The question of whether Christians in committed same-sex relationships should be fully welcomed into the Church continues to trouble Christian communities. For some, the biblical teaching appears sufficiently clear to settle the matter. For others, the question demands a more comprehensive consideration of Scripture, the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ, and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. I find myself increasingly convinced that this discussion cannot be adequately resolved by appealing either to isolated biblical prohibitions or to contemporary notions of inclusion without examining the larger theological framework within which Christian discipleship takes place.

At the heart of my concern is a conviction drawn from Paul’s understanding of salvation: God’s covenant family is constituted by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by the moral achievements of those who belong to it. The Church is not an assembly of people who have completed their transformation, but a community in which the Holy Spirit is already at work, forming imperfect human beings into the likeness of Christ. If this is true, we must ask whether faithful LGBTQ Christians, including those in committed same-sex relationships, should be treated differently from other believers who likewise remain in need of moral and spiritual transformation.

Yet an equally important question follows. If every believer must submit to the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, what happens when a Christian does not recognize a particular relationship or practice as contrary to God’s will? Does genuine openness to transformation require that person to accept the Church’s traditional interpretation, or must the Church itself remain open to reconsidering its understanding of Scripture?

These questions have become especially significant following the remarkable change of perspective of New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays.

When a Respected Biblical Scholar Changes His Mind

In his influential 1996 book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, Richard B. Hays defended the traditional Christian understanding that same-sex sexual activity was incompatible with biblical sexual ethics. His conclusion was grounded in careful exegesis and an approach to New Testament ethics organized around the theological images of community, cross, and new creation.

Nearly three decades later, Hays and his son, Old Testament scholar Christopher B. Hays, published The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (2024). In this book, the elder Hays reconsidered his previous conclusion and argued for the full inclusion of LGBTQ Christians, including the affirmation of faithful same-sex relationships.

What makes this development particularly striking is that Hays did not substantially abandon his earlier understanding of what the biblical authors meant. He continued to acknowledge that Leviticus and Paul expressed disapproval of same-sex sexual activity. His change occurred primarily in how he understood the normative application of those texts within Scripture’s larger account of God’s expanding mercy.

Hays explained that his encounters with gay and lesbian Christians who demonstrated sincere faith, Christian commitment, and meaningful participation in the Church had contributed significantly to his reconsideration. He began to question whether the Church’s exclusionary practices faithfully reflected the God whose mercy repeatedly transcends established religious boundaries.

His change of mind raises an unavoidable hermeneutical question. Can the Church arrive at a different contemporary ethical judgment without denying the historical meaning of the biblical texts? Or does such an approach risk making Scripture so malleable that its authority becomes dependent upon the conclusions interpreters already wish to reach?

I do not think a scholar’s willingness to reconsider a longstanding conviction should automatically be regarded as theological inconsistency. Intellectual humility sometimes requires acknowledging that an earlier conclusion may have been mistaken. Nevertheless, the sincerity of a change of mind does not, by itself, establish the correctness of the new position. Every revision must still be tested by Scripture and accountable theological reasoning.

God’s Covenant Family Is Constituted by Grace

Paul’s declaration in Galatians 3:26–29 provides an important starting point. Those who belong to Christ are children of God through faith and heirs of the promise given to Abraham. Ethnic identity, social position, and the distinction between male and female do not determine one’s standing within God’s covenant family.

This does not mean that such distinctions disappear from ordinary human existence. Rather, they no longer establish barriers to participation in the saving promises of God. Belonging to Christ takes precedence over the social and religious classifications through which human communities frequently distinguish insiders from outsiders.

The Corinthian correspondence illustrates another dimension of this reality. Paul addresses a community marked by division, arrogance, sexual misconduct, greed, and serious failures in its common life. Nevertheless, he continues to regard its members as people called to holiness through Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul identifies conduct inconsistent with inheriting God’s kingdom, yet he immediately reminds his readers of their cleansing, sanctification, and justification through Christ and the Spirit. His argument does not suggest that moral transformation is optional. Rather, it establishes that the community’s new identity in Christ must increasingly become visible in its conduct.

This distinction matters for the present discussion. We welcome Christians who continue to struggle with dishonesty, pride, greed, drunkenness, and other moral failures because we recognize that sanctification remains unfinished. The Church does not demand moral perfection as the preliminary condition for receiving grace.

However, an important qualification is necessary. Being LGBTQ is not itself equivalent to lying, drunkenness, or any other moral wrongdoing. Moreover, whether a committed same-sex relationship is morally impermissible is precisely the question being examined. We cannot settle that question simply by placing such relationships alongside conduct whose wrongfulness is already acknowledged.

What we can affirm is that the Holy Spirit’s transforming work is not selectively available. No Christian possesses an exclusive claim to divine grace, and no group should be presumed beyond the reach of the Spirit’s sanctifying presence.

The Gentiles, the Holy Spirit, and the Widening of Mercy

Hays’ revised interpretation draws particular attention to the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10–15. When the Holy Spirit descended upon Cornelius and his household, Peter confronted a reality that challenged his inherited understanding of the boundaries of God’s covenant people. God had already acted among those whose full inclusion remained controversial.

The Jerusalem Council subsequently recognized that Gentile believers did not need to become Jews through circumcision and adherence to the Mosaic Law to belong fully to God’s people. This was not merely an accommodation to changing social circumstances. The apostles sought to understand the Spirit’s activity in light of Israel’s Scriptures and the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Hays sees this development as a significant analogy for the contemporary Church. If God welcomed Gentiles before the existing religious community had fully understood the implications, might the Church today need to reconsider boundaries it has maintained against LGBTQ Christians?

The analogy deserves serious consideration, but it is not without difficulty.

Gentile inclusion concerned the removal of ethnic and covenantal barriers, whereas the debate over same-sex unions also concerns the moral character of particular relationships. Furthermore, the Jerusalem Council did not abandon its concern for sexual holiness. Acts 15:20 explicitly instructed Gentile believers to abstain from sexual immorality, even while freeing them from circumcision.

Consequently, welcoming someone into God’s covenant family and affirming every aspect of that person’s conduct are not necessarily identical decisions.

Still, the account cautions us against assuming that our established religious boundaries always correspond perfectly to God’s intentions. Peter himself had to reconsider assumptions he previously believed were faithful.

The lesson is not that every inherited moral judgment must be overturned, but that the Church must remain attentive to the possibility that its understanding of God’s purposes is incomplete.

Marriage, Resurrection, and the Coming New Creation

There is another dimension of this discussion that I consider especially important: the relationship between the original creation and the consummated new creation.

In Genesis 2:24, marriage appears as part of God’s good creation. Jesus himself appeals to this creational account in Matthew 19:4–6 when discussing marriage and divorce. N. T. Wright regards this continuity between creation and the teaching of Jesus and Paul as significant for Christian sexual ethics.

Yet Jesus also declares that in the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Matthew 22:30). Luke 20:34–36 makes the contrast even clearer by distinguishing the marital arrangements of the present age from the transformed existence of those who share in the resurrection.

This suggests that marriage, although good, is not an eternal institution. God’s final purpose for humanity does not consist merely of restoring every feature of life before the fall. The resurrection inaugurates a transformed mode of human existence in which death has been defeated and marriage no longer serves its present purposes.

For me, this observation qualifies any attempt to make heterosexual marriage the ultimate criterion of human fulfillment or belonging to God’s people. Marriage is a gift of creation, but it is not the final destiny of redeemed humanity.

Nevertheless, the temporary character of marriage does not automatically establish that its present ethical boundaries may be redefined. Something may remain morally significant within the present age even though it will not continue in the resurrection.

Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 7 offers an illuminating perspective. He relativizes marriage in light of the passing form of the present world without declaring marriage illegitimate. Both marriage and celibacy remain meaningful Christian vocations, but neither determines one’s ultimate standing before God.

This is where inaugurated eschatology becomes particularly relevant. The Church already participates in the new creation through Christ and the Spirit, yet it still inhabits the unfinished conditions of the present world. Its ethical life must therefore reflect both continuity with God’s good creation and anticipation of the transformation that awaits its consummation.

The question is whether faithful same-sex relationships can be understood within that continuity and transformation, or whether their affirmation would contradict the apostolic understanding of Christian holiness.

Hays’ later position invites the former possibility. Wright’s interpretation continues to defend the latter concern. Both require more theological argument than a simple appeal to either creation or resurrection alone.

---

The question is whether faithful same-sex relationships can be understood within that continuity and transformation, or whether their affirmation would contradict the apostolic understanding of Christian holiness.

Hays’ later position invites the former possibility. Wright’s interpretation continues to defend the latter concern. Both require more theological argument than a simple appeal to either creation or resurrection alone.

---

Same-Sex Relationships, the Holy Spirit, and Moral Discernment

We now encounter what I regard as the most demanding issue.

Suppose two Christians in a faithful same-sex relationship demonstrate genuine commitment to Christ. Their lives exhibit patience, generosity, mutual fidelity, and service. They also demonstrate a willingness to participate in the Church’s worship and mission. They sincerely believe that their relationship does not violate God’s will.

Can we conclude that they are resisting the transforming work of the Holy Spirit simply because they do not recognize their relationship as sinful?

I do not think that conclusion can responsibly be reached without first establishing that their interpretation of Scripture is mistaken.

At the same time, the presence of admirable Christian virtues does not automatically settle the morality of every relationship or practice. The Spirit’s work within believers does not imply that every aspect of their lives already conforms to God’s intentions.

In Galatians 5:22–25, Paul identifies the fruit of the Spirit as evidence of the new life that believers should embody. Yet we must understand these fruits within the broader framework of Christian discipleship while recognizing the Church’s continuing responsibility to discern what holiness requires.

Here the question of conscience becomes unavoidable.

A Christian may sincerely believe that a particular relationship is compatible with faithfulness to Christ. Another Christian may believe just as firmly that Scripture prohibits such a relationship. Neither sincerity alone nor majority agreement guarantees that an interpretation is correct.

Romans 14 reminds us that conscience matters in the life of faith. However, we should not assume without further biblical justification that the debate over sexual ethics belongs in the same category as the dietary and calendrical disagreements Paul addresses.

Christian conscience must remain accountable to Scripture, but church authorities must not compel believers to accept an interpretation merely because they insist upon it.

If the traditional interpretation is correct, faithful discipleship may indeed require Christians in same-sex relationships to reconsider those relationships, even at considerable personal cost. If Hays’ revised interpretation is correct, however, the Church may be demanding that Christians abandon relationships that do not necessarily violate God’s will.

Both possibilities carry serious moral and pastoral consequences.

The Church must therefore exercise considerable humility before declaring that someone’s refusal to adopt its particular interpretation necessarily constitutes resistance to the Holy Spirit.

Grace Does Not Eliminate the Call to Transformation

This does not mean, however, that the Church should separate Christian inclusion from the demands of discipleship.

Titus 2:11–12 reminds us that the grace which brings salvation also trains believers to reject ungodliness. Grace is not merely God’s acceptance of people as they are. It is also God’s transforming presence, creating a people whose lives increasingly reflect the character of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, we must not reduce spiritual transformation to mere compliance with prescribed standards of behavior. Paul speaks in Romans 12:2 of transformation through the renewal of the mind, so that believers may discern God’s will.

Such renewal requires prayer, biblical study, repentance, communal accountability, and a willingness to accept correction.

This obligation belongs equally to LGBTQ Christians and heterosexual Christians. It also belongs to pastors, teachers, theologians, and the institutional Church itself.

Indeed, if Hays’ change of mind teaches us anything, it is that even accomplished biblical scholars can discover reasons to reconsider conclusions they once defended. His experience does not prove that his later interpretation is correct. Nevertheless, we should not dismiss his willingness to reconsider simply because his new conclusion challenges established expectations.

The Church must avoid two opposite failures. It must not use grace as an excuse to avoid serious moral discernment, but neither should it use the language of holiness to justify exclusion without adequately examining the biblical grounds for its judgments.

No interpretive tradition can claim a monopoly on the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

Can the Church Remain a Family Amid Unresolved Disagreement?

One question remains especially pressing. Must Christians resolve every disputed ethical issue before they can recognize one another as members of God’s covenant family?

Certainly, the New Testament does not treat every disagreement as inconsequential. Paul could be remarkably firm when confronting conduct he believed contradicted the gospel. Yet his letters also reveal the difficult and patient work of forming communities whose members had not fully understood the implications of their new identity in Christ.

The Church must therefore distinguish between recognizing someone’s sincere faith, evaluating particular patterns of conduct, and deciding what practices it can formally bless or endorse.

These distinctions do not resolve the debate over same-sex unions. They do, however, provide a more responsible framework for discussing it.

I remain persuaded that the Church should not dismiss the Spirit’s presence in the lives of Christians who confess Jesus Christ and sincerely seek to follow him simply because they interpret a contested ethical question differently from the majority.

