The Gospel Cancelation
Cultured despisers want nothing less than a reinvention of Christian categories to serve the ends of sexual liberation…the problem is not with discussing sexuality, but only the vision of sexuality and gender roles patterned in Scripture.
Inspired by the legacy of Tim Keller, the Gospel Coalition recently announced the creation of the Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics. The goal of the Center is to facilitate a new missionary encounter with Post-Christendom by combining cultural critique and theological depth. The tenor of the Center is one of hope: while secularization and polarization have weakened the Church, there is an opportunity to represent the Christian faith in a world desperate for meaning. In other words, demonstrating the beauty and goodness of true Christian beliefs will save the West.
By God’s grace, we can close the back door and stem the tide of dechurching. We can open the front door so skeptics will enter the foyer on the path to saving faith. Once equipped, we can depart together through the front door to show unbelievers the truth, goodness, and beauty of the gospel as the only hope that fulfills our deepest longings.
This week, the Keller Center faced its first trial when it released a now-deleted article promoting Josh Butler’s book on Christian sexual ethics. I want to suggest that the current backlash against Butler is instructive in how cultural apologetics, ignorant of the dynamics of the “negative world,” are destined to become impotent.
First, does Butler’s article, when shorn of its admittedly crude language, convey anything objectionable in substance about the marriage relationship? The central claim is that “Sex is an icon of Christ and the church.” By “icon,” he means that the sexual act itself points to something beyond it, which is the union of Christ and the church. Ephesians 5:31-32 certainly states this about marriage, though Butler’s specificity about the sexual act itself was awkward. Butler turns to the categories of giving and receiving to describe the act and how it parallels Christ’s relationship with the Church. The heart of sex is communication and the reception of two selves, and the fruit of this union is generative, which is at the root of Jesus’ teaching on marriage. When he is questioned about divorce (Matt 19, Mark 10) he quotes from both Genesis 1 and 2, reiterating the generative and unitive goods of the institution.
The point is this: One may take issue with Butler’s presentation—his graphic lingering on the sex act itself—but fundamentally, Butler is not conceptually aberrant in noting the patterns of male initiation and female reception in marriage reflects Christ’s relationship with the Church. So while Butler’s rhetoric might be unfortunate, he is not heretical on that point.
However, the backlash against Butler has been not just to take issue with his rhetoric, but to malign his theology as not only incorrect but dangerous and harmful. In Dennae Pierre’s retraction, she labels his theology as male-centric, enforcing a harmful gender dynamic. Others will say Butler’s thought creates the conditions for sexual harm and “harms women.” None of these things are actually true of Butler’s writing but they are indicative that Butler is being singled out as a scapegoat for the abuses of complementarian theology.
Consequently, when pressured by activists to pull his endorsement, Rich Villodas, issued a retraction, in under 24 hours, agreeing with these points. Villodas says, “Josh’s exegesis and commentary of Ephesians 5 is not just problematic, it’s dangerous.” What makes Villodas’ retraction instructive for demonstrating the dynamics of the negative world is that Villodas and Butler share virtually identical positions on sex. Villodas has also written a book on cultural apologetics (The Deeply Formed Life), in which he has a chapter on sex. There he describes sex, among other things, as a sacrament: “lovemaking in and outside the bedroom is a revelation. What does it reveal? Well, without overstating it, it reveals God. It is sacramental. Our lovemaking is to manifest our union with each other and, in so doing, manifest God’s union with the world.” (DFL, p.168). In fact, the sexual act for Villodas is not just any type of sacrament, it is eucharistic! Here I quote him at length:
-
The Creepy and Tawdry History of Barbie
Ruth stumbled upon a doll in an “adult” store where consumers were known to buy gag novelty gifts for bachelor parties. In fact, the doll was based on a German cartoon character that ran in the comics of a Hamburg newspaper. Drawn by an artist named Reinhard Beuthien, the character was called “Bild Lilli,” and she had a reputation for seducing wealthy men.
Moviegoers far surpassed industry expectations this past weekend as “Barbie” pulled in north of $155 million, earning the distinction of being the biggest film debut of the year thus far.
Our team at Plugged In has done its usual heavy lifting in reviewing the movie, and parents and anyone interested in watching the film would be wise to access their exhaustive and thorough analysis.
The “Barbie” doll franchise dates back to 1959, and so for many of us of a certain age, there has never been a time when the toy didn’t exist on store shelves. Many a woman has no doubt warm and nostalgic memories of the childhood staple. My sister had a few and my wife fondly remembers the “Barbie Condo” she received one Christmas.
But Saturday’s Wall Street Journal mentioned something of the doll’s origin that was both downright disturbing and maybe even revealing.
Husband and wife team Elliott and Ruth Handler, along with Harold “Matt” Mason, started “Mattel” toys out of their Southern California garage. Their first big product was a “Burp Gun” which sold very well thanks to the fledgling company’s sponsorship of Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Club” – a children’s variety show that ran in the afternoon on ABC television. Both the show and the gun were big hits with kids.
But it was on a European vacation the summer after the company’s first year of operation where the Handlers landed upon the idea for the Barbie Doll.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Basics: Jesus Christ, the Covenant Mediator
No human sacrifice can pay the infinite debt we owe to the holy God. The sacrifice for our sins must be made by someone whose death can actually pay the debt. Then, there is the fact that no human can apply their sacrifice or obedience to another so as to pronounce forgiveness. Only God can apply the fruits of Jesus’ redemptive work to others under the terms of a covenant of grace, which he alone can establish on his oath.
Christians often speak of important doctrines in the abstract. People speculate about election and predestination, the purpose and extent of the atonement, and so on, without making any connection between these doctrines and the person and work of Jesus Christ. But the Bible does not allow us to do this. If we follow the biblical pattern and language, we cannot even mention the subject of election, without at the same time mentioning that we are chosen from before the foundation of the world in the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself chosen by the Father to be the redeemer of the world (John 17:1 ff.). The seed of the woman mentioned in the first gospel promise (cf. Genesis 3:15) is Jesus of Nazareth, who has redeemed us through his saving work. And so on. This is why the eternal son of God became incarnate–to save his people from their sins. And this brings us back to the covenant of grace, and its mediator, Jesus Christ.
It is important to carefully consider the fact that the covenant of grace has a personal mediator–Jesus Christ. He is revealed to us in the types and shadows of the Old Testament, specifically through Moses’ office as mediator of that covenant God makes with Israel at Mount Sinai, as well as through the kingship of David and his rule over Israel. He is even revealed in the sacrifices for sin offered to God by the priests of Israel. All of these Old Testament events foreshadow the coming of God in human flesh. This is why whenever we speak about election and covenant, we must focus upon the word made flesh. Election, covenant, and incarnation are inseparable, and can only be explained and understood in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ, who is “God with us.” This same Jesus is also the mediator of the covenant of grace which progressively unfolds through the pages of the Old Testament, and is fulfilled in the New.
As the promise of redemption begins to unfold, it is clear that God’s promises will be fulfilled in a single person, that one who is the seed of the woman, who will be Israel’s ultimate prophet, priest, and king, and who will also serve as the one mediator between God and man (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5). This one person and mediator of the covenant will be truly human, and yet truly God. He will have two distinct natures, yet he remains one person.
The two natures of Jesus Christ points us to the lengths to which a gracious God will go to save us from our sins.
Read More
Related Posts: -
In a Scrolling World, Are We Numb to the Resurrection’s Shock?
Easter is an annual remembrance of a historical event that’s still being celebrated, arguably on a greater scale than ever, nearly 2,000 years later. That’s because it’s the biggest news story of your life, or any life—even of those who shrug it off or scroll right past it.
Can you remember any top world news headlines from April 9, 2023? What about headlines from April 17, 2022, or April 4, 2021? Probably 2020 was the only Easter in recent memory when you might reme`mber what was happening in the world—but even that will fade from memory sooner than we expect.
What we can remember about Easter last year, and every year going back nearly two millennia, is that scores of Christians across the world confessed, sang about, and celebrated their belief in the deity of a human who actually walked and talked on this earth for a time.
This man is named Jesus. On Easter Sunday every year, people from nearly every nation and language, every class and ethnicity, worship him as Lord. They confess he suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried in first-century Jerusalem; and supernaturally rose from the dead three days later.
Consider how absurd this sounds. Consider how shocking it’d be as a headline if it were reported by some time-traveling newswire service to people in any BC kingdom or culture. We’re talking about the most outrageous headline of the year, and it happens every year: On Easter, a third of the planet’s population honors the day in history when Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
It’s an insane headline because it speaks to the fact that, even today—in our modern scientific age—more people than ever believe in a supernatural event that science says cannot happen. The headline’s enduring repetition, year after year for centuries, proves the legitimacy of the event at its center (the resurrection) or highlights a mass delusion of unprecedented scale. Either way, it’s utterly newsworthy.
And yet on this year’s Easter Sunday, any number of soon-to-be-forgotten occurrences will claim “lead story” status in newspapers and newscasts worldwide. Instead of what 2.4 billion Christians claim and celebrate, “Breaking News!” alerts will compel millions to click on infinitely less newsworthy items. More people will probably click on articles about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce on Easter Sunday than will read a Gospel account of Jesus’s resurrection. For American college basketball fans, the big news of the day will be which teams made the Final Four.
Why are we numb to the resurrection’s shock and seemingly bored by history’s biggest event? Why does the headline “Billions worship a man who rose from the dead and ascended to heaven” seem like old news that barely registers as a trending topic? Here are a few theories.
1. It’s old in a world obsessed with new.
Part of why the resurrection feels like “old news” is that it is old news, especially in a culture of increasingly short-term memory. Few of us can remember what was newsworthy a week ago, let alone a year or a century or two millennia ago. The digital age has eroded cultural memory and our capacity to think beyond the “now.”
Read More
Related Posts:
