All Comments for: When Red Is Blue | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > October

Christianity Today, October, 2007 |

FOOLISH THINGS

When Red Is Blue

Why I am not a Red-Letter Christian.

Stan Guthrie | posted 10/11/2007 08:44AM

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 ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 92 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Show All

Rick	Posted: October 24, 2007 12:34 AM

One star for Guthrie and 5 for Tony. I am neither red nor blue, my allegiance is to God. Yes that allgeiance is way above my country and the hyper-political times we live. Increasingly I am disgusted by the two parties and most elected and public officials, as they pander to monied interest. My prayer is that I could turn my back on it all and concentrate on what is means to not only beleive but to follow in obediance without my culture, nation, or even what I desire affecting my becoming a follower of Jesu Christ ... a kingdom person.

Shayne

Posted: October 23, 2007 3:28 PM


If Jesus really did replace ANY of the teachings of Moses, whether on marriage or diet or when to worship, then, by God's own definition in Deuteronomy 13, Jesus is a false prophet. He can be a false prophet or He can be the Messiah. He can't be both. We should study the Gopels through the lens of the Torah.... NOT the other way around. The Torah is the foundation of all God-Breathed Scripture.

cmrk3

Posted: October 23, 2007 8:53 AM

The issue is not whether Christianity is Republican or Democrat (this is a side issue)- it is whether evangelical Christianity is pro-poor or pro-rich, blind to the needs of minorities or racially integrated, pro-war or pro-peace, sexist or non-sexist, progressive or old fashioned, pro-tattoo or anti-tattoo, pro-environment or anti-environment, pro-life or pro-death, right or wrong. If Christianity encourages people to be self destructive and greedy - why believe in it?

Ian Stewart

Posted: October 22, 2007 8:17 AM

Dear Stan, I find that you seem to be of the quite strong left. I am writing from Australia and we have many issues here similar to your own. My views on your "know which lever to pull" are: I agree with increases in government spending to assist the poor and needy. Increasing the minimum wage would help. It is so pathetically low in USA (and even lower in Samoa where Nancy Pelosi's constituent has their fish canning factory). There might be global warming but man's contributions are less than 10%. The UK judge debunked Al Gore's movie quite sufficiently enough for me to see what a sham it is. What are school vouchers? I believe that homosexuality in all its forms is wrong and is fully condemned in both testaments. By all means have compassion for homosexuals but their lifestyle can't be supported. Doubly so for ordained ministers and bishops. I believe in abortion in the case of a rape victim or if the mother's life is at stake. I know which lever to pull!! Best regards.

F. Joseph Merlino

Posted: October 19, 2007 11:09 PM

That Christ's words were a challenge to those of his time is why they killed him. That Christ's words are are challenge to us today is why we dismiss them by associating those who attempt to act upon them with an unpopular political figure or party. It is crucifixion by association. And in so doing, we become the same stone throwers that Jesus condemned as hypocrits. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, not Paul, not Peter, not Moses, not any prophet, not any vicar, not any human.

Rev M J Streett

Posted: October 17, 2007 10:53 AM

I guess I don't see any comments about this so far, but the biggest problem in being a red-letter Christian is that the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have no punctuation, no spaces between the words, and don't always clearly indicate when a quote ends and the words of an evangelist or apostle begin. In most cases which words belong to Jesus is clear, but not always, so defining something as a quote is an act of interpretation, not something that is in the text that the evangelists wrote.

TL Jackson

Posted: October 16, 2007 2:29 PM

I could not help but note how responses are skewed to the "facts" that apparently support the particular view at hand. That Jesus mentions the poor more often than say ... murder, does not mean that murder is ok. Yes, throughout the Bible, the poor are a consideration with God. At the same time its pretty obvious (as well as prevalent) that God thought we ought to work - and if we don't want to work - we shouldn't be allowed to eat. But such NEVER means that homosexuality (and the pain it brings) is ok. I do not get the impression that our loving Savior is going to judge folks on just the particular parts of His Word which tug at our heart strings and make us "feel" good, over the rest of what He said was good and bad. No where in the Bible does it suggest that the preponderance of what was discussed by Jesus was of more import than other do's and don't's. Having said that, only the "left" seems to want to murder the innocent before they can get to "poor." And God?

