Wasp Jerky has an excellent post over at his place quoting Tony Campolo that includes this little gem (Campolo began a sermon with this line):
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
Campolo is an interesting Baptist minister who sometimes falls to the Left and sometimes to the Right, and who is right on with his comment here.
34 comments:
It seems to me that most like wasp jerky and Campolo want to infer that people with a conservative view are not interested in the poor. That is propaganda. I will not print my name because I do not want to do my good deeds for public approval, but I get a little tired of this kind of thing being propagated. I have 2 organizations that I support monthly with gifts to help the poor and hungry and those gifts are above my tithe to my local church. I know of others doing so, who of the conservative persuasion. It is time for Campolo to shut up and just do the work of Christ if he is called to be a minister.
I don't know that Campolo was directing his statement towards the Right anymore than he was the Left. Spoken in a sermon, I'd suggest it was directed towards the church. And rightly so.
So, why would you have Campolo shut up? Would you have had Isaiah shut up?
"Cease to do evil, learn to do good;
Seek justice, rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan, plead for the widow."
Or Mary, mother of Jesus?
"The Lord has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. God has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty."
Or James, brother of Jesus?
"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you."
Or Jesus himself?
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort."
There is such a role within the church as the prophetic voice. If you are joining in solidarity with the poor (and not merely "giving of your much"), then you GET it and Campolo is not talking to you.
But we have a world poverty problem and it rightly ought to concern us when 30,000 people die of poverty daily. To remind us of that is no sin.
It seems to me that you have no idea what Tony Campolo or I am inferring. The fact is, anonymous, that the church in the United States alone has the wealth and resources available to end hunger on this planet. We obviously haven't done so, which means that a lot of Christians in this country aren't doing their jobs. This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Most issues of importance don't. Politics often creates false choices, making us choose between two things when we shouldn't have to choose between them. It's great that you give money to organizations that care for the poor. I think we both know that most American Christians, both liberals and conservatives, don't. That said, if you think that caring for the poor is not "the work of Christ," then you should probably re-read the Bible.
Campolo is political. I have read things he has said before. Wasp is political. It is not this post by Trabue here that has given me this impression.
Political? As in, having an opinion and voicing it about policies?
Do you see that as a bad thing? And I'll ask again, why would you have him shut up if he's speaking truth to power?
Jesus was political too, as were the prophets. Perhaps labeling someone's words as "political" is just a cop out, a way to get out of acknowledging what they actually have to say.
Those like Campolo can speak about issues without throwing in the names of our leaders that they don't like. He also does not need to use vile language to make his point. If he wants to portray Jesus, he can do better. Then his message will have more meaning.
Would you have had Isaiah not to "name names" when he was lambasting the kings? Should Jesus have refrained from singling out the pharisees and saducees for special condemnation (you snakes! you brood of vipers!)?
What biblical or Christian basis do you have for not being explicit in his prophesying, Dr. A?
And maybe Isaiah shouldn't have walked around naked for three years.
'goes without saying.
For crying out lout! Campolo calls himself a minister. He is of the same political persuasion that supports separation of church and state (mainly getting God out of public life). What scriptures tell him to talk vile to get a response? It is par for the liberals to pretend that they are the compassionate people, when in truth the conservatives believe the Bible enough to know that their good deeds are not to be publicly displayed and also the Bible says if we get our reward from the world, we will not receive any eternal reward for it.
He is of the same political persuasion that supports separation of church and state (mainly getting God out of public life).
Again, you're lumping people into two categories: liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. Life just isn't that simple. People don't fit into the categories you'd like them to. Campolo is liberal about some things and conservative about others (like homosexuality for instance). You're doing everyone a disservice by insinuating otherwise. You're also very much misrepresenting the arguments of those who are for the seperation of church and state.
What scriptures tell him to talk vile to get a response?
Scripture isn't exactly mild-mannered bedtime reading. There are plenty of "vile" verses in the Bible. For instance:
Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (2 Kings 18:27)
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezekial 23:20)
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. (Malachi 2:3)
Tony is obviously making a point, that many Christians are more concerned about petty issues like swearing than issues that really matter, like thousands of children starving to death each day. The fact that you keep criticizing him for swearing only proves his point.
It is par for the liberals to pretend that they are the compassionate people, when in truth the conservatives believe the Bible enough to know that their good deeds are not to be publicly displayed and also the Bible says if we get our reward from the world, we will not receive any eternal reward for it.
