Let me share with you a little parable.
A man planned to go to a Christian rally hosted by Steve Chalke. He had heard that Chalke may be a heretic, but this was mainly via things he had read on the internet. This conclusion felt overblown and seemed to be driven mainly by people wedded to opposing theological positions who just don’t seem to like Steve Chalke. The man was still determined to go and hear whether these things were true for himself.
Several leaders from his network voiced concerns that he was planning on going to the event. They pointed out that Chalke specifically denied penal substitutionary atonement (an issue the man agreed was an important gospel doctrine) and that Chalke had become LGBT affirming (another issue on which the man agreed was a matter of important gospel ethics). Nevertheless, the man had not heard Steve Chalke say any of these things directly so still determined to go to the rally.
Finally, the man was shown some explicit examples of where Chalke had denied the gospel in his own words. Nevertheless, the man knew that Chalke continued to call himself evangelical. He could see the sources highlighting these things were clearly opposed to Chalke, coming as they did from a very conservative stable. Still he was determined to go and hear for himself what Chalke had to say.
The man went to the rally and listened intently as Steve Chalke stood up to speak. Warily at first, he waited for Steve Chalke’s public address. He wanted to experience for himself this apparent gospel-denying heresy. He would give it just one go – one too many in the eyes of some, he thought.
He affirmed that he deplored the rejection of the gospel in any form and acknowledged he had been issued with plenty of warnings by other Christians, even leaders in his own networks. ‘Chalke is out to hijack the faith for his evil agenda’, they said. ‘Oh yes, he might sing some good songs and say some true things, but watch out! It would be a guise for his gospel-denying doctrine and all that this church should oppose.’
But what did the man find? The nay-sayers got it dramatically wrong. There was nothing whatsoever in the talk to which the man could object. Chalke spoke from the bible, he said a number of true things – things that even the most conservative of evangelicals would affirm – and there were no denials of penal substitution nor any evidence of LGBT affirmation. The man said the name of Jesus was glorified passionately in worship, God’s word was preached publicly and compellingly, maybe to thousands, and they were encouraged to turn to Christ as Saviour and Lord.
The man returned home rejoicing that Steve Chalke is, indeed, a true man of the gospel, one whose ministry ought to be praised and one in whom the church should delight that the gospel is faithfully preached. He went on to see no problem with associating himself and his church with it all.
In other news, I note that Evangelicals Now carried an article about a man who went to the Tommy Robinson caroling event.
He who has ears, let him hear.
This reads a bit like as if Matthew slagged Simon the Zealot off for being a Zealot. Surely the Kingdom of God is big enough for people of differing political persuasions?
If that is how you are reading it, I think you are missing the point. He who has an ear…
I’m no fan of Tommy Robinson. He probably punched me years ago before I knew who he was in his EDL days. Politics < Christ. I also think of Psalm 146 in a metrical Psalm paraphrase 'put no confidence in princes, nor for help on men depend, they shall die, to death returning, and their purposes shall end'.
I know we’re not in a civil war scenario ATM, but I’m mindful that there were Christians on both sides in our civil war. I love that John Bunyan who’d been a Parliamentarian footsoldier was in the same church later as someone who’d been a Cavalier officer.
I don’t think anybody has a problem (or shouldn’t have a problem) with anybody being repentant, saved and added to the church. That is true whether it is cavalier footsoldiers or former EDL members.
The key here is about those who are repentant and, equally, what the church should/should not associate itself with. Few think *every* political position is legitimate for the church, so we have to be clear that whilst there is room for those who may have advocated unbiblical things, repentance and fidelity may require them to disassociate from their former views in favour of following Jesus.
Yes so presumably Steve Chalke would be welcome in our churches to attend and hear God’s word. If there was a clear repentance and profession of faith we might well welcome into membership. He would need to demonstrate a genuine turning. It would be unwise to rush him into a public ministry role (and some of us might consider him permanent disqualified from that). The apostle Paul spent several years out of the public eye before his public ministry and first met with the apostles in Jerusalem. Worth noting that it is Stephen Yaxley the person not Tommy Robinson the brand that this needs to apply to. I also note that in his speech on Saturday he was clear that he was on a journey but did not claim to be a Christian yet, contra some of the claims made.
Good point. It’s about allegiance. Is our allegiance to King Jesus, Charles, Tommy, Steve Chalke or someone else?
Hi Robert it is also helpful to think not so much in terms of Tommy Robinson as a person but the brand and particularly the brand that is both political and theological or a form of Christian Nationalism. I’ve personally been following the roots of the movent for about 30 years and have done deep dives into the teaching of those who were on the platform on Saturday. You can also see the video interviews that those involved were giving off stage