Brad	Posted: October 16, 2007 7:16 AM

I agree with Billy Madden's comments on Campolo's complete misinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, Campolo's sarcastic tone does nothing to promote Christian unity. Additionally, he ignores Guthrie's implication that the rest of the NEW Testament is included in the "black letters" in addition to the Old Testament. While I admire Campolo in many ways, especially his ability and desire to reach out to all people with the gospel, his response here is very troubling. The Word of God as a whole must be the basis of our worldview and in turn of how we interact with political issues. Thank you Stan Guthrie for your informative article.

Jason Lohner

Posted: October 15, 2007 10:17 PM


Someone can be a christian who wants to protect the creation without being someone who supports Al Gore. Someone can be a christian who is against poverty without supporting government tax and spend policies. Its too bad that Mr Campolo can't see this.

Billy Madden

Posted: October 15, 2007 7:08 AM

Politics aside, my disagreement with Mr. Campolo's response is in paragraph two worried me greatly. When he states "didn't Jesus himself make this same point in the Sermon on the Mount, when he said his teachings about marriage and divorce were to replace what Moses taught?" I'm sorry maybe I misinterpret Jesus' own "Red Letters" in the same Sermon of the Mount. Jesus clearly says in Matthew 5:17, 18 "Do not think that i have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (NIV) These are Jesus own words verifying the validity of the "Black Letters" from the Pentateuch, Prophets, History, and New Testament books.

Chris

Posted: October 15, 2007 6:03 AM

The problem with Campolo's view is that he does not see Jesus as rightly interpreting the law. Jesus fulfilled all the law, which only pointed to Him anyway. When Jesus said to pray for enemies instead of eye for eye, he was rightly interpreting the law for the Pharisees who had a wrong understanding of the law. All of scripture, when rightly interpreted, is applicable, not just the words of Jesus, because He didn't bring anything new, only a right interpretation of what He had given the Old Testament people to begin with.

Michele M.

Posted: October 14, 2007 4:44 PM

I'm so glad to be reading a (mostly) well-mannered and well thought-out (mostly) discussion of how we as Christians are to respond to the socio/political globalized culture that we have the privelege to live in. We need to have these dialogues in order to come together and honor God as His Church. The Word we live by sets us apart as followers of Jesus (Savior/Lord/Prophet/Teacher...etc). I don't believe the question is how much or which words (letters) of the actual text we should prioritize as it is Spirit-guided discernment of the interpretation of them by the men (and women) who read and then teach/preach them. Let's keep talking, speaking with respect and love and submission to one another (ears open, mouths closed as in the listening mode). By the way, Adventures in Missing the Point as referenced by Mark Chandler above was co-written by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren (another somewhat controversial Christian writer/pastor/teacher).

Bodyguard7

Posted: October 14, 2007 2:14 AM


I am vexed with this discussion that is profitable for nothing. While the god of this world is successfully watering down the gospel in America -learned men are dabbling in vain janglings on the color of the words in the Word of God? God please convict American 'Christianity'.

