Wesley Hill explores why the New Testament scholar’s legacy echoes beyond the halls of the academy:
“[T]he meaning of Scripture is ultimately written on the tablets of fleshy hearts,” wrote Richard Hays in the conclusion to his groundbreaking book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. This statement was true not only of the apostle and the early Christian communities he founded, but also of Hays himself, who taught and mentored a generation of students—including numerous accomplished New Testament scholars—at Duke Divinity School. Hays unfolded Scripture’s meaning in the classroom as well as from the pulpit, in the quiet hallway after class, and at Duke basketball games, where he was often seen peering through binoculars and sporting his school’s apparel.
Hays grew up in a suburb of Oklahoma City and was reared in the United Methodist Church. His younger brother Whis remembers him as athletic—he lettered in football, basketball, and baseball in high school—and musical—he played guitar in a garage band. As a teenager, he met Judy, the woman he would eventually marry. After completing his undergraduate degree in English literature at Yale, he enrolled at the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. But a year later, in 1971, he was disheartened by what he perceived to be denominational careerism among his fellow students. So he withdrew, and together with Judy, by then his wife, moved to Massachusetts.
There, Hays taught high school English—further cultivating a literary sensibility that would distinguish his New Testament scholarship in the years to come—and joined an intentional Christian community. “We developed a pattern of eating meals together, praying together daily, and sharing common expenses,” Hays once recalled in a lecture. “We all read Bonhoeffer’s little classic Life Together and tried to put into practice his counsel about the practices of confession, forgiveness, and mutual accountability.” Whis, who also was a member of the community, recalled: “First Corinthians 14:26—‘When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation’—was the operative principle of [our] worship.”
By 1974, the community had grown into a more formal entity—Metanoia Fellowship—and Hays, as the de facto pastor, began commuting to Yale Divinity School, having recognized his need for further theological formation.
A Pioneering Scholar
Within three years, Hays had completed a master of divinity degree. He was decisively marked by the so-called “Yale School” of “narrative theology.” Through reading Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, and from taking classes with heavyweights like Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, and Brevard Childs, Hays absorbed the conviction that the identity of Jesus, as well as the vocation of the community of his followers, was rendered through the stories Scripture tells—above all in the four Gospels.
After he arrived at Emory University to begin a PhD in New Testament studies, he developed a clear and singular agenda: to study Paul’s letter to the Galatians and find what he came to call its “narrative substructure”—the way it depended on the story of Jesus, the crucified and resurrected embodiment of God’s faithfulness to his people Israel.
His dissertation, published in 1983 and later reissued in 2002 as The Faith of Jesus Christ, became a game-changer in New Testament studies. Hays argued that Paul’s focus in Galatians is not on human faith as an alternative to human “works of the law,” but on Christ’s own faithfulness as the expression of God’s commitment to his promise to Abraham.
This emphasis on Christ’s faith was more than just academic. At the time Hays was writing, mainline Protestants and evangelicals had prioritized the interior life of individual believers. Hays’s focus on Christ’s faith—which precedes and transcends human response—was a bracing corrective to the status quo. Hays wanted to shift attention away from personal subjectivity and back to God’s action on believers’ behalf.
For most PhD candidates, surviving their oral defense is enough of an accomplishment. But Hays’s published dissertation quickly became one of the great works in the history of Pauline scholarship. Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament professor at Emory, described Hays’s success:
[W]hen a dissertation has stayed in print for twenty-five years and is then reissued by a major publisher—without alteration—for a still wider readership, we can speak of real influence and importance.
After completing his doctorate, Hays returned to Yale, this time as an assistant professor of New Testament. He soon published the artful Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. Jason Byassee, an erstwhile colleague of Hays at Duke and now senior pastor of Timothy Eaton Memorial Church in Toronto, told me, “Echoes may turn out to be his most lasting contribution.” And John Barclay, professor emeritus of divinity at Durham University, concurred, saying Echoes “utterly transformed the way we appreciate Paul’s indebtedness to the Old Testament Scriptures.”
Hays’s thesis was simple but not widely accepted when he first wrote: When Paul quotes the Old Testament, he intends to evoke the wider narrative in which the quotation is embedded. Thus, Paul aims to reactivate Scripture’s voice for his own time and place. As Hays put it, “Paul, groping to give voice to his gospel, finds in Scripture the language to say what must be said.” Scripture, therefore, is not just Paul’s grab-bag of prooftexts. It’s more like his palette, giving him colors and textures for articulating his message about the crucified and risen Christ.
According to N. T. Wright, currently a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford, Echoes’ brilliance is twofold. First, there was Hays’s extensive familiarity with Paul’s letters. Hays “soaked himself in the Greek New Testament in a way which ought to be normal for scholars but is sometimes skimped,” said Wright. Second, Hays had a keen eye for literary craftsmanship. As Wright observed,
The great classics, from Shakespeare to T. S. Eliot and beyond, were second nature to him, and he was a past master at the sensitive recognition of themes, literary clues, and the hidden pathways that run down underneath the greatest texts to the deepest meanings.
Before Hays’s book appeared, New Testament scholars were far less attuned to the deep scriptural roots of Paul’s letters. Paul was often considered a reckless and headstrong evangelist, who bent the plain meaning of Old Testament texts to match his own intentions. After Echoes, that picture was dismantled. Hays’s portrayal of Paul as a subtle theological artist who summoned Old Testament cadences and sagas in order to substantiate his message about Christ changed the face of Pauline studies. The book won Hays a permanent place in the annals of Pauline scholarship. Reflecting on the book years later, Hays summarized what he had attempted to say: “Paul, the missionary preacher, is at least as much a poet as he is a theologian.”
A Courageous Gift to the Church
Most scholars would feel as if they’d won the lottery after publishing a book like Echoes of Scripture, but Hays immediately went to work on another trailblazing project. When The Moral Vision of the New Testament appeared in 1996, it once again disrupted an established consensus. Hays argued that the New Testament, in spite of—or better, in and through—its diversity, could give ethical guidance for today’s churches. The New Testament’s panoply of voices could be heard in concert, singing in harmony—albeit, not in unison—about the three complementary themes of “community,” “cross,” and “new creation.”
Most critical scholars eschewed the idea of any theological or ethical unity in the New Testament, preferring instead to highlight the tension between various biblical authors. For Hays, such an approach was both wrong and right. Without papering over the divergences among the apostles—the New Testament’s unity, he said, “is not the unity of a dogmatic system”—Hays still insisted that writers like Matthew, Paul, John, and James agreed on the solidarity among believers (community), the centrality of Jesus’ non-violent surrender to crucifixion (cross), and the hope of a bodily resurrection and a new, tactile world (new creation).
Hays’s argument was subtle. He did not intend to deny the presence of competing voices in the canon. Nonetheless, he maintained that if we read each of the New Testament documents through the three lenses described above, “our blurry multiple impressions of the texts come more sharply into focus,” and we can, in turn, derive ethical guidance from those texts.
Thus, for instance, in a case study on homosexuality, Hays argued that the New Testament’s difficult words on the topic can only be heard rightly if we consider the calling of the Christian community as a whole to be sexually pure, the cross as the means by which contemporary gay and lesbian believers become “the objects of God’s deeply sacrificial love,” and the new creation which means that our hope for sexual holiness and wholeness in the present time must be both “already” and “not yet.”
A few years after its publication, CT named The Moral Vision of the New Testament one of the top 100 religious books of the 20th century. According to L. Gregory Jones, a close friend of Hays and the president of Belmont University in Nashville, it is “a classic that will be read for generations to come.” Byassee remembers a quip from Reinhard Hütter, a Duke colleague of Hays’s: “He took the ethicists on. Most scholars aren’t brave enough to do that.”
With its ringing endorsement of pacifism and its determination to engage the thorniest debated issues (e.g., divorce, abortion, etc.), The Moral Vision is not only an achievement in New Testament scholarship, but also a courageous gift to the church. Furthermore, its prose is fluent, occasionally causing the reader to pause with admiration for a poetic flourish or an artful turn of phrase. According to Wright, “Richard wrote beautifully—something one can say of very few biblical scholars.”
Just prior to completing The Moral Vision, Hays left Yale to take a post as associate professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. While at Duke, he continued to publish: commentaries on a number of Paul’s epistles, a book of essays on selected Pauline passages, and a pioneering set of lectures on the Christology of the four Gospels. Yet the number of Hays’s publications is not voluminous. “He has not written dozens of books,” said Wright. “But then, Beethoven wrote only nine symphonies.”
A Real Christian
Hays’s students remember him for his pastoral presence on campus.
Richard was known as a brilliant classroom teacher, a superb mentor of doctoral students, a deeply committed colleague, and, for those privileged to know him [more intimately], a faithful friend who embodied great wisdom.
said Jones. Another Duke colleague and a former doctoral student of Hays, C. Kavin Rowe, put it simply: “The main thing to say about Richard is that he was a real Christian.”
Hays once gave a conference lecture at the seminary where I previously taught. We met and began to chat about my doctoral dissertation, also on Paul’s letters. Hays was abruptly called away from our conversation, and I expected not to see him again. I would have been grateful to have had only those five minutes with the great scholar. But just before he was whisked in another direction, he asked if he could come to my office later to continue our conversation. Surprised, I said, “Yes, of course.” And, true to his word, he showed up. He sat in the chair where my students sit and for 30 minutes asked me thoughtful questions about my work. That is not the sort of attention a junior scholar takes for granted.
Hays was also a teacher committed to the wider church. As an ordained Methodist minister, he occupied pulpits everywhere, from small rural parishes to Westminster Abbey. “He has an extraordinary gift of being able to unpack the Scriptures as a public speaker,” said his brother Whis. And Hays’s sister-in-law, Mary Maggard Hays, a canon in the Anglican Church in North America, said, “He loved the Scriptures and expected God to speak through them.”
Hays will also be remembered for his family ties. His daughter Sarah penned the final chapter in a 2008 book honoring Hays and his work. She wrote honestly of her departure from her parents’ faith and her discovery of Eastern philosophy. But she also described her father’s response of genuine interest and sympathy.
