Share This Episode
Line of Fire Dr. Michael Brown Logo

A Friendly Debate with an Atheist about the Slippery Slope of Same-Sex “Marriage”; and A Black and White Pastor Talk about a Congregation Merge

Line of Fire / Dr. Michael Brown
The Truth Network Radio
February 15, 2017 4:20 pm

A Friendly Debate with an Atheist about the Slippery Slope of Same-Sex “Marriage”; and A Black and White Pastor Talk about a Congregation Merge

Line of Fire / Dr. Michael Brown

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1759 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


February 15, 2017 4:20 pm

The Line of Fire Radio Broadcast for 02/15/17.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Grace To You
John MacArthur
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Family Policy Matters
NC Family Policy
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul

About to have a friendly debate with an atheist who doesn't believe that same-sex marriage leads to a slippery slope with marriage stage for the line of fire with your host activist, author, international speaker and theologian Dr. Michael Brown your voice of moral cultural and spiritual revolution Michael Brown is the director of the coalition of conscience and president of fire school of ministry get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH here again is Dr. Michael Brown argument is it is something that we can demonstrate we can show that when you open up the door to redefining marriage and say that to matter to women can quote marry that it leads to a slippery slope where polygamist and polyamorous, and those arguing for consensual, adult incest, and other unions that it opens the door them. I see a self-evident can be easily demonstrated. I say yes my guest for Christian now current host of the real etiology podcast Justin shaver disputes that you have a friendly discussion about that today on the line of fire. So I would dive right in.

You like to get in the conversation. Either way to raise your point of difference to me or to my guest. Give us a call at 866-34-TRUTH 866-348-7884 by further ado, though, let's dive right and just and great to have you back on the line of fire, a Dr. brought entrapment sure thing right so just to give the brief recap I had spoken about this many times written about it posted videos, books, different things, but I had posted something on twitter about the new definitions of marriage, or people manning themselves for whatever it is marrying an animal. I just look all part of the slippery slope and you disputed that you felt, though there's not a direct connection between the redefining of marriage with same-sex unions and these others and you said let's discuss it. So Justin, we just got a couple minutes here in this first segment, but why not give me just that the essence of them will unpack this the essence of why you don't see this as part of a larger slippery slope yeah sure. So I think that one of the most important thing to do with to distinguish between and of a also or religious idea of marriage and be legal. Civil marriage so only one above actually brings with additional legal rights and responsibilities people have always been free to call whatever they want marriage, you can you can quote on quote marry the IPO power that is a legally recognized and so my dream argument is that there are independent reasons for not including other doomsday scenarios that you lay out their independent arguments for stopping the slope when it comes to the legal institution of marriage.

Also marriage you can call him whatever you want marriage that doesn't make it legally recognized alright so just just to go back on that two things. One, if I can show you that redefining marriage is open the door for a larger societal discussion with Reed definition of marriage can that ultimately influence the courts.

That's one question.

The other question is, what if I can show you that these different groups are going to the courts and using as a precedent. The argument that marriage is been redefined for homosexuals. With that, then prove my point. So so you're asking whether or not the really good discussion of these things would would include the court as if if the society makes a shift right because of same-sex marriage, opening up a whole ideological and social during conceptual door and now that continues to spill into media and other things and then that leads to the Supreme Court, recognizing that the Supreme Court is often recognizing what's happening in society. What if society is to shift more and more to open this to polygamy, polyamory, other things like that. What that ultimately influence the courts to tell you what to be fair because we got a break here. Chew on that for second, we will be right back.

You can respond to that question.

So here's what a start has society changed his view on marriage to same-sex marriage and cannot then force the courts in the future will be right back for plan and the Expo line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks much for joining us today. I want to fire having a friendly discussion with atheist former Christian current host of the real etiology podcast examination of contemporary philosophy religion from an atheistic perspective, Justin shaver and we are discussing today whether the redefining of marriage to say two men or two women can quote marry has that led to a slippery slope that is open the door say to polygamist polyamorous or others so Justin right before the break, I was replying to the distinction you may between society changing its view were so Khmer, the Eiffel tower married dog but it's not legal and then legal institutions were the courts recognize the change and I was asking you if society can influence the direction that the courts go. In other words 34 years ago. Almost nobody was talking about the idea of same-sex quote marriage as it gained ground among the general population, then ultimately the courts went with a shift in the popular opinion and ended up redefining marriage. I'm arguing that the same thing is happening now with polygamy with polyamory. Even with consensual, adult incest that changes in the society will ultimately reflected changes in the court so your response to that, sir, sure. So when it comes to equivalent tuition conclusions exist for a reason. They have a purpose behind them and so any proposed change or alteration of that little institution will need to be assessed on its own merits as to its ability to fulfill the ends of that and petition and what I'm arguing is that the other doomsday scenarios that you're bringing up.

They not only don't contribute to that end, but they also plausibly bring with them narrow consequences that are actually bad consequences. Some of them have seemingly unsurmountable under unsurmountable pragmatic problems with them so I am not at all worried in the weight you are about the other things calling from them. Moreover, people of always had arrangement that they called marriage long before gay marriage you had when married IPO power. That doesn't mean that it legally recognized that no reason to think that ever would write so let's let's first talk about on the popular level right to you recognize that on the popular level that the same media that I live in Canada but I think London shows a similar the same media that was aggressively pushing things like homosexuality, will and grace shows like that cry for the straight Guy that they are also pushing things like polygamy.

Now the glove sister was my five wives there pushing polyamory shows like married and dating there more and more celebrating adult consensual incest to the point that a poll Gallup poll a few years back indicated that acceptance of polygamy in America, one from 7% to 14% in just a couple of years I was the influence of the media so aside from a legal question which will come back to and I respect them.

Can you see a shift in society as a whole. That is, this part of a larger sexual revolution say Sir I think it's perfectly fine.

I don't feel any problem infected from a month to have a month to argue that there is a moral problem with polygamy that I be interested in hearing argument on the biblical patriarch stupid everyone of you there for a long time doesn't make it right. Understanding that if there's an argument there is not forthcoming moreover there are pragmatic reasons to think that polygamy would never come about. So for example the change from heterosexual marriage to include gender-neutral norms when having a might marriage contract at the very change once you bring in multiple parties into a contract. There are pragmatic legal reasons to think that that's just so remarkably and often fit into a larger legal framework that it could be respected by the law in that way. So I just I don't be. I find this to be a bizarre argument. I don't think that any pregnant medically way to bring about that that if there is a way that could bring about. I have absolutely no objection to ligaments marriage got it all right so first because we had polygamy here long before same-sex quote marriage and I would say that redefining marriage so that it's not gender-neutral is a far more radical step than polygamy in the very arguments that you raised about the massive changes it requires I say were witnessing right in front of her eyes. Because once you say, by definition, you can have a union that cannot, by definition appropriate in itself, and that by definition will guarantee that a child raises either raised apart from mother or father than some the most fundamental norms of marriage or have just been abolished, but let's let's focus on this, please give me a legal reason as to why two adult brothers should not be allowed to marry two adult brothers. I don't believe that there would be a legal reason to think that there's a moral reason here. Of course that I see the necessity of having a wall against incest. Once you can look at family members as potential sexual romantic objects or italic directly sent in that respect, but that being said, since you're talking about the contractual issues is no difference in a contractual issue between two men who are not blood related to men who are blood related. Having this new union correct Yoko. The problem of the we have would infect generally have to do are tied to the fact that there are problems that come about when people try to reproduce so when it comes to legal framework because we do not want to ask questions of the couples we generally think it's a bad idea to allow those kind of think there is there is a legal argument for the two brothers this last about two brothers yet yes 02 brothers them morally. Not a problem with it but when it comes to legally I think that that would be quite a problem because it can introduce issues of privacy when it talks about procreative ambition topically to brothers, is not to be an issue there, but I hang on to guaranteeing that a same-sex couple, by definition, cannot procreate and again the only reason that the government gets involved in marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on society there for society conveys benefits on marriage and that the benefits are as a norm, procreation, and joining the child to the mother and father. That's only reason that the government gets involved. Marriage of the was asked people in five wives course it's true that not notice true marriage brings marriage brings with it. So many more additional benefits to just becoming an incubator for the next generation that will actually let out that the next generation's are lit with without that there is no accident that historically the only reason that our government has gotten involved in marriage is for the reasons I just stated. And it's understood that the here if you want to talk about. For example, health risks with incest well health risk for men having sex with men are off the charts compared to heterosexual couple. So is the is the government can intervene then and say we cannot cemented to Americans is much higher rates of HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases bring the discussion back to the point of there being only one or two. Reason that our child centered or the state to have recognized the treatment of marriage.

This is a primary residence at the primaries.

Also, even if the primaries but doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to have people recognize marriage to have no child-rearing ambitions whatsoever. Right you can you can go now redefining by nature so you guarantee some households cannot procreate within themselves and will separate a child from mother or father for life that's in the worst interest of the child.

So the government should get involved. I mean polygamy is far less intrusive. Polygamy has has worked inside for centuries around the world and their many nations with polygamy. To this day, and it said it does bring about procreation adjuster on a child from mother and father. That's why sent again ionic marriages is far further down the slope than polygamy. Yeah I don't I don't see a problem polygamy. I'm I'm I'm thing that there is a legal problem there. When it comes to whether or not we could even form a coherent legal framework that take account for those complex relationships. But when you talk about changing the biblical teaching that we as we move forward in time. I think that if we don't have, at least in principle, the ability to make our mailing open up problem. If we fail to adapt the mature our institutions to better fit our growing understanding of civil life and liberty we undermine it very ability to serve the purpose for which it was created and it writes the consensus is that right so so basically what you're saying is the slippery slope is not that mean that's that's the bottom line that that you can't really argue against why two men shouldn't marry and theoretically have no problem with polygamy in a society change or grows.

That's all thing I'm saying societies going in the wrong direction. Let's shoot. Let's say you call it Mark thing right your thing at bad but but you've given no argument for why it wouldn't come to you to vital ability when you have people driving that was not that was in our discussions or that I'm happy to debate that I'm very very happy to debate that. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was when you redefine marriage this it open the door to does of course it is a measure basically argue my point from from another angle you're saying you will societies growing and improving, and we should have the ability to change things and being malleable that's that's the whole point that once you start saying my Lord one night on the start.

I'm sorry, go ahead and arguing about to simply not a bad thing it. If, for example, a source of a just a just just want to clear and and again before you start. We pick up okay just to be clear now shifted the initial argument was there is no necessary slippery slope. There is no necessary way you can see that you get from one point to the other.

Now you're saying but is not a problem to get from one point to the point, so your shifted from what I can count on long seven straight on file in the line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown get into the minor fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH here again is Dr. Michael Brown thanks for joining us today on the line of fire having a friendly debate with atheist Justin Schubert. He is the host of the real a theology podcast we are debating whether redefining marriage to include union of two men or two women leads to a slippery slope where you have all kinds of other marital unions that are accepted like polygamy like polyamory and others.

So when the midst of this discussion and just in your careful thinker and and I'm not trying to play games here and I'm not trying to misrepresent you silt plea. Please help me if if I'm missing something. I thought initially, your argument was that there are legal reasons why redefining marriage for these documents. When will not lead to say, polygamy, polyamory, or even adult incest or students being recognized by the courts. Then it seemed to be your same look society should be malleable. The law should be malleable and it's fine to have some of these other definition. So it's fine if the courts change in which to me is arguing my point, producing the slippery slope isn't bad. So tell me what I'm missing because it sounded like you've shifted and what you're saying no, I don't believe accepted your ears might treatment and are all perfectly consistent. One thing that one. I'm objecting to your point that the lip is necessary or even inevitable from the expanding civil marriage to include things like Union Bank thing that most of the other things is neither necessary nor is it inevitable but I'm also saying that there are reason that are both pragmatic and moral reason to prevent them about some of those things if it you know to to show you the first point.

And thirdly, I'm thing that I don't agree with you whether the whether or not be things in a fairly good or bad overall perfectly can for the position and I've been arguing that from the beginning here.

I'm saying that there are good principal reasons to think that it wouldn't happen, your claim that it is going to happen is completely unfounded. You haven't actually interacted with any of the reasons that I provided to show that these things don't contribute to the end of marriage outside of polygamy, which I see no moral problem with, but maybe we could talk about your moral argument against polygamy if it has any weight at all because biblically speaking, I don't really know you have a ground there yelled polygamy is very easy to argue against based on Scripture is contrary to God's ideal but that again as I do find your points can lead to be somewhat contradictory, but let's let's unpack them is as separate. Okay, when it comes to popular opinion first think that that is easily demonstrated is the same media and the same pop culture that celebrated homosexuality and help bring that to more and more national acceptance to the point that the courts could rule in favor of it. Despite a massive redefinition of marriage basically unknown in a major way throughout history that marriage was now gender-neutral. It would be like saying that a plane accident marriage has changed how many times throughout his three what is it is always had it, unless you had like a Nero called marriage to his male lover. Marriage is always been union of man and woman even in cultures where homosexuality was celebrated was I considered marriage is marriage, by definition, has always been union of a man, woman could've been a man at several women, particularly things out that, but it always required. It always required mail for this is the most fundamental redefinition of marriage in human history we have to recognize that at anyone with my definition. It gets away from two of the most fundamentally important parts of marriage not the only two of the most fundamentally important parts marriage, by definition, it cannot procreate in itself, and it cannot join the child from mother and father. This is a welfare issue in terms of what is in the best interest what is the best welfare of the state is to have kids raised in an environment with the mother and father, and if we dip below 2.11 children poor per woman during childbearing years there will be no future of any country.

When you get down to lower procreation rate so this is always just been a matter of the ongoing survival of the human race in the best interest of the human race, but the same media that celebrated these things celebrated polyamory, polygamy, adult incest, and now these things are coming to the courts. It is the slippery slope. So in the state of Utah, for example, polygamists have already succeeded in having one law against polygamy removed in one of their arguments is hey look, this is if if if Heather can have two mommies. Why can Heather have two mommies and a daddy and and there is no logical reason to say why that cannot happen and then you have say a cases of adult incest where lawyers have gone to the courts instead of two men or two women could marry.

Why can't this adult man and sin adult son out. So why can't they be together and a group of German ethicists have now concluded that there is no moral objection to adult consensual and since this is part of a larger shifting tide. Hence the slippery slope coming to me it's self-evident. It's undeniable it's it's happening in front arise in the courts are not dealing with these issues on an ongoing basis. Yet the fact that these are part of their people attempting to nobly prove the point that it inevitable. There have been people arguing for legislation on all different way. It has no logical connection to your central point here for as long as it's having a cozy little by little sought society shifts and shift start to come in the courts and the normal rulings and things that you never would've thought were acceptable become acceptable of courses I can't guarantee it. But I can say this is the direction were heading. That's all the slippery slope, says this is the direction were heading.

The very fact that we even discussing with the polygamy should be legalized with a polyamory should be legalized with a consensual, adult incest should be the ISA really proves the point. The fact that these things are even being discussed at all and and you have 1/2 million plus polyamorous saying or family, saying they were living like this one of the courts can recognize as they march in the gay pride marches and say were next so. Here's an interesting issue that you've been arguing that mere marriage is by definition, one man one woman right, but then at the same time you have the Bible referring to Dave many David's many why you have also when David killed Bathsheba's husband in order to get with her are you have God thing. Well I wish you would've told me I would've given you many more.

Why if if I would've it would have invented. You can kill a man right got his head has no problem granting people more wise if it means that it'll you know fight for their knee is that everything the Bible says about polygamy know now that I have examined the Bible by multiple different authors who disagree on many fund and not actually that is assigned directly to the client's assistant or point. This is the first item from the Bible. If you did okay.

I've talked about the definition of marriage in history always included man I'm terrified you have the just and I was sure you consider I assure you I'm perfectly happy to debate with the Bible says, but what is the Bible warn us about it tells us about the negative consequences. First, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Yvette and Yvonne. That's where things start, number one, number two what we see that David's many wives led to his destruction that Solomon's many wives led to his destruction that these things were harmful that Jacobs to wise was always painful and difficult. What is Jesus then say in the New Testament, he reiterates Matthew 19 436 one man one woman for life.

What is Paul so you can't be a leader in the church unless you're married to one woman you can't be married to multiple women and you're supposed to follow the example of you leaving so polygamy was allowed but was never God's eye deal either way. Either way, every ingredient in the Bible outside married by the man and woman change that is theoretically defined by the render it meaningless. It's the line of fire with your host activist, author, international speaker and theologian Dr. Michael Brown voice of more cultural and spiritual revolution get into the line of fire now by calling 6634 through here again is Dr. Michael Brown I'm speaking with atheist Justin beaver host theology podcast about whether redefining marriage to include union of two men and two women opens the door for further redefinition's if you missed a part of the broadcast scribble on a fire.org later today and click on listen. Justin, let's let's try this angle here in your view, which is a more radical redefinition of marriage saying that to man or two women could marry, or accepting polygamy just in your own opinion. I would either like if I would argue polygamy is more radical. Just because it it it is such a added complexity to the issue, rather than just making the D. The relationship obviously relationships require at least two people involved in so at the base level a relationship an early recognition of that relationship makes more sense than on one-on-one, but that of neglect include the audit. I'm just arguing that you're probably right, and that answering than just making the gender neutral aspect of it all okay and what what about this he said, by definition, relationship requires at least two. What about people practicing was called salami so they are manning themselves.

There is even a growing industry.

Now people provide for weddings and things like that in their mind. This is real and valid and they are they are doing this.

Why shouldn't the government recognize that it was what why should the government recognize one relationship and not this will months with the to these people.

It's very real will because such quote unquote relationships don't in any way contribute to the end of marriage which is societal stability, though it doesn't contribute when it comes to combining resources to combining financial resources to combining social resources. Much of the benefit that we get from marriages to when when people are your first line of defense of moral, ethical and emotional breakdown.

That way, not every time you go into debt you have to require you know, welfare or something.

Write your letter lazy, just altogether wanted to slip together sells the same problem is not as messy that that that would work too. But the point is that the state of the light is that it makes sense as the state makes a big fuss about marriage again without question.

Historically, the main the main purpose of people come together in marriage is to join together for life to produce children's next generation. And why do we never enjoy your children by law does not is that that is that is always pincer.

The norm and the most basic not that every couple procreates but that is no you don't establish something that cannot possibly fulfill that nor make it. It's new norm. The idea of people sharing resources and things like that for much of world history. It was the man that was working and that the mother was care for the kids she was not bringing in extra resources or this was inferred debt reduction. Things like that.

Plenty people live together these days to pool their resources, but that does not bring about with marriage brings about a thing.

When we when people ask for a marriage license. We are not even allow her to ask them whether or not they have planned for having hit. We are not allowed at the mothers I physically can have it.

I do not care about the potential for child rearing. That is the of the benefits that are not involved with. That marriage still bring the society at large know is exact opposite. It's because it's presumed that a couple getting married to have sex and that the majority of them are. You have children and that they want to have children that spurs that's just the way it goes. But you do not set out only one that guarantees you do not set up a new norm that guarantees that they cannot reproduce in themselves and that guarantees that if they have a way to bring a child into the world. They separated the mother and father that ultimately for the stability of society is the is the worst thing to do at the best thing to do for it so simply societal argues in every way dance redefining marriage so I have anything to explain why simply alignments when they come to the courts will be defined as witnessing steps in those directions already got one more segment with our guest will take the cost for plan and by the Expo line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown voice of moral cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown for joining us today on one of momentarily. In speaking with Justin Cheever. He is the host of the real a theology podcast. Just let me read something to you from representative from the Canadian civil liberties Association. She says consenting adults have the right to chart a protected right to form the families that they want to form you accept that statement. Sure Canada okay All right find your your of protagonist and friend in the previous writer I had on the Aranda Nancy from Canada got it. See you at your base where Sir Michigan mission. All right. Well in the North. Anyhow, in the North, Art Sartre, sorry for that misplacement there. In any case, this statement, the woman who argued consenting outs of the right to try to protect the right to form the things that they want to form. She was arguing for polygamy and then Matthew Colusa was the attorney for Prof. David Epstein, who was charged with carrying on a three-year consensual affair with his adult daughter. He said it's okay for homosexuals to do whatever they want their own home house is so different.

We have to figure out what why some behaviors tolerated and some is not so. Ultimately, ultimately, that the question is, don't people have the right to form these unions and shouldn't the government then recognize them to give them some type of of sanctity or some type of of recognition so that hey if if you want to have more stability with gay couples being together that have more stability with polygamists polyamorous bite by sanctioning it would not be the same logic login. There are independent reasons for not want to grant legal sanction to boot to two incestuous marriages that that much is obvious. I don't know why were still debating that still haven't really stopped going anywhere with why it's wrong for two brothers in Ireland and island. Now that they have and to redefine marriage. One of the leading advocates that Congressman there himself as gay said what about first cousins were same-sex why can't we go there. It's a tablet why not the legislatively if we want to have a clear liquid with them. We need to legislate in broad categories right we don't legislate ON specific the content is where you and your two brothers that it's okay or right what we do is we have broad broad letter placing that applies to all the different categories here any less of a sense exploit any consenting event on some same-sex that's brought anyone from the same-sex Canary has at his loss of consenting adults so that covers incestuous as well. That's a broad category.

