‘The Lost Message of Paul’ by Steve Chalke
A Book Review.
I have to confess, I am a fan of Steve Chalke. His legacy, in terms of lives touched, just cannot be criticised, even though many seem to assume the right to do so, because they disagree with his theology. He is a pastor and his compassion and love for people clearly shines through in all that he does and says. In my humble opinion, his life and work mean that he has earned the right to be heard.
However, I do often find him very frustrating as a theologian. He is often seems lazy or flippant and he often throws things out there without really having a Biblical basis for them. I find this especially frustrating because I often agree with his point and yet find that he has supplied all the ammunition that is needed to disagree with him. Too often, fro example, I have heard people write-off an affirming LGBTQ+ view on the basis of disagreeing with Steve’s arguments (which are dubious), assuming that they are the arguments.
Anyway, having said that, I was pleasantly surprised that this book, on the whole, is not like that. It is thought-through, backed-up and most things that he has said I have been able to verify from respected, academic sources.* It is also easy to read. Compared with the David Bentley Hart book I just read, it is like reading “Hairy McLairy”.
I think that Steve does a great job of presenting and explaining Paul’s Jewish background and worldview, and thus putting his writings in context. As he has said on more than one occasion, nothing that he says is new and he is drawing on the work of a number of highly respected theologians like NT Wright, EP Sanders, Karl Barth, Richard Hays etc. He does it in a very accessible way that I think makes these scholars available to the rest of us. He is not afraid to challenge them either. I really enjoyed the way that he takes on Tom Wright and challenges the inconsistencies in his theology on hell, in a humble and scholarly way. Brave man.
In the book Steve succinctly lays out how we have ended up with our Western views on scripture, tracing the moments and reasons for the shifts. I love the quote from a Cambridge theologian, Harry Williams:
“St Augustine took the worst of St Paul,
and Calvin took the worst of St Augustine”
I also loved the quote from Karl Barth (who had been a devout Calvinist, but found that the more he read the Bible, the less he was able to make it work through the lens of Calvin):
‘all the dubious features of Calvin’s doctrine result
from the basic failing that in the last analysis he
separates God and Jesus Christ.’
I really recommend this book.
I know that many will write it off before reading it and many of those who do read it will read it through a lens which will prejudice their view.
Which is a shame because I think you may be robbing yourselves.
I confess, I had no interest in reading it, having heard some criticism (even from those who liked “The Lost Message of Jesus” – which I really did), but I only read it so that I could have an informed opinion.
Now I am recommending it. Heartily.
* The exception to this is some of his response to ‘original sin’. He makes the claim that, ‘Jewish theology has always interpreted the story of Adam and Eve as one of growing up,’ which is just not true.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that the idea of original sin is dehumanising, sick, oppressive, controlling and unbiblical. It was invented in the fifth century by Augustine, who could not read Greek and so depended on dubious translations to form his view and ignored his Greek-speaking contemporaries, who disagreed with him (which should seriously worry us). I just do not think that what Steve presents is a credible alternative.
One Comment
After reading Chalke’s book I’m pretty disappointed. He hasn’t followed the evidence where it leads but argues that God is love and that’s all there is to his character, everything derives from that, including his holiness, righteousness and justice. I think this is a personal preference rather than a serious engagement with the Bible, as he repeats ‘in my view’ time after time. His arguments are disengenuous, because he engages only with parts of verses to make his points rather than the scriptures in their contexts (which rather ironically he accuses others of doing). He says he will only use undisputed books of Paul to make his point but doesn’t really use 2 Corinthians which is not just a local church letter but addresses the church in Greece and ignores disputed books of Paul, such as 2 Thessalonians, which don’t really fit with his agenda (and also uses James and 1 John, not by Paul).
Chalke spends a lot of time considering the Church in Alexandria and his hero Origen (At least a 4th generation Christian), not really going into the fact that the roots of the church there were based on Valentinian Gnosticism and Neo Platonism. Whilst doing so he misses the teachings of 1st generation Christians like Polycarp, Clement of Rome (Who is probably mentioned as an associate of Paul in Philippians 4:3) and Ignatius (specifically their clear teachings on eternal punishment, which he seems to prefer to avoid).
There are some huge difficulties in his use of etymology to make his points (the faithfulness of Christ). He has neglected to consider the changes to English words over the centuries. ‘Of’ used to mean ‘away from’ or ‘from’ in old English so he is presenting a false dichotomy here. Faith in Christ/Faithfulness of Christ might be better explained by a 3rd option, faith from Christ. In this case faith coming from Christ can still be rejected! If you read wider around the Bible you’ll soon find that there is a requirement to have believing faith, and this wider perspective is avoided by Chalke (the faithfulness of Christ doesn’t answer the wider context in the Bible).
Something else very confusing is what he believes about Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, in one chapter he seems to deny the miraculous nature of Paul’s encounter only to later contradict himself by mentioning how Paul was made blind. I believe Chalke has an ulterior motive to undermine the necessity of conversion to Christianity here in order to maintain his universal view that all will be saved. Conversion is another ‘boundary marker’, a sign of exclusion, to him. Ironically he pays little attention to Paul’s biographical accounts later in Acts (actually the later parts of Acts as a whole) where he talks a about his baptism (a boundary marker) and how he considers the former way of life as a Jew naught, which seems to totally contradict the fact that Paul would still consider himself a 2nd Temple Jew under and extension of the old covenant.
He rejects the idea of the new covenant, it seems, instead preferring an extension of the old covenant but there’s no biblical basis for latter and plenty for the former.
Chalke hasn’t come at this book objectively, but has tried to read Paul through a liberal 21st century lens, something that he argues against vehemently in his earlier chapters we shouldn’t do. I found his book full of contradictions and harsh as it is to say, hypocrisy (when he was guilty of the arguments he levelled at other Christians). What is sad is that I feel he is trying to desperately hold together 2 worlds, he desperately wants to remain relevant to society but and also wants to cling on to his Christian roots but would be better to get off the fence and fully embrace one or the other. He has become a worldly confirmist, contrary to the instruction in Romans 12:1-2.
I do get upset when I think about this but if the theology doesn’t support the thinking then we’ve got to be careful not to try to force a square peg into a round hole. I think Chalke is desperately trying to whittle the sides of the peg off to fit it in but if you look carefully you can see him doing it through most of the book.
It’s dangerous, because he has the potential to mislead thousands of people from believing faith this way. We can’t shy away from the difficult sections of scripture in a modern day society because if the Bible isn’t authorative we’re just wasting our time entirely.