exodus (and is now openly gay), contended the opposite on a recent thread. Their purpose was pastoral ministry. If they really want their purpose now to be to fight gay rights and oppose gay people politically, then yes, maybe Brown is their man. I and others are hoping there might come a crunch point where they ask whether they’ve really been heading in the right direction.
Paul asked: “It seems to me that Exodus has been on the offensive against gay people from the beginning. Isn’t their purpose to eradicate the gay thing?”
No. Here was our original intent:
(1) To let gay people know that Go loved them, even if the Church didn’t seem to.
(2) To exhort the church to show some love and compassion to gays inside the church and to those who were struggling with issues of sexuality and spirituality.
(3) To educate the church that gays were not child molestors, demon-possessed our mentally ill — something I was hearing a lot at Melodyland and other conservative/charismatic churches at the time.
(4) To provide a safe place to Christians with gay feelings to come together, meet each other, share their experiences, study the Bible, sing, pray — and try to figure out what God expected us to do about being gay.
(5) Finally (and not primarily) to convey the hope that God could and would “change” us (help us become straight) if we truly followed him.
That’s it. The “offensive” against the rights of gays and EXODUS’s distressing detour into politics came later.
Dave,
Thanks for fixing that…I tried and ran out of my 5 minutes :).
I believe Michael Busse when he contends that “their [orignal?] purpose was pastoral ministry.” However, be it pastoral ministry or holy war, the purpose of both is to eradicate the gay thing. The only difference is technique, the goal is the same. I see no conflict of purpose.
I wish I did know. We made it policy and practice to avoid ANY political stance or entanglement — rather like Alcoholics Anonymous.
I don’t see the “pastoral” approach to tgt as any less destructive than the all out frontal assault, but I think they are both fighting the same “cultural war.” Since the mutual goal of both the warrior and the pastor is to destroy tgt, the only conflict I see is a conflict of egos, which I think is revealing.
I disagree. Here in the UK, I have a lot of respect for the True Freedom Trust, the main evangelical “ex-gay” ministry. Their focus is clearly pastoral support. They don’t blithely promise “change,” and the leaders I have spoken to are candid about their own sexual attractions. Their ministry is to other Christians who acknowledge their homosexual orientation, but don’t believe “practicing” homosexuality is right. They aren’t involved in any political activity, and in fact gave up their Exodus affiliation (along with several other European ministries) because they baulked at that sort of thing. Generally, they go about their thing without affecting my rights as a gay citizen.
That is worlds apart from the activities of Love Won Out and Exodus.
As much as I wish - for the sake of their own contentment - they’d acknowledge they can have happy gay partnerships and be Christian, I know that’s not going to happen. But in the meantime, I can’t equate what they’re doing with “eradicating the gay thing.”
Dave,
Thanks for the profile on Dr. Brown. In the Throckmorton site conversation I found Michael Brown to be the least honest conversational partner I’ve ever tried to engage.
By that I do not mean that he outright lied (though I do believe that he did) but rather that his intent at no time was ever to engage in dialog. Every sentence was crafted as a tool of war to try and diminish and destroy the arguments of his enemy.
He tried to set out traps. For example, in one instance he quoted someone and asked if I agreed. Knowing it was a trap, I carefully established what portions of the quote I accepted and which I qualified. He then acted as though I said yes and provided the real quote which he had changed a word in to somehow try and equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
I deliberately chose not to argue over his pigtrail tangents. I would not discuss incest or ephebephilia or any of the rest.
I told him the only topic of interest was how his policies would impact the actual life of a real gay person, me. But this was the one single discussion he refused to have. He was unwilling to say exactly what his view of the world would do to me, Timothy. Hundreds of posts later, he could not go there - I suspect because he knows that his goals are cruel and would never stand up to public inspection. He could not say, “Timothy, if I got my way you would…”
And amusingly, after I had said that I was no longer going to participate, he still went on and on insisting I answer his questions. He said he would not respond to anyone until I answered him. It was rather childish and silly.
Frankly, Dr. Brown is frightening. While I hesitate to suggest a psychopathic mentality, I do believe that he lacks the capacity - or at least the will - to empathize with those he labels as his enemy.
And as best I can tell, he truly sees gay people as his personal enemies. And I think that I am not being extreme to say that I think he hates “the homosexual agenda” and, I suspect, gay people in general. Any harm that comes to a gay person is deserved and justified.
He associates with the most extreme anti-gays and spreads their bile and venom. Truly, if Exodus gets in bed with this man they can no longer claim to be anything other that a product of the Culture War. They can stop saying that they oppose the cruel way that the church treats gay people, because there is no limit to what Dr. Brown would say in his efforts to demonize gay people.
I hope and pray that some of the member ministries will see where Exodus is going and leave them to form another entity, one based on ministry and compassion.
This is Michael Brown here, hoping to join in the conversation soon. There are some minor, factual inaccuracies in Dave’s article, but I appreciate his attempt to present me in what he would consider a fair manner. Hopefully, I can bring some further, useful perspectives to his article in the next few days.
As for some of the comments of the commenters here, I’ll do my best to set the record straight ASAP. As always, I’m more than willing to take flack for what I do say and what I do believe as well to be corrected when I’m in error. On the other hand, when things are falsely attributed to me (as in some of the comments here), I try to set the record straight. Certainly, there are enough things that do divide us, but there’s no reason for myths to divide us even further
As for Timothy’s just-post comments, I find them truly extraordinary and would like nothing more than for open-minded people to read through the Throckmorton blog, cited in the article, and look at my interaction with Timothy. In the case at hand, his perception of reality is so far removed from factuality as to be absolutely chilling to me.
