Red Letter Inconsistency

Interesting exchange between Stan Guthrie and Tony Campolo in CT under the banner When Red is Blue. Guthrie makes his case that the term "Red-letter Christians" seems to refer to those who hold two problematic views. One is that the "red letters", that is the words of Jesus in some translations of the Bible implies that Jesus' words are somehow more canonical than other portions of scripture. The other is that the "red-letter" Christians seem to decry the entanglement of the "religious right" in politics, but then turn and embrace political views that are almost entirely in agreement with the views of the left. Writes Guthrie...

If you believe ending poverty requires more government spending and a higher minimum wage; if you believe in a manmade global warming crisis; if you oppose school vouchers; if homosexual marriage is no big deal (and in fact a civil right); and if you are tired of talking about the 50 million unborn human beings lost to abortion since 1973, then you know which lever to pull.

Guthrie's critique may or may not be 100% correct, but Campolo's response was a bit of a surprise.


"... we believe the morality in the red letters of Jesus transcends that found in the black letters set down in the Pentateuch, and I'm surprised you don't agree. After all, Stan, 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? Don't you think his red-letter words about loving our enemies and doing good to those who hurt us represent a higher morality than the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" kind of justice that we find in the Hebrew Testament? Is it really so hard to accept that, as God incarnate, Jesus set forth the highest law in the Bible, and therefore that law is more important than the Kosher dietary regulations we find in Leviticus and Deuteronomy?"

This seems like a hermeneutics 101 sort of error. Jesus himself, in the red letters, clearly stated that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The idea that Jesus' teachings on marriage and divoce "replaced" what Moses taught is a bit faulty. Jesus clearly said Moses allowance for divorce was not the original plan, but was an allowance due to the hardness of men's hearts... the point being God's law did NOT change and Jesus teaching did not replace anything, but rather restored it .

And "an eye for an eye" was not an old archaic law to be superseded. It was not a prescription for individual vengeance, it was a limit for equitable justice - meaning simply that the punishment should fit the crime. If I steal $100 the punishment should not be a slap on the wrist on the one hand or death on the other. Likewise, the only truly equitable response to premeditated murder is something equal to the life that was taken (life without parole or execution.) The point is, Jesus teaching did not change the Old Testament, it clarified and restored the intent of it that had been lost due to the obscuring dust of time and human tradition.

As for Campolo's specific political notions:

"You got us RLCs right again when you suggested we were anti-war, pro-environment, and deeply committed to ending poverty primarily because 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."

First of all, Tony needs to stop using the term "Religious right" if he dislikes the term "Religious Left". Secondly, conservatives do care about poverty and only disagree on what specific policies advance that end. Third, and most important, the idea that Jesus is "anti-war, pro-environment" is definitely a matter that raises a lot of exegetical questions. Opposition to some wars might be defensible. But there is no question, whatsoever, that the commands given by God to Israel to go to war were part of Jesus' politics if we believe the doctrine of the Trinity.

"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."

Yes, Tony, those issues are partisan. The very way they are phrased suggests a significant influence of the left. Why is a reduction in taxes a "reward" for the rich? And more importantly, why is care for the environment suddenly a more important issue than the slaughter of 1.5 million unborn children each year?