Listen to this audio where Len discusses his reasons for not joining the Beatitudes Society or the Red Letter Christian movement.
Do you agree or disagree and why? If you agree, what other reasons would you add?
Leonard Sweet on Red Letter Christians
31 Responses to “Leonard Sweet on Red Letter Christians”
Leave a Reply:
I think the red letter christians have a good point, that we can neglect the things that Jesus said and asked of us, but, if we begin to focus on just following these red letters we can possibly fall into the religion trap and start blindly following the commands that Jesus gave us 2000 years ago and ignoring th e council that the Jesus wants to give us today. Andrew Fowley wrote of a similar situation in Chapter 12 of “The Naked Gospel”.
As with most things, I believe it’s a question of balance. He gave us good advice, but did he give us a new Law?
I looked through the websites about the Beatitude Society and red letter Christians and could find nowhere where it says the Beatitudes or the words of Jesus were the ONLY aspects of the Bible to pay attention to. However, I do notice that the Church has emphasized we need to save the world for a couple of thousands years, and yet the teachings of Jesus still are not lived out by many if not most Christians.
Dan: Both groups put the *emphasis* on the teachings over against the other parts of Scripture. Hence the name. One of the problems Len is getting at — and you can find it profusely in our JESUS MANIFESTO http://www.theJesusManifesto.com — is that the teachings of Jesus are a recipe for failure without understanding HOW He lived those teachings Himself and HOW He called all of His followers to live them. Christians have been “trying” to follows Jesus’ teachings for centuries. What’s been missing is the “means” by which that can only occur.
btw/ how did you find this blog?
I agree and disagree with Len’s audio on the Beatitudes Society and Red Letter Christians. I like the way he presents that we are not to neglect the WHOLE of what Jesus said AND did and that he does not agree with societies that take just a portion of scripture (such as Jefferson did) and devote their life to that. Very true indeed.
Where I slightly disagree with Len Sweet is his reference to Jesus not being so much a teacher. I pulled out my NIV concordance (I know…not your favorite translation) and found approximately 15 references to ‘..and he began to teach them.” Yes, what’s most important is that He is our Lord and Savior but I feel a great part of His ministry on earth was to teach.
There has to be a balance, and I think Len pushes the pendulum back in the right direction. Jesus’ teachings are important, and they do not separate from Paul’s. In fact, there is only one thing that Jesus called “my commandment” or “a new commandment”. (You know what it is.) And that one thing permeates the second half of almost every one of Paul’s letters.
Jeff – Agreed, balance is the key.
Thanks Rose. Good point.
I think I was a little surprised to hear Len’s viewpoint as I didn’t understand the “Red Letter” crowd to be as restrictive as he believes they are.
To hear Tony Campolo and others describe it, its more about getting rid of the politics and prosperity that churches seem to be caught up with and focusing on the person of Christ.
Yes, Rose, excellent point. One can’t seperate what Jesus did from what he taught, and everything he did taught by example. I see nothing wrong with focusing on the acutal quotes of Christ’s words as found in scripture, (I have a red-letter edition and find it helpful sometimes), though I agree we can’t do so exclusively. Jesus indeed did teach, for a reason, to give us direction and understanding, and I think he expects us to follow (obey) them. In fact he said so directly when he told us to “make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded,” and, “if you love me, you will obey my commandments.” What are His commandments? Can we claim to know Him, yet not obey Him? But, I agree with Mr. Sweet, I could never join either of these groups, anymore than I could join a christian sect that calls themselves by some man’s name. What’s the point? We are Christians, royal priests of the Kingdom of God, ministers of reconciliation, ambassadors to the nations, why seek a lower “office?” Why identify with something….less?
It seems that there is a natural tendency for us to align ourselves with things that connect with us or that renew us or seem to be a rediscovery. But, I find that alignments, joining groups, and accepting titles have the potential of profiling us in restrictive and limiting ways. Too often this results in a neglect of other equally or more things or even getting high centered to the exclusion of other life changing encounters. Perhaps we are anxious to impress others with our ability to see and embrace things that we deem more important.
Len seems to be able to resist these type of alignments and consequently enjoys more. I agree with his conclusions and decision. Maybe I could join a group that doesn’t join groups.
Had a brief listen over a quick lunch today, so I probably need to hear it again. He said that the Red Letter Christians had taken the easy bits! That’s nonsense. Jesus said some of the toughest things we’ll every hear and will wrestle with them till we meet Him! He made a big thing about Jesus not coming just to change the world but to save the world. The key scripture for me is ‘the son of man came to seek and to save THAT (not those) which was lost’. This refers to putting right all that the fall put wrong. This is in line with ‘From eternity to here’. Jesus mission – to which he calls us all – is to ‘restore all things’ – a much bigger project than saving individuals. This truth is implicit in all His teaching and miracles.
John: I don’t think he was saying that Jesus’ teaching was easy. I think he was referring to the fact that a certain segment of the Christian population focuses on parts of His teaching that are easy. We are all subject to selective-reading the Bible, even certain sections of it. Anyways, that statement was sort of a small side-note in Len’s overall point.
Loved it when Len said that Jesus’ ministry was primarily a ‘sign’ ministry. I wonder if anyone has (for fun) figured out how much ‘teaching’ is recorded in the gospel books vs. ‘acting.’ It would be silly to argue which is more important and so separate Christ further into parts (!), but I heartily approve of Len’s corrective points.
However, Jeff Stucker, above, has hit the nail on the head about Jesus’ teaching permeating Paul’s letters without being directly referenced. Because if you are permeated with His Life, you will embody His teachings automatically after a while — which will tend to naturally ‘disciple’ others to ‘obey’ them too.
Jesus claimed to be directly quoting the Father all the time without always saying “Thus saith the Father…” And he did a lot of healing without almost any teaching about healing.
I agree with Len. I’m really in love with my beautiful wife, but I’m not sure I could settle for a box of her love letters to me for the rest of my life… I need her to be there, I need to know her and I need her to know me… Reading what she said is not the same as hearing her say it to me. Equally, some of the things my wife stands for (such as excellent organisation, good parenting, patience and a sense of humour) do not equate to actually knowing her. Though one may get an insight into her beliefs, one cannot get to know her by agreeing with her sayings.
I’m not satisfied with Len’s comments.
It appears to me that a great deal of the voices within the world of Christian authors and conference speakers today… are aiming for sort of a “sound bite” faith for their fans to feed on. I wonder sometimes if folks aren’t simply riding the pendulum and flying off into the other ditch.
Today’s fad seems to be to come up with some new catchy proverbial jingle, coin some original phrases, and tell others why they’re getting it wrong, instead of coming together around what we share in common and gently helping others to see what might possibly be in their blind spot.
I understand the reasoning of the Red Letter group and their concerns. They are reacting to the many people in the church that ignore what Jesus actually said in the Gospels. I’m fairly confident that the Red Letter folks believe in what Jesus did just as much as Len. That’s the whole point of calling people to hear his words in order to make sense of why he actually lived the way he did. He taught it AND he lived it. How can you drive a wedge between the person and the work (life and teachings) of Christ?
With all due respect, Len isn’t saying anything earth shaking–even though it may sound like that to people who are in the habit of not embracing the truth contained in both positions. You cannot separate the life and the teachings of Jesus. So, Len makes a point, sure. But so do the others who are saying, “Wake up and read what Jesus actually said.” I don’t know about everyone else, but I tend to follow better when I have truly heard from Jesus and seen how he himself lives out those commands.
Yes, Jesus is saving the world… and we are agents of new creation called to participate in that saving work. And I’m pretty sure that change happens in that process.
