"But Look At The Fruit"

As we've raised our concerns at Bethlehem, one common response has been, "But look at the fruit." Several elders responded to our open letter by pointing to the good things happening at Bethlehem. One elder pointed to heartfelt Sunday worship and helpful sermons. Another elder pointed to good ministry happening overseas. Another one described an encouraging Global Focus week. And they didn't really engage with our concerns. So it seemed as though they were saying, "But look at the fruit!" I'm using fruit here as an umbrella term for any seemingly good ministry happening, either at Bethlehem itself (e.g. small groups, Sunday morning worship and preaching, Bible studies, etc.) or in the ministries it has launched (e.g. church plants, Global Partners, Campus Outreach, etc.)

We've also heard this "But look at the fruit" claim from congregants, but I'll address that in a separate post, as I think the responsibilities and consequences are different when this claim comes from congregants.

It seems this "But look at the fruit" argument might be a common view beyond Bethlehem. On The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcast, Mike Cosper says, "it's the quote in every interview I did for Mars Hill, which was 'Yeah, I mean this was a disaster, and everybody knew it was, but hey, look at the fruit.' And you hear that in church after church after church." (Episode Bonus: I Kissed Christianity Goodbye, 41:00)

However, I think responding to concerns with, "But look at the fruit!" is really problematic. Here are four reasons why:

First, this claim shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid dealing with the problems. The elders are responsible to address concerns, not dismiss them, especially when multiple congregants are raising concerns. It's not ok to use fruit as cover for significant problems. Some elders (and congregants) at the July 25 QSM have implied that dealing with these concerns is a distraction, and we need to get back on mission. But caring for wounded congregants is not a distraction. It's part and parcel of the mission of the church. Jesus leaves the 99 sheep to go after the 1 lost sheep. The Good Samaritan stopped to help the wounded person. The elders are responsible both to help wounded congregants and also to fix the problems to avoid more people getting hurt.

Second, the ends don't justify the means. This is true both philosophically and biblically. If we could somehow produce 100 apples, but in the process, 2 workers get crushed, that's not an acceptable trade. Once we know there are serious problems, we can't ignore them on the grounds that good fruit is being produced.

Third, fruit is connected to the tree. It can't be considered independently. If the tree is diseased, it taints the fruit too. If the elders care about the fruit, they should really, really care about the health of the tree, because this is what will determine the quality of future fruit.

Fourth, let's stop and examine some of this fruit. There is probably lots of healthy fruit. I myself had 20 wonderful years here, benefiting directly from lots of good fruit and also hearing many wonderful stories of fruitful Bethlehem ministry elsewhere (on campus, in church plants, overseas, etc.). However, all the problems that have come to light are making me question some of this fruit.

I'll focus here on some of the fruit we're exporting. If there are problems happening in some Bethlehem church plants (as has been mentioned repeatedly by the elders), especially if those problems mirror the problems at Bethlehem, might that suggest that certain problems are getting passed down? If a Global Partner has fractured his team through domineering leadership (as we've heard), where did that come from? If BCS has a pattern of siloing and dismissing student and staff concerns, how does that shape the students who are graduating each year? What exactly are we exporting?

I honestly don't know where to land here. One extreme response would be to say, "the problems at Bethlehem call into question all the fruit." That doesn't seem right to me. That's currently where Mickey is, though we're both in process, so both our positions could change. Another extreme would be to say, "Almost all the fruit is healthy and fine; we just need to fix a few unhealthy apples here and there." But I'm not sure that follows logically from my reflections above about fruit. How can the same tree produce both good and bad fruit? There are probably many more positions in the middle between those two extremes. I don't know where the truth lies. It will probably take me years to wrestle with these things; they are incredibly confusing.

For now, I think a good next step might be this. Even if 90% of the fruit is healthy (I'm making up numbers here), if 10% of it has problems, let's examine that 10%, diagnose the problems, and then trace them back to see if perhaps the problems are flowing from the source. I don't have enough information to have an accurate birds-eye view on how much of the fruit is healthy. I can only point to the principle that if we're seeing certain recurring problems crop up in some of the fruit, it's worth considering where they spring from. And this feels like a hopeful next step, because if we can fix the problems at the source, it will likely benefit not just Bethlehem, but also all the ministries Bethlehem is exporting.