A Cautionary Queer Review Of “The Widening Of God’s Mercy”
To say that the announcement and release of “The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story” by father and son scholars, Richard B. Hays and Christopher B. Hays, sent shockwaves through Christian communities of all persuasions would be an understatement. Richard, a New Testament scholar widely respected for his work, set himself apart with his 1996 book “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. In it, he tackled various moral and theological issues, including homosexuality, where he maintained a non-affirming position. Although less harsh than many Christian views at the time, Hays’ stance still rejected same-sex relationships. His work has since been the standard theological argument against affirmation by most Evangelical Christians.
So when he and his son, Christopher (a respected Old Testament scholar in his own right) released this new book, in which they acknowledge their full inclusion and affirmation of 2SLGBTQIA+ people- most notably, with Richard showing his willingness to take responsibility for the harm his beliefs and writing caused- many were stunned, myself included. While many affirming Christians celebrated this important shift, many also mourned and even denounced what they saw as a betrayal of fidelity to Scripture. I have found myself in a different place than both of those groups.
Without question, this book reflects a hopeful shift in the move of the church in reconsidering its position on 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion and the need to take responsibility for the harm caused by failing to do so for so very long. It has disrupted a confident certainty among many traditionalists while providing affirming Christians- namely those in more Evangelical contexts- a new foothold of Biblical and pastoral support for their position. On the measure, this book has and will do well overall.
However, despite these strengths, the book ultimately falls short in several critical areas that undermine its intentions and fail to address the systemic causes behind the very exclusion it is seeking to undo. While the book deserves a more thorough and detailed rebuttal, I hope the following will provide a starting point for this important conversation.
Affirmation Without Concession
As the title of the book suggests, the primary argument the authors make for the inclusion of 2SLGBTQIA+ people is “the widening of God’s mercy”. Before reading the book, I was already concerned by what this title seemed to suggest. It seemed to say that God’s inclusion of 2SLGBTQIA+ people is an exceptional act of mercy beyond God’s initial intentions- a new thing; a change of God’s mind. While legitimate theological and Biblical arguments can be made about God’s ability to change Their mind, the implications in this context left me troubled. Framing this inclusion as a “widening” of God’s mercy risks suggesting that we queer people were once outside of God’s blessing, and only now, through a kind of theological evolution, are they being welcomed in. This is problematic because this “inclusion” is a concession rather than an inherent reality of God’s creation.
It is profoundly important to recognize that our queerness is not something God has had to learn to accept; it is something God created intentionally from the start, as part of the diversity and beauty of humanity, reflecting part of Their divine image. By arguing that our inclusion is a new development in God’s plan, the book diminishes our sacred identity, suggesting that our place was a later expression of grace rather than the place we always belonged. As people who have long struggled to not only be accepted but to be celebrated as unique and essential members of the Body of Christ, this distinction matters deeply. Again, Any theology of affirmation that requires God to change in order to include and bless queer folks is an inadequate theology. Our queerness is rooted in the divine image, established with intention from the start. Failure to acknowledge this is not only a violation against queer people but against the character of God.
The Failure to Critique Normativity and Supremacy
What this approach also fails to do is to interrogate the normativity and supremacy that have too long dominated the church, contributing to the marginalization and even oppression of those who fall short of those privileged identities. While the book clearly expresses remorse and repentance for the harm caused by exclusionary views, it fails to locate the cause of those beliefs and barriers to their true origin- within the privileged center of patriarchy, heteronormativity, cisnormativity, and more. This is not simply about changing our interpretation of a few key verses, it is about dismantling the entrenched systems of supremacy that still dominate most churches, even those who identify as affirming.
With this understanding, then, repentance requires more than an acknowledgment of harm but an active commitment to undoing the very systems and structures that created and perpetuated that harm. When dominant biases are in plays, they shape how we read and interpret Scripture, how we structure the use of power and leadership, the nature of our communities, and how we relate to one another and the world.
The book’s failure to name and critique these systems leaves the door open for ongoing marginalization, all while genuinely believing ourselves to be inclusive- an easy mistake to make when it is far better relative to what was. And yet, the measure of our faithfulness should not be measured by the distance we have gone away from previous harmful choices but rather upon our proximity to that greater good. True faithfulness requires that we not only widen the circle but fundamentally reimagine the circle itself — dismantling the hierarchies that unintentionally yet implicitly position some as more worthy of God’s love and grace than others.
The New Gentiles?
In the book, the authors liken the inclusion of 2SLGBTQIA+ people to the way Gentiles were included in the early Christian community, acknowledging that the early church had to reexamine long-held assumptions about who could be part of the people of God. I was cautiously optimistic about this approach when I first began to read it but soon faced several serious concerns.
It became clear that the hermeneutic being utilized by the authors ultimately viewed the actions of the Jerusalem Council as right and God-ordained, rather than recognizing that, while they acted faithfully within their context, the Council’s decisions fell short by imposing additional barriers and requirements on Gentile believers. What could have been an opportunity for true radical inclusion instead created a framework where Gentiles were still expected to conform to certain cultural standards, a misstep we now recognize as creating unnecessary conditions for belonging. The implications of this concerning 2SLGBTQIA+ should be apparent, as we have been subjected to special requirements within the church for a very long time.
