"I'll engage anyone in private dialogue if that would be of help. I'll do my best to reach across the aisle to people with differences and by all means if there is something that someone has that I need to hear, whether I consider them constructive or destructive, if there is some truth in what they are saying that can change me, and I need to hear it that can prevent me from making an error, or can help me draw people to Jesus - I want to hear." - Dr. Michael Brown
I am sorry but I just do not buy this anymore. I used to give as much benefit of the doubt to Brown as possible. I am not even making a judgment about his awareness. Perhaps he genuinely feels he is always fair. Firstly, he is beyond a public figure, so these conversations need to be public, not private. If I felt that Brown was just making a small error, maybe that could be a private message, but it is a little disingenuous to spend your entire life as a public figure protecting false teachers and then expect criticism or correction to be done privately. That does not serve the body of Christ. This entire video was premised on Brown's refusal to "mudsling." That is how he views any serious debate against what he believes and who he protects. So, if you have the Father's heart as he says, you will basically not call false teachers false. You would just say they are somehow in error. That also does not serve the body of Christ and only serves to protect wolves. Remember, that remains the fundamental disagreement here. If you speak the truth in Christ that disagrees with his support for people he knows or supports, you are automatically a mocker who does not care about redemption. This insulates him from being able to hear any serious criticism that could possibly show him his own error. For example, how do you still work for an obvious political operative in Strang? How can you possibly defend Bill Johnson's teachings? Why did you support LeClaire and Hinn? This stance he takes though is well designed to make him appear perfectly reasonable but the reality is that he will accept no constructive criticism because he automatically refers to it as destructive. In the video he starts quoting scriptures dealing with rebuke and settles on the key verse today. He fails to see the irony because it is Michael Brown who gathers around him false teachers and people who will scratch his itching ears and tell him he is right.
"We need someone to tell us if we are in error. At the same time, I will l not engage with mudslinging with destructive critics. I feel bad for those who have appointed themselves corrector in chief in the body. I grieve for so called discernment ministries that strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." - Dr. Michael Brown
Let us be perfectly clear. Discernment ministries do not view themselves as corrector in chief. That is a silly argument that should be beneath the intelligence of Dr. Brown. Anyone in ministry feels a calling to something. For Dr. Brown it used to be being a bible answer man and his love for Israel. Nowadays, it is more dominionism and politics. For discernment ministers it is protecting the body from false teaching that can lead them astray or lead people away from Christ. I do not question Dr. Brown's love for Israel and his feeling that he has been led or called to that area of ministry but he simply does not recognize that people might have a call to protect the sheep from false teaching. The fundamental problem again is that he is steadfastly focused on the false teachers and not the sheep that sit under them. We now wrap up the first ten minutes of this video with more examples that Dr. Brown is setting up false narratives.
"So, I want to give you some constructive reasons. Maybe you're a pastor coming under attack, maybe you are a social media influencer as a believer and you're coming under attack. And the attacks are increasing. And there are whole websites devoted to taking you down. Or books being written about you. Or your local newspaper is attacking. And it's not the criticism of love. It's not someone coming to you saying pastor, I love you, I believe in the calling of God in your life, I believe you're sincere, but please hear me. This tangent you are on now is destructive and dangerous. I've been in your church 20 years; I've never asked for an appointment to see you but I am pleading with you to please hear me - I'm not talking about that. I am talking about the local newspaper posting lies. I'm talking about some immature Christian group down the road blasting you with social memes that are completely dishonest. That's what I'm talking about." - Dr. Michael Brown
There is so much here to unpack. The framing is of course absurd. Under attack for Brown, means someone is calling out bad or false teaching. Mike Bickle was not attacked. Benny Hinn was not attacked. Correctly restating what has ben taught and how the bible disagrees is not an attack. Warning the sheep is not an attack. I would be interested in details about who he thinks has had books written falsely about someone. Or this notion that local newspapers are being critical. I would love to adjudicate those charges because I am willing to bet there must be some fire if there is that much smoke. Perhaps the worst part of this however is the ridiculous false narrative of what a "criticism of love" should look like. That loving criticism has to start with fawning over the false teacher. That you have to start with the inane premise that the wolf has a calling of God on their life AND is sincere. I have no such belief for example regarding obvious wolf hucksters like LeClaire and Hinn, who clearly know they are scammers.
Once again, let us be clear. We are not talking about a tangent appearing once in 20 years of ministry. If that was the case then there would be no issue with going to the pastor in private. When Steven Strang pimps politicians and smears victims of church abuse, it is not a tangent. When Bill Johnson and Bethel Church teach people how to manifest the gifts of the Spirit, which only God can give, that is not a tangent. Pretending you can teach someone to be a seer for a thousand bucks is not a tangent. Prophesying the death of Fidel Castro and giving yourself a ten-year window to be right but still missing it by 16 years is not a tangent. Are we getting the point here? This is what makes so many in discernment so frustrated with someone like Dr. Michael Brown. He tries to present this calm reasonable demeanor but the narratives he presents with it are simply skewed. Never lose sight of the fundamental disagreement. Dr. Brown focuses on protecting the false teachers while discernment is concerned with their victims. Just looking at this silly narrative of a loving approach to wolves reveals as much. Oh, I am so sorry pastor that I have to try and correct you. Let me start by saying how great you are and how sincere and how much God is using you and then basically beg you to just listen to me that one sliver of one issue you are saying might be a teeny-weeny bit off. You know, like a tangent. You have fleeced god's people for fifty million dollars by preaching abusive giving? Hey just a tangent. You told people you can command angels and are being stalked by a sneaky squid spirit? Just another tangent.
Beloved, this is what continues to frustrate discernment minister and Dr. Brown. We are just on two different planes of understanding. Brown has cocooned himself in his hermetically sealed bubble where everyone who dares to question him and the wolves he defends is a mudslinging corrector in chief who is straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. At the end of the day, he is concerned about protecting those he works with and for. He is all about protecting the brand. He is a skilled debater however who loves to erect strawmen arguments and set false narratives. I am not even inferring malice in this. He has hosted a syndicated radio talk program that has honed his skills to near perfection over the years. When you strip away the subterfuge and distractions though, Dr. Brown simply views the wolves in the sheep pen differently than those who properly discern. To him he knows them and we do not. As if that has anything to do with properly evaluating their teaching. Quite frankly, Brown disagrees that many of the people I cited are even in error at all. He has said it about Hinn for example but I seriously doubt he would say it about Johnson or Strang. What is worse is that one of his favorite debate tactics includes minimizing the grievous errors into oopsies and then asking for a mulligan. For example, if we cornered him about LeClaire trying to sell the gifts of the spirit I think he might actually agree that it is wrong but he will never take the next logical step and say she is false and therein lies the rub. It appears this is always where our fundamental disagreement will remain.
