Previous Post – The Cost of Community – Cover Art
Recently, Tony Campolo invited me to become a regular contributor to at Red Letter Christians (which I accept with this piece on the church & mental illness). Tony sums up the sites purpose:
“The goal of Red Letter Christians is simple: To take Jesus seriously by endeavoring to live out His radical, counter-cultural teachings as set forth in Scripture, and especially embracing the lifestyle prescribed in the Sermon on the Mount.” (see full explanation here)
Given the commitment of our Little Flowers Community to do just that, especially where the Sermon on the Mount is concerned, I am thrilled to be a part of this movement in the making. Yet, since posting at the site, I’ve received several polite, but pointed emails from people, generally asking the same thing:
Aren’t you affirming an unhealthy two-tiered reading of Scripture by identifying more with Jesus’ words than the whole of the Bible?
This is a fair question, but one for which there is a good answer. While I don’t speak for all involved at Red Letter Christians, I think it is important for me to explain what it means for me to resonate and identify with it.
First, “red letter Christian” is not the arching term with which I define my whole faith, any more than being called a husband makes me any less a son or brother or father. So while it reflects an important commitment, it should not be understood as an affirmation over and against other aspects of my wider faith.
Second, the concept of Red Letter Christians was obviously inspired by the Red Letter Edition of the Bible, invented by editor Louis Klopsch, in which the words of Jesus appear in red ink. Klopsch made it abundantly clear that this innovation was not intended to elevated one part of Scripture over any other, but rather to actually allow us to focus on the fullness of what Jesus said, seeing how powerfully it reflected the truth and fulfillment of the rest of Scripture. Tony reminds us:
“In the Red Letter Bible we do not find a hierarchy of Scripture. Rather, what we find is a way of looking and reading the text that connects what Jesus said to the black letters both before and after the gospels. Whether Christ is referring back to Leviticus or Luke in the book of Acts is building on something Christ said, the Red Letters vividly show the connection between Christ’s words and the whole of Scripture.”
Finally, and most important to me, my commitment to being a Red Letter Christian is out of the deep conviction that we have drifted away from what radical obedience to the teachings of Jesus looks like. This is why I am drawn to people like St. Francis of Assisi who, even in the extremes of his literalist interpretations, powerfully demonstrates the impact a life can have when it is solely dedicated to being a true follower of Jesus. This is why I am an Anabaptist in leaning, convicted that we have all too often allowed Christendom to lull us into status quo worship of Christ that demanded minimal actual obedience to His words & example. This is why our community dedicates itself to exploring what it means to live the words of Jesus- having been especially disrupted by His stunning Sermon on the Mount.
That some might take such a commitment too far is a fair concern. However, such concern can become just as much a hindrance when it keeps us from facing the prophetically painful questions that Jesus’ words & example confront us with. I am humbled and excited to be a small part of a group of people committed to live out such an emphasis.
Tags: Missional
Yah, I ‘ve tended to have an aversion to ‘red letter’ Bibles (or maybe ‘red letter’ thinking to be more accurate). And I think you draw attention to some of the complexity of the issue. However, it would seem that perhaps the handful of Aramaic statements should be the ones in red letters (if that). I still think taking the formation of canon, internal translation and diverse expressions as well as Pauline theology seriously makes a ‘red letter’ approach problematic. Not that I have a real bone to pick with how I see your theology taking shape it more has to do with how this tends to play out popularly.
Red letter thinking can quickly keep the Word from coming to us as strange . . . as it did to its first audience. The red letter markings must continually be called into question and re-considered in each time and context.
thanks for clarifying your position, Jamie.
bless you in it…
Fine work brother
Hey David,
In truth, I do not own an actual red letter edition of the Bible. However, I see that innovation not much different than the addition of chapter & verse (though somewhat less practical overall). As a generalized emphasis, I find it helpful and acceptable. However, if someone were to use it scholastically, I agree with you. They do not work well through that lens.
However, used & understood appropriately, I believe that they can accomplish exactly what you are suggesting: Jesus’ words can continually into question and re-consider Scripture for each time and context. I am of the conviction that Jesus’ life & words are the center-piece of Scripture- not higher than or better than, but simply the lens through which whole is best understood (though, of course, understand Jesus’ words & example requires the mutual informing of the full Bible as well).
Thanks!
Thanks infuse (I never know if you want to be outed with your real name here, so that is why I call you by what you post). Peace!
Thanks Josh. It is really exciting.
I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with a ‘two-tier’ approach. It makes sense to me that a Christian (as opposed to a ‘Biblian’, to coin a phrase), would read, say, the Torah through the lens of the gospels, and specifically the words of Christ.
Jesus himself acknowledges this tension – ‘You have heard it said…, but I say….’
I’d be quite happy to take the position that the sermon on the mount has greater significance than, say, the second chapter of Ezra.
Hey Trevor,
While I understand what you are saying, Jesus also said that He wasn’t taking anything away from the Law and the Prophets, therefore their importance shouldn’t be reduced. Rather than an hierarchical tier of significance, I prefer to see Jesus as the Rosetta Stone of Scripture (though this is an imperfect analogy). Thanks for weighing in.
Peace,
Jamie
Good stuff Jamie. There is a cool little kids Bible that’s been out for a few years called the “Jesus Storybook Bible” We’re using it as curriculum for our kids program at church and it is so good (reading it to the kids last week, it was hard for me to keep from crying : ). The bi-line of the title is “Every story whispers his name”. I love that. Yes, Jesus IS the Word that is with God and is God. If we’ve seen him, we’ve seen the Father. His heart and passion are alive throughout the whole Bible. It’s important to read the Bible through the lens of the red letters.
Hey Chris. I LOVE that line- “every story whispers his name”. Thanks for sharing that.
Peace
Jamie
[...] Previous Post – Why Red Letter Christians? [...]