So that people here can get to know me in my own words, I copy here my closing words on the long thread on the Throckmorton blog. It really does reflect who I am.
Michael (the quote follows here)
The biggest thing I take away here [from my time on the blog] is the fact that without long term, personal relationships, or, at the least, without more face to face, offline dialogue, it will be difficult for me to be trusted by these men and women. Moreover, I don’t entirely blame them for that, given their worldview, given their understanding of the “hostile” position I take, given the fact that to them, I am undermining their humanity, their civil rights, indeed, their very relationship with God, even claiming to stand in God’s place (in their eyes). Thankfully, through the years, I have built up some very solid relationships with rabbis and Jewish “counter-missionaries,” people who still oppose what I stand for but count me as a friend (and I the same with them) after being quite antagonistic to me in the past, now with genuine respect and love on both sides of the divide. I hope the same thing will happen here, and in that spirit, I make this closing comment.
It is with care and concern before the Lord that I take any of the stands that I take, and I never do so without much introspection and, often, genuine pain, not wanting to hurt the GLBT community more than it has been hurt, not wanting to reflect my heart rather than God’s heart, not wanting to be a poor witness of Jesus, not wanting to reject those that He is affirming, and always wanting to be sensitive to the voice of the Spirit, the voice of conscience, and the voice of the disenfranchised. And while awaiting the ultimate day of accounting before God’s throne, I bring myself before Him (often daily), asking Him to examine my heart, my life, my motives, my responses, my words, my actions, praying for both mercy and forgiveness where I fall short and for courage to stand where His truth requires it, regardless of the cost or consequences. More than that, I cannot do.
Dave,
I don’t think we’re really far apart on this. I agree that there is such a thing as pastoral support for acknowledged gays who consider the “sin” is to have sex with a guy, not their inclination to do so. I can see now that that is what you believe Michael was describing as Exodus’ original intent.
I don’t agree that Exodus or Love Won Out has ever been that because of their fundamentalist roots. I don’t think they have reversed their approach so much as they have evolved. I can’t really prove that, it’s just been my own experience, which admitedly does not go back to their beginning but does go back 20 years. What does seem clear is that the “pastoral” types have given up “their Exodus affiliation” because they balked at Exodus’ methods. Exodus seems content to lose these people as supporters, yet they want to grow by “10,000.” Instead, they are inviting the warrior types to join and lead them. I do think their purpose is to eradicate the gay thing and I don’t believe they will reverse and become pastoral. I am not surprised when they add a Michael Brown to their ranks.
It all depends on whether you believe that the whole gay thing has anything at all to do with religion. I admit the possibility in some cases, but more and more, I can only see the obvious motivators– hate, fear, ignorance prejudice, personal issues bettr worked out through others than oneself, etc.
Just because someone insists that “X” is his religious belief, even citing scripture, does NOT make that a true statement.
and it certainly doesn’t make it right. As queen Latifah put it so elegantly: you’re gonna see a whole lot of ungly coming from a whole bunch of stupid.
According to the agenda on LWO’s website for Memphis Brown is only leading one session, a small “culture track” breakout session in the afternoon titled “Mobilizing Your Community for Action”
http://www.lovewonout.com/images/pdfs/mem_agenda.pdf
See, Dan, they read my article and demoted him already. That’s what I call a result!
Dan,
Thanks for the link.
I checked out the Ex-Gay Agenda and to my surprise (sarcasm) there isn’t much there for the struggler (”overcomer”). The gay guy there trying to overcome his orientation has 45 minutes scheduled just for him.
But the Culture Warrior has something scheduled for every minute of the day. I guess they know their audience.
Michael,
The order of the posts seems to have changed…just read your entry. Thank you for the clarification. I had no idea and am really shocked that such a group could have existed at Melodyland. It’s a shame it didn’t last.
Paul
Just do a Google study on the spiritual shenanigans of the “Brownsville Revival.”
That will tell you all you need to know about Brown and his ilk. They are playing to the credulou$. I am not the least surprised that Exodus is cozying up to them.
how is this for bizarre? i have been emailing back and forth with brown for over a day now. apparently he thinks that we unfairly malign his side of the issue.
but on the good side of our conversation, he bought my book. he tried but couldnt refute anything in it. but it was an interesting discussion.
There seem to be quite a few less-than-complementary articles at http://www.rickross.com/groups/brownsville.html
Daniel,
Thanks for the link. Whether this is their only plan for him, or they are just testing the waters for a larger role, I’m not sure I find either to be a healthy indicator for the direction of LWO.
Moderator Note: The comment above by the subject of this post Michael Brown was caught by the spam filter and was only released just now. Comments following and up to this one were made without having a view of Mr. Browns comment.
Carry on.
Timothy,
I’d like to comment on this thread, but am going to find it difficult if I don’t know how one defines terms, or how one judges what a persons intentions or hidden thoughts are, their motivations etc. I guess the question is best summed up as: What does a person who believes the bible forbids homosexual acts, who believes that he may have limits to what he can say about homosexuality in the future at his pulpit for example (whether he is wrong or right), and he speaks out against what he thinks may limit has ability to speak about his understanding of what the bible says about homosexuality, but who truly loves gays and sees them as people of God, even though he disagrees with homosexuality in any affirming sense? What would he look like, or how would we know he doesn’t hate GLBT people? I think if you answer that, I’ll understand the issues better and can hopefully chime in a little.
