I really enjoyed this talk, super helpful to hear Sandy’s perspective, and Brenna’s thoughts were really helpful too. The post script was where I started scratching my head. If we all agree that the article was the worst 800 words of the entire book, and that’s all that we had access to so far, why put Twitter-cancel-culture on blast for reacting the way it did? The twitterverse was simply reacting to what was put in front of them.
Yes, exactly. The excerpt, as a stand alone piece, was terrible. Not only in its lack of context, but also because elements of the analogy were just plain false. We should be commending people for recognising and calling out bad and potentially harmful writing. I understand that those who have read the whole book and endorsed it want people to understand the article was not a good representation, but the blame for the misrepresentation lies solely with those who selected the excerpt.
He wasn't addressing twitter as much as Christians in general, and there's never an excuse for Christians to be like the twitterverse. We are supposed to be different. It's GOOD to ask questions and voice concerns, but in the body of Christ at least that should be bolstered by love and followed by some desire to seek clarity and understanding from a brother/sister in Christ we don't know personally... rather than quickly getting the pitchforks and torches and getting on the hate train. There are times hard measures need to be taken, but it's not via reaction to an excerpt posted on a website (even if that excerpt could have been more wisely chosen). We should be slow to anger, and we generally still suck at that as a whole.
I really appreciated this discussion. It was good to get to know Josh a little and also hear the opinion of a SA survivor who has read the whole book. I was disappointed Josh and Sandra didn't get to Ephesians 5 because I was really looking forward to their thoughts on that passage. I read the excerpt when it was published online and was disgusted. Not because of the explicit language but because of the "glorification of ejaculation" and recognising the potential for enabling abuse. Then I read the intro and first chapter that TGC posted for context. While this convinced me that Josh was probably a genuinely decent guy with good intentions, it did nothing to improve my opinion of his work. For example, framing prostitution as chiefly a woman's sin is so incredibly wrong. I also found reading it quite clunky due to all of the caveats he expressed and it left me thinking, "if you have to include that many caveats are you really on the right track?" I completely agree with your opinion, Preston, that the first chapter should have come much later in the book, after the reader had the broader context of the theology of marriage. One of my chief personal criticisms was that both the excerpt and first chapter as a stand alone spoke of sex divorced from relationship. Of course it's going to sound ugly and crude without that broader context because sex is supposed to be an expression of that relationship. Of course, this selection also had the effect of glorifying male pleasure and dismissing female pleasure. Not only in its gross lack of context, but in framing ejaculation (which necessitates male pleasure) as a gift and sacrifice because in reality it is neither of those things. It can only be a gift if the couple wants to have a child, and in that case both are offering this gift to each other because the woman contributes just as much "seed" as the man. And the one who sacrifices their body for this to happen is the woman! Josh's theology here was completely out of step with biological reality. These are the issues I would really like to see discussed, because a broader context does not change the fact he is incorrect. I think we have to recognise that the imagery used in the Bible reflected the relatively poor understanding of biology at that time, which puts significant limitations on how we extrapolate it. And Preston, the immediate, negative reactions you speak of don't only come from a place of pain, but primarily from a place of wanting to protect others from that same pain and suffering. They are the ones who immediately saw the abusive potential of the article - they see it a lot sooner than anyone else because they have experienced it - and they rightly wanted to sound the alarm. I think we need to recognise that too. I am glad the article was pulled from the internet so quickly, as well as the first chapter. By themselves they give such a false impression and could easily be weaponised. I am sorry that Josh lost his position with TGC though. I feel he has been scapegoated by TGC to avoid addressing the issues that so desperately need to be addressed. I can't help suspect they chose that excert for the shock factor. Sex sells, right? At any rate, if Josh deserved to lose his position, so did lots of other people. But I would much prefer to see an open, respectful dialogue. Thank you for taking one of the first steps in this direction Preston.
@rachel Thanks so much for your cogent and balanced response. With the odd exception, I've found the discussion - especially the Josh-fandom - in this comment section lazy and disappointing. I'm grateful that Preston created the space for this conversation (I was ignorant of the controversy) but as you pointed out, some key issues are side-stepped. I'm frustrated by a lot of JRB's response. I think he doesn't show enough humility, with the exception of him hinting at hubris at the end of the i/view. Even if the excerpt was taken out of context, he still wrote it and it's still incriminating, whether or not there are mitigating factors elsewhere in the book. He needs to take responsibility for that and apologise. I find it disingenuous when he characterises critiques as mere prudishness. As Preston himself pointed out, the explicitness is not so much the issue as the phallocentric nature of that excerpt. Brenna is almost too charitable not holding JRB accountable for that enough. Dr Richter's contributions are thought-provoking although I think the pagan parallels are overstated. I am glad she read that quote from the egalitarian academic and I liked her hamster observation ;P
100% agree with Josh about porn culture making us squeamish about sex. Indeed, Sandy seems to be suffering from this. And the fact that ancient pagan cultures had an intuition about the symbolism of the sexual act is a feature, not a bug, in my opinion. Yes, they perverted it, it obviously did not belong in the temple. That’s exactly why God laws in Leviticus were so severe. But that doesn’t take away from the nested-ness of the symbolism. It’s just mind boggling to me when people refuse to see that we live in a symbolic world. Especially when Christians can’t see it. Christianity with out a symbolic lens is like living almost as an atheist would, just with some arbitrary story about my sins being forgiven by a a guy on a cross. No wonder Christianity seems so ridiculous to atheists!
I don't know when parts of the Christian church are going to wake up to sound biblical scholarship. The presuppositions, misogyny, cultural prejudice read into interpretation, lack of cultural context, and church history is astounding, not to mention the constant gaslighting. I'm thankful for Dr. Richter in this discussion.
As a woman who grew up in purity culture, I had a LOT to work through in my marriage because of so much nonsense I learned growing up- so, to put it plainly, I did not like the TGC article and the notable absence of female pleasure represented in it. However, I respect Brenna a lot, and I will give the book a chance. My tendency is to agree with Dr. Richter on the sacramental aspect, however.
This was great to watch. Loved Brenna's comments about needing to read the full book before making judgements about it. Only a bachelor's degree and she's outdoing the scholars on intellectual integrity, she's going places. Josh, what a well-defended thesis. I wish Sandy could have articulated some more of her own thoughts instead of name dropping ANE scholars and quoting other's criticisms... That was difficult to witness. Thanks, Preston for making this happen, way to walk in a different spirit than the (evangelical) world.
Excellent! Thank you for the wonderful dialogue. I really appreciate everyone’s posture in sharing their position. I was so disappointed that another podcast I have enjoyed did not show the same grace and willingness to read the book. Thank you Preston!
Josh was constantly defensive with Sandy, waiting for her pauses to tee up his flurries of rebuttals. That is a strong skill that lacks humility. I'm sitting here thinking, "Josh, do you hear the seriousness of what she is saying about your theology"??? Are you sobered - at all - that she might be right"? No. He could not bear to even say, "you might be right, I. might be wrong on this, I'll think about it more, thank you". Secondly, I am thankful for Brenna's response and acceptance of the book, it was helpful for me to hear. But she does not represent the problem Josh needs to humbly face - a giant swath of victims, who also read the entire book, and who are still deeply offended by it, and who would be willing to confront him just as graciously as Sandy did. Therefore, there was not even the potential for Josh to say, "wow, I am so sorry, I don't know how I could have missed this, missed you and SO many others. I need to spend time looking deeper into how in the world I was so blind. That is on ME, not my review committee or TGC. I need to reflect more deeply on what I am not seeing in myself". Nothing. Why not? Apparently, he feels no need to step back and consider there was anything deeply wrong with his practical theology. Step Back, Take Time, and Reconsider Josh. Please.
Did we listen/watch the same video did bre response not convict you at all in any way have you read the book yourself. I think your comment shows the exact problem with evangelicals incapability to deal with controversial issues. Christian like yourself want to stay angry and mad and don't even try to be compassionate or understanding and that's just not how theology should be done or how a Christian should be like. This discussion is exactly what the church needed.
