Pedophilia, Hedonism & Impending Confusion: Revisiting the Anti-Gay Rhetoric of Michael Brown
Pentecostal leader Michael Brown continues to throw homosexuality into the mix with an array of exotic sexual fetishes, including pedophilia, zoophilia and coprophilia, sexual arousal from human feces.
In January, we looked at Brown, the latest evangelical leader to join Love Won Out’s roster of conference speakers. Ex-Gay Watch found Dr Brown’s rhetoric to be aggressively militaristic. Those who read the discussions here and on Warren Throckmorton’s website will be familiar with his argument that nothing separates homosexuality from any other manner of non-conventional sexual practices.
Last week, Brown appeared on the Concerned Women for America (CWFA) radio program, alongside Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth. The subject was evangelical Wheaton College’s decision to invite left-leaning, pro-gay evangelical Jim Wallis as a speaker. Without a hint of irony, host Matt Barber condemned the decision, saying that Wallis’s views were
… unequivocally unscriptural. That’s why I have a problem. I’m all for academic freedom, but if something is just so on it’s face!
All for academic freedom, except when something is “unequivocally unscriptural.” A strange sort of academic freedom, which appears to amount to “academic freedom except when I disagree.”
Then Michael Brown entered the conversation to reiterate the same arguments he has made here on XGW and elsewhere. His contention amounts to the claim that nothing distinguishes homosexuality morally from any other sexual practice, no matter how bizarre or offensive.
No moral line between homosexuality and pedophilia
Broadening the definition of “orientation” as widely as possible, Brown asks:
Are all sexual orientations gifts from God? Zoophilia, or coprophilia, the sexual stimulation by faeces, or bestiality, I mean things that everyone would be repulsed by, or paedophilia. Are those gifts from God? … How do you distinguish which sexual orientation is a gift from God and which is not?
He continues:
Really, there’s no line between saying this is a gift from God and saying pedophilia’s a gift from God. Not to put the two in the same class, but to say, how do you reject anything morally any more? If I like it, if I feel good about it, it’s all about me.
Love? Respect? Fulfilment? Capacity to help and not harm? Abuse? Consent or lack of it? Ultimately, however, maybe these things are side issues to those whose morality is tied only to the authority of a single interpretation of a single holy book.
Misrepresenting gay morality
If I like it, if I feel good about it, it’s all about me. … [It’s the] Will and Grace culture and the culture of If-I-feel-good-about-it-then-it’s-good.
And there you have Brown’s slanderous assessment of the morality of gays and lesbians: If it feels good, do it. In other words, gays are hedonists: they have no moral compass other than their own sense of pleasure. This is an outrageous accusation, but unfortunately a ubiquitous one.
In the discussions here and elsewhere, Brown continually argued that we as gays had no moral basis for distinguishing between homosexuality and other (supposedly) non-traditional sexual practices. On the contrary, how about the following as a list of questions I, as a gay person with a moral compass, might ask about my own sexual behaviour:
- Is it loving?
- Is it consensual?
- Is it respectful?
- Is it giving or selfish?
- Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
- Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
- Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?
Is there something immoral in that preliminary list of criteria? Is there something lacking (other than that it might not match up to a particular religious viewpoint)? Is it any more or less moral than any other set of criteria? Does it have anything to do with Brown’s woeful caricature of gay morality as “if it feels good do it”? (If that were really the basis of my morality, at this moment I’d be out doing a hundred more exciting things than sitting here writing this article, believe me!)
The contradiction: Does Brown really not see the difference?
The big contradiction - and it’s either a logical flaw or a sign of disingenuity - is that Brown clearly does see the difference between homosexuality and other sexual practices and orientations. He first makes the outrageously offensive, albeit sadly typical connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, but then tellingly adds the caveat that he doesn’t want “to put the two in the same class.” Why? So far he has argued that there is nothing to distinguish them.
And yet something in him wants to make a distinction. Brown knows quite well that pedophilia is about control and manipulation, where homosexuality is consensual. He knows that pedophilia is abusive, where homosexuals can have adult relationships that mirror heterosexual relationships. If he really recognized no moral distinction, he would be in favour of criminalizing homosexuality. After all, we jail practicing pedophiles. We lock up people who rape animals. What’s stopping Brown from campaigning to have the gays brought to justice? (Answer: There are very obvious moral differences, which even Brown knows.)
Manufacturing a crisis
Brown ends the discussion with an overstatement that again is typical of the charged rhetoric of those who claim LGBT rights are a threat to civilization:
What about the undoing of the foundations? You undo male-female, you undo marriage, and everything is up for grabs, totally. What about the effect on the next generation that grows up with complete uncertainty about marriage, complete uncertainty about male-female? Don’t we have a responsibility in terms of justice to care about the family and the children and the next generation?
This has as much validity as the illogical argument that “if everyone were gay, there would be no reproduction, and the world would end.” Who suggested everyone would or should be gay? Likewise, who’s suggesting that male and female, and the concept of marriage be entirely undone? Let’s be honest: The majority of the world will carry on as they have always done. Most people know and will know with certainty whether they are male or female. Most people are and will be quite aware whether they are gay or straight. People figure these things out for themselves, and the fact that there are other people who are gay, or bisexual, or transgender, and that that is something to be respected, is not going suddenly to throw them into confusion about their own identity.
Brown and those who share his heady rhetoric of a society doomed to confusion and uncertainty are manufacturing a situation that simply does not align with the reality.
The question restated
And so Ex-Gay Watch asks once again, is this the sort of hardline political sensationalism with which Love Won Out’s allies, such as Exodus, want to be associated? Granted, it’s been the general direction of the mainstream ex-gay movement for a long time. Exodus has generally distanced itself from the ilk of Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber, with whom Michael Brown is clearly at home in his message and style. With hardliners like this coming aboard, isn’t it time the rest of the ex-gay movement took stock of where they’re headed?
