Evangelical leader Tony Campolo addressed an audience in Oakville, Ontario, on Saturday, telling them that the “absent father” theory of homosexuality was “the dumbest thing I ever heard.” Citing statistics on single-parent families, he added that, if the theory were true, “Camden, New Jersey, would be the gay capital of the world.”
Campolo, a sociologist and Baptist pastor known for his liberal views, despite holding a conservative view of Scripture, was guest speaker at Relevant Engagement, the 2010 fundraiser for New Direction, a Canadian Christian ministry that reaches out to those “outside the heterosexual mainstream.” He said that while genetic and inborn theories of causation had not been proven, homosexuality was not a choice.
Campolo damned ex-gay reparative therapy with faint praise, saying that change of orientation was “not impossible, but rare,” later saying it was “very, very, very, very rare.” He acknowledged that many (most?) gays who try to change find out five or six years down the line that they were “kidding themselves because of social pressure from family and friends.”
He denounced the common anti-gay myth that homosexuality destroys families. “It’s the heterosexuals who are getting divorces,” he proclaimed.
Gays want to get married. If you can’t see the humor in that, you have no sense of humor whatsoever. … Here we [heterosexuals] are destroying the family, and who do we want to blame? The ones who want to get married.
He had some blunt words for Christians:
You know why gays think Christians despise them? Because Christians despise them.
He took Christians to task for their self-righteousness:
“Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” How arrogant a statement is that?
In relation to recent media reports of gay teen suicides, Campolo related his own story of a school friend who was bullied for being gay. After being rounded up by his homophobic abusers and urinated on in a changing room, he went home and hanged himself. “I knew I wasn’t a Christian,” Campolo confessed. “If I was a Christian, I would have defended Roger.”
It is well-known that while Campolo takes an essentially conservative view of same-sex relationships, his wife, Peggy, takes a more liberal view. He discussed the tensions and admitted his high view of the Bible’s authority meant he could not fully affirm homosexual erotic relationships. He acknowledged that “a good biblical case” could be made both for and against homosexuality, and declared “I could be wrong” as the most important admission both sides could make. He said homosexuality was not a defining Christian issue:
I’m not sure it’s a defining issue in the Bible. … Not enough for Jesus to have made it a defining issue.
He also addressed the controversy over same-sex marriage, condemning politicians–he named Karl Rove among them–who manipulated Christians into making homosexuality an issue. His solution was that “government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether.” He suggested the United States adopt an equal system similar to that in the Netherlands, say, where any couple, gay or straight, can register a civil partnership. If they want to make it marriage, they solemnize it in a church. Campolo implied he would be happy for individual churches to decide for themselves whether to perform gay marriages.
Campolo firmly nailed his colors to the conservative mast when it came to interpretation of Scripture on homosexuality. I asked him (via a live internet feed) to what extent and in what way a Christian with a traditional view of homosexuality could affirm loving, committed gay relationships, and was disappointed with his very negative answer–but also puzzled, because I have heard him express far more open views elsewhere. In his book 20 Hot Potatoes That Christians Are Afraid to Touch, he clearly affirms celibate “covenants” between same-sex couples, and I expected him to echo this in his answer. Instead, he (very apologetically) reiterated that he could not affirm gay sexual relationships.
How about this as a modest proposal for traditionally minded Christians: Affirm that love and commitment exists in gay relationships, and celebrate the fact that two people have found real love and companionship in each other. Acknowledge, if that’s your belief, that the relationship is not ideal or that it falls short, but then so does every human relationship, gay or straight–acknowledge that, too.
On several occasions I cringed as Campolo’s conservative theology showed through.
And yet, his liberal spirit showed through, too. He very desperately wants to be fully affirming, and it is clear he is committed to equality and inclusion. He is committed to finding a way to live alongside those who think and behave differently from him. It’s here that the rubber hits the road in creating a “generous space.” If a generous space is going to exist, we have to acknowledge that there will be pain along the way. We’ll offend each other. What will unite us is not that there are no differences, but that we are determined to overcome the differences, letting mercy triumph over judgment, making love a priority.
If anything, Tony C is working at being consistent, and most of all, honest about not knowing everything. That there is room to learn.
There are directives about divorce, and the treatment of women, but these are issues that arrange themselves according to individual needs, and legal protections for the participants.
One doesn’t have to accept divorce, but has to understand it as a reality of life for SOME people.
The most that anyone can do, is encourage the GOOD things people can do that are supportable.
I’ve talked this over with Tony directly.
At least having the freedom to choose one’s own path, is something ALL gay people deserve.
We can look around us and literally, discrimination restricts gay people FROM doing the right things AND their best things for themselves and others.
This I know, Tony objects to.
And any decent, fair minded person would agree. And Tony is, a decent and fair minded man.
I appreciate your review of the Relevant Engagement meeting. I did listen online but didn’t have a very good connection…it’s a help to be reminded of Tony’s address.
I like your words for a modest proposal for traditionally minded Christians “Affirm that love and commitment exists in gay relationships, and celebrate the fact that two people have found real love and companionship in each other. Acknowledge, if that’s your belief, that the relationship is not ideal or that it falls short, but then so does every human relationship, gay or straight–acknowledge that, too”. I think this embraces very well the “generous space” that New Direction supports. (only my own opinion, of course)
I found Tony to be a gracious speaker but like you I was disappointed with his response to your question, Dave. It was disappointing Tony finds it difficult to affirm a sexual gay union in a loving relationship. For many (if not most) gay couples a celibate relationship would be restrictive to their expression of that love. I realize he has in the past (as in his book that you mention) not given such a firm and negative response.
I must add that Wendy’s contribution to the event was heartwarming and affirming. So thanks must go to Wendy for her compassion and her openness to enlarging the “gracious space.”
I agree that the next step Christians need to make is to acknowledge that same sex relationships have love and commitment, and yes we are families.
They don’t have to endorse it. They just have to tell the truth about us.
You’d think that followers of a religion that commands one not to lie would have an easier time with that.
Instead they insist that we’re *really* just all dead inside, and that we commit suicide because *deep down* we *know the “truth”* (that we’re shameful creatures as we were created).
Thanks Dave (who I had clean forgotten had deserted old blighty… sorry!)
It sounds very much similar to what Tony Campolo has been saying for a good 15 years, and if that’s the case he may have also mentioned something he often reminds people of.
When asked if those with conservative and liberal viewpoints can learn to get along with each other, he points to his own marriage. Tony and Peggy: case in point.
At the end of the day I’m rather indifferent to religious doctrines, per se, and whether a church does or does not ‘approve’ of something. Such matters should also be irrelevant to me, and have no impact on me, unless I chose to join them.
I live alongside those Jews who will not eat pork, and those Muslims who do not drink alcohol. I cope with (the small minority of) Catholics who won’t use contraception, and Baptists who won’t dance. I work and socialise with people who think they are going to be re-born, and those who think it’s eternity among the clouds, and those who think it’s all a distracting nonsense. In the corner of every shop where we buy our fish or meat or vegetables is a small smokey shrine, and I couldn’t care less if someone meandering down the street in saffron robes or an (now old fashioned) top-to-toe habit.
I’m indifferent, because all these things in our societies are merely something that others decide to opt into. I could too, if I was so inclined. I also don’t need to ‘affirm’ any of them — and, frankly, even thinking that way would be the height off rudeness in my opinion. None of these are any of my business. It’s not my place to affirm or not.
For those like Tony Campolo who cannot ‘affirm’ sexual relationships outside whatever boundaries they have, they can at the very least be very clear in affirming the free agency of others to live their own lives. They can at least affirm that basic humanity in all people. If we can agree on that, all else seems to shrink down to a much easier size.
@grantdale — excellent comment. I agree completely. The further away I get from the judgmental attitude of the church, the more I’m learning the value of true judgment, and of true freedom. Tolerance, and perseverance. Unfortunately the very thing the church desperately wants is the ver thing it can never have: understanding.
Yes, however, grantdale, Tony’s opinion difference with Peggy does not transgress or interfere with her civil rights. As far as I’m concerned, no matter how tolerant or moderate Tony would like to portray himself, he is still very much of the problem. No more second class status ANYWHERE – I have had enough “non-affirmation” to last me a lifetime, thank you very much. He may be less hysterical than the conservative extremists, but he is still no friend of the LGBT community.
Brian, I’m not sure how an opinion difference alone could translate into an interference with another person’s civil rights. Surely that would require the opinion to be turned into either direct action, or passive non-action when offered to opportunity to correct an unjust situation?
Perhaps the religious opinions of people matter to you more than they do me; I don’t know your background. Myself, I really don’t care for such affirmation nor miss their non-affirmation. Any more or less than I care for the opinions of Jews when tucking into an egg and bacon breakfast, or Hindus when I enjoy a good steak, or Muslims when sipping on a decent single malt, or PETA about my leather shoes.
Negative attitudes do matter, but near always not directly. They still need to be displayed or acted on in some way — whether it’s in creating a poisonous environment around young GLBT because of what gets said to them, or offering up utterly unwelcome comments in the workplace, or deliberately avoiding the gay-word when discussing bullying in schools.
I sure both you and we, as much as anyone, have our own very firm personal attitudes on a whole raft of subjects; and that these will often differ to many other people. I’d hope others here can vouch for our apparent unwillingness to see anyone treated as second-class (let alone tolerate being treated that way ourselves). I object to cats. Almost as much as I object to cat-persons. There, I said it.
In the case of Tony Campolo, I haven’t (yet) seen his religious-based opinion that “sex should only occur between a man and a woman in holy marriage” become — as it does too often — an excuse for adopting ancillary falsehoods about gay people; and subsequently an active campaign to ‘do something’ about these troubled and dangerous individuals.
(There really is no logical reason for that floating religious notion about heterosexuality to be further extended to spreading grotesque lies about the lives of gay couples, or fear-mongering about child abuse, or claiming the military is about to collapse, or that pastors will be sent to gaol for free-speech, or that the marriages of heterosexuals and child-bearing will cease to exist or that gay people are the way they are because they suffered some incorrect childhood.)
Tony Campolo is not the FRC, or Exodus, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or NOM or NARTH; let alone the government of Uganda. That difference should at least be recognised, and I can do that without feeling any need to be defending him or his religious opinions.
Quite apart from all this, who has the time or energy to personally oppose each and every personal opinion we don’t care for? That’s a recipe for ending up in a padded cell, and heaven only knows I don’t want to end up somewhere like that. Again…
I suspect you and we both want to see negative attitudes change, and I think they are changing, but I’ll also admit to being drawn more to concrete actions we can take today to end the most egregious legal and social discrimination than I am about religious argument.
(Sorry for the length. I got started, and ran on. And on.)
Nicely reasoned, grantdale. I’m concerned about this attitude which, from where I sit anyway, mirrors in a way the fundamentalist extremes of the other side of this issue. I’m not an expert on Campolo, but he does seem honest about his opinions and he is quite willing, almost anxious to admit that he may be entirely wrong. But he also maintains a bright line between his understanding of this or that, and the dignity and rights of another individual.
I suppose I would be willing to settle “For those like Tony Campolo who cannot ‘affirm’ sexual relationships outside whatever boundaries they have, they can at the very least be very clear in affirming the free agency of others to live their own lives. They can at least affirm that basic humanity in all people.”
…but I’m still too angry about the wasted years of trying to pray away the gay and the decades it took to get over the self-loathing Christianity carved in my soul to be able to forgive Campolo’s “non-affirmation.” I’m an extremely bitter ex-born-again.
What angers me about Campolo’s stance is that I don’t believe for a minute that “he very desperately wants to be fully affirming.” He absolutely COULD be, but he chooses not. Instead he chooses an interpretation of mistranslated antique literature that allows him to continue in “non-affirmation” and to sidestep any personal responsibility for HIS choice to “non-affirm.” In very much the same way my Christian family and friends chose to value fundamentalist ideals over my worth as a human being when I came out to them. You could say the experience was somewhat “non-affirming.”
In my eyes, he is feeding the very fire of condemnation that he would like me to THINK he is attempting to put out. His “non-affirmation” amounts to little better than an arrogant assertion that my life, love, soul, is still LESS THAN his – no matter how nicely he may deny it.
As for the other examples you give – meh, I can be indifferent about those too… They don’t belong to the tradition that scarred me.
How is opinion interferes with civil rights – (forgot to add this, too much steam coming out of my ears, I suppose) – to the extent that his non-affirmation is carried into the ballot box, feeds negative opinion of LGBT, adds weight and credence to the feeling we are less worthy, deserving, sacred, holy than the hetero. His opinions can be used as justification by someone who is more actively seeking to harm me, even if he himself takes no such action.
Peggy, on the other hand, is married to him and already has all those rights. His differing opinion isn’t being used by anyone to strip her of what she has. Or to imply her inferiority.
I’m an extremely bitter ex-born-again.
Yep, I did wonder if that was the case. I think you’ll also find David R can cut you quite a bit of slack knowing that too. You two probably have got a lot you could compare notes about 🙂
And I do understand, even if I never underwent anything like that. Dad was rather indifferent to all religion (I’m trying to imagine him going off the deep end at a pentacostal service… nope, cannot!) and Mum has always had a deep faith but has also always seen it as something for private reflection rather than for brow-beating other people. Personally I now think of myself as simply being on the factory default setting — completely atheist, as in a non-believer of any religion — and I realised at age 8 that being born once was going to be more than enough for my lifetime. Most Australians deal with religion in a very different way in any case, more like my mother does, so I’ve not had anything to particularly need to push back against in that sense.
I also do appreciate those concerns about that core of what you call non-affirmation, and how it can reinforce both the attitudes and the discriminatory behaviour of others. I don’t like it one little bit, and have said so here at XGW many times. That type of attitude is undoubtedly one of the reasons why nobody has yet managed to move me away from that factory default setting. I’d like to hope I’d feel the same way if I had been straight.
Perhaps somewhat weirdly, I think you’d also find that you and Peggy Campolo think much the same way (except for the No God Thank-you For Asking bit!). Which is really the only point I was making way back up this post: if Tony and Peggy can differ in opinion, but plainly do care about and for each other and exists together, there is hope others can do it as well.
cheers, and thanks for explaining things so fully etc.
ps If you don’t mind, can I ask how old you are where you grew up and what religion it was? (Blow me off you don’t feel inclined, it’s only for my own interest. No need for details.)
pps David R — there is definitely no “edit” option I can see. All I have is the “change” to alter my login. Is it possible to send me a screen capture or something?
Can’t have me making all these typos — people might think I’m you! 😛
Sure. 51. Western Pennsylvania. Evangelical United Brethern which merged with the United Methodists in the late 60s – ours tended to be one of the more conservative congregations. Mom tends to leave the TV/radio set for the televangelist stations even to this very day… So that was very much a core piece of how I constructed my faith from childhood into young adulthood. Evolved into atheism.
Came out in my early 20s; was more or less dropped by everyone I knew, including my family, as a result… pretty much had to reinvent myself with precious little support. Have since reconciled with my parents (that took nearly a decade); still some relatives I find it healthier to avoid.
Time has not healed all wounds. Sometimes my current reactions feel a bit PTSD-esque.
Six years ago my partner and I were allowed by our stated to legally marry. We did on our 18th anniversary. The most amazing thing? The depth of gratitude I felt for the affirmation. Not that I needed it, we got along just fine without it – but it came as a shock when we got it. Bittersweet epiphany- this is what my hetero peers can take for granted. They don’t have to fight for the acknowledgment and the celebration, the shared joy for their joy. Nor do they read scathing editorials in the daily papers or full page ads placed by FOTF two months before their wedding explaining why they (and everyone like them) are unstable, unfit to parent, unable to commit long-term, are damaging to society and therefore should not be permitted legal protections for their inferior, selfish relationships.
On some level it’s deeper than “Tony has a different opinion.” The non-affirmation adds to the burden of the overall discrimination. Again, why I don’t think the Tony / Peggy get along so wy can’t we argument doesn’t hold up. She has nothing at stake, nothing to lose. She has the luxury of being gracious toward him.
Edit: allowed by our state. (MA)
Edit: why I think the Tony / Peggy doesn’t hold up (double negative in that sentecne, yikes, need my coffee)
Tony Campolo’s personal beliefs about homosexuality have some sad repercussions, I agree, from a perspective that affirms gay relationships.
But I’m not sure to what extent that has to do with the rights of gays and lesbians. The notion of equal rights and the freedom of the individual is not based on the idea that everyone agrees. On the contrary, the notion presupposes that people disagree, and that they have different opinions, values, choices, but that these disagreements can’t be allowed to interfere with individual freedoms.
I baulk at many aspects of religion, for example, but I don’t deny anyone the freedom to worship how they like. I defend that right.
When it comes to rights, the key question is not whether someone else likes or approves of what I do, but whether they affirm my right to do it, regardless of their own opinion.
Well yes. My displeasure is based on my opinion that the disagreements ARE being used to interfere with civil rights… that Tony’s opinions fuel the motivations of people who actively DO wish to limit civil rights. On top of my just being old and cranky enough to resent hearing the same damn message again.
It is entirely possible that I’m still so pissed off that if Campolo is saying anything that resembles “live and let live” that I can’t hear him – his non-affirmation speaks louder than anything else he has to say.
Thanks Brian. That is a World away from either of our backgrounds (we’re all not that much different in age). Regardless of whatever hesitations or worries we had beforehand, at the end of the day it was like falling off a log. I think both families were more surprised than anything, but maybe not too much, and everything kept going along as per normal. All rather pedestrian really.
I don’t want to stretch the Tony v Peggy analogy too far either. It was just a point, and I’ve probably made about as much of it as I care to. Neither of them are gay or discussing a child etc, for a start, and their more significant common interests undoubtedly outweigh a difference of opinion on this one matter. You’re right in that regard — they can continue to be generous with each other in circumstances where they’re not dealing with a day-to-day reality.