17 comments
Leave a comment »

1. Joe.My.God. November 19th, 2008 11:39 pm :

   You can try and distance yourselves all you watch, but Engle’s affiliation with Joel’s Army is well documented all over the internet.

   From Right Wing Watch:
   http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/joels-army-and-call

   This Joel’s Army page promotes Engle’s “The Call” events:
   http://watch.pair.com/elijah.html

   More on the Engle connection:
   http://www.mahalo.com/Joel%27s_Army

   I’ll take the word of the Southern Poverty Law Center over a bunch of haters any day.

   Engle’s own words: “I believe we’re headed to an Elijah/Jezebel showdown on the Earth, not just in America but all over the globe, and the main warriors will be the prophets of Baal versus the prophets of God, and there will be no middle ground. There’s an Elijah generation that’s going to be the forerunners for the coming of Jesus, a generation marked not by their niceness but by the intensity of their passion. The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Such force demands an equal response, and Jesus is going to make war on everything that hinders love, with his eyes blazing fire.”

   Sounds pretty violent and like typical Dominionist rhetoric to ME.

   It all basically boils down to one thing. I believe that I have the right to live free of the influence of religion.

   You people believe that everybody must believe as you do - or else.

2. Dr. Michael L. Brown November 20th, 2008 12:16 am :

   Joe,

   A few notes of correction from an “insider” and a personal friend of Lou Engle’s. Let me say, though, that I fully understand how this language can sound to your ears, but it is all 100% non-violent in intent and application, as I’ll explain.

   1) There is not a formal, identifiable movement called Joel’s Army (in contrast with formal, identifiable groups like the Southern Baptists or Assemblies of God). Rather, there are some Christians, especially young people, who, through the years, have made spiritual application of the passage in Joel and referred to an end-time, spiritual army (and I stress the word “spiritual”!).

   2) The SPLC article was laughably inaccurate, finding all kinds of connections and conspiracies when they don’t exist. I’m perfectly happy to take responsibility for what I and my colleagues believe and teach, but the SPLC misunderstood and misrepresented point after point. (BTW, SPLC misunderstood me as well in an article about one year ago — misquoting me too — and some of this was corrected on Warren Throckmorton’s blog.)

   3) There is not a single Christian leader with whom I have worked in the prayer movement (or other movements) who would countenance violence for the gospel under any circumstances. If you choose to believe otherwise, that’s your prerogative, but the facts are indisputable. Listen to hundreds of hours of actual teaching and preaching; read the scores of books that have been written; every one of them will say the same thing: The battle we are fighting is a spiritual battle; we are not fighting human beings; rather, we are praying and sacrificing to help change people’s lives, not take their lives! Honestly, the only way that you can construe things differently is to willfully do so — at which point, meaningful interaction comes to and end.

   I have personally worked with several thousand young people who also appreciate Lou Engle’s ministry, and the idea that anyone is espousing or encouraging violence would be so foreign to them that you might just as well suggest that we are plotting a UFO invasion.

   What about your right to live free from religion? It is your right, and it’s my right to practice my faith. That’s the beauty of America. And in our democratic society, we will both use lawful channels to pursue our respective goals, be they social or moral or whatever. I hope you grant me this right too.

   Do Christians believe that there are consequences for rejecting Jesus? Of course we do, but not in the sense that we are going to do something to you if you don’t believe (God forbid!). Rather, you forfeit eternal life and more when you reject him — but that is ultimately between you and God, not you and me.

   Having said all this, if truth is what you’re after, I can help; if you’re pursuing dominionist “ammunition” to use against dedicated, born-again Christians, you’ll be quite disappointed in what you (don’t) find.

3. Joe.My.God. November 20th, 2008 12:59 am :

   So are you categorically denying that goal of your movement is to inflict Christian values on the whole of American secular society by imposing your own rules and laws on the rest of us, regardless of how vehemently we object?

   We sure aren’t seeing it that way.

   If you want to live your lives by the rules in your Bible, fine. But for people like me, for whom the Christian Bible is just one of millions of books in the library, that’s completely contrary to most basic premise of American democracy. Suppose it were atheists that outnumbered Christians by 10-1, rather than the other way around? Should I be allowed to vote away your marriages and your families? According to the Constitution, clearly not. But that is what Christians have done to me and my friends.

   You should watch what has happened in Canada and Europe very closely. Freedom of speech and expression is no longer as strongly protected as is in the United States and religious organizations are being shackled on what they can do and say about non-Christians. I prefer the American way, obviously, but Christians in the U.S. should be very careful about how hard they push for their imposition of Biblical principles here. The “gay backlash” over marriage equality may only be the beginning of a new era in which more people see value in the Canadian/European model. I think we can both agree that that would be a bad thing.

   Freedom OF religion logically insists that there must also be freedom FROM religion. Millions of non-Christian Americans do not have that. And we want it. And we shall have it. HOW we get it, is entirely up to the Christians. What you need to see is the value in the middle ground between your theocratic goals and what has happened elsewhere in the world.

4. en72 November 20th, 2008 4:23 am :

   Please take the time to read my comment and hope you know I do so with the best of intentions. Although this is a Christian based site, I hope it will be alright if I take liberties with some texts written by the buddhist monk and writer Thich Nhat Hanh. Basically I am quoting directly from “Being Peace” by Thich Nhat Hanh, but added in my own message which is in all caps.
   Here goes:
   To understand the suffering and the fear of a citizen of another country, we have to become one with him. To do so is dangerous- we will be suspected by both sides. But if we don’t, if we align ourselves with one side or the other, we lose the chance to work for peace. Reconciliation is to understand both sides, to go to one side and describe the suffering being endured by the other side, and then to go to the other side and describe the suffering being endured by the first side. Doing only that will be a great help for peace.
   In South Africa under apartheid, the black people suffered enormously. The white people also suffered. If we take one side, we can’t fulfill our task of reconciliation in order to bring about peace.
   Are there people who can be in touch with both Israelis and Palestians, Pakistanis and Indians, black and white, RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES AND SECULARISTS, GAY AND STRAIGHT? Without them, the situation gets worse. There must be people who can get in touch with both sides, understanding the suffering of each, and telling each side about the other. We need people who can help bring mediation and reconciliation to nations in conflict. Can Americans be more than Americans? CAN STRAIGHTS BE MORE THAN STRAIGHTS? CAN GAYS BE MORE THAN GAYS? Can we be people who understand deeply the suffering of both sides?

5. Marcus French November 22nd, 2008 10:31 am :

   JoeMyGod,

   You asked of Dr. Brown: “So are you categorically denying that goal of your movement is to inflict Christian values on the whole of American secular society by imposing your own rules and laws on the rest of us, regardless of how vehemently we object?”

   A question for you: Do you categorically deny that the goal of your movement is to inflict LGBT values on the whole of American society by imposing your own rules and laws on the rest of us, regardless of how vehemently we object?

6. Marcus French November 22nd, 2008 12:39 pm :

   en72,

   Comments whether in agreement or disagreement are always welcome!

   Marcus French
   Editor

7. Dr. Michael L. Brown November 23rd, 2008 10:55 pm :

   Joe,

   I’m eager to hear your response to Marcus’s question (#5), but let me respond directly to you first. Let me state first, though, that my systematic reply is not meant to be impersonal. I know that for you, this is a deeply personal issue and that someone like me can seem monstrous in your eyes. (How dare I take away your rights!) I am simply responding with candor to your questions, questions which arose in the context of the myth of Lou Engle’s alleged dominionist intentions (or the existence of a mystical, dominionist, “Joel’s Army”).

   1) I categorically state that I renounce all forms of violence and coercion that would be used to force people to adhere to my religious beliefs. This is absolutely contrary to the spirit of Jesus and the NT.

   2) I am committed as a follower of Jesus to share my faith actively, to seek to be a positive influence in society, to pray for those who differ with me, and to use the democratic process to vote for candidates who will uphold my values (be those values directly related to the Bible or not). You as an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or other faith (or non-faith) have exactly the same rights. And under no circumstances would I advocate an America that would require everyone to believe in Jesus or attend church or read the Bible, etc. I cannot countenance such a society, nor would I support it. It’s also important to understand, however, that my moral values are informed by my faith, and so I am against murder and stealing both for social and spiritual reasons; I am against discrimination both for social and spiritual reasons; and if I was alive in the days of slavery, I would be committed to work against it for both social and spiritual reasons. In the same way, I am committed to stand for the institution of marriage.

   3) The Constitution did not guarantee freedom FROM religion, nor did the concept of the separation of Church and State countenance freedom FROM religion. Rather, as stated by Yale law professor Stephen Carter, “The wall of separation of church and state is not there to protect the state from the church; it is there to protect the church from the state. It stands as a divide to preserve religious freedom. And one needs to protect the church from the state because the latter will utilize its enormous powers to do what the state has always done – either subvert the religion or destroy it. If we continue our slide toward a state that breaches the wall of separation whenever it is convenient, then I worry about the great risk to religious freedom. In the end, such a breach could destroy our ability to form the communities of resistance that are crucial if we are going to have a chance to transform the nation.” (And note that he wrote this as an African-American leader, cognizant of how the civil rights movement was birthed in in the Black Church.) That being said, if the majority of our country becomes non-religious, then America will turn in that direction and I will continue my efforts without the help of protection of the government. If the government takes away my rights to preach and teach my faith, then by God’s grace, I will continue to preach and teach and will suffer the legal consequences.

   4) The bottom line for me is quite simple: For a host of reasons, marriage is the union of a man and woman, not two consenting adult partners. In fact, throughout world history, the key element of marriage has been the male-female aspect more than the “two person” aspect — that’s how foundational it is. So, this has nothing to do with civil rights, anymore than you would grant two blood brothers the “civil right” to marry. You are protected under the law just as I am, but you want to redefine marriage, and I don’t. Moreover, you cannot find a syllable in the Constitution that explicitly addresses the issue of same-sex relationships, and that’s why the California justices had to invent it out of whole cloth. Thus, you continue to compare apples with oranges (speaking of the redefinition of marriage, which is the very foundation of human society, and calling it a civil rights issue or a constitutional issue), and you continue to mistake my opposition to same-sex marriage with a desire on my part to forcefully impose my religious views on you. I still have not heard anything that would suggest that is my intent (or the intent of the majority of Americans who oppose the radical redefinition of marriage), and to raise the “civil rights” mantra again and again is to obscure the real issues involved: You want to bring dramatic change to the most foundational element of human society — namely, marriage and the family that devolves from that — and I do not.

   Let’s also be honest here. You have not the slightest intent of stopping here. You want to see an inclusive ENDA, among other things, and sooner or later, you will be coming to take away my rights. (If you differ with me, then by all means, lay out your views with clarity.)

   Thanks for the dialogue! I hope it will prove useful in terms of helping to increase our understanding in the midst of our differences.

8. Timothy (TRiG) November 29th, 2008 11:31 am :

   you want to redefine marriage, and I don’t

   Funny, that. I thought redefining marriage was what your lot just did in California.

   TRiG.

9. Dr. Michael L. Brown November 29th, 2008 5:37 pm :

   Trig,

   Are you actually serious with this comment? For the entire history of the human race, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman, not the union of two people. Then, by a 4-3 majority, a California court allegedly finds a constitutional right for two people of the same-sex to “marry” — inventing this “right” out of whole cloth. All Prop 8 people did in their vote was restore to normal the way things have been throughout human history. But surely you know this, don’t you?

10. Timothy (TRiG) November 30th, 2008 7:12 am :

    I suspect that the entire history of the human race has been rather more varied than you imagine.

    TRiG.

    (Sorry for the brevity. I only have the mental energy for one-liners at the moment.)

11. Dr Michael Brown November 30th, 2008 10:40 pm :

    Trig,

    Please be kind enough to show me where civilizations have recognized same-sex, adult marriage as an equivalent for normal marriage? I have read about some societies that had some kind of ceremonies for man-boy unions (as the pedophiles are quick to point out), but even in those cases (which are hardly a model!), they were not considered to be “marriage,” and even the boys would eventually marry women when they got older (and this is only if these studies are accurate). Whatever “exceptions” someone can find only serve to prove the rule.

