{"id":18933,"date":"2025-03-12T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-12T08:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=18933"},"modified":"2025-03-12T00:58:20","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T04:58:20","slug":"encore-does-the-bible-give-us-no-stable-moral-code-as-richard-hays-and-two-fuller-seminary-professors-contend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/encore-does-the-bible-give-us-no-stable-moral-code-as-richard-hays-and-two-fuller-seminary-professors-contend\/","title":{"rendered":"Encore: Does the Bible Give Us \u201cNo Stable Moral Code\u201d as Richard Hays and Two Fuller Seminary Professors Contend?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

In an interview<\/a> posted November 2024, New Testament scholar Richard Hays, author of the acclaimed The Moral Vision of the New Testament<\/em><\/a>: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethic<\/em>s (1996), declared, as the fruits of his most recent book promoting homosexual unions in the church (2024), that \u201cit\u2019s kind of funny really that people think that what the New Testament gives us is a stable moral code because it is anything but that.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is how far from the truth of Scripture Richard Hays had deviated near the end of his life, in order to persuade others of the view that God had \u201cchanged his mind\u201d on homosexual practice.<\/p>\n

The Yale Press Interview of Richard Hays and His Son Christopher Hays<\/h2>\n

Richard made this outlandish statement in an interview, posted by Yale Press on November 11, 2024, of Richard (emeritus prof of NT, Duke Divinity School) and his son Christopher (OT professor at Fuller Seminary). The interview revolved around their recently published book, The Widening of God\u2019s Mercy<\/em><\/a> (2024). The interviewer is Fuller Seminary professor Tommy Givens (assistant professor of New Testament at Fuller).[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

1. A note to readers: I have written two online critiques of this book, a longer one with the Gospel Coalition\u2019s journal Themelios<\/em> (\u201cThe Deepening of God\u2019s Mercy through Repentance: A Critical Review Essay of The Widening of God\u2019s Mercy: Sexuality within the Biblical Story<\/em><\/a>\u201d) and a shorter one with the Federalist (\u201c12 Disqualifying Errors In Richard Hays\u2019 \u2018Biblical\u2019 Case For Gay Relationships<\/a>\u201c). They each have material that the other article does not have. I have still more unpublished material on how bad the book is.<\/h6>\n

The book promotes homosexual unions in the church on the basis that God has allegedly \u201cchanged his mind\u201d on this issue just as he allegedly has changed his mind on other issues (Gentile inclusion, slavery, women\u2019s roles, eunuchs). Richard changed his own mind about the issue from his earlier publications (a change that he imputed on God as well). It is important to note, though, that from the start Richard had a diluted approach to the biblical witness on that subject. In this article, I will show some of these cracks in Richard Hays, by extension Christopher Hays, and Tommy Givens, and I will briefly respond to the claim that the New Testament has \u201cno stable moral code\u201d by looking at the apostle Paul\u2019s ethics.<\/p>\n

Early Cracks in Richard\u2019s Wall and the Present Condition of Fuller Seminary<\/h2>\n

Even when Richard wrote that homosexual practice was sin (in two articles,[2]<\/a><\/sup> plus a book chapter in Moral Vision<\/em> in 1996), he did not regard homosexual practice or a male-female prerequisite for sex as a matter of great significance in Scripture (an historically absurd view on Richard\u2019s part). He also thought that unrepentant, homosexually active persons should be allowed in as members of the church or even perhaps as pastors. It was no surprise to me, then, though it shocked many when it happened, that Richard eventually rejected completely Scripture\u2019s (including Jesus\u2019s) position on a male-female prerequisite and homosexual relations.<\/p>\n

2. See Richard Hays, \u201cRelations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell\u2019s Exegesis of Romans 1,\u201d in Journal of Religious Ethics<\/em>\u00a014.1 (1986):184\u2013215. Hays followed this up five years later with \u201cAwaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies,\u201d in the magazine\u00a0Sojourners<\/em>\u00a020 (1991): 17\u201321, which was republished under the same title in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate<\/em> (ed. Jeffrey Siker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 3\u201317.<\/h6>\n

Richard passed away of cancer on January 3, 2025. Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that his view that the Bible does not provide us with a \u201cstable moral code\u201d lives on in two Fuller Bible professors: his son Christopher Hays as well as Tommy Givens. Givens clearly came out publicly in this interview as one who also affirms homosexual unions in the church.<\/p>\n

