Probably only the closest of readers of this blog would be aware of my theological leanings which are unique; some might even say heretical. Influenced by N.T. Wright, intrigued by Rob Bell, eventually finding Andrew Perriman I have come to adopt a narrative-historical hermeneutic rather than the dominant historical-grammatical approach of modern evangelicalism.
So when offered a chance to review The Lost Message of Paul I was excited.
We have misunderstood Paul, badly.
We have read his words through our own set of assumptions. We need to begin with Paul’s world view, to see things the way he saw them.
· What if ‘original sin’ was never part of Paul’s thinking?
· What if the idea that we are saved by faith in Christ, as Luther argued, was based on a mistranslation of Paul’s words and a misunderstanding of Paul’s thinking?‘Over the centuries,’ writes Steve Chalke, ‘the Church has repeatedly failed to communicate, or even understand, the core of Paul’s message. Although Paul has often been presented as the champion of exclusion, he was the very opposite. He was the great includer.’
Given my theological journey, if anyone is open to a book about the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Paul, I am.
But this book was a disappointment. Perhaps it was because at first I was only able to read it in fits and starts, but it struck me as just not well organized or written. Despite my avid interest in the subject, it did not grab or hold my attention. I almost had to force myself to read it.
It is an attempt to popularize certain academic understandings or scholarly debates, particularly what is known as the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), but does so at a superficial level and in one sided fashion. The style is discursive and meandering jumping between theology and devotional and social issues seemingly at random. It just didn’t flow for me.
There really isn’t anything particularly new here for anyone who has been following this debate. Which brings two challenges: 1) I have a hard time recommending such a meandering and hard to follow book to someone who wants to learn about this approach as there are much better books out there for those who want to understand the debate surrounding Paul and 2) if you are already familiar with the debates I am not sure what this adds.
Those who want to use NPP to reject evangelicalism and who embrace a progressive, for lack of a better term, approach this book will be embraced. And for those who reject either NPP, progressive theology, or both this book won’t change anyone’s mind. And as a few of the critical reviews note, Chalke writes as if his approach is obvious and a given rather than a highly controversial one.
I agree with Chalke on NPP and I agree that many in the church have flattened the story of the Bible into over-simplified theology (accept Jesus or go to eternal torment in Hell). He highlights the importance of Second Temple Judaism and the problematic nature of Luther’s approach. But again, he then assumes that the only logical end result is progressive Christianity stripped off almost all its credal beliefs. It is not a humble wrestling with the challenging issues of faith today but a rather arrogant proclamation that Chalke has it all figured out and has discovered true Christianity.
When I went to look at other reactions to compare to my own, I found mostly negative reviews. Here is a sampling:
There are useful things in this book about reflecting on Paul’s context, central purpose and primary target audience – but Chalke’s actual reading of Paul is highly selective and leads not to clear understanding but further lack of clarity.
The rest of the book is mainly taken up with an attempt to rewrite the theology of heaven and hell; including a lengthy excursion into Dante’s architecture of the afterlife.
I found the arguments more emotive than compelling. They are based on a selective use of Paul, a long line of straw men and a failure to interact with a wide range of evangelical scholars who have written on the subject.
I cannot recommend this book; there are better popular treatments of Paul’s thinking. Try Tom Wright’s Paul: A Biography.
Inspire Magazine review
David Robertson’s initial reaction was pretty harsh (see below) but he offered a more tempered but still critical review in Christianity Today.
This is an easy to read, and well-written book – much better stylistically than the earlier work. As always with Chalke the book will be described as ‘controversial’ and will delight some (like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren) and appall others. From a personal perspective I found that The Lost Message of Paul contained some interesting information, provocative arguments, challenging questions and old heresies.
Steve argues that ‘all the old narratives are dead’ and that we need a ‘new story’. He blames Augustine, Luther and Calvin for getting Paul’s message wrong. But his new story suffers from some major defects.
David Robertson in Christianity Today
He appreciated the writing more than I did but I did not read his previous book so have nothing to compare it to.
This is a better-written work than his previous…but after a slightly promising start, it quickly went downhill. You will discover very little about the Apostle Paul here – and his lost message. But you will learn a lot about what Steve Chalke thinks – and lo and behold, it appears that all along Paul and Jesus were really 19th Century Protestant liberals, who spoke in an evangelical code – which remained hidden – until Steve came to reveal ‘the lost message of Paul’. Overall, whilst there are some insights, this is a shockingly bad book. Chalke speaks as though he is an expert in Greek, Hebrew, History, Theology, Psychology, Science – whereas in reality he just cherry picks and quote mines sources which support his pre-determined destination – and amazingly he arrives there. A Bible that is not the word of God, a Jesus who didn’t exist, a heaven and hell that are only on earth….a cross that did not atone and a God who fails….This is about as far as it is possible to get from Christianity whilst still claiming to be a Christian.
David Robertson at The Wee Flea
Tom Creedy offers a very thorough and critical review and helpfully offers other, and better, sources for those who want to learn more.
As you can probably tell, I can’t recommend this book. Steve seems to be surprisingly unaware of a number of books and positions on Paul, as well as unwilling to take his own advice in reading and interpreting Paul. Of this almost 300 page book, some of it is helpful (some reminders on hermeneutics, and an acknowledgement that Paul and Scripture have been abused in the past and present), but it is like trying to pick only Minstrels out of a pack of Revels (an english chocolate that is, quite literally, a mixed bag). In fact, I’d go further: I think Steve should ask SPCK, his current publisher, for the rest of Tom Wright’s back catalogue, as well as dig into Paula Gooder, John Barclay, etc. It should be revealing that for a book purporting to open up a conversation about Paul, it simultaneously isn’t endorsed by any Pauline/New Testament scholars, and in my limited knowledge doesn’t engage with some of the key voices in the relevant discussion. For interested readers, New Testament scholar Michael Bird has a really helpful list of some of the best recent books on Paul!
Thomas Creedy review
Chris Goswami at 7minutes has a much more positive view and gets at the challenge of the book. It has some valid points but always pushes the arguments to the limits and beyond and thus undercuts its ability to persuade.
“We all know the stories of the pain caused by the misreading of Paul through the centuries … to justify some of the most brutal and repressive episodes in human history … including apartheid, subservience of women, abuse of the environment and oppression of gay people”.
Steve Chalke is right about that and at the very least this book might soften some of the hard edges of the church. And he is right about the church at times being preoccupied with personal salvation: “go to church and get into heaven” is a cheap gospel as he makes clear.
On the other hand, Chalke’s “everything you know about Paul is wrong” proposal is built on selected scriptures and will be upsetting to ordinary church-goers. So, to conclude, this book is a helpful contribution, it takes some of the recent technical discussions on Paul (including NPP) and makes them more understandable to the ordinary church-goer, but I would not recommend it widely.
7minutes review
I didn’t dig into progressive reviews but clearly those who side with Chalke embraced this book.
THIS is a book that every preacher should read. Why? Once you have had an opportunity to engage with St Paul’s message as articulated here, it is “literally world-changing”. As its author confesses at the outset, the ideas presented are not his own: they represent a huge body of thought relating to Paul which has emerged since the1960s. The ideas are, though, brilliantly and very accessibly presented in this book.
[…]
This book could be seen as an extended meditation on the sentence “God is love”: “Once you understand that, everything else cascades from it. Every other category or concept in Paul’s thinking — the righteousness of God, the cross, the judgement seat of Christ, justification, anger.” Chalke quotes Barth: “If God exhibits characteristics of anger, judgement and the like they are never more than ‘repetitions and amplifications of the one statement that God loves’.”
“Love never fails,” Paul writes. Chalke speaks with the authority of someone who has dedicated decades, through the Oasis Trust, to attending to those who have been written off by society, seeking not to fail them. He argues that God in Christ does the same eternally, and Chalke quotes Barth again: “I don’t believe in universalism, but I do believe in Jesus Christ, the reconciler of all.” Chalke explains what this means to him in helpful detail.
Church Times review
Whew, that is a lot to digest! I hope I have given enough information for readers to get a sense of book, its approach and the pros and cons. For whatever reason, I did not enjoy it despite agreeing with much of the underlying issues Chalke is trying to highlight. In the end, I think there are better books out there to tackle this important subject.
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’, signs 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.
This book is dangerous, because it has the potential to mislead thousands of people away from believing faith. 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.