Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, - Thessalonians 2:1-3 (NKJV)
Dr. Michael Brown is a gifted debater after decades of perfecting his brand. His strategies are inherently unfair. He is a bully, as I can personally attest to from one of my visits to his radio program. He has many schemes that he implements when debating. The first of which is perfect sounding reasonableness. Dr. Brown is nothing if not disarming, especially when the debates start. Everything is couched in terms of just wanting a dialogue and trying to find common ground. He concedes points without ever assigning those points to someone that might be properly blamed. For example, he has written a book on the evils of hyper grace but refuses to call Joseph Prince false. In fact, he calls him a "good brother in the Lord." In a debate however, Brown will readily concede that hyper grace is heresy and might even say something along the lines of "I wish Prince would not preach that." It ends there however, as the goal is to sound reasonable, while doing nothing.
Once he uses his folksy charm and disarming reasonableness, Brown moves onto setting up core agreements he can later use to his advantage. We really saw this in the American Gospel roundtable with Justin Peters and Jim Osman. At the onset he wanted to establish an agreed upon definition of what a false teacher was. Brown's definition was a hell bound reprobate. He tried this when I was on his radio show too regarding Bill Johnson. When I called Johnson a false teacher Brown responded that I was saying he was going to hell. I never said this of course - Brown did. Justin and Jim too quickly agreed to his bogus definition and then every time they brought up a false teacher, no matter how egregious, Brown just said, well, I am not ready to consign them to hell. So, even people like Benny Hinn, who outright lied to Brown and used him when he was a guest for a week on his show, was not labeled false.
The third slimy strategy he employs is known as the Proximity Fallacy, which is when we make the argument that because we are closer to something, our argument is more valid. When berating me about Bill Johnson for example, he eventually settled on the argument that because he knew Johnson and I did not, his argument was correct. When I pointed out how Bethel's absurd "School of the Supernatural teaches people how to manifest the gifts, he settled on the "I have taught there, so I am right" argument. These arguments are entirely specious of course as I have actually read the curricula from the school. Not to mention Bethel holds a conference every year to teach people how to prophesy. Keep in mind that Dr. Brown and his partner in the Justin Peters roundtable, Sam Storms, both staunchly defended Mike Bickle that day, which preceded the revelations about Bickle being a serial child molester and lying about the fake prophetic history of IHOPKC. Storms actually said that he knew Bickle to the depths of his soul and that he could not think of a more biblically orthodox, humble, Christ exalting individual. Here was Brown's exact quote:
"If I am going to be judged on my orthodoxy for refusing to call a fine man like Mike Bickle a false teacher then I am going to say you are out of line. You do not know the man. You do not know his fruit. His walk, his life." - Dr. Michael Brown
Turns out we knew the man better than he did and this is a perfect example of why the Proximity Fallacy is a poor argument. Now, there are a myriad of other schemes that Brown uses but for today, we also want to focus on why Brown debates so much. It is part of his brand. It is part of his grift. Dr. Brown leeches credibility off of debating other people, even those he disagrees with. He bills himself as the voice of moral clarity and is fond of calling himself a "Christian leader." He has also perfectly insulated himself in a sycophant only, hermetically sealed bubble. If anyone dares to breach that bubble with truth they are dismissed out of hand as mudslingers, divisive, or somehow using unequal weights. Go check out one of his Facebook posts. All of the comments are extolling how wonderful he is, and he openly admits that he is actively deleting comments that he finds disagreeable. It is narcissistic confirmation bias. Brown fancies himself the cutting-edge voice of the church and he surrounds himself with people who will tell him he is the cutting-edge voice of the church while dismissing out of hand any legitimate criticism. I say this as the backdrop to a recent challenge he posted on Facebook where he is trying to land a debate with anyone speaking at the recently held Cessationist Conference. Let us reason once more together through some of the substance of this post:
