Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bayou Biker's avatar

Butler's Calvinist theology has significant implications for his argument and how the piece has been received. Calvinism is monergistic. God acts to save (a limited number!) of human beings. Human beings simply receive the gift of salvation by grace through faith. The human role in salvation is fundamentally passive. Most Calvinists I know try to water down the fact of human passivity in the Calvinist salvation model because they know it's controversial. But it's the logical conclusion of their theology. This is in contrast to the Arminian view within Protestantism, which emphases the role of human will while still affirming humanity's complete reliance on God's prevenient grace. And it's in starker contrast to Catholic and Orthodox views, which are synergistic.

In Butler's analogy, the man is an analogy for Christ and the woman is an analogy for the church. Readers who understand that Butler is Calvinist accurately perceive that his account of sex aligns with his model for salvation. 100% of the initiative and agency is assigned to God/husband. 100% of the reception and passivity is assigned to church/woman. That account of sex disempowers women and doesn't resonate with readers (male and female) at best. Numerous evangelical women have come forward with testimonies of being theologically manipulated by appeals to submission as an obligation that overrides other considerations. See the recent accounts of counseling by elders at John MacArthur's church.

Rod, you quoted Chrysostom in your TAC blog post. The Chrysostom excerpt, from my recollection, included far more references to mutuality, although it did use language about male initiative and female welcoming/hospitality similar to Butler. Chrysostom held to synergistic views of salvation, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm a man and an egalitarian (grew up in the evangelical wing of the PCUSA, now at an ECO Presbyterian church). When I read the article, I quickly concluded it was a warmed-over John Eldredge Wild at Heart take not to be unexpected from TGC-esque complementarianism. But in the age of #churchtoo and #SBCtoo, I'm not surprised that sophisticated readers who understood the full theological context undergirding Butler's piece spoke out so vehemently. With respect to Rod my Orthodox brother in Christ, I don't think you, as a Catholic turned Orthodox Christian initially grasped the full implications of Butler's piece. A gendered/sexed mapping of Christ's and humanity's role in salvation onto sex within a Calvinistic framework takes gender/sex difference to an extreme that most pre-modern (i.e. pre-Calvinist) theologians writing about the Ephesians 5 would reject.

/prepares for the Augustinians to join the chat/

Expand full comment
Richard Starr's avatar

Well, speaking as a former Evangelical (my wife Evie is a former E as well), I strongly suspect the distaste for linking sex to Jesus has a lot to do with the "purity" culture surrounding a lot of Evangelical churches. If there is one thing I regret about bringing my family into that culture it is the extremely harmful cult of purity. On paper it makes some sense, in practice it leads to a lot of unhappy marriages and unfulfilled women (and men who are angry, confused, or both). And it has led to a lot of young women feeling that sex is indeed something dirty or sinful rather than a God-given pleasure.

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts