In The Widening of God’s Mercy, father and son Richard and Christopher Hays,[1] show why they believe same-sex sexual relationships and marriage ought to be fully welcomed in the church today. This book is significant because Richard Hays has been a leading New Testament scholar for over four decades and his 1996 book The Moral Vision of the New Testament included an influential chapter which concluded that the Bible prohibited same-sex sexual behavior for the church today. The present book represents a change of mind and therefore comes with much anticipation: what new data led him to reverse his earlier position?
The concluding chapter of the book plays off Richard’s earlier book and is titled “Moral Re-vision.” Here’s the conclusion stated as plainly as possible: “To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as ‘fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (p. 207, emphasis in the original). And by “welcome,” they don’t mean only being kind, loving, and hospitable to them; they mean fully affirming same-sex sexual relationships and marriage.
Summary
After an introductory chapter, the book consists of two parts.
First, Christopher Hays, an Old Testament professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote chapters 1-7 surveying the Old Testament story to show that God’s mercy is wider than is often assumed. His main point is that throughout the Old Testament, God frequently changes his mind in favor of mercy. According to Christopher, this includes changing his mind about laws he instituted, whether he should punish disobedience in certain cases, and whom he includes among his people.
Second, chapters 8-16 focus on the New Testament and are written by Richard and survey some key passages in the Gospels, Acts, and Romans. He shows how God’s mercy played out in Jesus’ ministry by eating with tax collectors and sinners. Then he explores the idea of the expansion of God’s mercy in Acts through welcoming eunuchs and Gentiles. Finally, he overviews the book of Romans to make the point that just as Paul exhorted the strong and the weak in Romans 14 to welcome each other in spite of differences of opinions about food and drink, so the church today needs to do the same thing when it comes to differences about sexual morality.
Both Christopher and Richard collaborate together on the concluding chapter in which they state the conclusion of their survey of the biblical story regarding same-sex relationships and marriage today.
“His main point is that throughout the Old Testament, God frequently changes his mind in favor of mercy.”
The book then ends with an epilogue by Richard. It is essentially his personal confession for all the harm he caused by writing the chapter on homosexuality in his 1996 book.
Know What You’re Getting
Before considering the strengths and weaknesses of the book, there’s one more thing we need to point out. If you buy this book expecting a fresh look at the biblical passages regarding same-sex behavior and an exploration of the Bible’s teaching concerning marriage, you will be disappointed. Hays and Hays don’t engage a single biblical text about marriage and sexuality (unless you count the brief mention of the Greek word porneia in Acts 15). This seems like a pretty big omission for a book that’s supposed to be about “sexuality in the biblical story.”
If you’re hoping for new data or fresh examination of biblical texts to help you understand how the authors concluded that same-sex sexual relationships and marriage should no longer be seen as contrary to God’s will, there’s nothing here for you. They offer no argumentation for that position (more on this below).
“If you’re hoping for new data or fresh examination of biblical texts to help you understand how the authors concluded that same-sex sexual relationships and marriage should no longer be seen as contrary to God’s will, there’s nothing here for you.”
The essential message of the book is that God regularly changed his mind about who should be included among his people. He decided to include Gentiles and eunuchs. So, sex difference (i.e., male and female) no longer matters in marriage, and we should fully include “sexual minorities” today.
Strength
The authors demonstrate deep concern for the well-being of LGBTQ people and real sorrow over the harm they have experienced by how the church has sometimes treated them. It’s this concern that motivated the authors to write this book. So, while I believe their “argument” and conclusion is deeply flawed, this motivation is good. And those of us who want to honor Jesus must examine ourselves to make sure we treat LGBTQ people with the same love and kindness Jesus has shown us.
Weaknesses
This book is fraught with logical, exegetical, and theological problems. I’ll highlight just a few.
1. Assuming Their Conclusion
For 2,000 years, the historic, global, multi-ethnic church has spoken with one voice on the matter of same-sex behavior. The unanimous conclusion of the church has been that sex difference is an essential part of marriage and that same-sex behavior is contrary to God’s will. Yet, as noted above, Hays and Hays offer no argument that overturns that unanimous voice of the church.
Without offering substantive reasoning or evidence, the authors reject that longstanding, historic consensus. They simply assume that same-sex marriage and behavior ought to be seen as a morally neutral category like “Gentile”[2] or “eunuch”[3] (eunuchs are highlighted because they’re “sexual minorities” too; see p. 98).
So, for example, when dealing with Paul’s instructions about the strong and weak in Romans 14, Richard offers a good overview of Paul’s flow of thought, showing how the Roman Christians were to handle differing opinions about dietary restrictions. Then with no defense or reasoning for it, he states, “The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions” (p. 200).
Equating same-sex relationships to matters of conscience pertaining to food and drink needs to be defended with sober reasoning and argumentation. Yet none exists anywhere in the book.
If he’s going to dismiss the unanimous voice of the historic, global church, there needs to be more than assertion and assumption. You can’t just throw that out with a wave of the hand.
“If he’s going to dismiss the unanimous voice of the historic, global church, there needs to be more than assertion and assumption.”
Ironically, in discussing the decrees of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, one of which was abstaining from sexual misconduct, Richard suggests that the church today should look to the Jerusalem council as a pattern for discerning the will of God. He raises the possibility that if the church did that, it might decide “that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified” as sexual misconduct (p. 187). Yet the church throughout history and throughout the world today has done that and has spoken clearly and consistently on this subject.[4] Maybe he should listen.
2. Dismissive of the Arguments
Not only do they offer assertion where we would expect argumentation, but they refuse to engage the conversation about the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality and dismiss the whole thing as “repetitive arguments about the same set of verses” that are “superficial and boring” (p. 2).
“The debate” they conclude, “should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about a half dozen isolated texts” (p. 206). My question is, why not? Shouldn’t we care what the text says? And the fact is, in addition to those texts, there is the entire Bible’s teaching that sex difference is essential to the meaning of marriage.
Why did Christopher and Richard not revisit these passages? Because they admit “it’s relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively” (p. 206). But then they dismiss that fact by saying that the biblical authors didn’t envision “covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (p. 206). But according to various scholars, this is incorrect. Recent scholarship has shown that there are examples of consensual same-sex partnerships and even marriages in the Greco-Roman world.
So, they refuse to engage with and even seem ignorant of all of the recent scholarship on the subject of their book.
“They refuse to engage with and even seem ignorant of all of the recent scholarship on the subject of their book.”
Interestingly, even though they open and close the book by dismissing the arguments, in a footnote Richard says he largely stands by the arguments he wrote in his former book which demonstrated that the Bible forbids same-sex sexual relationships and marriage. But then says he now believes we should prioritize mercy over the clear teaching of the text.
3. Critical Approach to the Old Testament
In the seven chapters on the Old Testament, it’s clear that Christopher approaches the Old Testament through the lens of source criticism. He believes he can detect various sources even within the same books (e.g., he claims Exodus 22 was written earlier than Exodus 13 and 34 and the latter two correct the former). These sources come from different time periods in Israel’s history and offer different perspectives as God decides to do things differently.
He contends that later texts are challenging or correcting earlier texts and show how both God and his people are learning and changing their mind about things. This is his central claim, proposing that it’s now time to move on from older versions of sexual morality and fully welcome same-sex couples into God’s people today.
4. A Less-than-Flattering, Unbiblical View of God
Christopher’s portrayal of God is more akin to the god of open theism. According to this book, God is a bit unsure of himself. He doesn’t “foresee and control everything” (p. 86). The “recurring image” of God throughout the Bible is that He is “learning on the job” (p. 48).
And this portrayal of God is part of Christopher’s central claim. God is figuring out what he really wants and what that means for people as he goes along. Christopher wants us to believe that the story of the Bible is of a God who keeps on expanding his mercy more and more, so that we can now confidently believe God has expanded it to include same-sex unions. The Bible never tells us this, of course, but Christopher says we should believe it because the trajectory of the Bible is toward mercy.
While Scripture does mention at times that God “changed his mind,” that’s a far cry from a god who created humans and is trying to figure out what really matters to him and what he really expects of them. In fact, when God talks about changing his mind, it usually has to do with his response to humans changing their behavior.
“When God talks about changing his mind, it usually has to do with his response to humans changing their behavior.”
Jeremiah 18:7-10 is a clear case of this. Christopher summarizes these verses as a “prophet may announce judgment only to have God change his mind” (p. 87)—apparently leaving the poor prophet caught off guard. But that summary ignores what the passage actually says. It says that if God announces judgment against a nation, but that nation repents, then God reserves the right to change his mind and not exact judgment on them. So, there’s actually a reason why God changed his mind: the nation repented!
And that shows that God is consistent within his character and purposes, not stumbling along trying to figure it out as he goes and eventually coming to the conclusion to prioritize mercy.
Conclusion
Essentially, this book says that even though the Bible clearly speaks against same-sex unions, the church should see that God is now doing a new thing and changing his mind once again. So, who are we to “block” God? We should get on board with this new thing and fully affirm same-sex unions.
But the authors simply assume they are right about throwing out what they acknowledge the Bible says—and why the historic, global, multi-ethnic church’s univocal understanding of the Bible is now wrong.
[1] Normally in a review I’d use the last name of the author, but in this review I will typically use first names to make clear whom I am referring to.
[2] I would also like to add that Christopher presents the welcoming of Gentiles as a later development, something that God later decided to do as he expanded his mercy. But this fundamentally misunderstands the Old Testament story. God intended to bless the Gentiles from the very call of Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3.
[3] Eunuchs are brought up because of what the Mosaic Law says in Deuteronomy 23:1, the promise in Isaiah 56:3-5, and what happens in Acts 8:25ff.
[4] It’s a very small portion of one small segment (namely mostly a few Western affluent white Christians) of the global church that rejects what the historic, global, multi-ethnic church has universally and unanimously concluded on this issue.
For more from John, see johnwhittaker.net.
