April 16, 2009
April 16, 2009 | 22 Comments
Hour One: Interview with Former Homosexual Jeff Johnston
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Hour Two: The Rise of Atheism; More on the Rick Warren Controversy
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Comments
22 Responses to “April 16, 2009”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
April 16th, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Hey Dr. Brown! Your little Methodist Pentacostal friend is listening to you right now! You are a hero of mine and the body of Christ! Can’t wait to see you in Pensacola next month! Tell Meg I said hello!
April 16th, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Hey Janet,
How wonderful to hear from you! I still remember my first service at Brownsville when I saw the joy of the Lord on you during the worship service and Steve Hill shared your testimony with me. Jesus is so faithful! See you soon!
April 17th, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
[...] Brown conducted an interview with Jeff Johnston, the man who’s story is told in the ad, on The Line of Fire on April 16th. [...]
April 17th, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
I love your show and I thought that the Wease was so closed to all the other side(G-D), I believe the interview was good eve though you already have a disadvantage from the get go when somebody does not believe there is a G-D. It almost seems that you bump your head against the wall with trying to explain the reason for being on the show. Also, if some one has a hang up over some one being a Christian and believes that ever one who is a Christian is a bigot and judges everyone (hypocrite).
I am US Military (Airman) and Was a drinker for 20 yrs and Jesus Delivered me from Alcohol and Cursing every other word. I Love Yashua, my Savior and Delivery, Alelujah!
April 17th, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Dr. Brown, you did great on the Wease radio interviews! That guy was all over the place! Way to stay on top of him and immediately be prepared for anything he threw at you! Once again, you are to be highly commended for standing up for God’s Truth! You handled everything in as Godly a way that could be handled on a program like that, and I continue to greatly admire how the Holy Spirit moves in you!
April 18th, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
-I wanted to cpmment on spread of militant atheism and hate of Christians. By militant atheism I mean arrogant, crude, and angry publications coming from ‘New Atheists’.
I personally think popularization of atheism is complicated issue, and there are many reasons for it. There are surely intellectual doundation for it which was building up for several centruies now. For instance, to see the intellectual trend that was developing, refer to “10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn’t Help” by Benjamin Wiker.
I personally agree with Wiker that atheism did, does, and will do more harm than all religions combined. But atheists today divert attention from the history of killing atheism brought.
Furthermore, atheists are friends of homosexual activists ironically. And since homosexuality becomes ‘cool’ in young generation, cuncurently atheism becomes ‘cool’ too, it seems. I may be wrong here, because this is my personal observation.
In addition, naturalism pretty much took hold of secular insitutions, and many college professors love to ruin kids faith. These are almost like trophies for them.
-The notion of debaptizing certificates is simply a mockery. There is nothing civilized in this practice.
-As far as a comment on use of condoms to prevent AIDS, I completely agree with that, and as the matter of fact I used this argument in my secular philosophy class on ethics couple of years ago. To prevent AIDS (and other STDs), a society has to learn to avoid prmosicuity. Distribution of condoms simply treats symptoms not the problem, and even that treatment is questionable.
-As far as Rick Warren concerned, I think personally, there is something that happened to him. I mean, there is something in this statement for him, perhaps deals with money, Obama’s respect, or some other benefit. For sure, it was not without an external cause. Perhaps, because he works with gay activists to fight AIDS, those very activists pushed him a little. May be they gave him an ultimatum, who knows? Again, one thing for sure, something external caused him to compromise his Christian position.
April 18th, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
“As far as Rick Warren concerned, I think personally, there is something that happened to him. I mean, there is something in this statement for him, perhaps deals with money, Obama’s respect, or some other benefit. For sure, it was not without an external cause. Perhaps, because he works with gay activists to fight AIDS, those very activists pushed him a little. May be they gave him an ultimatum, who knows? Again, one thing for sure, something external caused him to compromise his Christian position.” ….perhaps….Perhaps….who knows?
“We all dance around in a circle and suppose, the secret sits in the middle and knows”. Please read my last comment on the April 8th program. Though written so quickly it was unedited for sentence structure, its message for truth arriving on the world scene with grace is clear enough.
April 19th, 2009 @ 2:29 am
Jabez H., I’m not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Today most if not all mainline TV talkshows and commedians make fun of people like Dr. Brown, Dr. Robert Gagnon, me and pretty much all conservatives who are opposed to perversions. This is not some secondary unnoticed, unknown issue. In light of this, one has to be extremely accurate [meaning Rick Warren] with what he says. And from what I’ve heard him speak in his latest TV appearance, he either did not form his ideas correctly, or more likely, easily gave up into the pressure of homosexual activists.
In times like these, this is not an option, and Warren should know better.
For him, job is not hard. Since he is a preacher, why not simply preach what the Bible teaches?
It’s not like he is a psychologist or some researcher that has to defend some particular set of experiments/observations. Bible is here for 2000 years, and it teaches in pretty straight forward way that homosexual parctice is a perversion of that which is good. Not only Bible teaches that, most societies [inluding secular ones] recognize that intuitively.
April 20th, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Well, Konstantin, thank you much for your question, and perhaps for your continued opinion. From the start of this reply let me say that I personally stand on Genesis as far as gender, family, and God’s own intentions being “conservative” (or rather predetermined in this instance). I ask you to read my April 8th comments. It seems the church at large, conservative or not, is easily sucked into the vortex of its own attention, where, whatever gets its attention, gets it! Now we are feeding on the frenzy of opinion over Rick Warren and what he may hold to or not as to couple standards aligning with God’s own couple standards.
By this I mean that the unspoken rules of our culture are really in play over and above what Yeshua taught in Matthew 18, in its entire length, regarding how we are to entertain or approach inevitable issues, or wandering sheep, which will arise between believers–as in the example I replied to above. We go even further to take issues public, or before the whole church, prior to taking them to the party of issues in question. This certainly reveals our sloppy Agape’, moving in contradiction to the approach to such which Yeshua gave us.
Yeshua was very precise in outlining his way, manner, heart, and instruction on how to approach such issues or sheep as have been now made public laundry in instances such as this one. Opinioning is the American way, akin to gossip being normalized by media airing, not then as to the instruction on issues for a reconciliation approach which Yeshua taught for believers(coincidentally as being his only direct instruction to the Ecclesia by the way). So, unless we begin to approach such issues in an entirely different way, we are adding to the perceptions of the church being a weak sister, so to speak, on this and other issues leaders model, not being the standard bearers Yeshua intended!
We can pontificate over this and much, but, until we do what Yeshua said on this matter and make movement to do so, comments seem to represent this world’s opinion. Why not do what “the Bible preaches.”
April 20th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Dr Brown
Is Isa the Arabic name for Jesus or the Muslim, Koran, idol name?
Would you…yourself…pray in the name of Isa?
Thanks Sharon
April 20th, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
Sharon,
Yes, Isa is the Arabic (specifically Koranic) name for Jesus, based on a misunderstanding by Mohammed and/or his early followers. It is not the name of an idol. (Most likely, the name Isa came from Esau, which was sometimes used as a code word in Jewish literature for Jesus and Christianity; this apparently was misunderstood to be Jesus’ actual name by Mohammed.)
Would I pray in the name of Isa if I were praying in Arabic — or preaching to Muslims in Arabic? Yes, because otherwise they would have no idea who I was talking about. But then I would do my best to make them understand the proper Arabic pronunciation of His name.
When you mention the name of an idol, perhaps you’re thinking of Allah, which was the name of the moon god in the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon. (According to Muslims, Allah stands for “the God.”)
April 20th, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Thank You for your answer Dr Brown,
When there was a big uproar over Rick Warren praying in the name of Isa people were saying Isa was an idol since it was from the Koran. Their reason was the Koran Jesus is not the true Jesus or the correct name. I do not think they were saying Rick meant to pray in the name of an idol. I looked into it myself and found it’s origins in the Koran so I was concerned. I did see on You tube Rick saying he meant it as the Arabic name.
I also read Yasu was the Arabic name for Jesus and that Arabic Christians use that name and not Isa.
Thanks Again Dr B!!
Blessings
April 22nd, 2009 @ 1:47 am
Jabez H, Thanks for reply.
It still seems a bit vague to me.
What exactly entirely different ways would you propose, and exactly in regard to what?
Also, what exactly you mean by “until we do what Yeshua said on this matter”?
Do you mind to elaborate with more specific language, in light of Warren’s comments.
Thanks
April 22nd, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Michael Brown dispels the central controversy in further discussing what RW said in a past interview; he expounds on settling these issues by airing the controversy a second time in this Line of Fire program. We should give attention to the clarifying details. It is telling of the ways of RW, Michael Brown, and of us. The researcher in Dr. Brown discovered more interview content for related illumination, not just focusing on the first section of initial controversy for a retributive hullaballoo. It certainly establishes a way of bringing to rest what RW actually believed on California’s proposition 8, a Biblical definition of marriage, etc. The confusion resulting from statements first made in RWs media interview should now abate. Will we now let it rest?
