Yes, time for another book review, its only been a week or so since the last one here. Warning: I have a third review in this series coming up for the next blogpost.
My own attempts to do a bit of study leave work on "A Hermeneutic of Mercy" mean I must read and reflect on an important recent book, Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2024.
First big, personal question: does this book make my own project, to consider the Bible with a lens of mercy, redundant? Answer, No!
Second question, where does the title come from? The late Ron Smith, frequent commenter on this blog before his death, would have known the answer in an instant, for he often quoted here from Frederick William Faber's hymn in which these lines occur,
"There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea. // There's a kindness in God's justice which is more than liberty."
Third question - it might be your question - why did I use the word "important" to describe this book?
Well, what got a lot of people intrigued as the notice of the book's publication began to circulate, via their social media "facial/body language" (i.e. grunts and grimaces as expressed on social media), was that this son-and-father duo included a very well-known New Testament scholar, Richard B. Hays, and Richard Hays wrote a very famous, widely read and cited book, some thirty years back, on the New Testament and Christian morality: Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). The importance of this book was that it cogently set out a "compassionate conservative" discussion on various issues of the day, faithful to Scipture, acceptable to a large part of the evangelical world. It was and is the kind of book one could mention in support of this or that position on an issue and not have your church colleagues or academic common room sisters and brothers think you had taken a turn for some kind of narrow fundamentalist dead end. On the particular question of same-sex partnerships, Richard Hays, in his 1996 book, opined that (to cite from the 2024 book's epilogue, p. 223) he rejected the possibility of a positive acceptance of same-sex partnerships, e.g. via analogy with the changes of heart and mind narrated in Acts 10-11 and Acts 15,
"in the light of the New Testament's few but emphatic statements - especially Romans 1:24-27 - that portray same-sex intercourse as a tragic distortion of the created order."
Thus, the present 2024 book would be important, whether it doubled down on Hay's 1996 view or proposed a change of view. The news flashes before the book was actually published indicated the book's importance would lie with the latter.
Before I go any further I want to acknowledge that Richard Hays has been a luminous New Testament scholar for many reasons - books and articles and conference addresses - and sadly he died at the beginning of this year, on 3 January 2025, after a long illness. What we are discussing here is his last book, and one he worked on through a period when his health was not good. (I am not familar with Christopher Hays' work but he is also a scholar of note, in Old Testament studies.)
So, Richard Hays changed his mind between 1996 and 2024, and some of the book sets out clearly and movingly why he changed his mind, and includes his apology for getting things wrong in 1996. Part of what he offers in these parts of the book is his surprise that what he wrote in 1996 in the hope it would generate wide and healthy discussion among his book's audience, as a starting point for reflection and, potentially, change, in the reality of its reception became a last word rather than a first word. The tendency among readers of the 1996 book became, "I believe the NT says this about same-sex partnerships and, look, none other than Richard B. Hays agrees with me" rather than "Hays has really dug deep into the matter of same-sex partnerships and because of what he has to say, there is a lot to open up for further discussion."
Obviously the consequential question about the 2024 book, The Widening of God's Mercy, is, "Does its conclusion about favourability towards same-sex partnerships have a sound basis?" A change of mind is one thing, but given the solidity of Richard Hays' scholarship in his 1996, it is reasonable to approach this 2024 book with high expectations of a very sound basis for the now changed conclusion reached.
Below in a postscript I note a number of reviews I have read on the internet - some of them highlight significant possibilities that the basis is not as sound as one might expect. In fact, I have my own concerns, even if I am inclined to head more towards where Hays and Hays end up than those reviewers.
First up, there is quite an emphasis on God changing God's mind as a significant feature in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and one which should prise open our minds to the possibility of God changing God's mind (and thus we changing our minds) on the matter of same-sex partnerships.
I find this a curious line within the arguments of the book. Yes, God is reported as changing his mind in story after story in the Old Testament but there is a lot to unpack theologically (which I don't see Hays and Hays doing) as well as exegetically (as they do). "Changing one's mind" is a very human thing to do, and reporting God as changing God's mind makes God all too human, which is fine as far as story telling goes - a little anthropomorphism never underplayed dramatic moments in the divine drama - but prompts big theological questions given that one fine way to describe God in all God's Godness is "the Absolute", "the Uncaused Cause", "the Rock" - "the Immoveable Mover" and so forth. What kind of god is the "God Whom We Make Much of Changing God's Mind" (per the Hayses' book)? Quite possibly that God is not the God of Jesus Christ - the God, that is, who works through history on a determined and unchanging plan (see Ephesians 1). Further, God changing God's mind could work more than one way: Hays and Hays think God has changed his mind on same-sex partnerships, in a merciful, accepting of those partnerships direction. But what if the same God changes his mind back again?
Secondly, there is a strong emphasis on the widening of God's mercy to include ever more groups of people, aptly summarised towards the end of the book, p. 214, in this way:
"Third, and most decisively, the vision that informs this book rhymes with the Bible’s pervasive portrayals of God’s ever-expanding mercy. To put this in more technical theological language: The acceptance of sexual minorities in the church re-enacts a narrative pattern that is pervasive in the Bible. There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances."
But this approach does not touch a pretty standard conservative objection to acceptance of same-sex partnerships, that they are sinful, and so, although God loves LGBTQ people and wishes to accept them into the household of faith, they must repent of sin, like expectations of all other people groups - eunuchs, gentiles, tax collectors (noting the repentance of Zacchaeus) and other sinners.
So, two pretty big objections to the ways the arguments in this book proceed. Is there something to like, to note as a strength or strengths? I think there is.
Let's start with an observation towards the end of the book, p. 220:
"Ultimately, the meaning of scripture is shaped by its reception in communities of faith."
Is it not the case that in many communities of faith - not all by any means - there is an understanding of LGBTQ people and of scripture (especially its themes of mercy and justice, of not judging and of reckoning with the speck in my own eye etc) which judges that the meaning of scripture is that there is a place for LGBTQ people in the household of faith, including those in same-sex partnerships. Whether or not arguments are good, bad or indifferent towards this conclusion about inclusion, communities of faith are shaping how they see scripture on this issue of our day. To be sure, Hays and Hays support this direction of travel, but might they have made more of the reception of scripture and less of (say) God changing God's mind? That is, might more have been made of how the reception of Scripture by communities of faith has led to change in the collective mind of such communities? The obvious example here is slavery. The Bible gives no indication that God has changed God's mind on slavery (as a tolerated institution in various societies) but since the mid nineteenth century and the abolition of slavery in the USA, no Christian community today thinks slavery is a good thing. To be sure, Hays and Hays do reflect on the change of disposition to slavery by churches. My question is whether more might have been made of this and less of God changing God's mind.
If so then they could also have made more of something they do say about the presence of LGBTQ Christians in the church today, p. 212:
"Second, in many cases where the church has changed its understanding of God’s will, the impetus for change has come from careful and compassionate attention to human experience. Why have we rejected slavery? Because we see the suffering it causes, its cruelty and contradiction of human wholeness. Why have many churches rejected the subordination of women to me and supported their full inclusion in church leadership? Because we see in our experience the arbitrary way in which it denies and stifles the evident gifts and graces of half the human race. For many the evidence of experience outweighs the inertia of tradition and the force of a few biblical prooftexts on these questions. In the same way, we see LGBTQ Christians all around us who are already contributing their gifts and graces to the work of God in the world and in the church.
When we form moral judgments, we inevitably and rightly pay attention to the evidence of experience. With regard to human sexuality, we have seen over the past generation a cumulatively increasing body of evidence that sexual orientation is (in a way that remains mysterious) deeply ingrained in individuals and not susceptible to change. And for human beings in general, the wisdom of Genesis 2:18 applies, regardless of sexual orientation: It is not good that we should be alone. Some individuals may have a special vocation to celibacy, but that cannot be imposed as a blanket requirement on an entire class of humans."
Two things are important in these paragraphs. First, that for many communities of faith reshaping the meaning of scripture, an impetus is recognition of "the gifts and graces" given by God to the LGBTQ Christians in their midst. Secondly, if we conclude that sexual orientation is "not susceptible to change" does that make a difference to how we interpret scripture in relation to LGBTQ Christians in our communities of faith, because, to take up something else also mentioned, "It is not good that we should be alone" (Genesis 2:18)? In what way(s) do we who read scripture responsibly and with a view to acting mercifully and justly, offer a way forward for Genesis 2:18 to mean something for LGBTQ Christians? I suggest Hays and Hays could have made more of these considerations.
Finally (at least for now - there is, I think, more to say in the book I am writing), Hays and Hays are on the right track to talk about God's ever widening mercy. In the words of one of the most beautiful prayers of all time, the Prayer of Humble Access, God is the God "whose nature is always to have mercy."
