The story of this pastor's anti-homosexual sermon has gone viral and caused a storm of protest:
As bad as this is I have to say that I find these comments equally disgusting from a man who claims to be a minister of the Christian Gospel:
Think about these two videos for a moment. On face value they seem poles apart. But in reality they have the same problem - they focus on the behavior rather than the Savior!
As Pastor Worley ranted about how to get rid of the homosexual population he missed the main point altogether of what his job is in the pulpit - to point sinners to the Savior! Has he forgotten the unbelievable grace of God needed to pardon his own massive list of sinful crimes against a Holy God? Christian preachers should point out sin, not to call for ostracizing, but to call for reconciliation.
Paul lays out the problem clearly in his first letter to the church at Corinth:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
Campolo's abject failure to be honest about what the Scripture teaches displays his equal incompetence (with Pastor Worley) as a minister of the Gospel, his failure to say anything helpful to homosexuals trapped in their sinful lifestyle, and his lack of true Christian love for people who are bound for eternal condemnation. Of course, this is nothing new for Campolo as he is a sociologist who has now spent many years masquerading as a theologian. His theological insights have all the usefulness of an ashtray on a motorcycle.
But the huge point in all of this is that both Pastor Worley and Tony Campolo both have an elephant in their living rooms - and it is the same elephant. An elephant that places them both on the same team! An elephant that screams "1 Corinthians 6 does not end at verse 10":
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)
The Christian church is entirely composed of sinners who have been transformed by the regenerating work of God's Holy Spirit, because of the penal substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church of Corinth included people who were once idolaters, adulterers, thieves, and yes - homosexuals! But this was all past tense for those who had their sins borne by Christ and His righteousness credited to their account. They were new creatures transformed by the Spirit of Almighty God. This serves as a reminder of our own evil former lives, the kindness of God in saving us out of that, and the Christian duty to call all sinners (and that includes homosexuals) to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That they too might become new creatures that bring glory to God because of so great a salvation.
Worley and Campolo may sound different to each other, but in reality they are both peddlers of the same useless religion of human morality. True Christians should take Pastor Worley's idea about building a fence, and put one around their pulpits so that the gospel-less morality of people like Worley and Campolo can be kept out permanently.
Continuing from the previous post where my friend Andrew in Australia wrote a letter to his church expressing his concerns about their invitation to Tony Campolo. This letter serves as a great example of how to graciously write to church leadership in expressing a concern. It also serves as an excellent profile of Tony Campolo's dangerous theology/teachings. Today we conclude with point 5 in Andrew's letter:
5. He promotes an ecumenism that includes the Muslim, Jewish and Catholic faiths. This flows from a Universalist perspective.
Campolo’s willingness to consider people of other faiths as “brothers and sisters” indicates that he believes that the other faiths are also correct. There are a myriad of quotes I could use to demonstrate his views but I will just highlight a couple from the interview with Shane Claiborne.
“We don't have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don't convert, they are God's people, God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.”
“I think there are Muslim brothers and sisters who are willing to say, "You live up to the truth as you understand it. I will live up to the truth as I understand it, and we will leave it up to God on judgment day."”
“I don't think you have to compromise as a Christian the belief that Jesus is the only Savior but what I do think we have to say is that the grace of God extends way beyond the limitations of my religious group”
“It seems to me that when we listen to the Muslim mystics as they talk about Jesus and their love for Jesus, I must say, it's a lot closer to New Testament Christianity than a lot of the Christians that I hear. In other words if we are looking for common ground, can we find it in mystical spirituality, even if we cannot theologically agree, Can we pray together in such a way that we connect with a God that transcends our theological differences?”
(From: “On evangelicals and interfaith cooperation: an interview with Tony Campolo by Shane Claiborne” - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048/ - Emphasis mine)
In these excerpts I see a number of major issues.
o Our God and Allah are not the same. Even a basic reading of the Bible and the Koran demonstrates this. o The use of “brothers and sisters” to refer to Muslim people. In the wider evangelical scope, this is a term exclusively reserved for Christians. It is also highly problematic to refer to them as “God’s people”. o Since we do not have the same God, it does not make sense to pray together (see above point) o He denies that a person can only be saved through the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12)
Conclusions:
With all this in mind let me explain what I am hoping for from the leadership of this church.
1. That the leadership would set aside personal relationships or popular opinion and evaluate Tony Campolo based solely on his theology. I believe that yourselves as leadership should be willing to undertake personal research to evaluate the claims I have made in this letter. 2. That the church would resolve to not allow him to be a guest speaker if indeed his teachings are found to be heretical (that is, they contravene the primary teachings of the Bible in regards to the Scriptures, salvation and the nature of the Trinity). 3. That the church would withdraw the invitation to teach and challenge Tony Campolo to repent of his heretical views.
I am personally convinced that several of the teachings of Tony Campolo are nothing short of heresy and I submit this document in the hope that the congregation will be protected and made aware of the dangers of his teachings. I love the church, its members and its leadership. My wife and I have been more than willing to pour ourselves out in service because we feel that God has called us here in this season of our lives and we believe that part of that calling is to defend the flock from wolves.
We hope that you will be faithful in considering my research and that you will do what is necessary in this case to protect the flock over whom God has made you an under-shepherd.
Our prayers and support are with you at this time.
In Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
Andrew.
Andrew went on to say that the leadership team pondered his letter for a couple of weeks before responding with (my cliff notes paraphrase) "Tony Campolo is a really nice guy and says he loves Jesus and we don't really think any of the issues you raise are really that big a deal" (how was that summation Andrew?).
Andrew signed off in his letter to me by saying:
From both his letter of response and a meeting I held with him a couple of weeks later, I came to see that my pastor and I look at this issue very differently.
When I look at Tony Campolo’s teachings, I see the few examples of heresy as sufficient to disqualify him if they are substantiated.
When my pastor looks at his teachings, he sees the bulk of his supposedly solid work as sufficient to overlook “minor” issues.
He clearly does not see the issues the way I do and neither does he see them to be of the same significance that I do.
Eventually, Tony Campolo did speak at our church and my summary would be:
• It was a moralising attempt to bully people into acting sanctified without actually addressing the root issue. • He used Scripture 4 times and got it wrong… 4 times. • He quoted a Catholic mystic, an existentialist and not one conservative Christian teacher. • He told a couple of stories that made me question his moral character or at very least his wisdom. • He made a bunch of veiled attacks at traditional conversion.
I do have to hand it to him though. He is a very skilled communicator. All this was said with a steady flow of laughter and applause.
I hope to write a far more detailed review of the talk when I can stomach listening to it again.
Great effort Andrew, may your labor that has been shared on this blog be of benefit to the many readers who encounter these situations within their own local church contexts.
Continuing from the previous post where my friend Andrew in Australia wrote a letter to his church expressing his concerns about their invitation to Tony Campolo. This letter serves as a great example of how to graciously write to church leadership in expressing a concern. It also serves as an excellent profile of Tony Campolo's dangerous theology/teachings. Today we pick up at point 3 in Andrew's letter:
3. Involvement in Eastern/New Age/Mystic practices.
There are a number of practices that he [Campolo] affirms in his work but I want to pick on one that he is particularly open about. He often speaks of his affirmation of the practice of centering prayer, a practice that bears a very strong resemblance to trancendental meditiation as practiced in Eastern Religions, the Occult and the New Age religions. My wife was strongly involved in these practices before being saved and has a very good understanding of the dangers accociated with them.
“To do so, I have to drive back the animals--the "animals" being the hundred and one things that trouble me from the day before and the many things that are waiting to be done in the new day. I've got to push everything out of mind save the name of Jesus. I say His name over and over again, for as long as fifteen minutes, until I find my soul suspended in what the ancient Celtic Christians called a "thin place"--a state where the boundary between heaven and earth, divine and human, dissolves. You could say that I use the name of Jesus as my koan.” (“Mystical Encounters for Christians” - http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2006/02/Mystical-Encounters-For-Christians.aspx)
Campolo speaks of this practice often and reaffirms this in a large number of other sources.
Roger Oakland observes:
“This term ‘thin place’ originated with Celtic spirituality (i.e., contemplative) and is in line with panentheism. ... Thin places imply that God is in all things, and the gap between God, evil, man, everything thins out and ultimately disappears in mediation” (Faith Undone, pp. 114, 115).
There appear numeroustheological problems in Campolo’s quote :
o We don’t see anywhere in Scripture that this form of prayer is endorsed or modeled. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to empty our minds. o We see in Scripture a conversive form of prayer (Matthew 6:9-13, Ephesians 3:14-21) o In Psalm 119, the psalmist uses a word that we translate “meditate” which in Hebrew can be also translated as “ponder, converse, commune, complain, declare, muse, pray, speak, talk”. o Jesus spoke against repetious prayers (Matthew 6:7) o Much of the book of Leviticus speaks of God’s peope not adopting the pagan practices of the culture/faiths/peoples around them. o This practice was historically rejected almost universally by Christian theologians.
With many of these mystical practices (particularly in the Islamic, Catholic and Jewish forms) we also see an undermining of the authority of Scripture. The scripture becomes subject to experience and we have the testimony of centuries of history to see how those involved in these mystical practices then interpreted God’s Word in “new” ways. This issue goes right back to the Gnostic traditions that were impacting the church in the first few centuries of the faith.
4. His own story of conversion is foreign to the Biblical pattern.
Campolo’s conversion experience is documented in his book “Letters to a Young Evangelical” where he tells the story of his very gradual becoming a Christian. He speaks of not having a born again experience like his mother had, but rather that he came to knowledge of Jesus though centering prayer.
“When I was a boy growing up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood in West Philadelphia, my mother, a convert to Evangelical Christianity from a Catholic immigrant family, hoped I would have one of those dramatic “born again” experiences. That was the way she had come into a personal relationship with Christ. She took me to hear one evangelist after another, praying that I would go to the altar and come away “converted.” But it never worked for me. I would go down the aisle as the people around me sang “the invitation hymn,” but I just didn’t feel that anything happened to me. For a while I despaired wondering if I would ever get “saved.” It took me quite some time to realize that entering into a personal relationship with Christ does not always happen that way.” (“Letters to a Young Evangelical” - page 8)
In my case intimacy with Christ had developed gradually over the years, primarily through what Catholics call “centering prayer.” Each morning, as soon as I wake up, I take time—sometimes as much as a half hour—to center myself on Jesus. I say his name over and over again to drive back the 101 things that begin to clutter my mind the minute I open my eyes. Jesus is my mantra, as some would say. ( “Letters to a Young Evangelical” - page 9)
“I learned about this way of having a born-again experience from reading Catholic mystics, especially The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. Ignatius, a founder of the Jesuit order, was once a soldier and it was only when he spent a long time in a hospital bed recovering from a battle wound that his heart and mind focused on God. Like most Catholic mystics he developed an intense desire to experience a “oneness” with God. Gradually, he came to feel an intense yearning for the kind of spiritual purity that he believed would enable him to experience the fullness of God’s presence within.” (“Letters to a Young Evangelical” - page 30)
I want to stress here that I am not attempting to assert that he is not saved. I cannot and do not know where his heart truly sits with Jesus because although I can examine some of the fruit of his public ministry, I don’t know him personally. I am instead suggesting that his story gives insight into his understanding of the Gospel which as a logical consequence may have implications for his own salvation.
His account of salvation raises serious questions due to the clear teaching of Scripture that someone must be born again (John 3:3) and also the clear example of Scripture which speaks of a clear sharp conversion: o the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) o Paul (Acts 9) o Cornelius (Acts 10) o Lydia (Acts 16) o the Philippian jailer (Acts 16)
That is not to say that people cannot come to faith over a season of life where God does many things in them, but we see both from Scripture and our experience that there is always a clear conversion experience, even for those who have grown up inside the church.
Completely lacking from his account (at least from the excerpts I have) is any mention of: o Sin o The cross o Repentance o Forgiveness o Judgement
Instead we see mention of “oneness with God” and a strong dependence on feelings.
The essence of the problem is that his testimony and preaching indicates a different Gospel to the one clearly taught in Scripture and we are told to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Romans 16:17). He does not appear as theologically naive as to not be aware of the Biblical elements of salvation, or to orthodox thinking.
Thanks Andrew, I'll pick up this letter again and finish it on Tuesday. In the mean time just take a peek at Campolo's bizarre explanation of what it means to be "born again". See if you can figure out what part of Scripture he is referring to . . .
How would you deal with a situation where you are a member of a local church that you love and suddenly find out that they have invited a known heretic to come and fill their pulpit? Would you respond? How would you approach this?
My friend Andrew in Australia was recently confronted with this situation and he responded to it. In fact, I was so impressed with Andrew's careful research and gracious presentation that I wanted to post it here over the next week as a very helpful example of a God honoring way to go about responding to such a dire situation. Andrew also compiles an excellent and helpful profile on the beliefs/teachings of Tony Campolo. Take it away Andrew . . .
Earlier this year, our church announced that they would be hosting Tony Campolo as a guest speaker. This immediately raised a red flag for me as I had heard him referenced many times in a negative light and so I began to research his teachings. I also informed a couple of the pastors at our church that I was aware of some theological issues and that I was going to investigate further.
I want to release some of the work I did to the general public for a couple of reasons.
1. I want people to gain a better understanding of Tony Campolo and his teaching. I do not believe he is theologically sound and as such I want people to see the wolf that he is. 2. I want people to learn from my attempt at challenging church leadership. My attempt was by no means perfect, and I don’t want it to be held up as “This is how you should do it”. I was very fortunate to have a number of people come along side me in this process to read and re-read what I wrote. I believe that it is possible to graciously but firmly warn a church that they are hosting a wolf.
I want to emphasise that the leadership of this church are people I consider friends and the church community is one that I dearly love. To this end, I have been careful to remove all names of the people and the church involved so that this cannot be seen as an attack on the church or its leadership.
Below is a letter that I submitted to the church leadership summarising my research.
Dear [Pastors],
I want to bring you up to speed with my research into Tony Campolo and what I have learned.
I want to make a couple of things very clear before I get into specifics:
• I am raising these issues out of a heart for the church and a love for God. I am not interested in causing division or making a scene but rather I am genuinely concerned for protecting the theological integrity of the church and its members. • I have always placed a high value on supporting, assisting and encouraging you as leaders of this church and this remains my commitment. I am not seeking to judge you in any way for this decision to allow Tony Campolo to speak here nor do I wish to undermine you in any way. • I am conerned only with Tony Campolo’s theology. His character and behaviour are not in question. Everything I hear, including from his critics, is that he is a really nice guy and a very skilled communicator, however what concerns me and I have therefore examined are his teachings. I do not have relationship with him and do not need to in order to evaluate his teachings and whether or not he ought be invited as teacher. We must be like the Bereans of Acts 17 who closely examined the scriptures to examine the claims that Paul made. We are also commanded to identify those whose teachings are not in alignment with scripture and beware of them (Rom 16:17). To do this we must look at the breadth of his teachings both in what he has written and said publically.
To that end I have endeavoured to work from primary sources rather than potentially out of context secondary sources: • I have read a number of articles that he has written that are published on the beliefnet website. • I have read transcripts of interviews that he was involved in. • I have also listened to audio of him being interviewed.
As a secondary source, I have also used large sections from his books cited on a couple of blogs. I refer to these as secondary because I do not have complete copies of his work. In these cases I have been careful to examine the blog writer’s integrity with quoting work by comparing quotes to primary sources that I did have access to. For the moment I am prepared to trust these quotes as accurate unless I am shown that they are out of context or otherwise inaccurately reproduced in which case I am more than happy to reconsider their use in making my case.
I have found multiple areas that are of considerable theological concern and I have summarised them below.
1. He denies God’s omniscience and omnipotence
Following hurricane Katrina’s destruction in the US in late 2005, Campolo weighed in with his view that clearly undermined both God’s foreknowledge of the event and his ability to intervene.
“Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad answers. One such answer is that somehow all suffering is a part of God's great plan. In the midst of agonies, someone is likely to quote from the Bible, telling us that if we would just be patient, we eventually would see "all things work together for the good, for those who love God, and are called according to His purposes." (Romans 8:28)”
“I don't doubt that God can bring good out of tragedies, but the Bible is clear that God is not the author of evil! (James 1:15) Statements like that dishonor God, and are responsible for driving more people away from Christianity than all the arguments that atheistic philosophers could ever muster. When the floods swept into the Gulf Coast, God was the first one who wept.”
“Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent.
Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.” (“Katrina: Not God's Wrath--or His Will” - http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/09/Katrina-Not-Gods-Wrath-Or-His-Will.aspx)
To imply that this was not God’s will (in the title of the article) implies that the creation is not subject to God. He reinforces this in the later quote by Rabbi Kushner. That is flat out historical heresy.
It is a concession by someone who does not have a Biblical understanding of suffering.
2. He does not understand the Biblical Gospel
In an interview with Shane Claiborne he states:
“Catholicism would say that at the moment of death every person is confronted in that split moment with Christ and is given the opportunity of saying yes or no. To say otherwise is to say God has got to be a pretty unfair deity, to condemn three quarters of the human race to hell without them ever having a chance.”
“There is much in Christianity that would suggest exactly the same thing, particularly Romans the 2nd chapter, where the apostle Paul says "What do we say of those who do not accept the law of God," and I would add "as we understand it," "and are faithful to all the things that God calls us to do--will God not have to make room for them?" He asks that as a rhetorical question, leaving the reader with the obvious sense--"but of course." So I think that the apostle Paul would be a lot more generous towards Islamic people than most of my evangelical brothers and sisters are.” (From: “On evangelicals and interfaith cooperation: an interview with Tony Campolo by Shane Claiborne” - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048/ - Emphasis mine)
In this statement, he shows a lack of understanding of the justice of God. In his words, “God has got to be a pretty unfair deity” if he punishes people for their sins. This is seen again as he dramatically misinterprets Romans 2:14-15 which clearly speaks of the fact that all people, Jew or Gentile understand God’s standards because he has written his law on their hearts in the form of a conscience and that he has revealed some of himself through nature so that this will leave them without excuse (Romans 1:20). He doesn’t appear to understand that all of us have enough sin to condemn us (Romans 3:23) and that lack of belief in Christ is not the primary reason someone should be condemned (Romans 2:6, 8, 12, John 3:18). It would appear that to satisfy his lack of understanding he has taken on a Catholic teaching which has no basis in scripture.
In addition to this he clearly promotes a work-righteous salvation where a “good Muslim” (see Romans 3:10-12) can have a relationship with Jesus (without knowing his name) if he fulfils the Muslim command to give to the poor.
“When it comes to what is ultimately important, the Muslim community's sense of commitment to the poor is exactly in tune with where Jesus is in the 25th chapter of Matthew. That is the description of judgment day. And if that is the description of judgment day what can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? You say, "But he hasn't a personal relationship with Christ." I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn't know it. And Jesus himself says: "On that day there will be many people who will say, when did we have this wonderful relationship with you, we don't even know who you are ..." "Well, you didn't know it was me, but when you did it to the least of these it was doing it to me."” (From: “On evangelicals and interfaith cooperation: an interview with Tony Campolo by Shane Claiborne” - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048/ - Emphasis mine)
Again he mishandles Scripture by misinterpreting Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus does not say in this account of end times (which we need to show great care in interpreting) that the good deeds make someone righteous but rather by taking this passage in conjunction with others on the same subject, we can see that Jesus is saying that the fruit of the righteous is good works (i.e. Righteousness causes good works, not good works causes righteousness). In a passage such as this, we must interpret the text in light of clearer Scriptures (Matthew 7:15-20, Ephesians 2:8-9, James 2:14-25, Galatians 5:16-26).
Jesus did not place upon us the yoke of work-righteousness. Christ has declared me righteous through His finished work on the cross and that there is nothing that I can do to contribute to my own salvation. My works and my sins are not judged when deciding my eternal fate. This is not true for Islam, Judaism or Catholicism. It is through a work-righteous theology that Tony Campolo is able to rationalize his ecumenism.
His commitment to the poor is to be highly commended and his work is well known however, I must reiterate that we are not judging his works but his theology.
The emergent movement still seems to think that there is plenty more life left in that rotting carcass. The movement may live on in the form of the heresies they propagated that have now infiltrated modern evangelical churches. But old liberalism continues to die the death of a thousand attempts at repackaging.
In the words of the "organizers":
The Wild Goose is a Celtic metaphor for the Holy Spirit. We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. The festival is rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore open to all regardless of belief, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, denomination or religious affiliation.
In adopting the image of the Wild Goose we recognize that in the current climate of religious, social and political cynicism, embracing the creative and open nature of our faith is perhaps our greatest asset for re-building and strengthening our relationships with each other, with our enemies, with our stories, our texts, and the earth. In that spirit, in a festive setting, and in the context of meaningful, respectful, and sustained relationships, we invite you to create with us!
As a child my favorite cartoon was the "League of Justice". It was the transcendent superhero cartoon where Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Spiderman, and Wonder Woman (yes, even then PC demanded a token woman and, let's face it, her invisible jet was a tremendous innovation in cutting costs). All these superheros were able to combine their superpowers for the ultimate force against all evil in the world.
The Wild Goose Festival is just like "League of Justice" except for the fighting evil part . . . and the superhero part . . . and the enjoyable part . . . Anyway, Wild Goose festival is what you get when you combine the apostate false teaching superpowers of Tony Jones, Jim Wallis, Jay Bakker, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Lynne Hybels, Frank Schaeffer, Phyliss Tickle, Richard Rohr etc into one giant potpourri of every imaginable religious idea apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They may even try to outdo each other - maybe some new heresy might be birthed at Wild Goose.
(Sidenote: if the name Lynne Hybels (wife of Bill Hybels and "Willow Creek Advocate For Global Engagement") surprises you - don't be surprised. This woman is full of liberal kookiness so beware all you Willow Creek'ers who think that your fellowship is a safe haven. Lynne Hybels is not only seeker sensitive, she is very liberal on a lot of fronts - and very influential as well. Just check out her role as an inner circle counsellor to Barack Obama, her troubling association with radical leftist ministries like Sojourners and Red Letter Christians, and her ridiculous apologies to Islam.
The Wild Goose festival website carries the following bold prediction:
Wild Goose is going to grow into the largest, best run, most dynamic religious happening in the USA!
Here is a video highlight from the festival that lends so much credence to that bold prediction of a "dynamic", well organized, religious "happening" with teeming crowds. I would say that the word "religious" does apply to the Wild Goose festival . . . it's just that I can't quite make out what religion that would be!
Newsflash emergent gurus - whether your movement is dead or on life-support, Woodstock 2 is not the solution!
Most of us have been stunned at the scale of devastation in Haiti. We should certainly be in prayer, particularly for our Christian brothers and sisters in Haiti. Giving is another area and one that requires wise stewardship of the Christian. Here is an article from the 9 Marks blog (the ministry of Mark Dever) which suggests a good place for our money to be well spent in Haiti in a way that honors God and is ultimately used in the furtherance of the Gospel while providing immediate relief to those suffering:
Haiti Relief - The Baptist Haiti Mission by Ryan Townsend
Friends,
Most of you have heard by now about the terrible earthquake in Haiti that has devastated the country. Some news agencies are estimating human loss at 500,000 souls. Please be in prayer for the people, specifically the believers, over these next few days. Many folks are still stuck in collapsed buildings and will begin dying without water or air. And the danger of looting and violence is very real. May God use this to turn many to himself.
Since we can't jump on planes and get down there to help out, the best thing we can do right now is fund good ministries that are on the ground. With all the confusion of who to support, I wanted to make you aware of a ministry, the Baptist Haiti Mission, that I'm confident will use funding in a competent manner both to relieve physical suffering and to give clear biblical witness to Jesus Christ.
The Baptist Haiti Mission is right in the center of the chaos and is doing amazing work. They could use our support. You can read about them and donate on their website http://www.bhm.org. You can see regular updates about the disaster here. Here's one sobering fact from their homepage this morning:
"The BHM hospital at our headquarters in Fermathe is overflowing with earthquake victims. We are the only hospital serving the surrounding rural mountain villages."
There are multiple buttons you can press to donate funds to them, if the Lord is leading you to help relieve suffering in Haiti during this crisis.
It is also important to explore and develop a theological response to tragedies like Haiti. How we should respond at the theological level? It has been common in my recent witnessing encounters to hear objections to God, or His existence, due to the devastation in Haiti. I thought it beneficial to revisit two articles on the question of God and suffering, written soon after hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans.
The first article was written by Tony Campolo and the title reveals Campolo's trainwreck theology:
Katrina: Not God's Wrath--or His Will The Hebrew Bible doesn't say God is omnipotent. When disaster strikes, he cries with the rest of us.
I have only one word to describe commentary like this - disgust! How dare Campolo redefine the God of Scripture. This comment alone confirms Campolo as an idolater. In a lame attempt at defusing the idea of God having wrath, and delivering false comfort to those hurting, Campolo is willing to present to us a false god who is not all powerful and cries himself to sleep over all the evil that he cannot stop.
Campolo's assertion about omnipotence only serves to show that he is a sociologist masquerading as a theologian. The word omnipotence might not be mentioned in the Bible (the word e-mail doesn't appear either) but the truth of it is clearly taught. For the sake of time I will quote just two:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11).
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things (Isaiah 45:7).
Campolo continues:
Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were - for the most part - Katrina's victims.
Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty.
I have set aside the coming weeks to compare my "Anatomy of the Gospel" series with gospel presentations used by certain ministries. Here, Campolo flunks with flying colors on the very first point in my "Anatomy of the Gospel" series - The character and nature of God.
Fortunately, after Campolo managed to disturb wrestless souls even more, John Piper came to the fore. He wrote beautifully of God's Sovereignty in even the seeming worst of humanitarian disasters:
On his 89th birthday (August 31) NPR Senior News Analyst, Daniel Schorr, observed that President Bush had “staked out a non-position” on the debate between evolution and intelligent design. Bush had said that “both sides ought to be properly taught in the schools of America.” Then, with manifest scorn, Schorr linked the devastation of Hurricane Katrina with the concept of intelligent design: “[Bush] might well have reflected that, if this was the result of intelligent design, then the designer has something to answer for.”
No, Mr. Schorr, you have something to answer for, not God. God answers to no man. Come, Daniel Schorr, take your place with Job and answer your Maker: “The Lord answered Job [and Daniel Schorr] out of the whirlwind and said: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. . . . Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, “Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed”?’” (Job 38:1-3, 8-11).
Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Shall the pot say to the Potter, “This is an unintelligent way to show your justice and your power? Come, Maker of heaven and earth, sit at my feet—I have lived 89 years and have gotten much wisdom—and I will teach you—the eternal God—how to govern the universe”?
No. Rather let us put our hands on our mouths and weep both for the perishing and for ourselves who will soon follow. Whatever judgment has fallen, it is we who deserve it—all of us. And whatever mercy is mingled with judgment in New Orleans neither we nor they deserve.
God sent Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners. He did not suffer massive shame and pain because Americans are pretty good people. The magnitude of Christ’s suffering is owing to how deeply we deserve Katrina—all of us.
Our guilt in the face of Katrina is not that we can’t see the intelligence in God’s design, but that we can’t see arrogance in our own heart. God will always be guilty of high crimes for those who think they’ve never committed any.
But God commits no crimes when he brings famine, flood, and pestilence on the earth. “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6). The answer of the prophet is no. God’s own testimony is the same: “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). And if we ask, is there intelligent design in it all, the Bible answers: “You meant evil . . . but God meant it [designed it] for good” (Genesis 50:20).
This will always be ludicrous to those who put the life of man above the glory of God. Until our hearts are broken, not just for the life-destroying misery of human pain, but for the God-insulting rebellion of human sin, we will not see intelligent design in the way God mingles mercy and judgment in this world. But for those who bow before God’s sovereign grace and say, “From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever,” they are able to affirm, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:36, 33). And wisdom is another name for intelligent design.
No, Daniel Schorr, God does not answer to us. We answer to him. And we have only one answer: “Guilty as charged.” Every mouth is stopped and the whole world is accountable before God. There is only one hope to escape the flood of God’s wrath. It is not the levee of human virtue but the high ground called Calvary. All brokenhearted looters and news analysts and pastors are welcome there.
Thanks to Piper for reminding us of Who God is, who we are, and where true comfort lies - in the Sovereignty of God.
On wednesday, we will take a look at the gospel according to Hillsong.
Gianna Jessen is a true hero and revealer of truth concerning the horrendous things that happen to babies that "survive" abortion procedures. Barack Obama can try and play technicalities all he wants - the fact is that he is the pro murder candidate.
I often hear Ronald Reagan's name maligned by intellectuals but unlike Obama he showed that the issue of life was not “above his pay grade”. When asked when does life begin Reagan (like Obama) said he did not know, but in contrast to Obama he said that that uncertainty was reason enough never to allow abortion. It would seem that, if elected, Obama should get minimum wage.
Again I want to stress that I am not overly interested in the political realm but I take keen interest in engaging a Christian worldview where our morality is biblically aligned and our political allegience lies with truth. And in light of this it is important to shed light on candidates who attempt to lure the Christian vote with a deceptive agenda and Obama continually attempts to position himself to the voting public as a Christian voice even though he denies so much of basic Christian truth including the exclusivity of Jesus. My concern lies not with people voting for Barack Obama, my concern lies with the undiscerning church goer who votes for the pro murder candidate because he thinks he's voting for a Christian.
Don't think for one minute that this is an endorsement of John McCain. Christian brothers and sisters, we should not kid ourselves about what can be achieved through politics. Civil law only serves the purpose of restraining a wicked and perverse generation enough for the Gospel to be preached. As I often say the heart of he human problem is the problem of the human heart and preaching is the God ordained means of bringing this about. For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe (I Corinthians 1:21).
The emergents, liberals, and "red letter" crowd have railed long and hard against the "religious right" for being too political and campaigning for the wrong issues. In fact guys like Tony Campolo (standing on the Democratic party platform), Jim Wallis (who chastened the religious right for their failure to be civil whilst saying "George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States") and Brian McLaren (who is doing and funding TV commercials or Barack Obama) continually claim to be above partisan politics.
The truth is that the "religious right" gets it wrong. But their failure has not been the issues they have fought or political opportunism. They have fought the right issues but have shifted the emphasis in evangelicalism from mission to activism. It is good to fight moral issues but fantasy to think that morality can be legislated. I often say that the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart and God's ordained method for changing the human heart has been faithful preaching; "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (I Corinthians 1:21). No amount of legislation can do what can only be done by God's Holy Spirit - regenerating the human heart.
The left on the other hand takes getting it wrong to a whole new level. They have been the actual political opportunists who have politicised moral issues, abandoned the authority of Scripture, and redefined the Gospel.
Christians need to remember that civil laws, ultimately, only serve to restrain a wicked and perverse generation enough for the Gospel to be preached. We are strangers in a strange land that is temporal and perishing. We serve a King who is eternal and has left this strange land to go and prepare a place for us. In the meantime Christ has called us to preach His Gospel in only two situations - in season and out of season. Remember that when you vote.
A lot of negative things are being said (often by emergents, liberals and "red letters") concerning being a single issue voter. True - saving lives of the unborn is not the only issue. But we need to remember that a single issue can disqualify someone from being president and some issues are so BIG that they can outweigh all the others in one single swoop. If you are a preacher or a church and you don't get the Gospel right then everything else is a waste of time.
By Joe Belz from World Magazine
It's become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by "single issues."
It was a reminder implicitly included in the "Evangelical Manifesto," a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto's backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?
And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it's time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that's the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we've put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it's time not to lower our voices.
Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics.
And I'm not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I'm talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they're doing is just fine. There's forgiveness for individual sinners. There's judgment for societies that lead them astray.
It's true that we evangelicals sometimes haven't been as zealous as we ought in fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty. But on all those fronts and more, we're at least facing the right direction. We're sometimes slow.
But here's the difference: What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?
That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. Whole movements and organizations devote themselves to telling us how good abortion and same-sex marriage are for society. It now is expected that Barack Obama feature on his speaking schedule, as he did on June 26, a New York fundraising dinner for the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council—where the news account reports casually that Obama helped the homosexual lobby raise $1 million in just one evening.
But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.
It's hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.
Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don't just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.
And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today's poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we'd taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow's elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.
So stop apologizing for having focused on a single issue. Don't let the "Evangelical Manifesto" or anyone else shame you into an overly narrow self-image. It's the folks promoting causes like abortion and same-sex marriage who are the real "single issue" fanatics, falsely teaching that you can mess with just one or two aspects of life without upsetting the balance God so wondrously installed in His creation order. We need to expose that lie for the tragic falsehood that it is—and to teach the next generation what a very bad bargain they have been asked to accept.
Yesterday I posted a letter by concerned Christians who wrote to Rick Warren pleading with him to retract his invitation to have staunch pro abortionist Barack Obama speak at his AIDS conference. If you read the letter it is plain to see that it is devoid of politcal agenda and instead voices a legitimate concern.
But into the picture stride Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis (and a host of other "Christian leaders") who are a part of a movement known as "red letter Christians" (which is their way of saying that they have a low view of Scripture). On the reason for creating Red-Letter Christians, Tony Campolo said, "The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics." So because Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis are doing such a great job at transcending partisan politics they decided to write a letter of their own turning the earlier letter to Rick Warren into a political issue all the while ignoring the infinitely more important moral issue that these Christians were concerned about.
Several right-wing religious organizations, including the National Clergy Council, recently blasted Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church for inviting Senator Barack Obama to speak on World AIDS Day this Friday, December 1. It's unfortunate that these groups would exploit the Christian faith to advance their divisive agenda – an agenda that gives almost exclusive attention to a few wedge issues while ignoring the diversity of problems plaguing American communities. We reject the creation of an unbiblical litmus test to exclude believers from the body of Christ. We are called to the ministry of reconciliation and the liberation of all people, spiritually and socially.
We also wonder why any organization claiming to represent believers in Jesus Christ would choose to play what amounts to partisan politics (emphasis added) instead of encouraging our leaders to address the scourge of AIDS.
AIDS has claimed the lives of 25 million people since 1981. Forty million people across the globe, including 2 million children, live with this wretched disease. And nearly 7 million people are now in desperate need of life-saving drugs, without which they will die. In the face of this crisis, it boggles our minds and offends our God-given sense of justice that these groups would choose to attack Senator Obama and Reverend Warren – Christians both – for working together to stamp out AIDS.
It is time for believers to unite under the banner of truth and work to address our society's most pressing problems. The time for scare tactics and divisiveness is over. As leaders in the Christian community, we will not stand silent in the face of these attacks, but will instead serve as voices for equality, fairness, and justice for all people.
It is easy to see who is playing the partisan politics here. Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis should be severely disciplined by their local congregations for such disgraceful behavior and high level hypocrisy. In fact Tony Campolo is so "above" partisan politics that he was on the Democratic Party Platform Committee for their convention in July. Join the dots on that one!
I have recently touched on the ridiculous fiasco of Rick Warren inviting rabid pro abortionist Barack Obama to his AIDS conference to talk about saving lives. Then, many from the "emergent", "red letter", and social justice camps (who have been pontificating for years about the religious right being too political) decided to turn it into a political issue. This stinks on so many levels and I just don't know where to begin unpacking this.
First of all, just because Barack Obama calls himself a Christian doesn't mean he is one. This is how Barack Obama describes his faith: "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." Hmmm how can I say this gently . . . "many paths" IS NOT CHRISTIANITY. The Christ of Barack Obama is not the Christ of Scripture. Barack Obama might speak christianese but he doesn't follow the TRUE Christ Who is the ONLY path to salvation. C'mon, this isn't that hard to figure out.
Secondly, Obama really brings nothing new or helpful to the fight against AIDS as his solution revolves around sex education programs rather than promoting abstinence before marriage. AIDS, as far as the big picture goes, is a moral issue because it is mainly spread through sexual promiscuity.
Third, all this focus on AIDS, global warming, opposing the war in Iraq is becoming disturbing - not because those issues don't matter but because of the silence on the abortion issue. All these "progressive Christian Leaders" rallying around Barak Obama and talking about taking the "holistic approach" is just one big fat disgraceful joke. If you were to add the total number of deaths from AIDS, the war in Iraq, and "the melting icecaps" it does not even come to one twentieth of the 46 MILLION estimated abortions each year (abortionno.org). Abortion is an outrage that dwarfs these other issues. If these people cared about abortion they would be making plenty of noise about it because they have no problem making a song and dance about our "carbon footprint" and they would never endorse Obama's pro death policies.
Genuinely concerned Christians wrote to Rick Warren pleading with him not to invite Barack Obama to his AIDS summit because of his pro abortion stance. Here is a copy of the letter:
As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren's welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference.
Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren's church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama's position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned." Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God's clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama's solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible.
In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God. Accordingly, we call on Pastor Rick Warren to rescind his invitation to Senator Obama immediately. The millions of silent victims who have died because of the policies of leaders like Senator Obama demand a response from those who believe that life is a gift from God. The name of the seminar at which Senator Obama will be appearing is entitled, " We Must Work Together." No, Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama, we will never work with those can support the murder of babies in the womb.
Did you count the number of times the word "democrat" got mentioned in the letter - big fat zero. That is because this letter was solely conerned with Obama's pro murder stance.
Well those so called "progressive Christians" like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis got wind of this letter and wrote a response. As you will see tomorrow, the real problem of political opportunism is not from the "religious right" but from these disgraceful individuals. Read their response tomorrow
There is much more that could be discussed about Rick Warren and may well be at a later date. There is the issue of Purpose Driven mission trips where copies of Purpose Driven Life are handed out instead of Bibles. There is the issue of Rick Warren training Jewish leaders how to grow their Synagogues. There is the issue of Rick Warren prasing the Syrian Islamic regime for their treatment of Christians, then denying that it ever happened, then having to delete a youtube video that confirmed it did happen. There is also Pastor Warren's proud claim of being Rupert Murdoch's pastor - Murdoch being the worlds largest peddler of pornography (paging church discipline . . paging church discipline).
And there is also the issue of Rick Warren inviting homosexuals and strong abortion advocates to speak at his global AIDS summit. This included Barack Obama who supports the hideous murderous practice of "late term abortion". Rick Warren was roundly criticised for inviting these people and rightly so. His mantra to these criticisms is generally "I don't have to agree with 100 percent of what another person does in order to work with them on the 20 percent that we do agree on." Well here's my question following this philosophy - what if the leader of the Ku Klux Klan has some really positive contibutions to the AIDS summit? Would you invite him? Could you find 20% of common ground and put aside that "side" issue of racism? I would love to hear Rick Warren's response to those questions. And I would strongly contend that murder of the unborn is even more hideous than the blight of racism.
This issue of Barack Obama has left a stench on the landscape of "modern Christanity". I've followed the smell and it leads to some very ugly goings on within the "emergent" and "red letter" camps. These people who include Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, and Donald Miller are hypocrites of the highest order. I have "held back" on this blog for a long time but I can no longer remain silent. I have patiently listened to (and taken on board) their continual criticism of the "religious right" for many years now but now they are starting to show their true colours and I will be speaking openly about their seductive deceptions over the coming days - so stay tuned.
The bottom line, though, with Rick Warren is the "gospel" he preaches and it is not the biblical Gospel as has been clearly exposed in the previous posts. The main purpose behind these posts has been in response to the continual attempts by Purpose Driven Cybercensors to delete any criticism or renounce it as people having personal issues with Rick Warren. There may be people out there who do have personal issues with Rick Warren and I have no interest in their grievances. It is also true that much of what Rick Warren teaches in his Purpose Driven books is helpful and beneficial within the daily life - even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. But these truths can serve as a smokescreen for the greater eternal picture and many of Rick Warren's critics are people who hold these issues dear to their hearts and labor tirelessly in them. They should not be silenced, they should be heard - especially by Rick Warren. Because if you get the Gospel wrong then the rest, ultimately, is a waste of time.
A while back I posted (July 9 - Faithful Are the Wounds of a Friend) about how one of my best friends gave me some stern criticism over my post concerning the deceptions of the "social gospel" (July 1 - The Smokescreen of the Social gospel) as preached by Tony Campolo and many from the emergent crowd. Now my friend is not a liberal by any stretch but he tends to be more accomodating than I am (and Todd Friel for that matter).
This friend is a precious brother who has, over the years, patiently watched me while I've ridden hobby horse after hobby horse, mounted soap box after soap box, and continually beaten my fists at the table of negotiation as a reformer looking for something to reform. On reflection I would have to say that my friend has always exhibited greater wisdom, been less impulsive, and exhibited far more courtesy than I ever have to my own discredit. He is a pondering Berean who generally tends to give the benefit of the doubt and always tries to put the best possible construction on things - of which I have been the beneficiary on numerous occasions.
With these things in mind I have taken my time to chew over the criticism's my good friend levelled at myself and at Todd Friel's anlysis of Tony Campolo's social gospel agenda. Todd Friel has even e-mailed me saying how sad he is to criticise Tony Campolo's theology because he is so "likable". No doubt about it - Tony Campolo is involved with doing a lot of good things and helping a lot of people. But in the interest of the truth and the purity of the Gospel, questions must be asked. And the many good things Tony Campolo is involved in can actually serve to wrap the lies of the "social gospel" in a lot of truth - which is exactly the kind of sandwich that a church culture full of undiscerning youth will readily swallow.
My friend has worked a lot with youth and teens and I remain convinced that the philosophy of "eat the fish and spit out the bones" is a suicidal approach to the spiritual diet of the people in one's care, particularly youth. I contend that a far safer approach in this age of biblical illiteracy is "bad fruit therefore bad tree therefore stay away from that thing" and remedy the biblical illiteracy by teaching the Bible expositorally (if that's a word).
So was Todd Friel too hard on Tony Campolo? Well let's welcome theological heavyweight John MacArthur into the fray and see what he has to say about the "social gospel" of Tony Campolo. It's well worth the listen . . .
My friend may be wise, and his words carry weight, but I'm going to side with John MacArthur and Todd Friel on this one. Shepherds beware - of false gospels dressed like sheep.
I recently copped some criticism from one of my very closest friends over my post concerning Tony Campolo. He felt that a stern response was warranted but was fearful (probably due to prior experiences of bitter response) about doing so because of the friction he didn't want to generate. We really need to question our friendships if they can't withstand loving correction. I assured my friend that I always want him to feel at liberty to rebuke me when necessary and within the bounds of Scripture.
Brothers and Sisters, I fear that this is symptomatic of the therapeutic age we live in. We live in a day where an individual's self esteem has become sacred and scape goats abound for our own sinful actions. Shepherds fear confrontation because even the smallest rebuke seems to generate long term ill feeling and it is not uncommon for church members to feel hostility from their pastor in response to being biblically critiqued. People may say that they have a high view of Scripture but only so long as they can maintain diplomatic immunity.
Why are we so surprised that we need rebuke in the light of our inherent sinful nature. Spurgeon said that if someone rebukes you for something you haven't done, receive it anyway because the day will come when the shoe will fit.
Proverbs 27:6 says this "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy." I contend that one of the strongest measures of a person's godliness is the way they take rebuke. One who longs to be conformed to Christ embraces the rebuke of a genuine brother because he fears offending God more than being offended personally. And beware those commendations from the enemy. I've seen more than one Christian leader taken down by his inner circle of yes men. I've also heard plenty of sermons against negativity (chapter and verse please). If by negativity they mean people who dare to disagree with them then it is a suicidal philosophy for they become isolated from the precious wounds that help us conform to Christ.
In closing I want to throw one other thought out there. Jesus laid down His life and went as a sheep to the slaughter - how are you doing in the area of dying to self. Jesus went ballistic when His Father's house became a den of thieves - are you more offended when people insult you or when they blaspheme God. I contend this is a good test of one's meekness.
I will not comment on the Tony Campolo post here - I'll do that later. I don't want to distract from the point I'm trying to make here because Pastors have a hard enough job to do without having to tread on the egotistical egg shells of an insecure congregation. Please - embrace the wounds that a true Christian brother or sister delivers so that we can become more like Christ.
One of the great long term masquerades of "evangelical Christianity" has been none other than Tony Campolo. For years now he has somehow managed to persuade a lot of prominent evangelicals of his evangelical-ness by simply labelling himself as an "evangelical" (if only the same principle worked for being a lawyer or a doctor). Admittedly the term evangelical gets a good working over these days but one would assume that it would mean that you would understand the primary reason why Jesus came . . . . ummmmm earth to Dr Campolo, John 3:16 will give you a big clue . . .
Listen to this audio as Todd Friel from "Way of the Master Radio" sheds light on Tony Campolo's dodgy doctrines.
Noone is questioning whether Christians should care for the poor. William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) springs to mind as someone who tirelessly labored to care for the poor whilst being preoccupied with matters of eternity. Could some person with a basic grasp of Scripture please inform Tony Campolo that the poor person's basic problem is sin that needs forgiveness, and the rich person's basic problem is sin that needs forgiveness, and the poor person who benefits from a feeding program has a basic problem of sin that needs forgiveness. After all, the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. Rich and poor will all die one day and unless they repent and trust the Savior they will burn in hell, rich and poor alike. Our primary mission is the ministry of reconciliation, not reconciliation of social inequality.
The great deception of the social gospel of Dr Campolo comes about because he is advocating something that a true Christian should do. The smokescreen is that caring for the poor becomes the Gospel when in reality it is a by product of a regenerate heart rather than the Gospel itself. Christian brother and sister - please watch out for that curve ball.
Perhaps at the root of all this lies a faulty understanding of regeneration. Perhaps the idea of decisional regeneration (being saved by saying a "sinners prayer") has led to the desire to try and labor in the area of motivating the "visible church" to good deeds. Perhaps if they understood that regeneration is a supernatural work of God that changes the human heart and causes us to walk in God's statutes then bleeding heart liberals like Tony Campolo might repent and start preaching the biblical Gospel, you know, the one that is the power of God unto salvation.
Eze 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
