Book Review: Letters to A Young Evangelical
Tony Campolo. Letters to a Young Evangelical. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006. Pp. 280.
Campolo’s latest work is a series of 21 letters, addressed to two young Evangelicals, Timothy and Junia. Campolo admits the inspiration for such a concept (and the names too) lie with the Apostle Paul, who wrote for the same reason that he, Campolo, now writes today: "to keep [such individuals] from being swept up in movements within the church that distorted the Gospel…" Campolo’s biggest concern here, and it is one he has been talking about for years, is the rediscovery of what it means to be Evangelical, a discovery that has been overshadowed by the fac that "American Evangelicalism today, in the minds of many, has become synonymous with the Religious Right."
Campolo says here, and elsewhere, that his intention is not to give the impression that there is anything wrong with Evangelical Christians predominantly voting Republican. Campolo however asserts that "to ally Jesus with either political party is idolatry [and that] the Jesus of Scripture will not conform to the ideologies of any party [but rather] stands in judgment of all of our political agendas…"
Hoping that Timothy and Junia will not be swayed into believing that the Evangelical faith and the Republican Party are synonymous, Campolo seeks to rediscover what it means to be Evangelical, but because of some uncertainly regarding whether the ‘Evangelical brand’ can be repackaged, he suggests instead the term ‘Red-Letter Christian’ might be more appropriate for those bothered by such an unholy matrimony. He suggests that the ‘Red-Letter Christians’ (those who focus on the red letters of the Bible [the words of Jesus]) cannot be seen as the Evangelical Left, because here again, this is no less an idolatrious claim than the ones that seek a Evangelical/Religious Right partnership.
Campolo strongly promotes what Cardinal Joseph Bernardin referred to as the ’seamless garment theory,’ one that embraces a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life. Therefore the pro-life movement, Campolo argues, cannot be confined to simply an opposition to abortion, but rather must extend itself to an opposition to war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and although (in his chapter on Abortion) he does not extend the pro-life movement to encompass a concern for health care, or the plight of immigrants who have made an illegal entry into the United States, it is hard to imagine how Campolo could view those disinterested in these matters as still being pro-life.
Campolo argues that it is high time Evangelicals overcome their homophobia (Campolo is clear that this does not mean watering down the traditional Christian understanding that homosexuality is disordered), their prejudices against those Islamic, their anti-Biblical defense of women being excluded from the ministerial ranks, and their abhorrence to caring for God’s creation.
One suspects that Campolo is not quite ready to give up on his fellow Evangelicals, and all throughout he reminds his readers that what Evangelicals have become is quite opposite to what the Early Church and early Evangelicals promoted (Jesus was a man of peace, and spoke in no uncertain terms about capital punishment, to site just two very quick examples…).
While I am not an Evangelical, and while one does not have to read and agree with Campolo 100% in order to come away a more informed person, Campolo’s central point, that the Evangelical community is not the arm of any particular political party, is a point worth defending.
The Evangelicals aren’t the first Christian community to have sold their soul in their quest for power, but in an increasingly polarized America, one with few bright spots in the near future for those more conservative, it seems quite foolish that any Church would want to hook themseles to such a sinking ship. And that’s only if we are speaking pragmatically. If we are speaking Biblically, as Campolo attempts to do, it is nothing short than idolatry.
K.
Kelly,
You wrote:… “Therefore the pro-life movement, Campolo argues, cannot be confined to simply an opposition to abortion, but rather must extend itself to an opposition to war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and although … he does not extend the pro-life movement to encompass a concern for health care, or the plight of immigrants who have made an illegal entry into the United States, it is hard to imagine how Campolo could view those disinterested in these matters as still being pro-life.”
It’s hard to imagine how any man of conscience can be disinterested in these matters. “Pro-life” doesn’t denote concern for an issue. It is the slogan of a very definite stand. Are you saying that there is a comparable, uncompromising “pro-life” stand that a person has to take on what are certainly far more ambiguous problems such as health care and illegal immigration in order to belong to the “pro-life” camp? I don’ think there is, and I don’t see any advantage for the anti-abortion movement (the pro-life movement) in confusing the issue by linking its stand on abortion with a position on matters in which the moral issue is far less clear, and where the approaches to the problem are far less morally offensive.
You wrote: “Campolo argues that it is high time Evangelicals overcome their homophobia (Campolo is clear that this does not mean watering down the traditional Christian understanding that homosexuality is disordered), their prejudices against those Islamic, their anti-Biblical defense of women being excluded from the ministerial ranks, and their abhorrence to caring for God’s creation.”
Homophobia is a good thing. Yes, I’ll repeat it. It’s a good thing. Sin is contagious and when supported by a culture, it is doubly contagious. It’s a good thing that there are people who find homosexuality distasteful and stay away from homosexuals who deny that it’s a sin or are even proud of it and, indeed, would have their children be homosexuals too. Just as I would not want a friend who is a rascist or a wife-beater or a pimp, I would not want a friend who is an active homosexual—who thinks its okay to be homosexual. Here’s one example of why: We were invited by some friends to a festive meal a couple of years ago. One of the guests, it turns out, was homosexual. He propositioned my teen-age son! Poor boy, he felt so violated—and he was. The fact that the world thinks homosexuality is okay makes it all the more important to be “homophobic” because so many homosexuals, thinking its okay, won’t accept the unspoken boundaries that would otherwise protect others who don’t share and don’t approve of their persuasion.
You wrote: “… Jesus was a man of peace, and spoke in no uncertain terms about capital punishment…”
Jesus was a man of peace, but when it seemed that violence was the only way to clear the Temple, he was violent. And where do we see him objecting to capital punishment? The only case I can think of was that of the adulterous. But those people who took him to her weren’t judges (The Jewish courts didn’t work like that and, were not, at the time, permitted by the Romans to inflict capital punishment anyway). They were vigilantes, and what he said was just right for putting them in their place.
You wrote: “The Evangelicals aren’t the first Christian community to have sold their soul in their quest for power, but in an increasingly polarized America, one with few bright spots in the near future for those more conservative, it seems quite foolish that any Church would want to hook themseles to such a sinking ship. And that’s only if we are speaking pragmatically. If we are speaking Biblically, as Campolo attempts to do, it is nothing short than idolatry.”
Admitting my ignorance, I don’t see any connection between worshipping false gods and making a serious effort to promote the values of the true G-d by influencing the powers that be in a democratic society. One of the most effective ways to do that is to have a controlling influence in a major political party. What’s wrong with that? I don’t get it.
Richard
Comment by Richard — May 16, 2008 @ 7:25 am
i agree with you to a degree kelly - for a church to align itself with a political party is absurd. it can only result in bad things… but i would hardly think of the republican party as a sinking ship… in fact, after living in america during this pre-election period, i would say that the republican party is slowly but surely gaining back most of the prominace that it has lost over the years of the controversial bush admin. the democrats on the other hand, appear to be divided and bickering with no clear leader at its head. the news makes it appear otherwise, but i see everyday more and more proofs that america is undergoing a politically conservative, and religiously orthodox renewal. there is a battle being waged for the future of america but it is hardly won.
also i must add to what richard has said. excluding women from ministerial ranks is hardly anti-biblical. in fact St. Paul states that it should be done. I agree about the enviromenalist aspect of the faith… all churches must begin to take their share in cleaning up the mess we have made of the world.
Comment by Sean Wilson — May 16, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
I have often thought that Tony Campolo was an interesting writer, but not overly Biblical in his approach to faith. In fact, sometimes I have wondered what in fact, he bases his faith upon. His views on pro-life can leave a lot to be desired, and perhaps he does not understand that the pro-life movement was formed as a direct response to the abortion problem, to the lack of respect for the life of the unborn and the disrespect of women that abortion brings to a society……. there are many things we ought to care about, but pro-life was started to work upon that one. The anti-poverty people work on proverty, the animal rights people work on the appalling poverty all around us. Does Campolo expect to see animal rights people supporting pro-life, or anti-poverty people marching in a pro-life parade? Perhaps some anti-poverty people are pro-life, perhaps some are not. But no one expects them to declare these things. Perhaps some animal rights people are also pro-life. Perhaps some are not. This too does not concern people like Campolo. But he does expect the pro-lifers to hold the same beliefs on issues like capital punishment or an opposition to war? How can they? No two pro-lifers are the same. They come together on the issue of life. Of respect for women and the unborn child. Other than that, pro-lifers come from all walks of life and races and religions and hold many differing views on moral matters.
I have often wondered what kind of Christianity does Campolo stand for? Stop being homophobic? What is there about homosexuality that I should embrace? A revulsion of sin is healthy and right. I agree with Richard on that. And as for being Democrat or Republican? I am sure there are pro-lifers among both parties, but so far the Republicans have been in the position to do more for life issues, and so far the Republican government in the United States has done more to help the pro-life cause than any government has done in a long time.
When a priest/minister talks, who reads Gods Word and believes Gods Word and follows Gods Word, then I will take what he says to heart. Some of the things Mr.Campolo writes and concerns himself with, make me wonder if he is one of these……. Kate
Comment by Kate — May 16, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
This is a response to Richard, Sean and Kate.
1. Richard, thank you for your comments. Can I start with your last claim? The idolatry that Campolo accuses some of falling for is that of making God/Jesus into our own image, shaping Jesus around our own ideologies, rather than doing what we are called to do which is seeking God’s help in making ourselves closer in resemblance to the image that was once imprinted on us. It’s not that promoting certain views are wrong, or even siding with a particular political ideology, so long as we realize that all ideologies are subject to Jesus’ judgment. Example: Distain for creation care, common among those more politically conservative, is something that should be refuted by the Religious Right, who should be reminding political conservatives that God created the earth and cares for the things in it, and as such, we are also to care for the things around us.
The danger in too cozy an allegiance between a political party and a religious faith is that one might lose its soul, and also that because one political ideology is so closely tied to a religious one, some might begin to condemn those who choose not to embrace the same politics.
Example: In my January 19th post promoting Mr. McCain for President, I had to remind a reader who was speaking so glowingly about Republicanism, that the Republicans are not the Party of God. He no longer comments here (on account of my being a “sanctimonious SOB”) but before he left he reminded me in message 8 that “the GOP might not be the party of God, but the DNC is certainly the party of Satan.” It’s views like these, however well-intentioned, that is what Campolo is trying to avoid, and I support this, and I would add that while the Republican’s may do a fine job on certain very important issues, they are neglecting other very important issues also. Both Republicans and Democrats are to be judged by the standards of God, and when seen to be in need of revision, they are to be called to it by their religious consciences.
In answer to your statements about being ‘pro-life,’ I will pass along a remark that clearly bothers Campolo. It is by a Congressman whose last name is Frank who assesses the pro-life movement as being one that is concerned about life from conception to birth. With such a comment he is saying that there are so many other life issues that are being neglected in the process of protecting the unborn. Christians have an obligation to be opposed to abortion, because life in the womb is life that has been made in God’s image. However, abortion does not pose as the only threat in society to God’s image in humankind and as such, there are plenty of other issues, Campolo suggests, that should concern those who are pro-life.
Moving on, I would be interested to know how you define homophobia in order to refer to it as a good thing. I get the impression that you are bothered that homosexuality is perceived as being morally acceptable. Yet Campolo is very clear each time the subject of homosexuality comes up: The homosexual practice is one that is morally at odds with the Biblical presentation of sexuality, and therefore it is to be condemned. But this isn’t homophobia, and so I’d be interested to know how you’d like to see homophobia presented in society. When you respond (if time permits) take this into account. It’s paragraph 2258 from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Each sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Do you suppose that if someone chooses to embrace their homosexual tendencies, that the Church’s call for sensitivity, respect and compassion are to be abandoned, or that we are to no longer stand with such people against unjust discrimination sent their way?
I think that I over spoke when I said that Jesus spoke in no uncertain terms about capital punishment. However, I don’t want to suppose that there is nothing to say about the matter. In Matthew 5’s Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus keeps saying ‘You have heard it said…But I say to you,’ he is comparing the Law of Old, that which was received and then written down forming our Torah, to what he, Jesus, is now saying. And he is not going with the status quo. Where before there was “an eye for an eye,” no longer.
I look forward to continuing this discussion if you wish to.
