« Think you read people well? | Blog Home | Improve your writing »
Here's a new term doing the rounds. Don't know if it will catch on, but it's one worth thinking about...
Because being evangelical is usually synonymous with being Republican in the popular mind, and calling ourselves “progressive” might be taken as a value judgment by those who do share our views, we decided not to call ourselves “progressive evangelicals.” We came up with a new name: Red-Letter Christians.
Who first suggested the label? A secular Jewish Country-and-Western disc jockey in Nashville, Tennessee. During a radio interview he was conducting with Jim Wallis, he happened to say, “So, you’re one of those Red-Letter Christians - you know - who’s really into those verses in the New Testament that are in red letters!”
Jim answered, “That’s right!” And with that answer, he spoke for all of us. By calling ourselves Red-Letter Christians, we are alluding to the fact that in several versions of the New Testament, the words of Jesus are printed in red. In adopting this name, we are saying that we are committed to living out the things that He said. Of course, the message in those red-lettered verses is radical, to say the least. If you don’t believe me, read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
In those red letters, He calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. He calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, he probably means we shouldn’t kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers.
Figuring out just how to relate those radical red letters in the Bible to the complex issues in the modern world will be difficult, but that’s what we’ll try to do.
Gandhi once said that everybody in the world knows what Jesus was teaching in those verses - except Christians! We will try to prove him wrong.
Read the full story here.
Posted by gary at March 9, 2006 04:12 PM
You know Gary, going a little further, Brian McLaren even wondered if the term 'Christian' was useful these days because of these modern tags that have 'collared' it. As an idea that resonated with me as something I'd want to explore a little more! Perhaps followers of 'the way'. Or 'followers of Jesus'. Or such?
I find with evangelism, that people are receptive to Jesus (often very receptive) but it is all that Christianity has become that repluses or dissuades them from following him. There's a piece to explore there, for the sake of the gospel.
Posted by: Andy at March 9, 2006 05:35 PM
Good point Andrew. There is always the danger of it degenerating into another meaningless label along the lines of "born again," "spirit-filled," etc. And there is a diminishing of the gospel to just "the bits that Jesus said", and its implications for the place of the bible in faith.
I wonder also about abandoning phrases like evangelical, christian etc... giving in to the lowest-common-denominator approach. Perhaps the problem is institutionalism at heart, which is at the heart of the Jesus/Church dichotomy. What do you think?
Posted by: Gary at March 9, 2006 06:07 PM
Sadly I think that many of these terms are more about setting boundaries (which is a little worse then lowest common denominator stuff)rather then practicing hospitality, which for me, is (or should be) a basic Christian practice. Most of them were designed for a modernist/scientific world that is past.
Hey... can I get on that BUV pastor's email thingy that you coordinate? I heard about it the other day. Praps, other newies to Vic over that last 18 months will be in the same boat? What should I do?
Posted by: Andy at March 10, 2006 04:57 PM
If you are interested in what christian really means you should look into the orthodox church. I believe it truly preserves the traditions past down from Jesus and his followers. Check out the Antiochian Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church of America (OCA).
Posted by: Paul Niles at March 11, 2006 06:14 PM
Red Letter? Jim Wallis has sold us out by agreeing with the term. As a long term opponent of red letter versions of the bible, I wonder whether we are in danger of sanctioning a "bible within the bible". Posting the words of Jesus in red makes the rest of the scriptures less authoritative. Now that is a wierd view of inspiration!!!
Posted by: david chatelier at March 11, 2006 11:49 PM
I'd have to agree somewhat David. It is very Bultmannian - focusing on the words of Jesus over against his deeds in particular, and his life in general. As a corrective it is somewhat helpful (a little bit of a parallel to the WWJD movement), but there are some serious limitations and implications.
Posted by: Gary at March 12, 2006 05:10 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |