Red Letter Christianity: A new name for progressive Evangelicals by Tony Campolo

There have been many who have been critical of this new movement. Some have said that we hold the red letters of the Bible as being superior to the black letters, and that we have propagated the “simple lifestyle” as though it is biblically prescribed. Our response is, “You’ve got us right!”

Not only do we believe that the teachings of Jesus are superior to anything else in the Bible, but that Jesus Himself said that His words were superior to what we read in the black letters.

Statements like that make me so mad.

Mr. Campolo, what about 2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Is the definition of “All” here uncertain? Sounds familiar. “Depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is?”

Also, since Jesus’ words weren’t instantly transcribed, how did 1st Century Christians become Christians? Might they have looked to the OT, what you call the old law, to see Christ in it? (Credit to Thabiti Anyabwile for this idea)

The whole “Red Letter” phenomenon seems like a convenient way for liberal Christians to portray themselves as being more faithful to Scripture than “regular” Christians. “Look at us, we care the most about Jesus’ words”. How come the only words of Jesus they care about are those that oppose violence and promote caring for the poor? What about the words about hell and leaving all for Christ?

This really sounds like Jesusianity, which is not a good thing (Credit to Darrell Bock for this term). Everyone likes Jesus. The reason it’s called Christianity is because Christ, as a crucified Savior, is an offense and that is what sets us apart.

Provocative, and entirely spot-on, commentary on Facebook by Mark Galli . My time on Facebook is kept very minimal because of it’s lack of true community and interaction.

While the popularity of Facebook facilitates broad connectivity, I believe it does so at the expense of intimacy. Intimacy is what we really want. But because we are lazy and fearful creatures, we’ll settle for connectivity, because connectivity suggests intimacy but without all the bother. It’s like fooling around before marriage: lots of fun but without the danger of pregnancy or the psychological commitment of intercourse.

While Facebook connects me to people at one level (I have more “friends” than I’ve ever had — I feel so popular!), at another level it makes it harder to really connect with people. This is especially true when I take my Facebook responsibilities seriously — that is, read friends’ status updates, regularly post my own, and send messages to friends. It’s a lot of fun when I have the time. But it’s a huge distraction.

…

as we are slowly learning in this techie age, electronic communication is a poor substitute for audible conversation and physical presence with another. There’s a reason God created us with bodies, and why bodily presence is necessary to create and sustain truly meaningful human relationships.

Instead, for most of us most of the time, Facebook is relational entertainment. And like all forms of entertainment, it is a gift of the Creator of joy. It can temporarily distract us from our routines and problems, and offer brief spurts of happiness. It seems more human than television, but in the end, it’s an extension of television. It’s interactive reality television. We read about the daily plotlines of other characters, and add our own plot twists and witty dialogue, and then talk to others about what we read and said around the office coffee machine.