a red letter day
As I indicated in a comment on my last post, Michael Frost sent me an email asking me what I had done to stir up some folk who had accused me of being a “red letterist”. He asked me what that was. I responded that I think it points to those folks (usually theological liberals) who emphasize the teachings of Jesus over the actions of Jesus on our behalf. According to this approach, what matters is that we learn from Jesus the rabbi, follow his teaching and imitate his lifestyle perhaps, but we cannot take the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus as either literal or existentially significant.
I am horrified that someone could suggest that about me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that the events in Jesus’ life and his actions on our behalf are the frameworks and basis of our salvation in and through him. I do believe, and trust in, his atoning death and sacrifice. I believe, along with all true believers everywhere, in his physical resurrection and his literal return. What my recent posts about centering on Jesus does not imply that we should focus on his teachings alone, rather that along with His saving work on our behalf, we take with utmost seriousness his teachings and lifestyle. This is hardly ‘red letterism’. When I say that we should put Paul into perspective, it does not diminish the canonical role that Paul plays in Christian faith, but rather places him in perspective in relation to Jesus. Jesus is my lord, not Paul. Paul would completely agree with that!!
Anyhow, enough religious debate and self-justification. Let us worship the King. Break through all the schmaltzy clutter of X-mas and recognize afresh the the wonderful action of God in Jesus through the Incarnation. The cartoon below by Hugh MacLeod (HT to my mate Gerard Kelly) illustrates a great understanding of how the birth of one child can actually change the world…
Comments
14 Responses to “a red letter day”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Penney Winiarski said: Great resource Alan....
- Andrew said: Have been into the...
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
Alan, I heartily agree that if what being a red letterist is, is the liberal interpretation you outlined above then count me out. If however being called red letterist aligns you with what Tony Campolo calls in his book Letters to a Young Evangelical a red-letter Christian, I would take that as a compliment. And if you haven’t picked up that book yet, in spite of what you may have thought about his previous writings, I would HIGHLY recommend it. Merry Christmas!
Don’t good liberal Christians have red, pink, grey, and black letters depending on how the beads added up at the Jesus Seminar?
About Paul, if you think about the fact he was reorganizing his missionary journey to collect money for the poor in Jerusalem who were sending out missionaries behind him to fix the theology of his converts, suffering quite often at the hands of his enemies, and paying close attention to the development of young leaders you could get the idea that Paul was living out the red letters and explaining theologically why the ideas didn’t die on calvary.
Enjoy your blog and books. Ohh and yes Tony’s book is a good one.
Alan, they are trying to label and thus categorize you in order to dismiss your challenges. That’s the modern, fundamentalist way of doing something. They don’t have to then engage with your use of Scripture or Church history. They don’t have to engage with your writings that might less strongholds.
They can go their merry way, feeling self-righteous and supposedly godly.
We see the same sort of reaction to the prophets in the OT, and the same sort of reactions in the NT.
Labels are handy and they are lazy.
And I think in this case the label is wrong. But they don’t care about being wrong or about being false witnesses. They’ve a power structure to maintain.
“If You Label me, you negate me”- Kierkegaard
So true. Labels always are missing something, usually something important.
Don’t get me wrong here guys, I don’t want to be self-defensive, just correcting possible misconceptions.
Its amazing that people will use labels as an argument to discredit someones view.
A farmer went out to sow some seed… and it fell on all different sorts of ground… and in some soil there was “60, 80, 100-fold” fruitfulness.
Just keep sowing Al… the word will find some productive ground and bear much fruit.
And the rocky soil is really not your problem.
Wow, it is utterly amazing when you look at Abrahamic faiths side by side, we see the same themes re-cycle themselves, with neither faith learning from the mistakes of the others.
Jews today and in the time of Jesus (peace be upon him), give preference to the TALMUD (words of men) over the TORAH (word of God). Jesus (peace be upon him) himself spoke very harshly against the forerunner, namely the scribes and the Pharisees and the commandments of men. The Jews of Today state that you CAN NOT understand Torah without the Talmud.
Then we have this, the citing of red letters, as if it is a derogatory thing. It appeared as if you were apologetic for emphasizing giving preference to the GOSPEL (words and physical example of Jesus (pbuh)) over the LETTERS of Paul. Whereas as it seem mainstream Christianity, put great emphasis on the SHEEP rather than the SHEPPARD.
The Jews of Today state that you CAN NOT understand Torah without the Talmud and now Christians of today say the same thing about Jesus and Paul. USING THE SAME JUSTIFICATION AS THE JEWS, AND DON’T SEE IT. If Jesus spoke ill of the Pharisees for teaching the commandment of men, what would he say about this.
Sometimes I wonder if we don’t all have a little Pharisee running around inside of us? I still keep these CD’s from a seminar called,”A Pharisee’s Guide To Holiness”, a couple of times a year I listen to them. It’s been a kind of New Year’s Resolution for me.
I’m not suggesting that about you Alan, it’s just that fences of any form creates defenses in another. A part of ourselves that keeps crawling off the altar, seeking a resurrection of the wrong kind.
Anybody ever wonder what happened with Mark & Paul? Why wouldn’t Paul work with him?
Too true Penney, too true. But a notion of truth by definition excludes other truth claims. Truth does narrow options and choices. the problem is with our perception of truth and our lack of humility in serving it.
AMEN!
The categorization of truth, I think, is a huge issue in the church today. For so long it has been treated as a possessed element, namely by the church. People create a smaller, narrower version of it in order to conceptualize and maintain it as a possessed entity. I know the truth because I have it!
It seems a far off statement from when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” If we are to follow Jesus as the truth then we must acknowledge that “we” are not the truth!
With regards to the Seminar… I have often wondered if its marks (beads and all) go deeper into the church embodiment more then just their stated members. Perhaps, the real “red lettered” Christians are those who would rather follow a religious order rather then a “red blooded” Jesus! Perhaps, that last remark was stated a little too harshly!
Inconvenient Truth… with respect, I don’t think the analogy of the Talmud (commentary) and the Torah (Scripture) in Judaism is analogous to the discussion here. (Alan as our resident Christian-Jew and student of the Rabbis might clarify!)
First of all… the letters of Paul were written before the gospels… from 50 on if not earlier… possibly 20 years before the earliest gospel and maybe 30 - 50 years before the latest gospel! Therefore they are NOT a commentary on the gospels. Secondly, Alan is not questioning that Paul’s letters are scripture… they were quoted as if authoritative from the earliest times in the church in the writings of the church fathers… even in II Peter they seem to be given an authority alongside the Hebrew bible:
II Peter 3:15
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother PAUL ALSO WROTE YOU WITH THE WISDOM THAT GOD GAVE HIM. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction.”
“Pauline” theology about Jesus Christ is EARLY Christian theology. In Phillipians 2 Paul, writing in the 50’s, seems to be quoting from a well-known hymn or liturgical saying of the church (obviously developed even earlier):
Philippians 2
:
5 “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Alan is not disputing the inspiration of Paul’s letters, or saying they are less important than the gospels (as you imply). What he is noting is that some streams within the church virtually ignore the life and teaching of Jesus… he is trying to redress the balance and put the person, example, life, and teachings of Jesus on centre stage. And Paul would heartily approve of this… “For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain”.
I wish it was less difficult to speak across such divides of thought. When we have different frames of reference (in this case conservative trying to understand the post-conservative/liberal/whatever framework), our words collide and the meaning we intended doesn’t penetrate preconceptions. So then we are reduced to name calling.
Red Letterist. That’s a new one for me. Sounds like a very particular kind of caligraphy specialist.
blessings and peace!