Last month, prominent British evangelical leader, Steve Chalke, publicly declared that he had changed his mind regarding what the Bible teaches about the sin of homosexuality. Chalke’s new opinion on this subject did not go unnoticed and received numerous responses, some of which affirmed his position and others that opposed it. Christian Today now reports that Chalke continues to defend his position. Most notably, Chalke asserts that he does not believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Addressing the charge that his position overturns Scripture and 2,000 years of church history, Chalke said he had not abandoned the Bible and that the church had changed its position on several major issues, like slavery, women, and divorce….
“I don’t think that being homosexual is a sin so to call someone who is homosexual a sinner for that reason is a category error and I don’t think it’s an error the New Testament makes,” he said.
In response to similar arguments made in Chalke’s original announcement, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, R. Scott Clark, appealed to Matthew 5:17–18, stating:
Let us admit the ambiguity in the clause “all is fulfilled” but it is clear that heaven and earth has not passed away. These are parallel expressions. The moral law, which God the Son mediated in creation, to Adam and Eve, which he announced and interpreted in his earthly ministry, is still in force. The moral law forbids all sexual immorality. According to Scripture—a point which Chalke concedes—homosexual behavior is regarded as sexual immorality. The tension here is irresolvable. Source
Thus, regardless of how today’s postmodern society may like to reinterpret God’s Word, it nevertheless stands unchanging and true.
As was previously reported, Chalke claims that his newfound views on homosexuality are a result of seeking to take seriously the Bible’s authority. Chalke’s own history, however, demonstrates that he revealed his disdain for the truths of Scripture a decade ago when he apparently rejected the doctrine of penal substitution. Dr. Carl Trueman notes that Chalke’s downward progression is an example that “doctrinal minimalism…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. SOURCE
This so-called evolution on the issue of homosexuality is one that the church most likely can expect to face more and more in the coming days. This is precisely why each Christian must daily equip himself with the armor of God as described by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6. Once well-armed, addressing these real and relevant concerns of the day may perhaps be viewed by the Christian as ideal opportunities to not only stand firmly and confidently upon the truths of Scripture, but to clearly articulate the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and repentance and forgiveness of sins through faith in Him alone.