Preacher, teacher and activist Tony Campolo, who just died at age 89, was one of the last icons of the old Religious Left. He tried, mostly, to balance orthodox theology with progressive politics, which was difficult in his day and harder today. He counseled President Bill Clinton amid scandal in the 1990s. In 2008 he served on the Democratic Party’s platform writing committee, where he strove to moderate the party’s abortion stance.
For years Campolo held to an orthodox view of Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality. His wife, Peggy, earlier adopted a progressive view, and the two would publicly debate. Critics alleged Campolo, by tenuously sticking with traditional beliefs on marriage, was trying to avoid losing speaking engagements with evangelical audiences. True or not, he did eventually affirm same sex marriage for both church and society, without offering a deep theological rationale.
With pacifist activist Shane Claiborne, Campolo founded the Red Letter Christians movement that focused on direct quotes from Jesus often printed with red letters in Bibles. This group touted progressive social and political causes while minimizing historic church teaching. In 2016, the Christian Post quoted my criticism:
In an interview with CP, Tooley said the movement’s interpretative reasoning was “destructive and dangerous because it implies the whole of Scripture is less than reliable and that modern individuals in one culture can singularly reinterpret or reject historic Christian ethical teaching without counsel of universal Church.”
“So a few words from Jesus supposedly mandate unlimited welfare state, opposition to military, gun abolition, etc.,” said Tooley. “Meanwhile, too often historic Church teachings about abortion on homosexuality are dismissed because Jesus did not specifically address it.”
The height of Campolo’s influence may have been in the 1990s. In 1993 he wrote his best known book 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch, addressing controversial social and moral issues with an innocence that today seems quaint. Tens of thousands of young evangelicals read it. During that decade he often partnered with two other major Evangelical Left fixtures, Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action. In 1995 they formed the “Call to Renewal” to counter the Religious Right. In 1996, the threesome were arrested for civil disobedience in the U.S. Capitol protesting federal budget cuts to social programs by the Republican Congress. Campolo supported and counseled President Bill Clinton when conservative evangelicalism strongly opposed him. He became one of three pastoral counselors to Clinton after the president’s sex scandal resulting in impeachment.
Campolo typically criticized U.S. military actions from a mostly pacifist perspective, and he was critical of Israel without equal critique for Israel’s enemies. He also preached a conventional Gospel message, such as when I personally heard him at a 1999 United Methodist youth convention. After one of my articles about him, Campolo wrote me a personal letter to which I responded, in a brief but cordial exchange.
More substantively, Campolo contacted my young colleague who reported about him at a 2017 Red Letter Christians event. He agreed with her that his event had often gone rhetorically too far:
Dear Chelsen,
I couldn’t agree with you more about the negative spin that was given to people in the military at the Red Letter Christians revival. I myself am a non-violent resister, but I always say, before I declare myself as such, that I am ambivalent and troubled. That is because I know that the freedom to speak as I do and to believe as I do has been made possible by brave men and women who have laid down their lives in struggling to protect my right of speech. I wouldn’t be able to say the things that I do, or be the person that I am here, in America, if it has not been for men and women in the military. You can see why I am ambivalent, because with people like yourself, who have family members in the military, we have to be very sensitive, and I do not think that several of the speakers at the Red Letter Christians revival were very respectful.
The one place where I become critical of militarism is in government spending, and on a matter like that you and I could enter into a disagreement with great respect for each other. I contend that there has to be government cuts in spending. In this respect, I agree with those in the tea-party. We can’t go on year after year, going deeper and deeper in debt. Donald Trump is going to put the country into another couple of trillion dollars down in the red column. It’s bad enough that we have had a string of heavy spenders among the democrats. It’s interesting, however, that the last president to end up with a budget surplus was a democrat, Bill Clinton. Thus, I am concerned, as most fiscal conservatives are, with the out of control spending that is marking our government. The differences between me and Donald Trump (as though my differences really matter) is that I would like to see cuts in the military spending rather than the social services to the poor and the needy. What I do not want to see happen is that the people in the armed forces are in any way denigrated or talked about in ugly terms. There was some of that at this revival.
I was dismayed as you were that there was not much room for spiritual edification. We needed more prayer, and we needed more opportunity for people to make commitments to Christ. I had an opportunity for between 5 minutes at the end of Saturday night, and I did ask people to commit themselves to Christ. But that is a far cry from what should really take place at a revival, so I am in much agreement with you in much of your criticism.
The place where we would disagree, is that I think there is a need for a movement that articulates to Christianity that does not espouse the political ideology of the right wing of the Republican party. On the other hand, I think you would agree that we do not need a Christianity that articulates the ideology of the left wing of the Democratic Party. We need a biblical theology that puts Christ above both parties, and from the perspective of the red letters of the Bible, make value judgments about what is good and bad in each of them.
I hope we can be friends in spite of differences, and I want you to know that in so many things that I am in harmony with you.
