Evangelicals Now
<< November 2004 >>

A public debate on The Lost Message of Jesus

Clauses 3 & 4 of the Evangelical Alliance's Basis of Faith affirm: 'The universal sinfulness and guilt of fallen man, making him subject to God's wrath and condemnation' and 'The substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the sole and all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequences'.

This was the point around which the public debate over the now notorious book The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann was organised. Hosted by the Evangelical Alliance at Emmanuel Centre in Westminster on Thursday October 7, around 700 people (including many young people) gathered for the debate. The evening purported to allow 'dialoguing' on 'the main areas of dispute'.

Despite the good-natured manner in which the debate was held, it was, perhaps unavoidably, a sad reflection of the words of Jonathan Stephen: 'Just as in the 19th century "Christianity" came to be defined in terms of whatever "Christians" believed, so in the 21st century "evangelicalism" has come to be defined by whatever "evangelicals" believe. Either way, the inevitable result is liberalism. The elevation of the love of God to the virtual exclusion of his other attributes is one of the basic tenets of open theism, while [Chalke's] explanation of the nature and origins of the doctrine of penal substitution is sheer parody.

'This is yet another significant indication that popular evangelicalism is in theological freefall. It's Steve Chalke who has "lost the message".'

Penal substitution: the main debate

Unsurprisingly, the main debate centred on the much-discussed subject of the doctrine of penal substitution. The format of the evening meant that despite forays into other issues, the various speakers kept returning to this subject.

Chalke complained about being 'misinterpreted and misunderstood' on the subject - although throughout the evening he continued to display a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine. And having stated his distress over the way his book had been misinterpreted, he launched a tirade against penal substitution anyway. He labelled it 'arrogant... repressive... distorted... ethically weak' and claimed that it perpetuates the 'myth of redemptive violence'. He argued that it overplays God's wrath and misrepresents him.

Chalke also drew attention to the 'cash-value of the cross' under penal substitution. Although this was a well-founded warning, he offered no realistic alternative. He also quoted Roger Carswell's summary of God's wrath: 'God did his worst to Jesus'. He mentioned how much this frightened people, and said that 'no one should be frightened into a relationship with God'. This was, again, an alarming statement - if one is in rebellion against the Creator of the universe, should one not fear him?

Early church

Dr. Stuart Murray Williams spoke as Steve Chalke's 'second'. His statement focussed mainly on the absence of penal substitution from the early church's theology, despite the many references in Garry Williams's EN article last month attesting to the true origins of the doctrine. Dr. Stuart Murray Williams stated that those who object to penal substitution have been on the margins, seeming to imply that the marginalised inevitably follow correct doctrine. He left us with two 'contemporary challenges': What understanding of the cross will equip Christians to be peace-makers? And in a world shaped by violent and misdirected policies in Iraq and elsewhere, does penal substitution help or hinder Christians?

These challenges, while certainly interesting and worthwhile, were symptomatic of the overall position and aim of the book; it rebrands atonement to remove the gospel's offensiveness, while simultaneously discarding penal substitution due to its supposed incompatibility with social movement.

Anna Robbins's extremely helpful statement shed more light on this problem. Her counter-claim showed that Jesus was at the forefront of social movement in his time, while simultaneously preaching a message of wrath and repentance. For the marginalised similar to those Steve Chalke has undoubtedly helped, the cross was so much more than his picture of sympathy through suffering - it was the ultimate victory.

In response to Chalke's first venture into the subject, Simon Gathercole, the New Testament Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, mirrored Garry Williams's article, in which Chalke's wrong view of the Trinity was exposed. Chalke writes as if there are three parties involved - God, the human beings, and Jesus. This reveals a deep-seated misunderstanding of the relationship between Father and Son, and the way in which Jesus laid down his life for us. John Stott's explanation that Jesus undertook his punishment clearly refutes the now infamous phrase pointing to God as the 'cosmic child abuser'.

Gathercole stated that penal substitution is key, as without it we still face the wrath of God. He reminded us that Jesus's message was not congenial - a message that people 'may see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven'.

Chalke's message, in contrast, is one that can be lapped up - perhaps an indication of how he has effectively neutered the gospel's offensiveness, and, by the same token, its effectiveness.

Original goodness and original sin

A very disturbing element of the book was the way in which sin was almost brushed aside entirely. Ignoring the impact of the Fall, and its catastrophic and total invasion of our souls, is the driving force behind the depiction of a cross which stands not as a bridge between ourselves and God, but 'at the centre of our decaying world'.

By not understanding sin fully, it is impossible to understand God's wrath - if we are inherently good, then why would we need to atone for our small foibles which go against the grain?

God's wrath and love

Thus, Chalke's view of sin leads naturally to his view of God's wrath, or the lack thereof. As EN's original review said, 'God's white-hot moral purity and indignation at sin have been airbrushed out of the picture'. Throughout the evening, it was apparent that Chalke has an underlying confusion over the connection between God's love and God's wrath.

Rather than accept the view of God's wrath as an all-consuming fire, a judgement which will be directed at his sinful and rebellious children, Chalke's insistence on separating wrath from love means that he cannot see how the two meet perfectly at the cross. It is truly the place 'where wrath and mercy meet', where the almost-eternal question of our rebellion is answered by the God we have rebelled against.

If there were one psalm that sums up the problem with Steve Chalke's position, it is surely Psalm 2. As Andrew King put it in October's EN, 'the murder of Jesus was no ghastly aberration in our basically decent behaviour: it was the logical outworking of our attitude to God ever since the fall' - a stark repudiation of Chalke's doctrine of 'original goodness'.

The Psalm is a terrifying glimpse of God's wrath. Again, Andrew King succinctly describes Jesus: '...he is the most frightening person in the universe. This appalling revelation... connects with many other texts, not least the horror at the end of Revelation 6, where all kinds of people cry out to the mountains to fall and hide them from the face of God and from the wrath of the Lamb.' But also, wonderfully, 'there is complete shelter in the Lamb from the wrath of the Lamb... [for] the fire that he brings has already fallen in one place in this world. On Jesus himself, at the cross.'

Although Steve Chalke's social ministry is certainly admirable, and his vision of the marginalised being welcomed into the fold is one to which we could all aspire, his position on these key issues is extremely damaging. The Evangelical Alliance, and the wider evangelical community, must think seriously about his impact upon its unity, its theology, and most importantly, its view of the message of Jesus. We stand at a crossroads.

TLAK