|
Christian Ethics: From the Blue Point of the Flame
A Conversation with Tony Campolo
Professor of Sociology, Eastern College
Saint Davids, Pennsylvania
Q. Tony, where did you get your social conscience?
A. This is going to sound very unimpressive, but as a
kid I got converted and just read the Bible. I think that the problem with most
of us is that we grow up in a church that teaches us to read into the Bible
instead of growing up in a church that just says read the Bible. When you read
the Bible and don’t read into it, you will find that the Bible calls people every bit as much
to champion social justice as it calls people to individually express love.
Q. How did you get started down this road of troubling
Israel about doing the gospel?
A. Very simple. I grew up in an evangelical,
fundamentalist church and they told me to preach the Bible. That’s what I do. I
preach the Bible. People say I preach a social gospel. I don’t know whether
it’s a social gospel or a individualist gospel, all I know is, I read the Bible
and I preach what’s there. That’s what makes me dangerous in evangelical
circles—because I preach what the Bible says. This is not what Tony Campolo
says, it’s not what Reinhold Niebuhr says, it’s what the Bible says. The Bible
is the most troubling book that anybody can read. I look at 1 John 3:17-18 and it says, “If you have this
world’s goods, you see brothers and sisters in need, you keep what you have
while they suffer. How can you say you have the love of God in your heart?” Now
that’s a troubling verse.
Q. Who most warmly embraces your message about the relevance
of Christianity to daily life?
A. Well, it has been, up to lately, the young people in the evangelical
church, particularly those who are from evangelical Christian colleges. They
grew up in a context where Christianity was totally individualistic; but they
know that there’s something more to it than that. When I speak, I do not tell them things that
they don’t know. I tell them things that they already know but which they have
never heard articulated from the pulpit. When I finish speaking, I don’t have
young people come up to me and say, “I never heard that before; I never thought
of that before.” They say, “That’s what I’ve always believed, but you’re the
first one that I’ve heard put it into words for me.”
Q. Who most vigorously resists your message in support
of relevant religion?
A. Well, I think that people who have become overly
patriotic. I think that patriotism often comes very close to idolatry. When I
speak what the Bible says, it challenges what it means to be a wealthy, middle class American. We all
want a Christianity that does not disturb middle class, conservative values.
The Bible does that; and those with the vested interests in those values give
me the hardest time.
Q. What do you make of the Biblical word that the just
shall live by faith? This is a new insight that I’ve been wrestling
with lately. It doesn’t say the submissive shall live by faith; it says the just shall
live by faith.
A. You’ve hit on something that people haven’t yet
reached. They love that verse and they put the emphasis on faith instead
of just. If we are to be people of faith, we must be people of justice not
merely people of faith. If you say that the just shall live by faith, you are
saying that in our living we must be just people.
Thus, the word faith has profound meaning for us. Faith, according to Hebrews
11:1, “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
To be a person of faith and committed to justice is to have a vision of the
world that ought to be—a world without racism, a world without sexism, a world
without homophobia, a world without poverty. If we have faith, we have hopes
for such a world. Even now we have evidence of such a world which we have not
yet seen but which we know is coming. That’s the Kingdom of God.
Q. From an ethical perspective, would you evaluate
today’s phenomenon of radio and television “talk shows”?
A. I think that they have become an incredibly powerful
influence on the American consciousness. In the last election, 37% of those who
voted contended that their votes were highly influenced by radio talk shows. I
just finished doing one before I got on the phone with you and the language
that is used is sensationalist but it is also inflammatory. For instance, when I was
talking about a society that has compassion towards the poor, the talk show
artist said, “That’s communism.” When we talked about the fact that only 5
cents out of every dollar that you pay in taxes actually goes to help poor
people, he said, “I’m tired of the government putting a gun to my head and
demanding that I pay poor people.” When you start talking about the government
holding guns to your heads.. .when you start saying that compassion is
communism, then you have set up the conditions where people feel justified in
joining militias. I don’t think there would be the kind of militia movement in
America that resulted in the Oklahoma City bombing if there weren’t the kind of
talk shows that we have on radio.
