Share This Episode
Line of Fire Dr. Michael Brown Logo

Should a Christian Attend a Same-Sex Wedding?

Line of Fire / Dr. Michael Brown
The Truth Network Radio
November 29, 2022 7:56 pm

Should a Christian Attend a Same-Sex Wedding?

Line of Fire / Dr. Michael Brown

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1844 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

November 29, 2022 7:56 pm

The Line of Fire Radio Broadcast for 11/28/22.

Insight for Living
Chuck Swindoll
Cross Reference Radio
Pastor Rick Gaston
Kerwin Baptist
Kerwin Baptist Church
Family Life Today
Dave & Ann Wilson, Bob Lepine

So, how should Christians respond to the Respect for Marriage Act? So, yes, so glad to be with all of you. We were broadcasting live from three different locations in the last two weeks, and last week had to be audio only. So, to all those watching, big greetings, big hello to everyone listening, same voice as always. Michael Brown, thanks for joining us. Today marks a 40th anniversary for me, something very special, very important in the development of my own life and calling.

I would not be here today if not for that momentous event 40 years ago. I'll tell you about that in a little while. I want to interact with you about the Respect for Marriage Act as it is called, why it is so fundamentally flawed, and why Christianity Today made a terrible mistake by having an op-ed supporting it.

We'll talk about that. We'll take your calls at 866-344-TRUTH. Anything you want to talk to me about? Anything you want to call me about? Argue with me about? Take issue about?

866-348-7884. Before we get into any of that, though, I want to talk about something very, very important. In recent news, there have been a number of horrific murders. College students slaughtered, college football players slaughtered, just one horrific event after another.

And then over the weekend at a gay bar in Colorado Springs, a massacre, these five dead at this point, 18 injured. As of just before getting on the radio, I still did not see that there was a clear motive posted in terms of was this someone that hated gays and decided he was going to take the law into his own hands and execute people? Was it somebody that just was on a killing spree and happened to go into that place?

Was it a lover's quarrel? We don't know. We don't know the facts yet.

Everything I've read, everything I've seen, people are trying to surmise and, well, the shooter's grandfather believed this or that, but thus far, I've not seen anything definitive. Either way, either way, I wanted to make some very, very clear statements about this tragic event. It is tragic. Well, they deserved it. We all deserve to die. In God's sight, we all deserve to die, okay? And to justify murder, I've actually heard some professing, well, they deserve it. God forbid those kind of words come out of your mouth and that that's how you feel in your heart. We all deserve death at the hand of God because of our sin, because of our rebellion. And Paul even says in Romans 2, you that judge are worthy of the same punishment because you do the same thing.

Oh, maybe not that way, but some other way. If not for God's mercy, we all deserve judgment. That's number one. And number two, nobody deserves to be murdered.

Nobody deserves to be murdered. Period. That's a fact. So, I decided prayerfully to tweet something out. And this is what I said.

I posted four hours ago. For the same reason that I oppose LGBTQ plus activism, I'm a follower of Jesus, I categorically denounce acts of violence and hatred against LGBTQ plus individuals. As his followers, we are called to love each individual, recognizing that he died for them just as he died for us. So I wanted to say, look, everyone knows where I stand, that I stand against gay activism and the related letters involved. I stand against that.

I believe that there are many things destructive in our society and indoctrinating of our children and on and on. I stand against it for many reasons, biblical and social. At the same time, it doesn't mean you go murder people. Here, there are plenty of things I stand against that the Democratic Party holds to. There may be things you stand against that the Republican Party holds to. It doesn't mean you go kill people.

It doesn't mean you go murder people. Come on. So I tweeted that out. So Florida Line, a gay activist friendly tweets this back. You are part of the problem. Really?

And then a screenshot of one of my texts from a few years back. Call me a homophobic bigot, but I'll say it anyway. Choosing an out and proud, quote, married gay man to run for president, let alone become president would contribute to the further degeneration and moral confusion of our society, along with further attacks on our most fundamental rights. Correct. Stand behind every word, wrote it carefully, hold to every word there without qualification. How does that make me part of the problem of murdering gays and lesbians and trans people in a bar? When my whole life is devoted to following the example of Jesus, when my whole life is devoted to overcoming evil with good, overcoming hatred with love, overcoming lies with truth, overcoming the power of the flesh by the power of the spirit.

When my whole life is a call, put down your sword, take up your cross. How does me affirming biblical values and saying that when you depart from those in a very public, indefinite way with an agenda behind it, that that will be harmful to the society? Right. That it would contribute to the further degeneration, the moral confusion of our society, which we're living out every day all around us. How does that contribute to murder? I mean, it's you're not allowed to differ with anything. You're not allowed to say, hey, ubiquitous presence of porn is destructive and and this is why we oppose it. Or we have an issue with with fentanyl. So are you are you comparing a loving couple to pornography and fentanyl? I'm simply saying if I speak out against something and I do it in a measured way, in a clear way. Right. How in the world does that contribute to somebody murdering a person?

I mean, it's it's extraordinary illogic. So here's what I tweeted back all clear. If I express any difference with LGBTQ plus activists and their goals, you will brand me a hater and an accessory to violence.

No matter how categorically and consistently I denounce violence in your view, even differing openly is a crime. All right. So check this out. Washington Post.

You ready? This is Casey Parks yesterday. Club Q. That's the name of the place. Club Q shooting follows your bomb threats, drag protests, anti trans bills.

Right wing demonstrators have increasingly mobilized over the past year against the LGBT community, experts say. So hang on for a second. The fact that we don't want drag queens swinging their hips around toddlers, the hips of a drag queen goes swish, swish, swish and indoctrinating them that this is all fine and good. The fact that we don't want our toddlers exposed to that. The fact that we don't want a biological male 15 years old sharing a locker room with our 15 year old daughter or granddaughter and playing on the same sports team with her. The fact that we don't want that. The fact that we stand against the the chemical castration and genital mutilation of children who identify as trans. Now, somehow we're that led to murdering people in a gay bar.

Are you serious? Well, Casey Parks is serious in the hours after the shooting. I'm reading from the article in the hours after the shooting. Investigators did not say what led someone to open fire Saturday night in a Colorado gay bar, killing at least five people and injuring 25 others. But LGBTQ advocates across the country believe a surge of anti LGBTQ rhetoric and laws is at least partially to blame.

How in the world can you possibly say that? How utterly irresponsible? We still don't know why the person did this, but we're going to assign blame. I know two of the men who survived the Pulse Bar massacre in Orlando. I know two of the men. They're ex gays. I've been at conferences together with them. One of them shot several times. The the other trying to crawl out.

People falling on them. Just I mean, I've asked them to explain what it feel like. What was it like? I can't imagine. I can't imagine. And there's there's a woman that was on our team for a while, led worship at our school and is a friend of our ministry.

And she was a former lesbian and used to go to that bar. So it really jarred her when that news came out because she knew people that were there. I mean, it's utterly horrific. Mind just absolutely mind boggling, mind boggling. So, yeah, again, the horror of it, the fear, the the bloodshed. Can't imagine anything like it.

Never been near anything like that. So these are absolutely horrific, tragic events. And if it happened in a straight bar, if it happened in a gay bar, if it happened anywhere, these are horrific, tragic events. So it turns out that the shooter was not a fundamentalist Christian or a right wing, anti gay bigot. He was a Muslim and he'd never been to the place before. It was like he targeted this gay bar.

He'd never been to the place. And it was not what it was cranked up to be. It was a horrific, murderous event, but it was not some right wing Christian inspired action. So we don't we don't know.

It is utterly irresponsible to to say, well, we don't know. But clearly, partly to blame is these these right wing people who oppose the gay agenda. Quote, When politicians and pundits keep perpetuating tropes, insults and misinformation about the trans and LGBTQ plus community, this is a result. This is Colorado Rep. Breanna Titone.

She tweeted this out. She is an openly trans legislator and the chair of the state's LGBTQ legislative caucus. She said anti LGBTQ lawmakers, including one of her colleagues, have used hateful rhetoric to directly incite attacks against LGBTQ people. Hateful rhetoric, in other words, saying this is contrary to God's design. That's hateful rhetoric. Hateful rhetoric to say it's best for a child to be with a mother and father as opposed to two mothers or two fathers. Hateful rhetoric to say that we oppose the 13 year old girl getting a full mastectomy or a 14 year old boy getting sterilized for life.

That's hateful rhetoric. Friends, anything that does not overtly affirm the goals of LGBTQ plus activism. And I use all the letters to remind us that this has no end specifically. I just saw an article in San Francisco when they're offering special benefits, financial help for trans identified people.

I believe they have 130 different categories of trans and sexual identification. There is no end to it. All the more reason my heart goes out to people, all the more reason to care about people.

