"Red Letter" Christians.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nicea325
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna_Scott said:
Publisher,
I’m not quite sure about any aversion to the Old Testament. I’ve looked through the website; and it’s difficult to tell exactly what they believe.
**
Tony Campolo** is called The Positive Prophet of Red Letter Christianity: tonycampolo.org/invite.php. However, there is a long list of other contributors to the website.

They do have quite a list of books one can purchase under Recommended Books: redletterchristians.org/books/.

There’s a list of Speakers: redletterchristians.org/speakers/.

You can book Tony Campolo to speak: tonycampolo.org/invite.php. (cancellation fees are substantial.)
**
Bog**: redletterchristians.org/.
**
Advertising** can be purchased: redletterchristians.org/advertising/.

I can’t find a specific statement of faith. Maybe I just missed it.

Anna
Click to expand...
No I wasn’t trying to state they are the “same”…they are “similar” as being “sub-groups” within either the liberal or conservative groups of Christians.

The “OT” Christians tend to be more radical in seeking to establish more of a “Conservative Christian Social Order”…almost a “theocracy” where “offensive” books, movies, TV programs are censored…criminals are punished with little mercy…gays and lesbians would find themselves in situaltion much like in Islamic countries here in the US…women’s rights would be curbed to the point of prosecution if their activities goes against the “mores” of society.

“Red Letter” Christians are either the very liberal in only accepting…or putting primacy on the words of Jesus to establish social order OR very conservative to do the same…with different outcomes of course.

Both are “fringe”…outside the established faith communities.
 
I don’t really have anything to add about what a ‘Red Letter’ Christian is except to say that I’d make a terrible one. Being red-green colorblind I’d think Jesus said nothing. I actually have a nice leather red letter KJV Bible that I did not even know was red letter for the longest time.
 
I see there are Red Letter Followers, no doubt. What would be the logic of placing more value on what Jesus said in John, than what what John said otherwise for example? John said “everything” in John since Jesus wrote nothing. Thus if we are to count John as accurate with what he states about Jesus, why wouldn’t we count him just as accurate with everything else?
 
Tony Campolo is a conservative evangelical who is emergent-friendly and liberal on economics. He’s a sociologist who is also an ordained Baptist pastor. Interesting guy. You might want to check out some of his speeches and/or preaching on Youtube. His Facebook updates are pretty interesting too.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I see there are Red Letter Followers, no doubt. What would be the logic of placing more value on what Jesus said in John, than what what John said otherwise for example? John said “everything” in John since Jesus wrote nothing. Thus if we are to count John as accurate with what he states about Jesus, why wouldn’t we count him just as accurate with everything else?
Click to expand...
The belief is that the words of Jesus as contained in the gospels for the most part are either authentic teachings of Jesus of Nazareth OR they at least reflect his teachings as they came to be understood by his followers in the decades after his death. The letters of Paul were written before the gospels for the most part and reflect a “Pauline” theology…which Jesus of Nazareth may not have fully embraced. The Gospel of Thomas is also used by the more “liberal” believers to confrim the “authentic” teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

For years a “sayings gospel” which scholars dubbed “Q” had been speculated to have existed. Many said there was no such things as a “sayings gospel”…with the finding of the Nag Hammaddi Library in the '40’s…a “sayings gospel” puported to be written by “Thomas the Twin” was found…“sayings gospels” did exist it seems…
 
Anna_Scott said:
Red Letter Christians History and Purpose: redletterchristians.org/start/.

They say they hold to the same theological convictions that define Evangelicals; and believe in doctrines from the Apostles’ Creed.

Anna
Click to expand...
Randal796 said:
redletterchristians.org/history/

This is as close to a faith statement I found. They use the Apostle’s creed.
Click to expand...
Randal,
I posted the same link earlier. I agree it is the closest thing to a statement of faith.

However, the History and Purpose section says more about what they do not believe, than it does about what they do believe.

I’ll try to pull out statements regarding what they do believe. Quotes from History and Purpose are in Blue type.

“. . . First, Red Letter Christians hold to the same theological convictions that define Evangelicals. . . .”

There isn’t a single definition of Evangelical. So saying they “hold to the same theological convictions that define Evangelicals” is somewhat vague. For example, Southern Baptists consider themselves to be Evangelical, but they are not a member of The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), due to disagreements. However, General Association of General Baptists is a member of the NAE (link: nae.net/membership/current-members.) Red Letter Christians are not listed as members of the NAE, but I’m not sure they are actually a denomination.

“. . .We believe in the doctrines set down in the Apostles’ Creed, which states the central beliefs the church has held over centuries. . .”

There is a strong possibility they do not interpret The Apostles’ Creed the same way Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc. would–especially when it comes to issues like Communion of the Saints.

However, there is a rather surprising article entitled, Following Francis: The Veneration of (Imperfect) Saints: redletterchristians.org/following-francis-the-veneration-of-imperfect-saints/.

“Second, we are Christians with a very high view of Scripture. The writers of Scripture, we believe, were invaded by the Holy Spirit and were uniquely guided by God as they wrote, providing us with an infallible guide for faith and practice. We emphasize the “red letters’ because we believe that you can only understand the rest of the Bible when you read it from the perspective provided by Christ. . .”

So, it seems they do not rely on Tradition. But what beliefs fall under this infallible guide to faith and practice?

“Third-and this is most important-we claim that the historical Jesus can be alive and present to each and every person, and that salvation depends on yielding to Him and inviting Him to be a vital, transforming presence in our lives. . . .”

This is a rather vague description of salvation. Are they referring to the sinner’s prayer? It would seem so, since they speak of inviting Jesus to be a vital, transforming presence in their lives. But how does Baptism and the Eucharist fit into salvation?

“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. . .”

This is an admirable goal; but what does this mean exactly? Do they help the poor, feed the hungry, take a vow of poverty, etc.?

I think one would have to read through all the sermons and articles to find the specifics of Red Letter Christian beliefs. I really don’t have the energy right now. 🤷

Anna
 
GaryTaylor said:
I see there are Red Letter Followers, no doubt. What would be the logic of placing more value on what Jesus said in John, than what what John said otherwise for example? John said “everything” in John since Jesus wrote nothing. Thus if we are to count John as accurate with what he states about Jesus, why wouldn’t we count him just as accurate with everything else?
Click to expand...
Gary,
Good point. Kinda reminds me of the Jefferson Bible.

Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top