Last week Alan Bean (Executive Director of Friends of Justice) and I attended a conference in Waco, Texas sponsored by the Christian Ethics Today Foundation. The conference, on the Truett Seminary campus of Baylor University, was not well attended. The attendees were mostly older, with a smattering of Truett Seminary students. Truett faculty members were conspicuous by their absence. It was an ethics conference, and Truett currently has no ethics department, although reportedly they are in search for someone to teach ethics and missions.
The conference, while it seemed to lack a unifying theme, was advertised in the brochure as “Red Letter Christians, An Emerging Evangelical Center, and Public Policy Issues.”
James Dunn gave his characteristically enthusiastic and well informed presentations regarding church and state, and by extension, the place of religion in politics. Dunn is a vocal advocate of separation of church and state, but he insists that does not mean that evangelical Christians should not be involved in politics.
David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, was expected to represent the “emerging evangelical center.” This emerging group would avoid both the extremes of the Christian right, represented by such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and the late Jerry Falwell, and the so-called evangelical left represented by Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and others. But Professor Gushee, in his presentation, seemed to be moving away from any evangelical center and toward radical Christianity.
And that brings us to “Red Letter Christians.” What a scary thought to political progressives who don’t understand how the title originated. “Red Letter Christians” in a red state at a Baptist University could conjure up visions of hate-mongering homophobes, doctor-murdering anti-abortionists, or other religio-politically crimson groups.
The term actually originated with a secularist talk show host who commented on certain Christians who pay special attention to the words of Jesus printed in red in some Bibles. So Tony Campolo proudly owns the appellation, and also gladly accepts the designation of radical evangelical. He is evangelical in his doctrine and espouses a high view of Scripture. But he insists, contrary to the views and practices of those on the evangelical right, that the words of Jesus must be taken literally. “Love your enemies” really means love your enemies. “Be merciful” really means be merciful. This is radical Christianity. It stakes out a position and practice not between, but above and beyond the extremes of left and right.
Friends of Justice (https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com) seeks criminal justice reform. No presenter at this conference so much as mentioned this issue. I think the presenters and attendees would be very positive toward the Friends of Justice position if they were aware of the systemic gross injustice, especially toward the poor, in the system.
That’s why we were there: to plant seeds of awareness.
Charles Kiker
Tulia, Texas
Friends of Justice 
I’m typically in favor of Campolo with his theologial praxis, but a thought occurred to me today: if we’re taking the red letters literally, then why not be preaching to the poor to forgive their neighbor for harming them (you know, the oppressors or those who defraud them)? It’s what Jesus did. He forgave and did not retaliate.
On a serious note, I’m all for setting up a system of justice, and giving to the unjust their due consequences. But the ironic thought occured to me.
Actually, the red letters would bid them do just that. Red letters are also pretty hard on the oppressors. As for giving the unjust their due consequences:
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.
King James Version, red letter edition. The above paragraph all in red.