Do you ever question the significance of Jesus’ death?
If you celebrate Easter, is it an important holiday for you? Why or why not?
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.
“your god must really suck if he has to kill somebody–if he just can’t get around forgiving you unless he kills somebody”
I really like Bart’s words. Maybe I’ll have to track down one of his books and read it.
To answer your first question: no–I never question the significance of Jesus’ death. I honestly don’t assign that much significance to it.
Bonhoeffer calls this Cheep Grace.
Maybe that is the way Bonhoeffer understood grace, Ron, but I wonder if he looks at it any different now on the other side of eternity.
Isn’t the definition of grace supposed to be something that isn’t earned, that isn’t deserved, and that can’t be bought? But then we turn around and talk about how Jesus earned our salvation and paid the price. Strange, no?
Wouldn’t you be concerned if you found out that in response to my kids messing up in life I told them that everything was okay because I took out their punishment on their mother? How would that make them feel about me? about themselves?
I don’t think that this is what Bonhoeffer referred to as “Cheap Grace.” He was admonishing those who wanted the benefits of grace without performing the necessary response (i.e. living out the vocation to which God calls you) to said grace. That is Bonhoeffer’s “Cheap Grace.”
What Campolo is attacking is the idea of substitution/satisfaction atonement. This theory of atonement wasn’t even developed until the late 11th/early 12th century by Anselm of Canterbury. Prior to that, Christianity’s focus WAS on the resurrection. To Christians prior to Anselm, Jesus didn’t come to die… He came to be raised from the dead to show that sin and death had been conquered. This is the Christus Victor idea of atonement.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe there is plenty of biblical evidence for substitution/satisfaction atonement, but it was a very minor teaching until over 1,000 years after Jesus. Until then, God didn’t have a problem forgiving us. God’s problem was with those things which enslaved us (sin & death). God wanted to set things in motion to remove those things from us so that we could begin to live in full relationship with God, each other, and all of creation.
My only problem with Campolo here (and it isn’t a major one since this is only a minute and a half clip so I can’t really judge him based on this) is that we should, as Christians, spend significant time reflecting on Christ’s death. Why was he killed? What is significant about that? both in spiritual AND practical terms.
I agree with Dave – I don’t think Bonhoeffer was referring to the atonement with his comments about ‘cheap’ grace. I was going to say that before but I’m glad Dave got there first.
I guess what worries me most is how the death of Jesus has been over-mystified to the extent that the only important thing in the world becomes academic assent to the notion that one person’s violent death somehow negates infinite painful punishment. Does that mean that there is no point in believing in an atonement? Not at all – to me the reality of the brokenness of mankind (even though I have problems with the doctrine of ‘original’ sin) are plain and obvious. The idea that we need saving from ourselves is striking and convincing in that context. I believe in Jesus – his life, death and resurrection.
SP
So
I’m really thankful for recycle your faith putting out this video this week. I’m lucky enough to go to a church were I have hear two sermons on this point in the last year but I know a lot of people who don’t get to hear this kind of thing a lot if at all.
I totally agree with Bart, however the identification with our alienation is paramount to something in our being able extend our experience of that grace I would think..
probably my favorite recycle to date. so simple and so clear and exactly where i’ve landed. such a good example of something thinking about something i used to believe that now seems ludicrous to me. kind of like…god is love but 90% of the world he loves will burn in hell. ludicrous. thanks for this, craig & bart.
It seems to me that the Bible is very clear, both about God’s design in the life and death of His son, and the intention of Christ himself. Isaiah prophesied the coming Messiah in chapter 53:7-12. In verse 10, he says that it was the will of God to crush Him. In Matthew ch 20, Jesus is talking to His disciples and specifically says that His purpose was to give His life in ransom for many. In John ch 10, Jesus describes Himself as a sheherd laying His life down for His sheep, and says in v 17 that the Father loves Him because he lays His life to take it up again, and goes on in v 18 to say that He (Jesus) has the authority to lay it down and pick it up again.
The reading of these verses seems to make it clear that Christ’s death had a clear purpose in God’s plan, that Jesus was fully aware of it, and voluntarily carried it out.
Mark, I like the way you back up your comment with scripture. God speaks to us through the Bible. Take Daniel how prophesy now is taught as history in the school concerning the fall of the empires. God clearly knows what He is doing.(Beth Moore has an interesting study) Jesus took on human flesh. He questioned God , leading to not my way but Yours. A yet another perfect example of followers of Christ Jesus. God the true God.
