- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostInterview Questions
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/25)
Book Review - "Red Letter Christians" by Tony Campolo
- 02/24/08
- 37
There are some people who will probably read no further than the title of Red Letter Christians, the latest offering from Tony Campolo. The reference to Red Letters will no doubt convince people, even before they read the book, that it is a defense of ignoring the black letters of the Bible (which is to say, most of the Bible) in favor of the red words (the words actually spoken by Jesus). While I, too, am somewhat uncomfortable with the term, it is only fair to allow Campolo to define it before passing judgment!
"A group of us who are speakers and authors and who share an evangelical theology got together and confessed that we have a hard time applying the label [Evangelical] to ourselves anymore. Among those who gathered were Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr and Jim Wallis. They settled on the name "Red Letter Christians" as an alternative to evangelical. "In adopting the name, we are saying that we are committed to living out the things that Jesus taught."
According to Campolo, Red Letter Christians...
- ...hold to the same theological convictions as do evangelicals (beliefs summarized in the church's historic creeds).
- ...have a very high view of Scripture, affirming that the Bible is an infallible guide for faith and practice. They emphasize red letters because they believe you can only properly understand the rest of the Bible when you read it from Christ's perspective.
- ...are differentiated from other Christians in their commitment to social justice.
The focus on the red letters means that they will seek to look to the red letters as their guide to understanding the black. They will look first to Jesus before Paul or any other biblical author. This leads to a concern with social justice. Campolo says that poverty is a major concern to Red Letter Christians and he makes the clear throughout the book. From reading this book I'd actually conclude that it is the predominant concern.
I'm not so sure that Red Letter Christians are entirely fair to Evangelicals. At one point Campolo draws what is clearly a caricature of Evangelicals saying, "There are Evangelicals who argue against environmentalism, claiming that global warming is a myth (or at least grossly exaggerated), and that environmental concerns distract Christians from those matters that should fully occupy our moral and political attention: gay marriage and abortion."
Related to the concern with social justice is a concern with politics, for the two tend to go hand-in-hand. As Christians involve themselves in the political process, they can guide their nations to policies that will promote social justice. The stakes are high, says Campolo, for "On the day of judgment, the Lord will not ask theological questions so much as He will ask if we fulfilled our social obligations." Campolo anticipates, probably rightly, that some will hear this and immediately cry "liberalism" and he responds in advance, carefully stating that this movement cannot be easily and conveniently labeled as liberal or conservative. "Conservatives maintain many lines that should never be crossed, while liberals destroy many lines that should never have existed." Instead, this movement seeks to be guided by Scripture. "Challenging the popular image of Evangelicals is one of the purposes of this book. I want it to be known that there are millions of us who espouse an evangelical theology, but who reject being classified as part of the Religious Right. We don't want to make Jesus into a Republican. On the other hand, we want to say loud and clear that we don't want to make Jesus into a Democrat, either." Red Letter Christians can and should take their place in all and any political parties that are democratic and egalitarian. This book seeks to help the reader understand how Red Letter Christians will think about and react to a variety of social and political issues.
And so Campolo seeks to lay out a biblical approach to politics and, in the book's second chapter, outlines what this means. Red Letter Christians believe that Jesus Christ has initiated His new kingdom and this kingdom is made up of transformed people living in a transformed society. When we preach this message, he says, we are preaching the gospel. The primary way God uses the church to usher in the fullness of His presence in history is "by commissioning its members to serve in each and every social institution ... and, like leaven and salt, to permeate these institutions with Kingdom values. Being in all the world, living out the love of God, working for justice whenever opportunities arise, and talking about how God is impacting their lives are the activities that make ordinary Christians into effective change agents, and together living the fullness of the presence of God." How this gospel can be held as being consistent with the gospel of the historic church and its creeds escapes me, for this seems to be a gospel that is far more about social justice than about the substitutionary atoning death of Jesus Christ.
