Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Why Jen Hatmaker Apparently Thinks I’m Going to Hell

Why Jen Hatmaker Apparently Thinks I’m Going to Hell

Last updated on: February 12, 2018 at 8:17 am by Brad Vaughn

Why Jen Hatmaker Apparently Thinks I’m Going to Hell 2018-02-12T08:17:05-07:00 Brad Vaughn

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In my previous post, I explained why Jen Hatmaker does not understand contextualization. This was necessary because she and her interviewers use language that might mislead people about what is genuinely biblical contextualization. Fundamentally, her arguments are flawed because of an increasingly popular but superficial way of interpreting Scripture.

Credit: Flickr/CollegeDegrees360

This post examines the specific passage she seems to use in order to justify her views on LGBTQ and same-sex marriage. I will first remind you of her comments explaining the turning point in her thinking. She said,

Basically, Jesus is like, “Ok, well, some things are hard to understand, some things are confusing, people are confusing; there’s conflict. When you are not sure, when there’s something, be it a relationship or a person or a doctrine, whatever, that feels ambiguous or it feels contentious or there’s tension around its interpretation, look to the fruit. Like the fruit is going to tell you the truth. Because ultimately, however you slice it, a good tree is going to bear good fruit and a bad tree is going to bear bad fruit. And there you go. There’s a clue….”

In her interview, she effectively defines “fruit” as one’s emotional response to another’s actions and opinions. At the very least, her usage is equivalent to consequence. For the moment, let’s set aside the problematic way she defines “fruit.”

What text does she use to support her perspective?

“You will recognize them by their fruits.”

Instead, consider the passage Hatmaker has in mind. It took me a bit to figure it out, but she appears to refer to Matt 7:15–20.

“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.”

According to Hatmaker, Jesus speaks about “contentious,” “confusing,” and “ambiguous” relationships or doctrines. She applies Jesus’ supposed message to a dispute among contemporary believers.

Public Domain

In fact, Jesus refers to “false prophets,” who are “ravenous wolves.” These “trees” will eventually be “cut down and thrown into the fire.” So, what does this mean? First, Jesus is talking about outsiders or non-believers. Second, these people will be who will be condemned. Context matters, so we ought to keep reading.

Jesus continues his point in the following sentences (Matt 7:21–23).

21 “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. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

Jesus’ comments clarify that he speaks of people who do not know him, thus who will not enter the kingdom of heaven. These “workers of lawlessness” even cast out demons! Such works at least sound like validating “fruit” according to Hatmaker’s broad usage. In reality, Jesus’ teaching on fruit explicitly helps his disciples identify deceivers who do not belong, not who should be included.

Someone might object by claiming that Hatmaker extracted a “principle.” However, the validity of a principle would depend on a similarity of context. Hatmaker addresses a far different set of circumstances that Jesus did in Matt 7. If she were to consistently apply Matt 7 to our context, she effectively implies that people who hold to traditional church teaching about LGBTQ issues are lawless, ravenous wolves, who will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

*For a related passage, check our Deut 13:1–4, where a false prophet is identified by his message, not his actions.

Did Jesus bear “rotten” fruit?

A few chapters later, another passage presents a serious challenge to Hatmaker’s view of “fruit.” She says Christians who affirm a traditional position about LGBTQ overwhelmingly bear “rotten” fruit, such as:

broken families, folks kicked out of their churches, …. self-hatred, self-harm, and depression, crushing loneliness, separation from God self-imposed…

In essence, she claims the chaos caused by sin is an argument against the church speaking against homosexual behavior. That is, bad results apparently invalidate the actions that led to those results.

If so, then Jesus bore rotten fruit. In Matthew 10, he says,

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Jesus explicitly says he will cause “broken families.” Does Hatmaker then want us to reject Jesus?

Do emotions make right and wrong?

By analogy, suppose a parent places a restriction on a child, such as “Do not touch the stove” or “Don’t cross the street.” What if the child threw a major tantrum and did not want to have a relationship with the parents?

Does the child’s negative emotional response count as fruit that invalidates the parent’s restriction?

Why even use the Bible?

Popular speakers like Hatmaker and Rachel Evans illustrate a trend that should terrify people in the church. Christians increasingly lack basic exegetical (interpretive) skills and awareness of biblical theology (not merely systematic theology). Seminaries and churches stress doctrine to the gross neglect of more fundamental needs.

Thus, the church divides into theological factions without any recourse for genuine dialogue.

Simply reads the following quote from Rachel Held Evans,

“For those who count the Bible as sacred, interpretation is nor a matter of whether to pick and choose, but how to pick and choose. We are all selective…. If you are looking for Bible verses with which to support slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to abolish slavery, you will find them….

There are times when the most instructive question to bring to the text is not, What does it say? but What am I looking for?” (p. 296, A Year of Biblical Womanhood)

The last line is appalling. If I applied that standard to her own statement, then she would have to agree that the Bible supports slavery (if “what I’m looking for” is a statement from her affirming that idea). In reality, anyone who counts the Bible as sacred, the last thing we are allowed to be is selective.

Selective reading is the precise problem I try to address in One Gospel for All Nations. In contextualization, we don’t contend with the problem by yielding to it. Rather, we reject a mono-cultural perspective; Instead, we seek increasingly to gain a much broader perspective, one made up of viewpoints from around the world and throughout history.

Yes, we are all guilty of selective reading. But that does not mean we cannot attempt to limit the problem. It certainly does not mean we read the Bible with only our emotions and not our head.

Contextualization

Hatmaker

Previous Post

February 8, 2018

Why Jen Hatmaker Gets Contextualization Wrong

Next Post

February 12, 2018 Two Recent Reviews of “One Gospel” and “Saving God’s Face”

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atonement Biblical Theology Book Reviews China Chinese Church Chinese Culture Chinese Language Collectivism Contextualization Culture (General) Ecclesiology Evangelism Gospel Honor & Shame (Face) Interpretation/Exegesis Justification/Righteousness Missiology Mission Methods One Gospel for All Nations Other Practical Contextualization Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes Resources Romans Salvation (General) Saving God's Face Seeking God's Face The Cross in Context Theological Contextualization Theological Education Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How did Job's friends initially show their sympathy?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Wept and tore clothes Brought gifts Sat in silence seven days Offered sacrifices

Books by This Author Books by Brad Vaughn

See All Titles »