The Incarnation Explained in John's Gospel

 The doctrine of the incarnation, that God became man, is an essential teaching of Christianity.  Beyond affirming the fact that Jesus is God made flesh, two questions are worth asking.  First, is there an Old Testament basis for such a teaching or is this a truly new doctrine in the New Testament for Christians?  In answering this, we should focus on what the New Testament authors said.  Did they believe that Jesus’ incarnation was ‘Biblical’ (Old Testament)?  Second, relatedly, what theological significance is there to the doctrine of the incarnation?  I would like to explore John’s answers to these questions in his Gospel, focussing on John’s prologue (1.1-18) and Jesus prayer in chapter 17.

John affirms the preexistence of Jesus by declaring the divine identity of Jesus such that, in the beginning when all things were created, He was present and active (1.1-2).  In various other statements and ways, this Gospel continues to present Jesus as ‘one with the Father.’  To state that the preexistent Son was eternal meant that He Himself was not created or ‘born’ in the sense of having a beginning.  Being the ‘Son’ had to do with representation, as a ‘son’ represents the father: ‘what God was, so was the Word,’ as John puts it (1.1c).  Or, Jesus was the ‘only begotten’ (monogenēs) in the sense that He was the one and only representation of divine identity (1.14, 18; 3.16, 18).  Or, Jesus was ‘at the Father’s side’ and therefore the ‘only begotten God’ (1.18).

This unwavering identity of Jesus with the Father and therefore affirmation of His divine identity continues as a theological theme for the rest of the Gospel of John.  It is so firmly stated in the prologue (1.1-18) in order that the humanity of Jesus throughout the Gospel might not undermine this truth.[1]  Jesus' identity was that of uniquely being fully God and fully human.  Already in the prologue, however, the doctrine of the incarnation is introduced, and that with an Old Testament undergirding.  We read,

And the Word became flesh and dwelt [from skēnoō] among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (1.14).

Jesus’ incarnation in this verse captures two understandings in the Exodus narrative, with Israel dwelling in the wilderness.  The first is that God dwelt in the midst of the Israelites in the ‘tent of meeting’ or tabernacle—the precursor to the temple built by King Solomon in Jerusalem.  The Greek word translated by the ESV as ‘dwelt’ in this verse is the verbal form of the word for ‘tent’ (skēnē).  The invisible God made Himself visible in the cloud of glory in the most holy place of the tabernacle, and He whose Holiness allowed only Moses to approach Him atop Mt. Sinai when He delivered the Ten Commandments now dwelt with the Israelites.

The second Old Testament reference in John 1.14 is in the wording ‘full of grace and truth.’  This is one of the ways to represent the phrase appearing a number of times in the Old Testament and translated in Exodus 34.6 by the ESV as ‘steadfast love and faithfulness.’  In Exodus 34, God reveals Himself to Moses, descending in His cloud, standing with him, and proclaiming His divine name.  He then expressed His divine character, using this key phrase.  God’s revelation of His character explains to Moses why He, the holy God, would go with Israel, the sinful people, and dwell among them in the tabernacle.  He would do so because of who He is, full of grace or steadfast love, and full of faithfulness or truth in His covenant commitment to this people.

Both Old Testament references in John 1.14, then, point to the incarnation of the Son being an extension of God's incarnate presence among the Israelites.  He who is the full representation of the Father because of His divine identity has come to be among us.  As God came in His glory shrouded in a cloud and tabernacled among His sinful people because of who He is, so Jesus came in His divine glory to tabernacle among us.  The significance of God’s presence in the tabernacle for His covenant commitment to a sinful people was that here the people could come and confess their sins, pray for forgiveness, and offer sacrifices for sin and thanksgiving.  The significance of Jesus’ coming to dwell among us was so that He could manifest the Father’s name among His people (17.6) and offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins that we might share in His glory with the Father (17.22).  The unity for which Jesus prays in John 17 is not communal fellowship and agreements among diverse peoples despite their different views, as is sometimes suggested, but a unity in sharing in divine glory.  This unity involves being ‘set apart’ or sanctified in truth (17.19).  It is not any unity but unity in the truth.  In John 17, the words ‘glory,’ ‘truth,’ and ‘love’ appear several times as ways to identify Jesus’ incarnational revelation with God’s incarnational revelation in Exodus.  The disciples—representing the Church—in John 17 also are a divine, incarnational presence to the world.  Jesus prays,

The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, ²³ I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me (17.22-23).

The incarnation, then, is part-and-parcel with a doctrine of Christian unity: God, who is full of grace and truth, comes to be amidst His sinful people that they might become set apart through Him by means of sacrifice (Jesus’ being ‘lifted up’ on the cross and at the same time glorified) in order to share His glory.  The incarnation is a divine work in that it is for salvation.  Just as God made His name known to Moses (Exodus 34.5), so Jesus has made the Father’s name known to His disciples (John 17.26), and they make it known to the world.

---

[1] Rather famously—or infamously—a mid-20^th c. New Testament scholar, Ernst Käsemann, failed to understand this basic theological point in John’s Gospel.  See his The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017, orig. pub. 1966).  He stated that the character of Jesus in this Gospel floats above the ground, as it were, meaning that He is presented as so ‘divine’ that He is not very human.  Käsemann continues to be referenced in Johannine scholarship as a starting point for scholars to discuss the humanity of Christ in the Gospel, thus correcting the misunderstanding.  Among any number of scholars, one might pursue the discussion further with Marianne Meye Thompson’s The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., 1993).

Review Article of 'Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church,' ed. Preston Sprinkle

 The following review by S. Donald Fortson and Rollin G. Grams of Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, edited by Preston Sprinkle, appeared in Reformed Faith and Practice.  It is available online at: https://journal.rts.edu/review/two-views-homosexuality-bible-church/.  The issue has only grown since we addressed this issue, and so I offer it on this blog as well.  One matter about which we were insufficiently critical in the review is the notion, represented by Wesley Hill in Two Views, that has come to be called 'Side B' Christians, or 'spiritual friendship.'  This view holds that 'gay' is a neutral or even positive identity rather than a distorted identity caused by sin and from which Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit would cleanse and sanctify and make righteous (1 Corinthians 6.9-11).

Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church

Preston Sprinkle, ed. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. 226 pp. $16.99, paperback.

Two Views on Homosexuality is Zondervan’s new entry in its Counterpoints series. William Loader and Megan DeFarnza present an affirming perspective and Stephen Holmes and Wesley Hill represent traditional (non-affirming) views. The book is based on the premise that affirming and traditional views on homosexual practice are equally legitimate options for Christians. In the introduction, the editor, Preston Sprinkle asserts, “No longer is this a Christian vs. non-Christian debate.” Sprinkle claims the book will be unique in that it will give attention to “our rich history of received tradition” and will have a different tone that is “respectful and humanizing” in discussing diverse views among evangelicals. The book fails on all three counts – it does not demonstrate that the affirming view can be Christian, it does not sufficiently engage the Christian tradition, and it is confused about what it means to be evangelical.

The proposal that an affirming position towards homoerotic behavior can be consistent with traditional Christian orthodoxy falters at the starting line. Nothing could be further from the truth according to official documents of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches around the globe. A study of the Christian tradition from Biblical times to the present offers an unchanging witness to the view that homosexual relationships are one of the sins for which Jesus died and from which believers need to repent and convert. Just because a handful of contemporary scholars in the west who claim to have “a high view of Scripture” have abandoned historic Christianity does not mean that we now have to accept two possible views of the Church on homosexuality. The book includes some treatment of Augustine on marriage (Hill and Holmes), and a handful of other patristic references, but the multitude of texts from the Fathers and medieval saints that consistently and firmly condemned any form of homoerotic behavior is absent. The Protestant Reformers’ views of homosexuality show up nowhere in the entire book! It is telling, that Sprinkle’s concluding essay states that since the Fathers were misogynists and can’t be trusted on women, they are likely unreliable guides on homosexuality too. So much for the “rich history of the received tradition” for evangelicals.

Two Views is a peculiar book.  The four authors actually represent at least three different views: (1) the Old and New Testament texts uniformly oppose homosexuality, but that does not count today as we now understand that this is an orientation (Loader); (2) all the Biblical texts are speaking about something else, not homosexuality (DeFranza); and (3) Augustinian Christianity has been opposed to homosexual practice, and yet there are people with this orientation who should remain celibate (Hill) and/or accepted in community (Holmes). Yet the larger question is, “Two views for which community?”  The editor, and probably the publisher, expect us to answer this at least in part by saying, “for Evangelicals”, but this truly begs the question, “What is definitive for Evangelicals?”  Indeed, we find one author, William Loader, arguing that Scripture is quite clear and unified on the point that same-sex acts are sinful, but then he argues that we should not follow Scripture on this point.  One will be hard-pressed to defend this as either orthodox or evangelical.

As it happens, however, Loader is the most “evangelical” in his methodology in the book: he actually engages Scripture seriously in the pursuit of theological answers.  Stephen Holmes, on the other hand, explicitly says that the relevant Biblical passages on homosexuality are of little value inasmuch as the discussion needs to proceed in terms of defining Christian marriage.  He thereupon builds a view of Christian marriage largely on Augustinian terms—for which he is criticized by Loader and another of the authors, Megan DeFranza, and applauded by Wesley Hill, who makes a similar argument.  If “evangelical” means anything, it means affirming Scripture’s primary authority for faith and practice, whether as a Bible scholar or theologian.

The most troubling essay is that by DeFranza.  It is diametrically opposed to Loader, whose work with the primary texts in interpreting the Biblical texts is clear and commendable.  DeFranza gives little evidence of familiarity with primary texts, typically opting to cite contemporary, revisionist authors instead (and not engaging those with whom she disagrees).  She claims that no Biblical texts address homosexuality in a way that would be relevant for homosexual marriage. She adopts general ethical principles that undercut the specificity of Scripture—a classic liberal move. She chooses a feminist hermeneutic of reading against “patriarchal” assumptions in Scripture. Neither she nor Loader engage Jude 7 or 2 Peter 2.6-13, both of which identify Sodom’s sin (Gen. 19) as sexual. De Franza claims that Gen. 19 and Judges 19 are only about violent, gang rape. She dismisses Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, claiming they represent the practice of dishonoring a man by treating him as a woman. If so, why put the dishonored man (passive partner) to death as well? She finds her way out of the clear teaching of Romans 1.26-27 by following views similarly expressed by Robert Jewett in his commentary on Romans, but Jewett at least acknowledges that Paul was condemning same-sex relations. DeFranza assumes that the passage is about the Roman aristocracy and imperial court’s sexual abuse of slaves. She is unaware of the fact that “against nature” was used in ancient literature to refer to homosexual acts.

Texts are handled—if engaged at all—as independent witnesses. In fact, there is considerable intertextuality on this topic within Scripture. Romans 1.18-28, 32 refer back to Genesis 1.26-28 and, probably, Leviticus 20.13 (see Romans 1.32). ‘Arsenokoitai’ in 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10 is surely a reference to Leviticus 18.22; 20.13. Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2.6-13 read Genesis 19 as a warning about sexual immorality. Moreover, condemnation of homosexuality fits within a Biblical ethic on sex and marriage. Thus, intertextuality is largely omitted in this book (Loader, to some degree, an exception); yet Sprinkle purports the authors “exhibit a high view of Scripture” (p. 14).

All the authors accept that there is such a thing as homosexual “orientation,” but this needs to be argued and, at least, defined clearly. Antiquity had a robust discussion about orientation (contrary to claims it knew nothing of orientation), although the more helpful understanding of sexual identity in both antiquity and today is found in writings focused more on aspects of “desire.” Loader’s acceptance of “homosexual orientation” leads him to dismiss the Biblical texts as outdated or irrelevant.  Holmes, on the other hand, takes a wildly postmodern turn, saying that homosexual orientation is “locally” true for the west.

Loader rightly points out that Paul believes that sinful desires, not just acts, are condemned.  Yet no author engages the Evangel in “evangelical,” the Gospel, which is not just about defining sin and extending forgiving grace for sins but also about the power of God’s transforming grace for sinners.  The problem of Romans 1.28 is resolved by Romans 12.1-2. Evangelicals have always accentuated the necessity of “conversion” (life change) as an essential element of following Christ. Ex-gay testimonies to God’s powerful deliverance from the deception and destruction in the gay script are ignored (Rosaria Butterfield, Christopher Yuan, David Kyle Foster, et.al.). It seems the authors are in some sense embarrassed by the Gospel, or don’t believe it. Life transformation is Christianity 101 – sinners powerfully transformed by the Spirit towards Christlikeness. It is no wonder that the Anglican bishops of the Global South have called the affirming position on homosexuality a “false gospel.” Affirming any incidence of homoerotic behavior as compatible with Christian profession is a modern, Western, sectarian innovation.

Liberal Protestant churches for decades have tried to persuade evangelicals in their denominations to affirm homosexual practice. Zondervan’s Two Views on Homosexuality attempts to argue the same point through its advocacy of inclusion. The most important value appears to be, “unity is better than orthodoxy.” In this new scheme, biblical teaching on human sexuality and sexual ethics practiced by the church for two millennia count for little; what matters most is that one is tolerant of others.

Hill and Holmes represent the evangelical/orthodox view reasonably well. Hill self-identifies as a celibate gay Christian, but acknowledges his Christian identity as primary. He exegetically walks through OT and NT texts on marriage and homosexuality faithfully, focusing his attention on Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. Hill’s encouragement of non-sexual “spiritual friendship” in the monastic tradition is helpful. Holmes unique contribution is the extended explanation of Augustine’s teaching on the goodness of marriage. He critiques traditionalists for their departure from the Augustinian heritage by their acceptance of contraception and remarriage after divorce – an argument worthy of reflection.

There is an attempt through this work to spread the evangelical tent widely enough to include contradictory views on homosexual practice.  Hill and Holmes reject this but, by their inclusion in the work, are co-opted by Zondervan and Sprinkle into their advocacy of a “two views” perspective.  It is not clear that every author in the book would consider himself or herself an evangelical.  Zondervan Press has now published three books by Sprinkle, along with Alan Chambers’ My Exodus: Leaving the Slavery of Religion, Loving the Image of God in Everyone (2015).  A similar effort to revise evangelicalism has been mounted in the United Kingdom, finding expression last year as well with Journeys in Grace and Truth, ed. Jayne Ozanne.  The real development we are witnessing, however, is not toward two evangelical views on homosexuality but the attempt to undermine a historically orthodox movement.

Agreeing to disagree in a “respectful and humanizing” tone sounds pious, but it is misguided and unloving. It is never loving to confirm people in their sin – this is pastoral malpractice. It’s time for the Church to rebuke professing Christians who have embraced this false teaching about homosexuality. We should pray for them to repent and return to the catholic, orthodox faith. This is not a matter over which Christ’s followers may differ – it will incur the wrath of God. Jude wrote to early Christians urging them to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” and warning them about those who “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (vv. 4-5). And what historic example did Jude use? He wrote, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of fire” (Jude 3-7, ESV). Following the commands of Holy Scripture, the ancient catholic church and the Protestant Reformers did not tolerate homoerotic behavior among those who profess faith in Christ. With this orthodox faith, all true evangelicals will say, “Here we stand.”

 By S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, who are co-authors of Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016).

A Spirit of Endless Disagreement? Bishop Chessun's Suggestion

 As bishops in the Church of England emerge with statements promoting same-sex blessings or marriage in preparation for a change of view for the Church next year, I find it interesting that they point the faithful to relevant Biblical texts that uncover the truth despite their misuse of the texts.  Two weeks earlier we had the bishop of Oxford, Stephen Croft, try to apply Jesus’ comment about knowing a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7.15-23) to the alleged ‘good fruit’ that comes from homosexual partnerships.[1]  Jesus’ statement was actually about false prophets who misguide people by urging them to live against God’s will.  The passage actually spoke rather well to the misguidance the bishop of Oxford was giving as a false prophet teaching against Biblical sexuality and marriage.

Now we have the statement by the bishop of Southwark that obliquely references only a single Biblical text, but a relevant one for orthodox Christians.  Bishop Christopher Chessun’s concern is for the Church to be a ‘safe place for all,’ meaning an inclusion of opposing views on sexuality and marriage.[2]  (One is awkwardly reminiscent of Paul’s call, in regard to the man openly living in sin with his father’s wife, for the church to deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, 1 Corinthians 5.5, or the danger of guilt and punishment by God for those partaking of the Lord’s Table unworthily, 1 Corinthians 11.27.)  Divergent views are acceptable in the Church because, Bishop Chessun avers, views on sexuality are not pertinent to the Church’s mission.[3]  (Again, awkwardly, one is reminded that our calling as God’s people entails not being conformed to the passions of our former ignorance but being holy in all our conduct, 1 Peter 1.14-15.)  For the Church to make a clear and definitive statement on what it believes about marriage—something it has actually done since the beginning—would be wrong, he insists:

It is not a Bishop’s job to stifle the work of the Holy Spirit - and shutting down good, healthy and prayerful conversations is a sure sign that the Spirit, who enlightens our God-given reason, is being silenced.

Apparently, the Spirit is now the Spirit of good conversation despite what He said about sexuality and marriage in the Scripture He inspired, and apparently He is no longer involved in sanctification, empowering believers to live holy lives.  For Bishop Chessun, the end goal for the Church is for it to be ‘a welcoming and safe place for all, somewhere [where] all can flourish without fear of discrimination or prejudice.’  He then offers his single Scriptural musing, ‘Anything less falls short of the abundant life Christ came to bestow (John 10. 10).’

In John 10.10, Jesus says, ‘I came that they [His sheep] may have life and have it abundantly.’  This statement comes in His metaphor about the good shepherd, his sheep, and the thieves that climb over the wall to steal the sheep.  The passage is very relevant, but not in the way that Bishop Chessun hoped, for when we look into it we realise that the passage applies to false teaching from overseers of the people of God.

To see this, we can first look at John 10 and then at the Old Testament allusions that Jesus has in mind.  John 10 uses the metaphor of the shepherd to say several things:

·       Jesus is the door to the sheepfold—there is no other entryway than Him (vv. 7, 9; cf. v. 2)

·       Thieves—those not entering by Jesus the door—climb over the wall and try to steal, kill, and destroy the sheep (v. 10)

·       The sheep only listen to the Shepherd’s voice, not to others trying to steal them; He knows them, and they know Him (vv. 14)

·       The Good Shepherd lays His life down for the sheep, but the hired hand runs away when the wolf comes and leaves the sheep to be caught or scattered (vv. 11-12)

·       Jesus also has other sheep to bring into the fold so that there might be one flock and one Shepherd (v. 16)

·       The Jews who do not accept that Jesus is the Christ are not among His sheep (v. 26)

·       Jesus gives His sheep eternal life, and they will not be snatched from His or His Father’s hand (vv. 28-29)

In these points, Jesus makes clear distinctions that speak against a blanket inclusiveness for overseers or for sheep.  The thieves and wolves are enemies of the sheep.  Also, while some sheep that are excluded will be included, others who think themselves to be included are excluded.  The criterion separating the two is devotion to Christ expressed as ‘hearing’ His voice.  Bluntly put, the sheepfold is not made up of sheep who follow the voice of the thief or who spend their blessed days in bleating about their sexual diversity but who listen to the voice of Jesus.  Later, Jesus will say, ‘You are my friends if you do what I command you’ (John 15.14).  Jesus, fulfilling the hope of a New Covenant whereby God’s people will once again obey His commandments, is calling Israel back to obedience to God.  The commandments of God, written in the Old Testament, are equally what God the Son commands.

The Old Testament allusions in this passage to the shepherds of Israel back up several of Jesus’ points.  One is Ezekiel 34, in which Ezekiel prophesies against the false shepherds of Israel who do not feed the sheep but devour, fail to help, and scatter the sheep.  They mistreated the sheep, did not go after those who were scattered, and they left them as prey to the wild beasts.  Over against these false shepherds of Israel, God promises to bring back the scattered sheep, bind the injured and strengthen the weak, and destroy the fat and strong who fed on them.  God says, ‘I will feed [the sheep] in justice’ (v. 16).  If we want to understand what Jesus means in John 10.10 by His coming to give the sheep abundant life, this is what it means.  He will do away with the false shepherds, those thieves of the religious establishment that are destroying the sheep, and gather, strengthen, and feed them.

The metaphor is expanded in Ezekiel 34.17-31.  God will also ‘judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats’ (v. 17).  Some have trampled the good pasture and muddied the clear water, so God will judge between the fat and lean sheep.  He will also banish the beasts that there might be a covenant of peace in the land.  He will make His hill a blessing, send showers of blessing in their season, and the trees and crops will flourish.  Again, the ‘abundant life’ of John 10.10 comes by removing those muddying the waters and ruining the pastures so that the sheep might feed on green pastures and drink from pure waters.

The problem of false shepherds is an image used elsewhere in the Old Testament (Zechariah 10, e.g.).  In Jeremiah 3, God promises, after restoring Israel from idolatry and sexual immorality (‘adultery’), to ‘give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding’ (v. 15).  The shepherd’s role is not to let the sheep eat whatever they want—doctrinal and moral error—but to find for them pastures of ‘knowledge and understanding.’  People will no longer ‘stubbornly follow their own evil heart’ (v. 17).  Later, Jeremiah says,

Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD (Jeremiah 23.1-4).

The scattering of the sheep in these passages has to do with Israel’s exile, but they were exiled by God due to their sins.  The failure of Israel’s shepherds, then, was the failure to feed the Israelites with the good food of God’s Law.  What they fed the sheep was the false teaching that caused them to sin and be scattered.  To gather the lost sheep back is to bring them back from exile and teach them God’s commandments.  Shepherding is not merely gathering everyone back together but bringing them out of sin and teaching them God’s ways that they might be restored to health.

Thus, John 10 is an excellent text to reference in discussions about the Church of England bishops lining up to promote teaching that is contrary to God’s Word (or the teaching of the Church since the New Testament and the Law and the Prophets before then).  It not only reminds us that there are dangerous thieves trying to steal and devour God’s sheep and sheep that need to be separated from those who truly follow Jesus.  It also reminds us that a good shepherd’s role is to feed the sheep with the teaching of God.  The abundant life that Jesus offers is not what Bishop Chessun offers, a mixture of truth and error in eternal conversation.  If one seeks the abundant life, one will find it in listening to the voice of the Good Shepherd, who has spoken in His Word, and by following Him and Him alone.

---

[1] Steven Croft, ‘Extend goods of marriage to all,’ Church Times (3 Nov., 2022); available online: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/4-november/comment/opinion/extend-goods-of-marriage-to-all (accessed 3 November, 2022).  See my response: Rollin Grams, ‘Oh, That Crafty Bishop Croft of Oxford,’ Bible and Mission Blog (3 November, 2022); available online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2022/11/oh-that-crafty-bishop-croft-of-oxford.html.

[2] Christopher Chessun, ‘Presidential Address: Diocesan Synod,’ The Diocese of Southwark (19 November, 2022); available online: https://anglicanmainstream.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Presidential-Address_Diocesan-Synod_November-2022.pdf.

[3] He says, ‘There are five marks of mission and not one of them mentions sexuality.’

How to Destroy a Seminary, 7: Reduce Ministerial and Spiritual Formation

Three challenges to traditional education--a residential, classroom-centred teaching for a well-defined constituency--come from the skyrocketing costs of education, the increasing age of the student population, and the development of technology.  Behind these practical changes or challenges are paedagogical considerations in theological education.

One approach in the current context of changes in denominations and theological education has been to double down on what the seminary offers, even if it means a small student body.  Seminaries tending to weather some of the storms of theological, ethical, cultural, and financial change are those who provide what is needed for their particular tradition, whether the Westerminster Presbyterianism of a Reformed Theological Seminary or the Anglo-Catholic education with an intensely communal life and clearly defined spiritual formation of Nashotah House.  This approach still raises questions of the cost and the availability of theological education to an older population seeking ministerial preparation.  RTS has answered this challenge with multiple campuses, some simply offering classes and others providing more community.  The older the student body, the more likely a spouse will have a job in a different region, aging parents will need help in a certain location, and children's lives will need to be considered, including their education.  Older students may already be in a job or ministry and would need to step away from it during theological studies.  This model, however praiseworthy, is not for everyone.

Over against this is the attempt of broad seminaries to attract and serve as many students as possible. Seminaries like Gordon-Conwell, Fuller, and Trinity Evangelical have attempted to attract a broad student population from many denominations, and all three have been struggling with a decreasing student body and with financial challenges for a number of years. Their pursuit of a broad spectrum of students is partly financial, being driven by the need for more students to contribute to the budget, especially as educational costs rise annually.  In seminaries that embraced multi-denominationalism decades ago, when Evangelicalism was strong, multiple denominations within a broadly defined tradition worked rather well.  Subsequently, these communities have become increasingly non-denominational and without a clearly defined tradition, since Evangelicalism itself is uncertain, disunited, and without a clear mission.  The failure of purpose and the sky-rocketing costs a seminary education have led to lower student enrollments and to seminaries scrambling to get students from anywhere--from overseas, in non-theological programmes like counselling, or in low-cost programmes like the D.Min. degree, certificates, and several options in MA degrees.

In order to address the need for paying students, another driving force in the broad seminaries is the often uncritical embrace of technology.  The thought has been that technology will reach more students, increase the size of the seminary, and thereby lower costs to the seminary (not so much the student).  If students pay the same amount for courses loaded online and administered by tutors and adjuncts, the seminary can save money on a lower, full-time faculty.  If a seminary does not offer residency, especially in hot or cold climates, it can save costs.  Sometimes this reasoning is expressed in missional terms that the seminary wants to reach more people and train for more ministries than pastoral ministry, but it seems that the budget is the main factor driving paedogogy.

There are multiple other factors involved in any seminary's discussion of its mission, use of technology, and finances.  As I understand things, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, for example, is being led by its administration and a significant number of faculty to embrace: (1) an increasingly progressive version of Evangelicalism, which, among other things, assumes that multiculturalism is a virtue; (2) an eagerness for international engagement thought to enrich ministerial training on the grounds that diversity is a virtue (not so much in the interest of old-fashioned missionary work): (3) a celebration of denominational and non-denominational multiplicity among students and faculty, which is thought to provide a richness to the classroom and whatever other community is possible in non-residential education (the seminary is trying to sell its residential campus), and (4) a privileging of minorities on the grounds that the West's secular virtues of diversity, equity, and inclusion provide a social justice that is also Christian.  This is what happens when a broad seminary cannot keep its identity in the face of cultural winds, becomes theologically and missionally confused, and encounters hard, financial realities.  It inevitably sees its hope in increasing its diminishing student numbers and turns hopefully to technology to save it, even as it seeks to sell its residential campus.  

Technology can enhance education, including theological education.  An online library greatly improves library access, and electronic research speeds research up such that students may consult a greater number of resources.  When lectures can be viewed asynchronously, students can repeat a lecture or part of a lecture, work it into their schedule, study part-time, and more students can access the lectures.  Using Zoom for interaction with fellow students or with professors also has benefits, though some people benefit more from in-person interaction.  Technology is not the issue; use of technology is, especially when paedogogy is discussed more from a financial perspective than anything else.  As seminary administrators think about using technology to cut costs, they wrestle away course material produced by professors, making it their material to administer year upon year at less cost to the seminary.

Some issues with technology are that it has democratised lecture input (there are great lectures available online), library access (even apart from paid library subscriptions, a tremendous amount of primary source and quality material is now available online), and academic dialogue (especially as postmodernity places more value in discussion over lectures).  This raises the question, 'Do people need to pay for a seminary education with these resources?'  The answer is, 'No,' if one continues to consider the seminary as a place to go to get quality lectures and have access to a good library.  I would suggest, however, that technology has potentially changed the value of the seminary from 'lecture-learning' to academic tutoring, ministerial mentoring, and spiritual formation.  If so, the answer is, 'Yes, people need the seminary.'

Academic tutoring is possible using Zoom, and moving the classroom lecture to the online lecture allows the professor to focus more on tutoring small groups of students, shaping them intellectually.  The use of technology by placing lectures online for asynchronous access allows professors to focus more on academic formation, somewhat similar to the old Oxford and Cambridge approach to undergraduate education, where students may or may not attend lectures but must show up for tutorials in the professor's office.  Instead of the 'content dump' of a lecture (and that is a good thing so far as it goes), academic study also includes learning to analyse, critique, and articulate material.  That is better done in tutorials.

The changing nature of the seminary also allows everyone to rethink pastoral theology or 'practical theology' (a confusing concept if ever there were one).  One of the most bizarre aspects of theological education in seminaries has been the study of ministry in a classroom.  This ought to be done as reflective learning or work integrated learning.  Students ought to learn ministry on ministry teams guided by a stellar mentor.  Reading, planning, practicing, mentoring, and reflecting can all be part of this educational process.  If denominations took back this training from the seminaries or worked hand-in-hand with them, this would reduce the costs of the degree, the need for ministry professors cutting into the budget, and the disconnect between the seminary and actual ministry.

A significant problem in seminaries is spiritual formation, which is very difficult to define the more one opens up seminary training to a broad spectrum of students.  The use of technology only creates greater challenges along these lines.  How can spiritual formation take place through online learning and whatever community is formed by online interaction?  Also, a seminary of any sort that tries to hold chapel services for a broad student body ends up with a very generic, bland service along the lines of 3 songs and a sermon Evangelicalism.  In fact, chapel services may well undermine spiritual formation in the seminary.  If Progressive Evangelicalism has a hand in the matter, 'desiring God' is replaced with lectures from public theology activists.  Add to these challenges 'online worship,' and the problem of spiritual formation through chapels is only worsened.  This is only one area of spiritual formation, to be sure, but it is a significant area traditionally for residential seminaries.

My own view is that the seminary has a significant role to play in ministerial training.  It can and should embrace technology, but use it wisely.  The seminary should pare down what it offers to a classical curriculum of Bible (including Biblical languages), Church History, Theology (preferably historical theology), and Ethics.  It is very difficult to offer these courses in any other context than a seminary.  However, technology can be used in a variety of ways, including locating quality lectures on learning servers for asynchronous acquisition of information, just as with the reading.  The new piece ought to be small tutorials with the professor, whether on Zoom or in person.  

Second, denominations ought to define ministry sites for students, as doctors plan rotations for their medical students.  Students should contribute to ministry while learning to do ministry, and this should take place either outside the ministry curriculum of the seminary altogether or with a significant role given to the denomination.  

Third, spiritual formation needs to be approached within the denomination or tradition of the student rather than outside it, which is why broad seminaries typically provide very poor spiritual formation.  As with ministry training, spiritual formation would best be conducted by the denomination.  My concern here is that a certain type of personality, not always one to be commended, tends to gravitate towards such a role, and so the denomination needs to take care that it has thought through what spiritual formation actually means and how to provide this well.  It should not simply entrust this to an individual.  What is certain, however, is that online spiritual formation can only achieve certain things and will be inadequate for what is really needed.  Some spiritual disciplines are developed outside community, while others require community. The community does not have to be a seminary community. The denomination needs to define this clearly for its ministers.  It may develop communal, spiritual formation through camps and conferences, even with online education for the rest of the curriculum.  It can form other spiritual communities, such as Bible study, prayer, encouragement, etc.

This conversation could be greatly expanded.  The primary suggestion offered here is that, whether a broad, residential seminary or an online degree programme, there are problems for ministerial and spiritual formation.  Technology is not a way to put what traditional theological education has been online.  The value of the seminary's contribution to ministerial training needs to change somewhat, such as the focus on the classroom changing to the professor's tutorial sessions, ministry classes changing to ministry sites and reflective learning, and spiritual formation changing because the denomination takes this over.  (This is one of serval reasons that the non-denominational church movement is so problematic.  It is understandable that churches are left standing alone after the debacle of the mainline denominations, but the mission of the Church cannot be accomplished without greater unity and participation in ministry.)  However seminaries proceed in these times of increasing financial challenges and with developing technology, the true value of the seminary will be in greater personal engagement and formation than even what has been offered on most residential campuses.  The sad state of the mainline denominations after many years of residential education and that of Evangelicalism attest to the need to rethink what the seminary contributes and what the denomination contributes to forming ministers.  Simply duplicating the seminary of yesterday online is not the solution, especially when it reduces ministerial and spiritual formation.

Once the Revisionist Wars Are Over, Then What?

 

The catalyst for the break-up of Protestant, mainline denominations in the past fifty years in the West has been the acceptance of non-Christian views on sexuality, particularly homosexuality and now transgenderism.  The United Methodist Church is drawing out their break-up as long as possible, apparently to allow time to reshuffle ministers so that the orthodox are removed from the prize churches.  The Church of England, it appears, will finally get off the fence on the issue of same-sex marriage, although it will certainly fall to the wrong side. 

So, we are nearly through with the demise of the old mainline denominations, and, with that, there will be a division between orthodox Christianity and revisionist ‘Christianity.’  As this dust settles on the sexuality issues, four issues facing the church will come into focus: the doctrine of sex and marriage, the doctrine and interpretation of Scripture, the doctrine of the Church, and the doctrines of justification and sanctification.

Doctrine of Sex and Marriage

Little needs to be pointed out for this matter, since this has been the presenting issue during the sexuality wars.  Clear statements on sexuality, gender, and marriage, the education of children, ministry to children, counselling, celibacy, chastity, ordination, and so forth need to be adopted and practiced.  Also, teaching and practice about divorce and remarriage needs to be revisited in many cases, since slippage on the New Testament teaching on divorce has contributed to the revisionists’ heresies.

Doctrine of Scripture

As to the doctrine of Scripture, several challenges have emerged in the past fifty years.  We need to affirm the following:

1. The Bible is the Word of God.  It does not merely contain God’s Word or become God’s Word in preaching.

2. The Bible is the authority for theology and ethics in the Church.  Church tradition may function as a secondary authority, but it derives its authority from Scripture, and therefore Scripture can and needs to reform Church traditions that emerge over time.  Reason is not an authority, despite what is sometimes stated.  We have learned in the battles of Modernity and Postmodernity that reason is a process applied to something else—to scientific study of things, to propositions in logic, and so forth.  Reasoning operates within a system, not outside of it, and it, too, is subject to outside authority.  In theology, reasoning is a process applied in the study of authoritative Scripture.  In the sexuality wars, experience became a dominant authority.  Doctrine was decided on the testimonial experience of individuals, and theologising was controlled by dialogue about experience rather than interpretation of Scripture.  The churches that have emerged from these wars need to reaffirm the authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and ethics.  This is particularly important as some who think of themselves as ‘Evangelical’ are beholden to the false teaching about Biblical authority in which they lived for too long.  Some entertain the idea that different interpretations mean that there is no resolution and that they are all legitimate.  Others, tired of the wars, simply want to move from debates about doctrine and ethics to focus on activism.  Relatedly, many adopt the culture’s new values of diversity, inclusion, and equity as the content of social justice and fold their faith into the expressions of such activism.

Ecclesiology

As to ecclesiology, some serious questions are looming.

1. Once the divisions are settled, how will orthodox denominations and churches relate to the revisionist ones?  Will they accept the baptism of someone coming out of the revisionist Church of England, for example?  This is not the issue settled by the Church during the Donatist Controversy.  After the faithfulness of some ministers within the Church due to pressure under persecution was questioned, the Church determined that those baptised by these ministers was valid.  For a baptism to be authentic, the person needed to be baptised by the right person (ordained) who said the right words with the right intention.  The assumption here, though, was that this was done in the Church.  After the sexuality wars, the question is whether the orthodox will regard the revisionists as part of the Church of Jesus Christ, even if they continue to say, ‘Lord, Lord’ (cf. Matthew 7.21).  Will someone ordained in the future Church of England be accepted as ordained in an orthodox Anglican Church, such as the Anglican Mission in England?  Will visitors from the Church of England be allowed access to the Eucharist in an orthodox church?  Since marriage is considered a creation ordinance, it can carry over from outside the Church, but this may be the only exception.

2. Another ecclesiastical issue to resolve after the sexuality wars has to do with one’s understanding of the Church itself.  The Church of England, for example, has attempted to be a broad Church for all in England, even though there have always been dissenters.  This was necessary if it was to be tied to nationalism—to citizenship in England.  The orthodox will not be able to continue with this relationship to the state, and this also relates to their self-understanding.  The issue was the same in Jesus’ day as Jesus’ disciples were faced in the 1^st century with the realisation that they were distinct from Judaism.  Jews enjoyed the dual identity of Israelites and religious persons associated with the Temple.  Jesus’ followers were thrown out of synagogues and proclaimed that Jesus had replaced the Temple.  The orthodox who have attempted for hundreds of years to live in a sort of ‘1^st Century Judaism’ version of the Church in England will need to rethink their ecclesiology.

3. Relatedly, the orthodox will need to rethink their understanding of the Church’s purity.  One of the most misinterpreted parables of Jesus is the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13.24-30).  Often, people have applied Jesus’ statement about the wheat and the tares growing in the same field to the Church, but this is not at all what the parable is about.  The field is explicitly said to be the world.  The parable has to do with why, if the Kingdom of God has come, both wheat and tares continue to grow side-by-side.  The parable states that the Kingdom of God, while present, is also ‘not yet’—there is a later, future judgement to come.  The wheat are God’s people in a world that still grows tares.  The point to consider beyond the interpretation of this particular parable is whether the orthodox will rediscover Paul’s ecclesiology in 1 Corinthians 5.7: ‘Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed’ (ESV).

4. Another issue for the orthodox to sort out is the pastoral care of sinners, including the practices of pursuing the sinner and of ‘the ban’—exclusion from fellowship of those hardened and unrepentant in their sin (cf. Matthew 18.10-20).

Doctrine of Salvation

In regard to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, the orthodox will need to decide if justification is limited to forgiving grace or also includes transforming grace of the sinner.  This vexing issue has been dealt with in various ways in different theological traditions stemming from the Reformation.  It is possible to articulate the theology of justification and the theology of sanctification differently, as long as one identifies the necessary relationship between the two.  However, churches that have remained in the mainline denominations too long are tarnished in their understanding of the transforming grace of God.  They have, in some instances, settled on the notions that we are all sinners after all, or that we have disturbing orientations that we must not indulge but cannot overcome, or that too much of a focus on sanctification is unloving towards others.

Oh, That Crafty Bishop Croft of Oxford

 

The Anglican bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, has this week produced an argument to extend marriage to same-sex couples.[1]  Whatever his reasons for this, his justification involves an appeal to Matthew 7.  Revisionists of orthodox Christianity ‘use’ Scripture, they do not interpret it, and so their Scriptural justifications are not their actual reasons for the views they advocate.  Be that as it may, consider his use of the following passage:

Matt. 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰ Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Croft focusses on the notion of fruit in the passage.  He says that ‘the view that it is wrong to bless same-sex unions, to allow clergy to marry their civil partners, and to prohibit clergy and ordinands from an active sexual relationship’ produces bad fruit. The bad fruit he has in view are: shame and unworthiness for LGBTQ+ people in the Church; attempts to change oneself or others; ‘failed or damaged marriages for those trying to be something that they are not’; dishonesty for those who deny the reality of sexual identity.  More bad fruit is the Church’s being viewed as lacking love and fairness in the eyes of society.  Croft then lists what he believes to be the good fruit of those in same-sex relationships.  He continues on for a while about good and bad fruit.

So, what are we to make of this?  First, one must state the obvious: on Croft’s view, for 2,000 years, the Church has been bearing very bad fruit on its views on sexuality and marriage.  He would have to argue that the Church was wrong to argue its views from the start, when these views ran counter to Graeco-Roman culture.  As British culture shifts to a post-Christian view, in Croft’s view the Church needs to shift as well otherwise it would occupy a ‘different moral universe.’  This was, however, precisely where the Church was again and again as it encountered societies diametrically opposed to its ethics and won them over to Christian culture.

Yet the use of Matthew 7 is the focus of this response.  Too often, people use some words of Scripture to make a point but never give thought to what the Biblical text actually means.  From the passage quoted above, one might note, first, that Croft skips over any reference to v. 15: ‘Beware of false prophets.’  He also does not consider the paragraph in the chapter, which begins with the words, ‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven' (v. 21).  The people that Jesus is warning His disciples about are false prophets who call Him ‘Lord,’ who can list powerful ‘fruit’ of their ministry in prophesy, casting out demons, and doing mighty works in Jesus’ name (v. 22).  One might have thought that such results in ministry would indicate fruit of deep spirituality and good character.  What, then, makes one a bad minister confessing Jesus as Lord?  What is it that is bad fruit?  The answer in v. 21 is the answer in so much of the Sermon on the Mount: a rejection of God’s commandments.  Jesus says that He will say to them, ‘Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’ (7.23).  Lawlessness means not abiding by God’s Law.  Earlier, Jesus said:

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven (5.19-20).

The fruit, then, that Jesus has in mind is whether people do God’s will, that is, obey His commandments.  Despite Croft’s clever list of bad fruits of those who do abide by God’s commandments, the fact is that he is, by any obvious reading of the text, exactly the sort of false prophet that calls Jesus ‘Lord’—as we might imagine he does as a bishop—but whom Christ excludes from the Kingdom.  God’s law says,

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them (Leviticus 20.13).

This is why the Church has said what it has said for 2,000 years—and God’s people before Christ for hundreds of years before that.  Bishop Croft is the one to be judged by the fruit he bears, to see if he is a false prophet.  Jesus means by fruit whether prophets tell people to live by God’s commandments or not.  Seldom can one find an author demonstrate what a passage actually means so clearly as he attempts to make the text mean something that it does not.

---

[1] Steven Croft, ‘Extend goods of marriage to all,’ Church Times (3 Nov., 2022); available online: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/4-november/comment/opinion/extend-goods-of-marriage-to-all (accessed 3 November, 2022).

Lambeth 1.10 Needs Revision

Evangelical and orthodox Anglicans continue to hold up Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the agreed teaching on homosexuality for the Anglican Communion.  They use this to push back revisionists who have no concern for the resolution, let alone Scripture, to achieve their agenda of inclusion in the Church of persons flaunting their internal disorders and sinful actions.  This brief post is a comment on this, not about how unorthodox and post-Christian Anglicans ignore the resolution and press ahead with Western culture's values, but about Resolution 1.10 itself.

Of concern is the second part of resolution 1.10 that states that the Church assures 'homosexual persons that they are loved by God and ... that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.'

The wording is too open-ended and permits various, heretical interpretations.  We know that orthodox Christians voicing these words mean something like, 'sinners are loved by God, who sent His Son to die for their sins, not leave them in them.' This needs clarification, though, as others can read this to mean that people coming to faith do not need to change their sinful behaviours and have no reason to hope that the power of God that saves is also the power of God that transforms sinners.  This is, at best, only half a Gospel.  

Also, the quote claims that homosexuals 'are full members of the Body of Christ.'  What is this supposed to mean?  First Corinthians 6.9-11 cannot be squared with that statement, where the emphases are: (1) those who continue in their sins are excluded from the Kingdom of God; and (2) believers, with the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, break away from that way of life.  They have been washed, sanctified, and made righteous (as the Greek should be translated, in my view).

This means that:

(a) we cannot tell people living in sin that they are members of the Body of Christ (Paul told them the opposite in 1 Corinthians 5 as well as 6.9-11); 

(b) we cannot accept the view that Christians retain their sinful identity ('gay Christian,' e.g.; cf. 'blaspheming Christian' or 'rapist Christian'); 

(c) we believe that God's grace is not just forgiving but also transforming, not just touches acts but also transforms hearts (desires, orientations); 

(d) we need an ecclesiology that more closely aligns what we say about the Kingdom of God and with what the Church is (rejecting a view of the Church that more closely resembles the world than the Kingdom or includes the world, as the misreading of the parable of the wheat and the tares has it [the field in the parable is the world, not the Church]), and 

(e) we must not speak of the baptised to include those who willfully retain their sinful, sexual orientation.  Baptism is about repentance and new life, not inclusion of an old life into life in Christ (Galatians 3.27: 'For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ').

Lambeth 1.10 managed to put a stake in the ground for 25 years (it was passed in 1998).  As the Anglican Communion becomes the Anglican Federation at best, if not a totally divided denomination, Evangelicals and orthodox Anglicans need to clarify this resolution.  The clarification needs to exclude the 'Spiritual friendship' heresy touted by people like Wesley Hill that has arisen since then as well (the affirmation of a 'gay' identity without physical intercourse, that accepts the very new notion in Christianity that ethics is limited to acts and is not about the transformation of sinful desires as well).  Lambeth 1.10 might be the finger of the little Dutch boy stuck in the leaking dike, but it will not hold back the ocean for long.

The Pied Piper in the 21st Century

 One of the children's fairy stories that left me, as a child, quite disturbed was that of the Pied Piper.  I once read an interpretation of this that had to do with German immigration to Transylvania--maybe so--but to me it was about a man all dressed up in fancy clothes and with a magical pipe marching through the streets of Hamelin and stealing children.  What a fitting image for Western society in the 21st century.  Satan has revealed their (pronoun choice!) political platform, and it is to steal our children in heart, mind, and soul.

On my mind are issues such as: Abortion, genetic engineering, transsexual sports, drag queen story hours, gay marches, enforced learning about gender and sexuality in schools, sexually perverted book in the libraries, pornography, puberty blockers, sex change operations, making counselling sexually troubled youth identifying as the wrong gender illegal (outlawing 'conversion therapy'), making prayer near abortion clinics (in England) illegal, allowing underage children to seek euthanasia without a parent's consent (in Canada), suicide, social media's impersonal friendships and negative influence, gangs, street violence, taking foster and adopted children away from Christian parents (in Europe), arresting adults (England) or firing adults (US) publicly complaining about these things, attempts to normalise and accept pedophilia, allowing boys and men into girls and women's toilets, locker rooms, and dorm rooms, insisting on our using someone else's pronoun choices, reducing the age of statutory rape, rejecting distinctions between males and females, claiming men can give birth, rejecting a binary and biological understanding of gender and confusing and indoctrinating children about this, premarital sex, cohabitation, homosexual 'marriage,' absent fathers, and the damage done to children from violence in the home and families breaking up.

The Church has much to do in the face of this attack on our children, beginning with praying protection over the children, baptism/dedication of infants, and serious attention to catechism in the faith.  It needs to start and support many, many Christian schools.  It needs to speak up clearly and directly over the noise of the pied piper's pipe.  It needs to be publicly engaged in and stand up in opposition to the institutions and forces of society that would swallow our children.

O, church arise and put your armor on

Hear the call of Christ our captain

For now the weak can say that they are strong

In the strength that God has given

 

('Oh Church, Arise,' by Chris Tomlin, Keith Getty, Kristyn Getty, and Stuart Townend) 

The Case of the Christian Baker versus Compelled Speech

 

A California court has ruled in favour of a Christian baker, Ms. Cathy Miller, who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding on the grounds that this involved compelled, tacit approval against her religious beliefs.[1]  The present reflection on this matter is intended to highlight several issues in this case, including but not limited to issues about the free exercise of religion. The problems with the plaintiff’s case are several and significant, and they need to be identified rather than rest on only one of the issues.

The court’s decision turned on reckoning that the baker’s right to practice her religion was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  This is, indeed, a point that needs to be and has often been asserted, thanks to the American protection of speech and the free exercise of religion.  The First Amendment protects both, stating:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the amendment was written, the problem in European history was the alignment of the state with a particular religious group—state religion.  In now post-Christian times in America, the importance of this First Amendment can be seen in protecting religious faith against those who would forbid it or shuffle it off to private beliefs rather than practiced convictions.

Furthermore, ‘free speech’ in America is very different from protection against ‘hate speech’ in Europe and the United Kingdom.  Hate speech laws place the burden on speakers to demonstrate that their speech is not hate speech, since anyone can claim that their speech was offensive or hateful.  The American First Amendment does not concern another’s complaint about speech but the speaker’s right to speak.  As such, it is a law protecting speech, not limiting free speech or making subjective determinations about speech.

Another issue from this case was that the baker did not refuse to sell any ready-made cake to a person but that she refused to design a custom cake for the person that would have involved a lesbian theme against her own religious beliefs.  Three important questions arise from this, in ascending order.

·       Under what law is a vendor compelled to sell items to customers? 

Is a sign, ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service’ illegal?  If vendors are compelled to comply to conditions of sale set by customers, they are restricted in their freedom in such a way that labour is in jeopardy of falling into the area of compelled service, even slavery.  Unreasonable practices are better regulated by the market, not the state, such that the burden rests on the state to prove that it has a compelling interest to intervene in the market’s free operation.  In the case of the baker, she was quite willing to sell to any customer at this level of her business practices, which moves the discussion to the next two levels.

·       Is there a reasonable distinction to be made between the sale and purchase of necessary items for life and health versus luxury items, such as a decorative cake?

One might argue that someone selling essential items of food is under a greater obligation to sell to the population at large than someone selling non-essential items of food or anything else.  One might imagine a desperately hungry person without a shirt and shoes wanting to buy food having grounds to insist that a vendor sell the food to him despite a sign in the window that says, ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service.’  One can imagine, on the other hand, a person without a shirt or shoes being reasonably escorted off the premises of a clothing store—or a bakery.  It is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove necessity, not the vendor of a high end bakery to explain her reasons for serving or not serving customers.  Cake is not a necessity of life.  Yet there is a further level to this line of argument.

·       Under what law is an artist making an income from her artistry compelled to design certain kinds of art simply because a patron insists she do so?

This raises the issue of ‘compelled speech.’  The matter is not simply about free speech but also about compelled speech.  (Courts apply the term ‘speech’ to expression in general, not just vocal matters.)  No person should have the right to force an artist to create what she or he wishes.  Should a Michelangelo be compelled to decorate a mosque because he had been paid to paint the Sistine Chapel?  Should he be compelled to do so even if he were of neither faith?

In advancing further in the argument from freedom of speech to freedom in the exercise of religion, we move to the issue on which this particular case turned.  The argument presented here, though, is that, even without reference to religious belief, the baker should not have been compelled to create and sell a cake to someone that she did not wish to oblige.  To compel a person to create a cake that involves celebrating another person’s beliefs involves forcing tacit approval from the baker, the more when the baker’s beliefs are at odds with the customer.  Can one compel a publisher to publish literature that advocates Nazi ideology or another religion with which one disagrees?  To argue that one can be so compelled is to argue not only for compelled speech but also compelled beliefs.

In an ironic twist, the plaintiff in the case, the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment, actually based their suit against Ms. Miller on a 1959 law meant to protect a business from discrimination against it because of race, ethnicity, or religion.  A ‘right to sell’ was, disingenuously, turned into a ‘requirement to sell’ by the prosecution.

The problems in this case do not stop here.  The plaintiff in this case also deposed the accused by questioning the sincerity of her stated religious beliefs.  Several problematic issues arise from their doing so.  On what grounds does the state claim a role in testing one’s religious sincerity?  Even if the prosecution advances such an argument, the court would have to disallow the argument on the grounds that it has no right to adjudicate in the matter.  It is the religious group that has the right to determine the sincerity of its adherents, not the state.  Second, in the plaintiff’s attempt to establish the religious sincerity of the accused, they weighed into the area of theological interpretation.  This, too, is outside the legitimate role of a court or the state to assess.  Making matters still worse, the plaintiff sought to establish the sincerity of Ms. Miller’s faith by exploring her beliefs through their own theological incompetence.  They asked whether she believed in Old Testament food laws, imagining that a negative answer would demonstrate she did not stand on Biblical teaching after all.  This only demonstrates that the problem of the state’s involvement in religious determinations is not only outside of their legal authority but also potentially (and, in this case, definitely) outside of their competence.  A prominent teaching in the New Testament is that Old Testament food laws for Jews did not apply to the Church.  Yet none of this matters in a court of law: the court has no role to play in such questions between a Christian and her Church.

For all these reasons, then, the Christian baker was entirely in her right.  The aggressiveness of the plaintiff, moreover, should be considered harassment, and punitive, financial damages should be awarded to the baker.  The arguments presented here have not had to do with anything specific to Christian faith; they have been more rational arguments and legal arguments.  If one were to raise an argument from a Christian standpoint, it would be that which Peter raised in the first days of the Church.  The Jewish court insisted that the Christians should not speak or teach in the name of Jesus (Acts 4.18).  The Christians continued to do so, since proclaiming their faith was a matter of their faith.  Brought in a second time to the court, Peter and the apostles explained in simple terms, ‘We must obey God rather than men’ (5.29).  Those in our present, post-Christian context who want not only to silence religious speech but to compel Christians to speak contrary to their beliefs will receive the same answer: ‘We must obey God rather than men or women.’  Thankfully, the legal system, at least in America, still recognises the freedom of speech and that the government cannot establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion.  Yet it will make no difference to those who will always obey God rather than government, culture, or any human group trying to enforce others to comply with their wishes against God’s commands.

---

[1] Jon Brown, ‘California court rules in favor of Christian baker who refused to bake cake for lesbian wedding,’ Fox News (Oct. 23, 2022); available at https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-court-rules-favor-christian-baker-refused-bake-cake-lesbian-wedding (accessed 23 October, 2022).