Share This Episode
The Line of Fire Dr. Michael Brown Logo

The Significance of the Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

The Line of Fire / Dr. Michael Brown
The Truth Network Radio
October 28, 2020 4:30 pm

The Significance of the Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett

The Line of Fire / Dr. Michael Brown

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 2130 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

October 28, 2020 4:30 pm

The Line of Fire Radio Broadcast for 10/28/20.

The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes
CBS Sunday Morning
Jane Pauley
CBS Sunday Morning
Jane Pauley
Family Policy Matters
NC Family Policy

So what do we make of the fact that not a single Democrat voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court? It's time 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. Welcome, welcome to today's broadcast. Your hearts will be stirred. We'll be covering a whole lot of ground and taking your calls, Michael Brown. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Here's a number to call 866-34-TRUTH.

866-348-7884. We do want to talk about the significance of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. We do want to talk about the fact that not a single Democrat voted for her. We do want to talk about how significant it is or it isn't to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Obviously, the election is less than a week from now. And I'd love your feedback on yesterday's broadcast. 866-348-7884. Yesterday, we played a broadcast that we had recorded a few days earlier with a Messianic Jewish colleague of mine from Israel, Jamie Cowan, but lived most of his life in the States now, last number of years in Israel. And he has a very different take on Christian involvement in the political scene. We agreed on a lot of points, but had some different perspectives. But the whole show was devoted to that, so we didn't take any calls or anything like that. If you'd like to weigh in, if you found yourself agreeing with Jamie or agreeing with me, I wanted to raise a point about that.

866-344-TRUTH. I'll open that up a little bit more for you in a moment in terms of what the question really is, what the debate, what the dispute really is. But first, and before we get to Amy Coney Barrett, I want to cover a couple of other things as well. There's an ultra-orthodox Jewish friend of mine. We were interacting about the elections, so he is fervently not a believer in Yeshua, just as I fervently am a believer in Yeshua, but as devoted, God-fearing people in terms of, in our own way, doing our best to understand God's will and do it and taking the scriptures and scriptural standards very seriously, we have a lot of areas in common. We share a lot of moral concerns and beliefs about what's good and bad for America. And he was explaining that in his community, ultra-orthodox community, that for years now they have largely voted Republican, and that has to do with a lot of family values and things like that and religious freedoms, whereas the large majority of American Jews for many years vote primarily Democrat. We've explained the reasons for that at other times. But I was asking him if there's an increase in Republican support among religious Jews these days, and then why they have been so publicly in support of Trump.

This is what he wrote to me. He said this, I think that the support for Trump is more vocal because the two positions are so starkly contrasted. The left has lost any veneer of morality. Their anti-Semitism is out in the open. Their corruption is no longer questionable.

They stand on the side of anarchy against law and order, which according to the avot, which is a quote from the Mishnah, which I'll give you in a moment, avot 3-2, and common sense is the primary function of a government, obviously law and order. He said, and I think that the corruption of the media plays a big part in this. People are frightened of such an extremely corrupt media. In a certain sense, the media is more powerful than government.

A vote for Trump is a vote against the liberal media. So it's interesting, interesting perspective. Of course, I agree with it wholeheartedly from my Orthodox Jewish friend. Let me give you that quote from the Mishnah, per keavot, which is called the chapters or the ethics of the fathers. And it says this, Rabbi Hanina, a vice priest says, this is one of his sayings he was known for, Hevei mithpaleel bishlomah shalmah chut. So always be praying for the well-being of the government, literally the kingdom, but the government.

She'ilmah lei mora'ah, because if it is not feared, ish etrei ehu chayim bla'o, a man would devour his neighbor alive, swallow him up alive. In other words, if you do not have an established government, established law and order that people fear and respect, then everyone's just going to go the way of anarchy. And of course, in Romans 13, Paul makes a similar point in terms of the role of government, that it is there, the purpose of it is to restrain evil and to protect those who do good. And when the government is functioning properly, you have no need to fear it unless you're doing evil. If you're doing evil, then Paul writes, the government does not bear the sword in vain, that the government has power and authority to punish evildoers. So without proper law and order, you have chaos, you have anarchy, and therefore it is important to have that rightly applied.