But but the same Jesus that calls me to love, calls you to love, calls you and me to stand for what is right. We have to do it. We're going to be called haters. Now we'll be called accessories to accessories to murder. Let's overcome the hateful rhetoric with truth and with love.

We'll be right back. Line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thank you so much for tuning in. 866-34-TRUTH is the number to call. I will get your calls a little bit later in the show.

So hang in there and I'll get you 866-348-7884. We, just a quick aside, we are continuing to produce videos demolishing the material of Counter Missionary Rabbi Tovius Singer. He has so aggressively gone after the general Christian population and just made it his life mission, not just to try to influence Jews that believe in Jesus to turn to Judaism, but just aggressively going after Christians. So because of that there is a greater need to rebut his material. We've done it in other ways over the years, but we're doing it not video by video for all of his videos.

He's got a lot of stuff online and a lot of it is repetitive. But we're picking out key ones and demolishing them one by one with truth. Truth from the word of God. Even truth from Jewish tradition when it exposes deceptive tactics by Rabbi Singer. And of course, I've been very happy to debate him again for over 30 years and he's refused. So that door remains open. People say, why don't you debate?

I would, gladly, in a heartbeat. But we keep putting those out and if you go to your app and you just scroll down to Real Messiah, you click right on it. You say, what app?

You don't have our app yet? Oh, okay. Go to

Excuse me. Simple thing. Just open the Apple Play Store or Google Play Store, Android Play Store, right, and just right there. Ask Dr. Brown Ministries. Make sure you put Ministries in.

Ask Dr. Brown Ministries. Okay. The Respect for Marriage Act.

What is that? With the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and one of the justices suggesting that Obergefell was not rightly decided in 2015, redefining marriage. That, hey, we should review some of these other cases that were wrongly decided.

That would be a right thing to do. So, of course, there's been panic over that. All right, so we have to codify. The Congress, the President, have to codify same-sex marriage as the law of the land that no state could object to it. And the Supreme Court couldn't overturn it. We take an act of Congress, a vote of Congress signed by the President to overturn that. So, let's codify it. Well, Republicans said, no, no, no, because it's going to assault religious liberties and people who differ with it will be punished, right? So, they end up with a compromise deal now.

Twelve Republican senators, count them, twelve signed on. So, let me interact with that. There's an article I've got up on Town Hall. It's on our website, You can read it.

It'll be up on a number of other places by tomorrow. But, let me go through that article with you. It's entitled, there is no justification for a conservative senator to sign the Respect for Marriage Act.

You can see it on our website, And I asked, why would twelve Republican senators vote in favor of a bill which provokes statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages? You say, well, hang on, how did interracial marriages get in there?

There's no, there is zero reason for it to be included, aside from rhetoric. Oh, well, if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, then a same-sex marriage next, and after that, interracial marriage. Completely, utterly, absolutely bogus. First, there is no comparison between two men or two women, quote, marrying, versus a black man marrying a white man, a black woman, excuse me, marrying a white man, or an Asian woman marrying a Hispanic man. There's no comparison because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The ethnicity is not the issue. Race is not the issue. Nowhere in the Bible were you told you can't marry across races. If people were worshippers of the same God, that was the only issue in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, just don't be with unbelievers, alright? Plenty of interracial marriages through Biblical history among the people of God. Of course, that's not the issue. And there is no respected leader with any platform saying, we've got to get rid of interracial marriages again in America. I'm sure you've got some crazy people out there that feel, you've got crazy people that feel everything.

Why do you put that in? To try to join the two together and to use fear and to make, oh, you're not going to support interracial marriages? That's not the issue, of course.

A hundred percent, a thousand percent, a million percent. And trying it every way you want that states can't fight against, of course. But there's no connection between that and same-sex, so-called marriage. So, let's get past that.

Rejection of interracial marriages is a matter of bigotry, not biology. So, why would these senators sign on? So, Mitt Romney, right?

Mormon, previously, right? Someone you'd think would be, you know, strongly against same-sex, quote, marriage. He said, this legislation provides important protections for religious liberty, measures which are particularly important to protect the religious freedoms of our faith-based institutions.

I appreciate the efforts of Senator Baldwin, Collins, and others to address this concern and hardly support their legislation. Well, I believe in traditional marriage, Obergefell is and has been the law of the land upon which LGBTQ individuals have relied. This legislation provides certainty to many LGBTQ Americans, and it signals that Congress and I esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally. It doesn't mean we sanction something that is wrong or affirm something that is wrong. You say, but it provides all the religious liberties necessary. False.

Absolutely false. I'll read a little bit more from the article. Senator Lisa Murkowski gives the same argument, although she's pro same-sex, quote, marriage. How about Senator Joni Ernst?

What does she say? That she supports the bill since it more deeply enshrines, excuse me, yeah, let me get her quote here. Yeah, so her argument is, religious liberties are now enshrined, and therefore we should go ahead with it. All right, so here's what the bill says directly.

I'm going to read it. The bill repeals and replaces provisions that define for purposes of federal law marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. So it's going to get rid of this language that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Any state law that has it is going to get rid of it. How can you possibly in conscience sign on to that if you agree that it's not really marriage in God's sight and it's not something that we should affirm as a society? The NRB, National Religious Broadcaster, said this, they express their grave disappointment in the decision of 12 Senate Republicans to vote to advance the so-called Respect for Marriage Act, which breaks with the traditional definition of marriage that has sustained the American family for generations and undermines religious groups, including our members, who dissent in speech or in practice.

NRB President and CEO Troy Miller said, in America today, the ability to obtain a same-sex marriage is not in jeopardy. The ability to do business or speak to the culture while holding to traditional values about life, marriage, and family is very much under threat. These are part and parcel of the First Amendment freedoms that NRB exists to defend.

So let's just step back and understand this. There are certain protections for groups, or say for a church that said we will not perform a same-sex marriage. But an individual, an individual businessperson, an individual that had an issue on the job, no protection for them whatsoever. In fact, I want to read to you in a little while what an attorney friend, a Christian attorney said, who was with the Alliance Defending Freedom for many, many years and was fighting these cases now for decades.

Here, I'm going to scroll down my article. Even if this bill did protect religious liberties, which critics of the bill like Senator Mike Lee categorically say it does not, it is wrong to do so at the expense of affirming that which cannot be affirmed. Lee said that the bill, quote, labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to endless harassing litigation and discrimination and threats by the same government that was founded to protect their religious liberty. And I wrote, it is therefore a terrible shame the 12 Republican senators joined together with their Democratic counterparts in voting to advance this bill for a vote. As for the Democrats, it is further proof of how far they have come from the days when President Clinton said 1996, quote, I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman.

This has been my long-standing position and it is not being reviewed or considered. Of course, his views changed dramatically over the years so that he and his wife, Hillary, are strong storm supporters of same-sex, quote, marriage. That's what happens when you base your views either on the polls or you base your views on culture or you base your views on personal preference rather than basing your views on God's word. Hey, look, the thing that motivates me is honoring the Lord and knowing that his ways are best and knowing that when we deviate from those, it's bad for everybody ultimately in a society. So, I'm going to honor the Lord, call me a bigot, hater, homophobe, transphobe. I feel bad for you holding that view.

And I wish we could sit together face to face and get to know each other because you'd see I'm none of the above. However, I will go to the mat holding on to what the word of God says and not playing with something, tampering with something as foundational as marriage. Let's just see the societal chaos that is unfolding in front of our eyes and there is no end to it. So, I began saying in 2004, those who came out of the closet fighting for what they said was equality, freedom, and the ability to have self-determination without the world judging them for it. Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet. No, not every gay activist, but ultimately, the silencing of the lambs is the goal. I wrote a whole book on the subject, The Silencing of the Lambs.

Not just from this angle, but from other angles. So, let me say it again. The same Lord who calls me to love, calls me to stand. I'll say it once more. The same Lord who calls me to love, who calls you to love, calls you and me to stand.

What's the formula? What do we talk about all the time on this radio station? Backbones, what?

How does it go? Hearts of compassion, backbones of steel. That should be us. Hearts of compassion, backbones of steel.

That should characterize our lives in God here and in many, many other areas. All right, get to your calls shortly. I'm going to take issue with an editorial in Christianity Today, supporting, shockingly, supporting the Respect for Marriage Act. Wow, how'd that happen? By calling 866-34-TRUTH, here again is Dr. Michael Brown. 40 years ago.

Oh, that was quick. 40 years ago, something very important happened in my life. Many of you know my testimony. God dramatically, wonderfully saved me. I went to a little Italian Pentecostal church in Queens, New York at the end of 1971. I went from being a heroin-shooting LSD-using, rock-drumming Jewish rebel, 16 years old, to radically saved, loving Jesus in the Word and prayer hours every day, sharing the Gospel with everybody that I knew. By the time I was saved 10, 11 years as I was doing my graduate work, getting a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures in New York University, I'd switched churches with our family. I was questioning a lot of my charismatic Pentecostal roots.

I had left my first love, although I was a committed, active Christian, I had left my first love. And folks close to me just began to pray. God began to convict me through 1982, and then in May of 1982, I saw myself preaching a message in my mind, and I heard it.

That's how God would often speak to me. At our church, which was not charismatic, I mean barely, barely, but you didn't see people filled with the Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts to the Spirit manifest, you just didn't see that. God stirred my heart and showed me I'd preached this message, and when I did, the Spirit would fall. And when I finally got to preach, it was November 21st of 82, and that's the day the Spirit fell in our church dramatically.

And we had three months and six days of an outpouring before it was rejected, and God called us to move on. And then just a few weeks after that, the Spirit moved on me in prayer and spoke to me that I'd be involved as a leader in a revival that would touch the world. And then continue to confirm that over the years, and then of course connecting me with Leonard Ravenhill, a great champion of revival, and David Wilkerson with this great message of repentance and holiness. And then after that, brought me down to Pensacola, Florida in the Brownsville Revival, what church historian Vincent Sidon called the longest-running local church revival in American history. More than 3 million people cumulatively came through the doors, more than 300,000 different people responded to the altar calls. To this day, people touched the revival of Burning Bright 25 years later all around the world.

And we're in regular contact with many of them who serve as missionaries that we got to train and send out. But it's 40 years ago today that the Spirit fell, that my life was revolutionized. It was months and months of repentance and seeking God led up to it, but God graciously visited, touched me, transformed me, and that revival fire has been a central part of my calling ever since. The three R's of our ministry, revival in the church, gospel-based, revolution in society, and redemption in Israel, the three R's all flow out of the first R. As you are revived and healthy and strong and thriving, then out of that, victory will come, truth will come, strength will come. You'll be able to fulfill God's calling for your life. And together as our light shines, it can impact the culture, and together as our light shines, it can bring salvation to the ends of the earth and to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Okay, one more matter of business and then to the phones. Oh, to find out more about our three R's and more about my personal testimony, go to and sign up for our emails. We'll also send you a free mini book, an e-book on how to pray for America. It's always helpful.

So go to, sign up for the emails. So I've got this article up, you can read it on our website, in an op-ed for Christianity Today, Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Missouri, offers a positive assessment of the Respect for Marriage Act, which we talked about in the last segment.

He writes, all in all, RMA is a modest but good day's work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good. I wrote, with due respect to Professor Esbeck's legal knowledge, I categorically differ with this assessment. I've already challenged the Republican senators who voted to advance the bill this week. Here, I want to focus on Professor Esbeck's reasoning. He writes, some conservatives will undoubtedly treat the act as a loss, but others will take the view that in a morally pluralistic society, a few concessions yield a win for the common good.

I'm one of them. Specifically, he notes that under the final version of the bill, religious nonprofits and their personnel have a statutory right to decline any involvement with a marriage, solemnization, or celebration, including a same-sex one. This federal right would preempt any state or local law. To the contrary, it means clergy can refuse to officiate a gay wedding, a church can decline to be the venue for these unions, a Christian college can deny use of its chapel for the same reason, and a Christian summer camp can refuse use of its lake and nearby pavilion as well. But Professor Esbeck acknowledges that the bill, quote, doesn't address ongoing litigation over for-profit Christian wedding vendors, photographers, bakers, florists, dressmakers, and others. However, RMA, Respect for Marriage Act, doesn't harm wedding vendors, it's simply silent and leaves the matter for resolution in the courts. So, for this reason, then, he as a Christian conservative thinks the bill is a good idea?

The fact that it doesn't do further harm to individuals who in conscience cannot affirm same-sex, quote, marriage is a positive? To paraphrase, hey, you're already in a heap of trouble, but this bill doesn't pile any more rubble on you. The national climate is already hostile to such individuals, who at best end up spending years in costly legal battles where their charges against them are finally dismissed.

At worst, they lose their businesses, their reputations get soiled, and they're even found guilty by the courts. Yet this bill doesn't explicitly protect them. Why not?

Why didn't it? And why would any Christian conservative say, well, it works for me? As for the idea that this would not further harm such people, that too is questionable.

