You know something is amiss when the woman who has a doctorate in singleness is concerned that we’re not valuing marriage highly enough. And yet, here we are. Yes. This post is about *that* article.
Tbf, I kinda understand why that concern is not top of the list, it's just because the analogy is so weird and surreal and gross that that's what people were focusing on. They were too busy losing their minds about it to seriously look into it more seriously and think about the implications of the article on this. But you're analysis is absolutely right - sex is a part of marriage, and is beautiful and God-given. But sex is a complement to marriage, not marriage a complement to sex.
I will just say this: I really like Josh Butler. Others have told me that he has written really helpful other books, and he has some great interviews about those books. I only briefly saw the excerpt at TGC before it was taken down, and I was left with scratching my head. But I am more scratching my head over the glowing endorsements of the book. Yet since the rest of the book is not publicly available, there is a contextual issue that we are all missing, until more people actually read the book. But then I am even MORE scratching my head over endorsements that were withdrawn by people who never bothered to read the book. Why make an endorsement if you've never read the book?? Anyway, Dani, your critique of the article is spot on. Who knows if it is too late, but it would probably be better for Josh to rewrite those chapters, and re-release the book with the appropriate corrections. That will not satisfy everyone in the Twitter mob, but it might salvage his reputation.
Thanks Clarke - I've also heard he is a really lovely guy and I absolutely believe that. I've thought of him often across the last week, realising he is quite possibly enduring one of the most difficult seasons of his life so far. I'm disappointed in his argument but also deeply aware that this error is not his alone. Not by a long stretch.
This is excellent, thank you. I’ve read a lot of very bad, eisegetical analyses of Butler’s book, by scholars that I otherwise greatly respect, who’s arguments are very unsound. Basically just
takedowns of the great enemies complementarianism and misogyny, neither of which are present at all in the first chapter of his book. I actually really enjoyed his material, mostly because I could see the “vision” behind it - I believe Butler is genuinely trying to lead people towards a “beautiful union” with Christ. But you’ve made me rethink it. Not because I don’t see his vision, but because you’ve hit the nail right on the head, his whole premise doesn’t actually rely on marriage. I didn’t see it before. I can’t fault your analysis. Excellent.
Thanks Paul - like you I really do believe that that Butler is wanting to offer a genuinely beautiful and faithful vision. Unfortunately I just don't think this is it :(
Dani, your critique is brilliant! Especially this part:
“If the "one-flesh union of bodies is iconic of the giving and receiving at the heart of salvation” then in what sense is a man’s committing of sexual immorality with a prostitute not fully iconic of the heart of salvation?”
We could take that even further. Trigger Warning: I’m going to use some icky terms here that, for some, including me, will bring up uncomfortable memories or feelings. But if Butler hadn’t written such a mess of pottage, we wouldn’t have to be writing to unpack why it was so wrong.
If, as Butler claims, the "one-flesh union of bodies is iconic of the giving and receiving at the heart of salvation,” then in what sense is any act where one creature penetrates and/or sexually stimulates another creature not fully iconic of the heart of salvation?
I use the term ‘creature’ because it covers all created beings, whether human, animal or fallen angel (Genesis 6 is relevant here).
When a man has sex with a prostitute they become one flesh—there is no generosity or hospitality, yet there is still one flesh. Instead of the man being hospitable (as Butler claims for the husband’s sexual penetration and orgasm), the John pays money to obtain his sexual gratification. The prostitute makes the transaction not from hospitality, but in order to meet some need of hers that, for her, is more important—to feed her children, or her drug habit, or pay the rent, or obtain
redress from injustice (Tamar the daughter-in-law of Judah). But whatever motives apply, ‘one flesh’ is still the outcome in the case of prostitution.
In coerced sex (which is common in marriages where the husband is an abuser) there is no generosity on the part of the husband; there is only his covert and overt exertion of power to oppress and control his wife for his own gratification.
Since a John and a prostitute become one flesh, it’s pretty hard to argue that an abusive husband coercing sex from his wife does not also lead to one flesh.
Likewise, a rapist and his target-victim would result in ‘one flesh’.
This is the Butler’s thesis pushed to its logical conclusion.
My commiserations to all who have been triggered by what I’ve said. I know what I’m talking about because it’s stuff I have suffered personally and have been wrestling with the after-effects for most of my life.
Are you saying that “two become one flesh” is referring to marriage and not sexual intercourse? I think if it refers to just marriage and not intercourse, your critique of Butler’s argument makes sense. But if it refers to both marriage and intercourse, it seems like his argument still holds right?
But I definitely agree that his focus on the mechanics of intercourse is flawed and very yuck.
Good thoughts Dani, well articulated. The "theological rigour and acumen" you're looking for can be found in R. Scott Clark's article over at heidelblog.net posted on March 2.
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.
“He simply doesn’t speak of sex in such a way as to exclude marriage as part of what he’s talking about here.”
I didn’t suggest he excluded marriage. In fact I said the opposite. He wants to locate sex as iconic within marriage. However, it’s my contention that his actual argument renders that a preference rather than a necessity. I’ve explained why I say that a number of times, so I won’t rehearse it again here.
I’ve appreciated our dialogue but I think we are beginning to talk in circles. I’ll let the many words I’ve 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 don’t think they adequately address it then we’ll have to be content with disagreeing.
Tbf, I kinda understand why that concern is not top of the list, it's just because the analogy is so weird and surreal and gross that that's what people were focusing on. They were too busy losing their minds about it to seriously look into it more seriously and think about the implications of the article on this. But you're analysis is absolutely right - sex is a part of marriage, and is beautiful and God-given. But sex is a complement to marriage, not marriage a complement to sex.
I will just say this: I really like Josh Butler. Others have told me that he has written really helpful other books, and he has some great interviews about those books. I only briefly saw the excerpt at TGC before it was taken down, and I was left with scratching my head. But I am more scratching my head over the glowing endorsements of the book. Yet since the rest of the book is not publicly available, there is a contextual issue that we are all missing, until more people actually read the book. But then I am even MORE scratching my head over endorsements that were withdrawn by people who never bothered to read the book. Why make an endorsement if you've never read the book?? Anyway, Dani, your critique of the article is spot on. Who knows if it is too late, but it would probably be better for Josh to rewrite those chapters, and re-release the book with the appropriate corrections. That will not satisfy everyone in the Twitter mob, but it might salvage his reputation.
Thanks Clarke - I've also heard he is a really lovely guy and I absolutely believe that. I've thought of him often across the last week, realising he is quite possibly enduring one of the most difficult seasons of his life so far. I'm disappointed in his argument but also deeply aware that this error is not his alone. Not by a long stretch.
This is excellent, thank you. I’ve read a lot of very bad, eisegetical analyses of Butler’s book, by scholars that I otherwise greatly respect, who’s arguments are very unsound. Basically just
takedowns of the great enemies complementarianism and misogyny, neither of which are present at all in the first chapter of his book. I actually really enjoyed his material, mostly because I could see the “vision” behind it - I believe Butler is genuinely trying to lead people towards a “beautiful union” with Christ. But you’ve made me rethink it. Not because I don’t see his vision, but because you’ve hit the nail right on the head, his whole premise doesn’t actually rely on marriage. I didn’t see it before. I can’t fault your analysis. Excellent.
Thanks Paul - like you I really do believe that that Butler is wanting to offer a genuinely beautiful and faithful vision. Unfortunately I just don't think this is it :(
Dani, your critique is brilliant! Especially this part:
“If the "one-flesh union of bodies is iconic of the giving and receiving at the heart of salvation” then in what sense is a man’s committing of sexual immorality with a prostitute not fully iconic of the heart of salvation?”
We could take that even further. Trigger Warning: I’m going to use some icky terms here that, for some, including me, will bring up uncomfortable memories or feelings. But if Butler hadn’t written such a mess of pottage, we wouldn’t have to be writing to unpack why it was so wrong.
If, as Butler claims, the "one-flesh union of bodies is iconic of the giving and receiving at the heart of salvation,” then in what sense is any act where one creature penetrates and/or sexually stimulates another creature not fully iconic of the heart of salvation?
I use the term ‘creature’ because it covers all created beings, whether human, animal or fallen angel (Genesis 6 is relevant here).
When a man has sex with a prostitute they become one flesh—there is no generosity or hospitality, yet there is still one flesh. Instead of the man being hospitable (as Butler claims for the husband’s sexual penetration and orgasm), the John pays money to obtain his sexual gratification. The prostitute makes the transaction not from hospitality, but in order to meet some need of hers that, for her, is more important—to feed her children, or her drug habit, or pay the rent, or obtain
redress from injustice (Tamar the daughter-in-law of Judah). But whatever motives apply, ‘one flesh’ is still the outcome in the case of prostitution.
In coerced sex (which is common in marriages where the husband is an abuser) there is no generosity on the part of the husband; there is only his covert and overt exertion of power to oppress and control his wife for his own gratification.
Since a John and a prostitute become one flesh, it’s pretty hard to argue that an abusive husband coercing sex from his wife does not also lead to one flesh.
Likewise, a rapist and his target-victim would result in ‘one flesh’.
This is the Butler’s thesis pushed to its logical conclusion.
My commiserations to all who have been triggered by what I’ve said. I know what I’m talking about because it’s stuff I have suffered personally and have been wrestling with the after-effects for most of my life.
Are you saying that “two become one flesh” is referring to marriage and not sexual intercourse? I think if it refers to just marriage and not intercourse, your critique of Butler’s argument makes sense. But if it refers to both marriage and intercourse, it seems like his argument still holds right?
But I definitely agree that his focus on the mechanics of intercourse is flawed and very yuck.
Thanks for this. Together with Matthew Lee Anderson's recent substack, it really helped me clarify in my head some of the theological issues.
Good thoughts Dani, well articulated. The "theological rigour and acumen" you're looking for can be found in R. Scott Clark's article over at heidelblog.net posted on March 2.
This is first rate, Dani. Thank you. Looking forward to you coming to Perth in a few months to hang with some Prov peeps.
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.
“He simply doesn’t speak of sex in such a way as to exclude marriage as part of what he’s talking about here.”
I didn’t suggest he excluded marriage. In fact I said the opposite. He wants to locate sex as iconic within marriage. However, it’s my contention that his actual argument renders that a preference rather than a necessity. I’ve explained why I say that a number of times, so I won’t rehearse it again here.
I’ve appreciated our dialogue but I think we are beginning to talk in circles. I’ll let the many words I’ve 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 don’t think they adequately address it then we’ll have to be content with disagreeing.
All the best.