Covenant Sound and Fury at Newsweek and WSJ

[Ed Pettibone]

Keith writes to me in part regarding Tony Campolo;

His wearing the stole was no doubt in solidarity with Gay/Lesbian rights within the assembled Baptists. Sorry if that bursts your bubble about Tony.

Ed: Keith I have no bubble to burst about Tony, he is human. During our recent trip to Atlanta and back home, his long time friend Jim Meek, offered several stories which verify that fact. And Peggy gave us a few more as we talked to her about their experiences with Jim and his late wife Marty, while Tony and Jim where at Eastern (now Palmer) Seminary.

Keith: Also, throughout the chapter he emphasizes ministering to the GLB crowd in the church just like anyone else with sin in their lives - I'd call that full inclusion.

Ed: And I agree with that up to the hyphen. I do not call it full inclusion because
I do not see ministering to people as always being fully inclusive, nor do I believe that Tony does.

I doubt that many gays and lesbians consider Campolo's statement as you quote it "I hold to a more conservative view, believing that same-gender eroticism cannot be reconciled with Scripture" to be fully inclusive. Is your inclusiveness of homosexual only for those who are celibate? Or as Aaron. Weaver says "I just personally think his celibacy argument isn't practical".

When you say that his wife (Peggy) holds a more liberal view you are confirming what I have said earlier in this thread.

And when Aaron says "Tony is against gay marriage" that seems to be inconsistent with where you quote Tony as writing "I plead with the church to join in efforts to grant full civil rights to gay men and lesbians" italics mine

Of course that inconstancy may only demonstrate that he is indeed human. Or do you not consider marriage to be a Civil right ?

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Ed,

I support civil rights for all including gays and lesbians. As a church-state matter, I just don't think that the government should be in the marriage business. Tony concurs. Actually, Americans United for Separation of Church and State would concur with that point as well. So, how do we not support civil rights for gays? Where's the inconsistency?

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed,

I support civil rights for all including gays and lesbians. As a church-state matter, I just don't think that the government should be in the marriage business. Tony concurs. Actually, Americans United for Separation of Church and State would concur with that point as well. So, how do we not support civil rights for gays? Where's the inconsistency?

Ed: How you and Tony feel about government being in the marriage business has yet to change the fact that government is in the marriage business . Tony's inconsistency is in his being as you say "against gay marriage" and his plea for "the church to join in efforts to grant full civil rights to gay men and lesbians". Full Civil rights would include the right to marry according to Peggy and most of her W&A friends. And Even if government was to let go of marriage (and divorce ) Tony would still be against gays and lesbians "marrying" others of the same gender. And Aaron when you say "Actually, Americans or Separation of Church and State would concur with that point (that government should not be in the marriage business) as well" , where is your documentation for that ? If government does not control marriage who should? Certainly, Americans for separation of church and state would not give that power to the church exclusively, where would that put non believers?.

[KeithE]

Keith writes to me in part regarding Tony Campolo;

His wearing the stole was no doubt in solidarity with Gay/Lesbian rights within the assembled Baptists. Sorry if that bursts your bubble about Tony.

Ed: Keith I have no bubble to burst about Tony, he is human. During our recent trip to Atlanta and back home, his long time friend Jim Meek, offered several stories which verify that fact. And Peggy gave us a few more as we talked to her about their experiences with Jim and his late wife Marty, while Tony and Jim where at Eastern (now Palmer) Seminary.

Keith: Also, throughout the chapter he emphasizes ministering to the GLB crowd in the church just like anyone else with sin in their lives - I'd call that full inclusion.

Ed: And I agree with that up to the hyphen. I do not call it full inclusion because
I do not see ministering to people as always being fully inclusive, nor do I believe that Tony does.

I doubt that many gays and lesbians consider Campolo's statement as you quote it "I hold to a more conservative view, believing that same-gender eroticism cannot be reconciled with Scripture" to be fully inclusive. Is your inclusiveness of homosexual only for those who are celibate? Or as Aaron. Weaver says "I just personally think his celibacy argument isn't practical".

When you say that his wife (Peggy) holds a more liberal view you are confirming what I have said earlier in this thread.

I looked through 4 of Campolo's books - Red Letters, 20 Hot Potatoes, Speaking My Mind and Following Jesus w/o Embarrassing God. He is usually quite eager to say GLs should be accepted at church treated like anyone else. He condemns those who would not accept them in a church (calls them homophobes). I'll call that being "inclusive" wrt homosexuals in a church setting. At the same time he says homosexual behaviour (as distinquished from orientation) is a sin. He is not under the illusion that church is full of sin free people nor does he think homosexuality is some sort of "supersin".

No place that I could find has he said anything about GL ordination one way or the other. So I'll drop the "Full" from Full Inclusion if you would like.

We both agree that Peggy is more liberal on the subject. And I suspect from your writings you are more conservative on this subject than is Tony - but I'll let you speak for yourself.

I'm probably close to Tony's view but would allow GL ordination. But as Clinton/Paul said - "we look through a lens dimly".

[Haruo]

No place that I could find has he said anything about GL ordination one way or the other. So I'll drop the "Full" from Full Inclusion if you would like.

We both agree that Peggy is more liberal on the subject. And I suspect from your writings you are more conservative on this subject than is Tony - but I'll let you speak for yourself.

I'm probably close to Tony's view but would allow GL ordination. But as Clinton/Paul said - "we look through a lens dimly".

My guess (and it's only a guess; I haven't followed the Campolos that closely) is that as a Baptist Tony thinks GL ordination, like any other ordination, falls within the purview of the local church. And I suspect (though I am guessing on even less evidence on this one) that he would not see a GLBT pastor as a good and sufficient reason not to belong to a particular church, nor for not letting a particular church belong to a particular association.

Haruo