I have been told that there are many other professors at Fuller who share an acceptance of homosexual unions, including other professors in the Bible department. Fuller is supposed to be an evangelical seminary, though that has been questioned for decades by many. If the administration and faculty fail to deal with this heresy, the institution will cease to be \u201cevangelical\u201d in any meaningful sense.<\/p>\n

Jesus: Revoking Accommodations to Hard-Heartedness Does not Mean \u201cNo Stable Moral Code\u201d<\/h2>\n

Givens starts by saying<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\n

What we find in the Bible . . . is not a stable moral code. . . . Can you talk about what we have in the Bible in terms of the framework for making moral judgments since we don\u2019t have a stable moral code? We have difference, we have dynamic sort of personal action of God. So, what do we have when it comes to the directives of the Bible for how we are to live if we are honest and recognize that what we don\u2019t have is a stable moral code?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

After a later exchange, Givens adds<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

In my experience in the church we are real comfortable with all kinds of incompatible directives within the Old Testament. . . . And we sort of brush that aside because we think that the New Testament . . . by contrast is some kind of stable code that the Old Testament isn\u2019t. So, I want to get at the sort of testamental distinction that impinges on the way people draw judgments from the Bible about sexuality.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Somehow Givens thinks that, if he repeats three times that we don\u2019t have a stable moral code in the Bible, it will be so (somewhat like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz clicking her heels three times). But that\u2019s nonsense. The fact that God sometimes ends accommodations to human hardness of heart that were not present in his creational will, and the fact that he does so in order to intensify his demand for moral righteousness, does not mean that there is not a \u201cstable moral code\u201d in the Bible.<\/p>\n

This is Jesus\u2019s hermeneutic on marriage in Mark 10:2\u201312 (parallel in Matt 19:3\u20139): God ends an accommodation to male \u201chardness of heart\u201d as regards polygyny (multiple wives) and a revolving door of divorce and remarriage for virtually any cause. God does so based on a rigorous understanding of the logic of God\u2019s intentional creation of a sexual binary. Jesus did not regard this as evidence of an absence of a \u201cstable moral code,\u201d but rather an elimination of inconsistent allowances.<\/p>\n

Note that Jesus, rather than depart from a male-female requirement as foundational for sexual ethics, doubles-down on that very foundation, insisting on its moral logic to eliminate a deviance from the number two (in other words, two sexual counterparts leads to only two persons in marriage). Does Richard Hays care? No. According to him, the Spirit is now doing something new!<\/p>\n

Richard Hays\u2019 Misreading of Paul\u2019s Ethics<\/h2>\n

Richard bought completely into the erroneous contention of Givens\u2019 question. After Richard asserts, \u201cit\u2019s kind of funny that people think that . . . the New Testament gives us is a stable moral code,\u201d he says<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

And we have Paul saying that \u2018the letter kills; it is the Spirit that gives life. In fact, there is a traditional antithesis between gospel and law, which is sometimes taken as a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, but I don\u2019t think that is what it is really. But Paul is a champion of freedom in the Spirit. He\u2019s not a lawgiver. And he enters into dialogue in his letters with communities that are wrestling with various moral issues.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rather than make the sensible observation that the Bible offers a stable moral code with some adjustments over time that bring God\u2019s expectations for humans into closer alignment with his perfect will, Richard makes the rather absurd claim that the New Testament has no stable moral code.<\/p>\n

His examples do not prove his point. God\u2019s overthrow of the might and blessing of the poor who remain faithful to God are obviously not evidences that the Bible provides no \u201cstable moral code.\u201d For example, there is a consistent witness in the Bible against the powerful who exalt themselves and in favor of the lowly who put their trust in God (e.g. Ps. 113:4\u20139; 1 Sam. 2:1\u201310; Luke 1:46\u201355).<\/p>\n

Particularly shocking is Richard\u2019s view of ethics in Paul. Is it true that Paul did not think Scripture had provided \u201ca stable moral code,\u201d that he was a \u201cchampion of freedom of the Spirit\u201d understood as freedom away from moral codes? Is it true that by \u201cthe letter kills\u201d (2 Cor. 3:6) Paul meant \u201ca stable moral code,\u201d and that he always \u201centered into dialogue\u201d with his Christian communities whenever they \u201cwrestled with various moral issues\u201d? On all counts Hays shows a gross misunderstanding of Pauline theology.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take what should have been an obvious counterexample for Hays: Paul did not \u201center into dialogue\u201d with the Corinthian community over a man sleeping with his stepmother (treated in 1 Corinthians 5). Paul told them quite clearly: In the name of the Lord Jesus put this man out of the community\u2014as a remedial measure\u2014in the hope that he may come to his senses and be restored, for otherwise he will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9\u201310).<\/p>\n

Nor did Paul \u201center into a dialogue\u201d with the Corinthian community over other types of pornoi<\/em> (sexually immoral persons), including \u201cmen lying with a male,\u201d \u201csoft men\u201d (female-identifying males), adulterers, men who have sex with prostitutes, and fornicators (1 Cor. 6:9, 15\u201320; 7:2, 9). The same is true of non-sexual classes of unrepentant sinners such as \u201cidolaters or \u201cthieves\u201d and \u201crobbers\u201d (1 Cor. 6:9).<\/p>\n

Paul \u201centered into dialogue\u201d only over matters of indifference, like whether one should eat meat or observe special holy days (Romans 14). Over matters of sexual impurity or immorality, Paul\u2014in line with the Old Testament\u2014was quite clear in nearly all his extant letters that engaging in sexual immorality of these sorts would exclude one forever from God\u2019s kingdom (1 Thess. 4:2\u20138; Gal. 5:19\u201321; 6:7\u20139; 1 Cor. 5; 6:9\u201320; 7; 2 Cor. 12:21; Eph. 4:17\u201319; 5:3\u20136).<\/p>\n

Hays seems not to understand the meaning of Paul\u2019s letter\/Spirit contrast (2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 2:29; 7:6), which is not about rampant change in morality but rather about the difference between weakness and power. \u201cThe letter\u201d in Paul refers to the law of Moses as mere script written on tablets outside the human heart, unable to empower the very obedience that it legislates, whereas \u201cthe Spirit\u201d refers to the power of Christ within human hearts that now enables us to do that which the Law legislated.<\/p>\n

Paul does not use the contrast to imply fluidity in God\u2019s moral demand. He uses it to emphasize the moral transformation of the inner human to comply with God\u2019s stable moral demand. The gift of the Spirit is the fulfillment of Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy that in the new covenant the law will be written on the hearts of God\u2019s people (Jer. 31:31\u201334).<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The claim that the Bible, even the New Testament, does not give us \u201ca stable moral code\u201d is an embarrassingly bad misunderstanding of a significant gospel theme by a major New Testament scholar (and two Bible professors at Fuller). When God retracts allowances that had been made to human \u201chardness of heart\u201d, it is not a sign that we are ever bereft of \u201ca stable moral code.\u201d It is rather an indication of God\u2019s larger program of intensifying his demand for moral righteousness.<\/p>\n

The New Testament does not move us in a direction away from a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations. It directs us, through Jesus, to a more consistent application of the moral logic of that principle self-evident in the creation texts of Genesis 1:27 (\u201cmale and female [God] created them\u201d) and Genesis 2:24 (\u201cFor this reason, a man . . . may become joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh\u201d). This stable moral foundation for sexual ethics is not eradicated by doing away with accommodations to human sin but rather strengthened and reaffirmed.<\/p>\n

An attempt to justify acceptance of homosexual unions through an appeal to Scripture requires a reconfiguration not just of this one issue but of a whole network of issues, the very foundation of scriptural ethics itself. Richard and Christopher Hays would agree with that assertion, but from the wrong end. Like a brain on crack, it forces otherwise fine minds to arrive at conclusions about Scripture and ethics that would be intolerable for Jesus, the writers of his Scriptures, and the apostolic witness to Christ.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

God has not changed his mind on homosexual practice. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18934,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"God has not changed his mind on homosexual practice. ","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,12,1968,38],"tags":[2041,412,140,528,436,2040,2037,479,2042],"scripture-reference":[2038,2039],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[573],"class_list":["post-18933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-concise","category-february-2025","category-theme","tag-christopher-hays","tag-ethics","tag-fuller-seminary","tag-hermeneutics","tag-homosexuality","tag-moral-vision-of-the-new-testament","tag-richard-hays","tag-sexual-ethics","tag-tommy-givens","scripture-reference-acts","scripture-reference-acts-15"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Wrong-Way-sign-Gagnon-scaled-e1741755102652.jpeg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:45:57","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":573,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"robert-a-j-gagnon","display_name":"Robert A. J. Gagnon","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/gagnon-e1678409064847.png","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/gagnon-e1678409064847.png"},"author_category":"","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"","first_name":"","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"Robert A. J. Gagnon<\/b>, Ph.D., is Visiting Scholar at Wesley Biblical Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics<\/I> (Abingdon), co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views<\/I> (Fortress), as well as author of many articles and encyclopedia entries. "}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18933"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23049,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18933\/revisions\/23049"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18934"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18933"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=18933"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=18933"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=18933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}