2. Sean, thank you also for your comments. “Absurd” to describe the marrying of a Church to a political ideology is a word I didn’t use, but it’s a good one. Much of your first paragraph is based almost entirely on my use of the phrase “sinking ship” to describe the Republican party. I don’t think that American minds are made up electorally yet, but the point was that parties come and go, and for a church to tie itself to one, as you say, is absurd.
Now, I read Richard’s comments a couple of times and I didn’t see him say anything about women in the ministerial ranks. While you quote Paul (“I do not permit a woman to speak…) you do not cite the women he identifies as co-workers in presenting the Gospel, nor to you mention Philip’s four daughter’s who held the rank of ‘prophet,’ which in the early Church was one of the four very prominent positions. Don’t extend Campolo’s arguments to Catholicism. Evangelicals are not bound by Catholic criteria, and as they have been separated from the apostolic line of succession, their allowance of women into the ministerial ranks is hardly the move that it would be in Catholicism. Do you agree?
3. Last comment. Thank you also for your comments. I think there is a terminology error here. You keep using the word ‘pro-life’ to describe opposition to abortion. Opposition to abortion is most specifically identified under the term ‘anti-abortion.’ Pro-life is a mindset that must interest itself in all life issues. Abortion is one of them. It is not the only one. Campolo defends the right that the unborn child has to be born. That is because he is anti-abortion. However, he takes interest in euthanasia, war, capital punishment… because he is pro-life. You don’t have to agree with all of his positions on life issues, but the fact is he is trying to develop positions on these issues that have Biblical integrity.
Regarding homosexuality, I am curious (as I was with Richard) why we think “stop being homophobic” is such an outrageous request. I won’t repeat paragraph 2258 from the Catechism but I will repeat my question to Richard:
Do you suppose that if someone chooses to embrace their homosexual tendencies, that the Church’s call for sensitivity, respect and compassion are to be abandoned, or that we are to no longer stand with such people against unjust discrimination sent their way?
Regarding your “as for being Democrat or Republican” comments, again I want to rephrase the comments. You believe that Republicans have done more for the anti-abortion cause, not the pro-life cause. Pro-life means to embrace a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life (that’s Cardinal Bernardin’s “Seamless Garment Theory…), while abortion is one such life issue. And you are right: The Republicans under President Bush have gained ground in defending the right the unborn should have to life. But it would be wrong to suppose that they are the representatives of life issues. The Democrats have the edge in certain issues, the Republicans in others. Voters must decide which of those issues are more important than others and make their decisions, however Campolo’s point, and it is an important one, is that it is wrong for churches to suppose that one Party holds the answers to all issues. If you don’t believe Campolo, take it from Sean. The idea, as Sean says, is “absurd.”
Regarding your personal comments on Campolo, I’d be happy to pass along any books of his that you haven’t read. In his defense I would confidently say that he is a man of God, and someone I admire very much. His approach to faith (one you call “not overly Biblical”) is one that entirely concerns itself with how Jesus would react to the situation that we find ourselves placed in (Red-Letter Christian). You might not always agree with his interpretation of how Jesus would respond, but I think it would be wrong to question the foundation that he attempts to base those decisions on. I might not be helping his cause much since I wrote this post at 5 AM, and there is a lot of misinformation out there about him, but I have heard him twice myself, and would easily consider him one of the more prominent influences reminding me of what it means to live in a Christian manner. That he has devoted a good part of his life to helping those in the developing world, also, I believe, works in his favour, if not now, at least it will at the Last Judgment, if Matthew 25 is any indication of what we can expect.
This post is already too long I suspect, but I look forward to continuing any part of this conversation.
K.
Comment by K. — May 16, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
I have read some of his books. I do appreciate some of the things he says, but I do take issue with a few of his stands, as I do not believe he has thought them out biblically. Good for him, for helping out the poor! I just hear this so often from people regarding the pro-life movement. And it is so mistaken!