Of course, you can then have authoritarian regimes that abuse their power, so there can be abuses either way. But I just, you know, I got his email and I'm used to interacting with him about messianic prophecy or biblical interpretation. And I thought, wow, it's amazing how much his community and my community see these things the same way. All right. Again, just some preliminaries to get us started here. As I was driving to the studio today, I was listening to me say, what? OK, when my books are published in recent years, for a number of years now, they're also published as audio books. And I discovered that the new edition of Revolution was now available as an audio book. And I had some credits with Audible. So I use one of those credits to get the book. You say what? You want to hear yourself?

Well, what is I want to step back? Because when you write a book, you're intensely involved with it, right? You're locked in, you're intensely involved with it. Then you send it to the publisher. Then the editors work on it. They send it back.

OK, you go through every line and and change here or this end note is missing a reference. You go through it and then you get back one more time for final proofreading. So you've been through it a few times and then it's a little while before it's actually published. So when I hear it on audio, maybe as I'm working out or doing something like that, it enables me to kind of step back and like, all right, I'm hearing it the way you are. I'm getting it as if it's for the first time. And I want to be reminded of content.

And if I'm doing interviews on it, have these things sharply in my in my heart, my mind. So the new edition of Revolution just came out a couple weeks ago. Revolution, an urgent call to a holy uprising. And as I'm listening to some of the quotes from the book, more than my words, but some of the words that I'm quoting and some of the history and what happened from the first edition in the year 2000 to this edition 2020. My heart was stirred afresh. I want to I want to read a couple of opening quotes to you.

This is the beginning of Chapter one. These quotes. The first is from Nevers Mumba, who is a Zambian Christian leader. He said this and he said this over 20 years ago. I believe we have come to a place where the thinking of Christians, specifically charismatic Christians, must change and it must change now or the church will become a little cult in the corner. He said, I'm not interested in following a religion that does not impact the world in which we live. Jesus was a rebel, meaning refusing to go along with the status quo, and he called us to join this rebel movement and change the world together.

Again, he wrote that over 20 years ago. Here's a quote from Francis Schaeffer Christian Manifesto, which goes back to what, 1980s, early 1980s. He said, as we turn to the evangelical leadership of this country in the last decades, unhappily, we must come to the conclusion that often it has not been much help. It has shown the mark of a platonic, overly spiritualized Christianity all too often. Spirituality to the evangelical leadership often has not included the lordship of Christ over the whole spectrum of life. Spirituality has often been shut up to a very narrow area and also very often among many evangelicals, including many evangelical leaders.

It seems that the final end is to protect their own projects. I am again asking the question, why have we let ourselves go so far down the road? And then from Eberhard Arnold writing in 1919, do these quotes stir you the way they stir me? The attack by socialism and communism on the status quo is a call to our conscience, those of us who consider ourselves Christians. This call warns us more strongly than any sermon that our task is to live in protest against everything that opposes God in this world. So poorly have we Christians filled this role that the question must be asked, are we Christians at all?

Yeah, stirring quotes from leaders of the past 100 years ago to leaders active today, to leaders of the past generation asking some probing questions. And I wonder if we put things in too many different categories. I wonder if we make too big a distinction between the spiritual world and the natural world. Too big a distinction between the spiritual world and the moral world, the spiritual world and the cultural world, the spiritual world and the political world. Is it not rather the kingdom of light versus the kingdom of darkness? Is it not rather the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of Satan? Is it not rather the spirit versus the world? Is it not rather that we as God's representatives on the earth are not just calling for people to quote, get saved, right?

Saved from sin and born again into new life in God. Isn't it that we are not just calling for that, but saying, let's live as disciples. Let's shine light in dark places. Let's be agents of mercy and transformation.

Let's stand for justice and reconciliation. In other words, are we not here as God's ambassadors, not simply saying turn from sin and be saved, but saying turn from sin and be saved and live for God and do God's work here on the earth. Who should be leading the way in humanitarian work if not for the people of God? Who should be leading the way in reconciliation, in justice, in works of mercy, if not for the people of God? Who should be leading the way in being a prophetic voice to a nation and to a culture, if not for us, the people of God? Yes, we can get so intertwined in the political scene that we become primarily known as Republicans or Democrats or conservatives or liberals, as opposed to being primarily known as followers of Jesus. But as followers of Jesus, should not our lives intersect with and impact every single area of society? I say yes, and I say that's what it means to be a Jesus revolutionary.

