Book Review - Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo's Red Letter Revolution

Red Letter Christians are Christians who embrace evangelical theology, while striving to reflect what Jesus said (hence, “red letter”).  Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne had frequent discussions about what being a Red Letter Christian entails.  The book Red Letter Revolution: What If Jesus Really Meant What He Said? highlights these discussions.  Asking what it looks like when Christians start to be intentional about following Jesus will undoubtedly cause conflict.  The authors hope that Red Letter Christians will be a “positive irritant” that will grow in number and naturally become advocates for social justice and illustrators of spiritual disciplines. 

The style of dialogue Claiborne and Campolo use in the book is interesting.  They agree about what topics to discuss, but often disagree about how to respond in a given situation.  Their disagreement is impressive.  Neither hesitates to critique what the other says, but both are always respectful.  I like that.  It acknowledges that the speaker could be wrong.  

The chapters are divided into three sections – Red Letter Theology, Red Letter Living, and Red Letter World.  Each conversation is disconnected enough from the others that readers can jump from one chapter to another seamlessly.  (The first four chapters I read were 19, 12, 1, and 18.)  

For me, the highlight of Red Letter Theology is the discussion about the church.   Both authors acknowledge failures throughout church history, but do not let these failures negate the good things that the church has done.  Campolo and Claiborne also present ideas individually that caught my imagination.  Claiborne suggests that folks who are not Christians will rarely expect that Christians are perfect, but they do want us to be honest.  Meanwhile, Campolo uses theology rooted in Jesus’ command to love our neighbour when proposing a free market economic system motivated by creating blessings for others.  This system will better reflect Jesus’ teaching than either profit-motivated capitalism or state-controlled socialism.

My response to Red Letter Living was different.  One discussion does not define the section for me.  Instead, Claiborne and Campolo’s willingness to consider a variety of controversial issues is impressive.  Their broad definition of “pro-life”, as an example, refuses to pick a clear side in a polarizing debate.  They do not dismiss an important discussion about abortion or euthanasia, but instead suggest including such issues as poverty, capital punishment, imprisonment, war, and healthcare in the discussion.  For me, the value of this section is that I jumped between absolute disagreement to absolute agreement to uncomfortable uncertainty throughout most of the discussions.  This section more than the others made me re-evaluate my own ideas.  

I mostly wanted to read this book because of the kinds of topics discussed in Red Letter World.  They help me frame my thinking as I try to be a thinking Christian.  I was intrigued by how Campolo and Claiborne consider a response to evil.  In the discussion on politics, Campolo says that the church should criticize governments that do not meet their divine mandate to restrain oppression.  At the same time, Claiborne’s thoughts in the discussion on vengeance remind readers that Jesus explicitly said that it is not our responsibility to eliminate evil because we may inadvertently get rid of some good as well.  These types of complexities are frequent.

While I appreciate Red Letter Revolution, I have a concern.  In Dialogue on History Campolo rightly points out that people sometimes see a difference between God as presented as Jesus in the New Testament and God as presented in the Old Testament.  Jesus appears more compassionate (page 7).  I absolutely agree with Campolo that we best understand YHWH through Jesus.  I wonder, however, if Campolo lets people get away with reading the Old Testament badly.  There are countless examples of YHWH’s compassion in the Old Testament and Jesus refers to his father, the God of the Old Testament, in a consistently positive light.  Campolo does not endorse the view that separates Jesus and the Old Testament God, but he just sort of leaves it there without much evaluation. 

My own weakness made reading Red Letter Revolution difficult.  I struggled to read a dialogue after reading so many books with a structure typical to non-fiction writing.  Meanwhile, the dialogue I do see is the type common in media programs like The Lang & O’Leary Exchange or in political debates.  When reading this book, then, I was always tempted to think that whoever writes the last paragraph in a given chapter is the winner.  This is certainly not the intent of the authors, so please be a bit skeptical about my comments on this book.

These issues are not central to my thoughts about this book.  I think Red Letter Revolution is an exciting book and will not hesitate to recommend it to people.  When the book described the Gospels as “a declaration of how to live as Kingdom people, working to create the Kingdom of God in this world,” it gave me language to understand the Gospels that I did not have before.  

The book also left me with a few questions.  (These are real questions.  Please feel free to help me answer them in the comments section.)  Reading this book makes me wonder how to define “loving my neighbour”.  A visit to 1 Corinthians 13 and The Good Samaritan will certainly help me answer the question, but these passages leave me with either very vague or very specific explanations.  So, what does it mean to love my neighbour?

Another question is more introspective.  Campolo is blunt and says that too many Christians require near absolute doctrinal agreement to share community with other Christians.  I expect I am one of these Christians, otherwise I may have just skimmed over this idea.  “Community” is en vogue right now, but I wonder if division is ever appropriate.  So, what doctrinal agreements are crucial for you and I to share “Christian” community?

Reading Red Letter Revolution was equal parts struggle and confirmation.  Sometimes I felt guilty for reading a book that told me that what I already thought is correct.  Sometimes, though, I was writing my disagreements in the margins and groaning. The book enriched me, it frustrated me, and it confused me.  I expect it will do similar things for other people and that is why I hope you read this book. 

 

This post originally appeared on my former blog ajdickinson.blogspot.ca. The date stamp is for the date of the original posting.