Anyone in the same-sex Canary. There are there are reason independent reason why can't two brothers, Mary II don't I don't know how many times I had to repeat this so I had a hat that I haven't gone Nancy.

It why cannot investors marriage BBB category of investors marriage.

There are reasons privacy rear. But the state should inquire about the details, and so will be closing that tells what details the two men. Justin two men. What details detail and want to marry the courts can't say are you are you brothers not that's that's that, given the promise to brothers their 30 or so. The twins real morally moral problem with it a point to be a little reason against it.

Give me legal reason against against the legal reason would be about the broadness of legal red legislation that enters the but this bill is so the birth of the same-sex Canary. How much more could be it. If you want to if you wanted it or document that scenario again.

I have no problem with it for the slippery slope and that's my whole argument. If you can do the one you can do the other without the one you don't get to the other, of course, it's clear all right How about this you say that marriages cause instability society, but we know full well it's the open secret that gay men still tend to sleep around and that very very few are monogamous and the same with a heterosexual couples, and I was in fact they call it monogamy they redefine it so that you still have the problem sexually transmitted diseases you still have the problem of lack of stability which cannot equal the stability of of a heterosexual home. Why should the courts go there got all these other issues I don't understand what the actual imprint being made. The dippy imprint. The thing that we shouldn't allow the protections for birth same-sex individuals because some of them still bring with them the B word.

The liabilities of being a life with them that that's not a valid inference because that your your your criminalizing the broad category for the behavior of some of them know it's the majority number one number two were saying is still not marriage in the same since its heterosexual marriage number three you are saying that the whole thing is about stability. Will this this really doesn't bring the stability number for the same. One reason against. There are signs that are merited that are open and that's something that you would like the end of that something that you would like, that they may think allow immigrants. We can allow open marriage load the whole thing is once you: open marriage. You don't you don't get married and: open marriage get married and start fooling around with others. That's that's wrong know if you want have multiple partners at all recognize not that, but again this is the exception to the rule. The norm among gay men is that they are not monogamous. That's the norm, and it's why the reporting gay publications. This is not some Internet conspiracy in a from the illuminati that are repeating at and so so you have the fact that they can't procreate bind by nature, you have the fact that if they bring a child into the world. The child is guaranteed to be separated from father, mother, you have the norm that they have more sexually transmitted diseases and you have the norm that their relationships are less stable. Why in the world.

We completely redefine marriage for that when you when you bring marriage into the picture. It brings with it some stability. The point being that assist everybody since polygamists polyamorous everybody should do it for everybody bringing some and I have no problem with that.

I don't know where this inference is going to simply slope that exactly. If you can do it for one you can do it for the other tent. I mean, I think the whole debate you prove my point eloquently from beginning to end and an there's not a granular socialist. So the three positions we are inconsistent. I've argued consistently and you don't like the view but that's fine I guess we'll just deal maybe.

Maybe you have some kind of a bet with someone about the thing. Maybe you'll marry a lobster down in the future. It does not only be harsh and follow your offering and you are actually a robot and it's not even a human being speaking less at the cellular okay Justin, let's let's define this design plan asking from you from the beginning of the conversation and I've given it some exactly what Terrence Hale state state. Your first point, I give you my quick answer will do this really shotgun session. First point, your first argument that none of these things are inevitable.

None of the all of these things have principal reasons or at least the one that I'm I'm again all that have principal or pragmatic reasons against them by men and let you settle on the ways. Really there is no principled or pragmatic reason against most of them and you have no issue with them and I've demonstrated that this is the direction we are going second point I'd like to stay well get them a second point is that there's nothing wrong with polygamy. Do you have an objection to that law. Again, that's not the the argument. The argument was that is anything wrong with polygamy.

The argument was once we find that I'm coming back. Your points are debate is about. Once you redefine marriage does it open up the door to a slippery slope, slippery slope that inevitable means. That's the direction it is likely going and the answer is yes, we see it in society. You shifting we see in the media pushing for the things we see things coming to the courts and we see little by little, even the chipping away of the state also pays all of these relationships are referring to that or the end product of debris slope happened long before and have been happening law for the gay marriage that gay marriage did absolutely nothing to that is always almost relate only also called Mac.

Gay marriage open the door you didn't have the media celebrating polygamy before it celebrated gay marriage you didn't have the media celebrating incestuous relationships the way they do that with them know how long have you ever heard of polyamory. Now the polyamorous march of the gay pride parades and say where, 20, 30 years behind where the gay rights movement is that of either serving and redefining marriage on every level.

Rhetorical concept because redefining marriage the norm for thousand redefining marriage, and I will every let you pick up a book you know art international insults or you insult yourself, not me with these arguments.

Marriage through history has always required two fundamental elements male and female could have more than one and it was head of the male and female.

Even societies doesn't please. Even in societies, even societies that celebrated homosexual unions in certain contexts. Marriage was understood to be male and female, for many reasons, and the most fundamental things about marriage have always been known and are not a mystery. Procreation joined the children to mother, father, that is the norm. When you make that now the impossibility. The one thing that cannot happen fundamentally redefine it thereby rendered meaningless.

A we've gone around on this.

I appreciate you wanted to come on and debated, and after leaving here and will will post this on YouTube.

Obviously, the audio and folks can weigh in their will let you know when it's up. But I do appreciate you coming on to have this dialogue with Mike. All right, you bet I guess was Justin Cheever post of the real a theology podcast white friends we come back. I want to take your calls in the remaining time that we have to get your thoughts as well this life. They the line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown get into the line of fire now by calling 8663 here again is Dr. Michael Brown thanks for joining us on the line of fire. Truth, I hope you appreciated that debate found it helpful. Let's go to the phone. Thanks much for holding. We start in Brooklyn with Yvonne. Welcome to the line of fire.

Thank you about the conversation. How I feel that Apple, so to speak.

The metric therapy and thought it was contacted our people. Yes ma'am okay and that it not pride of the relation in the Bible and I feel that we have to care structural chart. I think okay it's getting to the point where an almost like where I commit adultery with somebody kicked God out of the will.

But the way it going. We can manage defined like Bible County a little bit elevated because it had gone well as God love you. This is similar to charity that is in the King James is just a normal word for love that she's but yet let let me let me reiterate what you said and I've said this for many many years that no-fault divorce in the church has done more to undermine marriage than all gay activists combined. This is part of the destruction of marriage and and then with that. We then have the redefining of marriage and of course the slippery slope continues without question. So Yvonne, an important point. We have to get our own house in order for sure, 866-34-TRUTH.

