Tony Campolo's 'Gospel'<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By David R. Wills
 
I was there.  It's been seven years ago, but I still remember the effect Tony Campolo had on the standing-room only crowd at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  He personified the phrase 'magnetic personality'.  To be sure, there seemed to be an almost tangible force animating him.  His energy was palpable, and he used it skillfully to lead his audience-as if in tow-through a rapidly changing panorama of emotion ranging from laughter to tears and back again.  Such a masterly display of charisma, I knew was an art that came by much practice.
 
The brisk tempo of his delivery, together with his disarming use of humor interspersed with colorful vignettes involving his personal experiences, had the effect to keep one off balance, as it were, and struggling to understand the real meaning of his message.  The conclusion of Campolo's speech was answered with a rousing and prolonged standing ovation, from an auditorium that was packed to the walls with university administrators, faculty, and students.
 
The stage was set for Campolo's performance, by Regent's then president Paul Cerjan who, in his glowing introduction of Campolo, said: "And I just gotta tell you that it's a personal honor and a pleasure, and a great honor for the university, to have the opportunity to welcome you here to the campus."  President Cerjan's remarks were followed by Regent's then provost George Selig's, who said: "Dr. Campolo is one of those individuals who really walks the faith. […] And so, to me, it's an honor to have him here.  It helps-it helped me reassess where I am, and what the Lord is calling me to do."
 
Following, is an annotated transcript of that (tape recorded) speech given by Dr. Tony Campolo on March 15, 2000, which he presented as the honorary guest speaker for <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Regent University's annual "Staley Lecture Series".  (Annotations are separated from the text by a shaded area between solid lines, and marked note.  Additionally, parts of the text itself appear in bold and/or in red, for added emphasis.)
*******************
 
(begin speech)
(Being Christian in a Postmodern Era)
 
Well, I'm delighted to be here with you.  Needless to say, it's been a good visit.  I've been received with Christ-like love, and nobody could ask for more than that.
 
I'm going to talk about Being Christian in a Postmodern Era.
 

I've been intrigued, because I live in an academic community that does not view postmodernism in a very negative way; we view it in a very positive way.  I'm intrigued that Christians are so afraid of it, because what we have to recognize is that modernism was not particularly kind to Christianity.
 
note:  The essence of postmodernism is the rejection of the notion of objective, or 'absolute' truth (which includes, preeminently, Scriptural truth-the Bible):
 
postmodernism
Most generally, abandonment of Enlightenment confidence in the achievement [sic] objective human knowledge through reliance upon reason in pursuit of foundationalism, essentialism, and realism. In philosophy, postmodernists typically express grave doubt about the possibility of universal objective truth [….][i]

The modern era was very anti-Christian.  It made science and reason the basis upon which truth had to be established, rather than revelation.  We're people who have truth that is revealed from God.  And that cannot be verified all the time in empirical, or in logical or rational categories.  I always like to point out the fact that at the core of the Christian faith is the most irrational thought of all: that Jesus Christ should die for somebody like me, or like you.  Hardly for a righteous man would one die; but that he should die for somebody like me, for somebody like you: it doesn't make sense!  And if you try to reason your way to the gospel, you'll find that it transcends our capacity to understand it.  That he should love us; that is really wild.
 
note:  Contrary to Campolo's false dichotomy, reason and revelation are not at odds with each other.  Indeed, God's revelation needs man's reason, in order to be understood; as also man's reason needs God's revelation, in order to be possessed of true knowledge-as the renowned Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark (d. 1985) and others have shown.
 
God provided the gospel to give man understanding.  It is ridiculous to say, as Campolo does, that the gospel "transcends our capacity to understand it".  His purpose, evidently, is to (mis)represent the truths of God's Word as being outside the realm of reason (rationality) and, therefore, irrational.  Note, Campolo said that "at the core of the Christian faith is the most irrational thought of all [….]"  That 'thought', in fact, belongs to the Word of God, which Campolo calls irrational.
 
Campolo prefers postmodernism with its insistence that absolute truth does not exist (and thus is unknowable).  Whereas, the modern era (now past, it is supposed), which not only acknowledges the existence of truth but also that truth is knowable, Campolo disdains.  Campolo then lays a deceptive trap, attempting to equate Biblical truth with postmodernism.  For, although he allows that Christians have "truth that is revealed from God"; nevertheless, Campolo promptly states that those ideas (revealed truths) are "irrational"; "it doesn't make sense"; and, that "the gospel […] transcends our capacity to understand it".  The Bible, however, refutes Campolo's deception:
 
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.  Psalm 119:130
 
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and undersanding.  Proverbs 2:3-6

 
But with modernity, I remember as a kid being very, very conscious of the fact that I had to reconcile Christianity with science.  So, every conference I went to they had 'Christianity and science' seminars, to show how it all fit together, with the assumption that, if Christianity could not be made to be scientifically viable, that we would reject it.  Never [sic] occurred to anybody that it might be the other way around, that if Christianity did not cohere with science, that we might reject science.  You know?
 
I taught for ten years at an Ivy League school, the University of Pennsylvania, and I loved it.  I mean I loved, especially, the faculty get-togethers.  There would always be some smart aleck from Harvard who just joined the faculty, who would come to get me.  And the reason why I call them smart alecks is because I graduated-I got my PhD from Temple University, which is the poor man's school in Philadelphia.  And the word would get around.  And in an Ivy League school, if you graduated from Temple-I mean, it just didn't have-you know.  And there would always be some individual that would come to me and say, 'Doctor, where did you do you graduate studies?  Where did you do your graduate work?'  And I would always say, "Temple, oh."  It was my way of beating him to the draw.  You see, if I'd just said, 'Temple', he would say, 'Oh'.  Then there would always be the follow-up statement like, you know: 'The word is, around the university, that you use transcendental categories for legitimating the social order, and that your categorical imperatives for the ethics are mystically inspired.  Is that true?'  And I would always say, "Yeah.  Yeah, I believe in God".  And that would be the signal.  My eight graduate assistants would gather around, because they knew that the old man was about to chew up another Harvard boy!  You know, I mean, don't mess with me, baby.  I've been around the block too many times.
 
But the idea was always that Christianity had to adhere to science, because science determined what was true.  That was the modern age.  If it wasn't scientific, if it wasn't fitting in with the categories of empirical realities, then we could not accept it.  logical positivism became the dominant philosophy in the universities, overpowering even existentialism.  It became the way we thought.
 
