Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Though I own several Bibles with the words of Christ printed in red, I've always found the concept a bit iffy. After all, we evangelicals believe in the plenary, or full, inspiration of Scripture, don't we? Setting off Jesus' sayings this way seems to imply that they are more holy than what is printed in ordinary black ink. Sure, Christians understand that Jesus the incarnate Word fulfills the written Word. But if all Scripture is God-breathed, then in principle Jesus' inscripturated statements are no more God's Word to us than are those from Peter, Paul, and Mary—or Ezekiel.

That's why I felt a bit queasy when I heard about a group calling itself "Red-Letter Christians." In the book Letters to a Young Evangelical, Tony Campolo says RLCs have an "intense desire to be faithful to the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament." That's a worthy start, of course—but only that.

This approach sounds reminiscent of a problem dividing the church in Corinth. Hear some cogent words printed, unfortunately, in black letters: "What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided?" RLCs seem to say they have found a higher truth.

No doubt Campolo, a wonderful evangelist and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University, would demur. But while in no way denying the genuine desire of RLCs to be faithful to Christ, it seems to me that the key color here is not red, but blue.

Campolo insists RLCs are strictly nonpartisan. "We are people who want to assure that Jesus is neither defined as a Republican nor a Democrat," he recently told the Associated Baptist Press. "When asked about party affiliation, the Red-Letter Christian is prone to answer, 'Please name the issue.' "

But Campolo also says RLCs are upset about "gay-bashing, anti-feminism, anti-environmentalism, pro-war, pro-gun, and Religious Right politics." These items sound a lot like talking points from a James Carville memo.

Further, Campolo regularly uses the highly pejorative term Religious Right for politically conservative Christians but declines a comparable label, Religious Left, for his group. His reasoning? "[I]t suggests that we are an arm of the Democratic Party in the same way in which the Religious Right has become an arm of the Republican Party." Perhaps some on the Right have become so, but this is an oversimplification.

Yes, in his book Campolo generously says Christians on the Right "are just as eager as those on the Left to help the poor, bring peace to the world, rescue the environment from degradation, and overcome racism. Working for social justice is not a prerogative of the Left." Regarding social ministries, Campolo acknowledges that "those on the Religious Right excel in financial support and volunteerism."

So what really separates us, according to Campolo, is our view of government in addressing these problems. Those on the Left tend to believe in a larger federal role. When discussing RLCs, Campolo states, "Christians should engage in efforts to change the political and economic structures of society." But that must not apply to black-letter Christians, who he says attempt to "force their agenda on others."

Remember the Sojourners ad released shortly before the 2004 election, "God Is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat"? But under the line, "We are not single-issue voters," it lists a series of black-and-white questions seemingly pulled directly from John Kerry's briefing book.

next page... |  1 of 3

October 2007, Vol. 51, No. 10