Let's go to Villa Park, California. Dr. Green, welcome to the line of fire. I will accredited by so the guest said that slippery slope does not equal change of semantic because it takes slippery slope yesterday to change any yet it may sound like oh my gosh at the runaway can't control it, but it is J we don't legislate change in that way.

Our laws are about the right thing by application to be a expert witness in court and assist legislative body.

They don't want to hear from me about generality are broad sweeping opinion they want to hear about specifics.because that car laws are written, so to say that your statement that he took issue with you staying that inevitable or he put that in the conversation. Well, you know, change is also to return great ambiguous in that we don't know what happened.

And so what is inevitable is we don't know what happened because the morays of tomorrow are beyond our knowing and so to argue on the basis that we need a legal system that accommodate change. We might if not will not have a legal system because the need we let anything go yet silly in what you're saying is not coming at that from the legal angle and the point I was making was that my guest said there is no logical slippery slope then basically say we have to comedy changing changes is is coming, etc. so is a again. To me it sounded like he was prove my point simply signed a slope, slippery slope is not bad slippery slope is good like the fact is you have to have guidelines you have to have landmarks you have to have boundaries in place that have some sanctity to them some authority to them otherwise hate every generation coming up doesn't like the laws and that you you have one view of the law when you're tan another when you're 20 another when you're 30. Then when you're 60, so it has to have that fixed nature and in then if if society can demonstrate that there are compelling legal reasons to bring about change. That's one thing but but that the second half with something as fundamental as the definition of marriage without massive overhaul what your own areas of specialization's are healthcare, medical care and it was not one last shot. And you correctly enter your deeper and is not the root of Ellis and IW diners that does not work not been foundation limit no God except limit the pelvis see how high it can go that boundary on what is boundaries on reality yeah II wouldn't trace that actually back to the to the Hebrew words but without question. He makes it clear that he fixes boundaries let let's just say that in the overall revelation of God in Scripture. That's a major part of what he does and then he wants and the prophets don't don't move the ancient landmarks and in that they God has established. Fix things and and I appreciate you raising that point that just like your fix laws of nature. There fix laws of morality and fix laws of of reaping and sowing.

We mess with those two own peril. Thank you for calling appreciated 86634 let's go to Jason and Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome to the line of fire.

Thank you. Definitely agree with you.

You know it by heart. Slippery slope concept that you know the freight help of the mother has led to about 60 million of that baby so you know the question. It had a weak governance of a society that this was Moses allowed this, but it was not so. From the beginning and I mean our founding fathers said that our car form of government in our Constitution is only four more people at the same time it is not a struggle being a Christian libertarian like where that line is because we are Republican audit democracy so we protect the individual and at the same time, I married my wife and my church so I don't need government, there is no give me a stamp of approval on site you not you could have these questions about you know, not having really about you not believe that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you take that away from somebody should be charged with a crime. Therefore abortion is wrong because you have a victim you have a dead baby. However, you know gay people want to get a certificate from their organization. I don't know that I have a problem with that right, but then you get you get in the polygamy and children are involved. Developing children should be involved in an adult decision. That's where the slippery slope, because you have the children and then they can't make an adult decision.

That's what the lingering for certain things for children to drink alcohol and other drive a car leaving the military revolt. Yeah so what when it comes to say a woman woman has the right overall body yeah but just have the right over the life and the life that's within her body and any gardener she's holding a two-year-old in her arms and the two-year-old is is obnoxious that she has the right to throw it, throw it down and indeed it so that we understand that in the same thing if we would not be having this discussion today. If the only issue was say to two men who say they love each other want to make a commitment go to a local gay church and get blessing will I disagree with it. That's between them and God will answer to God for when they want society to recognize when they want the legal right to bring children into that arrangement guarantee that that child say what will have a mother is been raised by two fathers. That's from we take issue so there is a lot of living our society.

It's when you change the laws and Mickey Mouse recognize that that major problems arise. Say thank you for weighing it.

By the way, how our guest became an atheist I don't know his own journey, but you can look it up by looking up Justin shaver is spelled SCH IE BER friends if we appreciate what you doing a lot of five draw support, torchbearer monthly health enable us to do this and are far more should check out my latest articles and videos. The line of fire. The Lord my bottom line. Very simple to redefine marriage render it meaningless. I'm about to sit with two pastors, a white pastor and a black pastor you have merged their congregations together as one time for the line of fire with your host activist and author, international speaker and theologian Dr. Michael Brown your voice of moral cultural and spiritual revolution Michael Brown is the director of the coalition of conscience and president of fire school of ministry get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH events 866-34-TRUTH here again is Dr. Michael Brown. I am looking at two chairs and two microphones and no one sitting in those two chairs right now, this is Michael Brown your host on the line of fire broadcast serving as your forcible sanity and spiritual clarity. The bottom line is that my guests are not yet in studio. I'm eager to speak with them and as soon as they sit down with me. We will bring them on.

For each of you all right, we have a volunteer JJ you can serve as the white pastor Howard how would you like to serve.

This is a Jade is the black pastor that beef fat right JJ and as the black pastor Howard is the white pastor and you could take the place of our guests are tailored if they don't make it in.

We will we will substitute a few others in their behalf know it was just messing around here by that yeah we do have a diverse staff. As far as GU, Gentile, black, white, male, female, okay, I wrote an article it's a lengthy art if you can read on stream stream.org. It's my response to Prof. Susan Shaw. She is Prof. of women, gender and sexuality studies at Oregon State University. She wrote an article February 11 Huffington Post pretty one article my responses in the longer dear white Christian trump supporters. We need to talk, so I addressed on the air yesterday. I've tweeted her and had my staff reach out your we still haven't heard back from her and now I wrote a full-length response as someone who had issues with Donald Trump in the primaries opposed him ultimately voted for him, but with reservation. I support him as our president. I think you could do a great job in many ways, but I see his many evident flaws that responded to her questions and I'm hoping I am hoping that in fact she will have dialogue with me.

She says she wants to. She writes this she says my white and the high aunt hang out in the back office.

He said I don't think I know how to understand you with all need to talk and I now know how to talk to anymore solicit great let's talk that me let me answer your questions when you explain things in terms of my background and my viewpoints. We tell you why I believe what I believe white we believe what we believe why I take exception to things that she's written and that you can read that again stream.org it's getting a lot of good responses lengthy people reading it and seem to appreciate it.

And hopefully, on some level we can model on some level we can model for you how to have dialogue with those who differ without please understand I don't mean anything condescending, as if no one out there knows how to have dialogue aside for meat no no no no no no, of course, of course not. But my my point is that many times we don't know how to talk across the aisle to one another. Many times in the midst of our differences, we just get further report and make it happen. I did a debate in the first hour with an atheist who was arguing that if you redefine marriage is there's no necessary slippery slope with it and I would say by the end of the broadcast. We were further report that we were They are differences work more clearly and deeply articulated afterwords than they were at the beginning, but many times we know how to argue. We know how to say we are wrong. Mom right but we don't have dialogue. We don't have to learn from those we differ with. We don't know how to bridge the gap which present our viewpoint in a way that hopefully on the other side will understand. So, have sought to do that in the size I think you'll find it very informative. In any case, you can use it as a resource to have a friend or family member that sets up it stream.org. We will be right back.

The line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown voice of moral cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown right. My guests have arrived next right on time were down for coming in a few minutes into the broadcast. So those empty chairs in our field and I am probably one of the more discerning people ever meet, and to admit 30 seconds, but I've identified the white pastor in the black pastor is slightly euphoric that out okay Jay Stewart that we've known each other for a good number of years and I've had the joy of speaking it at your church the refugee days, the founding pastor of the refuge full-time vocational ministry over 25 years and you and your wife Melanie have four kids Haley Clay Cole, and Kayden is grandson and a grandson's not here on the printer Lyle Harrell goldeneye Ozark old mobile so over 25 years is what like over 75 years now 32.32 years are all right and the first in a meeting is pastor Derek Hawkins and you know why I see lots of bios, but I like the way your starts.

Pastor Derek loves Jesus, come on, that's again every one of ours, so your serving those Greensboro campus pastor threat future will explain that the minute his proud husband of her Shonda Hawkins a list of added a bunch of kids. Since then father, Gary Junior, who is with the Lord Minette to Sean the breaker Darian and jailing in your great heart is for revival in America.

No grandkids yet those are okay so were up-to-date up to date on that okay Derek tell me what you were doing before jointly with refuge while listen, I was the executive pastor of the church called the house of refuge delivers ministries in Greensboro, North Carolina, under the leadership of Bishop William and pastor going on and I have met passage a diss on a random assignment going to take my daughter to get ahead, and they want to do a one of those fatherly duties for hiking on the husband's. He called to do nothing this great mix on this in the refuge line okay that now Farley Greensboro from South half of is actually about 50 minutes okay and I stay in Salisbury.

The philosophes state of Salisbury my whole life and for five years. I don't know how I missed assignments in the refuge, Salisbury, this one day I fainted and called the member lit me to the main campus. They were actually remodeling the campus will renovate a giver to move into a brand-new campus, I met a guy let me to pastor Jay invited me to a service and may not been hooked like glue. Six men and and how many folks are in your congregation about 150 to 200 people and and largely black. Yes, mostly African-American right and would that be the community. There is largely African-American yes or got it all right so Jay, you're obviously you are a bridge builder. Your website is one of the few I've see where you talk about your church and give a vision and then you say, but this church may not be for you here. Other churches in the community that we recommend. Which is is quite different than the norm. So you have good relations with lots of pastor's churches.

What happens with that with a merge hasn't come about.

Long story short pastor Derek approached me on a Sunday, back in 2014 and introduced himself and just said I want to meet with you need someone to mentor me and coach may have been tapped for the assignment of taking over the church on the executive pastor and other get a pass the baton to me. Would you be willing to do that. I said I'd love to meet with you. We set down Amanda immediately my heart was stirred for him and him and we just begin meeting on a regular basis and and I just had the great joy of just born into and and mentoring him and coaching him.

He brought the founding pastors into one of those settings. There was an immediate connection in the spirit realm where we just had great unity together, but again it was just for mentoring and coaching and so they asked me the founding pastor said would you coach us and would you help us prepare for a healthy transition as we passed to one of our spiritual sons that the leadership of the church as it absolutely so they would come on a monthly basis.

They would bring leaders there would be 10 or 12 people sitting in office. In this beautiful relationship began to develop between all of us but nobody was looking for anything except pilots build the kingdom. Let let's just you know it and so that's what was taking place for at least a year and then all of that change.

In November 2015 when in one of those settings. I felt very prompted by the Holy Spirit to ask them if they had ever had conversations about becoming a campus of the refuge. I was hesitant. I wrestled with the Lord for 10 or 15 minutes because I never wanted them to think that I have an agenda and I have no agenda except the help, but I knew Holy Spirit polygamy to do that. I asked the question they all started laughing and they said we have conversations about it all the time so that Linda further discussions.

Prayer you know is this a God thing. Resist this. Is this just a good thing it became evident it was a God thing. I said I want to make sure that Derek takes assumes leadership there before we do this merger. Let's establish him. I preach this installation back in the summer of 2016 and then we announced a date for the merger that it would all become official November 6.

I would announce it to the church he would announce it in Greensboro are Salisbury campus pastor would announce it on September 22. All right, so the merger what is the merger look like pastor Derek will in the first crisis passes actually in this request. Do you want to date. If you want to be married and so it was one of the hardest courses than ever hand you know outside of my wife that David so we just really consulted it to print the Stig appraiser. Hey, what does this look like. So now it looks like cable staff of the refuge on the over the first 2016 and I submit to the leadership capacity have been submitted to the leadership of passageway for over two years and I consider him to be a mental and spiritual father to me. So if he asked me to take off work to to be at one of the staff meetings I was there anything that he asked me to do so.

I assume the position before I ever had anything about criminal staff and so on.

This memo staff.

We merged we took on the DNA of the refuge. We always talk about the heart.

I'm having a heart in the vision for the kingdom.

It is expanding the kingdom of opacity has a saying that hey, we don't want to build a castle. We want to build the kingdom as a vessel you know what we want to do here in resistance them into the leasable passage a is how that looks is being challenged as ups and downs you know as far as dismissing our congregations together. Yeah through worship so we you note saying some things as far as what it looks like we took on some of the identity of the refuge children's church ministry. Deacons and elders disestablish and something that we already had an order number. Just making sure that it was congruent to what was going on at the refuge's main campus in the current issue merge with was largely white. Yes, okay, and about how many people thinks about what 2100 I think that the references are yet in terms of in terms of merging in terms of being one large group together so has this affected the demographics Derek of of your congregation itself not to structure, but as it affected the demographics at all. It has it is greatly impacted on demographic and what we are getting in our church. We are becoming multicultural, multiethnic him every week. People coming into our campus and it was so grateful for. We would've never had a vision is something that I always say that I could never drink this for my own life and of God had a plan for my life that was so much bigger than me and just so grateful for the leasable passage a to even open up that this video part of me that I didn't even know there was the God of our all right silt so J this this official transition takes place one. November 6, but the announcement was made on September 20, okay right and so this is right in the heat of the election season right for sustainability elections and mothers. Another right okay and there's there's almost nothing is divisive about that. I friends of mine in a multicultural pastors and we know white evangelicals and only vote Republican black evangelicals only vote Democrat you know and and we would've been like Obama you vote for Obama's like it out but this time even though you have white and black you had this massively intensifying with the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is where that landed self how do you get through things like that hit the kingdom values transcend culture, but Islamic culture clash limits the thing so way and what will continues discussion but how do you pastor way through those things. Well, you know, one of the things we wanted to do because you know if you want to pick a fight with somebody talk politics. One of the things we wanted to do was to continue to point people back to the word of God. What is the standard of the word of God. What is the Bible say about this were not voting reliable can Democrat were voting the standards of the word of God as we just kept know in in every congregation trying to point people back to the right. Now I'm of course the way it gets applied still comes out differently through different eyes. So Derek, if you have conversations within the congregation because they are going to come up and salute how you pass that we just got a minute for this tablet with Patty. How you deal with it. Listen if you place a unitedly and AS we priest, What now and we passage there myself and possibly we've always been very very open about the issues that face our community, but we go back to the standard, but we still had to navigate through height is tension because we do have democratic people in our congregation wouldn't shy away from that. We've always been open and the conversation is not a black-and-white thing we always talk about the diseases in the blood, but at the end of the day. It is black and white when you could we talk about different demographics of dynamics of each community, we just talked about it we were honest about it. Hey we preach the message that was very simple, very profound at the same time we would just wanted to make people feel comfortable about having a conversation so we just never bought a conversation I want to write a thesis we come back you can both respond as I looked at this and discussed all the tough hot button issues on the radio for years now. My perception is that white Americans often do not see racism when it isn't that efficient white Americans often do not see racism when it is there. Black Americans often see racism isn't there.

These are blind spots.

We have so get your take on that we come back the line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice is more cultural and spiritual revolution.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Right now I'm sitting with pastors a and Derek Hawkins part of a congregational merge to form a single church. J.

Stewart being white American Derek Hawkins being a black American before the break. I said that a thesis I had developed distraught of oil things down after months and months of dialogue and interaction with that white Americans often do not see racism when it is there.

Black Americans often see racism when it isn't there again this is from our perspective, upbringing, background freeze, have either been racially profiled, I can relate to certain things, but many my callers explain background and things like that but then they could also explain blind spot and he cites a you can you can tell me this most brilliant thesis ever heard and simplifies in a few words with others have not been able simplify books you could tell me think it's idiotic. You are totally free to respond to a terrible start with you. Listen out of Vegas brilliant brilliant thing growing up in African-American community. Listen racial profiling is a real issue in America, yet will share with passage a of a draft fairly decent, and I've been to car cork Annapolis area probably about 2030 times in probably the racially profiled in the last two months to refer time to seriously believe he is still serious is so mind-boggling. There's a real issue about of a business while we wanted to have a conversation. We've never shied away from that there is an issue in America we preach messages all of the issue with racial disunity in America, so we know that there is a real a real perspective change that needs to happen in the community. But listen, I think it is because with years of wood after America's effect of oppression that there are certain things that just by Norm's is in our nature.

They say some sages make the assumption even if it's not there. We see about jobs at this confinement in the prison systems at this differently disproportionate issues right to make an essay you seen the reality. Yes, you can then see it when it's not there absolutely and think that that's what's been so unique about disunity is even though those issues are there.

We look past that dissing the bills that we see the blood of Jesus a week to see what God is trying to do in the our foreground and how God is bringing emerging churches together. So this makes this situation very unique, especially with the racial tension in America the way it is today Yemen. We want to talk about the prophetic timing the significance of all this, and in a moment an article I'm looking at it announced things back in January about the merge because of things that happened last year, but J you are in your take as to Esther my thesis. I think you're spot on with your thesis agree 100%. I was raised in the deep South in Georgia in the 60s and seven.

I remember September 1972, myself, millions of others true of other children were introduced to force integration. When I got on the school bus and was bust miles across town. Consider walking four blocks to a school that was just on the street from my house so I'm familiar with all of that and I believe that you know there is just like maximum I can't have selective hearing. I will either selective vision as well, yeah, and that's what God that will with with Paul. Paul was a very religious man but he had selective vision and sales fell off of his eyes when he encountered the Lord and I think we need to be open to the Holy Spirit and that's what we've done in this relationship we've invited the Holy Spirit and we been very open and said were not going to ignore the fact that there are challenges and differences, but we believe those can be overcome through the blood of Jesus, and we believe there can be a commanded blessing like Psalm 133 talks about, you know that flows down Aaron's robe and down his beard and when brothers dwell together in unity, so we just committed to doing that saying you know there's differences. For sure this challenges and there are white people who don't see the racism when it is there that are black people that see racism when it's not there but were going to come over and have conversations we can work together through the realm of the spirit until we achieve what is real Holy Spirit created unity. We can't create unity since the Bible never tells us to create unit we don't have that ability to Bible tells us to protect the unity that is created by the Holy Spirit. What we have the opportunity to do is to work in partnership with the Holy Spirit got it right so so before we talk about some of the significant dates in these events. Here let me go in this direction of play devils advocate here when you go to the food court at the mall it's 1 Food Ct. but you get the Mexican food or Chinese food or get Italian food.

You can get typical American fare.

Whatever they don't put everything in a blender and stop it altogether right because each food is distinct and unique. So why not just let things be a man you got a car gates and screen interrogation can African-American congregation got a mainly white old this let it be, why try to mix like worship songs overcome these things just let each group being it's also where unified network. One big church. We each reach him a little part of the food court and the more white wine. Not that philosophy that the broadest front and no allude to the specific citizens will is for the month my niece was born yesterday. She's mixed all really is and so if I say just let it be, then how she represented if we can come together and worship together.

If we can come together and eat the same thing. It doesn't matter that you know we like different things on this different from course. But hey, is it okay to bring every dish to the table in the sit down and eat a believer so I believe that's what the Lord wants to see. I believe that that's what the Holy Spirit wants to create and creating unity like a president talks about is protecting that unity.

I believe it is bringing everything together. Hey I have some people I'm pretty she has been going effeminate can't really cook that whale. But listen, we still eat the food when they bring to the table as I believe is the same thing. It doesn't matter that you will hate this culture brings this of that culture plays that we just want to come together and glorify God and I believe this is a great depiction of what would have as good a look like you know, that all men of this really believe that you feel that they each group represented, young, old, male, female, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, whatever that each one is enriched by interaction with the other I do. I believe I believe are certain things that I have grass from the interim passaging that I would never again in my culture. I'm just totally have learned so much this about it economically is building the church is having that I'm an African-American community of churches you have few spiritual fathers that are willing to sit down and impart the wisdom that I've gotten to sub in a relationship about the day Stuart and so those are a lot of things that we see in the community. Everything is, fast pace is where is more divisive because of the things that we faced coming up and so people are more so this like crabs in a bucket almost trying to unify farewell try to call their way out.

So just being able to be around the refuge it is to be imparted is be led by the Holy Spirit and having somebody to take the time for you to build the things that on the inside of you has been instrumental in my development as a pastor and as a father in NJ just got one minute but have you been enriched by multicultural interaction.

Absolutely no doubt about it.

Dr. Brown and looked after their design is so such a beautiful picture of heaven. I believe it's a picture of the marriage supper of the Lamb where we don't have to deny our uniqueness. Our differences as far as you know, Asians, Hispanic, white, black, whatever. We all have something that we can bring to the table and were all going to be better for it, much better man because of this man and because of pastor Allen. Bishop Allen and the congregation.

Now that's a part of the refuge there in Greensboro and others throughout my lifetime, 54 years of living that have you know it helped shape who I am given me a greater understanding of the fullness of who Christ is yeah absolutely right French we come back.