After all, it is not just the Supreme Court that affirms same-sex unions, but Congress itself with the signature of the president that would now do it. A November 15th article in the Daily Signal quotes a wide range of religious leaders, all of whom raised serious concerns about the bill. Steven Minnis, president of the Catholic Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, warned the Daily Signal that Catholic institutions will have a tough time living our faith under this legislation. Baptist pastor Richard Callahan described the bill as an assault, and Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation warned that, quote, all this bill does is target people of faith who don't support woke ideology.

Similarly, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, founder of Project Genesis and the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values, said, here you have a piece of legislation that exposes every traditional Jewish practitioner of anything to potential litigation. And Professor Esbeck, writing for Christianity Today, finds this acceptable? As for the redefining of marriage, Professor Esbeck writes, now that RMA has the legislative backing of Congress, no Supreme Court reversal of Obergefell would dislodge the validity of a same-sex marriage or the government benefits, tax breaks, and other gains that go with it. But in my view, he says, it's very unlikely any way that Obergefell will ever get overturned.

Well, that's a highly unfortunate comment, friends. Do we affirm a wrong thing is right because it's unlikely that society will reverse the wrong? What kind of reasoning is this? There was a time when it looked like slavery would not be abolished. Should we therefore have codified it more deeply in our laws? The same could be said for overturning Roe v. Wade. For many years, especially after the Casey decision in 1992, advocates of Roe would never be overturned. Should we as Christian conservatives have thrown in the towel and said, if Congress wants to codify this and make it impossible for the Supreme Court to clean up the mess it made, no problem! After all, it's very unlikely that Roe will ever get overturned.

I ask again, what kind of reasoning is this, especially for a Christian? Professor Esbeck concludes his op-ed stating, all in all, RMA is a modest but good day's work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good. It says to the original House bill, if a bill is about us, then it has to be with us. And it shows that Congress can still legislate, not just be a gaggle of egos who go to Washington to perform but never fix. I responded, what this bill actually shows is that religious liberty champions must sell their souls and compromise their ethics in order to work out an acceptable deal with LGBT advocates.

This is anything other than a modest but good day's work. A telling that Christianity Today, once the flagship evangelical publication, chose to publish an op-ed offering support for building enshrined homosexual unions into our national laws. To the core of my being, I'm committed to loving my LGBTQ plus neighbors and protecting them against discrimination and hostility and attack. But in conscience, before God, I cannot affirm as right what God does not affirm. Neither Congress nor Christianity Today will change that for me and I trust for many of you reading my words and listening to my words.

All right, last point on this. Attorney Friend worked with the Alliance Defending Freedom for many years, texted me this in response to my response to Christianity Today. The bill is a sham and does nothing for our side.

Professor Esbeck should know better. This is the same faulty reasoning the Latter Day Saints Mormons, an ally back in the marriage litigation days, fell for to try to improve their public image. Those religious organizations have those protections already. The bill gives nothing we don't already have and in return further cements the concepts of sexual license and same sex marriage as inviolable values. The real battle is for those in commerce, education and other non religious spaces.

That was our toughest litigation in the last 20 years. A pastor friend once told me at least the churches will be safe and I told him you should be ashamed of that response. What about his congregation?

What about society beyond these doors? Worse, did he really believe the issue would end with that compromise? The other side has always used classical Marxist tactics. They will take any concession we give them and resume the battle. We naively think usually in good faith that we can compromise and we'll get along.

It never happens until we realize that it's a spiritual war we will lose by erosion and be unaware it is happening. The bill is a cynical political ploy and the Republicans who play along with it should be ashamed. Absolutely well said. So what about those who are listening right now?

You say, Brown, you don't get it at all, do you? You have no idea what it's like to be same sex attracted. You have no idea how much I love my spouse. You have no idea how much I love my kids.

I'm not judging you in terms of your love for one another, in terms of your devotion to your kids. And I'm assuming that same sex attraction feels as natural and normal for you as being heterosexual feels for me. I don't do heterosexual. I am heterosexual. You'd say the same about being gay or trans or whatever identity that you have if it's something that you've felt for many, many years.

I'm not doubting that. But there are many things we feel to the core of our being that are not right or that fall short of God's order or plan. And that's why we come to him.

That's why we need mercy and help because we all fall short because we're all flawed. You say, yeah, but if you have your way, we can't have relationships. Nobody's stopping you from having relationships. My issue is redefining marriage. My issue is the best environment for kids to grow up in.

