Chris Hedges offers a sombre reflection on America in the early 21st Century, which is easily applicable to my own Canadian context. Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle argues that we made five trades. We traded rational and literate discourse for celebrity worship and intentional ignorance. We traded love and empathy for pornography and consumerism. We traded curiosity for entrenchment. We traded happiness and for positive thinking and ignoring reality. We have traded democracy, truth, and confidence for misguided icons, negligence, and shopping. Worse than making these trades, however, is that we think that we are advanced for having done so.

Hedges' book is sombre rather than outright depressing because of the final few pages. He offers something of a buoy for his readers, who - assuming my reaction is on par - will feel completely sunk by reaching the final section (a mere three pages) of the final chapter. What Hedges holds on to, and what he offers readers, is hope. "Have hope," seems like a kind of wishy-washy conclusion considering both the absolute dread I felt while reading the book and Hedges' own warning against trading intelligent consideration of our surroundings for positivity.

Hedges' hope is not blind to all the trades we made. His hope acknowledges that we have set ourselves up for a world that "will be painful and difficult." His hope also knows, however, that despite the worst any tyrant has done, tyranny has not destroyed the human capacity for love. The love that showed up in "small, blind acts of kindness" to combat empires of death camps, gulags, genocides, and killing fields, will certainly continue and stand in the way of an empire of illusion. The markers of such love are sacrificing oneself for the other, revering what is sacred, being apathetic to what is flashy, and rebelling against lust for power. Hedges has hope because, in his words, "The power of love is greater than the power of death."

A sombre reflection is not easy to read. Still, Empire of Illusion is an important book that points out to readers that our surroundings are not always what they seem. Hedges forces readers to ask, Am I actually literate, loving, wise, happy, and a democrat, or, do I only bask in a convenient and intentional illusion of these things? Forcing the question seems to be the goal of Empire. Hedges wrote a successful book not because it is absolutely convincing. He was successful because, when I was done reading, I started to evaluate how I straddle the border between reality and illusion. The hope that Hedges holds onto cannot take shape without such questioning.

A "grown-up" Christian faith begs a question. Is what it says about Jesus true? N. T. Wright's Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters says that it is true. Wright's thoughts suggest a new vision of Jesus, which he hopes will help people understand their lives today in a new way.

The book has three parts. It defines Wright's questions about Jesus and suggests that they are difficult to answer. It then explains the focus, goals, and method of Jesus public career. Finally, it suggests why Jesus still matters.

Wright uses the image of a "perfect storm" coming from three directions. The first direction is Rome. Rome was the primary world power. It considered Caesar divine and called him the "son of god." Rome also needed the Middle East - where Jesus lived - for grain supplies. The second direction is the Jewish people. Rome thought the golden age was in the past. The Jews thought it was yet to come. The Jewish people looked forward to a time when a good rescuer would oppose an evil oppressor. The third direction is how Jesus thought he fit with the first two directions. Israel expected the messiah to come in power and glory. Jesus claimed to do so, but had a completely different definition of power and glory. Jesus stood in a line of prophets who said that Israel's vision for itself and God's vision for Israel were at odds.

Simply Jesus can now propose questions. First, Jesus did nothing that people expected the king and messiah to do. He was also crucified with the mocking title "King of the Jews" above his head. Why should anyone take this title seriously then? Second, how do we say that Jesus is in charge while the world seems to be completely out of his control?

For Wright, the answers begin with the idea of Jesus initiating a "new Exodus." The Jewish people knew the Moses account well. There was an oppressive ruler against a chosen leader for the Israel. God was victorious, sacrifice was necessary for rescue, rescue gave Israel a new way to live, God was present, and Israel received the Promised Land.

In the new Exodus, Jesus was the rescuer. He announced that God - instead of Caesar - is king. Jesus was initiating a campaign to implement a new kingdom. In this Exodus, Jesus' is the representative of Israel, but the oppressive ruler was greater than Caesar. Instead, evil itself was the oppressor and Jesus' kingdom opposed evil through repentance and faith. Jesus' kingdom would fix the world, fix people, welcome the wrong sorts of people, and offer forgiveness.

