Why I Left, Why I Stayed: Conversations on Christianity Between an Evangelical Father and His Humanist Son

by Tony Campolo, Bart Campolo

Bestselling Christian author, activist, and scholar Tony Campolo and his son Bart, an avowed Humanist, debate their spiritual differences and explore similarities involving faith, belief, and hope that they share.

Over a Thanksgiving dinner, fifty-year-old Bart Campolo announced to his Evangelical pastor father, Tony Campolo, that after a lifetime immersed in the Christian faith, he no longer believed in God. The revelation shook the Campolo family dynamic and forced father and son to each reconsider his own personal journey of faith—dual spiritual investigations into theology, faith, and Humanism that eventually led Bart and Tony back to one another.

In Why I Left, Why I Stayed, the Campolos reflect on their individual spiritual odysseys and how they evolved when their paths diverged. Tony, a renowned Christian teacher and pastor, recounts his experience, from the initial heartbreak of discovering Bart’s change in faith, to the subsequent healing he found in his own self-examination, to his embracing of his son’s point of view. Bart, an author and Humanist chaplain at the University of Southern California, considers his faith journey from Progressive Christianity to Humanism, revealing how it affected his outlook and transformed his relationship with his father.

As Why I Left, Why I Stayed makes clear, a painful schism between father and son that could have divided them irreparably became instead an opening that offered each an invaluable look not only at what separated them, but more importantly, what they shared.

Genres: Nonfiction, Religion, Theology, Faith, Philosophy, Christianity, Spirituality

170 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 21, 2017

About the author

Anthony Campolo was an American sociologist, Baptist pastor, author, public speaker, and spiritual advisor to U.S. President Bill Clinton. Campolo was known as one of the most influential leaders in the evangelical left and was a major proponent of progressive thought and reform within the evangelical community. He also became a leader of the Red-Letter Christian movement, which aims to put emphasis on the teachings of Jesus. Campolo was a popular commentator on religious, political, and social issues, and had been a guest on programs such as The Colbert Report, The Charlie Rose Show, Larry King Live, Nightline, Crossfire, Politically Incorrect and The Hour.

Reviews

[Philip Yancey]

Tony Campolo is a fiery Christian social activist who for sixty years has called on people to "join the revolution!" Bart Campolo is his son, a Christian activist who joined the revolution--and then lost his faith and became a humanist chaplain. To their credit, father and son compare notes with mutual respect and love. Our nation could use some of this kind of dialogue.

[Zach Christensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A beautiful book. I must say that I think it is misleading that Tony Campolo refers to himself as an Evangelical. His beliefs do not resemble Evangelical theology at all in my opinion. I can sympathize with Bart, as his beliefs withered, he saw that his Christianity had little to no contact with reality. An inerrant Bible, a God who micromanages everything, Jesus needing to serve as a punching bag for God's wrath, a place called hell where people are punished eternally for not having certain ideas in their brains, etc. all are rigorously defended by Christians because they cannot stand up on their own. Eventually they fall apart when placed under scrutiny. I was bummed that he did not entertain other perspectives within Christianity, but nonetheless, he has found a functional and fruitful way of seeing the world, and for that I cannot think less of him.

I was surprised to see an endorsement on this book from the so-called "Friendly Atheist." I have read some of what he has written and watched a few of his videos, and I have never thought "wow, what a friendly person." He does not seem friendly at all, and I would not have lunch with him even if he were paying. However, Bart seems to be quite the friendly atheist. I would definitely have lunch with him, and I bet it would be a blast, even if we talked about religion, politics, philosophy, or anything.

I enjoyed this book immensely, and I read it very swiftly over the course of two days. The art of conversing with someone who believes differently than us is something that we desperately need to reclaim in an increasingly polarized world. This book provides a great model for how to do just that. I strongly recommend picking up a copy of this dialogue, and you will be glad you did.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last time I read a book by Tony Campolo I ended up in a police manhunt so I was a little concerned about picking up this one.  I had heard about Bart Campolo leaving Christianity and working as a Humanist chaplain.  It was big news in the Christian community.  Either it was seen as proof that you can escape your upbringing or it was seen as proof that the Campolos had always been too liberal anyway so obviously they are going to go astray.

This book comes from the discussions that they had after Bart came out as not believing in God.  The book is written in alternating chapters with each man expressing their point of view on a particular topic.

The first thing that surprised me was a preface chapter written by Peggy Campolo, Tony's wife and Bart's mom.  She talks about how she didn't identify with Christianity during the early years of the Tony's ministry while her kids were growing up.  She has since become a believer and seems to feel a lot of guilt.  She thinks that if she was a Christian while Bart was growing up then he wouldn't have left as an adult.  This is typical of the baggage that gets put on parents if the children leave a religion.

I was frustrated while reading Tony's chapters.  Because Bart has now lived on both sides of the debate, he is able to discuss options openly.  Tony freely states that he has never known a life where he wasn't certain of the presence of God in his life.  It is obvious that he sees Bart as a wandering child who he hopes gets back to the right path.  In the meantime he not really listening to what he has to say.  He just seems to be patting him on the head as he speaks and then saying, "Oh, you don't mean that."

"For the Christian parents of positive secular humanists like Bart, however, I have some advice:  Take every opportunity to affirm and encourage your children whenever they say or do something that reflects your Kingdom values, and let them know that you see a direct connection between their behavior and the love of God, even if they don't.  Doing so demonstrates that you notice and appreciate your kids' goodness while maintaining your own understanding of its ultimate source, and also opens up opportunities for you to talk about what gets lost when God drops out of the picture."
 

Obviously he is still hung up on the idea that you can't be a good person if you don't have a God dictating what is right and what is wrong.  Bart does a good job discussing why this isn't true.  Too bad his father wasn't listening.

Tony also talks a lot about guilt.  He doesn't understand how people without God handle all their guilt.  He says he lies awake at night feeling guilty about all the harm he does until he is able to let God take the guilt away from him.  I don't think most people have those kinds of guilty feelings.  Has he ever considered that maybe the guilt comes from following a religion that teaches that you are a horrible person?