In Mt. 18, taken in as a reflective and illustrative instruction of our Lord on “who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven”, we are further challenged on this matter. After giving varied scenarios involving our humility, or lack by self comparison to His illustration, a disciple’s having an accepting heart of others, warnings on our modeling, on seeking and finding wandering sheep, and the Father’s own heart toward such, Yeshua moves to instruction on to the settling of issues of controversy among us. This seems to involve seeking a clear understanding of the nature of the challenge in addressing another human soul–when our fellowship may be in question due to inevitable arising issues, which come up between us.
Yeshua’s method of approach differs from our natural inclinations to discuss and judge issues apart from the source(s) of such, often as such indeed without their presence. Reconciliation, rather than accusation, or fuss can be said to be the approach of the Lord to such challenges. How so? By going to the source of the issue, with the right heart and His ideas in mind and posture–as extended from our Agape’ based fellowship—in clearly presenting our issue, and waiting for the winning over of “our brother”. This seems secured in part by the prepared approach as illustrated in Mt. 18 to the other party of controversy, with the attitude of the illustrations the Lord has made toward others, and by the extension of Heaven Kingdom grace and peace in the approach. That this is charged as a direct approach to be activated between us in matters of controversy, or over issues, is significant to the methods given to believers of the Ecclesia, or church by Yeshua. This seems to me to be our greatest challenge regarding revealing our love as the Age draws to a close and we are tested and tried by such controversy.
April 22nd, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Also, K., note that Yeshua first instructs a private “between you and your brother” approach to issues of offense resolution, while hoping to resolve the matter at hand, and so prior to going with another neutral third brother party to reair the issue, if needed for its resolution. Only lastly does He advise bringing the matter before the whole church! Yet, in the “sound bite generation” we approach issues resolution the opposite way altogether.
For further reading and education for developing such an approach to inevitable issues between us in our times, I would recommend employing the well researched and validated Couple Communication technique, which was developed by Interpersonal Communication Programs, Inc., of Littleton, Colorado (303) 794-1764. They have unwittingly taken Yeshua’s charges into the arena of couple and human communication by 20th century research and counseling PhDs validating an alike approach to reconciliation and relational positioning. “Recognizing that relationships, in addition to having been initiated, were also maintained, strengthened, and destroyed through [direct] communication, the [communication tool development] team broadened the spectrum of couples in their program.” The direct communication program is well researched by the U. of Minnesota and other validation groups as establishing a working model for conceptual approaches to working out reconciliation, establishing specific talking and listening skills for clarity and accuracy, along with the needed attitudinal and behavioral aspects for establishing and developing conflict resolution. That such represents the most extensively researched communication skills program for couples, and as is based on a parallel idea to what Yeshua instructed believers on our own controversy and conflict resolution strategies, we can accept that Yeshua’s instruction still applies to the sound bite generation. In fact, like Yeshua, the technique offers methods for positive goal setting to change past negative relational experience.
April 22nd, 2009 @ 11:14 am
As the Age draws to a close we can be assured that conflict and controversy will abound. The enemy of our souls, the accuser and conflict generator, the Satan of Job met by Yeshua during the testing time of his wilderness fast temptations, will do all he and his axis can to divide, defeat, and discourage believers. The challenge for all of us to trim our lamps together–in order to be ready for the great and terrible Day of the Lord–is ongoing, and becomes more heated as the Age wanes. All that the pride of life, the lust of the flesh, and the want of the eyes may generate to isolate and move anyone toward darkness and defeat will be pronounced as wonderful by the media and politics of this difficult season in this world. But, be encouraged and cheerful, Yeshua has won the victory over these illusions.
April 22nd, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
K., Perhaps another way of answering your inquiry is to say that Yeshua’s approach to issues interchange and resolution among individual parties involved is solution focused, not problem centered.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 8:41 am
Sharon, there’s also the fact that Warren used the Koranic invocation “The compassionate, the merciful” in referring to God. This along with the use of the name “Isa” was clearly intended to make the prayer inclusive of Islam.
Remember too that Warren signed up to that Yale response to the Muslim Common Word, which has been heavily criticised by Christians who are experts on Islam. See here for background and links.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Thanks for the ifo Ewan,
I am not a Rick Warren follower. I have never read his book.
I spoke to my aunt from Lebabnon, when I asked her about it she said “isa is not Jesus”. That is not the name that any Christian she knows would use. That it is strickly muslim. That was my feeling, however I just wanted to research more. It is very hard for me to believe Rick didn’t know what he was saying. I can not judge his heart motive. But I am not happy about it.
April 25th, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Sharon [and Ewan], if you will further search this site for my comments on what Ewan has once again restated as to implying an ascription of Warren’s intentions, by citing his inclusive innvocation prayer of the phrase used found in the Koran, found in these comments under “What would Dr. King Say,” you will find another take than want Ewan states and implies above. I interpret the inclusive statement Warren stated not as “inclusive of Islam,” but, as to what Paul the Apostle stated in Acts at the MARs speaking arena, in taking advantage of a presenting challenge in that situtaion of his audience. Paul said what he said regarding an image found there and then dedicated to “the unknown God”, though in a real sense erected as an idol, to use some inclusive notion or idea to then bring his audience to the name above all names, Jesus Christ–which Warren certainly did as well in the instance, challenge, situation, and for the audience of the orderly USA power transition swearing in ceremony prayer.
Perhaps it gets down to splitting hairs as to words used and intention, perhaps not. Paul, and likely RW, were and are concerned primarily with the conveyance of the new truth of the Gospel as holding the eternal over past prejudiced and unhearing ears. If I just look at the phrase Warren made, which Ewan parcels out, I then have to ignore all the context and other words with which these words also appear–which, in context, was to ask a blessing and the involvement of the Lord of Lords, and Name above all others in the circumstance of the situation in giving the prayer Warren gave.
The fact that there were Islamic believers ears present was indeed taken into account in the selected words spoken in the prayer. In an overarching sense too, these were mentioned as quite subject to the Name of Names, and our Lord of Lords. Perhaps Warren should not have included the phrase, but, if you look at my other writing on this issue, you will find that the God of the Bible is more truly assoicated with this phrase indeed, and in scriptures cited there, than the Koran has ever proven to be. Warren’s intentions then were not to honor Islam, or its references, but to place its true phrase as descriptive of the Lord, under his own jurisdiction of absolute power, reference, and Lordship of heaven and earth.
You, Ewan, Warren, Michael Brown, nor I would bow our knees to the God of Mohammed, nor would we confess the confession which then states one is of that particular religion. We would have to deny Christ to do so, which Warren clearly did not do.
It would be good if a letter was generated to RW from the ministry which heads up this radio program on which we offer our comments which states a summary of how his statements at the Presidental power change and on the tube could be misunderstood, and may need some other consideration in their making, for, none of us wish to eat meat sacrificed to idols, or drink drink which intoxicates us, if the cost is a stumbling block for our brethren.
April 25th, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
So, where can we cheer RW or any of us on in fighting the good fight, overcoming this world, or living the life? Could Warren be as the Pastor who fell in Colorado Springs after building a mega church, and living one life while proclaming another? It seems that RW has accountability in his church government, which led to the Proposition 8 initial statements he long ago made. If one did a comparative study of these two mega churches, and their Pastorial teaching and claims, where would error be similar, and a represented spade be a spade?
The letter I advocated above could help with the needed accountability considerations of concern, if addressed to the Elderboard at the church where RW does most of his work. Just from reading about his position, and that churche’s government, it seems that the accountability structure is in place to aid Rick Warren in his claims for Christ, and teaching on how to live the life.
My brethren in Norway too have studied his book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” as a model for their own Ecclesia in that location near Oslo. They are known for their own devotion to Jesus the Christ, and as to being his people in that location of our planet in this present Age. So, the teaching that RW has carried to the body at large is quite on time, reflective, and considerate of practicing the faith in a community sense of its practice.
Do we now have a responsibility to write the elderboard of RW’s church, or RW, regarding the issues of concern raised here?
April 28th, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Jabez,
I believe you read into my statement more than was there.
The fact is I have not followed his ministry or read his book so I really wouldn’t know what Rick feels, says or teaches. I made no judgment on his faith or sincerity towards the Lord.
His heart could have been completely pure and sincere with praying in the name of isa.
I would have preferred Rick using the real Arabic name for Jesus as I feel we are coming to a time where the lines need to be VERY clear.
Peace and blessings to you Jabez, thank you for taking the time to write!