Below is a review of a forum I attended this past Sunday night. If you need to know who Tony Campolo is check out my blog entry on "Who is Tony Campolo?" In general, Tony is a baptist minister, who has taught at Eastern University for the past 45 years. He and his wife Peggie tour around discussing the church's need to accept homosexuals, their relationships and have the church legitimize it. I think you will be shocked by what you read. I also have put up some other modern leaders in evangelism and their similar positions. The fact is Tony has been the mentor in this position...
This past Sunday evening (November 23, 2008), a group of elders and pastors of NewSong attended a forum sponsored by First United Methodist Church in Lancaster entitled “Christianity and Homosexuality: A Conversation to Understand our Differences.” I had heard this “pseudo-debate” about ten years ago and felt it was important for us as leaders to understand Campolo’s position, how he (a leader in this pro-gay evangelical movement) thinks, and start us thinking about what we will do in response to this as a church in the coming years. I believe that gay rights will be THE issue the church will contend with and especially with the “Young Evangelicals.” Their post-modern thinking and the false sense of “spiritual superiority” shows great tolerance and unconditional acceptance of those who are involved with this sinful behavior over people like me and other orthodox theologians. Churches better be ready to respond. Here is a quick report of the forum.
PURPOSE
Even though by title “Christianity and Homosexuality” and the Campolos claims to have “different positions” – this was not a debate on the issue. This was clearly an attempt to pressure the more conservative, Biblical Christian to move to a place of acceptance. There was a constant assault by the “self-proclaimed conservative” Campolo on the Pharisaical posturing of conservative evangelicals. This is really important to understand. It is the mission the Campolos are on, and what they are attempting to accomplish through these forums. The ultimate purpose is to make it seem like they are having a serious dialog about what the Bible says concerning homosexuality, yet opposition is discouraged by their tone. The fact is if Tony and Peg sat with me (or any seasoned Christian leader) on a stage for an hour and we really addressed the theological and Biblical issues, the debate would be over pretty quickly. Their use of the scriptures are shoddy at best and they turn God’s Word into an Auntie Ann pretzel by the end of their presentation. Again – the Campolos are not looking to debate or challenge each others’ positions. They try to glorify their personal novelty of being able to live as husband and wife having very different positions. The fact is their positions are not very different. And any difference they hold, Tony capitulates to his bride.
POSITIONS
Tony says with great apology and personal embarrassment that he believes the “act of homosexual sex (or as he calls it “Same gender erotic Behavior”) is a sin.” He makes it clear that the ONLY text in scripture that backs up that position is Romans 1. He referenced two other NT passages and did some freshman biblical gymnastics to discount them and cited that any Old Testament passage is nullified because it was speaking of “purity laws” and not moral laws. He did not mention that the Ten Commandments makes it clear that adultery is a sin and therefore when two men or women engage in sexual immorality and because they are not being married that they are committing a violation of the law. Like I said, Tony is weak at best with his positions. Nevertheless, he does call the “ACT” sin. The problem is that he gives credence and encourages the idea that two men, who are in a loving monogamous relationship committed to celibacy is acceptable and the church should embrace that relationship. He also affords those types of relationships as legitimate in the world and should be granted civil union status. He espouses a “European approach” to marriage. He sees “marriage as sacred….and that the government should have the secular aspect by expecting all couples to first seek civil unions for legal purposes and then if they desire marriage and if the church, pastor or denomination chooses, they can seek sacred acknowledgment of the relationship through marriage.” Sadly Tony states: “I know that my position hurts some of my gay friends and I wish I did not have to take this position; and if it were not for Romans 1, I could have the same position as Peg.” WOW – Only Romans 1 holding him back…let’s move on to Peg.
Peg’s position is radical and overtly supportive to gay relationships. She discounts Roman 1 as Paul wrote Romans from Corinthian, the capital of pagan, erotic religious worship and was speaking of that kind of debauchery. Peg states with misguided confidence that “there is no way that Paul was condemning a loving, monogamous relationship.” REALLY? The 1 Timothy passage stating the sinful nature of gay relations, she states, was discussing the practice of taking young boys for sexual gratification. And any other passage she thoughtlessly pushed aside with superimposed conclusion-determine position – no real exegetical work done on the Greek or just by allowing scripture to interpret scripture. Peg believes that the church needs to recognize, support, accept, ordain, induct into membership and celebrate gay relationships. If the government is not acknowledging them – the church can. She states her case without one thought of apology, ashamedness, embarrassment or timidity. She is very different from Tony’s whippy apology. That is the stark difference.
PROBLEMS
Obviously the un-biblical nature of their argument – from both of them – and their conclusions are huge problems. Yet there are a few other observations that make this entire presentation a problem.
1. Emotionalism over truth – Throughout the entire presentation, Campolo (both Peg and Tony…but Tony more) evoked the need for Christians to be more compassionate, caring, and emotional concerning the issue. Tony kept saying that “I take this stand with tears…” The problem with this emphasis is that there is an expectation to be driven by emotions and avoid “thinking” intelligently, logically and Biblically. The problem with this topic is that emotions have driven the subject too long and that is why we have confusion and conflict in the church.
2. Love over conviction – Post modern Christians are famous for making “relationships sovereign” and the notion that our friendships should always be maintained, even if it means we sacrifice Biblical convictions. Listen, “unity” does not mean that I put my convictions aside and ignore Biblical truth. Truth does divide. If we believe that Jesus is God, it will divide me from fellowship with Jehovah Witnesses. If I do not believe that I can pray my dead grandmother into heaven, then I have no unity with a Mormon. TRUTH divides! I can love them, relate to them and still consistently, boldly and firmly take a TRUTH stand. My stand “MAY” repel them away from the relationship. But so be it, if we stand on the truth.
