Most of the Religious Left and Evangelical Left is pacifist. Noted author, sociologist, and preacher Tony Campolo is not specifically a pacifist but is highly uncomfortable with traditional Christian teachings about the state’s God-ordained vocation for violence in defense of justice.
In a recent radio interview, Campolo contrasted “love” versus “power” in pursuit of justice. His reasoning, which largely consigned all violence to a loveless pursuit of power, was similar to the overall Religious Left’s arguments for pacifism and increased federal entitlements. Liberal political theory hopes that everyone can somehow get along, consenting peacefully on all issues deemed of importance. Liberals today condemn anyone that defends corporal punishment, armed defense of family, or war (even limited just war); peace is the only means of action. Also, citizens ought to be happy to provide for government spending on all the poor (even when this would be at the expense of one’s children or private charitable endeavors). Opposition to the liberal line is proof that one is unloving.
During his radio talk with Mari Frank’s Prescriptions for Healing Conflict, Campolo laid out several major assumptions the guide him and many other liberal religious activists. Outlining the argument from one of his books, he sets up a strong dichotomy between love and power. He defined love as a verb, “as an empathetic caring for another person to such an extent that the other person becomes more important than yourself.” Although Campolo outlines the several Greek meanings for love, he reduces to this “caring” as his broadest definition. Opposed to love is power since love makes one vulnerable. Pulling from his background in modernist sociology, Campolo believes power “always carries with it the capacity to coerce.” Coercion does not have to be a physical oppression of some kind; it can also be intimidation. Campolo explains, “There is obedience because one feels he has to obey, even if he doesn’t want to or she doesn’t want to.” Judgment, he says, is a “power-play”; it puts the condemned on a level lower than the judge. Instead, Campolo believes we should pursue authority, which is a “respect garnered by one’s self-sacrifice.” The human ideal is for a “person to have such a positive self-concept, that when that person speaks, that person speaks with self-assurance and speaks with authority.” In a disagreement, no one has a right to “impose a solution on the partner.” People will obey and reconcile out of appreciation for one another.
Many of Campolo’s arguments seem to ring true. Surely we should pursue the goods of others we meet face-to-face over ourselves. We might contest that we cannot apply these standards for the individual upon the workings of public policy. However, such a move might lead to a schizophrenic philosophy (this has long been the complaint not only of old guard liberals and emergent Christians, but also orthodox theologians). The same principles that inform our “personal morality” should inform our public ethics as well. What Campolo’s “Red-letter Christianity” demands, then, is a commitment to non-violence, relativistic tolerance, and (often state-mandated) provision for the poor. We must submit to this program if Rev. Campolo’s fundamental positions are true; we have grounds to reject this political theology if the roots are rotten.
First of all, Campolo’s ideas regarding authority are problematic. He gives suspect pastoral guidance when he says that, if a husband will not submit himself to his wife as St. Paul instructs, the wife need not submit to him. Regardless of one’s theological views of marriage, truly self-sacrificing love should cause a Christian spouse to submit himself (or herself) to the other regardless of the other’s behavior. Campolo’s view of love and authority is utterly conditional. In many religious matters, Campolo cannot accept hierarchy. This democratized theology cannot contain a God who is both all-powerful and all-loving, inflicting pain and showering blessing. Within this line of thought, Church leadership punishing for the sake of confessional, creedal, or Scriptural accountability is illegitimate. A believing commander calling for violent military action is pursuing a less-than-Christian path. Although Campolo is no pacifist or opponent of accountability, his rejection of traditional hierarchies should trouble the thoughtful Christian.
Sloppy terminology makes for theological headaches. When love cannot use coercion, then it has little to defend others from evil. In progressive theology, love is not just. Campolo was consistent when he claimed that Christ’s love for the people caused them to unfairly crucify Him. According to the Scriptures and Christian tradition, Christ was indeed crucified for the sake of love—God’s love for His church. Christ took upon Himself the just punishment for sin, because He loved sinful men. The price had to be paid. Because of His love, God the Father sent His Son to take the fullness of divine wrath as a sacrifice. Two virtues are intertwined: true love cannot be unjust while true justice (including discernment and punishment) is motivated by love. This Gospel precedent should cause us to separate ourselves from the progressive views of benign social betterment.
In other words, love and power are ultimately unified. Love can actually have the capacity to right wrongs, to correct one’s children, and to defend the innocent. This older view of love allows for the idea that one can love his enemies yet still fight them. Where conservatives Christians see private property, heterosexual marital fidelity, punishment of evil, and ecclesiological discipline as key to human flourishing and an obedient Christian life, liberal Christians see tyrannizing power plays. No one seems to be able to physically act to stop wickedness. Liberal Christian teaching demands that no one can be a consistent believer while also wielding violence for a good—loving—cause. This goes back to Campolo’s problems with hierarchy. Contemporary Christians have become large children who don’t want to be told what to do, even if the orders come from God. According to Biblical teachings in both the Old and New Testaments, there is a proper place for violence. Liberals like Campolo would cast this in an entirely different light because of false conceptions of love. This inconsistency does not mean that Campolo is some sort of heretic, but it does mean that his views are naïve and unhelpful.
Social gospel preachers long complained about the “bloody religion” of sacrifices in the venerable Christian narrative, that the age of primitive tribal faith should come to an end. Perhaps it is time for us to remember that “there is power in the blood.”
No comments yet
