To clarify, I don't actually have any sort of sick feeling that coitus might be some sort of referent to Christ and the Church. Clearly the one-fleshness//one-bodyness actually *is* theologically (and especially eschatologically) significant.
My objection is to the specific argument that Butler has made about the precise way in which he sees it to be theologically and eschatologically significant (including all these over extended metaphors of the mechanism of sex), and especially as it pertains to Eph 5. By isolating the sex act itself as "the" location of the profound mystery he removes the necessity of the marital context as that which is absolutely fundamental to the integrity of that mystery. His argument that penetrative sex (that is generous and hospitable) is the fundamental and comprehensive essence of the "icon" does just what you (and I) believe it must not - provides theoretical legitimation for improper engagement in the sexual act.
My objection to Butler is not that he gives sexual intercourse a spiritual one-flesh significance at all (1 Cor 6 evidences that significance to exist). Nor is it that one-fleshness (as a theological category) has no sacramentally significant eschatological purpose at all. It clearly does. Arguably, lots of things do.
My objection to Butler's argument is the specific argument he makes about those things:
1) Firstly, he mis-exgetes Ephesians 5:31-32 by saying sexual intercourse is THE profound mystery. It's not. That is the uniquely characterised relationship of marriage. One unique characteristic of that relationship is that it is *the* divinely intended one-flesh relationship. Sexual intercourse is a part, but not the whole, of that one-fleshness. Butler makes too much of sex's "iconic" eschatological significance and not enough of marriage's.
2) Secondly, he goes far further than Scripture allows in specifying the WAY in which sexual intercourse is that icon or is symbolically significant. From what I have read so far - the opening chapter in which the establishes his foundational argument - he specifically argues that the "profound mystery" of sex lies in the sexual act of generous penetration and hospitable reception itself. He's arguing for a very specific metaphorical significance that Scripture does not suggest (ie. this is a massively speculative overextension of metaphor) and indeed is saying we can and should de-mystify the mystery in very specific detail. But let's leave that aside for the moment because regardless of that particular problem with his argument, there is another. Butler gives a very specific definition of the *way* in which sex is iconic and symbolic. It's action (penetrative sex) undertaken with a specific attitude (generous activity, hospitable reception).
In other words, Action + Attitude = Icon.
According to Butler, prostitution and rape satisfy the action element but invert the attitude element. Rape is not generous and does not allow for hospitality to be exercised. Prostitution takes generosity and hospitality and makes it transactional. This means they are not iconic in the way he'd want to suggest. But 1 Cor 6 shows us that sexual intercourse IS linked with one-fleshness. Which means, for his argument, necessarly means that any non-inverted sexual act of generosity/hospitality is iconic. Two people in love but not married to each other; two people engaged in a casual sexual relationship; a married person having an adulterous affair and so on. All of those instances exhibit both the penetrative action and are absolutely capable of being undertaken with an attitude of generosity and hospitality in a way that does not invert either. And so:
If sexual intercourse and one-fleshness are deeply linked as per 1 Cor 6 (NB. this does not necessarily imply they are directly synonymous as Butler seems to suggest. One-fleshness is theologically more than just penetrative sex)
AND
The iconic significance of becoming one-flesh through sex is (according to Butler) located in the attitude in which it is undertaken as that which exhibits the metaphorical spiritual significance of the act itself.
THEN
Marriage is just one context in which such iconic one-fleshness can be rightfully attained and seen to be iconically significant. In fact, it's a fairly redundant context at that. Its not necessary.
This is the outcome of a) making sex rather than marriage the profound mystery of Eph 5 and b) speculating about the very specific metaphorical ways in which sex is (mistakenly) that profound mystery.
тАЬHe simply doesnтАЩt speak of sex in such a way as to exclude marriage as part of what heтАЩs talking about here.тАЭ
I didnтАЩt suggest he excluded marriage. In fact I said the opposite. He wants to locate sex as iconic within marriage. However, itтАЩs my contention that his actual argument renders that a preference rather than a necessity. IтАЩve explained why I say that a number of times, so I wonтАЩt rehearse it again here.
IтАЩve appreciated our dialogue but I think we are beginning to talk in circles. IтАЩll let the many words IтАЩve already written in the post in main and my comments above speak to the rest of what you raise in your latest comment. If you donтАЩt think they adequately address it then weтАЩll have to be content with disagreeing.
Hey Sean - thanks for your comments.
To clarify, I don't actually have any sort of sick feeling that coitus might be some sort of referent to Christ and the Church. Clearly the one-fleshness//one-bodyness actually *is* theologically (and especially eschatologically) significant.
My objection is to the specific argument that Butler has made about the precise way in which he sees it to be theologically and eschatologically significant (including all these over extended metaphors of the mechanism of sex), and especially as it pertains to Eph 5. By isolating the sex act itself as "the" location of the profound mystery he removes the necessity of the marital context as that which is absolutely fundamental to the integrity of that mystery. His argument that penetrative sex (that is generous and hospitable) is the fundamental and comprehensive essence of the "icon" does just what you (and I) believe it must not - provides theoretical legitimation for improper engagement in the sexual act.
My objection to Butler is not that he gives sexual intercourse a spiritual one-flesh significance at all (1 Cor 6 evidences that significance to exist). Nor is it that one-fleshness (as a theological category) has no sacramentally significant eschatological purpose at all. It clearly does. Arguably, lots of things do.
My objection to Butler's argument is the specific argument he makes about those things:
1) Firstly, he mis-exgetes Ephesians 5:31-32 by saying sexual intercourse is THE profound mystery. It's not. That is the uniquely characterised relationship of marriage. One unique characteristic of that relationship is that it is *the* divinely intended one-flesh relationship. Sexual intercourse is a part, but not the whole, of that one-fleshness. Butler makes too much of sex's "iconic" eschatological significance and not enough of marriage's.
2) Secondly, he goes far further than Scripture allows in specifying the WAY in which sexual intercourse is that icon or is symbolically significant. From what I have read so far - the opening chapter in which the establishes his foundational argument - he specifically argues that the "profound mystery" of sex lies in the sexual act of generous penetration and hospitable reception itself. He's arguing for a very specific metaphorical significance that Scripture does not suggest (ie. this is a massively speculative overextension of metaphor) and indeed is saying we can and should de-mystify the mystery in very specific detail. But let's leave that aside for the moment because regardless of that particular problem with his argument, there is another. Butler gives a very specific definition of the *way* in which sex is iconic and symbolic. It's action (penetrative sex) undertaken with a specific attitude (generous activity, hospitable reception).
In other words, Action + Attitude = Icon.
According to Butler, prostitution and rape satisfy the action element but invert the attitude element. Rape is not generous and does not allow for hospitality to be exercised. Prostitution takes generosity and hospitality and makes it transactional. This means they are not iconic in the way he'd want to suggest. But 1 Cor 6 shows us that sexual intercourse IS linked with one-fleshness. Which means, for his argument, necessarly means that any non-inverted sexual act of generosity/hospitality is iconic. Two people in love but not married to each other; two people engaged in a casual sexual relationship; a married person having an adulterous affair and so on. All of those instances exhibit both the penetrative action and are absolutely capable of being undertaken with an attitude of generosity and hospitality in a way that does not invert either. And so:
If sexual intercourse and one-fleshness are deeply linked as per 1 Cor 6 (NB. this does not necessarily imply they are directly synonymous as Butler seems to suggest. One-fleshness is theologically more than just penetrative sex)
AND
The iconic significance of becoming one-flesh through sex is (according to Butler) located in the attitude in which it is undertaken as that which exhibits the metaphorical spiritual significance of the act itself.
THEN
Marriage is just one context in which such iconic one-fleshness can be rightfully attained and seen to be iconically significant. In fact, it's a fairly redundant context at that. Its not necessary.
This is the outcome of a) making sex rather than marriage the profound mystery of Eph 5 and b) speculating about the very specific metaphorical ways in which sex is (mistakenly) that profound mystery.
тАЬHe simply doesnтАЩt speak of sex in such a way as to exclude marriage as part of what heтАЩs talking about here.тАЭ
I didnтАЩt suggest he excluded marriage. In fact I said the opposite. He wants to locate sex as iconic within marriage. However, itтАЩs my contention that his actual argument renders that a preference rather than a necessity. IтАЩve explained why I say that a number of times, so I wonтАЩt rehearse it again here.
IтАЩve appreciated our dialogue but I think we are beginning to talk in circles. IтАЩll let the many words IтАЩve already written in the post in main and my comments above speak to the rest of what you raise in your latest comment. If you donтАЩt think they adequately address it then weтАЩll have to be content with disagreeing.
All the best.