Steve Chalke, Evangelical Alliance & why Cranmer is wrong about a new schism

Yesterday, the Archbishop Cranmer blog commented on the expulsion of the Oasis Trust from the Evangelical Alliance (EA). EA have released a statement regarding the issue. Oasis have responded in kind.

His Grace is quick to note that "The EA do not expel members who support abortion; nor do they sever links with those who marry divorcees or accept pre-marital sexual relations as a forerunner of marriage. They do not even expel a member for repudiation of the foundational Evangelical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which the Rev'd Steve Chalke terms "cosmic child abuse", as though God casually murdered His Son for the salvation of the world, and penal substitution is barbaric and utterly morally indefensible."

It is this that causes him to argue we now see a new schism in Evangelicalism. He states "And so we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." 

Worse still, claims Cranmer, the EA are themeselves guilty of this error. He argues removal of Oasis Trust from the EA is hypocritical since Gavin Shuker MP sits on their Council of Reference and has voted consistently in favour of gay marriage. This, says Cranmer, is hypocrisy and should see Gavin Shuker MP removed from the Council of Reference.

On two fronts, I believe His Grace has gotten this one wrong.

Firstly, in respect to Gavin Shuker MP, it is entirely possible to uphold the traditional Christian positions on marriage and homosexuality whilst allowing for a recognition of same-sex partnership in law. As Tim Keller has noted: "you can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. Those are not the same issues. They overlap" (1). I have commented similarly here, here, here and here.

Now, I have absolutely no idea about the specific position of Gavin Shuker on marriage and homosexuality. But, it is entirely possible he holds a view not dissimilar to the Anabaptist position outlined by Keller. Unless Mr Shuker openly and repeatedly espouses a view that homosexuality is not sinful, his voting in favour of Gay Marriage is not reason to expel him from the EA Council per se. 

Neither does this represent any hypocrisy on the part of EA. As Cranmer himself notes, "the Evangelical Alliance has excommunicated the Oasis Trust simply because its founder has stated (time and again) his support for committed monogamous same-sex relationships". Unless he has repeatedly made similar comments in the public square, the EA are perfectly entitled to "excommunicate" Steve Chalke whilst retaining the counsel of Gavin Shuker. Should His Grace produce evidence that Mr Shuker has stated monogamous homosexual relationships are blessed by God and do not represent any form of sin, his argument may stand. In lieu of this, we cannot say the EA have erred on this issue.

On the matter of a supposed Evangelical schism, His Grace argues "we now have (another) schism - Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals, who welcome fornicators, adulterers and abortionists, and Liberal (or 'Accepting') Evangelicals, who welcome all of the above plus gays and lesbians." Evidently, this is a false classification of the two sides.

Though the EA may defend the traditional position on homosexuality, they fail to defend orthodox views on abortion, penal substitution and a range of other issues. For this reason, most Conservative (or 'Traditional') Evangelicals in the UK would describe the EA as outside the 'Conservative' or 'Traditional' camp. Given, as His Grace rightly notes, the differences between EA and Oasis Trust seem based on homosexuality alone (rather than the more heinous theological errors for which they should have withdrawn fellowship long ago), one struggles to see how they sit on different sides of a schism.

Surely, if schism exists within Evangelicalism, it is between those who uphold traditional, Conservative theological positions and those who do not. Clearly it is possible to hold to traditional, Conservative theology whilst not seeking such implementation in law. Yet, schism does not exist between those who accept legal recognition of certain positions and those who do not. Rather, it is between those who argue that scripture itself permits and blesses those things which are clearly sinful which we may, or may not, choose to legally permit. That being the case, despite his expulsion from the network, Steve Chalke and the EA seem to sit on the same side of the divide. 

That EA have said "thus far and no further" does not alter the fact that the lengths to which they were willing to go before expelling Steve Chalke well and truly write them out of ever being credibly labelled 'Conservative' or 'traditional'. Compare Spurgeon with the Baptist Union or Lloyd-Jones with the Evangelical Alliance itself. If you want to see real schism within Evangelicalism, they occurred long before the EA kicked Steve Chalke out of membership. If the lines drawn by Lloyd-Jones still hold (and I think they probably do), EA and Steve Chalke - despite their recent separation - still remain part of the same camp.

Notes

1. Keller has specifically clarified this statement. He says "In explaining the Anabaptist tradition, I was quoted saying, "You can believe homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage should be legal." I did say that—but it was purely a statement of fact. It is possible to hold that position, though it isn't my position, nor was I promoting or endorsing the position. I was simply reporting on the growth of that view."

Four problems with "claiming" promises

Many people seem to make a habit of "claiming" promises from scripture. Here are four major problems with doing so:

1. You can't "claim" promises

As Barnabas Piper outlines here, you simply cannot "claim" promises. To do so is to miss the point. As he comments "A promise tells a little bit about who God is and what He will do. It is anchored in His holiness, goodness, power, and sovereignty. It is based on his omnipotence and omniscience. And it will come to pass in a way only God knows and ordains." We cannot "claim" it and take control of it. Were we to do so, we would change both the nature of the promise and they way it is ultimately realised. A promise is a gift that one receives from God and He will make it happen, not us.

2. The promise we claim may not be directed at us

As Graeme Goldsworthy reminded us in Gospel and Kingdom, it is false to read the Old Testament as a series of stories we can mine for moral lessons that relate directly to us. That being the case, we cannot simply "claim" the promises of the Old Testament and relate them directly to ourselves. When God makes a promise to King David, for example, he does so in his capacity as the Lord's anointed. It would, therefore, be misguided to presume the promises to David relate directly to ourselves in the same way. The way those promises come to us, if at all, is through our relationship to Christ. David was a type of Christ who is the Archtype. Jesus is the ultimate heir to those promises and they relate only to us by way of Him.

Other issues arise when we try to "claim" certain supposed promises. It has become fairly common to cite the prayer of Jabez (1 Chronicles 4:10) as a basis for claiming health and wealth. Firstly, there is no promise from God anywhere in scripture that he will do this for us (in fact, there is plenty which suggests the opposite). All we are told is that the Lord did this for Jabez. Secondly, we simply don't know why the Lord did this for Jabez. Perhaps there was a particular reason. What we do know is that plenty of other passages in scripture speak against wealth for wealth's sake. Thirdly, and most significantly, this simply isn't a promise. Jabez prayed and the Lord granted his prayer. This wasn't a promise from God that he would do this for Jabez nor is there any suggestion this is a promise of what God will do for us.

3. Claiming promises turns them into magic spells and silver bullets

At heart, we must ask why we see fit to "claim" promises. If we are working on the premise that claiming a promise will make it happen, we are really turning God's word into magic spells. We suggest that by reciting a mantra, or prayer, God will somehow honour us. The Lord never worked that way in scripture. More to the point, He does not appreciate being treated like a genie who exists only to grant our wishes.

4. We only ever seem to claim the promises we like

As in (2), associating ourselves with the bits we like and ignoring the less attractive parts is a particularly poor way to read scripture. Psalm 139 is a good case in point. Many of us like to associate with vv1-18, applying it directly to our situation and "claiming" these truths for ourselves. I am yet to meet anyone who "claims" vv19-22 for themselves! It is simply not credible to cherry pick the nice parts and ignore the less pleasant bits - especially within the same Psalm! Again, as in (2), these things only really relate to us so far as they relate to Christ and we are in Him.

On idols

Some time ago, I posted here regarding the difference between the first and second commandments. I argued that idolatry is best understood as anything that changes, obscures or alters the true character, or nature, of God.

It is worth noting that the incident of the Golden Calf in Exodus 32 was not an exercise in worshiping a false god per se. The people said "This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt!" (Neh 9:18) and simultaneously dedicated the following day "a feast to the LORD" (Ex 32:5). The people were not attempting to worship another god. Rather, they had changed the character and nature of the true God so that they were, in fact, worshiping a false image. The list of idolatrous behaviours in Col 3:5 is such because, as Christians, we are called to be Christlike and pursue godliness. In indulging such behaviour, we suggest God's character is in line with these things. We change God's character and worship a false image.

Now, it wouldn't be false to say those things that vie for our affections are idols. If we suggest the key to our happiness and fulfillment lie anywhere other than in God, we may not put these things before God but we certainly fall foul of the second commandment. In effect, we suggest God cannot, or will not, meet our particular need and thus we change his character and obscure his nature. If we put this false image before God, we would then fall foul of the first and second commandments simultaneously. Yet, those things that vie for our affections, and by which we suggest God will not meet our needs, are modern day idols. They may not be before God but they are nonetheless gods we worship and seek as a means of fulfilling particular needs.

What is worth bearing in mind is that an idol is only an idol so long as we treat it like an idol. If Paul's comments in 1 Cor 8:4-6 and 1 Cor 10:19f teach anything, it is that idols are nothing. They are either lumps of clay, pieces of wood, bits of stone, moulded metal or conceptual ideas. What they are not is gods.

This is an issue with which many people tie themselves in knots. I have a bust of C.H. Spurgeon on my office desk. Most people rightly conclude this is not an idol - I don't worship it, I don't find any fulfillment in it and I don't believe, nor act, in any way to suggest it is a god. Now, suppose it wasn't C.H. Spurgeon but was one of those Buddha statues, or one of those Hindu deities. Presuming I treat it the same way as my Spurgeon bust, are these any more idols to me?

We may want to have a discussion about the wisdom of associating yourself, as a Christian, with the idolatrous statues of false religion. It may not be helpful to people coming into your home and may lead to all sorts of conversations that are not particularly profitable. However, Paul is clear, in and of themselves, they are nothing and have no power.

I knew somebody who was given a Hindu statue by a colleague (it was a genuine gift in an attempt to be thoughtful). They concluded it would be wrong to smash it to bits, or throw it in the bin, in front of their colleague. I think they were right. In fact, I think - partly because they decided it wouldn't be helpful to display and partly because it was so grotesque - to shove it in the garage out of the way. Did they invite evil into their home? I don't think so. Did they engage in idolatry? I don't see how. Were they sinful to have this thing in the house? No. Paul is quite clear idols are nothing. They have no power. They are simply lumps of clay, wood, stone or metal. It would certainly be wrong to worship these things but an idol is only an idol so long as you treat it like an idol.

If you believe these statues have some sort of power, if you think you are inviting evil into your home by keeping one (perhaps having been given it), ironically you are being idolatrous. You are investing into a lump of material the characteristics of God. You are making out that something God says is nothing is actually really powerful. 

Again, we may want to have a discussion about the wisdom of associating yourself with such things. But that is not a sin issue. That is not an issue of idol worship. It is purely a matter of sensitivity and that which is helpful to others in the gospel.