Critique of Red-Letter Christians

I read through a critique of “Red-Letter Christians” (RLCs) by Stan Guthrie of Christianity Today.  The article is called “When Red is Blue.” While a lot of the article tries to paint RLC’s into a Democratic or politically liberal corner, I think the main criticism one can make is spelled out in his first couple of paragraphs:

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.

I, too, believe all of Scripture is God-breathed.  But I also we must look at all of Scripture through the lens of Christ.   Does what Jesus said and did have more bearing than Paul’s words about women and head-coverings?  Don’t we interpret the Old Testament in light of the sacrifice of Christ?  I see “the binding of Isaac” as just one example of this:

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”

Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.  On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.  He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,  Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.  Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.  But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

For Christians, how can we not interpret this passage christologically?   Christ becomes the light by which we read the Scriptures, the lens through which we interpret the Scriptures.  And, for instance, when we read about the wars of Old Testament, we need to see it, knowing about Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and his words about forgiveness.

I’m not going to say that I’m a red-letter Christian, but I do think this is helpful as I look at my own understanding of Biblical interpretation.

“The Red-Letter Methodist”

I almost called this blog “The Red-Letter Methodist” because of what I have read lately about “Red-Letter Christians.”  But, I’m not sure I’m quite there theologically.  And I was fearful that I’d put this blog in a “box” that would mean I’d have to be serious all of the time.   Nevertheless, Red-Letter Christian is becoming more attractive to me.  The more I read, the more I want to define myself in this way (from Wikipedia):

Red-Letter Christians believe that Evangelicalism has been exploited by both right-wing and left-wing political movements, and they endeavor to create an Evangelical movement that focuses on the teachings of Jesus Christ, particularly in regard to social issues. “Red-Letter” refers to New Testament verses printed in red letters to emphasize the actual words that Jesus spoke without the use of quotations (see Red letter edition). While many Christians have defined themselves as such over the years, a mass-market movement was initiated by authors Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis who felt the Religious Right spend too much time on two issues: abortion and homosexuality. They believe Christians should be promoting biblical values such as peace, building strong families, the elimination of poverty, and other important social justice issues.^[1]

The social issues valued by Red-Letter Christians include taking care of the poor, spreading the Gospel (see also the Great Commission), and loving one’s enemies. They believe that these are the issues that Jesus spoke of directly, and therefore these issues should be political priorities. Other issues such as homosexual rights, abortion, and war are viewed as important but over-emphasized by both liberals and conservatives.

On the reason for creating Red-Letter Christians, Campolo said, “The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics.”^[2]. Campolo has released a book to help explain this, called Red Letter Christians, A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics (Regal Books, February 2008).

The first I’d heard of “Red Letter Christians” was in the book The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs. I know about Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis. In youth group, years ago, I called Tony Campolo “The sweaty bald guy.” While I think there are problems with stating that you’re going to be putting more weight on some parts of Scripture (the words of Jesus) over others, it is true that we all do it. I have always believed, at least since seminary, that we can only look on the Bible through a Christological lens — our faith in Jesus shapes how we read and interpret the words of the entire Bible.

The Red Letter Christian concept enables me to put into words my frustration with taking the Scripture passages concerning homosexual practice and putting them into the forefront of our Biblical and ecclesial conversations. It seems like that would be the wrong lens.

I also like the notion that Red Letter Christians consider themselves evangelicals and are making the case that the term “Evangelical” is not owned by the Republican party. There may be evangelicals who consider themselves part of the democratic party because their entire religious perspective will not be defined on the issue of homosexuality.