As recently as two years ago, my parents flew out to Los Angeles to sit down with me and try to understand how I continued to find so much peace inside this foreign worldview. They challenged but they did not condemn.
Later, Hays traveled to Nashville to play his guitar and record music he had written with Sarah.
Hays’s marriage to Judy, lasting over five decades, was central to his vocation. During their years at Yale, Judy earned a PhD in epidemiology and subsequently taught at the Duke University School of Nursing. Together they served students, albeit in different departments. And in an essay they co-wrote, Richard and Judy spoke of “the Christian practice of growing old [together as] a lifelong habit of believing God’s witness in the Scriptures and acting on it, for as long as God gives life.”
Byassee remembers a particularly touching moment, several years after Hays had arrived at Duke, when Richard and Judy renewed their wedding vows in an alcove at Duke Chapel. A small circle of family and friends huddled around them.
It took all of ten minutes, but the two of them were bathed in light, promising to love like Christ and the church till death do them part. They were living out Scripture, not cutting it up or debating it or scoring points with it.
For Byassee, this moment illustrated Hays’s commitment to Scripture as a living document that invited active performance.
Toward the end of his career, Hays was appointed dean of Duke Divinity School. The post was prestigious, but it limited his time for research and writing. By accepting the position, Hays signaled his commitment to serving the school and the United Methodist Church, as well as to shaping them for the decades to come. As Jones said:
Richard’s willingness to put his own scholarship and teaching on hold in order to assume the deanship of Duke Divinity School was a sign of his impeccable character. Diversely gifted, he lived his life in the service of the risen Christ, wherever he might be needed most.
Facing the end
After being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May 2015, Hays made the decision to step down as dean and pursue another large-scale writing project: the culmination of several years of research and in many ways the summit of his scholarly career. Hays planned to study the Gospels’ literary dependence on Israel’s Scriptures. In doing so, he hoped to demonstrate how the evangelists read Scripture figurally, and to discern parallels between the stories and symbols of the Old Testament and the life and teachings of Jesus that the evangelists wished to illuminate.
In a matter of mere months, the book was completed, with the help of several scholarly friends and a team of editors at Baylor University Press. It was published as Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. More systematic in its presentation than the earlier Echoes in Paul book, the book features four main chapters that treat each of the four canonical Gospels by asking and answering the same three questions: How does this Evangelist, by invoking or evoking Israel’s Scripture, re-narrate the history of Israel? How does this Evangelist quote, allude, and echo Scripture to narrate the identity of Jesus? And how does this Evangelist use Scripture to narrate the church’s mission in the world? One notable achievement of the book, recognized by Hays himself, was its ability to hold Christology and ecclesiology tightly together. If the earlier Echoes book on Paul stressed that Paul did not show an interest in predictive prooftexts for Jesus’ messiahship but instead read Scripture for prefigurations of the church (an “ecclesiocentric hermeneutic”), the Gospels book insists that Israel’s Scripture evokes Christ and the church—the nexus that St. Augustine called the totus Christus, the “whole Christ,” head and body.
I recall attending a review session for the book the following year at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. One panelist objected to the book’s insistence on a so-called “high Christology,” a conclusion—that Jesus is to be seen as equal to and one with the God of Israel—many scholars find implausible, believing that it was only decades or centuries later that the church arrived at such a fulsome view of Jesus’ deity. Hays’ conclusion was clear: Already for the Gospel writers themselves, Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.
[A]ll four Gospels, in ways both subtle and overt, portray the identity of Jesus as mysteriously fused with the identity of God.
Highlighting this portion of Hays’ book, I remember the exasperated panelist accusing Hays of “pugnacity.” In his response, Hays spoke with an obvious lump in his throat. He told the packed meeting room that, since the book was finished under the shadow of impending death, he felt that he had to say clearly what he really believed. As he put it elsewhere:
Jesus is kyrios [Lord]. That is where we ought to begin if we want to know the truth about Jesus.
Hays’ final book—published only months ago and co-written with his son Christopher, a professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California—was a reappraisal of what the Bible might say to contemporary lesbian and gay couples. Kicking off a firestorm of discussion, The Widening of God’s Mercy argued that the unfolding narrative of Scripture presents a dynamically, relationally responsive God who is willing to change his mind and opt for mercy in dialogue with human beings who find their circumstances intolerable. Tracking this narrative should cause Christians today to rethink positions like Richard Hays articulated in his Moral Vision of the New Testament, which presented a “traditionalist” Christian case against same-sex sexual intimacy.
Predictably, the book ignited a fresh round of debate on a perennially painful topic. Conservative evangelicals accused Hays of “apostasy.” Others, while sympathetic to Hays’ conclusions, nevertheless found fault with its revisionist portrait of God’s immutability and foreknowledge. For his part, Hays insisted that the book is ultimately about compassion. In one of his last public appearances, in an interview with Karen Keen at the CenterPeace conference, Hays said:
Let’s go back to the text and see how God’s mysterious ways… continue to demonstrate an expansive compassion for human beings, for all of us who are created in God’s image. God ultimately seeks to redeem all—all. The way that works itself out in history is as messy as it possibly can be, but that’s just who God is. God is not capricious. God is not fickle. God is a God who continues to reach out to us even when “all we like sheep have gone astray.”
If Scripture’s meaning is revealed ultimately in the embodied living of life, perhaps Hays really will be remembered as one of the church’s foremost biblical interpreters. His books will likely endure for generations of academics to ponder. But more than that, his life—as a pastor, community member, husband, teacher, mentor, and friend—will stand as an exposition of the apostle Paul, of whom he was especially fond. “You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all,” said Paul to one of his churches (2 Cor. 3:2). The life and work of Richard Hays is such a letter, and it will no doubt echo in the life of the church.
Dr Wesley Hill is Associate Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Michigan. This article was first published on Wesley’s Substack here.
Figural reading?
How did that play out in his volte-face?
Was it extended or igmored?
As for influence: the scriptural hermeneutic influencer was influenced from the extant culture to undermine the ground he built his house on. Or: built on the coastal edges was washed away, to some extent, by the equivalent of D. Cuppid’s ‘Sea of faith.’
How much damage has been done…?
What a very odd assessment of Hays. Didn’t you read the article?
Yes.
I have and have benefitted from his, ‘Reading Backwards.’
He was not the first to engage in figural reading, which has developed broadly through biblical theological reading aross the whole canon. Other theologians, Christian scholars and authors who have not departed from the scriptures as they apply to human sexuality.
Hays, it seems. did jettison his scholars hermeneutic, on which his professional life and reputation was built in favour of a dominant cultural monocle.
The rest of the article, to me, reads a little like a eulogy at the end of a life of Hays the man as opposed to the scholar on which he based his career. A good bloke, by all accounts.
I’m unsure whether anyone has drawn out how much influence, if any, the change of direction of the Methodist Church had over Hays change of mind.
And this present piece makes no reference to any influence on Hays from Open/Process theology, either on his ‘figural reading’ or change of mind.
Geoff, you seem to use ‘Open Theology’ as a label for some sort of unevangelical understanding of the Bible. Weren’t Pinnock, Rice, Sanders, Boyd, & Co very much arguing against what you seem to be implying has happened to Richard Hays. That is, AGAINST a cultural understanding of what God is like and FOR an understanding more informed by the biblical text? So you could say that in at least one sense both P R S B & Co and Hays were taking the Bible more seriously. Maybe the piece Ian posted captures something of this, yes?
A wonderful testimony to a Christian man. His ‘Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul’ is excellent — and demonstrates that the NT is rooted in the OT even more firmly than previously thought. I did not know about his ‘Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels’ so will look to acquire it.
His work chimes with the comment by Peter Williams of Tyndale House:
“Christianity arose in the cradle of Judaism, and the further back we go in time, the more Jewish all our records of Christianity are. […] Scholars disagree on many matters concerning the Gospels, but on one thing they seem almost universally agreed—the Gospels are Jewish.” (Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 22, 78.)
This newer scholarship represents a challenge to some teachings of confessional Protestant orthodoxy — i.e., many of those that are based on the teachings of Augustine who knew relatively little about the OT or the Jewish mindset and introduced concepts alien to it.
Yes, I think that this is part of the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Christian faith.
A great scholar not least of intertextuality.
The only other example I can think of for a deathbed volte face facilitated [?] by a second party (who was probably chiefly responsible for writing the book) is Anthony Flew’s case.
I used his first volume extensively in my own scribblings on homosexuality as it began to seep into the Episcopal Church, and ultimately destroy it. His last book erased all that, very sadly. I watched this happen with Tony CAMPOLO and other evangelicals as they rolled over on the issue. I am glad scholars like Robert Gagnon and others like Gerry McDermott have kept the faith on this issue. Homosexuality has completely destroyed western Anglicanism, but God is doing a new thing raising up the Global South to lead the communion.
I would agree with you that his chapter in Moral Vision was very significant. It demonstrated that this was not a question of proof-texting, but of, well, the Bible’s moral vision!
I don’t think his last book erased that though. Did you click through to see the two reviews at the end? Of all people, Luke Timothy Johnson thinks the argument is completely incoherent!
It may be incoherent, but it is buttressed, maybe even contradicted, or it brings corroborative weight to his changed mind theology, by his reputatation and influence, authority, as a scholar! Hence damage… to the guild of biblical scholars and the church ?
Or do boblical scholars, as scholars, get a free pass.
Scripture would suggest the polar opposite!
Age can bring a certain amount of reflection and with it wisdom (but obviously not necessarily so). Most of the scholars I know who are questioning some of the teachings of reception history are older — some in their 70s.
But I understand Richard Hays had been ill with pancreatic cancer for some time — and combined with the drugs this might have contributed to some incoherence, which his publisher should perhaps have been more assertive in pointing out.
It would be a pity if we allowed his later position on homosexuality to crowd out his significant contribution to the academic field and what seems to be a life well lived.
