Bad priests do not triage the problems, they just pontificate from their skull brains (Butler Series)

How to be a bad priest. Write about sex without triaging the problem of sexual trauma. Use language that will re-traumatise survivors of trauma. Characterise all sexual abuse as “violent acts”.  Repeat divorce platitudes that you think are true because they’ve been recycled ad infinitum in Christendom. Utter a smidgeon of apology…with an empathy deficit.

I’m still writing about Josh Butler‘s Beautiful Union because the stuff I have to say about it has not been said by anyone else to my knowledge. It’s bogged me down, but I’m not giving up. Many in the advocacy community will not bother reading this post because they consider it “old hat” to still be talking about Butler.

I believe that by analysing how Josh Butler was not a good priest in his book Beautiful Union, we can learn about how to be better priests. I’m using “priest” in the sense that 1 Peter 2:5, 9 uses it: in the New Testament era, all who have a living faith in Christ are a royal priesthood.

Trigger Warning — This post contains concepts and descriptions that may trigger survivors of abuse.

Quotes from my poem are in purple. Click here to open the poem in a new tab. Long quotes from Beautiful Union are indented, with Kindle locations given in parentheses.

Josh Butler thinks that the vision he presents in Beautiful Union can be a source of healing. Let me show you the evidence. Julie Slattery interviewed Josh Butler. After praising Josh’s book, Julie mentioned (05:17) that when she teaches people about God’s vision for sex, some people have a visceral reaction because they’ve been sexually abused or objectified. Josh concurred with what Julie had mentioned, then he told her, “Part of my vision is that pressing into this becomes a source of healing.”

So Josh has nailed a caduceus symbol to the front of his shop. The caduceus is an emblem that signifies healing. See these articles: Caduceus — Wikipedia, Caduceus as a symbol of medicine, Rod of Asclepius, The Medical Sleight of hand.

Can the expounding of biblical imagery heal trauma?

If emotional regulation really were as simple as thinking about something specific or saying something specific or using our body in a specific way during periods of intense emotion, there wouldn’t be so many trauma survivors struggling with it.
— Post trauma emotional regulation: the basic basics, by Dr Glenn Doyle, trauma survivor and licensed psychologist.

When traumatised, the body keeps the score. — The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk. The Heart of Trauma: Healing the Embodied Brain in the Context of Relationships by Bonnie Badenoch. (Click here for the Amazon [Affiliate link].)

A more pointed question: Can the expounding of biblical imagery heal trauma when it draws an analogy between what happens in the human marriage bed, and the torture Christ suffered on the Cross? Can it be healing when it puts bodily fluids associated with sex into proximity with temple imagery, a move which Leviticus explicitly forbids? (Leviticus 15:16, 19-30; 12:1-7). Can it be healing when it caters to the entitled minds of lustful men by prioritising penile penetration and semen?

As well as Butler thinking his vision can bring healing, he also thinks it can point the younger generation to God’s love for the world. He told the Mere Fidelity team that he wrote the book with a missiological purpose in mind. And he told Patrick Miller, “I wasn’t writing to the evangelical church kid.” So Josh was writing for the younger generation but not the evangelical church kid. I’m confused. Who did Josh imagine would read the TGC (The Gospel Coalition) article? Many folks who follow TGC grew up as evangelical church kids.

Characterise all forms of sexual abuse as “violent acts”

Another reason why Butler’s book cannot offer healing is that he characterises all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation as violent acts. He says:

Take rape, for example, the most extreme inversion of generosity. Rape (and all forms of sexual violence, abuse, or exploitation) turns giving of the self into taking for the self. It converts generosity into a form of theft, breaking down the door uninvited, and barging into the home to ransack whatever it wants. … It is violent burglary of the highest order, a horror that rightly stands under the judgment of God.  (360)

A sexual abuser may never use physical violence. Butler seems unaware of how sexual abusers frequently use covert tactics to charm and groom the target before proceeding to acts of sexual abuse. Butler’s characterisation of sexual abuse as violence will make victims feel invisible if they were covertly coercively controlled by the abuser (and by crummy teaching in churches) so that they did not feel able or permitted to refuse the sexual acts of the abuser. For these victims, to refuse the sexual acts of the abuser would make them feel terribly guilty. If they refused the sexual acts, the abuser would likely escalate the abuse. This is the stuff that Butler seems to be ignorant of, so no wonder he is in an empathy coma!

Fail to triage the problem

The foremost issue any Christian author needs to bear in mind when writing about sex to a Christian audience is that a great many Christians (and non-Christians, and ex-Christians) have been abused and traumatised.

When he picked up his pen to write about sex, Josh Butler ought to have triaged the problem of sexual trauma. Like the nurse who triages patients in the Emergency Department of a big hospital, Josh needed to put the needs of trauma survivors first.

White cis males have more privilege than the rest of us do. Females have suffered abuse more than males have. More than half of Josh’s readers will be women, because book-readers are preponderantly female. Therefore, a good proportion of his readers will be survivors of any or all of the following: sexual abuse in childhood, sexual abuse and sexual neglect and coercive control in intimate partner relationships, all of which is compounded by spiritual abuse and coercive control in churches, as well as disrespect and systemic abuse from social institutions.

Butler says that when writing the book he was aiming it at readers in their 20s who are comfortable using graphic language when talking about sex — e.g. Portland Oregonians who have grown up with liberal sexual ethics. He said “my primary audience was the 20-year-old who listens to Ariana Grande, watches Netflix comedy specials, and is very comfortable with direct language around sex but doesn’t know what it means or refers to.”

But although he gives the occasional nod to how abuse is traumatic and can play havoc with one’s sexual wiring, he assumes his readers will have no problem with him working from the assumption that he’s writing about consensual, committed sexual relationships within marriage.

Many of Josh’s notional audience will have suffered abuse and trauma. Many of the young adults Josh thought he was writing to would have been traumatised by being exposed to porn way too young, had a parent who divorced for selfish reasons, or grew up with one parent abusing the other parent, been abused themselves in childhood, sex-trafficked, etc., and would have been trying desperately to deal with their pain, shame and disconnection by seeking pleasure in ways that (in the long term) will only add to their burdens. Butler must be aware of human trafficking in Oregon — at the Imago Dei Community in Portland, Oregon, he oversaw that church’s ministry in human trafficking.

“Remember the poor!” was the foremost commandment the apostles gave to believers and congregations (Galatians 2:10). “The poor” refers not only to those who are financially impoverished; it also, perhaps even more so, means the afflicted, the oppressed, and all the traumatised people who have PTSD and C-PTSD. Josh ought to have written his first chapter to them, to show that he was well aware of — and empathic towards — the potential pain and triggers they might feel when reading the rest of the book. He should have included them upfront, not just alluded to them in chapter 6 (where he talks about divorce) and in passing remarks in the rest of his book.

Use language that will re-traumatise survivors of trauma

If Josh were really trauma-aware he wouldn’t have used words like “bombshell” and “belting” when writing about sex.

A husband and wife’s life of faithful love is designed to point to greater things, but so is their sexual union! This is a gospel bombshell: sex is an icon of salvation. — Beautiful Union ch 1 (246), and the article Sex Won’t Save You.

In chapter 12, titled Triune Symphony, he uses a musical analogy to illustrate his thesis. There’s nothing wrong with using music as analogy when talking about theology, but it’s distasteful to use the word “belting” when referring to God’s plan of redemption. Blithely uncaring about how this word might trigger people who have been belted by their intimate partners, and people who have been in the dark world of BSDM, Josh gives us four “beltings”. I’ve bolded them here:

God is pro-sex. He chose it as the providential instrument through which to create the human race. This instrument is part of a symphony that, when played properly, sings to his deeper heart for the world, belting out a melody that runs through the centre of the universe. … Jesus is the Master Conductor, who takes the bent and broken instruments of our lives — even people who’ve been tossed aside and discarded — and transforms us to become instruments of his Spirit, attuned to the melody of love belting out from the voice of his father. … You’re invited to follow the lead of our Master to belt out this eternal song. The triune harmony of love. … The wedding of Revelation 21-22 celebrates the union of heaven and earth, (as God and humanity dwell together forever), the union of east and west (as the nations come streaming into God’s holy city), the union of weak and strong (as the tears of the suffering and the glory of kings is received by Jesus), and the union of good and bad folks (who together belt out the song of the Lamb once slain, redeemed by the grace of God).  (2981, 3270, 3273, 3799)

Butler says the Hebrew word in Genesis 2 that is usually translated “rib” means “side”. He then gives a crass image that would trigger survivors of sexualised violence and satanist ritual abuse:

So, why translate it rib? Probably because it’s weird to envisage God splicing Adam down the side like a cucumber.  (2846)

Butler dishonours and pathologises abuse victims by asserting that they “develop a strange bond” with their captors:

While it’s true that those abducted can develop a strange bond with their captors (Stockholm Syndrome) we’d all say this is unhealthy.  (1172)

He uses the victim-blaming term “Stockholm Syndrome”, implying that it is the victim’s fault if she feels strangely bonded to her abuser. His language implies that the victim (not the perpetrator) is the active agent who develops this “unhealthy bond”. The term Stockholm Syndrome is used to pathologize, blame and discredit victims.

Divorce platitudes (when erroneous) do not bring healing. Instead, they re-traumatise.

When discussing divorce, Butler quoted Matthew 19 and said to Julie Slattery, “Divorce proclaims a false gospel,” (30:19). This remark of his would re-traumatize victims of domestic abuse.

It is noteworthy that Beautiful Union never mentions 1 Corinthians 7:15 which says the abused spouse is free to divorce the abuser because marriage ≠ slavery. Nor does it mention 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 which commands that abusers be put out of the church and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

In chapter 6 of Beautiful Union, Josh plys the handy platitudes about divorce with facile certitude. He repeats many of the hackneyed teachings on divorce which I’ve shown to be flawed.

The links in the following list go to my posts where I show that each of these ideas that Josh teaches is flawed.

1. Josh repeats the “God hates divorce” mantra.
   But “God hates divorce” is a mistranslation.
2. Josh gives the standard misinterpretation of the “hardness of heart” passage.
   But Jesus did NOT say “Hardness of heart is grounds for divorce”.
3. Josh says “divorce preaches a false gospel” because “divorce shatters the icon”.
   But divorce does not preach a false gospel.

When a victim of maltreatment divorces a wicked spouse, that divorce preaches the TRUE gospel.

Divorce from an abuser points to the loving and righteous God who brings victims out of bondage. The Ten Commandments begin with God reminding His people of His righteous character: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (Exodus 20:2). God frees His people free from slavery. 1 Corinthians 7:15 says a Christian has full and free liberty to divorce a wicked spouse.

Josh’s three platitudes about divorce will make abuse victims feel terrible. He is not the only one to preach these errors, but that is no excuse. Victims are kept chained in the dungeon by this three-fold shackle of spiritual abuse. Victims are afraid of divorcing their abusers because they don’t want to do what God hates, they don’t want to be hard-hearted, and they don’t want to preach a false gospel.

Like so many evangelical teachers, Josh paints a divorce scenario which is nothing like divorcing an abuser. Here is his pretty picture:

When Mom and Dad talk about divorce, they can tend to focus on logistics: deciding who gets weekends and holidays, determining how to cover childcare and coordinate school drop-offs, finding the best counselor, and introducing constructive activities to rebuild normalcy.  (1620)

If only divorce could be like that for victims of abuse! When divorcing an abuser, the abuser will never have a reasonable discussion with the victim. The abuser plays every game in the book to sabotage and derail such discussions. And if the abuser says he agrees on a mutually decided plan, he will probably not abide by the agreement. It’s all part of the mind games.

Josh says that “divorce is an icon of hell” (1628), and kids, better than their parents, understand that. I doubt that Josh has deeply, non-judgmentally listened to women who are divorcing their abusive husbands. Kids often don’t know half the hell their mother is going through when she is divorcing an abuser. (Yeah, the genders are sometimes reversed, but mostly it’s men abusing women.) She does her best to protect the kids from the abuser’s evil machinations. She is pilloried by the Family Court which believes her husband’s claim that she’s guilty of “Parental Alienation”, a term that was invented by the pedophile-enabler Richard Gardner (see Richard Gardner In His Own Words, Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse, and this Facebook post where Tina Swithin shows how Richard Gardner words are pedo-enabling).

There is a large group (and growing) of individuals who have repackaged Gardner’s theory of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) and re-labeled it “parental alienation” or “alienation” (by leaving off the word ‘”syndrome”). These repackaged variations of Gardner’s ideas are used by abusers to take custody from healthy parents. See here. Josh Butler seems to be utterly unaware of this dire situation where abusers are being given full custody of their children and the legal system is punishing protective parents for trying to protect children from abusers.

Josh says that children whose parents divorce “have a harder time maintaining stable relationships and are themselves significantly more likely to divorce.” (1688) As evidence for this assertion, he cites one article from Psychology Today. Only one article from a popular psychology platform! This is an example of how Beautiful Union is neither scholarly nor compelling.

When talking about divorce, Josh skates close to the line of mutualising the blame:

every couple is a two-way street, and most marital problems have some share of blame on both sides. Yet generally, divorce is more painful to the one deserted. It’s easier to leave than to be left.  (1670)

He does say that divorce is permissible for the three A’s: adultery, abandonment, and abuse. But he only says this near the end of chapter six (which is typical of Christian authors). It’s a mere mention, not emphasised.

I do give Josh credit for saying one thing which will not hurt victims:

There’s a tragic irony to divorce: The one most at fault is often the one least affected, while those who often experience the greatest impact are those with the least control over the outcome. Yet the Judge of all the earth sees this injustice and will hold it to account. God cares about your actions because God cares about the spouse you betray and the children you leave behind.  (1695)

Make a smidgeon of apology

In a one hour interview by Patrick Miller at Truth Over Tribe, Butler spent only eleven seconds apologising. Here is what he said:

I want to confess that there’s times that I have been a bad priest, like a recent excerpt that I allowed to be used, out of context, where I’ve gone too quickly, without giving some of the set up or nuance needed to help people with deep wounds.

Here is that quote in context:

[54:50]  The Black Mass … is a distorted mockery of Christian worship services in worship of Satan, and it’s often used with harmful practices like ritual abuse. When someone comes out of a Black Mass cult and becomes a Christian, one challenge is that when they enter a Cathedral or a traditional Christian liturgy, they often feel a revulsive response — there’s a revulsion. And it’s understandable because of what they’ve been through and what these things are associated with.

And a good priest in this context will move slowly and patiently with this person, being attentive to their experience, the reality of the real lived experience that’s been very painful, very harmful and all. The priest will move slowly and patiently being attentive to that, but also the goal is not to burn down the Cathedral, but rather that, over time, the hope is to help them re-acclimate to what we might call the ideal, the Cathedral again, understanding its true meaning and significance is where healing is found.

So what’s the analogy here? Well I would suggest that many of us have been wounded by the Black Mass of sexuality in our culture. I think of three things here in particular.

1. 1. The Black Mass of our pornified culture which the enemy uses to objectify people.
   2. The Black Mass of purity culture which the enemy has used to shame people and distance them from God’s love.
   3. The Black Mass of sexual abuse in the church and in the broader culture. I’m not saying that those who were abused are satanic, but rather that what was done to them was satanic.

And so, for many of us, we’re coming out of that Black Mass of our sexual culture, that corrupted distortion of God’s vision, the reality of our experience, and we step into the Cathedral and there can be an understandable revulsion at first, like “Ew, gross!” or “Don’t connect God and sex!” and to be a good priest or a good minister of the gospel, good at navigating that, means that we will go slowly.

[57:58]  And I want to confess that there’s times that I have been a bad priest, like a recent excerpt that I allowed to be used, out of context — times where I’ve gone too quickly, without giving some of the set up or nuance needed to help people with deep wounds.

But on the same hand the goal is not to burn down the Cathedral. It’s actually encountering the ideal, what it’s made for. And we can measure the reality of our experience against that, to both name the pain and to legitimate the struggle, where our experience has fallen short, but also to move towards finding healing in God and his ideal vision.

It’s kind of like those with deep father wounds, where the solution is not to get rid of God as Father, but rather to encounter him and let him heal our broken experiences of father. And similarly, with our sexual wounds, the solution is not to get rid of the gospel realities that sex points to (the Cathedral, so to speak, the ideal) but rather to bring our experiences to the gospel and let Christ and his gospel name our pain, legitimate our struggle, and also to begin the process of healing and a move towards wholeness and union with Christ, which is not an ugly or oppressive union, but a beautiful union.

When Josh confessed on Patrick Miller’s podcast that he had been a bad priest, he was 100% right.

A final thought

We don’t know who condensed chapter one of Beautiful Union into the Sex Won’t Save You article, but it is possible that some person or persons intentionally selected the most triggering parts of chapter one to put into the article, while intentionally omitting most of the passages that allude to mutuality, safety and consent. If the goal was to aggravate the already grievous divide between different strands of the evangelical community, that goal was certainly achieved by the article. I’m seriously asking the reader to consider this possibility.

***

Further Reading

Jen Pollock Michel endorsed Beautiful Union. Then, when she saw the outrage on Twitter about the article and the first chapter, she wrote this article explaining why she endorsed the book and why she was not retracting her endorsement. Her article is worth reading, and the comments on her article are even more worth reading. Jen read and responded courteously to all the commenters. Unfortunately, she then closed comments on her article. Jen stated here that she has not suffered sexual abuse herself. That probably helps explain why she did not find Beautiful Union disturbing.