Thank you for this, friend. I was troubled by the excerpt, but knowing you had endorsed it (and knowing how seriously you take endorsements), I was eager to hear your thoughts on it all. As expected, you were nuanced and honest. I'm grateful for you always.
Sometimes the behind-the-scenes isn't quite like that. But I am learning the value of time, to be sure, in considering how to speak. True in personal relationships, true in public controversies.
Jen, you know I always appreciate your thoughtfulness, and this statement is no exception.
There’s many things I could comment on, but will focus on one here… I was disturbed by your reference to “the historic Christian sexual ethic.” I am skeptical that such a creature exists, but settling that skepticism aside, if one exists, I find it problematic to associate it predominantly with the act of heterosexuality, given that the apostle Paul (I Cor. 7) and many others throughout church history have lauded celibacy as a vital stream of Christian sexual ethics. Of course, I’m married and not celibate, but I’m wondering how the uber-hetero imagery in this excerpt lands with sisters and brothers who have committed themselves to celibacy? (And of course, that’s only one historical objection to the association of JB’s work with historic Christian sexual ethics).
I think we all need to be cautious when using terms like “the historic Christian ___.” History is much more vast and diverse than we wish it would be… LOL And I’ve seen phrases like this too often used as swords to attack those whose experience falls outside the realm of that which is perceived as normal historic Christianity. I don’t believe that was your intent, but this phrase in particular struck me as lacking the nuance and care with language that I’m come to expect from your work.
I am glad for this pushback, Chris, and I take it to heart. Perhaps "historic" might be as sloppily and unhelpfully used as "biblical." I can see that. Thank you again.
I haven't yet. Thank you for the link. I think it unwise for me to aim to defend every aspect of Josh's work. In this post, I've tried simply to say what did compel me about the project and to make room for my own learning.
I do hope you'll take the time to read it. Dr. Jones' response is full of wisdom and sound teaching.
If Butler's work frames/twists scripture in a way that causes harm, while I don't believe endorsers need to personally defend the work (or not, if you find you still agree with his work), you should consider that your endorsement carries with it a weight for those out there who choose what books to read and what teachers/teaching they will submit themselves to based on the voices, like yours, whom they trust.
In your learning, if you find that your endorsement is contributing to, or complicit in spreading incorrect (at best, harmful at worst) teaching, there is a responsibility there.
I did read the article, so thank you again for the link. I think that to make the case that the larger argument of the book frames/twists Scripture in a way that causes harm, the book will need to be read and considered. I'd be curious to know how Jones would address the fundamentally different theological presuppositions with which she and Butler approach the conversation: she as an egalitarian, he as a complementarian. And in her estimation, is complementarian theology inherently harmful to women? Certainly many think so.
You are correct - there is a fundamental difference there. Yet I don’t believe that difference would prevent someone from seeing clearly how the theological framing presented does (or has the potential to) cause harm - to both people and the Gospel itself.
And one must then reflect... If all complementarian roads lead to this place, then yes, it is inherently harmful.
I understand you are owning your responsibility as an endorser of the book, and I thank you for your public response, which was not owed but is very much appreciated.
I think this is helpful. I read the excerpt and, while finding it a bit crude in places, I did not find it as horrifying as (apparently) so many did. Maybe… uncomfortable? A bit much? I definitely did not find it to be the same as Doug Wilson’s infamous posts. Not even close. But the analogy of sexual union seems not so far off what many prior interpreters of Song of Songs have done. And maybe they were wrong too! I acknowledge that possibility. But I just didn’t find myself shocked or horrified by others. I would like to read the entire book. Butler’s other two books were, I think, spectacular. I have found them so encouraging and helpful. Perhaps those are biasing me away from seeing this as truly bad. However, I highly respect your own judgment so I’m even more interested in reading it.
I appreciate your calm, clear explanation of your own endorsement response. You’re a really helpful thinker and writer and I think seeing your response is helpful for me. Thank you for all your work. Keep it up!
Thank you, Anthony. Butler does do a lot of work in Song of Songs in one of the chapters, and as I understand, scholarship is shifting in how we might read this book.
I have a good friend who retracted his endorsement, and his peculiar reasons for doing so seemed sensible to me. But I also find your rationale for not doing so sensible. After decades of getting so much wrong, it should not surprise anyone that those striving to cast a positive vision of human sexuality don't get everything right. The church needs a sound theology of sexuality but it also needs forbearance and patience. The subject matter touches the depth of our created vulnerability, is the place of tremendous pain, and so understandably provokes and evokes profound visceral reactions. But those striving to articulate a positive vision should be commended with some forbearance and those who write on the topic should make soft and humble claims!
Thank you for weighing in on this, Jen. As always, I'm grateful for your graciousness and humility. I found the excerpt pretty unsettling, but was interested to learn more seeing a number of endorsements of the book from people I respect, including you. Thank you for continuing to me an example of faithfulness, even in controversy.
Thanks for your encouragement, Collin. I hope we'll have more public responses from the other endorsers, simply to learn about their own thinking and process. I don't think those responses are owed, as people have insisted. But I would certainly be as interested as you to understand.
Appreciate that you read the book in its entirety Jen. I was troubled by the excerpt on a number of levels but have not read anything more than that first chapter. I do believe authors are ultimately responsible for what they put out there. However, LOTS of other people read what we write before it goes to press. Did no one bring these potential concerns to Josh? Did TGC not see the possible problems with this excerpt? This whole thing reveals many of the problems in Christian publishing and within our culture at large. I have no idea if the Keller Institute asked JB to step down or if he voluntarily did so but it does smack of cancel culture to me.
I think your own work on marriage, sex, and also misogyny would be a helpful perspective, Dorothy. I hope you'll read the book and offer your own full response.
Thanks. Also, I appreciate your courage here. Again, thinking as an author, I'm able to empathize a bit with JB. I can somewhat imagine how confusing and hurtful this must be for him.
I rarely look at Twitter anymore, but occasionally browse on a desktop when I'm particularly craving baseball updates. The question that arises every time I logon is "what are we (Christians) fighting about online today?" While there are many topics that are worthy of discussion and charitable discourse, I rarely see that accomplished on any social media site. I appreciate very much your thoughtful engagement, maybe even especially that you chose to address it on this forum rather than Twitter. I consistently find you to be a wise, trustworthy voice in the chorus of chatter in online spaces, and your commitment to Jesus and His Gospel is evident in all that you write. Grateful for you and your work!
We do fight a lot! I do believe that in this, there can be a earnest wrestling over what is true, good, and beautiful, and I am not against disagreement. But I do wish we could disagree differently.
Thank you for this. One of the benefits of engaging an author's work over a period of time and genres is gaining a fuller understanding not only of their ideas, but also their methods. If you chose to give a response, I expected no less than a well thought-out response from you at the right time, and you gave us just that. This is encouraging to all. Thank you for this and for modeling how to approach these types of disagreements with charity, humility, and wisdom. So grateful for all of the hard work you do for and share with us.
Jen I appreciate you, and I always have. I appreciate that you blurbed a book you had actually read. But I am struggling with what sounds to me like a lack of understanding for the theological underpinnings he lays out in chapter 1. The critiques of his exegesis of Ephesians 5 are thorough. Even if the rest of the book is pastoral and accurate, it’s a house built on a faulty foundation. So my question for you is direct, asked without malice.
Are you qualified to commend the quality of Butler’s theological work? Did you agree with his exegesis of Ephesians 5?
Thank you, Devi, for your comment. That's exactly the metaphor I used this weekend, in talking with my husband about this. If, in my endorsement, I affirmed the house, can I speak with absolutely certainty about the foundation? No, I cannot. I am unqualified and uncertain, though I will say that the book does not rest on Ephesians 5 alone. I had a very long talk about this with a trusted theological source, and it is clear to me that I do not know enough, am not exegetically skilled enough to say that Butler's use of imagery is warranted. That is at least part of the learning that I have to do. When the biblical writers use imagery, what equips us to ascertain the limits of that imagery? This is one question for me. It is not the only one. I will also say that this is an incredible tension I inhabit as a writer who has theological curiosities but lacks theological training. I am not evading my responsibilities, not pleading ignorance, but I am owning the limits of my expertise.
Thank you for this, friend. I was troubled by the excerpt, but knowing you had endorsed it (and knowing how seriously you take endorsements), I was eager to hear your thoughts on it all. As expected, you were nuanced and honest. I'm grateful for you always.
Thank you for reading and responding, Lore. I am grateful for you, too!
I am so thankful for your patient, humble, thoughtful response to controversy. It’s a model and an encouragement!
Sometimes the behind-the-scenes isn't quite like that. But I am learning the value of time, to be sure, in considering how to speak. True in personal relationships, true in public controversies.
That’s exactly what resonated with me about your approach!
Jen, you know I always appreciate your thoughtfulness, and this statement is no exception.
There’s many things I could comment on, but will focus on one here… I was disturbed by your reference to “the historic Christian sexual ethic.” I am skeptical that such a creature exists, but settling that skepticism aside, if one exists, I find it problematic to associate it predominantly with the act of heterosexuality, given that the apostle Paul (I Cor. 7) and many others throughout church history have lauded celibacy as a vital stream of Christian sexual ethics. Of course, I’m married and not celibate, but I’m wondering how the uber-hetero imagery in this excerpt lands with sisters and brothers who have committed themselves to celibacy? (And of course, that’s only one historical objection to the association of JB’s work with historic Christian sexual ethics).
I think we all need to be cautious when using terms like “the historic Christian ___.” History is much more vast and diverse than we wish it would be… LOL And I’ve seen phrases like this too often used as swords to attack those whose experience falls outside the realm of that which is perceived as normal historic Christianity. I don’t believe that was your intent, but this phrase in particular struck me as lacking the nuance and care with language that I’m come to expect from your work.
Grateful for you and your work,
Chris
I am glad for this pushback, Chris, and I take it to heart. Perhaps "historic" might be as sloppily and unhelpfully used as "biblical." I can see that. Thank you again.
Have you read this excellent essay by Dr. Beth Felker Jones on the problematic theology Butler presents? I would appreciate to know your thoughts on her breakdown. https://open.substack.com/pub/bethfelkerjones/p/protestant-bodies-protestant-bedrooms
I haven't yet. Thank you for the link. I think it unwise for me to aim to defend every aspect of Josh's work. In this post, I've tried simply to say what did compel me about the project and to make room for my own learning.
I do hope you'll take the time to read it. Dr. Jones' response is full of wisdom and sound teaching.
If Butler's work frames/twists scripture in a way that causes harm, while I don't believe endorsers need to personally defend the work (or not, if you find you still agree with his work), you should consider that your endorsement carries with it a weight for those out there who choose what books to read and what teachers/teaching they will submit themselves to based on the voices, like yours, whom they trust.
In your learning, if you find that your endorsement is contributing to, or complicit in spreading incorrect (at best, harmful at worst) teaching, there is a responsibility there.
I did read the article, so thank you again for the link. I think that to make the case that the larger argument of the book frames/twists Scripture in a way that causes harm, the book will need to be read and considered. I'd be curious to know how Jones would address the fundamentally different theological presuppositions with which she and Butler approach the conversation: she as an egalitarian, he as a complementarian. And in her estimation, is complementarian theology inherently harmful to women? Certainly many think so.
You are correct - there is a fundamental difference there. Yet I don’t believe that difference would prevent someone from seeing clearly how the theological framing presented does (or has the potential to) cause harm - to both people and the Gospel itself.
And one must then reflect... If all complementarian roads lead to this place, then yes, it is inherently harmful.
I understand you are owning your responsibility as an endorser of the book, and I thank you for your public response, which was not owed but is very much appreciated.
Grateful for the dialogue. Anyone who knows me and knows my work will know I have long grappled with the implications of complementarian theology.
There is a profound integrity on display here. Thank you, Jen.
I'm sure others will disagree, but thank you! It's an encouragement!
I think this is helpful. I read the excerpt and, while finding it a bit crude in places, I did not find it as horrifying as (apparently) so many did. Maybe… uncomfortable? A bit much? I definitely did not find it to be the same as Doug Wilson’s infamous posts. Not even close. But the analogy of sexual union seems not so far off what many prior interpreters of Song of Songs have done. And maybe they were wrong too! I acknowledge that possibility. But I just didn’t find myself shocked or horrified by others. I would like to read the entire book. Butler’s other two books were, I think, spectacular. I have found them so encouraging and helpful. Perhaps those are biasing me away from seeing this as truly bad. However, I highly respect your own judgment so I’m even more interested in reading it.
I appreciate your calm, clear explanation of your own endorsement response. You’re a really helpful thinker and writer and I think seeing your response is helpful for me. Thank you for all your work. Keep it up!
Thank you, Anthony. Butler does do a lot of work in Song of Songs in one of the chapters, and as I understand, scholarship is shifting in how we might read this book.
I have a good friend who retracted his endorsement, and his peculiar reasons for doing so seemed sensible to me. But I also find your rationale for not doing so sensible. After decades of getting so much wrong, it should not surprise anyone that those striving to cast a positive vision of human sexuality don't get everything right. The church needs a sound theology of sexuality but it also needs forbearance and patience. The subject matter touches the depth of our created vulnerability, is the place of tremendous pain, and so understandably provokes and evokes profound visceral reactions. But those striving to articulate a positive vision should be commended with some forbearance and those who write on the topic should make soft and humble claims!
As always, Bill, your response is wise, and I remain grateful for your friendship.
Thank you for weighing in on this, Jen. As always, I'm grateful for your graciousness and humility. I found the excerpt pretty unsettling, but was interested to learn more seeing a number of endorsements of the book from people I respect, including you. Thank you for continuing to me an example of faithfulness, even in controversy.
Thanks for your encouragement, Collin. I hope we'll have more public responses from the other endorsers, simply to learn about their own thinking and process. I don't think those responses are owed, as people have insisted. But I would certainly be as interested as you to understand.
Appreciate that you read the book in its entirety Jen. I was troubled by the excerpt on a number of levels but have not read anything more than that first chapter. I do believe authors are ultimately responsible for what they put out there. However, LOTS of other people read what we write before it goes to press. Did no one bring these potential concerns to Josh? Did TGC not see the possible problems with this excerpt? This whole thing reveals many of the problems in Christian publishing and within our culture at large. I have no idea if the Keller Institute asked JB to step down or if he voluntarily did so but it does smack of cancel culture to me.
I think your own work on marriage, sex, and also misogyny would be a helpful perspective, Dorothy. I hope you'll read the book and offer your own full response.
Thanks. Also, I appreciate your courage here. Again, thinking as an author, I'm able to empathize a bit with JB. I can somewhat imagine how confusing and hurtful this must be for him.
I rarely look at Twitter anymore, but occasionally browse on a desktop when I'm particularly craving baseball updates. The question that arises every time I logon is "what are we (Christians) fighting about online today?" While there are many topics that are worthy of discussion and charitable discourse, I rarely see that accomplished on any social media site. I appreciate very much your thoughtful engagement, maybe even especially that you chose to address it on this forum rather than Twitter. I consistently find you to be a wise, trustworthy voice in the chorus of chatter in online spaces, and your commitment to Jesus and His Gospel is evident in all that you write. Grateful for you and your work!
We do fight a lot! I do believe that in this, there can be a earnest wrestling over what is true, good, and beautiful, and I am not against disagreement. But I do wish we could disagree differently.
Thank you for this. One of the benefits of engaging an author's work over a period of time and genres is gaining a fuller understanding not only of their ideas, but also their methods. If you chose to give a response, I expected no less than a well thought-out response from you at the right time, and you gave us just that. This is encouraging to all. Thank you for this and for modeling how to approach these types of disagreements with charity, humility, and wisdom. So grateful for all of the hard work you do for and share with us.
Thank you, Jenny. I appreciate that you've been a longtime reader. It hopefully does provide context.
Thank you for addressing this, friend.
You're welcome. I obviously felt a public response was right in this case.
Thank you again for thinking and writing and sharing. We all can be better listeners..and a better listener should listen to a person's whole thought!
Thank for “listening” here!
Thank you so much, I’m grateful to have read this.
Grace and Peace
Thanks for reading.
Thank you for this thoughtful response, Jen.
Thanks for reading!
Jen I appreciate you, and I always have. I appreciate that you blurbed a book you had actually read. But I am struggling with what sounds to me like a lack of understanding for the theological underpinnings he lays out in chapter 1. The critiques of his exegesis of Ephesians 5 are thorough. Even if the rest of the book is pastoral and accurate, it’s a house built on a faulty foundation. So my question for you is direct, asked without malice.
Are you qualified to commend the quality of Butler’s theological work? Did you agree with his exegesis of Ephesians 5?
Thank you, Devi, for your comment. That's exactly the metaphor I used this weekend, in talking with my husband about this. If, in my endorsement, I affirmed the house, can I speak with absolutely certainty about the foundation? No, I cannot. I am unqualified and uncertain, though I will say that the book does not rest on Ephesians 5 alone. I had a very long talk about this with a trusted theological source, and it is clear to me that I do not know enough, am not exegetically skilled enough to say that Butler's use of imagery is warranted. That is at least part of the learning that I have to do. When the biblical writers use imagery, what equips us to ascertain the limits of that imagery? This is one question for me. It is not the only one. I will also say that this is an incredible tension I inhabit as a writer who has theological curiosities but lacks theological training. I am not evading my responsibilities, not pleading ignorance, but I am owning the limits of my expertise.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness always, Jen.