Mark,
I agree with you, but I would suggest that those passages could very easily be interpreted as Jesus ransoming us from sin and death… basically from ourselves… and not from the “vengeance/wrath” of a supposedly loving God. At least, that is how the earliest Christians interpreted the death and resurrection of Jesus.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I have to say that I disagree with Bart’s conclusion (which is apparently that Jesus DIDN’T come to die for our sins). He didn’t seem to articulate what the cross was all about if not for that. Did I miss that?
I realize there are more views on atonement than the one I currently adhere to (substitutionary), but to essentially dismiss atonement all together seems to reduce Jesus to a tragic figure of history who may or may not have been God in the flesh (I guess he wouldn’t have to be to be God’s demonstration of love and grace).
There’s simply too many pieces missing in this simple explanation of Bart’s. Including any real alternative or rationale for his position (other than “it just doesn’t make sense.” If the Gospel made perfect sense to us, if God was reducable to our own understanding…well, I don’t think we’d be talking about the God I see revealed in the scriptures. And faith would be something only the ignorant or child-like would need to utilize.
Hey Randy!
Yeah, this snippet was edited from a larger conversation with Bart about God’s grace. Until I get around to posting more of that conversation, you might want to check out Bart’s article The Limits of God’s Grace, which was originally printed in Youth Specialties but later pulled, you can read it here though.
Craig, glad you suggest reading the article. As I read it, it came to mind Gods’ timing not ours. In time we will see in full. My faith in Jesus Christ and His Resurrection gets me through life. The power of prayer is awesome. And the fact that I am no longer my own god is wonderfully reassuring. I still don’t believe in circumstances. I think of Keith Greens ministry and accident and how God also work. This Easter we can still REJOICE!
thanks Craig, that was enlightening… as I think Bart is good peeps, it makes sense how he would come to the conclusions he has, and since i think he’s better peeps than me, the fruitiness really speaks pretty loud too.. however, i wonder what if it wasn’t as dualist as that.. and i still think he’s trying to justify god quite a bit, meaning.. it’s part of his plan.. it’s just the “it will be redeemed part,” why does god have to save or redeem it? why can’t we be responsible? anyway.. probably best left for a vid in the future i suppose
Thanks, Craig. It’s always easy to be critical when reacting to a sound byte. I ran across this passage today, though, which seemed relevant to the conversation:
“Now my soul is deeply troubled. Should I pray, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But this is the very reason I came! Father, bring glory to your name.” -John 12:27-28
Bart’s thoughts about Jesus’ death seem to be similar to those of George Macdonald, of whom I am also a huge fan. In fact it was George’s writing which, among other things, enabled me to remain a Christian for as long as I did.
I’m thinking the Christus Victor ideology about Jesus’ death is way more delightful than the penal substitutionary one.
Of course, the big problem with Christus Victor is the idea that God had to somehow find a way to “trick” Satan so that Jesus could actually win the victory for which he came. I’m not a big fan of a God who has to resort to trickery to accomplish a divine purpose anymore than I am a fan of a God who has to resort to murder.
I am a fan of a God who seeks to save a messed up creation from itself and to begin the process of redeeming all of creation.
I agree with this. It was one of the elements of xtianity that used to puzzle and frustrate me even when I was a born-again, spirit-filled believer. Back in those days, I used to set these unsettling and heretical thoughts aside as following them further would have meant losing a large chunk of my life … nowdays, having walked that particular path, I’m no longer afraid to express things like this. I’m using the brain ‘god’ gave me to think, reason, doubt, consider and explore. Thanks for posting this clip!
Bart’s a villain to many, but a hero to more. Thanks for posting this!
But there were false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.
By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.’ 2 Peter 2:1-3
I believe the key phrase in this verse is “even denying the Lord who bought them” There is no scriptural backing to what he is saying. Jesus says in Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Lastly, in Isaiah 53:4-12 :
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
For the transgression of my people he was stricken…. Though he had done no violence … it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer … the Lord makes his life a guilt offering…. He will bear their iniquities…. He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (verses 4-12).
This is very clear. It seems that Mr. Campolo “has turned to his own way”. The proof is a quote from Campolo himself :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 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.” (end quote)
Mr Campolo simply does not like the fact that such a God exists and that God is also just. God does not have to fit into “what you think God should be” He is whi He is! who does he think he is…telling God what He has to be……come people! God does love us, and He showed us by the death of His Son. Campolo says he refuses to accept that! That people is not a follower of God.
I love Bart’s sentiment, and totally agree.. I would take it further though, in all my research over the years, I have come to the conclusion that substitutionary atonement view may be responsible for our twisted morality within Xianity.. because this is the first thing we practically hear, once we have been either partially brainwashed or immersed into the subculture, and this is defined as “love.” By the way I am offended at the guy who has to back things up with scripture, because this is another heavy handed methodology that is handed down, and it doesn’t respect me as a believer that eschews the idoltry of that… I am most interested at how RYF interprets “love” and the messiness aspect intrigues me.. while it infuriates those outside this part of the emergent movement .. they say this is too subjective. and quote Bonhoeffer.. the cat tried to bomb Hitler.. hmmm.. i’m wanna see the theological exogesis on THAT.. but admire that he too saw the need for a practical and relevent faith… also.. Anselm was kinda cool.. like many i think .. took his views somewhere never intended.. And Christos Victor was one of the primary views of atonement until about 100 yrs ago I believe.. that’s probably why Nag Hammadi happened about that time.. at anyrate… I feel alot more contented in my view of the event of the cross hairs since I can now accept it’s messy.. so I guess in that way i like it overly mystified.. and just come to see like i saw in the 80′s, but much deeper, that JayZus Rox…
Jesus gets upset when he realizes that there’s no reason for his sacrifice. Mr. Deity on YouTube
BOB
LOVE the Mr. Deity–thanks for posting.
I love the fact that people have a need to put God in a box just so they can “understand” Him. I get offended at people who push aside the relevence of scripture because they’ve found something that “tickles the ears.” Too easy to dismiss a God who has standards and worship ourselves through “our awesome and all knowing thoughts.” Just because you are smart does not make you wise. Knowing the difference between earthly wisdom and heavenly wisdom just might be the determining factor for us all.
John,
What’s an example of someone who has pushed aside the relevance of Scripture because they’ve found something that tickles their ears?
is it really a box though john to want to be able to understand and appreciate the exhaustive qualities and nature of intimacy of the divine? soor you get offended by the “pushing aside” of what you and the idolatrous masses might think as scrips.. but sorry to say you’ve been duped.. much of your blessed words haven’t even been translated.. and you can’t honestly think God has retained their purity if you look at how it’s been maniupulated to keep you under wraps to a certain slave mentality to the heirarchy of egos within the church culture… There certainly are those who like to have their ears tickled… and you seem to be one of those.. i’m sorry to say.. if you ascribe and truly believe you are following god by some shop shod interp of a bunch of archaic principles.. I would challenge you to look hard at those “standards” you are following… do they actually “glorify” a majestic God.. or make you hide out in four walls and sing Barney-esque ditties… all the while peeps need a friend, a hug.. some understanding.. we are all in this big bad alienated situation.. it’s time we had some straight talk with each other.. so please i for one would sincerelyu like it if ya kept your sunday school banner to the sites that seem to love to indulge in that sort of mental masterbation.. thanks
One of the things that I like about this site is the “dialogue, not debate” guidelines…
OK enough already. Can I suggest that if you want an argument, you head to the bulletin boards of the web magazine Ship of Fools: http://shipoffools.com
thanks joe.. already checked em out a while back.. i just wrote up a synopsis of what i believe about the book.. but actually don’t really like to debate.. don’t really get the point.. I don’t consider myself in the know.. more like after years of research and experience.. find myself looking up at the stained glass windows or picture of christ.. like the poster in Mulder’s office basement that says.. I want to believe
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&suggest¬e_id=386643927545#!/notes.php?id=1092424583
I do not understand why you think worshipping God is idolatrous. Just because I read scripture does not mean I worship it. You quoted Bonhoeffer in an earleir quote. Does that mean you worship him? I doubt it. When Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself. How is this archaic when you say all the while peeps need a friend, a hug.. some understanding. I, too, am sorry about something. That you are offended by scripture. All I have to say is deal with it. Also, I love all your arguments about “the church.” They are congruent with arguments against catholicism, not christianity. The only heirarchy of egos is the exsertion of yours over mine. I for one would like it if you left your new age “my conscience is higher than your conscience” at the crystal cathedral where you and Oprah can truly “masterbate your minds” into oblivion.
here, here JOhn.. you go boy.. but see now I think that some of this is real dialogue.. and not nec. debate guys.. i truly believe we’re looking for points of convergence.. ever think about why Barnabas refused the right hand of fellowship… of course it was probably cause Saul was a blood thirsty ego-maniac… and well the latter does come out a little in one of the epistles when he demands a womans head to be covered or not talk or something… oh and by the way.. i’ve seen the Cathedral from the outside.. very pretty.. it shimmers.. i think it’s a waste of funds .. much like many cathedrals in europe.. and Oprah.. she scares me.. and not for the same reason.. it’s her cult that worries me.. or something
The word “masturbation” seems to be being thrown about rather freely. Maybe it would work better in this other recycleyourfaith video thread: http://www.recycleyourfaith.com/2010/01/11/the-separation-of-church-and-sex/ Just a thought =).
I used to think the crystal cathedral and co was all pretty nutty, but I have seriously changed my thinking and I suspect I would like it more now, if I were again exposed.
John–you didn’t answer my question. I’d love it if you would =)
lol.. you’re right.. i should use the ACI (accepted churchianity Interp) we should stop “tickling our ears”
Sorry, got focused on the other post and forgot. For starters, concerning this video post, Mr. Campolo seems to make his own conclusions about Jesus. Our God is an all-loving, all-caring God, it just “feels” like Campolo doesn’t want a God that is also just. He only wants the feel good part of Him. Here are some verses that describe exactly why Jesus came to earth.
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 20:28
Mark 1:38
Mark 2:17
Mark 10:45
Mark 16:15
Luke 19:10
John 3:17
John 6:51
John 12:46
John 18:37
I agree that love is a part of Jesus’ ministry, but if we only focus on that aspect I think we miss the big picture. That because of His entire life, he represented the way to Heaven, the way to a life free of bondage in sin, the way to a relationship with the Father. Do we honestly think that we can match God with our wit, with being intelligent? Mr. Campolo states that he will not “worship a God that is not at least as compassionate as he is.” (this was a quote not from this video) To me, that sounds like Mr. Campolo is saying that he is better than the God of the bible and he will show you the way.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
I think Bart said quite clearly that he doesn’t believe in a God who requires bloody sacrifice because it makes no logical senseth – and that even if someone could prove that the bible said it did, he would ignoreth the bible. Hence postething texts as if it proveth anything is rather pointless. eth.
Just pointing out that calling yourself a christian and then making up your own god also does not make any sense.
It clearly makes no sense to you. But I have to tell you that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is actually a fairly recent theory, and that throughout Christian history there have been many theories of the atonement. You don’t like Bart’s. I don’t like yours. No biggie.
here, here joe.. but to be fair.. the Penal sub has been around as long as Christos victor in many forms.. Anselm comes to mind.. but then i think he may have been taken out of context too… to me Clement Rocked…
John,
thank you so much for answering my question! =).
When you say that Bart’s words offend you, what exactly do you mean? I’m not trying to be pedantic–I’m genuinely curious, and people can mean lots of different things with the word “offend”.
John,
Just wanted to clarify I did read your longer answer. In asking what you meant by offend, I meant to ask more about your feelings. I’m wondering what your emotions are when you said Bart offended you?
I’m also curious with regards to the compassion thing. Do you think compassion, and/or other characteristics that you like, can be talked about outside of God? I guess I’m asking–are you able or willing to contemplate holding God to a standard outside himself? I’m thinking for instance (this example is the first one that pops into my head) would you be as okay with it as Abraham apparently was if God told you to bind your child, put him on an altar, and kill him? Or would you at that point be willing to say “Nope, I’m not interested in following someone who wants me to behave in that way” or “I don’t believe you, the person telling me that, is actually the real God”, or something in a similar vein?
And isn’t that a little like what Bart is saying?
Thoughts?
Benjamin,
I will not beat my own chest and disillusion myself here. I truly do not know what I would feel or do if put into a situation like Abraham. I can’t even conjecture on it. I am human just like you and have all emotions you have, so I just don’t know. I can’t even picture myself killing my son. So I just do not know. As for my feelings. I just do not understand the doubt. Especially when today, christians don’t even experience anything like what Abraham experienced. Yes, there are hardships, some worse than others, but nothing like being asked to kill your own son. So, really, to base your view of God in a box like that, (which is what I still feel like he is doing) you miss out on a great relationship with God. I also am not willing to hold God up to my own standards of what I feel God should be like. What about you? What rae your thoughts?
John,
thanks for asking my thoughts. I really liked what Bart has to say. I used to think that I had to believe God was a certain way because other people told me that she was that way. That meant that if I thought the way God was being described made her seem like a bit of an uncompassionate jerk, I had to believe that and assume that I was wrong to see it that way. I like the way Bart turns that around, and says actually if the way God is being described makes her look like an uncompassionate jerk, then I don’t have to buy into that description of God.
man, that’s some sword you’re throwin around boy… must admit ee cummings would have been pleased at your visual presentation.. i might even make an Oprah Crystal Cathedral Masterbationary mantra out of it.. Joh Joh Joh Father… I am.. Joh Joh Joh
It seems to me that the biggest divide within christianity remains one’s attitude towards the Bible. Those who believe it to be God’s given means of communication with mankind are completely secure in any belief as long as there is a Scripture to back it up, whereas those who do not see the Bible this way tend to embrace a much wider and fuller experience of God. IMHO it is almost impossible for these two groups to have a truly open and meaningful dialogue or to come to any shared conclusion – the divide is too great.
