Difficult Issues

July 21, 2015

Tony Campolo rocked the evangelical community six weeks ago when he declared that he could no longer remain opposed to gay marriage. As one of the pillars of the academic evangelical community, this announcement sent shock waves through the American Church. Evangelicals felt betrayed while Liberals rejoiced that he had finally seen the light.

I had the opportunity today to listen to him give a lecture at Chautauqua on the religious legitimization of violence. Although for the most part, I agree with him, I suspect he and I approach the interpretation of Scripture a bit differently. In the question-and-answer time following his presentation, the first question referred to his recent "conversion" rather than to his lecture. He explained the process that led to his change of mind, a story similar to many I've heard over the years. Basically, he decided that the Christian ethic of love required him to change his opinion. Though I disagree with some of his foundational assumptions and therefore his conclusions, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity and good intentions. I hope he and others who side with him would do the same for me.

The difference between Campolo and myself (besides the fact that he is well-known around the world) is that he apparently approaches Scripture first as a sociologist, and only secondarily as a theologian. He sees religion primarily as a social construct, which in part, it is. In the case of Judaism and Christianity, the Bible is therefore the record of the Jewish and early Christian understanding of God, an understanding which developed over the centuries. For Campolo, that understanding continues to develop, so that we now can essentially dismiss the early Biblical understanding of God as a Warrior in favor of God the Merciful Lover.

My view is somewhat more simplistic. I see Scripture not primarily as the record of human encounter with God, but as God's self-revelation, which denies me the freedom to simply dismiss those parts of the record that I find distasteful. And to be sure, there are parts of the Bible that are distasteful to me. The story may be apocryphal, but it is one that resonates with me: "It bothers me that there's so much of the Bible I don't understand," said the student to the teacher. "It's the parts of the Bible I DO understand that bother me," responded the teacher.

The LGBT community says that we who take a contrary position are not demonstrating love. If my beliefs are wrong, I suppose that could be true. But if by some wild chance I am correct in my beliefs, then my position is the most loving stance I can take. It is not love that stands silently by while someone engages in self-destructive behavior. I must admit however, that I don't know how to answer those whose personal stories of discrimination and rejection are so intense and poignant.

In the first five centuries of Christianity, the major theological issue was the nature of Jesus as the Christ. In our day, it is the nature of humanity. What it means to be a human being is the hot button issue. Redefining humanity is not merely a sociological, sexual, or psychological matter. It is theological, too. If we redefine what it means to be human, that redefinition will have repercussions on our theology of Christ and ultimately, of God. In his lecture today, Campolo spoke of how cultures values determine their worship. We tend to make God in our image. The problem is, we can see this phenomenon more easily when we look at those who are different than us than when we look in the mirror. Campolo described this phenomenon and then decried it. I suspect he fails to see it as clearly in his approach to the issues of our day as he does in other approaches.

Here's what keeps me from traveling down the same road as Campolo: It isn't those few texts in the Bible that overtly condemn homosexual behavior, those labelled "clobber texts" by the "Progressives" in Christianity. It's the materiality of our being. According to classical Christian theology, we are not merely spirits who happen to inhabit a body from which some day we will be free. That was one of the tenets of the early Christian heresy called Gnosticism. Hebrew and Christian theology exalts the significance of the body. The Creation narrative states that God breathed (literally "spirited") into the body he formed out of the dust, and the man became a living soul ("being"). In part, my body tells me who I am, which is why the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is so central to us. To say that who I am is unrelated to the physicality of my body is to deconstruct Jewish/Christian theology at its heart.

This has been a long article, and a bit different from my usual "only post the good" habit. But not entirely. I am grateful to live in a country where we can still have these discussions. I am grateful to have the opportunity to listen to someone of Campolo's stature, profiting from his education and experience. I am grateful for someone who challenges my understandings, making me think more deeply and clearly about life. Finally, I am grateful that both his and my salvation are not dependent on our positions on human sexuality or religious violence, but solely on what God in Christ did for us on the Cross, forgiving our sins and offering grace that we receive by faith alone.