Colin,
You have taised a point that has not been mentioned: the effect of (ill)health, loss and decline on testing of faith and understanding of Person of God and his attributes. So it is not merely academic scholarship.
It does not seem that any consideration of this has been identified or acknowledged by Hays himself.
As for change of mind over who the the Person of God is, such times of testing did not change the mind, belief nor faith of Tim Keller. To the contrary it provided substance and deeper reliance and more on the sovereignty of God, who he had proclaimed, in writing, in teaching. in preaching, in a
life lived , seemingly without compartmentalism, but with consistency.
The lgbt++ movement influence also destroyed a church we were founding members of here in BC Canada. They confuse lust with love all the time.
We’ve moved on now and happy to be holy His! Sure we all get tempted all the time but the fight of faith and staying true to God’s plan for a good life must be followed or we will suffer the fate of Demas. I can’t stop birds from flying over my head but I can stop them building a nest in my hair. So are thoughts…dwelling on bad or wrong thoughts will lead one away from truth that sets us free. I’m drawn to those who lift up Christ and His message of love and forgiveness that’s not dependent on my worthiness because I have nothing to offer Him like the one thief on the cross next to Him.
Stojan
Thats nonsense. In almost any community LGBT people are in the minority. Please stop demonizing LGBT people for decisions that mostly straight people made.
Hays said:
‘Let’s go back to the text and see how God’s mysterious ways… continue to demonstrate an expansive compassion for human beings, for all of us who are created in God’s image. God ultimately seeks to redeem all—all. The way that works itself out in history is as messy as it possibly can be, but that’s just who God is. God is not capricious. God is not fickle. God is a God who continues to reach out to us even when “all we like sheep have gone astray.”’
God indeed is a God of expansive compassion. But he is also a God of justice.
‘God is a God who continues to reach out to us even when “all we like sheep have gone astray.”’
Really? Will he, after the Day of Judgment, continue to reach out to those of the unsaved whom he has annihilated, or annihilated after a limited period of retribution, or sentenced to eternal retribution? If Hays does not believe one of these he must be a universalist
Phil Almond
Phil I think you need to read some of Isaac the Syrian:
“As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance his mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of all flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obstructed by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the creator is not stemmed by the vices of his creatures.”
Andrew
Do you agree that the only options are:
Universalism
Annihilation of the unsaved
Annihilation of the unsaved after a limited period of retribution
Eternal retribution of the unsaved.
Which do you think is the true one?
Phil Almond
Phil: I don’t presume to know the mind of God. And because God is God, all three of your limiting options might be true at the same time. I don’t think human logic applies to God.
I take note that, at the end, the thief on the cross was welcomed to paradise, not because of his repentance (none is noted), but because of the infinite mercy that lies at the heart of God.
I agree with Isaac the Syrian.
Andrew
How can the two annihilation options and universalism all be true? The thief you mention admitted his punishment was deserved.
Many of the words of Jesus use ‘human logic’.
Phil Almond
All of the words in the bible have to be written so that humans might possibly understand them. Are you saying the same rules of logic thay apply on earth are bound to apply in heaven in exactly the same way? Really?
Yes – the thief knew his punishment was deserved. But the mercy he was shown wasn’t deserved. He didn’t even ask for it. And he went straight to paradise.
Obviously you don’t agree with Isaac the Syrian. You are free to disagree.
Andrew
You are implying that Jesus did not say any of the words the Bible records him as saying.
You have not answered my ‘How can the two annihilation options and universalism all be true at the same time?’
I believe the Bible is clear that the unsaved face eternal retribution from God, not annihilation before or after limited retribution since both those are victories for those who knowingly spend their lives in sin.
Phil Almond
I am implying no such thing.
And I have answered your question. You are putting limits on the capability and mercy of God. Not sure how you dare do that, but best of luck to you.
Andrew
I repeat my question:
‘How can the two annihilation options and universalism all be true (at the same time)?’
You have not answered that.
And you have not said whether you agree that:
“Many of the words of Jesus use ‘human logic’”.
Phil Almond
Philip: I am not sure how you read but let me express my answers again another way.
In terms of human logic, I agree that your three options can’t all be true at the same time. But God isn’t human. You seem to be putting human limits on the ways of God. I don’t know how things works after death. The bible seems to provide evidence of all three of your options.
And I thought I had been quite clear that many of the words of Jesus as recorded in the bible seem to conform to human logic. That’s because the bible was written so that humans might understand, and was written by humans under the inspiration of God. But as St John also notes, scripture doesn’t contain everything that Jesus said. And the breadth and depth and height of God can’t be contained in scripture. Words alone are not going to do justice to the fullness of God.
Andrew
Thanks for replying.
Our fundamental disagreement is that I believe the Bible is a revelation from God which is true for God and true for man. You don’t believe that it true for God.
Phil Almond
Philip thanks but I’m very tired of that accusation here. It’s just not true.
I do believe the bible is a revelation from God. And I do believe it’s true for God. It’s simply that it’s limited. And it isn’t the only source of revelation.
Andrew
Let me try again to pinpoint where we differ.
You said “It’s (the Bible ) simply that it’s limited”. If you mean that God has not revealed in the Bible all that he knows to be true – I agree with that. But in the Bible God is revealing truths that he wants us to know, truths that are true for him and for us – the same truths.
You have agreed “In terms of human logic, I agree that your three options can’t all be true at the same time.” So my point is that for God as well as for us the three options can’t all be true at the same time. We are called upon to examine what the whole Bible says and confront ourselves with the appalling truth, true for God and true for us that after death God will inflict eternal retribution on the unsaved – the fourth option. And because this is such a vital and terrible warning that God wants us to know we can be sure that there is no unrevealed truth that can contradict it – it behoves us all to repent of our sins and submit to Christ in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection and thus be delivered from that retribution.
Phil Almond
God changes His mind – and what was once grave sin is now acceptable to Him? How far do we extend this change of mind – paedophilia, child sacrifice, polygamy, adultery? Of course God is ever waiting to forgive us! He takes account of our weaknesses and compulsions in judging our behaviour. Who knows how He will assess our life? Perhaps we dare hope Hell is thinly populated.
That said, the Apostles didn’t make light of false teachers who were spreading false doctrines; they defended the purity of the doctrine they had received from Christ.
Christ forewarns the Apostles about false teachers who would come to sow divisions: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)
Saint Paul was not indifferent to heresy. He said, “we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
Paul warns us, as Christ warned us, that “in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1) He tells the Christian faithful, “Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines,” (Hebrews 13:9) even if these things are taught by the leaders of the churches, but “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith […] but as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine.” (Titus 1:13; 2:1)
Saint Peter also writes about false teachers (heretics) that: “There were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies … They are presumptuous, self-willed … They have forsaken the right way and gone astray … These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest … they speak great swelling words of emptiness.” (2 Peter 2:1-15)
Saint Jude also warns us that in his time, “certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ […] they are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.” (Jude 4; 12-13)
No! God does not “change His mind.” Sexual sin remains, objectively speaking, sexual sin, notwithstanding vary degrees of subjective culpability that God n His loving mercy will take fully into account.
HJ,
That is too robust, too clear, to unambiguous, maybe even too Augustinian for the ambiguity of the professionally ambitious.
It is redolent of the classical, ecumenical doctrine, attributes, of God, consistent with footsteps of Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm.
You may even subscribed to Luther’s writing:
“For it is not the mark of a Christian mind to take no delight in assertions. On the contrary, a man must delight in assertions to be a real Christian. And by assertion, in order that we may not be misled by words.
“I mean a constant adhering, affirming, confessing, maintaining and invincible persevering.
“I am talking about the things that have been divinely transmitted to is in true sacred writings.
“We assert when it comes to man-made doctrines, but weust assert when it comes to the biblical doctrines…
“Let skeptics and academics keep well away from us Christians, but let there be among us asserters twice as unyeilding as the stoics themselves.’
Bondage of the Will.
Now, that is a topic!
Geoff, please do not set Happy Jack off on the fundamental errors contained in Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will”!
Academic theologians, like philosophers, prefer questions to answers. But the Bible is all about definitive answers to the biggest questions.
Thanks for this excellent article about Richard Hays. It’s a great tribute to him as a Christian, an outstanding scholar and a very warm and humane person. What I especially appreciated was that although many will have disagreed with his final book and his developing views on same sex relationships that hasn’t led to him being maligned as a person, his faith being questioned or all his scholarship being rejected. It’s a really good example of good disagreement within the body of Christ – maintaining fellowship and charity, being thankful for his life and the grace of God in him, whilst not agreeing with everything. Thank you.
Tim, I’m not a fan of Albert Mohler (an understatement) but I believe his comments on Richard Hays’ new position on same sex relationships and God’s nature, whilst in places unnecessarily personal, is sound.
In particular:
Calvinists do tend to be clear thinkers – even if it is within the straightjacket of their dismissal of the universal mercy of God. And Hays is certainly correct in criticising what he called “smug hostility” among more conservative Christians toward LGBTQ church members. But as one Christian struggling with same sex attraction writes:
And I found this testimony powerful from a Wesleyan tradition about the harm this change causes to same sex attracted folk:
Thanks. Very helpful comments and very useful links.
Thanks. But my point was not to agree with or defend Hays’ most recent book. I simply observe that whatever disagreements with it most readers of this blog may have, it didn’t stop the article being a warm and thoughtful appreciation of the man and his life’s work. That’s a refreshing and hopeful approach when we can so easily slip into condemnation of a person and total rejection of all their work based on a single issue.
Thank you Tim for this call back to what I suspect Ian wants this site to be.
Happy Jack
In my experience of knowing lots of gay Christians personally at a variety of positions theologically, I’d say it’s pretty much a constant battle. Whether you are more conservative or more liberal, you can never be conservative enough not to be the subject of damnation by a significant proportion of the church.
Therefore, although it is true that celibate gay Christians may be challenged by theologians saying “oops I no longer believe that, sorry, you could have had a family all along” the gay Christian life is one of constant struggles and unsolicited judgment. It’s not like if everyone froze their theology that gay Christians would be free from clangers.
An aside on what Pieter Valk says:
I’m not sure many would say they consider Pieter to be “paying the greatest cost”, certainly not amongst the leadership, the academy, or the debate club. Maybe the ordinary folk in the pews are different, but the actual argument we see advanced is that lifelong celibacy is not really a big deal, and we only complain so much because our minds have been addled by the sex obsessions of modern society. That was Richard Hays’ view in his Moral Visions chapter. Like so many Hays included in his argument back then the get-out clause that the ex-gay movement really could change you (so it couldn’t be that bad – if this was really a problem, you’d get therapy to be straight).
The shift in Hays’ view, and when you re-read Moral Visions it’s more a shift than a proper volte face, should only really be troubling to those embracing celibacy if they think that their celibacy is a command not a calling. And that begs the question of what is the basis for Christians to be imposing lifelong celibacy as a rule rather than a calling.
AJ
Two problems with “celibacy is not a big deal” approach
1. There’s no shared agreement of what this actually means. To the average gay person it probably means “don’t have sex”. But the church authorities are going to also want some or all of “don’t show any displays of affection, don’t have a relationship, don’t experience attraction, don’t talk about being gay, don’t have gay friends, don’t identify as gay, don’t advocate for secular rights for yourself, don’t complain when others in the church demonize gay people”
2 There’s no reward for churches to use this approach. Conservative churches are rewarded for taking a hard line, which this is not. Liberal churches are rewarded for treating gay people the same as straight people, which this is not.
Yes, and I’d add to that one of biggest criticisms I have is that people conflate lifelong celibacy with happening to be chaste and single. As someone who’s done both I can confidently say that they’re wildly different. Celibacy is not simply you’re not having sex right now, it’s knowing and choosing what the rest of your life looks like. And as you point out, the absence of sex itself is far from the most important consideration. The total absence of dating, romance, relationship and partnership is a much bigger deal. What I really object to is the casual dismissal of what a serious thing that is to put on a 16 year old (so serious in fact, that if you wanted to be a monk – i.e. very publicly make a vow of lifelong celibacy – you wouldn’t be allowed to do it). Happening to be single is totally different – it’s not a choice and without any expectation of permanence.
I read The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard Hays a few years ago and immediately became a devoted student of him through his books, articles, and online interviews. His Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels and Reading Backwards have been very beneficial to me in teaching Christology of the Gospels in Pakistan. I really enjoyed the literary beauty of his writings and the pointed exegesis of biblical texts. Sadly, I felt disappointed by him last year for his final book The Widening of God’s Mercy. I read the book over the Christmas break and found his views about same-sex relations deeply flawed. I am sad that he lost his way in the end. It is an important point that needs to be highlighted. I pray for God’s peace and comfort for his family and thank God for his academic work on Christology and intertextuality but also troubled by his advocacy for a behavior that the Scriptures explicitly call sinful.
Thanks. What a helpful comment.
I’m not sure how this article lives up to the heading: “Theologian of the Cross”.
Where, when and how is hls theology of the Cross demonstrated, explained, substantiated? Is it consistent with J Wesley’s? And/or Bonhoeffer’s?
It would be good to have some help in this regard: his convictions on the Cross.
From my time in Methodism in UK narrative, storytelling and reader subjective -what it means to me, hermeneutic, was to the fore- methodology was being promoted, prioritized.
And at that time there was an authorised Communion Service addressed to Mother god.
Does Hays Methodism embrace such a deviation from orthodox creedal doctrine. That may or may not affect his theology of the cross?
Geoff
In the 20th/21st century American Methodism is generally very conservative compared to British Methodism. American Methodists have recently had a major split, but prior to the split Methodists did not (officially) allow even celibate gay people to be ministers
He died a week ago today, yet the article does not mention this! Was it composed beborehand?
Didn’t know that and, yes, the piece doesn’t mention it.
🙂 🙂
You’re right Anton and Geoff, ‘the piece doesn’t _mention_’ (my emphasis) that Hays had died. But if you read it carefully (and seriously) how can you _avoid_ that conclusion? All the _clues_ are there in the text!!
Just sayin’
To illustrate: use of only past tense in referring to what Richard Hays has done, ‘final book’, ‘last public appearances’.
At risk of pedantry, all of those things could equally well mean that he knew he wouldn’t live much longer. AIt remsains odd that the article doesn’t mention it, although I mean that as a point of information rather than a criticism.
That the piece was Plain, Clear that Richard Hays had died?? Hardly.
Though I had picked that it read more like a eulogy to a good bloke, who from the article understood he was still alive, rather than an assessment of his work as a scholar.
It would have been so very easy to write that Richard Hays had died, before publication of the piece on this blog.
Thank you Anton and Geoff for your responses. I am still working on a response to James, including rereading the reviews in Themelios and Scripture and Mission and bits of Christopher Seitz’ _The Character of Christian Scripture_.
Anton, I would claim that looking at how language WORKS in communication is not a pedantic exercise. It has been a very live discussion for people interested in semantics and pragmatics for quite a while. It would also seem to be a worthwhile study for people interested in, say, Bible translation or, for that matter, biblical interpretation.
Geoff, thank you for giving us an illustration of what I have been trying to say. You said: ‘That the piece was Plain, Clear that Richard Hays had died?? Hardly.’ BUT I nowhere mentioned ‘plain’ or ‘clear’. (Incidentally, that is where (and why) Christopher Seitz’ approach to the language of the Bible when he talks about ‘the plain sense’ of Scripture is not particularly helpful).
What I did say was: ‘All the _clues_ are there in the text!!’, and it is CLUES that I meant. Putting the clues from the text and the context (assumptions that we bring) together allows us to interpret what the writer/speaker MEANS. !!THE TEXT GIVES US ONLY CLUES!! — the more technical term is ‘Underdeterminacy’ — as humans we do not say everything that we mean but leave the hearer/reader to INFER the bits that are left out. Of course the speaker/writer attempts to provide enough and appropriate CLUES for the hearer/reader to understand.
You say further: ‘Though I had picked that it read more like a eulogy …’ (Let’s leave aside the content of the text for the moment and also what readers of Ian’s blog think about whether Wesley Hill wrote/said true or false things about Richard Hays or missed out bits that those readers would have liked to have seen). So it is interesting that YOU, at least, entertained the thought that the genre of this piece of text was a thing called a ‘eulogy’. There was something eulogistic about it. In other words, you had suggested to yourself a CONTEXT in which to interpret/understand the text. Why would you have come up with this context? — (unconsciously or subconsciously — the ‘wonder’ of God’s gift of language!!) from the clues in the text itself that I suggested previously and possibly from the variety of language used throughout the text. But come up with a context you did.
I will not comment on why you didn’t follow through on using that context to understand what the text was saying — you probably didn’t need to. But I don’t think you can blame Ian for not spelling this out — the clues were there! 🙂
Bruce;Clues? Not sure you have one, Bruce, in your determination to quarrel. While yet again you have nothing of substance to say on the work of Hays merely captious throw away questions.
Have you actually read any of Hays books?
But enough, uour methology here continues that employed in your pugalistic engagement with David Robertson and will disengage with you
Bye.
‘captious throw away questions’
Geoff, in this particular exchange I asked two questions — one a rhetorical one and the other which I answered myself.
You ask the question ‘Have you actually read any of Hays books?’ Answer, yes. But I would point out that Ian’s post here was not actually about reading Hays’ books but the article? (eulogy?) by Wesley Hill. This particular exchange was about LANGUAGE as used in that article.
Ian, can I appeal for a judicial opinion on the ad hominem comments on your blog? Please?
This is a one-sided panegyric piece which does not engage with any of the substantial criticisms of Hays’ work as a professedly Reformed scholar.
On his earlier projects (on ‘echoes of the Old Testament’ in Paul etc), readers should consult the numerous things that Christopher R. Seitz, formerly of Yale and St Andrew’s University, has written about this delivers us into subjectivity instead of the way that thematic biblical theology has traditionally worked. Seitz has said (on ‘Thinking Anglicans’, hardly a conservative site) that he had predicted where Hays’ impressionistic methodology would end up.
Second, his last book, co-authored with his son , fails completely to re-examine the texts or indeed any of the scholarship of the last 25 years, and leads into strange and heterodox interpretations (with little textual basis) about God’s knowledge or will, let alone the wider ethical issues that climbing on the same-sex bandwagon entails. Robert Gagnon gives a very detailed analysis of just what is wrong with his book.
It is quite inadequate of Wesley Hill to fail to attempt any interaction with these criticisms.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-deepening-of-gods-mercy/
James,
If recalled correctly. Christopher Seitz jas eritten along the same lines in the comments section of this our host’dblog in the past.
In the light of Anton’s information that Richard Hays died a week ago, this article reads more like a eulogy rather than a critical assessment of Richard Hays scholars work.
But a similar sort of argument has employed in discource between systematicians and longtitudinal biblical theologians.
His Reading Backwards, though not written as an academic work assumes that reader sees the same ‘ echoes’ of the OT, themes. patterns, types that he sets out in support of his conclusion, ( that is, there is no specific scriptural referencing.)
The method is similar to that engaged in the series of commentaries edited by DA Carson, New Studies in Biblical Theology, but that series seems to be to more robust in specifically embedding amd cojling the Old and New testaments.
Greg Beale is another Biblical theologian who in comparison with the examples of his writing and Hays, sets out the patterns etc wheras Hayd is more diffuse, perhaps to the point that it can be more appropriately critiqued as being ‘what it means to me’ subjective hermetic albeit from a known scholar.
This is an observation from a lay Christian, none scholar in any field who camed accrod Richard Hays writings through a review, a commendation , by Alasdair Roberts of one of his books. Roberts co-wrote ‘Echoes of Exodus’ with a biblical theological approach, tracing the exodus theme through the canon. He is on record as being infuence by, ‘Through New Eyes’ by James b Jordan
So it seems to me that there are different levels of degrees of biblical theology, dome more in cross referencing allusions, some more imaginative that may be difficult to recognise.
James
My general criticism of Gagnon is that he starts from a false assumption that everyone is essentially heterosexual and then denounces anyone who disagrees with him (either in thought or in experience) as a heretic. He’s a great resource if you want to feel like you’ve got a solid answer to these questions, but don’t actually want the effort of confronting real life. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but he’s said worse about me and he doesn’t even know me!
Seitz’s ‘Character of Christian Scripture’ predicted that Hays’ developmentalist methodology (looking at the OT and NT as stages to be passed through in the search for truth) would lead to the viewpoint he espoused in his last book. Seitz says Hays fails to understand the integrity and character of the OT as Christian Scripture – and the same for the NT.
By looking for ‘echoes of the OT’ in Paul etc, Hays made himself the hostage of (changing cultural) fortunes.
In other words, Hays’ developmentalist approach to the Bible is not evangelical in any classical sense but really a species of conservative liberalism (my interpretation).
Here’s a summary of Seitz’s critique, which owes a lot to Brevard Childs:
https://scriptureandmission.com/2021/12/21/discussion-of-christopher-r-seitz-the-character-of-christian-scripture/
Hi James. Thank you for the link to the review of Christopher Seitz’ book. I noticed the following in the review:
‘Another core problem is his [Seitz’] failure to define the “plain sense,” which is particularly important since it is only plain in light of the rule of faith. ‘
So how language is used in communications rears its head again 🙂
And the final sentence:
‘This is an example of the sort of move that makes me [the reviewer] sympathetic to biblical theologians who see theological commitments as a threat, not because neutrality is better or even possible but because a commitment is so easily established methodologically as a way to short-circuit the very texts that would challenge the commitment itself. ‘
Sometimes we seem to ignore what the text DOES say because our view of what God has to be like (e.g. immutable) owes more to the Stoics than the Bible itself.
So James, a very interesting review!
You need to read Seitz himself, not a review of him by a doctoral student still working out his ideas. My point was simply to give a quick entree to his thinking. I neverr said Seitz was a clear writer; sometimes he isn’t, and either was his mentor and colleague Brevard Childs always a model of clarity. But you can clear up some problems by doing as I did,
when I communicated directly with Seitz three or four times, largely through ‘Thinking Anglicans’ where he posts as ‘Anglican Priest’. So if you are unsure what be means, email him directly and ge will certainly answer.
Profesor Seitz hasn’t actually written a review of Hays’ last book, as far as I know, he has only said to me that the book was exactly what he predicted was where Hays would end up in his thinking, and he referenced this earlier ook as pointing tbr way.Write to him, then tell me what he says.
But the ACTUAL review you should read is that in Themelios by Robert Gagnon, to which I posted a link. When you have read that, post your conclusions. Gagnon is not all difficult to understand, even for non-specialists in theologyand biblical studies.
Moreover, we need to be careful about making throwaway comments about ‘the Stoic view of God’ and suggesting that Christians have unthinkingly adopted this. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives this definition of ‘the [only one?] Stoic view of God’:
“In accord with their ontology, the Stoics make God a corporeal entity, identical with the active principle. God is further characterized as eternal reason (logos: Diogenes Laertius, 44B) or intelligent designing fire or breath (pneuma) which structures matter in accordance with its plan (Aetius, 46A). The Stoic God is thus immanent throughout the cosmos and directs its development down to the smallest detail. The entire cosmos is a living thing, and God stands to the cosmos as an animal’s life force stands to the animal’s body, enlivening, moving and directing it by its presence throughout. The designing fire is likened to sperm or seed which contains the first principles or directions of all the things which will subsequently develop (Diogenes Laertius, 46B; Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). This makes cosmic nature and all its parts inherently governed by a rational force. God and divine actions are not, like the gods of Greek Mythology, random and unpredictable. It is rather orderly, rational, and providential.”
This is much more nearly described as impersonal, corporeal panentheism; whereas the Biblical-Patristic synthesis that is expressed in the Catholic Creeds is that God is personal (indeed, tri-personal), non-corporeal, simple (without parts) and immutable.
You can read the Bible naively and very ‘literally’ and conclude that God is a very big and very old, powerful man with hands, heart, ears and eyes etc.
You can also read it naively and conclude that God doesn’t know the future and is sometimes surprised by what happens. In which case, ‘fate’ (Gk. moira) is the ultimate reality and not the omniscient Trinity. And then you are back with Greek polytheism (where Zeus and the pantheon were not eternally existent but were born and not omnipotent).
Or you can read it as Jesus and the Apostles did and understand that God is spirit, and what we have in the OT is anthropomorphic language, a communicative concession to our limited understanding – as the Church Fathers and Calvin readily understood (as did the Rabbis of the Mishnaic period).
The speculations by the Hays about a God “changing his mind” suggest that the Hays have lapsed into sub-Christian ideas about God. This is seriously weak theology.
He won’t change his mind on what is right and wrong. But God himself states that he will change his mind in response to human imploring and prayer (e.g., Jeremiah 18:8; Jonah 3). God uses words in his scriptures to have the meaning that regular people understand them to mean, so that the regular people for whom scripture was written can understand it. (Exceptions are obvious anthropomorphic metaphors such as the “hand of God”.) Abraham haggled with God over the fate of Sodom (Genesis 18). All of this suggests that God lives in time. Greek-minded Christian philosophers, who still seem to dominate theology today, dealt with this problem by asserting that God is immutable: He is not only unchanging in character but in intent, and He only seems to us to change his mind. (See, for example, Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah: 18:7-10, translated into English in Documents in Early Christian Thought, eds. M. Wiles & M. Santer, 1975, p.10.) But that would do violence to the meaning of words, and rule out real interaction with him.
A solution closer to the biblical view comes from the notion of the Trinity. God the Father is indeed above time (which, like space, He created), but God the Son steps into space, and therefore into time. (That ‘therefore’ is thanks to Einstein, who explained that time and space are inter-related.) A Bible verse backs up this explanation. In Mark 13:32, Jesus says that not he, but only God his Father, knows the date on which he, Jesus, will return – at the time he spoke these words, at least, while incarnate.
Hi James. I may respond more later to your comments about the reviews, but a couple of questions to be going on with.
(1) You say: ‘You can also read it [the Bible] naively and conclude that God doesn’t know the future and is sometimes surprised by what happens. In which case, ‘fate’ (Gk. moira) is the ultimate reality and not the omniscient Trinity.’ Why do you claim here that ‘fate’ becomes the ultimate reality and not God? It is a given in Open Theism as well as evangelical theology in general that the biblical God is always ultimate reality. Pinnock Sanders & Co are not giving this up.
(2) You say: ‘what we have in the OT is anthropomorphic language, a communicative concession to our limited understanding’. So what is this ‘anthropomorphic’ language actually supposed to tell/show us about God?
Or you could simply respond to Anton’s 12.09 post (above?). (I might need to think a bit more about your second paragraph, Anton)
Oh, sorry, James…a third question.
How do you avoid Arianism? If ‘anthropomorphism’ is the way that God (has to?) reveal(s) himself to human beings, how is Jesus not an emanation from God rather than the Word become flesh?
Bruce: I answered your earlier questions already. Read Gagnon first and then tell me if you understand him and what he says about the Hays’ book.
You can find Gagnon’s essay length review in the Themelios link I gave.
When you have read Gagnon and interacted with him, we can discuss other issues.
It is very easy to ask questions. But answering them is the only important thing. Tell me what you think, not what don’t understand.
I dont know much about him, but I suspect like many people genuinely trying to follow and teach scripture he bought into a model of reality with a clear Black and white understanding that homosexuality was a terrible chosen sin somewhere between drug abuse and sexual assault. And then he was challenged in those views either by having close hand experience of real life gay people (or perhaps challenged by the relatively tolerant approach the American churches have been taking with sexual assault and substance abuse compared to the hounding of gay people).
He seems to have been led to the conclusion that either scripture is wrong or his understanding of scripture was wrong.
You can disagree with him, but this honesty is surely far better than the Welby approach of continuing to half-heartedly promote theology that in heart you now believe to be both wrong and harmful.
Maybe this will help to assess whether there is a comparison to be made with Justin Welby:
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/justin.welby.a.professional.obituary/142541.htm
Pete Jermey ‘I dont know much about him, but I suspect like many people genuinely trying to follow and teach scripture he bought into a model of reality with a clear Black and white understanding that homosexuality was a terrible chosen sin somewhere between drug abuse and sexual assault.’
No—you know nothing about him. That was not his view; he was very familiar with gay people in personal relationship. And that is also not true of most orthodox Christian people I know.
You really should read his chapter on Homosexuality in Moral Vision. You can find it easily online. It will protect you from this kind of prejudiced assumption.
Ian
So he didn’t believe homosexuality to be a serious sin?
Peter : do as Ian urges you. The chapter is online and, IIRC, is not msny pages long. I read it myself several times about 25 years ago.
Conversation is pointless until you read the text.
You would also benefit from reading Robert Gagnon’s ten page review of Hays in the Themelios link I posted. I have urged Bruce Symons to read this as well, as he doesn’t understand the Hays’ book either and how it relates to the earlier essay.
And, Peter, as long as you collapse questions of desire into questions of behaviour under the term ‘homosexuality’, I think you are going to find it difficult to actual understand what other people think and say.
I really do find it surprising that, after many years commenting on here, and many years of people pointing out the problems with the way you construe their views, you are still making this basic mistake.
Ian
But that kind of is my point. 20+ years ago for most conservative Christians Gay=bad. Simple. It seems to me this is what he used to think and then at some point he changed his mind?
I’m happy to replace “homosexuality” with “loving same sex relationships which includes sexual activity” if that helps you answer the question. It doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly difficult one so I don’t really understand why you don’t want to answer it!
Peter ‘It seems to me this is what he used to think and then at some point he changed his mind?’
It only ‘seems to you’ that way because you are speaking out of complete ignorance.
Ian
I’ll stay ignorant if you refuse to answer my questions.
Here is Gagnon’s review essay again. Bruce and Peter should not comment or ask questions until they have bothered to read this review.
If they don’t read it and critique it, they are not serious in their questions.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-deepening-of-gods-mercy/
James
I’ll read his review when Gagon gets to know a real life gay couple.
How is this to be read: Ephesians 4:17 -24.
(And in the context, light of the whole of Ephesians that precededs the section.)
Then you don’t know much about Gagnon.
Peter knows nothing about Gagnon and his exegetical books and nothing about the Hays. ‘Truth’ is determined by his own understanding of his own experience.
That is very modern and very post-Christian.
Well done, Peter: you have exited Christianity.
James
We have lots of ways of determining truth. Jesus is the ultimate truth and we get our understanding of Him primarily from scripture.
But not everyone who teaches from scripture is correct, has subject knowledge or even has good intentions.
The Bible itself sets the standard of the good fruit. I do not think that continuing the current course when it comes to relationships and sexual behavior is leading to good fruit. I don’t think many people commenting here could honestly say that the church is headed in a good fruit direction on this. I think actually most people feel like the Bishop of London looked watching Welbys resignation speech.
How can we have gone through all the scandal, “shared conversations” and subtefuge and come out thinking that nothing at all was wrong with anything?!
James
I know more about Gagnon that Gagnon knows about real life gay people. He pretends to be an expert on homosexuality. I do not pretend to be an expert on him,but I have read and heard quite a bit of what he has to say.
I understand this is a big personal issue for you – as it is for others.
There are people in the Church of England, including leaders, with SSA who understand that God is calling them to live dependent on His grace – just as many more single heterosexual Christians must do. Jesus never said the way of a disciple would be easy, only certain.
But you are seriously mistaken about Gagnon and who and what he knows, including about personal relationships. You need to read what he says. Personal self-understanding doesn’t trump the Word of God.
Except James,
We all live dependent on His grace.
Lifelong celibacy is meant to be a calling, not a rule.
What we’re talking about is absolutely not “just as single heterosexual Christians must do”. No one imposes a celibacy rule on them. They might discern a calling to lifelong celibacy. They might happen to end up single. Neither of those are just like an imposed celibacy rule.
AJB:
You are mistaken in how you attempt to frame issues.
Sexual abstinence is not a “calling” for most, it is simply a fact of Christian obedience for those who are not married.
Life “imposes” conditions on all of us. A man in a sexually unfulfilling marriage is not “free” to seek out prostitutes.
Christians who can’t find a spouse are not “free” to engage in affairs.
And the Lord “imposes” on all His followers the duty of holy living, whether they are married or single.
If you want to argue that being same-sex attracted validates a same-sex sexual relationship because that gives sexual release and reduces loneliness, then you also have to argue that being heterosexual but not able to get married (for whatever reason) validates casual sex instead of abstinence.
Am I correct in thinking that is what you believe?
Sexual abstinence (not having sex before marriage) is not a rule of lifelong celibacy.
You are completely incorrect about my beliefs. Your example betrays a certain misogynistic viewpoint. It presupposes that men have a list of who they can and cannot have sex with that is essentially arbitrary, and we simply have to accept the list or not (i.e. make our own list). The ‘ethical’ question is whether you the man are permitted to sleep with a given woman. But there’s a significant problem there: you’ve forgotten that the woman is a person with her own life, her own value equal to the man’s, and her own valid desires and happiness. And you’ve forgotten about the existing woman, the wife in this sexually unfulfilling marriage. The real ethical question is about both lives in a relationship, and that’s why the question considering a gay couple is totally different to married man sleeping with prostitutes. The married man betrays his wife, and abuses the prostitute. The harm is profound. Not much loving behaviour there. By contrast when we consider the gay couple who enter a relationship, they release each other from a burden of celibacy (see 1 Corinthians for why that burden can be a serious problem), and it’s difficult to see the harm to the neighbour (see Romans 13 for St Paul explaining the importance of this).
AjB – you entirely miss the point. What I said about a man in a sexually unfulfilling marriage applies equally to a woman. I had not “forgotten” the woman – sometimes comments have to have brevity because a blog post is not an essay.
What you completely avoided answering was my point about those for whom the opportunity of marriage simply doesn’t exist because there is no suitable and willing partner available.
You entirely failed to say whether it was morally right for them to have casual relationships as an outlet for their sexual desires, and I understand why you will not answer this non-hypothetical situation.
(I would also add that in my limited experience, I have known of three Christian marriages, two involving clergy, being broken when one partner left the marriage to pursue a same-sex relationship, which is a further illustration of the power of sex.)
My point about forgetting the woman was not that she might also go seeking an alternative partner if the marriage was sexually unfulfilling (i.e. the question applies equally to her). Rather, being married the man is not a free agent, because his actions will betray and harm his wife (not to mention the harmful abuse of the prostitute herself). That is what you’ve forgotten, and that is what I consider a misogynistic viewpoint. There’s a really serious aspect to this if we remember that love is the fulfillment of the law because love does no harm to a neighbour.
I thought my argument was clear, given that it draws from 1 Corinthians, that it’s not an endorsement of casual relationships for people who aren’t getting married. I’m simply taking St Paul’s argument that those who struggle with celibacy ought to marry – it is better to marry than burn with passion. For some reason you want to disagree with this. Or in your haste to build your straw man you’ve not bothered to think about the Scriptures on this point.
As for the broken marriages, you make my case for me. It’s been a refrain of mine on here that the experience of the ex-gay movement encouraging gay people into straight marriages turned out to be a disaster, and the movement itself imploded just over a decade ago.
Your allegation of misogyny makes no sense, and you completely misunderstand what I was saying. Of course I consider a married man using a prostitute as betraying his wife, and I never said anything otherwise. What I said was that a lack of sexual satisfaction in marriage is not a justification for unfaithfulness. Read what I wrote and that will be clear.
And the implication of that claim is also troubling for your position.
First, you quote St Paul, ‘It is better to marry than to burn’ (sc. with passion).
IOW, tame your sexual desires in marriage (to a woman) rather than in prostitution, which was very common in the ancient Greco-Roman world and didn’t really carry any stigma, since most prostitution was on the level of slavery.
You falsely state that I disagree with this pragmatic advice. Of course I don’t. Paul is saying marriage is good, and if you, a man, are in a position to get married (to a woman, of course), you should do so. But don’t imagine marriage is bliss and singleness means misery – far from it. Paul is saying marriage isn’t an obligation for Christians but a good thing if entered into rightly. Whether you’re single or married, the Christian life is about dying to yourself and your desires. (A lot of married people don’t really understand that, and that’s why so many marriages fail.)
As for your “application” of Paul’s words, do you think St Paul was counselling homosexual men to enter homosexual ‘marriages’? You know he wasn’t! So be consistent if you want to develop a biblical argument. Don’t cherry-pick ideas out of context.
Second, you write: “I thought my argument was clear, given that it draws from 1 Corinthians, that it’s not an endorsement of casual relationships for people who aren’t getting married.”
Note how you carefully write ‘aren’t getting married” instead of ‘not ABLE to get married’. I have noted how you have repeatedly failed to interact with this point. Because the fact remains that many Christians simply don’t have the opportunity to get married (lack of a suitable and willing partner, or illness or other life circumstances) – but they still have sexual feelings. What to do with them?
How would you, AJB, counsel them? If you were a pastor, you would tell them to live chaste lives and not to have casual relationships or to indulge fantasies or use pornography. You would tell them that God’s grace is sufficient for us but we have to access it – just as married people have to, as well.
But I suspect you don’t like the implications of these apostolic (and dominical) words, because you see how they also apply to people with SSA.
(You are wrong on the matter of the three broken marriages I mentioned, but that’s a subject for another day.)
You never said anything about his wife (or the prostitute). That’s the problem. The impact on them doesn’t feature in how you approach the ethics of this. That’s the point.
Interesting question about St Paul counselling homosexual men. What do you think he was counselling homosexual men and where he did write it down?
As for the people not able to get married, in your hypothetical situation, they are nonetheless having casual sex. I question the premise of your scenario: is someone who is dating, having sexual relationships then moving on, incapable of getting married? Why?
Now turning to the pastoring question. Unlike nearly everyone else on here I’d have some actual understanding of what they were going through. If the person is asking if they can get into casual relationships rather than marriage, then the answer is clear that they’re not incapable of marriage. I wouldn’t counsel them to take a vow of lifelong celibacy unless they were called to it. Whilst there is no right to marriage for all individuals, some us will be single, and a single life is not a failure, choosing to cut yourself off from the possibility may not be a healthy choice (as St Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy).
But let’s turn it around, how would you pastor the 16 year old who tells you they’re gay? Would you tell them that they are in effect now a monk living with a vow of celibacy for life? Or that they need to find a nice girl, and marry her if they worried about the loneliness? Or that you don’t think they’re really gay and it can all be changed?
AJB: A brief reply to your reply, to each of your paragraphs:
1. Irrelevant distraction – and you continue to misunderstand. Never mind.
2. Where did Paul counsel people involved in homosexual acts? In Romans 1, 1 Cor 6.18, and especially Romans 13:14.
3. No, it is not hypothetical and I am not talking about professing Christians having casual sex but ones tempted that way because they feel strong desires but don’t have any opportunity to get married (life is like that for lots of people). You keep misrepresenting my simple point because you don’t like its obvious implications.
4. You avoid answering the question again. What was biblically false in what I said above?
5. I would tell the 16 year old to read the works of Preston Sprinkle, not to join gay groups, and to avoid pornography. If the person was a boy, I would encourage him to communicate with the ‘Living Out’ movement and speak with Sean Docherty or Vaughan Roberts or others. I would also note that sexual acts, because they are pleasurable, tend to reinforce themselves by repetition, and to be wary of thinking ‘feelings = identity’, which is very much a core idea in identity politics today. I would tell him that our basic identity as Christians isn’t based on our sexual feelings. I would note that adolescence is a time of emotional turbulence for everyone and it is vital to be led by reason and the Word of God. And – notwithstanding your scepticism – I would tell him of three Christian men I know who told me they experience (or have experienced) same-sex attraction and yet are now married with families and love their wives.
Sexual feelings are in fact capable of change, to some extent, as well as becoming less important as we get older.
What about those cases of people with SSA who married (the opposite sex) and who subsequently left these marriages for a SSR? What does that show? Conflict – and maybe a double life going on as well. Heterosexuals know all about infidelity as well.
But a key point is this: by and large, sex means different things to men than it does to women, and physical sex means more to men than it does to women. That’s why the homosexual male world is entirely different from the lesbian world.
James, I had already read Gagnon’s review, but on your instruction I have reread it.
Just some random comments. Gagnon is surely right in questioning the Hays about their book. Their apparent lack of interaction with his study might be a real fault. But there seem to be a few ‘strawmen’ set up that Gagnon knocks down with arguments (1) that don’t necessarily click with what the Hays could be doing; or (2) that rely solely on Gagnon’s inferences and those he leaves to his readers without much guidance. So there are a number of statements in the review that I would like to say ‘Yes, but…’ or ‘Yes, so…’ to.
Examples are: ‘The “widening of God’s mercy” is not even a universal theme of the Bible’ (538). What is a ‘universal theme’? It’s quite ‘cute’ to relate this to Jesus’ sayings about ‘narrow’ (543-544) but hardly ‘inconvenient’ to what Gagnon says their thesis is. Apart from a general semantic link between the two WORDS how are the two concepts related BIBLICALLY in order for the Hays to be ‘intentionally ignoring’ Jesus’ teaching?
I wonder about this statement (538) ‘the degree to which a given position shows pervasive, strong, absolute, and countercultural affirmation or rejection in the pages of Scripture is the degree to which that position can be characterized as a core value of Scripture. The degree to which it is a core value of Scripture determines the degree to which the scriptural view cannot be challenged by any of the other considerations.’ This would fit in well with inerrancy but I would wonder how it applies to reading narrative and non-propositional language. Interpretation is involved somewhere in there as well. And how does ‘Scripture’s preeminent role in decision-making’ (539) actually work in practice?
Gagnon uses various expressions to refer to what the Hays say is their thesis. We have ‘welcome sexual minorities’ (542); ‘”sexual minorities” who profess Christ as their Saviour and Lord should be _fully included_ in the body of Christ _while they are actively engaged_ etc’ (544, first emphasis, mine, second emphasis, Gagnon’s, but no supporting quotation from the Hays’ book). The inferences to be drawn from ‘welcome’ and ‘fully include’ are rather different. It would be good if Gagnon had discussed these differences somewhere in his review. He doesn’t, and so has missed an opportunity to clear up a very real misunderstanding of what he seems to be doing.
He says the Hays are bent on universalism (543) even though he notes ‘They don’t say that’. ‘Universalism’ is a rather handy pearl to throw in front of (some) evangelicals, so what does he expect his readers to infer?
Similarly with his references to Open Theism and the unadorned ‘God changes his (sic.) mind’ – another of those ‘handy pearls’. Gagnon implies that this, for the Hays relates DIRECTLY to God ‘changing his mind’ on immoral behaviour. They might do and I would like to check out if they did.
His comments on Open Theism are reasonable but his arguments against are not particularly helpful in that they rely on concepts such as dispensations and change in covenants. These would seem to be imposed from outside the Bible and so not ‘biblical’ (whatever that can mean!). He also makes a ‘linguistic’ observation: ‘The only thing slightly new in this book is the authors’ literal embrace of the scriptural anthropomorphic imagery of God “changing his mind”’(545). He does not agree necessarily with Calvin’s ‘figurative language’ (547-548) which is good. But he seems to retain classical and romantic ideas of what metaphor does in language and how it works. This was discussed by John Sanders in _The God Who Risks_ and also on his website.
So, James are you willing now to explain how identifying statements in the OT as ‘anthropomorphic’ affects their ‘meaning’, that is, what those statements are intended to tell us?
Bruce, I am glad you have read Gagnon’s review essay. I respond briefly to each of your substantive paragraphs. (Please note that I don’t know what your own religious beliefs are, but I respond as a ‘classical’ Anglican evangelical in the style of Stott, Packer, Green etc, so I assume that viewpoint here without necessarily backing up each claim; just as others here speak from liberal catholic etc viewpoints.)
1. ‘Just some random comments’ – too general to comment on.
2. ‘Example are ..’ A ‘universal theme’ is obvious to any biblical scholar. It means a theological them found just about everywhere in the Bible. Examples include: the sovereignty of God; God as Creator; God as Lawgiver, Judge etc. The ‘universal theme’ that Gagnon is talking about is ‘man was made for woman, and woman was made for man, and homosexuality is universally [in Scripture] viewed negatively’. The literary form doesn’t matter: whether it’s narrative, prophecy or Torah, the message is the same. If you know Gagnon’s magnum opus ‘The Bible and Homosexual Practice’ you will grasp this point straight away. Same with Gordon Wenham’s ‘Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically’, which you will find helpful for your questions about the ethical meaning of narrative.
3. ‘I wonder about ….’: The discussion has nothing to do with inerrancy and everything to do with the ethics of homosexuality. Your questions about how to read “narrative and non-propositional language” (whatever that is – all language is at least implicitly propositional) in the Bible are dealt with succinctly in Wenham’s monograph – which he published way back in 2000. (I worked with Gordon many years ago and have read most of his books.) ‘Scripture’s pre-eminent role in decision-making … works in practice’ when Jesus, Paul and the other apostles cite it as authoritative – which they do all the time. When the Church cites Scripture as the Law of God, it is simply continuing the dominical and apostolic practice. Not complicated.
4. ‘Gagnon uses various expressions …’: These are the Hays’ expressions, actually. You need to read the Hays’ book to see what they mean. As for ‘universalism’, the implication is clear to most readers: that everyone (eventually) will be saved and certain sexual behaviour won’t bar you from eternal life. I’m sure you understand that some post-war Neo-Orthodox writers like Karl Barth gave a very strong impression of universalism in their teaching. And like me, you may have heard liberal preachers at funerals assert that everyone will be reached with God’s grace because His mercy is so much larger (wider). The allusion to the hymn ‘There’s a wideness in God’s mercy’ is obvious.
5. ‘Similarly with …’: check out their book and tell us what you find.
6. ‘His comments on Open Theism ..’: changes in covenants are not ‘from outside the Bible’, they are from the text itself. The Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and ‘new’ covenants are all integral to the biblical story. The only questions are how do they relate to each other and who is included in them. (It’s important to note that the OT happily recognises there are ‘righteous Gentiles’ outside the Abrahamic covenant, as does the NT. ‘Many will come from east and west …’) If the Hays think (or thought) that ‘God changes his mind’ about what is sinful, they have a seriously mistaken idea about God and his omniscience. Open Theism is a blind alley, as Don Carson in ‘The Gagging of God’ showed in 1996 (see his references to Sanders and problems with S’s biblical exegesis).
7. ‘So, James …’: I am no expert on OT anthropomorphism and have never given the matter sustained attention. As an evangelical Anglican who believes in the biblical-patristic synthesis in my understanding of the Trinity (see Gerald Bray, ‘The Doctrine of God’ for discussion of this concept), I have always believed that ‘God is spirit’ (John 4), ‘without body, parts or passions’ (Art. I) and the anthropomorphic language in Scripture is a communicative concession to our human weakness, but also a profound way of depicting God’s personhood and our creation as the ‘imago Dei’ and a fitting precursor for the Incarnation. (Of course, I also know the atheist mythological school argument, that goes back to Feuerbach and before, that takes this language quite literally and says, ‘See, this is what Bronze Age people *really believed about their tribal god. Pure projection.’)
That’s my brief answer. What do you think this language tells us, Bruce?
Hello James,
I have two books, ‘God’s Lesser Glory – a critique if open theism’ (2000, Apollos) and ‘God’s Greater Glory – the Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith’ (2004, Crossways. Both are by Bruce A Ware.
They deal at length,, 494 pages, combined with Pinnock, Boyd, Bassinger, and Sanders and Sanders construction of what he means by anthropomorphism, as he sets out his view from scripture.
Time could be spent abstracting main themes but it would be well outside the scope of the article and the remit of comments.
The books were bought at a time when open theology was being vigorously promoted.
It may seem to have faded away, but there may be a strong undertow in theological departments .
Of Gods Lesser Glory JI Packer on the cover is quoted;
“Open theism offers a God who, like us, does not know the future. Its sponsors see humanising of God as logical and devotional gain. Bruce Ware sees it as a way of misreading scripture and impoverishing the life of faith and makes a compelling case for his view. I heartily commend this thorough and insightful book.”
DA Carson is somewhat more forthright:
“Presenting itself as a legitimate variant within evangelicalism, ‘open’ theism in reality so redefines God of the Bible and of theology that we wind up with a quite different God. Ware’s work demonstrates that this is so and launches a courteous but firm attack against the incursion.”
Just one small example of Sanders (The God Who Risks) idea of anthropomorphic God from Ware’s assessment is that God is human-like.
” Sanders tells us that the first sin was, in God’s estimate, unexpected and implausible. So that when they do sin, God realises that his previous belief, that in all probability they would not sin, was mistaken” “The total unexpected happens”! God was taken aback.
Sanders equates this with metaphors, true anthropomorphism such as ‘eyes, mouth, arms’.
And another example:
Sanders when corralling in support Genesis 22:10-12 cites with approval from Walter Brueggeman’s Genesis;
‘God genuinely does not know…The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows’.
Ware draws out much more in Sanders open theism idea of the anthropology of God.
Changing his mind after finding out what he didn’t and couldn’t previous know, is another.
And it is only now at Gethsemane that the decision is made for Christ to be crucified because clear ” both (Father and Son) ‘come to understand’ that there is no other way.” “Together they (Father and Son) determine what the will of God is for this historical situation” – Sanders
James, thank you for your answer. I really appreciate your reference to Gordon Wenham’s book. I have not got it, but it sounds very interesting.
I don’t see any point in continuing this particular ‘discussion’ — I don’t think it goes anywhere.
Maybe some background of where I am coming from. I would also regard myself as an evangelical Anglican and appreciate the Anglican ‘heroes’ that you refer to. I would want to say ‘Yes, but…’ to your ‘I have always believed that ‘God is spirit’ (John 4), ‘without body, parts or passions’ (Art. I)’. Wouldn’t the Greek philosophers and Arius have very much agreed with this? So is the theme of ‘God’s immutability’ counter-cultural enough for Gagnon to consider it a ‘core value of Scripture’?
I have a couple of MAs — one in linguistics and the other in Theology with an emphasis on biblical studies. I started a PhD on context in Colossians but withdrew because I had done too much reading, not enough writing. I have had about 40 years experience teaching linguistics in a language development organisation at undergraduate and graduate levels. I am very interested in cross-fertilisation between linguistics and biblical studies. Hence my appreciation of what I was able to read of Wenham’s book in the digital preview. My heart sings when I read something like Wenham. It drops when I read silly statements about language.
So a question: in the time that you were working with Wenham did you discuss the study that had been done in linguistics, and especially, pragmatics? That would be useful since Relevance Theory (a cognitive theory of communication) at least, would seem to be supporting Wenham. (Although with RT we might not need _implied_ authors and readers).
Another one (more provocative): isn’t the biblical interpretation work in Open Theism closer to what Gordon Wenham was talking about than the opponents of Open Theism? Sorry I probably won’t look in The Gagging of God. The first edition of Sanders’ The God Who Risks came out two years after Carson, with a second edition in 2007. (Geoff, you might be interested that the cover of TGWR says ‘Sanders’s book is a benchmark treatment of the theology of providence’, and ‘It is rare to see theological work that integrates biblical, historical and philosophical resources in so sophisticated a fashion.’ 😉 PS, Geoff, who are Sanders and Sanders?)
Sanders and Sanders, book and esposal of .
open theism.
Some examples of Sanders (The God Who Risks) idea of anthropomorphic God, from Ware’s assessment in ‘Gods Lesser Glory’ is that God is human-like;
1. ” Sanders tells us that the first sin was, in God’s estimate, unexpected and implausible. So that when they do sin, God realises that his previous belief, that in all probability they would not sin, was mistaken” “The total unexpected happens”! God was taken aback.
2. Sanders equates this with metaphors, true anthropomorphism, such as ‘eyes, mouth, arms’.
And another example:
3. Sanders when corralling in support from Genesis 22:10-12 cites, with approval, from Walter Brueggeman’s, 4. Genesis;
‘God genuinely does not know…The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows’.
4. Ware draws out much more in Sanders open theism idea of the anthropology of God.
Changing his mind after finding out what he didn’t and couldn’t previous know.
5. Here is another.
“And it is only now at Gethsemane that the decision is made for Christ to be crucified because it became clear, ” both (Father and Son) ‘come to understand’ that there is no other way.” “Together they (Father and Son) determine what the will of God is for this historical situation” – Sanders
Geoff, if you are going to write about Open Theism, please represent what Sanders & Co actually say and think about what they are saying.
Just three examples from what you have written here:
‘Some examples of Sanders (The God Who Risks) idea of anthropomorphic God, from Ware’s assessment in ‘Gods Lesser Glory’ is that God is human-like;’
Wow!! Human-like. Who would have thought? Certainly not Greek philosophers. An incarnation for them was foolishness. Even the disciples didn’t seem to understand, if we take Philip’s request (and Jesus’ statement) at all seriously.
‘3. Sanders when corralling in support from Genesis 22:10-12 cites, with approval, from Walter Brueggeman’s, 4. Genesis;
‘God genuinely does not know…The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows’.’
(It’s bad to quote from Brueggeman, isn’t it?). So, for Genesis 22:12, you would rather have Genesis _representing God as lying_ than forming your understanding of what God is like from what the text might be saying?? Really?
From your #5: What do you think is wrong here? There is great mystery here, but are you saying that either Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer didn’t happen (the gospel writers made it up?) or that it wasn’t a ‘real’ prayer?
Geoff, Open Theism is thinking about how God interacts with _God’s_ creation. Does God meticulously control everything (is that what sovereignty means?) or has God _given_ human beings a freedom to interact and work _with_ God?
PS you still haven’t told us who Sanders and Sanders are.
Open theism is correctly assessed by DA Carson above. ; a
different God in created in the image of man.
Ware’s two books together respond to that revisionism drawing out the magnifying sublime Glory of God in Trinity as self revealed.
….Sanders Sanders?Ejusdem Generis. (With punctuation removed) is a clue in the context.
Geoff, thank you for clearing up what you intended by ‘Sanders and Sanders…’
‘Open theism is correctly assessed by DA Carson above’. No, it isn’t!
One final attempt.
‘Deism and pancausality offer more straightforward perspectives in which God does nothing or uniformly does everything. But God has sovereignly decided to providentially operate in a dynamic give-and-take relationship with his [sic.] creatures.’
Geoff, which of these three is closer to the biblical picture of God?
None of them. In this discussion they are false categories.
God answering prayers in a personal relationship with believers, does not fall into your third category.
God miraculously intervened at the death of my dad and in my new birth conversion as a midult atheist solicitor.
And not long after open theology was being promoted which as a new convert was both now intuitively wide of the mark, erroneous. Hence, at that time I spent far too much time looking into it and subsequently Augustine and Pelagius and their developments.
For a a book that sets out the attributes of God or the Person of God see “None Greater” by Matthew Barrett, unless of course, your free will is so constrained by open theism it prevents you from doing so?
Would you rather Worship an fallible, finite god who is not omniscient, not omnipresent, not omnipotent. Who became incarnate, fully man fully God pre planned before time began.
As this whole question has caused me to glimpse again at open theology the more I come to the view that Richard Hays jettisoned his whole canon biblical theology reading of scripture with its figures, shadows, types symbols, themes, patterns across all genres inder the influence of his son.
Fuller seems to have had something of a patchy evangelical, within living memory history. (As it happens, Ware is one of their doctorate graduates.
For an Anglican OT Biblical scholar, his lay-level books on the OT overview as it melds in the whole canon, Alec Motyer has a better handle on biblical sweep than demonstrated by open theists, as does D A Carson who straddles systematic and biblical theology.
But enough.
I could set out a list of points in refutation of open theology compiled from both of Ware’s books, but it is well beyond my pay grade notwithstanding the beneath-the- surface influence it seems to continue to have.
And while I have no interest in following through on this, I do wonder how much influence ‘higher, historical criticism has had on the Inception and development of open theology, let slone dispensationalism, which, if I’m correct, was well established at Fuller.
But yes. Enough
Do you know that God, the creator, loves you Geoff?
why wouldn’t I. Conversion was a radical infilling of of Spirit, love poured out. experientially Romans 5:5 while on an Alpha
Course.
Your theology seems to be based on some false premises.
Geoff, how is mentioning God’s love, a theology ‘based on some false premises’? Isn’t there a bigger problem with discussing/listing the ‘attributes’ of God and NOT mentioning God’s love?
No one one here has done that. And this evidences a false premise.
Although in the negative, not, is in upper case, that, of itself, has no content, no definition, no description, of when, where, how, why of God’s love.? It is in effect hollowed out.
God’s love is bound up in who he is, in his attributes, in triunity, incarnation, death resurrection ascension and return and is only ever Holy-Love.
But really, this is enough for any comments section thanks.
Geoff, this is my response to your ‘And please evidence any of my previous misunderstanding in the Hays thread particularly as you have not set out any of the precepts nor scripture in support of your contentions..’
(1) January 18, 2025 9:14 pm: in response to your five ‘quotations’? from Ware I alluded to three biblical narratives: Jn 14:9, Gen 22:12, Matt 26:38,39,42,44. You had the opportunity to comment on these texts and what you understood them to be saying about God. But you didn’t.
I asked you ‘Does God meticulously control everything (is that what sovereignty means?) or has God _given_ human beings a freedom to interact and work _with_ God?’ You gave no response. Further on those five ‘quotations’ — I note that ‘implausible’ was one of the words Ware ‘quoted’? from Sanders in your #1. Did you bother checking how Sanders actually used that word (The God Who Risks p.44 ‘3.4 The Implausible Happens’)?
(2) January 20, 2025 10:17 pm, I quoted from Sanders: ‘Deism and pancausality offer more straightforward perspectives in which God does nothing or uniformly does everything. But God has sovereignly decided to providentially operate in a dynamic give-and-take relationship with his [sic.] creatures.’
I asked you: ‘Geoff, which of these three is closer to the biblical picture of God?’ You replied: ‘None of them. In this discussion they are false categories.’ How so? Isn’t Open Theism contending that Classical Theism (e.g. ‘God is strongly immutable’, ‘Only what God specifically ordains to occur, happens’, ‘God cannot be affected by creatures nor respond or react to what they do’, ‘God has a meticulous blueprint for everything that happens in history’, ‘God exercises meticulous providence such that the divine will cannot fail or be thwarted in any detail — unconditional election, irresistible grace’) does not reflect what we find the Bible saying about God? If you don’t find that ‘Classical’ thinking about God anywhere in the church, then, fine, there is no need to consider what the Open Theists are saying. But talking about an ‘anthropormorphic god’ (whatever that is), a ‘limited god’, ‘an [sic.] fallible, finite god’ is *not* what they are talking about.
So I suggestion about misunderstanding Pinnock, Sanders & Co stands.
Thanks Bruce.
Thanks for evidencing yet again a false claim without substance as mentioned in the recent comment section on eschatology conference jave not set out what P, S + B are talking about so it is a bit rich to claim that I misunderstand.
My summation of categories duch as finite and fallible and unknowingly are logical conclusions from reading just shy of 500 pages of Ware’s two books in response to their writings. As mentioned above I could set out list of arguments in conclusion from those pages but it would only vex you further.
I am done here. No one else is interested in our exchanges and I am not. Yours, no doubt, will be the last word.