Posted Apr 29, 2017 by Michael L. Brown

I find it ironic that those who claim to be enlightened and open-minded, at the same time attacking conservatives like me as bigoted and close-minded, refuse to engage me in debate or dialogue.

There was a gay Jewish leader I interacted with on Twitter. He made some bogus claims about God having multiple genders in the Hebrew Scriptures, and when I asked him for one single reference, he could provide none. (But all the while, he kept mocking my position.)

When he attacked my viewpoint a week or two later, I invited him to join me on the air to debate the issues, since he claimed I was misrepresenting ancient Jewish sources. (I told him that as a practicing homosexual, he was violating the Torah.)

He said he would not come on the air to increase my platform.

I replied to him that, by God’s grace, I had an excellent platform already and was inviting him to join me on that platform.

He refused.

I said to him, “Then how about we talk privately, off the air, by phone?”

Silence.

But I wasn’t surprised. This is the kind of thing I’ve become used to.

A few years ago, after I was on Piers Morgan and got into a lively interchange with Marc Lamont Hill, we interacted briefly on Twitter.

Would he like to have a formal debate with me on the issues we discussed?

He expressed openness to do so, and I said let’s do it.

Silence.

Not a word of interaction from him since then.

Then there was Montel Williams.

He responded to my “Open Letter to Megyn Kelly,” which referenced a segment they did together, and then I wrote a response to his response. After this, his assistant and my assistant interacted. We were told he would be happy to join me on the air and have a friendly debate about our differences, but only after he took care of some family commitments, which would run into the next month.

That was almost one year ago now, and we’ve not heard back from his team since then.

Just silence.

This is a recurring sound.

Then there was the liberal university professor writing for the Huffington Post who stated expressly that she wanted to talk with white, evangelical Christians who voted for Trump.

I wrote a long response to her article, saying to her throughout, “Let’s talk.”

I tweeted to her before and after writing, I linked my response to her, and my office reached out to hers privately.

Silence.

And remember: The purpose of this professor’s article was to find someone like me willing to talk with her. Yet when I reached out to her, she never replied. Not even a, “No thank you.”

Why?

Then there was gay journalist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile.

Also writing for the Huffington Post, he referred to conservative Christians who opposed redefining marriage as “religious extremists,” to which I wrote a reply titled, “To Gay Journalist Michelangelo Signorile: Let's Have A Civil Debate.”

Here’s how I closed my article:

These are critically important issues facing our society, and we both agree that they are not going away any time soon. Why don’t we have a civil, public debate and discuss these issues in a moderated forum, hopefully doing so in a way that will further serious discussion and reflection in the midst of our differences, committing to conduct the debate without vitriol or histrionics?

You just wrote a new book titled It's Not Over: Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality.

I just wrote a new book from the exact opposite perspective titled Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. (To be clear, when I say the exact opposite perspective, I do not mean cultivating hatred or mistreatment of gays; to the contrary, I call on my side to take the highest moral ground and merge love together with truth.)

You have a national radio show and I have a national radio show. In fact, it appears that from 3-4 PM, EDT, we’re on the air at the same time, Monday-Friday.

You write columns for liberal websites and I write columns for conservative websites.

What is there to lose by challenging each other’s views publicly while we defend our own? What is there to lose by seeing whose positions best cohere morally and socially?

I then tweeted him a link to my article, asking him, “What do you say?”

He replied, “Nothing to discuss. We’ve gained our rights. NOW you want civil discussion, after you crusaded vs. us for years?”

I responded, “My position has remained the same for years. I’ve always called for discussion. In any case, we’re not going in the closet.”

He replied by sending me article written by two of his gay colleagues, referring to people like me as bigots. (My response to their article is here.)

I asked him why he and his colleagues had to use the word “bigot” when referring to opponents of same-sex “marriage,” since there were perfectly legitimate, fair-minded reasons for rejecting it. He responded by justifying his use of the term, after which, there was that sound again – the sound of silence.

Here and there, I’ve found leaders on the “progressive” side who are willing to engage in civil debate or dialogue. (And remember, I’m not just talking about coming on my radio show, where I do control the mic, but of participating in formal, moderated debates.) But they are few and far between.