Filed under: Family Values, Focus on the Family/FRC, Peter LaBarbera, Religion
It is interesting to see how he changes tactics depending on who is audience is. When he wrote in the blog you would have though he was imitating Mr. Rogers the way he wanted to come across as the “Mr. Nice Guy” for the gay community.
As a Christian I still say we are to be aware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. His rhetoric mention in this blog entry only proves to me that while he is saying “bah bah” to the gay community, at any moment he is going to try to huff and puff and blow Christ’s Church down. I pray those who encounter him have faith as sturdy as brick.
If he’s a wolf, I’m not sure about the sheep’s clothing. If I recall correctly, he said pretty much the same things here in the discussion. Certainly he used the zoophilia and pedophilia arguments several times here and on Throckmorton’s website.
Despite the disconnect (which he obviously doesn’t see) between the rhetoric of compassion and the rhetoric I analyzed above, I think he’s been pretty frank expressing both, even here on XGW.
This is a very good catch. That moment flew by me and it triggered something in me, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was.
But in one sentence, he negated every point he had made as it pertained to homosexuality. So, somewhere inside, he knows he’s making a specious argument.
It sends the signal that anything the “homosexual” says is automatically subject to suspicion because, like these other terrible atrocities, homosexuals have no moral compass.
And, by extension, a heterosexual (Wallis) who doesn’t also treat homosexuality as “the worst thing on earth” must also be missing his moral compass.
Perhaps it’s Mr. Brown who’s missing his moral compass — or in danger of losing it. He knows there’s a difference. He just doesn’t know why.
Wouldn’t it be nice if American Christianity came from the Martin Luther King side of the family rather than the TV evangelist side?
” * Is it loving?
* Is it consensual?
* Is it respectful?
* Is it giving or selfish?
* Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
* Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
* Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?
”
Unfortunately I’ve seen anti-gay types answers these questions this way:
“* Is it loving?” No. Two men cannot “really” love each other. Even if they say so, even if they “feel” they do, they’re just fooling themselves. It’s lust. Sometimes It’s even answered in the unintentionally lesbian-friendly remark “A woman brings love to a relationship, men don’t.”
“* Is it consensual?” People consent to doing drugs, stealing, lying, etc. Just because two people want to do something doesn’t make it right.
Either that, or they’ll make some sort of odd argument that two men cannot “truly” consent to such activities. At least not while being sane.
“* Is it respectful?” It’s disrespectful to you, your partner, and especially G-o-d.
“* Is it giving or selfish?” It’s very selfish, as it puts your lusts above God’s plan for you!
“* Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?” It may “appear” beneficial and fullfilling, but really it’s abusive and unequal. And even if it is beneficial and fullfilling, it is beneficial to SATAN!
“* Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?” A man replacing a woman in the bed is degrading himself. This also degrades little girls because since their purpose is to be a baby-making machine, they will be taught that they might not be able to fulfill that purpose because their destined husband might be gay. Oh the horror!
“* Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?” Again, you may think it does but….
I noticed this especially in the Peterson Tascano interview/debate in another post. It’s funny, when a christian finds Jesus, and stops drinking, or smoking, or cheating on their spouse, the clouds part, the angels sing, they get better jobs, promotions, win the lottery, loose weight, fight off cancer, their wrinkles disappear, they feel full of the holy spirit and everything is just so warm, fuzzy, and wonderful. They toss this out as proof that Jesus has fixed them, changed their lives. Yet when Peterson says the same thing about accepting himself as a gay man they go….”well, it may seem that way….. but really it’s not.”
So, God rewards you with a better life if you come to some sort of epiphany, even if it’s for the wrong reasons and in the wrong direction?
Perhaps others have noticed that Mr. Brown suffers from a tendency to act from a principle that we might call, “If it feels good say it,” especially if it pleases his primary audience. That this leads him to lie a lot is not a problem for him if the lies are what the troops want to hear. Meanwhile there is the matter of being obsessed with taking up peoples’ time by pretending to debate them as demonstrated in the flood of words on this blog last month. I would tend to see these behaviors as outside the traditional listing of the “fruits of the Spirit.”
Very good point, Jason. I saw a comment over at PomoProphet’s blog that demonstrated this. Pomo commented that the people over at GCN seemed more well adjusted than most of the ex-gays he’d met over the years (he was very a part of ex-gay circles for a while). So, instead of taking that at face value, several commenters tried to convince him that they just thought they were better adjusted.
I simply can’t see why anti-gay folks would think it is ok to watch a person wallow in self-pity and essentially live a life that is characterized by depression, self-hate, etc. Not to say that all ex-gays or closeted gays live that life, but those that do are still encouraged to hide their feelings, even if their lives spiral downward.
On a personal note, I can say my own life in the closet was never as bad as what I describe above, but my coming out has certainly allowed me to be the person I know I should be. Being in the closet did nothing but bring pain, deception, and a closed heart to me. I can’t see how people argue in favor of something like that.
Jonathan has nailed what’s happening:
Brown projects his own amoral “feel good” ethic onto others. I would go further: Brown projects his own obsession with sexual deviation onto innocent people. He enjoys doing it, he gets paid to lie, and he is applauded by apostate churches for his affirmation of their hypocrisy.
When I was having a discussion with him on Warren’s blog he seemed compassionate, but after hearing more about what he has to say regarding homosexuality, I’m floored. I feel like someone just threw a glass of ice cold water in my face. What was I thinking. This man is never going to understand gay people, and what’s worse, he’s going to use this inflammatory rhetoric to try and prevent gay people from having equal rights.
