April 21, 2009
April 21, 2009 | 26 Comments
Hour One: Miss California and Same-Sex “Marriage”
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: Is It Good for Our President to Apologize to the World?
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
26 Responses to “April 21, 2009”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
April 22nd, 2009 @ 9:20 am
I haven’t heard the radio program for this but I did see her answer on TV. She deserves our support and prayers, the dogs are out in force…
April 22nd, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
It was funny and ironic to some extent.
Mario Lavandeira expected her to tell what he wanted to hear. Alas, that didn’t happened.
As the matter of fact, miss California, suppoerted exactly view of Califirnians – i.e. marriage should be recognized only between a man and a woman.
Good, it earned publisicty and Mario confirmed that he has little morals by calling semif-finalist online via use of dirty vocabulary.
Who is looser in this situation? Certainly not her.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 10:22 am
I wish that I could say that I was surprised by that judges reaction and the words he used, but sadly I’m not. I’m pretty sure that this issue is only going to get more heated as they continue their assault… make sure you keep her in your prayers.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Yes she deserves our support and prayers. Just one concern I have. The story was reported in one of our Melbourne daily newspapers accompanied by a photo of her in a skimpy bikini which was obviously taken during part of the Miss USA contest. She may know what constitutes true marriage but she doesn’t know much about modesty.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Yes, Yes, Yes this is a real shame! But where does it really take us. I find it hard to believe that a lady willing to speak out on this issue would not have also understood the moral implications of how a lady should dress if she had been properly trained by her family and her church.
April 23rd, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
I think Rick Warren could learn a few things from Miss California. I wonder what he thought of that.
April 24th, 2009 @ 3:25 am
Ewan has interesting point.
If this wasn’t 21 century… in some parts of the world she could have problems in church…
make your own conclusions on that..
April 24th, 2009 @ 4:45 am
Mario Lavandeira [Perez] asks for impossible. It is not surprising that miss ca did not satisfy his expectations.
How can one ever be ‘all-inclusive’? How can a miss usa or anybody else be ‘all-inclusive’. What does it even mean???
If one defends same-sex marraige, he is not inclusive of conservative Christians. That is, he does not regard their worldview as something significant to be concerned about.
Again, and again, I repeat what Aristotle said – “friend to all is a friend to none” [if he wouldn't said it, somebody else would]. Being ‘all-inclusive’ is ompossibility.
Let’s put Mario aside for a minute. I think miss ca could/should be more firm in her statement. Insted of saying ‘it is true to my self’ or ‘my opinion’, ‘compromising my belifes and opinions’ … Instead, she should emphasise OBJECTIVITY of the morality. When a person says something like ‘in my opinion’ it says that it is a personal, subjective opinion. Christians should emphasise the objectivity of Christian morals. There is no ‘my opinion’. It is objective and pretty universal, because morality is based on God’s nature and what He has revealed for humanity.
I simply hope, we set ‘my opinion’ and ‘in my family I’ve been taught’ aside, and we should stress out objectivity of morals. God’s morals are as objective as 2+2=4. There are no opinions about that.
This was something, I simply wanted to point out, but forgot in previous posts.
April 24th, 2009 @ 5:08 am
Governor of Utah: “we must embrace all citizens as equals. I’ve always stood tall on this”. It reminds me of a cliche from ‘NO on 8″ campaign – “Don’t Eliminate Marriage For Anyone”. It always begs me for a question whether people who pronounced those statement took critical thinking class?
Words like ‘all’ and ‘anyone’ means what? they mean 100% people. So, are there people in US who want to marry kids? yes. Are there those who want to marry many partners? yes. Are there those who want to marry their blood relatives? yes.
Furthermore, what does “embrace all citizens as equals” means?
Are drug dealers equal to preschoolers? yes?
Are jailed criminals equal to policemen? why first group is in jail while the other is not?
Are adulterers equal to loyal husbands/wives? … …
Are people who want to comit sexual actis simply in public city parks equal to those who do not approve such actions? … …
You see, there is some sort of ‘equality’ notion that is absent from the statement “embrace all citizens as equals”.
I doubt that those who used phrases like “we must embrace all citizens as equals” or “Don’t Eliminate Marriage For Anyone” meant what they ment. And this ambiguity is what is scary. Because their[homosexual] rights drag alongside ambiguous definitions of ‘all’ and ‘anyone’. Who are ‘all’, and who is ‘anyone’? Aren’t those words mean 100% of people?
Do you see what I see?
April 24th, 2009 @ 8:38 am
ya but, ya but. Why do people always have to point out the obscenely obvious? Who precisely did our Lord go to when he walked the earth, the healthy or the sick? She spoke the truth, under pressure no less. So instead of finding fault, speak life, or hold your tongue.