All too many seem much more willing to make charges than to back them up, to level accusations than to discuss honest differences, to throw around claims of bigotry rather than have their own bigotry exposed.

Their silence, when challenged, or when invited to public dialogue, is deafening and speaks volumes.

Sign Up or Login to post comments.

Comments

user profile
Jacob posted a comment · May 11, 2017
I meant "will read my reply" in the last sentence. Jacob
user profile
Jacob posted a comment · May 11, 2017
Dr. Brown, If everyone read from the Torah 1, 2, 3, 4 and you simply read 4, 3, 2, 1 or even 7, 9, 6, 2, and try to convince everyone that you are right by creating a big web then, there is no reason why Torah scholars would want to talk to you. I do believe that one day, your wrong teaching will subside. I have commented in your post "Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 2)" which you have denied to answer. Your representative Dylan have run away from it as well. I hope many Jews that follow your wrong teaching, will ready my reply to your post. Jacob
user profile
lania12345 posted a comment · May 08, 2017
Dear Dr Brown, As telling as it is that many of your detractors won't talk to you, there is one demographic that you failed to mention here that I wish you would simply invite for a debate, and I find it rather telling that you continue to refuse to do so. I notice that, for some odd reason, you tend to refer to evangelical Christians who voted for Trump as "conservative American Christians", leaving out a glaringly obvious detail that I realize might be an inconvenient truth for you. These were WHITE conservative American Christians. It was 81% of WHITE conservative American Christians who voted for Trump. As you and I know fully well, the majority of conservative evangelical Christians of color voted AGAINST Trump. You are a prolific writer who understands the importance of language and terminology, so I know you did not omit this singular, all-critical, definitive fact by accident. It seems to me that you might be unwittingly attempting to "whitewash" (pun intended) the reality of the racial divide which was only exacerbated by this last election. As one who claims to be committed to truth, how is this not disingenuous and intellectually dishonest? I have challenged you before, and will challenge you again. Please, invite guests of color who are brothers and sisters in Christ, theologically and socially conservative leaders that agree with you theologically yet disagree with you politically. And I'm not talking about your occasional minority liberal caller; because you can shut down your callers at any time, and this is as deserving of its own full-fledged show as any other guests you've hosted. Invite leaders like Tony Evans, for instance, who has tons of material on this very issue and could help your audience navigate the reasons why most believers of color tend to be more left-leaning politically. Invite fellow media pundits like Roland Martin, or popular youth leaders like Lecrae. And lastly, please do your audience a favor and stop painting American conservative evangelical voters with a white brush, as if most (or even many) evangelicals of color voted for Trump, when you and I know that this is not the case. It is time to stop dodging inconvenient truth and genuinely reach across racial lines by reaching across the political aisle, where the majority of your black and brown brothers and sisters of color abide, whether you will admit it or not.
user profile
Glenn Loewen posted a comment · May 02, 2017
Your experience leaves me with an even greater conviction that the age for conversation is, for the most part, over. The age of contradictions, however, is starring us in the face. Here are a few: 1. The most aggressive advocates of tolerance, tolerate it the least. 2. Those who loathe authority become the very thing they loathe. 3. The pursuit of life with no restraint always leads to a life of great bondage 4. Saying that all roads lead to God simply dismisses the value of any of the roads.
user profile
Glenn Loewen posted a comment · May 02, 2017
Your experience leaves me with an even greater conviction that the age for conversation is, for the most part, over. The age of contradictions, however, is starring us in the face. Here are a few: 1. The most aggressive advocates of tolerance, tolerate it the least. 2. Those who loathe authority become the very thing they loathe. 3. The pursuit of life with no restraint always leads to a life of great bondage 4. Saying that all roads lead to God simply dismisses the value of any of the roads.
user profile
Wafaring Stranger posted a comment · Apr 30, 2017
Since the fall in the garden, man has always sought a covering for his sins. In the case of Adam and Eve, it was aprons of fig leaves. The people that you mentioned in your article will not debate you because they are illiterate in the WORD and know that you would make fools of them. They are content listening to sottish preachers who teach that the law has been done away with and therefore they are afraid to face anyone, in an honest debate, who could prove them wrong.