Reflections on Christopher and Richard Hays’ book, The Widening of God’s Mercy

Reflections on Christopher and Richard Hays’ book, The Widening of God’s Mercy

Many who travel in Methodist circles will be aware of the new book by Christopher and Richard Hays entitled, The Widening of God’s Mercy (Sept. 2024).  This new book seeks to create a theological argument for the full embrace of same sex marriage in the life of the church.  This publication came as a surprise for many since Richard Hays’ book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (1996) has widely stood as a strong biblical argument against the church changing its historic definition of Christian marriage.

Their new book is commendable for its strong pastoral support for men and women who are experiencing same sex attraction. They make a strong case for the church to be a welcoming and compassionate place for all people to come and be included.  They correctly point out there should be no place in the church to dehumanize anyone, even as we also celebrate the power of the gospel to transform lives.

Nevertheless, the book has many serious flaws which render it an unreliable guide for Christians seeking to understand the biblical vision for marriage and the church’s support of that vision.

First, the book completely concedes the biblical, exegetical argument as it relates to specific texts in both the Old and New Testaments related to human sexuality.  There are a range of passages in the Bible which clearly and explicitly condemn same sex behavior (not persons) and lift up the positive, biblical vision for Christian marriage.  Texts such as Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Matthew 15:17-20 (with a parallel in Mark 7:20-23), 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 1 Peter 4:3-4, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 are examples, as well as the important passages in Romans 1:26-27 and Ephesians 5.  The discussions and arguments around these passages are all dismissed early on as “superficial and boring” (p. 2).   This is a stunning admission.  What it means, practically speaking, is that we are no longer asked to do the tough exegetical work to determine what the Bible actually teaches regarding the biblical use of specific words like arsenokoites (lit. men bedding) or akatharsia (sexually impure), among others. Instead, we are invited into a bigger theological journey where the God who once condemned these acts has now changed his mind.   There is an important shift in the modern line of argument about normalizing same sex behavior.  We should not miss the point that this is the strongest admission yet from a scholar seeking to normalize same sex marriage that they do not have a textual case for such a change.  Richard Hays’ original assessment remains true; namely, that the “scripture’s disapproval of same-sex acts was uni-vocal” and that the Bible “portrays heterosexual marriage as the definitive norm” (p. 8).  This means that our struggle against those who want to normalize same sex behavior has moved to different front; not textual and exegetical, but rather a larger theological interpretation of the Bible as a whole (hermeneutics).  These texts are now overridden by a deeper hermeneutical argument which allows pastors and lay people to interpret God “changing his mind” such that the clear teaching of these texts is no longer binding on the church. Hermeneutics is now being used to not only silence the voice of dozens of specific biblical texts, but to silence 3,500 years of Jewish and Christian teaching regarding marriage by a new, more enlightened generation of scholars.  One wonders how this post-modern hermeneutics could be applied to an endless array of behaviors which heretofore have been declared at variance with the ethical framework of the New Testament.  The book is focused on same sex marriage, but contains dozens of references to the inclusion of LGBTQ.

Second, the theological journey of “God changing his mind” over time is, by their own admission, not a new line of argumentation (p. 218), but one which they want to reinvigorate through certain passages such as Ezekiel 20:25-26, which even they concede has nothing to do with sexuality.  Rather, it is an obscure passage where God gives the Israelites over to unjust laws since they were defying his own law.  Ezekiel is strongly committed to Jewish covenantal law, so it is difficult to imagine that Ezekiel would be disparaging God’s Law.  However, the passage is admittedly unclear as to what exactly God is saying.  Some interpreters believe that God is handing His people over to the unjust laws of non-covenantal nations as a way of chastising them for their rejection of His law.  This is actually confirmed in Psalm 81, which specifically points out how Israel rebelled against the Ten Commandments.  The Lord says, with understandable exasperation, “But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not listen to me.  So, I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels” (Psalm 81:11, 12).

