« Second album set
The Two Towers »

Review: The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke

This review is written by Andrew Sach and Mike Ovey from Oak Hill College in London, and was originally published in the June 2004 edition of Evangelicals Now. It is republished on this site by permission of the authors.

Have we lost the message of Jesus?

THE LOST MESSAGE OF JESUS
By Steve Chalke & Alan Mann
Zondervan. 204 pages. £8.99
ISBN 0 310 24882 5

Much about this year’s Word Alive was the same as usual — happy reunions with old friends, challenging teaching, the strange, permanent half-rain that characterises Skegness in April. But in the bookshop in the Skyline Pavilion, troubled voices could be heard: ‘Have you seen it?’, ‘I can’t believe he’s written that.’ OK, Christians can be more fascinated with controversy than we ought to be. But in this case it wasn’t so much fascination as genuine alarm, disappointment, grief, even.

The cause was Steve Chalke’s new bestseller, “The Lost Message of Jesus”. Steve is founder of the hugely influential Oasis Trust, which works closely with Spring Harvest, YFC, the Salvation Army, and Youthwork Magazine. A charismatic speaker, TV personality and visionary, he has inspired many. Yet his new book attacks the heart of biblical Christianity, and offers instead a ‘lost message’ which is really no gospel at all.

A wrong view of God

No Christian would deny the precious truth that ‘God is love’ (1 John 4.8,16). Chalke reminds us that the Lord Jesus ‘embraces the untouchable, feeds the hungry, eats with the socially and religiously unacceptable, forgives the unforgivable, heals the sick and welcomes the marginalised to be his closest companions’ (p.45), and points out that the church has often failed to follow our Lord’s example. How many prostitutes and homosexuals can we count among our congregations? A fair challenge.

Yet Chalke is wrong when he claims that the Bible ‘never defines him as anything other than love’ (p.63). John’s first letter affirms also that ‘God is light; in him there is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1.5). This omission is no slip of the pen. As we read through the book we find that God’s white-hot moral purity and indignation at sin have been airbrushed out of the picture. Speaking of sinful people and a God who is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4.24), Chalke rejects his Sunday School teacher’s analogy of a sheet of tissue paper that is burned up when brought near a candle flame. There is no such danger. Holiness is re-defined as just another way of talking about God’s love and the pain that he feels as he looks on a broken world. Indeed, Chalke speculates that the reason that no one can look at God’s face is that it is so contorted with suffering (p.59).

The grace of God is similarly emptied of biblical content. It means little more than inclusivism, a lowering of the doorstep that the Pharisees had set too high (p.99). Chalke is indignant that some in that society were stigmatised as ‘unclean’ (p.88), or that the temple system excluded any but the super-religious High Priest from the Holy of Holies (p.105f).

Yet while the Pharisees may have twisted them, the exclusiveness of the Levitical cleanliness laws and the Temple were originally God’s idea. To be sure, Jesus did transcend the old order, touching lepers and opening the way to God’s presence. But it was not that he abrogated the Law; he fulfilled it. Nor was he more liberal about the standard; he had to pay with his blood.

A wrong view of man

If Chalke’s God has little problem with evil, then neither does humanity: ‘While we have spent centuries arguing over the doctrine of original sin we have missed a startling point: Jesus believed in original goodness! God declared that all his creation, including humankind, was very good’ (p.67, italics original). Yet this quotation from Genesis 1 describes life before the Fall, and Chalke blurs the difference the Fall brought to our nature. Augustine did not invent the view that the human heart is depraved (p. 67), for it was not he who first taught that ‘from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery’ (Mark 7.21), or who told his disciples that they were evil, almost as a throwaway line (Matthew 7.11).

Because Chalke wants to affirm the present goodness of humanity, he redefines repentance. For him it isn’t a negative word, to do with renouncing evil that we find within ourselves; it is rather a call to fulfil our natural potential. Like the social drop-outs Jamie Oliver employed as trainee chefs in his Channel 4 TV series, all we need is to be given a chance by someone who believes in us (p.120f). Yet this Pelagian picture is contradicted by the New Testament, which describes us by nature as slaves to sin (John 8.34), powerless (Romans 5.6), spiritual corpses who were once objects of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2.1-3).

A wrong view of the cross

If God is not angry, and humans are not essentially guilty, then what job remains for the cross? Unsurprisingly, Chalke renounces a crucial biblical dimension of the atonement: penal substitution. For Chalke this is unnecessary and offensive. He describes it as ‘a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed, morally dubious in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”‘ (p.182). But the apostle John declares that the pouring out of God’s wrath on Jesus is the very essence of love (1 John 4.10).

This is the most tragic part of the book. Having set out an orthodox understanding of Jesus’s cry of God-forsakenness, Chalke confesses: ‘I used to preach this way myself’ (p.184). No more, however. For while ‘the cross is often portrayed as the bridge over the chasm that separates heaven and earth the reality is that it stands at the centre of our decaying world-thrust into the dirt to proclaim “God is here”‘ (p.185). In other words, the cross is no more than Jesus identifying with our suffering, sharing in the pathos of it. It is difficult to see how this helps us anymore than my injecting myself with the HIV virus would improve the lot of a friend who has AIDS.

The Lost Message of Jesus? An alarming, painful, dangerous book. More alarming is the fact that although the Word Alive leadership were made aware of its contents, it was not withdrawn from sale, nor was any statement made, and the author himself stood up to give the main Big Top address the following evening.

Andrew Sach & Mike Ovey,
Oak Hill College, London

Viewing 34 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I find it hard to believe that a man like Mr. Chalk can call himself a Christian when in fact he denies the fundalmental principles of the Christian Faith. Jesus states we must be born again and I believe in this. Mr Chalk with his understanding will have to ask "Born again" why? He states that he would not follow a God who "Abuses" his Son." What a load of rubbish. Mr. Chalk. Stop preaching your falshood and repent.
    Dr. Albert P Mulligan.
    • ^
    • v
    Albert, while I agree that we should oppose false teaching, do you not think that calling Steve Chalke's faith into question is going too far? Many other genuine Christians have held to wrong beliefs (I know I have), and some have even taught them widely. The Apostle Peter is surely the clearest example of this.
    BTW, the infamous reference to abuse in The Lost Message is a straw man - a mischaracterisation of the doctrine of penal substitution which is of course impossible to agree with.
    • ^
    • v
    Didn't want to mix two points up, so here's a quick reply to the second point.

    The key difference between God's anger and ours is that God's is a righteous and justified anger. This isn't an emotional, reactionary anger, but the predictable response of a holy God to sin. Romans 1-2 paint a pretty clear picture of this. For that matter, large parts of the Old Testament show God's response to sin as well. Fortunately that isn't the whole picture.

    Mark 3:1-6 shows Jesus getting angry - maybe he was wrong?
    • ^
    • v
    I've been watching this for a while, about time I stuck my oar in, I suppose.

    James, I agree with some of what you say above. It is true that Jesus knows more about God than we do - in fact Jesus is God (John 14:8-11), so it's a pretty safe assumption that he knows more about God than anyone else. So it's probably important to look at Jesus and try to get a feel for God. We can also see God's character throughout the Bible, both Old and New testaments and we can learn about God from that as well.

    So, what do we see - God is a god of love. No argument there - but that's not the whole aspect of it. Does God love me? Yes. Does God love the things I do? No, he doesn't. So 'God is love' already needs qualifying.

    What about justice? 'God is just', would also seem to a a true statement about God.

    We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things.Romans 2:2 (ESV)


    The anger of God also seems to be a theme throughout the Bible.

    But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.Romans 2:5 (ESV)


    So, yes God is love, but God is also just, and he is angry at our sin. After all,

    Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.John 3:36 (ESV)


    and

    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Romans 6:23 (ESV)


    I really don't think the Bible lets us entertain the idea that God isn't angry with our sin. The Bible teaches us the price of sin is death. God's justice means that the price has to be paid, God's love means that by grace Jesus (that is, God) chose to pay that price on the cross.
    • ^
    • v
    Quote what you like Lyndon from people who like this wrathful God idea but Jesus knows most about God and one of His parables - which you know, is about a lost son.

    "While he was still far off the father ran to the son who had been lost and threw his arms around him."

    The father in this story is likely to refer to God (!) and doesn't seem to exhibit any wrath against his son at all. The father is wronged but forgives in order to restore a broken relationship...

    Also, Jesus teaches us not to be angry with one another.....be a bit hypocritical if God is angry with us.

    God is Love.

    Just a couple of thoughts.
    • ^
    • v
    Of course the best thing would be if everyone preached Christ's message. Unfortunately, many people (including me) think that Steve Chalke has turned away from Christ's message so seriously that what he is teaching about the gospel message is simply false. The Bible clearly commands us to oppose false teaching and false teachers, and if we were to ignore false teaching then those who hear it and follow it will be led astray. There's no point pretending we all agree with each other when we don't: in fact, Steve Chalke's book was intended in the first place to correct what he sees as an inaccurate understanding of Christ's message. It should not generate surprise when other people point out the serious errors in what Chalke says.

    You might be interested in reading another article I wrote which explains in more detail why I believe it is important to oppose false teaching on central issues of the gospel.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi i am very concerned regarding the above conversation. I have not looked at stevs book yet. However I am concerned that the dervision that has allready been caused. It seems most arguments for and against are missing the point. should our energy be on internall ranglings or preaching christ message.
    • ^
    • v
    James,

    You have a valid point about which academics are opposing Steve Chalke's "Lost Message" - while a number of people generally recognised as gifted at teaching theology (including, for example, several of the Oak Hill lecturers, and the leaders of the Evangelical Alliance), it would be exaggeration to describe them as the most gifted of our time.

    However, what Miriam was getting at (though I accept it was unclear from her comment) was that Chalke's "Lost Message" is hardly a new or innovative departure from the truth, but simply a new packaging of an old error, and I think it is entirely fair to say that the most gifted evangelical scholars over many years have opposed this error.

    If we go as far back as the early church, it is possible to see distinct similarities between Steve Chalke's teaching and that of the Gnostic and Marcionite heretics. Two points in particular stand out: Chalke's dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament, and his view of Christ as primarily an emissary into darkness instead of the Saviour-King (see Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine for an overview these heresies and those who opposed them).

    Chalke represents God's revealed character in the Old Testament as an attempt to fit in with the cultural expectations of the nation of Israel: "Hence, Yahweh's association with vengeance and violence wasn't so much as expression of who he was but the result of his determination to be involved with his world. His unwillingness to distance himself from the people of Israel and their actions meant that at time he was implicated in the excessive acts of war that we see in some of the books of the Old Testament." (Chalke, Lost Message of Jesus, page 48.) This is of course both an absurd reading of the Old Testament, and completely irreconcilable with the New Testament (for example, Peter not only ascribes to God responsibility for the destruction of the entire world in the flood, but tells us that God has reserved this world for destruction in the future - 2 Peter 3:5-7).

    Please don't misunderstand me: I am not accusing Chalke of the Marcionite or Gnostic heresies, but I do want people to understand that some of Chalke's ideas have been opposed since the beginning of the church. The first letter of John, and the works of early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian all oppose the teaching of the Gnostics.

    Specifically considering the doctrine of penal substitution, consider these four quotes from the church fathers, all teaching that Jesus died in order to bear God's curse upon himself (both quotes taken from an article in Evangelicals Now by Garry Williams):

    ... [Jesus] took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgement, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Ambrose of Milan

    As Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as he was, ever living in his own righteousness, but dying for our offences, he submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offences, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment. Augustine

    Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. Augustine


    The church fathers, in opposition to the heretics of their time, taught the doctrine of penal substitution and sought to correct those influenced by the heretics. The church fathers were undoubtedly gifted scholars and teachers of the Bible, used by God to oppose error in the first few centuries of the church.

    If we skip through a few centuries, we can turn to the writings of Calvin:

    ... clothed with our flesh, [Jesus] warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father. Institutes, II.XII.3, p. 402.

    Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death unto life Institutes, p. 403

    Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to take away sin. Institutes, p. 404


    Again, while you might disagree with some of Calvin's teachings, he is arguably the single most influential protestant scholar of any era. He was also incredibly gifted - his grasp of Greek and Hebrew and knowledge of the Bible resulted in him writing a set of commentaries are still widely read and studied by evangelicals today. Even his most notable opponent in terms of doctrine (Arminius), apparently said this about Calvin:

    After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other ... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers -- so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all.


    All evangelical systematic theologies from this century teach the doctrine of penal substitution. Two examples should suffice. An entire chapter of Berkhof (1958) is devoted to the nature of the atonement, and to defending the doctrine of penal substitution from those opposed to it (interestingly, the objections covered by Berkhof include all those raised by Chalke). Grudem (1994, also available as Bible Doctrine, 1999) also devotes a whole chapter to the atonement and the importance of penal substitution. His summary is helpful:

    ... Christ's death met the four needs that we have as sinners:




    1. We deserve to die as the penalty for sin.



    2. We deserve to bear God's wrath against sin.



    3. We are separated from God by our sins.



    4. We are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of Satan.



    These four needs are met by Christ's death in the following ways:





    1. Sacrifice. To pay the penalty of death that we deserved because of our sins, Christ died as a sacrifice for us. "He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26)



    2. Propitiation. To remove from us the wrath of God we deserved, Christ died as a propitiation for our sins. "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10)



    3. Reconciliation...



    4. Redemption...





    Bible Doctrine, p. 255


    Packer, also undoubtedly a gifted and widely influential evangelical scholar, taught (and still teaches!) the doctrine of penal substitution in opposition to the liberals of his day:

    When Paul tells us that God set forth Jesus to be a propitiation 'by his blood', his point is that what quenched God's wrath and so redeemed us from death was not Jesus's life or teaching, not his moral perfection nor his fidelity to the Father, as such, but the shedding of his blood in death. With the other New Testament writers, Paul always points to the death of Jesus as the atoning event, and explains the atonement in terms of representative substitution - the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God's judicial retribution. Packer, Knowing God, p. 210


    Finally, John Stott's Cross of Christ has this to say:

    It is God himself who in holy wrath needs to be propitiated, God himself who in holy love, undertook to do the propitiating, and God himself who in the person of his Son died for the propitiation of our sins. Thus God took his own loving initiative to appease his own righteous anger by bearing it his own self in his own Son when he took our place and died for us. There is no crudity here to evoke our ridicule, only the profundity of holy love to evoke our worship. Stott, Cross of Christ, p. 161


    Chalke's abandonment of the doctrine of penal substitution is nothing new, nor does it require the leading theologians of our day (such as Packer, Stott and Grudem) to specifically respond to Chalke when they have already spent a great deal of time and energy opposing Chalke's repackaged old errors in their own writings. Chalke differs from earlier liberals in only two respects that I can perceive: he has written a book that is easy to read and widely popular; and for reasons that I cannot fathom he still wishes to be considered an evangelical, despite having abandoned one of the hallmark doctrines of evangelicalism. Chalke's teachings have been opposed since the beginning of the church, and especially in the last few decades by men such as Packer and Stott.
    • ^
    • v
    I sense a "real sense of annoyance" in your comments Miriam!