There's something very significant about the timing of the announcement that these two churches within the merged together and become one headline news on looking at daily 2017 black and white congregations merge to form a single church that it's the line of fire with your host activist and author, international speaker and theologian Dr. Michael Brown voice of more cultural and spiritual revolution get into the line of fire now by calling 86634 through here again is Dr. Michael Brown and to much for joining us today on the line of fire. I'm sitting in studio with two pastors, pastor day Stuart and Pastor Derek Hawkins and they have merged together to form a single congregation in Greensboro, North Carolina, and refuge was a common word that there is part of the name of the car, you should Pastor Derek led and then the car geisha Pastor Jay led refuge church and pastor Jay became a mentor, Pastor Derek and then God spoke, that you're not dating your Marion there has been a merge together in Greensboro and now an influx to those made an African-American church more multicultural with the challenges and benefits and blessings that that brings. But something happened in terms of the timing of this that got attention because churches do merge and even multicultural merge is not as common but these things do happen often. If you'll have multicultural unions. It's the same building is used by different congregations and you got this service in Korea and this in Chinese. In this Spanish but this is this is different but but Jay what happened in terms of the timing of this that made this so significant and so the announcement was made about these this coming merger on September 22 of 2016. Less than 48 hours later, Charlotte the city of Charlotte which were in a bedroom community of Charlotte, the city unraveled over the shooting of an African-American man by a police officer Charlotte police officer.

Riots broke out there was looting there was violence in the city and watching Fox News in a different, new sources can't believe this is happening in our backyard and I remember saying was late and I said God you are writing a better story you're writing a better narrative and we need for the story to be told and all of a sudden the next day the story hits the national news of the merger and it was obvious at that point that for whatever reason, like you said Dr. Brown, mergers of happen people of come together, God wanted to spotlight this in the light with a backdrop of what was going on and then of course couple months later, the tensions continued to grow in our nation with the election and the volatility of of that and and then we'll now we are in a nation that's maybe more divided than what we've seen in a long time.

Yeah, and I'm looking at articles that that are saying that there is a growing re-segregating of cities across America and for whatever reason Roth and point fingers here but certainly it seems after eight years of having her first African American president that racial tensions have grown so whatever reason. This is a whole other discussion. So Pastor Derek. We got a minute and 1/2 before the break here.

Obviously, when these things happen where there is a black man that shot, in this case was by black placement. When this happens, old wounds are opened up immediately. Did you find that you were able to help out white Christians better understand some of the pain that African-Americans live with. I think this merger has done. The gators help the student to this be so careful because you know people are wounded in the situation of African Americans have been wounded deeply wounded things that have happened, but you can't just just take that are not so compassion for what other people been through his will and I just wanted always be truthful, you know, I just really have dialogue and have a conversation about what we feel and hate how can we work on this together to heal together and I think about one thing about a marriage we heard in a marriage conference is that both people are designed to heal each other and I believe that this is what God is doing. Even with this emergent we have to heal each other.

Marriages desire to kill each other and that's what were doing really good to be married. We have to take the good the bad and the ugly from both bring it together say hey listen is put on the table talk about it. You know what you felt and how you felt tested is been very very open with allowing me to feel and say how I feel and still be respectful about the process of how we need to heal together excellent excellent yeah so that the fact that you say we've got a have the dialogue got have a conversation with radio host: it's enlightened me to help me is gone back and forth. Then there's the relationship this process and once you've proven to someone that you will only listen then you go back and forth better in a trust for life interesting prophetic perspective come back for plan and it's the line of fire with your host Dr. Michael Brown into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

I am having joyful with past is now dear brother find Pastor Anna brother just got to know. But if like in the well man.

Pastor Derek Hawkins. They have done the church merge so largely African-American congregation merge with the white congregation and this took place. The end of last year and Jay you were explaining to me during the breaks of that you felt was a prophetic significance in a we can overdo things here find meaning in the every day every minute and second that goes by, but there are things to get our attention. This is one of them. What would happen. Well, back in 1960s February 1 was exactly 57 years ago this month for young African-American students from MCA into the walked into a Woolworth's department store which had lunch counters and in places where you can order food. About 3 o'clock that afternoon and they sat down at the white only counter is a peaceful silent protest.

The next day about 12 people showed up and sat down with them the following day. About 30 people.

The next day after that 60 people continue to grow day after day, peaceful protest and it began to spread around the country now think it's interesting and significant that now here we are in the Jewish and the on the Jewish calendars the year 5777 so were 57 years later, when God has brought national attention to this merger that's taken place between the church on the outskirts of Charlotte and a church in Greensboro, North Carolina.

As a picture of unity in the nation.

Unity in the body of Christ in our right so we we look back at civil rights when when I teach a class on Jesus revolution changing society. We show a video that talks about the desegregation of lunch counters in Nashville very similar it's it's it's tremendously powerful footage hearing the philosophy things behind this in and of obviously we still see the famous quote from Dr. King about churches being the most segregated writers of America on Sunday mornings. Yet it exactly right. So, most churches I can be called to do that. The merge like you have done in this level but certainly were called to be one and we certainly need each other. So let's just talk believers across ethnic, racial background specialist tension in society right now is a lot of ethnic racial tensions with the elections with for so many reasons of your pastors in the same community.

Everybody's busy but will start with you. Pastor Derek, what will give us some suggestions we talked about blessing and how we feel each other in that sense that we need each other what what we do how can we grow in unity without. I'm not trying to be talk a certain way and look at certainly put something on a hill, you're in a china change who you are, but we can learn from each other become sensitive to each other. What are some practical steps will listen. We just do something this this past Sunday series, undivided. It was a pastors on the Zanetti Ohio on the Pastor Billy Robbins run across some information. What we did in the city of Salisbury North Carolina. There has been 17 unsolved murder since 2030 and most of them African-American but we have strong racial divide in Salisbury Salisbury was really big for the KKK movement 70s significant.

Yes at another so very very intricate part of that so we felt led Pastor Billy Robbins oppresses a steward for limited to call a group of pastors together. I believe we always talk about conversation but not this conversation undivided is an action statement is a statement the creed of the clearing in August the authorities and principalities that rule in our cities and our communities of that we were to come together and we were going to go before the courts of heaven and we were just got up you notice, get some strongholds that were in the community. One of them rights of unity, the unsolved murders so we had pastors from every ethnicity cultural device come together has some passes to play and for the next five weeks looking to get together with you to meet the last meeting is going to be in the homes of African-Americans and Caucasians are going to come together different rest races and ethnicities are going to come together when you eat at each other's houses. But what I have dialect we have NAACP representatives of the mayor of the city of Salisbury is going to be there prime minister was been apart so we're not just talking about merging with taken action statement so those are the type things that we want to do that, that's incredible that I have accuracy breakthroughs to II bet you see some of these thing solved is as flawed as you can see that SJ will I believe what happened Sunday night capacitor to refer to this very significant onions hugely significant not only for the city of Salisbury, but for the surrounding communities there with the unsolved murders and again unity doesn't take place over just having conversations all that's that's very important. I think action also has to follow the conversations we can talk about unity all day long. But until we do something about it and coming together. Nothing's gonna really change, and so that was that was a an example of people not just talking about unity only of us get together think it's important with penalties. Unsolved murders in Salisbury which is where our first campus are satellite campuses located but let's actually do something


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime