This document provides a critique of the book "The Lost Message of Jesus" by Steve Chalke. It summarizes Chalke's key assertions, including that God is primarily a God of love, Jesus was a social reformer, and the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is mistaken. The document then analyzes these assertions based on scripture. It argues that while God is love, he also possesses other attributes like justice. It also argues that Jesus' mission was not just social reform but also atonement for sin, and the penal substitutionary view is consistent with God's nature and man's sinful state according to scripture. The document aims to distinguish God's truth from Chalke's teachings based on

1. THE GLORIOUS, SCANDALOUS GOD:
A MODEST RESPONSE TO “THE LOST MESSAGE OF JESUS,” BY STEVE CHALKE
In 2003, writer and theologian Steve Chalke made a grave assertion. He claimed that the church
today has forgotten the original message of Jesus. In his book, “The Lost Message of Jesus,” he
proposed that the gospel the church teaches is “misguided, confused, and fractured” information
about the identity and teachings of Jesus Christ.1
Among his finer points (which are many), two
overarching themes stand out in Chalke’s book: 1) God is a God of love, and 2) there are social
implications of the message of Christ.2
At first glance, one may say, “well that does not seem so
bad,” and in fact, most of Chalke’s book is not half bad, he is an excellent theological thinker and
without doubt a very intelligent man. However, there are some ideas that Chalke raises that must
be brought into question.
Although Chalke states that “forgiveness and acceptance are made available to the whole
world through Jesus,”3
he does not immediately clarify precisely what he is implying. Chalke
does believe that Jesus died on the cross to show how much God loves the world, however, he
does not believe that Jesus died on the cross as a redemptive, substitutionary, payment for the
penalty of mankind’s sin.4
He draws these conclusions from his theories that 1) God is a God of
love (in fact love is His dominant attribute according to Chalke), and not a God of wrath5
2) man
is made in the image of God and is therefore, still inherently good and this inherent goodness is
1 Simpson, Kenny. Digest of "The Lost Message of Jesus" by Steve Chalke.
2 Ibid.
3 Simpson. Digest of “The Lost Message of Jesus”.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
2

2. 3
only “hidden,”6
3) God has no desire to punish people and man’s godless rebellion has been
punishment enough,7
4) men have separated themselves relationally from God but are not under
His wrath,8
and ultimately, 5) Jesus bearing the wrath of God as a redemptive substitute for the
penalty of man’s sin (i.e. the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement) is cosmic child abuse;
according to Chalke it would not make sense for Christ to be punished for sin he never
committed.9
On what basis are these conclusions logically and Scripturally drawn, and do they serve
any purpose other than to cheapen the absolute justice, goodness, holiness, faithfulness, and even
love of God, that all pour forth as demonstrations of His divine glory? Would this seek even to
undermine the very point of Christ’s atoning work on the cross? By 1) addressing the assertions
of Steve Chalke, 2) handling them in the light of Scripture, and 3) viewing what the Bible itself
ultimately has to say about the nature of God, His relationship with man, and the atoning work of
Jesus Christ, it is the hope that one will be able to filter out what is God’s truth, and what is false
teaching.
The Attributes of God, The Nature of Man, and Their Implications
God is a God of love (1 John 4:8, ESV), Steve Chalke is right;10
however, God, being the other
attributes that He is (the ultimate in glory (Eph 1:17), holiness (Rev 4:8), power (1 Chr 29:11),
peace (2 Thes 3:16), faithfulness (1 Cor 10:13), patience (2 Pet 3:9), goodness (Ps 31:19), truth
(Ps 119:160), justice (Isa 30:18), grace (Eph 2:8), mercy (Rom 12:1-2), and so forth), is not a
6 Ibid., 67.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., 182.
10 Simpson. Digest of “The Lost Message of Jesus”.

3. 4
pushover. Not to say Chalke is wrong in claiming that God is love, but he misses the glory of
God, and the great love that is able to pour forth as a result. It would be a grave, misleading, and
foolish error to forgo what all of the other attributes of God demand for the sake of what His love
(as Steve Chalke purports) desires.
Man was once good. He is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26, 27) and although the
image of God in man is not gone, it has been marred by original sin in many ways (Eccl 7:29;
Rom 5:12). So although man still in many ways bears God’s image, absolute holiness and
goodness is not among them. This is man’s chief problem; not that he is unkind to his neighbor
(a byproduct of sin) but that he is the furthest thing from holy and righteous in the sight of God
(Rom 3:10-18). Steve Chalke would have his readers believe it is a mistake to think that man is
evil to his core and neck deep in sin, and he would rather mankind be seen as, “bathed in original
goodness, however hidden it may have become.”11
However, this completely goes against what
Scripture has to say about the nature of man’s total depravity. According to Scripture, all have
sinned and fall short of God’s glory (Rom 3:23), and his mind, which is hostile to God, is
incapable of submitting to Him on its own (Rom 8:7).
That being said, the response to the issue that Chalke raises is not a matter of whether or
not God “desires” to punish people. His attributes of justice and righteousness, which are even
the very foundations of His throne (Psalm 97:2), demand that out of His holiness, God will
punish any disobedience or rebellion against Himself (Deut 11:26-28; Job 34:11; Pro 24:12; Rom
2:6; 6:23). This does not make God heartless, it makes Him holy and righteous (Psa 7:11; 2 Thes
1:5), the infinite nature of which the finite mind of man cannot comprehend (Eccl 3:11; Rom
11:34; 1 Cor 2:9-11, 16).
11 Chalke. The Lost Message of Jesus, 67.

4. 5
In regard to Chalke’s quotation of Henri Nouwen, remarking that men have, “already
been punished excessively by their own inner and outward waywardness,”12
history would
suggest otherwise. Until convicted by God, men by in large feel no shame or pain for their sin.
The curse of sin affects every area of humanity, and leads to progressively greater and greater
states of disarray, decay, and delusion (Rom 1:21-32). One might consider the period of time that
lapsed between the initial fall of man in Genesis 3, and the state of man’s depravity in the days of
Noah in Genesis 6. Verses 5-12 mentions how the depravity of man had only increased, and the
Lord saw that it had come to a point where man’s wickedness was so great, and every intention
of a man’s heart was only continual evil (Gen 6:5-12), and therefore, God determined that He
would destroy the earth. Men, by way of sinful nature, continue in folly until God steps in and
does something about it. If men felt shame for their sin or naturally saw their inherent and
external waywardness as wrong and felt it as even slight punishment, the logical conclusion of
man would be to stop what he is doing.
Having established that man is indeed, marred by sin to the core, and even the spiritual
image of God (holiness) in him is afflicted, it would be a foolish thing to say that sinful man is
not under God’s wrath, especially considering what Scripture has to shed on the subject. Romans
1:18 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who by their own unrighteousness suppress the truth.” As long as man
is in sin he is living in disobedience to the commands of God, and according to Ephesians 5:6,
“... the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”
Chalke’s Mission of Jesus
12 Ibid.

5. 6
Chalke’s suggestion that Jesus was a “social reformer” of sorts is not an uncouth one.
Jesus certainly came to show people how to live as citizens of the kingdom of God (Matt 5-7),
both in how man relates to God and those around him (Matt 22:37-40). However, a simple
“socio-political revolution” would not undo man’s sinfulness.
Considering what was mentioned of God regarding His holiness, as long as man is under
sin, he is spiritually dead, and unholy (Rom 2:14-15; 5:12; Eph 2:1-2). Because of sin, every
good deed and act of “love” is tainted with darkness, and the sin that is inevitably stained on
every man’s soul is there regardless of whether or not a man does anything remotely good. No
amount of good works a man can do will rectify this and he is doomed to eternity in torment
(Rom 6:23; Rev 21:8), unless he is declared righteous or “pardoned” in the sight of God. So in
the end, what point would there be in a man living “rightly” if he and everyone around him are
doomed to suffer for all eternity? That point being made, no socio-political revolution would
mean anything without Christ’s righteous life, death for all sin, resurrection to defeat death
(spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional), and ascension to return to His rightful place at the
right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 12:2). There would be no point in Jesus
simply revolutionizing the way one lives if he did not also die on the cross as the propitiation for
sin (1 John 4:10). Sin demands a sacrifice, because at its absolute core, it is defiance and
rebellion against God through pride. Due to the nature of sin being rebellion against God, and the
fact that legal action must be taken by God in response, a price must be paid for sin (Rom 6:23).
At the heart of Steve Chalke’s theology is a heresy that long predates Chalke himself. The
heresy that underlies this book is known as the Socinian Theory of Atonement.13
It is under this
notion that Chalke rejects the Penal Substiutionary Theory of Atonement, calling it, “cosmic
13 Porter, James. Systematic Theology II, 14.

6. 7
child abuse.”14
This a basic belief of Unitarian congregations, and proposes that Christ’s death
ultimately does nothing more than provide an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to
be obedient.15
This says that the only thing necessary for atonement is total love for God, and that
atonement gives inspiration that such love is attainable by human effort (works-based
salvation).16
This theory (as Chalke likewise asserts) suggests that man is spiritually alive, and
Christ’s death was a symbol of love, and an example of obedient faith, which in theory (of the
theory), will inspire man to live in a way that honors God, because his heart will be softened by
God’s love.17
This theory completely stands in opposition to Scripture by its suggestions and yet
Steve Chalke seems to stand by it, knowingly or not.
The Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement
According to Wayne Grudem, Penal Substitutionary Atonement can be defined as, “...Christ’s
death was “penal” in that he bore a penalty when he died. His death was also a “substitution” in
that he was a substitute for us when he died.”18
By way of natural law and logical reasoning,
imputed to us by God, one might deduce that if God is holy (Lev 20:26; 1 Pet 1:16), righteous
(Ps 36:6; Isa 5:16), true (Jer 10:10), and just (2 Thes 1:6), then because of God’s holiness,
anything that is unholy cannot be in His presence (Hab 1:13; Isa 6:5). Because of God’s justice,
by way of His holiness, any disobedience or rebellion against Him is a rebellion against His
righteousness, in other words, telling God He is wrong, which in turn would conflict with the
fact that He is true. He is therefore righteous, by virtue of His justice, in His wrath and
judgments (Rom 3:4). Any act of rebellion against God is sin, or missing His absolute standard
of perfection and holiness (1 John 3:4, 5:17). The wages of sin is death (physical, emotional,
14 Simpson. Digest of “The Lost Message of Jesus”.
15 Porter, James. Systematic Theology II, 14.
16 Ibid.
17 Porter, James. Systematic Theology II, 15.
18 Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 579.

7. 8
mental, spiritual) (Rom 6:23). If any man is sinful, he is held under the penalty (wages) of sin,
which is death. Man is sinful, because in one way or another, he calls God a liar in his actions,
thoughts, and motives by denying God’s holiness, righteousness, truth, and justice (Rom 3:23).
Therefore, because God is holy, righteous, true, and just, it is right for man to die for the sins he
has committed. If all of the above is true, then it makes every bit of logical sense and would not
make God unjust in punishing the world for sin. But then comes the one illogical truth which has
baffled the minds of theologians and thinkers for ages, is the very crux of the Gospel, and sadly
also the point Chalke blindly breaks over: God showing grace to sinners and allowing His wrath
to pass over the sins of mankind, and onto the life of His Son, Jesus, the ultimate, once-and-final
penal substitutionary sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:12-14). In fact, for a man who so strongly stresses
the love of God, it would be foolish for Steve Chalke to overlook the heart of God in being so
willing to pay the very debt that was owed to Himself. His wrath and love worked together; the
consequences for sin could not go unpaid, and God could likewise not stand to be separate from
His creation. But “God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in
him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). If one thinks it out logically, he will
have to come to the conclusion, “What was God thinking?! This does not make sense!” This was
the exact point Paul was making in 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 when he said,
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being
saved it is the power of God...Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where
is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since,
in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God
through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs,
and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and
folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God and the wisdom of God... But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the
wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low
and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so
that no human being may boast in the presence of God. (emphasis added)

8. 9
God is loving, because God is love (1 John 4:7, 8). But God is not just love; He is merciful and
gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (Ps 145:8, emphasis added). Yet because
Chalke gets so caught up in God’s wrath worked out in Christ crucified, and cannot bear to see
(as he sees it) the insanity of a guiltless man being stuck on a cross by a vicious and wrathful
God to suffer for sins he did not commit (as if it were against Christ’s will) as true, He stumbles
over the cross of Christ and fails to see that God is even more loving than he thought.
Perhaps Steve Chalke skipped over the portion in the Gospel of John where Jesus
addresses his disciples and says, “...for this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my
life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I
have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received
from my Father” (10:17, 18). Jesus himself, although he was very much God, Himself, did not
consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself from his rightful place of
authority, as God, took on a servants heart and attitude, and humbled himself by becoming
obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:6-8, emphasis added). The author of
Hebrews supports the notion that Christ died as a substitutionary redemptive sacrifice on behalf
of sins, not only as a symbolic example of a life of obedience (Heb 10:1-18). Jesus’ most beloved
disciple, John, the one who was closer to him than any man who ever walked the earth, even
testifies: “In this, the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His only Son into
the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He
loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:9, 10). Jesus Himself,
testifies that this was his great, humble pleasure and choice to die on behalf of man’s sin so that
some might have a relationship with God, “greater love has no one than this, that someone lay
down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

9. 10
Conclusion
By honestly and diligently digging through Scripture, one might infer that Chalke does not
understand the whole message of the Gospel. God is a God of love, but also a God of glory,
justice, wrath (when necessary), truth, holiness, and righteousness. There are indeed social
implications of the sinless life (so that an unblemished sacrifice could be provided),
substitutionary death (for the penalty of sin to be paid), resurrection (so that the power of not
only sin, but its consequential death might be overcome, also), and ascension (so that Christ
would rejoin God at his rightful place, and that one day we might ascend with him into glory).
Because of the great love that God showed by allowing Himself to be murdered on a cross for
the sake of their sin, men might be rejoined with God if they recognize this atoning work as for
their sin, and acknowledge His Lordship. The byproduct of this is a social revolution fueled by
the Spirit of God that enables men who still sin (but are no longer under its power) to live in a
way that honors God. By way of his sacrifice, Jesus’ kingdom has come.
The Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement does not make God a “cosmic child
abuser.”19
However, God showing this unearned, unnecessary, and unthinkable grace to mankind
is a great travesty. Indeed, what in all creation would make a God, absolutely holy, righteous in
His judgments, and true in every way, give Himself up as a sacrifice for sin, calling man—the
very creation that called Him a liar, spat in His face, and above all murdered Him—His friend?
Ultimately, to bring glory to Himself, because, quite simply, he is above all and can do what He
pleases (Ps 135:5-7) and it was in His own good pleasure to do so (Isa 53:4, 10).20
The
coincidental beauty and seeming insanity that pour forth from the glory of God lead to a
19 Chalke. The Lost Message of Jesus, 182.
20 Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. (Sisters, Oreg.: Multnomah, 2003), 40.

10. 11
remarkable notion. He is a God so glorious that if He loves His creation, He will see it fit to go to
scandalous lengths to prove it.