The bulk of the book, seventeen chapters, looks at a variety of timely Global Issues (the environment, the war, Palestine and AIDS), Hot-Button issues (gay rights, gun control, education, abortion, immigration, crime), Economic Issues (the federal budget, the minimum wage, debtor nation, wasteful government) and Government Issues (political lobbyists, campaign finance, the right kind of candidate). It really applies mostly to Americans as many of the issues are specific to the United States. Others are more widely applicable but are set in an American context. The book seeks to give a biblical, Red Letter perspective on each. "I hope that this book challenges the reader to develop his or her own perspectives, and encourages him or her to use biblically based critiques to examine the pros and cons of contemporary political debates." In some cases, Campolo succeeds as he looks to Scripture as a guide to our response to various issues. In other cases he seems to miss the mark entirely, stating his beliefs without reference to Scripture or drawing on Scripture only very narrowly. Yes, it is important to look to the words of Jesus as we seek to understand how we are to live in this world, but looking only and sometimes even primarily to the red letters may mean we are ignoring ones which would further explain or further interpret. It may mean we are ignoring the full testimony of Scripture.
Because of the variety and importance of the topics he tackles in Red Letter Christians, it is unlikely that many people will agree with him in every point he makes. But that is not meant to be the point of the book. Rather, the purpose is to help people think both critically and biblically about each of these issues. And in that regard I feel the book falls short. If you happen to care what Tony Campolo thinks about gun control, abortion, immigration, the environment and a long list of other issues, this book may have some appeal. If, on the other hand, you are hoping to find someone to model biblical thinking about these same issues, you will want to look elsewhere. Though Campolo's perspectives are often interesting and often align with my own, I simply do not find that he consistently models biblical thinking or biblical discernment.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (37)
It seems very strange to ignore that the same people who penned the red words also penned the black ones. Therefore, if we believe that we can trust the red words based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and hold that also to be true of the black words, then all the words ought to be red because the same God spoke them all. Or should we to believe that some of God’s words are more important than others?
i’m just waiting for someone to print a whole bible in red text, though i suppose verse numbers and section headings could stay in black.
Tony is a passionate speaker, but his speaking the truth, the whole truth, in love falls way short of what the Word of God calls for. Especially the Cross, sin, repentance, and holiness.
“for this seems to be a gospel that is far more about social justice than about the substitutionary atoning death of Jesus Christ.”
I think this speaks for many today. And it leaves an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach.Thanks for reading Tony’s book, and reviewing it.
Red letter Bibles irritate me almost as much as the Narnia stories. The words in the Bibles are all God’s words.
In a spare moment one time I decided to use my 0.2 mm Artline pen to recolour Jesus’ words in black (I had the Bible because it was the right size and you could shut it with a press stud, which stopped the pages from getting crunched in the backpack I was taking onto campus).
Anyway I was about two words in to John 15 when I realized the black ink was leaking through the other side of the page. So I stopped.
It doesn’t hurt for Campolo and others to distance themselves from evangelicals. We need more clarity rather than less, and this is a step in the right direction.
The red letters are NO MORE IMPORTANT than the black ones! Claiming to be a “red letter christian” is nothing but a veiled attack on the inspiration and veracity of God-breathed Scripture…ALL of God-breathed Scripture.
I remember someone at our former church making the statement that he interpreted everything in the Bible through the words of Jesus…like somehow that negates or corrects or adjusts truth that is penned by others (not to mention the fact that Jesus didn’t write any of Scripture!).
Finally, if reading the black words through the red ones leads to theology like that of Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, then you can have it, ‘cause I want no part of it.
Campolo’s writings and liberal leanings are well documented. A number of years ago, I read ‘The Kingdom of God is a Party’ and came to the conclusion that Campolo’s writing might best be summarized as much ado about nothing much. There are numerous excellent books available today. And, although Tim doesn’t say it, if you want to be challenged in your relationship with the Lord find another author to read.
Might I suggest: David Wells, John Piper, John MacArthur, or Tim Challies.
It seems some people are failing to heed Tim’s advice to let the movement define their own label. I don’t think there is a single page in the book that says that the Red letters are more important than the Black letters.
I think that they are trying to be corrective towards an error that Evangelicals are prone to make. It is undeniable that the average Evangelical Church is teaching, preaching, a quoting the Epistles (particularly Pauline) way more than should be expected.
Bringing a needed re-emphasis on the teaching of the Gospels and Jesus’ words contained within is not wrong.
Now, what Campolo and other Liberal Christians DO with Jesus’ teachings is the problem. I think that we can reject their liberalism and critique the book (as Time does) without the over-the-top rhetoric about attacking inspiration and veracity of Scripture. If that is what they do, then actually make a point from what they have said, not from what you read into the title of their book.
The focus on the red letters means that they will seek to look to the red letters as their guide to understanding the black. They will look first to Jesus before Paul or any other biblical author.
If what Tim says here is true (and I trust it is), then looking to the red letters FIRST is, in fact, placing more importance on them than on the black letters.
This is more than just a re-emphasis.
According to Campolo, he emphasizes “red letters because [he] believe[s] you can only properly understand the rest of the Bible when you read it from Christ’s perspective.”
That is using the ‘red’ letters as a primer (a decorder), so to speak. It is taking everything else and interpreting it through the words of Christ. It is making the red letters more important than the black letters.
Finally, this “We Red-Letter Christians” chant is nothing more than a social gospel, attempting to effect change (such as help for the poor) through political means rather than through the church. What really bothers me is how flippantly they brush aside the most crucial “social” issue of our time - ABORTION. The church is turning a blind eye to the slaughter of over 115,000 babies today alone (almost 7 million so far this year), and these guys want to start a new christo-politco movement to push their agenda?
Now, if they were putting out all this rhetoric on how they plan to fight the murder of the helpless in this land, I might give them another look. Instead, they want to beat their chests about things like malnutrition, foreclosures, and environmentalism.
Instead of starting up yet another social gospel organization under the name of Christ, why not just join forces with Warren and his PEACE plan? Really, what’s the difference? Better yet, how about taking all that energy and cry out to God that his church would once again be the pillar and support of the truth, starting with themselves?!?!
I have no problem with the Red Letter moniker, and accept it myself. My dispute with Campolo and Wallis, etc. is that they believe the state is the legitimate vehicle for Christians concerned about social justice. I disagree. The state is a pagan institution. Christians ought not to be utilizing pagan devices in sharing the gospel. The proper institution for this action, and the only legitimate collective, is through the Church. Why should unregenerate individuals care a whit about the poor or needy? What right does the believer have in foisting care for the least of these upon unbelievers? The least of these are the full and exclusive responsibility of the Church.
Nathanael Snowndsnow@gmail.com
Campolo is so hopelessly comprimised theologically that in a pre-modern era[as opposed to post-modern] he would have been rejected long ago as a heretic on the basis of his written and oral statements. He is the Father Teresa of the ‘evangelical world’.
Hi Tim,Thanks reviewing this book.. I was considering reading this book, but I’m a little disappointed by your take.Do you have any suggestions on books that ARE helpful “to help people think both critically and biblically about each of these issues”?
Do you have any suggestions on books that ARE helpful “to help people think both critically and biblically about each of these issues”?
To be honest, nothing comes immediately to mind. I don’t know of any books that take on the scope of issues that Campolo addresses here. Perhaps a book about worldview would be a good place to begin…
Tim,
I think people like Tony Campolo, although I have never read him, neither do I plan to, have an important contribution to make to the gospel we preach. The reason I say this is because the gospel that people like Tony preach is a gospel that has to do primarily with kingdom and resurrection.
You said, “How this gospel can be held as being consistent with the gospel of the historic church and its creeds escapes me, for this seems to be a gospel that is far more about social justice than about the substitutionary atoning death of Jesus Christ.” The reason it is about social justice is because part of the gospel is about resurrection. For people like Tony, and I think they are correct, resurrection is the belief of New Creation. Christ was raised before everyone else and has started the New Creation now, before the end. The gospel of the Kingdom is about God’s sovereign reign. In the end we will be made perfect. We ought to be holy now because that is how it will be in the end. Furthermore, in the end God will make this earth new so we better start working for God’s new creation now. This is gospel embodiment.
I totally agree that they miss the importance of the cross in many instances. Some people enough where it is no longer gospel. But I think we often miss the importance of the Resurrection. Again, enough where it is no longer gospel.My goodness if Christ’s work on the cross is the ‘only’ part (and it is indeed a very very very glorious part of the gospel) then the ‘Gospel’s’ and the book of Acts and things like the Magnificat would be very frustrating indeed.
I have read many testimonies where there is a lot of talk of the cross without any talk of resurrection or kingdom. I find this frustrating. On the one hand the reformation folk are right on stressing the atonement but on the other hand the emerging folk are right to emphasize resurrection, new creation, both now and not yet, and kingdom. In I Corinthians 15 Paul says it is both and; but I usually see one take prominence. This is why you need to write a book on the kingdom!
Some people who are helpful to read in regards to these things are: N.T. Wright (Focus is on New Creation with not as much emphasis on Substitutionary Atonement, although it is there), Scot McKnight (Just started reading him), Trevin Wax (Focus is on New Creation and a multi-faceted Atonement), Ardel Caneday (He co-authored a book with Tom Schreiner and is very similar to Trevin Wax), and Tom Schreiner (Focus, from what I’ve read, seems to be on Substitutionary Atonement with not as much on New Creation, although it is there).
Challies writes Perhaps a book about worldview would be a good place to begin…
I agree. I think Colson’s books on the topic are good for that, as are those from Francis Schaeffer. Our church recently did a 6-mo Sunday School class on “The God Who is There,” which was a great book on engaging culture. I am now reading “God and Government” from Colson, which is a reissue (with new material) of “Kingdoms In Conflict”…so far, a very good book on the clash of religion and politics.
Personally, I can’t stomach Campolo or Jim Wallis. I compliment you for being able to get through this book. I have one question - did Campolo happen to mention what verse in the Bible indicates that anthropogenic global warming is true? Your quote from his book seems to ridicule some of us who do not accept AGW. One must not be a global warmist to support wise treatment of the environment. The Wallis/Campolo adherents are quick with the strawmen and caricatures of conservative Christians, but they don’t seem to stand up to their claims of having a “high view” of Scripture.
——bill
Oh, and here are some book recommendations (can you tell I’m bored!): N.T. Wright: Simply Christian, Surprised by Hope (His new book), The Resurrection of the Son of God, The Challenge of Jesus, and his For Everyone Series; Scot Mcknight: A Community Called Atonement, and Embracing Grace; Trevin Wax: http://www.trevinwax.com; Ardel Caneday: The Race Set Before us, http://www.trsbu.blogspot.com, and various articles in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology; Thomas Schreiner: The Race Set Before Us and Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ.
To Roger (#11), John MacArthur and the Master’s College Faculty have also put out a very helpful book where they deal with some of these issues (science, government, economics, education, etc.) from a very general but thoroughly biblical perspective. It’s well worth having.
Sorry…forgot to give the book title. It’s called “Think Biblically.”
So, does Campolo build his case against premillennialism? It seems rather obvious that he thinks we’re ushering in the kingdom if you describe the red letter perspective as, “Red Letter Christians believe that Jesus Christ has initiated His new kingdom and this kingdom is made up of transformed people living in a transformed society.” Is Campolo public about this perspective? First he takes away the sufficiency of Scripture as absolute truth by pushing postmodernism, then he takes away Jesus’ literal kingdom … what’s next?
I think Tony Compolo is arguing for a “progressive revelation” approach to Scriptures, where we properly see everything in the Bible thorugh the lense of Jesus. This is pretty much what Hebrews says that in these last days God has spoken to us through His Son. That said, I do not agree with much of his politics or do I in any way minimize the atonement.
I also find a lack of focus on the Synoptic Gospels in much of Evangelical preaching, and I wonder why we often talk of Jesus and what he did for us, yet we seem to care little about what He said and how He lived and Who He was as a person. The churches who follow the lectionary live their years based on Jesus’ life. I also like the Roman Catholic readings in Mass: one from the Old Testament, one from the Epistles, and the final and most central: one from the Gospels.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Good points Ruben! I know in my own life I have tended to read quickly over the first half of the gospels, namely, Jesus’ preaching and acting out of the Kingdom, and focussed more on the ‘passion’ narratives. The gospels have confused me more than anything in the Bible because I have usually read them as moral advice. But the whole concept of Kingdom is an important one.
Something has gone wrong with our world, namely sin, and the entire world needs to be put to rights. When Jesus healed and forgave sins it put the kingdom on display.God has accomplished this putting to rights in the death and resurrection of Christ. It includes humans, who are put to rights now but anticipate the completed work in the future. It is the same with the cosmos. The new earth is future and is completely a work of God. Nevertheless, we ought to work at putting it to rights even now (here’s where resurrection comes in) knowing that our work is not in vain.
While I agree with what has been said about Campolo, we must not forget that the LORD has set a precedent (in the Minor Prophets) and in the Words of Christ (in Matthew 25) and Paul (Col 4:1) that we are called to uphold a standard of Justice and fairness. Lest we forget Isaiah 58: 6 and 7. Unfortunately we have let Emergents and Liberals speak on issues of social Justice and had few from the Reformed camp speak on the issues from a Biblical perspective.This must not be so. I think it’s time we finally spoke up.
Ruben,Are you sure you mean “progressive revelation”? Progressive revelation is a major criticism of some postmodern movements because they believe that our current revelation (Bible) is incomplete, or unfinished. Progressive revelation holds that God is continuing to add to His Word. The OT was progressive in that it built up and became more complete over time, but it was Christ who completed it. He is the final revelation. The book, Revelation, warns us about adding to it. Hebrews shows how Christ is the promised revelation, thereby completing it in fulfilling the Messianic prophesies.
As for kingdom talk, granted it’s a summary of Campolo’s view, but if he’s really talking about establishing “His New Kingdom”, through social justice (especially if we should do it until there is no more), he is beginning to sound like a postmil person.
Scott, I guess my term is wrong - I do believe that Christ is the ultimate and final revelation of the Father (that is actually the crux of my argument).
Nick, please don’t take this wrong, but it really bothers me that the Gospels confuse you. I once said that I hated the gospels more than any other part of the Bible myself because of the way I was taught to read the Bible and think purely in Theological terms. Isn’t this indicative of something wrong in Evangelicalism that we don’t know where to put the Gospels? I feel as if somehow we lost Jesus. If this is the case, what do we have left?
Scott, I guess my term is wrong - I do believe that Christ is the ultimate and final revelation of the Father (that is actually the crux of my argument).
Nick, please don’t take this wrong, but it really bothers me that the Gospels confuse you. I once said that I hated the gospels more than any other part of the Bible myself because of the way I was taught to read the Bible and think purely in Theological terms. Isn’t this indicative of something wrong in Evangelicalism that we don’t know where to put the Gospels? I feel as if somehow we lost Jesus. If this is the case, what do we have left?
Ruben,
I read over my last post and I realized my grammar can easily be misinterpreted. I meant to say that in the past the Gospels really confused me. There is so much in those four books that I certainly can’t say, “I’ve got it” but I now understand a lot more than I used to.
Campolo’s Fantasy Land:”There are Evangelicals who argue against environmentalism, claiming that global warming is a myth (or at least grossly exaggerated)…”
Real world (Record cold/snow/ice):http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Which is exactly why you are seeing the phrase “global warming” being replaced with “climate change”. The propaganda barely got out of the gate before facts got in the way…
Another suggestion for those who were looking for a book that addresses major ethical issues in a biblical manner. Ethics for a Brave New World by the brothers Feinberg is an excellent book both for explaining how to approach such issues, as well as surveying a remarkably broad number of them.
This was one of the textbooks used in the theological ethics course I took at Toronto Baptist Seminary.
I suggest four considerations here. That is, we should check Campolo’s conclusions with scripture in three ways, and we should check it historically as well.
1. How do Campolo’s conclusions aline with the words in red? For example, does he make any attempt to reconcile Matthew 19:21, 11:5, 26:11, Mark 12:42, etc. How do we understand the different things Jesus says about the poor? Another example: Does the great commission tell us to “serve in each and every social institution … permeate these institutions with Kingdom values … living out the love of God, working for justice whenever opportunities arise, and talking about how God is impacting their lives …”
2. How do Campolo’s conclusions aline with the conclusions of the apostles in the New Testament? Are Christians called to social action? Are we called to be agents of change through social action, for example?
3. How do Campolo’s conclusions regarding Jesus aline with the Old Testament’s in regards to his understanding of Christ? It’s one thing to read everything in light of the red letters, but when reading the gospels and the rest of the New Testament, I cannot help but notice how often the reverse is true. That is, the apostles base so much of their understanding of Christ’s life and ministry in what the Old Testament said about him. Maybe we must understand the Bible in light of Jesus words, but I think we will never understand Jesus unless we understand him in light of the Old Testament.