Yours in Christ,
Tony Campolo
My young colleague appreciated Campolo’s overture to her. No doubt it captured the spirit of a Christian whose views strayed into heterodoxy but who esteemed respectful conversation with his more conservative critics.
Today another young colleague, who is well informed, told me she had never heard of Campolo. His audience was mostly Generation X. In recent years bad health slowly forced him from public life.
Like all humans, Campolo was complex, with virtues and vices, insights, and blind spots. He sustained strong convictions that he promoted with energy and passion. His theology was sometimes shaky, but he pointed to his Savior, to whom he is now entrusted.
Comment by Tim Ware on November 21, 2024 at 1:11 am
Campolo faced what a lot of us faced in the 80’s and 90’s….the materalism, self-righteousness, militarism, and support of totalitarian regimes during the Reagan/Bush years, the selfish acquisition of wealth mentality during those years (the yuppies), and Israel, as always, continued its apartheid ethnic cleansing campaign in the Levant. Things would change little during the Clinton, next Bush, and Obama years, actually the hate for Arabs and Muslims would exponentially mushroom during the Bush/Obama years. All the while, we Christians in the pews were wondering how to live in such a world. Men such as Campolo, Marty, and Wallis provided a much appreciated contrast to idiots like Falwell and Robertson. While we may not have totally agreed with them about all things, they provided a much-needed pull toward sanity during those difficult years. God rest his soul.
Comment by Gary Bebop on November 21, 2024 at 11:26 am
The Religious Left continues to damn its possible good influence by blasting away at conservatives in every paragraph they write. Look ago many of us gave up on that nonsense, recognizing its enmity to its conservative counterparts.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on November 21, 2024 at 4:01 pm
Regarding “I think there is a need for a movement that articulates to Christianity that does not espouse the political ideology of the right wing of the Republican party” and “I think you would agree that we do not need a Christianity that articulates the ideology of the left wing of the Democratic Party”:
Yes. Christianity should not be adulterated with either. However, many Christians and non-Christians do prefer an adulterated mix.
The American Solidarity Party tries to uphold values and a platform which are Christian and not adulterated by political ideology. Relatively speaking, very few Christians in America know this part even exists–and many who know it exists don’t take it seriously merely because they think it can never “win” in a worldly sense–as if “winning” in a worldly sense should be of paramount importance to a Christian.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on November 21, 2024 at 4:03 pm
Regarding “I think there is a need for a movement that articulates to Christianity that does not espouse the political ideology of the right wing of the Republican party” and “I think you would agree that we do not need a Christianity that articulates the ideology of the left wing of the Democratic Party”:
Yes. Christianity should not be adulterated with either. However, many Christians and non-Christians do prefer an adulterated mix.
The American Solidarity Party tries to uphold values and a platform which are Christian and not adulterated by political ideology. Relatively speaking, very few Christians in America know this part even exists–and many who know it exists don’t take it seriously merely because they think it can never “win” in a worldly sense–as if “winning” in a worldly sense should be essential to a Christian.
Comment by David on November 21, 2024 at 4:31 pm
I am not a fan of red letter bibles for two reasons: first, as I age, my eyes have difficulty reading red on white; but, second, as you indicate, they are based on finding a canon within the canon. But for those who are red letter Christians, I offer the following words of Jesus from Matthew 5:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
It would be interesting to see our red letter brothers and sisters highlight this passage, but I rather doubt that will happen.
Comment by Paul Hoskins on November 22, 2024 at 8:43 am
I wouldn’t claim to know where Campolo is spending eternity, but his embrace of the LGBT agenda is troubling, to say the least. Like many people who minister to young people, as they tilted left, he tilted along with them, craving their approval more than the approval of God. Who should we follow – the apostle Paul, or Campolo? Remember Paul’s mention of being deserted in his ministry by “Demas, in love with this world.”
Right now, millions of Americans who call themselves “evangelicals” no longer believe in evangelism, and many no longer believe the New Testament’s teachings on sexuality. As a whole, “evangelicals” are at the same place that the mainline churches were about 30 years ago. They believe “inclusion” is such a virtue that they want to make their churches more inclusive than God. “World-conforming Christianity” is an oxymoron. Christianity had its birth in an immoral world, and it promised a deliverance from that world. Remember Peter’s words in his Pentecost sermon – “Save yourselves from this perverse generation.” Campolo and his ilk believe that “inclusion” requires us to condone perversion.
Comment by drw1 on November 22, 2024 at 12:17 pm
The group red letter Christians is pretty clearly taking an “activist first” approach. It seems to me their whole purpose is to push progressive doctrines while selectively quoting scripture to suggest Jesus would be for such things. They are not much different than slave owners who selectively quoted mis-applied Scripture verses to justify their actions. Neither should be given much credence for their extremely poor exegesis.
Comment by Thomas on November 22, 2024 at 3:15 pm
The American Solidarity Party needs to replace the consistent life ethic, a social justice ideology where the unborn are usually the weakest link by the culture of life.