One of the great strengths of a truly great book, Reading Genesis by Marilynn Robinson, is the way it brings out God's consistent mercy: Adam and Eve sin, but do not die; Cain murders Abel, but he may not be killed; humanity is dire, but survives the Flood via Noah and his family; Abraham and Sarah lack faith in God, but God persists with them; Jacob supplants Esau but God can work with Jacob; Joseph's brothers are very badly behaved towards Joseph, but Joseph forgives them - anticipating Christ himself - because the brothers do not know what they are doing. Scripture just keeps going like that: God is merciful and true, compassionate and just all the way through the Old Testament. Christ comes into the world, full of grace and truth - of course, because God's mercy sends Jesus into the world, to make a way for we sinners to be made just. That mercy, strongly present in the OT, especially in Isaiah (as Hays and Hays repeatedly point out), is expressed in the NT, and in fulfilment of OT prophecies, with the extension of God's love from Israel outwards into the whole world and including all people, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women. God is more merciful that we can imagine; we have less imagination than the imagination which would fully understand how merciful God is.
Now, if I do not think Hays and Hays have got the connection between "mercy" and "LGBTQ Christians" correct, I do think they are correct that there is a connection. It is part of the purpose of my beyond-blog writing to explore that connection. So, no more from me for now on that connection!
Postscript:
Incidentally, if you want some "proper" book reviews, there is no shortage of them on the internet, some by considerable names in the realm of scholarship on biblical sexuality, and these are them which I found in a recent search:
https://reformedjournal.com/2024/10/30/the-widening-of-gods-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays/ by Ryan Boes
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/widening-gods-mercy/ by Rebecca McLaughlin
https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/review-of-the-widening-of-god-s-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays by Preston Sprinkle
https://freethinkingministries.com/the-widening-of-gods-mercy-book-review/ by Josh Klein
https://cbmw.org/2024/08/28/a-review-of-the-widening-of-gods-mercy-sexuality-within-the-biblical-story-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays/ by Thomas Schreiner
https://theaquilareport.com/the-widening-of-gods-mercy-sexuality-within-the-biblical-story-fails-as-serious-study/ by Robert A.J. Gagnon
https://www.livingout.org/resources/posts/227/is-gods-mercy-wide-enough-for-me by Andrew Bunt
https://hermeneutrix.com/2024/10/10/on-gods-widening-mercy/ by Heather Anne Thiessen
https://outreach.faith/2024/10/book-on-bible-and-sexuality-long-on-mercy-but-short-on-scholarship/ by Fr Joseph R. Upton
Hint: every review above by a "conservative evangelical" is a negative review.
15 comments:
Gosh, people make it so difficult for themselves!
What's wrong with saying: the Bible was written by human beings. They experienced God's presence and activity within and without and expressed this in thought forms of their time. As human consciousness has shifted, our sense of God has shifted too. Our views on slavery and T/LGBTQIA+ have changed because *we* have changed our mind - both about slavery etc and about God.
Wales have elected a new archbishop - a woman, in relationship with another woman no less - and her first media statement strikes exactly the right note: the future Archbishop of Canterbury would do well to sound like this, this sort of tone and these priorities:
https://youtube.com/shorts/IP5EVflQlbQ?si=Yuka39QyLl2pqM3S
Thanks for the post +Peter you have an intriguing topic to dig into!
In respect to you first post Mark, your position would discombobulate me as I see scripture as a guide-post as an external source of God’s word against which I measure my own actions and God-willing improve over time. To therefore see its interpretation as being indexed to our human sense of God over time would make that guide-post somewhat untrustworthy in my way of thinking, far more dependent on man and far less on God.
Mercy is the context of the book review intrigues me in the respect to what I consider mercy to be, namely when one has erred in someway mercy is offered to cover over the offence. Close to grace or forgiveness I suppose. And my take of the cross was that in Jesus mercy was offered to all - peace and justice kissed each other in the only way possible. So in this respect, in my thinking, mercy is already as wide as it gets - and therefore mercy is available now for all.
I suspect the sticky-ness comes in if mercy is as I view as it usually comes when a person seeks it, like in some of the examples given Cain pleaded with God regarding how now after what happened would he survive… Joseph’s brothers when re-discovering Joseph came before him with remorse and asking for forgiveness…. Such has my view of the cross developed to be, that in dying Christ died for the sins of all, for God so loved the world, yet the mercy or forgiveness is received when people come to accept it - both their need for it and who alone it can be gifted by.
So my question would be, is not mercy already offered to all of any sexual orientation? Is it mercy that is being sought (mercy in the face of wrongdoing) or is it recognition that certain sexual behaviours that have been taken as sinful due to certain biblical statements are not in fact sinful - in essence is it approval of a behaviour that is being sought?
That’s a very succinct summary of the different attitudes, Jean, thank you. I am with you over your comment to Mark too.
But this weekend I have been with a friend who is so horrified at what God is said to have required in the OT, plus her distress at current human behaviour in the world, that she has lost belief that God does love people.
She might find Mark’s understanding of the Bible more helpful than mine?
Hi Moya,
I think a lot of people struggle with the Old Testament and one can understand her distress, there are a lot of people at the moment in distress about events happening around the world. The Old Testament world was also so violent so no doubt recent happenings which also are so violent combine to form a mental association between the two.
In regards to viewpoints helpful for her, maybe Marks might be? I think it could be seen to be, as in it is nice to think that as time has gone our human consciousness has become more compassionate and peace loving and so we can see difficult to swallow OT passages regarding God as coming from the limited viewpoints of the writers of the time.
I think more that our comprehension of such passages are often limited - it takes a lot digging and looking back to those times to understand some of the societal context and Israel’s journey with God at that point in time - e.g. where God was leading. It also involves acknowledging people then did live under law as opposed to under grace in Jesus, although indeed there are many traces of mercy, it was after the relationship between God and man had become distanced and before God’s salvation in Christ had fully come.
Although in the OT God’s laws allowed slavery while giving laws about how slaves should be treated (noting the reason for slaves then wasn’t the exploitative kind we see in the slave trade or child labour, albeit slaves could be taken after wars many were voluntarily slaves in order to pay off debt or to provide for their living); we also see Paul encouraging Philemon to welcome his slave back as a brother not a slave as all were one in Christ - so once Jesus died there is indeed the widening of God’s mercy, and over time the disciples started realising just how much and living this out. This was God showing men what had changed with the salvation offered in Jesus and the fulfilment of the law, e.g. the crucifixion & resurrection, and the vision God gave Peter of the clean and unclean and Peter’s words, there is now neither slave nor free… it wasn’t lead by men’s consciousness in respect to God’s ways. I would be more wary of the latter for like in Apartheid South Africa, any human desire for something to be a certain way they can justify it by making scripture fit their theory rather than allowing scripture to shape the theory. Recalling also Jesus saying to the Pharisees, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” They had the scripture and they said that they were following Moses but Jesus points out this is not the case, they were following what they were wanting.
While the thread of God’s love for his people in the Old Testament as they go through the cycle of faithfulness to him, falling away, committing unjust acts, returning to God and repeat; is something I view it is easy to see why it may not be so obviously seen. Recently I had to do a sermon on clean/unclean which made me delve into the origins/God’s laws in the OT and I think it was the first time I really kinda ‘got it’ - not surprising I suppose since for Millenia in the christian faith when Jesus fulfilled the law making all things clean, it’s not something that has existed as practice in the christian faith.
Keep warm!
I find the focus on the term "God's mercy" a bit odd because so much of the harm suffered by LGBTQ people (whether Christian or children of Christians etc) has been because of the way they've been treated by people in the church. Isn't the problem actually with our own "mercy"?
A complicating matter is that LGBTQ Christians themselves are divided over what repentance and new life in Christ should look like in their particular context. After all every person has their own set of circumstances.
I found this an interesting story - a lesbian couple who became Christians after their teen son got involved in an evangelical church, became a Christian, and they were made welcome when they attended his baptism (and later on became Christians themselves). It seems they were supported in a process where they took responsibility for their own decisions about what to do - and that seems the sensible path. [It's likely I've shared this link ADU before]
https://www.livingout.org/resources/posts/156/what-if-a-gay-married-couple-with-children-become-christians
I was interested that The Gospel Coalition reviewer is same-sex attracted but still has issues with the Hays' views.
'Changing our mind' about God and the Bible isn't a capricious, frivolous,immature process. It's not like we wake up one day and say - I want the Bible to say this, I want God to look like that; design a God, like design a Barbie. It involves years of life experience, intellectual reflection, prayer, and difficult personal and communal discernment.
On the other hand, it is liberating to trust the living God, who makes all things new, and give up on the imposible journey of squaring the circle.
Most people are deeply puzzled and troubled by the difference between a God who massacres the enemies of Israel and the God who inspired Jesus to say "love your enemies".
I once heard Bishop Robert Barron, the immensely popular conservative Catholics apologist, explain the huge disparity between the violent God of the OT and the loving revelation of Christ in this way: whenever we read of violence in the OT...God crushing the skulls of "the enemy's" children, God indiscriminately destroying whole cities, much like a Putin or Netanyahu today, because of the "sinful behaviour" of some, God drowning the entire world's population (except, capriciously, for Noah and his family) God as more violent than the worst genocide humans have ever committed...we are to read these passages, Barron says, as symbolic not literal, as symbolic of the spiritual journey and the inner struggle against evil. But of course this incredulous. The people who wrote and have followed those passages meant them, often, or at least a good chunk of the time, as actual truth.
I have come to believe it is more honest to say: the people who wrote the NT had a pre-rational, monolithic, highly prejudicial understanding of human sexuality. Largely, they couldn't begin to imagine that a man and a man, say, could have an intimate, sexual, and loving relationship that was as fully of the presence of God, and as supportive of the good of both parties, as the best we see in heterosexual partnetships. So let's not try to "rescue" the Bible around it's treatment of sexual minorities. It doesn't say much. What is says is almost always negative. Everything it says is time bound and has been surpassed, intellectually, morally, and spiritually, by centuries of further development and growth in knowledge, understanding, ethics, and spirituality.
This doesn't mean rational, modern people are more spiritually advanced *in all areas* than pre-scientific first century Palestine. But on sexuality we are.
Is the problem our views of the Bible or is it our views of God? When we speak about divine inspiration and scripture, so often we are speaking, whether we know it or not, in a *theistic* model in which God is fundamentally separate from His (it's always His) fundamentally disenchanted creation. We have an infinitely powerful, good, and loving God, and we have an infinitely flawed, corrupt, bumbling humankind. So the only way we get "divine truth" is by "God" completely revealing and inspiring it. Anything less would be flawed human literature, not the rock of all ages.
But what if the theist model is outdated, deficient, unchristian, and has been largely dropped (a long while back) by the best theologians and thinkers of our times? What if a "panentheistic" model is much more in keeping with the contours of the Christian narrative - divinity as suffused within, at one with, all creation, as well as extending beyond the known created world? Then the divinity which inspired the Bible has both a human and a Godly source - both being within us - as well as an infinite, transcendent horizon. The divine within is subject to history, change, becoming, evolution. God is evolving. The divine without calls us ever further into the journey of deeper revelation and truth. God is eternal truth.
Interesting comments Liz and Mark…
I read your link Liz, it adds another dimension to consider the multiple situations of people in regards to the LGTBQI+ community and their own various takes on how they respond to what they interpret the Bible to teach; and also if previously not having a faith or returning to the christian faith what their convictions are.
The juxtaposition between the OT in regards to God’s commands to Israel and the teachings of Jesus (given Jesus came as God incarnate) can definitely seem stark. I agree Mark I do not think the writings in the former were symbolic. Can you give us some help +Peter in regards to reconciling the two?
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the NT writers as being pre-rational or highly prejudicial given the practices of the Roman Empire which ruled over them had what we might call a progressive attitude to sexuality.
Dear Jean et al,
1. I have no easy or "easy" answer to give; and I have yet to find an entirely convincing answer; though some attempts are better than others (including Mark's approach in comments above; though I fear that does not entirely resolve matters).
2. My study leave [currently back at work for a month, but eager to resume in September] is a writing project which (among other things) will engage with the challenge of (putting it all too succinctly) the God of the OT v the God of the NT.
ADU readers might find this worth a look, a writer from Ukraine whose post on Substack I lingered over. It touched me in quite a deep way. I'm thinking about Moya's comment re "distress" and suffering:
I Didn’t Find God in Church. I Found Him in War:
A Glimpse of Hope -- by Viktor Kravchuk
https://viktorkravchuk.substack.com/p/i-didnt-find-god-in-church-i-found
I wish we did not have the rainbow expression LGBTQI... It conflates various sexualities (LGB) and various gender expressions (TQI). Usually a discussion referencing LGBTQI issues is discussing sexuality. But the judgment reached tends to be applied to both gender and sexuality. Gender issues have been painted with all the angst and trauma of the sexuality discussions the church and society has been having and still has. For someone who wants clarity from the church on their attitude to gender diversity, it is disappointing how the topic can barely be raised, the idea is instantly fraught because of sexuality issues, and so no discussion happens.
Or perhaps it has its own terror that is invisible to me ...
Just read this, thought I'd share the link. US churches and the immigration situation and ICE/arrests
https://publicwitness.wordandway.org/p/when-trump-deports-jesus-and-other
Hi Chris,
Yes it is a long alphabet abbreviation that places many different groups together. On the whole I've found that younger people represented by these letters seem to prefer them being together as they make sense of their common experience of feeling not included by heteronormativity (the assumption that we're all basically straight, which is my unconscious default) and give them a sense of support as in strength in numbers. Isolation is the worst. But some older people I've met or heard who are gay or lesbian sometimes don't like this conglomeration. I guess we use it as an abbreviation on things like blogs though face to face we'd be asking what the person in front of me prefers. Yup, could be that some issues (gender as you say) get lost in others (sexuality).
Liz that is very profound…. And moving and telling re one person’s experience of seeing God.. thank you
Post a Comment