During the 1980s and early 1990s, one of the most popular campus and “Christian worldview” speakers in America was the Rev. Tony Campolo. His message and communication style was attractive to a broad diversity of groups from the Marxist-leaning Sojourners for whom he wrote, to conservative organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ, who once invited him to address a national conference.

I was first exposed to Mr. Campolo through his book Partly Right: Christianity Responds to Its Critics, published in 1985. The mission of Partly Right was to present readers with the proposition that Christians have much practical and philosophical wisdom they could gain from worldviews like Evolutionism and Marxism. As implied by the title of his book, he believed that these worldviews should be considered for the alleged good they can offer to Christians who hope to bring a compassionate, informed Christianity to our social agenda.

I respectfully believe that Mr. Campolo’s position is not “Partly Right,” but wholly wrong. Philosophies like Marxism and Darwinism are systemically bankrupt. They derive from presuppositions about man, government, and authority that are wholly at war with biblical Christianity. They have nothing to offer the Christ-loving, biblical Christian other than as a tool for understanding some of the greatest Satanically-inspired confusion deceptions of the last 150 years. Every attempt to reconcile these worldviews with that of Christianity is an exercise in compromise which carries with it the potential consequence of enslaving the adherent to practices and policies inimical to and violative of the doctrines of Holy Scripture.

As time progressed, the implications of Mr. Campolo’s worldview became clear, most notably with his tolerant view of homosexuality. Both Mr. Campolo and his wife Peggy, herself a sodomite rights advocate, have engaged in public debates and discussions on the future of homosexuality and the church. Mr. Campolo has argued that homosexuality as an orientation is not a sin. Furthermore, while he believes that the formal act of homosexuality is wrong, he nonetheless argues that monogamous sodomite relationships are preferable to non-monogamous sodomite relationships.

This week, Mr. Campolo and his “Partly Right” philosophy are again in the news. Steve Ertelt of Lifenews.com writes:

The Democratic Party has the strongest pro-abortion stance possible, but Reverend Tony Campolo, an evangelical author, has been appointed to the committee that will review the platform. Campolo has vowed to represent pro-lifers “to the highest members of the Democratic Party.” He says he has received assurances from Democratic officials that the platform committee will hear his pro-life views and that the platform will contain language that addresses the pro-life community’s concerns. He hopes to tone down the language calling abortion a woman’s right and he hopes to get members of the party to view abortion as a human rights issue that abrogates the rights of the powerless, namely unborn children.

Stop for a moment and just imagine what would happen if Mr. Campolo was actually successful. You would have a party platform offering just enough mealy-mouthed and conflicted sentiments to confuse the uninformed on the murderous policies of the party they were about to support. And this platform would be matched with a national candidate for the President of the United States who was deeply committed to the legal and economic support of the rights of doctors and mothers to vivisect or burn alive millions of unborn babies.

But before we walk away in a self-righteous huff from the latest revelation of Mr. Campolo’s attempt to purify the candidacy of Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton by making the Democratic platform just a little less genocidal, it would be good to consider whether we are guilty of the same schizophrenia.

The truth be told, Mr. Campolo is fairly consistent in his inconsistencies. He is a faithful syncretist. And his approach to syncretism has historical precedent in some of the worst ideas and trends in history. The “partly right” philosophy is not new to the history of the Church. There has long been a debate between those who want to mix Christianity and paganism. It was this debate that spurred Tertullian to raise his famous question about Jerusalem and Athens. And this debate was certainly present before the Reformers who strove to purify the Church of traditions and practices rooted in compromise with pagan idolatry.

My present concern is this: Though conservative evangelicals may not yet be prepared to accept some of the more distasteful conclusions of Mr. Campolo, they fundamentally accept his premises. To put it another way, the philosophical and theological problems of the “partly right” belief system is not merely prevalent within “conservative” Christian circles—it is the unspoken, and perhaps unwitting, but nevertheless unmistakable driving force.

In short, I fear that the difference between Mr. Campolo and most Evangelicals who fashion themselves “conservative” is one of degrees, not basic assumptions.

Here is why: Though many Christians would reject some of the more grievous conclusions of Mr. Campolo (tolerance of monogamous sodomite relationships, sympathies with Marxism, support of radical liberal presidential candidates, etc.), I fear they nonetheless embrace his hermeneutic for life. Rather than building their worldview presuppositionally from the all-sufficient Scripture that speaks to every area of life (economics, science, theology, education, culture, orthopraxy, etc.), they pick and choose elements they find appealing from a host of religiously inspired belief systems. Next, they mix these ideas into a worldview stew thick with confusion.

They do this for several reasons. First, they wrongly assume the non-sufficiency of Scripture. Believing the Bible to be silent on most things, they reduce the potency of the Word to internal spiritual matters and general feel-good ideas. Second, they have accepted the myth of neutrality—that ideas and policies are essentially free of theological implications. Neutrality leads them to assume that because God does not speak definitively or with authority to such issues, man is free to look to both the prevailing culture and the philosophers of the world for wisdom. Third, they wrongly distinguish between sacred matters, to which God speaks, and secular matters, which they do not believe to be the proper domain of religion. This dichotomous view of reality inevitably results in a weak, anemic Christianity incapable of producing a coherent world and life view, and impotent to speak to the practical issues of life.

And there is a fourth reason—they don’t want God to be the lawgiver. They prefer deriving truth from philosophers, rock musicians or “nature.” Anything but the Bible. After all, claiming that God is the lawgiver seems so—well, legalistic.

This is most apparent when it comes to orthopraxy—the practical issues of life: How shall I vote? How shall I be educated? Who controls the womb? What does it mean to live as a woman? How shall we then dress? What type of movies and music should I introduce to my children? Etc., etc., etc.

Of course, it is one thing for Christians to disagree about how the all-sufficient Bible applies, but it is quite another to relegate the Bible to obscurity by claiming it is “silent” on these issues, and thus Christians may not invoke the Word of God to discern the proper ethical code of conduct. The former position is a reasonable in-house debate. The latter is heresy. And it is an error that serves as the foundation of the “partly right” worldview.

The Bible has the answer to the partly right philosophy. It is this:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.” II Timothy 3:16

It says this to the syncretists of the Church:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

The Bible says this of the opinions of autonomous man:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2 Corinthians 2:14

And it says this of the philosophies of the world:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Pogo once said: “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

This will remain true until we reject the “partly right” error and presuppose Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Lord, and King over every area of life and thought. This means returning to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.