In a recent posting, Tony Campolo effuses about the inclusive ministry of Jesus. Jesus, he writes, “was always reaching out to the marginalized.”
Therefore, he concludes, evangelicals need to affirm homosexuals and support the political effort to secure for gays and lesbians “all the same rights that the heterosexual community enjoys.”
“To reach out to the LGBT communities and join them in their cry for justice, and to champion their efforts for inclusion in our churches,” Campolo writes,” is to simply imitate Christ.”
Put simply, a true Christian must support the push for gay marriage.
Sigh. There are arguments for why traditional views of sexual morality should be rejected — utilitarian arguments, phenomenological arguments, arguments from cultural progress, and so forth. But decades ago I discovered that the theological arguments in favor of a complete reversal of Christian condemnations of homosexual acts involve eviscerating the Christian faith.
Consider this: Unbelievers have been marginalized by the Church. But wait, Jesus reaches out to the marginalized. Therefore, so should we, not to transform them, but to affirm them in their unbelief. To do so will require some changes, not the least of which is any requirement of belief for membership in the church.
You might think this is absurd, but beginning in the 1990s, the argument for inclusion precipitated a movement among Episcopal Church progressives to reject the requirement of baptism for participation in the Eucharist. After all, such a requirement “excludes,” while Jesus’ love “includes.”
Closely related are invidious contrasts between Jewish “legalism” and Jesus’ universal embrace, contrasts Campolo hints at in his posting. By this way of thinking, any principle, any rule, any judgment (or at least the ones a progressive does not like) are categorized as Pharisaical. End game: authoritative doctrine, even the canon of scripture, must be condemned as “legalistic.”
Again, it sounds absurd, but I’ve seen the reductio ad absurdum realized in mainline Protestantism.
The error that Campolo makes is characteristic of modern Protestant theology. It involves a move toward conceptual formalism. In 1950, Gerhard Ebling wrote an influential essay about the doctrine of justification, arguing that it’s essential meaning is “critique.” The doctrine of justification smashes every worldly reality upon which we might rely, forcing us to rely on God alone. End result: the historical reality of Christianity must be relativized (which “critique” does) so that the “truth” of Christianity can be finally realized.
Paul Tillich made a similar argument, labeling the imperative of unlimited critique the Protestant Principle. The Death of God theologians followed a similar path. All authoritative Christian norms and practices must be set aside so that the freedom of the Spirit can reign—antinomianism is the true fulfillment of the Gospel.
Campolo is following in this hyper-modern, antinomian Protestant tradition. My advice to Evangelicals: caveat emptor.
October 7th, 2010 | 12:40 pm
Historically, homosexuality has been most predominant among the wealthier classes. The myth that those who practice it are “marginalized” is a clever ploy which exploits the naivete of the “justice and inclusiveness” crowd. The “marginalized” persons Jesus hung out with were enslaved by some of the less respectable sins (prostitution, adultery, swindling, etc.). The “gay rights” crowd of today has much more in common with the self-righteous Pharisee (“God, I thank you that I am not like other men”) than with the penitent tax collector (“God, be merciful to me, a sinner”). The first step toward liberation is to recognize that from which you need to be liberated. If you cannot see yourself as enslaved by sin, you are in no position to lecture anyone else about “justice” and “inclusion.” As Jesus would say, “First, take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
October 7th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
What if we were to try say-
“To reach out to the racist communities and join them in their cry for justice, and to champion their efforts for inclusion in our churches,” Campolo writes,” is to simply imitate Christ.”
Suddenly (but alas, momentarily) antinomianism would loose its appeal.
P.S.
“In 1950, Gerhard Ebling wrote an influential essay about the doctrine of justification, arguing that it’s essential meaning is “critique.” The doctrine of justification smashes every worldly reality upon which we might rely, forcing us to rely on God alone. End result: the historical reality of Christianity must be relativized (which “critique” does) so that the “truth” of Christianity can be finally realized.”
Dr. Reno, I don’t quite get this part. Could you please elaborate, or perhaps direct us to a particular link?
