Institute on Religion and Democracy Press Release
June 12, 2015
Contact: Jeff Walton office: 202-682-4131, cell: 202-413-5639, e-mail: jwalton@TheIRD.org
“Campolo the social justice crusader and sociologist, uninterested in engaging 2,000 years of continuous Christian teaching, relies on progressivism to make his case.”
-IRD President Mark Tooley
Washington, DC—A longtime social justice activist and a former Christianity Today editor have announced their affirmation of same sex couples, signaling a gradual movement among politically liberal Evangelicals towards a reappraisal of historic Christian views on marriage and sexual ethics.
“I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church,” declared a news release from Tony Campolo, a longtime popular speaker, Democratic Party activist and sociology professor at Eastern University in Philadelphia.
Responding to Campolo on Facebook was retired Christianity Today editor David Neff, who posted: “God bless Tony Campolo. He is acting in good faith and is, I think, on the right track.”
Neff told his former employer, Christianity Today: “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.”
A handful of small and medium-sized Evangelical congregations have made news in the past year for their affirmation of same-sex couples, including Gracepointe Church in Franklin, TN and New Heart Community Church of La Mirada, CA. The reappraisal of homosexual practices by these congregations has been controversial internally as well as externally, with several experiencing large departures of members and lay leaders.
IRD President Mark Tooley commented:
“Neff’s and Campolo’s full embrace of same-sex behavior indicates that theological and ethical orthodoxy may become increasingly difficult and rare for religionists on the political Left. As they quit the historic consensus on the Christian teaching now under most assault, they likely will be joined by a growing cadre of post-Evangelicals who prefer cultural accommodation to traditional Evangelical counter cultural witness.
“Campolo argued for same sex couples based more on personal experience than theology or empirical data. He dismisses theological arguments as a sort of nuisance, having heard ‘every kind of biblical argument against gay marriage.’
“Campolo the social justice crusader and sociologist, uninterested in engaging 2,000 years of continuous Christian teaching, relies on progressivism to make his case. The Church was wrong about women as teachers, wrong about divorce, wrong about slavery, but it turns out we all know better now, and so too on same sex marriage. Let the nuptials begin!
“Such liberal Evangelicals becoming liberal Protestants will, like the rest of liberal Protestantism, stagnate and decline, while orthodox Christianity will continue to grow globally.”
Comment by brookspj on June 12, 2015 at 1:26 pm
So how often can we expect a “We Hate Campolo” blog on this site now? Quarterly? Monthly? Weekly? Cause we know there’s nothing you hate more than an self-identifying evangelical who disagrees with you on something.
Comment by JeffreyRo55 on June 12, 2015 at 2:24 pm
No one said “hate.”
You lefties can’t argue, you just throw out the word “hate” and that’s that. Emotion but no thoughts at all.
Comment by Gary Whiteman on June 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm
It’s called “projection.” They hate, so they assume all people are like them. Progressives are emotionally 6th graders, they don’t “like” or “dislike” anything, everything is either “love it” or “hate it.” They never reach the adult stage of just accepting and tolerating, they see other human beings as either friends or mortal enemies. They are the gold standard for intolerance, why is why the talk about it so often.
Comment by brookspj on June 12, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Not true. I “dislike” sweet potato fries and skinny jeans. 🙂
Comment by brookspj on June 12, 2015 at 3:00 pm
I was being intentionally cheeky. I’ve just noticed there’s certain individuals this blog seems to write against more often (sometimes even when they haven’t really done anything recently and it feels like they’re just venting or have a severe case of writer’s block), but usually these individuals happen to be challenging the IRD’s very narrow definition of evangelical.
Comment by Mark Brooks on June 14, 2015 at 1:36 am
What definition is that? Perhaps you should research the definition and history of the word “evangelical” to understand why that word doesn’t really apply to Tony Campolo. Rejecting the authority of scripture isn’t something than an evangelical does.
Comment by brookspj on June 15, 2015 at 3:52 pm
I don’t think Campolo believes he has rejected scriptural authority. I think he just disagrees with you on what that authority is directing him to do. I know the history of behind the term and a prefer Martin Luther’s definition to the IRD’s.
Comment by Mark Brooks on June 16, 2015 at 1:12 am
Then you know neither Campolo nor Luther, and so think wrongly. Campolo has NEVER made scriptural authority primary, and his very public statement on this issue makes is clear that his motivations are personal and emotional, not scriptural. Perhaps you haven’t read his actual statement? It is on his website.
As for a supposed difference between Martin Luther and the IRD as to what an evangelical is, specifics please, not vague allegations. Because since Thomas More first used the word “evangelical” to describe William Tyndale in 1530, primacy of scriptural authority over all else has always defined what, in English, it means to be an evangelical.
Comment by Karmasue on June 14, 2015 at 9:40 pm
I thought the word “hate” pretty much nailed it, cheek or not. What word fits better when a blog is dedicated solely to the denigration and degradation of another person, religion, philosophy or church? I tried to insert another word but was unable to replace it with anything that seemed to fit.
Comment by Gary Whiteman on June 15, 2015 at 9:46 am
Lesb
Comment by Mark Brooks on June 15, 2015 at 10:16 am
An interesting admission that it exists only in your own mind.
Comment by Martin Davis on June 19, 2015 at 8:13 am
I beg to differ. We “lefties” are like anyone else. Some stand on emotion. Some are very thoughtful. Please quit stereotyping. If you wish to clump me as someone with “no thought at all,” well, that’s a convenient way of ignoring people who make you uncomfortable. The “facts,” which you like to lean on when convenient, are clear in my case. I spent 20 years as a historian of ancient history and history of the early Christian church. I read Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese. I’ve read the bible many times in various languages, and can assure you it isn’t as clear-cut as you’d like to believe. As for evangelicalism, you should go back and study a bit more of your own history. It’s neither as ancient or biblically based as you would like to believe. It’s roots are more closely tied to the rise of science (and the rejection thereof) than to any reading of the bible (Read George Marsden, an evangelical history at the University of Notre Dame who knows more about this than anyone. Martin Marty, my teacher, is also good on this.)
Comment by John Thomson on June 24, 2015 at 8:45 pm
It is clear on the subject of homosexuality, it’s just that you don’t like what it says. There are plenty of married men who would love to claim that “You shall not commit adultery” is “unclear.”
If you don’t like Christian morality, change religions, there are hundreds of them out there. Don’t like and claim that Christians have been interpreting Paul wrong for 2000 years. You can’t fit the Bible to conform to your own sexual perversions.
All the churches that embrace sodomy are dying. The numbers do not lie. It will be a very good thing when all those denominations shut down for good, they ceased to be Christian long ago, they just need a FOR SALE sign out front.
Comment by Martin Davis on June 12, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Why is “liberal” such a dirty word to you? Why is the notion that what is in the bible is not absolute, but relative, both you? The church fought science on the composition of the solar system, and later the universe, for millennia. Clearly, the bible was “wrong” about this–if that’s the way you choose to look at it. Or, you can accept that this is what people believed, then. We can no longer do so today. The same with witchcraft and stoning. The same as with the origins of the earth. You can continue to fight the age of the universe all you want, but the evidence is pretty compelling that it isn’t 6000 years old. So, too, the evidence that we evolved, and continue to evolve. The same is true of sexual orientation. The bible may not like it, but the fact is our understanding of human sexuality has changed quite a bit since then. Culturally, and scientifically. Fight it all you want, but you’re on the losing side of history, and the losing side of what is right.
I quit attending church a decade ago, and I do not miss the level of hate and arrogance that I continually see in writings such as yours. What do you fear? Who do you fear? Why must you build your life on destroying the lives of others?
That’s not the Jesus I know and read about. That’s not the Bible that I know and read, either.
And yes, I’m a liberal. And I am as American, and as full of faith, and as much a Christian as you.
Comment by Dan on June 12, 2015 at 2:15 pm
Just a quick question. Do you affirm the virgin birth of Christ, his death for our sins and subsequent bodily resurrection, and the bodily resurrection of all the dead to either eternal life or eternal punishment, and do you believe that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation? If not, then you are not a Christian.
BTW, to assume that the God who created the universe does not understand humanity’s supposedly newly revealed and nuanced view of sexuality makes no sense. He created them male and female and He certainly understands all about their sexual natures and has since the beginning.
Comment by Martin Davis on June 19, 2015 at 8:28 am
Regarding your narrow definition of a Christian (I suppose Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Roman Catholics, and a myriad of others aren’t “Christian”), no, I do not accept your statement. If it makes you feel better to categorize me as a non-Christian, go ahead.
But to your second point. You say “humanity’s supposedly newly revealed …” I said nothing about revealed. This didn’t come down from Mt. Sinai. It’s science. Revelation cannot be proven or disproven. It’s a position of faith. Science, by definition, is evolving. Information is changing all the time based on new science, new information, and better ways of measuring the universe. You may not recall, but medicine today is nothing like it was prior to the discovery of DNA in the early 60s. DNA wasn’t “revealed,” it was an advancement. God has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It’s worth adding that Christians like yourself similarly criticized Galileo, Copernicus, Franklin, Einstein, the list goes on and on.
I don’t begrudge you or anyone else your faith. You’re entitled to it. But please, quit accusing those you disagree with of being ignorant, narrow-minded, non-Christian, and stupid. I can assure you, we’re not.
Oh–and as one who likes to quote the bible. You’re awful quick to make a judgment about my faith. Have you forgotten the biblical admonition, “judge not …” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-3&version=KJV
Or how about this one? I Corinthians 13: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a
noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and
understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so
as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away
all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love,
I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast;
it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way;
The number one reason people are leaving churches is not a failing belief or faith in god, but rather the arrogance and judgmental character of so many churches. Which leads to hypocrisy and worse.
Believe as you will. But follow Paul’s good advice. If you have not love …
Comment by Dan on June 19, 2015 at 10:16 am
I did not take a “narrow” definition. I took the classical definition of someone who believes the 3 classical creeds – Apostles, Nicene, and Athanaisian. If one does not fully subscribe to these creeds, then they are not a Christian. I am not criticizing anyone for not being Christian, I am just making the point that calling oneself a Christian implies affirmation of a specific set of beliefs. My prayers, my money, and my efforts go to making sure that as many as possible hear the Good News, and that God’s Holy Spirit will inspire them to receive eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. There are many learned people who are not Christian; that’s O.K. Not being a Christian does not imply a lesser state of knowledge or sophistication. It just means one is not a Christian by the criteria used for the past two millenia. My difficulty is with people who are not Christians calling themselves Christians. Mormons come to mind in this regard.
As for criticizing science, that is a false argument. I happen to hold university degrees in Chemistry and Mathematics, so I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of scientific information. Using science to prove or disprove the revelations of God is like trying to read the Bible as a science textbook. It doesn’t work. I will, however, raise the “first cause” argument to which many scientist subscribe; i.e., when you roll things backward to the beginning, it’s hard to say “and then our universe just appeared.”
Finally, I am not rendering any judgment that Jesus, Paul and other apostles have not already rendered. Their judgment was rather strict concerning so called “false teachers” who led their flocks astray with strange and erroneous doctrine. Of course God is love, but that does not make love God.
Comment by John Thomson on June 24, 2015 at 8:42 pm
A Tony Jones fan.
Right from the script.
Comment by Chris on June 14, 2015 at 11:45 am
You claim to know the Jesus in the Bible, but apparently you’re not familiar with the one episode where he came face to face with a sexual sinner, and his words on that occasion were “Go and sin no more” (Jn 8:11). Jesus did not lower the sexual standards of the Jews, he raised the bar higher, telling people not just to avoid sexual sin but not to even contemplate it (Matt 5:28). The Jesus who condones sexual sin does not exist, except as a fictional being in the minds of people living sinful lives. He preached repentance, and prostitutes responded to his message. Paul wrote that there were ex-homosexuals in the church at Corinth. If you don’t love God enough to live a decent life, your religion is a sham.
Comment by MarcoPolo on June 16, 2015 at 8:58 am
Why is it that so many who are opposed to same-sex marriage play the SEX card?
Marriage is more than sex! it is something that our LGBT brothers and sisters deserve to share in. All of my Gay and Lesbian friends have been together for decades, and none fall into any of the categories that you claim as prurient or disgusting.
In light of the numbers citing church attrition, perhaps the balance will be shown in the growth of LGBT congregations that don’t denounce the credibility of each parishioner?
The general fear of “Traditional” denominations losing their orthodox patrons, is an indication of that shift, and likely schism. Like mitosis, these things happen!
Comment by Martin Davis on June 19, 2015 at 7:59 am
Thank you!
Comment by jjgrndisland on June 24, 2015 at 9:01 pm
There is no “growth of LBGT congregations,” they don’t grow, they shrink.
Comment by MarcoPolo on June 24, 2015 at 10:25 pm
I’ll have to check that out, and get back to ya!
Comment by Martin Davis on June 19, 2015 at 8:04 am
And a lot has changed since the time of Paul. Homosexuality can no more be “fixed” than can your skin color. It’s simply who you are. (And by the way, for much of human history, people used the bible to defend slavery–which is actually pretty easy to do, since no where does the bible condemn it.) It’s not a sin. I’ll stand on that. You may well disagree, and that’s fine, but as society as a whole has become more accepting and more willing to concede that homosexuality is not a sin, but who god has made these individuals to be, you are going to find yourself, and your religious beliefs, increasingly marginalized. That’s fine, too.
Comment by the_enemy_hates_clarity on June 12, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Tony Campolo is a great speaker, and he has a heart for people. However, he is unable to mount a defense of homosexuality based solely on the Bible. Nor, for that matter, is anyone else.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by Jason P Taggart on June 12, 2015 at 2:09 pm
Sorry to see this happen. He touched many people by his writings, too bad he turns his back on the faith he helped propagate.
Comment by up2herewithyall on June 12, 2015 at 4:23 pm
Don’t rule out the possibility of blackmail. If Campolo ever had some dalliances with men, someone is bound to know about it.
Comment by ken on June 12, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Does Campolo know, or care, that the progressive religions that embrace homosexuality are all in decline? The numbers do not lie.
Here is some hard data on the decline of liberal (i.e., gay-friendly) denominations, and the growth of Christian denominations, contrasting membership figures for 1960 and 2009. The data for 1960 and 2009 are from the Association of Religion Data Archives
http://www.arda.com
Assemblies of God (very conservative)
1960: 508,000
2009: 2,914,000
United Pentecostal (very conservative)
1960: 175,000
2009: 646,000
Church of God (ultra conservative)
1960: 170,000
2009: 1,076,000
Presbyterian Church in America (broke away from the liberal Presbys)
1973: 41,322
2009: 341,210
Evangelical Free Church
1960: 31,543
2008: 356,000
Church of the Nazarene
1960: 307,000
2009: 645,000
Christian and Missionary Alliance
1960: 59,000
2009: 432,000
Mormons (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
1960: 1,486,000
2009: 6,058,000
Seventh-Day Adventists (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
1960: 317,000
2009: 1,043,000
By contrast, the liberal religion:
Episcopalians
1960: 3.2 million (1.8% of US population)
2012: 1.8 million (0.66%)
United Church of Christ
1960: 2,056,000
2012: 998,080,000
More than half its members in 50 years.
United Methodist
1960: 11,026,000
2009: 7,774,000
Presbyterian Church USA
1983 (year of their merger): 3.1 million
2012: 1.8 million
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
1987 (year of their merger): 5.2 million
2013: 3.9 million
Disciples of Christ
1960: 1.8 million
2009: 658,000
Embrace sexual sin and you not only lose in God’s eyes, but demographically as well. Religions that celebrate sexual sin are dying.
Comment by Karmasue on June 14, 2015 at 9:43 pm
Have you checked the demographics from 2009 to 2015?
Comment by jjgrndisland on June 15, 2015 at 10:59 am
Did the left-wing churches double in size during that period? LOL
Comment by kirk on June 15, 2015 at 9:43 am
“Be not conformed to this world.” – Paul the apostle
“Be conformed to this world.” – Tony the apostate
Who gave Campolo the authority to edit the New Testament? I think we can rule out God.
Comment by Mark Bell on June 17, 2015 at 9:59 am
Great, on Judgment Day the “gay couples” will face Almighty God and say “Tony Campolo and David Neff told us that sexual sin was just fine with You.” I think we all know what the response will be.