The Gospel Coalition’s The Keller Center’s ‘Sex Dramedy’ Is a Swing and a Miss

by John Ellis

So far, I’ve resisted the urge to publicly comment on The Gospel Coalition’s The Keller Center. Several of my friends have gotten an earful from me about it in private, though. And there’s a whole lot of wrong about The Keller Center to fill an ear with. For me, it’s a little tricky to speak against it publicly for a variety of reasons. However, the recent article “Sex Won’t Save You (But It Points to the One Who Will)” published on TGC’s website under The Keller Center’s masthead, is not just indicative of the deep theological, historical, and sociological problems with the Center, it’s also producing real, anti-Kingdom harm. A recent conversation with a friend who suffered re-traumatization because of this article was the final straw for me (actually, it’s been friends, at this point, who’re suffering because of the article). Charles Taylor once pointed out that the true psalmists and prophets spoke into their communities, not out of them. Speaking truth to power needs to be done by those enmeshed within the power structures. As a white, evangelical male, that’s me. And so, I submit that if the article “Sex Won’t Save You (But It Points to the One Who Will)” is any indication of the Center’s so-called cultural apologetics, we should all denounce “cultural apologetics while distancing ourselves from The Keller Center. In a nutshell, the article reveals that The Keller Center’s dominant epistemology is Western, white imperialism. It’s not a cultural apologetic for Christianity; it’s an apologetic that coopts Christiananity in defense of a specific culture.

In the future, I’d like to flesh out my epistemological accusation in more detail, as well as tackle the Center’s self-serving whitewashing of evangelical history in this country (and the West, in general) as well as their puzzling misuse of Charles Taylor, but I want this article to be accessible, including short. In brief and leaning into Wittgenstein’s dictum that agreement in meaning is agreement in judgment, the notion of God’s sovereign control over all creation, while true in certain contextual meanings, is incorrect within the linguistic framework of neo-Calvinism. Within that framework, sovereignty is controlled by the Western program and concept of colonization, meaning its meaning is imbued with racist imperialism. I don’t subscribe to its meaning because doing so means that I subscribe to its judgments – its worldview, so to speak. In plain English, while I affirm that God is sovereign over all creation, I disagree with neo-Calvinists when they say it.

One of the problems is that current claimants of neo-Calvinism, well-meaning though they may be, fail to deconstruct their meanings and hence judgments from the Western white culture that has shaped them (provided them language) and gives them their identity and power. Ergo, The Keller Center’s program is one of continued imperialistic power.

Here’s something that may help some readers see what I mean: Many African scholars describe and condemn the philanthropic efforts of well-meaning Westerners as continued colonization. Until those philanthropic efforts are deconstructed from the colonizing power structures that created the need for the philanthropic efforts, those efforts will continue to be little more than “aid colonialism” that serves the existing power structures at the expense of those suffering because of those power structures.[1] This speaks to my epistemological accusation from above against the Center: Repeating, The Keller Center’s dominant epistemology is Western, white imperialism. Fortunately – or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it – the recent article on sex allows me an introductory defense of my accusation without having to dive too deeply into the philosophical and historical weeds. The article’s use of language offers evidence in support of my thesis.

There is quite a bit of incorrect and harmful assumptions and beliefs about sex, women, marriage, the gospel, the Church, Jesus, etc. that can and should be criticized about Josh Butler’s article. Much that needs to be highlighted and criticized, to be clear. That’s not really the lane best suited for me, though. Others, like Beth Allison Barr, have already begun offering scathing, insightful critiques of the various ways that the article harms. What I want to offer is an understanding of the epistemological foundation upon which the article’s misogyny, idolatry of sex and marriage, and the grossly – in multiple ways – inaccurate depiction of Jesus and his bride is built upon.

*Note: I apologize for the juvenile grossness of the quotes below. Once you read them, you can’t unread them. Just remember, I didn’t write them; I’m only quoting them. Again, my apologies.

Butler makes the Mark Driscoll-esque claim that “sex is an icon of salvation.” The over-literalization of the Bible’s use of sex as a metaphor seems bizarre, but it makes sense once you place it within the epistemological framework of power. For his part, Butler attempts to frame it within the concepts of generosity and hospitality, but his language belies the truth that both are speaking to specific power dynamics. A man gives (colonizes) and the woman receives (is colonized). While Butler did throw in some caveats that sex should be mutual service between a husband and a wife, those caveats ring hollow within the harsh clanging of dominance and subjugation in his use of language in his overall message. For starters, consider this quote:

“And what deeper form of self-giving is there than the sexual union where the husband pours out his very presence not only upon but within his wife? [emphasis kept – why he emphasized it beggars belief]”

It’s easy and tempting to dismissively scoff at the *icky* immaturity of the language, but doing so runs the risk of failing to acknowledge the real hurt those words have and continue to cause. Furthermore, steering into scorn prevents followers of Jesus from offering healthy challenges in ways that add to healing.

As others have correctly pointed out, this quote seems to suggest that the husband’s orgasm is what he’s giving his wife. While that observation is connected to the other harmful aspects of this article that should be interacted with and corrected, it also speaks to the framework of power – of Western, white imperialism – from within which Butler is writing. Later, he adds, that “giving and receiving are at the heart of sex,” but he makes sure to point out that, “there’s a distinction between the male and female sides of the equation.”  

That distinction includes this explanation of the women’s role in sex formed as a rhetorical question in which Butler asks, “what deeper form of hospitality is there than the sexual union where the wife welcomes her husband into the sanctuary of her very self?” He then adds the soft-core porn cringy exclamation, “[The husband] enters the sanctuary of his spouse, where he pours out his deepest presence and bestows an offering, a gift, a sign of his pilgrimage that has the potential to grow within her into life.” Of course, “She gladly receives the warmth of his presence and accepts the sacrificial offering he bestows upon the altar with her Most Holy Place.”

Quoting Michael Bird’s take on the article, “The man’s penis and pleasure are christified, while his semen is sanctified as a holy sacrifice.” Bird then apologizes, “I can’t believe I’m even saying that.” In his article, which you can read by clicking here, Bird points out that Butler is regurgitating old complementarian tropes made popular by Douglas Wilson, who fully admits that he believes that men conquer and colonize women through the act of sex.

Butler’s article uses language the way colonizers used language to justify their stealing and raping of other lands and cultures (and often other image bearers). That justification said, “Western culture is the pinnacle of Christianity. It reflects the inevitable progression of history, and we are being generous in giving it to the natives. In turn, they should receive our gift of culture with thankfulness because it produces flourishing.”

The way Butler describes sex is one that centers misogynistic subjugation because it accepts the hierarchical power dynamics of neo-Victorian complementarianism, the same power dynamics that glorified colonization. And it’s easy to steer into that, even if unwittingly, for Butler and others at The Keller Center because their epistemology is dominated by the racist, Western imperialism that Kuyper openly embraced. Make no mistake, that racist imperialism isn’t accidental to the system that’s developed from his teachings; it’s at the core. Sovereignty is viewed and defined (meaning and, hence, judgment) through the lens of the belief that Western culture is the ideal historical telos.

Language is not neutral. The guys at The Keller Center probably know this yet they’ve failed to deconstruct in their own hearts how the language they’ve inherited isn’t just problematic, it’s at odds with Kingdom ethics like self-sacrifice and surrendering whatever perceived culturally constructed rights we believe we have. Their language is one of power that centers whiteness and socially constructed definitions of masculinity. Because of this, they fail to ask if Western culture should be redeemed because their language doesn’t allow for it. Instead, their language calls them to publish articles like “Sex Won’t Save You (But It Points to the One Who Will)” that reinforces misogynistic power structures.  

The Western, white evangelical church doesn’t need to be “saved”. Western, white evangelicals need to do the hard work of deconstructing our faith so that we can listen to the voices of those who truly understand what it means to redeem the culture in ways that aren’t synonyms for power. Our language works against that. Instead of platforming white men who benefit from Western power hierarchies, we should platform People of Color and other marginalized groups because their perspective and language are better equipped to shine the light of the gospel into the corners of privilege and call us to a repentance through which the Holy Spirit conforms us (men and women) to the image of the Son. It will also help prevent professed Christian websites from publishing articles that make one wonder if the 1990s era Cinemax assumed editorial duties.  

Soli Deo Gloria

---

[1] Tim Murithi, a professor of African Studies at the University of the Free State, South Africa, coined the term “aid colonialism.”