And he wonders why people wouldn’t want to sit down to dinner with him - Yikes.
If he cannot distinguish to difference between two people who love each other and wish to build a life together, and a man who has sex with a dog, a corpse, or a child, then HE HAS NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER.
End of story.
It would suggest from everyone’s experiences with Michael Brown that we should discontinue any discussion with him now and in the future. It’s futile to have any meaningful or worthwhile intercourse with him.
Teehee.
…sorry.
Maybe it’s silly of me to nit-pick definitions and word-use, but why is he using the term “orientation” to describe sexual fetishes? I’m not trying to imply that fetishes are bad in and of themselves, but a fetish is not a sexual orientation. I can’t decide if he does this intentionally to help the effectiveness of his rhetoric, or if he really doesn’t know the difference between a coprophilliac’s (sp?) orientation and their fetish.
Christopher, I did deliberately draw attention to that in the article:
It was certainly very insidious, and certainly quite at odds with popular definition of “orientation”. However, I didn’t want to go too deeply into it in the article, as I am not familiar enough with academic definitions of the word, some of which might well include fetishes as well as what people generally refer to as orientations. Brown definitely uses that haziness of meaning to his advantage.
Jason D,
What matters is not that gays are right, but that you clearly can be gay and still be acting out of solid moral principles. Brown might not agree with the criteria I mentioned (and I’m sure neither he nor those like him do), but he can’t deny that they are moral criteria and they do exist. It’s simply disingenuous for him to claim that being gay means you’ve no moral basis.
Dave, you are more generous in your assumptions than I am. I do not think that this indicates any hesitation on the part of Brown or any uncertainty in his thinking.
He’s simply playing a rhetorical game.
He knows that a comparison to pedophilia is a conversation stopper. He knows that most Americans, and indeed most Christians, do not accept the lumping of the two together as a valid argument.
But he wants to make that lumping together, all the same. He just doesn’t want to lose his audience. He wants to say that homosexuality is in all manners equal to pedophilia, but he wants an out. He wants to be able to say, “I didn’t compare the two”.
Or so it seems to me. I suspect Dr. Brown will be along shortly to tell us that I’m quite wrong.
Brown does seem to pander, in the truest sense of the word.
Since no one has yet stated the obvious (that I’ve noticed), I guess I will. None of the above list are exclusively, or even mostly, gay phenomena. One can practice zoophilia, coprophillia or bestiality homosexually or heterosexually. The fact that these are things practiced by heterosexuals as well, by Browns line of reason, means that “everyone would be repulsed by” heterosexuality because of what some heterosexuals do. Taking that ‘logic’ further, Brown should also ask if heterosexuality is a “gift from God.”
What Timothy said
Dave is nothing if not polite - I think it’s the British in him - but he is quite thorough. I, too, have a less complimentary view of Brown. Perhaps some of it is my Pentecostal background as there were so many in that crowd who had the same focus on themselves. It was like the circus came to town every time one would come to speak. Brown reminds me of that a lot.
That aside, does anyone have an opinion about why he seems so intent on these “debates” he puts on? Nothing about the man brings me to assume he actually wants an exchange of ideas, so I’m left wondering what they are for. It is clear he loves to hear himself talk, so that’s one possibility. He also loves to manipulate the discussion, so a staged debate is a great opportunity for that.
Homosexuality, ex-gays, et al, would seem to be his next big thing, so perhaps these seemingly magnanimous debates are a good way to get on the map with Focus and friends, while dazzling the anti-gay crowd to gain a reputation in that venue. I’m sure it will become more obvious as time goes on. Historically, Brown is never satisfied with only one or two pieces of the pie. I hope Focus realizes that.
Your comment points in a very plausible direction, David. It reminds me of John Briggs, he of the famous initiaive to bar gay peole from teaching in California 30 years ago. I remember listening to him once, and he said something along these lines– i don’t remember the exact words.
“Sir, how would you feel about it if your son was using a public restroom and some homosexual came along and put his penis in your son’s mouth?”
I’m not kidding. There it was. So many implications, questions, surprises, fascinations– you name it. There was one thing that was very clear to me. Mr. Briggs liked nothing so much as talking dirty about homosex. Funny, i can’t imagine me making such a statement in public, and I’m a Really Big Fag.
David,
I agree with you that Brown seems to be angling for something. He is working hard to increase his profile, and I would guess that he is looking to fill part of the vacuum at the top of the Religious Right. Fallwell is dead, Dobson seems on the way out, Robertson was always a loon, but it is so much more obvious as he ages. And nobody stand out right now as a national figure that can command the attention of all the Religious Right factions.
I think he wants to become the next Fallwell. The previous Fallwell promoted himself by attacking and maligning gay people, and Brown is doing the same thing.
I do hope that he doesn’t come back to this list to go on and on and on about how he isn’t a hateful bigot. We’ve already endured enough of his rhetoric.
We are keeping an eye on him
I’ve been reading some archived newspaper articles from NC where he seems to have first practiced his anti-gay shtick in earnest. He definitely wants to give the impression that, “look see we are doing this great thing to reach out and the gays hate us for it,” referring to a series of debates juxtaposed against an HRC fund raising dinner. It’s all very passive-aggressive, and I think that goes hand-in-hand with the deception.
The fact that he has so quickly cozied up to characters like Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera is very telling. No one who genuinely wanted to reach out to gay people would have anything to do with hacks like them. It’s all “how quickly can I be schmooze into this gig.” I’m sure he thinks himself clever, and he’s right.
Dave, ah, I missed that when I first read your post, sorry. Thanks for said post, by the way
Yeah, I agree there’s definitely that aspect of it. He knows he can’t get away without the caveat. But on the other hand, it’s just so blindingly obvious that adult homosexual relationships are on a totally different moral level from pedophilia that I guess I have a hard time believing he doesn’t know deep down that equating the two is nonsense.
I think my Pentecostal background has the opposite effect on me in some ways. I can appreciate how someone like Brown can believe and say hideous things and genuinely not realize how hateful they are being. I was there for a long time myself.
Having said that, being polite is one thing, but if I ever come off as squeamishly passive-aggressive, don’t hesitate to tell me. I’ve worked hard to overcome that. (Go read this and this that I wrote in 2005, and feel free to hold me to it in future debate!)
Isn’t the Brown writing a book on teh ghey?
He might just be prepping for the world book tour.
That, and positioning himself for a semi-permanent gig with the Focus types, as a man of gravitas, an’ stuff.
My favorite quote of Brown’s is
Sorta like, “I’m not comparing Michael Brown to Fred Phelps. I am simply raising a question of cultural activism.”
You get to say it, make the comparison, leave the connection in the listener’s mind… and still pretend to take the high road.
Oh, and guys… Michael Brown is nowhere near as slick and clever as he thinks he is.
I find the man just plain icky.
I agree with all the other thoughts, just thought I’d add that one since it hasn’t been said yet.
Bring it home, Pam!
I object to the article referring to pedophilia as a “fetish.” It’s not. Sex with children is no more a fetish than rape is.
Timothy Kincaid said…
It seems to me that the justification for such absurd comparisons (child rape, murder, stealing, etc.) is in their minds, legitimate.
We don’t just “commit the crime” of homosexuality, we accept and approve of it.
In their minds, we want to be accepted for not understanding that what we’re doing is wrong.
Therefore, we are at anytime capable of not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to compare us with others who “approve of sin,” like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.
So the comparison would seem not to be with other sins, but with the sin of the approval of sin.
No doubt that these comparisons are hateful and intentionally malicious. I just think that-that may be the “logic” they use to avoid realizing so.
Narc,
Actually, I think it is classified as a paraphilia. I suppose it would be most accurate to change it to say “exotic sexual fetishes and paraphilias,” though I imagine the point comes through pretty clearly in the post as is.
Michael the Icky, Pam? No… he is just another Porno Pete. Hey, I am not putting them together ‘in the same class’… I am just not lumping them for the sake of lumping them together, so I can confuse myself and my audience to earn political points…. ; )
Mr. Brown said:
Simple for Christians. We look to our leader, Christ, for that answer. We also seek out guidence from the Holy Spirit. We also use our God-given reason.
Perhaps for Mr. Brown there is no line, but our God-given reason helps us to understand that there is a line between homosexuality and pedophilia.
That “if-I-feel-good-about-it-then-it’s-good” culture, in many parts of the world is called “The American Culture,” at least my relatives in Mexico will say that. But any culture on any part of the planet can be victim to such a culture. But to say that homosexuality is a “feel-good therefore it must be right” culture is an insult to Gay Christians and those who are in agreement that Gay Christians have a place at the Lord’s table. Our commitment to God, ourselves, and our partners is not about “feeling good.” Faith is not about emotions; it is about our commitment to God and to others. I can say with assurance that the majority of Gay Christians have had to truly come to a spiritual and intellectual reconciliation between their faith and their sexuality, and that the emotional turmoil was anything but a “feel-good” experience. Only when we finally accepted ourselves as God already has have we had our emotions change from that of deep loathing depression to one of assurance and hope. And our belief that God is a loving God who accepts us as we are is a spiritual event. Our emotions will certainly fall into play within the spiritual event, but we don’t base our morality or faith on those emotions rather the spiritual epiphany that God loves us for who and what we are.
What I notice about Brown’s technique (not unlike many like him) is that he asks questions NOT so someone will answer him, but so that HE will provide the answer and then everybody listening is supposed to give a big “AMEN” to everything that flies out of his lips. The above quote is one such example.
For him, it appears he won’t see the harm he does and never take responsibility for it.
Actually Michael Brown gives me the impression he is desperate. But I do not get what is he desperate about. Somehow I feel he seems to know the directions he is taking is extremism, but he gladly revels in it. Or is he confused puppet by some organization? I find it weird.
Yuki, please, no matter how distasteful someone might be, let’s stay away from the derogatory nicknames.
David, however offensive that may sound, I am just stating a point how easy it is to lump a single entity into ‘a box of derogatory labels’ the same way we are lumped by them. It is in no way a personal attack on both of them. We at the least knows our moral values and able to separate our orientations with deviant sexuality; but since Mr. Brown wishes to willingly associate himself with LaBarbera, is he not already choosing to concede his own moral values and lumping his rhetoric identity to match his notorious ally’s? However, if you still take offence to that, then I apologize only to you ; )
It’s not that I take offense, but the nature of the dialog at XGW means that we have to avoid some of those pet names that people have developed. The point you were making about lumping Brown in with LaBarbera seems valid, just try to avoid things like “porno Pete” if possible. The line is hard to draw after it gets started, so we try to avoid it entirely.
There are other things to consider, for example many people read XGW at work and a word like “porno” is very likely to get the site blocked (which is worse since now I’ve used it again, lol). We will have to put up some basic rules of etiquette sooner or later, we are way behind on that.
The nature of each site is different.
Okay David… I will do my best to remember to activate some personal censorship on any sensitive words… Is P***o Pete permissible?…. ; )
David Roberts:
That’s good to know.
I’m often wrought with angst when It comes to my own self censorship here. But fortunately, your guys’ admonishments continue revolve in the back of my head:
-Be Civil
-Cite sources
-On topic
-No gratuitous use of cuss words, etc.
Not that I measure up, or that all those things should necessarily be hard and fast rules, but I think they’re important structural goals.
They’re simple rules, but they are specific. And just knowing about them has a residual effect, at least it has for me. And likewise, the goal of course being, not needing to enforce them in the first place.
But all that’s off topic, and like I said, OT is one of those definite no-no’s. So screw me ribald, I can’t even comment on rules without breaking them. Apparently that’s how evil my acceptance of my homosexual condition has become - I am no longer afraid of the God who loathes me. Booga Booga no longer, I am free!
–
So I guess some sort of statement on religion too might also be helpful.
I cannot agree MORE, Ben.
It boggles the mind that these folks cannot tell the difference between these things.
“If it’s okay for two men to marry, then why not a man and an oven mitt??”
A) That’s ridiculous.
B) There is a difference between an oven mitt and a man, if I have to list those differences for you, than it is YOU who needs help, not me.
Thanks jason, but what about a woman and a Romney Mitt?
Actually, I think it is more “If-I-feel-good-about-it-then-it’s-good-but-if-I-get-caught-I’ll-just-blame-drugs/alcohol-and-go-to-rehab” culture. For a recent example, check out the resignation of the Texas prosecutor who argued the losing side of Lawrence v. Texas after his adultery was exposed.
LOL, you did better in one post than I’ve been able to in a year. I hate to think of anyone “wrought with angst” over this stuff. Thanks for bearing with us
I love coming here and reading these posts. Michael Brown was here, and left in a huff.
He was up against some FORMIDABLY intelligent and morally grounded people up in here. Because HE did’nt think so coming in, IS his problem and more fool him.
And he is one of a legion that can’t believe they can be outclassed by someone gay.
Love and that number 2 commandment would have given him the insight and courage to examine all of us further.
But see, he’s using his certainty like a drug unto itself. He’s addicted and can’t give it up. Certainty feels good and uncertainty can be very uncomforatable.
He would have been better off had he approached this forum with:
‘Hi…my name is Michael…and I’m a certainty-holic…’
But you know…the first step is admitting it :0 P
What I find so interesting about Mr. Brown, and those who adhere to the same type of theology, is how much it is about CONTROL. You’d think the 1980 hit by the Motels “Total Control” would be a hymn for them…”And I’d sell my soul for total control over you.” They so much want to have control over their surroundings (i.e. their towns, cities, states, and country) and they want so much to control their children’s lives that it is so obessive.
They even control God by using Scripture as a means to box Her in.
They also have a strange way of explaining sin and how they no longer do so, or if they do sin, they tend to blame their environment and society for it. And of course, for them, homosexuality was the cause for every calamity to occur on the planet.
I guess that explains why they don’t have a Confiteor in their worship services. They would never admit to any wrong doing. No “mea culpa” in their theology. And they did have a Confiteor, they would most likely strike the breast of the people next to them saying “Vestrum culpa” (your fault).
And it’s nice to have knowledge of Scripture and Tradition and the like, but it is to make one humble not proud. And it is to make our love for God grow and our love for one another grow as well. As St. Paul said, “If I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.”
As far as I am concerned, the “Love Won Out” should be renamed to reflect its true nature, “Love RAN Out.”
Regan DuCasse Said:
I have to concur, I was impressed with the consistent intensity of smackdown logic and truth in so many, if not almost every post in that thread.
I’m going to leave it at that, otherwise this will turn into an essay.
P.S.
That’s perfect. And I for one would have welcomed him and said: “Hi Michael.”
Alan S, said…
And with “God” as one’s ego … now that’s a fickle god to attend to.
As evidenced by their obsessive need to control, it fits perfectly as to how truly faithless they are. One shouldn’t need to point to years of study of human books if one truly knows-communion with their source.
No matter how accurate one’s “study” of history may be, to need use it as evidence against a third party, is still to use third party evidence against another third party. Effectively invalidating participation in, whilst still giving life to the argument itself. That seems to be Brown’s forte’.
I had a thought along those lines. If Satan made me do it, doesn’t that mean that my free will was suspended? At that point, I truly would be absolved of responsibility for my actions.
I’m essentially contending that I have no need to take responsibility for my actions because
God had no controlof Satan’s power to suspend my own free will? Free will being the one thing necessary to justify the condemnation of sin.How convenient, and faithless. At that point, why bother believe in a God who imbued us with the ability to choose right from wrong?
Of course. By not physically reflecting “God’s
procreative intent,” we necessarily embody Satan’s destructive intent, in 3D. But saying so outright doesn’t behoove theircontrolpolitical intent. Much better to point to Paul in Romans and let the chips fall where they may …knowing full well where they may.But when they die and get to God, they can always say Satan made them do it:
Well, to each their own
Hey! It is Tuesday night and it would seem that we have no word from Mr. Brown, not the slightest bit of Brownian Motion, at all. I am very positively impressed that XGW bloggers gave him such a burn that he has not been back, or at least, will not admit to it. Perhaps he is observing Lent by spending the season lashed to a large rock on a desert island somewhere off the Greek coast, waiting for an eagle to come by and try to take out a piece of his liver.
Good grief, that’s rather bizarre imagery.
I realize you are probably joking, but the intention has never been to beat up on him. However, if he found the audience difficult to manipulate, I would consider that a compliment. I suspect at this point he simply has nothing to gain by commenting and/or he thinks the only reason we talk about him is to bait him. I’ve found the latter to be a common assumption by a number of the really staunchly anti-gay crowd.
One thing is certain, there is a lot less textual flotsam in the threads without his input.
David Roberts, where’s your classical education? Jonathan Justice’s “bizarre imagery” describes the punishment Zeus inflicted on Prometheus for bringing humans the gift of fire.
Michael Brown may view his own efforts as Promethean–to bring light and warmth to us poor misguided gays suffering in what he considers darkness. But in reality he offers the inverse of enlightenment.
I vaguely remembered the story, but I don’t get the connection to Brown or the prior thread. It seems rather bizarre imagery for this discussion.
Some times I write too much, sometimes I write too little. Nick C.’s remarks are helpful, but I meant to suggest that vaunting ambition of the kind we had seen demonstrated in Mr. Brown might lead him to try to trap the eagle and thus demonstrate his superiority to mere pagan divinity (and show off his metaphorically hairy chest while he was at it).
It feels just a bit like goading, all due respect. I think the strong points have been made rationally and that what this minister decides to do with this knowledge, assuming he even reads this thread, is up to him.
Heh. I agree. I know it’s kind of a fun sport for some folk, but I don’t think getting into another round with Dr Brown is going to be all that productive. We’d only keep on going round in the same old circles.
Hey folks,
Sorry if I disappointed anyone by not joining in this time around, but my schedule didn’t permit it, nor will there be much time in the coming days, so alas, you’ll have to enjoy things without me.
I did, however, find amusing some of the speculation as to why I didn’t get involved in the thread, which, as now appears inevitable on this blog, was mixed with both personal judgments against me and myth (for an example of the latter, note the statement that I left the last thread in “a huff.”). For an example of the former, how about this, which is complete falsehood from beginning to end:
May I wonder out loud if the person posting such baseless comments claims to be a Christian? And if so, I can only ask, as I did in the previous thread, “Is not the pot calling the kettle black?”
As to the question I asked on the radio, namely, Are all sexual orienations gifts from God?, the fullest answer seemed to be:
• “Is it loving?
• Is it consensual?
• Is it respectful?
• Is it giving or selfish?
• Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
• Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
• Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?”
Unfortunately, as noble as these sentiments are, they do not address my basic question, namely, Are all sexual orientations gifts from God? The answer provided here would seem to say, “Don’t judge the orientation, judge the actions and the morals.” And so, not only is this list incomplete from a scriptural standpoint (e.g., a heterosexual couple living together out of wedlock would be guilty of fornication in God’s sight, despite being able to answer these questions in the affirmative), but my point remains: Just because someone believes they were born with a particular orientation and therefore were gifted by God with that orientation, that in itself proves nothing. Rather, their orientation and conduct must be judged by God’s Word and His standards.
In any case, I hesitate to say more here only because my comments will probably trigger some good responses, and again, time does not permit my further involvement at this point. Perhaps in a future thread one day!
And to repeat: If I don’t respond again in this thread, it’s not because I couldn’t manipulate people here or because I was surprised by the intellectual responses or because I decided to take my marbles and go home (or, whatever the latest theory might be), but rather because time did not permit further interaction. I always welcome healthy debate and dialogue, even if I have to ignore lots of silly accusations along the way. So, again, perhaps we’ll meet again in a future thread one day.
Blessings and grace,
Michael Brown
Hi, Michael,
I would have thought that list more than answered your question: No. For example, I’m sure you’d agree those criteria clearly rule out paedophilia being a gift from God.
That the list is “incomplete from a scriptural standpoint” is irrelevant. Your charge against gay morality was that it didn’t exist, that there was no moral anchor, that anything goes. That is clearly false, and basically amounts to slander.
Again, irrelevant to your charge that gays have no moral basis. All that shows is that gays don’t share your morality, namely your Bible, or at least your interpretation of it. And? If I showed you that your morality fell short of the Qur’an, or the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Bhagavad Gita, how would that prove that you have no moral basis?
Dr Brown, the notion that we have no moral compass is a tired accusation we as gays and lesbians face constantly. Unfortunately, it’s a slanderous accusation that bears no resemblance to the reality of the lives of millions of gays and lesbians.
icky, i say…. just plan icky.
Mr. Brown:
That question was answered by quite a few people in this thread and the previous … not ALL sexual orientations are gifts from God just as not all relationships are not gifts from God, just as not all people who claim to be spokepersons for God are truly spokepersons for God.
What has been stated is that there is a criteria for what constitutes a sexual orientation based on Christian principals and morals and homosexuality, when it is between two consenting adults in a monogomous, committed, loving relationship, can be a gift from God.
That would apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Just because one has a vagina that is attracted to a penis and the other a penis that is attracted to a vagina does not necessarily mean their orientation is approved by God. The criteria stated would also be a moral compass for heterosexuals in determining whether their orientation is truely a gift from God or just an expression of their inner lusts.
As a Christian, I must correct you on your theology. It is first GOD who will judge all people, not a book. Nowhere in Scriptures does it state we will stand before the Bible and be judged, rather we will stand before God and be judged.
It proves many things. More than anything, it proves we believe in God. It proves we believe God created us. It proves we believe God makes people with different gifts for different reasons. It proves we love God and accept how he created us. It proves we can accept how God created us and use it for good purposes rather than turning it against others, condemning them, making them feel inferior, waving a Bible over their heads and telling them they are going to hell. It proves God is the author of all. It proves God uses us to be instruments of his love and grace. It proves that we can be in a loving and caring relationship and enjoy the benefits that God has bestowed upon us.
Maybe if you ever took the time to read the four-fold Gospel you might get to know who God is. If you claim to be a Christian, you may like to get to know him someday. Stop following the Bible and follow the Christ found in the Bible.
Michael Brown said:
Nor did you address the majority of Rattigan’s post.
As for those who may speculate on your intentions, you only invite more of that and rightly so when you present yourself in alliance with the likes of Peter LaBabera and Matt Barber. That was your choice, and it is very telling, if not of your motives then your judgment - I suspect both.
