There has been particular interest of late to the color of ink with which some words in some Bibles are printed and the theology represented by said ink. Some rather prominent figures within modern Christendom, spearheaded by Tony Campolo, have taken to calling themselves “Red Letter Christians.” This, of course, is a reference to the fact that, since approximately 1899 or 1900, many publishers have taken to printing the words of Christ in red.

The ESV blog reports that “The idea of printing the words of Christ in red originated with Lous Klopsch, editor of Christian Herald magazine.” Rather than an attempt separate the words of Jesus from their immediate context, the move actually seems to be an attempt at respectful symbolism. Chronicling Klopsch’s journey, the ESV blog says:

When reading Jesus’ words, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20), he thought of printing all of Jesus’ words in red, the color of his blood.

Yet what might have started as respectful symbolism soon morphed into a specific teaching tool:

“Modern Christianity,” Klopsch wrote in an explanatory note in his red-letter Bible, “is striving zealously to draw nearer to the great Founder of the Faith. Setting aside mere human doctrines and theories regarding Him, it presses close to the Divine Presence, to gather from His own lips the definition of His mission to the world and His own revelation of the Father… The Red Letter Bible has been prepared and issued in the full conviction that it will meet the needs of the student, the worker, and the searchers after truth everywhere.

And as with many teachign toos that might initially be in and of themselves benign, this practice has been taken to the extreme. Tony Campolo recounts a meeting that included himself and Jim Wallis among others:

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.

Campolo further explains:

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).

The implication, of course, is that the “Republican Christians” whom Campolo and Wallis are so concerned about, are not “committed to living out the things” Jesus said, but that’s not really what troubles me. At least not in this post. People on both sides of the “conservative/liberal” aisle throw similar barbs at one another all the time. Sometimes they’re just a bit more veiled than either Campolo or Wallis care to be. In response to Campolo, D.A. Carson says:

These red letter Christians, he says, hold the same theological commitments as do other evangelicals, but they take the words of Jesus especially seriously (they devote themselves to the ‘red letters’ of some foolishly-printed Bibles) and end up being more concerned than are other Christians for the poor, the hungry, and those at war. Oh, rubbish: this is merely one more futile exercise in trying to find a ‘canon within the canon’ to bless my preferred brand of theology. That’s the first of two serious mistakes commonly practised by these red letter Christians.

The other is worse: their actual grasp of what the red letter words of Jesus are actually saying in context far too frequently leaves a great deal to be desired; more particularly, to read the words of Jesus and emphasize them apart from the narrative framework of each of the canonical gospels, in which the plot-line takes the reader to Jesus’s redeeming death and resurrection, not only has the result of down-playing Jesus’s death and resurrection, but regularly fails to see how the red-letter words of Jesus point to and unpack the significance of his impending crosswork.

I understand that Jesus is is the ultimate revelation of God, but that’s exactly the point. The entire Bible, from cover to cover, is about Jesus. But this current trend, for the sake of a political agenda (regardless of how they couch their language, lets be honest and just call it what it is), reduces the Person and Work of Jesus to some moral precepts. The Cross, and its centrality to all of Scripture is the point and only then can seek to even understand, much less apply the red-letters.

• Read the ESV blog’s piece on the origin of “Red Letter Bibles”
• Read Tony Campolo’s piece “What’s a Red-Letter Christian”
• Read D.A. Carson’s “Common Errors In Understanding the Kingdom”