\n<\/p>\n
I<\/span>f Rosaria Butterfield\u2019s courage \u201cwaned and waxed\u201d in writing Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age<\/em><\/a>, as she reports in her acknowledgements section, you wouldn\u2019t know it from the text. Her tone is urgent and earnest, and she conceives of her work as a charge by a \u201cchurch militant\u201d against a powerful enemy who is sure to lose the war, but is now winning many battles.<\/p>\n Butterfield\u2019s aim, as her title indicates, is to identify five norms that are both false and ascendant in contemporary American culture. Her positions will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with her personal history, as detailed in her previous books about her conversion<\/a> and Christian hospitality<\/a>.<\/p>\n But though Five Lies<\/em> covers some of the same territory, it is less memoir and more direct assault. In her tour of the front lines of the culture war, Butterfield makes a compelling case for a high view of biblical and ecclesial authority, and she not only commends but models repentance. Alongside these and other merits, however, Five Lies<\/em> offers some questionable views on the Bible\u2019s connection to Jesus, the faith of Christians who depart from Butterfield\u2019s conclusions, and the extent to which major institutions are committed to undermining Christian values.<\/p>\n \u201cGod\u2019s will,\u201d according to a remark Butterfield cites from John Calvin, \u201cis that Christ\u2019s kingdom should be encompassed with many enemies, his design being to keep us in a state of constant warfare.\u201d Her primary audience is Christian women, and she wants them to join her fight.<\/p>\n Thus, contra the advice of fellow Christians like Rod Dreher in The Benedict Option<\/em><\/a>, it isn\u2019t \u201csufficient to leave well enough alone and build our faith on firmer foundations.\u201d Withdrawal for the sake of discipleship and community, participation in a pluralist market of ideas, and pragmatic focus on points of practical agreement are all unacceptable for Christians, Butterfield says: \u201cThe reason we can\u2019t do this is that none of these solutions honors God. Indeed, each and every one is a sin in its own right.\u201d<\/p>\n Unfortunately, Butterfield continues, these sins are multiplying, and \u201cenemy lines [are] drawn within Christianity\u201d as more and more Christians believe the five lies, which she defines as follows:<\/p>\n 1. Homosexuality is normal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2. Being a spiritual person is kinder than being a biblical Christian.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3. Feminism is good for the world and the church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 4. Transgenderism is normal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 5. Modesty is an outdated burden that serves male dominance and holds women back.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Few of Butterfield\u2019s arguments on these topics will be novel to readers familiar with the past half-century of culture war and intra-evangelical debate over women\u2019s roles. Lie 1 gets the longest treatment and includes autobiography about Butterfield\u2019s years in a lesbian relationship before her conversion.<\/p>\n The two chapters devoted to Lie 2 are largely given over to a story of lost friendship and an extensive recounting of a lecture from Butterfield\u2019s former pastor on the storyline of Scripture. Only three pages (122\u2013125) directly address the claim in question. Nor does she elaborate on an intriguing turn of phrase\u2014paganism \u201cthat wears the clothes of Christianity\u201d\u2014which could mean the syncretism of ill-discipled Christian faith with self-help spirituality, or maybe something like the post-Protestantism of Joseph Bottum\u2019s An Anxious Age<\/em><\/a>, or maybe both or neither.<\/p>\n Tackling Lie 3, Butterfield selects Jesus and John Wayne<\/em><\/a> author Kristin Kobes Du Mez as her primary foil. She might have strengthened this section by tilting at opponents who align with her thinking, apart from questions of women\u2019s roles: namely evangelical egalitarians who are theologians, not historians like Du Mez, and who share Butterfield\u2019s views on biblical authority. I won\u2019t do Butterfield the dishonor of assuming her unfamiliar with egalitarian arguments. But I will say that, as an egalitarian<\/em>, I could in good conscience take the vow about biblical infallibility she describes taking, and I don\u2019t recognize my views in these pages.