He changes us, and then together with him, we go and change the world around us. All right, we come back, I wanna ask a probing question or two, and then talk about confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, 866-34-TRUTH. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us, friends, on the line of fire, 866-34-TRUTH. One of my favorite things to do in life is the radio show every day. We've been on the air 12 years, and it remains one of my favorite things to do. And every so often, because of travel or ministry schedule, I have to pre-record a broadcast.

That was the case with yesterday. We especially wanted to air that anyway, and it was going to be an entire show where we didn't take calls. My dialogue with my old colleague, Jamie Cowan, or Cohen now, but in any case, just want you to know my devotion to live radio. I was in Tupelo, Tupelo, is it Tupelo, Mississippi, or Missouri? And anyways, Tupelo, yeah, right outside an hour and 40 minute drive from Memphis, Tennessee, at the headquarters of the American Family Association. And I did interviews really all day, probably about over the course of eight, nine hours, just did interviews with their different hosts, great hosts on their different networks, talking about the new movie, In His Image. Yeah, Mississippi, Mississippi, I'll get that in there, thanks, thanks, Guy. I just, I was in Tupelo, though, I knew that, I knew that.

So, yeah, I understand that one is an hour, 40 minutes out of Memphis, the other wouldn't be, but either way, either way. So, did these interviews, talking about In His Image, the movie's been watched the first week about a quarter of a million times, that many views, and the reports coming in, they gave me some pages of testimonies, I mean, just incredible. So if you haven't watched it, we're not selling anything, it's free.

It's free as in free., go there. Pastors, do a showing at your church, find out what you can do to do that, So, I was doing interviews, basically through the day, yesterday, and in order to catch a flight to be home in time for radio today, I had to get up about 6.15 a.m. Now, bear in mind, I normally go to sleep closer to that time, I'm going to sleep between 3.30 and four in the morning, most nights, or at least past three. So this central time gave me an extra hour, but that was the whole goal. Nap on the plane, and then be here fresh and ready for all of you. So, love to be on live radio with you. And again, live radio, a couple things. One is, if something's just happening, I can talk to you about it as it's happening.

Big news, breaking news, major things. The other thing, and the biggest reason we do live radio is so you can call in. So I can interact with you in real time, and you can express your views.

And that's why we open the phones most every show. 866-344. So Jamie and I agreed to have a public dialogue, because he had put out a video after reading my book, Evangelicals at the Crossroads. And he said, he agreed with so much of the book, and of course the last chapter of the book, but said I was wrong as a ministry leader. He doesn't recommend us endorsing candidates, recommending candidates, and he said I'd endorsed Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. I said, well actually I did not endorse Donald Trump in 2016. I'd endorsed Ted Cruz, but then after doing so said, you know, I'm never gonna, to my knowledge, not gonna publicly endorse a candidate, because in doing so, I lose my voice to some. In other words, once I said I'm endorsing Ted Cruz, which is the first time I'd ever endorsed anyone, this is back in 2016. Once I said I'm endorsing Ted Cruz, then if I was critical of Donald Trump during the primaries, if I took issue here, people would say, well you're just a Cruz guy. And I realized, okay, even though I supported him and would gladly support him as president, if he was running now, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. So the fact is that I realized that my most important calling is my voice, and I'd never endorsed a candidate before, and I thought, I don't believe I'll do so again. But then because I had so hotly opposed Trump during the primaries, and I kept saying, look, I hope I'm wrong about my concerns, but if it comes to Trump versus Hillary, then we'll reevaluate at that point. So I explained, okay, here's what I'm gonna vote for him. Now I have all these concerns, this, this, this, this, this.

Many concerns have proven to be genuine concerns. But I'm voting for him, not endorsing him. Here's what I'm personally voting for him. And many people wanted my perspective, so I shared it.

And of course I'm not endorsing him in 2020, but do plan to vote for him on Tuesday, if not before. So Jamie said, you know, ministry leaders, pastors, they shouldn't do that. The involvement with the political scene weakens our gospel witness, and so on. And I said, oh, absolutely, when we unapologetically defend candidates that we should not be defending, when we are more identified with a political party and a political cause than with the gospel, those are problems we agree with a lot. But then we had differences.

So I hope you found the discussion helpful. But from your perspective, in your world, your world, the world in which you live, maybe you're 18 years old, just started college. Maybe you're a 65-year-old retired grandma.

And you're white, maybe a 40-year-old black mother of three. Maybe you're a, whoever you are, whatever your world is, whoever you interact with, Hispanic, Asian, young, old, single, married, we have the circles we live in. Are you finding it harder to share the gospel with people because Christians are now associated with Donald Trump, the gospel is now associated with Donald Trump?

Are you finding no difference whatsoever, it's the same as it's always been? Are you finding that your circles are so pro-Trump or pro-Biden, whatever, that it's not really mattering? I'm just wondering, are you having a harder time telling people about Jesus because the moment you mention Jesus, they're gonna say, well, how can you support Donald Trump when he's this and this and this and this? Now for me, it's not hard to say, well, yeah, I understand your concerns and here and there, let me explain my concerns, this is where I voted for him, but hey, let's not talk about him, let's talk about you and your relationship with God and the Lord because that's the issue, that's the focus.

But I wonder in your world, what you're experiencing, 866, three, four truth, you can weigh in. All right, let's switch gears and begin to focus on the implications of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. When the first vacancies in the Supreme Court were opening up, so they were filled first by Neil Gorsuch and then by Brett Kavanaugh, that's when I began to hear Amy Coney Barrett's name because I don't live in that judicial realm that I know all the justices out there and their backgrounds in HUSU, but again, to hear about her as a very devout, God-fearing Catholic woman, Catholic, charismatic actually, and would be perhaps the best pro-life choice out there. So when she didn't make it the first time, the second time I thought, oh, okay, I heard she was highly praised and could be a great jurist, et cetera. But according to one story, I can't confirm the accuracy, that Donald Trump had said we're saving her for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So if he got to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then she'd be the person. Well, with her nomination now, the focus, of course, is on Roe v. Wade. There was a video, and we're not gonna play the video, but for those watching, I just wanna put it on the screen for you.

There was a video put out by Phil Vischer. What about abortion? Should this one issue determine how Christians vote? Let me just scroll up on the screen a little to see how many times it has been viewed, probably over 150,000 times, 146,000 times thus far.

And the video's introduced by Phil Vischer, who was involved with Reggie Tails many years ago, so a creative, capable guy. And then Sky Jethani, I've read some great stuff by him, and basically going through stats and history and saying overturning Roe v. Wade is not that big of a deal, that you had a whole lot of abortions beforehand, that you've actually had reduction in abortions with Democrats in power, that the Republican-appointed justices haven't overturned Roe v. Wade yet, that at best it might reduce abortions by 12%. You say 12% is still a lot. Yes, but we should be concentrating on other things.

I may do a video where I interact with it extensively. My friend, Dr. Frank Turek, wrote a great, great response and went through it and really challenged some of the stats, some of the information. I talked to another pro-life friend of mine who challenged some of it. That being said, I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree that overturning Roe v. Wade is just one part of a much larger pro-life battle. Absolutely, as does Frank Turek, as does my pro-life friend, Pat Mahoney, that I interacted with about these issues, and he's been on the front lines of this for 47 years.

So we all agree that the church must be active in many, many other ways, and acts of compassion and outreach and providing different things that we can to help mothers have their children and to create a culture that welcomes babies more, et cetera. So we all agree on that, but here's my big question, and I'm not gonna get into the contents of this video, and again, I appreciate the overall thrust of we must do other things, but I differ with the overall thrust saying that overturning Roe v. Wade is not that important. So without challenging some of the stats on the video and questioning where some of the information came from, without that, without getting into the fact that if Robert Bork had not been borked under Reagan, and he had been the justice, then a swing vote in the 1992 pivotal case could have well overturned Roe v. Wade, as Frank Turek points out, but here's my big question.

Here's my big question. If it's not such a big deal, why does the left get so worked up over this? If it's not so important, why all the fuss? Why the histrionics with the nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett? Why the scratching of the Supreme Court doors during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? If it's not such a big deal, why do those on the left who think it's a wonderful thing and support it think it's such a big deal? And why did candidate Joe Biden say if the court does overturn it and he becomes president, then he'll make Roe v. Wade the law of the land, which would mean that an individual state that wants to push against it would not be able to push against it, would not be able to pass its own legislation.

If it's not such a big deal, why are others on the other side that are for it flipping out with the possibility of it overturning? That's my big question. That's my big question. All right, back with a lot more and your call. Stay right here. This is the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on the line of fire.

866-348-7884. If Donald Trump is reelected, my book, Evangelicals at the Crossroads, where we pass the Trump test will be super relevant these next years, super relevant. If he's not reelected, it'll be relevant, but not as relevant because we won't really have that much more time to pass or fail the Trump test. But if he's reelected, it will continue to be super relevant. And my thesis is that we can vote for him while maintaining our witness at the same time.

But if we defend him, if we do not recognize his faults, if we do not see how his negative characteristics can be harmful to the nation, then it discredits our Christian witness. Just some of my thoughts. 866-348-7884. Hey, about 45 minutes from now, a little less than that, we'll be on YouTube, the Ask Dr. Brown YouTube channel, ASKDR Brown, doing our exclusive weekly Q&A chat. All right, so join me, note it if you can do it. This way, we just spend the time. All I do is answer your questions. You post them, I answer them.

Any subject, whatever. That's what we do for 45 minutes or an hour. So we're gonna be starting at 4.15 Eastern Time.

All right, 4.15 Eastern Time. I wanna talk a lot more about some of the implications of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and some of the extreme reaction against her. But first, I wanna grab a call or two, and then we're gonna get back to the Amy Barrett, Justice Barrett.

Let's go over to Jerry in Meriden, North Carolina. Welcome to the line of fire. Well, thank you, Dr. Brown, for taking my call.

You're welcome. Yes, I just wanted to say that it's not harder to witness when you're pro-Trump. I don't expect the unsafe, to tell you the truth, to be pro-life or to understand that as much as we Christians do. I do feel that no one's perfect, especially us Christians, and we certainly know that. So we're not gonna get a perfect president. And I'd rather have a president that is pro-life, pro-Israel, pro-law and order, and pro-freedom of religion.

He has delivered, and his personality and all these other things, you know what I'm saying, can be improved. But I like to emphasize all that he really does, and there's so much that isn't even, what can I say, the media doesn't even tell you about, I'll hear on Christian radio. So yeah, being pro-Trump, to me, is being pro-life. I don't see how, to tell you the truth, I really don't see how a Christian can vote for pro-abortion, so that's just my take on it, okay?

Now Jerry, do you have, I appreciate the perspective, and I'm sure many listening would agree with your perspective, but maybe it's just the circles that you're in, but you're saying if you have talked to people about the Lord during the years of his presidency, and you're known as a Trump supporter, that it hasn't hurt your gospel witness, it hasn't gotten in the way. No, like I said, what is there to hurt, you know, if you want to go by. No, I'm just asking, in other words, I, yeah. Oh no, I'm sorry, okay. Yeah, yeah, no, all clear, in other words, I understand your perspective, I was trying to understand when you talk to people that don't believe, et cetera, but no, I'm asking a question, I'm not assuming an answer.

So thank you, that's why I'm asking. 866-34-TRUTH, let's go to Denver, Colorado. Jeremy, welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Dr. Brown, thanks for taking my call. I'm a big admirer of yours, man, but I've never called the show before, so thanks for taking that call.

Oh, you bet. Hey, man, so I wanted to speak to this question directly. I've never called before, like I said, but this question really speaks to me, because this was one of the larger reasons I didn't vote for Donald Trump the first time. I'm kind of a cussed, Gen X, millennial thing, I think this is kind of a common sentiment among a lot of my friends and stuff, it's like, can I in good conscience vote for this guy? And now, all of a sudden, every gospel conversation I have becomes about defending this bombastic personality, and that was kind of, I've sort of been thankful over the last four years that I didn't vote for Donald Trump for that reason, because my conversations about Jesus, I can always sort of defer that conversation to, well, you know, I didn't vote for this guy, let me talk to you about Jesus, but this time around, I didn't make a final decision to vote for Donald Trump until literally, in the last couple weeks, with a lot of prayer on the issue and stuff, I just had to finally admit to the Lord and myself that for me to not vote for this guy after what he's demonstrated to be an advocate for religious liberty in this country, would just be me putting my personal feelings about his personality over the work that the Lord is doing through this guy, you know? And speaking to the concern, I have really checked into a lot of Phil Vischner's content and a lot of similar thinking people to him over the last few days, have developed a real interest in it, like, within the church, what is this kind of sentiment against Donald Trump? And like, how are people justifying a choice or a vote for a pro-choice candidate? Yeah, just to make sure everyone understands, again, Phil Vischner put out a video with Scott Giathani saying that we shouldn't be single-issue voters and make abortion or particularly the overturning of Roe v. Wade the one issue, so you're pushing back against that. And Jeremy, how old are you? I'm 35.

35, okay, yeah, so go ahead, please continue. Okay, yeah, and Phil Vischner has put out other content as well, sort of parodying a lot of social justice talking points and sort of revisionist history stuff, but anyways, aside from that, what I have been sort of contemplating over the last couple days is that there is sort of a tendency, I think, in thinking about these kind of issues in the church to sort of adopt sort of a postmodern mindset of there is no right way to vote for a Christian, you know, it's kind of like half the church sees things one way and half the church sees things another way, and none of us are more right or wrong than the other, you know, ultimately it's just between you and the Lord and there's no real right or wrong way. Well, to say that, though, is to say that the Bible doesn't have anything to say or to offer to us in how we think about these issues, and I think that that's just wrong, ultimately, you know, but it speaks to a larger problem in regards to evangelism, I think, and I think this is something the Lord has really ministered to me in thinking about this the last few days, is that in my witness encounters, there is a tendency, I think, when I tell people about what Jesus has done for me personally and how he changed my whole life and how I was redeemed in Jesus and all of these things, there's a tendency in witness encounters for people to say, way to go, that worked for you, and, you know, everybody's truth is good for them and all of these things, you know, and it has kind of come to a point in our culture where saying that you stand for Jesus in people's minds, it almost doesn't even mean anything, you know, when you say that you stand for Jesus, because that could mean so many different things to different people, as we're witnessing in sort of this liberal movement within the church, you know, but when you say you stand for Donald Trump, that is far more challenging, because you're standing for a set of clearly defined principles in our culture, you know, and so that, I think, while it might make witness encounters more difficult, it's not necessarily this man's personality that people are rejecting as far as I'm convicted. I mean, it's really what he stands for, ultimately, which is why there's this big bombastic, all of those elements of his character being emphasized in the media, you know, it's really underlying, it's those conservative principles that we ought to be standing for on biblical truth. Right, so Jeremy, I appreciate the point, and just to kind of restate a couple of things, so on the one hand, I'm sure that there are people that are offended by who Trump is, what he says, they feel he can be dangerous, irresponsible, dividing households, and on and on, just a brute of a person, and so they have issues with his personality, and how can we support him, and we explain our reasons why. But the other thing you're saying, though, is that a lot of the opposition has to do with the issues.

In other words, if he was a liberal Democrat, the media would not be attacking him the way it's attacking him. So it's because of his stance on these other issues, and that should come up with the gospel. In other words, fine, let's talk about abortion. Fine, let's talk about religious liberties. Fine, let's talk about these other things.

I mean, it's not just a matter of sin as some abstract thing, like in the air, and just it's spiritual only. It interfaces with this world, so let's have the conversation. And Jeremy, the key thing is that we are prepared to, that we're ready to have the conversation, and for me, the thing to say is I absolutely see what you see, and I'm concerned about the same things you're concerned about. For example, I was just talking to Nancy before, and she sent me an article where, rally in Michigan, President Trump is saying, I don't know how real this threat was against Governor Whitmer, and so on, and she's saying whenever he comes after her, that the threats that come their way, the death threats, the hate mail, it just surges against your family. To me, as the president, that's an irresponsible thing to do. It's a dangerous thing to do. So I share that concern.

However, when I have to make a binary choice in terms of voting, and I see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, well, it's a very simple choice for me in terms of how I'll vote. So we can have that dialogue and discussion. So Jeremy, let's see how the next years go if, in fact, the man you vote for is reelected. I'd love an update a few months later how witnessing is going, but Jeremy, thanks for calling in for the first time. I appreciate it. 866-34-TRUTH.

Let's go to Cassie in Boone, Iowa. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi there, this is also my first time calling in.

Sweet. I'm a relatively new listener. My husband turned me on to you guys because he is pretty versed in the word and also supports Trump. And I am more of what you'd probably call a baby Christian.

And I try to just choose love. So that's why I decided to call in on this. This isn't totally, this is totally out of character for me to be honest with you. What provoked you to call? What prompted you to call? So you, I do, so I'm a little bit on the other side of this, I guess.

And I definitely do feel like sometimes when he or my father-in-law start to, when the blind cross of Trump and Jesus, right, and how our faith plays into the way we vote, it's so interesting because we read some of the same things, the same things, right, in the Bible and other things, and we perceive them very differently. Got it. All right, and listen, stay right there if you can. We've got a short break, and I wanna continue. I wanna hear what you have to say, then I got a couple questions for you. So stay right there, Cassie.

We've got a very short break. We'll be right back. It's the Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Get into the Line of Fire now by calling 866-342.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on the Line of Fire. I do have a few important comments I wanna make and some stats I wanna bring to your attention regarding Amy Coney Barrett.

But first, we go back to the phones with Cassie in Boone, Iowa. You know, Cassie, I've been shouting as loudly as I can for years that Donald Trump is not my savior, that he didn't die for my sins, that I don't owe him my life, but he gets my vote as president, and that the one thing I shout for the whole world to hear, Jesus is my savior and Lord and I live for him, and the other is a small item. When it comes to voting for president, here's why I vote for him. So if we confuse the two or put them on kind of an equal plane or people know me as a Trump voter as opposed to a Jesus follower, then we've made a mistake. But do you feel that the volume with which many are supporting Trump is just as loud as they're proclaiming Jesus, and hence there's some confusion over things?

Oh, I believe it's even louder in many cases. I think that that is a big turn-off for me, a big turn-away for me is it almost feels like a cult, right? When we're like nothing, on the other side it feels like nothing else is more important than getting him to presidency. I understand that. Now, you can understand that with the all-out attack against him and the feeling of our very nation being taken away by other forces that want to cancel us out, that people get more desperate over the election issue.

But I agree. Hey, listen, I want to send you and your husband a free copy of my book, Evangelicals at the Crossroads. I would love to get the perspective, as a husband and wife reading it, loving Jesus, but from different perspectives.

So if you don't already have it, can I send you a free copy? We would love that, thank you. All right, and what's your husband's first name? His name is Ryan. Ryan, all right. I'm gonna sign it personally to you.

So when we're done, Rachel's gonna come on and get your mailing info, and then we'll send you a free copy of the book. Okay, but here's my big question for you, all right? You said you believe in love, and moments after you said that, it sounded like a little baby crying in the background. Is that correct?

Yeah. Right, can you embrace the idea that the Democrat Party now is the most pro-abortion party in our nation's history, that Kamala Harris has received 100% ratings from the pro-abortion organizations, that she prosecuted someone who exposed Planned Parenthood for selling baby parts for profit, that Joe Biden has said that he would make Roe v. Wade the law of the land if the Supreme Court overturned it, that we wanna do everything in our power to vote against that happening because of love for the unborn, and in the memory of more than 60 million babies killed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, and that as many things as Donald Trump, many things about him may offend us, that for that alone, we would vote for him versus Joe Biden, Kamala Harris. Can you get that viewpoint based on love?

Here's my, here's where I see love needing interjected into this, right? Is that all, so many of these children that would be forced to be born would be so unloved on this earth. If a woman is in such a state that she would kill that baby, do you think she's going to love that baby? Do you think that baby is going to be raised in Christ?

Do you think? Yes, I do, because, because. I believe Christ was in that child.

No, let me tell you why. Because many of them would give their babies up for adoption where there were long lines of Christian homes. I totally agree with that.

Long lines of Christian homes would take them in. Also, through outreach, many of these women have changes of heart. The other thing is based on your logic, if a kid is unloved, why not kill it outside of the womb? In other words, once, right, right, well, if that baby's unloved, and the other thing, when it comes to, if you are driving down the road with your children or your child, and some carjacker aggressively comes up and tries to jump in your car, and they're gonna throw you out, they're gonna kidnap your child, and there's a police officer there, do you want that police officer to be very loving, or do you want that police officer to stop that person from doing you harm in your child?

So in other words, love in action is gonna come in many different ways. But listen, Cassie, stay right there. Rachel's gonna get your info. I really appreciate you calling. I really do, and I appreciate you airing what you did, because it's part of the conversation. That's why we open the phone lines, so thank you.

And then once you and your husband get a chance to write the book, shoot us a note or both of you call in together one day. We'll have a fun conversation. But stay right there. Rachel's gonna get your info. Okay, let me underscore something very, very important with Amy Coney Barrett. When Neil Gorsuch was confirmed, there were three Democrats that voted for him, three. When Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, despite the extreme charges and the sex allegations and all of this, one Democrat still voted for him.

When it came to Amy Coney Barrett, although, listen to this, listen to this, she received a well-qualified rating for the American Bar Association, whose representatives relayed descriptions of her as brilliant and an intellectual giant. And you don't have the scandals associated with her, right, or alleged scandals. Not a single Democrat, not one, voted for her. Is this not a corporate statement that whatever must be done to uphold Roe v. Wade will be done because this woman is seen as a threat to it? And isn't this a statement from others that there's a genuine fear of having a devout Catholic on the Supreme Court as Justice Scalia was a devout Catholic? Isn't there a concern about that or you brand someone a religious fanatic and therefore you can only have people on the judiciary and on the Supreme Court who, their views are more moderate, not so extreme, not so fanatical, I'm just asking questions. I absolutely am not saying that all Democrats are bad and all Republicans are good, no. I know the political system itself has enough corruption, backroom deals, you scratch my back, I scratch your back, power plays, greed, all kinds of junk. I also know that we work within a political system and a government here in America and that as much as change comes on the grassroots, it will filter its way to the courts, it will filter its way to the Congress, to the White House.

So look at this, look at this. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she's confirmed by a vote of 96 to three. 96 to three, she was known as a progressive icon.

Yes, she would not answer questions directly saying it's not right to say how I would opine on certain things. That became known as the Ginsburg Rule which then Amy Coney Barrett appealed to a number of times. But 96 to three, Justice Scalia, what does he get in by?

98 to nothing. So obviously there were times when Democrats and Republicans were much more bipartisan and they evaluated the jurist and they said, okay, your credentials are excellent, we may not like all of your ideology but you're just ruling based on these, your credentials are excellent, so we're gonna vote you in. During the Reagan years, let's look at this, Sandra Day O'Connor, what was her confirmation?

99 to zero, 99 to zero. And then William H. Rehnquist, 65 to 33. Now what happened to Robert Bork?

Robert Bork might have been a giant in the court but perhaps not coached in terms of how he needed to come across and then with the attack that came against him, it's now a verb. He got borked, 42 to 58, all right. And then Anthony Kennedy, the next replacement, 97 to zero. He gets in but of course he ends up being the swing vote in the wrong way in some of the most important cases of almost recently, Obergefell versus Hodges. If he had someone else in there, would have gotten very different results. But it's interesting that you have someone as conservative ideologically as Robert Bork and he gets borked and the reason it came to be a verb is it was a mistreatment of who he was.

It was not a right and fair assessment. Okay, George Bush, George H.W. Bush, David Souter confirmed 90 to nine, Clarence Thomas, remember those hearings how tumultuous they were, he just gets in by 52 to 48. So you're seeing a pattern when you have a strong conservative, you do not have the same pattern when you have a strong liberal that all the Republicans to a person stand against him but when you have a strong conservative, almost all the Democrats to a person have stood against him. Scalia would be an exception. Bill Clinton's nominees, Ginsburg we said 96 to three, Stephen Breyer, 87 to nine. George W. Bush, John Roberts gets in, 78 to 22. Alito had a tougher battle, 58 to 42. He gets in but he's been a strong conservative. Under Barack Obama, who gets in? We know how Sonia Sotomayor is gonna rule. She gets in 68 to 31.

Elena Kagan, 63 to 37. What's that telling you? It's telling you that the pattern of saying we are gonna vote as a whole party, 100% against or almost 100% against these conservatives, it's in the Democrat side.

You do not have the equivalent on the Republican side. Just going through history. All right, now, real quick, let's look at some of the reactions on Twitter. Curtis Halk posted this and it's a picture of CNN reporting on the confirmation of Irene Coney Barrett. This is big news, this is big, major historic news. What's the cry on the headline at the bottom say? Trump's Supreme Court nominee about to be sworn in at White House at another potential super spreader event. That's the headline.

Oh no, they're gonna spread the virus because they're not wearing masks. That's the headline. And then here's the Don Lemon take on it. Again, just to show the reaction. We have an impeached president who lost the popular vote, who was appointed and got confirmed one third of the United States Supreme Court. Now, so that's the way he covers what happens. So yeah, there's absolute bias on all sides of the media. No question whatsoever. But just notice the level of opposition to someone like Amy Coney Barrett, why it is because of her faith and her conservative ideology.

May God use her for good in our nation. Okay, 15 minutes from now, back on YouTube, Ask Dr. Brown on YouTube, A.S.K. D.R. Brown. Join us for about 45 minutes or an hour of Q and A. ["Game to the World"]
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-01-31 22:51:50 / 2024-01-31 23:12:20 / 21

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