Wednesday, November 22, 2006

I'm a little behind in posting this week. I've been meaning to write about this since last week, I just haven't found the time.

Bart Campolo recently had an article published in YS' Student Ministries Journal called "The Limits to God's Grace." The article has subsequently been removed because of controversy.

I'm going to go through the entire article here, interspersing my own comments throughout.

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 MissionYear in the inner-city of Atlantalast 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

I am impressed by the letter. Those are tough questions that people have to deal with all the time. It's unfortunate that the actions of humans can cause a person's perception of God's character to change.

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 love his honesty. And I think he makes a great point here. What matters is what kind of God a person believes. Everyone believes in some sort of god--be it the God of the Bible, a force, a deity, or themselves. There is a ruling authority in everyone's life.

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.

It's easy to see how he came to these four conclusions. And I agree with him that the last one is the only one in which I won't despair (and of course, as you all already know, that's the one I identify with). And I, too, gladly pledge my allegiance to that good and loving God. Again, I love his honesty, "I may be wrong in this matter, but I am not in doubt."

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.

And here's problem number two. Some of the doctrine that he is completely blowing off here is clearly Scriptural (of course, what would I expect from someone who just said he would ignore the verses that don't mesh with what he believes). John 14:6 says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." The concept of hell is also clearly taught in Scripture.

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.

This is true. Everyone gets to choose who to pledge their allegiance to. But I think it's a little (ok, a lot) arrogant and presumptuous to proclaim that you have standards for God. If God has to bend to your standards, what kind of god is that and why would you want to worship it?

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.

This is definitely something else that I think Campolo got right. And I think he said it far better than I ever could. God is limited by the limits He placed on Himself. When He gave us free will, He stepped out of the way. Think about it this way: if you have kids, do you want your kids to love you because you forced them to? Or because they want to?

I don’t hate God because, although I suppose God knows 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

While I disagree with some key points theologically, I think he did a phenomenal job of answering the question at hand. I hope that Sarah read his answer and was motivated to rethink her perception of who God is.

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.

I don't want anyone to be damned to hell, that's for sure. And I think that he's right when he says that he wants to see people transformed right here and right now. But there has to be a happy medium. You can't ignore the fact that Scripture does teach the concept of hell. But you also can't spend all of your time looking up into the sky longing to be in heaven. See my post on being eternally minded and not heaven minded.

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.

All in all I think that the article was a good one. I think he's missed the boat a bit theologically, but his heart is good.

Labels: Grace, Spiritual Growth

Posted by Amanda at 11/22/2006 02:11:00 PM

14 Comments

 Lifewish posted at 11/23/2006 04:04:00 PM  
What matters is what kind of God a person believes. Everyone believes in some sort of god--be it the God of the Bible, a force, a deity, or themselves. There is a ruling authority in everyone's life.

As an atheist, I'm actually very intrigued by this confluence. How can I ensure that the kind of God I believe in is an appropriate one if I myself am considered to be that God? Would this just be a matter of relentless self-improvement? Serious question - I have no idea what the answer is.

A completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil will still send people to hell. Because there are people out there who will choose not to follow Him.

How bad will Hell be? Will we be given the opportunity to change our stance after death when God presents Himself to us in a more immediate fashion?

I think these questions would need to be answered before I'm able to assess whether a loving God could send people to Hell.

This is true. Everyone gets to choose who to pledge their allegiance to. But I think it's a little (ok, a lot) arrogant and presumptuous to proclaim that you have standards for God. If God has to bend to your standards, what kind of god is that and why would you want to worship it?

Other than setting standards, how else does one decide which of God or Satan to pledge allegiance to?

If God isn't a moral entity by any definition we would recognise, why on Earth would you want to worship Him anyway?

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.

I agree with much of what this guy says, but I'd like to point to this as a picture child for my comments about some things only being true for certain people.

As best I can tell, I personally would gain little (on any level) from throwing my heart and soul into believing in such a God. I get more assurance from having a reality-checked basis for life than from believing in hypothetical entities.

For me, the most enjoyable experience* is the knowledge of my own effectiveness. That's not me denying God, or setting myself up as a deity, or anything as Freudian as that; it's just the way my mind works.

Obviously Campolo, along with many other people, have subtly different desires in life, which are of course equally valid. But where does God - even a God of joy - fit into my picture?

* ...that I'm willing to talk about in public, anyway.

 Infophile posted at 11/23/2006 04:20:00 PM  
Everyone believes in some sort of god--be it the God of the Bible, a force, a deity, or themselves. There is a ruling authority in everyone's life.

I'd have to disagree on that point. First of all, there are the Nihilists, who don't believe in anything at all, or even deny everything.

To a lesser extent are people like me. I have something of a "ruling authority" in the Scientific method and an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude. But it would be a far stretch to call that a god for me.

Of course, if that does meet your definition of "god," then it's just a simple disagreement of what the term means.

I could also go into how my theories on Quantum Mechanics affect my view of the universe as a whole (something like the ultimate computer), but that's one deep, weird rabbit hole.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't. Don't pick and choose the verses that mesh with your own brand of theology.

What about picking only certain books of the Bible? It seems to me that it could be theologically consistent to believe that certain authors were inspired by God, while others weren't. In fact, the church itself (well, different churches of different denominations) has done this on numerous occasions.

 Henry Neufeld posted at 11/29/2006 08:06:00 AM  
I don't see any trackback option, but I wanted you to know that I found this excellent post through the Christian Blog Carnival and I have written on this and linked to you.

 Amanda posted at 11/29/2006 03:22:00 PM  
How can I ensure that the kind of God I believe in is an appropriate one if I myself am considered to be that God? Would this just be a matter of relentless self-improvement? Serious question - I have no idea what the answer is.

Rather than answer your question just yet, I want to ask you this:

What do you consider to be the ruling authority in your life? Choices/decisions that you make for yourself? The flying spaghetti monster? A rock? I already know that it isn't the Christian God. So what would you say it is?

How bad will Hell be?

All I know about it is what the Bible says.

Mark 9:47.45: "Hell fire"
Mark 9:43: "the fire that never shall be quenched"
Mark 9:44,46,48: "where the worm dieth not"
Luke 16:24: "tormented in this flame"
2 Thess 1:8: "flaming fire, taking vengeance"
2 Thess 1:9: "everlasting destruction"
Matt. 25:46: "everlasting punishment"
2 Peter 3:7: "perdition"
Rev. 20:10: "tormented day and night forever and ever"
Rev. 20:15: "cast into the lake of fire"
Rev. 14:10: "tormented with fire and brimstone"
Matt. 13:42,50: "cast into the furnace of fire"
Matt. 25:41: "depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire."
Matt. 22:13: "cast him into outer darkness"

Will we be given the opportunity to change our stance after death when God presents Himself to us in a more immediate fashion?

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong on this, but I don't think so. John 3:36 says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Jesus did say, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Other than setting standards, how else does one decide which of God or Satan to pledge allegiance to?

Who would you rather give your soul to, God or Satan?

But where does God - even a God of joy - fit into my picture?

That's a great question. And one I'll answer with Campolo's own words.

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.

In other words, it isn't all about YOU (or me!). It partially is (the whole bit about living your best life now and all), but it's also about how following in those footsteps (truly, not just in word) can make the world a better place.

 Amanda posted at 11/29/2006 03:28:00 PM  
Of course, if that does meet your definition of "god," then it's just a simple disagreement of what the term means.

That's probably what's going on. "god" (with the little g) doesn't mean "deity" to me. A "god" is anything that you would worship or idealize or follow. Money can be a god. A car can be a god. Food can be a god.

And unfortunately I can't view wikipedia at work (don't ask me why that site is blocked, I can't figure it out), so I can't look at the articles you linked to.

I will say that as far as the canon goes...I don't know enough about history to really be able to have a coherent discussion about it. I can neither agree with nor disagree with anything you may have to say about it.

 lingamish posted at 11/29/2006 10:27:00 PM  
Amanda, this is the most challenging post I've read in the carnival this week. Thanks for grappling with Bart's ideas and the tough questions they provoke.

 Lifewish posted at 12/02/2006 08:06:00 AM  
What do you consider to be the ruling authority in your life? Choices/decisions that you make for yourself? The flying spaghetti monster? A rock? I already know that it isn't the Christian God. So what would you say it is?

I'd say that my primary goal is to improve the quality of my interaction with the rest of the universe. In most circumstances, this roughly equates to enlightened self-interest.

How do I tell if this qualifies as a "good" kind of God? Or should I rather be acting to make it a good kind of God?

All I know about [hell] is what the Bible says. [...] It's entirely possible that I'm wrong on this, but I don't think [we'll be able to change our stance after death].

Then the Biblical God does not, in my opinion, qualify as loving.

Jesus did say, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I thought you weren't a fan of blind faith?

Who would you rather give your soul to, God or Satan?

Well, according to the Bible, God is responsible for substantially more genocides...

But this is besides the point. My original issue was with your claim that it was "arrogant and presumptuous" to set standards for God. And yet here you are making value judgements about who to sell your soul to. What gives?

[...] In other words, it isn't all about YOU (or me!). It partially is (the whole bit about living your best life now and all), but it's also about how following in those footsteps (truly, not just in word) can make the world a better place.

Many people may find that believing in Jesus helps them be more charitable. As best I can assess, for me it would not make a difference. It might even reduce my overall efficacy in these areas by damaging my ability to unemotionally determine the areas in which I could make the most difference.

This is what I mean about some things (possibly including Christianity) not being generally true. In this case, you're demonstrating that Christianity is true for a portion of the population that responds in a particular way to it. As best I can tell, I'm not in that portion.

 Amanda posted at 12/02/2006 10:18:00 AM  
Lifewish:

I think perhaps we need to take a step back for a moment. I briefly addressed this in my reply to infophile, but I think that at this point in the conversation we need to clearly define what we mean when we use the word "God." You and I are coming at this from such different places that I think our own personal biases are limiting productive conversation.

For me, "God" is a Supreme Deity and "god" is anything that you would follow, idealize, or worship. That being said, your answer to my question about the ruling authority in your life doesn't really fall into either category.

I thought you weren't a fan of blind faith?

I'm not. In context, Jesus was speaking to Thomas (a disciple) who didn't believe that Jesus was risen and standing in front of him. Thomas demanded proof that it was really Jesus standing there. I'd say that since Jesus was standing there in front of Thomas, and Thomas still didn't believe, that we've gone beyond the realm of blind faith.

And yet here you are making value judgements about who to sell your soul to. What gives?

I don't think I've made any value judgments. But that may just be the difference in our perspective.

I read the Bible, I observed the differences between God and Satan, and of course my choice was God. It was a no brainer for me. There are people in the world who have gone through the same process and picked Satan. There are still others who have read the Bible and picked neither. Picking a solution based on observation doesn't seem to be a choice based on value judgments.

In this case, you're demonstrating that Christianity is true for a portion of the population that responds in a particular way to it. As best I can tell, I'm not in that portion.

What if it's true regardless of how you respond to it?

 Lifewish posted at 12/02/2006 06:59:00 PM  
For me, "God" is a Supreme Deity and "god" is anything that you would follow, idealize, or worship. That being said, your answer to my question about the ruling authority in your life doesn't really fall into either category.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. The whole quality thing really is the best answer I can give - I don't really have any specific overwhelming focuses. Where I do start to develop one, these days I actively try to squash it. Overfocusing on one concept necessarily implies underfocusing on another.

Thomas demanded proof that it was really Jesus standing there. I'd say that since Jesus was standing there in front of Thomas, and Thomas still didn't believe, that we've gone beyond the realm of blind faith.

I'd say that Thomas's behaviour was exemplary, in that he retained objectivity in the face of what was presumably a very attractive idea for him: that Jesus had been resurrected. Most people give in to the urge to believe nice stuff; Thomas was able to fight off that base instinct until he had strong evidence that the claim was accurate.

I read the Bible, I observed the differences between God and Satan, and of course my choice was God. It was a no brainer for me.

The fact that you consider it a no-brainer in no way contradicts the fact that that decision constituted a value judgement. The key question here is: how could you know which entity was better to believe in without using a definition of "better" that's independent of either of them? How does that not constitute applying a standard to God?

What if it's true regardless of how you respond to it?

What if a giant meteor is going to crash into the planet next Tuesday? In both cases, my behaviour would change if there were any positive evidence for the claim; in both cases, as best I can tell, there is no such evidence.

I guess what I'm getting at is that "true" and "not true" are not useful categories outside of mathematics. There's no little black box you can feed statements into to find out whether they're true or not. What you can do is test them for accuracy or (almost equivalently) predictivity. This, of course, is what science does.

As such, I tend to divide the world up into statements that grant me greater predictive ability and statements that don't. The latter may be personally useful for me, but there's not necessarily any reason to believe that they're useful for anyone else. I have never yet been presented with support for the notion that belief in God grants greater predictivity. I'm curious as to whether God might be personally useful for me, though.

 Amanda posted at 12/05/2006 04:51:00 PM  
The key question here is: how could you know which entity was better to believe in without using a definition of "better" that's independent of either of them? How does that not constitute applying a standard to God?

God created the standard. So how am I applying a standard to him when He is the standard?

 Shygetz posted at 12/06/2006 08:48:00 PM  
God created the standard. So how am I applying a standard to him when He is the standard?

You believe in a minimum of two supernaturally powerful beings, and you have chosen one to worship. So you worship whatever is most powerful? Say if Satan had created the universe, and a loving God has risen to oppose his cruelty, you would worship and follow Satan because he created the universe and, therefore, is the standard? Do your morals come down solely to "He was here first" rather than a value judgement? Isn't "He was here first" itself a value judgement, in that you place primacy above all other qualities for a deity? If so, then primacy seems to be a really crappy way to choose a deity.

If the God of the literal Bible is wholely and purely good, then good is WAY overrated. I wish the street preachers would stand on the corner and shout those verses through a megaphone--truth in advertising and all that.

I would like to applaud Campolo. His faith is the kind of faith that makes the most sense to me. He fully accepts that what he believes may well be false, and is willing to admit that he believes in it because it makes his life better. I applaud that kind of honesty, and support that kind of faith. Thank you for your honesty and frankness.

 Amanda posted at 12/07/2006 09:11:00 PM  
Shygetz: welcome!

And I see your point. I guess it is a value judgment. But I still see it differently than Campolo. He said he wouldn't worship someone who wasn't at least as compassionate as he is--I still see that as arrogant. Maybe the difference is that I'm applying the values given to me by God to God and he just seems to be applying his own values to God. Does that make sense?

 Lifewish posted at 12/09/2006 09:23:00 AM  
God created the standard. So how am I applying a standard to him when He is the standard?

By choosing to use His standard rather than Satan's standard. On what basis do you make that choice?

 Lifewish posted at 12/16/2006 01:50:00 PM  
He said he wouldn't worship someone who wasn't at least as compassionate as he is--I still see that as arrogant. Maybe the difference is that I'm applying the values given to me by God to God and he just seems to be applying his own values to God.

I would argue that you're not applying the values given to you by God; rather, you're applying your own intrinsic awareness of right and wrong, for which Scriptural texts happen to be a reasonably accurate formalisation. If the Bible said to kill lots of little babies, I'd like to think that you wouldn't do it - it wouldn't match with your moral sense, and hence you wouldn't accept that part of the Bible as a valid approximation to your views.

Similarly, Campolo sees the Bible as reflective of a good God only to the extent that he agrees with the morality it espouses. The only unusual feature of Campolo's testimony is that he admits that this is what he's doing - most people just throw up a bunch of justifications for some particular bit of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. I can respect that.

Post a Comment

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link