beaconchurches

Well, Dr. Tony Campolo is gracing us once more with yet another of his renditions of evangelistic Christianity and its modern failings. This summary editorial is found at American Vision.

In the Foreword to Tony Campolo’s new book Red Letter Christians, Jim Wallis tells a story about a secular Jewish country-music songwriter and disk jockey who told him that a new social movement was being birthed as a result of Wallis’ God’s Politics and other “social-conscience” books (listen to my radio show on this topic). Here’s how Wallis tells it:

“I love your stuff and have been following your book tour.” Then he told me he believed we were starting a new movement, but he noticed we hadn’t come up with a name for it yet. “I’ve got an idea for you,” he said. “I think you should call yourselves ‘The Red Letter Christians.’ You know those Bibles that highlight the words of Jesus in red letters? I love the red-letter stuff. The rest I could do without.”

Wallis continues by telling how he shared this story with Campolo, who he calls “the ‘godfather’ of Red Letter Christians . . . after all, he is Italian,” and how excited Tony got when he heard it. It’s ironic that Wallis describes Campolo as the godfather of Red Letter Christians since similar to the mafia the policies of Red Letter Christians lack governmental legitimacy.

"The rest I could do without." Well, if they were being completely honest, they try to do without some of the red letters as well. Gary DeMar brings up this excellent point quite well by asking about Mark 7:9-13 in light of this "red letter" movement.

What annoys me about the tact that Campolo takes these days is his insistence that evangelical conservatives have completely ignored the so-called "social gospel." He has been quick to harp at Southern Baptists, for example, for years about their insistence on Biblical inerrancy and yet not follow it anyway. Certainly we all fail in our attempts at perfect righteousness, but to single out the SBC, or any other conservatives, for insisting that salvation be plainly offered and that God's moral laws be taught means that "social-gospel" ministries are ignored is completely disingenuous. I know of many SBC fellowships, both by experience and reputation, that minister in mighty and tangible ways in their communities. Campolo is off-base.

More later. I have to run to do one of those "social gospel" ministry undertakings. God bless!

A follow up article to the "Red Letter" Christian movement points out that even though Wallis & Campolo are putting their eggs in the Red Letter basket, they ignore both the red & black letters when the issue of homosexuality emerges:

Red Letter Christians such as Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis put the emphasis of their cultural ethic on the words and ministry of Jesus without (they claim) denying the validity of all of Scripture. One area in which to test their methodology is on homosexual rights. Campolo devotes a chapter to the subject in his book Red Letter Christians. What is surprising is that Campolo does not address the subject biblically... And how do we know when we are loving God? When we keep God’s commandments (John 15:10; 1 John 5:2–3; 2 John 1:6). How do we know when we are loving our neighbor? When we Keep God’s commandments (Rom. 13:8–10). Love is not a feeling; it is an act based upon a set of moral standards. Instead of turning to the Red Letters in his New Testament, Campolo appeals to scientific studies that “have found that same-sex attraction is not chosen” (89).

(American Vision)

There is a great deal of intellectual and Biblical dishonesty going on in this clash of cultures.

Hi Chuck,

I have been advocating the position that people who make a case for the practice of same sex sex do so apart from the Biblical witness. Campolo and company illustrate my case. And they illustrate my assertion that those who claim to be Biblical and advocate the practice of same sex sex are intellectually and theologically dishonest. Their appeal to the Bible for support must include one of the following:

The Bible is ambiguous and therefore not reliable. (there are many versions of this arguement)
The Bible is culturally irrelevent, so even if we understand it, it is not reliable.
The Bible is incorrect.
Some of the Bible is relevent and correct, but the Bible as a whole is not.
Who reads the Bible? What works for us is right.

When a liberal scholar employs any of these tactics they are making a Non biblical case. To represent it as a biblical case is simply preposterous. Satan appealed to the Word for support. But Satan never made a biblical case for his rebellion.

So for liberals to be treated with respect, they must acknowledge what is apparent to any who have integrity. Their case for the support of same sex sex is not Biblical. Fortunately some of them are stepping up to the plate and admitting the obvious. While I continue to disagree with them, I do applaud the first steps of integrity from those who depart from the red letter obfuscation.

Art

artjaggard wrote:Hi Chuck,

I have been advocating the position that people who make a case for the practice of same sex sex do so apart from the Biblical witness. Campolo and company illustrate my case. And they illustrate my assertion that those who claim to be Biblical and advocate the practice of same sex sex are intellectually and theologically dishonest...
Art

This was the exact point that the ABE made for several years. Even though specific unorthodoxies within the denomination became the ground for the struggle, the accurate issue was (& is) over the truth & authority of Scripture. When apologists for any unorthodoxy work so hard to debase the Word of God in order to advance their particular & narrow-minded agendas, then the reality of Scriptural authority is trivialized for everyone.

Case in point: Campolo, Wallis, et. al. love to beat on the "fundamentalist" Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) for demanding adherence to Biblical inerrancy but then ignoring the "social gospel." Setting aside for a moment their completely false premise that the SBC ignores "social gospel" ministries, let us ask for the source of their claim that Christians have any requirement at all to engage in "social gospel" ministries. Why, the Bible, of course! How can anyone claim to be Christian - a disciple of Christ - and ignore the red letter words (and quite a few black letter words, too) commanding all of the dimensions of "social gospel" ministries they suggest are required? But how can they appeal to Scripture as the source of authority for their call to "social gospel" ministries when they have chosen to demonstrate that the Bible is not trustworthy as our authoritative source? After all, I might argue, the setting in which Jesus was amid a government that did not provide for necessary social services. However, our government today has taken on the role of "social security;" therefore, Scripture's call for believers' involvement in and support for "social gospel" ministries is culturally irrelevent. It is now better for me to protect my personal resources so that I can adequately care for myself, my family, and the demands of government. After all, Jesus would give me a compassionate nod to my conclusion if he were living today instead of in his day. It's just a different world now.

I know that that is quite a hack job, but I hope my illustration shows through. If unorthodox liberal apologists want to justify their theologies by creating an unreliable Bible, then they cannot appeal to Scripture to justify the ground that they want to consecrate as orthodox.

Although it is in the "black letter" portion of the Bible, James 1:27 renders the unorthodox liberal apologists completely impotent. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress (social gospel) and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (moral gospel)." In order to justify themselves, unorthodox liberal apologists must eliminate not only specific verses, but they must even go so far as to eliminate phrases within sentences! Since this is the extreme to which they must go, then please do not attempt to accuse certain Christian sects of ignoring the Word of God because, in accordance with their hermeneutic, there is no Word of God.