4. Finally, how did the early church treat the scriptures: the OT, the NT, the gospels, etc.? How did they treat the words of the apostles? Did Jesus words take precedence? Did they receive most of the focus.
Adding to the post above, I’ll just offer some points.
Matt. 11:5 is pretty striking. “The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” The blind are given sight. Ok. The deaf hear. Ok. The dead are raised. That’s pretty amazing, but it makes sense. The poor have good news preached to them. What? Why doesn’t he say the poor receive their needs? The poor are given money? Acts 3:5-7 could be instructive here.
I think that working to help the poor and getting involved in social institutions should have the primary goal of sharing the gospel. I’m sorry but no social institution is going to be permeated with kingdom values when its not permeated with the gospel. I think Al Mohler’s demonstrates a better understanding of how Christians ought to engage the culture and society.
Paul does not seek social change when he sends Onesimus back to Philemon. Rather, he rejoices in a changed heart and appeals for Philemon to demonstrate the evidence of his own changed heart. I apostles took great pains not to make the Bible into a message of social change. It is devastating when we confuse the gospel as a message of societal change. The gospel is for changing individual hearts, not societal moods.
Will,
I’m not going to spend much more time on this post but I would have to strongly disagree with your comments which make the gospel solely about changing individual hearts. God is very much out to change individuals but he is also out to change the world. I am not saying you are a gnostic, obviously you are not, but the whole idea of God being solely concerned about bringing individual souls to heaven (if that is what you are saying) is not the point of the Gospel, it resembles the types of gnosticism we find in the non-canonical “gospels”. But God is out to change the world. I have spent a long time pondering Jesus’ Gospel concerning the Kingdom of God and I can’t see how we are to explain it biblically if we say it was about individuals only (notice I say only). God is out to change the world. Even the creation is longing for the day of redemption because in some way or another it will be redeemed. Christ died to redeem us from our sin through his substitutionary death but then there is the whole Christus Victor thing going on as well where he defeated all the world’s evil. He was raised from the dead which started his whole New Creation plan before the end of time. When Adam sinned it greatly affected man but it affected the entire created order as well. God is out to redeem it all through Christ alone. We are great sinner’s and the world has gone drastically wrong; we need a great Saviour. Thank God for his Son!
Will,
I wanted to apologize in advance if I misinterpreted you. I sure hope I didn’t. Forgive me if I did. And don’t get me wrong. If Campolo, who I don’t know very much about, sees Christ’s atoning death as secondary and social action as primary that gives me great concern.
Another helpful book might be The Kingdom of Christ by Russell Moore. As well as searching for the PCA notes (I think in the late 90’s) for a study group on Social Justice in the PCA headed up by Tim Keller. They do a great job, I believe in trying to define a “priority” of who should receive social justice first, i.e. those within the church and then those outside, etc. This is what Wallis and others tend to forget regarding the scriptures. They just search for the word poor in the bible and say “see” we should be doing this or that, rather than discerning where our resources should go.
I think the problem with men like Jim Wallis and Campolo is that they really think that they are providing a good balance for Christians (as Wallis does in God’s Politics), but after reading it seems that they would be the left’s version of the right’s Jerry Fallwell and James Dobson. They are not really saying anything different.
I have not read exhaustively on the subject, but this is what I gather so far on these issues.
Nick,
Thanks for your comments. No, I’m not offended. I’m definitely more confused than I was before. I’m also young, and I’m developing in my understanding, so I do appreciate your comments, and I reserve the right to change my mind :) Blogs like this one, Al Mohler’s and Justin Taylor’s have helped me to think about issues I never confronted before. Your comments have helped too, so thank you.
I’ll try to clarify what I think. I agree with Al Mohler’s approach. I don’t care a ton for James Dobson’s. Maybe I don’t understand his all that much, but I just see that social involvement can compromise the gospel when we make it our focus. Anytime our focus is not the gospel, the gospel is compromised. As much as I would love to see abortion stopped, poverty ended, etc., I think that is not primarily what Christianity must be about.
My point about Philemon and not confusing the gospel with a message of social reform is not my own. I learned it from several people, including John MacArthur. If the substance of Paul’s letter was a message to release Onesimus, or abolish slavery, for example, what would that say about the gospel to the Roman world? Rather, Paul takes a societal relationship, a horrible one, and demonstrates how the gospel, working in Philemon, so radically changes the orientation of this relationship that one who was a slave is now considered a brother. There is an equality in fellowship here that is incredible. This, to me, seems like a stronger message than any message of social reform could ever be.
So, I think our approach should not be to pour money and resources into Christian action groups with the sole, primary focus of abolishing Roe v. Wade or electing a president that we like, etc. I do pray that there be Christians in politics, and every other walk of life for that matter, because this seems to be a better understanding of the salt and light passages than Campolo espouses. Not a permeation of society simply with Christian values (how weak), but a permeation of society with Christians in every walk, sharing the clear gospel of Christ and living radically different lives than the world.
So as regards the Christ’s kingdom, I agree with you, that he began it. That is, it has come, and yet we are still waiting for his return and the new creation. To me, while Campolo puts a lot of emphasis on the kingdom, he seems to be confusing the kingdom with a kingdom of this world. It sounds like, “Let’s stop the world’s evils, and won’t everything just be great then.”
When you say God is out to change the world, by what method? I think its through the gospel going forth? I’m not saying the gospel is about changing someone’s mind on certain issues. I’m saying it changes hearts, resulting in changed minds, changed actions, changed everything. It transforms us from rebels to worshipers of Christ. Nothing to do with the mysticism that gnosticism taught.
So, Christians may put their time and effort into establishing groups for social action. I prefer putting time and effort into witnessing. Reaching out. This is not completely separate from social engagement - it just isn’t the same thing.
As models, I prefer Willam Wilberforce to Jerry Falwell, and Mohler to Dobson, as I stated previously.
Will
Will,
Can I recommend that along with Mohler, you start reading blogs like Trevin Wax. They are very good. Trevin Wax is a student at Southern Baptist Seminary and he is one of the most helpful people I know. He is doing a series at the moment called, “Gospel Definintions”.
The problem I have often found is that people somehow separate the message of the Kingdom and Christ’s atoning work. That is what doesn’t make sense to me. I am just going to leave you with a quote from N.T. Wright’s new book, Surprised by Hope:
But when we reintegrate what should never have been separated - the kingdom-inaugurating public work of Jesus and his redemptive death and resurrection - we find that the gospels tell a different story. It isn’t just a story of some splendid and exciting social work with an unhappy conclusion. Nor is it just [(notice the word ‘just’)] a story of an atoning death with an extended introduction. It is something much bigger than the sum of those two dimensional perspectives. It is the story of God’s kingdom being launched on earth as in heaven, generating a new state of affairs in which the power of evil [(here Wright includes sin)] has been decisively defeated, the new creation has been decisively launched, and Jesus’ followers have been commissioned and equipped to put that victory and that inaugrated new world into practice. Atonement, redemption, and salvation are what happen on the way [(I don’t really like his way of putting that)] because engagin in this work demands that people themselves be rescued from the powers that enslave the world in order that they can in turn be rescuers. To put it another way, if you want to help inaugurate God’s kingdom, you must follow in the way of the cross, and if you want to benefit from Jesus’s saving death, you must become part of his kingdom project. There is only one Jesus, only one gospel story, albeit told in four kaleidoscope patterns.
Heaven’s rule, God’s rule, is thus to be put into practice in the world, resulting in salvation in both the present and the future, a salvation that is both for humans and, through saved humans, for the wider world…. (SBH, 205-205)
If that just confuses you more, then again, I would encourage you to start reading someone’s blog like Trevin Wax. Another book that helped me was “Kingdom Come” by Allen M. Wakabayashi.
Will,
Soak in all of the Pauline Epistles you can handle. May I suggest 1 Corinthians. But also wrestle with the gospels and Acts. Ask question’s like, “What was the main thrust of Jesus’ message”, “What did Jesus mean by Kingdom of God”, “What are Jesus’ parables and healings all about?”, “Is atonement theology all there is to the gospel”, “Why do the apostles keep talking about Jesus’s resurrection from the dead and, also, the resurrection of the dead?”, “Couldn’t Peter have done a better job at explaining the gospel when he preached?” I think you will find that Christ dying for our sins is of great importance (scratch that, first importance) but I think you will find other gospel treasures (also of first importance) when you ponder things like kingdom and resurrection.Favourable providence brother!