A Review of The Widening of God's Mercy by Christopher Hays and Richard Hays

[@dellpurdy1299]

Based on the early buzz surrounding this work, it seems like the headline is "Richard Hays changed his mind." This is significant because his work in Ch. 4 of The Moral Vision of the New Testament was formational for many in mainstream Christianity who held conservative views with compassion for those who experienced same-sex attraction. What he did in chapter 4 of his original work is extremely helpful in that he provides testimony from a close friend, Gary, who was a Christian who experienced same-sex attraction yet "was angry at the self-affirming gay Christian groups because he regarded his own condition as more complex and tragic than their apologetic stance could acknowledge. He also worried that the gay apologists encouraged homosexual believers to 'draw their identity from their sexuality' and thus shift the ground of their identity subtly and idolatrously away from God." (Hays, 379). Gary had contracted AIDS and was in the late stages of the disease. The plan was for Hays and Gary to work together on the chapter, but Gary died before the project was completed. A moving quote from the chapter comes from Gary who wrote, "Since All Saints Day I have felt myself being transformed. I no longer consider myself homosexual. Many would say, big deal, you're forty-two--and are dying of AIDS. Big sacrifice. No, I didn't do this of my will, of an effort to improve myself, to make myself acceptable to God. No, he did this for me. I feel a great weight has been lifted off me. I have not turned 'straight." I guess I'm like St. Paul's phrase, a eunuch for Christ." (Hays, 403). Christians understandably want people to experience abundant life. Perhaps the mistake we make is to tie that to an emotion in a moment. We connect it to a state in life: two partners, kids, dog, house. But perhaps what Gary is describing is true abundant life. A life spent in spiritual discord, repenting of sin yet still struggling with it and in Gary's case physically destroyed by it. Gary had wrestled with the burden of sin and the yoke of the Lord until he finally experienced relief. Some would say that Gary was a victim of an unenlightened understanding, but perhaps the vast majority of us are actually victims of a darkened understanding of our own sin. 1 Tim 5:24 says "The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later." We often focus on Jesus' association with tax collectors and sinners, with those who were outsiders and rejected. Jesus wasn't drawn to these people merely because of their social condition. They were drawn to him because of their repentance. The problem with the wealthy, the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, etc. was not that they were insiders, but that in self-righteousness, they refused to repent.

[@chaddonal4331]

It is hard to envision a trajectory from Paul, writing in the era of New Covenant fulfillment, that would undermine his various warnings regarding sexual perversion and sin. Tom Schreiner’s review is a strong theological critique. Thank you for wading in here, with both compassion and clarity.

[@user-mm8ur9el9n]

Wow. Preston flamed this book in love.

[@dgbx6]

How on earth can you ‘flame’ the book in ‘love’? Say it’s crap with a very warm smile?

[@e.m.8094]

"Many shall depart from the truth..."

[@clarkemorledge2398]

Preston: I loved the fact that you admitted that you were scared to death sitting next to Richard Hays on a bus. Hays is like the N.T.Wright of American evangelical New Testament scholarship. I would be scared to death, too!! But this is why your review of Hays' book is so important, as it demonstrates a huge departure from historic orthodox Christianity. Hays other work on the NT is phenomenal, just as N.T.Wright's work is. On the other hand, Hays is not infallible. Your review does a great job of upholding valid points offered by Hays, and the good intention he has behind it, while exposing the serious and ultimately unacceptable flaws in his (and his son's , Chris') argument. Rebecca McLaughlin and Thomas Schreiner have helpful reviews as well. I am not sure when I will get a chance to read it myself, but I appreciate you doing your review.

[@aPLOTTERnamedKARL]

Online a few months back, while tying to determine if I wanted to purchase the Festschrift celebrating Hays, I stumbled onto a very brief but eye-opening essay by a guy named Pieter Valk. For those perhaps unfamiliar with him, as I was, he is a gay man who affirms the traditional sexual ethic of the church and practices 'vocational singleness', a concept I hadn't really ever heard of. While I agree it's unwise to have a strong opinion of a book you've not yet read, in Valk's case, make the exception. Because what he presented in "When Heavyweights Change Their Mind: Richard B. Hays and Human Sexuality" rearranged my thinking in startling ways. Anyway, thanks Preston for your engagement here, I appreciated the tone of this from start to finish.

[@rubbercrutch1]

I stumbled across that same article. I can't speak for Valk's theology on other things, but he was solid when it came to this topic.

[@chefmguessefeld]

I just recently finished working through the entire Bible. Then I explored the process of establishing the New Testament Canon. Then I examined the authorship of the NT books in light of modern scholarship. Honestly- I don't know how we can still cling to an Innerant Bible position. It just doesn't make sense anymore. Point is- instead of clinging to words written by men 2000 years ago many of which were imposters- lets extract the spiritual principles from the Scriptures and strive to be better neighbors. When it comes to same-sex marriages and all things gay/transgender- just apply the heterosexual guidelines to the other sexual identifications and move forward. We didn't have the Bible for the first 400 years after Christ. It wasn't until the printing press that people could even get a Bible. Why is everything Bible this and Bible that? Silly humans!

[@e.m.8094]

Does he also change his mind on the other prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6:9?

[@e.m.8094]

Maybe Dr Hayes should have a scholarly debate with Dr Gagnon.

[@NC-vz6ui]

The book is awesome. I hope it reaches people that have an ear to hear.

[@Danybella]

Does anyone know what may have led to this profound change? Specifically, if anyone very close to him (son ? Grandkids??) is same sex attracted…I’ve found that when people dramatically change their view on this important issue, it’s usually because they cannot reckon with a family member “not being allowed to marry the one they love”

[@kristospheros]

That and/or they feel the immense social pressure at play in the world today.

[@dgbx6]

It's easy to simply assume that something' 'cheap' happened to explain why people change their views on this 'issue'. Sometimes simply the wisdom that comes from age leads people to question and then realize that their perspective was not complete, and in fact carried barriers to a complete understanding and that their previous convictions were not only suspect, but harmful to others. Just a suggestion.

[@Chomper750]

Yes, witnessing the Holy Spirit act in LGBTQ Christians.

[@jerrysweany278]

Didn't Preston mention Hays' work as professor at Duke? Seems that could have a profound impact on your views.

[@besseljm1]

Wisdom comes from Gods word, scripture. Not from age. I know plenty of unwise old people.

[@e.m.8094]

I've been a Christian since 1995, and I have a rather large library of Bible study/theological books, but I don't think I've ever heard of him or his book. 🤷

[@Danybella]

1:06:50 💯. I think that’s what happened with Andy Stanley.

[@dgbx6]

Meaning that something 'cheap' happened, and that he just 'gave into his emotions', or became 'infected by the culture', - that's what happened to Andy Stanley, as opposed to the idea that his continuing study, prayer life, ministry, and academic reflection might have been responsible for his change of view. What you are saying is that nothing 'positive' happened, - and you say that without a shred of evidence about the process that Andy Stanley went through that caused him to change his views. There is only ONE legitimate point of view, - YOURS!

[@jacob5292-s7l]

As a moderate-conservative who is attending Duke Divinity, you are right on the money about the cultural climate lol. One commentary assigned in my Revelation exegesis class likened John of Patmos eating the scroll to fellatio, and that John was a "bottom."

[@VickersJon]

Wow. Yikes.

[@dgbx6]

This is all a bit silly. You guys can praise Hay’s scholarship to the skies when he supports your negative view. Now, with the wisdom that comes with age, he expands his understanding and admits he was wrong. OF COURSE you have to DESTROY this book because you certainly aren’t going to change YOUR view! You would lose your well established career along with all the funding. Why bother trying to deal with his book dispassionately?

[@RayHooker]

Your comments are simply an ad hominem attack on Preston, dismissing his critiques but never addressing the substance of the concerns. It is the lamest of arguments. You are welcome to disagree with Preston, but unless you do so based on the substance of his critique, your comments and conclusion are without merit.

[@josiahroberts4025]

Exactly my thoughts. So disheartening. I’m very excited for this book, and this review only made me want to read it more. Religiosity is so blinding to Love.

[@Flicky669]

One should seek the truth, regardless of whether the truth agrees with you or not. I don’t see you criticizing the actual points being made, just a broad generalization.

[@jerrysweany278]

I never heard of Hays before I heard about this book. I will read and evaluate as well as his original view. My question...is how does he refute his prior position?

[@besseljm1]

He doesn’t refute his prior positions. His previous analysis of scripture stands. He now says he has special revelation, outside of scripture, that tells him we now need to align with the secular world on this group and allow them in. It’s Gnostic in nature, nothing new under the sun.

[@Chomper750]

Marriage existed prior to Genesis being written. “Biblical marriage” was not like modern marriage. The father had property ownership over his daughter. The prospective husband purchased her from her father. The daughter’s agency in choosing a husband was completely dependent upon her father. So marriage itself has changed for much of the world from what was written in the Bible. God also was shown to appropriate practices of humans. Genesis 15, God tells Abram to get some animals. Abram, without prompting cuts the animals in half. A smoking firepot and a flaming torch passed between the halves of the animals. This was an ancient practice that was a sign of entering a covenant between two parties, long predating the authorship of Genesis. Nowhere in the text does it show that God instituted this practice. God accommodated the practices of humans. Marriages and children were important for inheritance rights. Homosexuality as we have it today did not exist. Men who had sexual attraction to other men were still expected to marry to have offspring for inheritance rights. Our culture is not based upon inheritance rights. The Mosaic Law is completely silent on homosexual women. Not once is there a commandment that a woman shall not lie with a woman. The text cannot be thus used as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.