Elle,
I think that there are alot of misuse concerning the Bible. There are alot of things I have heard people say that “seemed” to be backed by the bible but turned out to just be self-ambition. Nothing more. I just want to know why you think that anyone who believes the bible to be true cannot enjoy a wide and full experience of God? Do you think God is bigger than the bible? I think any christian would say yes. Could you expound on your thoughts please? On why I would be limited in my relationship with Him? And how others are not?
Elle,
I’m also curious. How do you see the Bible, and how do you see that as different from the way other people see the Bible?
I was raised in the Christian tradition which believes that the Bible is God’s infallible, inerrant Word. The Bible was the last word on any matter – and the words quoted were the literal words on the page, not contextualized words, or words as myth, or words as history. Preachers and teachers used multiple texts to convey their message, thus hammering home the idea that anything could be affirmed or denied by turning to Scripture. I was taught to turn to God’s Word whenever I had a problem, or a fear, or needed guidance.
Directly from Scripture, I formed the concept of God as male, all powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing; a being who loved everyone in the world; a being who had set out the rules in the beginning and who demanded obedience because he knew best what was best for us.
I accepted it all. And even though questions regarding the validity of Scripture began raising themselves in my mind in my late teens, they never lingered too long then – the safety, familiarity and comfort of my beliefs outweighed my need to question. It is only now, many years later, that I have been able to question, doubt, read, reason and explore and in doing so, leave that particular “God box” behind. I went from spirit-filled believer to almost an atheist and now I’m a kind of mystical agnostic …I now think that ‘god’ is the word we use when we try to speak of something / someone / some power / some force that definitely exists, but which is far more than the supernatural being that most of us learned of from the Bible. And while the Bible may contain truths about us and our relationships with each other, and while it may tell us stories about how we see the world and what it means to be human and reveals our desire for a relationship of some sort with a superior being, it is not the inerrant, infallible word of ‘God’ to all mankind. So when someone uses Biblical texts to support what they say, for me it is an invalid ‘proof’ – it has no validity. And as that person often has no other way of supporting their position, it means we end up at an impasse.
I guess by wider and fuller I mean seeing ‘god’ as a lot more than just the God of the Bible – a kind of extended view of what ‘god’ might mean to us – not necessarily a fully understood, or even partially understood view of ‘god’ – probably more of an awareness that there is MORE to ‘god’ than what most people see ie a Superior Being wholoves and judges and rules etc etc etc.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. I am NOT trying to be dogmatic at all, simply trying to express thoughts and ideas that have been circling round in my head and heart for many months now! Thanks – Elle.
Elle,
that was so beautifully written! thank you so much for being willing to share. I love your “mystical agnostic”. That works really well for me.
I’d agree it is an impasse. I am not clear why you (Benjamin and/or others) continue attempting to discuss these things with people when you’ve already decided there can be no middle ground.
I’d think there is middle ground – which involves engaging with the biblical text, experience, intelligence, feelings, etc but I can also understand people who have decided that the metanarrative is entirely worthless.
Also it is really difficult to not be dogmatic. I was just reading a really interesting history of the Quakers – a sect which took ‘working it out for yourself’ to an amazing new height for their time, but whom had a exclusive policy throughout many centuries which meant that any minor infringement (such as not marrying a Quaker) could mean permanent exclusion. I’m not sure dogma is necessarily a bad thing if you’ve thought about why you believe it and can discuss it without getting too emotional or offended with people who do not agree.
Thanks, Bart.
Craig, I love hearing Bart’s views. They are honest and heart-felt. Awesome.
The real argument is not whether or not God needed to kill Jesus in place of you. The FACT is that Jesus died to pay for your SINS not so God’s murderous desires could be satisfied.
God has word is binding, He cannot go against His word. His word says that there must be payment for sins. Jesus was that payment.
And in case you’re wondering, theres another law that says that if your sins are not forgiven you will be cast into the lake of fire.
How about we just take it for what it is- you have been redeemed and set free. Praise God! Walk in that freedom and tell others about.