A few weeks ago Bart Campolo (son of Tony) wrote an article in The Journal of Student Ministries in which he said some disturbing things, including:
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 allegience. 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.
The article was since removed by Youth Specialties because “we were concerned that the article could be more damaging than helpful.”
An web-only article at Christianity Today noted that Bart was a national representative for Compassion International. This organization supports poor children in third-world countries and my family has been a supporter for some years. I wrote Compassion to express my concerns that a guy with these views is representing their organization. They wrote back with a form reply, in which they said this (in part):
While we appreciate and respect your concerns, please be aware Mr. Campolo is an avid supporter, just like you, in Compassion’s efforts to rescue children from the bondage of their impoverished circumstances. He has also signed Compassion International’s statement of faith in which he asserts he is a believer in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in the Bible as the one and only infallible word of God.
So the way off the hook is to say that Campolo signed a statement, therefore he is orthodox, therefore he can continue to represent the organization. Does it bother anyone that his published article contradicts the signed statement (points 1, 4, and 6)? I see an ethical problem with both Bart and Compassion. Bart thinks he can define which parts of the Bible he wants to believe and yet still hold to a statement of infallible Scripture. Compassion apparently feels they need do no more than ask Bart if he agrees. On that principle, Bart could write an article that claims that Jesus is not God but tell Compassion he holds to their doctrinal statement and all would be well. Shouldn’t Compassion consider published evidence that suggests that Bart does not actually believe the statement of faith?
I’ll go further: if Bart said that (pick your ethnic group) were stupid, Compassion would remove him immediately. But if he says that God is powerless to help the weak, there is no problem. Bart makes no pretense as to how he developed his thinking about God:
I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggest otherwise.
Such is the state of the American church.
Bart’s article is no longer online but I have a copy and can email to people I know upon request.
Now we have to decide whether to continue with Compassion or not. In my opinion, it’s not a simple decision. But if you’re not yet a supporter, I’d suggest you find a different organization.
sigh. I appreciate that you take this stuff serioulsy. PLease email me a copy of that article. I am interested in it.
sigh.
Over the years, I have learned to cut the Campolo ‘s a little slack in some of the things they say. I do believe that Tony has served as a prophet to the evangelical community, a community who sometimes spends too much of our time and energy on theology, church politics, and building bigger facilities, instead of reaching out to the people Jesus talks about in the Sermon on the Mount.
Most prophets say things that upset us, but they can also make us think. They push us a bit. We need that. We get too comfortable without them.
I have come to the realization that if I was a Jew during Jeremiah ‘s time, I would have been one of those people advising the king to pay no attention to that crazy man ‘s message. In Jesus time, I would probably have been a Pharisee who rejected Jesus ‘ for his lack of concern for the law.
I ‘m trying to be sure I don ‘t follow a similar path in the life I have.
So with Tony (and now his son), I try to let his message sink in without looking too hard at the finer theological points. Certainly, I think he ‘s wrong on a variety of doctrinal issues. But to me, he ‘s more Jeremiah than Paul and I think the church needs both.
Al: Do you seriously think that the quotes from Bart Campolo in the above post only deal with “finer theological points”? What part of Bart’s message here are you “trying to let sink in”? I find his audacity absolutely unbelievable, his theology even worse, and I’m being nice compared to what Jeremiah or Paul said about people like this.
Jeremiah wasn’t a faithful prophet just because he got people riled up or because he “upset” people or because he kept people from being “comfortable” or because he “pushed” people and “made them think.” He was a faithful prophet because he spoke God’s truth. Which is the exact opposite of what Bart Campolo did in this article. Jeremiah and Paul and every other OT prophet and NT apostle with a backbone called people to account for doing and saying what was right in their own eyes.
Upsetting God’s people by speaking heresy isn’t an admirable prophetic trait. Prophets in the OT were killed for saying stuff like this and teachers in the NT were soundly rebuked and rejected if they continued in it.
And we think that we’re faithfully following these scriptural examples by “cutting Bart Campolo a little slack”?