Ultimately, though, I think even with this acknowledgment, the parallel is problematic. Where Gentiles were outsiders to the faith whose conversion to Christianity required changes in belief and cultural practice, 2SLGBTQIA+ people are already active and faithful members of the Body of Christ, excluded for aspects of our God-created identity. This is not about bringing in a new group into the church but recognizing the inherent dignity and rightful place of long-established siblings in Christ.
Again, this parallel still situates the authority with those who do not merely need to welcome us, but who have been and continue to actively oppress us. It reinforces the false idea that the authority to decide on our belonging rests with those who are responsible for our alienation in the first place. It is, indeed, their responsibility, but not as an act of generous mercy, but rather as the contrite action of repentance that submits to our authority to grant forgiveness.
The Prodigal Church
Here is another way of looking at it: The book inadvertently frames the inclusion of 2SLGBTQIA+ people into the church as an act of paternal love and welcome, reminiscent of the story of the Prodigal Son. In this way of seeing things, queer people are welcomed back into the embrace of the church, loved and celebrated. And while this image is certainly compelling, especially to those who get to identify with the benevolent father, it is more inaccurate and offensive.
Rather, the choice to become fully affirming and inclusive of 2SLGBTQIA+ people into the church is the choice of the Prodigal who is returning home to the Divine Parent in humility and penitence. Failing to be inclusive of all God’s children placed them outside the gates, not the 2SLGBTQIA+ people. This shift in posture is critical in understanding what is necessary for true reconciliation and the work of systemic change.
(As an important aside, those of us who are 2SLGBTQIA+ Christians must also consider if we are going to be like the older brother in the story of the Prodigal Son. Will we allow our anger to become bitterness? Will our need for consequence outweigh our commitment to a transformative justice that would lead to the flourishing of all? That, however, is a question for another time.)
Our inclusion is not a change of God’s will- not a shift in Their thinking or persuasion of Their compassion- but rather the repentant realization of the church of their need to catch up with where God has always been and longed for us all to be.
The Limits of Gradualism and the Protection of Hermeneutics
Finally, the general argument of the book seems to me to be serving as an apologetic for gradualism as not only the inevitable pace of change but a God-ordained one. While the authors acknowledge the harm of failing to be inclusive, they seem to privilege the oppressors in their call for careful negotiation of change over time. This gradualism may be comforting for those needing to adjust to this change, but the cost of that pace is squarely the burden of the very people who have already been deeply harmed.
Inevitably change takes time. However, it is important to note that this dynamic is true, not because it is generally the best for all involved- especially not the most vulnerable- but rather it is true because of the resistance to change that is so common among those who benefit from the inequality. Thus, if we are going to accept any inevitability of gradual change, we must do so with penitence and a commitment to resist such outcomes however faithfully possible.
However, another aspect that feeds into this gradualism is the impulse to protect an underlying approach to reading and understanding Scripture. Trying to adopt an inclusive theology without fundamentally changing one’s hermeneutic is understandable, but also deeply problematic. Again, this speaks to a failure to interrogate our own assumptions, biases, and privilege. All too often Christians are functionally more concerned with protecting their hermeneutic than they are with protecting the vulnerable and honouring their inherent dignity. The barriers to inclusion are not located within 2SLGBTQIA+ people but within those who have excluded and oppressed them. Thus, it is not enough to welcome and affirm without fundamentally examining our most foundational beliefs, including how we read and understand Scripture. This should not become the burden of the oppressed but the responsibility of the oppressor. I recognize how those terms- oppressed and oppressor- might feel harsh and inflammatory. However, unless we name these dynamics for what they are, we will never be able to properly repent of them, and forge a new and better path.
Nothing About Us Without Us
Again, “The Widening of God’s Mercy” represents a step forward in the journey toward 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion in the church, particularly within communities unwilling to shift their hermeneutic to a more fully affirming position. The authors do model the importance of humble repentance while putting forth a book that will undoubtedly cost them both in some very real ways, both personally and professionally. I do not want to paint the book or the authors as in any way the enemy.
However, the shortcomings listed briefly above should be enough for us to be cautious in our adoption of their perspective and in the promotion of their material. Ultimately it fails by framing queer inclusion as a widening of God’s mercy rather than as an acknowledgment of what has always been true- that 2SLGBTQIA+ people are fully and intentionally made in the image of God.
And while these authors have access to readers who might only read them because of their bona fides (and perhaps also because they are cisgender and heterosexual), if you are genuinely committed to the full inclusion of 2SLGBTQIA+ people in the church, look to our own voices- our own scholarship, theology, ministry, experience. Our lived experience gives us profound (if not perfect) insight that you cannot get through the perspective of others. Yes, many 2SLGBTQIA+ Christians have and will fully endorse this book. We are not monolithic, after all. Ultimately, however, we need a theology that does not see our inclusion as a new development or a reluctant concession but as a fundamental and inherent truth of who we are in God’s diverse and beautiful creation.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci is a bisexual author, award-winning advocate, founder of The Rainbow Well, and co-director of Peace & Justice Initiatives. He is also a pastoral leader at Little Flowers Community, a Mennonite church in Winnipeg, MB, where he has served a largely 2SLGBTQIA+ congregation for almost 15 years. Arpin-Ricci has provided community and support to countless 2SLGBTQIA+ people around the world for years.