Tony Campolo is the author of the new book Red Letter Christians: A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics. He was recently featured on my favorite TV program (that is, my favorite TV program during the Red Sox’s offseason), the Colbert Report. Here is the clip of Tony on the Colbert Report.
I honestly admire Campolo’s passion for social justice because I share the same passion. I also like the idea of getting beyond the Republican/Democrat divide. In theory I like it, whether or not that is even possible in reality is another question.
But, I don’t understand the basis for the “Red Letter Christian” movement. I understand the basic premise: follow the teachings of Jesus. But the whole concept of “red letters” is so fundamentally flawed that any movement or community that is built on the concept of “red letters” seems to be held hostage by the same fundamental flaws.
The flaws, as I see them, are as follows:
1. The “red letters” in the Bible are not the actual words of Jesus. Rather, they are the words of Jesus conveyed through and interpreted by the Gospel authors. To rip the “red letters” out of the context of the overall narrative that the Gospel authors are constructing is to miss the points they are trying to make. They present Jesus as speaking these words not to provide disconnected, pithy sayings that can be ripped out of context and applied in any or all situations, but as part of the very fabric of their narratives.
2. Because of this, the black letters of the Bible are no less important than the “red letters.” To say that they are is to write off a majority of our Scripture or to pin one part of Scripture against another with little warrant. The only warrant one would have is that printers, at some point in history, used a different color ink to print the words of Jesus. Could you make an argument that those printers were inspired? (That’s a joke)
3. The whole concept is based on a misconstrued doctrine of Scripture that, in certain ways, mirrors both Marcion and Thomas Jefferson. In the words of the author of 2 Timothy, all Scripture is profitable, not just the “red letters” (which, of course, were not even in existence at that point). You cannot justifiably cut up the Bible and decide what sections you are going to believe and/or base your actions upon. It is the whole counsel of God that a Christian is to believe, obey, and base their lives upon.
4. The red words do not make sense of Jesus without the black words. As Meade said in his comment, “Jesus said be perfect because I’m perfect and then proceeded to love very imperfect people. Without the black letters you don’t have a very attractive Jesus.”
5. Social justice was not just a teaching of Jesus. If one understands the law codes of the OT, one can see, perhaps even more clearly, a picture of God’s heart for the poor, the orphan, and the widow. Paul, as well, is countercultural in many of his teachings relating to social justice: from his passion for the poor, his provocative teaching on slavery, and his positive attitude towards the place of woman in the community. To base a movement on only the “red letters” and then preach social justice does two things which are both untrue: it leads people to believe that only Jesus was worried about social justice while the rest of the Bible is silent on the issue and it misses the rich teachings on social justice in the rest of Scripture (I mean, read Isaiah sometime!).
These are just some of my thoughts off the top of my head. I don’t want to discount Campolo’s passion for social justice, I just want it to be as robust and Biblical as it can be. At this point, I believe it falls short of that.
20 February 2008 at 1.03 pm
In fact the words of Jesus are often the most troubling of the Bible. Jesus spoke the MOST commanding and exclusive and hard teachings of any teacher in history. Yet he practiced the most accepting, non-exclusive love. Ironically you only see that if you read the black letters. Jesus said be perfect because I’m perfect and then proceeded to love very imperfect people. Without the black letters you don’t have a very attractive Jesus.
20 February 2008 at 1.53 pm
I used to love having a red letter Bible, but I think that’s because I just appreciated the aesthetic of the two-tone look
But in all seriousness, you raise some very good points. And just as Meade says, you can’t understand the red without the black, and vice versa.
I wonder what really was the motivation behind the idea to put the words of Christ in red letter.
20 February 2008 at 2.03 pm
Meade: Great point. I’m going to add that to the post.
Jake: The origins are actually really strange. Louis Klopsch was a German immigrant who was the editor of The Christian Herald from 1890 until his death in 1910. He was struck by Luke 22.20 (“This cup is the new blood in my blood, which I shed for you”) and wanted to use red to print the words of Christ to symbolize the blood of the new covenant. The first versions printed around 1899 only printed the words of Christ in the Gospels in read, but later versions included the quotes Acts and Revelation as well.
20 February 2008 at 2.07 pm
I have always wondered what the frick the Red Letter folks were thinking? Not about the Social Justices part…I love that, but about the Red Letter part. Why not just publicly come out and say that you are rejecting the authority of most of scripture? Declare Moses, Paul, James, Jude and Peter wrong and move on with it. Also they should tell us that when Paul tells Timothy that all scripture is God breathed that he was just kidding…oh wait they can not comment on that it is in the wrong color.
If you believe that scripture is from God then every letter in the book is a “red letter,” beyond that every letter in the book explains the plans, ways and purposes of the one who spoke the “red letters,” from Genesis to Revelation.
21 February 2008 at 8.53 pm
I keep wondering what social justice is. Could someone explain? Paul doesn’t seem overly concerned about social justice when he refuses to assist some widows in 1 Tim 5.
I wonder, would a just society mean no poverty, no hunger, no war? Is it the church’s job to execute social justice? If so, why is this view not theonomy?