Because the oppressor is evil in general instead of a specific person (no doubt though that Caesar and Pharaoh were part of this evil), Jesus' death becomes a necessary part of the battle. In Jesus' death, the creator God absorbed the worst of anti-creator evil. God's Kingdom came because Jesus led the new Exodus through death. His resurrection was the beginning of a new creation.

Wright's suggestion is that we view life through the perspective of this new creation. We must make a choice. Some people choose the old creation and its methods - selfishness and revenge. Others say that this does not work and choose Jesus' new creation - love, reconciliation, hope, and forgiveness. If we choose Jesus' new creation, we call Jesus Lord. We also recognize our role in how Jesus exercises his rule. That is why Jesus rescues us. Acknowledging this is how we worship God. The church says that only God is sovereign. This certainly contradicts normal respectable society, but the church must be willing to stand behind the statement. The church, it seems, is how God intends to exercise his rule. It will absolutely make mistakes while trying to choose Jesus' new creation, but this does not negate the reality of the new creation. We must be willing to listen to our own prophets while we strive to reflect God to the rest of creation.

I am glad I read this book and see a couple points of value. First, Wright provides a good explanation of why talking about Jesus is difficult. Jesus lived as if he were in control and redefined rules, which we are not used to seeing. His context also had a different worldview than ours. In addition to a different context, he spoke in a way that challenges our assumptions, primarily in his use of the word "god".

This summary is important because it can help provide language for how we think about Jesus. Let's apply this idea to how Christian teaching can lead its followers to become advocates for social justice. Jesus' description of God, for example, suggests a personal being that is concerned with how we treat one another. The parables of The Sheep and the Goats and Lazarus and the Rich Man demonstrate this. An interested God who is concerned about how we treat each other stands in contrast to two dominant gods today - the god who is over there without much interest in what happens here and the god who isn't particularly concerned with what we do as long as we say "sorry" afterwards. Only one of these three Gods would demand justice.

The second value is that the book helped as I continue to reflect on Wright's teaching about why Jesus' life before his death and resurrection is important for Christians. Wright's use of the word "campaign" was helpful. Jesus was starting a new balance of power in the face of an existing regime. Jesus' life before Easter matters because of the value he places on forgiveness in his new balance. Forgiveness removes people from exile. Jesus' life demonstrated that having God in the role of King would characterize the regime change Jesus initiated. Jesus' life matters because it shows what a world that abandoned evil looks like.

This is a challenging book. It is well worth the challenge and I recommend that you give it a look.

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.

This is 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.

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.

A basic biblical lesson is that Jesus came to offer forgiveness. Timothy Keller wrote Generous Justice to give light to another basic biblical lesson that people commonly ignore and overlook: When a person has a true encounter with forgiveness, she or he will "inevitably" long for justice. The better a person understands grace, the more acute this longing will be. Generous Justice hopes to make this clear. Christians can learn that justice for poor and marginalized is at the centre of scripture. People who are not Christians can see that the Bible, properly understood, directs people to be just rather than oppressive.

Generous Justice is an excellent book and makes a significant contribution as I consider social justice. It helped to clarify some issues for me, while also raising issues that I hadn't considered before.

Keller's clarity on the biblical definition of injustice is most helpful in how he defines his question. The Bible seemingly make it obvious that doing justice is expected of Christ-followers. While Keller does spend some time answering the question, "Should we do justice," he quickly assumes the affirmative. This allows him to ask more complicated questions, such as "How", "Why", and "Where". Despite answering these questions in a readable book, Keller provides thought provoking answers.

It is also useful to consider Keller's concerns about the definition of justice relative to how we should use the word. While he provides a definition using The Bible - to make long-term sacrificial decisions that address the needs, concerns, and causes of marginalized people - he concedes that not everyone will agree with this definition, nor will everyone agree with what he uses as his source material for determining the definition. It is difficult to talk about "justice" because there are so many different definitions. Defining the word becomes even more problematic because it is a conversational trump card. Whoever uses the word first is typically the person who gets to set its definition for the conversation. Disagreeing with the definition is taking the side against justice. Most people do not want to be seen as unjust. I'm glad that Keller's response to this problem is not saying, "My definition is best." Instead, he challenges readers to acknowledge that discussing morality is necessary to discussing justice. This provides a launching point for the conversation, because we can debate about what our morality is, where it comes from, and how it leads to our understanding of justice.

Generous Justice also gave me an entirely new thought to consider. When planning to do justice, the church needs to understand the difference between long-term, or "permanent" poverty, and a short period of poverty. While this sounds obvious, the implications are great. Doing justice in the face of long-term poverty and injustice will be different from doing justice in cases of temporary need. This helps readers to understand the complexity of poverty and to see that our response must be just as complex.

Keller also provides a warning that I rarely think about. When discussing justice - particularly poverty - it is very easy to see poor people as always-innocent victims of oppression. Indeed, scripture often concludes that oppressing the innocent is wrong. However, by no means does The Bible indicate that poverty and virtue are synonymous. Nor does it show that a wealthy person is always a villain. Such caricatures are unhelpful when we do justice.

Poverty is, generally, unnecessary. It rarely comes from a lack of natural resources or a human inability to use these resources. Instead, argues Dewi Hughes in Power and Poverty: Divine and Human Rule in a World of Need, poverty is what happens when people misuse the power with which God entrusted us. Understanding how poverty and power relate requires understanding who we are. The linkage of poverty with the misuse of power means that in addition to being a social, political, and economic issue, poverty is a spiritual issue. Hughes' book has had more impact on how I think than any other book of theology or biblical studies.

Power and Poverty presents a framework of theological ideas presented through The Bible. The Bible tells the story of God and the world. God's story shows that he created people with the capacity to rule. Today 1 billion people experience abject poverty. There is something wrong with how we use this capacity. Christianity teaches that God can redeem people. Redemption will influence how we rule, thereby affecting how we organize and govern ourselves.

Power and Poverty has an impact on how I see myself as political and how I understand myself as an advocate for social justice because Dewi Hughes is the first person that I have read to connect directly communal/societal evil with how I understand human sinfulness. As a Christian, I am not surprised that covering sin and forgiveness is necessary when discussing social justice. I overlooked this until reading Hughes' suggestion of God's redemptive plan as a means for addressing poverty. This is the primary lesson I take from this book.

It is also helpful that Hughes links God's commands with human rights (page 82). His contention is that we should not leave protection for the vulnerable and social welfare to the "charitable whims of the rich". By linking protection and provision to human rights and removing charity from the discussion, Hughes implies some difficult questions for any readers who are rich (and not just the 1-percenters). Not the least is, are we willing to rely on charitable whims to protect our other human rights, such as free speech? If we are not willing there, why are we willing to do so when addressing poverty?

Finally, I like that Hughes contributed to my thinking about how Christians and others can be co- advocates for justice. Hughes' idea that anyone - not just his fellow evangelicals - can come up with a good idea is a humble starting point for any social justice Christian (page 165). Hughes continues the idea by explaining that imperfect people cannot follow even the best plan. I think this is where Christians have something unique to offer. We believe that that God counters human sinful character (even and especially amongst Christians) with a redemptive plan. Christians can begin to explain how forgiveness and confession are invaluable to an approach ending to poverty.

Desmond Tutu's God Has a Dream: A Vision of Hope for Our Time is a short and compelling blend of theology and spirituality with politics. Tutu wrote the book to demonstrate that God does not ignore suffering. God's response to suffering is transformation and His agents of transformation are people. Tutu describes himself as a "realist" and bases his thoughts on the reality he witnessed through the Bible, history, and living during apartheid in South Africa

Tutu, a retired Archbishop, begins with a theological claim: God is in control of creation, even when he seems absent. God most likely appears absent during oppression. God is responding, however, through transformation. Surprisingly, this response begins by freeing the oppressor. A sinful person needs to be free of corruption to be a free child of God. For those already experiencing this freedom, transformation leads to forgiveness.

The theological statement "God is in control," has a political application. Tutu suggests that God created people as free creatures and asks us to follow him. The definition of person therefore includes freedom. This means two things. First, freedom must include the possibility of disobedience. Second, creation means that oppression opposes natural law. The tyrant's failure is therefore in inevitable. A properly functioning society responds to this inevitability by allowing people to experience creation-ordained freedom.

Tutu's next theological claim is that God dreams of an inseparable link amongst people. Equality is not enough because it allows people to ignore one another. Transformation makes people interdependent. God wants all human relationships to have the same characteristics as family relationships. People do not choose their family members, but connection is permanent. Family does not require absolute agreement but does require respect. Family has a willingness to share.

Again, the theological claim has a political dimension. Injustice is impossible when human relationships resemble well-functioning families. This would mean that the horrific circumstances we see as normal would stop. Resource use would not be disproportionate, someone would not die every 3.6 seconds, and children would not starve.

Tutu's next point is that God's love is unconditional and unearned. There is an unsettling follow up: God loves our enemies, so we also have to. Love for enemies comes through reconciliation. Reconciliation includes forgiveness, which is an opportunity to start over based on the hope that the transgressor can change and allow a positive relationship with the victim. Reconciliation also should include reparation if possible and necessary so that the transgressor will not continue to profit from wrongdoing. Tutu applies this truth to political enemies.

The final theological claim that Tutu makes is that we are God's only tool for justice. If we let God use us, justice will happen. People will matter more than possessions. We will cherish life. We will protect people from hunger, ignorance, and sickness. We will be gentle, caring, and compassionate. To neglect justice is blasphemy because it turns the image of God into a victim. Again, religion and politics intersect. The gospel - normally thought of as a religious topic - confronts injustice. Tutu's stance against apartheid was primarily a religious act. He stood with the weak because that is where God was standing.

The next two chapters of God Has a Dream suggest responses to these theological-political claims. The first suggestion is to stop looking at how things appear and to start looking at how things are. To do this, we need to learn from suffering by acknowledging that we do not always control suffering but do control our response. Use love to help control responses, set aside jealousy, and consciously choose positive responses to bad situations. Use humility to understand who you are and allow God to use you. Use generosity to acknowledge that everything is a gift from God so you will respond to suffering with empathy. Use courage to have a good response despite fear and threats.

The second suggestion is to allow for stillness. Stillness allows you to hear from God, which lets you become more godlike and more aware of God's presence. Three things help lead to stillness: prayer, particularly in groups; reading the Bible and understanding why and how it is relevant today; and, looking for and accepting truth - whether from religion or science.

Tutu concludes by noting that conflict comes from disputes over power. Instead of disputes, Jesus suggests an alternate use of power. Exercise power through service, compassion, gentleness, and caring. In Jesus' vision, power and servanthood are synonymous. Suffering does not indicate that God does not have a dream. Suffering indicates that we ignore it. The only way to ensure that Jesus' vision of power - that God's dream - prevails is to live as if it will. Power exists in people. Other sources - government, business, organizations - only exist because of they are groups of people. People choose to disobey God or obey God.

In After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, N. T. Wright considers how people who believe that Jesus is God's offer of redemption should respond to this belief. He writes primarily to Western Christians, steeped in the mistaken idea that Christianity is about getting into heaven after dying. He suggests replacing this belief with a question, What is Christianity for right now and does it impact life today? To understand his answer, readers need to understand three words: character, virtue, and wisdom.

Character is molding and sculpting the habits of life. It forms a behavioural standard. It is a pattern of thought and action, making rules unnecessary. Virtue comes from good character. It uses this pattern automatically after a life of making many good small decisions to develop character. Wisdom is knowing God. It helps people understand both God and neighbour and it places Christians in the gospel story.

After You Believe follows Simply Christian and Surprised By Hope. In these books, Wright discusses a future new creation where God joins heaven and earth. God's mechanism for unveiling this creation is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Hope is not "going to heaven." Hope is a future physical resurrection into this new creation. After You Believe continues along this line. Wright argues that the best way to understand the Christian life is to view our present lives as preparation for our future lives in God's new creation. This preparation comes by proper Christian behaviour, worship, and mission.

Such preparation is about how we understand what it means to be human. If we want develop a uniquely Christian character, the New Testament understanding of what it is to be human should shape our understanding. By adopting the New Testament's definition of human, Christians accept it as a guide to form their character.

People often have mistaken assumptions about Christian behaviour. The first mistaken assumption is that Christians must meet a list of obligations that they do not to always understand. This assumption misunderstands the purpose of rules. The second is that Christians can simply be themselves, because if our heart says something is OK it is good. This assumption neglects the hard work of forming our hearts to reflect the New Testament understanding of a human. The third is that Christians only need character to meet significant challenges. This assumption misses that character is important during all of life, rather than only in challenging times.

Wright responds to these mistakes by explaining character transformation. First, identify and aim at a proper goal. Second, identify the steps necessary to reach this goal. Third, follow these steps until they become second nature. Throughout After You Believe, Wright anticipates and answers reader's questions about this process.

Why is it important for Christians to develop character? Simply put, Christians have a task, or mission. While only one part of creation, people have a unique role as stewards. As God's image bearers, people need to reflect him to the rest of creation. When we develop character, Christians demonstrate how to reflect God.

Isn't developing character, optimistically, no different from following rules, or, pessimistically, no different from being hypocritical and image conscious? In both cases, the reality of sin means that the answer is no. Rules serve as a reminder. Rules help people avoid sin while we are working on character development. As character development increases, the need for rules decreases. Similarly, recognizing that sin is a reality is why working to develop character is not the same as hypocrisy. Acknowledging and then countering our sinful impulses is not a mask. Instead, it is a demonstration that we recognize and submit to an authority greater than our own.

What makes Christian virtue different from how other ideas about virtue? These ideas actually are similar because Jesus and the church's earliest teachers adapted an already good idea to reflect their own beliefs. This answer has two parts. First is the admission that recognizing value in other worldviews will not shake Christianity. Aristotle first suggested that virtue is evidence of character transformation. Courage, justice, prudence, and temperance are the four "cardinal" virtues. To achieve the cardinal virtues is to reach the peak of personal development. The goal of strong character is personal fulfillment. Second is the understanding that while early Christian teachers saw good in the idea of cardinal virtues and character, they needed to adapt the teaching if it was to help Christians grow in their faith. The difference in what Jesus and other early church teachers taught about virtue and character is that they are not sources of personal fulfillment. Instead, they are sources of humility. The goal of strong character is to ensure that the welfare of others.

To conclude After You Believe, Wright suggests several guides for Christians who are working on character transformation. Such guides do not provide this transformation. Instead, each provides an opportunity to make intentional choices that change life patterns. The first guide is scripture. Reading and studying scripture acknowledges our need to hear from God and our need to understand where we fit in God's narrative. The second guide is stories. Stories - whether from scripture, history, or art - help us to understand our God, our neighbours, and our selves. The third guide is examples, which show us the consequences of good and bad choices. The fourth guide is the community of people who follow God. This includes Christians everywhere, a local congregation, and smaller groups. The fifth guide is the practices of the community. There are several practices, including communion, baptism, prayer, giving money, and reading scripture together.

I am beginning to look at books of Christian ethics for more input on what it means to be a social justice Christian. I expect that these books will also expand my understanding about politics in light of my faith. After You Believe is an excellent start to this project. Three bits in particular were helpful.

First, I see value in our political system and see democracy as a tool available to social justice Christians. Wright's reminder that I need to think about how my faith co-exists with democracy therefore impressed me.[1] I considered this reminder in light of Wright's idea that Christian character limits the value of rules. How can I demonstrate Christian character in a pluralistic political system that depends on rules to protect people? The answer must recognize a tension: rules inadequately protected freedom, but having absolutely no rules corrupts freedom.

I also appreciate Wright's idea about repentance. The essence of Wright's argument in the book is that Christian life should reflect Kingdom life. This reflection will be a "Spirit-led, habit-forming, truly human practice of faith, hope, and love."[2] Not everyone - not even all Christians - is on this path. This is why a change of direction is necessary. I like that Wright's idea of character can affect social change. The character that he describes can therefore address injustice. If we want justice, a good deal of it will come when those of us on the top repent and stop stepping on those of us on the bottom. As I come up with my schemes for justice, perhaps I should ask, "Does this help people repent?"

Finally, I am happy that Wright sees social justice as the responsibility of the whole church. He explains that over the last two centuries, Western societies have attempted to separate social justice and God. The last two centuries have also seen war, totalitarianism, and revolution to address evil. Clearly, eliminating God from the discussion did not help. It is up to the church to demonstrate how God is relevant to social justice.[3] I am happy that Wright acknowledges the need of the whole church to participate, rather than just small pockets. I am a bit nervous though. He made it clear that the need for repentance is absolute. Is the church ready to confess and turn away from our own guilt in social injustice? I expect this guilt is partly why people seek justice apart from God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See page 11.
[2] See page 67.
[3] See page 231.

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.

Alan Storkey contributes to the conversation about Christian interaction with politics in his book Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers. He argues that Jesus must be central to the relationship between Christians and politics. It is the responsibility of Christians to understand how Jesus factors into political history, if for no other reason than because church history is full of examples poor relationships with politics.

For Storkey, politics is not party-based. It is "the business of the state," including aspects such as law, national identity, use of power, economics policy, and justice. Storkey hopes that Christians can see the gospel as something that confronts political power, but he warns not to make the gospel only about politics. Politics are important in the gospel, but are only a part - not even the most important part.

Understanding Jesus' thoughts about politics requires understanding his political discussion partners. Jesus primarily interacted with his fellow Jews, who saw religion and politics as closely related. Jewish groups - such as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes - operated with relative freedom with Rome typically only in the background. The groups were similar to our contemporary political parties. They were sometimes honourable and sometime had mixed motivations. They believed they knew what was best for society and presented political visions to explain these thoughts. Jesus existed outside of this approach to politics, instead offering an approach free of self-exaltation.

What does politics without self-exaltation look like? We can learn from the account of Jesus' temptation. Rather than grasping honour, prestige, and popularity, Jesus began his ministry by giving honour to the Father. The power that Jesus drew on was not the usual political power. We also learn from how Jesus understood his role as messiah. Isaiah's prophecy presents the messiah as a political leader in the line of David. In taking the title of messiah, Jesus claimed the prime leadership role in Israel.

Saying that Jesus is messiah and King requires examining his rule. Most importantly, his political rule is only part of an even larger reign. His rule has three characteristics. First, it is good news rather than ideology. Jesus attempts to change people's hearts, minds, and attitudes. Political reform will then follow. Second, it is offensive. It tells secular authorities* that God is the ultimate authority. Such rulers are therefore accountable to a standard beyond themselves. Third, it is subversive. Rulers cannot dominate subjects and they properly rule only when recognizing God as sovereign. Any submission of Christians to the state is therefore under God's authority.

There are principles to glean from Jesus' approach to politics. The first group shows politics as expression of human relationship. Jesus' approach has a consistent respect for everyone and privileges no one. It uses peacemaking to resolve conflicts before they begin and focuses on forgiveness rather than who is right or wrong. It defines truth as an entirely consistent lifestyle. It is willing to be unpopular when an unpopular opinion is the better response to a situation. It sees freedom as relational. It is reconciliatory to ensure that situations do not have a single "winner." It acknowledges God's ownership of property, which he wished to share with all people and generations. It is compassionate to the poor and requires everyone to be "poor in spirit," ensuring that no one is exploited, looked at with contempt, or neglected. It is tolerant of other opinions - even wrong and damaging opinions - without being morally neutral.

The second group of principles concerns governmental function. Jesus saw leadership as an act of service instead of dominance. He saw a difference between leadership posts and the fallen persons in these posts. He saw law and restriction as necessary for freedom and understood that the standard of what is right is not set by popular opinion. He limited the power of the state. He sought justice to prevent one group from having favour over another. He held people accountable.

It is necessary to acknowledge that people are sinful in order to follow Jesus in his approach to politics. Sinfulness means that both rulers and societies fail to meet political obligations. Criticizing secular authority is sometimes necessary. Criticism should be in the form of prophecy. Prophecy is not a selfish attack.

Jesus' response to the Temple moneychangers demonstrates prophecy. First, he showed people how leaders failed to meet the standards they themselves set. Second, he demonstrated that leaders were motivated only by the appearance of good rather than actually being good. Third, he spoke directly to the leaders, instead of only the people.

Storkey concludes that the greatest political act is to follow Jesus. Self-identified Christians also need to understand this. In political relationships, Christians follow Jesus when we are "a community of political wisdom." This means learning from our predecessors who addressed politics. It means criticizing our own mistakes before those of our neighbours. Most crucially, it means humbly showing Jesus as our leader.

Alan Storkey's book provides me with three helps as I consider the relationship between social justice, politics, and my faith. First, his examination of freedom as something that requires restriction is both thorough and convincing. He states this principle most bluntly in the series of principles regarding proper government function. Unlike the Big Brother maxim that "Freedom is slavery," it is not paradoxical to state that freedom requires restriction. The restrictions that Jesus suggests do not enslave anyone. Instead, they prevent the most powerful people from using their power to take away freedom from weaker members of society. Freedom and justice are impossible if absolute power - whether of the government or of other powers - is allowed.

Second, Strokey demonstrates that politics - as matters of the state - have an important role in ordering the types of social relationships that result in justice. The government is able to institute the types of restrictions that Jesus proposed as necessary for freedom. I think there is an application for social justice here, as well. When a government functions properly - that is, when a government allows the principles of Jesus to come through - it restricts people's ability to harm the weak. Justice is impossible if certain actions are left unrestricted. It is not governmental imposition or an attack on freedom to restrict a powerful person's ability to take advantage of a weaker person's position. It is within the responsibilities of the government to ensure that people with access to the most resources are not allowed exclusive ability to define either legitimate sources of power or what is right and wrong.

Third, Storkey provides an explanation of how to criticize by using the tradition of prophecy. As a person who takes a certain level of joy from criticizing stupid or harmful (and sometimes both) decisions made by political leaders, I do not need to be convinced that our leaders often demonstrate human sinfulness. Storkey's differentiation between selfish attack and prophecy is helpful in showing that my criticism also sometimes demonstrates human sinfulness. The role of the prophet is essential if justice is to happen. The prophet is only effective in her or his critique, however, when approaching such criticism with humility. By providing an analysis of the Temple scene, Storkey demonstrates how to have such an approach.

Of the books that I have read about Christianity and politics thus far, Jesus and Politics has been the most insightful and helpful.

*I follow Oliver O'Donovon and use "secular" to mean of this place and age, rather than evil.

In A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good, Miroslav Volf argues that religious people should be able to bring their views about what makes a "good life" to the public forum. This does not mean that Christians (Volf writes from a Christian perspective and predominantly to a Christian audience) serve the common good through theocracy, but instead serve it by being one of a plurality of voices discussing what makes a healthy society. The Christian contribution to this discussion should be rooted in the life and words of Jesus instead of ideology. Volf's argument has two parts. In Part One, Volf acknowledges that Christianity "malfunctions". Highlighting where Christians have erred in their approach to the good life allows Volf to suggest a corrected vision. In Part Two, Volf discusses how to present the corrected vision in a religiously and politically pluralistic culture.

Volf begins by pointing out the obvious. The church "malfunctions" in that it does not meet its standards. Malfunctions fall into one of three groups. The first group relates to failing to understand Christianity as a prophetic religion. Prophetic religions seek to transform the world. Christianity malfunctions if it neglects its prophetic role and instead brings people to God but fails to expect this to transform the world.

Even when understanding its prophetic nature, Christianity can malfunction. As a prophetic religion, Christianity includes "ascent" - when a person encounters God to receive a message - and "return" - when this message is brought to the church. Ascent malfunctions prevent the prophet from communicating with God. This can happen by functional reduction, where the prophet no longer recognizes God's authority. Another way is idolatric substitution, when the prophet puts something else in God's place. Return malfunctions mean the prophet receives a message without delivering it. Perhaps idleness of faith has set in and the prophet does not allow faith to impact all of his or her life. On the opposite extreme, coerciveness of faith sees the prophet push him or herself on unwilling people.

Christians can avoid idleness and coerciveness by understanding the relationship between human flourishing and God. This is how properly functioning Christianity contributes to the public forum. The most important contribution Christianity can make is the concept of flourishing. Flourishing says that satisfaction leads to pleasure and that pleasure does not lead to satisfaction. Flourishing is not exclusive to Christianity. Christianity, however, uniquely teaches that a loving God created people to love and promised good things for his creation. Flourishing therefore cannot exist without compassion. The Christian presentation of flourishing must show how the Christian understanding of God and humanity affects society, show that loving God and neighbour allows for flourishing;, and live according to the belief that God is necessary for flourishing.

In Part II, Volf suggests how Christians living in a pluralistic, multi-faith society can present their idea of human flourishing. He begins by addressing Christian identity. Christian identity should be different from other worldviews so they do not blend together, but it should be similar to other worldviews so other people can approach it. The different-similar balance happens by "internal difference." This means that Christians adopt parts of the surrounding culture and use these cultural elements as means of following Jesus. While Christians should reject some parts of a culture, a Christian should never absolutely abandon culture. Instead, Christian engagement with culture should share - not impose - what Christians see as needed for life to flourish.

To be engaged with a culture means sharing wisdom. The Christian faith obliges its followers to share wisdom. Sharing wisdom is an act of neighbour love. Christians should share wisdom by living according to it. The lifestyle of Christians should be an invitation for others to become followers.

Sharing wisdom requires Christians to accept that liberal democracy entitles other religions to grow and to have a voice. Christian teaching accepts religious plurality. There is one God; we are all equal before Him; God commands that we love our neighbour as ourselves; we cannot claim an authority over someone else that we would allow others to have over us. Therefore, Christians cannot force belief on others any more than followers of other faiths can force belief on Christians. Religious plurality, however, does not mean that all religious are essentially the same. They are not, meaning that disagreements are likely. Such disagreement - when civil and respectful - is good. Without disagreement, democracy is impossible.

Volf concludes that Christians should acknowledge both the similarities and differences that Christianity has with other faiths. Overemphasizing similarities requires that all voices conform into one voice. Such an emphasis perverts plurality. Actual plurality acknowledges and accepts differences. Such plurality allows Christians to acknowledge that other religious traditions see the importance of flourishing. By making this acknowledgment, Christians can demonstrate how their method of flourishing differs from those of the other traditions.

A Public Faith is helpful as I consider social justice. The main argument provides a useful way to approach political engagement around justice issues. Details within the argument provide specific ideas to consider when advocating for social justice.

I am glad that Volf eloquently argued that religious people and their ideas could contribute to a discussion about quality of life. I want to see justice because of my faith. This does not mean that I will "Christianize" justice issues. This is neither necessary nor useful. It does mean that my ideas about justice come from what I believe about God and his creation. I can't talk about justice without God poking his head in. If I exclude God, I am not being genuine. If the faith community does indeed have a part to play in social justice, the ideas that the faith community have about justice need to be heard.

Volf's awareness that his argument could suggest theocracy is also helpful and is why the detail of his argument is important. We live in a pluralistic culture, so the Christian voice should intentionally exist within this plurality. Being intentional will prevent an attempt at theocracy. Volf's point that a theocracy necessarily corrupts love of neighbour is insightful. Faith-based advocates for justice should understand that we are part of a society and we cannot impose our will, as altruistic as we think it is, on everyone else. Social justice comes from a willing society. Willingness requires a collective change of mind (and heart, I would contend) that sees everyone as having an inherent dignity. Theocracy imposes. Justice loves.

Volf also made me question my goal as an advocate for social justice. I had never considered the difference in the approach to satisfaction that flourishing suggests. I don't think I have fallen into the trap of seeing justice purely as a concept that is interesting to write and read about, but I definitely haven't decided what my standard of success is. Justice will take time to achieve. Volf makes me wonder. Should I stop thinking about "social justice" and start thinking about "flourishing"? That social justice is absent means that someone is guilty of injustice. Injustice is sin and therefore requires repentance. If we approach the discussion about social justice as an issue of flourishing, we can serve both the oppressed and the oppressor.