Book Review - Red Letter Christians by Tony Campolo

In Red Letter Christians: A Citizen’s Guide to Faith & Politics, Tony Campolo introduces what it is to be a “Red Letter Christian.”  Red Letter Christians guides Christians who want to see their faith influence their politics, while challenging the Christians as Republican stereotype.  Campolo argues that Jesus does not fit into a particular political ideology and that attempting to make him do so creates division.  Instead, Christians should vote about social issues based on their best judgement of what God’s will is.  Addressing social need requires political action, rather than only relying on the good work of volunteers.  Simply put, it is sinful to pretend that there is no need for legislative responses to oppression and poverty.  

Campolo begins his book by explaining who Red Letter Christians are and how to make the red letters of the Bible (the words of Jesus) a guide for political life.  He concludes by providing “ground rules” for Red Letter Christians as they approach politics.  In the middle, Campolo addresses specific issues, divided into the categories: The Global Issues, The Hot-Button Issues, The Economic Issues, and The Government Issues.  This review, and my question “What does this book teach me about social justice,” will focus on the beginning and ending portions of the book.  Campolo is writing from an American perspective about an American system.  While the middle parts of the book do have some universal value, part one, part five, and the final chapter of part four are most applicable to me as a Canadian trying to approach social justice in the Canadian system.

Who are Red Letter Christians?  They are Christians who share theological views with Evangelicals, believing that scripture is the inspired word of God and that Jesus of Nazareth can have a saving and life-changing impact on people alive today.  They are Red Letter because they are dedicated to social justice.  This dedication means that they are closely involved in a range of political issues, but put a particular emphasis on legislation designed to serve poor or oppressed people.  

Campolo outlines what he calls “a biblical approach to politics.”  His outline is based on the idea that Jesus has initiated the Kingdom of God and that this Kingdom includes salvation for people and a transformed society.  This kingdom is breaking into the world now.  Unfortunately, much of the contemporary Western Church does not see that the Gospel as incomplete when salvation for people is not paired with the transformation of society.  God uses the church to see his Kingdom come to fruition.  The church is therefore responsible to participate in social institutions to stand for social justice and explain God’s role in justice.  Politics is part of the mission of the church because the “principalities and powers” that Christians oppose include social structures.  Politics is the tool for addressing social structures.  

To approach politics properly, Red Letter Christians must make three choices.  First, Red Letter Christians should choose to be loyal to issues instead of parties.  This is because on some issues, Red Letter Christians will resemble liberals and on other issues, conservatives.  Second, Red Letter Christians should choose authority over power.  Power comes from strength.  Authority comes from sacrificial service.  Authority, therefore, is earned and confronts power.  Third, Red Letter Christians choose to be knowledgeable instead of ignorant.  Authority is useless without enough knowledge to contribute.

Campolo also suggests what a Red Letter Christian’s ideal candidate could look like.  Red Letter Christians can identify “the right kind of candidate” by asking a few questions.  First, does the candidate use division to gather support by putting one group against another?  If so, avoid this candidate and work for their defeat.  Second, how does the candidate define freedom and does this definition allow people to fulfill their purpose as God’s creation?   Third, does the candidate have a biblical stance on social issues?  This does not mean asking, “Is the candidate a Christian?”  Instead, it means looking at what the candidate does about specific issues and seeing whether these actions are in line with biblical teaching.  Fourth, is the candidate trustworthy enough to address government corruption?  It is important for Red Letter Christians to consider carefully who to vote for.  Failing to vote or failing to vote critically allows other people to decide what political morality is.

Campolo concludes his book with three “ground rules” for Red Letter Christians.  First, Red Letter Christians should not use insults or vilify people with opposing political opinions.  Second, Red Letter Christians should take stances, but should also acknowledge that they might be wrong.  Third, Red Letter Christians should look for areas of agreement with other Christians and, when appropriate, approach these areas politically.  

Red Letter Christians is useful as I think about social justice both in what the book teaches me and in the questions that it makes me ask.  I’ll begin with what I learned.  Campolo shows that knowledge is a choice.  Further, it is essential to speak with authority.  I cannot simply appeal to morality because I may need to demonstrate why something is a moral issue.  I struggle with the phrases “social justice” and “social justice Christian.”  Campolo’s demonstration that knowledge is crucial for political engagement makes me even more convinced that these identifiers are not helpful.  To speak with authority, I need to have knowledge about specific issues, rather than simply “justice.”  This means that I will likely know little or nothing about most significant matters of justice and I need to accept that.  

Campolo also added to what I know in a couple of areas that I had previously considered.  First, the political system is an indispensable tool for justice.  I’ve long believed that politics were an important tool, but I’m now convinced that justice is impossible apart from a political response.  This is mostly from Campolo’s claim that principalities and powers include unjust systems.  I doubt we can remove or fix a bad system without putting good system in its place.  Something will fill the hole.  Second, vilification of an opponent is a significant temptation in political discussions.  I need to be constantly wary of this while I discuss social justice.  Calling social justice a moral issue necessarily implies that someone is being immoral.  Vilifying dialogue partners, however, makes it difficult to convince them of my position.  It also makes it impossible for me to acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong (which Campolo tells Red Letter Christians to do in a debate).  How likely am I to listen to people who tell me that I am a twit and that they are absolutely correct?  Not very.  I do wish he provided more guidance on how to confront sinful policies.

Finally, I want to note what Campolo made me ask.  His discussion about power vs. authority led me to wonder whether Christians can ethically hold positions of power.  Nothing I read here has convinced me that we cannot, but there does seem to be an implication.  The question remains, is it easier to act morally when in an opposition party than it is in government?  Further, what happens if a person has enough authority that people give them power?  It is difficult to run for Leader of the Opposition.