Chalke decided to use the analogy of slave ownership to show how Christians have changed their mind about certain ethical issues - perhaps unwisely given that it was bound to result in people thinking he was comparing those who believe homosexual sex is immoral to those who believe slavery was just fine!
If I might push that analogy a little... In our culture the dominant positions of power are held by those who think homosexual activity is OK and who are so outraged by the protests of those who believe it to be immoral that they are willing to resort to expensive legal process to silence them. In other words Chalke is not championing the persecuted at all: if anything he is taking the culturally dominant side of the argument - the contemporary equivalent of the slave-owners and traders.
Like all the apologists within the church for the legitimacy of sexually active gay relationships Chalke presents this as an issue of compassion - how can we deny the blessings of physical intimacy to those gay people not granted the gift of singleness he asks? This, of course, merely begs the question. If someone finds themselves only sexually attracted to children would the same argument apply? What about all the people who are heterosexual but cannot find anyone who will marry them - is it OK for them to seek a temporary but monogamous sexual relationship in the meantime?
It is certain that gay people have been terribly persecuted in our country over the centuries and evangelical Christians need to be vigilant against the homophobia that I think is sometimes seen amongst us (as I have written elsewhere). But the intensely pro-gay nature of our public authorities and power structures means we should be much more suspicious than Chalke is of the continuing claims of widespread persecution by the gay lobby. It seems to me that gay people and evangelical Christians are both prone to the same persecution hyper-sensitivity and need to recognise that in a diverse society we need to be rather more think-skinned (see here).
Chalke argues that persecution can still be demonstrated, even in our liberal society, by the higher suicide rate amongst homosexuals, especially young male homosexuals. Suicide rates are highest amongst young men of all sexualities, but in any case this argument proves nothing about either persecution or morality. Suicide rates are also high amongst vets and murderers which doesn't prove that vets are persecuted or that we should change our minds about the morality of murder. Every suicide is both wicked and tragic. But Chalke needs to remember that it suits the gay community's self-identity to see the suicide of its young men as the result of straight persecution rather than, for example, the shallow and exploitative way in which many members of the gay community treat their (especially younger) partners and its well-documented promiscuity. There is no evidence for his assertion that suicide rates amongst gay people in C21st Britain are drived by social stigma.
Chalke's arguments from the biblical texts about homosexual practice and why they don't mean what they seem to mean are nothing more than shallow re-treads of well-worn interpretations that were comprehensively demolished by Thomas Schmidt in Straight and Narrow 16 years ago.
But in the end it doesn't actually matter for Chalke whether the Bible texts are opposed to the kind of monogamous gay relationships he has in mind. The most disturbing in Chalke's article is his central argument: that there is a message of the Bible which doesn't simply transcend the actual text of the Bible but which is contradictory to the text. Thus he reasons: "it is thoughtful conformity to Christ 0 not unthinking conformity to either culture of textual prohibitions - that should be our unchanging reference point."
Chalke is not arguing here that there are texts that, legitimately understood in their context, have a limited application. Rather he creates a much more radical division between exegesis and hermeneutics. He believes that, properly understood, the Bible text may well have a permanent prohibition on some things (like women being church leaders or homosexual sex). Nevertheless, he teaches, our hermeneutics means we have a responsibility to allow those things because there is a deeper law of love and compassion at work.
Chalke says that people will accuse him of no longer being evangelical. Well I do say that. He has become a liberal because he has adopted the central belief of liberal Christianity. Liberalism's heart and soul is the idea that we can access the truth about God and what it means to love and how we should live through something other than his revelation in the Scripture and that to do this we can elevate some parts of Scripture as more true than others.* Chalke has decided that where his reasoning about the ethics of an issue on the "principle" of love leads him to a different conclusion from the plainly stated and properly understood words of the Bible he is going to go with his reasoning from principle. That is exactly the teaching of theological liberalism and exactly the thing evangelicalism has always opposed.
In the end then Chalke is playing God; not seeking to faithfully interpret the Scriptures according to the intention of the author but setting himself over God's revelation in the Scriptures as arbiter of what he finds acceptable there and what he must reject to maintain the ethical principle he has decided is most important.
That challenge? Those of us who take the Bible seriously as God's Word need to reject Chalke's reasoning utterly. But we must also show proper compassion to the 100% of people in our community who struggle with their sexuality in one way or another and offer to them the glorious, kind, generous, inclusive gospel that calls all of us to forgiveness and all of us to repentance and change.
*not more directly applicable or clearer - those are perfectly legitimate categories. The liberal position (which is what Chalke has adopted, though his language is somewhat hedged about) is that some texts which claim to represent the character or will of God for today actually don't - they are erroneous.
16 comments:
I take the Bible seriously as God's word, yet I see no reason to reject Chalke's reasoning utterly. He has helpfully recognised and articulated that the fault line within evangelicalism on this topic, as with all others, is not whether we view the Bible as being the word of God, far more significant is the question of hermeneutics. There is a growing acceptance amongst evangelicals that trajectory hermeneutics or redemptive-movement hermeneutics is more helpful than the older paradigms.
That is, to simply cite Lev. 18; 20 (part of the Holiness Code) as proof that God holds homosexuality to be wrong proves little. Even referring to Rom. 1 does not help hugely owing to the question as to whether this is anything more than a rhetorical device...a speech in character.
Does the Bible teach six-day creationism? Yes, but most Christians recognise that we don't need to accept this as true. Does the Bible condone genocide? Yes, but all Christians would oppose genocide. And so on. This illustrates, that simply because the Bible puts forward a view, we are not obligated to take it at face value, we need to interpret it. Chalke interprets the data differently than you, not because he is a 'Liberal' (sticks and stones and all that) but because he approaches the text with a different hermeneutical grid.
Surely one of the central differences between evangelicals and liberals is our approach to hermeneutics? That Chalke is not adopting the historico-grammatical method of interpretation - the typical evangelical approach to hermeneutics - by definition places him outside the evangelical banner.
The proof of this is his argument that the text is clear in what it says and means. However, he argues that what the text says and means is not what the text says and means. By definition, this is not the historico-grammatical hermeneutic and is therefore not a traditionally evangelical approach to interpretation.
Similarly, if we adhere to bebbington's quadrilateral as the definition of evangelicalism, it is hard to see how Chalke can honestly claim to meet the Biblicism criteria when, as Andy rightly points out, Chalke allows his own underlying principle to overrule, what he freely admits, are clear statement of scripture. Again, definitionally, he cannot be evangelical.
Stephen, the historical-grammatical method is not the only available one for an evangelical to use. The existence of 'Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology' surely testifies to that?
It depends as to how distinct from the historico-grammatical method one sees these four views. Some would argue these approaches are born from the historico-grammatical method and incorporate it as a general principle within their hermeneutic approach i.e. these can be categorised as modes of interpretation, subsets of a sort, within the historico-grammatical method, with some alteration
In that case, I fail to see how Chalke has absconded from evangelicalism. He is simply utilising a redemptive-movement hermeneutic as advocated by William Webb in the volume above. Kenton Sparks too, advocates something similar.
1. Chalke has moved away from Biblicism, as outlined by Bebbington, which is a fundamental qualification for inclusion in the Evangelical camp. Chalke places adherence to a subjective 'principle' above his adherence to what he admits freely are clear statements of scripture. Therefore, his guiding hermeneutic prinicple is somewhat irrelevant as - even before we begin discussing his hermeneutics (not a qualification outlined in Bebbington's quadrilateral) - he has rejected a central tenet of Evangelicalism and must thus reside outside the camp.
2. Even if one is open to the redemptive-movement hermeneutic (and I must say I am highly sceptical of it), Webb himself specifically argues against Chalke's interpretation. Webb argues there is a trajectory in scripture of progressive female liberation in contrast to the prevailing cultures of the time and thus makes his argument re women's ministry today (with which I respectfully disagree). Nevertheless, Webb specifically argues the trajectory of homosexuality is increasingly conservative in scripture compared to the prevailing permissive cultures of the day. So, even if Chalke is utilising the redemptive-movement hermeneutic (which I am not convinced he is seeking to apply this hermeneutic), according to Webb his conclusion his at odds with that hermeneutic principle.
3. The hermeneutic principle of redemptive-movement strikes me as antithetical to evangelicalism. Namely, it places the interpretive view of 'trajectory' above the direct statement of scripture. Thus the hermeneutic itself seems to undermine the concept of Biblicism and appears to lean closer to the liberal interpretative principles.
All that is to say, whether one cares to agree with Steve Chalke or not, he cannot be said to reside under the Evangelical banner.
Stephen, Bebbington's approach was descriptive not prescriptive. Indeed, the usefulness of his work has been questioned. One example is the Churchman article 'Beyond Bebbington: The Quest for Evangelical Identity in a Postmodern Era' which recognises that 'While Bebbington is undoubtedly correct to suggest that evangelicals have historically placed a priority on the Bible and have viewed it as the authoritative source for theological affirmations, a marked shift in the attitude of evangelicals towards the Bible is underway. Stanley Grenz’ model for theological construction can be seen as representative of the move.' Bebbington's historical survey should not be seen to be the determitive definition of what it means to be an 'evangelical'.
Unfortunately, no better definition has been mooted or, at least, widely adopted. So, unless you can offer a better definition, despite it's limitations, Bebbington's quadrilateral must suffice. After all, the Evangelical Alliance - the largest Evangelical grouping in the UK - still holds to Bebbington's quadrilateral and they are far from an organisation with a prescriptive bent. Plenty of scholars still argue Bebbington's is the best definition we currently have. In fact, most efforts to redefine the quadrilateral have tended to be more, not less, prescriptive.
Whilst Bebbington's quadrilateral may be descriptive, not prescriptive, it at least offers an Evangelical bottom line. One may be Evangelical on tighter terms but it is hard to be in the camp on much less.
If Bebbington acts as a bottom line, Chalke fails to meet the base criteria.
Stephen, I hit enter before I had time to finish my last comment.
I'd agree that Bebbington is a helpful guide, yet I am sure you will accept that Bebbington’s quadrilateral rule has not been without its detractors. Indeed, in 'The Advent of Evangelicalism', Bebbington’s definition receives close analysis and critical engagement from various church historians and theologians such as Timothy George, Paul Helm, and Timothy Larson amongst others.
Bebbington is a useful starting point, but not the final word.
That said, I am at a loss to see how Chalke could not be regarded as an evangelical even by Bebbington's definition. He in no way falls afoul of 'Biblicism', though of course it depends on how we are defining that term.
I find your response lacking in so many ways that I am not sure where to start. I hold a high view of scripture, I am an evangelical, and I am heterosexual - but I have to contend that your notion that homosexual people and evangelicals are equally subject to persecution is nonsense.
The law makers of our country have a duty to ensure human rights. That includes ensuring that gay people are not treated in an inferior way. If that upsets your religious sensibilities then it is a price worth paying. I very much doubt that you go through your daily life subject to large scale discrimination.
Deal with the theological questions raised and put your victim mentality aside. The decisions made to ensure human rights are not 'against' you they are 'for' those that have been traditionally marginalised.
Hello
Thank you for your post. I can't tell hermaneutics from Herman's Hermits, but Mr Chalke places HIS ideas about what the Bible teaches, and what Jesus thinks, above the observations of "eye witnesses of His majesty". John and Peter spent 3 years walking and working and eating with Jesus -- they saw His shining face and clothes on the mountain, they saw Him sleeping on the boat, they saw His face streaked with tears in the Garden. Luke interviewed eye witnesses. They appeal to their proximity to events and to the God-Man at the centre of history.
2000 years later, I'm supposed to listen to Steve Chalke? Why? Because he's famous, and that's the way we judge things nowadays?
PS I am not surprised about this announcement. I heard Mr Chalke on the radio a coupla years ago, laugh out loud at the phrase Bible-believing Christian.
PPS If Mr Chalke is to be believed, Jesus did not pay for my sins, so I shall have to pay for them. Needless to say, I prefer Plan A as outlined in Act 8.
Hi Andy,
I think my friends who are regularly shouted at as they walk down the road would disagree that discrimination is over-hyped. Whether they are or not, isn't it possible for there to be both a strong gay lobby and strong correctional voices but still plenty of grass roots prejudice? Does one have to rule out the other?
Cheers, Steve
HI Anthea,
I'm not certain that Steve has contradicted Jesus, John or Peter, Has he?
I wonder if the thing about someone speak up, isn't that we're suddenly all supposed to agree with anyone (as if we all would! :) ), but rather that when someone who has earned a right to speak though a consistent impactful christlike life starts a public conversation based on his grappling with scripture, and about something which lots of people have been talking about, it makes sense to engage it rather than dismiss.
On whether Jesus has paid, could I suggest you read Steve Chalke's previous book which covered atonement (It's a great book about living a more Christlike life), as agree or disagree I think he suggests something quite different than that? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what he does say?
Warmly
Steve
Hello
I specifically mentioned NT writers who tell me that Jesus paid for my sins in His body on the tree. They have more weight because they were eyewitnesses.
Steve Chalke has done a truckload of good work for charity etc, but so have many people -- including atheists and agnostics! When it comes to Bible teaching, we ordinary Christians must beware of being so starstruck that we don't check out the substance of what we are being told.
I have, like many in the UK, heard and seen a lot from Steve Chalke through the years, and that does not stop me from running to my Bible to check out what he says. These days, there are so many vicars and revs who will dismiss the Bible's basic teachings, and unless we keep ourselves sharp and get into the Word ourselves we'll get drawn in my telegenic, nice preachers because they have done some admirable works.
I think it's very wrong to tell people that they should not dismiss false teaching. That's exactly what Paul, Jude, John, Peter advise us to do. In fact, one can "engage" with a theory or an idea and then decide that it's not worth embracing. There's a v strong whiff of the emperor's new clothes about the manipulative arguments used by some of those who are within church administrations/denominations, and yet talk down the Bible. If you question them, you're told you aren't mature or clever or prepared to "join the conversation".
All the hoopla around these big media pronouncements distracts us from going to the really authoritative voices in the New Testament itself. And I want to challenge the idea that I cannot read the Word for myself by myself and decide to believe it and apply it to myself. One of the reasons I did not reply right away to your comment was that I have been witnessing to and reading about JWs, who look to the Watchtower for guidance, and do not think that they can read the Bible by themselves. They also do not think that Jesus paid for our (future) sins.
PS This blog is written by someone from a different church background, but I am pleased that Andy's Study is open for business.
HI Anthea, Thanks for replying.
I understand that you disagree with Steve because you've listened to him, engaged with it and have read the bible differently yourself - great, I love that you're reading it yourself and coming to your own decisions, it's what I do!
I've not read anyone in this context suggest that one shouldn't dismiss false teaching? I agree as well that everyone should be free to join the conversation.
I do think there should be a conversation though. The bible has been interpreted by the church throughout the ages in many ways, and will continue to be debated as culture changes - the only way to maintain a healthy church is to have or start if unnecessary, an open conversation (Which is what I would suggest Steve is doing). He very clearly says in his short and long documents, and the video that he's seeking to start a conversation.
I'm really surprised if you experienced what he said or wrote as manipulative - I havn't read or heard it that way. Rather I would say he's tried to open up the conversation to everyone to join in (including us non-scholars), and provides some resources to do so with, and went on to discuss it with schoolars who disagreed. It sounds to me as if your difficulty would be with those seeking to shut-down the discussion rather than those seeking to start it?
If you did find it manipulative though, I'd be very interested to hear how?
I agree - think people from every angle seek to make people less than capable of understanding when they disagree with them, and I think it's dishonorable.
My question about the NT writers is that you suggested the Lost Message of Jesus book teaches that Jesus didn't pay for transgressions - I don't believe it does. You should read it (eve if you still disgaree with it)- it's a great book about Jesus - in fact (I seem to remember) even Andrew's blogpost on it thought so!
Sorry for the slightly mixed up response there- long day, but I enjoyed reading your comment and wanted to reply. :)
Cheers
Steve
Interesting article.
Talking about people being attracted to children is not the same. This is same sex attraction and god has created these people this way. We have to accept Gay peoples testimonies that they were born that way if we expect people to accept our Christian testimony.
Also Jesus's mother was 13 when she had Jesus. She was a childs so the child arguement is not applicable.
No one takes the whole Bible literally as proven by the world is flat, slavery and women leaders although the FIEC still believe women cannot be leaders.
Divorce is the other big one look at Steve Chalkes video he talks about one woman who was beaten up by her hubby but he did not commit adultery so she invited random women around so he would sleep with them and then divorce! This is what happens when you take the Bible word for word literal. I.E become like the Pharisees and it ruins peoples lives.
Steve Chalke is correct on homosexuality and in 30 years more decent churches will be more tolerant and less hateful towards homosexuals and treat them as Jesus would have done
Post a Comment