Red-Letter Christians
Are you a Red-Letter Christian? These Christians believe that Evangelicals should focus on the actual teachings of Jesus (hence "red-letter"), especially when it comes to social issues. The movement was started by Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis in response to the Religious Right's heavy emphasis on abortion and homosexuality--two issues that Jesus did not address directly. Campolo has a short piece on Belief.net that defines the Red-Letter Christian movement.
Campolo and Wallis fall into the category of Progressive Christians. Campolo is a professor emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University in Pennsylvania, and a popular Christian speaker. Wallis is head of the progressive Christian magazine Sojourners and author of the recent book God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It (2004). According to Campolo, the reason for creating the Red-Letter Christian movement "was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics."
The social issues valued by Red-Letter Christians are the issues that Jesus spoke of directly, including caring for the poor, evangelism, and loving one's enemies. They believe that these issues should be the political priorities of Christians rather than other issues like homosexual rights, abortion, and war. They argue that these issues are important but over-emphasized by both liberals and conservatives. This last point is an important one as I suspect many Christian Republicans accuse the progressive movement of being soft on abortion and homosexuality. Campolo addressed this point in a recent podcast by stating that they don't want to minimize these two important issues, but that they shouldn't be the only issues as they often are for many Evangelicals, especially when it comes to voting. Jesus spoke about poverty more than any other issue. Why isn't that the main social issue for Christians? What about peace? What about the environment? Red-Letter Christians are pushing for a more holistic approach to political issues. Dobson and Colson balked at this notion, arguing instead that Evangelicals must remain focused abortion and homosexuality as their primary social issues.
As you might expect, the Red-Letter Christian movement has been accused of shaping its belief around politics rather than the other way around. I think that criticism is a straw-man argument that attacks Christians who want to let abortion continue and support homosexuality. That's not what the movement advocates. They are anti-abortion and are very concerned about homosexuality (though they are certainly softer on this latter issue than most conservative Evangelicals). Those of you who know me can immediately see that I fit very nicely with the Red-Letter Christian movement. I must say, however, that I think that name is a bit unfortunate because it could be interpreted as taking only what Jesus said with disregard for the rest of the Bible. That's not the case, of course, but it sets up an easy mischaracterization by idiots like Falwell and Robertson.
Interesting. I was not aware of this specific ministry, but I have noticed that there is a definite movement toward reclaiming the faith from the various boxes it has been put in, often unknowingly by people and institutions with the best of intentions. I've been working through Robert Webber's "Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World." It presents a different but related way of tackling the same problem by reexamining the history of the church and offering a critique of the analytical tools each major era used to understand the Bible. Many multisyllabic words are used; I have found it to be quite illuminating in helping me understand things about our own interpretive blindnesses. The short summary is that we have so personalized Jesus, put him in such a small box, that we not only miss the big picture of creation and Christ's victory over darkness, but that as a result we tend to overlook our role in the world.
That is where Webber's theories match up with Campolo's, I suspect. I would guess that the ultimate conclusion for both is that we as Christians have been called to live out our lives in a way that is clearly set out for us in scripture, a way of living that is all too often ignored by otherwise well-meaning Christians. The point of departure of the two analyses, I would guess further, is that Compolo chooses to focus heavily on Christ's own words, whereas Webber looks to the entire arc of creation as a way of getting us to understand our role in it. Different philosophical takes that have the same goal: getting Christians out of the pews and living in a manner worthy of the calling. I suspect, though, that the Campolo argument verges much closer to a works-based theology, which I think would also be unduly limiting. However, I haven't read up on it, so I can't say for sure. I would commend Webber's book to you, though. It is very liberating in some ways.