The idea behind this book was to help families have conversations about some members leaving Christianity.  I don't think this book fosters productive conversation because it felt to me like the humanist was explaining over and over and the Christian was just waiting for him to see things the "right" way again.  This might be better for people who need to talk to Christians.  Bart gives answers to a lot of the questions that he's been asked.  It could help to have some well thought out answers on hand for the common questions.This review was originally posted on Based On A True Story

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn’t think I would be so disappointed by this book.

While the Campolo the Younger gave decent reasoning for leaving the church, I was a bit put off by some of his discussion. (More on that later.)

And Campolo the Older gave very poor reasoning for why he stays. Once again, most of the arguments I read for a reason to go to church or believe in God fall into two camps. 1. Really crappy reasons that sound ok on the surface but don’t have any logic behind them. And, 2. Good rationale for believing in a supreme being, but not necessarily the God revealed in the Bible.

Apostasy*

Tony starts out in the forward saying:

I was completely shocked when Bart told us that he no longer believed in God.

Which I understand is a true statement - but after that, starting with this, he ends up conflating “not being a Christian” with “not believing in God”. The two aren’t exactly the same thing.

It struck me as fascinating and deeply offensive when Tony noted that in Christianity Today:

America’s foremost evangelical publication, suggested that if I had not focused so much on social issues and my concerns for the poor, Bart’s departure from Christianity might not have occurred.

Which I find profoundly foolish, since many Christians are leaving the church in droves because the church is not focused on social issues. I don’t know how Tony ended up coming to terms with that statement, but I hope he realizes how moronic it is.

When Bart talks about the beginning of the end, I can totally relate. I understand what he’s saying; where he’s coming from.

…my Christian orthodoxy, and eventually my ability to believe in anything supernatural, actually died the death of a thousand cuts—and ten thousand unanswered prayers—over the course of more than thirty years.

He continues to talk about the changes he experienced:

Over the next 30 years, the realities of my life forced one theological accommodation after another, until there was literally nothing left of my evangelical orthodoxy.

I can relate.

In Bart’s case, though, he says his worldview changed, but his values didn’t; I experienced something different. My values changed - I became more socially aware. And that changed my worldview, because I came from a church that didn’t value compassion or caring for those that need it or working for the benefit of those in our society who have less.

He states one of the things that has bothered me in the back of my head for years:

This may well be my biggest problem with evangelical Christianity: It is grounded in a bizarre, counterintuitive self-hatred that claims we have no intrinsic goodness or value of our own, but rather deserve to be eternally punished simply for being born human.

And Bart’s revelation struck me as funny, as he abandoned his faith but remained an evangelist of sorts:

Holy mackerel! Evangelizing people to love, justice, and community is going to be a whole lot easier now that I don’t have to convince them to buy a whole set of unbelievable Iron Age myths at the same time!

And he notes what a lot of believers fail to understand. It’s not that atheists or secularists believe a specific thing about God - e.g., that “God doesn’t exist”; it’s that atheists and secularists usually don’t believe because they just don’t have a reason to - there’s nothing in there experience or senses that tell them “there is a God”. Bart said, I didn’t choose not to believe in God; I just stopped believing.

And I love that he’s trying to put together humanist communities. Because, as he says:

Just because someone doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean that they aren’t interested in having transcendent experiences, cultivating compassion, expressing gratitude, and making meaning through loving relationships and sacrificial service.

And if there were more Christians that believed in some of his worldview, the world would be a better place. While I know some Christians like this, I know a lot who aren’t:

My greatest enemies aren’t supernatural delivers and their traditions, but rather the darker forces that threaten to undermine human flourishing: greed, violence, ignorance, intolerance, hunger, loneliness, boredom.

And:

I believe the fate of humanity depends on their willingness to make profound sacrifices for the sake of future generations, and on their ability to inspire others to do the same.

Remaining Faithful

But many of Tony’s statements really bothered me. I appreciate the fact that he concedes that there is an aspect of feeling to the whole thing - and I totally understand and appreciate that. But then he says things that don’t seem to be logical to me.

For example,

One of the main reasons I remain a Christian is because I love knowing that my sins are not only forgiven, but also forgotten!

I know this is a draw of Christianity. And I get it to a certain extent. But what surprised me was this self-identifying apologist seems to say here that not only does this draw him to Christianity (understandable), but it’s one of the main reasons he’s still a Christian. He makes it sound like if he didn’t believe his sins were forgiven, he might totally abandon the whole thing! This seems a bit off to me. I get it that some of the main reasons you live this life is because you actually believe it - but just because of the good feeling it gives you outside of that belief? It seems like shallow thinking for someone who professes to be a thinker.

He states that he has a long and ongoing experience of God’s abiding presence in my life. Now, this I understand. Say you believe because of your experiences (if you’re being logical). Please don’t say one of the main reasons you believe is the good feeling you get.

He also uses the crappy argument that there is no morality without God. I call bullshit on this. He says:

If there is no God, then anything is permissible.

I’m sorry, but if you have to be told not to kill someone to get you to not kill someone, you’re an asshole, and not a good person. This argument is completely horrifying.

He uses other poor arguments. Like, you’re not reading the Bible right if it doesn’t make you believe that it’s God’s word.

And his last chapter really conflates believing in God and believing in the God revealed in the Bible. Believing there is a supreme being that created the universe isn’t the same as believing that being dictated a book to men that explains how we live.

What?

There were some things that Bart said that dumbfounded me.

Honestly, even now, if there was a magic pill that could enable me to believe all that [God] again, once and for all time, I would gladly swallow it in a heartbeat, and not only because it would make my family so happy.

That’s crap. I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that Bart, believing that no God exists, would do something to make him believe something that - in his worldview - is completely false. That makes no sense. I don’t get that at all. So why not just get hypnotized into believing it again?

And the two chapters on life after death? One by each author? They made me want to throw the book away. There’s nothing good in there stating “Why I Left” or “Why I stayed.” Taken together, they’re just a big thought experiment that in the end doesn’t mean anything. Pascal’s wager is useless - unless you think God is a horrible entity. I don’t agree with either of the authors that Christians focus on heaven - because I think most Christians don’t act like they do. They (we) live their (we) life here how they (we) want, without a focus on what happens after. I think it’s a lot of lip service - at least that’s my opinion. (Because if Christians really lived like there was an afterlife, I think they would live differently. With more of a focus on love, than hate.)

