I was just reading Brian McLaren’s latest post over at God’s Politics, and it had a link to his organization, Red Letter Christians. I’d heard of the group, but didn’t know much about it, so I checked it out. In the first paragraph we read this: “We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus.”
Two things about this bother me. First, it makes the letters in the Bible that aren’t in red less important. The Bible prioritizes itself; tell me what is more important: “You shall have no other gods before me,” or, “Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals, and greet no one on the road.” This is a ridiculous example, but one that is implied when you use this red-letter logic.
The second is that they aren’t seeking to put all of the red letter words in to action. Not based on the writings of their leaders. Here’s a sampling of some that they ignore partially or completely:
“Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” Christ comes before compassion.
“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
There are plenty more, but you get the idea. Why do they pretend that Jesus didn’t care about the things conservative Christians care about? Why do they pretend that Jesus taught social justice was more important than believing in and following him? And why do they pretend that conservative Christians ignore suffering, feel no compassion for the poor, and are gleeful at the idea of God smiting their neighbors?
Technorati Tags: brian_mclaren, Christians, conservative_christians, gods_politics, holy_bible, jesus, Politics, progressive, red_letter, red_letter_christians, social_justice, Theology
4 responses so far...
I’d like to think there isn’t but there’s a simple answer to your questions:
“Why do they pretend that Jesus didn’t care about the things conservative Christians care about? Why do they pretend that Jesus taught social justice was more important than believing in and following him? And why do they pretend that conservative Christians ignore suffering, feel no compassion for the poor, and are gleeful at the idea of God smiting their neighbors?”
It’s much easier to demonize people. By slapping a label on Conservative Christians and doing all this “pretending” about what Jesus did and didn’t care about they can justify their own actions which go against what the scripture says. They want religion, they want spirituality but I don’t think they want Jesus…at least not the Jesus I know.
Remember, His sheep know His voice.
There IS far too much judgment taken into the hands of man, I think, and not enough judgment left to God. We are to love but the love of Christ should mean we’d WANT to live as perfect a life as we can possibly live, even while knowing it is impossible. I sin but know I sin, am convicted of it and do my best to, rather than try to justify it away, to accept it, acknowledge it and if not turn away from it, at least know and confess that what I’m doing is wrong. I’m weak…we’re all weak…in Him we can be strong.
Anyway, by remembering how weak and sheeplike I am, I am less likely to pass judgment on another and more likely to pray for them and ask God to effect change in their life AND mine. In my heart of hearts I feel this is what would please God. He has forgiven us so much yet we can be so ready to condemn others. We must be careful to remember what we’ve been forgiven.
Aren’t you glad that’s the end of MY sermon? 
Charles,
I agree with part of your critique on this. The term “red-letter christians” leaves a bad taste in my mouth even though I am in agreement with Mclaren and others in that group. It does somehow lessen the importance of the other words. I have an even bigger issue with the whole idea of having “red-letters” in the bible. It is very difficult to know which words should really be red. Many historians have worked to address that problem but it is filled with flawed logic.
I do have one slight disagreement with you. You said:
Why do they pretend that Jesus taught social justice was more important than believing in and following him
“Believing in” someone has nothing to do with believing they existed. When I say I believe in my wife I don’t mean to state certainty in her existence. That would be silly.
Believing in and “following” are both symbolic statments which make the same point. The point is that you agree with what a person said and that you will work with and for that person. Social Justice is what Jesus taught so therefore following him and believing in him MEANS DOING SOCIAL JUSTICE.
Do you believe Jesus or simply believe he existed? Does following him mean repeating his words or bringing his words to life?
I think you are caught up in the literalization of metaphors. We don’t literally follow him as if he was physically walking around, do we? What would “following Jesus” mean other than doing the things he taught?
“Believing in” may not mean simply believing he existed, but it does include that. The word translated “believe” is the verb form of the word translated “faith”. When you put faith in something you put trust in it.
Also, if you say you believe in your wife, I can assume that you are certifying her existence. Do you honestly believe in things that don’t exist?
When you believe in something you put faith in it. When you put faith it you put trust in it. That is what Jesus called us to do. Put our belief/faith/trust in him.
Social justice is part of following Jesus, but it is not all that he taught. He also taught that faith in him - in his authority (the Centurion, Luke 7), in his power (bleeding woman, Matt. 9), in his ability to heal (the blind man, Matt. 9) - would save. In each of these stories…presented as historical events in the life of Jesus…the lesson is faith.
“I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” Luke 7:9
“Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” Luke 7:50
“When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.’” Matt 9:1
“Take heart, daughter,” he said, “your faith has healed you.” Matt. 9:22
“Do you believe that I am able to do this?”
“Yes, Lord,” they replied. Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith will it be done to you” Matt 9:28-9
If you look around the comments here you’ll find a lot of comments assuming that because I think that believing (in the intellectual sense) in Jesus is necessary, I must think that it’s the only thing. That’s what you imply when you say, “Do you believe Jesus or simply believe he existed?” I do both. Following him means repeating his words and bringing them to life.
I’m not “caught up in the literalization of metaphors.” Do any of my statements imply that I’m trying to “follow him as if he was physically walking around”? It seems you have a poor understanding of what is metaphorical and what is literal in the Gospels.
Here’s a test question. In my first red-letter example, a disciple is wanting to bury his father. When Christ says, “Follow me, and let the dead bury there own dead,” what was literal and what was figurative (from the disciple’s perspective)?
Now for us, is any of it literal?
Blogs4God
Oh, I am starting to like your thinking!
This post nails everything I hate about the Emergent Movement. When Paul spoke in Athens, there were three groups which emerged. The first thought he was an idiot. The second found him interesting and wanted to know more. The third believed.
Emergents are like people who freak out that the message of Jesus is too radical for the modern “enlightened” world. Then they mash it into “consumable” bits for the masses to indulge in.
For example, check this post at TallSkinnyKiwi found here: Poll on Hell. Is that REAL fire?