12 Disqualifying Errors In Hays' 'Biblical' Case On Homosexuality
“There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, ‘tax collectors and sinners,’ gentiles.”
12 Disqualifying Errors in Hays' Biblical Case on Homosexuality
Key Criticism
Robert Gagnon critiques Christopher and Richard Hays' book "The Widening of God's Mercy" for its flawed argument that biblical narratives support the acceptance of homosexual relationships.
Major Errors in the Hays' Argument
Fundamental Interpretative Failures
- Misinterpreting Biblical Texts
- Ignored key Jesus text in Mark 10:2-12 that establishes male-female marriage as foundational
- Misunderstood Jesus' moral logic about sexual union being predicated on the complementarity of two sexes
- Misapplying Biblical Principles
- Incorrectly assumed infrequent biblical mentions of homosexuality indicate its insignificance
- Wrongly claimed biblical writers were unaware of sexual orientation theories
- Selectively applied analogical reasoning to support their thesis
Theological Misconceptions
- Misrepresenting God's Mercy
- Erroneously portrayed God as "changing his mind" about moral standards
- Confused welcoming people with accepting immoral sexual behavior
- Overlooked the biblical theme of repentance
Scholarly Shortcomings
- Historical and Interpretative Weaknesses
- Ignored extensive scholarship since 1996
- Failed to recognize committed same-sex relationships existed in antiquity
- Misinterpreted biblical texts about inclusion (e.g., Jesus' outreach to sinners, Jerusalem Conference)
Gagnon's Central Argument
The Hays' thesis fundamentally undermines biblical sexual ethics by:
- Rejecting the male-female foundation for sexual relationships
- Prioritizing personal experience over scriptural interpretation
- Misrepresenting biblical concepts of mercy and inclusion
Conclusion
Gagnon argues that the Hays' book does not provide a credible biblical defense for homosexual relationships, instead presenting a deeply flawed theological argument that misinterprets scripture and biblical principles.