Those are my issues. And then everyone's going to give account to God for their own sin. And practicing homosexuals like practicing adulterers or practicing fornicators or practicing drunkards or other things who don't repent are lost. Good news is Jesus saves all of us indiscriminately. If we come to him, he washes us clean, and you never know how radically he might just change you. I know a whole lot of ex-gays, actually.

Loving the Lord, loving their spouses, some single, some married, but they're blessed, they're content, they're happy, they're bearing fruit. And some of the deep conflicts are gone. The same blood that cleansed me will cleanse you, the blood of Jesus. All right, going straight to the phones, we come back. 866-348-7884. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-344-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back to the Line of Fire broadcast. Oh, yeah, my joy to be with you and my joy to be back in our home studio with everybody. All right, let's go over to Richmond, Virginia. Angelo, thank you for holding.

You're on the Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown, thank you very much for your thoughtful and well-articulated explanation of the defense of marriage. I appreciate it.

You do a wonderful job in the things that you do, so I just wanted to say that right off the bat. My question actually really revolves around psychology in the church. I've heard people say that psychology has no place in the church, and I've heard people who heavily relied on psychology. I want to clarify that by saying not necessarily diagnosis of bipolar or even things like that, but there's a spiritual component that I believe the other person has, and I think we've replaced really diagnosing spiritual issues with psychological issues that are not detectable by brain scans or hormone imbalances and different things like that. And even in situations with marriage counseling and other things like that, as far as using psychological tactics, quote-unquote biblical counseling to kind of handle those issues. Where do you stand on those type of issues, the use of psychology in the church or in counseling?

So let me divide it into three categories, all right? There is a worldly Freudian psychology often based on unbiblical thought or presuppositions. That can be very dangerous and destructive, and sometimes it is exactly contrary to God's ways and God's order. So there is a wrong, fleshly, worldly psychology that is going to affirm many things that we would not affirm that can be destructive. So let's just put that in one category. Sometimes people say psychology, that's what they mean, the worst of it, the most destructive forms of it.

Now let's go to the second category. There is a healthy psychology that, just like a medical doctor is familiar with the workings of a body, that a psychologist is familiar with the workings of the mind and the brain and that they can do a lot of good. They can recognize this is an issue or a tendency. You know, for example, someone might have an addictive personality, and a counselor that's not a believer but understands how addictive personalities work might be able to sit with that person, help them to see it, and develop lifestyle habits that will bring about change. Same with anger management or something like that, or someone with a narcissistic personality or whatever. There might be people believing people, not believing people either way, but they just understand.

Just like a doctor says, okay, your bone's broken here, or you have stage two cancer in your liver, whatever it is. So a psychologist that's properly trained can recognize a lot of these patterns and people fall into certain categories, and there are certain things, just natural, secular, that can be done. And then there are things where there is a disorder in the brain and barring divine healing, then there needs to be some kind of medication to offset that. So that's the second category, which to me can be perfectly valid.

The third category is the last point you were making, which is that we are not just physical and emotional and mental beings, but spiritual beings as well. So ideally, you want someone who is really a gifted biblical counselor, so that someone who understands these principles of human behavior, that has a healthy understanding of psychology, but also recognizes the spiritual realm, that can see patterns that are not as visible, or that can recognize strongholds of sin or demonic activity or things like that. And that's where there has to be wisdom and discernment. Sometimes, if God has not revealed a demonic cause of something, you come to it by deduction. In other words, we've tried everything that normally works, and it's not working. We've taken this person through X, Y, Z, we've sought to counsel, help, they're doing their best, and the stronghold still seems to be there, and then you pray and press in more and realize, okay, this is something demonic that we're dealing with.

So, I think that's the issue. We discard the unhealthy, Freudian, worldly psychology. We recognize that there is a healthy psychology that, again, can diagnose mental and emotional issues, just like a medical doctor can diagnose physical issues, but we don't stop there. We recognize there's a spiritual realm, and often, it's the Holy Spirit who comes and brings healing to someone's emotions. The Holy Spirit that reveals the trauma that was hidden, but not just reveals it, but comes in and heals those wounds. You know, Jesus said he came to heal the broken hearted. So, it's not just those broken in body, but those broken in heart as well. Does that answer your question?