And then something happened.  My colleague in sociology, Jeremy Rifkin, says, "Cancer came on the scene".  That's an interesting scene.  His argument was always that, hey, the thing that broke the authority of the Roman Catholic [RC] Church was not the Reformation, but the bubonic plague, the bubonic plague hit Europe.  The [RC] Church promised that they could deliver people from the bubonic plague-through the novenas, go on the pilgrimages, pay the indulgences-'We will deliver you from the plague'.  They did everything that they were told.  The plague hit, anyway, wiped out the population of Europe three times over.  I mean, they [sic] killed off half the people of Europe on three different occasions.  It didn't work.  The [RC] Church survived, but never spoke with the same authority.  People said, 'This isn't the final statement of truth'.

 
note:  Campolo grossly distorts history and facts-intimating that the failures or outright lies of the Roman Catholic Church are what led to a crisis (and collapse) of faith in revealed truth (and the rejection of 'modernism', implied).  In fact, the philosophy of post-modernism only began to prevail over ideas associated with modernism, from about the late-nineteenth century.  Moreover, the 'Black Death' (bubonic plague) episodes that decimated European populations largely occurred (14th through 16th centuries) prior to the development of both the so-called 'scientific method' (c. early 17th century) and the philosophy of modernism.
 
Campolo causes further confusion in his mixed up discussion of cancer and plague.

 
Well, what has happened is a new plague has hit us.  Nobody likes to call it a plague, but cancer is.  When I was university professor at Penn, at [sic] 1965, I signed a petition calling upon the United States government to put up the money for cancer research, arguing that within ten years, we could lick the disease, we could solve the problem.  Well, ten years came and ten years went, and we didn't solve the problem.  As a matter of fact, there are those who are saying right now that maybe we'll never solve the problem, that perhaps this is incurable.
 
One out of every three persons in this room will die of cancer: that's plague proportions.  And that opens the door for post-modernity.  I mean, when you sit in that doctor's office and they say to you, 'We've done all that medical science can do', what will you do-throw up your hands and say, 'That's the end of it; if science has spoken, science has the last words: there's nothing beyond science'?  Or, will you in fact try some quack doctor in Mexico? some New Age diet?  You even go hear Benny Hinn!  You will try-in the face of the acknowledgment of science-you will try-what?-anything and everything.  You will move beyond science.  That's exactly it.

 
note:  Doctors in Mexico as well as dietary treatments for disease are usually associated not with mysticism but with science.  By characterizing such as quackery, Campolo's association of those with Benny Hinn undoubtedly is meant not only to discredit 'faith healing' but also to identify that with irrationality.  His meaning is clear: in desperation, one will try "anything and everything"-including quackery and things that have no scientific basis, that is to say, 'irrational' things such as 'faith healing'. 
 
According to Campolo, faith in God's Word is irrational; therefore, it is compatible with postmodernism-which, Campolo's admits, stands opposed to reason.

 
I contend that Pentecostalism is on the rise primarily because science does not have answers, and that people are aware of this.
 

note:  Here, Campolo appears to suggest that Pentecostalism is singularly irrational.
 
People like Kuhn, in the field of academics, is [sic] talking about the fact that the paradigm is shifted, that it's not the way it used to be, that science does not have all the answers, anymore.
 
Certainly, Friedrich Nietzsche picked up the same thing.  The great atheist and philosopher, who, I think, was the seminal thinker of the twentieth-century, said it well.  He said there are two approaches to life: the Apollonian and the Dionysian.  The Apollonian approach to life is through reason, through logic, through science.  The Dionysian approach [to life] is through emotion and feeling.

 
note:  The nineteenth century (d. 1900) German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche-who is infamous for coining the phrase "God is dead"-vehemently hated Christ and Christianity.  Campolo calls him "[t]he great atheist […] the seminal [most original, creative] thinker of the twentieth century".  Worse than his high praise for that notable enemy of Christianity, is Campolo's endorsement of Nietzsche's antichristian ideas; namely, the so-called "Dionysian approach" (to life).
 
Nietzsche was powerfully influenced by Helena P. Blavatsky-she a Russian 'philosopher' and ten years Nietzsche's senior.  Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, first published in 1888, is a definitive work for understanding Occult ideas and terminology; wherein, her book, she discussed at length who is Dionysius. 
 
Dionysius appears nowhere in the Bible, but figures very prominently in Occult writings, which teach that there is a "dark […] Christ", who is called "Dionysius":
 
Ra [the Egyptian sun-god] is shown, like Brahma [Hindu creator-god], gestating in the Egg of the Universe[….]  With the Greeks the Orphic Egg […] was part of the Dionysiac and other mysteries[….]  Both in Greece and in India the first visible male being […] abode in the egg and issued from it.  This 'first born of the world' was Dionysius[ii]  (emphases added).
 
[…] 'dark Epaphros'-Christ [….]  'Dark Epaphros' was the Dionysos-Sabazius, the son of Zeus and of Demeter […] which the 'father of the gods', assuming the shape of a Serpent, begot […] Dionysos, or the solar Bacchus[iii]  (emphases added).
 
Dionysius is called "dark Epaphros-Christ"; he is said to be the son of the Serpent, who is the "father of the gods".  Dionysius is also identified with Bacchus, from which the term Bacchanalia derives.  A Bacchanalia is a drunken orgy involving unrestrained licentiousness.  The essence of a Bacchanalia is to celebrate sensuality-feeling, emotion, especially sexual indulgence.
 
In associating the 'Dionysian approach' with "emotion and feeling", it seems likely that Campolo is not altogether unaware of the Occult aspects of the demonic nature and mythology pertaining to Dionysius.

 
He [Nietzsche] condemned Christianity of his day not because it did not fit the canons of rationality, but because it did.  He lived in that 'Hegelian theological atmosphere' (for the divinity students here), in which everything was logical, everything fit into place, it was synthesized into a unified worldview.  And he [Nietzsche] said you can't get to truth through reason.  He rejected the Christian faith, because it was becoming too reasonable, too logical.  And he said that truth lay within the context of the Dionysian.
 

note:  Nietzsche wrote: "'Reason' in language!-oh, what a deceptive old witch it has been!  I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar."[iv]
 
Campolo further relates that the 'Apollonian and Dionysian' are not merely two different approaches "to life", but, importantly, "to truth".
 