Again with the assumptions, generalizations and lumping people into one of two categories. I know plenty of liberals who are compassionate. I know plenty who are not. I know plenty of conservatives who are compassionate. I know plenty who are not. I know plenty of conservatives who brag about their deeds. I know plenty who do not. I know plenty of liberals who brag about their deeds. I know plenty who do not.
Excellent response WJ. And I'll have to own up to not recalling the mule genitalia passage! Not sure I'm wanting to know what that's about.
Brother/sister anonymous, wasp is correct. Am I liberal? Because I want a small gov't that generally stays out of people's lives? Because I'm concerned for the poor? Because I believe Jesus meant it when he told us to love my enemies?
Do these things make me a liberal? Or conservative? Your labels are lacking in definition and meaning.
Campolo is of the persuasion that supports separation of church and state? What persuasion is that? Baptist? Methodist? Quakers? Mennonites? This is a fundamental tenet of many Christian religions, do you have a problem with this?
What scriptures tell us NOT to talk vile? The proscription against rough language is an extrabiblical and cultural one (not that I totally disagree with it - I didn't really start cussing much until our current administration!) It's important that we not confusion the traditions of humanity with the teaching of God.
I've noticed that you seem inclined to lambast Campolo but not really inclined to talk about why when we have pointed out that problems with your reasoning.
1. We NEED Godly prophets who speak out against oppression and corruption, even when they name names. It is a fine biblical tradition that is sorely lacking in today's church.
Do you deny the role of the prophet?
2. "Cussing" is not a biblically-defined sin, don't sweat it. Not standing in solidarity with the poor and oppressed is. Sweat that.
You've never really addressed these points, just gone on to give Campolo grief. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with these points? Teach us if we are wrong that we may learn.
This sounds a lot like the anonymous that hangs out at my place, lurking mostly, but occasionally attacks and then retreats.
Wasp Jerky rules!
To infer that feeding the poor is more important than preaching against the sin that creates poverty in this world is dishonest.
Of course, caring for the poor and needy is biblically noble and correct. But so is preaching relentlessly against sin.
There has to be a balance.
Wow! You sure got some heat for posting this one. I actually heard that sermon by Campolo back in '84 at a church in West Palm Beach. Except for "And the alter is open if you want to repent," it was his whole sermon. I thought it was very appropriate.
Do I think people ought to use crude words in normal conversation? No. But the Bible is full of curse words--including when Jesus used the term "dog" of the Canaanite woman! I can find the Greek equivalent of "shit" (usually translated "dung") in one of Paul's letters.
Campolo's point is simple. Allowing 30,000 children to die of hunger-related causes (while most churches spend millions on artwork or family life centers or the preacher's suits, etc.) is far more profane than the most shocking curse word--certainly more profane than saying "shit." Anyone, like anonymous, who cares more about that slight vulgarity than about ending hunger--which we have had the ability to do since at least the mid-'70s---has some seriously warped moral priorities.
Posting this story is very apropo this week when Congress failed to raise the minimum wage for the 9th year in a row--so that the minimum wage has less buying power than at any time since 1955! Meanwhile, Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) have voted themselves over $30,000 in raises during that same period. I heard one Congressman claim that they believed the market should decide, not government, but the market didn't decide those congressional raises. The market responds to the rules society sets. There is no such thing as a free market, just fair and unfair ones.
I constantly hear that raising the minimum wage will lead to unemployment, but this won't jive with the facts. The last time the minimum wage was raised, we began 8 years of the highest growth and lowest unemployment in 100 years! Look, people who make minimum wage earn less than $20 k per year, so they aren't taking a raise and investing in a CD or splurging on a trip to Hawaii. The money goes right back into circulation on things like rent, gas, food, electricity. That HELPS the economy, enabling greater employment!
Can high labor costs hurt business growth? Yes, but minimum wage employees are not a high labor cost. On the other hand, health care is. So, universal single payer health care would enable businesses, small and large, to eliminate their biggest labor cost and then they can expand, reduce unemployment, etc. It's not rocket science.
Art Simon, the Lutheran minister who founded Bread for the World, used to say that the solution to hunger walked on two legs: 1) Direct aid to stop starvation now; 2) And better social policies to correct the causes of hunger. Anonymous and other conservatives often join progressives in giving direct aid. But without putting in just social policies, it's like trying to put a band-aid on a sharkbite.
Anyone, like anonymous, who cares more about that slight vulgarity than about ending hunger--which we have had the ability to do since at least the mid-'70s---has some seriously warped moral priorities.
Wasp Jerky likes to talk about assumptions, well here is one for your side. I stated early on that I support 2 different organizations that feed the poor and that being above my church tithe. I am by no means rich, but I do care. I just happen to think that Christians are supposed to be a set apart people in that we strive to not be worldly. A minister using language like Campolo did has a problem himself.
To infer that feeding the poor is more important than preaching against the sin that creates poverty in this world is dishonest.
Of course, caring for the poor and needy is biblically noble and correct. But so is preaching relentlessly against sin.
Not feeding the poor is a sin, and a much more serious one than cursing. That's the point.
Wasp Jerky likes to talk about assumptions, well here is one for your side. I stated early on that I support 2 different organizations that feed the poor and that being above my church tithe. I am by no means rich, but I do care. I just happen to think that Christians are supposed to be a set apart people in that we strive to not be worldly. A minister using language like Campolo did has a problem himself.
I commended you for that very early on in this discussion. But you are rich, richer than most of the world. I don't know how much you make, but even if you work a minimum wage job, you are making more money than millions, probably billions, of people on this planet. Not "being worldly" means a lot more than not swearing. It also means caring for the poor.
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
2 Timothy 1:9 KJV
I take it seriously that we are called with an holy calling. I make mistakes and am ashamed sometimes of what I am capable of in my flesh.
Let me tell you that I am far, very far from being rich and I have worked for less than minimum wage, but was glad to have a job. We in this country do not really know what poverty is and that is why I get disgusted with whiners.
" A minister using language like Campolo did has a problem himself."
WHY? What's wrong with his language? It's against some of our cultural norms, sure, but so what? Can you define what the problem is or will you continue to just assert that it's a problem and leave it at that?
If you see it as no problem, it would do no good to try to explain it to you. The grace that was and is extended to us did not come cheaply, it cost our Saviour's life and blood, so why should we treat it shabbily.
Is that your approach towards sinners? If we are in the wrong, then let us remain in the wrong without telling us why and helping us understand?
And I thought you were my friend and sibling, Mr/Ms Anonymous!
For what it's worth, I believe the Bible and desire to take it seriously. All you have to do is show me in God's word where God suggests it's wrong for me to say "poop," or it's heavier brother and I'll thank you kindly.
A minister has higher expectations placed upon him or at least he should. His message should be the gospel, not seeing how offensive he can be.
All of us that profess Christ as our Savior need to be mindful of our speech and when we slip, it should not be the norm for us. I have always heard that when people stoop to that kind of language, it is because their vocabulary is lacking. It reflects on us as well as the One we are supposed to represent.
Thanks, anonymous, for the attempt. I understand many people find certain words offensive. But keep in mind that Campolo didn't let something "slip." He said what he said as a measured provocation to get people to think about the Gospel. Campolo's message WAS the Gospel, the Good News for the poor that Jesus proclaimed.
In other words, his concern for offending people's cultural values were less than his concern for preaching the Gospel. I buy that. As a Christian, I can see there's naught in the Bible to suggest Campolo (or me, by repeating it) was in the wrong, as far as God's concerned.
If you don't appreciate the tack, fine. Just don't suggest that there's anything un-Christian about what he said.
If you don't appreciate the tack, fine. Just don't suggest that there's anything un-Christian about what he said.
Oh, I see. You da judge.
Anonymous! I asked you to show me in the Bible where it says that cussing is a sin, you didn't. I assumed you meant by your non-response that you could offer no such reasoning and that your problem with Campolo was, therefore, a purely cultural one.
I'm NOT the judge. I'm glad to be taught. Teach me.
BUT don't go trying to pass off your/our cultural traditions as Godly ones.
I'll say it again, Tony Campolo's words ARE preaching the Gospel. Tell me how I'm wrong biblically or just tell me that you don't like it from a cultural point-of-view. That's okay, just don't confuse the two.
And I'm reacting and pushing the point here not because I care much one way or the other about cussing or Campolo, but because there's a HUGE problem in our church with confusing God's teachings with human tradition and it leads to much mayhem.
spending money won't feed ANYONE. Only growing food will.
And with oil running out, a whole lot of people ARE GOING TO die.
I'm planning and working toward survival which is the moral directive in that situation.
Although it does seem a lot of people find complaining to be the moral directive.
Your reasoning is so twisted, I'm tired of foolin with you. That is all. Not because I ran out.
Wasp is right Dan. Anonymous just proved Campolo's point.
"your reasoning is twisted..."
WHAT reasoning? I've asked you to show me the error of my ways. That's not reasoning, that a request for help. And you shall not offer it? Pretty please?
Contrary Goddess, living up to your name, as always. Glad to have you stop by here, but I am confused.
You said:
"spending money won't feed ANYONE. Only growing food will."
And I'm not sure who said anything about spending money? Campolo's point was that good church folk are more concerned about a curse word than 30,000 starving people. He didn't propose spending money to help them. He just proposed working to end the starving.
I'm fine with growing food as solution and I expect Campolo is as well. So, "let them grow food!"
What's that you say? They have no land? Well then, let them have free land!
What's that you say? No one is willing to give 'em free land...? Um...
CG, I understand the problems inherent in the dollar economy. But in fact, I can't grow food, the starving folk can't grow food, without having purchased or obtaining SOMEHOW the land.
Am I missing something? I mean, just because you don't believe in money doesn't mean that others will give you their land, right?
you *could* grow food and you *choose* not to. As long as you choose not to, you do not do anything, and I do mean, not one single thing, to "feed" anyone. To be upset that someone is starving when you are not growing food is, well, recreational upset. Just as stupid as being upset at the use of the word "shit".
As to money, I got that from the comments which this time mostly concerned the money the church has but other times your concern would be the "money" spent on war.
I'd opine that the higher "moral" is not that people are starving but WHY and what WE DO PERSONALLY to cause it and stopping doing what causes it. And start doing what alleviates it.
Making a sermon out of the word shit is purely a recreational endeavor. Prophets generally require more out of people than complaints, concerns, etc. -- usually it is eating more into your own comfort level.
The population will be cut. Severely. Food will, seriously, run out. Not just in Africa, but here, US, Kentucky. What will you eat then?
Geeze, you people are getting outta hand! And by the way, Anon, "Geeze" is short for "Jesus", taking the Lord's name in vain or some such. But as Jesus is a drinking buddy of mine, he doesn't mind a bit.
Dan:"And I'm not sure who said anything about spending money? Campolo's point was that good church folk are more concerned about a curse word than 30,000 starving people."
Then what does "concern" mean? Let me see if I can recall this ....
"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? " From 2nd chapter of James.
If I were doing my own Eleutheros translation of the Bible, this last would be "what good are you?"
From this Heathen's view point, if you stripped away the God is King business added to Christianity by Constantine, you'd be left only with things much as the above. Only despotic kings are concerned if their dignity is besmerched by ministers cursing. Gods aren't.
But I digress. So what is 'concern'. If it's recreational hand wringing, praying, or letter writing, it is exactly as James said, the believer is saying to the starving of the world "be ye warmed and filled" and walking away.
So it has a great deal to do with money. Or does it?
Michael:"Campolo's point is simple. Allowing 30,000 children to die of hunger-related causes (while most churches spend millions on artwork or family life centers or the preacher's suits, etc.) is far more profane than the most shocking curse word--"
[and I might add: sending people to conferences]
I'm right with you and Campolo on this one. But let's suppose for a moment thad Campolo's message was taken to heart by all the churches in the US and they sold all their buildings, family centers, art, parsonages, church buses and vans, the whole lot and used that enormous amount of money to feed the poor .... what would be the result.
I must aside here to mention that in six of the past seven years, the world has eaten more food than it grew. The world is about two months from when the major grain harvests begin and it has 52 days of reserve grains, the closest hauled the world food supply has been in the lifetime of any of us.
So, then, we take all that ecclesiastical wealth and we go about to buy food for the world's hungry. What happens? I can tell you all have not been paying attention to your Eleuthronomics lessons! Finite supply of food being pursued by a sudden influx of money ..... the price of food increases astronomically. Fewer people can afford it and more people starve.
The central Devil inspired evil here is the belief that money is real.
"you *could* grow food and you *choose* not to."
You know what happens when you assume, CG, right?
Your presumptious-ness does nothing to help your cause. I'm in agreement with you and yet your boorishness turns me away. And THAT'S with someone who agrees with you! What of those who question what you say?
Still, I dish out plenty of self-righteousness myself, so fair enough. For what it's worth, I do grow some food, and intend to grow more. I do buy from local farmers and am working towards being less dependent upon The System.
Post a Comment