Dr. Brownson: Equality Argues for Same-Sex Marriage

STATEMENT

Dr. Brownson argues that the egalitarian perspective, a modern outlook, is one which views all humans to be of equal worth and of equal roles in families and society. He refers to Christ's statement that in the resurrection they will neither be married nor be given in marriage. He concludes that these support accepting same-sex marriage.

RESPONSE

When Professor Brownson advocates following a trajectory toward the eternal state where there will be no marriage, what exactly is he advocating for that portion of the trajectory on this side of eternity? Things will be very different once we reach perfection from what we see here. Exactly what changes should we make in this life, how far should we go? Without a clear definition for what should be the outcome of the changes as listed in the first paragraph above, as well as the lack of clear definition for where the trajectory in the second paragraph should take us in this life, it is not possible to understand where these points should bring us. It is not clear exactly what is being advocated here. In the absence of those matters being clarified there is no option but to consider this section inconclusive.

See Dialogos Studies for more details on this position and a response.

A-Scholten said:

STATEMENT

Dr. Brownson argues that the egalitarian perspective, a modern outlook, is one which views all humans to be of equal worth and of equal roles in families and society. He refers to Christ's statement that in the resurrection they will neither be married nor be given in marriage. He concludes that these support accepting same-sex marriage.

RESPONSE

When Professor Brownson advocates following a trajectory toward the eternal state where there will be no marriage, what exactly is he advocating for that portion of the trajectory on this side of eternity? Things will be very different once we reach perfection from what we see here. Exactly what changes should we make in this life, how far should we go? Without a clear definition for what should be the outcome of the changes as listed in the first paragraph above, as well as the lack of clear definition for where the trajectory in the second paragraph should take us in this life, it is not possible to understand where these points should bring us. It is not clear exactly what is being advocated here. In the absence of those matters being clarified there is no option but to consider this section inconclusive.

See Dialogos Studies for more details on this position and a response.

Click to expand...

Yeah, nobody can read the Bible and make up whatever they think it means and then pass it off as authorized Christian. The Bible says the Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth." 1st Timothy 3:15 (KJV) Not "Dr. Brownson."

A-Scholten said:

STATEMENT

Dr. Brownson argues that the egalitarian perspective, a modern outlook, is one which views all humans to be of equal worth and of equal roles in families and society. He refers to Christ's statement that in the resurrection they will neither be married nor be given in marriage. He concludes that these support accepting same-sex marriage.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:27;2:24 Either a man with a theology degree is couched in the context of scriptures, OR it is couched in the context of flesh, without and understanding of the eternal. Clearly God created an order. We are to genuinely *love all men. This does not mean sex. Love is very different from sex. Dr. Brownson and many pastors who are caught without knowing the difference, perhaps should look harder at what they learned. Love and sex are not the same thing and never will be. God created an order, and 'obedience' is the key to loving God in all contexts. We have sexual sins, crimes, and problems in the church, frankly, because men (and women) confuse love and sex all the time as if they had much to do with the other. I'd go further: Sex is more about obedience than about love. With our desires in the flesh, we have a hard time with eating the wrong things and for the wrong reasons, drinking too much, having sex when we shouldn't, wanting to laugh at things we shouldn't, etc. etc.