    The bottom line is that male-female union for the purpose of procreation and family nurture predates marriage laws, which came into place to validate this foundational element of every human society in history, rather than to create a new element.

12. David Hearne December 23rd, 2008 9:55 pm :

    Dr. Michael L. Brown November 29th, 2008 5:37 pm :
    Trig,
    Are you actually serious with this comment? For the entire history of the human race, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman, not the union of two people.
    What an interesting way of wording that. Actually, we don’t have the entire history of the human race recorded and at our disposal, and what we have doesn’t actually support your claim. The marriages of the European Romans , Asian Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc…  there is quite a bit of variation in the construct of the marriages included in what recorded history we have. 
    Another common claim is that “traditional marriage is the bedrock of civilization” or some such. This is an exaggeration at best, and false on its face. The bedrock of western civilization, if indeed you could point to a singular rock, would be primogeniture. Ask any sociologist. To demonstrate this we can look to accepted history books, but we can also allow that some part of the Bible might be actual history. Take my slave woman, please. :) The big deal with Abraham wasn’t that he impregnated Sarah’s slave woman, it wasn’t even that she would bear him a son…. UNTIL Sarah, #1 wife got pregnant herself. Then Hagar and Abe’s #1 son had to go. So we see, that even though Sarah had superior status, society would have valued Hagar’s son over Sarah’s. 
    If we jump ahead countless years to better known people, we find the kings of England and Scotland (and France and almost everywhere) who indeed have only one wife at a time (in accordance with ROMAN tradition, not JEWISH tradition) but who have children by several women other than their wives. These sons are recognized and titled, and these daughters are married to lesser nobles. Sometimes, there are challenges between the sons, which illustrates the true purpose of marriage- to define inheritance and property. 
    Please stop repeating that marriage is unchanged since the beginning of time. It’s simply not true. Moreover, even if it were it’s not relevant. Slavery remained virtually unchanged for all but the last few years of all time, and we changed that.

13. Dr Michael Brown December 24th, 2008 3:35 am :

    David,

    Actually, I’ve researched the question of marriage in history, and the consistent pattern, virtually without fail, is that what we commonly call marriage was the union of a man and a woman, not the union of two people. Not a syllable of what you wrote here refutes that point at all. If you’d like some good scholarly references that also point to the foundational nature of marriage in human society, I’d be happy to pass them your way.

    In support of one of your points, you say, “Ask any sociologist.” Would you mind taking a few minutes and sending me just a few solid academic references (monographs rather than an online article, of course), that support the point you were making?

    As for your statement about slavery, I don’t see how it interacts with the point I was making at all. Would you care to clarify and to give me the moral analogy that you were seeking to make?

14. Timothy (TRiG) December 24th, 2008 10:05 am :

    Moral analogy? Or simple analogy? The relevance of slavery is simple and direct, and has already been well-explained by David. Things change. The fact that such-and-such has always been so does not in any way mean that it always should be so. Is that not so?

    Marriage has served many purposes, and been held according to many models. It is a tradition which allows for a great deal of variety. Why baulk at this variation?

    TRiG.

15. Timothy (TRiG) December 24th, 2008 10:10 am :

    Do you categorically deny that the goal of your movement is to inflict LGBT values on the whole of American society by imposing your own rules and laws on the rest of us, regardless of how vehemently we object?

    What the flip are LGBT values?

    TRiG.

16. Dr Michael L Brown December 24th, 2008 2:21 pm :

    Timothy (TRiG),

    Re: #14:

    Actually, there is neither a moral nor social analogy to the slavery issue (as compared to the marriage issue), since slavery has not been universal in all societies throughout human history — hardly! — and even where it has existed, there have often been moral objections to it, whereas a man and woman coming together to establish a family is as ancient as the human race. This is really quite obvious.

    With regard to changing the definition of marriage, that’s like adjusting the foundation of a building. There are consequences for the rest of the floors of the building — in this case, consequences for the children, consequences for the family structure in general, consequences leading to the further redefinition and expansion of marriage, consequences for the meaning of gender, etc. There really is plenty of solid literature that backs all this up, and some of it has been written by liberals.

17. Marcus French December 24th, 2008 3:03 pm :

    TRiG,

    What the flip are LGBT values?

    Hmm…  what are the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) fighting for? What is the world they are fighting to see? The values that they have and want to bring forth into society would be, in a general sense, LGBT values.

Leave Comment

•    
•  


• Subscribe via Email Subscribe via RSS Follow on Twitter

• More from this category

  • NYC Isaiah 53 Campaign: Dr. Brown Responds to Counter-Missionaries
  • True Tolerance: The Truth About “Safe Schools” & What You Can Do
  • Can a Jew Believe in Jesus? Rabbi Shmuley vs Dr. Brown
  • Alliance Defense Fund to Appeal August 4th Prop 8 Ruling
  • VOR Quick Links: July 24, 2010
  • A War on Christianity in Britain?
  • GayAgendaQuotable
  • Joel Richardson: “Our Hands are Stained with Blood” & the UK Methodist Church
  • TheCall: Sacramento - Invitation from Dr. Michael L. Brown
  • TheCall Sacramento: September 3-4, 2010
  • Archive for 'News' »

• More from this category

  • True Tolerance: The Truth About “Safe Schools” & What You Can Do
  • GayAgendaQuotable
  • EXODUS RETURNS to its BIRTHPLACE for 35th ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE
  • Gay Theologian to Ex-Gays: “Repent!”
  • Day of Truth Conversation Starters
  • Pink Elephants and Sin: Reaction to Feb. 25th “Crisis” Event
  • Flashback to 2008: Dr. Michael Brown Debates Harry Knox
  • LaBarbera Shares on Recent Lecture
  • Should We Use the Phrase “Radical Gay Agenda”?
  • Chicago Exodus Conference Draws Protest
  • Archive for 'Sexuality & Gender' »

• Facebook

• Writers

  FEATURED    Michael L. Brown    Frank Turek STAFF    Andrew Yeoman    Bryan Purtle    Daniel Kolenda    David Harwood EDITOR    Marcus French

  GUESTS    Joel Richardson    Noel Rabinowitz    Gordon MacIlvaine    Mark Armstrong CONTRIBUTORS    Christy Scott    David Arkley    Bethany French    Eric Gilmour    Marc Thomas

• Twitter Updates

  • "The sinner prides himself on his independence, completely overlooking the fact that he is the weak slave of sins that rule his members" AWT
    2 weeks ago
  • "To be perfectly frank ... the great majority of what's happening in American Christianity today is a poor joke." -DB http://fb.me/ydpxuZmi
    2 weeks ago
  • More updates...

• Browse Categories

  • Sexuality & Gender
  • Life & Family
  • Law & Politics
  • The Kingdom of God
  • Revolution & Justice
  • Philosophy & Science
  • Scripture
  • Persecution
  • Israel & The Jewish People
  • Culture

• Recent Comments

  • BP: Thanks for the comments, brothers. Yes Jeff, ‘prayer is the key’!
  • Jabez H.: Andrew,   Your insight…”a new move of His Kingdom about to break in,” of “Jesus...
  • Sheila: Hello to All, I am just reflecting on the environment in which the Apostles first spread the Gospel.  That the...
  • Jabez H.: “He was able to live in a distinctive manner, ‘full of grace and truth’, unmoved by criticism...
  • James: This is truly a wonderful article.

Join Dr. Brown's Email List

• Ministry Links

  • Ask Dr. Brown
  • Coalition of Conscience
  • FIRE School of Ministry
  • Line of Fire Radio
  • Real Messiah
  • Think it Thru TV

• Memberships

  

• Browse Archives

  | September 2010 | August 2010 | July 2010 | June 2010 | May 2010 | April 2010 | March 2010 | February 2010 | January 2010 | December 2009 | November 2009 | October 2009 | September 2009 | August 2009 | July 2009 | June 2009 | May 2009 | April 2009 | March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009 | December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008 | September 2008 |