It does. The thing I'm most focused on is really the cure as far as Christians, and I shouldn't say Christians, but pastors. I think sometimes we want to cure everything with the Word of God, which is what we should. We know that the Word of God is nothing human and all of our flesh, so there are other aspects that we must consider as well. But I think sometimes we go to the psychological side as far as looking for medicine to heal it versus going to God.

I'm trying to still figure out the combination between the two, or if they really have no place with anyone another. So, thank you very much for your information. Sure thing, and just this last point to make on this subject. I remember being in church environments where anything psychological would know that's of the devil.

Because, okay, it's one thing, you broke your finger, we can all see the finger's broken, it needs to be set. Okay, that's all clear. But something on the inside, well, it has to be spiritual. It's not always just spiritual. It can be chemical in the brain, and it can be emotional, and things like that. So, to me, it's not either or.

It's not either or. And look, there might be someone struggling terribly with depression, right? And you've prayed, you do what you know how to do to get free, you've been prayed for, you're still not free. And then you see maybe a Christian friend, just a psychologist, or a psychiatrist, and they sit with you and they say, okay, we're just gonna put you on these meds now, and the depression and suicidal thoughts dissipate, and now you start to get your life more in order and get built back up and maybe can wean off the medicine. So it's not like, oh no, you sinned by taking the medicine. Why would that be sin anymore than taking medicine if you have a headache, or taking medicine, some antibiotics with an infection, right? So, you know, we don't wanna condemn those struggling and, oh, if you need medication for a mental or emotional thing, you're not spiritual. No, that's the worst thing you can do is heap further condemnation on the person.

But, again, with everything, there are healthy balances. Hey, thank you for the call. You know, it reminds me of a story when I was teaching at Christ for the Nations on Long Island in the mid-'80s. The director of the school had been famous, he was a Scotsman, been famous in Zimbabwe as a pastor and counselor, and was considered like a top counselor in the country. So one day, I just met with a student, and she just wanted to talk to me. I thought it was just another student faculty appointment, but she begins telling me about her life history, and it was just crazy stuff. I'm thinking, I just, I don't know about this, something just seemed far-fetched, and I'm thinking, okay, I just referred her to the dean of women and try to get this. Like, what?

I can't believe this. So I go down from the cafeteria, and the director of the school happens to be there, and I sat down with him, and I said, oh, man, that was wild. And I just started to recount everything that she had said, and he immediately, very seriously says, well, he said, it's fantasy, she's traumatized because of this. He went like five points, boom, boom, boom, boom. And I said, did God just reveal that to you?

It was like, are you serious? I remember, we're charismatic, the Holy Spirit reveals things, but I was shocked, just like so systematic, one, two, three, four, five, boom, just like that. And I said, the Holy Spirit revealed this? No, Mike, he said, I've been counseling for years, he said, this is a classic case. It falls into this, this, this category. Well, it ended up, when she met with the dean of women at length and we got the report back, it was exactly what my colleague said.

So he was able to diagnose that just as well as the doctor looks at an x-ray and tells you this is what's going on here, looks at your blood work and says, this is what's going on. So these realms are very real, the mental, emotional, psychotic realm. And if you take 1 Corinthians 5, 23 as a description of the human being, body, soul, spirit. So we are housed, clothed in physical bodies, which one day will get resurrected bodies, which will be glorious. So we're clothed in these physical bodies. We are, in our very essence, spiritual beings with a soul, so that has to do with the emotional, mental aspect of our expression. It's not just the brain, it's beyond that. So the inner being is soul slash spirit and the outer being is physical. So ministry, the Holy Spirit works in all these different ways.

But it's, it's what I just love to see, what I love to see. And I've got an article about an encounter with God that's more powerful than TikTok. Read it, especially if you've got young people.

Read it on our website, Or on your app, just look for latest articles on the app. Boom, there it is, Ask Dr. Brown Ministries app. But what I love to see is people who've been traumatized, people who've been in deep pain, people who are depressed, suicidal, hopeless. And in a worship service, the Holy Spirit comes down and touches them. Or they respond to an altar call crying out to God and the Holy Spirit touches them and the pain leaves and never comes back. The guilt leaves and never comes back.

The depression leaves and never comes back. I love seeing the Holy Spirit touch and then months later, years later, hearing the stories. God can do it, friends. God can work in ways beyond anything we can imagine. Cry out to him, set your hope in him, put your trust in him. He'll never disappoint. If you lean on him, in the end, you realize it was all for the good. Back with you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2022-11-29 23:11:14 / 2022-11-29 23:29:52 / 19

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