Leonard Sweet is spot on. I’ve been a Christian for 35 years and have never met a Christian who didn’t believe in or try to follow the teachings of Jesus. Leonard is right, to focus on one part of the bible is just plain wrong. Paul would have never thought in those terms. He is mainly concerned with the resurrected Jesus. I think you guys hit the nail on the head with your Jesus Manifesto book where you in the clearest way I’ve seen address that Jesus lives in us and the Jesus in us is not different from Paul’s resurrected/ascended Jesus and the Jesus who walked the earth. This isn’t being taught by the red letter bunch and it’s the core of the biblical teaching. Thank you Leonard for this timely word.
Great podcast by Sweet! Love “Nudge” , “From Eternity 2 Here” and “Jesus Manifesto.” Game changers on this whole question.
Sam, I haven’t been a Christian quite as long, but I have run in to plenty of Christians that have ignored or reasoned away the teachings of Jesus.
Sam, agreed. I’ve been a christian for a very long time too and have never met a true follower of Jesus who cut his teachings out of their bibles or life. The red letter thing seems unnecessary. Leonard is solid in his analysis. I also have never heard the red letter people teach what Jesus taught so often about living by the Father and that he came to live his life in his disciples. It’s always about ethical teachings not about the source of it which is equally a part of his teaching. A person can be red letter and ignore a lot of the red letters.
Frank makes a good point. Are we knowing the indwelling Lord? He is the same Lord that taught the Beatitudes, preached on the mount, and lived out those teachings in power. He makes it possible to hear “love your enemies” and then to go and do it. I have met believers that have not learned the indwelling Lord and therefore they must compartmentalize Jesus’ teachings because they’re too hard.
Sam & Tim, there are plenty of Christians that believe in killing if the circumstance is right. Jesus rules this out with his teachings and his living (Matt. 5:38-48). There are droves of Christians that have been impressed by nationalism and American culture to the point that they can’t hear Jesus or see how he lived as the new human. Their hermeneutical method is not very different than the one Jefferson uses in his ‘The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth’ where he has cut and pasted a Jesus he can accept–a Jesus that is useful to him.
There is no way around it. These folks are not simply having a hard time obeying Jesus’ teachings… they flat ignore Jesus’ teachings and see his living as irrelevant when it comes to life in the real world. That’s the sort of thing the “Red Letter” Christians are reacting against. Jesus is for the real world. Where are those that hear Jesus and see his life as one to follow (1 Jn. 2:6)?
I actually had a pastor’s wife once ask me… and I quote: “Where in ‘love thy enemies’ does it say not to kill them?” Let’s not come with this patronizing nonsense that there aren’t Christians who ignore the teachings of Jesus and his living. It is for this very reason that I first began to question the validity of the organized church and then left vocational ministry. It was the lack of concern for what Jesus said and did that led us to seek a church life lived out in the New Testament fashion.
Good points, y’all. Really great discussion and thoughts.
I love how sophisticated the comments are here. Encouraging.
I could be wrong, but for me at least, reading all of this just *compounds* and *confirms* the need for what Paul called “the whole counsel of God.” We need James; but we also need Galatians. We need the Synoptics; but we also need John. We need the ministries of Peter, Paul, *and* John. We need the Torah, the Prophets, and the Wisdom literature. We need Ephesians (in the heavens) as well as 1 Corinthians (in the dirt). All speak to different situations/people about the different aspects of our all-sufficient, multifarious, and inexhaustible Christ. And all work together in that regard. It’s all too easy for each of us to fall off one side of the horse or the other. Then there are those special seasons where we need to hear one aspect over against another. And that differs for each person and believing community.
So I think the discussion is a good reminder of this corrective. At least it is for me.
Great observation, Joey.
David D. Flowers ! Thank you so much. I will never understand why so many American christians believe that war is an acceptable option. It is everywhere and it is a sickness that needs addressed.
I see Jesus ‘red letter’ teachings (I’m thinking ‘Sermon on the Mount” here…) in much the same way that I see Moses bringing the law to Israel.
In fact, I would say that Jesus was simply communicating a more perfect definition of God’s law to those who were being led out of ‘Egypt’ and into ‘The Promised Land’.
He set’s forth the standard which, indeed, a group or individual can strive to embody– but which, if simply approached as a set of rules to obey, fail to supply the power for said obedience.
They reveal sin in the heart.
The only way to be freed from that sin and the laws which reveal it is to die.
If our God is unchanging, the same “yesterday, today and forever”, I’m curious how one reconciles Matt. 5:38-48 with a rather large chunk of the Old Testament where God is shown actively commanding His people into physical confrontation vis a vis “killing”.
The interpretation that this passage means civil authorities not defending their citizens, or perhaps even a father not defending his family from an attacker, appears to make God be inconsistent in His character. I tend to not view God that way, but maybe He does change His mind as time goes on.
This dichotomy is one reason I would question the value of focusing exclusively on Jesus’ words (and what could be more dangerous – out of context literal interpretation of those words).
I think I understand what Leonard Sweet is saying here, but I think that because of my own personal tradition and background, I also identify with what I think is at the heart of the “Red Letter Christians” movement. I come from a religious tradition (like many) that places certain teachings and “doctrines” above others, and treats some texts as merely contextual or situational, while others are universal. Essentially, we have created a virtual “canon within the canon”. But instead of focusing on all or part of Christ’s earthly teaching, we seem to focus on just two aspects of the Bible: First my tradition focuses the parts of Paul’s letters that reinforce our own values and beliefs and church traditions, while the parts that we don’t understand or that don’t fit into our particular ecclesiology are discarded. Secondly, we seem to focus on the parts of Christ’s teaching that deal with (or seem to deal with) “personal salvation” and a “personal relationship” with Christ, while ignoring His teachings that deal with apparently “harder” things like living in community, how we deal with money, loving our enemies, showing hospitality, and various socio-political teachings that are often ignored. I feel like as I grew up in this tradition, a lot of these teachings were not a part of the gospel, or they were merely explained away and they became banal and benign. The fact however, is that Christ’s teachings are radical, revolutionary, counter-cultural, and difficult. I also think that while the other biblical texts are just as necessary and indeed flow from the teachings of Christ and the Spirit, we have to start somewhere regarding how we know how to live our lives as Christians; and if we don’t focus on the teachings of Christ as a foundation, how are we to understand the more complicated instructions of Paul in his letters to the various churches? Anyway, that is what I get out of the things I have read from the Red Letter Christians (although, I admit, I may have a misunderstanding of where they are coming from). I also recognize that I am coming at this from a reactionary standpoint, but that is because for so much of my Christian life, the radical, difficult, practical-life teachings of Jesus have been put on a back-burner…and I don’t think that that is ok.
Dave D. Good point. I agree that the RLC are reacting to a certain segment of the Christian population (thought I wouldn’t say it was hardly all or most). However, as I’ve pointed out, even they tend to emphasize certain red letter statements above others. For instance, Jesus said just as much about the ekklesia (or more) as He did the kingdom of God. In fact, He didn’t separate them. Also, His main subject in John was LIFE. Living by *His* life. And as Len and I have argued in JESUS MANIFESTO, that’s the only way that any red letters can be fleshed out. It’s by His indwelling life not by our own efforts. Len’s point isn’t that we should ignore the red letters of Jesus, but that we can’t possibly 1) understand them and 2) live them out by putting them above the rest of Scripture. Joining the group would be doing the former in his eyes.
Jeremy-
I would question your logic regarding Christians involving themselves in violence and war. First, if we followed the logic of God being the same “yesterday, today, and forever”, and used that to justify being involved in a nationalistic war, then we would also have to justify stoning adulterers and disobedient children as well as abstaining from shell-fish. There are certain things that applied to the nation of Israel, that simply do not apply to us under the New Law. These things have to be read and understood IN CONTEXT, or we could potentially justify just about anything using the Bible. Secondly, in the Old Testament, the people of the nation of Israel were God’s people… no other group could make that claim. He sent them to war through the voice of the prophets and judges, and they KNEW that a particular war was the will of God. Today, we do not have prophets telling us that it is God’s will to go to war with another nation. In fact, we have just about every nation claiming that THEY are the ones following divine providence, and thus all other nations are wrong. So what do we do in this a potential situation where Christians could be fighting other Christians (as in the American Revolutionary War or Civil Wars)? Thirdly, as Christians, we no longer pledge allegiance to any one worldly nation, nor do we place ourselves above another group of people based on nationality. We are a part of the Kingdom of God, which is not bound by borders or political ideals. Although Paul claims in Romans 13 that God has placed governments in authority to wield the sword, this does not justify us in taking part in the oppressive wars and violence of that government. Romans 13 has to apply to ALL governments, not just the good ones. So by that logic, we would be justified in joining the military of a Fascist government if we were under their regime. Romans 13 also must be understood in the context of Romans 12, were Paul has just instructed the Roman Christians to “bless those who persecute you”, to “not repay evil with evil”, and to “not take revenge”. Finally, we have to understand war and violence as part of the sinful fall of man. Death and war and violence would not be in this world were it not for sin, and so death and war and violence cannot be understood or taken part in outside of that context. These things are a part of the decadence of sin, and lend themselves to oppression, hatred, poverty, and pride. You cannot love someone or practice humility with them if you are using violence against them. Jesus says it best when he sums up all of the laws and all of the prophets with two commands: “Love God, and love your neighbor”. Anything outside of that is sin.
Thanks Frank.
That makes sense. I have only read a small amount of literature from the RLC, so I definitely am not speaking as an expert on what they say or teach. I am learning that one of the hardest things about reading the Bible is removing yourself from your own paradigms and biases and preferences regarding what you understand and what you see as important. It is so easy to develop that “canon within the canon” mentality and it is difficult to refrain from swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction from what you are reacting against.
I really liked what you said about only being able to live His teachings through His indwelling life, and not my own. That is the most important (and possibly the most difficult thing) for me to grasp. Unfortunately, that is not really a concept that I was raised with in the church. It was more of the idea of “try to be really good, so Jesus will reward you” mentality, as opposed to “live your life through the indwelling life of Jesus within the context of the ekklesia”. It is still a fairly new concept for me (which is sad, considering I was born and raised in the church), but I appreciate the work that you (and Leonard) have done through the Spirit in an effort to get that message out.
D. Brandon,
First, the notion that the Israelites were always in lock-step with knowing the will of God and followed it blindly because of the prophets would be contrary to what is known about human behavior because of sin. It is but simple logic to understand that there must’ve been disagreements among them then just as there are among humans today. In my recollection, examples can be found of pacifists, enemy sympathizers and outright traitors among the Israelites.
I also would not necessarily subscribe to the notion that there are not “prophets” today. They certainly don’t play the role in the leadership of the nation as they did with the Israelites, but that’s not to say God does not speak through oracles even today.
Second, the determination of what things from the Old Testament are no longer acceptable and those that are, and who determines them has always been an area of concern to me. Paul’s admonishments in Galatians seem to call into question who, if anyone, gets to make those “rules”.
I acknowledge that there are some “hard” things to follow in Scripture. It’s one thing to say “oh, yeah, that’s right” when hearing it – another when practically applying it. One that I’ve grappled with of late is the pacifist view. I work with someone who espouses that view. When challenged with the scenario of what he would do in the case of a man with a gun to his wife’s head, he freely admitted he would refuse to take up a weapon to defend her.
Another practical application of the verses from Matthew 5 when taken in this view is when a man enters your home to have his way with your wife, you are to offer your daughter as well. I confess that is quite a hard pill to swallow – and as I examine this view more it only leads to uncovering more perceived inconsistencies with other Scriptures about defending the helpless, caring for others, etc. What’s the point of those commands if we are to allow sin to reign, not just without check, but by enabling it as Jesus commanded?
I appreciate the dialog that aids in understanding.