Another Reason For NOT Being A Red Letter Christian

Tony Campolo, though claiming to be orthodox, is anything but orthodox. The term Red Letter Christian is a disguise for liberal Christianity. Despite their claim to holding to the full inspiration of Scripture and the Apostles creed, Red Letter Christians are not orthodox, and here we have another example of this truth.

I find it hypocritical that RLC want to embrace both inspiration, and I assume application and doctrinal, of Scripture and yet at the same time want to pick what they want to believe in. The term Red Letter Christian is a reference to the red letters in a Red Letter Bible (duh). These red letters refer to the words spoken by Christ. There are several problems with this.

First, a proper understnding of the inspiration of Scripture means that Paul's words are just inspired as Jesus'. Therefore, we must take the words of Christ and Moses and David and Jude and Peter and Solomon and every elses equally seriously. Every letter, whether red, black, and now green, are inspired. None trump the others.

Secondly, it is difficult to know which words are Christ's and which aren't. Remember, the Greek New Testament did not have quotation marks. In fact, most of the manuscripts we have are in all capital letters with no spacing. This results in not knowing for sure where the words of Christ begin or end in some instances. For example, it is hard to tell the words of Christ and John's in John 3.

But the major problem I have is how they apply the words of Scripture, including the red letters. And Campolo has yet again proven this point.

He has recently written an article complaining about the removal of Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals because he supports homosexual marriage entitled, "Another Reason For Being a Red Letter Christian." Wallis sees this as evidence of the grip of the Religious Right on the meaning of Evangelicalism. Therefore, Wallis rejects the term Evangelical and instead embraces the term Red Letter Christian.

The problem with Campolo is that he sees the removal of Cizik from the NAE rather than theological. How one can approval homosexuality and yet hold to the inspiration of Scripture and the apostles creed escapes me. If Campolo was serious about his "doctrine" his practice would represent that. Instead, Wallis wants to have it both ways. Like a true liberal, he strattles the fence. He wants to be accepted as orthodox, therefore claims to believe in the apostles creed, but at the same time, acts and teaches like a liberal by supporting homosexual marriage, abortion reduction, and other issues.

Furthermore, Wallis and other RLC, commit the same sin that they accuse the Religious Right: misplacing politics in our faith. They criticize the Religious Right, and at times rightly so, of putting too much emphasis on politics, but then turns around and writes books, blogs, and gives speeches on all things political. He endorses candidates and is involved with the Democratic party. He is guilty of the same thing that he has accused Evangelicalism. This is hypocrisy.

So here is another reason not to be a RLC: they aren't who they say they are. Oh wait, maybe that's the same reason to reject them in the first place.
__________

I have written an article on the book, "Red Letter Christians: A Citizens Guide To Faith and Politics" by Tony Campolo and I encourage you to read it for more on the RLC movement (which is simply part of the Emerging Church). It should be noted that this book is primarily a book on politics.