The lively conversation resulting from last week’s video reminded me of this clip from Bart.
How do you respond to Bart’s theory that God is not in control?
Updating…
Bart Campolo is the founder of Mission Year and is the leader of a local ministry in inner city Cincinnati called The Walnut Hills Fellowship.
i think the discussion is always interesting, but i am not sure it will ever resolve. no matter where you land on the issue of
sovereignty or freedom you must dance with some difficult scriptures and experiences. for instance, what about miracles? if they happen, then God can do something some times. if they don’t, then bible is at best misleading.
for me, the only trouble comes when i try to reconcile these ideas. it is simplistic, but what works for me is to hold each idea in suspension, not concerned with out it “fits”. when scripture and experience lead me to a miraculous, intervening God, i embrace that as real. and when the other occurs, i find it equally true.
i do like the God wooing and loving, and i believe he MOSTLY works via the human hand, bound by the fallen physics of the world. but not always…
I don’t disagree with most of what Bart is sharing here, I guess it’s a matter of semantics. That God allows for freedom, as a part of His own free-choice, doesn’t necessarily mean that He isn’t “in” control. But rather means that one of the basic parameters He has set up in this life is freedom. And so He is not controlling choices, but in a sense, He is still the architect of the entire existence of us and our world and its parameters and natural laws. But to Bart’s point, He is not determining human choices, he is allowing them to choose freely. And as he points out, we are choosing to love and not to love. Not sure I said that clearly, but Craig you raise good questions here.
i wonder if we’ve taken God’s choice out of the equation… can’t we have both sovereignty and freedom… i want both!!!!
one thing that hit me weird was bart saying “he [God] kinda can’t [fix it]“… i could be wrong, but my interpretation of that “can’t” was that God “wouldn’t” because it would negate the whole freedom and choice thing… i believe very much in the way bart articulated his thoughts, but going beyond what he had said, it’s my belief that God still has a mind and emotions and does some unexpected things… i don’t think that it’s contrary (necessarily) to our freedom of choice… i think it runs parallel with it… example – i have kids… lets say something happens within their little world that i have the ability to control if i choose to… and one particular time, i feel inclined to graciously use my ability of control toward a certain outcome… they still have the ability to choose how this will affect them…it may have an impact on them loving me more or less, or they may choose to ignore it – take it for granted – they may have not even seen it… but that intervention doesn’t mean that i’ve taken away their freedom of choice… i have just stepped into a moment and changed up some variables (and not to screw with them either – actually for their benefit)… They may be surprised… they may be upset, but that doesn’t mean that i’ve changed in who I am… my character… it means i’ve chosen to do something that i don’t do on a regular basis… just some thoughts
I have trouble with the can’t fix it. I prefer that choosing to not fix it is some how best for us. If God is love that is what he would do. He would do what is best for us even if hurt us (and Him) in the short run. Is this another case of what looks like a paradox to our limited human minds is not a paradox at all in full reality beyond our world? My faith is with love.
I may be a typical Xer, or maybe it was because I was raised Brit, and had a step dad who acted alot like Ozzy.. at anyrate.. i really liked this vid for some reason.. it wasn’t that pie in the sky when you die heavenly insurance plan we were all so neatly packaged to accept.. it’s much like a version I heard once of the atonement.. that Father was sorry for allowing so much, so sent his Son.. the appeal of the collage of images in this video.. the child asking… reflect a certain vunerability of the Divine, maybe it causes us to assess where our responsibility and ownership lie.. it did a bit with me
“The history of human pain is the history of people saying ‘no’ to love.”
It seems awfully easy to switch this around so that it says that human pain is necessarily someone’s fault, even if that someone is not God–that it could-have-been or could-be prevented, with the right choices being made, by someone, or some group of someones.
And that doesn’t really appeal to me, as a belief.
(Plus, sometimes saying “yes” to love leads (more or less) directly to pain.)
“The bad news about God is that he’s not in control of everything that happens.”
I can construe this so that it’s actually good news. I reference Orson Scott Card’s brilliant novel “The Worthing Saga”. If God is in control of everything, it robs humanity of our beauty and glory.
I like hearing Bart talk, he’s got a interesting take on things and presents it really well. Feel free to post more of your interview with him Craig! Good stuff.
What if our so-called freedom was an illusion?
I look around this weary old world and I don’t see alot of freedom. I see people controlled and bound by tradition, economics, psychology, upbringing, biology, expectations, desires and sin. (Just to name a few.)
What if our so-called freedom to choose was an illusion?
To me, freedom means having the ability to do whatever you want. Well, I want to live a life that is completely sinless and painless and to live in perfect harmony with my Master on a day-to-day, minute-to-minute basis. I don’t want to cause others pain. I don’t want to let people down and I don’t want to hurt people with my selfishness and short-sightedness.
I liked alot of what Bart had to say, but I have to say that I disagree very strongly with what he said about it all spinning out of control and God not being able to fix it. God promises in Romans 8:28 that he works all things together for good. He didn’t say that just to make us feel better or to placate us but rather he was reminding us that the world and the universe is not spinning wildly out of control, but rather God, creator and author, Jesus-the-Logos the sustainer and ordering principle of the universe is in ultimate control and he will protect us from a savage and hostile universe that wants to destroy us. He reminds us that our pain does have purpose and we are not slogging aimlessly through life with no purpose. We are not at the whim of randomness or the vagaries of our fallen world. I would rather believe in a God that is in ultimate control and causes bad things to happen rather than an impotent God who is held captive by his own creation.
I want my illusion of control and freedom. I want that warm fuzzy feeling that I get when I tell myself that I am a free being and that God wants me to freely choose him and love him, and that God doesn’t want robots. Too bad its not real.
My six-week old son loves me, and I love him. It would be nice if he freely chose to love me, but he didn’t. He loves me because I am his father and I love him. Even if one day my son were to tell me that he did not love me, thankfully that would not have to affect whether or not I love him. I would still love him because I am his father. I don’t have the freedom to stop loving him.
Hmmm, there is a very distinct difference between definitively stating that God “is not in control,” and God not controlling specific events, globally or in individuals life, as defined by our understanding of what control is pursuant to our desired outcomes. Our limited understanding as well as our emotional investment in an outcome, good or bad, has no bearing on God’s ability to choose whether or not to control a situation. It only affects our perception, again based in our personal investment, on whether or not He is/was in control.
Rich,
You seem to be saying there is a difference between believing god is not in control and god actually not being in control.
I wonder if you could elaborate on that difference?
I mean to say … is there any difference experientially?
Or to look at the reverse–if I choose to believe that the universe is benevolent, then won’t that belief ultimately affect the way I understand my experiences so that I will experience the universe being benevolent, whether the universe is “actually” benevolent or not?
I mean to say I think I agree with you. I would go one further and say that it’s all just make believe anyway–we can’t approach “reality” except through the filter of our perceptions and beliefs–so why not choose a set of beliefs which filters reality in the way we choose–to get the outcomes that we want–the experiences we want?
I have no idea what this has to do with the original thread, except that my sense is that Bart has chosen to believe god is not in control because this belief is happy-making for him. For others–for you, perhaps?–choosing to believe that God *is* in control is happy making, so they choose that belief
I have written a blog recently that argues very similarly to Bart’s argument. I place God’s limitations in God’s nature. And my argument is based more upon the Bible than Bart’s.
God Can’t! — and the Bible Says So
http://thomasjayoord.com
Individually: God is only in control when you allow Him to be. Other than that He waits.
Universally: As Bart said “God woos us..” This wooing is true, and it is a type of control.
I think God has an overall universal plan for humanity, but at the microscopic level their is personal free choice and with free choice that means no control…unless of course it is your choice to surrender and desire God to be in control.
<3
I was struck by the utter arrogance on Bart’s part in this clip. By what authority is he making these claims? I don’t recall hearing any references to God’s Word. Why in the world should I believe what Bart Campolo has to say about God if it contradicts the Bible?
Bruce,
Can you describe in more detail what you mean when you say you sense arrogance from Bart in this clip?
You ask an interesting question: Why would you want to believe what Bart believes about God? I mean lets say the Bible wasn’t part of the picture, and you were actually in control of what was true–whatever you decided to believe was true, that would actually *be* true. Under those rules, would you find what Bart believes, based on this video clip, attractive or repulsive or boring? And why?
Benjamin,
I believe Bart is being arrogant by presuming to know more about God than the Bible. I’d say it’s pretty arrogant to sit there and say “this is how it is. believe me because i’m saying so.” I’m looking for some grounding for the claims he makes about God. For me I’m going to believe the Bible’s account of God and not Bart’s.
To go with your scenario about what if what we said was true became true, would I like what Bart said–absolutely not. The god Bart is describing is no god at all. Speaking of an impotent god is similar to speaking of a height-less hill. It renders the term meaningless.
Do you believe Bart’s thoughts on God in this clip represent what the Bible reveals about God?
Bruce,
thanks for answering my questions!
In answer to your question, I don’t really have an opinion. Bart seems to be coming down on the Pelagian/Arminian side of a question that is millenia old. Since so many people have come to believe, over the centuries, that the Bible supports each side of this question, it’s seems reasonable to me to decide which side of the question makes you happiest, and choose that one. It sounds like Bart feels happy believing God is not in control, and it sounds like you feel happy feeling God is in control. Am I getting that right? If so, I say “Rock On!” to both of you =).
I’m curious, though. Why is being-in-control an attribute which you believe it is important and necessary for God to possess?