Bob	Posted: October 14, 2007 1:26 AM

Where, oh where would the Red Letter Christians (as described), and Mr. Campolo, be without the Sermon on the Mount? What if the Sermon on the Mount was not a new "20 or so plus Commandments" or ethical imperatives, but were illustrations to those attracted to him by his claims, his activities in healing and his confrontations with the Jewish leaders (who were nominally the spiritual "go to" guys, but in fact were neck deep in setting up their own world system, at least as much of it as the Roman rulers allowed), who did not recognize Him as the Messiah or were looking for a worldly leader that would free them from Roman rule? What if he was showing them that if they were looking for salvation in the form of more holiness, or more wisdom, or greater obedience to more rules, instead of recognizing and seeking to follow the man who identified himself as Jesus, the Christ, the Savior of (from) the World, then they should understand that their behavior and attitude would have to be even better than the letter of the law (The Ten Commandments) before God? What if Jesus Christ really meant it, and it was really significant, when he said "My kingdom is not of this world." (a Red Letter Statement, BTW)? What if it was really significant that Christ did not chide or lecture the Centurions (warriors) who came to Him because they believed He was who He said He was, and that He really could do anything He willed to do? One would think that at least a short homily on being a peace-maker instead of a murderer would be recorded, wouldn't one? Doubtless the scribe just ran out of time, or ink, or papyrus? Finally, where do they find the authority in their Red Letters to extend the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, plainly directed at individual behavior and relationships, to the reformation, perfection, or transformation of society or the culture? I have always been taught that the teaching of the doctrinal possibility of the perfection of the person, and therefore the imperative to transform and perfect secular society and its' "structures", came from a rather more secular (and blood-stained, but from a different source) political philosophy?

Nik M

Posted: October 14, 2007 1:22 AM

Guthrie's article and Campolo's response have challenged my own views of the Bible and of christianity. The following questions came to mind as I was reading: Are some parts of the Bible more important than others? Is it desirable to distinguish ourselves from other christians by strongly associating with certain parts of the Bible? In the end I lean more towards Guthrie's point of view. Is the red-letter movement necessary? I don't think christianity has benefitted from its many schisms. I wouldn't want to be a first-time church goer faced with the decision of what type of church to attend. As we all know, too many choices can have a paralyzing effect.

Keith Wilson

Posted: October 14, 2007 12:04 AM

Campolo has got Jesus very wrong. Jesus' morality was not novel. He did not replace the Law of Moses--particularly the moral law. He endorsed it and explicated it, as did the Apostles. If Campolo taught what he does as a contemporary of our Lord, he would be condemned along with those who subverted the law by their traditions. Jesus did not abrogate "an eye for an eye"-a foundation principle of social justice. Rather He said that it wasn't the province of individuals to execute revenge. Our responsibility on a personal level is to forgive. Jesus did not set aside the Law in order to forgive the sinner. He was the friend of sinners in order to redeem them from the just punishment the Law prescribes. Campolo, on the other hand, subverts the Law in order to justify the behaviour

Travis Fletcher

Posted: October 13, 2007 9:40 PM

Boy, I can't believe what I'm reading here! Everybody needs to understand that Christians believe in a "TRINITY". That means God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christ is divine and is the loving sacrifice who speaks as the human conduit for the Father. He taught the Pentateuch in the Synagogues, people. Do not, for one second, believe it holds no weight or truth. If Genesis be inaccurate, then Christ be a liar and a fraud! Do not fall prey to the lies of secular humanism which try to deceive you into believing its worldly systems. Christ is our covering for sin, He is not a re-definer of sin or a historical revisionist. Prosanto, you think a 900 year life is too difficult to believe, try rising from the dead or walking on water....they're called miracles. And in the early days of mankind, we didn't have the advanced proliferation of genetic defects/disease brought on by the curse . Jesus taught Genesis. If Genesis is wrong, Jesus is a liar or a fraud. It's up to you.

Patrick Gann

Posted: October 13, 2007 6:58 PM

As an Eastern U graduate, I was generally unimpressed with Campolo's books and lessons. But I really appreciated this reply he made here. I understand Guthrie's point, but I'm also tempted to say he's making a mountain out of a mole hill. This "RLC" movement does something I think too many Evangelicals don't do. They care about what Jesus actually SAID, along with what he did. Some Christians don't know any of Jesus' words, aside from maybe John 3:16. If he (Jesus) is what we believe he is, I'd have to say that YES, what he says may INDEED be more important for the body of Christ than, say, Paul's letter to the Corinthians when he addresses head coverings.

Charlotte

Posted: October 13, 2007 4:02 PM


I don't see anywhere in the scriptures where Jesus said to rob the rich to give to the poor which is exactly what the Democrats want our government to do.

Anonymous

Posted: October 13, 2007 2:57 AM

Someone said "Jesus>Amos, Peter, Paul” therefore” Jesus words are MORE holy”, this is misunderstanding the nature of Scripture and inspiration. No one will argue that Jesus the God-Man is superior to Moses, Paul and so on. The writer of Hebrews certainly agrees when comparing them. However, the same writer when quoting scripture (in this case the OT) only sees God (or the Holy Spirit) as the author and “ignored” the human author. Peter agrees and says "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2 Peter 1:21. God is the ultimate author of Scripture (red and black letters) sure, some precepts take precedence over others with the progress of revelation but it is not because of who said it (since God is the author of everything) rather it is a matter of in what stage of God's dealing with Man we find it. Even Jesus prophesied that after His departure, the Spirit would reveal greater spiritual truths to His disciples (John 16:12-15)

Jonathan

Posted: October 12, 2007 11:48 PM

Is not the entirety of scripture the Word of God? Are we to throw out the OT? Campolo's response that the teachings of Jesus replace the law contradicts the words of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount also includes Matthew 5:17:Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (NKJV) Also, to say that Jesus never spoke on Homosexuality is not necessarily the complete truth. Jesus clearly taught that marriage was to be between a man and a woman in Matthew 19. Just because He never said, "Homosexuality is wrong," does not mean that His teachings never taught the principle. Jesus never taught that the law was to be destroyed. In fact, it is in the epistles of Paul that we see that the law does not apply to us. So, are the RLC's ready to follow Jesus' every command? How many of them still have both eyes and hands (see Matt 5:29-30) Let's be consistent. The Bible is the Word of God, regardless of if the ink is red, black, or blue.

JJoslin

Posted: October 12, 2007 10:52 PM

Jim Wallis, etc. because they bring some balance to Christian politics when James Dobson, etc. have dominated it for too long. But they generally take it too far in the other direction. I'm particularly disappointed with the way they downplay the abortion issue. I am open to compromising on the homosexual issue. By "compromise" I only mean the legality of gay marriage and whether it should be allowed for non-Christians by the government - I do NOT think churches should bless it or that Christians should practice the lifestyle. However, abortion is different because a human life is at stake and is a more important issue. Still, the "Christian left" does raise some good points. Too often Christians will throw their lot into supporting everything the Republican party does just because they agree on a couple of issues.

S. G.

Posted: October 12, 2007 7:13 PM

I am among those who are excited by the new voice of the Red Letter Christians, like Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis. The writings of Gregory Boyd are also refreshing, for those of us who have long hungered for American Christians to find Jesus again. The reason attention must be drawn to the red letter teachings of Jesus, is because evangelical Christianity in America has so conveniently stepped over them. This has always baffled and saddened me. The teachings of Jesus are always piercingly clear and profoundly true. He leaves no room for compromise. Sadly, this is not what is preached in our pulpits. What a difference we as Christians could make in our world if we truly lived the radical, self-sacrificial compassion to which Jesus has called us? If we truly held his teachings in the high regard they are due, and hungered after the real and costly following of Jesus, instead of settling for the theology of "cheap grace", which is so prevalent in our country today?

PastorT

Posted: October 12, 2007 6:40 PM

Gary, I wonder how you can have missed the nature of the early church in Jerusalem, in which "all who believed were together and held all things in common, and would sell their possessions and goods and distribute them among all according as anyone had need." (Acts 2:44-45, which happens to be Black Print New Testament). That description is clearly socialist, though not Socialist, communal while not Communist.

H Bohrs

Posted: October 12, 2007 4:44 PM


The article was quite good...Campolo's response certainly helped set some of Guthrie's statements straight, or betteryet, corrected his erroneous bias...

Page: 1 2 3 4

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment