Long before “Red Letter Christianity” became a catch-phrase or a movement, I was uncomfortable with the concept of having some words of the Bible in a different color than others. To the best of my recollection, I first selected and purchased a Bible of my own using my own money was about 1973. Then and ever since, I have avoided purchasing a Bible with “red letters”. It always seemed to me that coloring some of the words of the Bible increased the danger of elevating some words of the Bible above the other words of the Bible. That has always been an unacceptable proposition. I am dismayed that I am just now discovering this movement that has been developing for it seems at least ten years now. That is frightening to me. I certainly do not live under a rock but I was not aware of this. Reading just a bit revealed the founders of this movement to me. That in itself is reason enough to be wary of it.
Furthermore, this movement seems to be inspired by politics rather than theology. That is great reason for concern as well but there is much more to be concerned about.
Second Timothy 3:16 and Second Peter 1:20-21 make the claim that all Scripture is divinely inspired. Those claims unquestionably refer to at least the Old Testament; perhaps they also refer to the New Testament. Second Peter 3:16 certainly makes the claim that the New Testament is Holy Scripture. Historic Christianity for 20 centuries years has understood the Bible to be an absolutely reliable and authoritative book authored by the Holy Spirit. Any other assessment is a refusal to objectively look at the facts. Deciding to base one’s Christianity upon some verses instead of all of them logically leads to something entirely different than Christianity. Furthermore, the end result will not be anything close to following Jesus either.
Before long context will become a forgotten and lost principle of Biblical interpretation. I would also make the claim that before much time passes interpretation will be undertaken for the purpose of coming to conclusions sanctioned by current culture. In fact this is already the case in the “red letter” movement. I can find no mention by this movement of the exclusive nature of Jesus’ claims about Him being the only way to be saved from the righteous judgment of God.
According to the second value listed on redletterchristian.org, “Jesus is the lens through which we understand the Bible… and through which we understand the world in which we live.”
While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, I could not disagree more with their apparent conclusions about what that means theologically and what that means in terms of defining the gospel message. I also disagree significantly with their logic and motivation for social justice.
While freely acknowledging that Jesus was certainly in favor of treating people well, caring for the weak and sick, any conclusion that Jesus’ main message was social justice is just plain wrong. Correct interpretation of the Bible certainly must involve seeing that every page is related to the redemption of depraved mankind through the sacrificial atoning death and resurrection of Jesus. Every passage of the Bible must be understood in terms of the majesty, power, holiness, goodness, truth, righteous wrath, love, mercy, and redemptive grace of God.
Certainly every word of the Bible is from the Holy Spirit. Certainly there can be no conflict between members of the Trinity. Jesus did not say one thing and the Holy Spirit write something different. Any suggestion that one passage is more inspired than another is not consistent with the historic understanding of the church for two thousand years. I can conclude nothing else except that this is an attempt to create a god in one’s own image.
