Some thoughts from Richard Hays...

I love this snippet from Richard Hays. The context of the quote is an interview that Hays' student did with him, and the question is about Richard Hays' fantastic book about ethics in the New Testament. Apparently, Richard Hays argues that the New Testament does not see the concept of love as a centre that can unify what the entire New Testament has to say about ethical behaviour.

Well, I won't state my stand outright now, but below is the interview question, as well as Hays' interesting and potentially provocative response.

Richard B. Hays is the George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke University. He read for a B.A. in English and an M.Div. in New Testament from Yale University, and received his Ph.D. from Emory University.
__________________________________________________________________

A question submitted by one of my readers: Richard Burridge in his Imitating Jesus criticizes your Moral Vision of the NT for a “too easy dismissal of love as a key element for NT ethics” (p359). How would you respond to Burridge specifically, and what role do you see “love” having in NT ethics?

Richard, like some other readers, has not quite grasped my point about “love.” I was not saying that love is unimportant, or that I’m somehow opposed to it! I was saying that “love” cannot function as a focal image or common denominator to bring the diverse NT witnesses into a relation of unity. There are two reasons for this: (1) several of the major NT writings have very little to say about love (Mark, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation); (2) “love” by itself is a concept, not an image; it must be given narrative specification by the story of the cross. (That is why I propose the cross as one of three focal images for NT ethics, along with community and new creation.) Otherwise, “love” cannot be distinguished from whatever the Beatles vaguely meant when they sang, “All you need is love.” [I hasten to add that I am a great Beatles fan and was delighted to receive as a Christmas present the new remastered complete anthology of their recordings.] It seems to me that Richard Burridge’s book exemplifies precisely the problem I am worried about, because for him “love” turns out to be equivalent to the uncritical inclusion of everyone. (I am of course painting with a broad brush.) My fuller comments on his book are forthcoming soon in a review essay that will appear in the Scottish Journal of Theology.

Love is of course of central importance in several NT writings, especially the Pauline Letters, the Gospel of John, and 1 John. I certainly believe that Christians are called to love because God first loved us in Jesus Christ. And this calling has enormous significance for NT ethics. But if we are looking for a synthetic image that can account for how the diverse NT writings hang together, love won’t do the job. Another way of putting the point is that Burridge conflates the synthetic task of NT ethics with the hermeneutical task, with the result that “love” becomes a trump card that overrides the prophetic and critical witness of NT texts less congenial to Burridge’s (generally laudable) concerns.