Todd, I don’t understand why you (or anybody else) supports a charitable organization based on what any of its members believe. Is the purpose of your support to help “poor children in third-world countries”, or is the purpose of your support to demonstrate that only people with a particular view of Scripture should be supporting “poor children in third-world countries”? Do you think any of the children you’ve helped through your support care whether or not Campolo’s orthodox?
Todd, please email me the article. Thanks.
OK, having shot my mouth off, I thought I better actually read the article. I found it honest, personal, and somewhat moving. In it, Bart journals a bit on his own faith journey, which means you have to be careful about quoting from it.
I do find the one quote that has been questioned better understood in a fuller context:
“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.”
I find the first paragraph compelling and a wonderful description of God. The statement following it is a great example of Natural Theology, as expounded in Romans:
Rom 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
I could pick apart a lot of what he says theologically. He skirts very close to universal salvation in a few parts. He leans towards Process theology at one point. A number of his statements near the end would make any strict Calvinist shudder:
“I don ‘t suppose God knows or controls everything that is going to happen.”
(Thank God I am what a few have called me, a “No-Point Calvinist ‘)
It ‘s interesting how these thoughts came together. From CT:
“Campolo explains that he reached these views while processing the rape of a 9-year-old girl, whose Sunday school teacher said God must have allowed it for a reason.”
It reminded me of this past year, when a 16 year old girl in my congregation put a gun to her temple and ended her life. About a week later, a Christian friend visited the family and told mom and dad that the suicide was God ‘s plan for their daughter. Cold orthodoxy can lead to stupidity that boarders on evil.
Read the article. Yes, you ‘ll cringe at a few of the things he says. I did. Still, to me he ‘s a person in process, who is examining his faith with an honesty and intensity few Christians have. That alone has it ‘s merits.
Todd, it’s 5:30am in Israel, but I am interested to read what you have to say when you get around to reading these responses…
I would like to read the article Todd. I would like to draw my own conclusions about Compassion and Compolo.
Todd, please send me that article when you get the chance. Thanks!
Here is the link. It’s a PDF file, so you might just want to download it:
http://www.thejournalofstudentministries.com/articles/CampoloYS.pdf
“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.”
“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.”
“Perhaps, as many believe, all who die without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior go to Hell to suffer forever… My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that.”
I feel sorry for those who are so self deceived that they think they are more merciful or more kind than God.
I feel sorry for those who are encouraged by reading Bart Campolo’s article.
I feel sorry for those kids who will be influenced by youth directors who are enamored with Bart Campolo.
Al – I agree that provocative is good, and I agree that we need to be careful before we reject someone who says things a little differently than we are used to hearing them. But everyone agrees that there are red lines; the disagreement is where those lines should be. I think that all Christians must reject a “prophet” whose teaching is clearly against what God has said. Campolo is a prophet with an alternate message to God’s message. He may speak with a prophet’s voice, but he does not speak for God. He has elevated his own personal reason above the reason of the Bible and above the reason of all of those who have studied the Bible over the centuries. He believes what he likes and what fits in his own system. So does every non-believer. The difference is that most non-believers don’t pretend to be serving Christ. Campolo is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a false prophet.
Mr. Grena – the issue is not that Campolo is a supporter of Compassion but that he is a national representative for them. That means he speaks on their behalf. Since his views are clearly at variance with their stated doctrinal position, I question Compassion’s ethics in retaining him. If Compassion believes his views are compatible with their own, they cut across the very essence of what I believe. And yes, while I believe that it is good to feed the hungry in any case, if I have a choice between Organization A that feeds the hungry and Organization B that feeds the hungry and teaches them how to satisfy their spiritual hunger, Organization B will get my support.
Todd – great comments.
I just don’t understand how people simply say he’s just challenging us so we need to consider his message. Discernment is seriously lacking (I’m no theological heavyweight, but we need to have convictions and call a spade a spade). The attitude that comes across from Campolo (both) smacks of arrogance.
To make a statement like:
“Perhaps, as many believe, all who die without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior go to Hell to suffer forever… My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that.”
…so obviously against Acts 4:12. Well, that would make my knees quake – to go against the revealed Word of the Sovereign of the Universe!
Thank you for ‘throwing a flag’ and asking people to actually apply theological convictions. Compassion NEEDS
…to discern who they have as a face people see promoting their cause.
Hello all. I love a good discussion. A few responses.
Yes, I do find some of what Bart seems to believe troubling. If he was my youth director, we would have to sit down and work this out in greater detail. If, indeed, I discovered that he was ultimately teaching a “works righteousness” view of salvation, or universalism with Christian overtones, that would be a big problem that I would have to address.
I defend him and his dad only from my past experience with Tony. Many times I ‘ve listened to him or read something by him and been very honked off by a few things he said. But after a time of reflection, found that his comments pushed me to see things from new perspective that I think was faithful and Biblical. I try not to be too knee jerk against new things I hear from him until I have some time to process.
Third, I think it ‘s fair to say that I don ‘t have to agree with everything someone says to have something to learn from them. I ‘ve learned some great things from Roman Catholics, with whom I have serious theological differences. If Pope John Paul or Mother Theresa had become a spokesperson for Compassion, I don ‘t think I would have decided not to give to them based on their belief in the assumption of Mary or the merits of praying to saints.
Todd, what I do think you illuminate very well is his very GenX view of God: “He believes what he likes and what fits in his own system.” I do think this is a growing problem for the church for the upcoming generation and, in and of itself, is probably more problematic than the specifics of Bart ‘s theology. Bad theology that comes from bad process is seldom healthy for those who adopt it.
One final thought. I do think we sometimes put too much emphasis to right belief over right practice. I can think of plenty of people who say all the right words, but put none of them into practice. “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” Luke 6:46. I told you am a pretty lousy Calvinist and I know that I ‘m saved by grace alone, but I hope that when I stand before God, God will look back on my life and say “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
Because of this, I tend to cut a little more slack to the people actually working with the poor and oppresses than for people (like me) who work in the comfortable suburbia mainstream of church and academia.
BTW, I ‘ll be in Egypt with ABR in Feb. Need any pictures of anything?
Al –
Thank you so much for these thoughtful, balanced reflections. They are unfortunately rare in online Christian dialogue. The church and the church’s people are understandably very concerned with absolutes…who is a ‘believer’? Who is a ‘non-believer’? Who is in? Who is out? Where are the doctrinal red-lines beyond which we must not ask questions? Just based on the quotes above you can sense an incredible amount of fear and anger that Bart and others have crossed those lines in an effort to ask questions and offer reflections that have emerged from their genuine faith struggles.
Whether or not this is responsible for a Christian leader to do is the focus of discussion here…but underneath that discussion I believe there is a larger, scarier set of issues. The reality is that the questions that Bart asks are the ancient questions of the world, and they are the enduring questions of today. Ivan Karamozov’s complaint is a crucial part of a brilliant piece of art because the brothers Karamozov (all of them) are wrestling with the questions of faith, not dispensing doctrine that may not be questioned. I believe the work is considered a masterpiece not because it expounds an airtight systematic theology, but because it gets close to something that is at the heart of the human experience as we struggle to understand, follow, and love God.
Those who would say that such a struggle is not necessary because of the clear testimony of the Scripture fail to acknowledge that outside of carefully protected theological enclaves of conservative Christianity, this is not an obvious or sufficient answer – whether or not it is true.
In his article, I see Bart bravely trying to speak to communities of people inside and outside of the church who find their faith journeys often short-circuited by rigid doctrinaire censorship. It is true that his rhetoric is sometimes unnecessarily abrasive and seems arrogant, which is unfortunate. But the passion and frustration generated by his struggle to speak of his faith experience is no more vitriolic or arrogant than the reaction of conservative Christians who have tossed out the label ‘heretic’ with remarkable ease. This reaction, no doubt well-intentioned, can only be rooted in angry fear. Bart’s article (please, read it completely) is reckless in its love and honesty. I, for my part, would always like to be on that side of the ‘red line.’
Tim – thanks for your thoughts. I don’t think the issue here is what questions are legitimate to ask. Bart isn’t asking questions; he’s providing answers. And he isn’t doing so privately, but publicly. These are the conclusions he has come to and that he wants others to be aware of so they aren’t blindsided by him at a speaking engagement.
I’m an educator, so I know the importance of asking questions. But asking questions can be valued too highly. If you believe that the Bible is God’s Word, then you believe that there are answers to the ancient questions of the world. If you question those answers, you may be doubting what God has said or rejecting it. I don’t think God values highly those who reject what he has plainly said. We can discuss what he has plainly said, but I think believers over the centuries would agree that questioning God’s sovereignty is to deny the truth of His Word.
Is it a “sufficient” answer to unbelievers that Scripture is authoritative? If it is not, then there is no sufficient answer, as there are no agreed-upon authorities. God has spoken, his Word is clear, and the evidence of its accuracy is abundant. Man can reject it, but that doesn’t make it insufficient.
You write, “I see Bart bravely trying to speak to communities of people inside and outside of the church who find their faith journeys often short-circuited by rigid doctrinaire censorship.”
That is a true statement if by “rigid doctrinaire censorship” you mean the Bible. I hope that everyone’s faith journeys are short-circuited by the Bible, for apart from the Bible, man is hopelessly lost. The only faith journey that will take one to heaven is one that believes what God has spoken. Bart is trying to have it both ways: to claim to be a God-believer while accepting only those parts that fit with his reason.
You heap compliments upon Bart with words like “bravely,” “struggle,” “reckless,” “love,” “honesty,” but this disguises the fact that he has denied what the Scriptures say. You could use the same words of someone who questions the deity of Christ. If it is inaccurate to put love and honesty on one side and believing God’s Word on the other.
You write, “This reaction [of conservative Christians], no doubt well-intentioned, can only be rooted in angry fear.” I would suggest that it could very well be rooted in an uncompromising commitment to the truth, such as what God commanded of the Israelites when he told them to tear down the high places and to stone the false prophets. Truth is not something to be toyed with, as the ancient Israelites learned when they ultimately followed their false prophets into exile.
There are a couple people in my young adults group at church that think like this. I’m baffled by it, and at a loss as to how to make them recognize the authority of the Bible. Any thoughts?
Stratkey, this ties back into the original Campolo quote that Todd posted, “I am a free agent”. Christianity is the recognition that we are not our own; we were bought with a price. We were freed from The Law, but have become slaves to a very good God. Until they adopt that mindset (i.e., are born again), they will continue to think like Campolo. That’s why it’s so important to teach the authority of the Bible. Teach–not force. On some points it’s ambiguous, but as Todd said, most of God’s “Word is clear, & the evidence of its accuracy is abundant.” When properly taught, a logical reaction is “Wow!”, not “Whatever” (the typical young-adult mindset). It’s impossible to “make them recognize” its authority; it takes insight.
Good point, and one I rest in. I guess I’m just baffled by those who are born-again, not really taking it seriously. When I first came to know the Lord, and still today, I have an insatiable hunger to know more. I just don’t see why you’d follow something like Christianity willy-nilly.
Stratkey – I agree with you, that salvation creates hunger and submission. This is manifest in different ways and in different timings, but I think some of what you may be witnessing in your group is not lazy Christians but cultural Christians. Life is for them a menu and they are the sovereign connoisseur, free to pick and choose whatever they like without restriction. I think one important thing to teach and model for them is a life of submission. Christ’s claim on their life is clear from many passages, and from that follows submission to His Word. I like what Bonhoeffer says about these matters in The Cost of Discipleship. Some teaching on the warning passages might be beneficial as well (2 Cor 13:5; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-30); I think that these were intended for just such “on the fence” people. I’m praying for you.