A God Created in Bart Campolo’s Image
Justin Taylor’s “Between Two Worlds” is quickly becoming one of my favorite blogs,and this piece is astonishing in its depiction of the brazenness of Bart Campolo’s willingness to only settle for a “God” who conforms to his expectations and understandings about how that “God” ought to act.
This article, if not retracted (and by the way, you can’t find it on the YouthSpecialties website; wonder if they pulled it when they realized how outrageous it was?), is evidence that Tony’s kid is a pretty dangerous guy (well, frankly, Tony has become much more of one himself these days), and the venues that are rushing to publish/schedule him to speak ought to rethink their decisions. Can this type of thought be labeled “evangelical”, even by the most liberal of definitions? Methinks absolutely not…
FYI, I just clicked onto Bart’s website, and perused an article or two. On a completely unrelated subject, he makes this quote: “we must accept that campaign finance reform is more important than the First Amendment.” Yikes.
UPDATE: Joe Carter weighs in on this one as well, here.
UPDATE TWO: Here’s an update from Justin: Campolo Update
Marco Polo Didn't Go There: Stories and Revelations from One Decade as a Postmodern Travel Writer (Travelers' Tales Guides)
The Travels of Marco Polo: Edited by Peter Harris (Everyman's Library (Cloth))
Dan Rooney: My 75 Years With the Pittsburgh Steelers and the NFL
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
10 Responses to “A God Created in Bart Campolo’s Image”
I just posted on this…
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 21, 2006 at 12:07 pm
It would seem that Bart is looking for a loving, but terribly unrighteous and unholy God, who would be willing to compromise his own integrity and godliness in order to allow the unrepentant to continue in sin and be forgiven anyway. Or maybe I am misunderstanding. I hope he didn’t mean what it sounds to me like he meant.
Hefe ~ Nov 21, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I am, Dr. Throckmorton, the very first subscriber for your new site. I’m positively giddy…
Byron ~ Nov 21, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Your giddage matches my own.
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 21, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Careful Warren, too much giddagacity and your site may spontaneously turn pink.
Hefe ~ Nov 23, 2006 at 12:08 am
My site? I think it would be Byron’s site we have to worry about since he began the giddiousity. (Note the current standings. Oh, I bet you already have
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 23, 2006 at 12:40 am
You know I have some unanswered issues with your sudden jump in posts with no explanation. But don’t worry, I took you down once. It will happen again. Soon….
Hefe ~ Nov 23, 2006 at 7:27 am
Yes, I know you have issues but that is a topic for another post.
Happy Thanksgiving, Hefe and Byron and Paul and Sherry and all others I don’t know reading today (I know Byron will be
Warren Throckmorton ~ Nov 23, 2006 at 10:29 am
i fail to see how one establishes bart’s claim as heretical. that’s a mighty stiff charge against someone for just raising the question of theodicy. i get the sense from evangelicals that even asking such questions is heresy. that seems frightening enough to keep me in the episcopal fold where a heretic has to get in line behind a lot of john shelby spongs.
moreover, it is not BAD theology bart is dabbling in. it is process theology, which is actually a good theology in that it explains a lot of the evil in the world. however, one unexplainable evil in the world is the wrath that evangelicals pour on one another for using their minds on occasion. i don’t think even process theology could explain that awful tragedy.
george ~ Dec 19, 2006 at 10:17 pm
George,
I have no problem, of course, with using the mind–God created it that we might think, and while evangelicals don’t always have as strong a track record as they might in this area, it is certainly valid–necessary–that we engage in good thinking. This, though, doesn’t mean that there are no thoughts that cannot be declared heretical, and what Bart Campolo seems to be doing is to be demanding a “God”, and only a “God”, who conforms to his particular notions of who that “God” ought to be and how he ought to behave. Call that type of thinking what you will, but it cannot be called “evangelical”–which is the point I’m making, since Bart has taken his place many times at evangelical events alongside other evangelicals.
If attempting to use discernment qualifies as “pouring wrath”, well, then I guess I’m a “wrath-pourer”.
Byron ~ Dec 20, 2006 at 9:16 am