Voices: Three responses to The Widening of God’s Mercy

Like many, I greeted with great anticipation the announcement several months ago of Richard Hays’ newest book, The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the Biblical Story, cowritten with his son Christopher. Those waiting for its release knew his forthcoming book would present a change of position on same-sex sex. Hays’ earlier book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, published in 1996, set the bar for traditional Christian ethics. So, I wanted to see what led Hays to change his position.

I have read a library-worth of books arguing for and against affirmation of same-sex sex. It doesn’t take long to realize there are only so many arguments to be made. I couldn’t see how Hays could make a new argument, but if anyone could, it just might be him.

I received the book on its release date and began reading it immediately. I saw within the first couple of chapters significant problems of exegesis and argumentation, problems that warranted responses from people with expertise in Old Testament and New Testament studies—expertise I don’t have.

I asked Timothy Pierce, longtime professor of Old Testament and dean of Wayland Baptist University’s School of Christian Studies, to examine and respond to “Part I: The Widening of God’s Mercy in the Old Testament,” and Kimlyn Bender, professor of theology and ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary, to examine and respond to “Part II: The Widening of God’s Mercy in the New Testament.”

They each provided a thorough response to their respective parts. Below are shortened versions of their responses for those who need a summary. Pierce’s full response can be read here. Bender’s full response can be read here.

I have two overarching concerns. First, both Christopher and Richard Hays jump to their conclusion. They argue from Old Testament and New Testament stories at length without sufficiently reasoning through their argument. In mathematical terms, they don’t show their work. In philosophical terms, their conclusion is a non sequitur. As it stands, their conclusion that God’s mercy has widened to the extent of accepting same-sex sex does not follow from their argument. Many readers will sense from the lengthy discussion of biblical texts with no mention of the subtitled content that something is amiss, and they would be right.

Second, the duo’s argument is based on an open canon, not necessarily of Scripture, but of divine law. The Latter-day Saints call this idea, foundational to their doctrine, “continuous revelation,” a position considered outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. The conclusion the authors attempt to reach requires going beyond the text of Scripture farther than any of their examples from Scripture themselves allow.

Beyond these overarching concerns are the more particular issues taken up by Pierce and Bender in their respective responses. One concern that should be noted is the contention by the younger Hays that God only arrived at a right or less harmful moral standard through the rebellion and convincing of humans. In other words, the God who created the universe and established natural laws couldn’t get moral law right without human help. Many readers will find this view of God patently unacceptable.

‘Part I: The Widening of God’s Mercy in the Old Testament’

Christopher and Richard Hays argue the Bible presents a God who is constantly widening and redefining the expressions of his mercy toward people, even to the degree that things he once considered wrong no longer are to be viewed as such. Ultimately, they argue this widening of God’s mercy not only allows us to put aside biblical prohibitions concerning sexual mores, but actually challenges us to do so if we are going to be faithful representatives of the God of the Bible.

Christopher Hays wrote this first part of The Widening of God’s Mercy focusing on the Old Testament. As an Old Testament professor myself who constantly emphasizes grace and mercy, I felt a certain kinship with his approach on many levels. Indeed, I would agree with the sentiment implied in the book that so much of Christianity has lost its way in terms of finding a path forward that reflects the abundance of God’s grace and mercy. However, I cannot in any way recommend this book.

Here, I address briefly Hays’ treatment of a few key texts. In particular, I believe Hays thoroughly abuses the meaning of Exodus 22:28-29 and Ezekiel 20:25.

Hays argues the Exodus passage contains God’s demand for child sacrifice. He argues this despite the fact Scripture in numerous places in the Law and Prophets distinguishes how one offers a first-born human and a first-born animal, and also consistently expresses God’s hatred for the act of child sacrifice.

Hays has to make this argument, however, because it is the basis for his position that just as God previously had statutes that were harmful to humanity and ultimately changed those so more people could be saved, our use of God’s statutes against same-sex activity is harmful to people and therefore must be changed to open up the doors to more salvations as well.

In dealing with Ezekiel 20:25, Hays argues the statement about God “giving Israel bad statutes” refers to Exodus 22:28-29. The problem is the Ezekiel passage is dealing contextually with the stubbornness of Israel in refusing to keep the laws of God and how God eventually handed them over to their passions by allowing them to harm themselves and their future through child sacrifice.

The order of discussion in Ezekiel makes it clear God is not saying he commanded the Israelites to offer their children, but they then took that too far, so he now has to correct that. Ezekiel is saying the end result of their rebellion was a hardened heart that resulted in actions under Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21) that made child sacrifice essentially statutory.

Grace truly is amazing. But when we dilute, diminish or dismiss the reality of sin, grace becomes meaningless. Grace is not a great cosmic shoulder shrug of God saying, “Oh well.” It’s a transformative engagement with sin and power to overcome.

Hays calls abstinence a “not viable” option and argues from the perspective that surrender, compromise and capitulation are the only way forward with regard to sexuality and the church. While his compassion and empathy are heartfelt and important qualities for us all to seek to grow in, when God has spoken consistently and clearly on an issue, it is neither compassionate nor loving to go a different route.

Paul challenges us in Ephesians to speak the truth in love. While many Christians today have abandoned the love part, as we try to correct that drift, we can’t abandon the truth part. Finding the balance is a vital temporal concern. Walking in that balance is a vital eternal concern.

The full text of Pierce’s response to The Widening of God’s Mercy is available here. A thorough reading is recommended.

‘Part II: The Widening of God’s Mercy in the New Testament’

Richard Hays is a towering international figure in New Testament studies. His work has played decisive roles in discussions of how Scripture is read and how biblical ethical reflection might be undertaken thoughtfully, a project most fully worked out in his famous study, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. The current book is explicitly stated to be a correction to the former book’s chapter and position on homosexual practices and the question of the full inclusion of sexual minorities within the church.

The chapters in The Widening of God’s Mercy on the New Testament display how God’s grace is evident in Jesus’ ministry and the later hotly contested inclusion of Gentiles within the church. Hays carefully shows that while Jesus’ ministry appears entirely novel to some, he was drawing upon earlier Old Testament precedents. There is nothing in the broad strokes of the portraits painted in these chapters that will be controversial to all modern students of the New Testament.

Hays argues for love and understanding and compassion for those who identify as gay or lesbian or who, rejecting such terms of identity, simply describe themselves as having same-sex attraction. This argument for love and compassion, along with Hays grand portrayal of God’s mercy and grace, are the greatest strengths of the book. Nevertheless, there are significant questions that arise when the central argument is examined as a piece of exegetical, hermeneutical and moral reasoning—and it serves no one to ignore these.

There are no new exegetical findings in this book. Hays states he has not changed his mind at all regarding what the biblical texts say regarding homosexual practice, which he takes to be a universal and sustained prohibition of it in any form in all the relevant passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (see p. 8; cf. 206; 245, note 2). The quiet concession of the book is that the texts opposing homosexual practice have been correctly understood by the church’s tradition of interpretation and do not allow for a revisionist reading.

The book plays a subtle trick on the reader. It argues for the inclusion of persons of all backgrounds in God’s kingdom, but quietly slides into an implicit argument for an acceptance of their sexual practices.

The Widening of God’s Mercy does not match The Moral Vision of the New Testament—or even the latter’s single pertinent chapter on homosexuality—in exegetical precision, theological depth, argumentative rigor, or moral and ethical nuance.  In the current book, the problematic texts are summarily dismissed without discussion, the doctrines of creation and eschatology are entirely lopped off, the “symbolic world” of Paul earlier argued—one in which the tragedy of the world has even affected our sexuality—is now downplayed or maybe even rejected, and the cautious earlier appeals to experience as a lens now give way to affirmations of experience’s full and unquestioned authority.

The full text of Bender’s response to The Widening of God’s Mercy is available here. A thorough reading is recommended.

Eric Black is executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. Tim Pierce is the dean of the School of Christian Studies and associate professor of Christian studies, specializing in the Old Testament, at Wayland Baptist University. Kimlyn J. Bender is Foy Valentine Professor of Theology and Ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. All opinions expressed in this opinion article are those of the authors.