Hi, Helen.
I watched the video. And for starters, I dabbled with homosexuality for a short time in my teen years, so I am not unsympathetic to your concerns. But while his message is eloquently put forth, it is scripturally unsound, and a very dangerous teaching to be putting forth from the pulpit.
Let me address some of the things he says here, as I was listening along:
- First of all, cruelty to gays is a Satanic thing and unacceptable. The suicide boy story is very tragic, much as all bullying stories that end in suicides are. I do my best to befriend all people, not just homosexuals but Satanists (befriended one just the other day, as a matter of fact, and very happy about it), pedophiles etc., and I am not making any connections here. I believe very strongly in befriending people as the way to lead them to Christ, i.e. without risking my own safety or condoning sin.
- He mentions about wanting to get delivered from sin, and stating "I prayed. Nothing happened." You have to keep walking with Christ. Nothing wrong with that.
- Ok, dismissing the Biblical restrictions regarding homosexual practices simply because they are in company with verses on not eating seafood is a common argument used, but it is irrelevant. The NT still preaches against homosexuality, yet does not teach against eating unclean foods, so that argument is misleading.
- "We don't know what causes homosexuality." Scripture disagrees here. What it actually teaches is that homosexuality is the result of spiritual uncleanness, i.e. demonic influence. It is a perversion of the order God created. When it states that He "gives them up to uncleanness," he is saying that God gives them up to the unclean spirits that are seducing them into sin (Romans 1:24).
- It was telling that he openly stated he has a Sociologist's background, rather than a spiritual/theological background. This explains why he makes so many errors later in the sermon.
- Now, starting at 13:45, he separates Paul from Jesus as opposed to one another in their teachings, which is a big theological No, No. He shouldn't do that. This identifies Campolo as not being a true New Testament believer, which is where his biggest problem is. He has no faith that the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of Christ Himself was speaking through Paul when he wrote his epistles.
- Ok, by 16:34 he is really coming apart at the seams theologically... still way off base as of 17:23.
- 17:56 - 18:04 is a socialist and humanist construct. It is not a Biblical or truly spiritual position in light of what the Christian God and Christian Bible teaches.
- 18:15 - 18:31 is a wild jump in theological logic. I don't take offense with him, Helen, so I'm not saying this as an insult to him, but Campolo would be torn to pieces in a debate with even an average theologian at this point. He's only getting away with making these sweeping assertions because he has a captive audience.
- LoL. Verses could very easily be brought to bear on 18:32 - 18:46 that would completely destroy his argument. He is misusing the teaching on the Holy Spirit to condone sin.
- NOW, 18:47 - 19:12 is where he SHOULD be basing his argument. If homosexuals would only humble themselves and admit they were struggling with sin, and ask for the help of Christians to pray for them and be there for them, THAT would be a powerful argument to present. But it's coupled with a defense of their sins in the rest of the sermon, which cancels them out and renders them contradictory.
- 19:39 - 20:55 is a very strong emotional appeal to the Spirit of Love, but unfortunately by using it as a justification for a sexual practice that God abhors, he is again canceling out what would otherwise be a beautiful appeal.
- The answer to his question in 21:31 - 21:52 is that "relationships" are indeed available to homosexuals from those who truly love God, just not sexually perverse ones. I befriend homosexual believers and seek to encourage them all I can. But I cannot make marriages that involve sexual union between partners that God forbids available to anyone. If I do this, their blood will be on my hands in eternity. It will be on Campolo's if he does not repent of this teaching, and he doesn't realize it yet.
- He asks the question at 22:08, "What is marriage supposed to achieve?" Here is another key flaw in his argument. According to scripture, it is not about what it is supposed to "achieve." It is about what it is supposed to represent. It is a sacred union intended to reflect & represent the union of Christ with His bride, the church, into one body and "one flesh," through the entrance of the Holy Spirit within her, where they become one in the very deepest sense of the word, in Mind, in Heart, and in Soul throughout eternity. He is again speaking as a sociologist not a theologian, which is his real problem.
- Not sure if he can speak for Mother Teresa's intentions like that at 25:40.
- I fully agree with 26:00 - 26:08.
- His assertion at 26:15 - 26:30 that debates on the issue need to be resolved with one word ("compassion") is a false one, and it side skirts how the issue does need to be resolved, and that is through the word of God and what it says. That which does not line up with what the word teaches is not true compassion, though it may appear to be so. How compassionate is it to sympathize with that which ends up sending a soul to torment for eternity? How compassionate do those souls who are already suffering in torment today think men like Campolo are/ were to them by sympathetically encouraging them in something that cost them their eternal souls?
Well, those were my notes. If you have any specific questions about anything I said, please ask. I feel for homosexuals, but we all have sins and personal weaknesses that we have to fight against, and anyone who excuses what God does not excuse in His word are unfortunately taking terrible risks where their eternities are concerned.