October 7th, 2010 | 1:56 pm
It would seem that Campolo’s thinking on this has changed since I first encountered his writings. About 20 years ago my United Methodist Sunday school class used a book of his called “20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch.’ In the chapter on homosexuality and the church, if I remember correctly, he argued for acceptance of homosexuals as persons, but condemned homosexual practices. I believe his recommendation to homosexual persons was that they should be celibate. He certainly didn’t seem to be in favor of extending marriage to homosexuals at that time. If his thinking has changed, I would be interested in knowing how he arrived at his current position.
October 7th, 2010 | 2:24 pm
What all the “inclusiveness” talk ignores is that Jesus never ever confirmed people in their sins. Jesus always forgave; but his forgiveness was and is always conditional upon genuine repentence and a rejection of sin. In other words, all talk of Jesus’s “unconditional love” is completely bogus and actually harmful. It is indeed remarkable that many intelligent people don’t see the obvious – but not seeing the obvious is part of the darkening of the intellect brought about by sin itself.
October 7th, 2010 | 2:38 pm
In response to Pastor Spomer, the place to find the Ebeling essay is the first chapter of his book, Word and Faith. The best analysis of the general phenomenon is an essay by David Yeago: “Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and Reformation Theology: Reflections on the Cost of a Construal.” Pro Ecclesia 2 (1993): 37–49.
October 7th, 2010 | 3:33 pm
“Campolo is following in this hyper-modern, antinomian Protestant tradition. My advice to Evangelicals: caveat emptor.”
There are numerous Conservative Protestants who detest and reject the hyper-modern, antinomian Liberal Protestant mainline tradition and practice and teaching.
Dr. Machen has exposed Theological Liberalism a long time ago.
October 7th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
I know Tony Campolo. I studied with him in college. You have misrepresented his position. Tony believes homosexual acts are sinful. He is merely taking the church to task for embracing the same hateful behavior towards gays that many in the dominant culture display. He also does believes that stable unions are preferable to promiscuity.
His position is very interesting. He thinks the state should ONLY sanction civil unions (for gays or straights), while the church perform marriages. He believes conflating the two leads to problems.
You ought to do your homework before writing a whole commentary on something.
Check this out:
October 7th, 2010 | 4:11 pm
Truth Unites . . . and Divides: I believe Dr. Reno would not dispute your observation. His statement should be read as saying that there is a uniquely “hyper-modern, antinomian Protestant tradition” on which Campolo is drawing for his conceptualization of the situation, not that the Protestant Tradition (rather ironic, come to think of it), is necessarily “hyper-modern [and] antinomian.”
Gary: is “justice” not, as Justinian observed, giving to each his (or her) due? And how can one have a claim to something unless it is based on what is true and right, i.e., what is morally the case about the world? And if homosexuality is immoral, not in accord with the true, good, and the beautiful, then how can justice demand some benefit be given by the state, which, at bottom, is you and I? What moral status or duty is created by the fact of the homesexual relationship that I ought to dignify and support?
Campolo may believe that it would make the homosexuals happy, wouldn’t hurt the rest of us much, and would make sense in view of the prevailing sensibilities of the chattering classes. But that doesn’t mean that “justice” demands that we support the homosexuals claim to state benefits. Or to “inclusion” in our churches, if by that he means “full acceptance of opened and unrepentant sin.”
October 7th, 2010 | 5:01 pm
In response to Gary NYC I can only quote Campolo’s posting:
“I often hear my fellow Evangelical brothers and sisters talk about loving gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons in the name of Christ, but then they turn around and stand opposed to these oppressed brothers and sisters enjoying all the same rights that the heterosexual community enjoys. It is obvious to any thinking person that you cannot tell people that you love them if you do not stand up for justice on their behalf.”
“Same rights that the heterosexual community enjoys” — last I checked this was precisely Judge Walker’s conclusion when he ruled that marriage must by open to gays and lesbians.