At the same time, welcome must never mean that our personal convictions are exempt from examination. Every believer must remain willing to hear Scripture anew, to examine cherished assumptions, and to acknowledge the possibility of error.

Such willingness must be mutual. The Church cannot demand teachability from LGBTQ Christians while refusing to examine its own interpretations, prejudices, and inconsistencies.

An Unfinished Conversation

I began this reflection convinced that God welcomes us into his covenant family by grace and calls every believer to embrace the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

That conviction remains central to my understanding of Christian discipleship. Yet I recognize that it does not resolve every ethical question concerning committed same-sex relationships.

Richard Hays’ change of perspective challenges the Church to consider whether its inherited applications of Scripture always adequately reflect the widening reach of God’s mercy. N. T. Wright’s continuing defense of traditional sexual ethics reminds us that the Church cannot simply set aside the apostolic witness whenever contemporary experience appears to point elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Jesus’ teaching concerning the resurrection reminds us that even the institutions of God’s good creation do not exhaust the reality of the coming kingdom. In the consummated new creation, our shared life in the risen Christ—not marriage or any other temporary human arrangement—will define our belonging.

Perhaps we must resist the temptation to resolve this profound theological disagreement too quickly.

We should be willing to welcome fellow believers without surrendering responsible biblical discernment. We should recognize the Spirit’s transforming work without assuming that every apparent expression of spiritual fruit settles every moral question. And we should remain faithful to Scripture without confusing our own interpretations with the infallibility of Scripture itself.

The question that remains before us is not merely whether Christians in committed same-sex relationships are willing to undergo transformation. It is also whether the Church is willing to examine its understanding of what that transformation should entail.

If the Holy Spirit is indeed forming a people who anticipate God’s coming new creation, how can we distinguish genuine obedience to Scripture from an inherited interpretation that itself may require correction?

And if we believe that a particular biblical teaching remains binding, how do we uphold that conviction without denying the dignity, faith, and sincere discipleship of those who understand it differently?

I do not presume to have resolved these questions. I believe they deserve continuing biblical study, prayerful reflection, honest conversation, and the humility to acknowledge that our understanding remains incomplete.

For now, I would rather keep this conversation open than claim a certainty I have not yet attained. The authority of Scripture must not be compromised, but neither should our confidence in a particular interpretation prevent us from listening carefully to the testimony of fellow believers.

If God’s people are indeed being transformed from one degree of glory to another by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18), then that transformation must include not only our conduct but also our understanding, our relationships, and our willingness to be corrected.

Perhaps the Church’s responsibility is not to pretend that every difficult question has already been settled, but to continue discerning together what faithfulness to the risen Christ requires.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can LGBTQ Christians belong to God’s covenant family?

According to Galatians 3:26–29, belonging to God’s family is grounded in faith in Jesus Christ rather than moral achievement or social identity. Christian traditions nevertheless disagree over the ethical implications of committed same-sex relationships.

Why did Richard B. Hays change his position?

In The Widening of God’s Mercy (2024), Richard and Christopher Hays argued that the biblical narrative of God’s expanding mercy provides grounds for affirming LGBTQ Christians and faithful same-sex unions. Richard Hays also acknowledged the influence of his encounters with LGBTQ believers.

Does marriage continue after the resurrection?

Jesus teaches in Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:34–36 that people in the resurrection will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Christians disagree about how this future transformation should inform present-day sexual ethics.

Does welcoming LGBTQ Christians require affirming same-sex marriage?

Welcoming Christians into fellowship and affirming particular relationships are distinguishable questions. Whether the Church should bless same-sex unions remains a matter of substantive biblical and theological disagreement.

How does the Holy Spirit transform believers?

The New Testament describes the Spirit as renewing believers toward Christlike holiness. This includes moral conduct, understanding, conscience, and relationships. Christians must discern the Spirit’s work through Scripture, prayer, and accountable communal reflection.

---

References

• Hays, Christopher B., and Richard B. Hays. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2024. Publisher’s page.
• Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation—A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
• Hays, Richard B., and Christopher B. Hays. “Sexuality Within the Biblical Story.” Interview by Hannah Black and Brandon Nappi. The Leader’s Way, Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, September 2, 2024. Interview and transcript.
• Merritt, Jonathan. “NT Wright on Homosexuality, Science, Gender.” Religion News Service, June 3, 2014. Interview.
• Day, Caleb M., and David Bennett. “Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story: A Review Essay.” Studies in Christian Ethics 38, no. 2 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468251323521.

---