Christianity
magazine and Premier Radio
have controversially this week given Steve Chalke (pictured) a platform to
propagate his views on the Bible.
But the deafening silence from evangelicals (and effusive welcome from others) that has greeted his call
(see also here)
for a ‘global conversation’ on how we interpret God’s Word is further evidence that
many no longer see him as a credible Christian voice
As Steve Holmes ably argues, we have been
having a global debate about the interpretation of the Bible for almost 2,000
years, and there is nothing earth-shattering or even new in what Chalke says.
Few would dispute the fact that Chalke has done, and continues to do, a great deal of good. But many will see his latest article on the Bible as just a further dangerous step down
the slippery slope to embracing a new liberalism, following logically from his earlier rejection
of penal substitution and his embracing
of gay partnerships.
Chalke does nonetheless give voice to the
inner doubts with which some Christians struggle and for that reason it is
important that we deal in our pulpits and Bible studies with the issues that he
raises.
In other words, the able defences of biblical authority with
which most evangelical preachers and apologists are already well familiar, need
to be made more accessible to ordinary Christians in the pew.
This is because Chalke, though critical of what he sees as
Richard Dawkins’ ‘rather superficial and juvenile conclusions’, now risks
unwittingly giving credence to the new atheism he rejects, by recycling some of
the tired arguments of Dawkins and others as grounds for his own loss of
confidence in biblical authority.
His popularity, combined with his undoubted ability to
connect with people, in this age of celebrity, I believe poses a real danger. This is made worse by the fact that Chalke continues to insist that he is still an evangelical and that many evangelicals seem reluctant to distance themselves from his teaching.
Now that many young Christians on the front line are
encountering the new atheism it is important to ensure that they are adequately
equipped to deal not just with Dawkins and his ilk from outside the camp, but
also with the arguments of Chalke from within it.
So what are the issues that have led Chalke to abandon an
evangelical position?
Interestingly he touches only very briefly on these in the version
of his article that appears in Christianity magazine. One has to read his longer
article on the Oasis website to see which biblical teaching he no
longer feels comfortable with. Here, I believe, we find his real reasons for no
longer professing in full the Christian faith taught by Jesus and the Apostles.
Chalke sums up his objections up by referring to the
‘brutality, violence, genocide and punitive legislation contained in the Old
Testament’ and the ‘oppressive and discriminatory teaching’ in the New
Testament.
The following list of the biblical teaching which Chalke
rejects should not surprise. I have made a short comment about each item in
italics but reams have already been written more ably by others about each.
1. Sex between two people of the same sex is morally wrong
Chalke wants to
endorse ‘faithful’ same-sex partnerships and so rejects the clear biblical
teaching that sex is made only for a life-long, monogamous, heterosexual
relationship called marriage.
2. The slaughter of the Canaanites in the Old Testament
Chalke seems not to
understand the
lessons this incident is meant to teach us about the seriousness of sin and
the justice, mercy and grace of God.
3. The provision for slavery in the Old Testament
Chalke again seems not
to be uncomfortable with the Old Testament’s acceptance of bonded servants (a
better option for indebted people than imprisonment or unemployment) and
prisoners of war and seems not to be aware that kidnapping a person (real
slavery) was actually a capital offence, regarded as seriously in the Old Testament
as murder and/or adultery (Deuteronomy 24:7)
4. God created the universe in six consecutive 24 hour
periods (Genesis 1)
Many evangelicals
dispute that the biblical texts can only be read in this unambiguous way. But
Chalke seems either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge the existence, of the
different positions defended by serious evangelicals on the creation narrative
from both scripture and history. John Lennox’s ‘Seven days that divide the
world’ is a good overview of the various arguments.
5. Disabled people were not able to become priests in Israel
(Leviticus 21:16-23)
Chalke accuses the
Bible of discriminating against disabled people but the Bible is very clear
elsewhere that all human beings are equally made in the image of God and equally
precious to him. It actually teaches that disabled people deserve special
respect and protection (Leviticus 19:14; 2 Samuel 9). The Levitical passage above
is to be seen in its context as pointing to the perfection of Christ as our
great high priest, in the same way that animals sacrificed in the temple
pointed to him by being ‘without blemish’. It is not endorsing discrimination.
6. The man stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers
15:32-36)
Like many Old
Testament stories this incident teaches us about the serious of sin and the
importance of taking God’s commands seriously. Old Testament stories are there
to teach us about God’s holiness. They are warnings to us, not endorsements to
apply their punishments today (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).
7. The varying accounts of who inspired David’s census – God
or Satan (2 Samuel 24:1 & 1 Chronicles 21:1)
Chalke asks ‘Can both
accounts be right?’ but most commentators see no difficulty here. Satan was
acting under God’s sovereignty and with his permission, in the same way that he
was allowed to test Job or sift Peter. Chalke is either unaware of this or has
deliberately chosen not to say it. He should perhaps read Jay Smith’s ‘101 cleared
up contradictions in the Bible’ where this and 100 other commonly cited
alleged contradictions are explained.
8. The role of women in the church (1 Timothy 2:11-15)
Chalke again seems
unwilling to grapple with texts like this in the context of the rest of the
testimony of Scripture about the role of women. There is a huge evangelical literature on this text and others. Is he genuinely unable to see his way here, or is he just being lazy?
Chalke’s underlying motivation seems to be to remove, or to
reinterpret, biblical teachings that he thinks will put people off
embracing Christianity. He wants to make the Christian faith more ‘attractive’,
‘relevant’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘welcoming’.
The problem with this is that in so doing he is both
undermining people’s confidence in the authority of Scripture, which Jesus
himself upheld, and also modifying the Gospel.
Chalke has fashioned for himself an alternative Gospel which
cherry picks from Scripture the beliefs he wants and discards those which he
finds inconvenient.
He claims that this is in order to draw people to Christ –
the real Word of God – but I can’t help wondering if he is simply responding to
the temptation of choosing a message which will help him avoid being attacked.
In embracing popular contemporary causes like gay marriage
and avoiding speaking out on areas where Scripture is under attack Chalke risks
emasculating the Gospel.
On the one hand he is endorsing a practice (same sex erotic
behaviour) which the Bible clearly teaches will result in exclusion from the
Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
On the other, he is wanting to excise passages from the
Scriptures which teach of God’s holiness, justice and judgement. But
understanding these matters is an essential prerequisite to understanding grace
and mercy and indeed the
true message of the cross.
Jesus Christ put his stamp of authority on the Old Testament and commissioned the writing of the New Testament through the apostles by the Holy Spirit.
In saying that the Bible is not the Word of God Chalke is denying something that Jesus himself taught. He can't have it both ways. He can't claim to follow Christ and yet reject Christ's teaching.
Jesus Christ put his stamp of authority on the Old Testament and commissioned the writing of the New Testament through the apostles by the Holy Spirit.
In saying that the Bible is not the Word of God Chalke is denying something that Jesus himself taught. He can't have it both ways. He can't claim to follow Christ and yet reject Christ's teaching.
Chalke is walking a dangerous road. In his passion
to draw people in to Christ, he risks leading them away.
For a brief review of
Jesus’ view of the Bible see here.
Other coverage and commentary
Huffington Post
Christianity Today
Other coverage and commentary
Huffington Post
Christianity Today