Thanks!
A few quick comments:
1) It was Kenneth Hagin, Jr, not his famous father who made the unfortunate comments cited by Dave Rattigan. This is just for clarification.
2) My book, Revolution: The Call to Holy War, has almost nothing to do with GLBT issues. Moreover, it is a specific call to renounce violence and anger and to take up our crosses and follow Jesus.
3) While it is true that there were some critics who maligned the Brownsville Revival (as is common in every revival movement), and while there was a hit piece on the revival published in the local newspaper (that was recognized as such in the community), not even critics associated Brownsville with bizarre things like “animal noises” or other phenomenon like “hysterical laughter.” The movement emphasized holiness and repentance, and to this day, there are about 200 missionaries serving humanitarian and spiritual needs around the world that our school trained and sent out as a direct fruit of the revival.
4) My message at the Exodus conference is readily available; it is not accurately represented by the posters here.
5) As for my e-interaction with Alvin not refuting his book, I would be happy to release the contents of it with his permission. His book is fraught with serious judgments and misrepresentations (in the midst of some worthwhile observations), and unbiased readers of our interaction would find plenty of factual data that I submitted to him that controverts points of his book. Should his book gain sufficient readership, I’ll post a detailed review.
6) It is ironic that in my Exodus message, I quoted from Dr. Mel White who wrote, “Jesus said, ‘Love your enemies.’ Love demands that we quit cooperating with those who oppress us. It is time for a campaign of relentless nonviolent resistance that will convince our adversaries to do justice at last. They have assumed that we are infinitely patient or too comfortable to call for revolution. For their sake, and for the sake of the nation, we must prove them wrong.” So, it is OK for Mel to call for a “revolution” while it is wrong for me to call for a Jesus revolution? Why isn’t Dr. White being excoriated on this website for his rhetoric?
7) I’m fully aware that I am, for the most part, guilty as charged here before the conversation even begins, and that whatever an “insider” posts against me will be assumed true – which probably happens within any camp with sharply drawn convictions – but for those would actually like to take the time to know where I stand (as opposed to the mythical Michael Brown presented by Timothy and others), why not listen to my interview on Queer Channel Radio on San Francisco? I don’t expect to convince you, but I think you’ll gain a more accurate perspective of who I am than from what is being posted here. Then, if we differ, it as least based on truthful differences, not fictional ones. For the interview, go to: http://www.queerchannelradio.com/cc-common/podcast.html and look for the Dec. 2 interview, first hour.
I hope to interact further as time permits. Thanks for listening! (Please forgive any typos.)
Ivan,
The first thing he would do is to commit to not lying. He would decide that he would not protray gay people in a false light.
Second, he would commit to treating gay individuals or couples (whom he thinks are sinning) no worse than heterosexual individuals or couples whom he thinks are sinning. For example, if he’s willing to allow the state to recognize a Satanist marriage, he cannot then argue God and faith as a reason to deny gay persons the same rights he allows in Satanists solely due to their opposite-sex nature.
Third, he would ask himself whether his intentions, goals, plans and political efforts would have an impact on gay persons and if he would like it if somehow gay persons came to power and did this to him instead. If he wouldn’t like it, he’s ordered by Christ not to do it to others.
Fourth, he would recognize that he is not God and that it is immoral to force his religious beliefs on others and society. This especially holds true for areas in which there is great disagreement about Scriptural interpretation.
Finally, Ivan, he would seek honest communication based on a desire for real discource and a drive for empathy.
That would be a good start.
You see, Ivan, I respect that others differ in matters of faith. But I absolutely demand that they allow me the same rights and priveleges to believe and observe my faith unhindered by their meddling.
When invited by the spiritual rebels of his time to join their “revolution,” Jesus of Nazareth said no.
When Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant in defense of Jesus, Jesus scolded Peter.
Jesus sacrificed his life in repudiation of the culture warriors.
To be a jihadist, as Michael Brown does, is to oppose the very death and resurrection of Jesus. It is to assert that corrupt man can usurp the power and moral authority that belong only to God.
Your lying about point 3 Michael. In 1995 your former Pastor John Kilpatrick said “Laughter” was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Michael, isn’t your book about your time in Brownsville called “From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire?”
Brownsville is just a carry-over of the “Latter Rain” movement wholly condemned by the First Assembly of God Church. I know that Michael, and so should you.
LOL, luv ya Timothy. I wonder if he’s still kosher?
First of all, Europe, Schmurope! The American Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have in all likelihood seen Europe as a lost cause for many years, anyway. The main arm for them was the late Francis Schaeffer; today there is no solid base. IOW no great loss for Exodus especially when they have a “war” to fight at home.
Secondly, I wonder how the GLBTs of today — the younger ones just coming into realization of themselves are processing all this info. Are they truly going to these conferences as wet behind the ears as I was going into that Homosexuals Anonymous meeting room back in the mid to late ’80’s?
Perhaps as some from time to time have suggested in various venues — when one’s sexual orientation will not budge — how blessed is the distraction of being part of a “bigger picture”. To put it starkly: I may be going into a gay bar tonight, but by golly, when the Conference rolls around, I can be part of a group setting extolling the “virtues of straighthood”.
And Exodus surely knows this: if not on a conscious, then surely on a subconscious level. *Why* did they change from one on one support to politics? IMHO the answer is right there.
Alan Chambers, IMHO, should answer the question as to why Exodus is more about politics than ministering and sharing the gospel.
Michael Brown:
Since your only source of doctrine is derived from the Bible, can you show where that is stated in Scripture?
Who are your adversaries? and what is it that you must prove is wrong about them? When did Christ get interested in saving nations instead of individual souls?
As for a “Jesus Revolution,” Jesus beat you by about 2000 years on calling a “revolution” but he did not seem to envision it as you seem to.
Jesus said, “I say to you, Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you.
“Love your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return, and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind even to the unthankful and to the evil.”
Michael Brown said:
With or without his permission, this thread is not about Alvin’s book or your discussions with him.
As to your comments on the facts of the story, we will most certainly check the sources, but none of what you mentioned, even if inaccurate, detracts from the main issues. We will post what we find either here or in a follow up post.
There is an enormous amount of material expressing serious concern for issues surrounding the Brownsville Revival. There is no single “hit piece” nor is much of it from local papers.
Back to the subject…
David (Roberts),
So, people here are allowed to post whatever they want and represent me however they want, but I’m not allowed to respond to them? This is a little baffling to me. If their comments are fair game, why aren’t mine? If Alvin can make a statement, can’t I interact with it?
As for the “hit piece” comment, I got that from a Wikipedia article with reference to how some Christian leaders viewed a series of articles in the local newspaper, which became fuel for the fodder of the critics.
As for the specific points I mentioned with regard to the revival, of course I agree: That does not detract from the main points, but remember: I was not the one who wrote the article mentioning Brownsville, nor I was the one who falsely characterized. And just for the record, every service was video taped — amount to more than 1,000 meetings — so people don’t need to rely on hearsay. And I was there for about 800 of the meetings, so I do know whereof I speak.
Michael
Alan S.,
That’s Mel White’s quote you’re refuting, not mine. Please re-read the post where I cite it. So why would I defend his quote?
As for Jesus beating me to the punch in terms of using the concept of revolution, of course we know that he didn’t use that exact word — but I agree with you fully. He was a revolutionary, and he called us to overcome evil with good. That’s the message I preach, and I devote a whole chapter of my Revolution book to that subject.
The very words of Jesus you quote are ones I often share with our students — and ones with which I challenge myself. Amen!
I know I’m being portrayed a certain way here, but if you’ll read what I’ve written in full and in context, and if you’ll listen to the related messages, you’ll see that I concur with you.
Here’s a great quote from H. S. Vigeveno in his book Jesus the Revolutionary: “Revolutionary, indeed, this mission, to begin with a cross and sway the whole world through suffering love. Revolutionary to build a Church on the sacrifice that offers man forgiveness and atonement with God.”
Michael
Mike (Airhart),
May I ask where you got the idea that I’m a jihadist? Are you serious in using that term? My book, Revolution, is a call to change the world by preaching the gospel and laying down our lives. I have a whole chapter devoted to the words of Jesus to put down our swords — the words he spoke to Peter in the very account you mention!
I deplore tactics of violence and anger and intimidation, and if you’ll ever listen to my lectures regarding GLBT issues, you’ll hear a gracious tone from me. That’s also why I issued a public apology to the GLBT community of Charlotte for our insensitivity to many of the struggles experienced by the gay community when they come into our churches.
Of course, you might strongly disagree with where I stand on moral and cultural issues, but I am not a political activist, I’m a gospel activist.
Anyway, perhaps you want to retract the jihadist comment?
Michael
Michael Brown,
Thank you for the clarification. But one thing puzzles me, if you truly preach the Gospel message, why are you associated with a group like Exodus?
Franc,
You wrote: “Your lying about point 3 Michael. In 1995 your former Pastor John Kilpatrick said ‘Laughter’ was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Michael, isn’t your book about your time in Brownsville called ‘From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire?’”
Franc, first, I don’t lie (contrary to some of the accusations here); second, all of us at Brownsville believed that joyous laughter was a potential manifestation of the Spirit, and on occasion, we saw it happen in our services, but it was actually quite rare, and we were not known for it (I don’t recall in 800 services ever seeing any of us in leadership or on the platform overcome with “holy laughter”). We were known for strong repentance preaching and much weeping, and the manifestations we were criticized for had to with falling and shaking, not laughing. It was evangelist Rodney Howard-Browne whose meetings were known for “holy laughter.” Third, the title of my book proves that very point. It came out three months BEFORE the revival in Brownsville, and it called for people to move on from holy laughter and move into holy fire – meaning repentance and holiness. That’s why I was involved in Brownsville!
As for Brownsville being a “carry-over of the ‘Latter Rain’ movement,” which was rejected by the Assemblies of God, to the contrary, there is no historic connection between the two, and the Brownsville Revival took place in an Assembly of God church, with the blessing of the Assemblies national leadership. I personally met with Thomas Trask and the other senior leaders, who were thrilled with what happened in our midst. In fact, it was the Assemblies of God that loaned the church money to help our ministry school purchase a campus in Pensacola. That’s how much they believed in what was happening there.
Michael
Mr. Brown wants to deny gay and lesbian people the right to marry (as well as civil unions and domestic partnerships), wants to deny gays and lesbian equal protection under the law (job discrimination and hate crimes protections), and wants to deny gays and lesbians the right to adopt children (and by extension the right of a child who would be adopted by a gay parent the right to having a parent), but he isn’t a political activist. Mr. Brown, that would be telling a lie. You cannot devote yourself wholeheartly to public political causes and claim you are not being political. Trying to cover your comment with some cute “gospel” semantics is still a lie.