April 24th, 2009 @ 9:06 am
Why is so much of the church in compromise and sin? Because too few are prepared to hold up the godly standard. There’s nothing wrong with commending a person for doing right and to also point out where they may be going wrong. Why should these things be mutually exclusive?
And Konstantin makes a good point. Whilst her answer was right she failed to articulate why it was right. It’s not a question of “I believe this because that’s the way I was raised”, it has to do with moral absolutes and epistemology.
April 24th, 2009 @ 10:09 am
I hope you’re ready to have your every thought and word weighed by the same scale. Oh wait, you’re not on national TV, that’s right. I’m pretty sure she’s not reading from this website, so your call to proper form amounts to preaching to the choir.
Tell me something I don’t know, believe in the power of the Lord man. Bring with supplication the words of life and healing for her and every other compromised brother and sister. Believe in the reforming power of the Father. Forgive my sarcasm, it’s genetic.
April 24th, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
I’ll tell you something you apparently don’t know, and that is that Dr. Brown raised the same concern on this program (hour one). So your criticism of me, and the others who have commented here, for daring to point out the compromise, also must apply to him. And why are you judging me anyway? Are you prepared to be weighed by the same scale?
Did you hear the March 18 show To Judge or not to judge or read Frank Turek’s article Why You OUGHT to Judge?
April 24th, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Hey folks,
Since my name came up here (no surprise!), a few quick thoughts:
1) Given the setting and the pressure, I thought the answer was as good as could be expected.
2) Since then, Miss California has made her point more clearly.
3) It still remains ironic — to put it lightly — that the “conservative Christian” heroine in the story is a beauty queen who appeared on international TV in a skimpy bikini to be viewed by millions. Such is the state of American Christianity!
April 25th, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Where is appropriate for a woman to “appear in a skimpy bikini”? When would a woman thus sunning be not sinning? Is there a setting where sunning would not be sinning?
April 25th, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Jabez — how about when the possibility of making oneself an object of lust does not exist, thus in some private or family-only setting. And were the beauty pageant contestants “sunning” when they put themselves on display?
April 29th, 2009 @ 8:42 am
Seems like someone has a chip on his shoulder. For the record, I’m not judging you… if you want to continue with this, have at it buddy. I’ll take my hopes for redemption of the body to prayer. Feel free to do whatever you like. Lastly, I’m an open book before the Lord so I have no fear of condemnation. Have a nice day.
April 29th, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Marty, you were in effect passing a judgment on me and others for daring to point out the inherent contradiction of a ‘conservative’ Christian being seen on national television wearing a skimpy bikini. You have implied that it is wrong to make such a judgment. Furthermore, you have implied that it is wrong to make any judgment lest I be prepared to be “ready to have your every thought and word weighed by the same scale.” This sounds very much like a misuse of the Matthew 7 passage, Don’t judge, lest you be judged, which is why I asked if you had read Frank’s article.
So I felt justified in pointing out the self-refuting nature of your position, and your response has been one of belligerence and self righteousness. We are all an “open book” before God in the sense that He knows all our thoughts and motives. This is not the issue but rather whether we know our own hearts. We can all be guilty of self-deception and I am most certainly including myself in that.
April 29th, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Belligerent? you betcha I’m passionate about my faith, whenever I see people like you straining over gnats I do get upset, forgive me for that. Self righteous? If trying to live my life according to the example of Jesus Christ is self righteous then paint me guilty. It’s not that you dared to point out the contradiction, it’s your focus on that fact without even knowing the young lady. Here we are still going back and forth. When Christ drew the line in the sand and said he that is without sin cast the first stone, he didn’t focus on the obvious which was her sin. I’m not Christ and I can’t forgive her, I can pray to God the father that through this experience he come into her life and reveal himself. So, it’s a matter of focus… you have yours and I have mine. Seriously though, God bless.
April 29th, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Marty, who says that modesty in the church is a “gnat”? Why is it necessary to personally know someone before it is legitimate to point out an example of unchristian behaviour especially when the example in question was so public? And I am presuming that Dr. Brown doesn’t personally know the young woman either so was he wrong to raise it on his show?
April 30th, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Here’s why it’s a gnat, it’s pretty self evident to any intelligent person that there was and is a problem with the situation, having corresponded back and forth with you it’s obvious you are intelligent. I haven’t and don’t deny the obvious compromise in this young lady’s life, and I have read Mr. Turek’s (sp?) paper and agree with it in principle.
But, in this situation neither YOU or I know the woman, as far as I know she doesn’t frequent this web site or listen to the show. So continuing to focus on the obvious contradiction amounts to you standing on a soap box and pointing out “Ladies and gentlemen! There is a giant 800# gorilla in the room!” :^) Ewan, we know the gorilla is there… so instead, what I’m saying is pray for her.
My father taught me and I try to live by the rule that, if you have a problem with someone confront them in private, point out the problem there. Not in public to try and make a show of things, and that’s one of the major pains in my heart right now about this discourse we’re having. If I had your email I would’ve much rather have carried this discussion on in private. So, for that I’m truly sorry. In Christ.
May 1st, 2009 @ 2:47 am
Years ago I attended a fellowship which had a way of whipping em up and pumping em up musically prior to the worship leader, also the preacher/teacher, building us all up to a creshendo. It was in a University town and my wife and I were in the chairs facing the stage. Frequently young college women would enter dressed in short skirts and I think what are called halter tops. It was only a little distracting, but I found a need to pray about it being unmodest and not in a place where I could divert my eyes and see the musicians and projected words to the songs simultaneously. I mentioned to the pastor to at least say something to the group of maybe 150, and he was offended that I brought it up at all. Over the years adapting to church cultures has often involved one challenge or another. The first Charismatic fellowship attended, it turned out when it was becoming skewed in its teaching emphases (shifting attention off Christ and on to our psychological conditions, while still citing scriptures), later brought the Pastor to a place where he became an open homosexual advocate and left the church and his flock. We had been manipulated with a similar pump em up whip em up build up to the teaching section. Looking back, we permitted, over time, by degrees, the replacement of being centered in Christ with being centered in human social emphases and so-called wisdom. It was the meeting behavior and dynamics, built up by its own rhythms which kept us all kind of hypnotized.
I recall even the common worship song, “Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, let the earth hear his voice,” being replaced in time with the inner response of thought, “Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, we don’t have our own choice.” For some years now I’ve wondered how such meeting based rhythms could become so powerful as to flock conformity and carriage of outlook on other believers, “not believing as we do.” By this it was meant not doing what we did in the way of meeting based behaviors. After this, along with its national season of embracing “authority and submission,” the church split and many went off into New Age nonsense, while others became introspective and reflective and sought meetings and church affiliations which centered in more contextual and literal Bible reference for teaching.
It did seem, however, that the Spirit was stated often as being active, verbally announced by pulpit personalities, and various control signals for crowd behavior became as much a part of the “worship” as any reference of scriptural substance. Our first love as individual believers, of the Lord, had become a love and mezmurized conformity to what became charismatic human tradition. In order to break free of that season, one had to, in a sense, leave their understanding of the Spirit and of God. Fear, not awe, was too active in meeting based behaviors, suggestions from leaders, and, at the time, one’s young understanding of God and how he worked and worked his meetings.
I must say in the young woman’s defense that she likely inherited some indicators over the years that her beauty and supposed poise meant something, and culturally so in America, likely indeed as liked both to her church experience and understanding to her societal regard, and unspoken reinforcements of who she was, had been, and had been awarded to be. Far from the reality of the Kingdom of God many religiously indicative church groups may have contributed to the beauty contestant’s behavior and assumptions. To then blame her alone for her choices seems at best ill advised.
May 5th, 2009 @ 9:06 am
Brannon Howse of Christian Worldview Network has a radio show on the topic now. What follows is the show description.
May 7th, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Sheesh! This seems to be recurring pattern that is never ending.
It seems now she has taken a new role in campaigning for marriage. There are so many spiritual forces working against that and to be getting into it without any knowledge or proper foundations could lead to another disaster.
When will we ever learn!!!!!
Those who encouraged her into this should also speak into her life and be able to help and provide covering. If that is not possible then this is yet another big blunder.
May 7th, 2009 @ 11:20 am
So, the depth of the flap arises curiosity a bit, regarding cultural compliciity and general cultural reality. What is normalized by our media oriented culture is a lack of nuclear family reference, but, instead audience based go with the flow assumptions. The loose personal connections of the popular television program, “Friends”, as a kind of extension of college type associations substituting for such a family anchor of balanced values seems to be what is normalized.
All else which is reinforced in culture seems increasingly to do with what to covet, which “look” or manner to lust for, and how to keep all involvements short and feeling based. Isn’t this sort of awareness what drives many audience aware megachurches to succeed? Discernment then seems an orientation which norms work against, not for. When was the last time you heard the once popular phrase: good citizenship?
May 7th, 2009 @ 11:41 am
We also have the reality spoken of by others, above, as a result of these cultural realities, where American Christianity gives in to the cult of personality, and its easily gained surface loyalty for the heart in search of affiliation and identification. Shere a society is very wide in experience–called the sound bite twitter society–it cannot be very deep in affiliation. What one feels has long replaced the past reference as to what one thinks about this or that, and feeling states are heard for meaning more than the content of written and verbal expression. In discovering body language as part and parcel to meaning, has the drift destroyed other significant indicators of meaningful integrity: once inherent in language, words, and affiliations of commitment? Our churches now mirror these cultural imprints as permanent ones, where scripture indicates something else entirely for our model of leadership and sanctification.