What About Michael Brown’s ex-ex-Gays?

"Ex the Ex-s" by nakedpastor David Hayward
“Ex the Ex-s” by nakedpastor David Hayward

ALL my art is 35% OFF with coupon code “nakedpastordeal”. Take advantage of it to get the art you’ve always wanted! SHOP NOW!

Michael Brown doesn’t come right out and say homosexuality is a sin, but that the homosexual lifestyle is. This is more progressive than his counterpart would say just a decade ago.

However, after reading his posts, even though he doesn’t say homosexuality is a sin, he strongly implies that homosexuality is sinful, an expression of broken humanity that could and maybe even should be reversed.

The major problem I have with Brown’s writing is his assumptions that he projects on everyone else.

Read his article What About Ex-Ex-Gays? to see what I mean. The thrust of his argument is that a change in sexual orientation is not impossible, therefore achievable, therefore desirable, therefore required. That’s the impression I walk away from his article with.

Here are his six points:

  1. For every well-known ex-ex-gay, there are maybe thousands of unknown ex-gays.
  2. Ex-gay has a lot of different meanings, from gays abstaining from same-sex relationships to gays who’ve converted to straight.
  3. There are many reasons why people fail to change.
  4. There are a lot of unhappy homosexuals.
  5. We are talking about holiness, not heterosexuality.
  6. Humans are frail but we shouldn’t compromise the gospel that is and always will be against homosexual practice.

I challenge Brown, even though we are on very different sides here, because he is not only popular and publishes on a popular website, Charisma News, but because he represents a huge portion of Christians and their opinions on homosexuality.

His assumptions are:

    1. The bible says homosexuality is a sin.
    2. The bible is absolutely right.
    3. Homosexual practice is therefore a sin and always will be.
    4. People are weak.
    5. If they are homosexual it’s only because they think they are.
    6. If they don’t change it is their failure.
    7. Those living a homosexual lifestyle aren’t serving God or following Jesus.
    8. Practicing homosexuals are not holy and therefore will not see God.
    9. Homosexuals need compassion and patience but they still must change.
    10. Heterosexuals possess the grace and truth that homosexuals need.

It all hinges on Brown’s treatment of the bible. It doesn’t depend on his interpretation of scripture. No. His problem precedes that. It’s a hermeneutical problem. He approaches the bible literally, factually, fundamentally, so of course he’s going to read what he thinks.

Rather than see it as a selected collection of documents written by ancient men and approved by ancient men thousands of years ago in a far away place and culture and worldview with its own social mores and religious mindsets and primitive understanding of sexuality and gender, he sees it as a document written by God and handed to us as a clear book of rules for all time where he conveniently finds himself on the right side.

I suggest that until Brown’s heart changes, his interpretation of scripture will not.

I invite you to join us at The Lasting Supper, a place where you are free to be you and get encouragement for it!


9 Replies to “What About Michael Brown’s ex-ex-Gays?”

  1. Ahhh Jeezo, that’s like saying that all dolphins should be killed because some are gay. They’re depraved, fallen, defective. F— Michael Brown. I AM GOD and I condemn him to hell where he’ll be subject to eternal Bafangula up the wazoo!

  2. I’m always stuck on point 1. I don’t see how one can unequivocally claim that the Bible “says” that homosexuality is a sin. Where exactly does it say that? I’ve yet to find it in plain black and white.

    If one’s first answer is to trot out Sodom and Gomorrah, then I know they’ve not actually read the Bible. Equating rape with homosexuality is what’s known in Biblical terms as false witness. If one’s recourse is to Leviticus, then they have to explain to me why that one single part of Leviticus still holds, but virtually none of the rest does. It would also help if one could set the verses in historical context. What exactly are the conditions of a man lying with a man, rape? romantic attraction? relieving tension? Canaanite fertility ceremonies? Breaking in young boys to “manly life”? It really does make a difference.

    If you go to the New Testament and tell me it’s about Romans 1, then I know you’ve not actually read Romans 1, not the whole of the passage and not in context. If you’re going to pull a Timothy and Corinthians (essentially the same passage), they you need to explain why malakoi was once thought to refer to masturbaters, another time to “voluptuous people” (whatever the hell that means), and so forth, but now we know for 100% sure that it means gay people, and that it also means gay people with a romantic attraction to each other.

    As far as I can tell, it’s all a crock. Please set me straight, if you can. I don’t think it’s possible.

  3. Simply put, there are biblical scholars on both sides. But in my opinion that’s a lost cause. If we’re looking to the bible for rules on how to understand gender and sexuality, then we’re already lost.

  4. “Simply put, there are biblical scholars on both sides. ”

    In other words, it’s not clear at all. In which case, no one can state unequivocally that “the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin”. Such a statement is only an unsubstantiated opinion. Thank you.

  5. The best answer I have is to take such articles, and substitute “married to a divorced person” in place of ‘practicing homosexual’ (and so forth). You end up with a very crushing, unloving, and unmerciful statement to those that have married a divorced person.

    After all, Jesus spoke against marrying a divorced person, and equated such marriages with a continuous lifestyle of adultery [Mark 10:11-12]. So, we know that such marriages are extremely sinful from the direct words of Jesus. Also, we know that the ‘wisdom from heaven’ is always ‘impartial’ [James 3].

    So, let’s be impartial. Change the terms. Repost the article. And then… we can easily see the incredible lack of mercy within the article.

    You see, the ‘wisdom from heaven’ is also ‘full of mercy and impartial’.

    So, if Michael’s wisdom did not come from heaven, where did it come from?

  6. Brown says: “For every well-known ex-ex-gay, there are maybe thousands of unknown ex-gays.”

    I’d like to find his source for that assertion. Ex-gay ministries were notoriously bad at tracking those who left their programmes, so see if they were successful. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

  7. I’m an unbeliever in the sanctity of sodomy, but Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I do believe that everyone has a right to their own choices.

  8. I believe that the Bible is pretty clear about being against the practices of homosexuality. It even mentions that “men will become lovers of men” when speaking of the “end times”. But, as with any other argument regarding the Bible and its meanings, we all seek ways to manipulate what is presented to support our points of view.

    So fuck the Bible. Lets just look at our DESIGN. We are male and female. All species. Our sexual organs are made to work together with one another of the OPPOSITE sex to support the perpetuation of that species.

    It doesn’t get any simpler than that. If male or female is attracted to the same sex, it is a DISTORTION of the natural sex drive, and AGAINST the survival and perpetuation of the species. It is the opposite of “pro life”.

    We are distorting nature. And we are supporting it. What’s new. We cut down trees to put up a sign of a kid hugging a tree. We are a twisted society. We are in “self destruct” mode and the reasons are pretty obvious. There is even a fascination with anal sex in male and female relationships. Its a DISTORTION. They are “reproductive organs”….but they are not being used in a way that will “reproduce”.

    I can say for certain, from personal experience and observations, that SOME cases ARE psychological, and therefore, “curable”. Some are physiological and chances are slim.

    Do we hate these ppl because they are born with, or developed an aberration to our natural, reproductive functions? No. We help them when and where we can, and we accept and support those who cannot be helped in a personal, spiritual, and psychological way. People do not ask to be born with birth defects. Or they do not ask for an acquired or developed illness.

    Do we plaster it all over the media and allow mass movements of “gay rights”, and publicize acceptance of a distorted abnormality like its “OK”?. Um, no. I don’t want my kids thinking its perfectly “normal” and acceptable because society has accepted it as such. It just goes to show the depth of societies backsliding as a whole.

    And before u pass judgment on me, keep this in mind: I have known, and love, a man,, whom I found out when I got older, is gay. When I was young, and growing up, I never had to see it, it was never directed at me, and I never knew. That’s the way it SHOULD be. He knows deep inside that something aint right and he is not going around flaunting it. He is the greatest and most caring man I know. I love him very much.

    The human species is in “self destruct” mode. It is revealing itself in multiple ways. Homosexuality is one of them. If I had understood these things when I was younger, I would not have brought children into this world to see and face this mess humanity has become.

  9. “There are many reasons why people fail to change.”

    And every single one of them boils down to blaming the person who didn’t change.

    “There are a lot of unhappy homosexuals.”

    There are also a lot of unhappy heterosexuals. What’s his point? Maybe the source of people’s unhappiness isn’t rooted in their sexual orientation.

    “We are talking about holiness, not heterosexuality.”

    This is a completely meaningless statement, originated (I believe) by the folks at the now-defunct Exodus International. Holiness is a complex topic and invoking it in this way actually cheapens it.

    “Humans are frail but we shouldn’t compromise the gospel that is and always will be against homosexual practice.”

    Sorry, but the gospel is about freedom and redemption. What Brown preaches is neither of those things. As the old saying goes, do you notice that the “good news” seem to have anything good about it?

Comments are closed.