# Tony Campolo-Democrat Christians (youtube)



## shackleton (Feb 11, 2008)

Tony Campolo interview, Christians can be democrats, social gospel is key, 

[video=youtube;m584z5aE4Uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m584z5aE4Uc[/video]

Being gay and in a commited relationship is fine.

Tony Campolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## govols (Feb 11, 2008)




----------



## Poimen (Feb 11, 2008)

TC: "I think to make Jesus either a Republican or a Democrat, to tie Jesus up with a political party, is blasphemy, its wrong, its distorting..."

Amen to that. 

"if you ignore what the Bible is really all about: helping poor and oppressed people you've missed the message of Jesus"

Not so good. 

He also did not fully quote Jesus. Jesus said the weightier matters of the law are mercy AND justice and faith. (Matthew 23:23)

And Jesus did not give us a new commandment when he rejected the oral tradition of the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:38-39) He upheld the law; he fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17) otherwise you and I are dead. 

And Jesus was against the religious establishment of the day but not only because of their hypocrisy and dead works but because of their lack of faith, which also included the poor and the common man (John 6:64).

In short, a somewhat decent political message and a terrible theological presentation.


----------



## shackleton (Feb 11, 2008)

He was on the "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central last night where he basically said the same thing but added that homosexuals should not get married but he is not going to tell them how they should live, he is not going to violate their rights. (Icould not find that one, it must not have been posted yet)


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 11, 2008)

Tony is an engaging guy to talk to about stuff. Over the years he has spoken to a number of groups I was in. He is the darling of my former denomination (ABC). They loved him and his "red letter Christians" (knock off all of the controversial Paul stuff and just stick to what Jesus said about justice and poverty and the like. Afterall, Jesus never talked about hommosexuality). When my judicatory was threatening to sever its ties with the national body (which we finally did), they dragged Tony in to do a video appeal to all of the conservatives begging us to stay with the denomination for the sake of John 17 unity concerns. He threw his mantle of credibility (such as it was by then) around the current head of the ABC and almost cried, he was so passionate.

Tony's wife is a strong advocate for gay causes within the ABCUSA. One time I visited the church she belongs to in PA (Tony was/is? a member of a primarily African-American congregation in the city; his wife belongs to a liberal church in the suburbs). It was also the church where the family of the head of the denomination held their membership (and the congregation is an official member of the AWAB caucus of pro-gay ABC churches). Not less than 7 times in the service we were told how great everything gay was (6 of those instances were additional to the pro-gay sermon). The preacher that morning was a lesbian from a seminary in the Twin cities. The book table in the lobby had about 40 pro gay books on it. The CHILDREN's MINUTE/SERMON with the kids down front talked about somebody having two mommies. Several lesbians sat in the congregation with their arms around each other in the pew. I noticed one gal was running her index finger absent mindedly up and down her partner's back during the service. After the "worship service" Peggy Campolo and the then current wife of the then current head of the denom (the denom head has moved on into rertirement and onto another wife since then) were chatting amiably as they were leaving the service.

When Eastern college has a pro gay/anti gay debate, they often feature Peggy as the "progressive" and Tony as the "conservative." Yikes!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 11, 2008)

I spent a summer working for him in Philadelphia back in 1989.  Ah well, live and learn!


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2008)

shackleton said:


> He was on the "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central last night where he basically said the same thing but added that homosexuals should not get married but he is not going to tell them how they should live, he is not going to violate their rights. (Icould not find that one, it must not have been posted yet)



Is that what he said? If so that's really....silly. Tells them they can't get married but says he isn't going to tell them how to live. 

Anyway, this is no surprise. He's been a self styled leftist evangelical for decades.


----------



## A5pointer (Feb 11, 2008)

I heard him preach over 15 years ago and he was blabbing about support for gays back then when it was more shocking to hear such things in evangelical circles. Of course as I recall I was the only one there who was disappointed,


----------



## mvdm (Feb 11, 2008)

It's easy, even cute, for Campolo to echo Jim Wallis to say God is not a Democrat or a Republican, but invariably on issue after issue God always ends up a liberal. 

This article highlights more fundamental problems with Campolo's thinking, among them his "Jesus is in everyone" mantra: 

Tony Campolo

I also read his latest book {can't remember the name--blocked it from my mind} and it was a nauseating, universalistic, Bush bashing, pacifistic, hell-denying trope.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2008)

Productive...Christians...in...an...Age...of...Guilt...Manipulators.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 11, 2008)




----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 11, 2008)

mvdm said:


> It's easy, even cute, for Campolo to echo Jim Wallis to say God is not a Democrat or a Republican, but invariably on issue after issue God always ends up a liberal.
> 
> This article highlights more fundamental problems with Campolo's thinking, among them his "Jesus is in everyone" mantra:
> 
> ...



This "red letter Christians" movement has gotten quite a bit of traction in liberal circles. It allows you to reclaim the name "biblical" while trashing most of the orthodox formulations of the faith. Tony and Jim Wallis have been VERY big in it this past couple of years.

A hermeneutical key to understanding Tony is contained in the formula BLEEDING HEART + BOMBASTIC DELIVERY = 300+ speaking engagements annually. 

Tony has always functioned as a gadfly in his pronouncements. Most of them are calculated to shock or entertain (usually both). Few of Tony's ideas are thought through or fleshed out. He just knows he loves people, has a sociologist's bleeding heart for the poor, and when he waves his hands, spits, expostulates, and gesticulates wildly . . . people listen. Like a prophet, he specializes in afflicting the comfortable. However, due to his tendency to speak from the hip and not consider the logical consequences of what he says (not to mention the fact that his speaking style lends itself to extemporaneous comments that tend to shock people), he paints himself into all kinds of corners.

I do not believe that Tony has ever taken into account the fact that when your heartbeat gets above a certain level, adrenaline, not reason, can be counted on to be in control of your "reasoning" process. Once he gets on a roll, you never know what is going to spill out of his mouth. One of his old lines was to say "Most evangelicals don't give a s*** about the poor." He follows this up by saying: "And most of you goody-two-shoes care more about the fact that I just said "s***" than about the x number of babies who will die today of hunger." My guess is that the first time, it just tumbled out unscripted. Tony probably saw that it shocked his crowd and included it in the future as part of his patter.

It is difficult to take someone seriously who seems to enjoy shocking people as a way of manipulating them.

BTW, in the ABC, one of his arguments for denominational unity consists of saying that he and Peggy disagree about homosexuality and they haven't gotten divorce in their four decades of marriage, why should we? From what I have heard from him over the years, he and Peggy do not disagree all that much.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 11, 2008)

Davidius said:


>


----------



## shackleton (Feb 11, 2008)

Their bibles must not have any red letters in the gospel of John where he talks about being the only way to the Father, and the, way, truth and life, or the famous discourse with Nicodemous where he states the way to see or enter heaven. 

They go so far as to say that John was not written by John and that his gospel was not written until the 2nd century or they call it a gnostic gospel. Liberals *HATE* the gospel of John, it violates everything they want to believe.


----------



## shackleton (Feb 11, 2008)

*I Found It!!!*

Comedy Central : Videos


----------



## mvdm (Feb 11, 2008)

If I may just add a bit of a personal angle: Campolo visited Dordt College recently. My son attended his speeches and sent his notes on to me. It's the same heterodox stuff you'll find in his books. His speeches only have the appearance of spontaneity. You can go to Dordt's website and listen to his speech, but I'd suggest doing so on an empty stomach.

The most appalling thing to me is that {to paraphrase Spurgeon} rather than Dordt acting like a chemist handling poison to study its properties, Dordt invited this apostate to lead the students in "worship". So this ravenouos wolf gets the college's stamp of approval.

I hope you'll forgive me if I am a bit strong here, but it is disturbing that this guy is given carte blanche to twist impressionable minds against the Word of God, rather than being marked out for what he clearly is.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 11, 2008)

Believe it or not, Tony was right of center in the ABC (among the hierarchy). Whenver I would disagree with one of the bureaucrats, they would often say something like: "Why can't you just be like Tony Campolo. He's an evangelical too, you know?" Now you know part of the reason why our judicatory pulled out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 11, 2008)

Dennis hit the nail on the head.

It took me a while to figure out what was really dangerous about these guys and why American Evangelicals like them so much.

It really is the constant pull of Christianity to move in the direction of a Campolo: he's a moralist but it's not the Gospel.

Why would men abandon the Gospel for the Church of moral reform?

I thought about that as I was teaching on Galatians 5 this past week. Paul asks the Galatians the same thing over and over. He even notes that they were running well and asks, in effect, "...who cut in on you?"

They were running a race and some people cut in on them as they are pressing forward with their eyes fixed upon Christ's work, and knowledge of the promise, and it not only breaks their stride but they _completely lose sight of the goal_.

It is fascinating as I've been studying Church history lately that Luther even went out of his way to note that he wasn't about moral reform though, certainly, the Church needed a massive reform in its conduct. In fact, early on, many thought that Luther was an Erasmian.

The seductiveness of moralism is always because there is a kernel of truth to it. There is a somewhat apt description of the demands of the law of love in it but the problem is the law becomes the end and, in fact, it's not the law because it's no longer perfect but the list of do's and don'ts that men can do.

But, initially, it doesn't seem that way to us. Why? Because we sin and then we feel guilt for our sin and lack of motivation for the things of God. Instead of turning our attention again to the fount of Christ's righteousness in the Cross, we look within and conclude that God will not accept us until we square ourselves away. We go back, in the mind of the flesh, to think that the law is not a curse to us but, indeed, the righteousness that God wants of us before we find our acceptance from Him again. Why we accept this insane notion when we didn't begin in the law is beyond me to understand but we do it.

Waiting for us as we move in angst in the direction of the law is Tony Campolo and the other moralists. They have all the ways that men can show their seriousness to God. They have the list of things that Christ taught in the sermon on the mount, taken them through the moralist meat grinder, and transformed them from the perfection that the law demands to the list of things that men can achieve.

They can even parade out their champions of virtue who live very moral lives starting soup kitchens, street-witnessing to thugs, visiting prisons, etc. We know there is something inherently good about them so why aren't we good like them? Well, maybe we should just start doing it so we can be righteous like they are.

It's not the doing of them that's bad after all. It's the fount of activity that matters. They've abandoned Christ as their righteousness and the activities are not bad in themselves but in them is no power to save from the curse of the Law.

And because the Church has moved in the same direction away from the Gospel they preach more of the same of Law. Tony's just a liberal variant of the prevailing view of the Gospel today since people are mostly about doing good in "conservative" Churches. The main difference with the "conservative" variants is that they're narcissistic and the "good works" they are focused upon are completely focused within. I think some conservative kids see through the narcissism and see in Tony that if you're going to try to be a good person then it ought to be focused on other people.

So both variants are dead without the Gospel and need the Gospel. If the Church was preaching that today broadly then there would be much less of an audience for Tony to find angst-ridden teens who know they should care about more than number one. Because where the Gospel is preached, men bear fruit. It's not fruit so that they'll be accepted by Christ but fruit of their acceptance.

To somebody like Campolo, that idea is insane - that the Gospel begins with our acceptance and adoption by God on the basis of nothing we have done. Why? Because it doesn't get the results that moralism does. Moralism "works" for men who are dead in their sins and trespasses.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 11, 2008)

Where to even begin? Red-letter Christians? I thought the whole of scripture was God's words. Bono better theologian than most Pastors? Gospel is helping poor. And I thought is was the attonement and forgiveness of sins. I guess my adherance to the WCF is outdated. The New Commandment thing he was talking about. Yup, If I help the poor, it will cover all my sins. I won't even touch the part about Tony and his wife attending different church's.

Shackleton - that clip is great! The host had better theology than Tony did. But that was according to my old standard's. Now that I know about the new commandments, I can just go along and do what i want as long as i help the poor. 

An people wonder why I say the libs should be thrown out of the church.

Shackleton, thank you for this great thread. Wonderful.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Comedy Central : Videos



I cannot begin to say how much I HATE comedy central's video format. It might be the worst format I have ever seen.

funny video, though.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 11, 2008)

Colbert is a theonomist in that video. awesome.


----------



## shackleton (Feb 12, 2008)

I liked it when Colbert brought up the passage in Leviticus that says homosexuality is a sin and the perpetrator must be stoned and Campolo without missing a beat says, "That was a different kind of stoned." Colbert replies, "So what, they should get high?"


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 12, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Believe it or not, Tony was right of center in the ABC (among the hierarchy). Whenver I would disagree with one of the bureaucrats, they would often say something like: "Why can't you just be like Tony Campolo. He's an evangelical too, you know?" Now you know part of the reason why our judicatory pulled out.



That really illustrates how far they have fallen.


----------

