Sunday, May 03, 2009

Bart Campolo on the Limits Of God's Grace

The following article was printed in Youth Specialties a few years back. Many Christians thought Bart's views were heresy, so the article was pulled. The Journal of Student Ministries hosted it for a while, but they seem to have dropped it as well. All that to say, I would link if it were out there, but since it doesn't seem to be, I am going to paste it here.

It may or may not be heretical, but I am in complete agreement with Bart.

______________________________

The Limits of God’s Grace

Written by Bart Campolo


A few years ago, after being politely asked to depart early from yet another speaking engagement for giving the wrong answer to a question about the limits of God’s mercy, I decided it wasn’t fair to keep sneaking up on unsuspecting Evangelicals.


Strange as it seems to me, I know all too well that to proclaim a God compassionate enough to seek the rescue of every one of his children—and powerful enough to pull it off—is a dangerous scandal to such folks. In a very real way, they don’t even hope for universal salvation. After all, without the fear of their unsaved loved ones’ eternal damnation, how would they motivate one another for outreach and missionary service?


And yet, almost everywhere I go, I meet people—especially young people—who are not motivated at all by such fear. On the contrary, these people are utterly horrified by the notion of a Heavenly Father who essentially says to his children, “I love you, but if for any reason you fail to accept that fact before your mortal body expires, I will kill and torture you for all eternity.” Especially if that same Heavenly Father holds in hand all the reasons the children do or don’t accept in the first place.


These are the people who ask me the questions that used to lead to my early departures, and who write me letters and emails like this one:


Dear Bart,

This might be kind of weird, but I have a question for you.

I lived and worked among the poor with Mission Year in the inner-city of Atlanta last year. When you came to visit my team, you told a story about how when you first started working in rough neighborhoods, you got to know a girl who was gang-raped as a nine-year-old and—after her Sunday School teacher told her God must have allowed it for a reason— rejected God forever. Because you believed God was indeed in control, and because you believed that girl’s lack of faith doomed her to eternal damnation, you decided that God must be a ‘cruel bastard.’ You sort of said the words inside my head out loud, words I had wanted to say for a long time.


Anyway, after putting this off for almost a year, I want to know how you reconciled that. How did you make it from, “God is a cruel bastard” back to “I can trust him”? I can’t seem to make that leap. Sometimes I begin to really trust him, but as soon as I think about my past abuse and those I know and love who are bound for Hell, it just doesn’t add up. I want to know the God you know—who apparently allows for horrible things in this world to happen, yet remains pure and holy and trustworthy and faithful and loving.


I don’t know if any of this makes sense to you, but as I was wrestling with it again today I was reminded of you and hoped you might be of some help.


Sarah


Dear Sarah,

Thank you for writing to me. Over the past few years, I have become convinced that yours is actually the single most important question in the world. As Rabbi Harold Kushner observes, “Virtually every meaningful conversation I’ve had with people about God has either started with that question or gotten around to it before long.” While I am sure my answer will not be as eloquent as his, I will do my best.


First of all, while I certainly believe my most cherished ideas about God are supported by the Bible (what Christian says otherwise?), I must admit they did not originate there. On the contrary, most of these ideas were formed during that difficult time I described to you, when I was suddenly disillusioned by the suffering and injustice I discovered in the inner-city—I suddenly did not trust the Bible at all. At that point, for the first time, I realized that people’s lives don’t depend on whether or not they believe in God, but rather on what kind of God they believe in. I also realized, for better or worse, that the only evidence I could rely on was that which I saw for myself.


What I saw then, and still see now, is a world filled with dazzling goodness and horrific evil, love and hate, beauty and ugliness, life and death. In the face of such clear dualities, it seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, that there are but a handful of spiritual possibilities:


* There are no spiritual forces. The material universe is all. Our lives bear no larger meaning, and those who hope for more hope in vain. In this case, considering that nine year-old rape victim, I despair.


* There is only one spiritual force at work in the universe, encompassing both good and evil. This world is precisely as this force wills it to be, and everything—including the rapes of children— happens according to its plan. In this case, again, I despair.


* There are two diametrically opposing spiritual forces at work in the universe, one entirely good and loving and the other entirely evil. Satan (or whatever one chooses to call that evil force) is most powerful and therefore will utterly triumph in the end. The suffering of that poor little girl is but a foretaste of the complete suffering that is to come for us all. In this case, of course, I despair.


* There are two opposing spiritual forces at work in the universe, one entirely good and loving and the other entirely evil. God (or whatever one chooses to call that good and loving force) is most powerful and therefore will utterly triumph in the end. The suffering of that poor little girl—evil’s doing—will somehow be redeemed, and she herself will be healed as part of the complete redemption and absolute healing that is to come for all of us. In this case—and in this case alone—I rejoice and gladly pledge my allegiance to this good and loving God.


I cannot prove or disprove any of these possibilities, of course, based on the evidence of my experience. What I know with certainty, however, is the one that makes me want to go on living, the one I choose for my own sake, the one I deem worthy of my allegiance.


I may be wrong in this matter, but I am not in doubt. If indeed faith is being sure of what we hope for, then truly I am a man of faith, for I absolutely know what I hope to be true: that God is completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving, that God is doing everything possible to overcome evil (which is evidently a long and difficult task), and that God will utterly triumph in the end, despite any and all indications to the contrary.


This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.


This first article of faith was the starting point of my journey back to Jesus, and it remains the foundation of my faith. I came to trust the Bible again, of course, but only because it so clearly bears witness to the God of love I had already chosen to believe in. I especially follow the teachings of Jesus because those teachings—and his life, death, and resurrection—seem to me the best expression of the ultimate truth of God, which we Christians call grace. Indeed, these days I trust Jesus even when I don’t understand him, because I have become so convinced that he knows what he’s talking about, that he is who he says he is, and that he alone fully grasps that which I can only hope is true.


Unfortunately for me, God may be very different from what I hope, in which case I may be in big trouble come Judgment Day. Perhaps, as many believe, the truth is that God created and predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, according to God’s will. Perhaps such caprice only seems unloving to us because we don’t understand. Perhaps, as many believe, all who die without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior go to Hell to suffer forever. Most important of all, perhaps God’s sovereignty is such that although God could indeed prevent little girls from being raped, God is no less just or merciful when they are raped, and those children and we who love them should uncritically give God our thanks and praise in any case.


My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that. For me to do otherwise would be to despair.


Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff, remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, then God might as well send me to Hell. For better or worse, I simply am not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking such a God, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility because, quite frankly, anything less is not worthy of my worship.


Please, don’t get me wrong. I am well aware that I don’t get to decide who God is. What I do get to decide, however, is to whom I pledge my allegiance. I am a free agent, after all, and I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am. If Mahatma Gandhi and my young friend who got gang-raped are going to Hell because they failed to believe the right stuff, then I suppose I am too, for the same reason. John Calvin—or Jerry Falwell for that matter—may well be right after all, but if they are I would rather cling to my glorious hope than accept their bitter truth just to save my own skin.


You can figure out the rest. I don’t hate God because I don’t believe God is fully in control of this world yet. Heck, God is not fully in control of me yet, even when I want God to be—so how could I possibly believe that God is making all the bad stuff happen out there in the streets? I don’t hate God because I believe God is always doing the best God can within the limits of human freedom, which even God cannot escape.


On that last point, consider for a moment the essential relationship between human freedom and love, and then consider the essential identity between love and God. If God is love and made us for love in God’s image, then God had no choice but to make us free, to leave us free, and to win us over to his Kingdom as free agents (which, evidently, is a long and difficult task). So God did, I believe, and so God will.


I don’t hate God because, although I suppose God kmows everything that can be known at any given point in time, I don’t suppose God knows or controls everything that is going to happen. I also don’t hate God because in more than 20 years on the street, I have seen too much of evil (and too much of my own, moving-in-the-right-direction but-still-pretty-doggone-sinful nature). I don’t hate God because it seems to me that this world is a battleground between good and evil, not a puppet show with just one person pulling all the strings. I don’t hate God because the God I have chosen to believe in isn’t hateable, and because I refuse to believe in the kind of God that is.


Now here is the good news: I may be entirely wrong, but even in my darkest hours, my God of love hasn’t stopped speaking to me. On the contrary, I hear God’s voice in places I never did before, always saying the same things, one way or another: I am with you. I’m sorry about all the pain. It hurts me, too, especially when my little ones suffer. I have always loved you, and I always will. Do the best you can, but don’t worry. Everything will be all right in the end. Trust me.


And I do. And I hope you will, too, sooner than later.


Your friend,

Bart


Of course, to believe in God the way I do is to change all the rules of ministry—especially of youth ministry. I still do my best to convince young people to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, but not because I’m afraid God will damn them to Hell if they don’t. On the contrary, I want the kids I love to follow Jesus because I genuinely believe following Jesus is the best kind of life. Eternity aside, I want them to be transformed by the Gospel right here and right now, for their sakes and for the sakes of all the lost and broken people out there who need them to start living as Jesus’ disciples. After all, the sooner we all start following Jesus by feeding the poor and freeing the oppressed, the sooner God’s will shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven.


Most of all, however, I evangelize people because, having discovered that they are the beloved children of my beloved God, I don’t want them to suffer one minute longer than they have to without knowing that most wonderful fact of life.


And I stay in the inner city, in spite of all the suffering and injustice I see here every day, because I can. No longer do I blame God for what is beyond his control or hate God for so much pain his little ones endure. Even in the midst of such ugliness, I can stay here because I am full of faith. I may not be sure of what I know anymore, but I am absolutely certain of what I hope for, and most of the time I manage to live in that direction.


I stay here for one more reason, of course: In places like this, nobody asks you to leave early because you can’t find the limits of God’s grace.


20 comments:

Chad said...

Thanks for posting this Andy. Our thinking is so similar.

curmudgeon said...

Interesting article.... I have to wonder why the idea of Atheism is one of despair. If this is your once chance to leave your mark....there is a great challenge to contribute to the human race in a manner that your good will last an eternity. As an atheist, I find great hope in service to my community and to my children. I am always concerned about my potential force for good. I reject the idea that a life without god is an empty one that will lead to despair.

Bruce Gerencser said...

Ah yes my one of my favorite heretics. :)

Good and thoughtful article.

Curmudgeon is right on the atheism account. I think it is a straw man to suggest "not" believing in god leads to despair. If this is it........we better be getting on with it........cuz we are fixing to die.

Bruce

Andrew said...

Good point Kevin and Bruce. I think I am a little both/and on this one. I hear what you are saying and can see that. But there is this other part of me that feels sorrow at the loss. It reminds me of the closing scene in Blade Runner when the Replicant is recounting (before he dies) all of the amazing things he has experienced:
"All those moments will be lost in time... like tears, in the rain..."

Yet, I agree with Kevin's point that a life without God is not empty when that person has pursued the things he indicates. (and I suspect that Bart didn't mean to imply that).

Hmmmmm... I am going to have to ponder this one some more.

OneSmallStep said...

**I don’t hate God because I don’t believe God is fully in control of this world yet. Heck, God is not fully in control of me yet, even when I want God to be—so how could I possibly believe that God is making all the bad stuff happen out there in the streets?**

I've never thought about God's sovereignty in these terms before. But he's right. If God isn't fully in control of us, even when we want God to be, can we then say that God is in control of the world? Or God is still in control of people even when they are trying to yield control and know that they're failing?

Cody Stauffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cody Stauffer said...

I also see where you are coming from curmudgeon and Bruce, but I think Andrew you are right, he didn't imply that- because he didn't say he despairs on HIS behalf and what he would do if there was only material world and nothing else; he said he despairs when he considers the 9 year old rape victim, and I think you can see where he is coming from on that. You can still choose to contribute to the human race and leave a mark, I absolutely agree- no need for a god or higher power for that. But who wouldn't, deep down in some small way (even if you know its not possible because it doesn't exist, as far as you can tell), wish for something bigger that can heal that little girl completely, at every level of her being?

Anonymous said...

Wow!! What honesty, what truth. I can't find any other answer that surpases that one.The real world doesn't fit in with our sanitized thinking and theology. This has taken courage and a great deal of soul-searching...thank you Bart.

Regards Bob G

Daniel said...

Great thoughts and testimony. Thanks for sharing and publishing.

Anonymous said...

Bart, as a man in the trenches, I applaud you. It's understandable that you might get weary.

While I don't agree with your conclusions, I do understand that finding one's way back to God often involves doubt as in Jacob!

Laura Ashley said...

Bart is a complete and total heretic and he should not be telling this sort of think to ANYONE one the face of this planet! he defiles Jesus dying for our sins which IS the reason he came to earth! God did not KILL him, Jesus Christ, My lord and living savior, came to earth to GIVE HIMSELF UP for us > "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.-Romans 5:8"< I am completely offended that you would say such a thing, that Jesus dying isn't important and that you wouldn't want to serve a God like that. we didn't and DON'T deserve his LIFE his DEATH or his RESURRECTION! we are all sinners that DESERVE hell! i know i am and you need to realize that God set his son so he could SAVE YOU FROM HELL, <THAT, that is LOVE. not what u preach, BERT. and not what u BELIEVE "Hackman's Musings", but i suggest that you start believing it. god will welcome the day that you do and so will i and all of heaven, as all of heaven rejoices at the saving faith of a child of GOD.

Anonymous said...

When I first read this, I couldn't believe it! At first I was sooo upset, but now, now I am angry! God's love is TOTALLY unconditional, and it NEVER will end! Jesus DID NOT die on the cross cause God made him; He died because he loves us soo much, & He wants us to be with him for eternity. Jesus had a choice. God did NOT kill him! Can't you see Bart, Jesus WANTED to come to earth & die on the cross. He wanted to die for you & me; sinners who the only thing we deserve is Hell.
> I once was lost but now I'm found, once blind, but now I see.
~Amazing Grace<
Bart, I PRAY that one day, soon, you'll come back to the God who loves you more than you ever could now. And that when you do, your eyes will be opened to God's amazing, passionate love.
~Rachel H.

practicingresurrection said...

I am so glad to have discovered this post. What Bart describes is what I also choose to believe. Greg Boyd has made similar arguments.

Thanks again for sharing this.

Bruce said...

I'm confused with those who are angry with Bart on this comment. Seems like Bart confesses a God who created us in love and by love-- and that God will get all of us. That's huge, mind blowing grace. How does this be-little the passion of God for this world, which for many of us is shaped for many of us by a man on a cross who says "Forgive them (all), for they know not what they are doing? The only thing you could accuse Bart of doing is that he's putting too much hope in God? That the circle God is creating is larger than we ever thought. Looks like the gates of hell can't stand against this charging God. Why is it offensive for many to believe that God gets it all in the end? In this case, the cross represents a God who is compattionate and willing to suffer with rape victims, atheists, smug Christians, Ghandi, and others. If it's heretical to say that God's grace has no limits, then I am a proud member of the heretical society. Thanks, Bart.

As long as we all agree... said...

I know this is old, but I was looking for this article and found it on your blog. Thanks for posting.

As long as we all agree that what Bart believes isn't biblical Christianity and he isn't going around acting as if it is, I'm not angry... sad, but not angry.

What I want to know is why Bart still upholds some of scripture if he's throwing out the parts he doesn't like. Why not find another religion with theology more palatable to his taste (which seems to be what is driving his convictions) or, should he not be able to find one, develop his own religion from the ground up? Would this not be a much better way to worship a god he finds more appealing?

Andrew said...

Agree - I think you are tending to see Christianity as one monolithic religion which holds to a strict set of beliefs... which just so happen to coincide with yours. Actually, there are thousands of strains of Christianity, each reflecting the priorities of the adherents. Bart easily fits within the context of Christianity, both presently and historically.

Agree said...

Andrew,

a) Sure, I have a definition of Christianity, but that is because without a definition the term becomes useless. I try to make that term as broad as possible while still maintaining at least some sort of cohesion. "Christianity" can't just be synonymous with "religion." For the sake of discussion, let's just go with Wikipedia's definition: "Christianity is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings. It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians."

b) I specifically mentioned biblical Christianity. It'd be pressing to fit someone who admittedly ignores parts of the bible into the Wikipedia definition of Christian. But, I'll give you that one could make the argument. Surely we'd agree, however, that said person would fall outside the bounds of "biblical Christianity." Otherwise, I don't see how we aren't completely getting rid of all meaning of terms.

Whatever the case, how should I rephrase my desire to be more appropriate and not misunderstood? Perhaps, "So long as he doesn't make it appear that his beliefs originate in the bible" is a better way of saying it? I assume he would have no problem agreeing to that seeing as he said as much in his paper. I guess my point is, I'm not angry as long as he's transparent about the origin of his beliefs, which he seems to be.

(Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "context of Christianity"?

Andrew said...

I simply mean that he easily falls withing the context of Christianity. He says he follows the man called Jesus Christ, and there are countless people who presently and historically followed Jesus in a similar way.

Again, you say he denies certain points of scripture, but I have never met a Christian who does not. They place higher value on certain scriptures and lower value on others depending on their priorities... but every Christian does this. In any case, Christianity existed for centuries without any kind of bible, and for centuries more before all but a few could make use of it. So Christianity has spent almost as much time with a bible as without one... so, I don't think the defining point of Christianity can lie there.

I don't think I am trying to get rid of terms, but I do want to make transparent the fallacy of trying to make Bart's Christianity less legitimate than others, when the grounds for making the accusation are based on the same subjective activity of which he is said to be doing. At the end of the day, the two of you come at Christianity from different perspectives, but you have no larger claim to it than he.

Anonymous said...

He's rejecting Calvinism, people, not Christianity. And he's emphasizing the triumph of God's love and grace, and the work of Jesus on the cross: Jesus, who died for the sins of the whole world.

Anonymous said...

I believe that Bart Campolo *is* rejecting Christianity. He is a secular humanist now. Good for him for being honest!

Related Posts with Thumbnails