Red Letter Christians

I finished reading Tony Campolo's new book, Red Letter Christians. I like Tony. I have seen and heard him on tape: he is funny and at times challenging. One of the best books that I read on the meaning of various philosophers came from a book of his about thirty years ago. Tony admits at the end of his new book that he is a conservative Christians, but there is no doubt that he is a political liberal.

The purpose of the book is to discuss various issues. He states that he wants to leave Rome (that is, government) and go to Jerusalem (Jesus), as I understood it. While that is a worthy goal, he rarely left Rome. In fact most of his time is spent discussing what politicians and government can do about various social issues.

First, let me say that if you want a good understanding of the religious left, this is a good book to read, especially if you do not listen to talk radio. There are a number of good ideas in the book, some challenging points that he makes, and some points on issues that need to be dealt with. For instance, on the subject of crime, he suggests that those involved in non-violent crime consider repentance, and eventually pay restitution to the victim, something Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship have advocated for years. He does make some good suggestions.

However, he spends too much time telling us that government is the answer to problems, especially where the church can and does a better job. I think that he has bought into the stereotype that conservative Christians are hard-hearted. When we consider who responded to the disasters involved Karina and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I think that the religious left needs to take another look at its rhetoric. See also Arthur Brooks book "Who Really Cares?"

The second thing that bothered me was is use or lack thereof of scripture. He tells us that Palestine belongs to both the Jews and Palestinians because both are children of Abraham, using Genesis 15. Both Isaac and Ishmael are sons of Abraham. The only problem is that God chose Isaac, the special son, to develop His plan that led to the cross. One could argue over the politics of the Middle East, but this isn't the best use of scripture.

Another thing he does is to ignore scriptures that do not fit his views. In talking about the death penalty, he stated that he is totally prolife. He opposes the death penalty and sees it as a means to destroy a person created in God's image. He quotes Old Testament texts that he sees as extreme and New Testament texts about forgiveness and loving one's enemy. Justice is foremost in his mind on a number of issues. Two things: one, he mentions people create in God's image but does not refer to Genesis 9:6 at all where God states that anyone who murders should be killed because he shed innocent blood, a person created in God's image. Two, he says nothing about the justice for the victim and his family.

He admits that those nearer to people who are being help can do a better job, yet he complains that the government budget spends too much on other things such as military spending. He really doesn't inact with the role of government from Rom. 13.

I'm glad I read the book. As I said, he made important points about issues we need to be concerned with. However, as typical of many, a selective history is not good for understanding what Christians have done throughout history, though not perfectly.

I am convinced that we really have difficulty separating our religion and politics, and that we are influenced by both. I think Campolo hasn't recognized this, even though he claims to be a conservative. Some of his views are not necessarily in the conservative perspective. As a conservative, however, we need to be careful that our views do not cloud our judgment either.