Dr. Brown talks about the need for believers to arise today with moral courage (while still walking in love towards the lost), discusses the meaning of “The Goodness of God Leads to Repentance,” and then asks if we are exaggerating the so-called “war on religion” in America today. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Jesus is worthy of everything; adoration, praise, and truth telling! Tell the truth about who He is!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Ask yourself, “Are you functioning as salt and are you functioning as light in the society? Are you changing the world around you? Or, has the world around you changed you?”
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week Dr. Brown is offering the entire School of Cultural Engagement teaching series, via direct download, at an incredible 50% off! Now available for only $10 a class or $60 for the whole series! That’s a potential savings of more than $60 for 40 plus hours of life changing teaching, with no postage costs!
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
Other Resources:
I didn’t like how Dr. Brown demagogued the issue of morality today.
Just because many (most?) of us Christians don’t agree with his narrow interpretation of scripture, doesn’t mean that we are morally compromised.
We just see some issues differently than he does. We still love Jesus! We still live moral lives!
Both Jesus and Paul command us to not divide the body of Christ. I think this includes allowing for diversity of biblical interpretation withing the church without labeling the other side as morally compromised.
Probably one thing worse than judging others who do bad things and doing the same thing ourself, would be judging others wrongly of something and doing the wrong thing ourselves.
If you fear for Christians’ Constitutional rights, you should know about Chai Feldblum. She is a member of the Williams Institute–an organization that “trains” (some would say, “brainwashes”) judges to look at gay and lesbian cases from a gay and lesbian point of view. Is this the reason that so many judges are now ruling in favor of gays?
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/judicial-training-program/
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/past-trainings/
During the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, there were many people who supported freedom for African-American slaves and were for women’s rights.
But no one supported “gay rights”. We know that the Constitution had no intent of protecting the rights of people who have sex with the same gender. Homosexual acts, gay and lesbian, were considered so despicable that they were punishable by death.
Even the most liberal of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, held a very low opinion of homosexuality. Jefferson, along with others, prepared a bill that included those who practiced homosexual “sodomy” and lesbianism as “wicked and dissolute”. Their punishment should be either castration for men or facial mutilation for women practicing lesbianism.
“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”
http://founders.archives.gov/?q=Jefferson%20sodomy&s=1111311111&sa=&r=2&sr=
The State of Virginia rejected Jefferson’s suggestion and made sodomy a crime punishable by death, until the early 1800s. However, anti-sodomy laws still existed until 2003, when a Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. The Court claimed that such laws violated the “due process” part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, claiming that this amendment extended rights even to homosexuals
However, even the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified by the States on July 9, 1868), claimed to provide rights for “all,” but only provided voting rights for African-Americans males who had been enslaved in slave states.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
“Section I
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
But all women of any race were still denied the same right to vote, and many other legal
rights enjoyed by men.
Likewise, the Fifteenth Amendment said,
“Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–”
Unfortunately, this nice-sounding amendment also did not include any women of any color.
Finally, in the Nineteenth Amendment (ratified by the states in August 18, 1920) all women got the right to vote.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Even though many citizens supported freedom and civil rights for slaves and for women,
it took almost 75 years from the ratification of the Constitution for male slaves to get the
Constitutional right to vote. It also required a Constitutional amendment.
Likewise, it took 130 years and a Constitutional amendment to get the right for women to vote, even though many people had pushed for women’s rights throughout this long time.
It should also require, under the Constitution, a Constitutional amendment to give the formerly despised homosexuals any Constitutional rights to “sodomy”. The Supreme Court perverted the Constitution and its stated process of amendment (Article V) to claim to give even the right of “sodomy” to homosexuals.
“Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
Greg,
We are commanded not to have fellowships with sexually immoral “Christians”. That would go for those who promote sexual immorality as well. Doing this is not dividing the body.
Doug
Doug,
But the morality of sex is up for interpretation. … And changes with society and time.
Until quite recently, remarriage after divorce would get you kicked out of church.
(Which, by the way, Jesus condemned far more clearly than he does homosexuality.)
Do you have divorced couples in your church? now? Are there any remarried people in this discussion group?
Does Dr. Brown’s ministry, church or school condemn and shun re0married people?
Did the Evangelical church shun Hal Lindsay, Bob Larson, Charles Colson, … even their beloved Ronald Reagan?
No. Why not? We Christians are still against adultery but we understand marriage very differently now than 2000 years ago.
Well, in my _honest_ opinion a monogamous, gay marriage is similarly moral. I honestly don’t think that gay marriage destroys or re-defines the current nuclear family. Just the opposite, I support gay marriage because I’m pro-marriage.
Yes, homosexuality was a threat to the biblical (clan centric) family. But so was the nuclear (love centric) family!
Just because I _honestly_ believe this, doesn’t mean I am for sexual morality.
By the way Dr. Brown –
I want to thank you for not banning me from this discussion group.
This reveals your sense of fairness and the conviction of your beliefs. Some owners of other Christians blogs would probably find me too threatening.
Thank you.
Greg,
You assert that the morality of sex changes with time but the Bible teaches the opposite. The issue of remarriage is a bit more complicated than homosexuality and has nothing to do with it. People who divorce without biblical grounds should be put out of the church. The church I attend practices this.
It does not matter how “honest” you are in your opinion. Most false teachers I have met are “honest” in their opinions just like they probably were in the times of the apostles. If you believe homosexuality is “ok” you are a false teacher who is in favor of sexual immorality and sowing confusion in the church. Claiming this is a matter of interpretation is irrelevant since anything in the Bible is a matter of interpretation to some extent. The teaching about homosexuality is as clear as any teaching in the Bible.
Doug
Greg,
You’re quite welcome, and you’re certainly not threatening at all. We welcome the honest interaction, even when I feel you misunderstand or even misrepresent me. Let the discussion continue — and by all means, read by book with a humble and open heart.
You’re not threatening to Dr. Brown. But I sure am.
Just kidding. Dr. Brown isn’t afraid of letting opposing views be seen on his blog or heard on his radio program. This sets him apart from other Christian apologists. He’s engaging the culture.