Also, if you are going to actively call for discrimination against gays and lesbians don’t start claiming that you are the victim and your rights are being infringed when you are called a bigot and a homophobe. Sure, you have your right to free speech, and those who would be victimized if your views were to prevail also have the free speech to call you on bigotry.
Regarding Michael Bussee’s post on the original purposes of Exodus, according to everything I understand, that remains their purpose and intent. I have been very impressed by their integrity and by their extraordinary gentleness towards those in the GLBT community. The fact that I spoke at one of their conferences in no way points to a change in direction for them, but since their conference was called “Revolution,” I felt that I should bring a message on developing a revolutionary mentality, also encouraging those who may thought of themselves either as victims or as needing healing to recognize that their lives could make a difference. (BTW, just as a point of reference, I also did a breakout session at the Exodus conference on “Helps to Holiness,” dealing with biblical principles for overcoming sin and temptation.)
As for Love Won Out, I was invited to attend their conference in Indianapolis last November to get a feel for how they operated. I had high expectations but those expectations were exceeded, and I still remember how the gentleman who led the youth track was so burdened for the kids there, wishing he could just take them home to his family and help them work through their struggles. In the back room where we sat and had some refreshments, that became a focus of discussion: Compassion for the kids and how to serve them better. Throughout the day, I was greatly blessed by the tone and attitude of the speakers, and again, the purposes of LWO remain clear. As I understand it, a small portion of the day is devoted to addressing some of the related cultural issues, since a small percentage of the crowd comes with an interest in these things, and that’s where my focus will be in the two breakout sessions I’ve been asked to do in Memphis.
Michael
Michael
Dave (Rattigan),
You ask how I could use such militaristic language and not think that people would take it the wrong way, but in reality, I think it’s the article that you wrote that gives people the wrong impression. As an author and public speaker, I’m quite careful in the way I craft language, and because I speak of “revolution,” I constantly explain what I mean by it (probably ad nauseam to those who hear me a lot). And throughout my Revolution book – including two specific chapters out of thirteen – I point to the kind of revolution I’m talking about. Hundreds of thousands of people have heard me preach on these themes for more roughly ten years now, and multiplied tens of thousands have read my articles and books related to the “revolution” theme – and I have received more negative comments about the revolution message and its alleged violent overtones (including jihad!) on this thread than I received from those who heard me and read my books over the last ten years.
What does that tell you? It’s the way you crafted your article and the audience for whom it was written, and so, people are reacting mainly to what you wrote and to the way you portrayed me (even with the ridiculous “animal noise” accusation which never happened in five years in Brownsville nor would it have been tolerated for a minute). Before I flew out of town today, I sent my wife the link to your article. She is my worst critic and always happy to point out to me when I’m rightly accused of something. She read the article and said, “This is so frustrating. He’s giving a completely false impression of you.” So, people are reacting to the way you portrayed me more than to my words in context. And, since you would be very sensitive to what you would perceive as the demonizing of the gay community by the religious right, I would hope that you would be sensitive to the same.
Having said that, I realize that with all my material out there, you could have been much more unfair to me and painted an even uglier picture of me, and I honestly appreciate that you didn’t do that. I wrote to Dave Roberts and told him that as well.
I do think, however, that your readers should know that among the recent things I did in Charlotte was invite gay and gay-affirming clergy to my home church to have a public dialogue with me on the issue of “Can you be gay and Christian?” I assured them would be no gay bashing or hate speech – in fact, when a local cult member got up and asked why we don’t put homosexuals, Sabbath breakers, and adulterers to death, I rebuked him publicly for his position – and offered them equal time to present their views with me. They decided to boycott the event, but the first thing I told the media earlier in the day and then those attending that night was, “The first reason I’m doing this is to send a message to the gay and lesbian community that WE DON’T HATE YOU. The second reason is to break down the barrier that churches have against gay people, as if they’re the worst of sinners and as if people would get the cooties if they got near them.” Now, I understand that because I do not believe that you should have the “civil right” to marry someone of the same sex and because I do believe that homosexual practice is sin, I will still be considered hateful by many. But that does lead to the question of, “Is there anything I can say or do short of fully affirming you as a gay man that will not be considered hateful?”
I’ll come back to your excellent question about interracial marriage and gay marriage shortly.
Michael
Comment Moderated: completely off topic and would open an deep discussion in another direction. Please try to avoid this.
If you truly preach the Gospel message, in which, above all, Christ insisted comprised of love of God, love of neighbor, and love of self, and that the love of neighbor comprised of loving them as you love yourself,
then would not wanting what you want in your life - a life-long partner, someone whom you can express yourself to in a physical, emotional, and spiritual way … if that is a form of loving yourself by taking care of your physical, spiritual, and emotional needs by completing yourself with a mate, then how can you deny that to your gay neighbor and still claim to proclaim the Gospel? Your love for your gay neighbor is then incomplete if not absent because you require us to not have what you would want for yourself.
You claim that homosexual sex is a sin, and yet not all Christians have drawn the same conclusion. And we could play “Hang the Heretic” all day throwing Bible verses at each other, but the point is, the Church is being put to the test - do you REALLY love your neighbor in an equal way, or is the Church going to talk its way out of it? Is a gay person allowed to be treated with the same respect and rights as any other member of the Church, or is he to be forever the one in the Church that everyone points and stares and says, “We love you but hate what you do” if he even be allowed in the Church at all.
Michael Brown said:
Interact all you want, but we aren’t going to allow either of you to introduce discussions you had elsewhere, about someone else’s book, to a thread about Dave’s post. The victim approach is not very appealing.
