On ya Tony!

You make us Aussie's proud! Our Church watched "Jesus Camp" tonight... it's horrific in it's depiction of the Christian Right in America... so scary!

Thanks for your witness to an alternative while still being in the States ;)

Posted by: Jarrod Saul McKenna | October 26, 2007 11:38 AM

I am most moved by the teachings of Jesus. I look to the Sermon on the Mount as stronger authority than Paul's letters or the Hebrew legal code.

That's where I am. However, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17.

My struggle is how do we as Christians rectify this teaching, and though I've just cited one scripture I think it is the idea throughout the Sermon on the Mount, with discounting the Hebrew law.

Has God's relationship with us evolved? That seems more consistent with what Jesus said than the idea that Jesus' teachings replaced Torah.
Prophetic Progress: Sermon on the Mount, Third

Posted by: JimII | October 26, 2007 11:58 AM

'...we do not want to be known as being anti-gay, anti-environment, pro-war, anti-feminist, and pro-gun — all of which have been pinned on all evangelicals (perhaps unjustly) by the secular media.'

So even though you think that we may have been 'unjustly' labeled by the secular media. You are willing to play Nero and throw us to the Secular Lions so that you can have more influence. You call us anti-gay, most of us are pro-people and are just letting them know that God loves them and they do not have to live in their sin. Anti-enviorment - even though many of us are hunters and sportsmen and also give millions of dollors to protect the 'creation' for us and future generations. Many of us just don't want Gore's Carbon Credits (TAX) that will most likely go for other projects and not the creation. You call us pro-war, but many understand that the best defense is a great offense. That when diplomacy has failed - you still have to deal with them somehow. You can't just go home and say (like many of Sojo believe) 'we tried, oh well...next-'. We are antifeminist. No - we just thought it was extreamly wrong that the secular religious left labeled the female that wanted to take care of her children FT as an 'unfulfilled or loosers'. Pro-gun, yes we believe in the Second Ammendment. For all the gun laws there are in the US today - why is the murder rate going up. Maybe it is because it is the person that the left should have been dealing with and not the object??? If the MADD people had followed the same logic as the anti-gun people. It would not be MADD it would be MACK, Mothers Against Cars that Kill.

So - Wallis and Co paint us as the enemy and you abandon us to the secular wolves. Guess we are the new 'untouchables' in the Red Letter Cast-system. Discussion over, lines drawn, paradyme established.

Tony - guess you got it correct - your way.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 26, 2007 12:00 PM

Is there anything new here? This looks like pretty much exactly the same stuff that Tony said to Guthrie the first time, written for pretty much the same audience. Why bother saying it again if he's not contributing anything new?

Posted by: B-W | October 26, 2007 12:38 PM

Moses was legislating for a purpose, to constrain evil and create a state. Jesus had no intention of creating a state, and was merely saying what God demanded of marriage, not what the exigencies of a fallen world require. Christ often reinforced the Law, and when he said "but I tell you..." he was most often contradicting a man-made interpretation of the law (in the case of "hate your enemies," the School of Shammai).

But Moses was also the head of a de facto theocracy whose purpose was the show the world just what God required. (The Pharisees and priests often exploited loopholes in Mosaic Law to do whatever they wanted, and the immediate problem was that many had had serial wives.) Anyway, the present day church exists for the same purpose.

You call us pro-war, but many understand that the best defense is a great offense.

You know that Jesus Himself said, "You live by the sword, you die by the sword." And that's just what you're asking for when you promote preemptive war -- because you can't always intimidate people into compliance. The Middle East should be proof of that.

We are antifeminist.

And you're proud of that? What about the single woman who has to work to take care of herself but who has to put up with injustices there? (And I don't necessarily mean mothers, either.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 12:49 PM

Wow, this opens up that old contest:

Better red than dead!

Better dead than red!

:-)

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 26, 2007 12:57 PM

Tony Campolo wrote:

The second criticism leveled at us in that CT editorial was that by calling ourselves Red Letter Christians, we were giving priority to the words of Jesus, suggesting that what he taught makes earlier teachings in scripture secondary, if not inferior. Again, he has us right!

I appreciate Campolo's honesty, but with all due respect to splinterlog (who sort of anticipated this objection but did not bother to consider where it might come from or whether or not it has any validity) when Campolo pronounces all the "black letter" teachings prior to Jesus "secondary, if not inferior" he does draw a sharp distinction between himself and most evangelicals, who view all scripture as useful for teaching on both doctrine and morality. (emphasis added)

One cannot help but wonder what Campolo's opinion is of the majority of the New Testament -- all that black letter stuff that was written after Jesus ministry. Is that "inferior" too?

Much depends on details -- we all have scripture passages that we find more valuable than others -- but taken to an extreme, this view could very well represent a permanent breach between Campolo and evangelicalism.

I won't argue that the Sermon on the Mount doesn't represent a higher sense of morality than the law code of the Old Testament, but this misses the real issue. Campolo insists on applying the Sermon on the Mount directly to political issues. I tend to view it as primarily a guide to personal conduct. Leaving aside Campolo's unstated secular* liberal assumptions which color his application of any scripture to politics, the question I would like to see him address someday is: How can he be so certain that Jesus intended the Sermon on the Mount to be applied directly to matters of public policy?