3. Experience causing conflict – Both Tony and Peg shared “heart wrenching” stories about experiences where people treated homosexuals unkindly and abusively. Those experiences have scarred them in such a way that they both decided to do something about it and show extraordinary acceptance towards gays. (By the way, Tony told of a story about “Roger” – a homosexual male in HS who committed suicide after being taunted. I have called West Philly HS this week and could not confirm the incident – further confirmation pending). Needless to say there are difficult experiences that come into our lives and should motivate us towards love and good works. But our experience should be kept in check by truth and our experience should not be sovereign over the scriptures. We have problems with people who say that they have a “charismatic experience,” but if it does not line up with scripture, we do not accept it. That same principle needs to be applied to this situation. Not ANY experience can be given legitimate status just by someone declaring they had it! Spiritual anarchy!
4. Speaking at us – not with us – ironically an anti-post-modern approach – I thought this was ironic. Campolo never had a conversation, even though that was the title of the forum. They spoke AT us all night. They never really engaged “with us” or encouraged differing opinions. As a matter of fact, Tony Campolo’s style to handle any opposition was meeting it with humor, deflection and worse yet, a spiritual elitism where in he and Peg were presented as the spiritual, non-Pharisees; and dissenters were portrayed as “cold, cognitive, religious fundamentalists.” Nice, right? Where is the loving and tolerant and accepting embrace from Campolo towards us as he evokes us to be towards gays?? What is ironic is that Campolo has been the guru to the new emergent church movement which values “spiritual dialog and conversions” where we reason TOGETHER ideas of what God thinks and come to a conclusion. The fact is the Campolos positions are sovereign and if you do not acquiescence to them, you are rebuff in a comedic demeaning manner.
5. Preying on the scripturally weak – I find it fascinating that churches and organizations that have the Campolos are always churches that lack strong theological foundations. Worse, it is churches that preach a weak and watered down gospel. Having interacted with a number of the people there, it was clear that most, if not all, of them had no Biblical depth for discerning the truthfulness of the presentation. I would overhear what the people next to me would say between points and I wanted to turn to them and show them where he was wrong. Again, Tony is an impressive communicator; weaving in unverifiable sociological data; and using his winsome humor. This is why he and Peg are so dangerous – “they creep in” as Jude states and causes spiritual ship wrecks!
6. Absence of salvation concerns – I guess what is interesting is that there was no discussion about the question of salvation and redemption for unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. There was an unquestioned acceptance that they were saved. Paul makes it clear that “….homosexuals….will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” If we love the gay person, are compassionate towards the lesbian, are brokenhearted for the bi-sexual – why are we not concerned about their eternal destination? To promote that idea of practicing homosexuals ARE saved is doing a disservice to them and preaching another gospel. The evidence of true saving faith and a regenerated life is the fact that the person of the new birth will repent of their sin and live spiritually free from it's hold on their lives.
7. Absence of the power of God to change a life – Tony said this… “I believe that God can do anything; but I think it is unrealistic to believe that God can change the predisposition of a homosexual to be straight.” WOW – he thinks it is possible – but because he lives in reality – it is not like God can truly change a life under the power of God. That statement alone says there is no power for the druggie, alcoholic, gambler, sex addict, liar, gossipers and alike! How sad that Tony and Peg think so little of God’s sovereign power over the affairs of men. Worse yet, how hopeless they leave the gay person, who they claim “walk the floor at night praying that God will take away this agony.” If God made them this way, why would it be agony? If that is who they are and God’s power is unable to change it….why do they pray and ask Him to change them? These conflicting statements and confusing views of God’s omnipotence leaves Campolo’s position nothing short of heretical.
8. Contradiction of psychological and sociological facts – Tony is a sociologist first and an evangelist second. He is quick and better versed in secular facts and findings, then he is with scriptural truth. The problem comes in that with my brief and surface study of the issue in preparations to speak on the issue, his stated facts are not there. Overwhelmingly psychologists have said that there is no “gay gene” – no pre-deposed physical issue that would make someone gay. Homosexuality is a choice. Campolo – both the husband and wife – would violently disagree, yet the facts that they exalt speak in that way. He contradicts himself over and over.
9. Making convictions based on silence – the most stunning admission is that the Campolos make their stand on homosexually because Jesus never condemned it. They make the point – “seeing that Jesus never condemned it makes it clear that he saw nothing wrong with it. He spoke against religious fakes and divorce, but nothing about homosexuality. If it was so bad, don’t you think Jesus would have said something?” How ludicrous! Because Jesus did not say anything then we are free to proceed and engage in activities that elsewhere in the Bible says is clearly sin. If we use that kind of logic then we have freedom to engage in drug use, pornography, gambling, child slavery, domestic violence and all kinds of evil because Jesus never directly spoke against it. And did we forget that Jesus declared that he “did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.” Meaning He came so that we would have the power to keep the Law and actually see what the law was advocating in our lives. Again this was troubling and reveals their lack of Biblical interpretation skills and hermeneutical understanding.
Beyond the massively incorrect positions, these were startling problems with their presentation. At the end of the day, Tony and Peg do not have vast differences in their positions of homosexuality, but worse, their public presentation is not to seriously examine these positions. I believe they are intentionally attempting to deceive evangelicals who are taken in by Tony’s persona and give Peg a platform to promote her unbiblical, immoral, radical teaching. With sadness I say that they are classic examples of apostates as outlined in Jude and 2 Peter. Much like Jude, this is not a warning of the apostate’s future coming – they are here and need to be confronted! My guess they would never subject themselves to serious debate on this issue. As Jude states – Not only does homosexuality deserve eternal fire, but also the one who promotes it in the church is an apostate. Funny, the Campolos did not discuss the Jude passage!