Comment by Dan on November 22, 2024 at 3:52 pm
I didn’t always agree with Tony, especially in his later years. But for decades he challenged me to be deeply committed to Jesus above all things, and to show that love for Jesus by keeping the two great commandments. For that I will be eternally grateful.
Comment by Thomas on November 22, 2024 at 5:37 pm
Salvatore Anthony Luiso, I like the American Solidarity Party, but I think they should replace the failed concept of a consistent life ethic for the culture of life. The American concept of a “consistent life ethic”, created by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, has been an absolute disaster for the pro-life movement, because since it can be interpreted differently, it often paves the way to sinking the pro-life movement into a social justice ideology where the unborn are usually the weakest link. Despite the fact that there are committed pro-lifers who use the CLE, I think that a much better, universally accepted concept, is the culture of life.
Comment by Cliff on November 22, 2024 at 5:41 pm
I respected Campolo even when I didn’t agree with him. And I often didn’t.
The often-told story of him throwing a party for Agnes the prostitute, I thought, was a genuinely Christ-like example of living life in this messy world. I thought it said a lot about his character, in a good way.
Comment by Robert George on November 22, 2024 at 6:03 pm
I met Tony Campolo only once. We were at a conference but were not together on a panel or in any public setting. In informal conversation, I tried to engage him in a discussion of issues of marriage and sexual morality, but he simply would not engage. He was entirely polite–nice as he could be, really–but it was clear that he did not want to discuss these issues (at least he didn’t want to discuss them with me). I was a little surprised by that, since he had discussed them publicly and his views had become well known. I wanted to explore the reasons he had given for his views (which struck me as poor) and give him a chance to respond to my critique of his positions at the arguments he had offered in their defense. I regret that he was unwilling to engage.
Comment by Don on November 22, 2024 at 7:40 pm
Tony inspired thousands of young people to surrender to Jesus, minister in the power of the Spirit and to serve the least, the last and the lost. There are dozens of ministries that trace there beginnings to Tony’s influence: Urban Promise in Camden, NJ; Beyond Borders in Haiti; The Pittsburgh Project, and many more. Tony was a faithful witness of Kingdom living and living.
Comment by Thomas on November 22, 2024 at 9:39 pm
Robert George, his silence was his best defence. I really think he knew deep inside that he had sold his soul to the Devil, and not only metaphorically.
Comment by Thomas on November 22, 2024 at 9:41 pm
Robert George, I think Tony Campolo silence was his best defence. He knew, deep inside, that he had done a wrong thing. We can hope he came to regret it, while he had time.
Comment by Thomas More on November 22, 2024 at 9:41 pm
Robert George, I think Tony Campolo silence was his best defence. He knew, deep inside, that he had done a wrong thing. We can hope he came to regret it, while he had time.
Comment by George on November 23, 2024 at 7:13 am
The spiritual advisor to President Bill Clinton. I don’t know what to say because that says it all.
Comment by George on November 23, 2024 at 1:13 pm
Spiritual advisor to President Bill Clinton. That speaks volumes.
Comment by Gary Bebop on November 23, 2024 at 1:48 pm
The hegemonic liberal (now woke) Left appears as vanquished glory. Their words trail their lives as testimony against them. While they were ascendant, the liberal element dominated the mainlines in a swaggering sort of way. They controlled the message, the high positions, the budgets, the pastoral assignments, the credentials of plausibility. But now their vaunted influence is muted and dusty.
Comment by Wilson R. on November 26, 2024 at 12:30 pm
During his lifetime, I only had a vague idea of who Tony Campolo was. I never heard him speak or read anything he wrote. I’ve probably read more about him on this thread than the combined total of everything else I had read about him previously.
It sounds like a lot of the people here saw him as the enemy and saw themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against him.
Some of the reasons given are interesting. He’s damned because he became a spiritual adviser to Bill Clinton in the wake of Clinton’s infidelity? That sounds to me a bit like the street corner Pharisees who trashed Jesus for hanging around sinners and those who spiritually needed a physician. Or are you assuming Campolo approved of Clinton’s affairs?
I also read something interesting yesterday in an obit for Campolo in the New York Times. He apparently liked to confront “church people” with Matthew 25, preaching about judgment against those who don’t bear good fruit, and apparently it made a lot of you pretty mad. “Oh, he’s one of those ‘social justice’ Christians who’s infected with leftism and leading people astray.” Hmmm. Or maybe Matthew 25 is simply inconvenient for some, since it kind of works against the idea that entering God’s kingdom is mostly a matter of professing one’s faith—and writing out the part where Jesus says that many of those who call to him, “Lord, Lord,” will not enter the kingdom.
Comment by Thomas on November 26, 2024 at 1:41 pm
I don`t find anything wrong about him being spiritual adviser to Clinton. Maybe he could have converted him into becoming a real Christian, or changing his mind on abortion and the gay agenda, but he was never able to do that. He even failed in making the Democratic Party pro-abortion stance less extreme. He still continued to vote for them. The fact that he also rejected Biblical truths about human sexuality puts him in trouble.