Overall, I was disappointed. Tony doesn’t do a good job in his position, and though I felt a lot of what Bart felt in his leaving the faith, I feel like he said some crazy things for a secularist.

It’s really about “Why I believe Jesus is the Son of God” and “Why I believe nothing supernatural”.

*Apostasy is abandoning your religious faith

[Meghan Moore-Hubbard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can't even handle how much of this book resonated with me, from both parties. The honest dialogue between father and son was both refreshing and heartbreaking. I find myself somewhere in between the two of them but that made it all so much more meaningful!

[Andrew Pish · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who came from a strict Catholic family, who is managing his now much more open-minded beliefs as well as wondering how to have open relationships with family members who are still very religious, I found this book to be insightful, positive, and affirming. It's easy to fall into the behavior of not talking about religion or beliefs with the closest people in our lives, and that lack of communication can distance relationships. This book provides an example of how to continue to have those conversations while not forcing either side to give up their beliefs. And I think it's important to have those conversations because we're really talking about the methods of how to treat ourselves, others, and the world with more love.

Personally, I've found that beliefs too often get in the way of understanding and agreeing that we all want the same happiness, love, and joy for each other and everyone around us.

The final chapter communicates that sentiment. But I think that's a foundational sentiment that should start the conversation. If we don't first affirm our shared values, then we can find ourselves in these circular arguments of "so and so doesn't believe this because they don't understand this quote the same way I do." Which is sometimes what the book feels like. If we could all first agree, "yes we want to love each other as best we can," then why does it matter what led us there - whether it was the Bible, Jesus, a beautiful sunset, or contemplating the nature of the universe?

Bart and Tony are still clearly working out how to have that conversation, and I am so glad that they did it publicly with this book. It helps people like me who are still navigating the difficult conversations in some of my most valued relationships.

[Ben Schnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely life changing. Amazing points from both authors. I took nuggets of wisdom from both and my spiritual life has a new trajectory as a result. This is an immensely insightful book.

[Kati Skon · Rating 3 out of 5]

A challenging read from a belief standpoint, but a quick and easy read from a literary standpoint. As Fox Mulder of aliens, when it comes to the existence of God, "I want to believe." I think its important to entertain other possibilities, and I do struggle with doubt quite a bit. But I want to believe. I prefer Tony's warm, loving version of the world to Bart's cold, heartless one. But who is correct? I don't think any of us really know. I want to seek truth, but this is one area where there may be no obvious objectivity to be found. Perhaps there is and I just don't want to believe it. Both these men make compelling arguments, and I think Tony's point that we rely too much on empirical evidence to decide what is real. However, in the age of "alternative facts", it seems dangerous to believe anything we cannot personally confirm. So what is true? What is real? Is believing there's more to this life just wishful thinking? My desire believe is not really for my own sake so much as it is for all the people who suffer and deserve something greater and more beautiful than this existence. I feel a beauty in the world that doesn't align with the cruel reality that some people face. Why do we desire fairness if there is no ultimate fairness to be received? But at the same time, there are so many religions and belief systems in the world, how can we know which is true? All I know for certain is that humans believe in the Golden Rule for some reason, and it seems like the best way to make heaven on earth. I want to do my best to live this life to the fullest, but for those who can't - I hope there's something more.

[Kristin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the honesty of this book. I think it owed a lot to a shared agreement that was mentioned in the joint conclusion: "We agree that it is nearly impossible for people on opposite sides of the faith divide to have a warm, constructive conversation about religion and spirituality unless and until they first resolve to leave ultimate judgments about eternal salvation in the hands of God." This is the elephant in the room in most conversations of this persuasion. One person can't see beyond their own conviction of the other person's damnation, and the other can't see beyond the condescension of such a presumption. I've been on both sides (more the latter these days).

Tony and Bart's relationships is refreshing this way, but it doesn't take away from the honesty with which each man proclaims his convictions and suggest the error of the other side, which is important in keeping this from becoming a bland account of loving tolerance. This is a conversation, but it is also an argument. A loving, respectful argument. They touch on many big topics (this would be an awesome discussion starter for a theologically-minded book club or bible study), but without the space to really delve into huge questions about faith, morality and death, readers must be content to have their intellects merely tickled.

[hayley · Rating 4 out of 5]

The joint authorship of this book between father and son makes it particularly moving. Encountering a pair so willing to listen thoughtfully and engage with the other's beliefs is rare enough in real life, but the deep love Tony and Bart share cannot be missed, despite their diverging belief systems.

Although I left most chapters finding them helpful for a broad conversation but lacking in depth or support (at least that meant much to me), I couldn't help but be moved by each man's willingness to engage respectfully with the other. The fact that both men, through the religions they subscribe to, value treating people with love as the utmost goal is completely clear, and starting with each other shows how seriously they take this belief.

In the final chapter, which they write together, they highlight the importance of storytelling. I've come across this idea frequently over the past few years, and I can't decide whether I take it seriously or think it's a fad. The fact that art is valuable and teaches empathy and understanding seems obvious, but I question whether telling stories is vital to engaging people or simply a marketing technique masked as a means of building relationships. I don't know.

[Shirley Freeman]

I enjoyed reading this father/son dialog. At age 82, Tony Campolo is a well-known preacher and teacher of an Evangelical Christian social justice mind-set. His son Bart followed in his footsteps for many years preaching, teaching and living a life devoted the poor. At age 50ish, Bart told his parents that he had become a secular humanist - that he no longer believed in God or supernatural events or life after death. In this book, father and son take turns articulating their beliefs and the reasons for them. While they have clearly come down on different sides of the religious equation, they both agree that love is the most excellent way. As someone who comes down somewhere in the middle of their points of view, I enjoyed reading their clear voices and thinking about where I landed on the continuum. I read the digital ARC of this book to be published in February 2017.

[Chuck McKnight · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tony Campolo is one of the most gracious and well-spoken voices that I know of within Evangelicalism. For years, he has focussed his ministry on living out the “red letters” of Jesus. And for years, his son, Bart Campolo, took part in this ministry with him. But that all changed when Bart realized he no longer believed in God.

In Why I Left, Why I Stayed , Tony and Bart discuss their diverging journeys, their now-differing beliefs, and their still-shared convictions. I can hardly imagine two people better qualified to have this conversation in a way that is mutually dignifying, while still probing into the difficult questions that must be asked. And their book does not disappoint.

