Quotes by Tony Campolo

He [William Jennings Bryan] recognized that what Darwin proposed on the biological level, when applied on the societal level, might legitimize an ideology that supports the survival of the fittest, with all of its dire complications. Byran was able to envision the kind of society that Social Darwinism would create- the kind of exploitation that comes from unbridled capitalism, for instance- and chose to war against it.

Perhaps because our culture and politics have gone so off course, with values so contrary to those of Jesus, more and more people intuitively recognize that His vision of Gods kingdom-a new world of compassion, justice, integrity and peace- is the Good News theyve been searching and waiting for.

But isnt it time for Christians to admit that we should reject bargains if they are gained by the exploitation of the poorest of the poor in developing countries?

Jesus never says to the poor: ‘come find the church’, but he says to those of us in the church: ‘go into the world and find the poor, hungry, homeless, imprisoned.

I have three things Id 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 dont give a shit. Whats worse is that youre more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

Because I am not yet living up to what Jesus expects me to be in those red letters in the Bible, I always define myself as somebody who is saved by Gods grace and is on his way to becoming a Christian. (...) Being saved is trusting in what Christ did for us, but being Christian is dependent on the way we respond to what he did for us.

Even if there were no heaven and there were no hell, would you still follow Jesus? Would you follow him for the life, joy and fulfilment he gives you right now?

The first reason for the preponderant influence of those Evangelicals who define themselves as advocates of Religious Right theological and political ideologies is that they have both the financial means and technological know-how to make widespread use of modern electronic forms of communication.

The traditional spokespersons for the Evangelicals, such as Chuck Colson and James Dobson, have become alarmed about this drift away from the Family Values issues that they believe should be the overwhelming concerns of Evangelicals. They have expressed their displeasure in letters of protest circulated through the religious media.

The Gospel is about grace and we all know that grace is about us receiving from God blessings that we dont deserve.

If a guy is intimidated by a woman in leadership, he has real problems with his own concepts of masculinity. Thats a harsh statement, but I believe it to be true.

But I contend that if were providing total medical coverage for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, shouldnt we at least be doing the same thing for every man, woman, and child in the United States?

While a case can be made for intelligent design, I cant figure out why some Christians are so thrilled about that possibility. First of all, it doesnt prove theres a God. If anything, intelligent design lends support to some form of pantheism that defines God as immanent within nature.

I dont know of many evangelicals who want to deny gay couples their legal rights. However, most of us dont want to call it marriage, because we think that word has religious connotations, and were not ready to see it used in ways that offend us.

But I think its up to a local congregation to determine whether or not a marriage should be blessed of God. And it shouldnt be up to the government.

President Bush once said that marriage is a sacred institution and should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. If this is the case - and most Americans would agree with him on this - then I have to ask: Why is the government at all involved in marrying people?

If marriage really is a sacred institution, then why is the government controlling it, especially in a nation that affirms separation of church and state?

Marriage should be viewed as an institution ordained by God and should be out of the control of the state.

What if Barack Obama established a Presidential Advisory Committee that would meet once every couple of months, bringing together the former presidents for a conference in order to seek their collective wisdom? There is a wealth of experience in former presidents that generally goes untapped.

I contend the state ought to do its thing and provide legal rights for all couples who want to be joined together for life. The church should bless unions that it sees fit to bless, and they should be called marriages.