Listening to the Gospel of Christ over the Airs of Church Teachings

The following article below is the kind of discussion evangelicals always seem to be speaking among themselves using popular terms and concepts which have taken on a life of their own within their circles of theology. Doctrines which must be continually re-examined lest they go too far, or don't say enough, about Christianity's central biblical tenants and beliefs.

From a process perspective I would like to think of the atonement of Christ as a necessary and good result of the love of God for humanity bound by sin and needing release from its burden. Evangelicals would also agree to this concept but always seem to come at it from a "divine wrath" perspective with hell as the condition upon which every man or woman must confront.

True, evangelicals will admit to God's love as being a motivating factor for atonement, but I often suspect it never seems enough as they preach the judgment of God upon man for his/her sin condemning each to the fires of hell if not received. It seems God's wrath is evangelicalism's primary motivation for God's offer of redemption to mankind (I can still hear Billy Grahm's crusades echoing in my ears). At which point they begin splitting hairs as to whom God redeems or condemns (sheep vs. goats; or the tares (weeds) illustrations); whether His salvation is effectively for all or practically for some (the predestined or elect); whether salvation can truly be known or not (the Catholic angst); how efficacious salvation's effects might be (faith and works); and so on and so on and so on.

The doctrine of salvation is part of the many doctrinal labyrinths whose mazes spin this way and that having begun ages ago in the histories of the early church attempting to decipher salvation's effectiveness against persistent evil, oppression, persecution, and the death of God's people before corrupt and evil human agencies.

It's like looking at a cup of water and wondering whether the glass is half full or half empty. From an open-and-relational process perspective its a "half full kind of thing" which would more readily admit the need for atonement as an extension of God's love and fellowship back to all things created rather than to approach salvation from the wrath and judgment side of the divine (which pretty much is closed and determinative according to Calvinism's Reformed doctrines). And if this former, can then more easily speak to the need for sin to be resolved within the personage of Christ Jesus as evidenced in the Gospel narratives rather than attempt to drive it out of us by fear, threats and intimidation.

Christ moved among us not because of the hell we see or live through everyday but because of God's need to imbue wholeness within us who are unwhole, unwell, broken. Who need a Savior who can move us from our binds and burdens back into His fellowship, love, care, sustenance, and healing. Where heaven might be a reality now... not later. Because God and His love is a reality now. Who sees us as worthy of the hard work of redemption which may be started in our lives now rather than later. A reality whereby this sin-held world might be released one soul at a time from its evil. For love, not for wrath, Christ came into this world to redeem.

Having grown up in evangelic doctrine I find more satisfaction having stepped away from its "cup is half empty" perspectives back into the simplicities of Scripture's plain teachings. That God loves us and must reach out to us because of His great love. Not because we are doomed to hell and divine wrath because of our sin but because divine Love is the grace which explains and drives all of life.

I prefer to place the emphasis where it needs to be. This is not to discount sin which is plainly everywhere about. But for myself, a God who is all Judge and Jury seems less attractive a gospel than a God of all Grace and Majesty. And when it comes to how He deposed Himself within Himself on the Cross when taking on the sin of the world - it is enough for me to know that He came as a holy sacrifice willing to take our sin upon Himself without causing His Being to be any less than it was before He had undertaken this atoning act. Though rent by our sin He remained wholly in fellowship with Himself while remaining unrent ontologically. That as God, He could bear sin - and sin's penalty - and still be God in the act and the outcome. But I would expect God to be this kind of God, wouldn't you?

And so, while the article below can provide a provocative read it can also provide a narrowing of the human understanding of the Cross of Christ on Calvary's hill of Redemption when over-concentrating on the what, why, or how of its transaction. A divine transaction between a holy God reaching out into a broken world offering completeness, release and rest, from its daily burdens and hardships when continually confronted by the sin and evil present within its broken provide.

Lastly, and with a word of caution, I urge readers not to be drawn away into useless arguments of the Cross or of God but to always learn to discern where God would place the emphasis of His gospel - rather than how our own human hearts might hear or think of it. We've all listened to music stripped of its beats, tempos, or rhythms from the original score, making it into something else. But when this latter is brought into the music it can soar under the hand of the composer who had wrought it. This is as true of the bible, of God, of our lives, as with anything else. Sometimes we need to listen to the heart of God over our own hearts which would misread or misinterpret God's soaring music of the Good News of the Gospel which is  found in Christ Jesus our Savior and Risen Lord.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

April 4, 2018

* * * * * * * * * *

Is the Wrath of God Really Satisfying?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/march-web-only/is-wrath-of-god-satisfying-good-friday-cross.html

God’s anger against sin is real on Good Friday, but he doesn’t “turn his face away” from the Cross.

THOMAS H. MCCALL| MARCH 29, 2018

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” These words come from the lips of Jesus as he hangs on the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). They are powerful and haunting, and they are surely very important. But what do they mean—how are we to understand them?

For many who hold this view, the Trinity is somehow “broken” as the communion between the Father and the Son is ruptured in the darkness of that Friday afternoon. And this is said to be good news and the heart of the gospel because Jesus absorbs the wrath of God in taking the exact punishment we deserve. God is changed from wrath to mercy and can no longer justly punish those for whom Christ died.Here is one line of thinking that has recently become very popular in some circles. According to C. J. Mahaney, this cry from the lips of Jesus is the “scream of the damned.” He takes this line from R. C. Sproul who exclaims that when Jesus is crucified it is “as if a voice from heaven said, ‘Damn you, Jesus.’” This is because Jesus becomes the “virtual incarnation of evil” and even “the very embodiment of all that sin is.” Thus God abandons Jesus, turns his back on him, “curses him to the pit of hell” and “damns” him.

Such preaching is very powerful. But is it right? We should, of course, want to proclaim all that the Bible says about the work of Christ (at least as much as we are able), and we should be committed to affirming all that this teaching implies (what older theologians called “good and necessary” consequences). But we should also be very cautious about going beyond what is explicitly taught or implied— especially where the Christian tradition warns us. And we should strive to avoid anything that goes against biblical teaching and theological orthodoxy. So what are we to make of such teaching?

The Scream of the Damned?

We should be faithful to proclaim all that Scripture teaches, but we should be cautious about going beyond it. And here we must be blunt: Scripture nowhere says that Jesus’s cry of dereliction is “the scream of the damned.” Sproul says that “it is as if” there is a voice from heaven that says “Damn you, Jesus,” but in fact, there is no such voice. Jesus Christ is nowhere said in Scripture to be the “virtual incarnation of evil” or “the very embodiment of all that sin is.” To the contrary, he is the incarnation of goodness—he is holiness incarnate as truly human.

There is no biblical evidence that the Father-Son communion was somehow ruptured on that day. Nowhere is it written that the Father was angry with the Son. Nowhere can we read that God “curses him to the pit of hell.” Nowhere is it written that Jesus absorbs the wrath of God by taking the exact punishment that we deserve. In no passage is there any indication that God’s wrath is “infinitely intense” as it is poured out on Jesus. Such statements may pack a lot of rhetorical punch, but they go far beyond what Scripture teaches.

Of course, not all “going beyond” is going against, but sometimes the tradition warns us that “beyond” has become “against.” I have argued elsewhere that important patristic, medieval, and Reformation teaching denies these claims, but consider these statements (from theologians well known for their defense of a version of the doctrine of “penal substitution”). John Calvin says that “we do not admit that God was ever hostile to him, or angry (iratum) with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, ‘in whom his soul delighted?’”

Similarly, Charles Hodge denies that the atoning work of Christ “consist[s] in an exact quid pro quo, so much for so much,” and he says that Christ “did not suffer either in kind or degree what sinners would have suffered.” It is tough to argue against Hodge here, for if sin deserves eternal separation from God and eternal conscious punishment (as traditional Reformed and much evangelical theology insists), then clearly this is not what Jesus receives.

One Triune God

Just as we must be cautious not to go beyond what Scripture says, so also we should not proclaim anything that goes against biblical teaching (or its “good and necessary” entailments). I have made the case elsewhere that while it is clear that the Father abandoned the Son to death on the cross, there is no good reason to think that this causes a rupture— or even a “strain” or “tension”—within the Triune life.

Not only is there no biblical text that says that the Father “turns his face away” from the Son, the passage that most plausibly speaks to the matter actually says that God did not do so. For if we take Psalm 22 to be important for our understanding of the cry of dereliction (as both Mark and Matthew clearly do), then we find these words: “he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help” (Ps. 22:24). And the steady drumbeat of the apostolic preaching of the gospel has this consistent refrain: You killed him, but God raised him from the dead.

Finally, the “broken Trinity” and “God against God” views run aground on the doctrines of divine impassibility and simplicity as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Christian orthodoxy, it not even a possibility that the Trinity was broken. If we know anything about the Trinity, we know that God is one God in three persons, and we know that God’s life is necessarily the life of holy love shared in the eternal communion of the Father, Son, and Spirit. To say that the Trinity is broken—even “temporarily”—is to imply that God does not exist.

The Just For the Unjust

We must not go beyond or against Scripture, but we should do our best to affirm all that Scripture says. So then, what can we say of the cry of dereliction? First, we should see that the biblical depiction of the human condition makes it clear—painfully and depressingly clear—that we are sinners. We are all sinners (Rom. 3:23), and we are helpless to rescue or repair or somehow save ourselves. We have the problem of what we’ve done and the wreckage we’ve caused; our sin and guilt and shame are undeniable and unshakable. But this isn’t all, for we have the further problem of who we are, what we’ve become, and what we will continue to do if we are not radically transformed. To use the language of older theology, we are both polluted and guilty.

Death is the consequence of sin (Rom. 6:23). And because of our sin, the wrath of God is being revealed (Rom. 1:18). Our days “pass away” under God’s wrath (Ps. 90:9). God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:5–6). Indeed, we are “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3, ESV).

Second, we should understand the work of Christ on our behalf within the storyline of Scripture: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). His work addresses our condition— both the guilt and the pollution. Jesus Christ reverses the disobedience and unfaithfulness of Adam and Israel. Drawing on an ancient theological insight, we can say that in becoming human the divine Son of God “recapitulates” (or “re-heads”) humanity. The incarnation is itself redemptive, and it is his entire life, death, and resurrection (as well as his ascension and session—Jesus being seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven) that brings salvation to us.

In becoming fully human as Jesus Christ, the Son enters our brokenness and takes upon himself the “curse” caused by humanity’s sin. Thus the incarnate Christ unites himself to those under the wrath of God and suffers death. Christ’s work on our behalf is thus grounded in his incarnate person; it includes his teaching and example (1 Pet. 2:21) and culminates in his glorious defeat of sin and death (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:54–57; Heb. 2:14).

To say that Christ “died in accordance with the Scriptures” is to see his work within the broad biblical storyline that begins with Adam and focuses on Israel. More precisely, this includes seeing it in light of the Old Testament witness to both the wrath of God and the sacrifices offered for sin. The New Testament draws these connections, and it presents Jesus as the one who is both priest and sacrifice, both representative and substitute.

Jesus has come to ransom others (e.g., Mark 10:45). His suffering is not merely physical (Matt. 26:38), as his intimate union with humanity makes him deeply aware of their sin and its consequences. His death was “the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Pet. 3:18). He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” to be a “sin offering” and to “condemn sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). He redeemed us from the curse of the law by “becoming a curse for us” in his death (Gal. 3:13). We are “saved from God’s wrath” by Christ (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10). The one who was sinless (e.g., Heb. 4:15) and who “had no sin” became “a sin offering” (not a sinner) on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, “‘bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24; compare Isa. 53:5–6).

Note carefully the statement “so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness.” We cannot afford to miss the union and participation here—Christ lived with and for us and died for our sins so that we might die to our sins and live with and for him. Nor can we afford to miss the intention; it is so that we might be transformed, so that we might be truly righteous.

Christ was a sacrifice for us so that we might live as people who are holy (e.g., Eph. 5:2–21). His sacrifice was to “do away with sin” (Heb. 9:26). It was to cleanse us from sin—the “acts that lead to death” (Heb. 9:14; 10:10). Christ was a “sin offering” precisely so that we will “not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4)—so that “we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). As a result of Christ’s work, we can be “freed from our sins” by the one who loves us (Rev. 1:5).

We should be committed to proclaiming all that Scripture says about what Christ did for us. So we should not shrink from clarity about sin and its awful and horrific consequences. Indeed, we should be faithful to point out that “wrath remains” on all who reject the Son (John 3:36). At the same time, however, we are not at liberty to restrict our understanding of the intents, purposes, and breadth of Christ’s work.

Narrowing Christ’s work to the limited sense of taking the punishment for our sins can cause us to miss (much of) the point. Yes, Christ came to get us out of hell, but he also came to get hell out of us and to make us holy as we walk in communion with the Triune God. We should be faithful to proclaim that while Christ’s sacrificial work saves us from the wrath of God, it does so precisely as it radically transforms and changes us.

To say or imply that the Trinity is broken is to say or imply that God does not exist. This is exactly what we should seek to avoid saying on Good Friday and every other day. To the contrary, the holy love of the Triune life is the ground and wellspring of salvation: God “demonstrates his love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). “God is love,” and “this is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world ... as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:8–10). This we joyfully proclaim.

Thomas H. McCall is professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and professorial fellow in analytic and exegetical theology at the University of St Andrews. His most recent book is An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology (IVP Academic, 2015).

Building Bridges of Understanding Between the Traditional Church and Gay Community

A year and a half ago, before the enactment of the civil rights law permitting marriage between gay couples the Washington Post noted of progressive evangelical Tony Campolo:

"Campolo, who ran for Congress in 1976 as a Democrat, considers himself to be

theologically conservative but socially progressive. He is against legalized abortion

and  gay marriage while being progressive on issues related to poverty, race and

American diplomacy.

"While not embracing same-sex marriage, Campolo has said the two sides could find

a detente if the government would “get out of the business of marrying people and,

instead, only give legal status to civil unions."

                                                              - Washington Post Report, January 14, 2014

Then, in early June of 2015 before the civil rights law was passed later in the month, Tony Campolo, along with retired editor David Neff of Christianity Today, reversed their positions on heterosexual marriage to recognize the civil rights of gay couples to wed. When they did this Christianity Today was quick to note their change from the traditional views of the evangelical church:

'When a prominent evangelical leader, like Tony Campolo, announces his support for gay

marriage, it’s likely to get reporters’ attention. It is indeed news, in that it is still unusual

to hear an otherwise orthodox Christian announce heterodox views on sexuality. But in the

case of Campolo, it may not be the kind of news that garners much attention. (One reason:

His organization Red Letter Christians has argued for same-sex marriage several times.)

"But we were surprised when former CT editor David Neff on Facebook praised Campolo’s

move. As he put it in an email to me clarifying his comment, “I think the ethically responsible

thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnerships. I also

believe that the church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the church

should fortify traditional marriages.”

"At CT, we’re saddened that David has come to this conclusion. Saddened because we firmly

believe that the Bible teaches that God intends the most intimate of covenant relationships to

be enjoyed exclusively by a man and a woman. We’ve stated this view explicitly in many

editorials, and it is implicit but clear in many of our feature stories."

                                                                                         - Christianity Today, June 9, 2015

From Wikipedia it is noted:

Tony Campolo and his wife Peggy have participated in very public debates and discussions
about the place of lesbians and gays within church and society. Tony Campolo contended
that homosexuality was a sin in practice, though not in orientation. His wife, Peggy Campolo,
disagreed, holding that committed, monogamous homosexual practice was not a sin; she
supports full equality for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual persons. Regarding marriage,
Tony Campolo states that all couples should have the right to a civil union with all the legal
rights that are associated with such a contract:

"I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead,
only give legal status to civil unions. The government should do this for both gay couples and
straight couples and, leave marriage in the hands of the Church and other religious entities."

On June 8, 2015, Tony Campolo released a statement changing his position on the issue of gay
relationships, and stating that he now supported full acceptance of Christian gay couples into
the Church. He cited several reasons including the institution of marriage primarily being
about spiritual growth instead of procreation, what he had learned through his friendships
with gay Christian couples, and past examples of exclusionary church traditions practiced
"by sincere believers, but most of us now agree that they were wrong."

                                                                        - Wikipedia section on LGBT Sexual Debates

This past weekend my wife and I attended Tony and Peggy's Campolo's discussion of gay marriage originally to be presented as a soft-debate between Tony, as a progressive traditionalist, and his wife Peggy, who speaks the progressive non-traditionalist viewpoint. No less were we attracted to the discussion because we too carry the same soft-division between one another in our own household as a married couple.

However, after scheduling the Campolo's public speaking engagement Tony later declared his support for the gay community around the same time that the U.S. civil law permitted same sex marriage. He therefore spoke apologetically of his reasons for making this personal change from traditional non-acceptance to non-traditional acceptance of gay marriage, rights, fellowship, ministry, and community.

From the audience's perspective one could tell Tony had come to this momentous conclusion in his overwrought spirit thoughtfully and compellingly. That with heavy heart and prayerful spirit he had taken pains to search out his past attitudes towards the gay community and found them to be inaccurate in assessment, and unworthy of the gospel of Christ, as a minister to the redemptive power of Jesus.

It was a courageous act and one requiring public declaration as a former traditional evangelic. As a result one of the first things Tony needed to do was to shutter the very ministry he had founded for "at-risk youth" - the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education. Primarily because it was supported by traditional Christians and churches holding to doctrines against homosexuality. He also quickly discovered public denouncement by former collegial institutions such as the stalwart evangelical magazine Christianity Today which dutifully informed their readers of Tony's change of attitude - even as he shared his great burden of spirit, searching prayers, and multitudinous biblical studies for direction and counsel from the Spirit of God.

Using the recent example of Alan Chamber's own "conversion" as the former director of Exodus International (quoted immediately below), a ministry once committed to "helping homosexual men and women become straight" (to politely quote them), Tony likewise apologized for the deep hurt and misunderstanding he had committed over the many years of his ministry to the gay community. To use the years remaining to him to learn to accept and love all his brothers and sisters in Christ, and not just some, who are to be of one spirit in the unity of the body of Christ.

So when comparing Alan Chamber's own assessments of his ministries with Tony's we may note how difficult these very personal decisions were made - and are being made - by other progressives within the body of Christ. Especially when brought home by the personal identity crisis seen and experienced in the lives of sons and daughters, spouses and friends, and perhaps even one's self.

And when recognizing this reality within humanity, to be very careful not to commit the sins of bullying, gossip, evil, and abuse, within the body of the church. But to be wise in one's words, thoughts, and behavior. And if necessary, to read and understand the latest literature written in psychology, psychiatry, gender studies, and health documents, on homosexuality. That it is more than a derogatory name, or specist condition, but a living and breathing human being standing before God and the world seeking fellowship, care, reflection, and love.

What then can we say in the aftermath of heartache, tears, guilt, and denunciation? But to encourage to err on the side of love. To do no harm. To search out the Spirit of God and seek His peace between our gay brothers and sisters, loving each unconditionally whether we agree with this or not. To be make peace with our fellow gay Christians knowing of their differences but who are likewise actively seeking the same God of love and peace as their non-gay heterosexual brothers and sisters.

For Tony, as for many progressive Christians, this is the right thing to do, and must be encouraged, given the struggle of the traditional church to honor God and His Word in all things. And especially in a day-and-age where politics and brutality would push the hot buttons of our sinful beings advocating intolerance, injustice, and merciless judgment.

To be Christ-like is to chose the harder path. The path of misunderstanding. The path of social criticism. The path which chooses to stand with those suffering injustices from both the world and the unressurected church. To seek the Spirit of God in surrendering pride so as to embrace the loveless, the despised, the reviled, and the broken.

"What would Jesus do?" He would do what should be done. He would chose the narrower path. The hard path of hatred and be found where the self-righteous dare to tread but where the godly go fearlessly to the defense and aide of the afflicted. Peace.

R.E. Slater

November 16, 2015

Wikipedia - Biography of Tony Campolo 

For a full replay of the event we listened to at Mars Hill Church go to this link here.

We thought Tony and Peggy Campolo explained their position kindly, graciously, and

positively, for the questioning church seeking reconciliation to the gay community.

Click here for video link

* * * * * * * * * * *

Group apologizes to gay community,

shuts down 'cure' ministry

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/exodus-international-shutdown/

by Ed Payne, CNN

Updated 2:04 PM ET, Mon July 8, 2013

After 37 years, Exodus International, an organization whose mission was to "help" gay Christians become straight, is shutting down. But not before issuing an apology.

"We're not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change -- and they want to be heard," Tony Moore, an Exodus board member, said Wednesday.

The announcement comes less than a day after Exodus issued a wide-ranging apology to the gay community for "years of undue judgment by the organization and the Christian Church as a whole," a statement from the group says.

"Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we've ceased to be a living, breathing organism," said Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus. "For quite some time, we've been imprisoned in a worldview that's neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical."

Chambers, who has a wife and children and previously identified as gay, has acknowledged that he has "ongoing same-sex attractions."

"It is strange to be someone who has both been hurt by the Church's treatment of the LGBTQ community, and also to be someone who must apologize for being part of the very system of ignorance that perpetuated that hurt," Chambers said. "Today it is as if I've just woken up to a greater sense of how painful it is to be a sinner in the hands of an angry church."

New focus on a therapy

Exodus, which has promoted "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ," has de-emphasized conversion therapy in recent years as more of the counselors in its network have abandoned the practice.

The American Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as aimed at changing sexual orientation, but adopted a resolution in 2009 condemning the practice.

In it, the organization said "mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments."

But the same resolution also encouraged therapists to consider the religious beliefs of clients who say such beliefs are important to their views of homosexuality.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1975.

But yet with the apology, some things have not changed, according to Chambers.

"I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them," he said. "I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek."

A new ministry

With the closing of Exodus International, the board of directors voted to begin a new and separate ministry called Reduce Fear.

"This is a new season of ministry, to a new generation," Chambers said. "Our goals are to reduce fear, and come alongside churches to become safe, welcoming and mutually transforming communities."

It's meant to align with Jesus' New Testament message found in John 13:34 -- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

"From a Judeo-Christian perspective, gay, straight or otherwise, we're all prodigal sons and daughters," Chambers said. "Exodus International is the prodigal's older brother, trying to impose its will on God's promises, and make judgments on who's worthy of His Kingdom.

"God is calling us to be the Father -- to welcome everyone, to love unhindered."

* * * * * * * * * * *

Building Bridges of Understanding:

Tony and Peggy Campolo on Homosexuality

https://www.gaychristian.net/campolos.php

The Gay Christian Community

Dr. Tony Campolo, professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern College in suburban Philadelphia, is a well-known and highly respected voice in evangelical Christianity today. Dr. Campolo is an ordained Baptist minister, a popular speaker, author of numerous books, and founder of a ministry which reaches out to poor and hurting people worldwide in the name of Jesus.