God created sex 1) to emulate Himself. Any perversion of that no longer closely emulates the one who created. It is like using a wrench for a hammer. It should not be done. I wrongfully broke several of my father's crescent wrenches. I perverted the proper use of them. 2) Something in the way God made man and woman compliment each other in a specific way God created. It 'was not good that man was alone without a companion.' These two companions were 'made' to go together. Dr. Brownson is ignoring that. He is wrongfully equating Galatians 3:28 of equality in Christ, as if God did not specifically have something in mind of the relationship of a family. Unity cannot be accomplished, in Christ, in God, some other way AND the relationship between man and man, in a sexual context, is no longer spiritual. It is more about self-centeredness, and self-gratification. A lot of people also equate sexual attraction with 'natural' tendency ("I was born this way"). Yes, but we were also born in sin and must necessarily be reminded to treat older men as fathers, younger as brothers, younger women as sisters, and older as mothers. Sexual attraction is suppressed with such love and it is why sex and love have little equation. Paul said if we could not control ourselves (1 Corinthians 7), we could be married according to the 'oneness' model of God's original plan. It is also practical or there would be little propagation of our species. Genesis 1:28 then, even after the Fall Genesis 9:1 Two men or two women, are incapable of fulfilling the directive and it is clearly counter to God's created order, that also reflects His own nature. A perversion of anything of God's is always profane and carnal. I am much better able to love men and women, when I do as scripture says and treat them in all purity. 1 Timothy 5:2 Dr. Brownson is clearly caught in the flesh, in his thinking and rationalizing for disobedience and not following after the heart of God. Scripture is replete and I'm always chagrined at these men who, while trying to be loving and extending to sinners, begin to also love the sin and make provision for it as well Romans 13:14 1 Corinthians 6:20

Lon said:

Genesis 1:27;2:24 Either a man with a theology degree is couched in the context of scriptures, OR it is couched in the context of flesh, without and understanding of the eternal . . .

Click to expand...

The disappointing thing is that Dr. Brownson has served his denomination well for many years. This is a dramatic turn for him to make.

Something in the way God made man and woman compliment each other in a specific way God created. . . . These two companions were 'made' to go together. . . .

Click to expand...

The "one flesh" aspect of Scripture is dealt with further in the course of the discussion.

More of this information can be found at: http://www.dialogos-studies.com/same-sex.html

Dr. Brownson is clearly caught in the flesh, in his thinking and rationalizing for disobedience and not following after the heart of God. Scripture is replete and I'm always chagrined at these men who, while trying to be loving and extending to sinners, begin to also love the sin and make provision for it as well Romans 13:14 1 Corinthians 6:20

Click to expand...

Dr. Brownson does acknowledge in the beginning of his book that he did not understand the Bible this way before their son came to them and told them he was gay. That was a pivotal point for him. It is critical that we tell people what is sin and what is not. To tell a person it is within God's will for that person to marry someone of the same sex is a terrible injustice. We need to speak the truth.

A-Scholten said:

Dr. Brownson does acknowledge in the beginning of his book that he did not understand the Bible this way before their son came to them and told them he was gay. That was a pivotal point for him.

Click to expand...

Then he was caught with his pants down, as a teacher of the Christian faith. His understanding before his own son "came out" was deficient, and when he learned that his own son suffered from this disorder, he changed his tune. It's understandable, but since he is a teacher, it is not excusable.

A-Scholten said:

It is critical that we tell people what is sin and what is not.

Click to expand...

Right. It is not sin to be afflicted with same-sex sexual desires, and it is sin to indulge those desires, and those who do indulge them should not be allowed into communion with the Church until they confess their sin.

A-Scholten said:

To tell a person it is within God's will for that person to marry someone of the same sex is a terrible injustice. We need to speak the truth.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

A-Scholten said:

Dr. Brownson does acknowledge in the beginning of his book that he did not understand the Bible this way before their son came to them and told them he was gay.

Click to expand...

Sad to see. Tony Campolo went this route when his son Bart 'came out' gay as well. "Natural" attraction is a problem. We as FALLEN men and women have 'unnatural' cravings. Christians, living under the Spirit, are NOT their own, they are bought with a price, as such, Paul commands us to live by the Spirit Galatians 5:16.

I started a thread about a half year ago on this topic, intended to help Christians think biblically through this. Your input there is welcome. In Him -Lon

A-Scholten said:

STATEMENT

Dr. Brownson argues that the egalitarian perspective, a modern outlook, is one which views all humans to be of equal worth and of equal roles in families and society. He refers to Christ's statement that in the resurrection they will neither be married nor be given in marriage. He concludes that these support accepting same-sex marriage.

Click to expand...

and it would be true, if the persons were dead.