In the article, referring to someone who replied to his open letter, Dr. Brown said their misstatement was “based on serious misunderstandings”
This is one of my very few disagreements with Dr. Brown whom I highly respect. He is just a little too nice to these people. He does indeed go out of his way not to offend them and at some points a little too far out of the way. He has far too much knowledge of their manipulative tactics to think that they are simply “misunderstanding”. The truth is that they make clear quality decisions to accept the lies of the LGBTQ activists because those lies make them more comfortable and compatible with their homosexual family members.
It really is not difficult to see the falsehood of the LGBTQ activist argument, and so “misunderstanding” even if some really don’t understand how they are being tricked, is unacceptable. Just a little research of the Conservative Christian material that is freely available on line and from many front line Christian ministries would make clear why they are “lying”, (another word that Christians seem to be unwilling to apply to homosexual activists).
Dr. Brown states:
“Richard is one of many who are telling serious Bible believers that, "Only honest reconsideration of your theology will bring healing."
This is a tactic not an intelligent argument against the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. And it is only effective against people who have not been sufficiently taught the Bible. And unfortunately that is a very large number among Christian.
Churches have and are failing to sufficiently teach their member what the Bible means by what it teaches on the homosexuality issue, and how to effectively refute homosexual activist scripture twisting. Most pastors see no need for such training and so many of their members either leaves the church or live double lives while remaining members because there is not enough knowledge to generate conviction for doing so.
Dr. Brown is absolutely correct when he states:
“As I explained in my book Can You Be Gay and Christian?, "no new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological, or philological discoveries have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently. Put another way, it is not that we have gained some new insights into what the biblical text means based on the study of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, people's interaction with the LGBT community has caused them to understand the biblical text differently."
And the fault for the most part lies at the churches feet. That can be proven by simply asking the pastor, what training programs have they provided for their members to understand the homosexual activists tactics and counter them. Just look at their preaching library and see if you can find any detailed message on the topic of homosexuality that their members can access and be equipped by. Chances are that you will not find that information in the vast majority of churches you review.
Dr. Brown makes another very important statement in the article:
“Simply stated, if not for the sexual revolution, no one would be reexamining what the Scriptures state about God's intention for His creation.”
His important point here must not be missed; it is because people want to have forbidden sex without condemnation so they welcome any excuse not to condemn others for their sinful sex. And they want to make their loved one happy and comfortable and retain their love more than they fear God or love God, and so taking sides with their homosexual children and other family members is easier than standing for God.
But as Dr. Brown noted, Matthew 10:37 puts anyone who does this, outside of God’s grace and salvation. Many in the church are reluctant to mention this kind of biblical truth because they are ultra love agents and over step the Biblical boundary to make sinners feel good. But there is no need, God’s established love is sufficient and no amount of human attempts to whitewash God’s clearly stated condemnation of rebellion will save the rejecter of God’s truth.
Another point I part agreement with Dr. Brown is when he makes this point after telling the story about a Christian who left his church to support his homosexual son, saying there were other churches he could go to but he had only one son. Dr. Brown then states:
“I could only wince when I heard his words, so loving in one way but so destructive in another”.
I have a problem with using the word love so loosely without defining it. That fathers “love” was selfishness, and forbidden by scripture. It was a rebellious carnal love that placed sin and personal “love” for family before God. But to do that is an act for anti-love since it contribute to the divine condemnation of the individual that you claims to love so much.
A father who truly loved their homosexual son would do all he could to help his son to see the truth about homosexuality. This does not require rejection or verbal abuse. And a truly saved father would have the love to convince his son that he loved him without having to compromise biblical truth. Dr. Brown indirectly acknowledges this when he later states: “But we will not and cannot affirm and bless what the Lord Himself opposes. To do so is to do a disservice to those in the LGBT community.”
If that is true of a Christian who supports homosexuality, it is also true of a father who does so.
So there you have it, my take on Dr Michael Brown's "Sorry, But We Won't Rewrite the Bible for Gays and Lesbians".