As I was preparing to preach on Romans 4 for this morning I was struck by these words from verse three – “What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” I read in the commentaries the emphasis on the fact that Paul regarded the whole of the bible as Scripture. As I looked forward to proclaiming that this morning I then read this from Steve Chalke ““The Bible is a library and not a book – that’s what the Bible literally means… the church over time has come to regard as sacred. It reflects the moral values and consciousness of each author”. I cannot describe the feeling of despair, anger and hurt that overwhelmed me. Jesus Christ has given us his Gospel and this Baptist preacher (much to the disgust of most Baptists I know) was directly attacking the Christ of Scripture (the only Christ that exists!). So I tweeted a response and what disturbed me almost as much was the somewhat nonchalant attitude of some Christians who basically argued that Chalke was old hat and irrelevant. I beg to disagree – his anti-Christ message causes havoc and is being widely heard.
Another problem comes from those who think that he is just presenting a different ‘Christian’ point of view. The trouble is that many evangelical groups tend not to see the danger – they don’t agree but they will give him space on their websites and in their publications, because he is regarded as a Christian teacher. But would they give a racist a platform to spread racist views? I don’t think so – so why give someone who preaches an anti-Christ message a platform on a Christian website? Is it because they don’t see it as anti-Christ?
So I wrote the following article. I suspected that most broadly Christian media would not touch it with a barge pole (it is after all a bit ‘unloving’ and strong to call a fellow Christian pastor – anti-Christ!) but I decided to offer it anyway – rather than just write here on my own blog. I am grateful that Premier Christianity took up the challenge and have published this article in full on their website – with an offer to Steve to respond. Please do read it there and feel free to add your comments in the comments section (I am expecting a full storm!). And let me know what you think. Is it OTT? I really am not interested in denominational quarrels or theological fights. For me this is the very heart of the Gospel. The Gospel which I go out to preach wholeheartedly this morning – and which I believe is threatened far more by the likes of Chalke, Brian McClaren and Rob Bell, than any of the new atheists.
Steve Chalke’s rethink of the Bible isn’t just wrong, it’s anti-Christ
Church leader Steve Chalke has begun a series of videos re-framing the Bible. Revd David Robertson responds with this opinion piece.
Steve Chalke is a man on a mission. In the year of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation he has decided to emulate Martin Luther – but instead of 95 theses nailed to a cathedral door, he is posting 95 videos in an attempt to create a new Reformation and bring the church up to date. Steve and I actually have a lot in common. We want to teach the Bible to the society we live in. We want to see that society influenced by Christ and we want people to come to know Christ. But watching the ten videos that have been put out so far has been a disturbing experience – especially the last three.If the Church or any Christian listens to and accepts Steve’s teaching then I fear that, instead of advancing into the 21st Century boldly proclaiming the Gospel and seeing the world turned upside down, we will revert to the 19th Century Protestant liberalism that has almost killed off the church in so many countries.
In three major areas I believe that Steve has got it wrong:
- Steve is wrong about the Church
Steve thinks that The Anglican church is dying because it teaches the Bible too strictly and too literally. He argues that, rather than ignorance of the Bible, it is because people have read the Bible (at least enough to know that they don’t like it) that they are staying away. He says that people have lost faith in the Bible because large sections of the Church just haven’t understood it. ‘Smooth talking preachers’ are just not doing the job (says the smooth talking preacher!). Steve has discovered the ‘lost message of Jesus’ and the rest of us need to catch up pretty soon. What he neglects to mention is that it is the Bible-believing-and-teaching Anglican churches that are actually growing and developing. And it is those who have turned away from the Bible who are declining. In effect Steve is saying you are not liberal enough, when in fact it is liberalism that is killing off the church. That’s like saying you are dying because you are not drinking enough poison!
2) Steve is wrong about the Bible.
Steve thinks we have all got the Bible wrong. “The Bible is a library and not a book – that’s what the Bible literally means… the church over time has come to regard as sacred. It reflects the moral values and consciousness of each author”. It’s not the Word of God. It’s part of a ‘dialogue’ that God has with humanity. It’s not God’s revelation to us. That is until we come to the bits about Jesus – who corrects and throws out all the bad bits of the Old Testament.
Apparently Genesis is not the story of God making the heavens and the earth but a parody “written to subvert the claims made by the extremely violent, hierarchical, sexist, nationalist and dehumanising creation story of the Babylonians – the superpower of the day”. Who knew? All that time ago God was writing his Word so that eventually three thousand years later, all the values of our Western liberal culture would be proven to be the right ones after all!
He cites the example of Moses in Numbers 15 and the man being stoned to death on the Sabbath for breaking the commandments and says about Moses that he ’misheard’ because he was a Bronze Age man living in a Bronze Age culture! Leaving aside the fact that Moses would not have been any more enlightened if he lived in West London today, this is a gross caricature of what the Bible is. It’s not a collection of different peoples opinions and morality, it is the God-breathed, Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God. That’s what Peter and Paul and the early church believed (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This afternoon I was preparing a sermon on a man who is, according to Paul, our example of faith, Abraham – another unenlightened Bronze Age mis-hearer of God!
In Romans 4 Paul tells the sophisticated and metropolitan citizens of Rome that it is what ‘Scripture’ (singular) says that matters. For the early Church the whole of the Bible was the Word of God. If Steve knew his church history and theology he would know that. His teaching that the Bible is just a mishmash of different opinions and views is not the teaching of the Bible. Nor is it the teaching of the Church. Nor is it the teaching of Jesus. Which leads us on to the third and biggest error.
3) Steve is wrong about Jesus.
This is the really big one. Steve thinks that he knows Jesus and that the Jesus he knows would have nothing to do with much of the Bible. There are only a couple of problems with that.
Firstly how does he know Jesus? Through the Bible. Ah… but if the Bible is not the Word of God then how does he know which bits of the Bible to accept? Is it just the bits he likes? The bits that fit his image of Jesus?
Even if we just stick with the Gospels we find that the Jesus who is spoken of in this has a very different view from Steve Chalke. For example Jesus has a somewhat different view of the Old Testament than Chalke. Rather than being the mistaken rantings of a Bronze Age man who misheard God, Jesus had a very high view of Moses and the prophets.
For him the Old Testament, from the smallest letter and the least stroke of a pen, is the Word of God, which he came to fulfill, not abolish. He even warns us that those who set aside the least of these commands and teach others to do the same will be the least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19) a warning Steve would do well to heed!
Steve gives us a rule of thumb – “You don’t have to be a scholar to know that the Bible is clear; ‘God is love’. Put differently, any belief, policy or doctrine that excludes, rejects or destroys, just can’t be from God.”
He cites Jesus contradicting ‘an eye for an eye’ in the Sermon on the Mount as proof that the Old Testament philosophy of retaliation has been binned.
Unfortunately for Steve that very same sermon gives us a far harder teaching than anything Moses or the Old Testament taught – Jesus warns several times about Hell. He talks about those who are ‘thrown out and trampled underfoot’ – which sounds a lot like ‘exclusion, rejection and destruction’ to me! Never mind Jesus’s strong warning against false teachers, (the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’) or where Jesus says to professing (false) Christians “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me. You evildoers!” (Matthew 7:23). It sounds like Jesus is not obeying Steve’s rule.
The trouble is by Steve’s own rule of thumb, Christ wasn’t very Christlike. He was wrong on marriage, the Bible and Hell and that’s just in the Sermon on the Mount! That’s what I mean when I say that Steve’s message is anti-Christ, because it is directly anti what Christ taught.
Three Questions:
a) Do you agree with Steve? We are asked at the end of each video – do you agree with Steve? No I don’t. But that’s not really the question is it? The real question is do Steve or I agree with Jesus? And I only know what Jesus says through the Bible that Steve disses.
It is the oldest trick of the devil, who often comes as a smiling shining angel of light as well as a serpent; to ask “did God really say?” and cause us to doubt his Word. We don’t save the faith of young people if we get them to write their own creation poems, their own Genesis, their own version of the Bible. That destroys any meaningful faith. It is by the hearing of the Word of God that people are saved – not the fantasies and delusions of their own minds.
b) Why don’t you take the Bible seriously enough to teach it well? I do. As do many other Christians throughout the world. We take it as the Word of God. We don’t believe that Moses put words into God’s mouth….it was the other way round. And we don’t accept that any preacher today has the right to take their opinions, agendas and views and say that this is what Jesus would really say!
c) Steve asks what issues we need to rethink in the light of Jesus. My concern is that he is encouraging people to rethink (and remake) Jesus in the light of our contemporary culture. If our culture thinks it’s good… then Jesus must have thought it was good. This is Jesus 2.0, this is the Bible 2.0, This is Church 2.018. The bits we don’t like we can just leave out or ‘reinterpret in the light of modern scholarship’ (which is the same thing). As Augustine pointed out – “if you believe in the Bible what you like, and leave out what you don’t like, it’s not the Bible you believe, but yourself”.
Steve is in effect not asking us to follow Jesus, he is asking us to follow Steve Chalke.
Why This Matters
Let me finish with some agreement. I agree with Steve that if it doesn’t look or sound like Jesus, then it’s not God. Sadly Steve’s message does not sound nor look like Christ at all.
Secondly I agree with Steve that bad theology costs credibility and lives. The non-exclusionary, non-rejecting Jesus rejected the Pharisees who went to great expense to get their message across and only ended up making people twice as much sons of hell as they were. Bad theology costs eternal life. It is only by knowing the truth (Christ) that we are set free. We can’t just make up the Gospel to suit us.
What does it matter? The Reformer Erasmus wrote – “the Bible will give Christ to you, in an intimacy so close that he would be less visible to you if he stood before your eyes”. What Steve is doing is taking away the Bible as the sure and certain word of God, and thus taking away Christ. Hence my passion. Hence my reason for writing so strongly – not because I want a theological argument in public, or to attack a Christian brother. I actually hate conflict. But I love Christ too much to let this kind of anti-Christ teaching be proclaimed in the name of the one I know, love and follow.
Finally a challenge to Steve Chalke. You said that you had never heard a sermon on Numbers 15. Let me help you. I would be willing to come and preach a sermon in Oasis Church on that passage. I wonder if your church is inclusive enough for that? And a challenge to those who read this. Who I am is irrelevant. Who Steve Chalke is, is irrelevant. Our words will fade away. Probably by next year! But the words of Christ will never pass away. Read them if you want to know the truth.
Steve Chalke has been invited to respond to this opinion piece.
Click here for a free sample copy of Premier Christianity magazine
Bad News for the Good News – A response to Steve Chalke’s ‘redefined’ evangelicalism
It has been so very sad to see the decline and fall of Steve Chalke. Years ago I encountered him as a warm and engaging man, and gifted communicator of the good news about Jesus to contemporary culture. Now, in his drift back into the classic 19th century liberalism that evacuated the gospel of its power to save, and emptied churches, out of his desire to make the message of Christ more relevant and easy for that same contemporary culture to swallow, he is perpetrating untold harm by denying the authority, clarity and relevance of the Word of God. As David says, he is guilty of constructing a Jesus made in his own image, an image that dovetails in precisely with the political correctness of 21st century Western preferences and interests rather than reliance on the Word of God. I plead with him to think again, get on his knees and repent of his heretical anti-Christ and sub-Christian ideas and return to the truth as it is in Jesus that he once believed and upheld.
Thanks so much David and to others like Alastair Simmons et al who have replied in more articulate terms than I can. However, I would add that Mr Chalk must have had a more sheltered spiritual upbringing than myself if he’s never heard a sermon preached from Numbers 15.
I agree with Steve Chalke. JESUS IS THE WORD.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word became Flesh.
Do not take the Bible literally (Bibliolotry).
Everyone should follow the Sermon on the Mount and the two greatest Commandments – Love God and love neighbour
It is Jesus who says he is the Word – not Steve Chalke. That is a bible quote – which I assume you are taking literally? Jesus is the Word – but he gives us his word. Steve Chalke, in his book the Lost Message of Jesus – even argues that Jesus got some things wrong! I prefer to trust the word of the Word – rather than the Christ denying ideology of Chalke.
I share both your concerns and sorrow over the regress of Steve Chalke. As a former pastor (now retired) I felt it was my duty (sacred duty) to highlight the errors of his teachings over the last number of years. The pattern, as is so often the case when we get things so wrong, began with his move away from the Cross in his book The Lost Message of Jesus. The hymn “Jesus Keep me Near the Cross” is a salutary corrective here for all Christian – especially preachers. Having redefined substitutionary atonement he then redefined sexual morality and finally as you so cogently articulate – the authority of Scripture itself. It gave me no pleasure to highlight publicly from the pulpit the danger Chalke, McLaren and Bell posed. A bigger danger would have been to remain silent! Be encouraged David! I and many others, regard you as the most significant figure in the UK church today. I vividly remember Os Guinness at one of the Solas conferences being challenged when he too rightly named Brian McLaren as typifying teachers who “were not faithful”!
I continue to pray for you in your very high profile and courageous stance for the truth.
My question is, have men like this never studied liberal theology and its destructive history ? Perhaps a small study on Friederich Schleiermcher, Albert Ritschl and Harry Emerson Fosdick would b a good place to start.
Quote from J. Gresham Machen for those who support Mr Chalke.
“The Bible, to the Christian is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty. ”
David please never be discouraged in this battle and keep defending the faith.
In Christ
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Correct. Chalke is preaching ‘anti-Christ’, leading people away from Christ and into perdition. Just like Rick Warren and his adulation of man. It is right to call them out publicly on such outright heresy.
I don’t think I would put Rick Warren in the same category – as far as I know he does not deny the bible…
Rivk Warren teaches that we are so wonderful God had no choice but to save us – so far from the truth it is quite unbiblical.
Hi, have you read Warren Smith, Deceived on Purpose? It deals with Rick Warren and his teaching. A real eye-opener.
“My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
I cannot. like you. sit back comfortably watching other going to what will be the most appalling everlasting death without doing anything to try to stop it – including calling out false teachers.
Phil, the Berean Beacon has a wonderful article on their website entitled ‘The Adulation of Man’. when read with Warren’s book in one hand and the Bible in the other you don’t even need to get three pages in before it is clear it is not the Gospel as I/Reformed people understand it
Sorry Phi, my quoting of James in reply was attached to the wrong comment, not yours. Please disregard my computer illiteracy. I have nothing at all to beef about with you. Sorry again.
Dominic, Most courageous of you to call out Rick Warren. Many evangelicals will not like that at all. You must of lost a few close friends already. You should come over here and play Australian Rules football as it seems you can take a few good solid knocks and blows and get on with the game. Unlike European football players who spend most of their time on the floor crying like princesses because somebody touched them.
I myself came out of some terrible doctrinal teaching as I was converted, had extreme zeal for I found the transforming work of Christ was real, but no one around me to teach me sound doctrine.
On the journey of discovering sound doctrine I learn’t about the dangers of word faith, hyper charismania and much more. When doing this it is then natural to discover all the erroneous teachings of Jehovah wittness, Mormons etc. It is also natural to then discover things that many others would not because your interested in looking into all the nooks and crannies, making time for it that others would not.
When you look at Rick Warren there are so many red flags to wave in the air.
Like what ? Well a good place to start would be the 2011 Daniel Plan health seminar lead by teachers (doctors) Dr. Oz, Dr. Hyman, and Dr. Amen who are themselves soaked into meditation, Reiki, Transcendental Meditation, and more.
The late Caryl Matriciana who continually exposed word faith, Dominionism, Latter Rain, Fresh Fire, IHOP, “drunk in the spirit,” grave sucking, Bethel Church, counterfeit laying of hands etc. did a lot of research on Rick Warren.
Her series called “wide is the gate” is a wonderful expose on all the new age mystical Christians. In this series some of Rick Warrens compromises are exposed.
Here’s the warning. Don’t expect to be making any friends when calling out the compromises of Rick Warren, expect to lose some. You also begin to awaken to the fact that many love to defend teachers and not the gospel or the faith.
But hey welcome to following Christ and not the teachings on men.
Is Rick Warren a great bible teacher and a solid believer ? I don’t know.
What I do know from what I have researched is that If I was a member of his church I would be running to the exit sign and getting out as fast as I could.
Thank you. I chair the TS, we state that we ‘call out error in all its forms’, and for me it isn’t just words, its what I do.
The PTS (sorry, the P got missed off!)
I don’t know, clearly you are hurt by this and I’m not sure why you are so hurt – if I were a minister or a somebody in the Church and if I knew or had even heard of this boy Chalke then I probably wouldn’t say this: but, in the grand scheme of things, are you not according this issue more importance than is necessary David? I suffer grief and despair over several issues (e.g Brexit, the state of the Welsh language) but where Christianity is the question should we really be afraid of what seems to be nothing but a poor rewording of a pseudo-academic ‘liberal’ interpretation of the Bible that was discredited at least 20 years before the ‘Jesus Seminar’ unconvincingly revived it? Is liberalism destroying the Church? Well yes, without a doubt, but so is conservatism in its extreme forms: evolution denying, global warming denying, promotion of extreme right-wing politics, defending even the most outrageous of Trump’s idiocies, use of the term ‘political correctness gone mad’ to defend Daily Mailekite bigotry and prejudice… Need I go on?
Steve Chalke is very well known in London, and is frequently to be seen and heard in the media and on TV. He has a massive influence, and it is dangerous and heretical. David is absolutely right to use his public position to call him out.
He only has massive influence over idiots who cannot think for themselves, who do not want to change, so i wish them all luck as they pass by on the wide road that leads to destriuction. Romans 8. 5-6.
“My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
I cannot. like you. sit back comfortably watching other going to what will be the most appalling everlasting death without doing anything to try to stop it – including calling out false teachers.
I agree that the climate is changing, Rhys, – so, yes: I think global warming is a fact; how far it is man-made and how far it is caused by other factors can be debated. (Personally, I lean towards it being man-made; either way, it may be in fulfilment of prophecy – but this does not mean that Christians should welcome it; we need to treat God’s creation responsibly; but we must not worship it!)
Donald Trump has been defended too much by Christians – who should know better! It seems very unlikely that he is a Christian: he is a narcissist and a misogynist; further, he seems lacking in compassion re: Mexicans. One of the few things he has done that I, as an evangelical Christian, agree with is recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (This is not to say that I agree with everything Israel has done; merely that I believe God has blessed the Jews and that Satan would be very pleased if they were annihilated.)
Extreme right-wing politics is dangerous! It is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish; so, too is extreme left-wing politics. (Nazism/KKK on the right; Communist anti-Semitism on the left.)
Political correctness has its positive points (Christians should exhibit compassion and show due respect); but there are certain areas where it has gone over-the top. Think: “chalkboards” instead of “blackboards”. Query: why not “penboards” instead of “whiteboards,” then?! (I can accept that “blacklegs” is an offensive term – but not “blackboards”: that is just a description; let’s have some well-considered balance, here!)
But I believe you have conflated evolution into this argument: if evolution is correct, can the Gospel also be correct? I don’t think so! If Adam and Eve did not exist, then neither was there a “Fall”; if no Fall, then no need for Jesus, the “Second Adam”; further, why all the millions of years of dinosaurs ripping each other apart before sin – and death – came into the world? Not only does this make no sense, it makes God out to be evil: why allow suffering before sin? I cannot worship such a God!
Finally, a scientific argument: where are all the missing transitional forms in the fossil record? There should be millions of them!
But… thanks, Rhys, for engaging with this issue.
All the best,
Phil
It seems that Chalke, changes his message according to his target, whilst consistently denying the authority of the revelation of and by God in and through scripture:
1 He has, as recent as last week, poured scorn on the Genesis account of creation, no doubt for his own ends, to serve his own purpose, so that he can deny the binary creation of male and female, created in God’s image. Does he also not understand John Chapter 1. Jesus the Creator, as a member of our Triune God, is the one he is crossing swords with, is contradicting. Jesus the God of the Old Testament. And again, he is pouring scorn on the scriptures Jesus read and studied, and which pointed forward to the need for his own incarnation, ministry, cross and resurrection and ascension, to the need for the last Adam (Jesus) and a new humanity in Him.
2 At the same time he asserts that it is not necessary to be a theologian to know that God is love, yet he adorns the robes of a theologian to write books, preach and teach, in which he picks and chooses scripture to serve his own purpose. And with a robustness of a man who knows he is one of the chosen few to fully understand through his study. I don’t know how many pages of the Bible he has needed to tear out. Many, I think, as scripture shows that the Triune God’s love is only ever Holy-Love as He is only ever Holy-Love.
3 He makes no reference to the Bible as the Holy Bible.
4 He seems to be well behind the times in his understanding of the biblical theological flow of the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation and the preaching of Christ in all scripture. He’s not been on the road to Emmaus with Jesus. Has he read the book of John, including the “I am’s” “Before Abraham was “I am.”
5 Years ago Chalke was known as the TV vicar. I fear that he enjoys his status, and making a name for himself.
5 Both you and Premier are to be commended. It seems a long time ago when Chalke was removed (if that is the right term) from the Evangelical Alliance, though he seems to wear it lightly, with all the blinkered zeal of an activist wearing it as a badge of honour. Would that he were an activist for the evangel, Good News.
I listened to the Chalke Talk on Genesis and The Flood, and was turned off by his arrogance and what, in my mind, seemed to be a condescending and closed-minded attitude regarding, in particular, the Flood, stating that the writer of Genesis had borrowed/re-wrote it from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Just a few weeks ago, I was helping my 14 year old nephew work on a criticism between the Bible’s account and the Gilgamesh account. We were both impressed by the detailed and logical accounting in the Bible vs the Gilgamesh Epic. We know, from Scripture, the exact measurements of the ark, which made for a seaworthy vessel – unlike the slate roofed cube of Gilgamesh. We were also impressed with the difference between God and the capricious gods of Gilgamesh and both of us agreed that it is much easier to trust in the immutable justice and mercy of God, than the unpredictable (and very human) nature of the gods of Gilgamesh. Thanks, David, for standing firm!
The video in the article is enough to make me agree with you, David. The hurt in my heart never minds the buzz in my head while listening to his nonsense must be what you felt.
David, I don’t think you are OTT and I definitely do not agree with Steve Chalke. I definitely see this is dangerous
David,
Thank you for your stand!
It is clear that the fellow in question stands on sinking sand. A few years ago I wrote an article urging people to be careful of whose teaching they follow, as some were as I believed then and do so now, anti Christ, in other words against Christ.
Sometime in the early 80’s, I was amazed to read the J.Gresham Machen book mentioned by your correspondent Carmello
The author spoke so well about the way the church is heading in these days, yet the author wrote the words in 1924, such as these words following Carmello’s quote,
“It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.
This is what happens when a former Bible believer seeks the praise of men rather than the praise of God. Sad and dangerous, because he has the name and reputation of an evangelical
Big difference between Bible and epic of Gilgamesh and all other flood accounts. God did it as an act of judgement. ie unique God of Bible is moral, good, judge Likewise biblical account of creation is unique in its simplicity- God did , it from nothing, by his word and it was good
It seems that Chalke, changes his message according to his target, whilst consistently denying the authority of the revelation of and by God in and through scripture:
1 He has, as recent as last week, poured scorn on the Genesis account of creation, no doubt for his own ends, to serve his own purpose, so that he can deny the binary creation of male and female, created in God’s image. Does he also not understand John Chapter 1. Jesus the Creator, as a member of our Triune God, is the one he is crossing swords with, is contradicting. Jesus the God of the Old Testament. And again, he is pouring scorn on the scriptures Jesus read and studied, and which pointed forward to the need for his own incarnation, ministry, cross and resurrection and ascension, to the need for the last Adam (Jesus) and a new humanity in Him.
2 At the same time he asserts that it is not necessary to be a theologian to know that God is love, yet he adorns the robes of a theologian to write books, preach and teach, in which he picks and chooses scripture to serve his own purpose. And with a robustness of a man who knows he is one of the chosen few to fully understand through his study. I don’t know how many pages of the Bible he has needed to tear out. Many, I think, as scripture shows that the Triune God’s love is only ever Holy-Love as He is only ever Holy-Love.
3 He makes no reference to the Bible as the Holy Bible.
4 He seems to be well behind the times in his understanding of the biblical theological flow of the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation and the preaching of Christ in all scripture. He’s not been on the road to Emmaus with Jesus. Has he read the book of John, including the “I am’s” “Before Abraham was “I am.”
5 Years ago Chalke was known as the TV vicar. I fear that he enjoys his status, and making a name for himself.
5 Both you and Premier are to be commended. It seems a long time ago when Chalke was removed (if that is the right term) from the Evangelical Alliance, though he seems to wear it lightly, with all the blinkered zeal of an activist. Would that he were an activist for the evangel, Good News of Jesus.
6 There will be those who say, just preach the gospel. That’s not what scripture teaches, throughout. It certainly not what Paul advocated. There is likely to be a backlash. May the Lord be your strength, defender and fortress.
Here is a link to an interesting article by the Rev Ian Paul. Scroll down to find his encounter with Steve Chalke. It is a reflection of Chalke’s view, his personalisation of hateful for merely adhering to the historic scriptural view of marriage.
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/christian-doctrine-and-schrodingers-cat/
When Protestants refer to the Reformation they usually do so with a capital R. Similarly when they refer to Luther and Calvin as Reformers they usually do so with a capital R. A recent example was David’s use of the term ‘Scottish Reformers’ in his article ‘Happy (Calvinist) Christmas’. In this article David refers to Erasmus as Reformer with a capital R. Erasmus was a Renaissance humanist – not to be confused with modern-day secular humanists who are, of course, atheists. Erasmus wanted to reform the Catholic Church from within and remained a member of the Catholic Church the whole of his life. So it is correct to refer to Erasmus as a reformer but not a Reformer with a capital R if the use of the capital R suggests that he was in agreement with the Protestant Reformation.
The danger in Steve Chalke’s teaching is that some of it comes close to evangelical teaching – understanding the context before applying the passage, understanding the literature type, the whole of the bible not select passages etc. But he then takes things a stage further and filters the whole of scripture through his view of Jesus in doing so he manages to do exactly what he is warning of … dismissing difficult passages and twisting scripture to the current cultural context.
Is some of the videos, Steve Chalke is harsh in his treatment of Luther … practically blaming him for the WW2 holocaust. David, given your knowledge of that period in history, could you comment ?
Steve was a respected evangelical when I lived in London in the 80s/90s. Then I saw a recent documentary on the BBC’s over the top 50th anniversary celebration of the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Cue a feature on Steve’s Oasis church conducting a “renaming” ceremony where a transgender person took on a new name after their surgery. That person was interviewed afterwards with a lot of effing and blinding to express their delight. Renaming? Yes. Regeneration? Not in my book.
As a soccer referee I once refereed a Middlesex County Cup game between a team of plumbers and team from Oasis. During the game both teams were wise with language (I had a fearsome reputation for using my red card), but before the game and at half time, and afterwards, the plumbers used perfectly reasonable language. The Oasis team however couldn’t seem to NOT use a profanity every other word. I have never heard anything so bad – and I refereed a lot. Roman Catholic teams are normally bad for language, but this was beyond anything I have experienced anywhere else, as a sustained barrage (between themselves) of offensive, insulting and abusive language.
This shows what, exactly?
It seems that you are wanting us to _infer_ from this story what you do not say explicitly — that the Oasis team (and so Steve Chalke?) is “bad”, in fact worse than Roman Catholic people. In the light of David’s subsequent post where he claims interpretation/inference is not involved in his treatment of Chalke, isn’t this rather ironic?
No. It is an interesting and sad comment that a football team professing to represent an evangelical church was in fact far less respectful in language and behaviour than a team made up of either the unsaved plumbers, or the unsaved RCs. If you do not think this reflects badly both upon Oasis, or on the Christian Church, then I think you are missing something.
Dominic, my question was about inference. The original post was (presumably) about Steve Chalke and inferring (interpreting) his message as anti-Christian. What are you expecting us to infer about _this_ topic from your story about a football game?
I would have thought that any ‘inference’ on your part from my comments was down to you. I will tell you what I infer.
The inference I take from this is that firstly, Oasis may well have significantly large numbers of non-Christians representing them in public. This is a very foolish position for them to take, as the witness given by these people is only possibly damaging to the Christian message of transformation through faith in Jesus Christ.
If that’s not the case, then what I infer from this is that the teaching there is appallingly poor in the area of what transformation of life actually should mean for a Christian. Whichever, it seems that Christian principles of behaviour and conduct are woefully lacking somewhere along the line.
Of course what I infer is up to me but I do expect you to give me the clues about your intentions are in what you communicate. So thank you for clarifying that you do not _know_ whether the people in the football team were Christians or not and so you have not _said_ anything about Chalke in telling your story about the team.
It tells you a lot about any Christian organisation if it allows non-Christians to represent it in public.
No, Dominic you are _inferring_ they were not Christians. According to the evidence you _have_ stated an equally valid inference is that the Plumbers’ and the Roman Catholic teams were Christians. Your data does not support your conclusion about Chalke.
You’re making it up. I said nothing, not inferred anything of the sort. I have been very clear about what I was saying, what makes you think you know my mind and intentions better than me? Or are you simply accusing me of lying (though why I should do so I cannot think), but don’t have the courage to say it?
Dominic I am neither saying nor implying that you are lying. I am simply asking you to clarify WHY you posted the football story.
I am confused about your claim: “I said nothing, not inferred anything of the sort” when you have said the following:
“The inference I take from this is that firstly, Oasis may well have significantly large numbers of non-Christians representing them in public.” and “It tells you a lot about any Christian organisation if it allows non-Christians to represent it in public.”
I understood from this that you are saying that the football players from Oasis were not Christians, based (as you said) on inference. My point is that this inference on your part is not strong enough evidence for the conclusions reached about Steve Chalke, and therefore to ask why you used this story?
The bigger point I am making is that communication occurs largely based on context and through inference, not coded in words, so the _reason_ you told this story is part of the communication.
So presumably (in Steve’ Chalke’s view of Scripture) when Jesus said: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man”, this was just an allegorical statement reflecting some abstract spiritual truth rather than a reference to a historical fact which the societal conditions at, and the suddenness of, the return of Christ will be similar too.
Well done David for bringing Chalke to account for his continuing undermining of scriptural truth. Christians are being martyred around the world while liberals try to remake Christianity in their own image. There is also a trend for mid-week Bible study groups to study popular American books rather than the Bible.
As for Chalke, I’d like to ask him:
What happened to holiness, dying to self and carrying your cross?
What about the many single Christians who live celibate lives – do you think they have no urges!!!!
What do you know about Jesus that you didn’t read of in The Bible?
David, you’ve done the right thing. Steve Chalke Steve is unfortunately preaching another Gospel, another Christ. We can only pray he is deceived and in accidental error and not (become) a sheep in wolves clothing.
If we cannot rely on objective truth, what can we rely on? If scripture is not a benchmark for truth, what is?
Chalke, along with the liberal, secular public, unwittingly adhere to the view there is objective moral values and duties. Because otherwise they would not find passages of the bible difficult. The judgement of death occurring in scripture several thousand years ago, be it via the flood, eliminating the Cannanites, the family of Achan etc, is distasteful for us today, so an alternative explanation is sought. But why?
For the liberal, the secular, the atheist who cannot reconcile a biblical narrative because of the moral dilemmas it contains, betrays their denied reliance on objective moral values and duties to make their argument.
If X was wrong in the bible, then how can it be wrong unless unchanging objective moral values and duties exist? If they do exist, how do they exist? Who determines what they are?
For any give X that Chalke, or his disciples are compelled to explain, there has to be reference, inferred or otherwise, to an absolute right or wrong.
The other fact they fail to grasp is, that it is mankind falling short of the objective moral values and duties (aka sin), not God, not the scripture. There is a failure to equate truth accurately, because the premise that man is sinful is absent, and a premise God is flawed applied.
As a sinner, what saved me was not being told the bible is wrong, and my thoughts and feelings are right. Rather, I must repent (change my mind), and bring into subjection my thoughts and feelings, in line with the revealed knowledge of God.
Upon this solid rock I may build my house, and the storms that come will not cause it to fall.
Without scripture, there is no rock to build upon.
Paul said, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power (ability) of God that brings (Motion toward/into) salvation. The validity of the gospel is as much derived from the OT, as it is the NT.
Amen brother!
Andy,
Don’t know if you’ll get to see this as things move on far too quickly on the internet.
Here is a link to a lecture by Carl Trueman; Martin Luther and the Jewish question. Stick with it as the the compelling summary comes in the last 10-15 mins or so. I’m sure David will approve.
Stick with it as the clear summary is in the last 10 – 15 mins.
https://faculty.wts.edu/lectures/reformation-luther-and-the-jews/
It is part of his series of 33 lectures on the Reformation, freely downloadable.
Hope it helps.
Thank you for that link, Geoff, I’ve been enjoying these lecture since. Binge-listened to 4 the first day!
Steve Chalke’s enthusiasm to become an apostle of another gospel is tragic. I shudder when I imagine him giving an account of his teaching to Christ on the last day.
Well, John, you might not need to worry too much about that. You might even be spending your time working on your own account??
More on Erasmus.
Richard Rex, Professor of Reformation History at Cambridge, has written a book called, ‘The Making of Martin Luther’. One reviewer commented, “Rex suggests that the unrelenting fury with which Luther treated Erasmus is the product of Luther’s frustrated realisation that the great humanist had actually caught him out.”
Funnily enough, I’ve just briefly posted on Facebook beginning with the opening reference in your blog (concerning Abraham).
It’s sometimes difficult for us not not to think of Abraham as an aged Patriarch, but really he was just Daddy’s little
boy…which is precisely why he was Daddy’s little boy at all.
Where is the love and grace here folks? Have was raised C Of E and then became a Charismatic ‘Born Again’ Christian at age 19 but went through some deep trauma in life in 30s resulting in a break down and near loss of faith and there was only one thing that kept me going through 10 years of darkness and that was I knew God was love and that Jesus was real – I pretty much let go of everything else. In the past two years I have had a wonderful rediscovery of my faith and it started from the simple reading of the words of Jesus and waiting on the Holy Spirit in silence each day – nothing else. Having basically started again from nothing, I am convinced that we must walk in love more than any other thing – that’s the starting point. I have only recently discovered Steve Chalke and have been incredibly inspired by his passionate love of both Jesus and the bible. I know he says some controversial things that the established order do not like – but that’s what Jesus did too and things moved forward. I find the tone of this type of article so sad as it sounds so ‘tribal’ to me and many of the comments reflect the same beliefs it seems. Have you all listened to one of Steve’s sermons or talks? I suggest you listen to this first at St Paul’s and then rethink what you have said (https://youtu.be/5ncp58Cq_Jo)
My dear friends in Christ we are called to love each other and all of humankind. Where is the grace, the love, the acceptance, the kindness, the non- judging, the tolerance etc. ? Jesus would say that Steve walks in love and that he is ‘not against me, therefore he is for me’ who are we to say such awful things about a brother in the Lord who is having an impact all over the world?
Just because we see things differently we don’t have to be so angry? Let’s start with love for one another for that is how people will know who we truly are.
It’s the type of comments above that drive people away from Christianity because all they see if judgement and criticism. All through the ages so called ‘heretics’ have been killed yet later proved right? Would we even have our precious English Bible to use as a reference for our comments if Willaim Tyndale hadn’t gone against the ‘system’ of his day? Yet he was strangled and then burnt at the stake by so called Christians? When will we ever learn guys? Let’s begin with love – that was God’s starting point and should be ours – always.
It does get a bit tiring that whenever you disagree with someone’s point of view or point out the ways that they are deviating from the Bible’s teaching – immediately you are accused of being unloving. I would just simply respond by asking – where is the love and grace in letting people believe things about Jesus Christ that are not true? It’s nothing to do with the established order (and if you are so loving why do you use such a derogatory term?). I have listened to many of Steves talks – and to be honest they are becoming increasingly anti-Christian. How do you know what Jesus would say about Steve? What gives you the right to think that you know the mind of the Lord? We have his mind expressed to us in the Scriptures – you seem to be going way beyond that.
It’s ironic that you complain about judgement and criticism in a post which is full of judgement and criticism! Steve Chalk is not going against “the system”. He is going against Christ and his teaching – there is a vast difference.
Hi JW Shears
This is a super late response but I have only just come across this article and read your response and some of the backlash that you have got from other people who claim to follow Christ. I just want to say that I so much admire you sharing your vulnerability on here and for stating ‘let’s begin with love’. I was made to feel completely unwelcome in my old church and I think that was because of people taking verses out of context in the bible and replacing love with what they see as ‘biblical’. I have since joined Steve Chalke’s church and can confirm that he does adamantly teach Christ’s love. He is definitely not anti Christ and shown so many people the love of God who previously did not experience it, and instead suffered from judgement from other Christians. Oasis church is really going against the legalistic Christianity that is so prevalent today and instead emphasising inclusion and love, just as Jesus condemned the legalism of the Pharisees and emphasised love. I don’t know the details of your story JW Shears but wish you so many blessings in your journey with Christ!
Kat – thanks for your post – I know that Chalke talks about Christ’s love – but what does he mean by it? Which Christ is he speaking of? And how does he know? Your post mentions judgement but itself is full of judgements. Oasis seems very legalistic – I’ve just read its latest book of rules.
Dear Weeflee.
Your critique of Steve’s message and your response to my comments about it, are sadly typical of so many christians I know, which I find very sad. I find your response narrow and selective. It only reinforces what I am humbly trying to say. With respect I think you’re missing the point. There is very little balance in what you are say about Mr Chalke. Are you absolutely sure that what Steve Chalke is saying is that in your own words above, “he is denying the bible”? Are you sure of this? Seriously? In your opinion he is ‘Anti-Christ’ and that’s all that seems to matter. It appears that you believe your view point is the only correct one and therefore because Steve has politely and graciously offered a different view he must be ‘Anti-Christ’ and a bible denying? I am truly staggered that you – and many of your followers – appear to have spent little time listening to what Steve has to say that you could make such sad and inflamatory acusations. I’m guessing that you were very aware of how emotive a term like ‘Anti-Christ’ can seem when you chose to use it and yet you still used it? Steve comes across as one of the most honest, intelligent and Christ like teachers I have yet to find in the UK – everything about his work is about loving and accepting many of the most misunderstood and marginalised people in our society. It is no surprise to me that because Steve is one of the few who speaks out for the LGBT community (people who it sadly seems many christians either ignore or have no idea how to relate to) he is receiving much unpleasantness from fellow believers – Jesus experienced this kind of attitude many, many times in his ministry too. When will we ever learn that Jesus came for all people? I simply don’t sense a Jesus like love, and by that I mean a non-judgemental, accepting, forgiving, loving your enemies kind of love? A love that went out of its way to touch and meet the needs of some of the most controversial people of his era. No one was excluded – no matter how despised. A love that only got angry with the religious, self righteous people who claimed to know the truth.
I’m not sure where exactly in my response to your article, I have been ‘derogatory’ that is the last thing I would want to be – so if anything i said came accross that way then I am very sorry, and I humbly ask your forgiveness.
I feel so sad to see Christians all over the world constantly putting so much energy into trying to prove who is right or wrong and pulling each other to shreds instead of finding what they have in common and being a true light in a dark world. How can a kingdom so divided ever stand? Steve is a brother in Christ – how can anyone possible suggest otherwise? We would break bread together wouldn’t we? He may have different views to your own, but he is not ‘Anti-Christ’ – that’s a frankly ridiculous accusation to make and you should retract it. He is no different to so many past believers who stood up against the established views all down through history and changed the world. Please spend some more time listening to what Steve is saying from his heart and think again. I am at a loss to understand how anyone could conclude that a man who is standing for acceptance, love and tolerance of ALL people and is clearly deeply inspired by the love of Jesus could be accused of being ‘Anti-Christ’?
we are called to exercise love, peace, joy, self control, long suffering, patience etc. Without love we really do just sound like clanging cymbals especially to those who so dearly need to hear a message of love and hope.
One of the last things Jesus said before he left us was let us walk in love with one another – that is how we are supposed to be indentified. How different would history be if true Christ like love was the motivation for everything ever done in the name of Christ?
I can see that we are going to go round in circles! your post is incredibly judgemental, despite your opinion about your own humility, and relies on a number of false premises. But let me at least do you the courtesy of answering your questions.
” Are you absolutely sure that what Steve Chalke is saying is that in your own words above, “he is denying the bible”? Are you sure of this? Seriously?” – Yes I am absolutely sure. I know that he is denying the Bible because that is what he says himself. He says that the Bible is wrong in several ways. Are you seriously suggesting that he is not denying the bible?
” In your opinion he is ‘Anti-Christ’ and that’s all that seems to matter.” – not true. I am concerned about those things he writes that are against Christ. I don’t think he is the Antichrist – but I do think that much of his message is against what Christ teaches.
“It appears that you believe your view point is the only correct one and therefore because Steve has politely and graciously offered a different view he must be ‘Anti-Christ’ and a bible denying?” – again a somewhat arrogant, ignorant and less than humble comment! It’s also not honest. Do you think that Steve does not think that his view is the correct one? As for politely and graciously offering a different point of view – I don’t agree. He is blatant and exclusive in his rejection of Christian teaching. He is Bible denying because he denies the Bible – not for any other reason. I realise that you feel a need to personalise this and attack and abuse me – but I would suggest that if you wish to follow your own professed humility – you deal with the issues that are being concerned and stop personalising things.
“I am truly staggered that you – and many of your followers – appear to have spent little time listening to what Steve has to say that you could make such sad and inflamatory acusations” – Well you need to be staggered about something else! Because unlike your presupposition I’ve actually listened to, and read a great deal of what Steve says. And I don’t have followers!
Your equation of Steve with Jesus Christ because he promotes the LGBT agenda is also quite ridiculous. What do you really think Jesus teaches about marriage and sex? do you not think it incumbent upon followers of Christ to actually follow his teaching?
“When will we ever learn that Jesus came for all people? I simply don’t sense a Jesus like love, and by that I mean a non-judgemental, accepting, forgiving, loving your enemies kind of love? ” – Again the crass judgementalism. why should we go by what you sense? you think that it is showing love to accept theology and philosophy which goes against what Christ teaches? you seem to be confusing love and acceptance of individuals with agreement in everything that they teach. Do you think that in order to love racists you need to accept racist philosophy?
“A love that only got angry with the religious, self righteous people who claimed to know the truth.” – indeed. Just as you and Steve claim to know the truth and are self righteously condemning those of us who dare to disagree with you!
“I feel so sad to see Christians all over the world constantly putting so much energy into trying to prove who is right or wrong and pulling each other to shreds instead of finding what they have in common and being a true light in a dark world.” – and yet that is precisely what you are doing. You don’t seem to see that in this very post your accusing me of being unloving and non-Christ-like which is absolutely the very worst thing for a Christian. We can only have the true light if we have Christ and if we follow what Christ says. I have no intention of following Steve or anyone else.
“How can a kingdom so divided ever stand? Steve is a brother in Christ – how can anyone possible suggest otherwise? We would break bread together wouldn’t we?” – I can suggest otherwise. He may be a brother in Christ who has turned away from Christ and is in a backslidden state. Or he may just be a false prophet. I would not break bread with somebody who denies the Christ of the Bible and the Bible of the Christ.
“He is no different to so many past believers who stood up against the established views all down through history and changed the world.” – He is not standing up against the established views. He is proclaiming them. All that Steve is doing is preaching the views of our culture and adapting Christian language for that purpose. The prophets usually find themselves going against the pagan culture, not seeking to bring it into the church!
“Please spend some more time listening to what Steve is saying from his heart and think again. I am at a loss to understand how anyone could conclude that a man who is standing for acceptance, love and tolerance of ALL people and is clearly deeply inspired by the love of Jesus could be accused of being ‘Anti-Christ’?” – yes I can understand that you are at a loss. Unlike you, I have no idea what is in Steve’s heart – that is for the Lord to judge. But I do know that simply saying you are for acceptance, love and tolerance of all people, does not mean that you are. For example Steve is not willing to accept love and tolerate people like me! And he is not clearly inspired by the love of Jesus – I have no idea what inspires him. But when he goes against what Christ teaches – it is not the love of Christ that inspires him.
“we are called to exercise love, peace, joy, self control, long suffering, patience etc. Without love we really do just sound like clanging cymbals especially to those who so dearly need to hear a message of love and hope.” – Yes indeed. But these are meaningless words without content – and meaningless words without Christ – and meaningless words without practice. I believe that these come from the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit comes from Christ. You take away Christ and his Word and you will not end up with these things. Without the root’s you cannot have the fruit
“How different would history be if true Christ like love was the motivation for everything ever done in the name of Christ?” – again I just simply point out how judgemental you are being. Because you assume that in my comments, love is not my motive. But it is love of Jesus, and his word, and his people that motivates and drives me. I don’t believe in a fantasy. I believe in reality. And that reality is Christ. I will always warn the people of God against false prophets like Steve who detract from Christ and his Word.
Wee Flea
Between jwspears’ language and the language in your response here, which are the only pieces of evidence we have, can I suggest it is fairly easy to decide which sounds more like Jesus or like a noisy gong? I am not attacking you, I am asking a question about your language.
As long as its a question and not an accusation I am happy to answer. What’s wrong with my language? Let me put it another way – would you criticise someone who mocked false prophets and suggested they couldn’t answer prayer because they were on holiday or on the toilet? Would you condemn a Christian minister who suggested that people who wanted to reintroduce circumcision should go the whole way and emasculate themselves? Would you condemn a Christian preacher who suggested that false teachers were like white washed graves – twice dead? My language is incredibly mild in comparison with that. Can I also remind you that the devil comes as an angel of light and that everyone is for peace, love and understanding (in their words)!
Wee Flea
Are you saying that jwshears is acting like a false prophet or judaizer or pharisee? Jws’ comment would seem to be more about the ‘tone’ and evidence used in your post and some subsequent comments. Can the evidence which you (and others) produced about Steve Chalke’s state of mind have any other reading? Can the tone used in the discussion be modifed in any way? If the answer to these is ‘no’, then we have left the realm of normal human communication.
My previous question was about the comparative tone of jws’ comment and your response. Which one shows the virtue of docility? Which one shows the willingness to listen to ‘the other’ carefully? Which one demonstrates compassion or gentleness?
That Bruce…no what I am saying is that Steve Chalke is a false prophet and jwshears is defending him. His comment is not primarily about the tone (tone is always used as an excuse to shut down what someone is saying), its about the content. I have not produced anything about Steve Chalke’s ‘state of mind’ (see how that sleight of hand enables you to condemn something I am not saying?) – I have commented entirely upon what he has written and said.
