Saturday, April 07, 2007

Comments Closed

Comments Closed - at least on this post!

The trouble with a long comments string is that nobody wants to read all the conversation before they leave their two cents. What ends up happening is what takes place when you're the first relative to reach your grandparents... you hear the same stories over and over again.

I felt that the comments on the Tony Campolo / Nature of the Gospel post were starting to head that direction so I closed them off. It is very interesting reading however! And it has provided me with a truckload of ideas to blog about in the future.

My thanks to Darryl, Darrin, Kenny and ScottB and all the others for their input.


  1. Thank you too, Paul.

    "It has provided me with a truckload of ideas to blog about in the future."

    You're not really going to post anything controversial in the future, are you? ;)

  2. Well, it never seems that controversial to me! :-)

  3. The most polite "aw shut up" I have ever received, and believe me, I have receivd plenty!

  4. I do not wish to become engaged in the theological discussion regarding Dr. Campolo's comments. However, there was something that Mr. Martin said that I found particularly troubling, and so I am compelled to say something about it.

    Mr. Martin writes, in regards to Campolo's "red-letter Christian" mentality, "This referred to his ridiculous idea that we need to skip other parts of the Bible and only read the red font. In many Bibles, the red font identifies the words of Jesus."

    Mr. Martin, we do not need Christian leaders misrepresenting their brothers for their own gain, especially when it involves misleading others.

    Red-letter Christianity does not suggest we "skip parts of the Bible" and "only read the red font." What it *does* suggest is that the teachings of Christ are the "lense," if you will, that we are to use when we view the rest of scripture. In other words, RLC suggests we use the teachings of Christ to provide context to other parts of scripture that are, often times, desperately in need of context in order for them to be applicable in today's society (many parts of the Old Testament come to mind).

    Now, if you want to argue the theological correctness of the Red-Letter Christianity approach, please do so. In fact, do so with clarity, discernment, and precision. But please, do not misrepresent other Christians, and please do not mislead your readers. If you want to prove that your point is correct, do so ethically... if your position is indeed true, surely you can demonstrate that by using proper conduct.