Can An Apology For LGBTQ Inclusion In The Church Be A Testament Of God’s Mercy?
(REVIEW) In these days when people state their opinions and don’t care whom they hurt, even if they are wrong, it is rare indeed when a public figure apologizes for something they said or wrote, even if it might damage their reputation.
But New Testament scholar Richard Hays, in conjunction with his son Christopher, have authored a new book, “The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality With-in the Biblical Story,” in which he changes his mind about LGBTQ relationships.
In 1996, Hays, included in his book, “The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics,” a chapter in which he defended the traditional view of homosexuality as sinful.
“Homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose,” he wrote at the time.
Hays now rejects that stance, writing, “The present book is an effort to offer contrition and to set the record straight on where I now stand. … I bear responsibility for the pain caused to many believers who belong to sexual minorities. And for that I am deeply sorry.”
Hays notes that metanoia (“change of mind”) is not only about saying sorry, but demonstrating one’s new perspective, which he believes his new book is accomplishing.
Sadly, Hays died on Jan. 3 of pancreatic cancer at age 76, so this book has become his testament legacy. He concluded his “Moral Vision” book had been misinterpreted. Yes, he believed the New Testament did oppose homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but he also felt LGBTQ people should be welcomed and accepted in the church as long as they remained celibate.
What caused Hays to reconsider his position? First, having had contact with many gay and lesbian students in his classes at Duke University, he found them to be dedicated Christians and gracious leaders, which meant the Holy Spirit was clearly at work in them. Second, he resented that Christians, who were not loving towards LGBTQ people, were using his book as a way of justifying hostile attitudes.
Hays perceived he had focused too much on the few texts in the Scriptures that prohibit homosexuality instead of putting them in the wider context of a God who is generous and merciful. What has changed for him was not his interpretation of those “clobber” passages, but his understanding of God which has then caused him to reevaluate his thoughts about LGBTQ people. The purpose of Moral was to start a conversation on the subject, not end it. Nor was it ever meant as a definitive pronouncement.
Richard Hays (Wikipedia Commons photo)
The chief insight for Hays was his realization that throughout Scripture God has changed God’s mind on various issues. With his son analyzing the Hebrew Scriptures, they point out how God didn’t kill Adam and Eve after they disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit; how God regretted making Saul the first King of Israel; how God came to reject human/child sacrifice; how after the Israelites worshipped the Golden Café idol, Moses got God not to wipe them out; and how daughters could inherit when formerly it was only sons.
In the New Testament, Richard Hays points to God allowing the Gentiles to join the church, that eunuchs can now be included in worship, not excluded; and the conversion of Saul/Paul after persecuting Christians, to name a few examples. Since God changed God’s mind about these questions, why can’t Christians do the same vis-à-vis sexuality (“be transformed by the renewing of your mind”)? It is this prime element of God’s character that should be the main interpretative tool, a God who is ”slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love.”
For Hays, all these examples prove God’s expansive, ever-widening mercy which should now include those once considered too far outside God’s love, such as sexual minorities. In other words, mercy isn’t just for sinners, but anyone. Or as Hays writes, “We should welcome sexual minorities no longer as “strangers and aliens: but as fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God. We advocate for full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bibe, but because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s mercy. Sexual minorities who seek to follow Jesus should be welcomed gladly in the church and offered full access to the means of grace available to all God’s people: baptism, the Lord’s Supper, ordination, and the blessing of covenanted union.”
The crux of Hays’s argument is that God can and does adapt to new circumstances and issues, which is in line with God’s mercy. It’s important to note that Hays still believes that his interpretation of the clobber passages is correct, that Paul and other New Testament writers, mostly due to their Jewish background, were anti-gay, that he conceived of homosexuality as one example of humanity’s fallenness and also a choice to rebel against God.
More progressive critics of the book wished Hays had revisited these verses because biblical scholars have been reinterpreting them for over 50 years. Certainly, biblical writers had no conception of sexual orientation, so for them everyone was heterosexual, so any non-straight behavior was considered deviant from the norm. Also, the Greek words used for homosexuality, a term which didn’t exist until 1866, are tied to prostitution, pederasty or pagan worship. As a result, same-sex relationships addressed by the Bible are disparate from contemporary ones.
It's hard to see who the audience is for this book. Conservative critics, some vocal in their disappointment, with some even calling it a betrayal, have already faulted Hays for not developing either a definition of marriage nor its theology or sexual ethic. If you argue sex difference is a key component of marriage then one can’t support same-sex relationships. Using Hays’s epistemology, they argue that while some laws have changed (such as eunuchs), not all laws change. One can’t look at one change, then assume others have also altered. For them, the New Testament promulgates a stricter sexual ethic (lust in one’s heart), not a more permissive one.
These critics also observe that the Holy Spirit might be offering new revelations, but they must be in accordance with what Scripture has already taught. They remark that the biggest change in the New Testament was the inclusion of Gentiles, which had been anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that isn’t the case with same-sex relationships, which are clearly prohibited within the entire Bible.
More progressive critics have said Hays doesn’t go far enough. Perhaps it’s not so much that God’s mind has changed on homosexuality or slavery, but God was always pro-LGBTQ and against slavery. The early Christians weren’t ready for the concept of individual human rights. Instead, one could say God was so merciful and patient, he allowed the human church to catch up with God’s gracious understanding of such issues. It’s less about God doing a new thing than perhaps saying He is inspiring human beings to do a new thing, by embracing the liberation God has always offered in all areas of life, including sexuality.
Hays would rebut that whether you think LGBTQ people are innocent or sinful, the answer for their inclusion remains the same: God’s mercy which he defines as “passionate, steadfast love,” one that continually surprises us. The intent of any law or teaching is human well-being and not to incur additional suffering, so one can challenge the status quo if harm is being perpetrated. Mercy always trumps judgment. In one interview, Hays said it wasn’t that God has gotten wiser, but that He has chosen to act in ways that gradually reveal the wideness of mercy, to embrace more people who were once marginalized. For Hays, the concern is more about our understanding of who God is, rather than any interpretations about sexuality.
Still, the book provides a different way of looking at this contentious topic rather than the same tired proof-texting method. He does it in a way devoid of theological jargon and is accessible to popular educated audiences. He’s analyzing previous similar examples in Scripture that might provide insight as to how to deal with areas of human sexuality today, which certainly takes into account human experience, meaning queer people see their sexuality as God’s gracious gift.
Hays genuinely sees the full inclusion of LGBTQ people as a new movement of God’s spirit, perhaps as revolutionary as the first century church’s inclusion of Gentiles. What is God’s spirit saying to us today rather than just reiterating what’s been said in the past?
Hays “hopes this book will start conversations that grow from an awareness of God’s free and merciful character revealed in the biblical accounts we have traced. For the sake of the church and those within it, we hope to persuade.”
How persuasive Hays’s argument is debatable, but it most definitely has reinvigorated dialogue on this bitter controversy and ultimately that can only be a valuable development.
Brian Bromberger is a freelance writer/journalist who works as a staff reporter and arts critic for The Bay Area Reporter weekly newspaper in San Francisco.