21 February 2008 at 9.42 pm
Dr. Hart: I wish that you were joking, but I heard your chapel message last week and, therefore, know that you are not.
Social justice is, quite easily, working against injustice being done to a human and/or group of humans. I don’t honestly believe that you were asking but, rather, being snide, so I will not go any further defining it.
Paul, however, explicitly states that he is eager to care for the poor in Galatians 2.10, most likely because he was living according the the teachings of the prophets, most notably Isaiah and Amos, who cared deeply about the poor, the orphan, the widow and the oppressed. Or perhaps he was just following the teachings of Jesus who stated,
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”
Or maybe he was following the teachings of James who clearly states: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, and the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
If you would like to participate in an impure and defiled religion that does not do these things, then be my guest sir. Just don’t ask the rest of us to join you.
21 February 2008 at 11.09 pm
I once read some interesting research that showed people understand and remember significantly less of what they read in red type than they do in black. Which struck me as somewhat ironic.
22 February 2008 at 6.19 am
Aboulet: why call caring for the poor and destitute “justice”? Why not call it charity? I don’t understand why the church or Christians would want to drape themselves in the language of justice when they know that if justice were to be meeted out they’d come out on the short end of the stick. In other words, sinners talking about justice is a little like Capt. Renault in Casablanca pocketing his gambling winnings and declaring that he is “shocked, shocked” to hear that gambling is going on at Rick’s club.
I also am not sure why you would assume that my talk at WTS contradicted the passages you quote. Just because the church doesn’t provide welfare assistance to everyone in a neighborhood doesn’t mean that members of said church are uninvolved in various forms of charity. It seems to me one of the conceits of modern Christianity that we who have certain talents or interests (what some would even call “ministries”) then want the church to embrace them as part of its “ministry.” Whatever happened to vocation and the idea that some Christians may be called to carry their Christian duties in ways that other Christians can’t.
For instance, I’d hate to see Christian farmers take Keller’s view on the city seriously. Then there would be no farms and no food.
22 February 2008 at 4.25 pm
Dr. Hart said Whatever happened to vocation and the idea that some Christians may be called to carry their Christian duties in ways that other Christians can’t.
I do not want to contradict this statement in any way. I fully agree that some Christians may be called to minister to the poor while others may not. Forcing a Christian to act in a certain way that does not corresponds to their gift set or calling is not Biblical Christianity, but, rather, a new form of legalism. I hope that this clears some things up. I am not supporting the idea that the church should “provide welfare assistance to everyone in a neighborhood,” but, rather, that Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus when it comes to caring for their neighbors. I have a hard time with the idea that a Christian family could live next to a family that cannot afford to put food on the table and yet the Christian family do nothing about this. I don’t think the point in that situation is what gifts the family members have. Rather, I think the point is living according to how Jesus has taught us to live.
Why not call it charity? I honestly care little about what it is called, so long as Christians are living outwardly instead of becoming so ingrown that their faith means little more than their preference for blue cheese over gorgonzola.
I understand that Theonomy is a big issue. I just want to say upfront that I am not supporting, nor want to support Theonomy in any way. I just want to encourage people to live their lives patterned after the teachings of Scripture and to live their lives as new creatures in Christ. I hope that we can both agree with this.
And my comment about your chapel message was just me being snide. I do apologize for that. It was unwise for me to say.
22 February 2008 at 5.13 pm
Nicholas Wolterstorff’s recent book on justice makes a good case for the use of the term “justice” with regard to “charity” (among other things), rooting it in the Scriptures and the development of Christian thought.
Or, from another perspective, as Aquinas puts it, “whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor.” He goes on to quote Ambrose: “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
If, at the margins, those who are without have a right to receive charity from those with more than they need, so that those who refuse charity are thieves, then charity is a matter of justice.
This is certainly the vocation of Christians individually, as their well-formed and prudent discernments lead them to act charitably towards others. But I can’t see why this should be limited to individual activity.
Communities and associations make discernments too, which is why churches, governments, guilds, businesses, and others may also rightly discern their callings to meet particular needs of those they serve. Almsgiving seems integral to the calling of the church in a way that other callings might not.
24 February 2008 at 9.06 am
Art, over at Conn-versation you say that times have changed since old WTS. Here’s one way they have changed. Since the 1960s social justice is a loaded phrase that many use for the sake of redistributing income. Some call the state taking away personal property with the threat of imprisonment or worse is unjust. You may not care about the terminology, but I doubt you’d like social justice to be synonymous with communism. I’m not saying it is. I’m only saying that using words precisely matters.
Garver helps to make that point by appealing to an older version of just, one that almost no one uses except Roman Catholics of a pre-Vatican II variety. If people wanted to use justice in its Thomistic sense I’d be much happier. But I don’t think that’s the way the health care debate is being framed.
As for individuals versus organizations, the problem with not seeing the difficulty for a church engaging in some kind of mercy ministry beyond the membership of the congregation is that the church needs a thus sayeth the Lord to do so. Individuals have liberty of conscience to do a variety of things that the Bible doesn’t forbid. I for one am still waiting to hear an exegetical case for mercy ministry that does justice (sorry) to 1 Tim 5 where Paul says that some widows don’t qualify for deaconal assistance. Is this an example of how Paul and James keep contradicting each other? Or maybe Paul and James (on widows and orphans) need to be interpreted together.
24 February 2008 at 10.56 am
Darryl, by “membership of the congregation” do you mean the local congregation or just church membership in general? If the latter, you might have an argument. But the former seems more problematic. After all, Paul engaged in what I suppose we would think of as international famine relief for the churches of Palestine.
24 February 2008 at 3.09 pm
Garver: since I’m a hard core denominationalist, yes, the congregation and denomination. And in my ecumenical moments I’d even extend it to ccommunions with whom my denomination has fraternal relations. Calvary Glenside has been helping out Nigerians for a while.
25 February 2008 at 10.27 am
Dr. Hart: I for one am still waiting to hear an exegetical case for mercy ministry that does justice (sorry) to 1 Tim 5 where Paul says that some widows don’t qualify for deaconal assistance. Is this an example of how Paul and James keep contradicting each other?
Tim Keller deals with this in his book on mercy ministries. 1 Tim 5 teaches, in Keller’s language, to “let mercy limit mercy.” What he means by this is that if the mercy which is given is helping that person become dependent on the system and not helping them work towards independence, then that mercy ministry must stop towards that person. Mercy ministries should not lead to people being lazy, idle, or dependent on the system, which seems to be Paul’s point in 1 Tim 5 as Keller describes it. This does not contradict James.
Did the Philippians have “thus sayeth the Lord” to send Paul gifts in prison? Would that not be a mercy ministry that happened without such a mandate.
25 February 2008 at 8.29 pm
Art, I’m not objecting to gifts sent to Paul. I’m objecting to the Christian diaconate taking care of pagans. I find it difficult to find cases of this in Scripture. (Israel had a little different challenge in dealing with her pagan neighbors.) So I still don’t see the thin references in the NT undoing what is an overwhelming momentum toward the church as institution taking care of her own (and possibly only in extraordinary cases — flood, plague, war — taking care of non-Christian neighbors.) I don’t want to be misunderstood that Christians as individuals have no duty to love their neighbors. They do. But Christian liberty and vocation will affect how persons decide to act that duty out.
27 February 2008 at 2.21 pm
I think you’re over analyzing it just a bit, which of course I always have the tendency to do to. I think the point of the movement is to say this: the Republican right believes that evangelical Christians are obligated to promote the law as found in the Bible, while focusing mainly on things that lend themselves easily to laws: namely most of Leviticus.
Red-letter Christians believe that the new covenant is a NEW covenant, meaning (for example) that persecuting homosexuals is not only unfulfillment of God’s word, it’s a direct disobedience of some of Jesus’ few commandments: to love your neighbours, your enemies, and take care of the poor and broken.
I think it’s fairly clear that Campolo would include in the “Red-letter” portions of the Bible the words of Paul and other apostles, and that “red-letter” refers to the New Testament in general: the point was to differentiate between the old covenant, which evangelical right-wing leaders constantly beat over the head of anyone who isn’t Republican, straight, and pro-life, and the new covenant, which says quite clearly to love.
So yeah, don’t take the Red-letter name so literally. Campolo’s not trying to start a new theological movement (sola scriptura rufus) but rather to emphasize that our duty as Christians is not political but practical.
So to answer your points:
1-4: I think you’re just taking the idea of red-letter too literally. I don’t think Campolo ever has or ever will suggest that the rest of the Bible is meaningless. He just took the name to contrast the movement from a growing trend of right-wing evangelicals who he could probably call “black-letter christians”, in other words, legalists.
5: I think you have a good point here. To abstract much of the old
testament from its circumstances is difficult, but paints a picture of social justice. The trouble is, there are way too many Bible-bashers that take the simple way out and promote legalistic attitudes (Leviticus chapter-something-verse-something says don’t do it, therefore we must condemn anyone who does), because it requires less thinking.
27 February 2008 at 3.48 pm
Mark: Thanks for your comments. I wish that Campolo would make his reasoning explicit regarding the name of the movement. Like I pointed out, I think the name causes more confusion than clarity. Because he doesn’t make his reasoning explicit, it can lead one to focus only on the “red letters” and not the rest. Perhaps I was taking the ‘red letter’ thing too literally. The problem is that Campolo, with his lack of explanation, has left people little choice but to draw their own conclusions. His explanation (from the article “What is a ‘Red Letter Christian’”) is:
“By calling ourselves Red-Letter Christians, we are alluding to the fact that in several versions of the New Testament, the words of Jesus are printed in red. In adopting this name, we are saying that we are committed to living out the things that He said…In those red letters, He calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. He calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, he probably means we shouldn’t kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers.”
Like I said, that is not really clear and does leave the impression that he is raising certain words of Scripture higher than others: namely, the ‘red’ ones.
I hope I was just over thinking the issue. If he wrote what you just wrote, then I would admit that I was just over thinking the situation. But Campolo hasn’t written anything on the subject that convinces me that I have.