I have been in it for many years. It is wrong to expect pro-lifers to hold one view in regards to moral issues, like war in Iraq, immigration, poverty, or capital punishment. Our group did not begin to combat any of those problems. We are there to stand up for the life of the unborn child and to help mothers who are pregnant and in need of support and to promote the value of the life of a child, and respect for women who are carrying life. Some pro-lifers (And it did mean, originally, anti-abortion, but pro-life sounds more positive), are involved in these other moral issues and have deep concern for them. Some do not. I do not believe that pro-life covers anything more than what I have said. It was never meant to. For Cardinal Bernardin, his idea of the seamless garment is holy and wonderful, but that is his idea. It isn’t prerequisite for being pro-life. I may be pro-life and pro-war in Iraq, this is between me and God and no one else. I may be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. Again, it doesn’t matter. All that is required to be a pro-life personis that I do not believe in abortion, and that I do believe in the rights of women to be helped and loved and assisted to have their child…… Pro-life is not all things to all people. I think that is what got me going.
As to the rest of it, women in the ministry and all that, I know where Campolo stands on that. I would remind him that even today, woman have a wonderful place in the church, but Jesus never chose any to be priests (apostles), and even a church that is not Catholic, reading the Word of God, will notice that…….But a lot of what he says, is interesting and good. Just not biblical. Kate
Comment by Kate — May 17, 2008 @ 6:17 am
I notice you didn’t mention what you meant by homophobia?
I will leave the women in the ministry issue alone, since you have rightly identified his position.
I don’t agree with everything he says either, but I think his overall message is very important.
But regarding what it means to be pro-life, he is dead on, in that being pro-life is more than being against abortion. He might be mistaken on some of the specifics (might be, capital punishment…), but the general idea is sound.
Whatever the origins of the pro-life movement in North America, the fact remains, “anti-abortion” remains a more specific way of describing those opposed to abortion, and that abortion is one category under the pro-life banner. I don’t think Campolo is suggesting an organization be set up to deal with all life issues, because that is simply impossible (and because pro-life [anti-abortion] are a diverse bunch and there would be no agreement on the other issues) but he is saying that as private citizens, we are to be concerned about things other than abortion, and as a lobbying organization like the Religious Right, abortion is not the only life issue that is important.
Just because we are to interest ourselves in issues beyond protection of the unborn (unless we are satisfied with Congressman Frank’s assessment that we are concerned only with defending life from the moment of conception until birth), that does not mean, as Richard rightly pointed out, that there is a discernible position that one must take with regards to health care, immigration or other issues. People are free to have different views, but in forming them, the dignity of the human must be considered. Pope Benedict was to say as much regarding illegal immigration during his visit to the US, although I don’t know if he did. Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment theory” is more than just “holy and wonderful.” He isn’t taking part in some intellectual speculation. He is calling for, as a shepherd of the Church, a new way of doing things, of considering approaches to issues, one that considers the dignity of the human person as the most influential factor, and for Campolo to remind us of this is most important. Where it enters into the political realm is that the Republicans have been leaders in certain life issues, while the Democrats have been in others. It is up to the voter to evaluate which live issues are more important, but it is not up to anyone to suppose that one is the party of God, and the other the party of Satan.
Thanks again for your thoughts…
K.
Comment by K. — May 17, 2008 @ 8:49 am
I guess I don’t agree with his assessment of what it means to be Pro-life. To me, it will always be what it was when I joined the movement——– a group of people who join together to protect the unborn, and women who are carrying life, to assist and to help them. In that group, are many diverse people, some of whom do not agree on anything else, but they agree on that.
I do believe that all thinking Christians should form an opinion on other moral matters, again, taking that opinion from the clarity of Gods word, and He is very clear on moral matters. Other things, like war, we come at from our own viewpoints. Some of us see the war in Iraq as agression, some of us see it as necessary and some see it as protection of a people (removing a tryrant and closing rape rooms and human shredders). But agreeing or disagreeing on these things does not make us pro-life.
Anyway, not everything Campolo says is wrong. Not everything he says is right. I would judge it in accordance to the Bible.
And yes, the right to life (anti-abortion) is the most important right of all. If a person does not stand on that, then they can say what they like, they are not pro-life, they are not even Christian. Once we allow the right to kill the innocent, other evils come into our society: a disrespect for women, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, research on aborted unborn babies taken alive, pornography, homosexuality, etc……. So politically speaking, it doesn’t matter what one political party says about immigration, capital punishment or anything else, if they do not believe in protecting life at its weakeest and most innocent…………….. then they are in the wrong. Kate
Comment by Kate — May 17, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I notice the homophobia remarks still haven’t been explained.
No need to I suppose.
So we’ve established that you disagree with him on what it means to be pro-life. Where he echoes Cardinal Bernardin’s ’seamless garment’ concept, you believe abortion is the only issue that falls under the banner of ‘pro-life.’ I’ll leave readers to decide what they think of that, but the difference seems to me to be of little consequence.
I like the phrase about “thinking Christians” and I agree that people can come to different views about life issues (war, capital punishment) in ways that they cannot when it comes to abortion. However, they might still be wrong. I mentioned that when it comes to forming opinions about life issues the dignity of the human person is the most important factor, and so to cite the war in Iraq, the dignity of the Iraqi people was being violated under Sadaam (few would argue with this) and an outside agent’s intervention was justified. One could argue this way.
Beyond that, it is not my place to judge the degree of one’s Christianess. This is something, as I said before, that I am happy to leave to God, because I cannot see all that is inside a person. But the statement “they are not even Christian” is clearly false. The comment leaves no room for the possibility that a Christian might actually be mistaken on a particular issue. This would of course render the process of purification after death meaningless, and stunt any growth we suppose Christians are to experience in their life.
Thank you howver for your comments.
K.
Comment by K. — May 17, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Hi Kelly,
I am inclined to agree: even though the Republican party is not the party of G-d, the Democratic party sure seems to be the party of Satan (which, of course, is a lot easier than being the party of G-d.) I don’t want to get into politics. I mention this only to underscore the very real and very Christian influence that the Evangelical right has had on national politics, and that goes a long way to justifying what they have been doing.
True, being pro-life is about a lot more than life from conception to birth.
19] I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, [my emphasis] that you and your descendants may live,
[20] loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him… (Deut. 30)
Most political issues involve a choice between two morally feasible possibilities, and there is a real danger in allowing the moral issue to obscure the complexities of the problem. For example, a few years ago, Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon. That prevented the Hizballah from establishing bases there from which they could attack her. A campaign was launched by the Israeli left, objecting to occupation in principle and distressed by the few but painful casualties among our soldiers there. Barak, then prime minister, capitulated. The result? A war, costly in life and treaure for all sides, that could have been prevented. Moralizing politics is often short sighted politics. I think, for example, that there is a danger, in the immigration issue, of excessive moralizing that does not sufficiently consider the very important legal and security issues. And, of course, in the issue of the war in Iraq also. It is just such moralizing—for all the good intentions–that paves the way to Hell. In any case, one of the sweet features of the abortion issue is that the moral issue is in truth the central issue. That makes it a magnet for many who might otherwise have no heart for political activism. At the same time, the extension of the pro-life concept would encourage moralizing where the moral issue is not nearly so clear, and certainly less relevant. (Though I think the pro-life movement should address the issue of euthanasia.)
What is homophobia? I have never seen it defined, but I take it to mean, as used by homosexuals, a repugnance for homosexuality and homosexuals. And I stand by what I said. The repugnance for sin is one of the best and essential barriers to sin, especially where conventional wisdom no longer supports moral condemnation.
You cited the CCC 2358 (not 2258): “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Each sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Is it unjust to discriminate against a homosexual where his presence would cause discomfort for others? Or where there is the slightest reason to suspect that he may seek an opportunity to satisfy his depraved sexual desire? I don’t think so. Would you hire a person if he neglected himself and had a strong, unpleasant odor? Of course not. It would bother everyone and finally bring a bad spirit into the office. What would you say? Clean up or get out. Homosexuality is a “grave depravity” (CCC 2357), a severe moral corruption and, like all corruption, it is corrosive and maloderous. No one has a moral obligation to endure it. Every human being as the right to be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, but not every human being as the right to be treated with trust and to be accepted into the heart of the community. Homosexuality is easy to hide, and where it is hidden, it will not elicit homophobia. Those who advertise, justify or defend their homosexuality are properly ostracized by those who consider homosexuality to be a “grave depravity”.
You wrote: “I think that I over spoke when I said that Jesus spoke in no uncertain terms about capital punishment. However, I don’t want to suppose that there is nothing to say about the matter. In Matthew 5’s Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus keeps saying ‘You have heard it said…But I say to you,’ he is comparing the Law of Old, that which was received and then written down forming our Torah, to what he, Jesus, is now saying. And he is not going with the status quo. Where before there was “an eye for an eye,” no longer. “
Jewish tradition has never understood that passage literally. An eye for an eye is has always been interpreted to mean, the monetary value of an eye for the injury of an eye, and it was not the basis of the death penalty in Jewish Law. The death penalty was based on explicit scriptural passages that require it for certain offenses, and it was rarely implemented because of strict standards of due process designed to avoid it. The Talmud says that a court that executed one person in seventy years was a “killing court.” And Jesus is not comparing the New Law to the Old, as though they were separate standards, but rather extending the scope of the commandments to acts of the heart. (see the comments of the Holy Father in Jesus of Nazareth). I don’t see anything in the Sermon in the Mount that implies that Jesus was against the death penalty where it was imposed by a Biblical command. Nowhere do we see that Jesus rejects the authority of Biblical Law. (The issue of healing on the Sabbath was a point of rabbinic, not Biblical law.) So between that, the fact that the rabbis so hedged the death penalty in with details of due process that it was rarely carried out, and the fact that the Jewish courts were, in any case, deprived by the Romans of the power to implement it, Jesus had no reason to make an issue of the death penalty—and he didn’t.
Richard
Comment by Richard — May 17, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Wow Kelly, nice to see that your blog commenters are still ignorant gay haters. You know, it’s good though, fact is I wouldn’t want a gay person to have to even think for a second that they represent Christ at all, thus if they stay far away from them, perhaps the gospel Christ preached will find them, instead of ignorant bullying from a majority group who has no clue what the hell grace means. And they’re right a revulsion toward sin is wonderful, hence why I can’t stomach their arrogance.
Comment by David Malcolm — May 18, 2008 @ 12:31 am
This is a perfect example of the homosexual who is justifiably distanced by a “homophobic” attitude. He is disrespectful toward all who take the stand of the Church, that homosexualty is a grave depravity (they are “ignorant gay haters,” “bullying,” they have “no clue what the hell grace means,” “arrogant”), and he refuses to acknowledge that there is a foundation and a long tradition behind the moral condemnation he rejects (“I wouldn’t want a gay person to have to even think for a second that they represent Christ at all.” So there is no talking to him, no possibility of dialogue, and no reasonable expectation that he will exercise the self-restraint that is necessary to get along with those who disagree with him. He shows no concern whatsoever for the moral sensitivity of the “homophobic,” but makes fun of them and insults them. Such a person cannot be trusted to respect the moral code of a community that adheres to the teachings of the Church. Therefore, he must be isolated to protect those who might be influenced by his refusal to recognize his sin and his aggressive insistence of doing things his way.
Richard
Comment by Richard — May 18, 2008 @ 3:40 am
This part of the conversation ends immediately on account of that which has been spewed out in the last two comments.
Interestingly, neither of you know the opposite person, yet both are presumptuous enough to believe that your evaluation of the other is valid.
In case there is any confusion, this part of the conversation ends immediately. Please redirect yourselves to the issues actually raised in the original blog post.
K.
Comment by K. — May 18, 2008 @ 6:43 am
Kelly, you are unfair. I simply examined what Malcolm wrote, and pointed out the character and content of his communication. If my analysis was inaccurate or unjustified, I am happy to be corrected. I didn’t insult him, I didn’t say he was arrogant, or a bully, or ignorant etc. I didn’t speak about him, but about the person revealed in his communication, and pointed out that his manner of speaking was an example of the aggression that justifies homophobia. I “spewed out”? Where did I spew out? Presumptious? And how would you characterize Malcohm’s comment? If what I wrote was wrong, show me. If it wasn’t then your response is inappropriate.
Richard
Comment by Richard — May 18, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Richard, “this part of the conversation ends immediately…” I do not want to, but if it continues here, I am placing certain emails under my moderation watch. I don’t want to, but I will not let this blog be high-jacked.
Both comments were inappropriate, as I said in Comment12. If you’ve got a problem, you need to take it up privately.
K.
Comment by K. — May 18, 2008 @ 7:51 am
Richrad,
Being a “party of Satan” might be easier than being a “party of God” but the fact remains “party of God” status seems to be judged based entirely on two issues: homosexuality and abortion? Is this appropriate?
You say you don’t want to get into politics, but when you suggest that one party is closer to Satan, you’re not only in politics, but you are in other territories as well.
I am pleased you agree that being pro-life means more than protecting life only from conception to birth, and when each of the parties excel at aiding people at different stages between conception and death (example: Republicans, the unborn…), it is hard to imagine justifying such a polarization by speaking of parties of God and Satan.
I am not suggesting an extension of the pro-life movement. However I would like to see a more specific and accurate name attached to the movement. Example: In Britain, there is the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), and such a movement protects against an observer being confused by the way ‘pro-life’ is used elsewhere, so that no longer do we here questions like “What the hell does supporting big tobacco have to do with being pro-life?” There can be no doubt where such people who are members of SPUC stand. They are anti-abortion.
If by moralizing politics, you mean, making the dignity of the human person the central issue, then I feel you are off the mark. If (in the case of immigration for example) you simply mean that questions of legality and security have to be given attention then I agree. That would seem obvious.
*** Brief unrelated question: You speak of Israeli soldiers as being “our” soldiers. Are you from Israel? ***
Regarding homosexuality, if you chose to define homophobia as “a repugnance for homosexuality and homosexuals” then the homophobia you promote is difficult to reconcile with the teachings of Christ. Yet when you expand on your thoughts you only speak of a repugnance for sin, so I am not finding your comments here clear enough for me to understand.
You ask: Is it unjust to discriminate against a homosexual where his presence would cause discomfort for others?
Yes it is unjust. My advice would be for those discomforted to get over it. Perhaps if they tried treating such people with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” they would find that they don’t have to compromise their own views on human sexuality in order to treat those around them with dignity.
You ask: Or where there is the slightest reason to suspect that he may seek an opportunity to satisfy his depraved sexual desire?
In heterosexual interaction the slightest possibility that sexual desires will be actualized exists too. Obviously homosexual desires will exist too. However that does not mean they are actualized, and to suppose that actualization will occur is making the mistake of over-sexualizing all relationships, where in a heterosexual relationship can’t exist either, without the suspicion of sexual intimacy.
Regarding capital punishment, as I said, I over-spoke. However, I want to say something about the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is subordinating the Law to himself. Even Rabbi Neusner, in Benedict’s interaction with him, claims that while Jesus’ interpretation of the Law is in fact Jewish, the problem is that he, Jesus, add himself to the Law (by subordinating central Jewish symbols to him), and at that moment Judaism and Christianity diverge.
When it comes to “an eye for an eye,” we do see a promotion of mercy, when Jesus says “no longer” so while Jesus I agree does not necessarily speak directly to the issue, I think opponents of the death penalty can build around certain statements he makes.
Interesting thoughts however. I appreciate them.
K.
Comment by K. — May 18, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Hi Kelly, since you asked……. I guess I am homophobic in the sense that the gay rights people (many of them) would use the term. I do not condone cruelty, unkindness or disrespect towards a homosexual person, but I do agree with the right of a marriage commisioner NOT to perform a gay wedding, or a Christian printer NOT to print gay promotional material or a Christian bed and breakfast NOT to rent a room to a homosexual couple, sleeping together in their home. Is this homophobic, or is it just sensible? I think in our society we have forgotten how to be sensible. I have counselled (and will continue to) a young person approaching me that he is gay, with kindness and discretion, but also with the biblical truth that this lifestyle choice is wrong, and urge him to seek Gods truth, in prayer and scripture and counselling to walk an upright path. I would treat that person the same as I would someone with a drug problem, or pornography problem or any other problem besetting them. With prayer and kindness. But standing on Gods word. Homophobic? You decide. KATE
Comment by Kate — May 22, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Then this definition of homophobia (provided by Richard, who attributes it to “homosexuals”), “a repugnance for homosexuality and homosexuals,” does not sound like your definition. I think we have a right to be bothered by lifestyles that run contrary to our belief system, but if we extend that to the person and show repugnance for people, which you don’t seem to do, then it seems most unacceptable and incompatible with attempting to imitate Jesus.
K.
Comment by K. — May 23, 2008 @ 7:03 am