Tony Campolo on Steve Chalke's recent Announcement on Committed, Faithful, Same-Sex Relationships

Those of us who will have to deal with what Steve Chalke has said need not necessarily agree with his theology or biblical hermeneutic to affirm the truth that he boldly declares, which is that the Church cannot afford to go on alienating the youth of the nation by the way it treats gay people.

For my own part, I remain conservative on the issue, but I agree with Steve that the attitudes of many churches are homophobic and cruel. Whether or not we change our positions on accepting same-sex relationships or even gay marriage, we Evangelicals have to face the reality that the time has come for many of us to change our attitudes towards gay people, and show something of the love and grace of God in the name of His Son Jesus.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, Anthropology, Children, England / UK, Ethics / Moral Theology, Evangelicals, Marriage & Family, Other Churches, Parish Ministry, Pastoral Theology, Sexuality, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), Sexuality Debate (Other denominations and faiths), Theology, Theology: Scripture

4 comments on “Tony Campolo on Steve Chalke's recent Announcement on Committed, Faithful, Same-Sex Relationships

  1. Br. Michael says:

    So you show your love for others by making them feel good about their sin?

  2. The Rev. Father Brian Vander Wel says:

    I don’t think Dr. Campolo is saying that we love people by making them feel good about their sin, but he is challenging the Church to face the ways in which we have already compromised as a Church, and thereby undermine our mission to those who identify as homosexual. How we do this is not clear from the article which may be why Br. Michael made the comment he did.

  3. Stefano says:

    Soooo…….. what’s the difference between the “Red Letter Christians” and the Marcions?

    No, really. What’s the difference?

  4. The Rev. Father Brian Vander Wel says:

    I don’t know anything more about the Red Letter Christians than what I have read here so I can’t know for sure. However, I would suspect that what they are up to is re-asserting the teaching of Jesus so that Paul is understood in light of him. I do think that in some Protestant corners, people understand Jesus in light of certain interpretations of Paul (rather that Paul in light of Jesus) with the effect of distorting Jesus or missing him altogether (and Paul, for that matter). If Red Letter Christians are seeking to correct this, I think it is a good idea.

    In other words, if they are saying that Jesus is the interpretive key to all of Scripture — let’s emphasize him — they are saying nothing more than what Jesus said about himself (see [url= 24:25-27&version=ESV]Luke 24:24-27[/url]). They are doing nothing more than the patristic-period church did.

    If, however, Red Letter Christians are looking at Jesus’ words (and not his actions and his interpretation of his actions, for example), they are in danger of the same kind of distortion they are trying to correct. If Red Letter Christians are doing this, then Stefano’s point needs to be seriously addressed.