"Red Letter Christians"

[etnavibes]

I'm reading the book "Red Letter Christians" by Tony Campolo. Campolo talks about Christians who believe Christ would neither be Democrat nor Republican, and just listen to the words of Jesus- hence the "Red Letter" part. What is great about this book is that he talks about how the Christian Right does NOT represent all voters of faith. While stating that abortion and gay marriage are hot topics, other topics, such as the environment, poverty, education, etc. All-in-all it is a great book that progressive, moderate and conservative Christians would like to read.

I recommend it!

[afleitch]

I can't fault their commitment to social justice and they often find common cause with progressive/liberal Christians. John Danforth would be involved in that to a degree wouldn't he?

[etnavibes]

John Danforth would be involved in that to a degree wouldn't he?

With that particular group, I am not sure if he is affiliated but he is a vocal advocate of moderate Christian policy.

[etnavibes]

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/185/story_18562_1.html

This is an article by Campolo about RLCs that is expanded upon in the book.

[Ebowed]

Campolo has some notoriety among fundamentalists and conservatives because he was a religious advisor to Bill Clinton and also suggested that he supports same-sex civil unions.

[JSojourner]

I know Tony Campolo and have interviewed him on several occasions.  He is one of the most remarkable Christians of the last 30 years.  He is Evangelical, in that he believes Jesus Christ to be the only way to Heaven and salvation to be a gift of grace, through Christ's blood shed on the cross.  He believes Jesus is literally, bodily risen from the dead.

He also believes the Bible has far more to say about poverty,  treatment of people at the margins of society, war, the environment, and other social justice issues than it does about either abortion or homosexuality.  It has been many years since I have talked with him, but I believe he regards abortion as a usually avoidable, uncessary evil...and homosexual acts (though not necessarily orientation) as sinful.  But either or both positions could have changed. 

Above all, Campolo may be the greatest preacher of our age.  He is not the best expositor, but he is easily the very best story teller.  And story telling as a means of Biblical witness is at least as legitimate as expository exegesis, if not more.  Jesus tended to prefer the former without discarding the latter.  So it is with Campolo.

I highly recommend his books, Following Jesus Without Embarassing God, The Kingdom of God is a Party, It's Friday, But Sunday's Comin', How to Rescue the Earth Without Worshipping Nature, Carpe Diem and many others.

I don't always agree with Tony.  But he's a visionary Christian eager to move the Church beyond old paradigms.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Point 1

First of all, any novice reader of the bible knows that no portion of scripture trumps another, rather you have to take the whole council of God:

Mat 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "   (Note that this is a "Red-Letter" verse)

Jesus called sexual immorality sin.  Period. 

Jesus commanded Christians to get personally involved in taking care of the poor and needy.  Period.

It doesn't matter if he mentioned one 6 times and the other 12 times.  BOTH are still required.

To claim that 12 references trump 6 references is transparently self-serving and deceiving, regardless the qualifications of the preacher.

Point 2

No where in the bible does it advocate charity by proxy.  It does not advocate forcefully taking from the rich to give to the poor.  Rather it advocates free-will and personal involvement in charity.

Point 3

On average, conservative Christians give more to charity than liberal Christians.

[JSojourner]

Point One:  Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, ever.  Not once.  Not even close.  Leviticus mentions it as an abomination along with eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of mixed fabric. The Sodom account is quite clear -- God's wrath came upon Sodom because the men of Sodom wanted to commit an act of rape.  The fact that it was homosexual rape did not make it worse than if it was heterosexual rape.  (Some conservatives might think so, but God does not favor one kind of gang rape over another.)  In fact, in Ezekiel, the prophet clearly says that Sodom was destroyed because she was arrogant, overfed and neglectful of the poor and the oppressed in her midst.  No mention whatsoever is made of homosexuality.  Though Ezekiel did add the catch phrase "other detestable things" in his list of indictments.  Whether that refers to gay sex between two men in a committed relationship or gang rape is unclear.  But I can guess.  St. Paul mentions homosexuality unfavorably in Romans one.  The passage can be interpreted in two ways.  One, that homosexuality is sinful because it is unnatural.  (If it is unnatural, that would lend credence to the view that no one is born gay -- but rather, they exchanged their natural instincts for perverse ones.)  Two, that what is perverse and sinful is not homosexuality or heterosexuality -- but doing what is unnatural.  So, for the heterosexual, homosexuality would be a perverse choice in God's eyes.  For the homosexual, behaving as a heterosexual would be an abomination to God.  This would be more logically in keeping with what we know scientifically -- that some people are born gay and most are not.  Finally, Biblical references to homosexuality in other New Testament letters are very difficult to exegete based on what we know archealogically, historically and extra-Biblically.  When Paul condemns the effeminate, is he condemning gay men? There is some historical evidence that St. Paul was reacting to sexual orgies, including -- but not limited to -- homosexuality, that took place in church communities.  If this is true, it follows that Paul would advocate celibacy or monogamy, regardless of sexual orientation.

Point two:    The Bible is replete with calls for government, Kings, rulers and officials to do justice to the poor.  Conservatives err when they insist generosity and charity are only to be done on a personal level.  It's simply unBiblical.  In Jeremiah 22, the prophet calls the people, the King, the rulers and their officials to sit in the gate and listen.  He tells them that they will prosper as a nation and as individuals if they corporately and individually care for the poor, do justice to workers and aliens and rescue the oppressed.  The entire book of Amos says God will lay waste to nations and governments that neglect the poor and trample on the needy.  Isaiah is filled with prophetic words for governments as well as individuals to do justice to the poor.  Perhaps most telling is Jesus' vision of judgment in Matthew 25.  There, the Savior begins his sermon by saying 'THE NATIONS' will be gathered before him and judged.  And these nations are judged here -- solely -- on the basis of what they did and didn't do for prisoners, the destitute, the naked and anyone in need.  Jesus never equivocates on this or backtracks to say he is speaking figuratively about individuals.  He is talking about nations. What's more, we know this to be true because he is plainly teaching that the nations are saved or damned purely on the basis of their deeds.  Therefore, he cannot be talking about individuals.  Individuals, St. Paul teaches, are saved solely and totally on the basis of faith and trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  Salvation of the individual comes through grace only.  Salvation of the nations (ethnos, people groups, governments) comes through good works.

Point three, I have never seen any evidence or proof of this statement.  But if it is true, then it is nothing more than a prophetic witness on the part of my conservative brothers and sisters.  If it is true, then I commend them with my whole heart and being and I will -- in my teaching, preaching and praying -- continue to hold them up as examples to us all, liberal Christians included.  Of course, I don't know if it's true or not.

Jmfcst, this will be the last time I dialogue with you about these issues.  I like you.  I genuinely do.  But we have been over this stuff time and time and time again.  You are not going to change my interpretation of Scripture and I am not going to change yours.  I am just offering this post as my last and final response because we're just not getting anywhere.

[Bono]

Point two:    The Bible is replete with calls for government, Kings, rulers and officials to do justice to the poor.  Conservatives err when they insist generosity and charity are only to be done on a personal level.  It's simply unBiblical.  In Jeremiah 22, the prophet calls the people, the King, the rulers and their officials to sit in the gate and listen.  He tells them that they will prosper as a nation and as individuals if they corporately and individually care for the poor, do justice to workers and aliens and rescue the oppressed.  The entire book of Amos says God will lay waste to nations and governments that neglect the poor and trample on the needy.  Isaiah is filled with prophetic words for governments as well as individuals to do justice to the poor.  Perhaps most telling is Jesus' vision of judgment in Matthew 25.  There, the Savior begins his sermon by saying 'THE NATIONS' will be gathered before him and judged.  And these nations are judged here -- solely -- on the basis of what they did and didn't do for prisoners, the destitute, the naked and anyone in need.  Jesus never equivocates on this or backtracks to say he is speaking figuratively about individuals.  He is talking about nations. What's more, we know this to be true because he is plainly teaching that the nations are saved or damned purely on the basis of their deeds.  Therefore, he cannot be talking about individuals.  Individuals, St. Paul teaches, are saved solely and totally on the basis of faith and trust in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  Salvation of the individual comes through grace only.  Salvation of the nations (ethnos, people groups, governments) comes through good works.

When the Bible goes into detail about the poor's grievances, it's always about infringements upon their negative rights rather than any positive rights.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, ever.  Not once.  Not even close. 

Jesus never mentioned bestiality, ever.  Not once.  Not even close.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, ever.  Not once.  Not even close. 

Jesus never mentioned bestiality, ever.  Not once.  Not even close.

So, JSojourner, where does your logic go from here? 

Unless you're going to also argue a case for bestiality, then you have to admit the four gospels are not exhaustive.  And if they are not exhaustive, then the logic of your point is in error.

[War on Want]

Point 3

On average, conservative Christians give more to charity than liberal Christians.

WTF!? Why does it matter? Does it make us evil sinners if we on average give away 3.5 cents less than Conservatives. Come on!

[Ebowed]

Jesus called sexual immorality sin.  Period.

Welcome to the real world where people have better things to worry about than what the sexual orientation of their neighbor four houses down the street might be.