![]() He was accused of saying something that I just don’t think he said-at least not in that article. To me, the largely knee-jerk critique of Butler by and on behalf of single Christians seemed to be a cry of “Wolf! Wolf!” when there was no wolf. Whether we are married or single, in that mystery is located a deeply beautiful picture of our shared eternity!Īll of which brings me back to the fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. We must not be reticent to faithfully plumb the depths of that mystery, so far as the mystery will allow itself to be faithfully plumbed. Your marriages are intended to be a profound witness to me of the intimate and eternal relationship that we as the church will share with our saviour. But what a tragic loss that would be! God has designed the marital one-flesh relationship between a husband and wife to be a gift to us all. The forcefulness of the critique that his article excluded and diminished single Christians concerned me because it suggested we shouldn’t spend any substantial time dwelling upon the profound mystery in Ephesians 5:31–32 if singles feel left out by us doing so. Rather he was attempting to argue that sex (in marriage) is a signpost that points to that love. In his article, Butler wasn’t trying to argue that having sex was the gateway to a deeper or fuller experience of Christ’s love. In this sense, chaste singles might be uniquely placed to exhort our married friends to not get hung up on the trailer break-downs on YouTube as together we await the full feature in all its cinematic glory. In fact it’s possible that in some ways not having lived it might mean we have a deeper capacity to get it! For example, not having experienced the lesser good thing can give singles a more urgent longing and greater sense of anticipation for the better and ultimate good thing. We don’t have to have lived it in order to get it. This means that people like myself, those who have never been married, are equally capable of apprehending and understanding marriage as a mysterious foreshadowing of the intimacy of the heavenly marriage. ![]() the one-flesh intimacy between Christ and the Church)-then the profound significance of marriage (and sex within it) is not to be found in actual having or doing, but in genuine apprehension or understanding. But if it is a signpost which points outward, not inward-to that which is greater than itself (i.e. If the one-flesh relationship of marriage is the gateway to experiencing God’s love-that is, if being married (and having sex with your spouse) provides you with a privileged internal encounter of God’s love-then yes, those who experience marital sex gain a deeper and fuller experience of God’s love. As we read the one-flesh relationship of marriage is ultimately a profound mystery that pertains to Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32), we need to be able to discern whether that means marriage is a gateway into that mystery, or a signpost that points towards it. ![]() You see, in order to properly consider the spiritual significance of marriage (and sex within it), we need to be able to tell the difference between a gateway and a signpost. That is to say, for all the problems I had with specific aspects of his article about the spiritual significance of sex, I don’t agree that in writing such an article he was automatically being detrimental or offensive to single Christians. Why was I so dissatisfied with their line of critique? Because I don’t believe Butler was clearly guilty of that charge. In other words, they saw him to be intentionally marginalising and excluding singles. Why were these single readers so dissatisfied? Because they understood his argument-namely, that “sex is an icon of Christ and the Church”-to be synonymous with saying that sexually chaste single Christians are less able to fully know and experience Christ’s love than married Christians. However, I also found myself troubled by some of the forceful criticism he received from various quarters-including the critique of many of his single Christian readers. Indeed, I found myself quite troubled by numerous elements of Butler’s article. Many readers considered aspects of the article’s argument to be very problematic. The fable came to mind as I scrolled through seemingly endless social media responses to Josh Butler’s (now removed) TGC (US) article, ‘ Sex Won’t Save You (But It Points to the One Who Will)’. Depending on which version of the fable you read, the story ends with either the sheep, or the boy himself, being devoured! As I said, fascinating and terrifying! “Wolf! Wolf! There’s a wolf!”, the boy yelled. Finally the day came when there really was a wolf. In it, villagers rebuke a young shepherd boy for his repeated prank of crying out in warning of a wolf when there was no wolf in sight. When I was a child, I was equally fascinated and terrified by Aesop’s fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |