Evangelicals Support Newt Gingrich

The need for Red Letter Christians to no longer be labeled “Evangelicals” became abundantly clear this past Saturday following the South Carolina Republican Primary. Most Evangelicals claim to be politically non-partisan, and say they only identify with the Republican Party because the Republicans are committed to “family values.” The truthfulness of that claim became questionable this past Saturday when South Carolina Evangelicals voted in surprisingly large numbers for Newt Gingrich, in spite of the fact that he’s hardly a model husband in their eyes. Not only is he on his third wife, having had divorce papers served to one of them while she was lying in a hospital bed recovering from a mastectomy for breast cancer, but, if his second wife is to believed, wanted an “open marriage” so that he could have a sexual affair on the side.

Now Mr. Gingrich has been converted to Catholicism, and has, as part of his conversion, confessed his sin and asked for God’s forgiveness. Evangelicals will say that this being the case we should forgive, forget and move on “to other concerns.” I have to ask, however, why they didn’t do this when a Democratic President repented of his sin?

Are we to assume that there are two different standards for “forgiving, forgetting and moving on,” or could it be that Evangelicals are willing to forgive and forget because they have found in Newt Gingrich a very bright and articulate debater who might defeat President Obama in the upcoming Presidential debates? If the latter is true are they then ready to admit that their desire to elect a Republican president trumps the “family” values that they deem so very important.

I, for one, am quite willing to join the “forgive, forget and move on” crowd, but it does make me wonder if Evangelicals are going to sound believable when they say that they tend to vote Republican because of their religious commitments to the family.

ADVERTISEMENT

-------------

Red Letter Christians believe in the doctrines of the Apostle’s Creed; are convinced that the Scriptures have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and make having a personal transforming relationship with the resurrected Christ the touchtone of their faith. But we want to be more non-partisan politically than appears to be the case for so many of our South Carolinian Evangelical brothers and sisters.

—-
Tony Campolo is the Founder and President of EAPE and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University. Look for Tony in your area and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

Print Friendly

About the Author

Tony Campolo

Tony CampoloTony Campolo is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University. Look for Tony in your area and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.View all posts by Tony Campolo →

  • evangeleftical

    I suppose it’s too late in the game to just be Evangelicals who lean left? Can’t Evangelicalism be resurrected from the Republican’s attempt to annex it?

    • Wpcook61

      Well we can certainly hope it can be.

  • Dprete25

    This is a very good reason why we need to be very careful on supporting political candidates as a group. Who you vote for is your own priviate business. There is an upright decent man running, Mitt R. and they didn’t even look his way!

  • http://morganguyton.wordpress.com/ Morgan Guyton

    My goal as a contributor here is to find ways of articulating God’s goal of justice and peace for His creation that transcend partisan boundaries. I will always call myself evangelical, because I believe in sharing the gospel with everyone I meet and not just saying it’s one belief system among many equally valid ones. Jesus’ story is the only one that can save us. Period.

    I mourn the partisanship of evangelicals simply because I value evangelism above advancing any political agenda. I don’t want liberals to be lost to the gospel by thinking that Christians are required to collect assault rifles and deny the existence of global warming. The more that the world sees that there is a range of possible political opinions among people who are very committed to following the Bible, the better the harvest for the kingdom.

    Evangelicals who don’t think that evangelism is the ultimate goal don’t deserve to be called evangelicals. If evangelism is your life purpose, that means subordinating your political affiliations and all other loyalties to the goal of sharing God’s love with liberals and conservatives alike and hopefully convincing them in the process to stop self-identifying as either liberal or conservative but simply grateful redeemed sinners loyal to Christ alone.

    • Mac

      Thanks for that Morgan.  I get a little confused by all the “post-evangelical” talk.  Not sure how anyone who is an ambassador for Christ entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation could protest being grouped with others who have the same calling.  Might as well just say you are “post-Christian”.  

      I suppose they disagree with some of the beliefs and actions of some other Christians.  That I understand.  It’s painting with an awfully broad brush, though, to say that all people in traditional “evangelical” churches are somehow deceived or have not received some special revelation that the new group has.  That us and them mentality seems destructive.

      You exalt Christ alone as the answer, and for that I am grateful. I’ve fellowshipped with born from above folks in many traditions.  I’ve also seen frauds and charlatans of many different doctrinal stripes.  If we look for evidence of our savior in people, we wont fall into the deception of discounting or devaluing those for whom Christ died.  I hope this makes sense.  Your post did, and again, thank you      

      • Anonymous

        ” I get a little confused by all the “post-evangelical” talk.  Not sure
        how anyone who is an ambassador for Christ entrusted with the ministry
        of reconciliation could protest being grouped with others who have the
        same calling.  Might as well just say you are “post-Christian”.  ”

        Talk to somebody who’s not evangelical, and use the term ‘evangelical’.  Find out what their reaction is.  To me, it’s ‘right-wing white guy’.

        • Mac

          Ok, I get that.  If I were to observe the media representation of Christians and how society in general likes to mock them, I might come to that conclusion.  I, however, have the added insight of being around many “evangelicals” for years who are nothing at all like the stereotype that is put forth by our culture.  You can’t just say that a whole group of Christians is in error because the majority of society says so.  After all, the way is very narrow indeed and there will be few that find it. It is also the case that the majority of people in this world have their minds “blinded by the God of this world”. (2Cor 4:4)  Of course that doesn’t even remotely suggest that there aren’t huge numbers of “evangelicals” who fit the stereotype and indeed are the reason that it exists.  It simply means that the voice of the world about anything is no guarantee of veracity. The fact that to you the term evangelical means “right wing white guy”, just means you lack the exposure to authentic “evangelical” Christians that I and many others have, (of many races and circumstances), and that you have fallen into the area of prejudice against many who are your brothers and sisters in Christ.  We need to be very careful about speaking against God’s annointed ones, and since we can never be 100% sure about that, it might be best to “speak evil of no man”.  I don’t disagree that there are deep issues in the church.  Always have been.  You just can’t marginalize millions of people just because they are spoken against by a godless society, or by Christians who would rather run away than fight.   

  • 123Britt

    Admit you are a Democrat and want all Christians to become Democrats, please, instead of of making it look like this is all for bipartisanship.

    • Drew

      Nope, because that’s not the truth.

    • http://twitter.com/robmille Rob Miller

      1) That’s completely irrelevant
      2) I’m pretty sure Tony regularly admits to being a Democrat
      3) There’s nothing bipartisan about this post.  Bipartisanship is when members of 2 parties work together to make governing decisions in a bipartisan fashion.

      Hope that helps.

    • http://nailtothedoor.blogspot.com Dan Martin

      I don’t know if you’ve paid any attention to Tony over the years, but while I suspect he often votes Democratic, he does not “want all Christians to become Democrats.”  In point of fact he has plenty of criticisms for Democrats too, as well he should.

      The difference is that Democrats, at least, don’t try to wrap their party in “Evangelical” or any other kind of Christian values.  Both parties are antithetical to the Red Letters, though on different issues.  One of them admits it.

  • Matt

    Newt’s win in South Carolina wasn’t beacuse of Christians. It was because the Republicans in that state wanted someone who could articulate common sense conservative policies. By doing that, those voters felt confident that Newt could beat back the terrible plague that is the Obama Administration and crazy leftist policies supported by this blog.

    Full disclosure, Newt’s not even my guy, but anytime the head honcho of this blog comes out and makes a political statement, it makes me happy. Newt’s win in SC was a victory of articulate conservatism, and that scares the liberal and the liberal’s allies (this blog). Therefore, the boss man had to come out and give a rallying cry for the followers of this blog.

    I’ll translate what this post really said…ahem ahem…

    “Hey, Red Letter Christian readers. Newt Gingrinch just went out in SC and proudly proclaimed conservatism and it worked. That’s bad news for us. Here’s what we’re going to do. Go out and find your Christian friends and tell them that Newt’s a bad guy and doesn’t have good family values. That’ll work. These conservatives won’t vote for a guy with a sketchy personal past. We have to protect the Church of the Leftist at all cost. Godspeed followers.”

    Way to go Newt.

    • Jacob Michael

      You should listen to Slayer.  You would like it.

    • Drew

      Newt’s win came because Christians set aside their Christianity in order to further their own political ideology?  Fascinating.

  • someguysomewhere

    Newt has baggage, but he knows the issues, he has solid solutions, and he is the only person being considered who had a hand in balancing the budget 4 years in a row. Love him or hate him, he gets things done and he is smart.  Also, as far as family values… let those without sin cast the first stone. If anybody on the planet was under this type of microscope we’d all be disappointed even if we aren’t running for President. Sure, being a faithful husband is a huge indicator of family values for one’s personal life… but David from the Bible had an affair and then killed her husband to cover it up, God loved him anyway. Tons of other examples, but I’ll digress. The key isn’t the sin, it’s the repentance and nobody can know the sincerity of someone else’s heart. So let it go. There are also other family values that should not be ignored in which a President actually has some say-so that DOES affect families other than his own; Like the ones that say work hard and don’t depend on handouts from the government. Don’t live in debt; be responsible and pay your bills; etc… We are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness… Not 99 weeks of unemployment money for doing nothing. Unemployment should be a temporary last resort, but many have turned it into a free ride on the tax payers dime. Living in a welfare state is not the kind of family values I want to pass on to my kids, and imposing the democratic definition of “fairness” by creating an atmosphere of class warfare i’ll worry about not having an affair to set the other example for my kids. I want the kids of my country to have some ambition, self respect, pride, and to know that just becasue the President makes a few bad choices it doesn’t mean they have to.

    • Jacob Michael

      Why?  Why?  Why does the above comment exist?  I am befuddled.

      • someguysomewhere

        because it is awesome :-)

    • Drew

      So, you forgave Clinton immediately and did not want to see him impeached, correct?

      • someguysomewhere

        Clinton never asked me for his forgiveness, he didn’t sin against  me, I have no personal relationship with him. Was I disappointed that the office of the President was marred with what he did, sure. I also don’t recall Clinton ever stating that he sought forgiveness from God either, maybe he did and I missed it. I do recall him lying under oath. That said, I do not try to demonize Clinton for what he did.  Like I said, I bet if every detail of your life or mine was broadcast, there would likely at some point looking back be thoughts, words, actions, websites, and other things that you wouldn’t be proud to show your mother, wife, or kids; much less the entire nation. Am I lying? None of us are ever going to get it exactly right, so I won’t condemn Clinton for that. I have made a lot of mistakes in my life, big ones and small ones, and yet I am truly pursuing Christ and my relationship with him. It’s genuine and real, but the closer I get to him makes me realize how holy he his and how deep my sin is. My mistakes have helped me appreciate his grace and they have also allowed me to become who I am today and to minister to others who have struggled with various similar things. Listen, I’m not some hardcore Gingrich supporter, but I believe he has some solid ideas and he knows the issues and I believe has the ability to implement some of them.  Do I trust him? Not really, but can we ever trust anybody we don’t know personally? Not really. Sometimes we cant even trust the ones we do know personally. I was hopeful that Obama would be a breath of fresh air, he isn’t.  More people on food stamps than ever before. Nations debt is at $16 trillion; defecit at 1/2 trillion; Obamacare is the govt forcing citizens to make a purchase or be fined; Class warfare preached from the oval office on a regular basis.  As a Christian I believe that we should take care of those less fortunate… but generosity should start in the heart of the individual, it shouldn’t be mandated.  It isn’t sincere that way but the democratic party seems to support the “share the wealth” idea, but my view is that mentality doesn’t empower the poor. I wish everyone was generous, but the govt can’t change someone’s heart, only God can and that is what needs to happen.  The goal is noble, take care of the less fortunate, I’m all for that, but to force people to share what they have earned removes the blessing of giving based on one’s own free will. Government handouts remove love from the equation of reaching out to others…

        • someguysomewhere

          correction, deficit at 1.2 trillion (typo)

        • Drew

          In all that well-intentioned rambling you never really answered my question.

  • Kevin

    It will sound believable to anyone whose standard for consistency is affiliation with their politics and religion. The reason many Republicans favor Gingrich over Romney is they don’t associate Romney with their party and their faith. The anecdote sounds to me like tribal behavior and identifying more to what one is opposed than to what one is in favor.

  • Aaaaaaaaaargh

    My heavily conservative hometown district in Canada has consistently voted for the same candidate in the last three elections.  This guy managed to sew up the Bible-belt, family-values vote by articulating a strong message against gay marriage.  After his second win, his wife divorced him after finding out he had fathered a child with one of his campaign staff (a woman 25 years his junior).  This experience has soured me on evangelical family-values politicians, to say the least.  In Gingrich’s favour, at least he has made an apology.  The Weasel I refuse to name has not, to my knowledge.  Apparently marital indiscretions do not render a “families first” message hypocritical.

  • Jeff Kursonis

    Tony, there’s probably a million other reasons you should have become post-evangelical at some point over the last 10 years, but if this is what it takes – Amen!  Come on over and breathe the fresh air.

    • Jacob Michael

      Lol, that’s what i was thinking.

  • http://mikesnow.org/ Michael Snow

    I am not a Newt fan nor would I vote for him. But there are big problems with Tony’s opening paragraph.

    1) re: ‘divorce papers served’ in hospital. They were served two months prior.http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/
    2) ‘open marriage’ allegation by a bitter [with good reason] wife just in time for the election; denied by daughters and friends. And it relates to a divorce years/decades ago [1999}, This is something fit for gossip columnists that ignore the Scriptural mandate for two witnesses.
    3) Since when do we assess a situation based on media headlines?

    There are several threads to the Newt victory story.
     
    There was the endorsement of Gov. Perry, which I suspect had to do with the other major player being Mormon. And there is still a big problem with evangelicals who would not vote for Romney based on this.

    There was the standing ovation in the debate [obviously, the audience was not restricted to Newt lovers]. Though I would hate to see him get the nomination, I will give credit where credit is due.  He said what needed to be said. And the voters applauded that.

    It would have been no more reprehensible if the media had asked Pres. Clinton about ‘Monica’ during the Haiti earthquake.

    • Questioning

      > Since when do we assess a situation based on media headlines? <

      Not sure how many of the "we" reading this blog do as you suggest…..  but, unfortunately I suspect an alarming number of the population at large, do that very thing. Why else would we need a fact check website?   

  • A.lee

    Non partisan..? I’m sorry, did you say…NON-PARTISAN?? That’s a good one. Thank you for adding a little humor to my day. 

  • http://twitter.com/HamiltonMJ1983 Matthew Hamilton

    I wish that, instead of distancing ourselves from the term “Evangelical,” we could take it back!

    The idea of evangelism has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and it is a shame that it is used as a political weapon. The fact that I am an evangelical does influence my voting and my politics.

    As an evangelical, I can and will not vote for any of the GOP candidates this time around. The only stance I share with them is that I am pro-life, although they only view that as relating to abortion, and I think that it is much more (pro-life means anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, anti-war).

    I do not agree with all that Obama has done, but he has at least been able to do some things while in office, as hard as the GOP has made it for him. He has fought for health care reform, which should bring down healthcare costs to the individual as well as provide healthcare for everyone who wants it (and mandatory for everyone under 18). He has ended the war in Iraq (10 years too late, but at least it is over). And he shutdown the Keystone XL pipeline, which was being pushed through so fast that we could not even research the environmental factors in time. I am thankful for these things.

    Obama has not, however, lived up to all that he has promised. He has caved in to the GOP too often. He should have eliminated the income tax brake for the $250k and up group immediately while extending the break for the low income. He should have vetoed any budget that cut education spending. He should have cut military spending big time at the beginning of his term, not the end.

    But here is the thing: if the GOP would put forward a candidate that would continue healthcare reform, end the war in Afghanistan and not go back into Iraq, fight for environmental issues, education, and the programs that help the needy in America, be willing to put in place a fair tax system without the loopholes for the rich and the big business, and cut spending, then I would certainly vote for him or her.

    You see, being an evangelical makes me care about the issues at stake and how they affect people. It does not put me in either party’s pocket.

    • Alex

      Being an evangelical Christian makes me care about the issues at stake and how they affect people as well. However, as a conservative voter, I couldn’t disagree with you more as to how to achieve the goals we all desire for our country and fellow men. I am fully willing to discuss those differences intellectually in the arena of ideas. Folks on the left do not seem to be able to do that.  They tend to resort to calling us bigots and question our faith. Yet I challenge you to find anyone on the conservative side who is “using evangelism as a conservative weapon”. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
       Conservatives have opposed Mr. Obama simply because his policies are destroying and bankrupting our country. He has trampled on the Constitution while spending more than all of the  U.S. Presidents combined. The healthcare “overhaul” will destroy our medical system just as it has done in every other country which utilizes a socialized medical system. I could go on and back up my opinions with numerous facts.I agree with you that being an evangelical has nothing to do with politics. This entire site, however, seems to be devoted to promoting a liberal agenda just enough Christianity in it to be able to label it as Christian. 

      • http://twitter.com/HamiltonMJ1983 Matthew Hamilton

        Anyone who is or has used the idea or word “evangelism” or “evangelical” as a political weapon, lets see…

        Pat Robertson
        Jerry Falwell
        James Dobson
        Tony Perkins
        Robert Grant

        I could keep going, but there are a few.

        • Drew

          Don’t forget Huckabee.

          • http://twitter.com/HamiltonMJ1983 Matthew Hamilton

            And all those who pander to the religious right and the conservative evangelicals by calling on “family values” and other such nonsense.

          • TNwriter

            Yeah that sorta irks me too. It doesn’t irk me as much the killing unborn babies “nonsense”, but it irks me nonetheless.

        • Alex

          So let me get this straight. When Christians who happen to be conservative feel strongly about their faith and take stands for it in the public arena they are using evangelism as a weapon? But when Liberals such as, oh I don’t know, let’s see, Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis take stands in the public arena, their motives are pure and blameless, based solely upon Christian love. It couldn’t be that both sides are truly sincere and passionate about their beliefs but disagree on their ideas?  It must be nice to be able to see into the hearts of men in order to make those distinctions. God must trust you immensely to have given you that gift. He has asked the rest of us to be very careful in judging others, especially other believers. It is good to examine the words and actions of others so we are not following blindly. In those cases, it is best to address specifics. Blanket labels and accusations based upon generalization are not condoned anywhere in scripture. We are one body with many parts. The enemy would love nothing more than to create divisions in the Body of Christ. The kind of Us vs. Them thinking that permeates Mr. Campolo’s post as well as your response make the enemy’s work much easier.

      • Drew

        “I am fully willing to discuss those differences intellectually in the
        arena of ideas. Folks on the left do not seem to be able to do
        that.  They tend to resort to calling us bigots and question our faith… This entire site, however, seems to be devoted to promoting a
        liberal agenda just enough Christianity in it to be able to label it as
        Christian”

        Congratulations on climbing to the summit of Mt. Hypocrisy and planting a flag, sir.  Well done.

        • Alex

          I was making an observation based upon my experience. Please explain the hypocrisy in that. Otherwise, you are proving my point by calling me a hypocrite.

  • Alex Bezuska

    I love you Tony, many great points! The real problem, in my opinion,  lies in allegiance, and many Christians hold their allegiance to the USA and the “values” of the fallen world above those of Christ. 

    I love how we always have to preface our blog posts and comments with “I assure you we DO believe.. da da da da da BUT…” lest we be accused of not believing in the scriptures, when we are actually trying our best to study them and understand their meaning, instead of trusting in a political party to represent Christ for us.

    • Christianconservative

      What in the world are you even talking about? The only part of your post which made any sense at all was the da da da da part.

      • Christianconservative

        Okay, I apologize for the above comment. It was a knee jerk reaction, but instead it made me just sound like a jerk. As a believer, I am extremely committed to my faith. I study, dig, memorize and meditate on the scripture. I meet with a group of dedicated and extremely educated men who are all dealing with difficult issues in life. We do not all agree politically, but we respect each other and discuss our ideas with intellectual honesty and, at times, passion. I came to this site at the behest of one of them who wanted me to read some of what the “new evangelicals” are writing. What I find are Christian believers insulting their brothers on the right with a judgemental air.  Example:  “we are trying our best to study the scriptures and understand their meaning, instead of trusting a political party to represent Christ for us.”.  I do not know any of my conservative Christian brothers who are looking to their political party to represent Christ for them. It is a unfounded statement which at once denegrates and belittles your fellow Christians who may not believe as you do while setting yourself up as superior because after all, you are the only ones actually trying to study and understand the scriptures. Conservatives couldn’t be doing that or they wouldn’t be conservative. So who is the one actually being blinded by their political affiliation. Anyway, I’m done here. I’m going to call one of my liberal Christian brothers and tell them how much I love and respect him even though we disagree.

        • Drew

          If you can’t think of any conservatives who put political ideas before Scripture, then you are blind to the truth.  (Not a partisan issue, I can think of liberals who do the same).

          • Christianconservative

            You have reframed the argument. Can I think of one? Yes. The issue with most of the writers on this site is that they tend to put everyone with whom they personally disagree and slap a label on the box and make universal statements that are not based upon basic logic.. My response above was a challenge to labels such as “Conservatives do not try to read and understand scripture, but trust in a political party to represent Christ for them”. Such thinking not only goes against the rules of logic (one would have to know every conservative to be able to prove the validity of the argument) it is lazy and narrow minded thinking. Yet, that seems to be the type of thing that is extremely pervasive on this site. So your reasoning is what? Some Conservatives put political ideas before Scripture therefore ALL Conservatives put political ideas before Scripture. The argument is logically invalid. Logic is an extremely useful tool, no matter what the subject being discussed. I would challenge Mr. Campolo and the contributors to this site to become more aquainted with it’s workings.

      • Christianconservative

        Okay, I apologize for the above comment. It was a knee jerk reaction, but instead it made me just sound like a jerk. As a believer, I am extremely committed to my faith. I study, dig, memorize and meditate on the scripture. I meet with a group of dedicated and extremely educated men who are all dealing with difficult issues in life. We do not all agree politically, but we respect each other and discuss our ideas with intellectual honesty and, at times, passion. I came to this site at the behest of one of them who wanted me to read some of what the “new evangelicals” are writing. What I find are Christian believers insulting their brothers on the right with a judgemental air.  Example:  “we are trying our best to study the scriptures and understand their meaning, instead of trusting a political party to represent Christ for us.”.  I do not know any of my conservative Christian brothers who are looking to their political party to represent Christ for them. It is a unfounded statement which at once denegrates and belittles your fellow Christians who may not believe as you do while setting yourself up as superior because after all, you are the only ones actually trying to study and understand the scriptures. Conservatives couldn’t be doing that or they wouldn’t be conservative. So who is the one actually being blinded by their political affiliation. Anyway, I’m done here. I’m going to call one of my liberal Christian brothers and tell them how much I love and respect him even though we disagree.

  • a visitor

    I don’t recall the Holy Spirit turning his job over to Tony Campolo, nor is he likely to anytime soon. 

  • Anonymous

    A 65 year old man, suddenly repents of serial adultery and sexually open marriages?  Is there nobody else who doubts this conversion?

  • Brain

    I’ll be glad to agree with Tony if he can show me where Newt lied under oath, which was what the Democratic President that he refers to did.  

    • Brian

      typo on the name there.  lol

      • Brian

        huh

        • Brian

          well, the name is Brian, not Brain, but for some reason it keeps posting as Brain even though I’ve changed it

    • Ed

      Newt Lied to his 2 wives, which is much more important than lying under oath

      • Brian

        I think you’re missing my point.  Both Clinton and Gingrich lied to their wives.  Only Clinton committed perjury though.

  • Bernhe

    I was a fan of Tony Campolo before I started reading Red letter Christian.  Becoming less of one the more I read it.  Whenever someone distorts the facts to make a point I loose respect.  I point out their error no matter which side it is.  The first paragraph is full of gossip that has already been pointed out to be in error.  The photo was chosen to depict Newt as someone who speaks out of the side of his mouth.
    Have you talked to anyone who says defeating Obama in a debate is more important than “family values.”  Don’t assume, ask.

    • Ed

      Tony is ABSOLUTELY right!  There is tremendous hypocrisy on the part of the so-called religious right, who seem much more obsessed with spreading the gospel of Republicanism than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Everything he says about Newt has been proven to be true. He didn’t even mention the fact that Newt was fined by the House Ethics Committee (which includes equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats) while he was Speaker and given what at the time was the biggest fine given to a house member.  Not to mention the ethics of his marriages.  

      I saw an interview on 20/20 several years ago with the pastor who married Newt and his first wife and he basically said he was the most ethically-challenged person he’d ever met.  Yet some of our “Evangelical brethren” continue to make excuses on his behalf all in the hopes of ‘defeating Obama’.

      • Bernhe

        Ed-It says you are responding to what I wrote.  You did not.  You side stepped the issues of the serving of the divorce papers and the open marriage.  The information on the papers was wrong.  She was not in the hospital.  Only one person claims the open marriage idea.
        You and Tony might be right about Newt.  But repeating accusations that have been proven to be false is wrong.  How do you feel when someone says such things about Obama?  I dislike that just as much as false things about Newt.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, I’d like it if they’d correct the misinformation.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

  • Anonymous

    It appears that Tony is making the same mistake that some politically conservative evangelicals and, at times, the media make.  He’s reducing the term “evangelical” to a political label. It sounds like he’s saying he can’t associate himself with evangelicals because of how many of them vote.  What’s the point of rejecting a label that describes how you express your Christianity just because some people who also use that label vote for someone that doesn’t reflect your values? Heck, why stop with evangelical. There are plenty of Christians who vote for unChristian politicians. Why not ditch that label too?!

    Here’s a prediction:  I guarantee that whatever label Tony Campolo applies to himself there will be a certain segment of that population that votes for people Campolo can’t bring himself to support.

  • Mark

    Excellent article Tony, You could have really brought out the big guns on Newt as most Evangelicals are ignorant, not only of politics in general but of Newts horrible past as well. I highly recomend the following to any and all readers who think they are Christian and want to be active in politics. Please read C. S. Lewis MERE CHRISTIANITY, book 3, chapter 3, on Social Morality. For you Catholics try G. K. Chesterton’s ORTHODOXY,  chapter 7 or 8. and stop embarrising yourself and us.

    YBIC Mark

    • Anonymous

      You must be really smart.  Much smarter than those other evangelicals and Catholics.

    • Tnwriter

      Those happen to be two of my favorite books. And, yes I am a conservative believer.

  • Bernhe

    It is so sad to see Christians act in such an un-Christlike way.  Both sides.  Name calling, assumptions, etc.  Before you write something imagine you are sitting face to face with this person.  Jesus is sitting with you and wants you gently persuade this person.
    Does it offend you when you look as some sites and see foul language spewed?  You know that person is brave because they are anonymous.  Are really that different?  If it hurts to be called a name express your pain, don’t retaliate. 

    One thing is clear.  We need to focus less on politics and more on Jesus.

  • Dzkrall

    I completely and wholeheartedly agree that Red Letter Christians should no longer be labeled evangelicals!

    “But we want to be more non-partisan politically than appears to be the
    case for so many of our South Carolinian Evangelical brothers and
    sisters.”

    Please be serious…It is abundantly clear that RLC is NOT non-partisan. They are just as partisan as their South Carolinian “brothers and sisters” except from a different perspective. RLC swings from the left and there is nothing wrong with that but to use the term non-partisan is extremely misleading. I don’t mean any disrespect, just sharing how I see it… Does anyone see the same thing?

    • Anonymous

      Of course.  When they start criticizing President Obama by name for doing the same things they rightly criticized Bush for doing in the “war on terror”, let me know…

Read previous post:
Sweet Friendship Ahead for Mormons and Evangelical Christians

I have seen a vision of the future of relations between evangelical Christians and Mormons. It’s going to be sweet....

Close