Christopher and Richard Hays Drop a Bombshell Reversal on LGBTQ. Will Fuller Seminary Cave to the Backlash, Or Save Evangelicalism?
by Ken Wilson

Richard B. Hays and Christopher B. Hays join a few other elite evangelical scholars with the temerity to adopt an LGBTQ-Affirming position in a forthcoming book “The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story”. Christopher Hays is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, a flagship evangelical institution. Richard Hays (retired) is revered in the evangelical world — or was, until he reversed a course set in his classic, The Moral Vision of the New Testament.

This is a big deal. Each time a prominent evangelical changes their mind on LGBTQ+ and says so publicly, evangelical institutions have responded in what is now a predictable manner. Expel the offending party to limit the damage. The offending party is no longer an evangelical, so all evangelicals remain united.

But this trick is getting old now and it will only get older as more influential evangelicals break ranks. If Christopher Hays and Richard Hays have made this move, you can bet others are considering it. Right behind funding concerns, this is one of the the biggest headaches facing the leaders of many evangelical institutions like Fuller Theological Seminary.

I know this world. The wrong answer to a scholarly question can become a rallying cry for someone’s head on a platter.

I know how evangelicals turn on their own when a leader answers the following question incorrectly: “Does the Bible prohibit all same-gender sexual acts for all time regardless of the context in which they occur?” It sounds like a question for Bible scholars and their Bible-nerd groupies, doesn’t it?

So far, evangelical organizations have defined and enforced their boundaries by insisting that the only correct answer to this question is, “Yes, the Bible absolutely prohibits all same-gender sexual acts regardless of the context in which they occur. It’s indisputable.” Any other answer than this one becomes a rallying cry for someone’s head on a platter.

Christopher Hays could lose his job at Fuller (others have), and Richard Hays, retired, could lose his place in the equivalent of the Evangelical Hall of Fame (as others have). Of course, such losses pale in comparison to the way LGBTQ+ people (including minors) are treated in their evangelical circles. When an adult or young person is told by trusted authorities “We love you but must insist that your sexual orientation or gender identity is a sin against God’s created order” it often leads to self-loathing, a form of psychological torture. And that can lead to worse outcomes.

Whence cometh the pressure to expel?

Where does all the pressure to expel offenders like Christopher Hays and Richard Hays come from? It starts (but doesn’t end) with a sudden onset of online criticism.

It didn’t take long for Robert A. J. Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexuality, to post a 1500 word screed on X, that platform of Christian love and civility. Gagnon wrote, “They [the Hayses] are now swimming in an ocean of heresy.” I doubt Gagnon got an advance copy to make such a judgment. Gagnon was calling out the dogs. (As the saying goes among those who have endured such treatment, “There ain’t no hate like Christian love.”)

The sudden onset of online criticism is just the beginning. The effective pressure is exerted behind the scenes when a riled up base of financial donors threatens to withhold their support to institutions that the offending scholars are part of. Big donors start emailing Fuller Seminary (in this case) threatening to withhold their donations, often urging other donors follow suit. (Large donors often know each other.)

You would think evangelical leaders with good reputations would receive the benefit of the doubt from the institutions familiar with their body of work. The opposite is the case. The more prominent you are within the evangelical world, the greater the pressure placed on the evangelical institutions to expel you.

Does it have to be that way? Couldn’t the institutions issue a statement: “This is a complex issue. Good people draw different conclusions about what Scripture teaches. We disagree about many complex moral issues (like just war theory, gun violence, climate change, divorce and remarriage) and this is another of those disputable matters we debate among ourselves.” But that’s not how it works … yet.

So far, despite variations in tone virtually every evangelical institution in the United States treats the morality of “homosexuality” as well as any gender identity that doesn’t comport with a person’s birth certificate, as an indisputable issue. To countenance open and honest debate within said institutions (exceptions made for study commissions whose reports are never adopted unless they toe the line) is to concede the point that the issue is in fact, disputable. Anything else is viewed as a threat to institutional survival. And C.S. Lewis observed that entities and beings act to preserve and protect themselves. Institutions (entities composed of beings) often do so with an amoral ferocity.

Consider the threat evangelical institutions perceive when reputable insiders like Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays advocate for full LGBTQ+ inclusion.

Let’s go back to our original scholarly question: “Does the Bible prohibit all same-gender sexual acts for all time regardless of the context in which they occur?” How would one go about proposing answers to this question? (We’re now just pretending that what matters to a theological institution is well-reasoned interpretations of pertinent biblical texts, taking into account their original linguistic, historical, and cultural context — an accepted principle within the Christian world, including evangelicalism.)

Answering such a question requires, well, the expertise of a Christopher Hays. Hays is a specialist in the ancient Near East. As such, he is informed by an explosion of archeological discoveries over the past 150 years that can illuminate our understanding of the only divine command in all of Scripture prohibiting a same-gender sexual act. (Other biblical texts are called into service to condemn all same-gender sexual acts, but none are in the form of a divine command.)

Now what if the expertise of a respected Old Testament scholar from Fuller could be combined with a revered New Testament scholar — say a former dean of Duke Divinity School, the author of a classic like The Moral Vision of the New Testament, used as a textbook at Fuller? Wouldn’t that duo be worth hearing out? In principle, yes, but that’s not how this works … yet.

Instead, Fuller Theological Seminary is faced with an organizational dilemma. “Academic Freedom” is listed as an institutional commitment, but one that is sharply limited when it comes to theological matters (the heart of the institution’s academic focus). Fuller also has an institutional commitment to “Racial, Ethnic Justice and “Inclusion and Empowerment of Women.” The latter includes a commitment to “decentering patriarchy” and “male normativity” but (in a footnote) “Gender is defined as a man and a woman” — ignoring the incontrovertible fact of intersex individuals whose anatomical characteristics and/or chromosomal patterns don’t fit that binary. (What gender were the individuals that Jesus referred to as “born eunuchs”?) Organizationally, Fuller has made some important moves, but they have also painted themselves into a corner.

Organizational dilemmas are one thing but Fuller also faces an ethical dilemma that pits the obligation to treat people well against pressure to treat a scholar like Christopher Hays as disposable. Fuller might have the organizational documents needed to succumb to the pressure campaign to get rid of Christopher Hays. But they also appreciate that no true moral vision of the New Testament (or the Old Testament) — can take ethical cover behind organizational documents such as Fuller’s “Institutional Commitments.” Decision-makers at Fuller — moral agents, not just institutional agents — also aspire to “the fear of the Lord.”

All this could be resolved by a simple acknowledgement — that homo-sexuality and gender variance are complex issues that are disputable within their institution. If they are not, the institution sounds like a fragile system doesn’t it? When it comes to addressing this complex moral issue, it is. But will it remain so?

Will Fuller Seminary stand by their man?

The only question is, will Fuller Theological Seminary give Christopher Hays a hearing? Or will the thundering condemnations that have already been heard reach a crescendo when The Widening of God’s Mercy is released in September? And what impact will that have on the Board of Trustee of Fuller and its new President? Will they stand by their man or acquiesce to demands for his head on a platter?

Recent history says they will cave.

Beloved evangelicals like David Gushee and Eugene Peterson discovered the limits of evangelical Christian love when they, like Christopher Hays and Richard Hays, answered that scholarly Bible question incorrectly. (And promising young scholars like J.D. Daniel Kirk have been denied tenure at Fuller for crossing the LGBTQ+ line.)

Gushee was preemptively cancelled from the entire evangelical world he inhabited as soon as he crossed the line in a series of online posts, followed by his book, Changing Our Mind. Eugene Peterson was subjected to an evangelical firestorm when he acknowledged in an interview that, if asked, he would perform a wedding for a gay couple. Peterson, in the early stages of dementia, was pressured into recanting. But his son, Eric Peterson, reports that his father only did so at the urging of a publicist, to call off the hounds. (“Here, just sign this and it will all go away.”)

My run-in with Vineyard USA in 2014 says they won’t stand by their man.

I’m not in a league with David Gushee or Eugene Peterson, but I also had a run in with this mutated variant of evangelical Christian love in 2014. For seven years I had been a member of the national board of Vineyard USA, the regional overseer of 115 Vineyard churches, the founder of a Vineyard Church in Ann Arbor Michigan, author Jesus Brand Spirituality and Mystically Wired (published by the largest evangelical publisher, Thomas Nelson), and co-author with Rich Nathan of Empowered Evangelicals, a book that defined Vineyard theology. I was far from revered, like Richard B. Hays, but I was liked.

But when I published “A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embrace Gay, Lesbian and Transgender People into the Company of Jesus” in 2014, being liked couldn’t protect me from the forces that drove me out of Vineyard USA and the local church I had founded and pastored for decades. I lost my dearest friends and colleagues and hundreds of congregants. I received anonymous threats via mail and email along with other expressions of evangelical Christian love (now you know the source of my “spurned lover” tone).

The proposal I made in my book was intended for my colleagues within Vineyard. I didn’t claim that everyone in Vineyard now had to change their convictions. I simply argued that in our setting, this issue was complex, and in light of the evidence of harm, should be treated as a “disputable issue” in Vineyard. I made it clear that I could no longer enforce teachings and policies I deemed to be harmful — like banning LGBT members from Christian marriage and ordination. (Just to be clear: I think sexual and gender minorities deserve to be in congregations in which their weddings, ordination, and ethical integrity, are no longer regarded as disputable issues, but that’s another matter. I helped to found such a congregation in Ann Arbor.)

My proposal, made first in 2013, was soundly rejected by the leadership of Vineyard USA. And the most telling indication was not the letter from the executive team to our church board calling for me to recant, but the fact that no one in authority was willing to engage in a “let’s study this together” discussion, dialog, dispute, or conversation about the question. A proposal made by a member of the executive team to “release Ken from his duties as a Vineyard pastor with a blessing” was rejected. Even that “agree to disagree” blessing given along with my departure would have violated the principle that the traditional interpretations of the relevant Scriptural texts are in a Vineyard USA file marked, INDISPUTABLE.

Richard Hays challenged this very notion 30 years ago. And it was in his chapter on “homosexuality.”

When I studied Hays’ chapter on homosexuality, I saw many weaknesses. I grieve, as I’m sure Richard Hays does now, that this chapter of his book was used to support teachings and policies he now regards as harmful. I feel profound regret over my prior support of the traditional teaching. I bet he does too. Having changed one’s view and written about it and suffered some losses as a result doesn’t remove the regret. Most scholars, especially in their later years, simply evolve quietly without publicly acknowledging that they were wrong. It galls me that this is so. So hats off to Richard Hays for taking the narrow, rather than the broad, path.

But I also want to remind anyone at Fuller with a high regard for The Moral Vision of the New Testament (including its chapter on “homosexuality”) that nearly thirty years ago Hays wrote,

“Just as there are serious Christians who in good conscience believe in just war theory [Hays did not] so there are serious Christians who in good conscience believe that same-sex erotic activity is consonant with God’s will,” adding, “I think both groups are wrong, but in both cases the questions are so difficult that we should receive one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and work toward adjudicating our differences through reflecting together on the witness of Scripture (400).

Difficult questions spawn legitimate disputes that deserve a hearing. That’s what Hays was saying thirty years ago … and is, perhaps, hoping for now. That is the treasure hidden in the field of “Chapter 16, Homosexuality” in The Moral Vision of the New Testament, ©1996.

Nearly thirty years later, a rising tide of courageous LGBTQ witnesses has testified to the harm suffered by sexual minorities under the stigmatizing policies of the traditional teaching. Over ten years ago, the largest evangelical ex-gay ministry, Exodus International, disbanded because they realized they were doing more harm than good.

Top evangelical scholars have added their voices to the testimony of sexual minorities — David P. Gushee (Changing Our Mind) and James V. Brownson (Bible, Gender, Sexuality), along with Eugene H. Peterson, the beloved pastor-scholar, writer, and author of the much-loved Bible translation, The Message. All paid a price for doing so. And now Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays have joined that company. At the same time, many evangelical churches have ended their harmful teachings and policies and been driven out of all evangelical institutions as a result. (They are re-grouping in the wilderness.)

Will Christopher Hays get a fair hearing at his own seminary?

Now the question is, what will Fuller Theological Seminary do? Will Christopher Hays be given a fair hearing by his “brothers and sisters in Christ” who will decide his fate? Will they agree to “work toward adjudicating [any] differences through reflecting on the witness of Scripture” … in any meaningful way that does not insure a predetermined outcome?

Recent history suggests that this is unlikely. The decision makers at Fuller will be subjected to a withering pressure campaign to get rid of Christopher Hays, and to do so in a way that sends a chill up the spine of any other faculty with the courage and scholarly authority to do what Hays has done. Recent history suggests that Hays will be summarily removed after a process guaranteed to deliver that result — to satisfy the forces arrayed against him, the forces targeting the Fuller administration.

Recent history suggest that Hays will have to endure the indignity of friends and colleagues who express private support, but keep quiet in public — where their support is needed at a time like this. Believe me, the “we’re with you wink” is the cruelest form of evangelical Christian love. Recent history suggests that some faculty and many students will object, but Fuller will calculate that the forces rallied against Hays by Robert Gagnon and others pose an existential threat to institutional survival. They will be guided by realpolitik — gussied up in a press release and a position paper laden with Scriptural references.

I’ll bet many who will now decide Christopher Hays’ future with Fuller Seminary, once read Richard Hays’ The Moral Vision of the New Testament —and regarded his words in Ch. 16 quoted above as a compelling part of the moral vision of the New Testament. (Robert Gagnon obviously does not.) Now those same individuals have moral choices of their own to make. How poignant to think of Richard Hays, having written that portion 30 years ago, today waiting and watching see what Fuller Theological Seminary will do to Christopher Hays.

Recent history says one thing. But the only way to know what will happen next is to wait and see.

Because something surprising could happen. The past is not always prologue. Individuals within institutions have moral agency (given to them by God, for which they are accountable to God) and sometimes they exercise their moral agency to set their institutions on a better path. This usually involves taking some risks that require mustard-seed size faith.

So Fuller could stand by their man. Fuller could acknowledge that this dispute between Christians of good conscience will not go away by ignoring it. They could decide to be the evangelical institution that made the first move to stop the bloodletting. They could decide to bear witness to a new reality.

Or is it an old reality that simply hasn’t been enacted lately? A reality in which the unity of the Spirit is not a unity that requires one correct answer to a complex moral issue — an issue that cultural warriors in need of another wedge issue to advance their bullying tactics take full advantage of. (Leaders of institutions like Fuller know that my strong language here is not without warrant.)

Because maybe even a theological seminary could take a theological approach this time…and undertake the kind of process a younger Richard Hays, when he was still revered by evangelicals, envisioned so many years ago. How did he describe it? Brothers and sisters in Christ working toward adjudicating differences through reflecting on Scripture together. Yes, “reflecting on Scripture together,” not reacting to a behind-the-scenes mob. If Fuller surprises us, it could be the long-awaited start of saving evangelicalism from the thing it has become, but perhaps, is not destined to remain.

By the way, now is the time for the evangelical friends, colleagues, and admirers of Christopher Hays and Richard Hays to offer their public support. Your support will count for more if it costs you something to offer it. Say what you can, if only that this complex issue can no longer be treated as indisputable within the evangelical world, and these evangelical scholars merit a hearing and a voice within Fuller Theological Seminary.

–

Ken Wilson is author of “A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embrace Gay, Lesbian and Transgender People into the Company of Jesus” and Pastor Emeritus of Blue Ocean Church, Ann Arbor. He is currently working on “Safety From Harm: An Affirming Theology.”