Tony Campolo asserts that the majority of scripture is "inferior" to those words that were initially uttered by Jesus. If Campolo can make that argument and remain a bona fide evangelical, certainly it is not beyond the pale to suggest that certain ethical teachings in the Bible are directly applicable to government while others are not?

Wolverine

*to clarify, I'm not using "secular" as some Christians might, to mean "evil, anti-God" etc. I'm using the word in the more neutral sense of something that is not strictly based on religious teaching. The fact that an idea doesn't come from the Bible doesn't mean it's false, but we should be honest about what our secular assumptions are.

Posted by: Wolverine | October 26, 2007 1:03 PM

Campolo insists on applying the Sermon on the Mount directly to political issues. I tend to view it as primarily a guide to personal conduct.

It's actually both. Because, especially in that culture, personal conduct has ramifications for everyone -- even the state. (Few people understand that Jesus even talked about the state in the Sermon on the Mount -- when He made the comments about "turning the other cheek," "giving someone your tunic" and "going the second mile," He was actually proclaiming judgment on Roman law.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 1:10 PM

Ben Wheaton- there was no "bitterness" in my comment to Kevin S. I was merely pointing out something.

Moderatelad wrote:

If the MADD people had followed the same logic as the anti-gun people. It would not be MADD it would be MACK, Mothers Against Cars that Kill.

Ever heard of the Women's Christian Temperance movement?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 26, 2007 1:19 PM

Kevin, I wasn't referring to your post, but solter's one. And Rick, I have heard that explanation of Jesus' command to turn the other cheek et al., and I think it's nonsense. This is a classic case of reading your own desires into the text. The turn the other cheek thing was informing us to have a thick skin--ignore insults and the like.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | October 26, 2007 1:32 PM

His other criticism was that the RLC political conclusions are awfully close to liberal ideology and closely aligned with the platform of the Democratic party. This criticism is obviously legitimate, though Campolo will never expressly say so under any circumstance. Posted by: kevin s. |

When you admit that your religious leanings are aligned with neo-conservative war machine, then maybe Tony can start to discuss where his theology tends to align itself on the political spectrum.

Posted by: JamesMartin | October 26, 2007 1:35 PM

Re: "Turn the other cheek", if you're going to suggest that something means something other than what most people think, I expect you need to say more than just "it's a statement about Roman law," since that's a non sequitur unless you show what about Roman law "turn the other cheek" is meant to oppose.

Myself, I'd heard more along the lines that Jesus was encouraging his followers to not only "have a thick skin," but to do things--unexpected, radical things--that could actually work to create a better reality. If a guy steals from you, give him his tunic. He is apparently in great need. If a guy is looking for a fight, don't give him one, but rather be peaceful. And so on....

Posted by: B-W | October 26, 2007 1:39 PM

"No, because it's not an honest argument."

Huh? Then why does Tony seem to agree with it?

"When you admit that your religious leanings are aligned with neo-conservative war machine, then maybe Tony can start to discuss where his theology tends to align itself on the political spectrum."

I am a conservative and admit as much. Tony is a liberal, and will not.

Incidentally, is that sarasotakid person coming back under a bunch of different names and making these asinine comments, or are these really different people registering their opinions? If it's the former, that is certainly a new level of mania. If it's the latter, well, that's not good either.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 26, 2007 2:26 PM

What evidence is there that the label "Red Letter Christian" is catching on?

Wouldn't it be better if Tony and other evangelical Christians with liberal political views tried to show the media that evangelicals have broader views than just the Religious Right instead of creating a new label? I'm sometimes embarassed by the actions of other evangelical Christians, but I'm not going to change who I am just because of that. Christians should be joining together, not dividing ourselves into groups just so the secular media, that doesn't understand religion to begin with, will like us more. The real problem here it seems is the media portrayal of evangelical Christians as one monolithic group. Tony's not solving the problem by changing the name of what he is.

Posted by: Eric | October 26, 2007 2:41 PM

Rick,

I think in two of the three cases you cite you are confusing mores for laws, and at any rate I don't know how Jesus could be said to be "passing judgement" on Roman law:

Handing someone your tunic: I agree that if you took my pants and I handed you my boxers as well both of us would probably be embarassed. I can say this confidently without consulting state or federal law.

The significance of slapping someone backhanded or forehanded is interesting, but again this is a matter of the meaning of gestures, not necessarily a matter of Roman law. There are certain hand gestures that are considered offensive in American society, but the meanings of these gestures were not established by US law.

The extra mile is the one point where you can cite an actual Roman law. But here the effect of Jesus' teaching is not to get a soldier into trouble. The law (assuming that you have the law straight) says that a soldier can compel a subject to carry his equipment for one mile. It doesn't say he cannot pay that subject to carry his equipment further or that the subject cannot volunteer to go further, which is in fact what Jesus calls for.

In fact, on first impression it would appear that Jesus calls on his followers to assist the agents of the Roman state in their duties.

Don't you find this interesting?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | October 26, 2007 2:49 PM

Rick - Who cares what Jerry Falwell thinks or what Vieth (who I've never even heard of) said? I don't think it serves evangelical Christians well to be seperating ourselves into different groups simply because the media is too ignorant to tell differences.

Black people don't renounce their race just because the media thinks black people all think exactly like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Posted by: Eric | October 26, 2007 3:34 PM

Who cares what Jerry Falwell thinks or what Vieth (who I've never even heard of) said?

I do and you should too, because they misrepresent the faith. Blaming "the media" is too simplistic because the guys I mentioned, and more than a few others besides, really do not take seriously the faith claims of people who don't think the way they do. Besides, unless the reporters are Christians they won't know the difference. (BTW, I'm in the media myself.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 4:06 PM

Eric
I do not understand why you would use that analogy. I doubt very much that it works. I do not think it would matter one bit if a "black man" renounced his race, whatever that could possibly mean. Perhaps if you were to suggest white men renounce their race it might make more sense and be less offensive to boot.

The church has been fractured for so long I doubt very much one more line of delineation will hurt it much.

The term evangelical was at one time used as a line of separation from Fundamentalists. Churches that would once have been called Fundamentalists are now calling themselves Evangelicals. It has no meaning anymore and probably should be abandoned. RLC is as good a name as any, but if chosen I predict it too will become meaningless. If history is any guide those who are now opposed to it will one day use it for themselves. So take heart Tony, Wolverine and Kevin etal will one day be RLCers.

Posted by: wayne | October 26, 2007 4:53 PM

I take the position that God the Father's dealings with His Creation have always all been mediated through the Son. I remind you all of the fact reported by Paul the Apostle to the gentiles that God made His Promise in graceof the Birthright, the Right to 'ancestor' Messiah, to Abraham by faith four hundred and thirty years before He gave the Law to Abraham's descendant Moses. The Law was given to the Hebrews and the Hebrews alone for a time.

If the Father's dealings with His Creation have all been mediated through the Son then He, the Son, was actually responsible for writing the 'Constitution of Israel' aka the Law of Moses, so that the Sermon on the Mount was in effect the Author's Own commentary on what He'd meant in the first place.

The Gospels, remember, were written after the Epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and whoever wrote Hebrews. The Epistles were written when Paul and all were itineratng the Roman Empire spreading the Gospel Proper. the so-called 'Gospels', which carry very little explicitly of the Gospel Whic Paul and the others had preached: Ro 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Remember the Kenosis? 'Being in the form of God, [the Son] didn't think Equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself…' For instance the Son of Man did no miracles until His Baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended on Him, till He, as we Pentecostals say, 'was filled with the Spirit'!

I argue that since Paul and the others preached in the Same Holy Spirit in Whom the Son of Man preached, it's a risky thing to deny the authority of their words. I see nowhere that in fact they contradict the '
Son's OwnWords..

Furthermore Paul early on, in the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians already preached as exalted a Christology as anybod,y including John the Beloved, ever has preached.

The 'Gospels' so-called were written for folks who'd already come to know Christ and asked 'Can you guys who knew Him tell us any more about him?'

As by the Law of Moses so by the Commentary, the Decretals, by the Judge that we call the Sermon on the Mount, we are condemned: by the Sermon on the Mount I am convicted not just of murder, but of serial murders, and of adultery and fornication, a continuing series of fornications and adulteries. There's no Salvation in the Law.

I actually find in the the Sermon on the Mount, that oft-quoted seldom-understood legal document, two cryptic but sufficient hints of the Gospel the Apostles had preached, how the Second Person incarnated Himself as the Man Christ Jesus, 'was crucified, according to the (OT) Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the (OT) Scriptures.' MyV.

Jesus says 'Don't think I've come to set the Law aside; I haven't come to annul it, but to fulfill it.' Again He says 'Unless your Righteousness exceeds the (self)righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, there's no way you're getting into Heaven.'

Christ fulfilled the civil requirements of the Law in that with His inherent advantage as God Incarnate He's the only human Who's ever kept the Law of Moses in every particular. He fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the Law, which were God's extension of His Grace to Israel in the Law, with His Perfect Atoning Death on the cross. And of course the Father ratified the Transaction in His Resurrection.

I'm surprised y'all didn't get all this! Seriously, discern rightful discernment. I think I'm pretty right.

In God's Love, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As Paul, speaking by the Same Holy Spirit by Whom the Son of Man spoke, said 'He Who knew no sin was made Sin for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him.'

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | October 26, 2007 5:27 PM

Rick, Jesus was crucified because the Sanhedrin was enraged that he claimed that he was God, and more obliquely, because they didn't like him undermining their moral authority. Rome could care less--witness Pilate's prevarication. The apostles were martyred because they refused to worship the emperor (save James, who was killed out of Herod's political convenience), not because they opposed the Roman empire.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | October 26, 2007 5:28 PM

There is nothing wrong with introducing new labels to talk about concepts that we want/need to talk about. We distinguish between mist, drizzle, and downpour, but they are all forms of "rain". People should not be offended by the introduction of "RLC". It is merely a label to talk about another flavor of Christianity. We are called to have flavor. If there were not Evangelicals and Caltholics and Presbyterians, but only generic Christians, than we would be a pretty bland church.

Please stop criticising RLCs for using a different name than "Evangelical". It's not being stuck-up or anything. It's just to get at the deeper question of theology. So let's focus on the discussion of theology.

Posted by: steve | October 26, 2007 5:36 PM

Rick, Jesus was crucified because the Sanhedrin was enraged that he claimed that he was God, and more obliquely, because they didn't like him undermining their moral authority.

Remember, however, that in the process He did call Himself a king, which at that point was sufficient to have him killed. And also remember that right before He was crucified the Jewish leaders said, "We have no king but Caesar!" -- a strong statement given the Jews' contempt for Rome. You better believe there were political implications, though they were mixed up with authority and some semblance of religion.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 5:50 PM

"Incidentally, is that sarasotakid person coming back under a bunch of different names and making these asinine comments, or are these really different people registering their opinions? If it's the former, that is certainly a new level of mania. If it's the latter, well, that's not good either." Posted by: kevin s.

My name is James Martin and I am posting under my name. What is your full name? I have read your comments and they are about as asinine as they get. And since when were you the moderator of who should and should not be posting here? I would be willing to wager a bet that there is more than one person here who would not miss your comments if they were absent.

Posted by: JamesMartin | October 26, 2007 9:46 PM

Modlad
Life's a Hillary and then you die? Is that just a semi-cute way of saying too bad, so sad in your most insincere tone to those who face injustice? Maybe if you had to spend a week as a woman, or an ethnic American, or a poor person, you might lose a little of that arrogance.Christians are supposed to care, not make fun of the difficulties of others. But it would just be so much easier if the world was made up of conservative white males.

Posted by: c kitty | October 27, 2007 12:46 AM

Hi, first and last time I will read any comments in this forum... I will invite you all over, know you are not so dreadful, but will wait to see your manners... much less your character in Christ. I don't have to wonder where "Heaven help us" came from...
M

Posted by: michelle | October 27, 2007 2:32 AM

Pause, Please.
Pause, Please.
Before you click "Post" would you assess your post against I Corinthians 13????

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | October 27, 2007 2:54 AM

Loved Wolverine's specification of what 'secular' meant and how we all bring both secular and theological thinking to the table.

When we opine about war (on either side of the fence) there is a mix of secular and spiritual in every comment. When we discuss options for Iran, there is a mix of secular and spiritual (whenever anyone asks, 'what is the most effective response' they are no longer asking a spiritual question but a secular one. The corresponding spiritual question would be 'what would God have us do?)

Sometimes an argument is strongly spiritual from one side and secular from the other. (and this goes both ways).

On abortion the right makes a spiritual defence - this is wrong and must stop, while the left makes a secular defence - this is bad but we can't necessarily do anything to stop it.

On war (Iraq in particular) that pattern is reversed, with the left taking the spiritual perpsective - this is wrong and must stop, while the right makes a secular defence - this was the best thing to do (I am yet to hear anyone on this post attempt to argue that the war is actually God's will - the argument is rather along the lines that it's not against God's will and so therfore it should be judged on secular merits).

Perhaps if we were to consciously face our our secular and spiritual dimensions we could actually find common ground (that would be the spiritual bit).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 27, 2007 8:00 AM

"Almost sounds like Tony is ashamed to be a Christian to me ."

Correction- Tony is ashamed of particular form of Christianity articulated by certain regular participants on this blog. There is plenty to be ashamed of.

Posted by: JamesMartin | October 27, 2007 8:32 AM

Yes, but don't forget that he also said that his kingdom was not of this world, after which Pilate came out to the crowd and told them that he found no basis for a charge against Jesus.

Irrelevant.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 27, 2007 9:49 AM

Ben,
thanks for the relevant comment.

Posted by: Jeff | October 27, 2007 12:26 PM

Actually, Rick, it's terribly relevant in order to understand the story correctly. Pilate had no beef with Jesus' "politics," if he had any. Your reading is reminiscent of certain liberation theologians, so be careful.

I disagree -- strenuously. We're not talking about ideology here, which is what most people think about when they refer to "politics." The key to understanding Jesus' threat to the Roman Empire had everything to do with authority, which can be and often is political in nature (and which, I believe, is true in this case).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 27, 2007 2:24 PM

On the contrary, there have been many commenting here who insist that war is generally God's will to punish the heathen and reward the righteous, and that any particular war, and this one particularly, is an obedient fulfillment of God's will.

This is one of the founding messianic principles of America and Manifest Destiny - that this land of heathen almost-human pagans was to be wrested away by violence from them on orders given by God himself to the righteous obedient Europeans, who had separated themselves from the unrighteous hijackers of God's proper religion in Europe, destined to found a shining city on a hill, mankind's "last, best hope" which would eventually transform the entire world.

That's pretty accurate, right?

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 27, 2007 3:12 PM

You can bet that if the world were made up of white conservative males, it would degenerate quickly into violent competing schisms insisting that theirs was the only true one, and then using the accusations of heresy to justify taking what belongs to the others at the point of whatever weapons were handy.

This would be the case with any other monolithically ethnic or cultural group, as well.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 27, 2007 3:30 PM

This was the ultimate question about authority in Jesus day. His response? Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar. Jesus was not killed because of his threat to Rome

Jeff

Well said Jeff , also in the book of John it tells when the people came to make the Lord their political leader and he fled . He fled , quicker then Al Gore did when they asked him .

The Lord works through people , and its already been destermined and proudly stated by at least Rick that the religious views here do not respect those of others , that is a good enough reason to keep them out of government . Middle East yes , here no .

Posted by: Anonymous | October 27, 2007 4:14 PM

This blog really needs a filter for preople to turn off comments from people here who "troll". It is trolling to frequent a blog for the purpose of starting argguments, and that is what so many of these people who are "hanging around" here for the express purpose of ranting about bad theology.

The filters to do this are often called "bozo filters", which is a less than charitable way of putting it. It just gets tiring to have to read this in post after post. Many of you obviously don't need to be here since it seems to be your purpose to try and show how superior you are and how big a "danger" Sojourners is. It is really rather sad and pathetic.

I'd be delighted to see and read disagreements if it weren't so often from the same folks who seem to hanging around to make disparaging, sarcastic remarks, time and time again. If beliefnet can't provide such functionality, I'd encourage Sojourners to get a new blog host. I want to read the kind of conversation that can be had amongst people who care about these issues, and not have to weed through all the trollsters.

Posted by: Dale | October 27, 2007 4:38 PM

Don,
I also would like to see less sarcasm and meanness. The flip side of this is that others need to have thicker skin. Many on this site seem to be offended when someone else holds a view different from theirs.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | October 27, 2007 5:21 PM

Jeff:

Maybe "unhinged" wasn't the best word for me to use. You are right, most of the dialogue here is healthy. But a few comments seemed over the top, especially some of the comments on Tony Campolo's earlier posting on this topic (Oct. 9). Some there suggested that those who believe in the Red Letter interpretive framework are less than Christian; others seemed to accuse the RLC's of believing that Christians who don't see things their way are less than Christian. That's what I was referring to.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 27, 2007 9:42 PM

"That is not a criticism at all. Why should RLC have to avoid Democratic party platforms to be legitimate"

They may do as they like, so long as their cards are on the table. They are aligned with Democratic interests. I do think that much of their theology is an example of working backwards in order to justify their political viewpoints, but that is a different discussion.

"In fact, how could we tell the difference between Jesus as a man wholly devoted to God and Jesus as God?"

We know that man's sinful nature prevents the existence of such a man, aside from his being a divine creation. Otherwise, the existence of Christ is meaningless, and the scriptures are rendered as folly. Would you consider reading theologians who aren't Jesus seminar types? There is another world out there.

"Irrelevant."

No it isn't. The Sanhedrin knew what he meant by that, which is why they were outraged. However, they knew the Roman empire could care less whether Jesus considered himself the king of heaven. As such, they were forced to pretend he had declared himself higher than Caesar. This is elementary theology, and if you are going to deny it's relevance, you ought to have a better tool than pithy rebuttal at your disposal.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 28, 2007 3:30 AM

"Jesus was not killed because of his threat to Rome" anon.
Anyone who doesn't believe first century Christianity was a threat to the social, economic and political reality of that time hasn't really read Acts. Roman persecution, as well as Jewish, definitely had political reasoning at it base. After all none of the first century martyrs were killed for being good guys. All of them were either seen as scapegoats and/or trouble makers, and politically there was every reason to see them as such.
Paul's gospel message overturned the economic reality of Ephesus and every other place he went to. I doubt very much that anyone making silver idols for a living cared much about anything else beyond the financial loss they might incur if this new religion took hold.
I do not know if Pilate was keen witted enough to recognize what the Kingdom of Jesus would mean to Rome, or any other Government for that matter. He was certainly savvy enough to figure out that killing Jesus was the politically smart move from a Roman perspective. To say that there was no politics involved in the crucifixion is naive. It was not just a matter of religiosity, or because someone thought Jesus was a heretic. We cannot love God and mammon, and the latter is much more than just dollars. It is the power and authority those dollars provide. It is the ability to oppress others and lift ourselves. It is the opposite of the Gospel of Grace that sees all humanity as one, both in value and in need, in significance and in humility.
As a side note most of this argument serves only to make me appreciate the stand for passivism, despite my inherently non-passive tendencies. Certainly I find it harder and harder to find any Biblical reason for war on any front we are now facing. It all just boils down to maintaining our position and power. There are evil men on the other side. Unfortunately our position and actions only serve to justify what they are doing. We would be better served to look to our own acts of evil. If we did so we might just find their ability to market war would be nil.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 28, 2007 1:19 PM

""Jesus was not killed because of his threat to Rome" anon.

"Anyone who doesn't believe first century Christianity was a threat to the social, economic and political reality of that time hasn't really read Acts."

That does not address the statement, which is accurate.

"He was certainly savvy enough to figure out that killing Jesus was the politically smart move from a Roman perspective. "

This is completely different from saying that Jesus was killed because of his threat to Rome. You have to jump through hoops to get to this conclusion. Appeasing the Jews was the politically savvy move, and that is the standard interpretation of the narrative.

"To say that there was no politics involved in the crucifixion is naive."

Which is why nobody said as much. But the political reasons for Christ's death had nothing to do with his own challenges to the Roman Empire. Rome did not see a threat from Christ. Pilate certainly did not. Pilate was manipulated by the very same brand of trickery the Jews attempted to use to trap Jesus.

"That type of discourse adds nothing to the discussion and does nothing to convince anybody that your point of view is more correct than the one you're trying to rebut."

But a single word response does? Why is it wrong to ask for more than a pithy response?

Posted by: kevin s. | October 28, 2007 2:01 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

I disagree -- strenuously. We're not talking about ideology here, which is what most people think about when they refer to "politics." The key to understanding Jesus' threat to the Roman Empire had everything to do with authority, which can be and often is political in nature (and which, I believe, is true in this case).

I actually think you are getting close to the truth here, although you miss the implications of what you yourself are saying.

You seem to concede that Jesus was not ideological. You also observe that that most of the time we tend to conflate ideology and politics.

To the extent that the early church was a threat to the Roman Empire, it was because the Roman government was deeply involved in the religious life of its subjects. This is how Jesus could be a threat to the state without being (what most of us would consider) overtly "political".

While Pilate did not see Jesus as a direct threat to Rome, as the "trial" went on he came to the conclusion that civil disorder would be likely unless Jesus was put to death. In that sense Jesus was a threat to Rome's authority.

But this did not mean Jesus had an ideology, at least not one that could be directly applied to modern government. To the extent that there is a political lesson to be drawn from the crucifixion, it is that excessive entanglement of religion and government is dangerous for both.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | October 28, 2007 3:33 PM

"Can't someone disagree with the "religious right" or those that think similarly without being accused of openly supporting the Democrats? That's just what brings much of the ugliness to this blog."

Why is it any uglier to suggest that Campolo supports the political interests of Democrats than it is to constantly berate religious conservatives? The only difference is that you agree with the criticisms. If disgreeing with you is ugly, then I guess I'm ugly.

"Ridiculous, Kevin. Jesus identified Himself as a king (but Rome would not have known what He was talking about). And as for "not threatening Rome," consider what Herod tried to do to Jesus after the visit of the Magi -- who were hip to Him thanks to Daniel."

None of this refutes my argument that Christ was not killed for his challenges to the Roman Empire. If you believe that, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. He was not killed for his politics. Period. If you want to say that politics had an effect on the circumstances of his death, that much is plain, but it does not advance the thesis that Jesus's life was political.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 28, 2007 4:30 PM

Because it may not be true -- not everyone who isn't a conservative is a liberal and to suggest that's the case overstates reality. Not everything can be reduced to a "liberal/conservative" or "Democratic/Republican" ethos, you know, and your continuing to make that claim leads to unecessary arguments.

He was not killed for his politics. Period. If you want to say that politics had an effect on the circumstances of his death, that much is plain, but it does not advance the thesis that Jesus's life was political.

Untrue, because, as I and others have mentioned, Jesus' presence at that time was by definition political (but, as Wolverine correctly pointed out, not ideological). By identifying Himself as the Messiah, a term which He had to know was fraught with political implications, He injected Himself right into the political cauldron of that day.

Jesus can only be seen as apolitical to a white American Christian. It should at least be understood that most others will interpret his teachings to be replete with politics and to admit that their interpretations may be correct.

That can be a bit dangerous, however. While "liberation theologists" often looked to Him for political freedom, that was only part -- and perhaps not the most important -- of the deal. I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. had the balance right; while he told his audience to work for the end of racial segregation, he also said that it had to be done in a way that brought glory to Christ. In other words, the ends did not justify the means, as when the civil-rights movement became ideological and secularized it began to lose its effectiveness.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 28, 2007 5:53 PM

Uh -- not quite. It was to this statement?

Why is it any uglier to suggest that Campolo supports the political interests of Democrats than it is to constantly berate religious conservatives?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 28, 2007 5:56 PM

"By identifying Himself as the Messiah, a term which He had to know was fraught with political implications, He injected Himself right into the political cauldron of that day."

He called himself the messiah because he was the messiah, not because it had political implications. But yes, Christ wasn't going to deny who he was because someone might interpret his very existence as political. That really isn't saying very much, and certainly isn't evidence that he was injecting himself into the political cauldron.

To make this case, you have to point out a pattern of trying to change policy. That is what politics is, for the purpose of this discussion.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 28, 2007 9:12 PM

"The fact that Pilate was trying to find a way to release Jesus may have just been a superstitious reaction to his wife's dream. "

The scriptures state that he was impressed with Jesus, and that he knew the priests hade brought Jesus to him for scurrilous reasons. Were it not for his wife's revelation, he would have been inclined to simply take the path of least resistance. Further, he redoubled his efforts to release Jesus after Jesus essentially called him powerless (John 19:11).

Jesus was subsequently mocked by the Romans for calling himself a king. The scriptures do not indicate anywhere in Jesus' last days that the empire felt threatened by his claims.

"Also the Apostles like Peter, who were just following this "unearthly" King called Jesus, were definitely killed for political reasons."