Q. Do the columnists and professional or programmed
writers of letters to the editor have comparable influence in the ethics
arena today?
A. No. I think that Neil Postman in his book Amusing
Ourselves to Death and Marshall McLuhan in his book Understanding Media make
it clear that
we have gone through a social transition in America. We are no longer a
literate people. We are a people whose consciousness is molded by entertaining verbal
and visual programming. Thus, if we are going to get our message to this
generation, we have got to master the techniques of communicating the eternal
truths in the context of the new media.
Q. What do you make of the current talk about values?
A. There is a sense across this country that there is a
moral abyss in this nation, that the social problems of our time are correlated
with a spiritual crisis. There is consensus on the left and on the right that
we are in a time of spiritual crisis. However, we have not rightly identified
the source of that spiritual crisis. I’m going to sound like a fundamentalist
but here’s what I’m going to say. I do not think that either the evangelical or
the liberal communities have evaluated yet the impact of the Vietnam War on the
value system and morality of this country. We were wrong in Vietnam. Now even
McNamara who was a major leader in support of our nation’s involvement in
Vietnam says we were wrong. We sent 60,000 American men and women to their
deaths half way across the world in order to preserve the myth of the past. We
not only did that, but we killed 3 million Vietnamese people. The Bible is
clear that nations as well as individuals can sin; and we sinned in Vietnam. A
generation of young people knew that we were involved in great corporate sin.
They knew that as a nation we were immoral. The church, particularly my
church—the evangelical church—supported that war without question. It’s
impossible to come back and talk to those kids about moral values on the
personal level when you have violated every principle of justice on the
societal level. Our moral integrity as a Christian community was compromised in
Vietnam; and until we repent, we will not have the kind of integrity as a
people that will enable us to speak with authority.
Q. So the current talk about values is not even pointed
in the right direction?
A. It’s not seeing the cause of why there are no values.
Namely, when we went to Vietnam, we pillaged and we killed and we did it for pragmatic reasons. We
talked about domino theories, we talked about national pride, we talked about a
lot of reasons for being there that had nothing to do with Biblical values. We
lost our values in Vietnam and that’s coming back to haunt us now.
Q. Of course this is a profoundly important subject, but let
me move on to the next one because we could do a lot of articles on that
subject alone....
A. The impact of Vietnam on American morals and values, the
way in which our morals and values were destroyed has made us incapable of
speaking to this generation about values and morals with any degree of
authority.
Q. Well, where are the most fertile grounds in which the
seeds of Christian ethics can most successfully be sown and cultivated?
A. Interestingly enough, I would say that it’s among the
intelligent fundamentalists. The intelligent fundamentalists have a commitment
to the Bible, and with that commitment they also have a zeal. If you want to
know where religious zeal is located, it’s not in our mainline church youth groups.
It’s in the Inter-Varsity and Campus Crusade youth groups. That’s where the
zeal is; that’s where the enthusiasm is. They have a deep commitment to
Scripture. What we need is a generation of preachers that will interpret and
point out what the Scriptures really say. When they really get into the Bible,
they become intensely socially conscious. The strongest environmental movements
right now are being generated in evangelical circles. The strongest commitment
to opposing racism and even opposition to homophobia is being mustered and
being organized within the evangelical community.
Q. Is there a notable relationship between currently
booming Pentecostalism and currently languishing Christian social ethics?
A. In the United States there is; in other countries,
there isn’t. Let me point out that in Latin America, Pentecostalism is aligned
with efforts to facilitate social change for the poor. In the United States,
Pentecostalism is often an instrument of sidetracking people. Case in point:
The Vineyard Movement with it’s signs and wonders saying that because we are
already living in the kingdom of God, therefore we should see signs and
wonders—healings and speaking in tongues and all of that. That’s what the
Vineyard Movement says are the signs of the Kingdom. Here’s what Jesus says are
the signs of the Kingdom: that the hungry are fed, that the naked are clothed,
that the poor have good news preached to them. I believe in the Kingdom
theology. If we understand that the signs of the Kingdom of God are Pentecostal
wonders, however, we are sidetracked from what Jesus says the signs of the
Kingdom are. There is a political motivation behind all of this. Those in
positions of wealth and power want the church to think that the signs of the
Kingdom of God breaking loose in our midst are Pentecostal miracles. I am for
Pentecostal miracles, I believe in them, but they are not the signs of the
Kingdom. The signs of the Kingdom are those signs which are outlined by Jesus
in Luke 4.
Q. How is the current rhubarb about Calvinism likely to
affect the cause of Christian ethics?
A. Well, Calvinism is revived primarily in the South,
particularly at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But I’ve got to tell
you, there are very few people who are real Calvinists. We are all Calvinists
in our heads; but functionally we are Armenians,— As long as Baptists give
invitations and plead with people to come down the aisle to fifty verses of
“Just As I Am” they are contradicting Calvinism.
Q. What effect on the cause of Christian social concerns
can be expected from the current roll of Fundamentalism?
A. I think that the problem is that evangelical Christianity
and especially fundamentalism has become so closely aligned with the Religious
Right that the word evangelical has become almost synonymous with Religious
Right. You probably picked up from the newspapers that we were down in
Washington a few days ago to initiate what we call the Progressive Evangelical
Network—a new movement that is trying to break the hold which the Religious
Right has on the evangelical community. But in answer to your question, let me
just say, that the total effect is this: fundamentalism is closely aligned with
the Religious Right which is using religion as a political instrument to
annihilate programs of compassion that have helped poor people over the last
few decades. Of course this is a devastating blow to our Christian witness.
Q. Are they a tool of other forces in that effort?
A. Sometimes they are; sometimes they do it all by themselves.
Q. What should Christians do about all the trashing of
public personalities which has been inundating America?
A. Have you picked up my articles about my challenging
Jerry Falwell? My response is that we do have to challenge those within our own
ranks who trash people. As I said on a radio program, what Jerry Falwell was
doing would not pass the four-way test of Rotary let alone the admonition of
the Apostle Paul in the book of Philippians that says only go for those things
that are good and true and honest and beautiful.
Q. From your perspective as a sociologist, where does
all of today’s hate rhetoric come from, what will be its effect, what should be
done about it?
A. First of all, I think the hate rhetoric comes out of
fear. People are frightened that what has been the affluent and prosperous way
of life that they have enjoyed is about to be taken from them. There’s fear
about job security; there’s fear that our children are not going to be as
successful as we are. Fear is pervading the country. Within the context of
fear, people always feel psychologically better off if they can pinpoint in
simplistic terms the causes of their troubles. There are people on television
and radio who love to do just that. Simplistically, they point to certain
groups and certain individuals and suggest that they are the cause of our
problems. For instance, I think that the gay and lesbian communities have
become the new Jews. It is like what Hitler did in the 30s by saying the Jews
are the cause of all of our problems so we must confine them, we must drive
them from our midst. I find that frightened people led by fascist-type
propagators of hate, demagogues, are turning on the homosexual community and
acting as though gays and lesbians are the cause of all of our social problems
and that they are the forces that are destroying the American family and that
if we can just get rid of them, the American family can be restored and if the
American family is restored, all will be well. That kind of simplistic rhetoric
nurtures hate. I believe that it is through the foolishness of preaching that the power of
God is released in the world; and we’ve got to preach against this stuff
Q. Is the hatred for big government a factor in that
equation?
A. These people on radio are always saying that government
in Washington is being taken over by gays and lesbians. You just listen to the
rhetoric and how often they will say, Do you know how many gay people are in
the government in Washington, D.C.? Do you know how many homosexuals have been
appointed by President Clinton? I asked President Clinton about this because
the most prominent radio speaker in America has said that President Clinton has
appointed over 500 gays and lesbians as part of the federal White House
program. I asked the President that question, Is that true? He said, “I suppose
it is. Did
this particular speaker mention that it was 500 out of 15,000 appointees?” I said, No. He
said, “When you put it in that
perspective, doesn’t it
show the 500 to be actually a minute group?” I said, Indeed it does, one out of 30. Indeed
we have a tendency to paint the picture in the worst possible light for
political purposes.
Q. What have you read lately that has especially turned
your motor over?
A. I like Jim Wallis’s new book, The Soul of Politics. He
calls for a new kind of politics. He talks about a politics down on a
grassroots level where the old, simplistic dichotomies that set liberals
against conservatives and mainline denominations against evangelicals are
overcome. It’s a new kind of politics that says to mainline churches, “We know
you are scared of us. Don’t be afraid of us anymore. We want to be brothers and
sisters in Christ and work together.” We want to take the word evangelical from
having a capital E to having a small e. We are evangelicals, not Evangelicals.
You may not agree with everything we say theologically, but so what? We don’t
agree with each other. Can’t we together look at the community in which we
live, Democrats, Republicans, Roman Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims,
atheists, all people who have good will and then come together and begin to
struggle with the problems of homelessness, with the problems of inadequate
housing, with the problems of premarital pregnancy, and with the problems of
drugs? We’ve got to start dealing with all these things on the local level.
When you get down to the local level, everything changes. With Habitat For
Humanity, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton can both wear the button on their
lapel. Both are committed on the local level.
Q. What have you written lately that you like best?
A. There are two books coming out that I think are going
to be important. One is Can Mainline Denominations Make a Comeback? It’s
being published by Judson Press and I think it’s important because it analyzes from a sociological
view what has happened to mainline denominations. It uses the American Baptist
Church or convention, as a case study. It outlines structural changes and
programmatic designs that will have to take place if, in fact, denominations
are going to make a comeback. I have another book by Word to be released about
the same time, in June, entitled Is Jesus a Democrat or Republican? It
is timely.
Q. In your own life and work, where does your most
gratifying fulfillment come from?
A. I refuse to be painted into the corner of
uninvolved, uncaring, uncompassionate, narrow sectarianism.
I am envisioning a massive new student movement with young people going out
from their church houses and nice college campuses into the communities, into
the real world, to work on social needs and help real people. This vision
carries the promise of fantastic fulfillment.
Q. What have you done lately that seems most important
to you?
A. Last Tuesday we had eleven prominent evangelical
leaders go down to Washington and hold a press conference to announce that the
stereotypical image of evangelicalism is not valid and that we have committed
ourselves to forming a new progressive evangelical network that will do the
following things:
First, we’re going to be attending the evangelical functions
like the National Religious Broadcasters, the Bookseller’s Convention and the
National Association of Evangelicals meetings; and we are going to be saying,
“We think you have forgotten a dimension of the gospel. We think that you have
allowed this organization to become too aligned with the Religious Right.”
We’re going to point out that the speakers of the National Religious
Broadcasters last year were Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Oliver North, and Dan
Quayle. When that becomes your entire diet, you have, in fact, said something
about what’s happening to you. You need to get more balanced. Those voices have
a right to be heard, but there are other voices that are just as important that
need to be heard and we need balance,
Second, we are initiating in communities all across the
country a grassroots organization to do community politics in accordance with
what I said earlier. These caucuses of like-minded people all across the
country will become a network of activist Christians engaged in community-based
initiatives on behalf of the poor, in support of justice.
Q. What is our best hope for good passage through
today’s troubled ethical waters?
A. Simple. Prayer and fasting. I really do mean that.
Learn to pray. Prayer is where we get a sense of righteousness and justice and
God’s leading.
Christian Ethics Today: Thanks, Tony, and God bless you.
Updated Saturday, November 24, 2001
|
