Did God really change God’s mind?
It is time for us to pay attention to what the conservative evangelicals are saying about scripture. It was self-proclaimed evangelicals that led the convicted felon, Donald Trump, to re-election.
These evangelicals are funding, directing, and orchestrating the Trump campaign based on their reading of the Bible — however misguided it may be.
One of the driving forces of this allegiance to the Trump campaign has to do with rampant homophobic and transphobic rhetoric — a rhetoric that claims to be rooted in an evangelical interpretation of scripture. Whether we like it or not, the conservative evangelicals have established a global impact that upholds systemic oppression against the queer community — and they use their reading of scripture to do it.
A couple of months ago, scholars Christopher and Richard Hays published a book that caused a disturbance in the conservative evangelical force. The father and son team, well-known biblical scholars within the evangelical community, released The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story in which they reveal that their minds have changed from a “traditional marriage” understanding of scripture to an LGBTQ+ affirming one.
Based on the argument outlined in this book, they advocate for an interpretation of scripture that supports the LGBTQ+ community. They write that their goal is to uncover “a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings” (p. 207).
They do this by demonstrating and then examining the ways in which God “changes God’s mind” and, in so doing, “[God] reveals an expansive mercy that embraces ever wider circles of people, including those previously deemed in some way alien or unworthy” (p. 206).
Christopher Hays tackles the Old Testament in the first half, while Richard Hays takes on the New. There have been several published reviews of this book that have revealed the shocking conclusion that the reviewers — conservative evangelical, straight, white men — disagree with the Hays’ conclusion.
I come to this book with a different background as a progressive bisexual woman. Although I agree with the conclusion that the church should fully embrace the LGBTQ+ community, and it is encouraging to see more evangelicals taking a stand against homophobic readings of the Bible, I take issue with the overall argument of Hays and Hays.
My problem with this book is that for God to “change God’s mind” it must be the case that God’s mind was set in the first place — and God’s mind was set in a way that excluded and thus marginalized entire people groups.
But first, I want to take some time to highlight the elements of this book that I appreciated.
The book sets an example of academic humility and authenticity that moved me to tears. Richard Hays acknowledges with compassion and tenderness the hurt that he has caused the LGBTQ+ community with his book published in 1994, The Moral Vision of the New Testament.
He writes, “I acknowledge that I bear responsibility for the pain such developments have caused to many believers who belong to sexual minorities. And for that I am deeply sorry” (p. 10).
This quotation highlights the tender tone that reverberates through the book. I deeply respect and admire Richard Hays for the ways that he takes responsibility for his words and seeks reparation.
Another thing that I enjoyed about this book was its accessibility and readability. The language was clear, the argument was easy to follow, and the content was concise. It was overall an enjoyable read, even though I ended up disagreeing with it in the end.
This brings me to the more negative section of this review. The crux of this book relies on the argument that some oppression is attributed to God’s word, but the overall biblical narrative demonstrates a “widening” of the “scope of God’s mercy.”
In this narrative, Hays and Hays argue that God is portrayed as “a mysterious, dynamic, personal power who can and does change God’s mind and reveals new and surprising facets of his will” (p. 205).
Both scholars draw on examples such as biblical laws and customs, gentile inclusion, and eunuch inclusion to sketch out their theological process. They write that this debate “should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments of about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations” (p. 206).
Instead, they claim, “It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (p. 206).
Although “it is relatively clear” that the Bible views homosexual sex negatively, the scholars argue that we should take note of God’s expanding mercy and follow suit.
I have problems with the theological implications of this argument. First, the idea that God changed God’s mind implies that God’s mind was initially set on exclusion and the resulting oppression in the first place.
If God’s mercy can be widened, that means that God’s mercy was, at one point, narrower than it is today.
Second, if the authors are urging readers to shift their focus away from “endlessly repeated exegetical arguments,” this would require a minority reader to come to terms with the fact that God was originally and genuinely excluding them.
It is a lot to ask of a minority reader to come to the text with this logic in mind, expecting them to approach the word of God like one would a previously homophobic family member: “Well, he used to think it was disgusting, but at least he’s changed his mind now.”
Perhaps this brief comment about setting aside exegetical arguments rubs me the wrong way because I am a woman pastor who has had 1 Timothy 2:12 hurled at her one too many times.
For me, and for my experience, the historical-cultural context of the text matters. If it doesn’t matter, and if “it is relatively clear” that scripture does not approve of women teachers, then I am expected to interact with a sacred text as originally misogynistic and exclusive.
If the argument that God has changed God’s mind is true, then it is also true that God’s mind needed changing. This would require minority readers to approach the word of God as a book written against them, always prepared to defend their place in a religion that was never originally designed for their inclusion.
Although this book does represent a positive trend in the evangelical community that there are scholars willing to support an affirming interpretation of the Bible, there is still an urgent need for growth and transformation.
I am willing to concede that God’s mind can change, but I am not willing to concede that God’s mind was ever set on excluding a particular group of people to begin with. The ever-expanding mercy of God has always been ever expansive.
A doctoral candidate at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, Mattie Mae Motl (she/her) researches gender, sexuality, and masculinity in the New Testament.