    Also - please name these 'most gifted academics' and tell me where you heard they were trying to correct Steve?

    Peace!
    • ^
    • v
    I think it is time to defend theologians worldwide.
    People throughout the comments have described the the guys from Oakhill as “dressed up lost theologians” etc, etc. No wonder the world calls us Christians "hypocrites" if we shout and shout about how "God is love" and "love your neighbour" yet in the same paragraph we talk of our brothers and sisters in this way. Can I ask all who are involved in this debate or wanting to write a comment to treat those you talk of as the children of God that they are.

    In some of the comments, there seems to be a real sense of annoyance that these stuffy "beard-scratching academics", who spend their whole time in their offices, are having such a go at a man who has dedicated his life to telling people about Jesus. However, we must remember that God has gifted us all in different ways: He has gifted some, like Steve, to get out there and tell people about Him; He has gifted others, like the guys from Oakhill, to study and understand His word. Now what use is it for a person to have great knowledge of the bible if they spend their whole time locked up in their office? Well believe it or not, people gifted in this way also want to use that gift to advance the gospel. So they teach those who are gifted at advancing the gospel, about God's word. Hence, I believe, we should not complain that the people at Oakhill aren't doing the kind of thing's that Steve is doing; they are using their gifts in the best way they can. For what use is it for a person to be gifted in telling people about Jesus, if they know nothing of God's word? They may be telling lots of people about Jesus, but what they are telling may be completely wrong. In that case, they are no longer working for the gospel, but against it.

    Which brings be on to my final point:, Jenny P (thurs, Oct) wrote:
    “Steve Chalk lives his faith. From what I can tell he is often hard at work for the people of our society who need help. How can we condemn a man who does such works?"
    This is a common thought that I have heard expressed many times, but what if I was even more zealous than Steve and helped even more people in need, yet told people that Jesus was an alien calling us home to Pluto? This is a silly, extreme example but it shows my point. If Steve Chalk is telling people a false gospel then his work, however zealous and sincere, can only be damaging. This is why this matter is so important, and if a person believes that Chalk is in fact wrong, then it is his duty, and it is loving, to try to correct Steve. The most gifted theologians of the evangelical church have decided that Steve's message is not consistent with the Bible; do not condemn them for trying to correct him.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for this great review. For those who have missed it, the UK Evangelical Alliance has condemned Chalke's book. I couldnt agree more with their statement and less with Steve Chalke. For more info including quotes from both these documents click on the link attached to my name or visit
    http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2004/11/steve-ch...
    • ^
    • v
    I have not read the book, but this surely is an interesting topic. God is good, we are fallen, God stood in our place, so we are now good. Why would any God who didn't love us take our place in either kind of atonement? Why would a God of Love take out his wrath on himself? Because God is also a God of Justice. Love prevails because he is just. God was angry with us, but now he can forgive because the debt has been repaid, a debt he paid for himself.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi James, thanks for your comments. The question of 'offending' and 'taking offence' is very tricksy. It's definitely true that Jesus and Paul offended many people, mostly Pharisees. Paul was whipped and imprisoned in Philippi for offending the slave-owners, caused a riot in Ephesus for offending the craftsmen, beaten in Jerusalem by the Jews, struck by the High Priest, stoned in Lystra, and so on. Every time he offended people because he preached the need for repentance and faith in Christ.

    Of course, it is possible to offend people by being plain rude, which would not be in the Spirit of Christ, because we are told to speak "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

    Your question about 'Bible-believing church' is interesting. You're right that language can be used to hijack things. Conversational terrorism, kinda, "So how long have you been beating your wife?" But the reality is there are some churches where the Bible is hardly opened, or the preacher makes the slightest of references to his passage, or there are no Bibles in the pews or in the hands of the congregation, etc. I feel sad, for example, how little the Bible was used by most of the participants in the Chalkegate debate. It is the Word of God, after all, which is the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6).

    On the other hand, I suppose there are churches where the Bible is clearly made use of, but manipulated and twisted in the way that Peter warns us (2 Peter 3:16). But there are very few dodgy churches were the Bible is visible and clearly in everyone's hands and hearts, because heretics know that if the average member of the church is making open use of the Scriptures, and is able to check everything the speaker is saying for themselves, they get scared. This is why all cults have their own version of the Scriptures (JW's 'New World Translation') or an additional book ('The Book of Mormon') or their own edited commentary of the Bible ('Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures'). The Roman Catholic church, for example, used to be and still is to some extent unhappy about people reading, understanding and praying through the Bible for themselves, which is why the motto is 'Ignorance is the mother of devotion', and why the people who got Tyndale burnt at the stake for translating the Bible into English were primarily Catholic priests and bishops. These people cannot be said to be Bible-believing if they are so determined to deny the members of their churches the opportunity to read the Bible for themselves.

    God bless everyone, and enable us all to participate in congregations where the Lord Jesus Christ is proclaimed in all His beauty and fullness, from the Bible in all its perfections.
    • ^
    • v
    cool.

    not really had time to think deeply on your requests for Bible verses yet Neil, i've been working a 7 day week this week but thought i should say something!

    my point about thinking that you were wrong to say that if Jesus and/or Paul were at the debate they would have offended people was based on the fact that this debate is about whether we (the church) have 'lost the message of Jesus' (we may have done, we not have done - that's the debate!!!). I don't reckon that anything they would/could have said would have offended. I stand by that.

    also (re: your 2nd to last para) - who defines what a Bible believing church is? It's a popular phrase, often used with a certain sense of supiriority. Are there really churches who would say "Hi, we're non-Bible believing.." ?

    peace
    • ^
    • v
    Please note that a CD recording of the debate is available from the Evangelical Alliance price £7.50 including postage and packing. Contact m.jones@eauk.org for further information.

    Julia Murphy
    • ^
    • v
    Hi James. Thanks for responding- good one. I agree with you that we always need "the eyes of our understanding enlightened" further by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:15).

    Every day different people are accused of being judgemental (which is somewhat ironic at times, because of course that itself is a kind of condemnation). I suggest two possibilities:

    1. Someone really is judgemental (i.e. they LIKE condemning people, they WANT people to suffer and go to hell, and they like to bitch, gossip, slander, take revenge and 'play God').

    2. Someone says very hard things which others do not like to hear, so the easiest way to deal with them is to call them 'judgemental'. It's similar to the 'race card' talked about in the media (i.e. when someone cries 'racist' when they don't get their way).

    Now I appreciate all the positive things you've said about Jesus- indeed He's far better than ALL of us (perfect Son of God!). Jesus was truly loving and intelligent and commanded respect, but- if I may disagree slightly- very forceful at times, and often provoked loathing, hatred and rejection because of the confrontational things He said. I'm sure you'll agree if you read the Gospels again. Let me give you some examples:

    "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34).

    "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!... I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgement than for you" (Matt. 11:21).

    "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me...'... Then His disciples came and said to Him, 'Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?' But He answered and said, 'Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch'" (Matt. 15:7-14).

    You realise of course that Jesus spoke about hell more than anybody else, and that He was constantly warning people about judgement and repentance. Jesus calls Herod a fox. He turns out the sellers from the Temple with a whip. Matthew 23 is an entire chapter devoted to the hypocritical Pharisees. He treated them with extreme severity. The point is, sin is a radically serious disease, and sometimes (if the patient will not cooperate) the doctor must speak very sharply to him to make him see sense. Praise God that some Pharisees did, such as Nicodemus and Paul.

    Could you develop your interesting statement with some more Scriptural support: "He talks about the way the world is set up- i.e. a world with some bad stuff in it managed by an unpushy God who offers a way out of being seen as part of the badness"?

    You are quite right about Christian subculture and ghettos. It's very wrong. We are not Churchians, we are disciples of Christ, and we live to make His Name known to the lost. There is a lot of talk about 'the Inclusive Church' (in fact there's a conference on this in December with Steve Chalke), and a lot of resistance to in/out categories as you've suggested.

    But there's a confusion here: anyone who is IN CHRIST is absolutely committed to bring others to be IN CHRIST. No evangelistic Christian can be exclusive as it's a denial of his own salvation. But at the same time, no evangelistic Christian can ignore saved/unsaved, in/out, Christian/non-Christian categories, because they are the difference between life and death.

    It's like the Ark: only 8 were in it, but they spent 100 years giving the opportunity for others to join them. If there is any exclusion going on with the Gospel, it is often self-exclusion. People remove themselves from Christ; in my experience, they are very rarely removed from a Bible-believing church.

    Do check out my discussion site for a few more debates, along with articles and stuff on Steve Chalke, etc.

    God bless, James & everyone else.
    • ^
    • v
    Neil - i quote you...

    "I’m convinced that if Jesus and Paul had been at that debate, they would have been accused of being ungracious, judgemental and unloving......."

    surely you don't believe that!? Jesus was a brilliant teacher and a brilliant conversationalist (if that is a word!), far better than most of us. I reckon he'd have handled the debate in a truely loving way but also in an intelligent way, recognising that we all have questions and often asking people a question as an answer. He'd have commanded respect out of how he behaved - not in a forceful way but simply by who he is - why else would he have drawn such crowds during his career. I don't think there's anything Jesus says where people could accuse him of being judgemental because it's always backed up by how he treats people. He talks about the way the world is set up -i.e. a world with some bad stuff in it managed by an unpushy God who offers a way out of being seen as part of the badness.

    Often I find church coming across as offensive and judgemental because it creates little ghettos of 'Christian' culture, like so many societal clubs and decides who's in and who's out.

    Always be prepared to see things in a different light.
    • ^
    • v
    PS
    Nicola et al, I appreciate the hard work you are putting into studying this issue. May God reward your efforts, especially as you "search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). However, I would like to gently challenge one thing you said, which is the idea that Jesus always presented the news of God's love first. Can you find an example?
    Two interesting and vital facts: 1. Nowhere in Acts (the number one preaching & evangelism manual/case study) is the word 'love' mentioned; 2. When Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler (Mark 10), although He loved him, He did NOT say that to him. Instead, He explained to the young man what was necessary for him to be saved, which is the best manifestation of love.