What reasons were those? The Roman empire made every effort to destroy Christians. That much is certain. If you want to call that political, then we are stretching the definition of the word.

"To say that Jesus had no politics when he was a Jew in occupied Judea is a hypothesis I think any Jew would find hard to believe, if not laughable."

Apparently, you find it laughable as well. Instead of laughing, how about providing some scriptural evidence?

"Jesus can only be seen as apolitical to a white American
Christian."

This seems a ham-handed attempt to shoehorn race into the discussion. Why is this so?

"It should at least be understood that most others will interpret his teachings to be replete with politics and to admit that their interpretations may be correct."

That many people believe something is not a compelling argument that it is so. Many others interpret the Bible to be a fiction. I understand that this is the case, but I know full well that they are absolutely not correct.

"By the way, as history worked out that is pretty much what happened though, Jewish Christians turning their back on their Abrahamic father relationship, at least from a Jewish perspective. That would certainly make that statement replete with political meaning would it not?"

His statement was that we should hate our mother and father, and even our own life. All three are very human elements, so it would seem clear that he is simply referring to the human mother and father. At a certain point, when we are looking for a place to use our hammers, everything begins to look like a nail.

Sure, statements about the family, the sabbath, giving to Caesar what is Caesars and etc. can have political connotations if we want them to. My cable bill can become a political issue today. But when we examine the context, and examine Christ's life, we see a Messiah who made no effort to advocate for political change.

I understand the impetus for trying to locate a political Jesus. Those who are tired of the "religious right" certainly have every reason to do so. But simply because we want for something to be there doesn't mean that it is there.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 28, 2007 9:50 PM

This seems a ham-handed attempt to shoehorn race into the discussion. Why is this so?

Did you ever notice that, say, African-American Christians interpret the Scriptures differently than white conservatives? It's part of the issue whether you want to admit it or not.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 28, 2007 9:56 PM

"As if He had a choice. The reality is that the political ruled then -- no way around it -- and whatever He did had implications."

I suppose, but then we are left with a definition of political that is so broad as to be meaningless.

"Not necessarily -- just by doing what you do can make people suspicious of your intentions"

So rousing suspicion is now inherently political?

"But in fact, I work here in part because it's the least political (read: ideological) print outlet here."

And yet, strangely, politics can be extricated from both policy and ideology. So what is left? Simply doing things that affect other things. Any action that has any sort of reaction is, therefore, political.

"To say that the Bible had to call them political acts in order for them to be such is an odd way of reading the text."

Which is why I didn't say it. However, my definition of politics necessitates a change of governmental policy, and I can't imagine how the title of this blog does not suggest the same.

If I home school my kids, that has political ramifications, but is not a political act in any meaningful sense of the word, because I am simply making a choice that is best for my children.

"Nice way to dismiss perfectly logical and cogent arguments made by those who do not share your perspective"

Perfectly logical? Bold claim. I am simply ascribing a motvie to what appears to be an attempt to read into scripture that which is not there.

"Read on! Yeah and he reversed himself when he was accused of not being adequately supportive of Caesar"

I addressed this previously.

"You set up a false choice."

What is the false choice?

"Jesus did not have to be overtly trying to change governmental policy to be political."

I disagree. Find me a dictionary definition of the term "political" that does not refer to an attempt to change government.

"His practices, had they been followed, would have undermined the entire social structure."

So changing social structures is also political.

"The religous authorities as well as Rome understood this and he was therefore crucified."

There is no compelling evidence that Rome understood this. We have every evidence that the Pharisees understood this, but again, I do not consider this a political issue.

"But his policy came in direct conflict with Rome and the religious authorities and that is politics, my friend."

It simply isn't, particularly as it related to conflicting with religious authorities.

But again, even if I cede your definition, we are left with a form of politics that doesn't necessarily apply to our own political system. I can be as radically political by tything at my church and staying faithful to my wife as I am by voting or attending a rally for a particular cause.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 29, 2007 1:08 AM

Again...I'm going to ignore the battles over which worldly political philosophy is better than the other worldly political philosophy. Rather like Sambo in the fairy tale with all the tigers yelling "And I'm the grandest tiger in the jungle!" ;)

So...meanwhile, back at the ranch...and back to the original article....

I would also agree that the term "Red Letter Christians" may not be entirely accurate - because it implies we look only to the 4 gospels for guidance on how to live. I find myself, much like poster Ted Voth, very much into Paul's epistles - because he wrote for those of us "neither-Jew-nor-Gentile" believers living in God's Age of Grace.

I find the epistles and the Book of Acts also wonderful examples of how to live in grace and love. Hmmm.... Now, perhaps the stories of Jesus in the gospels give a better visual image (for those, like me, with visual brains who need to "picture" what Christianity "looks" like). As the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words. And an example is worth a thousand pictures."

And I have little doubt that, most likely, Mr. Campolo would probably agree that the epistles and Acts are ALSO worthy examples to be copied - but it's just that the term "Red Letter Christian" refers only to the gospels.

Perhaps "New Testament Christian"? That would include the whole concept of trying to live in light of God's grace and Christ's compassion, as opposed to being under The Law.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 29, 2007 5:34 AM

"However, my definition of politics necessitates a change of governmental policy..."
To understand how politics was, and is still involved in the "Good News" of Jesus, Kevin, I think all you would have to do Kevin is to imagine what would have changed if Jesus' claim to be the Messiah had been believed. That certainly would have entailed the biggest policy shift the world has ever seen and I think satisfied your definition.
To see the Lord's Prayer as only some "religious statement" when we are told to ask for the Kingdom to come, right here and, right now, is to segment life into too many compartments.

Posted by: wayne | October 29, 2007 9:51 AM

"When the Son of Man returns, will He even find faith on the earth?" He must still ask Himself
this question, regularly. Reading all these posts, I wonder how He answers Himself.

We should be careful that our discussions do not evolve into "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Posted by: joekc | October 29, 2007 10:54 AM

The problem comes when we try to square this very broad definition of politics with the contemporary definition that relates to influencing government.

Not quite -- because the United States, per capita, is arguably the least political nation in the entire Western world in that so few people care about influencing government to the extent that, for example, only about half of us even vote.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 29, 2007 12:21 PM

"His statement was that we should hate our mother and father, and even our own life. All three are very human elements, so it would seem clear that he is simply referring to the human mother and father. At a certain point, when we are looking for a place to use our hammers, everything begins to look like a nail."
Kevin

I was quite specifically not using this as an example of Jesus saying something political. You asked for specifics and I was pointing out how easy it would be for someone with your mindset to have them right before your eyes and miss them entirely. Might I suggest your comment about hammers and nails might be better used in a more self reflective manner.

But enough of this for me. The comment about angels and pins could well apply. Anyone who wants to see Jesus can do so, the fact that they might not see him the way I do is not really such a bad thing. We could use our energy better trying to see all the facets of Him as opposed to trying to prove someone else's wrong.
Have a great week!

Posted by: wayne | October 29, 2007 3:05 PM

This is an excellent idea; "Red letter Christians." I wished I'd thought of it before beginning my radio ministry, which I call "Jesus Christ Said." And I intend to use the term someplace in my sermon this coming Sunday.
But it does point to the same place, that Jesus is central in our lives, not Paul, not the OT but Jesus. Do not make the mistake of excluding the others but they are just supporting players in our fellowship with God. They, like us, point to Jesus as our focal point.
Thank you, Tony, so much. What an idea.
Love
David Perkins
The Jesus Christ Said Ministries
www.JesusChristSaid.com

Posted by: David Perkins | October 31, 2007 2:51 PM

I think it's important than when people try to characterize Rev. Campola as Democrat or Republican that the stances he seems to take, pro-environment, anti-poverty... have not consistently been part of either party. It was Nixon, after all, that started the EPA and the minimum wage. It was T. Roosevelt that went after the big trusts and also cared deeply about the environment.

An important point, I would think, about choosing to distinguish oneself differently than other evangelicals is that it isn't just the media that looks at evangelicals as one flavor. It is people in general. If anyone has read "UnChristian" by Kinnaman and Lyans, they know that the general population and especially young people have a horrendous view of Christianity and particularly Evangelicalism. And the poll respondents they talked to didn't get these negative opinions from the media--they had real exposure to Christianity (most of them had spent at least 6 months as part of a Church and had at least 5 friends who were Christians). This negative attitude toward Christianity can be hedged by having a flavor of Christianity with a different tack on Scripture.

Not that I have anything vested in this argument. I'm a former Christian with no hard feelings toward the faith.

Posted by: a_cermak | November 1, 2007 6:21 PM

Sadly I fear that the experiences expressed by a_cermak are becoming too much the norm these days. It is time that the church wakes up and realizes that our political power is not on this earth and it never has been. Jesus literally ran from those who wished to confuse his ministry with political gain.

Politics polarizes, and that just does not fit into the Great Commission. We can't have a message that is turned off before it has begun because the politics gets in front of the teaching.

I hope that the concept of RLC catches on and that we will come back and ask ourselves the question of What would Jesus have us do?

Posted by: m_carl | November 2, 2007 1:58 PM

You're cafeteria religionists playing as Chrstians. Progressives in sheeps clothing no more, no less. Look at how you ignore marriage taught IN the red letters to promote homosexuality to the masses.

Posted by: Steve Rodriquez | November 6, 2007 5:29 PM

We should be careful that our discussions do not evolve into "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Posted by: joekc | October 29, 2007 10:54 AM

4,974,324

4,974,424 in Denver

Does this not depend on the nature of the dance?
See we can quibble even over a joke (great response by the way, canucklehead!!)

Disco - divide by .666 (the Dance of the Beast); square - 1,243,581 on a side; waltz or minuet - divide by 3/4; boogie - 621,790 (8 to the bar); and on and on.

Posted by: jestrfyl | November 7, 2007 3:32 PM

"If the MADD people had followed the same logic as the anti-gun people. It would not be MADD it would be MACK, Mothers Against Cars that Kill."

That's pretty funny - cars don't kill, it's the drunk person behind the wheel that kills.

Posted by: cher | March 4, 2008 2:57 PM