Tracy December 2nd, 2007

I'm disappointed Tony would use a straw man like the dietary laws to demonstrate the superiority of the red letters.

Christov December 3rd, 2007

I was hoping someone would make a distinction between the working poor and those who subsist as parasites upon taxpayer largesse – those able-bodied people who simply will not work, preferring instead to collect a part of the value earned and produced by those of us who work and pay taxes. They exist, my work over the past five years has brought me into frequent contact with them, they are not some bogus conservative myth.

Of course, there are parasites at the other end of the scale, too. Those bloated CEOs pulling down $31-plus million per annum without adding any real value to the corporate process or the services and/or goods produced by the organization or business.

Well, flame-on!

Erik December 3rd, 2007

We just recorded with Tony. He responded to both of your comments. I'm gonna post that audio soon in The Brown Sessions podcast.

Jer December 3rd, 2007

Mr. Campolo said:

"we believe Jesus is anti-war, pro-environment, and deeply committed to ending poverty. The only mistake you made was to imply that thinking this way–or trying to influence our government according to these values–makes us the Religious Left"

With all due respect, I think the mistake is yours, and that what makes you *sound* like the *political* left is the idea that what little Jesus said about war and the environment (well-documented in the "red letters") could earn him the labels "anti-war" and "pro-environment," at least in the way they're used in contemporary political rhetoric. As for the poor, Jesus was very clear about Christians' duty toward the poor. But he was somewhat less than clear about whether it was the function of government to "end poverty" by means of confiscatory tax policies or even whether it was possible. "The poor you will always have with you." If you embrace the very language favored by those who try to make Jesus out as nothing more substantial than some sort of proto-hippy, then don't be shocked that it makes you sound political.

Mr. Campolo also said: "That you think asking questions such as, "Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families?," or "Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it?," is partisan saddens us. We believe these are the questions that every Christian should be asking, no matter which political party or candidate has the better answers at a given time in history."

The questions are valid, but I think asking them *is* partisan if they are couched in the inflammatory and class-warfare jargon of the hired political pollster. How about these questions: "Do the candidates' budget and tax policies help those who truly need it, or do they simply perpetuate the conditions that trap people in poverty?" Or, how about, "Do the candidates' policies protect the creation in practicable and responsible ways, or are they vindictive and economically harmful?"

See what I mean? A seemingly partisan undershirt is peeking out from under your non-partisan mantle.

The "moral gospel" vs. the "social gospel" is a false dichotomy. There is one gospel, and if my simple mind has it right, it is this: the redemption of fallen mankind and his reconciliation to God through the atoning work of the God-Man Jesus Christ. Jesus had plenty to say about morals and plenty to say about the poor and downtrodden. Anything that attempts to pit one against another is false.

This whole RLC thing reminds me, perhaps unfairly, of the late, unlamented United Church of Christ ad campaign that turned my stomach by attempting to appeal to the unchurched Left by confirming their suspicions that yes, the churched Right really are bigots.

Now for the irony: I write this as someone who is fairly politically conservative but who is not proud of the antics of the sin-sniffers and culture-warriors of the "religious right." Who believes we are to effect societal change and help advance the Kingdom of God by being salt and light, not by forming power-amassing political organizations that reduce the Church to just another special interest group. Someone who no longer accepts the label "conservative Christian" or feels any allegiance to the Republican party. Someone who has been shedding the excess baggage of conservatism while still agreeing with its core tenets as far as they are useful. Someone who is increasingly leaving debate on the finer points of doctrine to others and trying more and more to concentrate on being salt and light and obeying Jesus' hard teachings in regards to materialism and helping the poor. Yet, none of this attitude came about from a desire to elevate one part of Scripture at the expense of the other (after all, the "black letters" of men like Paul and James have much to say about the poor, too). None of it came from a desire to join yet one more group of superior Christians (snore). It was the work of the Holy Spirit, aided by the public and honest soul-searching of guys like the Internet Monk and many others. Their questions and confessions stabbed me to the heart and forced me to take a stand somewhere. The words of the Red Letter Christians just make my eyes glaze over. Sorry.

Jer December 4th, 2007

I've already said too much, but I feel I need to offer some clarifications.

First of all, I did NOT mean in quoting Jesus "The poor you will always have with you," to imply any callousness on His part toward the poor, nor any excuse for callousness on our part.

But could he have been hinting here that poverty (and slavery, etc.) were part and parcel of a fallen world that He came to redeem? Symptoms of a disease He came to cure? Was it not the sin and death of this fallen world that made him weep with sadness and anger at Lazarus' tomb? And although we are to sacrificially help the poor, will not the final cure for poverty and all injustice be when the final victory is won and His kingdom is established for eternity. That's why I think an emphasis on the "social gospel" at the expense of the gospel of man's redemption from sin is not better than the reverse. We need to remember that the poor man in Christ is the son of the King and has more than the wealth of the entire world can buy (I know, easy for me to say typing on my computer after a full meal, but no less true).

As for the rest, I have a big problem whenever Christians try to draw distinctions between themselves and other Christians ("Well, I'm *this* kind of Christian, and just between you and me, we're a leeeetle bit more Christlike than those other ones"). We all err in different ways, we're all fallen sinners, but are we all not of one body? But the more these distinctions are drawn out in the public eye (e.g., the UCC television ads), the more sick I feel inside.

Humbly…

Christov December 4th, 2007

Hey Jer, I came here this morning to clarify and add to some of the stuff I wrote, supra, but it appears you have already said, and said better than I would have, most of what I had in mind.

The one real discussion of secular government in the NT, as far as I recall is that bit in Romans 13 which, while limited in scope, is still difficult for me to read and accept. As if my acceptance of it had any bearing on the matter, whatsoever. I don't find anything there about bread and circuses or a permanent dole, subsidized housing, free televised sports and the Jerry Springer Show.

Well, Jesus did say to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and by extrapolation defines wealth as something other than money.

Proverbs has something to say on the issue of rich and poor – that the Lord makes the sun to shine upon both (IIRC), and something to the effect that "the poor utters supplications, and the rich man answers roughly" the upshot of which is both rich and the poor in the proverb, if you look at the juxtaposition of their spoken interactions within the verse, is that both are wrong in their attitude toward one another. They are equal before God, and should treat one another as such in their motives and interactions.

Finally, as to the supposed superiority of the red-letters over those appearing in black typeface, the scripture speaks of Jesus as the Word of God, Logos. Probably I am a naive Christian to believe therefore that the whole of the canon of scripture is a manifestation in meaning; in described action over time in the lives of his people, including those of us who are, as Paul in Galatians states, children of the promise made to Abraham; in thought; in direct quoted statement; in the working out of his right will in the creation broken by man and sin and a rebellion both temporal and spiritual. So anyway, I think all of scripture is all of Christ as far as he is willing to reveal himself to us. That red-letterism, in my opinion, makes a good slogan, but inadequately informs the follower of Christ.

That said, I have for about 20 years now been reading the gospels cyclically, because I want to know who Jesus is and reckon that if I "get" what Jesus is about, I'll have some understanding of God, because they are one another. Doesn't mean I've quit reading the rest of scripture.

I got a little wound up there. $.02

Steve Brown Etc. » Blog Archive » Tony Campolo - Red-Letter Christians December 6th, 2007

[...] SBE with Tony Compolo's response along with Stan's response to [...]

Erik December 6th, 2007

You can hear Tony Campolo's response to the comments left by Tracy and Cristov here. Tony also addresses last week's interview with Christianity Today's Stan Guthrie.

Yours in digging the super-cool, fluid, interactive, and timely nature of the web,

Erik