When I heard about the book by Hays and Hays titled The Widening of God Mercy I was intrigued. I had read Richard Hays' book The Moral Vision of the New Testament in seminary, especially the chapter on homosexuality. I ended up adopting much, if not all, of Hays' position on homosexuality and often used his reasoning while serving as a church minister.
I have read other things that Richard Hays has written such as Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness and found it beneficial to my understanding of Jesus and what it means to be a follower of Jesus. When it was suggested that Richard Hays might have changed his mind about what he wrote in The Moral Vision of the New Testament on homosexuality, I wanted to find out for myself.
My Context
I spent over ten years doing youth ministry in the local church. I now know many adults who used to be teenagers in my youth group. Some of those adults are gay or lesbian. That means unbeknownst to me I had teenagers in my youth group who were struggling with a secret they were terrified to mention. This also means that when I hear fellow brothers and sisters in Christ say hateful things about the LGBTQ community they are talking about my kids! Not just my kids but their kids!
The same teenagers that church members poured adoration on for getting baptized, participating in service projects, or attending church summer camps have become rejected by those same church members. As if rejection is the only way a follower of Jesus could respond.
I admit that while serving as a local church minister I struggled with how to talk about or minister to people in the LGBTQ community. Nowhere in my college and seminary education was a course offered on the Bible and gender. It has only been within the last few years that a few books and conferences have been provided in the area of theology and sexuality on a level accessible to church ministers.
Within my ministry context talking about being welcoming toward LGBTQ people made folks uneasy and placed me under a cloud of suspicion. I had members in my congregation who honestly didn't care if an LGBTQ person attended the church. I had the majority of members who viewed an LGBTQ person attending church as a sign that the Bible was no longer being taught or followed.
Thus welcoming LGBTQ people would have been a quick path towards being fired or causing a church spit. At the time I was a single dad with two kids. Finding work outside of the church for local ministers is difficult. I once put my education and training into an Indeed job profile and was told I would do great as a fast food manager, Amazon warehouse worker, or office manager. Thanks Indeed for making me question my educational choices in life. Many other local church ministers I know have quietly told me they wish their church community would be more welcoming. Yet they face many of the same calculations I faced at the time.
I did offer several Sunday messages about homosexuality, the Bible, and being welcoming. I wanted to believe that the church I served was a safe place for everyone yet truth be told it was not. Every church I know wants to be known as friendly and welcoming. Yet, most churches are more like a friendly dog. Churches tend to be friendly towards those that they know. By "know" I mean people who vote, look, dress, and view the Bible in a way that is mostly in line with everyone else. This can happen in conservative churches or progressive churches.
In the last few years of my church ministry, we did have a lesbian couple that started to attend regularly on Sundays. They had been together for about 20 years at the time. They were welcomed well, invited to special events, and happily served at some church events. They even brought their young grandson who really enjoyed coming to church.
One of them told me once to keep "preaching from God's word" and "call sin, sin" because they liked learning what the Bible had to say. I was happy for the warm welcome they received. And not just for them but for their grandson. He could grow up having experienced a group of Christians that treated his family well. If this group could be welcoming toward his family then that says something about the kind of God this community of Christians follows.
I added some ministry context as a local church minister to this review because I think that is who Hays and Hays are addressing (in part). They state in the introduction of the book that: (p 4)
This is a book about basic issues of biblical theology. We envision it as a popular book for the broad audience of readers interested in what the Bible has to say. It is written for lay-people in the pews. It is written for clergy who have to lead congregations. It is written for our students - past, present, and future. The reader will find few footnotes. Although we are informed by our years of scholarship, there are few new or controversial ideas here from the standpoint of scholarship of biblical studies, and academic issues are not at the forefront. Rather, we are trying to retell the biblical story in a way that is often not told, and offering a reading of the literary and moral universes that the text creates.
I think what Hays and Hays are ultimately offering is a bit of a lifeline. There are so many followers of Jesus who are who are tired. They are tired of constantly being told they are unwittingly involved in or need to engage in some type of spiritual/cultural battle. Spiritual/cultural battles for their lives/souls, marriages, kids, nation, gender, mind, and culture. Battles that if not fought then all is lost. Their kids will be lost. Their nation will be lost. Their relationships will be lost. Everything you hold dear is being ripped away! Join the battle or die because of your own stupidity. That is a lot of battles to fight and it is reductionistic, silly, exhausting, and often twists the good news into something that is not so good.
Hays and Hays are not out to offer definitive answers surrounding the complex issues of Christian theology and sexuality. Hays and Hays seem to be exhausted by all of the culture war battles as well. They offer a lifeline by reminding their readers about God's wide mercy. What a refreshing reminder! Hays and Hays seem to hope their readers might find the story of God's wide mercy so appealing that they might offer it to themselves and others. This is nothing new and yet such a radical thing to actually put into practice.
Review
The book is divided into three main parts. Part one is titled The Widening of God's Mercy in the Old Testament, part two is The Widening of God's Mercy in the New Testament and part three is The Widening of God's Mercy in the Present Day. There is an epilogue written by Richard Hays. The book also includes a notes page, general index, and index of Biblical references.
Part one of the book was written by Christopher Hays, an Old Testament professor and son of Richard Hays. While the book is geared for "lay-people in the pews" there is much written about that might be difficult for lay-people to digest. The information presented is not new for those who have studied the Bible in an academic setting. Yet for "lay-people in the pew" much of what Christopher covers might be brand new information and sound strange. This will be true for the entirety of the book.
Some readers might struggle with Christopher's discussion of God changing his mind. Talking about God changing his mind sounds bonkers. However, there are Biblical passages that seem to indicate that God changed his mind. The Biblical passages as well as the concept of God changing his mind have been debated by theologians and scholars for a long time. This is typically not discussed in small church groups, Sunday schools, or Sunday sermons.
Reading about God changing his mind might be confusing or disconcerting for some. If you would like to read more about the issue of God changing his mind then here is a link to a blog post by Roger Olson. Roger E. Olson is an Emeritus Professor of Christian Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University and has taught Christian theology for over forty years.
The main point of the discussion about God changing his mind is that when this happens it seems to widen God's mercy not constrict it. Christopher points out that there seems to be "a touch of dark humor in these stories about God trying to come to terms with the people he has created." (p 46) By "these stories" what Christopher means is the many stories from creation to the prophets in the Old Testament were God continues to struggle with humans being nothing but trouble.
God's presence from the time of creation was meant to be a blessing and so was all creation. Yet, time and time again humans prove to be stubborn. God grows weary and gets angry with his human creation. Often amid his anger God changes his mind and chooses mercy. This is true even in the flood story. Christopher, in talking about the flood story states:
This is a story about the hearts of people and the heart of God: The hearts of humans are wicked (Gen 6:5), which grieves the Lord to his heart (6:6), and he declares his intention to blot them out; but in the end the heart of God is changed from grief to mercy." (p 42)
The main point that Christopher wants readers to get is that the story of God in the Old Testament is one of ever-expanding mercy. Another story Christopher highlights is Zelophehad's daughters found in Numbers 26 -27. Zelophehad has passed away yet he only had daughters. He does not have a firstborn son. The law states that the daughters can not take possession of their father's land. Without land, the daughters will become destitute.
During a meeting, the daughters step forward and plainly ask Moses that they be given possession of their father's land. The law, set forth by God, in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is clear. Land ownership is passed from father to firstborn son not from father to daughters. God had made a ruling and the daughters are requesting a new consideration due to their situation. It is an issue of justice. They are not just challenging Moses and a system geared toward patriarchal dominance. They are challenging God. It is, after all, God's law that the daughters are calling into question.
Moses immediately takes the daughter's request to God and God quickly states "The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they are saying; you shall certainly give them land as an inheritance among their father's brother! You shall pass their father's inheritance on to them." (Num. 27:7) Christopher points to this story along with a host of others as an example that "not only does God respond to the agency of humankind, but we can see that biblical laws and customs change." (p 55)
Often the Old Testament gets relegated to archaic stories that all seem to boil down to either following the law or not following the law. In part one, Christopher highlights what Paul Harvey might call "the rest of the story." Could God's widening mercy have been under our noses the whole time? Maybe we have been so focused on the law that we have missed out on how merciful God has been and continues to be.
Christopher wants us to know that there is much more to God's story in the Old Testament than following or not following the law. Christopher presents us with a God who often changes his mind when dealing with humans. Christopher wants to talk about the God who often picks widening his mercy instead of following the letter of law.
The second part of the book is written by Richard Hays. He writes about God's widening mercy in the New Testament. Richard begins his part by talking about Jesus. He highlights that Jesus upset people. Not because Jesus was rude or crude. Instead, Jesus upset people because he reframed God's mercy. Jesus arrived and proclaimed that God's favor was wider than imagined and that upset people.
Once we grasp the message of reversal, it is only another short step to imagine that God's good news is meant not just for his band of early followers and not just for the people of Isreal but also for a wider circle of those who were previously -as the Letter to the Ephesians later declares - "aliens from the commonwealth of Isreal and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). Might they - or better, might we - also be counted among the poor, captive, blind, and oppressed for whom the year of the Lord's favor has dawned? If so, we might also ask ourselves how our own lives, our own communities, reflect and embody the great reversal that Jesus proclaimed. How do we become conduits for the unexpected mercy that we have received? (p 120)
Richard covers territory that many readers will find familiar. It is familiar to talk about Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners. Jesus is accused of eating with the wrong kinds of people because he eats with the wrong kinds of people. You and I might have heard this before. Yet don't let the familiarity of that get lost. In our American culture, nobody cares who you sit next to at the restaurant. While chewing on our chicken nuggets none of us are taking into consideration who is at the table nearby.
In Jesus' day, it cannot be overstated how much of a social and theological faux pau Jesus is purposefully committing. His actions in his day and time would have communicated to others that these tax collectors and sinners are part of my tribe and family. They are my peeps. Dr. Richard Beck in his book Unclean offers an excellent discussion about how troubling Jesus' actions would have been. Jesus' actions raised all kinds of questions, confused his own family members, and angered religious leaders.
Jesus really was a friend of tax collectors and sinners, for his mission was to embody the witness of God's mercy. (p 135)
Much of what Richard discusses about Jesus will be familiar. There is not much debate that Jesus then and now challenges the lines we often draw around who is in and who is out. It is just as uncomfortable today as it was in Jesus' day to consider that God's mercy might extend to those outside the lines we have drawn. After talking about Jesus, Richard goes on to talk about the book of Acts, Peter, and Paul and highlights how God continued to widen his mercy via the early church.
One point worth mentioning is Richard's discussion about Romans 14-15. Factions within the Roman church have emerged. The church has divided itself into groups that Paul calls "the weak" and "the strong." The groups seem to be fighting over food purity issues. "Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables" (Rom 14:2).
The folks that Paul identifies as weak would probably protest such a label. As Richard writes:
Instead, they [the weak] see themselves as strongly committed to following God's commandments. They seek to avoid all entanglements with idolatry and with the defiling foods that were also prohibited by the Jerusalem Council: blood and things strangled. Accordingly, the "weak" pass judgment on those who consider themselves "strong." The so-called weak judge the self-proclaimed strong ones as carelessly permissive and arrogantly disobedient to divine precepts given in scripture. (It will not escape careful readers of the present book that the first-century conflict between "the strong" and "the weak" has its haunting parallels in the conflicts that divide the church in our time, not least in conflicts over sexual practices.) (p 197)
Paul reminds both sides that what they are both attempting to do is honor God. That is a good thing. Where they are going wrong is believing that their way is the only way and condemning others who don't share their convictions. Paul tells them that they are all under the Lordship of Jesus! Since that is so their actions should be set towards honoring God, not their self-interest.
Richard makes a clear connection between what is happening within the Roman church and what is happening within the present-day American church. Lots of "weak" and "strong" factions within the American church are doing little other than justifying their own spiritual superiority. Perhaps Richard is right to remind his brothers and sisters in Christ about the mercy that has been extended to all. Nobody can claim the spiritual high ground.
Ultimately Paul emphasizes that the gospel is all about the mercy of God (Rom 11:33-36) and all are recipients of that mercy. Amid conflict, Paul urges both sides to remain connected. Paul desires the two groups to be welcoming towards one another because God's mercy is for everyone. Nobody can claim any kind of spiritual superiority over the other. All have been shown mercy.
The vision that Paul offers is quite a different one: "Welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God." That's not just a shrugging compromise; it is the climax and consequence of the intricate, passionate argument of the whole letter. (p 202)
Readers might be disappointed that Richard does not use his New Testament section to explain his theological understanding of sexuality in depth. He also does not reexamine his conclusions from his chapter on homosexuality in The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Others have taken Richard to task for these omissions. One such person is Dr. Preston Sprinkle who is a biblical scholar and co-founder of The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender. You can read his review here.
Instead of relitigating past stances, Richard focuses our attention on God's mercy. Richard presents us with a God whose mercy is wider than we have considered or imagined. Not only is God's mercy wide, but it would also seem that God desires others to share the mercy they have received with others.
This gets us to the last part of the book about The Widening of God's Mercy in the Present Day. The opening statement of this section reads:
Because God sometimes changes his mind and his approaches to the world, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same. (p 205)
In this section, Christopher and Richard lean into their story of God's mercy. If God's mercy seems to have grown wider and wider then perhaps that means a reconsideration of what it means to welcome LGBTQ folks into the Christian community is in order.
The most significant objection to our interpretation of the God of the Bible is the one that simply says, "This God of widening mercy whom you describe is not one that I have ever experienced." That objection is a condemnation of the church. Although we have known many Christian churches, in many places, where one can see the light of the God whom we've portrayed, we cannot deny the experience of others who have found in the church a message of rejection and condemnation. For that reason, our argument is also a summons to the church to repent of its narrow, fearful vision and to embrace a wider understanding or God's mercy. (p 220)
That statement stands on its own and sums up the last main section of the book. Richard nor Christopher offer few details other than a presentation of God's mercy. Like the church in Roman Richard and Christopher would like it if followers of Jesus were humbled at the mercy God has shown them and in turn shared that mercy with others.
Reflections
I must agree with Hays and Hays that it is regretful that the church is often known more for what it condemns than how it loves. Hays and Hays definitely achieve their goal of putting forth a case for the God of the Bible being more merciful than is often talked about on Sunday mornings. In my ministry context talking about God's expansive mercy would probably face cynical responses such as "you don't want to be so open-minded that your brains fall out."
In other words, the fear is that by emphasizing God's mercy we must also stop making judgments. There have been times in my life when I have been so thankful for folks who picked mercy over sacrifice. Their brains didn't fall out. Some of the strongest people I know are those who choose kindness after being treated like trash.
Maybe like me, you grew up going to church and heard more about God's judgment than his mercy. It is uncomfortable to consider God's mercy. We have too many voices in our heads reminding us about the ways we have messed up. I find it refreshing to be reminded of God's mercy. I could use that reminder. Maybe you could too. It is too easy to find myself on my spiritual high horse condemning others which is a sure sign that I have forgotten the mercy I have been shown.
In the epilogue, Richard reflects back on what he wrote all those years ago on homosexuality in The Moral Vision of the New Testament. I find his reflection to be honest and true. It seems at times one of the worst sins one can commit in the church is to change your mind. He writes:
When I wrote that chapter, I was more concerned about my own intellectual project than about the pain of gay and lesbian people inside and outside the church, including those driven out of the church by unloving condemnation. The present book is, for me, an effort to offer contrition and to set the record straight on where I now stand. Beyond that, it is an effort to sketch a wider reading of the whole witness of scripture to the character of God as a God of mercy. (p 223)
Hays and Hays are not offering anything other than a call for the church to be welcoming. For some Christians, the call to be welcoming towards LGBTQ folks is nothing more than a call to let your brains fall out of your head.
While a local minister I was blessed to have an older widow named Ms. Margie in my congregation. She lived to be 94 years old. When things got hard at church I could count on getting a phone call or card from Ms. Margie. She would remind me that she loved me and that the folks complaining are often those who are missing the point. She once asked me what I would do if a gay person showed up on Sunday and wanted to get baptized.
I told her I could not deny them being baptized. She smiled and said, "Good, we all need mercy." I think that is what Hays and Hays hope their readers will do. That they might grasp the mercy shown to them and in turn offer that mercy to others. We all need mercy.
Comments
Post a Comment