October 7th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
One of the things that always strikes me about the “oppressed minority/justice” argument is that by nearly all the legal markers that have been used to measure discrimination in the past (wages, access to employment, memberships in unions, clubs, and fraternal societies, access to equal housing and education, etc.) gays tend to do rather better than average on average. So what we are being urged/shamed into fighting for as “justice loving” Christians is essentially, a single issue: gay marriage. One wishes that Tony C. felt the same sense of moral urgency about abortion, or slavery, or the sexual exploitation of children…
October 7th, 2010 | 7:10 pm
It distresses me to see Christians drawing a line between “Christian marriage” and “civil unions.” What kind of doctrine of creation is represented in such lines? Believers desire and should live by a higher standard than the world, and marriage is a powerful and unique sacrament of the kingdom of God, but the idea that “marriage” only belongs to the church is just wrong.
If there is a “just” “public” interest in civil unions, there is one for just about any relationship someone might want. If marriage isn’t special, why not plural relationships? Why not non-sexual but permanent relationships? Will a state interest disappear if couple can no longer have sexual relations?
Talking to a retired major general yesterday, the army fully expects people who do not experience same-sex attraction to move in with same sex individuals, say they are “gay”, so they can get all the benefits of “marriage.” Its not like the government has a right to find out what they do in their bedroom.
Marriage is special and unique. It is not simply a private relationship. Whatever other relationships people may choose, they can share benefits, get visitation rights in hospital, do inheritances, etc…contractually. Two people can do this whether they are sexual partners or communities or whatever. Anyone has that right.
October 7th, 2010 | 7:58 pm
Alas, that lack of hair on his head Tony has mentioned so often has finally addled his cognitive and logical reasoning capabilities. His next step will probably taking Yoga classes in the meeting room of his retirement home.
October 7th, 2010 | 8:00 pm
the article is flawed for two reasons. 1. in reaching out to homosexuals, as Campolo describes it, he actually is being derogatory towards them, not that he means to be, but the word choice so indicates. 2. the logic he uses self-cannibalizes his starting point.
reno points out the second, gary nyc reiterates the first.
October 7th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
I take exception to one of the comments, above, which states that all talk of Jesus’ unconditional love is bogus and harmful. Talk of Jesus’ unconditional love is not bogus, it is truthful–as long as it is true agape love which is being referred to.
The talk of unconditional love becomes harmful when the word “love” acquires incorrect meanings. I prefer C.S. Lewis’ discussion of this. God loves us perfectly, which includes totally and unconditionally. Because he loves us, he hates sin, which is harmful to us. Therefore, in love Christ rejects sin. It is not love at all to accept or affirm the sin of the beloved, even when the beloved wishes his sin to be loved along with himself.
October 7th, 2010 | 9:47 pm
What moral status or duty is created by the fact of the homesexual relationship that I ought to dignify and support?
Without denying the Scriptural prohibitions of sexuality, don’t all committed loving relationships have a moral status? Doesn’t the love there deserve respect, regardless of what we think of the acting out of it sexually? And isn’t the battle over how homosexuality is viewed pretty much lost by now? If we can’t persuade gays to remain celibate or at least sexually chaste, shouldn’t we affirm the healthy part of their relationship? After all, love is from God.
October 7th, 2010 | 10:17 pm
A quick question, specifically directed at Mr. DeVet:
Where (OT or NT) does the Bible says that either God or Jesus loves “unconditionally”?
The God of the Israelites was most emphatically a passionate God, implying that if the Israelites betrayed the relationship, then the anger of the jealous God would come down on them.
John 3: 16 does say, “for God so loved the world,……
that whosoever believes on him.” That sounds conditional to me. Jesus had nasty things to say about any number of people, groups,…and don’t forget that tree he cursed. Unconditional?
Book, chapter, verse, please.
October 7th, 2010 | 11:00 pm
SteveW,
Being a good Egalitarian, Campolo seems to have followed his wife’s lead on this.
Kamilla
October 8th, 2010 | 12:00 am
Without denying the Scriptural prohibitions of sexuality, don’t all committed loving relationships have a moral status?
They aren’t having their love for each other sanctioned by the union; they are having their illicit sexual acts.
Anyway, what is a “commited loving relationship”?
October 8th, 2010 | 1:00 am
“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” John 10:18a
I’d say that is pretty “unconditional” dwl. No, the actual word “unconditional” is not in the scriptures, but then neither is “trinity” or do we need to go into that one too? It is simply one of the ways that agape has commonly been understood – a love which serves of its own accord, its own (God’s) authority, not compelled or conditioned by circumstances. “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us” God does what he does in Christ Jesus because of who He is, not because of what we do. Grace. Cut your brother some slack. Chapter and verse – sheesh!
As for Mr. Campolo, he has always been one to attempt to walk a fine line. Yet, in my experience, he is not a very delicate or nuanced writer, but apparently a dynamic speaker. It may be that he is suggesting some kind of “two kingdom” approach ala Luther or Augustine, and asking that we seek a compromise for the sake of peace, I’m not sure. Perhaps he has some personal stake, which we might think ought not color a bedrock conviction about sin, but then again every stripe of Christian faith has “degrees of seriousness” for every particular offense it seems to me. This one has us going right now because of the assault on marriage, and consequently, the structure of the family.
I say that because it seems that as the fury intensifies on the one side to defend the status quo (I include myself) the other side feels the same intensity to defend those it feels are being excluded, or whatever. In either case, for the Christians in the debate, the sin itself is either being reified or softened, if that is the way to put it. Whatever weapons are at hand are employed, the stakes get higher, and the war wages on. Christianity as a whole just keeps losing as far as I can see, at least as a coherent cultural force. But maybe that’s okay.
While we’re all concerned over homosexuality, as am I, a recent story about the celebrity gays out to save our kids from suicide ought to get our attention. If kids are finding a church that only shakes a finger at them and go off to kill themselves, what then? Have we tied a stone around their neck as much as the celebrity gays that would entice them into sin?
James Gibson’s observation above is correct. This is a disease of the upper classes. Well, welcome to prosperity and all its attendant vice. I’m grateful for this land and that I can sit here and do this, but there are so many things about wealth we hadn’t bargained for. I’m just sayin’. Yes, being gay is hardly gritty MLK “peace and justice” stuff, but that is the PR working for them. As with anything in a market economy, one has to “design” a message. It is now part of the gay brand.
Setting my sarcasm aside – As St. Paul teaches us, if the greatest of these is love, then to what degree can we offer our confused children, which is my concern, a model of love that serves unconditionally in this circumstance? Perhaps if we need an image of what an unconditional loving servanthood looks like we need only check Phil 2:5-11. How does this translate to the experience of homosexuality as it seeks “cultural legitimacy?” How do we empty ourselves in loving service to that?
The whole thing is bitter to me, but I believe we are somehow called to serve here, to get beneath it as it were, instead of the haughty character I hear that seems to come from a place of fear, fear that we are losing ground to this distortion of God’s good creation. I suffer from it too. But if that is the case, then we are also losing faith in the power that comes when we are weak. I wish it were not so that Christians are becoming ever weaker on this issue with no end in site. Perhaps it is a stretch, but it just may be some grand paradox of cruciform glory to find a way to serve this situation just as Christ has given himself for us.
I still think there is a great deal of suffering ahead for gay people even when they attain all the legitimacy they are after. I really think that ship has sailed as a matter of fact. But because I believe it is not what God intended, because it is sin, that brokenness will only lead to pain that cannot be resolved or reconciled. No amount of cultural acceptance will be able to mask it. We must be prepared, like it or not, to love them. The “condition” of that love is Christ, not their repentance or acceptance of religion – Jesus Christ and his cross.
So I will end by saying that “we love because He first loved us.” Conditional love, ours and unconditional, God’s. Get ready to love gay people.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:55 am
For what it is worth, Gerhard Ebeling has been unnecessarily pilloried here. David Yeago’s article, while (rightly) critical of Tillich and Bultmann, paints with a too-wide brush those who, like Ebeling, were–not unlike those at First Things–engaging with the demands of modern scholarship AND attempting to retain allegiance to the “faith once delivered.” Whatever Ebeling would have said to Compolo aside, his approach to the question would have pointed the critical aspect of the Doctrine of Justification at his spurious reasoning re: Inclusivity as well. I would suggest re-reading that essay along with the rest of his work–perhaps beginning with “the Word of God in Tradition,” or even his little book on Luther, and you will see that while he may have more “Protestant” convictions regarding authority than those in the RCC, his understanding does not inexorably lead to the vacuous sentimentality of much that passes for contemporary Protestantism.