He said that the Greek philosophers were not the pinnacle of Greek civilization: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.  "No way!" he said.  The greatness of the Greek civilization was the era of the dramatists: Homer, Euripides, those who wrote those great plays that caught the emotions of people, the feelings of people.
 
Whenever I start talking about Nietzsche, I have to go to a more simple way of explaining it.  To understand the two different approaches to truth, I call your attention to StarTrek V.  Well, I don't know where you get your theology but, you know, try StarTrek V.  In it, Cybok (sp?) and his followers take over the spaceship Enterprise-which amazes me.  As many times as the spaceship Enterprise has been taken over by aliens, you would think they would put an alarm system on it.  You know what I mean?  But, at any rate, it's taken over by these-by Cybok.
 
Cybok turns out to be Spock's half-brother.  And there's an incredible discussion that takes place that captures Nietzschean dialectics, perfectly.  Here's what happens.  As Cybok says to Spock, 'Spock, we were the two bright ones, as we were growing up as children.  We were the favored ones in our school.  But we went our separate ways, Spock.  You chose to seek truth through reason and science.'  (Is there anybody more reasonable, more logical than Spock-cold, hard logician?)  'Did it ever occur to you, Spock,' says Cybok, 'that you cannot think your way to the truth, you cannot reason your way to the truth: you have to love your way there; you have to feel your way there?  If it was not so, the brilliant people would know the truth, and stupid people wouldn't.  But in my experience, Spock, some of the most stupid people in the world know the truth, and some of the most brilliant haven't got a clue!'
 

note:  Nietzsche defined love: "The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it is a great triumph over Christianity."[v]
 
Obviously, that is not a Biblical idea of love.
 
Campolo's choice of this example involving Cybok and Spock, may have a deeper significance.  Campolo said that a discussion between those two half-brothers "captures Nietzschean dialectics, perfectly".  In numerous Occult writings, Jesus Christ is said to be the half-brother of Lucifer.
 
That's my experience as well (isn't it yours?): that I find some person who doesn't have much up there, but has a love for Jesus that is so intense; and I feel that this person knows more about God, than the sophisticated theologians in the seminaries; because, knowledge of God comes from a relationship, and from an intimacy, and from a warmth.
 

note:  Nietzsche wrote, concerning theologians: "That which a theologian considers true, must of necessity be false. […] Whithersoever the influence of the theologian extends […] the concepts 'true' and 'false' have necessarily changed places"[vi]  (italics in original).
 
In my Christian experience, my prayer life changed as I moved into a postmodern form of prayer which, interestingly enough, is a pre-modern form of prayer.  For years, when I prayed, I prayed in a very logical manner.  I would make up a prayer list and read off a list of non-negotiable demands to the Almighty, telling God a lot of stuff that, I figured, in reflection, God must have known.  You know, you say, 'Dear Lord, sister Mary is sick in the hospital'.  What do you think God's saying?  'Whoa! I didn't know dat.  Which hospital?'  The Bible says that God knows what you need of [sic]-when?-before you even ask.  Please, I still make my requests known unto God.  But I do something else, now.
 
I wake up in the morning, about a half-hour before I have to, at least.  And I lie in bed, in absolute stillness, and I say nothing to God.  They asked Mother Theresa, once: "When you pray, what do you say to God?"  She said, "I don't say anything, I listen".  So, Dan Rather said, "All right, when you pray, what does God say to you?"  She said, "God doesn't say anything, he listens".
 
And if you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you.
 
Hey, I understand that.  I understand that communication that comes without words, those groanings that cannot be uttered; that-that inarticulate communication, where I don't exchange information with God but I exchange a feeling, a love, an intensive interaction takes place.  And in the morning, in the stillness of the morning, I surrender to God.
 
I have to ask you a very simple question: When was the last time you gave God ten minutes of stillness?  Ten minutes-ten minutes to love you?  I mean, it's all so academic for us: 'I believe that God loves me'.  Does God love you?  'Yeah, God loves everybody.  God loves me.'  How much?  'Infinitely.'  It's all too cerebral; that is a propositional statement.  I don't want to know whether you believe God loves you.  I want to know whether you feel God loving you.
 
You say, 'Do you really put a high premium on feeling?'  Of course, I do!  All the fruits of the Spirit [cap.?] are feelings.  The fruits [sic] of the Spirit are not some well-integrated 'Weltanschauung', some worldview.  The fruits of the Spirit are love, and joy, and peace, and patience, and endurance, and-[dropped].
 

note:  The Bible explicitly and often identifies believing in the Word of God, as the means whereby individuals may both come into, and remain in, right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  The Scriptures furthermore explicitly teach us not to be led, much less dominated by, our feelings and emotions.
 
The "fruit [singular] of the Spirit" (of God) is not feelings, as Campolo claims.  That "fruit" is produced by virtue of the indwelling Spirit of Christ in the life of the 'believer'; it belongs to the character, and issues from the Person, of Christ himself.
 
You say, 'Well, what's the role of theology and Bible st-[dropped]?'  Easy: to test my experience, to see whether they [sic] be of God; to test the spirits, to see whether they have of [sic] God.  If you haven't had an experience with God, baloney with your theology!  And if you do have an experience with God, you do need a theology, and you do need Bible, to critique it, to make sure that the experiences are of God; because, there are a lot of spiritual experiences that are demonic and can lead you off in wrong directions.  Is that true?
 

note:  Question: Is it possible to 'feel' whether or not Campolo's assertion is true?  Of course, not.  Knowledge of the Bible-which knowledge cannot be understood apart from reason, and is of no value apart from believing in its truthfulness: that is the one and only way of knowing whether this or any of Campolo's assertions are true.  Feelings and emotions do not and cannot lead to truth.
 
The Scripture says, in Isaiah 1:18: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD [….]"
 
I believe that the Christian life is Dionysian.  It's falling in love with Jesus and letting Jesus love you back.  And in the morning, in the stillness of the morning, I let Jesus love me.  I just lie there and just say, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus".  You say, 'Why do you keep saying his name?'  Because, my mind keeps bouncing around like a ping-pong ball.  I have to keep focused.  I have to beat off the animals.  You say, 'What animals?'  The million and one things I have to do today.  They come rushing in on me.  But when I say, "Jesus", I just drive it back.  I just drive all those animals back, and I carve out what the Celtic Christians called a 'thin place', a quiet place.  And I let Jesus surround me with his love.  There's something more that happens.
 
In the stillness of the morning, he cleanses me.  I contend that we need to look at the cross with even new dimensions.  You know, we've looked at the cross several ways.  In the period immediately following the collapse of the Roman Empire-when the Italians lost control of the world-everything fell apart.  And the most common crime was kidnapping.  Consequently, if you went to church, the salvation story was told in terms of kidnapping.
 
You were kidnapped by Satan.  God the Father comes [to Satan?] and says, 'What must I do to rescue those who I love from this kidnapped state, from this enslavement, from this captivity?'  Satan says, 'Your son is the ransom.  You want a ransom?  Your son's death.'  And Jesus dies as-what?-the ransom for many.  You say, 'What are you saying?'  Salvation is being delivered from the captivity of Satan.  And if you don't understand that, you're off track, because, it's not enough to just be forgiven.  You are enslaved by demonic forces and, without Jesus Christ in you, you will not have the power to overcome sin.  Do we understand that?  Determination of the will won't do it.  I'm Baptist; I've done that.  A thousand verses of "Just As I Am": you come down just as you are and you go out just as you were!  You know, we've been there, you see.
 

note:  Campolo now has God 'paying' Christ's life as a 'ransom' to Satan-instead of to satisfy the righteous demands of God's justice, truth, and holiness.  Campolo has Satan dictating his terms to God-for mankind's salvation!
 
Now, I know that some of you are Episcopalian and high church.  You don't do that.  You have no revivals, you have 'retreats' and you sing "Kumbaya".  But the same thing happens: you promise God it's going to be different, you promise God you're not going to commit the same sins.  But you are powerless, you are enslaved.  And you not only need the doctrine of forgiveness, you need an empowerment to overcome the demonic control in your life.
 
A little later on, there was this period in which there was-the great theme was honor.  You know, the Middle Ages, with knights and ladies in waiting.  And if you dishonored somebody, that was the worst thing you could do.  And we still have that in the African-American community in west Philadelphia.  You don't want to 'dis' anybody.  The African-American people here, will know what that word means.  'He dissed me, baby, he dissed me.'  You say, 'What does that mean?'  That means he disrespected me.  He looked at me the wrong way.  You say, 'So what does that mean?'  It means 'we'll kill you'.  I'm serious.  This is the most serious thing you can do, is disrespect somebody in my community.  In the Middle Ages, that's the way it was.
 
And sin was interpreted-salvation was interpreted this [sic]: you dishonored God.  That's what sin is.  Amen?  You dishonor God.  When you dishonor somebody-against whom you cannot stand, you'd better give them your most precious possession.  That gift-which is supposed to still the anger of the one who you've dishonored-is called a propitiation.  Amen?
 
We come one step further into the Reformation era, and we come up with the penal-substitutionary doctrine of the atonement.  This was the courtroom scene.  (This would go over big at this school, with all the law students.)  It's a courtroom scene.  You're on trial.  God's the Judge.  You've got a great defense attorney (if any man sin, he has an advocate with the Father).  The prosecuting attorney is Satan-right?-the accuser of the brethren.  (And in this age of inclusive language, you sisters are included in that, too.)  And you're on trial.  They open the books: you're a sinner, the evidence is clear.  The wages of sin is-[audience responds: "Death."]  Okay.  And the Judge says, 'Death'.  And the defense attorney stands up and says, 'I will die in his place.'  And Jesus Christ becomes the substitute.
 
Which of these doctrines are true?  They're all true, and the half has not been told.
 
I want to take you one step further, where I think we're going in post-modernity with the Dionysian approach.  In the morning, I do something: I surrender to the cross.  Let me explain it this way.  According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, time is relative to motion.  The faster we travel, the more time is compressed.  You know that, don't you-from StarTrek?-from the movie Contact, right?  You know that time is relative to motion.  The faster you travel, according to Einstein, the more time is compressed.  So, if we put you in a rocket, sent you into outer space traveling at 170,000 miles a second (relative to us); if you came back in ten years, you would be ten years older.  All the rest of us would be twenty years older.  Our twenty years would be compressed into ten years of your time.  If we got you traveling at 180,000 miles a second, our twenty years would be compressed into one day of your time.  If we got you traveling at the speed of light-(we can't do that, because, as you approach the speed of light your physical mass increases outward in a geometric progression; your size and weight increases dramatically, as you approach the speed of light.)  I tell you that-don't let anybody ever say you're fat.  Just say, 'I'm traveling too fast'.  You know, just say that.  But if I could get you traveling at the speed of light-186,000 miles a second-there would be no passage of time at all.  Everything would occur simultaneously.  You say, 'Well, why did you do us that-why did you take us through [sic] Einstein?'
 

note:  Why, indeed?  "The Apollonian approach to life [and truth]"-which approach Campolo rejected in favor of the Dionysian-"is through reason, through logic, through science," he said.  Now, Campolo intends to make both reason and science the very instruments wherewith he hopes to persuade and convince his audience to accept (believe) his arguments.
 
For a very important reason: I believe that Jesus is not only very man of very man, I believe that Jesus is God.  I believe he has this humanity and this divinity, simultaneously.  As a human being, he died in history, 2000 years ago.  And I can talk about the finished work of Christ on the cross.  My sins are atoned for.  He took the punishment.  What's even better, is, he forgot my sin.  I love that.  See, when I was a kid, there was this evangelist that come to our church, who said, "On Judgment Day, they're going to pull down a movie screen and play a video with every sin you ever committed, and your mother will be there!"
 
During the Watergate hearings-do you remember?-they had this cassette tape and [sic] with Nixon giving the orders to commit the crime.  Remember the tape of Rosemary Woods?  They put her on the stand, they put the tape on the player and played to that place where, allegedly, this crime was being committed and recorded.  The tape went dead.  Do you remember this?  Eighteen and a half minutes: we watched; we listened; we heard nothing.  Rosemary Woods had erased the tape.
 
You say, 'Why did you tell-[dropped]?'  Because, Jesus not only took the punishment for our sins (here's the good news of the gospel): if they go to play that video, on Judgment Day, Jesus has erased the tape!  Now, they told me that this was a Pentecostal school.  That was not a Pentecostal response.  If this was a genuine Pentecostal school, you would have blown the roof off, on that one.  So, I will give you one more shot.  I said, "Jesus has erased your tape!"  Your sins are blotted out, they are buried underneath the sea.  Lo, they are-I love this-remembered no more!  On Judgment Day, it says, he shall present me to the Father-I love this-faultless.  'Father, I want you to meet my friend, Tony, the perfect one.'  I hope my wife is there.  That's what it says: our sins are forgiven and forgotten.
 
But here's one thing more.  (That's what Jesus did for me, 2000 years ago, on the cross.)  But Jesus is not only historical [sic] Son of God who takes the punishment for my sins and forgets my sins and blots them out; but he is the Jesus Christ in the here and now.  Let me say this: When Jesus hung on the cross, 2000 years ago-because Jesus is simultaneously God, he was, and he is contemporaneous with this very moment!  You say, 'But there's 2000 years separating me from Jesus on the cross, back there.  There's 2000 years separating these two events.'  At the speed of light, these two events are occurring-what?-[dropped].
 
Jesus is God, and experiences time in a different dimension.  All things happen now with Jesus.
 

note:  Apparently, Campolo is saying that God's ability to know everything at once (omniscience) depends upon God traveling (where?) at the speed of light.
 
That's why the very name of God is "I am that I am".  That's why, when they asked Jesus, "Who are you?" he said, "Before Abraham was-" [audience responds, "I am"].  He wasn't using poor grammar.  He was saying something profound.  'Before there was ever an Abraham': that's present tense.  And, 'Tony Campolo-2000 years from now-is present tense for me'.  And let me tell you this, gang: as Jesus hung on the cross, 2000 years ago, he was-listen-and he is simultaneous with you, right now.  Those 2000 years-being's [sic] he is God-are compressed into his eternal now.  Which means that, right now, Jesus is looking at you.  Right now, Jesus, on the cross, has you in his consciousness.  He sees you sitting here.  And-listen to me-if you will open yourself up-[dropped].
 

note:  For Campolo, JESUS IS STILL ON THE CROSS.  Campolo wants his audience to believe that, right now, Jesus is looking down upon them-not from his throne in Heaven-but (still) from the cross!
 
We talked about the forgiveness; we talked about the ransom; we talked about the propitiation.  There's something more.  There's a cleansing.  You may be forgiven, but how many of us are carrying junk around in our lives?  Jesus may have forgiven your sin and deemed you righteous, declared you righteous.  But, you know, there's filth and there's junk in you.  I don't know about the women here, 'cause I don't understand women.  But I do know about the men here.  Those three guys right there: I can just see dirty, filthy minds.  Please! don't give me anything.  You need some cleansing, today.  Amen?
 
And in the stillness of the morning, I lie there in bed and this is what I let happen: I let Jesus connect me from the cross.  And, like a sponge, I let him absorb out of me the dirt, and the filth, and the darkness of my life.  I let him, like a magnet, take the dirt out of my life, as though they [sic] were iron filings.  My Bible says that he not only takes [sic] the punishment for my sin-listen-he who knew no sin, on the cross-what?-note the words-he actually becomes the dark side of my humanity.  He becomes the dark side of your humanity.  Everything that is ugly, and filthy, and dirty, he absorbs into his body-now!  Nobody had better sin that grace may abound.
 

note:  Campolo's claims are contrary to the Bible and blasphemous.  Jesus Christ is not on the cross, but he is in Heaven where he is the Head of the Church, the great High Priest over the household of God.  It emphatically is not true that "[e]verything that is ugly, and filthy, and dirty, he absorbs into his body-now".  It is not true that Jesus Christ presently "becomes the dark side of […] humanity"!
 
The Bible says, in Hebrews 9:24-28: "For Christ is […] entered […] into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often […] for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  And as it is appointed unto men once to die […] so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (emphases added).
 
Such an idea as Campolo here expressed, however, may help to better understand what he really means when he insists that "the Christian life is Dionysian".  Dionysius: the 'dark Epaphros-Christ'; the one who "actually becomes the dark side of [all] humanity"; the son of the Serpent; the half-brother of Lucifer; the one who is still on the cross absorbing "everything that is ugly, and filthy, and dirty"…..
 
IS THIS CAMPOLO'S 'CHRIST'?
 
I was with a student at a Christian college.  He said, "Yeah, I'm screwin' my girlfriend, but I believe it's all under the blood of Christ, long time ago."  (I'm a pacifist; otherwise, I would've punched him in the mouth.  See, you would've taken care of him, you know.)  And I said, "The next time you're screwin', I hope you can hear Jesus screaming in pain.  Because, you screwin' there, and Jesus hanging back there: these two events are simultaneous.  And even as you are committing the sin, he [Christ] who hates sin, loathes sin, is absorbing it, screaming in agony even as you commit the sin."
 
You dare not take sin lightly.  And you need to be cleansed.  And, so, in the stillness of the morning, I get cleansed.  Now, something happens to me.  I feel something.  I feel something.  You know what I feel, when I get cleansed?  The explosion of the Holy Spirit [caps?].  Now, there are all kinds of dimensions of the Holy Spirit.  There are those that have the 'laying on of hands' experience, and I've had that.  But there's something else.  I believe that the Holy Spirit isn't something you have to get from somebody.  I believe it's-the Holy Spirit's already in you.
 

note:  The Bible says, in Romans 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his".  Clearly, not everyone has the Holy Spirit (of God) "already in" them.
 
See, I'm enough of a Calvinist to believe that you would not even believe in Jesus, if it was not for the Holy Spirit.  You see, on Judgment Day, you're not going to be able to stand before Jesus and say, 'Hey, I considered all the intellectual options available in the marketplace of ideas and, after serious reflection, I considered that Christianity was the most viable-[dropped]'.  He's going to say, 'Shut up!  You didn't choose me.  You didn't choose me, I chose you.  And it was my Spirit working in you that drove you to me'.
 
You say, 'Wait a minute.  Don't I even get credit for choosing Jesus?'  No!  You say, 'Well, who gets all the glory?'  I got news for you, you don't get any credit.  If you're a Christian today, it's because the Holy Spirit drove you to belief.  You don't get credit for anything.  Do you understand that?
 
It's not reasonable apologetics, it is the power of the Holy Spirit that leads you to Christ Jesus.  Apologetics is a good thing to bring in afterwards, to make it sound intelligent.  But it's a spiritual thing.
 

note:  The Bible says, in Romans 10:17: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?  and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? […] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".
 
Campolo's "Dionysian approach" to Christianity appears as mysticism.  He disdains "apologetics"-preaching (a systematic and reasoned exposition of the truth of God's word)-in favor of some nondescript emotional, existentialist-type of 'spiritual' experience (characteristic of mysticism).
 
And I gotta tell you this: that Spirit lies in the depths of your being, but sin smothers it, doesn't it?  Sin quenches it, sin stifles it, sin is a lid on it.  Is this true?  The Bible says that sin quenches the Spirit.
 
But here's what the truth is.  In the stillness of the morning-this is pure postmodernism-as I surrender to the cross-(it's not just a head trip, anymore; it's not just 'I believe in what Jesus did for me 2000 years ago')-as I surrender, subjectively, and allow Jesus to touch me and cleanse me and absorb out of me the dirt and the darkness, you know what happens?  The Spirit is released.  And the power of the Spirit explodes inside of me.  And I am alive in Jesus.  I am energized by Jesus.
 
One morning I got up after about a half-hour of this cleansing, and the Spirit's flowing up inside of me.  The Bible says, 'And it shall be in you like'-what?-'a fountain of living water'.  Right?  [unintelligible]  I mean, uh, I was bubblin', I was energized, I'm electric!  I go down to the airport to get on a plane to Chicago.  And I get there late, which means I get a middle seat.  And there were fat guys on either side of me.  You ever get the middle seat, when there are fat guys on either side of you?
 
And the guy next to me is nervous, he's tense, he's tight.  I look over: he's sweating and he's biting his thumb.  Now, I know that you have been through the personal evangelism course, and you know how to turn to a guy like that and say, ''scuse me, sir, I see you're disturbed.  You need Jesus.  Here are the four spiritual laws.'  I could never pull that off.  So I did the next best thing.  I didn't say a word to him.
 
But remember, I just came from this time of cleansing.  And the Spirit was released and it was bubbling inside of me.  So, I just leaned on him.  Yeah, that's what I did, I just leaned on him and I let the Spirit flow.  You say, 'Wait a minute.  You're talking about God as though God is some kind of energy force that can flow'.  Of course!  I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.  If you, in your modern categories of thought, want to reduce it to a theology, be my guest.  For me, it is the power of God.  A power, a power, something that flows, that doesn't fit into the categories of logic and sci-[dropped].  There's a power [unintelligible].  So, I let him have it.  You say, 'What are you talking about?'
 
I'm talking about a Jesus walking down the road and a woman reaching out and touching the hem of his garment, and him stopping and saying, 'Power went out of me: who touched me?'  'Wait a minute.  What are you talking about?  So, power flowed out of Jesus.  What are you suggesting, that you're-[dropped]?'  'That same power,' says the eighth chapter of Romans, 'the same power that was in Christ Jesus shall be in your mortal bodies.'
 
So, I just let him have it all the way to Chicago.  You know, I just bombarded him.  Boom!
 

note:  Campolo had earlier said that "the Holy Spirit isn't something you have to get from somebody."
 
Campolo misquotes Scripture, above.  Like Cinderella's wicked sisters each trying her best to make the royal shoe fit her own foot, as it were, Campolo deigns that the Scriptures ought to fit his vacuous 'theology'.
 
What the Bible actually says, in Romans 8:11, is: "But IF the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you" (emphases added).
 
When the plane touched down, I said, "Lord, if you want me to talk to this guy, give me a sign".  You know, we're all into signs and wonders, these days.  'I want a sign, I want a sign', you know?  Pentecostals, especially, 'want a sign, want a sign.'  You know, the Gideon thing.  I said-sorry-I said, "Lord, you're going to have to give me a sign".  And no sooner I said that [sic], then this guy turns to me and he said, "Mister, I'm in trouble.  I need God".  I was looking for something more specific, you know?
 
We went into the cafeteria at O'Hare, and over the next hour and a half I led him into a personal relationship with Jesus.  But I want to tell you something: I was able to win him to Christ not because I had excellency of words, as the apostle Paul-[dropped].  I did not come to him in excellency of words, I came to him in the power of the Holy Spirit.  That's postmodernism.  The modern mind would have said, 'Let's carry on an intellectual argument, and let's beat him at the argument'.  And I contend you can't argue people into the kingdom of God.  You have to come to them in the power of the Holy Spirit.  And if that power isn't there, I don't care how clever your little argument is, it's not going to cut it.
 

note:  Campolo often uses doublespeak.  He wants Christianity not to depend upon reason or logic (expressed in words), but upon feelings and emotion.  Nevertheless, in his story above it is evident that, his 'postmodern' emanations and vibes being incapable to inform his airport companion's ignorance and convict him of his unbelief, Campolo at length had to resort-for an "hour and a half"-to use words in order to reason with his listener (which is precisely his method and purpose in every book he writes and every speech he gives, including this one).
 
That's why, in fact, as much as you're into television [CBN?], I don't think television's going to rescue the world.  I don't think the books-and I write them and try to sell 'em-is going to rescue the world; because, in the end, we have to come personally to people.  I mean, you could have a great Damascus road experience, but you don't get saved on the road to Damascus.  Paul didn't.  Right?  Lord said, 'If you want the Holy Spirit, you head on.  Go to the street called Straight.  Look for a man named Ananias.  He will lay hands on you and you will receive the'-[dropped].
 
The Holy Spirit is communicated through people who are filled with the spirit.  And they communicate it to you.
 

note:  The Lord never said any such thing to Saul (Paul).  Campolo plays very 'fast and loose' with the Scriptures, again.
 
To repeat: Campolo had earlier said that "the Holy Spirit isn't something you have to get from somebody."  He contradicts himself.
 
You had Benny Hinn here, last week or so.  I like him.  I don't understand all that stuff, you know.  My-Philadelphia, he blew on the choir and the whole choir fell over.  Man, my breath is bad but it's not that bad.  You know, I-[dropped].  That is impressive.  But I gotta tell you something: I know that the Holy Spirit is flowing through that man.  I know that there's something happening.  And, and, it's not the sermon; it's not the message: it's the power that comes through him.  I mean, you look at him and say, 'Jeez, who is this guy?'  I'm better looking than he is, even with a bald head I'm better looking than he is.  And we gotta start talking about-[dropped].
 
That's postmodern, and I'm postmodern.
 

note:  The Bible says that God bears witness-by the Holy Ghost-to the preached Word of God; that the Lord confirms the preached Word of God, by signs and wonders:
 
"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.  For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will"
 Hebrews 2:1-4 (emphases added).
 
"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.  Amen"  Mark 16:20 (emphases added).
 
Campolo denigrates the Word of God, saying, that "it's not the sermon; it's not the message: it's the power".  His meaning throughout is clear, that is, Campolo insists upon some mystical experience involving feelings and emotions of 'power', but without any real or substantive dependence upon a rational exposition and understanding of the Word of God.  Campolo wants experiences apart from reason.
 
He is right about one thing: that is postmodernism-irrational, sensual.  And he, by his own admission, is postmodern.
 
And I contend that logical, rational arguments are all fine, they're all dandy.  Good theology, sound theology is terrific.  But if you don't have that loving intimacy with Jesus, if you do not surrender to a cleansing-[dropped].  And, so, I say to you: Do you believe in what Jesus did on the cross 2000 years ago?  Terrific.  But I not only want to talk about what Jesus did for you 2000 years ago, I want to ask: What is Jesus doing to you, right now?  Is he cleansing you?  And in that cleansing, is the Spirit being released?
 
Now, here's where my social vision comes from.  When I started getting filled with the Spirit of God, something began to happen to me.  You know what it was?  The awareness that the Jesus that I love, and [sic] died on the cross, is waiting to be encountered in suffering people that I meet, in the hungry, in the poor, in the oppressed.  I look into their eyes and I have this mystical awareness that Jesus is staring back at me.
 

note:  Here, Campolo implies that Jesus is in everyone, without exception.  Of course, he earlier said, "I believe it's-the Holy Spirit's already in you."
 
It seems that Campolo believes that one only needs to practice his method of 'cleansing'-letting a mystical 'Jesus who is still on the cross' daily absorb all the dirt and filth in one's life-in order to 'release the Holy Spirit' (that is already in everyone), albeit it is 'quenched' until, through this kind of 'cleansing', the 'Holy Spirit' is 'released'.
 
That very idea is widely promulgated in the context of New Age Spirituality, so-called.
 
And this is what saves social workers from being condescending.  Most social workers diminish the dignity of the people that they go to serve, because they're so noble and they're reaching down to these poor, unfortunate folks.  But if you look into the eyes of one who is in need and you see Jesus staring back at you, you don't ask, 'Am I noble enough to serve?'  You ask, 'Am I worthy?  Am I worthy?'  Because, what I do to the least of these, I do to Jesus.  Jesus mystically presents himself to me.  The Holy Spirit sensitizes me to the awareness that Christ is waiting to be loved in the other.
 

note:  Occult teachings (including New Age) have long held that man's nature is dualistic, that is, mankind is both human and divine.  Furthermore, those teachings have also held that reality itself is a dualism, consisting of a necessary and co-dependent tension between good and evil, light and dark.  That idea is depicted, for instance, in the commonly recognized 'Yin and Yang' symbol.
 
Accordingly, Occult doctrine readily acknowledges that 'Christ' is in virtually everyone.
 
I'm down in Haiti (see, we have a network of some eighty-five schools in Haiti, working with some of the most down trodden people you've ever met) [unintelligible].  I'm ready to board the plane.  I'm waiting for the little plane-there's a little Piper Cub's going to come out from the capitol, pick me up on this grass landing strip, and take me back.  And a woman comes towards me, holding in her hands her baby: swelled stomach-you've seen these kids-hair turned rust-colored from malnutrition, arms and legs like sticks, hanging limp from her hands.  And she starts begging me: "Take my baby, take my baby.  Don't let my baby die.  Take my baby!  Don't let my baby die!  Take my baby!  Please, don't let my baby die!"  I push her away.  I say, "I can't take your baby."  And I couldn't.  She kept on begging.  She wouldn't let up.  I was relieved when the plane landed.  I pushed by her, ran towards the plane.  She came running after me: "Don't let my baby die!  Don't let my baby die!"  I climbed into the plane and I closed the Plexiglas door.  I told the pilot, "Get us out of here!  Get us out of here!"
 
He revved up the engine-not fast enough-and the engine wasn't loud enough.  She was alongside of the plane, banging on the plane, holding this dying kid in her hands-just limp, with its eyes rolled back and its swelled belly-screaming: "Don't let my baby die!  Don't let my baby die!"
 
Plane pulled down the landing strip and into the air.  And halfway back to the capitol, it hit me, who the baby was.  I don't know his name.  And yet I do know his name.  For, I hear that voice echoing down the corridors of time, saying, 'I was hungry; did you feed me?  I was naked; did you clothe me?  I was sick; did you care for me?  I was that baby on the landing strip; did you take me in?  Because, when you fail to do it to the least of these, you fail to do it unto me.'
 
Any form of social action that does not arise from the sensitivity that the other person is a vehicle through whom Christ is presenting himself to you, will diminish the other person.  And that's why Christian social action is the only kind that will work.  Because, we do not come with a condescending pity, we come with awe and reverence to those that we go to serve.
 

note:  Shades of Nietzsche appear, again.  Nietzsche wrote: "In the middle of our unhealthy modernity, nothing is less healthy than Christian pity"[vii]  (emphasis added).
 
Now, I do always give an invitation.  You look a little old to come and work with me.  But maybe you'd want to come and work with me in the summer.  And we'll work in the slums of Philadelphia, and Camden, New Jersey, 'cause you don't have to go to the third world [in order] to go to the third world, anymore.  Do you?  You can find it in Norfolk, you can find it in Richmond.  Come and work with me in Camden.  If you want to stay for a year, let's stay for a year.  If you want to stay longer, that's terrific.  And if you want to stay for the rest of your life, we'll really be glad to see you.  But why not come and work among the poor and the oppressed, and find Jesus waiting to be loved in them, and share the gospel story and minister to each of them, as though each was Christ?  These are the new revolutionaries.  This is the ideology of the gospel, a transforming ideology.
 

note:  Campolo never mentions anything concerning spiritual regeneration-being 'born again'.  His "transforming ideology" has nothing to do with transforming man's spiritual nature through regeneration.
 
You say, 'You're known for somebody who's being angry [sic] with social structures'.  Indeed!  Whenever there's a political and economic system that diminishes another human being, I see it making hell for my Jesus.  I see Jesus as the victim of injustice.  I see Jesus as the victim of poverty.  I see Jesus as the victim of prejudice.
 
People say, 'I'm a racist but I am a Christian'.  I'm struggling-[dropped].  You're not a Christian, 'cause, when you reject a black person, you're not rejecting a black person.  You know who you're rejecting?  If you reject a white person, you know who you're rejecting?  'For, whatever you do unto the least of these': that's the revolutionary gospel, that whole new perception that comes from that indwelling awareness that the Holy Spirit generates.  And it changes the world.
 
So, I'll end.  I wasn't going to do this, but you said it was the only thing I said that was worth memorizing [reference to president Cerjan's opening comments].  I'll tell you what he's [Cerjan's] referring to.
 
You've been a wonderful congregation to talk to, considering you're predominantly white.  I mean, white people are hard, man.  I mean, you can say anything to a white group, you know: 'The world's coming to an end!'
 
My church is an African-American church.  I didn't join an African-American church.  It was a white church and you people moved into my neighborhood.  You're always movin' in.  Church went black.  We never left, because my father had donated the offering plates.  Hey, you don't leave your offering plates.  Amen?  Church is all African-American, now.  And it's much better than this group, as nice as you are; 'cause, when I preach at my church, it's fun.  Even when you're bad, they let you know.
 
One time, I was halfway through a sermon and some lady in the back yelled, "Help him, Jesus!  Help him, Jesus!"  I knew this was not going well.  You know what I mean?  In my church, when you're pumping on all cylinders, they let you know.  The deacons sit right up front.  (See, this is not a good church.  Yeah, I need a row of chairs, and the deacons need to be sitting there.)  And every time you say something good, they yell, 'Preach!  Preach, brother, preach!'  Your profs would do much better, you know-[end of side one of tape recording].
 
[Begin reverse side of tape]
[…] and they just go, 'Well'.  That's it!  That's it!  No, that's it.  You say, 'Is that it?'  That's it, you know: 'Well'.  You say, 'That doesn't do-' [dropped].  If you get fifty women yelling, 'Well', your hormones will bubble.  And the men in my church-when you are pumping on all cylinders, they don't just say, 'Amen'.  They yell, 'Keep goin', man!  Keep goin', keep goin'!'  You don't get that from white people.  White people do not yell, 'Keep goin'!'  They yell, 'Stop, stop!'
 
Once a year in my church we have a 'preach-off'.  You don't even know what they are, do you?  That's when you get about eight or nine preachers and you preach back-to-back to see who's best.  You never say that.  You say, 'It's for the glory of God'.  But we know what it's about.  And I don't want to brag, people.  I do not want to brag, but I was good.  The deacons were yellin', 'Preach!' and the women were goin', 'Well'; and the people were yellin', 'Keep goin'!'  And I was feeding on that stuff.  And the more they did it, the better I got.  The better I got, the more-[dropped].  I got so good I wanted to take notes on me.
 
I finished.  That place exploded.  It exploded!  I sat down.  My pastor hit my knees, said, "You did all right.  You did all right."  I said, "You're next, pastor.  You gonna be able to top that?"  He said, "Son, son, you sit back, 'cause the old man is gonna do you in".
 
I had been so hot that day I figured nobody could do me in.  That sucker got up there.  Next hour, he did me in.  One line, over and over, again-president [Cerjan] said it.  That line was: "It's Friday, but Sunday's comin'".  Doesn't sound like much, does it?  You weren't there.
 
Started off nice and soft-black preachers always start off so soft.  "It was Friday, and my Jesus was dead on the cross.  But that was Friday; Sunday's comin'!"  Somebody yelled, "Keep goin', keep goin'!"  And that's all he needed, that's all he needed.  "Friday.  Friday, people are sayin', 'As things have been, so they shall be; you can change nothing in this world.'  But they don't know it's only Friday.  Friday; Sunday's comin'!"
 
Friday.  Friday, they're saying, 'A bunch of folks in a small university down in Virginia, they cannot alter the social structure; they cannot impact the society; they cannot transform the social order!'  But they don't know it's only Friday.  Friday!  (If I keep this up, I think I'll de-hunk-itize the whole group.)
 
He went on like that for an hour.  By the time he finished, I was exhausted.  He came to the end and he just yelled, "Friday!"  And the whole congregation yelled, "Sunday's comin'!"
 
I hope you come and work with me in the city.  Give me your name and address, when this is over.  But if you don't, you better go out there and do the work of the kingdom: to find Jesus waiting to be loved; to attack those structures that oppress our Lord, wherever he is oppressed; and to stand up for the kingdom of God that is to come.  That's what you're called to do.  And if we accept this challenge, then I've got good news.  It may be a dark world, today, but I've got good news.  Are you ready?  Now, let me do that, again.  Are you ready?
 
Then, the good news is: it's Friday, but-[audience responds, "Sunday's comin'!"].
 
Amen.  God bless you.
(end of Campolo's speech)

 
 
IN CONCLUSION
Campolo's 'gospel' is radically different from the Bible's.  Campolo's contempt for the Word of God is evident not only in his mishandling of Scripture but, importantly, in his self-identification with postmodernism-a philosophy that denies the existence of absolute truth.  In keeping with that belief, Campolo rejects reason in favor of emotion; he requires mystical (existential) experience, instead of Biblical preaching.
 
Campolo not only praises Friedrich Nietzsche, but openly endorses certain malignant elements of Nietzsche's antichrist philosophy.  Campolo, who, I believe, is an ordained Baptist minister, attempts to distort and confute Biblical truth.  In so doing, he blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
The invitation to be the honorary speaker for the Staley Lecture Series, was strongly objected to-in advance of his appearance-by some of Regent University's student body, including representatives of the student government.  The fact that the basis for Campolo's invitation to speak was not more carefully scrutinized by the university's then administration; together with the undiscerning praise given to Campolo by two of the then chief administrators of that university; are not only regrettable in themselves, but they also suggest the need for Christian supporters of that institution to be more discerning in their own dealings with Regent University.

[i] A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names; online (March 10, 2007) at http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p7.htm#pomo

[ii] Helena P. Blavatsky.  The Secret Doctrine, Vols. I and II, 1947 ed., a facsimile of the original edition of 1888. (The Theosophy Company; Los Angeles: 1947), Vol. I, 359-360.

[iii] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 415.

[iv] Louis P. Pojman.  Classics of Philosophy.  (Oxford Univ. Press; New York: 1998), p. 1037.

[v] Ibid., 1029.

[vi] Ibid., 1037.

[vii] Ridley, Aaron, ed.  Nietzsche: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols. (Cambridge Univ. Press; New York: 2005): excerpt from "The Anti-Christ a Curse on Christianity", at Cambridge/Catalogue, online (March 10, 2007) at http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521816595&ss=exc