So you are saying that the architects of the Brownsville Revival (pastor, associates, you?) did not admire and agree with what happened at the “Toronto Blessing”?
As for the balance of your last comment, are you simply saying you aren’t bad, you are just drawn that way? I’ve been reading a lot about you Mr. Brown, and Dave’s post is extremely, incredibly tame in comparison. Very few of the people about which we write are listed on cult information sites.
I’m sure we all wish we could be the sole arbiter of how our work and lives are presented to the world, but often others see us in a more accurate, if less flattering, light.
On a technical note, please try to limit the length and scope of your comments. There are times when we all find it necessary to say a lot in one run, but doing this habitually makes it hard for others to keep track of the issues being discussed, and even harder to respond to them. People either don’t comment then, or the comments spiral out of control as they try to respond to each and every point. Thank you.
John,
You make a good point about me being a political activist, and from your perspective, I accept that I am just that. My point was that I rarely get involved in voting issues (only sending out occasional e-notices about things to a small portion of my e-list) or the political process itself (in sharp contrast, say, with the HRC), and while I do hold to the positions of which you speak, the primary activities I engage in have to do with gospel-related teaching and preaching, like my upcoming lecture series on “Can you be gay and Christian” at the Blumenthal Performing Arts Center in Charlotte. I have friends who are active on Capitol Hill and lobbying congress, etc., but that’s not what I’ve mainly been involved in. Again, however, to be clear, I see your perspective and recognize why people would think I was bringing a “political” message at Exodus, e.g., whereas on my end, politics was the last thing on my mind.
As for my feeling like a victim, actually, I don’t, and I hope I don’t come across like that. I was asked directly on the Throckmorton blog how “gay rights” could infringe on mine, and I cited some free speech issues, based on things that happened in other countries as well as in America, and then tried to give some examples of how gay marriage issues could potentially infringe on my rights.
In any case, if people call me bigoted or homophobic, from their perspective and worldview I am, and that doesn’t bother me. I’ve been called worse! But I do object when I’m lambasted for things I never said or did, and then I try to set the record straight.
Michael
Alan S.,
I spoke at the Exodus conference because for me, that’s part of the gospel: Jesus died to save us and forgive us and transform us, and I personally know people who really are ex-gay (and I’ve known them and their wives for years), and they were changed through an encounter with Jesus.
You ask, “If you truly preach the Gospel message, in which, above all, Christ insisted comprised of love of God, love of neighbor, and love of self, and that the love of neighbor comprised of loving them as you love yourself, then would not wanting what you want in your life - a life-long partner, someone whom you can express yourself to in a physical, emotional, and spiritual way … if that is a form of loving yourself by taking care of your physical, spiritual, and emotional needs by completing yourself with a mate, then how can you deny that to your gay neighbor and still claim to proclaim the Gospel? Your love for your gay neighbor is then incomplete if not absent because you require us to not have what you would want for yourself.”
I tell before God that I have agonized over these issues in prayer and reflection, having done my best to see things from your perspective and see the world (and the Scriptures) through your eyes. Although I was sure I knew what the Word taught about homosexual practice, I went back and pored through the original language texts, amassing a large library of pro-gay theologians and interpreters, also reading the painful stories of men like Mel White, or books like Bruce Bawer’s Stealing Jesus, or Mike Piazza’s Holy Homosexuals. But I must be true to my conscience and to the testimony of Scripture, and I’m convinced that the Bible (including Jesus himself) forbids homosexual practice and unions. Therefore, true love for my neighbor means that I tell you the truth, even if you consider it hateful. True love is not looking to win a popularity contest but to sacrifice one’s own interests for the sake of others, and the Jesus of the Scriptures (as best as I understand him) would not bless you with a same-sex partner for life but would so touch your own life that you would joyfully join yourself to an opposite sex partner for life, someone with whom you could not only be intimate but with whom you could produce offspring that represented your unique union.
I know that may sound harsh and judgmental to you, and I’m so sorry if it strikes you like that. After all, it’s easy for me to say, right? But grace and truth work together, and God’s Word draws clear boundaries. Also, I have read books in which the authors passionately argued for the change in societal views, arguing for the beauties of man-boy love, as was common in the ancient Greek world. The very thought of that might repulse you, as it does me, but what if that person asked you how you could deny them their right to “love”? You would say it was contrary to God’s Word, and I would agree. Can you see that I have to say the same thing to you?
You wrote: “You claim that homosexual sex is a sin, and yet not all Christians have drawn the same conclusion. And we could play ‘Hang the Heretic’ all day throwing Bible verses at each other, but the point is, the Church is being put to the test - do you REALLY love your neighbor in an equal way, or is the Church going to talk its way out of it? Is a gay person allowed to be treated with the same respect and rights as any other member of the Church, or is he to be forever the one in the Church that everyone points and stares and says, ‘We love you but hate what you do’ if he even be allowed in the Church at all.
Again, I am very sensitive to this question, and I go out of my way to speak to pastors about the need to reach out to gays and lesbians with compassion. But are you asking me to deny what I believe is true and right in God’s sight – based on many years of prayer and study and reflection and heart searching – because there are differences of opinion in the churches? In point of fact, I’m not stopping you from attending a church that blesses same-sex unions, and you certainly don’t need my blessing or approval, do you? And when it comes to national laws, I can vote and speak my mind, just like you. The fact is, I don’t run your life and you don’t have to answer to me. But I do have to be faithful to my own convictions before God. Can you understand that?
Michael
I only need God’s approval. But to say you do not run my life, in a way you do. By supporting laws that eat away at my rights, yes, you do run my life. You, and others like you, decide if I can keep my job or not, if I can get benefits and benefits for my partner, if I can visit my partner or not, what state I can live in and what states I need to look out for. You, and others like you, decide my status in this country. I wish it weren’t so. I wish I was treated as an equal, but the fact is, you and others like you put up a strong resistence for me and those like me to obtain my rights as an American citizen to the right of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, let alone my right as a Christian to fully participating in the Body of Christ.
This is a Red Herring Michael, I don’t hear anyone telling you what to believe. If you believe as you say, then if you happen to be gay I would suggest you become celibate. Otherwise, in this country at least, your spiritual convictions stop there - you cannot force others to live by your convictions.
Another Red Herring. We don’t even allow minors and adults of the opposite sex to have intimate relationships. A minor is not considered one capable of consent in such matters, adults are. That you would use such a tactic is telling.
Again I have to ask you, try to be more concise. If you need to quote a previous comment, try to quote only the section that is pertinant. Also, we have provided buttons for you to help format your comment. If you are quoting, please highlight the quoted material and then click on the “bquote” button to format the selection properly. Otherwise it all runs together.
David (Roberts),
You wrote: “Interact all you want, but we aren’t going to allow either of you to introduce discussions you had elsewhere, about someone else’s book, to a thread about Dave’s post. The victim approach is not very appealing.”
Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I was asking for clarification, not portraying myself as a victim. I would ask, however, that you not rush to judgment (here, the “victim” comment).
As for our attitude towards Toronto, we appreciated much of what happened there (although I never went personally) but always took exception to their policy of letting anything go. We did not agree with some of the things they let happen there, and I addressed that in writing during the revival.
As for me not being “bad,” I was responding to Dave comment about my use of militaristic language, which has been interpreted negatively here but when I preach and teach and write about these things to evangelical audiences, I’m virtually never misunderstood.
As for being listed on a cult watch site, the sole reason for that was my part in the Brownsville revival, and if you’ll study the history of revivals, you’ll see that every major revival had massive criticism lodged against it. That’s par for the course. The fact is, the reason I serve as a visiting professor at leading seminaries and publish with major, Christian publishers and have articles in works published by Oxford Univ. Press and the like is because I’m a mainstream evangelical leader as opposed to some fringe, cult-like leader. Other readers have emailed me privately and stated, “They’re trying to make you like a whack job.” I’ve written twenty books; let someone take issue with those. I have many messages online. Let someone attack me for those. Fine and good. But are you going to tell me that Dave did not mention the animal noise canard with the intent of trying to paint a certain picture of me?
Do I expect to become a hero on sites like Ex-Gay Watch? Hardly! My only goal is that the truth is presented accurately, and then if I’m hated or rejected for that, I’ll take that on the chin.
I’ll try to write shorter posts as well. Thanks for the input.
David,
I’ll try to use the proper formatting. Sorry for difficult-to-read posts.
Michael
Michael Brown:
Why do you equate disagreement with hate?
Alan S.,
Yes, I know there are differences in interpretation among scholars, but each of us have to work the issues through. If we feel sure about our conclusions, we have to act accordingly.
I do understand your point about how, in a way, I control your life, but again, I am absolutely convinced that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and therefore I cannot support your “right” to marry. As for stopping you from being part of the body of Christ, we both agree that Jesus is the Head of the Church and that he decides who is in and who is not, so isn’t that ultimately between you and him, not you and me? And if my church says that same-sex practice is sin, why would you want to go there? Wouldn’t you go elsewhere? So, in reality, I’m not stopping you, I’m simply telling you what I believe and practice.
But I do want to underscore that I am not insensitive to your questions and that, if I was convinced by the Word and Spirit of God that your position was right, I would champion your cause with passion. Obviously, you understand that I cannot.
Michael
I’m not sure if I agree that this explains the issue entirely, but more on that later.
You will have to ask Dave. But for myself, again that’s probably one of the least offensive descriptions I’ve heard of either Toronto or Pensacola “blessings.”
Alan S.,
You ask why I equate disagreement with hate. I personally do not, but with great consistency, when I share my views in forums such as this, I am accused of hate. My very point was that this equation is not correct, so I think that we agree, if I understood you properly.
Michael
David,
I don’t follow your Red Herring comments. I’m being taken to task, it appears, for what I believe, and I’m simply stating that these are my convictions for which I have to give account to God. What’s the issue here? And where am I not being forthright about what I’m stating?
Michael
Hey it took Brown ten whole posts to get to “man-boy love”. That must be some kind of record.
Let’s see how long it takes before he gets to incest.
Timothy,
If I recall, you were the one on the Throckmorton blog who posted the Wikipedia article on same-sex unions in history, almost all of which involved man-boy examples.
But, so as not to disappoint you, sure, I’ll bring up the incest question: What do you tell the non-identical twins, separated from birth, then married in England with no knowledge of their relationship, only to find out they were twins and have their marriage annulled. Why they can’t marry the one they love? What if they pledged not to have children?
OK. There you have it.
Michael
Do you have a verse that displays Jesus having any concern at all for what the civil government did or didn’t allow? And further, anything remotely similar to your stand that allowing gays to marry would somehow violate your rights?
I think a case could be made for the idea that it is more Christlike to forgo one’s own rights in an act of sacrifice rather than boldly and militantly claim them, particularly in a situation where loss of your own rights is a phantom argument.
I can tell you which scenario I think is more likely to display Christ to a gay person, without a doubt.
One other word about Brownsville: Readers can get a fair view of the positive and negative reports about the revival from the article on Wikipedia. My own views on the subject can be found in my book: The Revival Answer Book, giving guidelines for discernment. I’ll gladly send a free copy to anyone requesting it.
But shouldn’t the focus of this thread be on my views relative to GLBT issues? If Brownsville was heaven-sent (which I believe it was) or if it was off base (as critics alleged), how does that immpact our discussion either way? I noticed that questions about Jewish-Christian themes were quickly (and rightly) shut down, so I’m very happy to drop revival-related questions and focus on the relevant issues.
Michael
Michael:
If you mean marriage in the sense that I buy a partner in order to procreate, then I am in agreement that I would not want that kind of marriage for myself nor would I support such marriage for the gay community. If you meant marriage for political or economic reasons, again I would not find that favorable. If you mean marriage to only satisfy my sexual lusts, again, big no-no. All of these reasons have been legitimate in the Christian community and in Biblical times as well. All these are under the umbrella of marriage.
If you mean marriage as being a contract between two people to cohabitate in the same household to share expenses, duties, for one to support the other, and it is between two consenting adults, then that is the kind of union I would advocate for myself and the gay community at large.
If a church wishes to bless this type of union in a ceremonial way then each church has the right to establish the guidelines for such a blessing.
I guess the only way you would understand what gay people go through in this regard would be if you married an athiest woman or a woman from outside your faith, a Muslim or Hindu. I guarantee there would be plenty of places in the US that would deny you a hotel room. I’m sure there would be plenty of churches of your own denomination that would be more than happy to slam the door on you. Things might get uncomfortable for you at work. In other words, you would have the veil removed from your eyes and would see what hate really is and how it works.
If Dr. Brown is brave enough, let him answer. Which of the following efforts would you not be in favor of
1. The overturn of Lawrence v. Texas
2. Sex between persons of the same sex made illegal everywhere in the nation
3. All civil unions, domestic partnerships, same-sex marriages and the like being dissolved
4. All efforts to track hate crimes against gay persons brought to a stop
5. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell replaced with a flat out ban on gay persons in the military
6. Removal of all gay teachers in public schools
7. Cessation of gay pride events in public parks or other public grounds
8. Loss of credentials for any minister officiating at a gay marriage (religious) and/or loss of this minister’s right to pronounce marriage on behalf of the state for anyone (civil)
9. Upholding the right of any employer, regardless of size, to fire a person solely because they are gay
10. Upholding the right of a landlord, regardless of size, to deny housing based solely on sexual orientation or identity
11. Encouraging those churches that welcome openly gay members to change their policies
12. Promoting ex-gay awareness in public schools
13. Banning all Gay-Straight Alliances from public schools
14. Same-sex sexual activity being immediate cause for loss of any public sector job
15. National ban on gay marriage
16. Gay identity being a reason to deny immegration
17. Imprisonment for those who engage in same-sex activity
18. Banning non-negative information about homosexuality and gay couples from public schools
19. Teaching in public schools that homosexuality is unhealthy, unnatural, and sinful
20. Dissolving of all pro-gay advocacy groups.
OK, there’s a lot of potential efforts up there. Surely there are some you would not agree with. Maybe even one or two you would oppose?
David,
Jesus made perfectly clear that marriage was between a man and a woman; as for civil government, he told us to render to Caesar that which belonged to him, which doesn’t specifically support my side or yours. In any case, are you telling me that Jesus would want me to vote for something that he is against? Just trying to understand you.
As for the question of whether gay marriage would infringe on my rights, honestly, that’s not my real concern. My rights are not the biggest issue; doing what is right and just is, and I do not believe that same-sex marriage is ultimately in society’s best interest. I know that you would differ with that categorically and points to studies by Eskridge and others to support your view. (Remember: the question about “my rights” was brought up to me on the Throckmorton blog, and I attempted to respond with specific examples; Dave Rattigan happened to cite this one tiny section out of more than 90,000 words posted.)
As for your closing point as to how a gay Christian would view me, no doubt you’re right, and that saddens me. In fact, I tell people that the first qualification for someone who takes on gay activism is that he would rather not do it, since in the process he will alienate people he is trying to reach. Still, I believe that, in the end, I will help people more by telling them the truth and standing up for what I believe is right. Don’t you ultimately do the same thing? Don’t you ultimately base your life on what you believe is true rather than what would make me think that you love me?
Time to sign out here. 3:41 AM is a bit steep for me, and I had no idea that today would have such surprises in store for me.
Thanks for letting me interact here.
Michael
Michael Brown said:
Very simple. In the first you said you believed the Bible forbid homosexual practice and unions and you had to follow your conscience. This is a Red Herring, or a distraction, because no one is asking you to forsake your convictions - don’t have sex with or marry a man, no problem for me. Your appeal objects to something that is not the issue in the first place.
Second, you tried to interject the argument against sex between men and boys as a parallel with your argument against sex between two adults of the same sex. Again, this is a distraction because we don’t allow sex with minors anyway, same or opposite sex, because they are not able to consent as an adult could.
And before you bring up any more absurd debating tricks (my favorite is could God make a rock so heavy he couldn’t pick it up), we are talking about adults who want the right to spend their lives with a person of the same sex because those are the only people they are able to be intimate and share the same bond which you are legally entitle do with someone of the opposite sex. No one’s rights are violated, and there are no risks of genetic issues. No one is asking for seconds and thirds (polygamy) they just want a chance at love with one person with whom they can fall in love.