Dave,
Again, my apologies for not being able to engage in a protracted discussion here, but David Roberts has my personal email, and I would invite further, private dialogue with you on this issue as time permits. Then, if you find anything I write of interest to this blog, you can quote directly from my emails. In this context, however, every post of mine will generate several responses, and I simply can’t devote the time to this thread that I did a few weeks back.
For the record, you have put words in my mouth (in bold, in the article, for example) and people are responding to what you said I said rather than what I actually said (e.g., that there is no moral line between pedophilia and homosexuality). I was, in fact, responding to the talking point of Harry Knox who says that his orientation is a gift from God — not the way he conducts himself in his relationships, but his very orientation — which prompted me to raise my question, plain and simple.
As to my stating that gays have no moral compass, where did I state that? Everyone has some moral compass, and there are gays who are more moral than straights and the reverse. Again, you’re responding to things that I didn’t say or write rather than engaging in a contextual analysis of my actual words. Of course we differ fundamentally on so many issues, including whether any type of same-sex behavior is ever truly moral in God’s sight — but that is different than what you have stated.
So, feel free to email me privately for clarification and/or challenge, and I will have to leave it to your personal integrity to see if you really want to know what my points are and are not.
I’m about to catch a plane now and will be out of pocket for some days, so I really do expect that this will be my last post here, seeing that I’ve opened the door for private interaction if you so desire it. And it is out of my respect for some of your previous comments in the last thread — in which you took issue with some characterizations of me in the midst of fully rejecting my views — that I add this one additional post, seeing I only intended to post one in total in this thread.
Blessings and grace,
Michael
So, while I was out learning a bit more about identifying tree species in winter, Mr. Brown has favored us with a puff of hydrogen sulfide and a view of his lovely polished scales. Shading a set of analytical tools, by dismissing them with, “noble as these sentiments are,” is plain old false witness.
My own use of another set of analytical tools suggests to me that we are privileged to witness both the usual attempt to win the day by shifting the terms of the discussion, and the underlying assertion that Mr. Brown should get away with this because he is actually superior to all of us. While Mr. Brown he might assert that his superiority derives from his affiliation with God, we should note that the affiliation is asserted and then contradicted by the behavior we have observed.
It seems to me that the affiliation we find ourselves observing here is to an audience of folks who share his prejudices. Public discourse like this presumes a variety of human audiences. Some of those audiences have certain difficulties with the light cast by the assumption that human beings share a rather extensive sort of equality. Mr. Brown appears to suppose that his preferred audience wants to see him assert their prejudices in the faces of the supposed hostiles, and then come back to them with news of his triumphs.
One might reference this process as hectoring, but that would connect to how little good that did for Hector personally, and the Trojan people generally, and even to just why Achilles’ anger at the death of his ‘friend’ Patroclus might drive him to kill Hector in single combat and drag the body around the Plains of Troy, and think himself morally justified. Yes, Achilles was famously stuck on himself, and even his friends thought he was a bit out of line, but, they won, abeit badly, and Helen of Sparta/Troy/Sparta had to go home to the husband whose hospitality her other husband had so greatly insulted (Yet another moral issue that does not reference the framework Mr. Brown says he wants to use).
Michael,
For at least the fourth time, we will not engage in private debate with you.
You attack our liberties, lives, and freedoms publicly. We respond in kind.
If you don’t have time to react to all of those who write in response to your public words, you have two choices,
1. Let the response to your public words stand, or
2. Stop speaking publicly
Because we will not allow your behavior to go without comment. We will not allow your activism to go without response. We will not allow you to put a face of rejection, condemnation, and villification on to the body of Christ without countering it.
We will continue to show your words, your actions, and your theology to be contrary to decency, character and the message of Good News. And if you wish to address us, you will do so publicly where your position can stand before the gaze of the world.
Michael Brown said:
I have no desire to carry on a private version of the type of exchange you have engaged in so far. If you have to tell me privately what your meaning is, this implies that you don’t say what you mean publicly. The entire audio of your appearance is provided in the original post - Dave only highlighted the sections one which he elaborated. We understand plenty.
I don’t think implying that we lack integrity if we don’t quiz you privately about our real meaning is going to help convince your audience that your intentions are good.
Michael,
The distinction is negligible. You said there’s “no line” between affirming pedophilia and homosexuality, making it impossible to reject anything morally any more. How does that not equal “no moral line between pedophilia and homosexuality”?
You said that accepting homosexuality meant you can’t “reject anything morally any more” and that the ethos behind it is “if it feels good” do it. Again, how does that not equal lacking a moral compass?
My point in this article was not to dialogue with you (although as ever I have welcomed your comments and responses), but to draw this blog’s audience’s attention to your words. With that in mind, I have no particular wish to continue discussing these issues with you. However, lest I be accused of backing out of a challenge, you are free to email me at davidlrattigan at gmail dot com if it’s important to you.
I said this earlier, and will say it again:
Mr. Brown: If you cannot distinguish the difference between two people who love each other and wish to build a life together, and a man who has sex with a dog, a corpse, or a child– whether this agrees with what you possibly sincerely believe your book might or might not say about homosexuality…
then…
YOU HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER.
End of story. And i don’t need a badly translated book to tell me THAT.
Moreover, you are specifically enjoined by your saviour from thinking that whatever moral compass you believe might have is doing anything more than pointing right at yourself for it true north. What part of “JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED” is inapplicable to one such as yourself?
The bible may or may not condemn some aspects of gay sex. It is amazing to me how unclear G manages to be on the subject, when he is so clear on so many other subjects. So coy: “sleep the sleep of a woman” (literally from Leviticus– do you know what it means? I don’t)) to “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV on words we don’t know the meaning of.)
If it were as important to G as it is to you, he would have said: “two men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each others’ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, that’s it. And you shouldn’t enjoy it too much.”
Now, that is clarity befitting the creator of the universe. “Sleep the sleep of a woman”? Your guess is as good as mine. He was pretty clear about adultery. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” That’s clear, but the opposition to adultery is usually limited to “Tsk Tsk” and not “let’s pass constitutional amendments to make sure your family isn’t recognized as one and your kids don’t get health insurance.”
Please excuse my use of a certain polished crankiness as I discourse on this site. I have been giving this stuff a portion of my attention since the early 1970’s. As a Presbyterian, I have seen awesome good accomplished, but also remember the sideshows that were hurled at us by the likes of The Presbyterian Lay Committee and PUBC (Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns). I even remember how Richard Lovelace managed to fill the centerspread of the Layman with thousands of words in a single fit of religiously garbed homophobia that managed to neglect to even discuss the business the General Assembly had presented to the Presbyteries. Having met Richard at the San Diego General Assembly (and Blowout), I do wish that he had had a better life, but he was fronting for people who were trashing us and needed to be called on it. All that ends to color my current perceptions.
That is not always a bad thing. At the Hartford GA I could already tell that Mr. Nicolosi was a crank whose little presentation for One by One I could skip. My little sister confirmed that her fellow Harvard Christian students thought he was getting to be a bad joke.
Ben in Oakland said:
Moreover, you are specifically enjoined by your saviour from thinking that whatever moral compass you believe might have is doing anything more than pointing right at yourself for it true north. What part of “JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED” is inapplicable to one such as yourself?
I wonder, Ben, do you prescribe to the “judge not lest ye be judged” philosophy?
If you do, then how would the following not be judging?:
I said this earlier, and will say it again:
Mr. Brown: If you cannot distinguish the difference between two people who love each other and wish to build a life together, and a man who has sex with a dog, a corpse, or a child– whether this agrees with what you possibly sincerely believe your book might or might not say about homosexuality…
then…
YOU HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER.
You seem to be saying that if Dr. Brown cannot distinguish between gay sex and bestiality, pedophilia, etc.., then he has no moral compass whatsoever. Seems to me you judged when you 1) said that he cannot distinguish between those things (he makes it abundantly clear in his lectures and writings that he is aware of the differences), 2) drew the conclusion that he had no moral compass, and 3) capitalized this judgement to bring home the point that this is unaccaptable.
Is it possible that a connection can be made between two things, without saying they are equal? I believe so.
Your moral compass seems to be:
* Is it loving?
* Is it consensual?
* Is it respectful?
* Is it giving or selfish?
* Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
* Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
* Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?
What if a polygamous relationship meets these criteria? Is it then okay? And should a polygamous marriage be sanctioned by the government? What about a relationship between a man and an adolescent? If it is determined to meet these criteria, then should it be accepted, or even blessed?
My point is not to bash your criteria, which I think are well-thought-out and healthy, my point is to say that once the criteria for what is and is not a good healthy sexual choice is changed from something concrete (such as male-female marriage only combined with the criteria you mentioned) to something more relative and nebulous (such as your criteria alone), then the door is wide open to all sorts of things that you and I would disagree with.
Marcus, I am doubtful the two examples you mentioned - polygamy and pederasty - do meet those criteria.
By law, pederasty cannot meet the second of the listed criteria. Even in a “consensual” relationship, it might not reach the final of the criteria. Pederasty is a whole different topic of debate - IMHO, it’s a whole different ballgame from homosexuality, which in the gay rights realm and my realm involves two adults of the same sex.
A case might be able to be made in a polygamous example. However, with marriage described legally as a two-party contract, one which must be made with two able-bodied parties (no animals or children), polygamy and polyamory would have trouble standing up in court with no such legal footing. (high-five’s self for coming up with awesome pun.)
Dave,
I would agree, but it seems to me that Dr. Brown’s point is that in the end, we have to draw the line in an absolute concrete way somewhere. My question is, on a practical level, do you only use your more relative criteria, or do you also use absolute concrete criteria?
When you hear about an instance of pedophilia, do you carefully go through all the circumstances, and consider how the different parties involved feel and experience what is happening, and whether they line up with your moral compass? Or do you instantly say pedophilia is wrong? My guess is the latter.
I suppose the point can be raised that you have already considered pedophilia and believe that in no circumstances does it meet your criteria, but how can you say that given all the variables that can be in a given situation? Who are you to judge? How much harder is it then, when it comes to less clear cut examples like polygamy?
I think we as a society do a disservice to everyone, especially the upcoming generations, when we do not give hard-line clear-cut distinctions between what is and is not right when it comes to sexuality.
Once it is agreed that some sexual relationships are right and some are wrong, then discussion can be had regarding which category bisexuality and homosexuality belong in.
No one (here) is arguing for the field to be laid wide open to any and every sexual practice. This is the fallacy Brown promotes. There’s nothing ambiguous about allowing any two consenting, unrelated adults to form a marriage partnership. Sounds quite concrete to me!
Emily said:
By law, pederasty cannot meet the second of the listed criteria. Even in a “consensual” relationship, it might not reach the final of the criteria. Pederasty is a whole different topic of debate - IMHO, it’s a whole different ballgame from homosexuality, which in the gay rights realm and my realm involves two adults of the same sex.
So you would define what is and is not consensual by what the law says? If I’m not mistaken, homosexuallity was illegal in many places in the recent past. The law, I think, does provide a good starting point, but surely there’s a better and higher measuring stick than that?
A case might be able to be made in a polygamous example. However, with marriage described legally as a two-party contract, one which must be made with two able-bodied parties (no animals or children), p