Dr. Campolo's position on homosexuality is conservative: he believes that the Bible forbids all homosexual activity. However, he does not support attempts to "convert" gays into straights; rather, he advises gay people to pursue celibacy. His position is what some refer to as "Side B."

Peggy Campolo, Dr. Campolo's wife, takes a different view. She supports monogamous, same-sex relationships, and believes that marriages should be recognized in the church for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Peggy's position is what some refer to as "Side A."

Two committed Christians with two different views - yet they are able to share the same bed each night and respect each other's faith. How do they do it?

Tony and Peggy Campolo have spoken about their divergent opinions on homosexuality to churches and other Christian organizations. In 2003 they addressed a gathering of gay and supportive Christians on this topic. We've been given permission to make this entertaining and enlightening presentation available via the web, so just use the links below to download and listen to Tony and Peggy speak!

Part 1 - Tony (2.86 MB)

Part 2 - Peggy (2.35 MB)

Part 3 - Tony (2.08 MB)

Part 4 - Peggy (0.95 MB)

If you were impressed by this presentation, please consider visiting Tony Campolo's website to learn about supporting his ministry.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Evangelical Progressive Tony Campolo of Red Letter Christians

From Franklin Graham to Tony Campolo, some evangelical leaders are splitting over gay marriage

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/09/from-franklin-graham-to-tony-campolo-some-evangelical-leaders-are-dividing-over-gay-marriage/

by Sarah Pulliam Bailey

June 9, 2015

Ahead of a highly anticipated Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, many evangelicals are wrestling with the question of whether you can support the issue and remain an evangelical.

Evangelicals are America’s least likely religious group to support same-sex marriage, but a handful of leaders and churches within the movement have divided publicly on the issue in recent years. Some are wondering whether the shifts are a signal of what’s to come, whether evangelicalism could fracture or whether divided evangelicals can continue to happily live under the same umbrella.

Just in the past few days, Tony Campolo announced his support for same-sex couples’ inclusion in the church, while Franklin Graham announced that he would pull Billy Graham Evangelistic Association accounts from LGBT-friendly Wells Fargo bank. On top of that, retired editor of Christianity Today David Neff announced his support for gay marriage.

The three recent cases represent different approaches within an older generation of evangelicals, a group that tends to hold financial and theological influence among other religious leaders and institutions.

“This issue will eventually break relationships: personally, congregationally and institutionally,” said Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who called today a “crucial moment.” “There’s not going to be any way around it.”

White evangelicals remain deeply opposed to same-sex marriage. Just 27 percent favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry, while 70 percent oppose it, according to the most recent survey research from the Pew Research Center. The support among evangelicals has still jumped 13 percentage points since 2005.

A shift among older evangelical leaders

Campolo, a progressive evangelical leader who counseled President Bill Clinton through the Monica Lewinsky scandal and is a sociology professor at Eastern University in Pennsylvania, announced on his Web site Monday his support for same-sex couples in the church. Most evangelical churches tend to exclude same-sex couples from membership and within leadership.

“It has taken countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil to bring me to the place where I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church,” Campolo wrote in a statement.

After years of publicly taking the opposite stance of his wife, Campolo wrote that he changed his position by interacting with gay couples and studying the Bible. Ultimately, it was through his own marriage that he concluded that “marriage should always be primarily about spiritual growth” and that Christian gay couples can reflect that goal.

Campolo, who declined to be interviewed on the topic, announced in 2014 that the organization he founded nearly 40 years ago would close [sic, the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education]. At that time, he remained opposed to same-sex marriage. Campolo’s shift at 80 years old was not a surprise to some, as he stands on the progressive spectrum anyway.

“The less surprising it is, the more mainstream it’s become,” said Matthew Vines, an author and speaker working for evangelicals to become more LGBT inclusive. “Even if you knew it was coming, the fact that it came and it’s not surprising is itself a sign of changes that are happening.”

But Campolo joins a handful of Baby Boomer evangelical leaders who have shifted into supporting same-sex marriage. Just 21 percent of evangelicals who are above the age of 50 favor gays and lesbians marrying legally, compared to 37 percent of evangelicals between 18 and 49, according to Pew.

A domino effect?

After Campolo’s announcement, David Neff, retired editor in chief of Christianity Today who still writes a column for the magazine, indicated his similar support on his private Facebook account, drawing notice from some observers.

Neff confirmed his support for same-sex marriage in a statement. Neff says that he still holds a high view of biblical authority, but that he has learned to read the relevant biblical passages in a different way than he used to.

“I think the ethically responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnerships,” Neff said in a statement to CT. “I also believe that the church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the church should fortify traditional marriages.”

CT issued an editorial Tuesday, writing that “we’re saddened that David has come to this conclusion,” and “yes, another couple of prominent evangelicals have come out in support of gay sexual ethics.” The magazine that Billy Graham founded reaffirmed their position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“We at CT are sorry when fellow evangelicals modify their views to accord with the current secular thinking on this matter,” CT’s current editor Mark Galli wrote. “And we’ll continue to be sorry, because over the next many years, there will be other evangelicals who similarly reverse themselves on sexual ethics.”

While a small number of evangelicals appear to be shifting, including Sojourners’ Jim Wallis (who announced his support in 2013) and ethicist David Gushee (who announced his support in 2014), many evangelicals remain steadfast in their opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Evangelicals are like dominoes,” said Randall Balmer, a historian at Dartmouth University. “We’re seeing one more indication that evangelicals are moving on this issue rather dramatically, as is the rest of the culture.”

Holding the line on gay marriage

On June 5, Franklin Graham urged Christians to pull their financial support from LGBT-friendly companies like Tiffany’s, which advertises wedding bands for gay couples, and Wells Fargo bank, which has used a same-sex couple in its advertising. Graham said he will move accounts from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association out of Wells Fargo.

“This is one way we as Christians can speak out — we have the power of choice,” he posted on Facebook. “Let’s just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it will get their attention.”

Graham ended up putting the organization’s money into a bank that that has sponsored a Gay Pride festival fundraiser. Graham’s publicist did not return requests for comment on Tuesday.

One question will be is whether evangelicals who support same-sex marriage will continue to call themselves evangelical or whether they might find a home in more progressive mainline Protestant traditions. With no official doctrine or pope, evangelicals often debate simply who gets to call themselves an evangelical.

There is no universally shared definition of “evangelical,” but one of the ways evangelicals tend to define themselves is by their regard for the Bible as the ultimate authority. For a majority of evangelicals, the concept of LGBT inclusion collides with the authority and proper interpretation of the Bible. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of white evangelicals see “a lot” of conflict between homosexuality and religious beliefs, the highest religious group to see a conflict between the two.

Overall, the percentage of Americans who support gay marriage is much higher among those who see “a little conflict” between homosexuality and their faith is much higher than those who say they see “a lot” of conflict between the two (54 percent compared to 27 percent).

A small number of evangelical churches have announced their shift on same-sex relationships in church. For instance, a prominent evangelical Christian church in San Francisco announced in March it will no longer ask members who are LGBT to remain celibate. And earlier this year, GracePointe Church in Nashville, Tenn., and Seattle’s EastLake Community Church reversed their celibacy policies.

Evangelicals in the pews don’t always follow what national leaders say publicly. Many of them do not follow what many leaders have said on support for climate change or immigration reform, for instance.

The issue reared its head in 2014 when World Vision announced it would allow its employees to be in same-sex marriages. The policy was short-lived; the $1 billion relief group reversed it within 48 hours after supporters threatened to pull donations.

Mohler also noted the number of evangelical pastors and leaders who don’t speak about same-sex marriage from the pulpit or otherwise.

“Every one of us is going to have to give an answer in short order,” Mohler said. “There are good number of evangelicals who have been trying to fly under the radar. It isn’t going to work.”