I’m also a little puzzled by your definition of ‘normal human communication’….it seems that you would exclude a great deal of what the prophets, Christ, and the apostles say in the bible by your somewhat random definition.
You are absolutely right about my not being ‘docile’ (dictionary definition – ‘easily managed or handled; tractable:’). I’m not. And I don’t think we should manage or handle the word of God in that way.
I also think you are arrogant and judgemental in assuming that I havn’t listened to Steve Chalke carefully – I have done so for many years. Are you listening carefully to what I am saying, or just jumping in with a series of judgements? Likewise with the comment about compassion or gentleness? Its just a condemnatory judgement based upon your own prejudices and culture.
FYI – I travelled to London to do a show with Premier and offered to give it up in order to discuss with Steve the issues involved – he refused. He has also refused at other times to dialogue. He prefers to have a carefully staged managed pulpit in which he can condemn others (in the name of love and tolerance) and not have to answer for what he says. I just wonder how loving you think that is – whatever the perceived tone?!
Wee Flea. Please hear that I am not judging you. I am simply asking which comments reflect compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Yes, and ‘docility’. Perhaps you might read the dictionary entry more carefully. The virtue of ‘docility’ under the heading of ‘prudence’ refers to ‘teachableness’. Are you really desiring not to be teachable?
But I don’t hear that you are not judging me…that is precisely what you are doing…in that passive/aggressive way so beloved of those who claim that they are just against judgement. Now you move on to claiming that I am not teachable – of course in a none judgemental way. Your questions are not questions – they are accusations as you well know. In terms of teaching I note that you havn’t attempted to teach a single thing – you have just made accusations and comments about tone and tried to set up a contrast between me (bad/unloving/ungentle etc) and JW Shears. You have not engaged at all with the substance of the matter – whether Steve Chalke is a false teacher or not. Can I ask – is that a loving way to behave? To make accusations without substance and refuse to deal with the real issues at stake? As regards teachability I hope that I am (but not docile) but then of course you have me there as well (thats how this passive/aggressive thing works)…if I claim I am teachable I am of course proud and self-righteous…its a classic damned if you do, and damned if you don’t question/accusation. Again – not a very loving way to conduct yourself!
No, Wee Flea, I am not accusing you. I am asking questions which, for some reason, you are choosing to read as accusations. I was not being passive-aggressive. I was asking you to evaluate which comments show compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Yes … and docility (which is ‘teachableness’).
But you are not asking questions….you are making accusations – because you think that the answers to your questions are obvious and self-evident. Let me put it this way – if you asked me ‘why are you such an idiot?” I don’t think you are enquiring after my mental well being. Likewise when you ask which comments show more humility you are not asking. You know that if I answer mine it is self-defeating…if I answer ‘his’ it is also self-defeating. They are damned if you do and damned if you don’t questions. You havn’t actually engaged with any of the issues involved – instead you have chosen to accuse me (in that mock fake humble ‘I;m just asking’ tone) and condemn me. Thats your choice but don’t pretend that you are genuinely asking because you have some doubts about the outcome. I realise that your tricks and emotional blackmail might have worked on others, but I’m afraid I’ve been involved in this ‘game’ for far too long and I know a passive/aggressive accuser when I see one. By the way ‘docile’ does not just mean ‘teachable’…are you teachable enough to accept the correction? Have you also noted how you have successfully managed to deflect the subject from the heresies of Steve Chalke to your perception and judgements of my tone and heart?!
Wee Flea, so on your assessment, if I am being ‘passive-aggressive’, then would you say Jesus was as well when he asked ‘Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man…’? Was this also a trick or ’emotional blackmail’ or was it because he thought there was a lesson that might be learned by pushing the ‘expert in the law’ to think about how he acted?
Sure, I am teachable enough to understand that ‘”docile” does not just mean “teachable”‘, but the sense in which I used it (as a virtue related to ‘prudence’) does certainly mean that.
I am not condemning you.
Still coming with the passive/aggressive condemnatory stuff? Interesting that you compare yourself with Jesus! I think Jesus was explaining to a man whose heart he knew what it really was to love his neighbour and he was dealing with the teaching involved. You are not Jesus – you don’t know my heart – and you havn’t engaged at all with the teaching we are meant to be discussing.
Dear David, please be reminded that you are but one of hundreds of pastors, and one of thousand upon thousand Christians I know who agree with you on this issue. Steve Chalke may or may not be saved, but he is currently way, way off the narrow path that alone leads to the Father. We are pleased that you used the public opportunity your website affords to highlight what as a besetting problem in the Christian church – compromise to the world. As John reminds us, ‘loving the world’ is not loving God.
Weeflea my dear brother in the Lord, I simply dont know what to say to your comments, but i will try – please dont be offended but you seem to come across – to me at least – as a judgemental, unloving and angry man, or at the very least we both have a vey different view of what Christ like love is perhaps? I have tried so carefully to make sure you understand I am not judging you or condenming you and yet you continue to accuse me of such things with what I feel is pretty emotive language. Listen my friend, I virtually lost everything I believed in, i was broken and battered through terrible trauma and tragedy over the past few years. I went from leading worship for thousands to zero – a nobody, too scared to step inside a church – I will leave it at that. But, last year – after 10 years of darkness – something changed in my heart through being silent before God every morning for weeks on end with nothing to say because I simply didnt know what to pray or believe anymore, something changed and the tiniest bud of hope begaon to blossom, and my very first step back into my faith was to ask the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth and teach me what life was truly about. I asked for bread so why would he give me a stone? I knocked and the door was opened. I was so mistrusting of Christians and Christian ‘culture’ that the only thing I felt I could read at first was the red letter words of Jesus in my old NKJ bible. Even then I was unsure I could believe the words written down because a mortal man had recorded them! That’s how low down I was! But for the best part of a year I prayed nothing else but the Lord’s prayer as an act of faith in a very dark place and the only thing I meditated on was The Beatitudes – nothing else. I am still very much in recovery and taking tentative steps to strenght and trust. All I look for in any human being these days whether they are gay/straight, black/white, muslim, hindu etc. is a Christlike human love because I believe that is the very nature of the Christ that is in each and every precious person on this planet – they are all God’s children – every single one. whether you think so or not you are very judgemental, and because Steve inteprets things differently it does not mean he is Anti – Christ. Sadly it seems that true humility can only come from reaching the very end of your rope when there is nothing left but the little flicker of Christs love still a glow in your heart – thats my experience anyway and whilst I will never understand the reasons why I had to endure a fairly unfair amount of pain recently, it has helped me realise that it is not I that lives, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I am left with gratitude and nothing else. I simply want to share that love around and walk the path of non-judgement, peace and love. Please accept my apologies for anything I may have said that was misunderstood. You are my brother and so is Steve. Lets agree to disagree shall we? enough said. Bless you.
And once again you play the ‘dear brother in the Lord’ card whilst condemning and judging. I’m just curious as to why you think you have the right to judge and make such sweeping condemnatory statements – statements which you know can’t be answered – if you are asked ‘why are you so angry?’ and respond ‘I’m not angry’ you are then immediately told – ‘see, I told you so!”.
We do have a very different view of what Christ like love is like. You seem to think that it includes worshipping a Christ who does not exist, rather than the Jesus of the Bible. I am really sorry about your dreadful experience but it is no solution to turn away from the Jesus of the Bible. You say that ‘the very nature of Jesus’ is in every human being…thats not what Jesus says. You think that you have achieved ‘true humility’…the fact that you boast about it and judge others who don’t agree is somewhat oxymoronic. Your citation of Galatians 2:20 is excellent – perhaps you should read it in context and ask whether Paul was being judgemental for calling the Galatians ‘foolish’ for having abandoned the Gospel? The very thing I am accusing Steve of. For someone who wants to walk the path of non-judgement – you are being very judgemental! You would bless me if you stuck with Christ…
How desperately sad that even after my totally heartfelt, honest and gentle as can be response you still return such aggressive language. Would you speak that way to my face if you knew and really understood my journey? How very arrogant and unloving you are. You’ll cause me now of judging you , but I am simply stating hoe you come across in the way you speak. I doubt you spent much time at all thinking and meditating about what effect my ‘dreadful experience’ really had on my faith. I will pray that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to you about his love and gentleness. I just hope it will not take the same level of brokenness for you to truly experience it, that it took me to climb off my own throne and die to self. You sound more like a Pharisee than a Jesus like person, more like an acuser of adulterers than a forgiver of the same, more like a priest than a Samaritan. Perhaps you need to spend some time simply reading the words of Jesus deeply and waiting on God to impart some divine therapy to your heart. Although you will still say that judging you, I am never judging you. I am only commenting on the out dated old school narrow minded language that you use, the kind of talk that not surprisingly keeps so many totally uninterested in hearing your message or that of the established church. Where is the love, where is the gentleness, where is the patience, where is the kindness, where is the peacefulness and acceptance that drew so many to Christ? Carry on my friend with your uber judgemental approach to life, you are free to do as you please. Those of us all over the world whom Spirit has brought to a new level of consciousness and understanding cannot ‘un-see’ or ‘in-taste’ just how amazingly good the Lord tastes after years of surviving on scraps of truth that tended to keep us feeling guilty and fearful of a God who loves us just as we are. I for one will choose to follow Jesus the Christ, the Son of God and trust him daily to lead me in the way of truth and life. After all is that not who he said he was for all mankind? Steve Chalke is not perfect and I know little of him other than the video clips you are trying to destroy but what I have seen is a man who is motivated by love, a deep faith in Jesus the Christ and is not scared to challenge the Pharisees of the day as Christ did in his time. We still have so much to learn don’t we? Humility is a good place to start. Shalom
So according to yourself you are honest, gentle, full of the Holy Spirit, loving, someone who has had divine therapy applied to their heart, patient, kind, and brought by the Spirit to a new level of consiousness,
I am arrogant, unloving, an accuser of adulterers, a Pharisee, uber-judgemental, against Christ, etc.
And the best bit about all this is that you think that in praising yourself and condemning me, you are being non-judgemental.
You are of course free to keep calling me names, and being all superior…but it doesn’t help your cause although it may massage your ego.
What I find interesting is that you jumped into this conversation to make your sweeping judgements about me, whilst knowing nothing about Steve Chalke whom you praised…it seems as the though the whole world is now to be judged by our omnisicent feelings! Maybe you would get on a lot better if you actually discussed the subjects and issues involved and stayed away from the personal attacks upon me?
Is it possibly some kind of spoof/fake, angered by your Biblical statements on same-sex marriage, birth sex, and so on? It is coming out with all the classic left-wing/pc tropes and argumentation. It certainly isn’t someone who believes the Bible, because they would know that Jesus said he came not to replace but to fulfil the Old Testaments teachings, and thus was underlining and agreeing with all said there about homosexuality, sexual sin, and so on.
I will pray for you my dear friend, it seems that that you simply ‘don’t get it’.
You are clearly locked into a tribal, dualistic world view and unable to empathise with another brother’s journey and seem only interested in beating everyone over the head with your own point of view, because clearly you are the only person on the planet it seems who understand what the ‘narrow’ way is and the rest of us are all going to hell it seems? How you think that is loving is beyond me frankly. I have said so much to you from my heart, from my very own personal experience – not from my religious head – I have spoken as humbly, gently and respectfully as is possible on such a forum and yet you still throw rocks and make accusations and feel constantly that I am judging you? Your poor poor man.
All I can say is I am thankful that in my darkest hours I met beautiful, loving people who despite not being Christians showed me the true nature of Christ even though the were unaware of it. They picked me up, loved me and helped me back to my feet. Most of my Christian friends deserted me or could not understand my journey and would only spout chapter and verse to me about what I should do – almost all of them had no idea of how to walk with me through my pain, my doubt, my brokenness because they were so used to having an answer for everything, and yet here I was a ‘good guy’ who loved the Lord and served the church for years having all hell break loose in his life? That was to much for them to understand it seems.
That is why it puzzles me so deeply that you can’t even begin to think that something of my experience might be useful to you and your followers ( and yes you do have ‘followers’ in fact you even have a ‘follow me’ link on this blog – isn’t that the whole point of a blog?)
Nothing anyone can say or do can remove the deep unshakeable love I have rediscovered for Jesus the Christ and the world and people he created, because it didn’t come from simply reading the bible, or hearing a sermon, it came from finding his hand in the ashes of my life and allowing him to rebuild me.
I am so glad it was not your hand reaching out to me at that time when I fell by the wayside. That is such a sad thing to say but it’s true.
Never forget that one of the very the last things Jesus said before he left us physically, was people will know us ‘ by our love for one another’ not our need to be right.
I for one have tasted that true love and that is my starting point for everything.
I hope you and your family have a lovely time this Easter and I will pray for you that you come to know the ‘Jesus type love’ I speak of.
And still the passive/aggressive attacks continue. Rather than engage with anything that is actually said, or deal with the subject in hand – you continue to post about how wonderful you are and how horrible I am! Usually phrases like ‘dear friend’ is just meaningless. Virtually everything you said could be turned on its head – eg. you could be the one locked into a ‘tribalistic world view’….you equally seem to be the one who needs to be ‘right’ (otherwise why keep posting the same accusations)….the only way to resolve this is to ask, what does Jesus say. But you never go there. You basically just make up a Jesus that suits your own feelings/worldview and condemn everyone outwith that. I don’t know your story and therefore cannot comment on it. You are quite right. I can however comment on Steve Chalkes writing and your accusations (without evidence) against me, just because I challenge his unbiblical and anti-Christian views. For you to just name call and suggest that I don’t know the love of Jesus (whilst calling me dear brother) is not just irrational, but hypocritical and judgemental. Next time you wish to comment please deal with something of substance and don’t play games or try to emotionally manipulate or bully…..
What I find really sad isn’t how many Christians who grudgingly accept hell, but how many actually want to believe in it. I love my kids and I couldn’t stay mad at them for an afternoon, flawed and human though I am. The idea that the all powerful God of love would condemn His children to eternal suffering is just crazy.
Hi David
I take the point that we can import enlightened western values into the reading of scripture but you don’t seem at all worried that Bronze Age cultural assumptions might be present in the Bible. Didn’t Jesus say you have heard it said but I say to you ?
Love that chronological Western imperialism which thinks that ‘our’ views are more enlightened than anyone elses. I wonder what ‘Bronze age’ cultural assumptions you are talking about…you think we live in the Golden Age?!
Your reference to the passage from the Sermon on the Mount shows that you don’t actually understand what Jesus is saying there. At no time in that passage does he deny the Old Testament teaching, but each and every time he builds on it, adding to it. If that is your excuse for dumping the Law of God it is not merely thin, but erroneous. As you should well know, Jesus also says that he came not to throw out the Old Testament Law, but to fulfil it – this in itself demonstrates that your exposition is wrong, personally directed to suit yourself, and not Scripturally sound.
Sorry, I gave up taking this seriously after the statement: would christian websites and publications “give a racist a platform to spread racist views? I don’t think so – so why give someone who preaches an anti-Christ message a platform on a Christian website?”
This equating of the actual, tangible experience of racism felt by many people (who aren’t you) with this frankly, self-navel-gazing debate in the theological one is quite revealing.
I get you don’t understand it – and therefore have to resort to mockery and abuse. Ignorance does tend to lead to that kind of prejudice. But if you stop and think about it you will realise that the purpose of the Christian church is to proclaim the Christian Gospel. When a Christian minister does not do that – its quite serious to us. The fact that you don’t understand it is not something to boast about…!
Sorry to say that Steve is NO Baptist please do not call him one.
Mark Oxborrow