October 8th, 2010 | 4:27 am
I would suggest re-reading that essay along with the rest of his work … .
Will do, as soon as I get a spare month.
October 8th, 2010 | 8:01 am
They aren’t having their love for each other sanctioned by the union; they are having their illicit sexual acts.
Sez who? Do heterosexual couples marry so they can have sex, or is sex just one way in which they express their love for each other? Why would gays be any different?
Anyway, what is a “committed loving relationship”?
It’s the kind that makes you want to marry.
October 8th, 2010 | 10:02 am
Theron: “…the idea that “marriage” only belongs to the church is just wrong.”
As a matter of fact, by virtue of its being a sacrament–one of seven–”marriage” does belong to the church. Words matter. You can’t re-define the word “murder”, for example, without creating a moral disaster and societal havoc. Why should it be any different for the word “marriage”? Homosexuals can’t have marriage, but they are legally entitled to civil unions.
The issue here is really that of homosexuals wanting equal rights under the law, which is, rightly, guaranteed to all in the United States. We’ve made accomodations for non-Christian heterosexual civil unions, and now homosexuals believe they should be similarly indulged. From a legal point of view, I understand.
Unfortunately, they also believe that their civil unions should be viewed with the same sanctity we reserve for marriages performed sacramentally–that they should be able to be “married” in a church or, at least, enjoy a relationship that contains the same amount of social respectability and legitimacy.
Uh, no. My own parents were joined in a civil union. They loved each other and were married for more than 50 years, but they did not live the kind of life together that would have been enjoined on them by having it performed sacramentally. They didn’t make the same promises to God, to each other, and to their fellow man. Marriage in a church is substantially more than an opportunity to have a storybook wedding. (Yeah, I know many heterosexuals have faithlessly held their weddings in a church, but hypocrisy is no reason to further debase a Christian sacrament.)
The danger in allowing gays to “marry”, as opposed to having access to “civil unions” lies in the debasement and abandonment of the original, cherished, theology of a sacrament of the church. To my mind, it is an act of vandalism.
October 8th, 2010 | 11:44 am
To http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/10/07/the-antinomian-gospel/#comment-26044
John 10:18 has nothing to do with question of God’s “unconditional love” for humanity. The question in 18a is whether Jesus is giving up his life of his own accord, or of another. Is he being coerced by some power outside himself? The answer is no: he gives up his life voluntarily.
To the general question: “Steve” wants me to “cut some slack”. Does he mean he wants me to engage in sloppy theology? Here, at what is probably the most theologically sophisticated site on the internet? With all due respect, no.
Given the lack of any other scriptural texts or theological analysis in response to my query, I’ll state my position non-dialectically:
Neither scripture nor classical Christianity teaches that God loves humanity, or individual humans, unconditionally.
Yhwh’s love for the Israelites is passional, and therefore conditional. I recognize that the covenant is an eternal covenant, yet the blessings of the covenant had certain conditions. Violation of those conditions brought divine wrath. God in his mercy for his chosen people restrain the full measure of his wrath (see e.g., Ezra 9:13).
In the New Testament, the standard remains conditional: at the final judgment “God will give to each person according to what he has done. … …it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous (Romans 2:6, 13b NIV).”
The central problem of Romans then becomes: given that Torah obedience remains the standard for eschatological justification, and given that it is kept by neither Gentile (Romans 1:18ff.) nor Jew (3:1-20), how can anyone be righteous? The righteousness that “comes though faith Jesus Christ to all who believe (Rom 3:22).”
That’s conditional.
I leave aside the possibility (very real in my judgment) of people possessing an implicit faith in a Jesus Christ that they might not have conscious knowledge of or commitment to. Still, at the very root of Christian teaching is conditionality in God’s plan for humanity.
This is even true for a Calvinist who may react to my Arminian formulation: an atonement that is operative only for those predestined for salvation is conditional on God’s sovereign, eternal decree.
Can a homosexual get to heaven? That’s God’s call. Can a Stalin get to heaven? I can theologically imagine a God who takes a person with utter depravity–wickedness only limited by our finitude–and through long ages, only deemed finite because they eventually end, purge and purify the wickedness from that person, so that God can in the eternity of his final decree, truly and justly declare him just.
But…..
the church remains bound by Scripture and Tradition. Effeminate men (malakoi) and those who bed another male (arsenokoites) will not get to the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10)
There is no justification by grace through faith without sin. God does not need to forgive us if there is no eternal wrath against sin. If we remove judgment against wicknessness, the whole of the Christian proclamation vanishes into thin air.
October 8th, 2010 | 1:17 pm
Dear Mr. DeVet. I stand corrected. Thank you!
October 8th, 2010 | 1:46 pm
Rusty, why don’t you debate Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, your colleagues at Creighton, on antinomianism? The antinomianism in “The Sexual Person?”
I am glad for the attention of Omaha’s previous and current archbishops to this matter, and to the UCCSB. But why is it no faculty member on The Hilltop will publicly call a BS on these guys?
October 8th, 2010 | 2:24 pm
I remember hearing Tony Campolo speak in 1987. He exorted the crowd to, effectively, embrace socialism and anticipated us as responding, “But Tony, that’s radical!!” His response, “When did the Gospel ever cease being ‘radical’!!!” I guess the only thing Tony has done in the past 13 years is turn up the volume.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:41 pm
Mark, I wouldn’t say Salzmann and Lawler are antinomian. They try to modify the casuistical tradition of Catholic moral analysis, but they do so by neglecting or denying the our embodiment matters. Therefore, I’d call the approach Gnostic rather than antinomian.
Also, I’d say the Salzmann/Lawler book represents a weakness of Catholic moral theology, which tends toward conceptual refinements at many removes from the bible. This insulation from the bible serves them well, for the bible is saturated with male/female nuptial imagery.
October 11th, 2010 | 9:03 pm
Fred,
I didn’t say marriage isn’t a sacrament or that it doesn’t belong to the church. Indeed marriage is a sacrament and as one of the seven, belongs to the church.
I said that marriage doesn’t *only* belong to the church the way Eucharist or Baptism do. And marriage is, in my opinion, a relationship that is pre-political, that is a relationship established by God in creation, and is the bedrock of a just society. As the foundation of a just society, the state has an interest in it.
If we accept your reasoning, what will happen is the estate of marriage will disappear from public life and will be consigned to church people. If things are to be “fair,” marriage will be replaced by civil unions for all.
I gave the example of the fraud that rank and file soldiers will commit to illustrate that the very concept of a “civil union” is utter chaos. I’ll give another example here from it effect on children. A child in a homosexual union cannot be the fruit of the union. In some fundamental way, a third party is involved. The union must have a third party in order to reproduce. So the union isn’t a union of two parties, but more. And as I said before, if civil unions are a “right,” why is that right only available to homosexuals? Why not plural relationships of varying assortments?
So, I’ll make my point again. There is no state interest in a “civil union” and there is no “right” to a civil union. People have the right to dispose of their property with one, two, three, or twenty people. People have the right to be visited by whomever they want in a hospital. People have a right to privacy in their bedrooms. People have a right to seek healthcare or any other form of payment for services rendered, so that too can be set up however people want. Those relationships can include who the individuals find sexually attractive or not. But they are all case by case, contract by contract–not a default union .
October 13th, 2010 | 9:55 pm
In response to dwl: God’s love for all of humanity is a given based on God’s character and in order for God through Christ to die for and offer atonement to all people. See 1Timothy 2:3,4 where Paul tells us that God our Saviour desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. There seems to be a confusion between universal love and universal salvation. We can respond to God’s love or not. Some will believe and be saved; some will not.
The ones who believe will be declared righteous. I do not see a conflict in the idea that God love us all unconditionally, but only those who believe will be counted as righteous – which is conditional salvation. I think of the scene when Jesus weeps over Jerusalem. Had he not loved his people, even those who in the end would reject him absolutely, would he have had reason to weep?
Your statement, “I leave aside the possibility (very real in my judgment) of people possessing an implicit faith in Jesus Christ that they may not have conscious knowledge of or committment to” is also very real in my own judgment.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact