yesterday I watched part of a debate on "this week," hosted by george stephanopolous in which a panel including gary bauer, tony campolo and others were discussing issues related to politics and religion. unfortunately, i was channel surfing and did not get to see the beginning of the debate, but soon after i turned on, tony campolo made a statement i found very troubling.
to give a little background, the discussion was centered around issues of morality that came into play in this last election cycle. one issue specifically was that of homosexuality and the ban on same sex marriages adopted in eleven states. in a rebuttle to gary bauer's contention that homosexuality is an important issue to be addressed, campolo's comment was (and i paraphrase) that never in the Bible does Jesus ever speak on the issue of homosexuality...paul does...but not Jesus. however, Jesus (specifically in matthew 25 ) and Scripture, generally, mentions care for the poor repeatedly, thereby framing it as the major issue that christians must address in the world rather than homosexuality. now, i don't want to be too quick about speaking any kind of judgment on campolo based on his statement, though clearly his views have been questioned by many within the evangelical community, but what campolo seems to be promoting in this statement is either a ranking of biblical teaching based on the speaker's level of authority (i.e. Jesus over paul), or a ranking based on the number of times an issue is raised within Scripture.
are evangelicals and christians at large wrong to bring up the issue of practicing homosexuality as sinful since Jesus never mentioned it? is it therefore not an issue that is worthy of address because Christ did not specifically mention it in His discourse regarding the sheep and the goats? on the other hand, is campolo right that too much is being made of the homosexual agenda as opposed to the issue of taking care of the poor and the homeless?
in my view, trying to force such a dichotomy is the real issue. on the one hand, i think campolo is dead wrong in elevating one issue above the other based on biblical reference, thus implying that parts of Scripture are either less inspired, passé, or unauthoritative. evangelicals believe that the entire Word of God is inspired from beginning to end written, as it were, by the Holy Spirit (God) with no one part carrying any more weight than another. so for people like campolo to dismiss this issue as he seems to do is a mistake in his handling the authority of Scripture. like it or not, romans chapter 1 clearly speaks against the practice of homosexuality when in verses 18-32 he states:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
as we see from the list of sins at the end of the passage, homosexuality is not exclusively written in reference to the sin of the people addressed, but homosexuality is certainly highlighted. so those who attempt to marry godliness to the homosexual agenda (not saying campolo himself has done that in this case but many clearly have including most recently the episcopal church, presbyterian usa, et al) are either ignorant of biblical teaching or, more likely, are simply disingenuous in their claim of being concerned with biblical doctrine. having said that, i am not implying that this is a sin greater than another. i believe sin is sin and all of it places a barrier between man and God. i am only addressing the context within which this debate has been framed. homosexuality, by its very nature, is a lifestyle sin (as opposed to a single act committed unintentionally) thereby making it more difficult to address and overcome. in this sense only, homosexuality is worse than some others. i could talk about other instances within Scripture such as the case related to the men of sodom desiring to have sex with the male visitors of lot as recorded in genesis 19 , but the point is simply that Scripture directly addresses the issue of homosexuality and distinctly places it within the context of sin.
this being the case, does this give anyone a license to mistreat or in any way degrade anyone within the homosexual community? absolutely not. we are to respect all people as having been made in the image of God. this image, however, does not include the characteristics of our fallen humanity, making it essential we not equate our sinful qualities with his perfect and holy nature. nor does this mean that we must be accepting of homosexuality as a valid "lifestyle alternative" any more than we accept incest, polygamy, or bestiality as valid lifestyle alternatives. as far as abusing someone, physically or verbally, we are to be tolerant, but that is not equal to acceptance of the lifestyle. this word "tolerant" implies the idea of putting up/co-existing with the thoughts, beliefs, practices, etc held by another person with whom we disagree. since one does not simply tolerate a view one agrees with, this word does not imply something that is embraced as right or true or even acceptable.
this is only one side of the coin, though. in one respect, campolo's argument is absolutely correct, in my opinion: the poor must not be neglected. it is a requirement of Christ for His people, and the Church, in general, does a terrible job of addressing it. though i believe that the provisions being made through charitable choice signed into law under the clinton administration and the department of faith-based initiatives under the bush administration are huge steps in the right direction of allowing churches and other faith-based groups greater opportunity to help meet these needs, it is imperative that the Church step up to the plate and begin taking seriously the responsibility it has to remember the poor and actually do the work of providing the help needed. all of the government provisions for people of faith to become more involved in providing social services means nothing unless action is actually taken.
certainly, how the needs of the poor should be met is a debatable point with perhaps many options that would be considered good possibilities. the fact is, however, many within our country are content to let the government take care of those needs. this view is terribly flawed as there is nothing within Scripture to either mandate or justify that stance. it is the responsibility of the Church from a biblical perspective, but it is also the responsibility of every citizen within this country, whether through giving financially to a local, reputable service provider or by personally getting involved, giving of our time to help take care of the needs of the poor around us. most evangelical christians would agree that there is a limited role for government to play in meeting the needs of its citizens, but christians in particular have a God-commanded responsibility to take this issue just as seriously as it takes the stand against practicing homosexuality and make a positive impact on the lives of those within our communities. it really is not an either/or issue, but rather a both/and problem.
murder today is issuing 'JFK Reloaded,' a purportedly educational 'docu-game' that lets players fire the fatal shots from the Texas Book Depository over and over again." the paper goes on to explain the developers desire is to 'promote the title respectfully, given the sensitivity of the subject.'" how exactly, do you promote the subject respectfully when you are playing the role of lee harvey oswald with the goal of being the one to blow a hole in the back of the president of the united states' head? in my opinion, video games traveled far over the line long ago with games that allowed kids...kids...to play the role of killers, drug traffickers, guerilla warlords, and any other number of outlaws breaking every conceivable rule to attain a high score. this latest development only takes the insanity to the next level.
yesterday marked the death of yasser arafat (officially, i think, unless they were mistaken again). during the past week as he was swooning between life and death, i found myself feeling something strange towards him...a strange sense of compassion. i think it has to do with the fact that he was an old, frail man who appeared so fragile and helpless with his little knit night-cap on and his big baby smile plastered on his face, surrounded by all his adoring "children" while boarding the helicopter to take him to a hospital in paris. what a gentle, caring man he must be. ok, back to reality. time has a way of softening the edges of a life, sometimes leading one to forget the atrocious past, as in the case of the 
of victims. He is one of the authors of a philosophy of random murder that has inspired millions. That he spent years as a sham statesman, received in the White House and heaped with honors is one of the mind-boggling ironies of our ironic age. The man was given the Nobel Peace Prize, which washed away whatever shred of worth that might have clung to the once-respected bauble after they gave it to Henry Kissinger. They might as well pack the thing in a box of manure and straw when they hand out the next one." in describing arafat's leadership as the head of the plo, he goes on to say, "Arafat's worst crime? He betrayed his own people. He could have led them to peace, and instead led them down a blind alley to self-destruction and disaster."