    In short, paradoxically perhaps, it is not necessarily helpful for not-yet-Christians to hear all about how God loves them as the best way of receiving His love. Rather, they need to be presented with the law, which demonstrates sinfulness, which evokes repentance and the need for a Saviour, who is the Risen Christ, etc.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Jenny P
    You are right to challenge all Christians about putting faith into practice (see end of James 1), but it is also true that those who trust in their good works will be condemned by Christ on the Last Day as those whom He "never knew" (Matthew 7:21-23). We cannot be more loving or gracious than Christ, and it is unlikely we will be more so than Paul, but just look at how direct and stringent both of them were against false teachers (Matthew 23; all of 2 Timothy). Why? Because of LOVE. Because the Lord Jesus knows that if people are lied to about the way of salvation, they will be lost forever. This is why He says in Mark 9:42, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." And Paul says in Galatians 1:8 and 9:"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

    I'm convinced that if Jesus and Paul had been at that debate, they would have been accused of being ungracious, judgemental and unloving. Shame on us for not caring enough that people are truly saved by the atoning work of Christ, and letting people like Chalke palm them off with a phony, hodge-potch gospel of works-righteousness.

    God bless y'all.
    • ^
    • v
    i must admit i went to the debate and still couldn't really work out what all the fuss is about. Looking back on my understanding of the cross I don't think I've ever thought of it as penal-substitution. I think Steve mentioned that in the debate i.e. that there are lots (possibly millions?) of Christians who recognise Jesus as saviour but whether that is acheived 'penally' or 'non-penally' is of no significance. Maybe it's people who study these things who understand them better - good for you. My stight problem is still with the way that some of these academics go about a kind of (seemingly) smug 'know it all' criticism of one man's understanding/beliefs.

    someone further up this screen talked about Steve being an inspiring leader and someone who works to bring about 'good news' to people - not just beard scratching academics but the man/woman on the street in all sorts of different countries. The staff and volunteers at Oasis does under Steve's leadership and hard work.

    Steve rightly points to needing a debate on these things - bring it on! The book was all about the Lost Message - if it hasn't been lost then why are we (the church) often the last place people want to come to find out life's answers??

    Peace
    • ^
    • v
    Jesus was substitute on lots of levels- mainly we couldn't be our own saviours, so each of us needed a substitute! The key to the atonement is that we needed an alternative 'adam' to associate with, one who had defeated sin while being in the flesh, rather than the original adam who had failed to do so... What really bothers me is Xtians saying Jesus got what we deserved on the cross, like anyone deserves to get crucified! [Well, maybe eg. Marc Dutroux...says my worst nature...] Does not suprise me penal substitutionists in US are pro death penalty+ generally draconian approach to life and justice...
    Steve
    • ^
    • v
    Well, I finished it last night. (And then The Husband’s copy of “Systematic Theology” came out so we could look some things up).

    I don’t agree with some of his conclusions – they don’t seem hold up when compared with Scripture or Tradition. (But then I come back to the vexed question, how much of my rejection of Steve’s ideas are the fact that I sometimes read Scripture in light of what I already believe. When really, reading Scripture should sometimes change and reshape what I believe. Don’t think I’ll figure that one out this side of Heaven).

    The book does need to be read carefully – and critically. (Like all Christian books imo). But, to me, it does need to be read. (Mainly so people know what Steve’s actually said rather than what their friend who spoke to their friend who knew someone who’d read it had said!)

    He does make some very valid points – and ones that need to be addressed. Using his somewhat interesting interpretations of Scripture as a excuse to dismiss his whole arguments strikes me as being too easy. (But so safe and comfortable). So, some things from the book that Steve has got right:

    He’s right that there is more to the Cross than the Atonement. It does indeed act as a beacon proclaiming to the world that God is here and that He loves us. He’s also right that the Cross makes no sense without the Resurrection. And that, all too often, the Church dwells on one at the expense of the other.

    Jesus saw the person. Really saw them. He always spoke of God’s love for them first. And, only when he was certain that they’d understood just how much God loved them, he asked them to respond by accepting that love. And then he asked them to change. Often the Church does this other way round – and then wonders why no one listens. It is time for a rethink.

    Some additional random thoughts:

    As one of my more learned friends has often pointed out, a Bible passage isn’t the end of a discussion, it’s the start of one.

    It doesn’t help anyone’s cause if you describe people on the other side as “an angry and bitter man not there for a debate as much as a moan”. Cough *love* cough
    • ^
    • v
    I went to the debate last Thursday and must say a couple of things. Steve spoke second as you would have seen which in my mind puts him on the back foot. Why then was there no challenge. Steve made attempts at moving the debate on to where we hind the answers (what sacrifice really means) and there was no response just cranky talk from dressed up lost theologians. Steve Chalke was there for a debate and yet there was no one willing to argue. It was an echo of Mike O, willing to dish the dirt but when asked by Steve (pre debate) to speak against him, Mike then claims it’s not his area of expertise! Why then did he take it upon himself to write such an article?

    I must agree with James Griffin. Watching the debate was like seeing a demonstration of both side of the argument. Steve (God of love) I thought showed that. Mike (God of wrath, say it how you want, 'God hates us') O was an angry and bitter man not there for a debate as much as a moan. The Oak Hall people who showed scared me! Are we to be the body of Christ? I always thought of Christ as a nicer person. I don't know what they do to people there but they cannot always have been that angry! Maybe its because they know that God hates them!

    This argument will go round for days and years. I look forward to the day someone intelligible takes up Steve's offer for a proper debate, then we might move forward.
    • ^
    • v
    Here's a thought!

    Steve Chalke lives his faith. From what I can tell he is often hard at work for the people of our society who need help.

    How can we condemn a man who does such works?

    Apart from trouble Steve and others, what do we do?

    Ps. I liked Nicola Wood's comment 'real life has a habit of getting in the way of this kind of stuff'
    • ^
    • v
    Being the most articulate person in my head, but less so in reality, I realised I missed out a whole paragraph. I am still only half way through the book so don't know first hand what exactly Steve has to say about the atonement. I know from the reviews (and comments from friends) that he rejects penal subsitution but not if he rejects substitution wholesale. I will report back but it may take a while as real life has a habit of getting in the way of this kind of stuff.

    And, before I forget, thank you very much for your hospitality.
    • ^
    • v
    Maybe this will help (or maybe not!):

    Substitutionary Atonement (SA) is simply that Christ is our Substitute, he stood in our place and did for us what we could not do. It includes all the imagary drawn from the OT sacrificial system (the Scapegoat etc) and Christ Victorious (Christ entering the battle against the forces of Hell and defeating them in our place as we're incapable of winning that fight on our own). Christ acts on our behalf.

    Penal Substitution (PSA) draws it's imagery from the legal court room. The stereo-typical model is that God is the Judge, who hears all the evidence and rightly declares us guilty and sentances us to death. He then steps out of the Judges chair and pays our fine for us. Christ acts instead of us.

    One of the big problems with the book – one that no one seems to have picked up on as yet – is the style! It’s written like Steve talks – at break neck speed and it leaps from idea to idea. But this gets really frustrating when you’re dealing with massive concepts: eg: Steve talks “original sin” (the sin that steams from Adam eating the apple and runs through each generation) and how this has affected the church’s teaching on the nature on mankind. But he also refers to the concept of “original goodness” - that we are created in the image of God and still, despite the Fall, carry the divine spark and that spark can grow into a flame when it’s fanned by God’s love. And he says (rightly imo) that the church needs to teach on that as well. He does this in about three paragraphs! Ack!

    I missed the EA debate and would be interested in hearing it (and reading the article). I’ll try and remember to email you about this tonight. Thank you very much for your kind offer.

    The other thing that strikes me about the whole business – having discussed this elsewhere as well - is how bad the church family is at dealing with conflicts / disagreements “in love”.

    I’ve been recently reading Mike Yaconelli’s “Dangerous Wonder”. He talks about us coming to God with our answers when we really need to come to God with our questions / doubts as we’re more likely to meet him in “the unknowing” than the “knowing”. Both books have been really helpful.

    Nikki
    • ^
    • v
    PS I've only met Mike Ovey once and he's cracking company! I was depressed all evening UNTIL I met him ;-)
    • ^
    • v
    Nice to meet some of you guys at the debate last night. It was, as expected, extremely sobering stuff with the lack of Biblical input from the main speeches being even more striking than I had expected. If anyone is interested in a full-length examination of 'The Lost Message', soon to be published in 'Vanguard' magazine, then please email me on neil.richardson@bigfoot.com. I also taped the debate if anyone's interested.
    A question for everybody: if (as Steve Chalke maintains) it is possible to believe in non-penal substitution, then what is Jesus being our substitute FOR? And how is it that through the Cross our sins can be forgiven, if Jesus is not receiving the punishment we deserve for them? 2 Corinthians 5:21 (which sadly was not mentioned in the debate, amongst many other illuminating verses).
    A big thank you to Mike O. & Andrew & Yasmine & Jonathan Stephen for putting forward the Word of God, even though your comments were pretty much ignored.
    "It was for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."
    God bless everyone
    Neil Richardson
    • ^
    • v
    i wish i was as articulate as you nicola!

    i'm going to the EA debate tonight (7th Oct) to hear more.

    also, perhaps the Spring Harvest/Word alive leadership were more than happy for Steve to speak despite knowing the contents of the book!
    • ^
    • v
    Having read the introduction and some reviews – I’m beginning to suspect that this book will have the same effect on those that read it as Tomlinson’s “Post-Evangelical”.

    ie Some people will read and be so relieved and grateful that someone else has articulated some / all of the thoughts that have been spinning around their heads for a while. While others will assume that Chalke is having a mid-life crisis and has completely lost the plot.

    IMO, it’s a very brave and important book and deserves to be read. What Chalke seems to be doing is continuing the discussion he started in “He never said …”. And it is the start/continuation of a discussion rather than the end of one:

    How much of our understanding and application of Scripture to our lives is based on what Scripture actually says rather than what we’re told it says?

    Are these different interpretations valid?

    Can they be supported by both Scripture and Tradition?

    Do we need to be aware of those different views even if we reject them as being untrue? (The model of atonement that Chalke appears to be rejecting is one articulated by Calvin. It may not have been accepted by the Early Church and has never been accepted by the Orthodox Church. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this btw. My books are at home).

    And if we reject them as being untrue, how do we deal with those who accept them?

    And what is “Biblical Christianity” anyway?! I know people who define that term as what they’re taught on Sundays and what they find in their Bible Notes. The idea that other people can read the same and come to completely different conclusions and still be Christians is one that they’ve never quite got their head round.

    And a few random comments:

    Andrew Sachs wrote:

    “But the other day I heard that a friend of mine is reading it who has only been a believer for a few months. This book could really harm him”.

    I’d cry harder if I heard that such a friend was reading a certain set of right-wing, sub-Biblical pot-boilers about the book of Relevations. ;)

    And in the original review:

    “More alarming is the fact that although the Word Alive leadership were made aware of its contents, it was not withdrawn from sale, nor was any statement made, and the author himself stood up to give the main Big Top address the following evening”.

    Actually this is the bit I find most scary. People can choose not to buy a book. They can suggest to friends that they don’t buy it because it’s not a good book for whatever reason. They can choose not to book the author for a preaching engagement at their church. But they don’t have the right to impose that view elsewhere. And how exactly did you expect him to be introduced – “Come and hear Steve Chalke in the Big Top! Followed by Heretick burning. Bring your own kindling!” ;)
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry that you found my articile depressing, James.

    Must admit that I was pretty depressed after reading Chalke's book. Yes, there will be Christians who know their Bible, who will be thinking "hang on a minute?!" as they read it. They'll see through Chalke's winsome rhetoric and realise what's going on, without any help from me. But the other day I heard that a friend of mine is reading it who has only been a believer for a few months. This book could really harm him. I understand a little of why the apostle Paul warned his friends "with tears" of such things (Acts 20:31).

    I'm not sad all the time! It still fills me with great joy when I think of how Jesus gave his life willingly (not as a passive victim of circumstance; he was in full control as he journeyed to the cross) to pay a ransom for me. What amazing love the prophet Isaiah described, when, over 700 years before Jesus' birth, he wrote these words

    "He was he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
    • ^
    • v
    I'm in the process of posting a followup to the above two comments, but I wanted to say three things here.

    First of all, people reading the review aren't relying on "third hand" comments, as I have read the book myself and completely agree with the review. I posted that review because it stated my position clearly and simply. There's nothing wrong with people reading reviews of books (i.e. other people's comments) and then using those reviews to help them decide whether or not to spend some of their limited time and energy reading the actual books being reviewed. In my opinion, Chalke's book is false teaching and so I want to encourage people not to read it, or at least to read it critically and compare what they read with the Bible.

    Secondly, James' suggestion the review's authors are depressing company is both uncharitable and in at least one case completely wrong. I've not had the chance to meet Michael Ovey, but Andrew Sach's friendship has been a great encouragement to me and I'm sure that his other friends would find the idea that he's depressing utterly ridiculous. I attribute the encouragement he gives largely to the great efforts he always makes to share his faith with other people. In contrast with Steve Chalke, Andrew tells people that the Bible teaches that Jesus didn't just spend "30+ years identifying with people" but gave his life to deal with the world's biggest problem: sin. That's not depressing, that's the best news I've ever heard.

    Finally, James completely mischaracterises our world view. I believe first that God is love. However, the review is pointing out that while Steve Chalke affirms that God is love, he denies that God is angry with sinners. I do indeed believe that everyone is evil - who can claim that Paul is wrong when he says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) - but I also believe that God has not dealt with our evil as we deserve, but has instead paid the penalty for our sin himself (see for example 1 John, where Jesus is twice described as the "atoning sacrifice for our sin" (1 John 4:10). And I don't understand where the idea that I believe that God has ever made a mistake has arrived from.
    • ^
    • v
    Finally, a book talking some sense! Not sure why Sachs and Ovey seem so negative and appalled that it was on sale at Spring Harvest - if the book is so dangerous then surely Word Alive-type people will figure that out and go back to purchasing the traditional style of un-challenging fundamentalist books. The book in question seems to talk about the God I know as a Christian, Jesus spent 30+ years identifying with people and man put him to death for daring to challenge mans way of interpreting Gods communications.

    Sachs and Ovey must be pretty depressing company with a world view of a God of wrath, everyone around them being 'evil' and a saviour who was beaten to death (with His fathers 'blessing') because His father has made a mistake by goving man free will.

    I can sort of see where your're coming from lads - a nice neat faith with obvious 'in or out' (of the 'club'), clear cut boundries but have a re-think, a re-shuffle and cheer up!
    • ^
    • v
    Steve Chalke's latest book, 'The Lost Message of Jesus', is almost certainly controversial in places for conservative Evangelicals. This is all the more reason why people of all beliefs/ theological positions should read it for themselves. It serves no purpose for any event or network to censor the content or availability of books. The reassuring thing is that many, many people are reading the book for themselves, and not relying on 3rd hand comments, and, as a result of rediscovering a love for God.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus