Okay, it’s been over a week since TGC published an excerpt of “that article” about sex and marriage with a cringy typology set forth by Joshua Butler. TGC has apologized, Butler has resigned from The Keller Centre, Water Brook/Multonomah Press has remained silent, while social media, blogs, and podcasts have been awash with responses and responses to the responses.
For all the talk about modern cultural decadence, it seems as though this branch of American Christianity has fallen into the modern sexual obsession.
As one of the speakers on Devi Abraham's podcast asked, where does that leave those for whom sexual activity is not going to be part of their life? In addition to the sexual minorities, given that the demographics of the church are usually biased towards women — especially in the older age groups — a lot of women are going to be second-class Christians according to this kind of thinking (or maybe it's lack of thinking).
This is a must-listen with Butler, and Sandy Richter having a really substantive back and forth over the the book's theology as a whole rather than just "the article." Brenna Blaine's comments were extremely interesting in relation to TGC but also how her reaction to the book as a whole was EXTREMELY different from her enraged response to "the article." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC2bGgukfsA&t=1s I would love your further thoughts on this.
Regarding more scholarly questions, I can't shake the notion that "one-flesh" has to be related to sex IN SOME WAY, otherwise, I see no way to make sense out of 1 Cor. 6:16. Even if that refers to an illegitimate formation of "fictive kinship," the question still remains how this illegitimate "fictive kinship" bond was formed. McKnight said he doesn't think the Ephesians passage is about sex. Okay. Amy Peeler's point that Butler confuses sacrifice with male pleasure is a fantastic point, and is probably the point where the analogy breaks down. But to deny that one-flesh refers to sex IN SOME WAY seems wrongheaded to me and a conclusion in search of scriptural legitimation rather than the other way around. Curious about your thoughts.
For all the talk about modern cultural decadence, it seems as though this branch of American Christianity has fallen into the modern sexual obsession.
As one of the speakers on Devi Abraham's podcast asked, where does that leave those for whom sexual activity is not going to be part of their life? In addition to the sexual minorities, given that the demographics of the church are usually biased towards women — especially in the older age groups — a lot of women are going to be second-class Christians according to this kind of thinking (or maybe it's lack of thinking).
This is a must-listen with Butler, and Sandy Richter having a really substantive back and forth over the the book's theology as a whole rather than just "the article." Brenna Blaine's comments were extremely interesting in relation to TGC but also how her reaction to the book as a whole was EXTREMELY different from her enraged response to "the article." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC2bGgukfsA&t=1s I would love your further thoughts on this.
Regarding more scholarly questions, I can't shake the notion that "one-flesh" has to be related to sex IN SOME WAY, otherwise, I see no way to make sense out of 1 Cor. 6:16. Even if that refers to an illegitimate formation of "fictive kinship," the question still remains how this illegitimate "fictive kinship" bond was formed. McKnight said he doesn't think the Ephesians passage is about sex. Okay. Amy Peeler's point that Butler confuses sacrifice with male pleasure is a fantastic point, and is probably the point where the analogy breaks down. But to deny that one-flesh refers to sex IN SOME WAY seems wrongheaded to me and a conclusion in search of scriptural legitimation rather than the other way around. Curious about your thoughts.
A rather weak, non-sensical attempt to reframe sex as the gospel by someone from Arizona. Reminds me of a guy with the initials, a Mark Driscoll.