I have to admit that one of my strongest emotions while reading was one of jealousy. I wish I had the option to carry out such conversations with my family in the grace-filled manner here exemplified. While Bart’s journey has taken him outside of Christianity, my own has simply shifted me from the Calvinistic fundamentalism of my upbringing to a Christian faith that is more progressive, more ecumenical, and more soundly rooted in historic orthodoxy.

Yet this shift has cost me the relationship I once had with my parents and extended family. It stings for me to read how “Tony’s God-consciousness kept him from saying any hurtful words … and that it keeps Tony from replying with bitterness” (p. xv), when the experience with my relations has been so far opposite. Nonetheless, this book is important for precisely that reason. We need to see these conversations modeled in a better way.

* * *

It is refreshing to see the honesty from both sides, acknowledging that the views they hold are based more on feeling than facts.

From Tony:

I’m still a fairly good Christian apologist, but at the end of the day, I have to admit that the primary foundation of my faith is not what I know, but rather what I feel. …

I can’t remember when I did not accept the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, …. (p. 31)

And from Bart:

In my case, however, all that really matters is that over many years my ability to believe in any kind of supernatural reality gradually faded away, until I finally became convinced that the natural universe—matter, energy, and time—is all that exists. …

I didn’t choose not to believe in God; I just stopped believing. … Slowly but surely, that benevolent presence that once seemed absolutely real to me felt like an imaginary friend instead. (pp. 43–44)

* * *

But that isn’t to say that nothing more concrete plays into it. For Bart, beyond a general disbelief in the supernatural, he came to view certain elements of his father’s faith as simply unacceptable and even immoral, namely, original sin and penal substitutionary atonement.

Original sin is where the Gospel starts, isn’t it? … We are all sinful by nature, and therefore utterly incapable of redeeming ourselves and entirely deserving of eternal damnation. …

This may well be my biggest problem with evangelical Christianity: It is grounded in a bizarre, counterintuitive self-hatred that claims we have no intrinsic goodness or value of our own, but rather deserve to be eternally punished simply for being born human. Indeed, according to the “good news,” our only hope is the unmerited favor of God, which comes to us in the form of Jesus, the sacrificial lamb who suffers and dies in our place. …

Why can’t our gracious God simply forgive us, the same way Jesus taught his disciples to forgive one another? … How could slaughtering an innocent make the guilty party any more fit for divine fellowship? Parental discipline I can easily accept, but not the retributive violence of the Cross. To me, that is what’s really immoral. (pp. 93–95)

I’m actually in full agreement with Bart’s objections here. The idea of original sin is “bizarre” and “counterintuitive.” It does not accurately reflect the human condition, which is certainly flawed, but not totally depraved. And the idea that God would punish Jesus instead of us is about as immoral as it could be. God does not need a sacrifice. Indeed, God does “simply forgive us, the same way Jesus taught his disciples to forgive one another.” God’s discipline of his children is always and only parental—it is restorative, not retributive.

The notion of original sin and the retributive view of the cross are both inventions of Western Christianity. They find their origin in men like Augustine, Anselm, and Calvin, not Jesus or the Apostles. The Eastern branch of Christianity, for the entirety of its existence, has rejected these ideas. And more and more Western Christians (myself included) are coming to reject these ideas as well, restoring our theology to the more ancient faith once delivered.

* * *

I’m somewhat surprised, given what I know of him, that Tony Campolo is still holding on to these beliefs. But as progressive as he may be in many areas, this is one area in which he remains quite a bit more conservative. He critiques leaders of the emerging church and others for speaking along the same lines as his son, and he offers his own solution:

My response to such leaders has been to point out that the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement is only one explanation of how our salvation was accomplished by Jesus on the cross, and to remind them that none of them alone can contain the whole story. What happened at Calvary is far too profound to be reduced to a simple formula. I do not reject penal substitutionary atonement out of hand, but I don’t put all my theological eggs in that basket, either. The glory of our salvation is bigger than that. (p. 97)

On the one hand, I completely agree that no one theory of atonement can capture everything that happened. As just a few quick examples, the recapitulation, Christus victor, moral influence, and mimetic views of atonement (among many others) all point to elements of truth, and we are better off using all of them together than any one of them on its own. However, unlike these other views of atonement, penal substitution does not in any way point us to the truth. It actually points us away from the truth that God is love and that his forgiveness is unconditional. I don’t believe it has any legitimate place within Christian theology, and I think it should indeed be rejected out of hand.

* * *

But I don’t mean to be too harsh on Tony. His overall understanding of the Christian message is so much better than the majority of Evangelicalism. For example, he shared some of his views by recounting an interaction he had with his students years ago. Here are a few snippets to gain a better idea of what Tony is all about:

“Look,” I resumed, “as I was listening to you list the traits of humanness, something kept telling me that you were also describing what God is like. God is all the things that you are telling me you want to be. Then it hit me—humanness and Godness are one and the same. You want to be everything that Jesus was and is. What you call being human is really being Christlike.” …

One of my students said, “If Godness is humanness and vice versa, then we need a new way of talking about Jesus. Jesus is God because He is fully human, not in spite of His humanness. When I was a kid growing up in Sunday school, it seemed weird to me that God could be a man, but if I follow what you are saying, it is the most logical thing in the world. Jesus was God because He was fully human and He is fully human because He was God. In Jesus, everything that God is was revealed and everything that a human being is supposed to be was realized, and both of these were one and the same. …”

“That’s right,” I chimed in. “Each of the rest of us is still in the process of becoming human. Only Jesus is the fullness of what we aspire to become. …” …

“To be saved from sin is to be delivered from this and every other kind of alienation. Is is to enter into a personal relationship with the ultimate human, being transformed into His likeness to enjoy the ecstasy of full aliveness.” (pp. 80–83)

Now this is the kind of Christianity I believe. This is faith of the early church. This is theosis—the idea that “the Son of God became man so that we might become God,” as Athanasius so famously put it in his On the Incarnation.

* * *

Returning to Bart, if he no longer believes in God, what does he believe in these days? In a word, love. More specifically, Bart’s purpose is “living a life of love” (p. 64). He grounds his morality in the Golden Rule, which he sees as coming from the shared traditions of humanity, rather than from Jesus in particular (p. 105, a debatable claim, but one I won’t press at the moment). So Bart’s moral center would seem to remain the same as Christianity, even if he thinks these concepts originated elsewhere. Christian morality has never been about following a list of dos and don’ts, but about living a life of love, based on the Golden Rule.

Why, then, does he reject Christianity? Is it because of the objectionable elements considered earlier? Surely not. I can’t believe that one as well-read as Bart is unaware of the immense Christian tradition that agrees with him in rejecting these things. Per my reading of his words, it seems like Bart’s rejection of Christianity really boils down to one thing: he can no longer believe in the supernatural.

At the same time, I can’t help but think that Bart remains in some ways more Christian than many who still identify as such. The First Epistle of John makes it clear that “love is from God, and everyone who loves is born from God and knows God,” and furthermore, “God is love, and those who remain in love remain in God and God remains in them” (1 John 4:7, 16, CEB). If Bart is continuing to live a life of love based on Jesus’ Golden Rule (and I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of Bart’s love), then John’s words appear fairly straightforward. Bart remains in God, and God remains in Bart. Though Bart may, for now, have lost his ability to believe in God, God still believes in Bart.

* * *

As I wrap up my review, I want to emphasize again what a refreshing read this was. Both Tony and Bart shine in their humility toward one another, and they have left us an exemplary model for working through these difficult matters with those who are closest to us. I’ll end with one more quote, from their joint conclusion.

As we said at the beginning, while we come to it differently, each of us always reaches the same conclusion about this life: Love is the most excellent way. Moreover, each of us is both sure and content that the other has found that way. For now, at least, that is enough. (p. 158)

Disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from HarperOne in exchange for an honest review. This review has been adapted from one originally written for my blog, HippieHeretic.com.

[June · Rating 3 out of 5]

After learning that Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is a member of the Pentecostal Church, I looked for a book in the library to try to find out more about Pentecostalism.

This book was all I could find and it goes someway towards describing some aspects of Pentecostalism.

I found it quite alarming that this is the church that Scott Morrison and his family are members of.

[Angel Sanabria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesante diálogo entre un ministro religioso y su hijo ateo; no obstante, los argumentos de ambos me parecen un tanto débiles, los dos tienen posturas muy fijas, los dos creen: uno a que sí y el otro a que no. El hijo pierde la fe a los cincuenta y tantos años, después de una vida dedicada a la religión, sus motivos: una experiencia cercana a la muerte, el clásico problema del sufrimiento y la influencia de los "nuevos ateos"; ahora dice vivir más plenamente, luchando por la paz, la justicia, el amor. ¿No lo hacía antes? Él asegura que sí. ¿Entonces, cuál es la diferencia? Ambos quieren disfrutar la vida presente, no piensan que se deba sacrificar en aras de una vida en el más allá. En eso coincido con ellos, pero el creyente argumenta que hay que vivirla al máximo, porque nos llevaremos nuestros recuerdos a la siguiente vida; el ateo sostiene que hay que disfrutarla porque no hay otra más que ésta. ¿Notan la semejanza diametralmente opuesta? No me convencen estos planteamientos. Yo no valoro la vida por su cantidad, sino por su calidad; no la aprecio porque vaya a continuar en otra vida (aunque lo espero), ni porque sólo tengamos ésta (¿cómo asegurarlo?). Yo amo la vida porque siento que todo en ella es gracia, es un regalo, es belleza que me abraza, que me seduce, que me aplasta; que me conmueve hasta las lágrimas, ya sea una alfombra de nubes, la brisa del mar, la caricia del sol, la sinfonía de la naturaleza, sus paisajes, el aroma del campo, la sonrisa de los niños, el encanto de las personas, el abrazo de mis seres queridos; todo, todo, todo me estremece, y aunque el sufrimiento y el dolor no me gustan, sé que forman parte de este universo tan grande, tan maravilloso; aún si fueran el precio que habría que pagar por existir en este mundo, vale la pena tenerlos, porque conforman los claroscuros de la vida, los contrapuntos de la armonía cósmica. ¿Qué se necesita, pues, para disfrutar la vida: ser creyente, ser ateo? Pienso que eso no lo determina, sino ser verdaderamente humano y tener un corazón agradecido. Campolo padre da las gracias al Dios cristiano, Campolo hijo a la buena estrella del Big Bang. Por mi parte, yo digo: ¡Amén! a aquél que dijo: "Si Dios existe, todo es gracia".

[Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book for anyone who is an atheist struggling to communicate with religious parents or other loved ones as well as religious folks struggling to understand their atheist loved ones. It's a short book, but I felt like it touched on a lot of important topics. The chapters on death are particularly meaningful for me personally. Because it's coauthored by a Christian pastor and his secular humanist atheist son, each topic is discussed from both perspectives. It gave more of a way to see the other side's point of view than explicit advice, but there is some excellent advice in there for people on both sides of the divide. I think if I am ever able to speak with my family about our differences, I'll be much better equipped to do so in a way that has the best chance of preserving the relationship thanks to this book.

I had never heard of Tony Campolo before, even though he's apparently a huge deal, and this didn't detract from my appreciation of the book. I found some of the things he said to be absurd, but was surprised at how much common ground Bart still felt like he had with him. (To be fair, I didn't agree 100% with Bart either, especially when it comes to his warm feelings about his former religion.) I wish this book was mandatory reading for people somehow, because it really hits home how often what we feel are insurmountable divides are actually not such a big deal when we stop and listen to each other, not with the goal of converting the other person to our way of thinking but to understand them and learn from them.

I borrowed this book from the library, but I plan on buying a copy so that I can reread it, lend it out, and possibly leave it lying about with the hope that it sparks a conversation. Highly recommended.

[Patrick Eckhardt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very good book. I probably would have given it five stars, but I'm trying to do less of that. Because I mostly only give five stars.

The good: Peggy's forward set the tone of difficult honesty that followed in the rest of the book. It was really interesting to read what is more or less a dialogue between two people who love each other dearly and yet live at huge epistemological odds with one another. It showed a level of grace and care - and even faith in one another and in the reading public. Tony shines when he's engaged with sociology and the human brain. Bart is really an engaging writer who tackles humanism with the same fervor he once tackled evangelism.

The disappointing part, to me, was when Tony focused less on himself and more on "the other." He spent a decent amount of time explaining what the secularized believe or feel, or can't believe, or can't feel. And several of the areas felt a bit trite (e.g. you can't be a moral person without a belief structure). Bart, on the other hand, wrote less about "this is where the other is at" and more about "this is where I'm at and how I got there." It was (in my reading) a more compelling narrative. I wish Tony had focused more on what it means to be a person of faith, rather than a somewhat apophatic discussion of the unbeliever.

Certainly worth reading, and I can see this being a very valuable resource to families struggling with divergent beliefs.

[Sandra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hardly know how to rate this book. It made me mad and sad in equal measures and sometimes at the same time.

It is certainly a book that should be read by any Christian parent who has children who have turned their backs on Christianity. The book does not give any easy answers to any questions that might trouble these parents but it may relieve the guilt that often accompanies some of these situations.

[Geoff Little · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rarely does a non-fiction title feel so personal without descending into emotionalism. Super-well edited among its many strengths. I have a deep Evangelical fundamentalist upbringing, with the obligatory fallout of a curious, empathetic, 21st century human. So, this book seemed to be reading me--as much as I it. Much recommended if this sort of thing is familiar.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's probably clear which side I was on here, but the point is that the sides can come together, in some way?

At least to be heard?

And that is a great thing.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best in genre

Bookmarking for further comment later, will edit. Very much worth the read. Fabulous tone of each being a caring human .

[Emily W · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full disclaimer: This review will be incredibly biased and mostly based off my emotional responses. If you want a more neutral review, this is not it.

I am someone who has been in both Tony's position, looking to understand people like Bart, and in Bart's position, looking back on how much he had changed now that he no longer held the same beliefs as Tony. If I had read this book at a different time of my life, I would have responded and felt very differently about it.

I related to a lot of the experiences and thought processes that Bart talked about, however Tony's view of Bart sometimes seemed like he couldn't fully accept Bart's perspective. I think this is partially due to the cognitive dissonance a lot of people will feel in similar situations, myself included—you can't fully understand the perspective of someone who once truly believed but now doesn't, because it doesn't fit in with your framework of understanding the world. Consequently, Tony occasionally seemed invalidating of Bart's perspective and experience.

While I definitely appreciated this book and the conversation it has, I think it will always be unbalanced in that Bart understands what it's like to see things from Tony's perspective, but Tony does not understand Bart's experience.

[Mari · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting for the first half, but the second half turned into a theology discussion, which I didn't find interesting.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE POWERFUL AND EMOTIONAL STORY OF A PROMINENT EVANGELICAL’S SON LEAVING THE FAITH

The Preface to this 2017 book states, “We are not unusual. Many Christian parents are struggling, both emotionally and spiritually, because their children have left the Christian faith… Our family has struggled as well, but we haven’t stopped talking---or caring. Hopefully, this book models a graceful way to process what has become an increasingly common crisis, while also serving as a safe forum for those struggling with doubt and questions about the Christian faith. Such issues can sometimes feel too overwhelming and threatening to discuss openly… but we think a dialogue like ours can make room for our readers to think through and meditate on some of life’s ultimate issues. In this book, we want you to see how conversations about heartrending differences can be carried out in such a way that it can truly be said that both a Christian father and his humanist son heeded the plea of the apostle Paul to be kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving to one another in all things.”

Peggy Campolo, the wife/mother, wrote in her Foreword, “What convinces me of how serious Bart is about not believing in God is the fact that admitting it has made his life almost impossibly difficult. All of the places where he had worked, spoken, and run conferences were Christian places. He is no longer able to lead or work at any of them. Practically speaking, at just over fifty years of age, my son finds himself having to start his professional life all over again.”

The father, Tony Campolo [TC] wrote in the first chapter, “I’m a lifelong follower of Jesus, a prominent evangelical and an emeritus professor of sociology at a Christian university. So., it is difficult … to describe how I felt on Thanksgiving evening in 2014 when… my middle-aged son, Bart, told his mother and me that he no longer believed in God.” (Pg. 1) He wondered, “‘Was his departure somehow my fault?’ This last question troubled me even more when an editorial in ‘Christianity Today’… suggested that if I had not focused so much on social issues and on my concerns for the poor, Bart’s departure from Christianity might not have occurred… Fortunately, there would soon be plenty of time for the two of us to talk… I booked a weeklong speaking tour in England, and Bart enthusiastically agreed to go with me… [I prayed that] I would say things that would help bring him back to faith. He, on the other hand, wanted to help me understand what had led him away from Christianity…” (Pg. 3-4)

The son, Bart Campolo, explains, “people often ask exactly when I lost my faith, as though there were a single moment when the scales fell from my eyes. But the truth is that my Christian orthodoxy, and eventually my ability to believe in anything supernatural, actually died the death of a thousand cuts---and ten thousand unanswered prayers---over the course of more than thirty years.” (Pg. 12) He continues, “First of all, I decided that God wasn’t actually in control of everything that happened in this world after all, and then I decided that there must be some kind of back door to heaven reserved for good people who didn’t manage to come to Jesus before they died… I didn’t know it then, of course, but that was the beginning of the end for me.” (Pg. 15)

He goes on, “It was the content of our faith that kept shrinking, not its intensity. Hell was long gone by then… Biblical inerrancy was too, thanks to our gay friends. Later, as we saw one beloved child after another crushed by neglect and abuse, along with loving couples unable to conceive, young parents dying of cancer, and addicted friends relapsing… .despite our desperate prayers, the idea that God could do anything more than grieve with us slipped away too… the more I thought about the Cross, the more I wondered why God couldn’t just forgive us without killing anybody, the way He tells us to forgive one another.” (Pg. 17)

He explains, “For reasons beyond my control, I simply stopped believing in God. The rest are just details. It would be different, of course, had switched from Protestant to Catholic or Greek Orthodox, or jumped all the way over to Judaism or Islam… In any of those cases, the particulars of my theology… would be much more relevant. In my case, however, all that really matters is that over many years my ability to believe in any kind of supernatural reality gradually faded away, until I finally became convinced that the natural universe … is all that exists.” (Pg. 43)

He recalls, “Nowadays… I have mixed feelings about Professors Barr and Barth, because together they kept mt an evangelical Christian long after I otherwise would have given it up…. I continued to build my life… on a biblical foundation whose first cracks hadn’t really been fixed, only patched over. Why didn’t I recognize that very complicated theological gymnastics Barth was doing in order to protect the Bible from its own mistakes?... Really, the answer is simple: Because I was absolutely convinced that the God behind that Gospel was not only real, but fully operational in my own life.” (Pg. 47-48)

Tony laments, “both my wife and I still ask ourselves where we went wrong… I worry that I should have set a better example by staying home and serving the poor myself instead of flying around the world talking about it, while Peggy wonders how different things might be had she already trusted Jesus when our kids were growing up. In the end, however, we kept reminding ourselves that … we did our best to support and encourage that relationship. And we keep praying, of course, on behalf of our prodigal son.” (Pg. 62)

Bart observes, “To me… Jesus is almost entirely inaccessible. I’ve never seen his photograph, listened to a recording of his voice, or read a single sentence that can be surely ascribed to him, let alone met him in person or known someone else who did… I know plenty of folks who claim those [gospel] accounts clearly reveal his personality, but as far as I’m concerned, the biblical record of Jesus is far too sketchy for anyone to claim they really know Jesus’s character.” (Pg. 90-91)

He summarizes, “I know lots of people who quite obviously do not deserve eternal damnation… We all know people like that. We all know some little children too, and no matter how badly they misbehave, we wouldn’t condemn a single one to burn in hell. So then, why would God? This may well be my biggest problem with evangelical Christianity. It is grounded in a bizarre, counterintuitive self-hatred that claims we have no intrinsic goodness or value of our own, but rather deserve to be eternally punished simply for being born human… I mean really, even if we do need to be forgiven by God for … falling short of moral perfection, why must anyone be murdered in the process?... the whole setup makes no sense… we certainly wouldn’t torture and kill a blameless bystander in order to justify letting the real culprit off the hook. What good would that do, anyway?... Parental discipline I can accept, but not the retributive violence of the Cross. To me, that is what’s really immoral.” (Pg. 94-95)

He concludes, “if I am honest, I don’t want to live forever… at some point… You’ve had enough. You’re ready to go to sleep.” (Pg. 133) He adds, “the fact that I pledge allegiance to this world and this life doesn’t mean that I think either of them has any overarching purpose of design. For better or worse, I’m afraid, my answer to the greatest of philosophical questions---What is the meaning of life?---is that there isn’t one. In short, the universe doesn’t care.” (Pg. 144-145)

Both Tony and Bart wrote in the final chapter, “It may well be that one day, someday, Bart will see this heavenly vision realized and understand for all time that he was utterly mistaken about where it came from. Or perhaps, if Bart is right, Tony will close his eyes in the end and never discover that this mortal life was the only one he had in which to pursue it. In the end, undeniably, each of us believes the other is missing out on something infinitely valuable by persisting in his foolishness. What neither of us believes, however, is that the other is a fool… Moreover, each of us is both sure and content that the other has found that way. For now, at least, that is enough.” (Pg. 157-158)

This is a fascinating book, that will interest a wide variety of readers---from ALL perspectives of the issues.

[Amber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Considering the topic and nature of this book, and our current political climate, I think it well deserves 5 stars. This open dialogue between father and son depicts how two people with fundamentally different belief systems can be also be so similar in philosophy for how one should live one's life. They don't point fingers or out-rightly tell the other they are wrong - they simply stand up for the way they see things, and are willing to listen to the the other's point of view in return. Their conversation kept me turning the pages as I waited for each to make their counterpoints to the other's position in each chapter.

Reflecting on this on a personal level, I have been deeply invested in fundamental Christian beliefs as well as being deeply invested in more liberal Christian Lutheran (ELCA) theology and philosophy; today I would say, while traditionally and culturally I am still Christian, my spirituality and beliefs come closer to those of Buddhism or of a spiritual agnostic. Twenty-four years ago, as a 15 year old in the beginning stages of my fundamental Christian philosophy and lifestyle, I had the great pleasure of hearing Tony Campolo speak at the 1996 National Lutheran Youth Gathering in Atlanta, GA. I only remember bits of what he said, but I do remember his message being quite different than what I was hearing from the pulpit at that time in my life, and his profound words sent me a message that I needed back then. As I grew older, I attended a Lutheran based liberal arts university and majored in both psychology and religious studies; from here my belief system evolved to fit what I was learning, and I began to leave my fundamental roots. Tony made a point, as a sociologist and minister, that he and we as humans change our religious beliefs to fit what makes us comfortable as we evolve as people. While I wholeheartedly agree with him, I think this was his downfall in making any case for Christianity in and of itself. Since graduating from college, I have moved on to do a lot of theological and philosophical research and thinking in the years since I finished college, and spent the last four years studying the science of mental health counseling, which included some education on how the brain works. Bart made some very valid points on how are brains are hardwired to respond to human connection and belief systems that make us feel safe. Bart basically makes the same argument as Tony, which better supports Barts belief system of humanism and refutes Tony's argument.

In general, I think Tony made some great cases for the probability of the existence of God, but not for Christianity being the way to God. On the other side of it, Bart made some great arguments against the basic belief system of fundamental Christianity, but I don't believe he made any good points for the non-existence of God. As scientists we know that there is so much more to be known. In the end, while I lean more toward Bart's point of view, I do not really agree with either of them. It is not as black and white as they make it.

[Felicite Reads · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was one long eye roll. I didn't even finish the conclusion.

I don't think I'd suggest this book to anyone because it really only fits a certain type of Christian and a certain type of atheist. Granted, I did learn a few things about some Christian thought but I understand it's not the same from Christian to Christian.

As an atheist, I agree with a lot of what Bart says; however, he's the sort of person you'd see at an "atheist church." I went to one of those a couple years back and it's just not for me. It's for folks looking for fellowship, etc.

I want to make this a review and not a critique of Tony's thoughts, but I have so many problems with the shit he said.

