What do you think?
Rate this book
The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story
A fresh, deeply biblical account of God’s expanding grace and mercy, tracing how the Bible’s narrative points to the full inclusion of LGBTQ people in Christian communities
Discussions of the Bible and human sexuality often focus on a scattered handful of specific passages. But arguments about this same set of verses have reached an impasse, two leading biblical scholars believe; these debates are missing the forest for the trees.
In this learned and beautifully written book, Richard and Christopher Hays explore a more expansive way of listening to the overarching story that scripture tells. They remind us of a dynamic and gracious God who is willing to change his mind, consistently broadening his grace to include more and more people. Those who were once outsiders find themselves surprisingly embraced within the people of God, while those who sought to enforce exclusive boundaries are challenged to rethink their understanding of God’s ways.
The authors—a father and son—point out ongoing conversations within the Bible in which traditional rules, customs, and theologies are rethought. They argue that God has already gone on ahead of our debates and expanded his grace to people of different sexualities. If the Bible shows us a God who changes his mind, they say, perhaps today’s Christians should do the same. The book begins with the authors’ personal experiences of controversies over sexuality and closes with Richard Hays’s epilogue reflecting on his own change of heart and mind.
Discussions of the Bible and human sexuality often focus on a scattered handful of specific passages. But arguments about this same set of verses have reached an impasse, two leading biblical scholars believe; these debates are missing the forest for the trees.
In this learned and beautifully written book, Richard and Christopher Hays explore a more expansive way of listening to the overarching story that scripture tells. They remind us of a dynamic and gracious God who is willing to change his mind, consistently broadening his grace to include more and more people. Those who were once outsiders find themselves surprisingly embraced within the people of God, while those who sought to enforce exclusive boundaries are challenged to rethink their understanding of God’s ways.
The authors—a father and son—point out ongoing conversations within the Bible in which traditional rules, customs, and theologies are rethought. They argue that God has already gone on ahead of our debates and expanded his grace to people of different sexualities. If the Bible shows us a God who changes his mind, they say, perhaps today’s Christians should do the same. The book begins with the authors’ personal experiences of controversies over sexuality and closes with Richard Hays’s epilogue reflecting on his own change of heart and mind.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published September 10, 2024
289 people are currently reading
1549 people want to read
About the author
Christopher B. Hays
12 books4 followersChristopher B. Hays is D. Wilson Moore Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies and chair of biblical studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is a Research Associate of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. He is ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Hays holds a PhD in Religion from Emory University, an MA in Egyptology from UCLA, and an MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews
October 10, 2024
“Even if we are mistaken in our vision, it is better to be wrong in love”
August 14, 2024
The question of LGBTQ inclusion in church and society remains a major topic of concern. It affects our politics and church life, as seen recently in the schism within the United Methodist Church. Standing at the heart of the debate has been the interpretation of the Bible. While there are only a handful of biblical passages that address or seem to address the topic, the debate continues. It affects people's lives, people include members of my own family, as well as close friends. There have been numerous books written in recent years that address this subject, some very good like David Gushee's Changing Our Mind. So, do we need another? Since the debate continues, most likely more books will be needed. Thus, I offer up The Widening of God's Mercy by Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays.
Several decades back, Richard Hays, a distinguished New Testament scholar at Duke Divinity School wrote a book titled The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. In that book, a chapter appeared titled "Homosexuality." In it, Richard Hays, now an emeritus professor at Duke, offered what he believed at the time was a compassionate but traditional interpretation of the biblical texts used to limit LGBTQ inclusion in the church. That chapter has since been used to defend the traditional perspective, especially in mainline contexts. He has had a change of heart, such that while he believes he was correct in his interpretation of that hand of texts, he believes that there is a wider vision of God's mercy that supersedes those verses and their implications for the church today.
Richard Hays, the New Testament scholar, is joined in writing this book addressing "Sexuality within the Biblical Story," by his son, the Old Testament scholar Christopher B. Hays. While I was interested in the father's participation, it is the son whose participation most interested me. That's because Christopher Hays is a tenured professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, which is my alma mater. While there are rumblings of change, Fuller maintains a traditional perspective on marriage and sexuality. So, I wanted to know how he would address this question and hopefully learn something about the conversation at Fuller. We do learn at the beginning of the book something about what has been happening at Fuller and his perspective on it. Like his father, he has had a change of heart and is fully committed to the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the church. How this is being received at Fuller remains to be seen, but as an alumnus who has been concerned about Fuller's position and actions, this gives me hope. This is where tenure comes in handy!
This book, "The Widening of God's Mercy" addresses the question of inclusion and the church's role in excluding people, which isn't really the main theme. It's the impetus for the conversation, but the authors spend very little time with the so-called "clobber" texts. Instead, they seek to show that the Bible demonstrates that God can change God's mind. That is, God adapts to new situations. They believe that this is true regarding how God views LGBTQ persons and their place in church and society. The guiding principle is God's mercy. That is a vision that the two authors find present in both Testaments. Their starting point in responding to conservative Christians who maintain a traditional perspective is that "however well intentioned, [they] are wrong about the most essential point of theology: the character of God" (p. 2). With that in mind, they write: "The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring. We have lost the forest for the trees, and we need to return to a more expansive reading of the biblical story as a story about the wideness of God's mercy" (p. 2). It is the vision that guides the direction they take with the book. The point they seek to make is that great harm has been done "fighting battles that God doesn't call us to fight, and from the recognition that faithful LGBTQ Christians are all around us" (p. 5). Thus, we have this call to attend to the mercies of God.
In writing the book the two divide their work in such a way that Christopher Hays focuses on the Old Testament texts, and Richard the New Testament. As for the application of the book they have chosen not to focus on application, in part out of modesty such that their expertise is in biblical studies and not psychology and sociology and other similar specialties. Secondly, they recognize that the conversation will continue to evolve, including their own views. they have chosen a different path, but it's a path well taken.
Part 1 of the book is titled "The Widening of God's Mercy in the Old Testament." It is comprised of seven chapters, each of which explores aspects of the biblical witness when it comes to creation, mercy, justice, divine statutes, and more. The author of these chapters is Christopher Hays. Central to the conversation is the question of God's nature. What kind of God do we encounter in the Old Testament? Part 2, written primarily by Richard Hays, is titled "The Widening of God's Mercy in the New Testament." Richard does much the same thing in his chapters (chapters 8 through 16), as Christopher did in the first set. He points us to Jesus, not that Jesus tended to upset people, in part because "his teaching and actions penetrated to the heart of Israel's sacred scriptures and disclosed there a generous, unsettling vision of the wideness of God's mercy" (p. 111). That is an important point, because, for some reason this idea that God is merciful, compassionate, responsive, and adaptive, is quite unsettling to religious folk. But though upsetting people, Jesus tapped into the Scriptures and offered a different picture of God's mercy.
In laying out this vision of divine mercy as found deeply rooted in the biblical story, they lay the groundwork for advocating for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons. In Part III, which is titled "The Widening of God's Mercy in the Present Day," the authors offer two chapters. The first appears to be jointly authored and it is titled "Moral Re-vision: What We Must Say About Human Sexuality" (Chapter 17), and an Epilogue written by Richard Hays. In Chapter 17, the authors essentially summarize their journey through Scripture, which culminates in a recognition that they have offered "a biblical vision of God that differs from what many people assume about God and the Bible." They note that what they have uncovered is a God who is portrayed as being "a mysterious, dynamic, personal power who can and does change his mind and reveal new and surprising facets of his will" (p. 205). This recognition has allowed them to re-envision how God views LGBTQ persons, and therefore how the church should view them. This is their conclusion, one that I fully embrace: "The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that lead us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as 'strangers and aliens' but as 'fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.' Full stop." (p. 207). To which I say, Amen! They recognize that change in the church won't take place overnight. There will continue to be debate, and that might lead to people separating themselves from those they disagree with. That is a sad situation, but a likely reality. Nevertheless, they offer this book to us as a resource to help us move forward.
In the Epilogue, Richard Hays writes more specifically about his own change of mind. He addresses what he wrote in his earlier book, and why he no longer embraces its application, even if he is satisfied with his exegesis of the passages. He no longer believes they express God's understanding of the subject at hand. This book for him serves as a form of repentance as he regrets the impact on the church and its debate over homosexuality that the chapter in the earlier book had. He recognizes that this chapter in a book well received at the time has done harm. He seeks to undo that harm with this book.
If you're looking for a full discussion of the specific texts that are being debated you'll need to look elsewhere. David Gushee's book is a good place to go. Mark Achtemier's book The Bible's Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical's Change of Heart is another. However, what this partnership of father and son does here is in many ways a game changer because it moves the discussion for a handful of biblical texts to the question of God's nature and character, such that we all stand under God's mercy and that it is this mercy that guides God's response. They believe, as I do, that in God's mercy not only heterosexual folks like me are included in God's realm, but so are those who are considered sexual minorities. Of course, on a personal level, I appreciate the willingness of one of the faculty members of my alma mater to step out and not only reveal what is taking place there but also offer his own vision of God's inclusive nature. Take and read for the common good!
Thank you to the folks at Yale University Press for this review copy.
Several decades back, Richard Hays, a distinguished New Testament scholar at Duke Divinity School wrote a book titled The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. In that book, a chapter appeared titled "Homosexuality." In it, Richard Hays, now an emeritus professor at Duke, offered what he believed at the time was a compassionate but traditional interpretation of the biblical texts used to limit LGBTQ inclusion in the church. That chapter has since been used to defend the traditional perspective, especially in mainline contexts. He has had a change of heart, such that while he believes he was correct in his interpretation of that hand of texts, he believes that there is a wider vision of God's mercy that supersedes those verses and their implications for the church today.
Richard Hays, the New Testament scholar, is joined in writing this book addressing "Sexuality within the Biblical Story," by his son, the Old Testament scholar Christopher B. Hays. While I was interested in the father's participation, it is the son whose participation most interested me. That's because Christopher Hays is a tenured professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, which is my alma mater. While there are rumblings of change, Fuller maintains a traditional perspective on marriage and sexuality. So, I wanted to know how he would address this question and hopefully learn something about the conversation at Fuller. We do learn at the beginning of the book something about what has been happening at Fuller and his perspective on it. Like his father, he has had a change of heart and is fully committed to the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the church. How this is being received at Fuller remains to be seen, but as an alumnus who has been concerned about Fuller's position and actions, this gives me hope. This is where tenure comes in handy!
This book, "The Widening of God's Mercy" addresses the question of inclusion and the church's role in excluding people, which isn't really the main theme. It's the impetus for the conversation, but the authors spend very little time with the so-called "clobber" texts. Instead, they seek to show that the Bible demonstrates that God can change God's mind. That is, God adapts to new situations. They believe that this is true regarding how God views LGBTQ persons and their place in church and society. The guiding principle is God's mercy. That is a vision that the two authors find present in both Testaments. Their starting point in responding to conservative Christians who maintain a traditional perspective is that "however well intentioned, [they] are wrong about the most essential point of theology: the character of God" (p. 2). With that in mind, they write: "The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring. We have lost the forest for the trees, and we need to return to a more expansive reading of the biblical story as a story about the wideness of God's mercy" (p. 2). It is the vision that guides the direction they take with the book. The point they seek to make is that great harm has been done "fighting battles that God doesn't call us to fight, and from the recognition that faithful LGBTQ Christians are all around us" (p. 5). Thus, we have this call to attend to the mercies of God.
In writing the book the two divide their work in such a way that Christopher Hays focuses on the Old Testament texts, and Richard the New Testament. As for the application of the book they have chosen not to focus on application, in part out of modesty such that their expertise is in biblical studies and not psychology and sociology and other similar specialties. Secondly, they recognize that the conversation will continue to evolve, including their own views. they have chosen a different path, but it's a path well taken.
Part 1 of the book is titled "The Widening of God's Mercy in the Old Testament." It is comprised of seven chapters, each of which explores aspects of the biblical witness when it comes to creation, mercy, justice, divine statutes, and more. The author of these chapters is Christopher Hays. Central to the conversation is the question of God's nature. What kind of God do we encounter in the Old Testament? Part 2, written primarily by Richard Hays, is titled "The Widening of God's Mercy in the New Testament." Richard does much the same thing in his chapters (chapters 8 through 16), as Christopher did in the first set. He points us to Jesus, not that Jesus tended to upset people, in part because "his teaching and actions penetrated to the heart of Israel's sacred scriptures and disclosed there a generous, unsettling vision of the wideness of God's mercy" (p. 111). That is an important point, because, for some reason this idea that God is merciful, compassionate, responsive, and adaptive, is quite unsettling to religious folk. But though upsetting people, Jesus tapped into the Scriptures and offered a different picture of God's mercy.
In laying out this vision of divine mercy as found deeply rooted in the biblical story, they lay the groundwork for advocating for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons. In Part III, which is titled "The Widening of God's Mercy in the Present Day," the authors offer two chapters. The first appears to be jointly authored and it is titled "Moral Re-vision: What We Must Say About Human Sexuality" (Chapter 17), and an Epilogue written by Richard Hays. In Chapter 17, the authors essentially summarize their journey through Scripture, which culminates in a recognition that they have offered "a biblical vision of God that differs from what many people assume about God and the Bible." They note that what they have uncovered is a God who is portrayed as being "a mysterious, dynamic, personal power who can and does change his mind and reveal new and surprising facets of his will" (p. 205). This recognition has allowed them to re-envision how God views LGBTQ persons, and therefore how the church should view them. This is their conclusion, one that I fully embrace: "The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that lead us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as 'strangers and aliens' but as 'fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.' Full stop." (p. 207). To which I say, Amen! They recognize that change in the church won't take place overnight. There will continue to be debate, and that might lead to people separating themselves from those they disagree with. That is a sad situation, but a likely reality. Nevertheless, they offer this book to us as a resource to help us move forward.
In the Epilogue, Richard Hays writes more specifically about his own change of mind. He addresses what he wrote in his earlier book, and why he no longer embraces its application, even if he is satisfied with his exegesis of the passages. He no longer believes they express God's understanding of the subject at hand. This book for him serves as a form of repentance as he regrets the impact on the church and its debate over homosexuality that the chapter in the earlier book had. He recognizes that this chapter in a book well received at the time has done harm. He seeks to undo that harm with this book.
If you're looking for a full discussion of the specific texts that are being debated you'll need to look elsewhere. David Gushee's book is a good place to go. Mark Achtemier's book The Bible's Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical's Change of Heart is another. However, what this partnership of father and son does here is in many ways a game changer because it moves the discussion for a handful of biblical texts to the question of God's nature and character, such that we all stand under God's mercy and that it is this mercy that guides God's response. They believe, as I do, that in God's mercy not only heterosexual folks like me are included in God's realm, but so are those who are considered sexual minorities. Of course, on a personal level, I appreciate the willingness of one of the faculty members of my alma mater to step out and not only reveal what is taking place there but also offer his own vision of God's inclusive nature. Take and read for the common good!
Thank you to the folks at Yale University Press for this review copy.
Read
November 4, 2024This book was an intense thought catalyst and that process is still simmering. Perhaps this review is premature so take my review with a grain of salt. I’ve read only portions of Richard’s Moral Vision, and picked up this book because I was intrigued to hear that he shifted his stance toward the LGBTQ relationship with the church. Also, I’ve hardly engaged this issue, so I was unsure what to expect.
I appreciate his compassion and subsequent willingness to become an advocate for the foreigner and the oppressed. This is good. I realize I need to be careful in the ways that I engage the question of LGBTQ relation with the church. The elements indwelling this issue (identity, theology, history, personal experience, etc.) are deeply personal and therefore contain great potential for pain.
However, I am unable to evade the conclusion that this study is grossly incomplete. This book drew heavily on the narratives, themes, and literary dynamics contained in the Scriptures. For me, these things have been beneficial in rooting Christ at the center of my faith as well as taking the spotlight off of the liberal/conservative polemics sprouting in the soil cultivated by modernity. I don’t deny biblical theology’s valuable contributions to Christianity, however, it does have its default methods and limitations. These limitations became apparent in this book. As a focused Biblical study on God’s mercy, this book excelled beyond any systematics on the subject I know of (which isn’t too many tbh). However, the conclusion the Hayes’ draw that “God changes his mind,” merits a lengthy analysis in historical theology. If the early church Fathers generated much discussion about God’s immutability, we ought to at least pause before making such a claim, even if it were to be true. In addition, orthodox doctrines on God’s impassibility and atemporality would have raised some challenging questions in this book. This is my main critique.
I would also hesitate to equate the LGBTQ community with the Gentiles as my basis for their inclusion in the church. This feel untenable for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Gentiles is an externally imposed classification of identity referring to nations/families, while the LGBTQ community is an internal expression of identity that redefines national/family classification.
And finally, the entire work hints at an ontological unity between man and God, which feels troubling. I sensed the aroma of open theism (in my limited understanding of it).
All in all, it’s worth reading. While I differ in my opinion on the scope of the Hayes’ conclusion and their means of arriving there, their compassion for the LGBTQ individuals and communities is righteous. Being a Christian ethicist is a challenging task.
I appreciate his compassion and subsequent willingness to become an advocate for the foreigner and the oppressed. This is good. I realize I need to be careful in the ways that I engage the question of LGBTQ relation with the church. The elements indwelling this issue (identity, theology, history, personal experience, etc.) are deeply personal and therefore contain great potential for pain.
However, I am unable to evade the conclusion that this study is grossly incomplete. This book drew heavily on the narratives, themes, and literary dynamics contained in the Scriptures. For me, these things have been beneficial in rooting Christ at the center of my faith as well as taking the spotlight off of the liberal/conservative polemics sprouting in the soil cultivated by modernity. I don’t deny biblical theology’s valuable contributions to Christianity, however, it does have its default methods and limitations. These limitations became apparent in this book. As a focused Biblical study on God’s mercy, this book excelled beyond any systematics on the subject I know of (which isn’t too many tbh). However, the conclusion the Hayes’ draw that “God changes his mind,” merits a lengthy analysis in historical theology. If the early church Fathers generated much discussion about God’s immutability, we ought to at least pause before making such a claim, even if it were to be true. In addition, orthodox doctrines on God’s impassibility and atemporality would have raised some challenging questions in this book. This is my main critique.
I would also hesitate to equate the LGBTQ community with the Gentiles as my basis for their inclusion in the church. This feel untenable for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Gentiles is an externally imposed classification of identity referring to nations/families, while the LGBTQ community is an internal expression of identity that redefines national/family classification.
And finally, the entire work hints at an ontological unity between man and God, which feels troubling. I sensed the aroma of open theism (in my limited understanding of it).
All in all, it’s worth reading. While I differ in my opinion on the scope of the Hayes’ conclusion and their means of arriving there, their compassion for the LGBTQ individuals and communities is righteous. Being a Christian ethicist is a challenging task.
November 1, 2024
A terrible book on many levels.
At core though it’s a difference of hermeneutics. I was struck by how much the author separated the divine author from the human author.
For example, arguing that the daughters of Zelophahad in numbers 36 is an example of God changing His mind about gender roles is something that is so far from what Moses could have intended as to beggar belief.
But this book is therefore a wonderful reminder of the utter necessity to work hard at what the author’s themselves meant with their words. Otherwise- as this book demonstrates, we can say what we want and make god in our image.
The book’s central thesis is that God changed His mind regularly in scripture and that scripture should not be read closely but rather in larger brushstrokes. When we do this we see a god who widens his mercy, who is open to being wrong and challenged. This then flows into their argument that god has changed his mind on issues of sexual sin.
It’s a horrific and damaging book on many levels, let alone its complete lack of understanding of authors like Jonathan Edward’s who is quoted liberally and it’s obvious bias towards progressive hermeneutical approaches; and I am saddened that it is receiving so much positive attention.
At core though it’s a difference of hermeneutics. I was struck by how much the author separated the divine author from the human author.
For example, arguing that the daughters of Zelophahad in numbers 36 is an example of God changing His mind about gender roles is something that is so far from what Moses could have intended as to beggar belief.
But this book is therefore a wonderful reminder of the utter necessity to work hard at what the author’s themselves meant with their words. Otherwise- as this book demonstrates, we can say what we want and make god in our image.
The book’s central thesis is that God changed His mind regularly in scripture and that scripture should not be read closely but rather in larger brushstrokes. When we do this we see a god who widens his mercy, who is open to being wrong and challenged. This then flows into their argument that god has changed his mind on issues of sexual sin.
It’s a horrific and damaging book on many levels, let alone its complete lack of understanding of authors like Jonathan Edward’s who is quoted liberally and it’s obvious bias towards progressive hermeneutical approaches; and I am saddened that it is receiving so much positive attention.
January 14, 2026
As much as I wanted to love this book, because the authors are right to say that queer folks should have full and unrestrained inclusion and celebration within the church, there are some obvious spots that the authors have missed out on.
1. The argument somewhat requires you to accept a process theology framework where God grows along with humanity in learning, which is fine I guess. But their willingness to just say the Bible was wrong on things opens the door to ask why wouldn’t we just say it’s wrong on God’s mutability. I mean at least that’s the patristic and medieval approach for the doctrine of God.
2. The argument of expanding mercies of God based on analogies of the eunuch and Gentiles are not new, as they know, so just rehashing it was not really convincing. They do say, correctly, that these were Spirit motivated events, but they should’ve drawn on something like the Pentecostal hermeneutical process that the Spirit acts and we respond (which was key to desegregation for those congregations). It just lacked forcefulness in the way they argued, and they should’ve just said queer people exhibit the Spirit therefore we should include them.
3. Richard’s insistence that he still thinks Paul has an issue with same sex acts, although Paul couldn’t have been condemning queer people who go to church, is kind of off base imo. I think it would’ve been stronger to say what other scholars (that I’ve read) have said: Paul is operating very much within a sexist paradigm that socially ranks men over women so for a man to penetrate a man is an act of shame. We don’t hold to silly views like that so time to move on and grow up.
4. They don’t deal with an obvious objection: that the stories of God changing their mind are those in which (1) the people repent or (2) God feels there’s been enough punishment dealt. The prophetic overturning of Pentateuchal Laws (such as inclusion of eunuchs in deutero-Isaiah) and Christian renegotiation in the New Testament are not susceptible here, but I think every narrative where God changes their mind are. And that’s like a super obvious hole I would’ve liked them to grapple with because that wouldn’t fit with an inclusive hermeneutic. Much better to just say the Bible is wrong on this case like many others and we should always read in accordance with maximizing love.
I do, however, applaud the humility and including the Anglican prayer of confession at the end from Richard. Our Lord is the same God whose character is always to have mercy, and we ought to overturn all harmful practices that do not love our neighbour. I hope queer people see widespread full inclusion in my lifetime.
1. The argument somewhat requires you to accept a process theology framework where God grows along with humanity in learning, which is fine I guess. But their willingness to just say the Bible was wrong on things opens the door to ask why wouldn’t we just say it’s wrong on God’s mutability. I mean at least that’s the patristic and medieval approach for the doctrine of God.
2. The argument of expanding mercies of God based on analogies of the eunuch and Gentiles are not new, as they know, so just rehashing it was not really convincing. They do say, correctly, that these were Spirit motivated events, but they should’ve drawn on something like the Pentecostal hermeneutical process that the Spirit acts and we respond (which was key to desegregation for those congregations). It just lacked forcefulness in the way they argued, and they should’ve just said queer people exhibit the Spirit therefore we should include them.
3. Richard’s insistence that he still thinks Paul has an issue with same sex acts, although Paul couldn’t have been condemning queer people who go to church, is kind of off base imo. I think it would’ve been stronger to say what other scholars (that I’ve read) have said: Paul is operating very much within a sexist paradigm that socially ranks men over women so for a man to penetrate a man is an act of shame. We don’t hold to silly views like that so time to move on and grow up.
4. They don’t deal with an obvious objection: that the stories of God changing their mind are those in which (1) the people repent or (2) God feels there’s been enough punishment dealt. The prophetic overturning of Pentateuchal Laws (such as inclusion of eunuchs in deutero-Isaiah) and Christian renegotiation in the New Testament are not susceptible here, but I think every narrative where God changes their mind are. And that’s like a super obvious hole I would’ve liked them to grapple with because that wouldn’t fit with an inclusive hermeneutic. Much better to just say the Bible is wrong on this case like many others and we should always read in accordance with maximizing love.
I do, however, applaud the humility and including the Anglican prayer of confession at the end from Richard. Our Lord is the same God whose character is always to have mercy, and we ought to overturn all harmful practices that do not love our neighbour. I hope queer people see widespread full inclusion in my lifetime.
January 9, 2025
I cannot begin to hope to write a better review than this one: https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/r...
I will add that I am sorely disappointed in Richard Hays. Having read others of his scholarly work, which are among my all-time favorites, it saddens me to see the amazingly sub-par work in this book. I say this not because I disagree with him but because I expected better work from him. If you will read the review I've linked to, you'll better understand what I mean.
I will add that I am sorely disappointed in Richard Hays. Having read others of his scholarly work, which are among my all-time favorites, it saddens me to see the amazingly sub-par work in this book. I say this not because I disagree with him but because I expected better work from him. If you will read the review I've linked to, you'll better understand what I mean.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 2, 2024
An incredibly frustrating book.
1) The subtitle is just about the most leading subtitle of any book I’ve ever read. The book is explicitly not about passages related to sexuality but attempts to “retell the biblical story on a way that it is often not told” (p.4). It is not a book about sexuality, but about God’s changing his mind (p.3-4).
2) The book is clearly a public form of penance for R. Hays as he regrets how his chapter on homosexuality in “Moral Vision of the New Testament” has been used–in the authors’ words–to harm people. This is both annoying and awkward at many points–especially when C. Hays, R. Hays’ son, time and again in his chapters brings up how his dad has been wielded as a weapon of injustice which is he clearly ashamed of him for. Much of Christopher’s chapters read like the sexuality version of white guilt (CIS-guilt?). And his claims to be a hero ready to fall on his sword at different points is equally annoying (p.11 as one example).
3) There is an entire section in one chapter where C. Hays rips Jonathan Edwards as being anti-human because he is so God-centric (really, p.29-33) crescendoing in him blaming Edwards’ theology and preaching for suicides of people in New England around the time of his ministry. While Christopher says “I have not dug up Edwards in order to bury him”, the reader is at a loss of what other reason the previous 4 pages were written for then. The moral of the story seems to be, if only Edwards had been more focused on “God’s love for humanity” than God’s love for God (and so, conservative evangelicals today) (p. 33).
4) This is all without addressing the central claim of the book: that God changes his mind and expands his mercy. The point of each chapter is to demonstrate this. To interact with those would require a full length article. But they, let’s just say, leave much to be desired
Overall, very frustrating as I was hoping to read what would be the standard bearer of the “affirming” position in this debate. Instead, I read chapter after chapter of poor exegesis and willing ignorance of historic theological interpretation and the utter lack of any consideration of what (if any) are the extents of God’s mercy. C. And R. Hays are convinced God changes his mind in the Bible and so does so today. They fail to demonstrate this convincingly and even if they had succeeded, they offer no clear link to God changing his mind on this subject or how we can know he has on this subject and not others.
A final word on Richard Hays. I am disappointed in him in particular. Not because I disagree with him or because he has changed his mind (though those are true); but because of the level of subpar work in this book. It is beneath him. His son’s chapters are sophomoric. And I was surprised at the lack of depth of his own. I worry for his legacy as a scholar if this is his swan song.
1) The subtitle is just about the most leading subtitle of any book I’ve ever read. The book is explicitly not about passages related to sexuality but attempts to “retell the biblical story on a way that it is often not told” (p.4). It is not a book about sexuality, but about God’s changing his mind (p.3-4).
2) The book is clearly a public form of penance for R. Hays as he regrets how his chapter on homosexuality in “Moral Vision of the New Testament” has been used–in the authors’ words–to harm people. This is both annoying and awkward at many points–especially when C. Hays, R. Hays’ son, time and again in his chapters brings up how his dad has been wielded as a weapon of injustice which is he clearly ashamed of him for. Much of Christopher’s chapters read like the sexuality version of white guilt (CIS-guilt?). And his claims to be a hero ready to fall on his sword at different points is equally annoying (p.11 as one example).
3) There is an entire section in one chapter where C. Hays rips Jonathan Edwards as being anti-human because he is so God-centric (really, p.29-33) crescendoing in him blaming Edwards’ theology and preaching for suicides of people in New England around the time of his ministry. While Christopher says “I have not dug up Edwards in order to bury him”, the reader is at a loss of what other reason the previous 4 pages were written for then. The moral of the story seems to be, if only Edwards had been more focused on “God’s love for humanity” than God’s love for God (and so, conservative evangelicals today) (p. 33).
4) This is all without addressing the central claim of the book: that God changes his mind and expands his mercy. The point of each chapter is to demonstrate this. To interact with those would require a full length article. But they, let’s just say, leave much to be desired
Overall, very frustrating as I was hoping to read what would be the standard bearer of the “affirming” position in this debate. Instead, I read chapter after chapter of poor exegesis and willing ignorance of historic theological interpretation and the utter lack of any consideration of what (if any) are the extents of God’s mercy. C. And R. Hays are convinced God changes his mind in the Bible and so does so today. They fail to demonstrate this convincingly and even if they had succeeded, they offer no clear link to God changing his mind on this subject or how we can know he has on this subject and not others.
A final word on Richard Hays. I am disappointed in him in particular. Not because I disagree with him or because he has changed his mind (though those are true); but because of the level of subpar work in this book. It is beneath him. His son’s chapters are sophomoric. And I was surprised at the lack of depth of his own. I worry for his legacy as a scholar if this is his swan song.
February 3, 2025
What an incredible and beautiful book. Already one of my favorites of the year. I thought I would be reading a book only about the inclusion of LGBTQ Christians, but I got a lot more.
The Biblical narrative is one in which God changes his mind. This is a shocking conclusion, one that contradicts how many conservatives read the Bible. After all, isn't God "the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8)? Yes, he certainly is, in one sense. God is eternally a God of love. But throughout the Biblical narrative, we also see a God of change; one that constantly revises his commands for us. Not in an arbitrary way, but always guided in a single direction: to widen his mercy and include more and more people in his plan (ultimately everyone if you're a universalist, but that's a different book review).
The most obvious way in which this is true is the transition from the Old to New Covenants. God had a covenant with the Jewish people, but (to the shock and anger of the religious authorities) he sent his Son to live and die for all people, Gentiles included. This caused a great deal of anger and confusion in the early church. Many Jewish Christians believed that Gentiles had to follow the Jewish law, including being circumcised and following the dietary restrictions. Paul disagrees, demanding they "welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God." Again, this was a shocking message, and a drastic change from what many Jews thought the Messiah would be.
There are plenty of examples of this. Isaiah demands that eunuchs and foreigners be allowed to worship in the temple, an explicit rejection of earlier Levitical Law. Again, God has changed his rules in a way that shocks the religious authorities. Again, this was done in a particular direction: to widen his mercy and include more people in his plan. There are more, including God explicitly saying he regrets certain actions.
The relevance for today's Christians is that we should not read the Bible as a static book, handing down a dogmatic, unquestioning set of rules and regulations to follow. To do so would be reading Scripture like the religious authorities in Isaiah's time, or the Pharisees in Jesus'. To continue to persecute, exclude, and condemn LGBTQ+ Christians is in clear violation of God's plan: the constant expansion of his mercy.
There are plenty of ethical examples that map onto this, but none more clear than slavery. Slavery is mentioned multiple times throughout the Old and New Testament. It's not really condemned; mainly its excesses are curtailed and masters are commanded to treat their slaves with a measure of respect. But slavery is never condemned as such. So how have Christians today become such ardent abolitionists? It's because we have come to understand (after quite some time, admittedly) that a narrow exegesis of the passages that refer to slavery is missing the forest for the trees. The broad themes of the Bible, like the equal dignity of all and widening scope of God's mercy, require us to look at the narrative arc of the Bible, not at a handful of passages.
The church has a long way to go regarding the acceptance of LGBTQ Christians. Personally, the viciousness and intolerance of the church on this issue has been a source of great shame for me. Hays tells a story about how his brother refused to go to his mother's funeral because it was going to be at a United Methodist Church—a denomination that accepts and affirms LGBTQ Christians. Such a sad example of how bitter and hateful the church can be, and how rigid dogmatism can make us lose sight of the Gospel's message. Richard B. Hays, one of the authors of this book, wrote a book on ethics in the New Testament in 1996. In it, there's a chapter where he argues that homosexuality is a sin and should not be affirmed by the church. In the epilogue, he apologizes and admits that his book has done a tremendous amount of harm. I think that if he can repent and move forward, there's hope for the church.
Quotes
Even if we were mistaken in our vision, it is better to be wrong in love. As Paul wrote, “if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). Paul offers a way to decide whom to follow when visions conflict and people disagree: Follow the way of love.
The acceptance of sexual minorities in the church reenacts 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…We advocate full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible. Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s mercy.
We suggest that for those who would like to make sense of the Bible, these statements about God’s unchanging word must somehow be held together with a long tradition of examples where God does in fact change his mind—and so do faithful people. In particular, God repeatedly changes his mind in ways that expand the sphere of his love, preserve his relationship with humankind, and protect and show mercy toward them.
The church’s inability to recognize the God it claims to worship, and to free itself from incessant bickering over sexual orientation, has become profoundly toxic. It has not only harmed individuals, but it has impeded the church’s broader mission and cast a pall over everything else that we do. This book invites us all to move on in peace and harmony.
The Biblical narrative is one in which God changes his mind. This is a shocking conclusion, one that contradicts how many conservatives read the Bible. After all, isn't God "the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8)? Yes, he certainly is, in one sense. God is eternally a God of love. But throughout the Biblical narrative, we also see a God of change; one that constantly revises his commands for us. Not in an arbitrary way, but always guided in a single direction: to widen his mercy and include more and more people in his plan (ultimately everyone if you're a universalist, but that's a different book review).
The most obvious way in which this is true is the transition from the Old to New Covenants. God had a covenant with the Jewish people, but (to the shock and anger of the religious authorities) he sent his Son to live and die for all people, Gentiles included. This caused a great deal of anger and confusion in the early church. Many Jewish Christians believed that Gentiles had to follow the Jewish law, including being circumcised and following the dietary restrictions. Paul disagrees, demanding they "welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God." Again, this was a shocking message, and a drastic change from what many Jews thought the Messiah would be.
There are plenty of examples of this. Isaiah demands that eunuchs and foreigners be allowed to worship in the temple, an explicit rejection of earlier Levitical Law. Again, God has changed his rules in a way that shocks the religious authorities. Again, this was done in a particular direction: to widen his mercy and include more people in his plan. There are more, including God explicitly saying he regrets certain actions.
The relevance for today's Christians is that we should not read the Bible as a static book, handing down a dogmatic, unquestioning set of rules and regulations to follow. To do so would be reading Scripture like the religious authorities in Isaiah's time, or the Pharisees in Jesus'. To continue to persecute, exclude, and condemn LGBTQ+ Christians is in clear violation of God's plan: the constant expansion of his mercy.
There are plenty of ethical examples that map onto this, but none more clear than slavery. Slavery is mentioned multiple times throughout the Old and New Testament. It's not really condemned; mainly its excesses are curtailed and masters are commanded to treat their slaves with a measure of respect. But slavery is never condemned as such. So how have Christians today become such ardent abolitionists? It's because we have come to understand (after quite some time, admittedly) that a narrow exegesis of the passages that refer to slavery is missing the forest for the trees. The broad themes of the Bible, like the equal dignity of all and widening scope of God's mercy, require us to look at the narrative arc of the Bible, not at a handful of passages.
The church has a long way to go regarding the acceptance of LGBTQ Christians. Personally, the viciousness and intolerance of the church on this issue has been a source of great shame for me. Hays tells a story about how his brother refused to go to his mother's funeral because it was going to be at a United Methodist Church—a denomination that accepts and affirms LGBTQ Christians. Such a sad example of how bitter and hateful the church can be, and how rigid dogmatism can make us lose sight of the Gospel's message. Richard B. Hays, one of the authors of this book, wrote a book on ethics in the New Testament in 1996. In it, there's a chapter where he argues that homosexuality is a sin and should not be affirmed by the church. In the epilogue, he apologizes and admits that his book has done a tremendous amount of harm. I think that if he can repent and move forward, there's hope for the church.
Quotes
Even if we were mistaken in our vision, it is better to be wrong in love. As Paul wrote, “if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). Paul offers a way to decide whom to follow when visions conflict and people disagree: Follow the way of love.
The acceptance of sexual minorities in the church reenacts 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…We advocate full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible. Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s mercy.
We suggest that for those who would like to make sense of the Bible, these statements about God’s unchanging word must somehow be held together with a long tradition of examples where God does in fact change his mind—and so do faithful people. In particular, God repeatedly changes his mind in ways that expand the sphere of his love, preserve his relationship with humankind, and protect and show mercy toward them.
The church’s inability to recognize the God it claims to worship, and to free itself from incessant bickering over sexual orientation, has become profoundly toxic. It has not only harmed individuals, but it has impeded the church’s broader mission and cast a pall over everything else that we do. This book invites us all to move on in peace and harmony.
November 9, 2024
In this book, a well-known Christian theologian clarifies (and backtracks a bit) his position on LGBTQ inclusion in the church. In some communities, it's been controversial. I'm of the opinion that both sides have treated this book as something it's not. On the one hand, it is not the moral ruin of some otherwise "once great" scholar. On the other hand, it is not the border crossing, nail-in-the-coffin argument against the traditionally conservative view. Let me elaborate.
Why it's not an un-Christian polemic piece: Chris and Richard Hays are excellent theologians and Bible scholars. They deserve to be taken seriously, and I think they make some strong arguments for their case. In addition, they advocate that wisdom involves silence and reflection before God in the face of difficult questions, considering the bad example set by Job's friends. I think they rightly call out hypocrisy and pride in the camps of their opponents, and refusing to listen to them only confirms their point.
Why it's not a slam-dunk argument: Their ultimate point is more or less that the burden of proof is on conservative Christians to show why the church should not bless same-sex unions on the basis of the Bible. They make a compelling case, but shifting the burden of proof only accomplishes so much. Additionally, they build some straw-man arguments of their opponents that depict unpopular minority behaviors rather than well-reasoned opponents. If you're going to argue well, you have to tackle the sharpest of your opponents, not the low-hanging fruit. They also make some strange analogies that, even in the framework of R. Hays' "metaphor-making" don't work. For example, "LGBTQ persons = tax collectors" (pp. 133-135) doesn't work because one behavior is only culturally unpopular, whereas the biblical authors actually condemn the behavior of the other (as both C. Hays and R. Hays admit). The analogy actually hurts the argument of the authors because Nicodemus (tax collector) ends up reforming his previous behavior to accord with OT law. Also, "same-sex unions = non-kosher food" (p. 173, and somewhere else that I forgot) is obviously odd. Even connecting it to Peter's interpretation of his Acts 10 vision doesn't work, because the category of "unclean" does not map onto how other biblical authors talk about same-sex relationships.
TLDR: pretty good, but not all it's cracked up to be. Worth reading, if that rows your boat.
Why it's not an un-Christian polemic piece: Chris and Richard Hays are excellent theologians and Bible scholars. They deserve to be taken seriously, and I think they make some strong arguments for their case. In addition, they advocate that wisdom involves silence and reflection before God in the face of difficult questions, considering the bad example set by Job's friends. I think they rightly call out hypocrisy and pride in the camps of their opponents, and refusing to listen to them only confirms their point.
Why it's not a slam-dunk argument: Their ultimate point is more or less that the burden of proof is on conservative Christians to show why the church should not bless same-sex unions on the basis of the Bible. They make a compelling case, but shifting the burden of proof only accomplishes so much. Additionally, they build some straw-man arguments of their opponents that depict unpopular minority behaviors rather than well-reasoned opponents. If you're going to argue well, you have to tackle the sharpest of your opponents, not the low-hanging fruit. They also make some strange analogies that, even in the framework of R. Hays' "metaphor-making" don't work. For example, "LGBTQ persons = tax collectors" (pp. 133-135) doesn't work because one behavior is only culturally unpopular, whereas the biblical authors actually condemn the behavior of the other (as both C. Hays and R. Hays admit). The analogy actually hurts the argument of the authors because Nicodemus (tax collector) ends up reforming his previous behavior to accord with OT law. Also, "same-sex unions = non-kosher food" (p. 173, and somewhere else that I forgot) is obviously odd. Even connecting it to Peter's interpretation of his Acts 10 vision doesn't work, because the category of "unclean" does not map onto how other biblical authors talk about same-sex relationships.
TLDR: pretty good, but not all it's cracked up to be. Worth reading, if that rows your boat.
December 19, 2025
What I appreciate about this text is that it takes seriously the claim that God reveals himself to humans through narrative. Richard Hays, in his previous book 'A Moral Vision of the New Testament' talks about how the Bible has rules, principles, paradigms as well, but that at its heart it is a story and most of the texts take on a narrative character. And here, father and son, bring their combined expertise to tell a grand story of how God continually surprises us by his mercy--revising even his own previous laws and judgements in favor of showers of mercy.
Instead of a tired rehashing of quibbling over terms (it's been done, I've read those books), tearing apart the very few verses in the bible that hold relevance to the debate over sexuality (also been done), they focus instead on God's character. "Mercy belongs to the very short list of what Jesus calls 'the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.'"
Instead of a tired rehashing of quibbling over terms (it's been done, I've read those books), tearing apart the very few verses in the bible that hold relevance to the debate over sexuality (also been done), they focus instead on God's character. "Mercy belongs to the very short list of what Jesus calls 'the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.'"
January 16, 2025
Biblical research that draws threads through the whole story to honor the essential truth of LOVE… disagree with the premise of God changing (our grasp of a holy mystery changes as our world changes , change is a function of time and God is outside of time ) but appreciate the constant - reforming tradition of adjusting our practices to reflect reality.
Read
January 23, 2025I'm not going to give stars to this one, partially cuz I have no idea what to give lol. I was very intrigued by this book due to Richard's late-in-life mind change on the subject. I found his prologue at the beginning to be a bit confusing regarding his NT Ethics book, but it made more sense once I read the epilogue, I think the two should have been merged. I didn't love Christopher's treatment of the OT. His assumption of God's POV in regards to child sacrifice throughout the OT was rather troubling to me. God just thought it was okay to ask for child sacrifice and then he changed his mind? That's certainly an opinion. Not really a God I'd be wild about. Now to be sure, literalists will jump through a million mental hoops to reconcile the incongruences and the changing of God's mind especially in the OT has a wide array of interpretation amongst scholars, but I didn't find his very compelling. (For the record, I tend to lean toward Pete Enns' "God lets His children tell His story" approach.) I also think Christopher fails to recognize just how much of a shift in mindset he's asking his readers to have if they lean toward literalism. There's a tinge of arrogance in his tone.
Richard's section is (in my amateur opinion) better and more compelling. It's a big leap to conflate Gentile inclusion with LGBT affirmation though, and I need to think more on that.
This is different than an exegesis of clobber passages that you may have read from one side or another. I'd encourage you to push through Christopher's section if it's bothering you, and wrestle with the book as a whole. Its vision for what the Bible (and particularly the NT) is might just be too much for some people, though, which is sad.
Richard's section is (in my amateur opinion) better and more compelling. It's a big leap to conflate Gentile inclusion with LGBT affirmation though, and I need to think more on that.
This is different than an exegesis of clobber passages that you may have read from one side or another. I'd encourage you to push through Christopher's section if it's bothering you, and wrestle with the book as a whole. Its vision for what the Bible (and particularly the NT) is might just be too much for some people, though, which is sad.
January 31, 2025
This was one a labor of love. Emphasis on labor, emphasis on love.
In the 90s (?) Richard Hays wrote a book called Moral Vision of the New Testament that basically said that gay Christians should remain single and celibate. This was extensively quoted along with “clobber passages” and Hays came to regret writing this. And guys hold on to your butts because hE ChAnGeD HiS MiNd 😳 and wrote this book about it. The book is dense. I moved through it slowly bc I was very clear that I was reading a theologian not a casual substacker. He doesn’t set out to disprove any “clobber texts”, in fact he doesn’t mention them at all. He spends most of the book laying out a biblical trajectory of God’s widening mercy, constantly including more and more people into the fold of mercy, and then he imagines how this relates to sexual minorities of today. I learned a lot about the Old Testament, a lot of which I kinda wish I didn’t know (japheth daughter, wtf😳). there’s a lot more I could say about this topic but basically anyone these days publicly changing their mind about anything is a *damn miracle* and affirming theology saves lives 💯 thankful for slow going but worth it read.
In the 90s (?) Richard Hays wrote a book called Moral Vision of the New Testament that basically said that gay Christians should remain single and celibate. This was extensively quoted along with “clobber passages” and Hays came to regret writing this. And guys hold on to your butts because hE ChAnGeD HiS MiNd 😳 and wrote this book about it. The book is dense. I moved through it slowly bc I was very clear that I was reading a theologian not a casual substacker. He doesn’t set out to disprove any “clobber texts”, in fact he doesn’t mention them at all. He spends most of the book laying out a biblical trajectory of God’s widening mercy, constantly including more and more people into the fold of mercy, and then he imagines how this relates to sexual minorities of today. I learned a lot about the Old Testament, a lot of which I kinda wish I didn’t know (japheth daughter, wtf😳). there’s a lot more I could say about this topic but basically anyone these days publicly changing their mind about anything is a *damn miracle* and affirming theology saves lives 💯 thankful for slow going but worth it read.
July 29, 2025
While I do not know if I agree with the authors on all their conclusions, this book created some good thoughts and conversations for me and with God. I am grateful for the courage and humility of the authors, to approach this subject and to be so open, vulnerable, honest, and astute. If anything, the message of this book calls for deep compassion, deep love, and the way it is laid out should cause everyone to consider how they love others, especially with those who might differ in their stance on sexuality. I’d recommend this book, not as fact, but to stir conversation, especially around love and inclusion.
January 28, 2025
So I listened to this audiobook because of all the discussion around it. It is well written and I believe well intentioned but I think the overall premise that God changes his mind and widens his mercy is flawed. I think our understanding of God’s mercy and his purposes can grow and change but the Lord is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.
January 12, 2026
Ultimately, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It is a beautiful example of good biblical discussion. However, I wish these scholars implemented more early church father perspectives, although I acknowledge these are biblical scholars. I really struggled with the idea of “God changes his mind.” I ultimately disagree and say that “it appears God changes his mind to humans as He is beyond time.” I loved and agreed with God’s expansion/widening of mercy throughout scriptures. Ultimately, I don’t think it “expands,” but that it appears to expand to us as the Biblical story unfolds. God’s plan from all along was to welcome gentiles- it was not a change of His mind. This is a book I will be thinking about for a while, and I am grateful for the appeal at the end to churches to be more merciful to people of all sexual orientations. 4 stars, although I landed in a slightly different place theologically.
November 22, 2024
So, why did it take so long?
There's been a major buzz among leading journalists concerned with LGBTQ inclusion about the fact that father-and-son scholars—the two Hays—finally put an end to allowing previous anti-LGBTQ work be used to beat up on activists pushing for inclusion of LGBTQ Christians in congregations nationwide.
Until now, regional debates—in person, in print and online—would often include, "But we really need to consider what the leading biblical scholars have to say ..." And up would pop Hays opposition to compassion toward LGBTQ folks. I'm a journalist myself who has covered this evolving story for many decades and, over the past year—even before their book was finally published by Yale—lots of other journalists have published long columns about this milestone. So, I don't need to explain that in depth. Just search for the news coverage over the past year and you'll find more about the importance of father-and-son Hays both going public with a biblical defense of compassion and inclusion.
I am giving them 5 stars for finally publishing this book, but my real question here is: So, why did it take so long?
Other pioneers like Dr. David Gushee at Mercer have been out there in public making this case for years now—and weathering all the brutal responses from traditionalists. In Gushee's case, he's been out there since 2017's Changing Our Mind. Others have been out there for far longer than that arguing for Christian compassion over proof-texting condemnation based on a handful of questionable passages.
One criticism of the Hays book by traditionalists is that they essentially skip over the "old style" debate and take a much higher and broader view of scripture overall. The sweep of the Bible testifies to a loving God whose compassion extends to everyone. That's the core of their argument, although they sketch this out over an entire book-length text.
Reading their book, I am glad they published it. I'm glad I now have this new book that I can give to curious and sometimes skeptical church folks who I know and love—and who need more encouragement to follow their instincts toward following God's compassion. The Hays family certainly has!
My only regret? Guys! Why'd you wait so long! Folks were beaten over the head with your past work for years longer than they needed to suffer. Glad you're on the right side of history and biblical interpretation now. But, I wish you'd made this argument a decade ago.
There's been a major buzz among leading journalists concerned with LGBTQ inclusion about the fact that father-and-son scholars—the two Hays—finally put an end to allowing previous anti-LGBTQ work be used to beat up on activists pushing for inclusion of LGBTQ Christians in congregations nationwide.
Until now, regional debates—in person, in print and online—would often include, "But we really need to consider what the leading biblical scholars have to say ..." And up would pop Hays opposition to compassion toward LGBTQ folks. I'm a journalist myself who has covered this evolving story for many decades and, over the past year—even before their book was finally published by Yale—lots of other journalists have published long columns about this milestone. So, I don't need to explain that in depth. Just search for the news coverage over the past year and you'll find more about the importance of father-and-son Hays both going public with a biblical defense of compassion and inclusion.
I am giving them 5 stars for finally publishing this book, but my real question here is: So, why did it take so long?
Other pioneers like Dr. David Gushee at Mercer have been out there in public making this case for years now—and weathering all the brutal responses from traditionalists. In Gushee's case, he's been out there since 2017's Changing Our Mind. Others have been out there for far longer than that arguing for Christian compassion over proof-texting condemnation based on a handful of questionable passages.
One criticism of the Hays book by traditionalists is that they essentially skip over the "old style" debate and take a much higher and broader view of scripture overall. The sweep of the Bible testifies to a loving God whose compassion extends to everyone. That's the core of their argument, although they sketch this out over an entire book-length text.
Reading their book, I am glad they published it. I'm glad I now have this new book that I can give to curious and sometimes skeptical church folks who I know and love—and who need more encouragement to follow their instincts toward following God's compassion. The Hays family certainly has!
My only regret? Guys! Why'd you wait so long! Folks were beaten over the head with your past work for years longer than they needed to suffer. Glad you're on the right side of history and biblical interpretation now. But, I wish you'd made this argument a decade ago.
Read
July 7, 2025Summary: this is a groundbreaking work because of its unprecedented claims about the nature of God and downstream implications for interpreting Scripture and applying it to faith and practice today. Subsequently, its accurate representation of many popular-level evangelicals'/progressives stance on LGBTQ inclusion in the Christian church clearly defines its fault lines with classical theology and traditional marriage/sexuality. This gives a textual baseline for further engagement.
-------
I am grateful for this book. It is a popular-level work written by two tenured professors at an evangelical seminary that expresses in text what I believe many people I love believe about God, His Word, and human sexuality. This has given me a lot to reflect on.
First, my understanding and compassion are insufficient and not infallible. But I believe in the God who is truth, love, justice, mercy, wisdom, compassion and so much more. Therefore, all my efforts to engage with this work should be done with humility and an effort to contend for what is good, true, and beautiful regarding sexuality, because that is who God is and his intent for all He creates. Both the authors and myself believe the inspired Word of God in the Bible is the best source for the right answers. By this I affirm that every human being is made in God’s image and loved by Him. That image is shattered by our rebellion against God’s design and by faith and repentance we are welcomed back to relationship with the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit who restore that image in each of us.
Second, I preface by saying that when I use the term "full (LGBTQ+) inclusion" I am assuming the furthest conclusion of the author’s claims; meaning that based on their conclusions I assert that their version of inclusion posits that queer sexual identity is inherent to a person and cannot be changed. Therefore, there is no need for repentance and membership, even ordination, in the church are no longer "out of bounds" for all who identify as LGBTQ+. This is my best attempt at interpreting the author’s intent in the use of "full inclusion." And so, we delve in.
Two key quotes from the conclusion succinctly summarize the two pillars that undergird the author’s contention:
"The inclusion of sexual minorities is not a rejection of the Bible’s message, but a fuller embrace of its story of God’s mercy…(to see) how it has already included them (sexual minorities), their partners, and their friends"
"Even if we were mistaken in our vision, it is better to be wrong in love…"
The claims of this book do not merely deal with modern Christian ethics, but with who God is. I was admittedly shocked early-on in reading when co-author Richard Hays affirmed his prior assertions in The Moral Vision of the New Testament that every passage in Scripture that mentions anything other than traditional male/female sexuality does so in staunch disapproval. However, this does not deter the author from now embracing a "trajectory argument" for the full inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community in the church. Their reasoning? Essentially, according to the narrative of the Scriptures, God does change His mind (learns on the job), but always in the direction of inclusive, expansive mercy. Therefore, 21st century believers should recognize the loving/merciful nature of God as primary, the subsequent trajectory of the Scriptures towards radical inclusivity, and finally the professing LGBTQ+ believers as full members/participants in the church.
I cannot stress enough how radical this claim is; as it departs from any historic Christian understanding of the nature of God, finality and infallibility of the Scriptures, and marriage, human sexuality, and the church. Therefore, the burden of proof is heavy on the authors.
Nevertheless, the authors posit this claim and seek to defend its precedence and application in the:
1. Old Testament
2. New Testament
3. Church Today
They also draw trajectorial parallels for this claim through biblical themes and motifs:
4. Mercy/love/God’s relenting
5.Gentile inclusion
6. Slavery and the churches eventual embrace of its full abolition. This is their best argument.
What I appreciated and can affirm in the book:
1. The admission that an argument for LGBTQ+ inclusion from the explicit Scriptural passages dealing with such falls short of anything close to convincing.
The admission of personal experience’s role in the author’s decision to engage these issues academically.
2. The call for an honest, inner critique of the "traditional/classical" camp of the church's sexual ethic within monogamous, heterosexual relationships. It is far too easy to make great ado about specks in others eyes when we ignore the log in our own. Hetero adultery, pornography, etc. should be treated with the same weight and standards as LGBTQ+.
Clarifying questions:
1. What is meant by a "full welcome/inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals" into the church, exactly? This is very frustrating to me because you’d expect the authors to get specific about what inclusion looks like practically. Is it sinful to continue in these relationships? Can LGBTQ+ individuals be members of the church or ordained to ministry? Should marriage be redefined to "two persons" rather than "a man and a woman?”
2. Based on these conclusions, what is the author’s definition of marriage?
3. How do we know that God has changed His mind on sexuality specifically? These arguments did not leave me convinced of this conclusion.
4. Could this same "trajectory" argument be used to embrace consensual polygamous or incestual relationships not only acceptable but celebrated in the church? If not, why not?
Responses:
1. Message to sinners: come as you are, don’t stay as you are. The posture of the church has been and should be that all sinners are welcome to enter into a church community by profession of faith and repentance of sin. It is the latter of these two that seem to be completely neglected by the authors.
2. Trajectory arguments. Throughout Scripture there is a compelling case for God’s radical inclusivity of once alienated groups (e.g. Gentiles). It would be egregious to not mention that these are always conditional; the requirement in this case being faith in Christ and repentance of sins. However, there are also instances of stricter trajectories from OT to NT (e.g. Noah’s flood in the OT and ethics in the NT/Sermon on the Mount). In the case of sexuality in the NT, the trajectory is clearly stricter (see Matt 5, Matt 19, Rom 1, 1 Cor 6, etc)
3. Blasphemy against God’s attributes and character. This work felt largely irreverent, like throwing God under the bus for the sake of the argument.
4. Ethno/moderno centrism. The wholesale rejection of all historically Christian precedent and modern non-western Christian understanding of human sexuality seemed haughty and irresponsible. This is a largely modern, western, academic movement. Is it really plasuible that the Holy Spirit is choosing to specially reveal these supposed truths to such a small minority in the historic and global church while the rest are in intolerant error?
But WHAT ARE WE FOR? I reiterate the second paragraph of this review and would add that a retrieval of a reverent and happy doctrine of repentance and the inseparable work of the Trinity (specifically the transforming power of the Holy Spirit) in the life of the believer/church is necessary for good, true, and beautiful inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community. Repentance is initiated and brought to completion in the life of the believer by the Holy Spirit and I fear that a rejection of our need for repentance as sexual sinners "quenches the Holy Spirit." We are ALL sexual sinners in need of a perfect Savior who will enable and help us become that which we were created to be. The authors admonish us to love, even be "wrong in love." But they do not show us what love looks like. Thankfully, the apostle Paul tells us that true, abounding love is necessarily paired with knowledge and discernment of what we should strive for for the glory of God. And to that end:
"...it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God" ~Phillipians 1:9-11
-------
I am grateful for this book. It is a popular-level work written by two tenured professors at an evangelical seminary that expresses in text what I believe many people I love believe about God, His Word, and human sexuality. This has given me a lot to reflect on.
First, my understanding and compassion are insufficient and not infallible. But I believe in the God who is truth, love, justice, mercy, wisdom, compassion and so much more. Therefore, all my efforts to engage with this work should be done with humility and an effort to contend for what is good, true, and beautiful regarding sexuality, because that is who God is and his intent for all He creates. Both the authors and myself believe the inspired Word of God in the Bible is the best source for the right answers. By this I affirm that every human being is made in God’s image and loved by Him. That image is shattered by our rebellion against God’s design and by faith and repentance we are welcomed back to relationship with the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit who restore that image in each of us.
Second, I preface by saying that when I use the term "full (LGBTQ+) inclusion" I am assuming the furthest conclusion of the author’s claims; meaning that based on their conclusions I assert that their version of inclusion posits that queer sexual identity is inherent to a person and cannot be changed. Therefore, there is no need for repentance and membership, even ordination, in the church are no longer "out of bounds" for all who identify as LGBTQ+. This is my best attempt at interpreting the author’s intent in the use of "full inclusion." And so, we delve in.
Two key quotes from the conclusion succinctly summarize the two pillars that undergird the author’s contention:
"The inclusion of sexual minorities is not a rejection of the Bible’s message, but a fuller embrace of its story of God’s mercy…(to see) how it has already included them (sexual minorities), their partners, and their friends"
"Even if we were mistaken in our vision, it is better to be wrong in love…"
The claims of this book do not merely deal with modern Christian ethics, but with who God is. I was admittedly shocked early-on in reading when co-author Richard Hays affirmed his prior assertions in The Moral Vision of the New Testament that every passage in Scripture that mentions anything other than traditional male/female sexuality does so in staunch disapproval. However, this does not deter the author from now embracing a "trajectory argument" for the full inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community in the church. Their reasoning? Essentially, according to the narrative of the Scriptures, God does change His mind (learns on the job), but always in the direction of inclusive, expansive mercy. Therefore, 21st century believers should recognize the loving/merciful nature of God as primary, the subsequent trajectory of the Scriptures towards radical inclusivity, and finally the professing LGBTQ+ believers as full members/participants in the church.
I cannot stress enough how radical this claim is; as it departs from any historic Christian understanding of the nature of God, finality and infallibility of the Scriptures, and marriage, human sexuality, and the church. Therefore, the burden of proof is heavy on the authors.
Nevertheless, the authors posit this claim and seek to defend its precedence and application in the:
1. Old Testament
2. New Testament
3. Church Today
They also draw trajectorial parallels for this claim through biblical themes and motifs:
4. Mercy/love/God’s relenting
5.Gentile inclusion
6. Slavery and the churches eventual embrace of its full abolition. This is their best argument.
What I appreciated and can affirm in the book:
1. The admission that an argument for LGBTQ+ inclusion from the explicit Scriptural passages dealing with such falls short of anything close to convincing.
The admission of personal experience’s role in the author’s decision to engage these issues academically.
2. The call for an honest, inner critique of the "traditional/classical" camp of the church's sexual ethic within monogamous, heterosexual relationships. It is far too easy to make great ado about specks in others eyes when we ignore the log in our own. Hetero adultery, pornography, etc. should be treated with the same weight and standards as LGBTQ+.
Clarifying questions:
1. What is meant by a "full welcome/inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals" into the church, exactly? This is very frustrating to me because you’d expect the authors to get specific about what inclusion looks like practically. Is it sinful to continue in these relationships? Can LGBTQ+ individuals be members of the church or ordained to ministry? Should marriage be redefined to "two persons" rather than "a man and a woman?”
2. Based on these conclusions, what is the author’s definition of marriage?
3. How do we know that God has changed His mind on sexuality specifically? These arguments did not leave me convinced of this conclusion.
4. Could this same "trajectory" argument be used to embrace consensual polygamous or incestual relationships not only acceptable but celebrated in the church? If not, why not?
Responses:
1. Message to sinners: come as you are, don’t stay as you are. The posture of the church has been and should be that all sinners are welcome to enter into a church community by profession of faith and repentance of sin. It is the latter of these two that seem to be completely neglected by the authors.
2. Trajectory arguments. Throughout Scripture there is a compelling case for God’s radical inclusivity of once alienated groups (e.g. Gentiles). It would be egregious to not mention that these are always conditional; the requirement in this case being faith in Christ and repentance of sins. However, there are also instances of stricter trajectories from OT to NT (e.g. Noah’s flood in the OT and ethics in the NT/Sermon on the Mount). In the case of sexuality in the NT, the trajectory is clearly stricter (see Matt 5, Matt 19, Rom 1, 1 Cor 6, etc)
3. Blasphemy against God’s attributes and character. This work felt largely irreverent, like throwing God under the bus for the sake of the argument.
4. Ethno/moderno centrism. The wholesale rejection of all historically Christian precedent and modern non-western Christian understanding of human sexuality seemed haughty and irresponsible. This is a largely modern, western, academic movement. Is it really plasuible that the Holy Spirit is choosing to specially reveal these supposed truths to such a small minority in the historic and global church while the rest are in intolerant error?
But WHAT ARE WE FOR? I reiterate the second paragraph of this review and would add that a retrieval of a reverent and happy doctrine of repentance and the inseparable work of the Trinity (specifically the transforming power of the Holy Spirit) in the life of the believer/church is necessary for good, true, and beautiful inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community. Repentance is initiated and brought to completion in the life of the believer by the Holy Spirit and I fear that a rejection of our need for repentance as sexual sinners "quenches the Holy Spirit." We are ALL sexual sinners in need of a perfect Savior who will enable and help us become that which we were created to be. The authors admonish us to love, even be "wrong in love." But they do not show us what love looks like. Thankfully, the apostle Paul tells us that true, abounding love is necessarily paired with knowledge and discernment of what we should strive for for the glory of God. And to that end:
"...it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God" ~Phillipians 1:9-11
January 21, 2025
I sat on this book for a while and I’ve done my own study and talked with professors and believers about this book. I just cannot agree with Chris and Richard. How are we to know on what God has changed his mind on for certain with a closed cannon? I appreciate their sensitivity to the subject and their desire to love the body of Christ but I just see this as a weak argument for full inclusion.
Want to read
March 25, 2025Seeing my old pastor is reading this book is crazy (in a good way) gonna go back to his church when he updates that he finishes it and see if he talks about it at this point lmaoo
June 1, 2025
"We advocate full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible. Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible's ongoing story of God's Mercy" (214).
When it comes to books on affirming theology, this would not be my first recommendation, but it would be my recommendation for a second or third book read on this subject. While other books tackle the so-called "clobber passages" text by text, this book approaches the subject of sexuality through the lens of narrative criticism.
No matter if you are affirming or not affirming, this book is valuable, and you will likely agree with 16/17 of all the chapters. The book shows canonically throughout Scripture how God's circle of inclusion has grown even to groups previously condemned or not included in the community in other parts of Scripture like Moabites, women, Gentiles, eunuchs, etc. This book does a good job showing that God's circle of who can be in the community of faith has widened more and more as time has passed. This book operates with a bit of an inductive structure. As a result, the very last chapter spends less than 30 pages advocating for why LGBTQ persons are the logical/biblical next step to that inclusion. With sexuality being on the subtitle of this book, that is a bit disappointing and insufficient space to talk about this subject. So, if you do not arrive at the same conclusion covered in the last 6% of this book, you will still find the other 16 chapters and 94% of this book valuable. It was actually a surprisingly fun read for a theological book. It has definitely been one that has helped me think about the length of God's love and how scandalous that love has been in history with God including those previously not included or even banned from his community such as Gentiles and eunuchs. Overall, not the first book I would recommend on tackling this subject but it would be a good follow-up read to others!
When it comes to books on affirming theology, this would not be my first recommendation, but it would be my recommendation for a second or third book read on this subject. While other books tackle the so-called "clobber passages" text by text, this book approaches the subject of sexuality through the lens of narrative criticism.