What is the hermeneutical rule when you encounter obscure, difficult passages?  The rule, as espoused in the Reformation and affirmed by Wesley is that “unclear passages are made clear by clear passages.”  In other words, if you do not understand a text, it is not advisable to use that text to cancel out other texts which are crystal clear.  Rather, the church has always been advised to interpret unclear passages in a way that is consistent with the clear passages.  The Hays’s do not follow this sound advice, but rather interpret the admittedly unclear passage in Ezekiel to overturn the many clear texts noted above.   According to their reasoning, the larger biblical trajectory over time is moving towards greater leniency in regard to sexual ethics.  However, the biblical trajectory actually moves in precisely the opposite direction.  Polygamy, for example is tolerated in the Old Testament, but the New Testament recovers the creational ideal of marriage between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6).  This vital text is never mentioned in the entire book.  Divorce was also tolerated in the Old Testament, but Jesus said “from the beginning it was not so” thereby reinforcing the original, creational design for man and woman in the covenant of marriage.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explicitly pointed out that they had misinterpreted God’s original design, and He rejected their looser views of divorce (Matt 5:31-32).  Adultery is condemned across the entire Bible, but in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus teaches that even lust is regarded as an act of adultery (Matt 5:27-30). Furthermore, Jesus affirms the original creational design for marriage in Matthew 19:1-10.  In fact, if a biblical trajectory does exist for sexual ethics, it moves towards greater strictness, not greater openness. In short, when it comes to sexual ethics, we do not see the kind of trajectory which the Hays’s envision.  This concept has been masterfully treated by a full-length book by William Webb entitled, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals:  Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.   The Hays’s never reference this important body of research, nor do they ever even define marriage in their book.  Thus, although they have shifted the line of debate from textual exegesis to big scale hermeneutics, they have failed to present a convincing case.  In other chapters they argue that God has progressively included more and more people (eunuchs, gentiles), but actually this inclusion was always God’s original intent, as seen in the foundational covenant with Abraham where he promises that he is choosing Abraham in order that through him, “all nations might be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).  Isaiah 56, along with many other prophetic passages, demonstrates God’s heart for both foreigners and eunuchs.  This has always been God’s heart, even in the midst of his particular relationship with the nation of Israel.   It makes no sense to confuse either “progressive revelation” which occurs between the two testaments, or anthropomorphic language where God sometimes speaks in human language to help us understand his engagement with humanity, with the kind of wholesale disruption of biblical ethics regarding the definition of marriage.

Third, the Hays’s fail to fully grasp how marriage is placed within a larger theological framework in the Scriptures.  In my book, For the Body, I have explored the larger theological framework of marriage in the Bible.  The Bible begins and ends with a marriage (Garden of Eden and the marriage supper of the Lamb).  Marriage has been designed to reflect the mystery of Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5:32).  Marriage and childbearing is designed to reflect the larger biblical vision of fruitfulness, and reflects the mystery of the Trinity, covenant in community and, through childbearing, participation in creation itself.  All of this is uprooted if the very creational definition of marriage is changed.

In conclusion, whenever Christians speak about anything they almost always have to say “two things” not “one thing.”  In other words, one truth needs to be properly balanced by another truth in order to fully grasp God’s expansive plan.  In this book, the Hays’s say “one thing” repeatedly; namely, that God is a God of mercy and He is moving us all to fully appreciate His universal embrace and inclusion of all peoples.  This testimony is true.  But, at the same time, we must say a “second thing” definitively; namely, that whoever does come to God must also be transformed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and be fully sanctified and made holy like him.  Both things must be said or we will distort the actual teaching of Scripture.  Inclusion and transformation must both be embraced.  So, while I appreciate their heart for those who struggle with their sexuality, and while I affirm the wide vision of Scripture to embrace all people with unconditional love, this should not lead us to neglect the call to holiness, or be used as a lever to overturn the clear teachings of Scripture regarding marriage.

 

 


Feedback

Please fill out the form below if you would like to provide feedback to Dr. Tennent concerning this blog entry.