<\/p>\n Moreover, Butterfield could have been more careful about specifying the type of feminism she deplores. Feminists want equality with men so badly they\u2019ll deny \u201cbasic biology,\u201d she writes. \u201cUnder feminism, men and women are interchangeable.\u201d This is true of some feminists, no doubt, but it can hardly be said of others, like the gender-critical feminists<\/a> whose stance on transgenderism resembles Butterfield\u2019s own.<\/p>\n Like Lie 1, Lies 4 and 5 offer few surprises. One in the former is Butterfield\u2019s distinction \u201cbetween an illness (gender dysphoria) and an ideology (transgenderism),\u201d a contrast I wasn\u2019t sure she\u2019d draw. And in the latter, I appreciated her case that social media misuse is a kind of immodesty, as well as her sharp connection of modesty to our blurry digital line between public and private.<\/p>\n That wasn\u2019t all I appreciated. Butterfield\u2019s insistence on the development of virtue in the Christian life, her castigation of celebrity pastors who neglect their over-large flocks, her assumption that Christians won\u2019t ostracize loved ones over culture-war disagreements, and her condemnation of American civil religion are all points well made. Moreover, any reader who comes to Five Lies<\/em> as an unchurched culture warrior will not leave it ignorant of the gospel.<\/p>\n Beyond that, throughout Five Lies<\/em>, Butterfield beats a steady and needful drum of encouragement to commit to a healthy local church and submit to sound pastoral authority. \u201cMy prayer,\u201d she writes, \u201cis that our generation would be known for faithful prayer, fervent worship, diligent church membership, and sacrificial hospitality, blessed by and magnified by the Holy Spirit.\u201d My prayer is the same.<\/p>\n She is also correct that implicit beliefs about biblical authority\u2014often unexamined\u2014undergird many of the debates Five Lies<\/em> reviews. If you are unconvinced of biblical truth, Butterfield cautions, \u201cthen the minute the Bible crosses you \u2026 you will declare [that offending part] an ancient bias and no longer binding.\u201d<\/p>\n Finally, Butterfield\u2019s regular exhortations to repentance are admirable. And whether or not one agrees with her judgment, she shows a welcome willingness to admit error in explaining why she no longer uses preferred pronouns that conflict with biological sex<\/a>. If there is one thing we in the chattering class need in greater supply, it is honest acknowledgement of our public mistakes.<\/p>\n I did not expect to conclude Five Lies<\/em> in total agreement with Butterfield and am not interested in rehearsing my expected disagreements. But I do want to examine three aspects of the book which left me troubled.<\/p>\n The first pertains to Butterfield\u2019s view of Scripture. In the appendix, which offers \u201cGuiding Principles for How to Read the Bible,\u201d she writes:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n The apostle Peter addresses the relationship between the human authors of Scripture and the Holy Spirit when he says, \u201cNo prophecy of Scripture comes from someone\u2019s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit\u201d (2 Pet. 1:20\u201321). Because of the Holy Spirit\u2019s role and authentication, we can be confident that the word of God is a \u201cpermanent embodiment\u201d of Christ himself.<\/strong> (emphasis mine)<\/p>\n
\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Describing the Bible as the \u201cpermanent embodiment\u201d of Jesus is odd, at the very least. Jesus is already permanently embodied, post-Resurrection, in his glorified human body (Luke 24:39, 1 Cor. 15:42, Phil. 3:21). When Christians speak of the \u201cbody of Christ,\u201d we mean the church, not Scripture (1 Cor. 12:27). And though we speak of Jesus as \u201cthe Word\u201d (John 1) and the Bible as \u201cthe word of God\u201d (2 Cor. 2:17), they are not the same word, and we do not worship the Bible. It is Jesus who is \u201cthe radiance of God\u2019s glory and the exact representation of his being,\u201d a fuller revelation than God\u2019s words \u201cto our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways\u201d (Heb. 1:1\u20133).<\/p>\n Butterfield\u2019s use of quotation marks around \u201cpermanent embodiment\u201d made me wonder if she had a reference in mind, though there is no footnote provided. I believe her intended reference may be a 2013 article<\/a> from pastor Nicholas Batzig, whom Butterfield cites elsewhere in the book.<\/p>\n In that article, Batzig uses the same phrase\u2014but, crucially, the directionality is reversed. Where Butterfield says the Bible embodies Christ, Batzig says the Old Testament law finds \u201cpermanent embodiment\u201d in Christ through his perfect fulfillment of its requirements. Batzig\u2019s directionality has sound biblical basis (Matt. 5:17); I\u2019m doubtful the same can be said of Butterfield\u2019s version.<\/p>\n A second area where I would have welcomed greater clarity concerns the question of whether a true Christian can endorse (or live out) any of the positions Butterfield dismisses as lies, either in whole or in part. Several times, she explicitly allows that disagreement is possible among believers\u2014but many comments throughout the book suggest the opposite.<\/p>\n On the one hand, Butterfield recognizes the existence of \u201cChristian[s] struggling with homosexuality.\u201d She acknowledges that \u201cChristians do disagree on matters of doctrine,\u201d and that salvation does not depend on our theology, including belief in biblical inerrancy. She confesses that she personally \u201ccontinued to believe some of [the lies] for years into my Christian life.\u201d Most conclusively, she affirms \u201cthere are true believers who affiliate with gay Christianity,\u201d even if \u201cto their own harm.\u201d<\/p>\n But on the other hand, Butterfield repeatedly uses \u201cprofessing Christian\u201d and similar phrases to suggest there are many who claim Christ but, as revealed by their beliefs about sex and gender, aren\u2019t actually saved. She says \u201cgay Christian\u201d is \u201can oxymoron if there ever was one\u201d and \u201cthere is truly no such thing as a \u2018transgendered Christian,\u2019 if by this term we mean [someone] celebrating a transgendered identity as somehow honoring to Christ or the church.\u201d Butterfield rejects the whole \u201cgay Christian movement\u201d\u2014including figures like Wesley Hill who say marriage is reserved for opposite-sex couples and commit themselves to celibacy. It \u201cpresents a false religion,\u201d she alleges, \u201ca different religion from biblical Christianity.\u201d<\/p>\n Is this a deliberate tension\u2014a push toward \u201cfear and trembling\u201d (Phil. 2:12\u201313)\u2014or just a lack of precision? The most generous interpretation I can make is that Butterfield is holding fast to Christ as the foundation of a Christian\u2019s identity. One passage supports this read well:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Union with Christ demands that Christ has exclusive claims on his redeemed people. Indeed, you do yourself great harm if you insist on holding two forms of self-representation\u2014sexual and spiritual. Both forms of self-representation compete for the same thing: your loyalty, your heart, your sense of self, your faith. Homosexual identity is incompatible with union with Christ because there is no dual citizenship for a Christ follower.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But other parts make that interpretation difficult. When Butterfield defines a \u201ctransgendered Christian\u201d as someone \u201ccelebrating a transgendered identity as somehow honoring to Christ or the church,\u201d this leaves room for people who don\u2019t themselves identify as transgender. Likewise, her description of the \u201cgay Christian movement\u201d includes many people who don\u2019t identify as gay. Does Butterfield doubt their salvation or not? I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n My final concern is Butterfield\u2019s tendency, from the first page of her introduction, to overstate the prevalence and scope of institutional capture, by which I mean the transformation<\/a> of some commonly respected organization or profession \u201cinto a mouthpiece for an ideology.\u201d<\/p>\n She starts with a theoretical story of you, the reader, going to a \u201cbig warehouse grocery store.\u201d In the parking lot, \u201ca brother in the Lord\u201d yells \u201cBigot!\u201d or \u201cHater!\u201d as you pass with your children. Screens inside show a news report about \u201cintersectionality and gay Christianity,\u201d and the reporter declares \u201cfull-scale war against heteronormativity.\u201d The Costco staffer checking membership cards \u201cshak[es] her fists in rage\u201d over your misgendering (saying \u201cmiss\u201d) and shrieks, \u201cYour heteronormativity abuses me!\u201d Then, the kicker: \u201cThis is real life, but it feels like you inhabit the pages of a dystopian novel.\u201d<\/p>\n But that\u2019s the thing: It\u2019s not<\/em> real life. Store televisions play inoffensive videos of flowers and food designed to show off their HD tech, and a store clerk literally shaking her fists and screaming at a random mom about heteronormativity would be caught on camera and shamed on Twitter for days. Were this play staged on social media, I\u2019d believe it\u2014but Butterfield didn\u2019t present it as an indictment of digital larping, cruelty, and radicalization. She staged it in Costco.<\/p>\n A similar dynamic reoccurs several times in Five Lies<\/em>. For example, while discussing brain-sex theory<\/a>, Butterfield asks how you might discover the supposed sex of your brain. \u201cGoogle is there to help,\u201d she writes, \u201cand to manipulate with an online quiz.\u201d But \u201cGoogle\u201d here means one of probably millions of results the search engine will return if you ask for something like \u201cbrain-sex quiz.\u201d Butterfield\u2019s footnote refers to brainfall.com, a low-budget BuzzFeed imitator with no affiliation to the tech giant.<\/p>\n More seriously, Butterfield says \u201cbathrooms in government schools are coed by law\u201d and claims this is \u201cfederally enforced.\u201d It\u2019s true that the Obama<\/a> and Biden<\/a> administrations have pushed public schools to allow students to \u201caccess sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity,\u201d but this is not a federal \u201claw,\u201d and it is not \u201cenforced.\u201d On the contrary, in our federalist system, bathroom bills are passed at the state and municipal level, and many of them<\/a> require people to use the space corresponding to their biological sex.<\/p>\n In a similar confusion, while discussing Obergefell v. Hodges <\/em>(2015), the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage, Butterfield appears to mistake an amicus brief (a paper giving the justices advice which carries no legal weight of its own) with the court\u2019s legally binding decision. She writes that the \u201ccourt declared opposition to gay marriage a discriminatory act of \u2018animus\u2019 (hatred)\u201d\u2014but the Obergefell<\/em> decision<\/a> does not include that word.<\/p>\n Butterfield\u2019s footnote points to a Washington Post<\/em>article describing<\/a> an amicus brief, and she also neglects to mention that the legal meaning of animus<\/em>, in the context of civil rights law, concerns only<\/a> the behavior of state officials acting in their official capacity. That is, even if the Obergefell<\/em> ruling had explicitly invoked animus, it wouldn\u2019t have applied to private citizens\u2019 opposition to gay marriage, like Butterfield\u2019s own. It isn\u2019t illegal to believe marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples\u2014and to say so as loudly and as often as you like.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are to rule in the midst of our enemies,\u201d Butterfield reflects toward the end of the book, referring to Psalm 110:2. \u201cBut what are we to rule? Who? How? It feels like no one listens to us anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s a plaintive line, and one which makes sense of these overstatements of institutional capture. That\u2019s not to suggest Butterfield is wrong in her basic observation that American cultural norms on sex and gender have changed at lightning speed in living memory. But it is to say that the change is not as complete<\/a> as Butterfield imagines, that many institutional safeguards of religious liberty are holding strong<\/a>, and that a soldier heading to battle should want an accurate lay of the land.<\/p>\n Butterfield herself points to a better way: \u201cThings have changed\u2014and we need to discern how those changes impact our lives. But the gospel hasn\u2019t changed. God hasn\u2019t changed. Here at the Butterfields\u2019, the gospel still comes with a house key.\u201d<\/p>\n Bonnie Kristian is the editorial director of ideas and books at Christianity Today<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/div>\nThe five lies<\/h5>\n
Encouragements and exhortations<\/h5>\n
The Bible and the body of Christ<\/h5>\n
True believers<\/h5>\n
An accurate lay of the land<\/h5>\n