Chalke is a good example: in the past, he was revolted by the idea that God could be angry with sin; that requires a redefinition not only of salvation but also of sin itself. Those who reject God as angry with sin tend, historically, to reduce sin to disrupted relationships between human beings. Sin is thus not what drives people away from God, as it is in the Bible, but that which drives them away from each other. On such an account, it is not homosexuality which is sin but the repression or coercive prevention of the same. Chalke is being very consistent with the deepest implicit structures of his theology.
British evangelical leader, Steve Chalke, has now come to accept the legitimacy of monogamous homosexual unions in a Christian context, or so reports the UK’s Independent.

This is of more than just passing interest because Chalke famously caused a furore about a decade ago when he repudiated penal substitution.

Slippery slope arguments are not always the soundest but it does seem that Christian orthodoxy, like a mousetrap (in terms of mechanics) or even an amoeba (in terms of genetic code), can only exist long-term in a stable form at a relatively high level of doctrinal complexity. Yet this is generally not the chosen option of big tent evangelical parachurch groups; and the consequent doctrinal minimalism, however conservative on individual points, is inherently volatile.

Chalke is a good example: in the past, he was revolted by the idea that God could be angry with sin; that requires a redefinition not only of salvation but also of sin itself. Those who reject God as angry with sin tend, historically, to reduce sin to disrupted relationships between human beings. Sin is thus not what drives people away from God, as it is in the Bible, but that which drives them away from each other. On such an account, it is not homosexuality which is sin but the repression or coercive prevention of the same. Chalke is being very consistent with the deepest implicit structures of his theology.

Yesterday’s post provides another good example of this: accept evolutionary accounts of the historical Adam and your claims to be complementarian look like nothing more than special pleading, playing to the gallery, or an unfounded emotional commitment to an aesthetic preference. Where such a position on Adam leaves notions of sin is an interesting point which the big tent boys probably need to reflect on long and hard. As a help to such reflection, I link here to an article from the pen of my long-suffering session clerk. Here’s a paragraph to whet your appetites:

[I]t should be clear that questioning or denying the descent of all humanity from Adam as the first human being has far-reaching implications for the Christian faith. It radically alters the understanding of sin, particularly concerning the origin and nature of human depravity, with the corresponding abandonment of any meaningful notion of the guilt of sin. It radically alters the understanding of salvation, especially in eclipsing or even denying Christ’s death as a substitutionary atonement that propitiates God’s just and holy wrath against sin. And it radically alters the understanding of the Savior, by stressing his humanity, especially the exemplary aspects of his person and work, to the extent of minimizing or even denying his deity.

I imagine Richard Dawkins would agree with that.

Carl R Trueman is Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has an MA in Classics from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in Church History from the University of Aberdeen. This article is reprinted from the Reformation 21 blog and is used with their permission.