An article in the United Methodist Reporter quotes Tony Campolo as identifying himself as a "red letter Christian" and says Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren are also using the label. I hadn't noticed the use of the term before reading this article.
I like it. It emphasizes the truth that, while all the words of the Bible are authoritative, some words have greater weight than others.
In my mind, the words of Jesus carry greater weight than the words of anyone else. I guess that makes me a "red letter Christian."
11 comments:
I figured that's why we're called Christians - not Paulians or even Biblians.
great way of expressing it.
The words of Jesus are important to be sure. Jesus said that those who do not believe Moses or the prophets would not believe him either.
So taking just the red letters of the bible could lead people not to a full understanding of scripture and its fullfillment.
Jesus expounding the scriptures concerning himself.
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Jesus spoke of Moses and the prophets concerning himself.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Philip and Nathaneal recogonised Jesus from the books of Moses and the prophets.
Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Finally Jesus said if you don't believe in what Moses wrote about Him then you won't believe who He really is. The Messiah.
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
So the red letters are not to be taken in isolation. If they are then it would be easy to render Christ into just a good teacher and not the one promised to fullfill the law of Moses, therefore becoming the lamb of God the one who takes away all sin. Our Saviour.
In my opinion, to not take the Word of God as a whole you are in danger of disecting what suits you and there is a warning for those who add of take away the words of this book.
I don't think the point is to take only the "red letters" as Gospel and chuck the rest. The point is to use them as the lens through which to interpret the rest of the Bible. When Jesus refers to any of the prophets or the Law, we must then consider that with great weight. We certainly aren't practicing all the laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, so this gives us a benchmark by which to measure things.
Did people have to wait for the Bible to be published before they could follow Christ's teachings?...Of course not! Satan laughs at all the babbling of mere man and how it divides us and destroys us. Don't give into it. Let's follow Jesus' example by trusting and holding onto the Old Testament and the words given to him by his father. (John 8:31-32)
To God be the Glory.
I have been a Red Letter Christian for many years, and by that I mean I drawn my doctrine and commandments straight from Jesus and no other source.
However since he said The Psalms, Prophets and Moses point to him I read them to see how they point to him, but not for doctrine.
Some Dea Sea Scroll scholars believe that many 1st Century Jews only saw those three dicision as scripture and did not see the historical books and other writings as scripture.
Actually I read everything, including all the "hidden books", but again as a Red Letter Christian, I build my theology only on the words of Yahshuah.
Once you get a good feel for his words, you find that Paul and the writer of Acts, and the other New Testament writers are not that reliable, and even contradict the Gospel taught by Yahshuah.
Robert Roberg
Gainesville FL
www.robertroberg.com
And what must we take from Scripture, if we are to consider ourselves "red-letter"? Only the words of the Christ, as passed down through generations. If we heed not the words of the Christ, we endanger our self-proclamation of "Christan'--for does not "Christian" imply only directly following the words of the Christ?
Have you stoned your children?
I mean, after all, it says to do so in the book of Leviticus. Forget the ADHD medication, let's just take them out and stone them.
Of course red-letter Christians are looking at the Bible as a whole. It's so easy to say, well don't forget about this or that. I see red-letter Christians as being thoughtful in their approach to the Scriptures. They are trying to see what Jesus had to say and apply it to their lives. Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, but note he also said it was time to take a different approach. See the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus says to walk away from the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" approach and adopt one of loving your enemies. I pray that what red-letter Christians are doing is effectively applying the teaching of Christ in a way that sees the world as God's creation and all of the world's people as our brothers and sisters for whom we can pray, hope and love.
A political movement of "Red Letter Christian" (as opposed to a theological or philosophical one) is based on our behavior as a nation in regard to other peoples and sovereign lands. The belief is that the doctrine of Christ and adherence to the spirit of the word of Christ renders fundamentalism and extremism moot and in doing so exposes the lie on which such predatory and evil policies are enacted. In as much as we as Christians may subscribe to such a movement (and I do), it is faith, hope and love that is our continuity. And that our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. All else is (including my pet politic) ultimately trivial.
There is an entire blog related to this that gives some sensibility to this issue. Red Letter Christians (http:www.redletterbelievers.blogspot.com) follow and live out the words of Christ in every walk of life - at home, at work, in school.
its not about politics.
Check it out
Dr. Prescott, I'm disappointed to see that you are advocating an approach to reading Scripture which creates a "canon within the canon." I do not think you can truly elevate the "words" of Christ above the rest of Scripture and pretend to be standing within the tradition of the Reformers with regard to Scripture. In addition, using this moniker betrays a woefully naive view of the gospel writers' work. While holding to such broadminded political views, are you really advocating a view of inspiration such that the gospels reflect the ipsissima verba of Christ rather than the ipsissima vox?
Post a Comment