Richard Hays is a Methodist and one of the great scholars of Paul of this age. In his seminal The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethic
Experience, as we have already noted, can claim theological authority only when it is an experience shared broadly by the community of faith. Its primary role is to confirm the truth of the teaching of Scripture, as it is confessed and lived out by the community. We know that our hope is not futile, because we have the experience of “God’s love… poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Rom. 5: 5).
Of course, experience is a notoriously tricky guide: human beings are susceptible to all kinds of illusion and self-deception. That is why claims about experience as a theological authority must always be tested in light of Scripture and through the corporate discernment of the community of faith.
Certainly, the private experience of an individual cannot overturn the theological authority of the New Testament. Are there cases, however, where the church as a whole might acknowledge some new experience as revelatory even against the apparent witness of Scripture?
The paradigm case for such a possibility is found in the story of Peters preaching to the household of the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11, and the church’s subsequent acknowledgment that God had given the Holy Spirit even to those who were “unclean” according to biblical norms.
In Part IV of this book, we shall consider some issues concerning which this sort of authority is claimed for experience. Such possibilities cannot be excluded a priori; God is, as Barth would insist, free to act in surprising ways.
It must be stated as a theological guideline, however, that claims about divinely inspired experience that contradicts the witness of Scripture should be admitted to normative status in the church only after sustained and agonizing scrutiny by a consensus of the faithful. Far more often, our experience, ambiguous and sin-riddled, will need to be judged and corrected in light of Scripture, which teaches us again and again not to be conformed to this age but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we may rightly discern the will of God (Rom. 12: 2).
Hays, Richard (2013-07-30). The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New CreationA Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethic (pp. 297-298). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
I would argue that experience can sometimes open our eyes to truths we might have otherwise missed. That is, our wisdom and our experience are to be conformed to scripture, not the other way around. But sometimes our experience forces us to take a fresh look at scripture and perhaps find a new, better, truer interpretation.
Thus, when God saved Cornelius and his household without circumcision, and then God saved Paul’s many converts made on his first missionary journey — again without circumcision — the fact that these converts obviously had received the Spirit forced the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to take a fresh look at the Scriptures, that is, the First Testament. And they found, on a fresh reading, grounds to accept the Gentiles as fellow Christians even if they weren’t fellow Jews.
Is it possible that experience will cause us to decide that the scriptures support gay sexual activity within a homosexual marriage? Well, at this point our experience with homosexual marriage is severely limited. As a nation, the United States has embarked on a social experiment with little basis — other than Scripture — to know how it will turn out. But some early returns are in.
Just today (as I’m typing this), this article appeared: “Sexual orientation in the UK: Half of young people say they are not 100% heterosexual.”
According to a new YouGov survey, 49% of 18-24 year-olds in Britain define themselves as something other than completely heterosexual. The Kinsey scale invented in the 1940s placed people on a range of sexual preferences from exclusively heterosexual at 0 to exclusively homosexual at 6.
In the YouGov study, individuals were asked to put themselves on that sexuality scale. In total, 72% of the British public scored themselves at the completely heterosexual end of the scale, while 4% were at the completely homosexual end, with 19% stating they were somewhere in between – classed as bisexual by Kinsey.
One of the most striking findings of the new study is that with each generation, people see their sexuality as less fixed and more fluid. The results for 18-24 year-olds are particularly telling, with 43% placing themselves in the non-binary area between 1 and 5 and 52% place themselves at one end or the other. Of these, only 46% say they are completely heterosexual and 6% as completely homosexual.
The YouGov results are posted here. That article has this graphic —
So the British have accepted homosexual activity and marriage longer than the U.S. and their culture is much less Christianized than American culture. But it’s only been a few years longer — and yet the impact on the young people of Great Britain is astonishing — surely because the public schools have been working hard there, as in the US, to normalize homosexuality.
What impact will this have on British society? Well, we don’t know entirely. Obviously, it will likely greatly reduce birth rates, and adoptions by homosexual couples will likely increase.
And this leads to a second bit of evidence borrowed from the case files of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision approving gay marriage. Here is the Amicus Brief (friend of the court argument) filed by the American College of Pediatricians. Click the link, read the brief, and make up your own mind.
The gist of the brief is that the objective evidence shows that children adopted by gay couples have measurably worse outcomes than children adopted by heterosexual couples — and that the reporting to the contrary is dishonest and agenda driven.
So, very early in this social experiment, we’re finding some very worrisome trends. It may be that at the individual level allowing two gay people to marry will in fact make them happier. I really don’t doubt it. But what is the impact on society when gay marriage is widely approved? I think we have very good reason to believe that it will be severely negative.
In fact, already we’re seeing efforts to legalize polygamy, and I really don’t see how the U.S. Supreme Court can impose gay marriage without doing the same for polygamy. Many opponents of gay marriage have argued that pedophilia will soon be approved, once gay marriage is approved. Advocates for gay marriage laugh off the argument, finding it ludicrous and insulting, although that is exactly what is happening. I think it’ll be much easier for the courts to reject pedophilia than polygamy, as in the US, the magic words are “consenting adults.” But the cases will be brought and the arguments made.
I do not much care for slippery slope arguments, or as some say, parades of horribles. But the point is not that we necessarily know how the normalization of gay sex is going to affect society. That point is that we don’t know, and that there therefore is no basis on which to conclude that it will harmless and healthy. That case cannot be made. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that our reading of the scriptures is in doubt — just because five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices are willing to grant a right to gay marriage. Or the fact that some married gay people speak highly of the benefits of their marriages. Or the fact that some churches are now approving gay marriages. That is not the evidence that truly matters — not even close.
Indeed, it’s easy to imagine any number of possible negative outcomes if we reject the Bible’s teaching on this subject. And how can we possibly claim to know things are going to turn out well when God’s word says not to do this?
Dustin,
Thanks for the link. Of course, Gary has tried to push me to the agnostic position for sometime now. But I don’t buy the agnostic argument. I understand it — and the feelings behind it. But I can’t get there.
And I know you didn’t ask for an essay in response, but this is how I think through interesting things.
I agree with Brad that the Catholic view of marriage is logical but ultimately not dictated by scripture. Hays also agrees that the scriptures never argue from procreation as a necessary end of marriage. Besides, what is our response when a man wants to marry a woman known to be infertile? Does that violate Rom 1? I’ve never heard it so argued. So maybe Paul’s point is simple enough: it’s about God’s design and our fallen condition in respect thereof.
Brad writes,
So that’s fair enough. The logic of the position of Hays and Wright is indeed simple, coherent, and biblical. The opposing arguments that I’ve seen (and I’ve read a great many) are not. These great scholars are important voices in denominations that would love them to take a different position, but their respect for the scriptures won’t allow it. Hays writes of a good friend who is gay, and so the issue hits him very personally. He’d love to take a different stance, but the scriptures won’t allow it — despite all the motivation there could be to take the opposite tack.
The “ambiguity of scripture”? I don’t buy it. Brad writes in a footnote,
Let’s see —
* “the extremely limited presence of homosexuality at all in the biblical texts” — and yet every or nearly every every reference to porneos – sexual immorality — includes homosexuality. I don’t have BibleWorks with me — and it counts words very easily — but surely it’s a big number. It’s all one argument (porneos includes homosexuality), but it’s a lot of texts in which the readers of the books written understood the writer to be condemning homosexuality within the scope of the broader condemnation.
The truth is that sexual morality is a huge issue in the Bible, spoken of repeatedly. Many references are clearly heterosexual, such as God speaking through the prophets to Israel about her sins against her marriage to God. But when individuals are being spoken to, God’s commands regarding sexuality clearly include a prohibition on sexual immorality, which was universally heard and read as including homosexual activity of any kind or motivation.
In fact, the fact that God pictures his relationship with Israel as a heterosexual marriage means something, given that Israel was led by male kings, male priests, and male elders. Why pick a female metaphor? Why not picture his marriage as homosexual and so allow Israel to be masculine — in a highly patriarchal age? Well, because it was unthinkable. God had no interest in validating gay marriage, even though the surrounding cultures allowed all sorts of homosexual practices.
In fact, the rabbis banned lesbianism on that rationale — that God commanded Israel not to engage in the practices of the surrounding pagan nations.
So I see no lack of verses. There are far more verses on sexual morality than lots of other things we consider not the least ambiguous.
* “the radical subordination of marriage and family to the call of the gospel” — I wish for another footnote. I take it that he is referring to Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7, in which celibate singleness is commended as not only acceptable — contrary to rabbinic teaching — but in many cases preferable. Which is true, and which argues in favor of the more conservative position. In fact, to me, it’s a very strong argument, and our refusal to hear it shows how far removed from Jesus and Paul our evangelical culture is.
I mean, if we really taught and practiced this, wouldn’t it be vastly easier to find missionaries to send to dangerous places, such as the heart of ISIS? I can’t help but think of Hauerwas in Resident Aliens recommending that, rather than bombing Libya back in the Reagan years, we might have sent 1,000 missionaries. But, of course, who has the heart to send a married man or woman with children (or the potential for children) to Libya?
Then again, can we afford that many unmarried, highly trained, committed Christians? Well, I’m not sure we’re supposed to do that math.
* “the alternative understanding of the nature of same-sex relationships in the first century context” — This is, of course, a highly relevant concern, which I’ve dealt with at length in the posts and will deal with further in the upcoming series on Matthew Vines’ book. And it’s a very intellectually challenging question. And yet, I think Hays and Wright have worked their way through those issues. And we know all that we’re going to know in terms of history. I think if we bring a high view of inspiration and scriptural authority to the table, then we can’t conclude that Paul was speaking to a culture so unlike our own that he’s words are irrelevant. There is nothing pointing us in that direction in what he actually said. In fact, I think he was speaking to a culture that ours is likely to become very soon. Except for the pederasty thing. But the idea that men and women will indiscriminately have gay and straight sex seems to be coming down the road — and then we’ll be just like Greece in the early First Century, and the cultural distinction argument will evaporate.
[There is here a footnote to Rowan Williams, which makes no sense. It really doesn’t help his case.]
First, kudos for using the word “paradigmatically.”
Second, yes, the Holy Spirit did lead the church away from certain aspects of the Torah. And it was quite unexpected that God would, in effect, go back to Abraham and faith after the Law had been around for so long and with such great impact on Israel. But as I’ve covered in the last few series, it really does make a whole lot of sense — it’s just a lot of sense that wasn’t expected by the Jews.
How did God make this clear? Well, he poured out the Spirit on Cornelius and his household before they were baptized, so that they spoke in tongues and prophesied. And he gave Peter a vision. And he gave the Spirit freely to Gentiles converted on Paul’s first missionary journey — evidenced by miraculous things. And they held this conference in Jerusalem.
No one said, “But the Gentile converts are such good and kind people.” It was outright miracles unquestionably from God’s hand that made it happen.
Moreover, it did not contract Torah. It just didn’t apply Torah to Gentiles. An indirect result was that the Jews realized that they, too, were freed from circumcision because salvation is by faith — but the immediate question was, in effect: is the covenant with Abraham enough to save or must the Gentiles also submit to the covenant with Moses? And this question was a mystery, only revealed by God through the Spirit post-Pentecost.
So I’m not sure I see a homosexual sex analog here. The fact that God could do this hardly means that he has or that he will. The argument would be that gay Christians, who are sexually active, seem to have the Spirit, just like us sexually active heterosexuals. But does our doctrine of grace not allow this already? Don’t sinners receive the Spirit? Mere receipt of the Spirit only means that you’re saved, not that your sex life is entirely fine with God.
So we’re committing a category mistake here, I think. The presence of the Spirit reveals salvation, not sinlessness or approval of one’s marriage.
What would we think if a prostitute showed up in church, proved to be a great volunteer, great counselor, filled with wisdom, etc. Would we declare that God had changed his mind on prostitution? Or that God is gracious in working through someone in need of repentance?
After all, I’m not arguing that gay people are damned. I’m not even arguing that gay people who engage in gay sex are damned. Only that they sin in so doing — and it’s not the worst sin in the world. But it’s still sin and should be repented of — and those of us who are elders and leaders in the church need to lead the church to be purer, not less pure, and to thereby be better able to hold each other to account in love. We need to raise our game — not lower it — so that we have the moral standing to teach what we believe God desires — and to exert biblical discipline when needed.
We need to elevate our morality when it comes to heterosexuality and singleness in general. We need to call people to a gospel that bigger than our sexual desires. We need to form community that is not the same as marriage but meets our need for companionship without sex and marriage — which would be very much like heaven, you know. No sex in heaven, but I’m sure there will also be no loneliness and no lack of companionship. And the church should be a foretaste of heaven.
So the gay marriage issue is a call for change and re-evaluation, but I think the solution isn’t found in bending the rules on sexuality. It’s found in recommitting ourselves to Jesus and his gospel so that our churches become foretastes of heaven — a community where marriage is not needed for happiness and fulfillment because we’re so fully committed to serving our God.
There’s really no need to argue or search for the gay gene any longer. The rapidly changing view that the young have of their sexual identity not being nailed down is indicative of learned behavior and not some increasing random gene that associates our sexual identity for us. Bisexuality is as faddish as getting a tattoo. Everyone(it would seem) is experimenting with it. As for me in my late 50’s, growing up there was always that one kid, maybe two at school that you intuitively knew there was something different about them. It was in the way they walked or talked, or some other slight give-away. There was a couple of “butchy” girls-of course more easier to identify. But my 21 year old daughter has had several of her high school classmates in her homeroom(not the whole school)who she says aren’t gay but are dating or have dated the same sex. It’s like the geico commercial, If you are young, “it’s what you do” -you experiment with same sex dating.