No matter if you are affirming or not affirming, this book is valuable, and you will likely agree with 16/17 of all the chapters. The book shows canonically throughout Scripture how God's circle of inclusion has grown even to groups previously condemned or not included in the community in other parts of Scripture like Moabites, women, Gentiles, eunuchs, etc. This book does a good job showing that God's circle of who can be in the community of faith has widened more and more as time has passed. This book operates with a bit of an inductive structure. As a result, the very last chapter spends less than 30 pages advocating for why LGBTQ persons are the logical/biblical next step to that inclusion. With sexuality being on the subtitle of this book, that is a bit disappointing and insufficient space to talk about this subject. So, if you do not arrive at the same conclusion covered in the last 6% of this book, you will still find the other 16 chapters and 94% of this book valuable. It was actually a surprisingly fun read for a theological book. It has definitely been one that has helped me think about the length of God's love and how scandalous that love has been in history with God including those previously not included or even banned from his community such as Gentiles and eunuchs. Overall, not the first book I would recommend on tackling this subject but it would be a good follow-up read to others!
September 5, 2025
There’s a lot wrong with this book from a scholarly/academic perspective. Not only does the whole book hinge on a theological view that God “changes his mind” which is in complete contradiction to the the historical tradition of the church on theology proper, but they make no argument for it! They assume the validity of that position. So, assuming that the rest of the argument was cogent and biblically sound, it lacks strength due to the invalid nature of the theological premise itself. Second, they undermine their own theological premise at every turn by explicitly stating throughout the course of the work that it was not really that God changes his mind on matters of inclusion of the gentile and foreigner, but something that was in the vision of God for all people all along (they are right about this, but it undermines the point that God’s mercy widens over time as He changes his mind). Third, they never truly engage with the movement of argument to argument. They make a very strong biblical case for the inclusion of foreigners and Gentiles, but they never truly make an argument for why that means this “widening” should lead to the inclusion of “sexual minorities.“ they sort of just assume that there is an inner logic there. Finally, the worst bit is that their decision to not include any exegetical engagement with the “clobber passages“ means that when they run headlong into confrontation with such passages as Romans 1 as they discuss it in their chapter on the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 they do not engage exegetically with the problem of that council’s decision to make sexual immorality, a universal and trans-cultural law by which gentiles must abide.
All in all this book could have been helped by more rigorous exegetical and theological discussions and interactions with other scholarly treatises on the subject as well as key texts at least when they came up as they did in later chapters.
All in all this book could have been helped by more rigorous exegetical and theological discussions and interactions with other scholarly treatises on the subject as well as key texts at least when they came up as they did in later chapters.
April 24, 2025
This book helped me to validate, understand and reconcile thoughts and feelings for which I didn't yet have words. I appreciated the fact that it was written by two theologians, father and son, who have changed their minds and shifted perspective as a result of their diligent study and belief in the authority of the Bible. They have approached their task without tearing apart the traditional 6 or 7 Scripture passages that many books on this topic have in the past. Instead, an invitation to explore the arc of the theme of God's mercy is extended.
This is a life-giving book for those who are at the stage of their faith or life where they are exploring what they perceive as incongruities between heart-felt convictions about mercy, justice and grace within the human experience, and the traditions of the church that appear full of cobwebs and tend to repel instead of invite. The epilogue is especially poignant. Tight on time or not feeling particularly sure about what lies ahead in the book? Read the final chapter and the Epilogue for maximum impact and a very good understanding of the thesis of the authors.
I invite you to explore the ever widening mercy of God.
This is a life-giving book for those who are at the stage of their faith or life where they are exploring what they perceive as incongruities between heart-felt convictions about mercy, justice and grace within the human experience, and the traditions of the church that appear full of cobwebs and tend to repel instead of invite. The epilogue is especially poignant. Tight on time or not feeling particularly sure about what lies ahead in the book? Read the final chapter and the Epilogue for maximum impact and a very good understanding of the thesis of the authors.
I invite you to explore the ever widening mercy of God.
June 19, 2025
Richard B. Hays was one of the best teachers I ever had, and I have benefitted enormously from his books. Co-authored with his son Christopher, this book is a necessary sequel to the influential _Moral Vision of the New Testament_ (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). On the hot topic of homosexuality, Hays stands by his exegesis of key NT passages, but the two Hayses here cast a new vision of biblical theology. I recall a seminary course on Romans in which Richard Hays insisted that the whole argument of the letter was about GOD, which is to say that Paul's Christology was secondary to his Theology. So it is with this book, Christopher & Richard Hays marshal their considerable expertise as exegetes of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament respectively, but their aim is not to explicate the texts in minute detail so much as to show how the pages of Scripture help us see God more clearly.
August 27, 2025
Extremely well-researched and persuasive. Empathetic and understanding and calling the Church to be better than she is. Bravo, Hays family.
“He tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade schooler and his sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it with the words “God don’t make no junk.” Most of the coloring sheets probably ended up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally when he needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation, nor do they forget when it doesn’t.”
“For many, the evidence of experience outweighs the inertia of tradition and the force of a few biblical proof texts on these questions.”
“He tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade schooler and his sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it with the words “God don’t make no junk.” Most of the coloring sheets probably ended up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally when he needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation, nor do they forget when it doesn’t.”
“For many, the evidence of experience outweighs the inertia of tradition and the force of a few biblical proof texts on these questions.”
February 11, 2026
I'm pretty disappointed in this book. The Introduction was so intriguing, but the content ends up causing me to spack my hand against my forehead in frustration.
They open their book defending their hope to support an affirming stance. They then make arguments for open-theism, rather than arguments for an affirming stance. They also openly discuss not wanting to discuss passages that directly address homosexuality (of course, the wider textual criticism conversation helpfully muddies those waters).
I'm not opposed to their opinion, but I am against their presentation. I'd be willing to have a conversation with anyone else who has read this book and had a better experience with it. Maybe I am not seeing what I ought to see.
They open their book defending their hope to support an affirming stance. They then make arguments for open-theism, rather than arguments for an affirming stance. They also openly discuss not wanting to discuss passages that directly address homosexuality (of course, the wider textual criticism conversation helpfully muddies those waters).
I'm not opposed to their opinion, but I am against their presentation. I'd be willing to have a conversation with anyone else who has read this book and had a better experience with it. Maybe I am not seeing what I ought to see.
October 9, 2024
3.5 rounded up to 4.
Not the book I was totally expecting. Instead of a typical sexual ethic book, the authors spent a majority of the time constructing a biblical theology of God’s mercy and God’s interaction with humans. This, of course, was to make the larger point on God’s expanding inclusion of gay people within God’s kingdom.
Overall, I appreciated the authors stance, but wish they would have dug a little deeper into what they are actually pushing for. I found the lack of definitions on marriage, a sexual ethic, and precisely what group of people they are talking about a little disappointing considering these are well established scholars.
Not the book I was totally expecting. Instead of a typical sexual ethic book, the authors spent a majority of the time constructing a biblical theology of God’s mercy and God’s interaction with humans. This, of course, was to make the larger point on God’s expanding inclusion of gay people within God’s kingdom.
Overall, I appreciated the authors stance, but wish they would have dug a little deeper into what they are actually pushing for. I found the lack of definitions on marriage, a sexual ethic, and precisely what group of people they are talking about a little disappointing considering these are well established scholars.
October 11, 2024
This is a book that is going to make a lot of conservative Christians angry, and yet it is a very important book for every person of faith to consider. While this book has received a lot of press and online discussion leading up to its publication just last month, the author's suggest this book is less about LGBTQ as an issue and more about what we can understand about who God is. The authors argue, from the Old Testament through the New Testament, that the story of God is one of widening mercy, making room for more and more people whom God's people had previously excluded. The book doesn't actually address the well known passages about homosexuality, but instead acknowledges that if our focus was purely on what is permissible or forbidden in the Bible, we would still have slaves and segregation and the oppression of women. Instead, we understand the Bible both from our cultural context and from an understanding that God is love, and the arc of his story is one of inclusion. I think that many conservative Christians will say (and have said) that the authors are fundamentally altering their view of God and the Bible, and to some extent I agree; and yet I think the author's perspective is in line with my own faith journey over the last couple of years. And if I am wrong on this, then I would rather err on the side of love and inclusiveness than on the side of exclusion and fear. This book is an embrace of God's love, not an abandonment of God, and it is a challenge to the modern evangelical church in America and their current understanding of God.
(Note: A loved one asked me to read Carl Trueman's book Strange New World, which I read along with Trueman's larger tome The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, both of which are addressed to conservative Christians and written to explore the roots of the psychology and sociology of the modern LGBTQ movement, though from a biased viewpoint in my opinion. I will be asking my loved one to read this book as a counterpoint, which should make for some good discussion.)
(Note: A loved one asked me to read Carl Trueman's book Strange New World, which I read along with Trueman's larger tome The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, both of which are addressed to conservative Christians and written to explore the roots of the psychology and sociology of the modern LGBTQ movement, though from a biased viewpoint in my opinion. I will be asking my loved one to read this book as a counterpoint, which should make for some good discussion.)
February 20, 2025
At its heart, this book encourages Christians to interact with God and allow Him to shape our reading of the Bible. It is certainly a call to full acceptance and inclusion of sexual minorities in the church, but I appreciate the broad strokes with which the authors make their case. It seems especially poignant that the father of this father-son team is reversing and revising his earlier position on the matter, doing his best to help the church chart a new and more loving course forward. I believe this is a book I will return to. Thank you, Christopher and Richard Hays.
May 6, 2025
My primary qualm with this book is that it essentially claims to offer a hermeneutical key to scriptural interpretation on the issue of human sexuality, yet it explicitly states early in the book that it will not devote any space to discuss method or defend its hermeneutic. Given some of the significant interpretive moves made in the book, especially with respect to the OT, more demands to be said concerning method. Instead, many big claims and hermeneutical judgments are pronounced throughout, but relatively little is said to support those claims.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews