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).