Jay, I realize that none of us are completely objective but I believe we should nonetheless try to be objective in our reasoning. Why would you quote a small conservative splinter group of pediatricians who differ from the large majority of pediatricians without mentioning even the existence of the larger group and their contrary position? This is a problem with many conservatives who quote questionable authorities who espouse contrarian and minority positions as if they were the majority.
Also, it is a false dichotomy to present adoption by gay parents as an either/or alternative to adoption by straight parents. There aren’t enough adoptive parents to go around. Do you honestly believe children would be better off growing up in our broken foster care system than in the home of two loving gay parents? If you do you’re putting ideology ahead of the welfare of children.
“It must be stated as a theological guideline, however, that claims about divinely inspired experience that contradicts the witness of Scripture should be admitted to normative status in the church only after sustained and agonizing scrutiny by a consensus of the faithful. Far more often, our experience, ambiguous and sin-riddled, will need to be judged and corrected in light of Scripture, which teaches us again and again not to be conformed to this age but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we may rightly discern the will of God (Rom. 12: 2).”
Such a guideline sound quite similar to a “college of cardinals” working with the “papa”. How long and how deeply have out Roman catholic friends “agonized” before reaching a “consensus of the faithful”?
In that light, “another gospel” could be ultimately found. Jude speaks of a “faith once for all delivered” and the letters can often be seen as rejecting “digression”, esp 1-2-3 John and the caution from the 7 churches of revelation. Scripture is NEVER to judged / modified / understood in terms of “experience” outside the realm of inspired scripture.
Gary,
If you read the brief, the fact that they are arguing against briefs and research written by disagreeing organizations is quite plain.
Regarding adoption, there are so few American children available for adoption that Americans are adopting at great price from other nations. Corruption is rampant. And even then couples who want a baby often fail to find one or have to wait a very long time to adopt due to the shortage. I’ve spent many evenings in prayer with couples desperate to adopt who couldn’t find a baby after years of waiting of tens of thousands of dollars spent.
So it’s not as though the demand by heterosexual couples has been fully met and the next choice is the foster system. Rather, adding gay couples as qualified adopters only makes the shortage that much more severe.
AO,
thanks for the note. He’ll be in my prayers.
Gary,
Have you found in the scriptures a testimony of how a homosexual couple had reared a child? Was there ever a mention that a child of homosexual parents served God in a capacity like a prophet? Has any individual in scriptures made mention that their parents were same sex couples? We can find references to that type of activity in the nations outside of Judaism, but was it ever tolerated in God’s chosen people?
Jay, I happen to know quite a bit about adoption having worked with children with special needs for many years and having adopted two of them who likely would have grown up in foster care if my former wife and I had not adopted them. They are both grown now. It is true that there are not enough infants, and especially white infants, for families who wish to adopt infants. But many thousands of children of color, older children and children with special needs are never adopted and grow up in foster care. The first child we adopted came to us when he was five years old with severe ADHD. He had been in over fifteen placements when he came to us at the age of five. When we saw that his brother was stranded in an orphanage we also adopted him. Believe me there are many children who need homes for whom no one is lining up to take.
More broadly, even if it could be proven that all other things being equal heterosexual parents provide better homes with better longterm results for children than do homosexual parents one truth would trump such a conclusion. All things are never equal. So many factors go into what makes a good home for a child that the heterosexual/homosexual status of the prospective adoptive patents would only be one factor among many. Also, many single parents adopt children. All other things being equal, wouldn’t a gay couple be better than a heterosexual single parent? I think what makes an ideal home for children is in the eye of the beholder.
So Larry what are you proposing? Should children of gay parents be forcibly removed from their homes and placed in foster homes? And how would you ensure that no gays become foster parents? For men at least it is possible to measure arousal when pornographic images are shown to them. How would you go about it?
In regard to your questions, would you direct me to the passages in Scripture where we find divorced and remarried parents raising children?Who were the great men and women of God who grew up with divorced and remarried parents? I’m not aware of any in Scripture; are you? Maybe we should also remove children from these homes as well?
Gary,
Children of Gay parents? I guess there are some children that have been trapped into a Gay household, I said trapped because they do not have a voice in the matter. Only in the last few years have the laws of some of the land allowed those unions to be joined in matrimony. The laws of the land as far as I know don’t remove children from homes because of the parents sinful sexual activity as long as the children are not being abused. Even a single parent can continue in the rearing of a child, as long as the child’s needs are being provided.
Of course, all of your communication is addressing the laws of the land, not what God has addressed. Did you give us any answers from His Word?
I know that you are aware of the time in history when the Israelite men married foreign wives, what was demanded of them to reconcile themselves back to God? Until you can prove that God has accepted that same sex marriages are his creation than the same answer applies to marriages not supported in scripture as was applied to them.