Pg. 32, Tony discusses sins and guilt. He writes, "I sometimes wonder how people like Bart, who no longer believe in the grace of God, handle their guilt. Perhaps, as Sigmund Freud suggested, they repress it by burying the memories of past sins deep within themselves."
First, anyone can repress guilt and sins. Second, there are lots of available options: make amends with whoever you hurt; do something good (like volunteer) to make yourself feel better or to make amendments; don't do whatever you did to anyone else or ever again.
He concludes the paragraph by stating "One of the main reasons I remain a Christian is because I love knowing that m sins are not only forgiven, but forgotten!"
How frightening. I wish I had a photo from Russell's "Corn-dog in Chief" where the killer bot (I forgot the actual name of the thing..) goes to church and says something like "I'm interested in your apology based religion." CAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

Tony doesn't know how people maintain morales without religion. I get it, society isn't very nice, but plenty of atheists know how to be good people without god. We aren't monsters. In fact, many of us are pretty liberal. The atheists I know (in real life and online) tend to be feminists, pro-choice (even if they wouldn't get an abortion themselves), supportive of the LGBTQ+ community, donate and volunteer, etc.

Bart pointed out how inconsistent the bible is how there are numerous contradictions. Tony's reposes was to say that the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally. Check out pgs 102-03.

I could go on, but it took me so long to read this book... I just want to be done with it.

So, in review, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.

[dp · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a wonderfully insightful and concise interfaith dialogue between a Christian and Humanist father and son, respectively. Tony and Bart Campolo are an excellent model for the necessity of love and respect to be the starting, middle, ending points when it comes to atheist & Christian relations, especially between close family members or friends.

What good is faith in God without love for people? Christians must avoid the destructive trappings of blind fundamentalism. And how can Humanists accomplish their goals of unity, equality, and compassion between all people, regardless of difference, unless they genuinely listen to and love the religious people in their lives? Secular people cannot embrace the irrational, belligerent, and malicious generalizations & tactics of the "New Atheists".

Religion is not inherently evil and poisonous, and all religious people are not stupid or blind. Atheists are not utterly depraved heathens prone to murder and rape with reckless abandon, simply because they no longer believe in a transcendent Creator. We have to do better and remember that extremism and fundamentalism (which is present on both sides of the divide) aside, we are fundamentally of the same stock, despite our philosophical/religious underpinnings. There are terrible people who believe in God, and terrible people who are atheists. There are good people who believe in God, and good people who are atheists. No more generalizations and stereotypes. We need to lay down our presuppositions and treat each other how we wish to be treated if we want to help make this world a better place, regardless of how we view its ultimate origin and destiny.

[Drick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tony and Bart Campolo have been exemplars for me, mostly from a distance, although I have had occasion to speak personally with both of them. So it was with great interest that I picked up this book sharing an honest and loving conversation between Tony and Bart on their respective views on Christian faith and secular humanism. The book begins with the story of a Thanksgiving dinner a few years back where Bart told his parents he no longer considered himself a Christian and had embraced secular humanism. What then follows is a dialogue on various aspects of their respective "faiths". Not only are both honest about their areas of disagreement, but also their affirmations of each other. Unlike some who have rejected their religious upbringing, Bart has a great appreciation for the years he was an evangelical Christian leader and what it taught him; at the same time he knows all the standard responses to people like him, so he offers a strong defense of his current embrace of secular humanism. By contrast, Tony shares some deeply personal aspects of his evangelical faith, which has often been debunked by other evangelicals. While ultimately I side with Tony in considering myself a follower of Jesus, I found more often than not that I shared Bart's critiques, just not his conclusions. What for him was a reason to leave Christianity, is for me a reason to broaden my understanding of it. As such this is a well-written, thoughtful book that is an excellent model of interfaith dialogue between a father and a son, whose love and respect for each other remains.

[Lance · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I read this, I couldn't help but compare it to Letters From A Skeptic: A Son Wrestles With His Father's Questions About Christianity, and this book wins greatly in the comparison. Instead of being the one-sided recounting by a theologian son of how he misled his unsuspecting father, this is a collaboration between two equally-skilled, respectful men.

As a skeptic/atheist/humanist, I found Bart Compolo's chapters to be much better written - they seemed to be straightforward explanations to what we can know and can't, and how we should continue treating each other well. In comparison, I found Tony Compolo's chapters to be speculative, based in wishful thinking and hand-waving, and even occasionally offensively dismissive of the contrary viewpoint.

Of course, it's quite possible that a Christian would have the exact opposite impressions. I don't know.

I will likely give this book to family members who have not heard or taken to heart Tony Campolo's suggestion not to "lose tempers, become emotionally manipulative, or become paralyzed by fear" and instead to Trust God and focus on a loving, trusting relationship.

[Paige Zalewski · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book didn't profoundly change me or my views in any life altering way, I did enjoy the read and really loved seeing the Christian viewpoint and then a few pages later hearing a "humanist" or atheist viewpoint.

What I loved the most about this book, and deeply appreciate, was how it erases all the hatred between these two groups. Growing up religious, the word "atheist" left a bad taste in my mouth, because I ALWAYS associated it with people who called me foolish, naive, stupid, and many other insults. To put it simply, I felt as though I had nothing in common with these people.

Over the years I've (luckily) been exposed to people of many different faith or lack of faith, but I'll be the first to admit the word atheist still made me feel some sort of way. After this book, I was so pleasantly surprised to really hear about Bart's atheist views all centered around love, human connection, and making the most of this one life he believes we live. At some points, it was some of the most beautiful philosophy I've read.

My favorite quote comes from the last page, and I think many people could benefit from reading it: "What neither of us believes, however, is that the other is a fool."

[Ember DeBoer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like this is a necessary read for anyone who is currently struggling to have interfaith discussions of any kind (most everyone these days). It's a series of essays based on conversations between a Christian father and his former-Christian son. Each makes his case for his beliefs, but they also come to a common agreement that despite their different theologies (or lack thereof), their basic worldview (how to treat people, how we should be focusing our time/energy on this Earth) is essentially the same. It is a template for families struggling to work through differences with their beliefs without feeling the need to persuade the other "side" to come around to their way of thinking. As humans, we ultimately do not know our fate, but fear often colors our actions and leads us to act in desperate ways to "save" loved ones from a negative eternal outcome. Things are bound to get difficult during such conversations, but I was encouraged to hear that this family was able to leave the ultimate question of who is "right" and who is "wrong" in the hands of God/the Universe and focus on love and acceptance as the foundation of their relationship.