Lastly, and I will say no more. If this is his (Josh's) idea or TGC's idea of male leadership, they can have it and keep it. This is not leadership, it's selfishness. I cannot and will not follow men like this. I will pray for him and them. They are hurting real people and they are so intetested in making sure they are "leading" that they don't care and that is not leading at all. 😢
Excellent. Everyone was fantastic. Thanks for putting this together. It's difficult to make a serious argument - when considering the whole body of Scripture - that one flesh isn't about the conjugal union in a fundamental and fully biblical way. F.M. Cross is a heavyweight in this argument, to be sure, but having read John Paull II Theology of the Body, I move more in his direction. Dr. Sprinkle nuanced the conversation very well in every area. I also believe that the ancient pagan's misuse of the sacrament may be a broken signpost (ala Tom Wright) designed to point us toward union that only a thoroughly biblical framework can provide and redeemed. Candidly - I've been exploring the theology of the body for some time, though I am a Protestant. So, I tend to sense Josh's take is the right one. "Marriage shows the shape of the Gospel. Singleness shows us the sufficiency of the Gospel." That is such a powerful quote. I appreciate Dr. Richter's rationale that helps differentiate what it means to be Catholic and Protestant. I wonder if she is overreaching? - though others would say the same thing about Josh :^). I also love her expertise on the ANE! I think that comment "we are all female in relationship to God" is from C.S. Lewis (That Hideous Strenght) - not sure about that. The pornification of our culture is a real issue. We've run from eros because we've been distorted by pornea. Brenna, thank you, thank you, thank you! Your honesty about your lens and concerns about where modern Christianity is are so powerful!! Your point about the Gospel Coalition is valid, and they should be called to respond publically regarding the type of narrative they were trying to push. Based on what I heard here, everything about how the Gospel Coalition handled this is troubling. It would be nice to hear one of them respond to this podcast. I appreciate Josh owing his complicity in the problem as well. Dr. Sprinkle, I also appreciate the final 20 minutes where you share your opinion regarding the entirety of the work and your concerns with the specificity or particularities, theologically speaking. I just preordered the book. Look forward to reading it and reacting to the work as a whole! Always learning and always growing. Everyone, Thanks again!!
Helpful discussion. I do think our current (and past) evangelical atmosphere has contributed to blindness. For example, a current publication in Christian marriage world actually uses the phrase “breast fairy” when describing a young woman’s early physical maturing and goes on to basically dismiss the sexual advances she received because of it. I think we need to do better.
Sandy Richter and Randolph Richards have been most impressive in your conversations. Confident in their spheres of expertise and not willing to push beyond the evidence.
@50:34. Yes BUT he doesn't argue that Song of Songs brings the sex act into the temple. The problem is that Josh brings it into the temple. The Bible does not do that anyway. @the one hour mark Brenna says that very few people were willing to "teach" why it was wrong based on the context. To that I say, TGC did give us the first chapter and many many people taught about why this was wrong theologically. I'm glad Brenna felt seen and heard after reading the entire book, but that doesn't change any of the theological problems in the 1st chapter. And at 1:10. Bro....it's not the language itself that was gross....it's that this ISNT a romcom...this isn't high school ....this is a depiction of the gospel. The language gave me a sensation for a brief second that I was being violated by God Himself. It's like when Trump said that one thing and everyone was all..."oh you can't hear the word p***y?" NO BRO....it's the word GRAB. I feel like Josh did not take responsibility here whatsoever and that's a shame.
How, exactly, is Josh bringing the sex act into the temple? What a ridiculous perspective. The fact that ancient pagan cultures had an intuition about the symbolism of the sexual act is a feature, not a bug, in my opinion. Yes, they perverted it, it obviously did not belong in the temple. That’s exactly why God laws in Leviticus were so severe. But that doesn’t take away from the nested-ness of the symbolism. It’s just mind boggling to me when people refuse to see that we live in a symbolic world. Especially when Christians can’t see it. Christianity with out a symbolic lens is like living almost as an atheist would, just with some arbitrary story about my sins being forgiven by a a guy on a cross. No wonder Christianity seems so ridiculous to atheists!
@@janethorsman194 I am fully able to see symbolism Janet. Just because something is symbololic doesn't mean that symbol is good or Holy. Ancient Judaism and its Temple practices had ZERO sexual symbols or acts involved. None! This was vastly different then the pagan religions of its time. We cannot and should not now bring sex (actually or symbolically) into the Temple of God. Let's look at Butler's wording: "He is not only with his beloved but within his beloved. He enters the SANCTUARY of his spouse, where he puts out his deepest presence and bestows an OFFERING, a gift, a sign of his pilgrimage, ....." (Emphasis added). And later .. "The bride embraces her most intimate guest on the THRESHOLD of her dwelling place and welcomes into the SANCTUARY of her very self. She gladly receives the warmth of his presence and accepts the SACRIFICIAL OFFERING he bestows upon the ALTAR within her MOST HOLY PLACE" (emphasis added). If this is not bringing the sex act into the temple, (even the Most Holy Place) symbolic or otherwise, I don't know what is!?!
@@annlowry9841, you’ve just demonstrated that you CAN’T see symbolism. If Josh were saying this act should be done in the temple, then I would have a problem. He doesn’t. Good grief. Describing the sexual act in an analogous manner in relation to the temple is NOT bringing it into the temple! I’ve come to the conclusion that you either perceive symbolism or you don’t. It’s like those old pictures that you stared at and another picture popped out. Some could see it, some couldn’t. I give up. 🙄
@@annlowry9841 by the way, you should read the passage in John 4 about the Samaritan woman at the well in Greek. Jesus uses very sexual language in the original Greek. That’ll really mess you up. 😂
i was listening on my phone and had to pause to make this comment . One flesh in most of Christian Africa is seen as a euphemism for congujal rights and spiritual unity. i don't have any data for this but i don't know anyone who will say that it was just about husband and wife becoming kin.
Dr. Richter is wrong about F. M. Cross in that he does not have a "lifetime career" in studying "fictive kinship". That's really an idea that comes from anthropology. Its problematic also to refer to these concepts as rooted in "tribalism". The correct term is collectivism. But the deeper point is that it really doesn't matter how Genesis intends that phrase. What's at stake here is how Paul interprets the phrase theologically, and Josh is on target here as Paul does use the "one flesh" category to include interaction with prostitutes, which would have carried no obligation to include the prostitute in one's kin group.
My PhD traced the theiology of sacred space through the Pentateuch, from Eden to Tabernacle to Temple. In three years of reading I never once came across one single scholar who suggested the temple/tabernacle was symbolic of the female reproductive system. Not one book, not one article, not one scholar, because that theology simply isn't there in the OT. The "fruitfulness" and "productivity of the land" blessings at the close of Leviticus and similar texts are standard features of covenants in the ANE. To read human sexuality into these passages is incredible - but aparently it's the people interpreting Butler's work who are "pornified"? Good grief. And there's language remeniscent of the temple in Song of Songs? Ok, that merely suggests that the sex act between husband and wife is sacred, which every Christian would agree with. It hardly suggests that intercourse is a picture of the gospel. Dr. Richter is right to call this out as pagan. At the very least what I heard from Butler is eisegesis at its full height - and surprise, surprise - the results are damaging on all fronts. What we have here is a ringside seat into the reason why we should never go further than Scripture.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not simply sufficient, it is Complete. Sufficiency denotes lesser power not more. It is the most powerful message in the universe. The fact that I have to say this bothers me greatly. Singleness, divorce or widowhood do not make a person "sufficient in the Gospel." They are whole people b/c they are made by God and they are good, whole people under a complete, real, loving Gospel. Stop this foolishness. You are hurting and effecting real people! No wonder we have people with insecurity, those who don't feel good enough or think they aren't good! When the very centers of Christian thought like TGC and Mr. Butler are pushing such things masked as "the gospel" to itself and the world. Stop this while there is still time.
1. As a former RC, imho, Catholic clergy are the last people to ask about sex. 2. He wrote THE WORDS of the excerpt. Even if the context explains his view better, EVERY part of your thesis is important. He wrote this as a male. You are reacting to it as a male. I am reacting as a woman who has not been abused, not raised on purity culture & not being a prude. Solely as a female, this is upsetting. It's objectifying. 3. TGC = hard complimentarianism. He knew that. He knows how women are being disdained by a lot of Christian men right now. No "I didn't know, that's not my frame." 4. This is a "popular reading" book. Editors & authors know you need a "hook" right off the bat to get readers interested. This sex imagery was the hook & he knows it.
Could it all be a gigantic underhand marketing plan from the get-go? It is very possible that TGC selected that particular excerpt with the goal of sparking outrage among from victims of abuse, rile us victims up, rile up our suppporters, and thus generate a massive discussion in Christendom so that almost everyone hears about the book. It is also possible that the publisher has intentionally engineered this, and guided TGC to publish that particular excerpt in order to generate massive debate so that more people will buy the book. I am cynical about Big EVA, as you can see.
Preston, you acknowledged the triggered pain which victims of abuse felt when they read the excerpt of Josh's chapter one, specifically "women who have been abused by men" (your words). I want you to know that it wasn't just women abused by men who felt massively triggered. I am a survivor of sexual abuse. My rapist was female. The first occasion took place when I was nine, and I was asleep when she began digitally raping me. I was MASSIVELY triggered by Josh's article. It took me more than a week to process the trigger. About ten days after reading the article I realised that I felt like I had been in a massive battle with the pagan god Priapus. If you don't know what that means, look it up on Wikipedia. Please, I beg you, do not think that only women abused by men were triggered by Josh's article. Do not speak that way either. By speaking that way, you are ignoring female victims of sexual abuse whose abusers were not male. And you are also ignoring male victims of sexual abuse. I appreciate you conducting this discussion and I really liked Sandy Richter's remarks as they fitted with my feeling that I'd been in a battle with a pagan god of the penis. You criticised a lot of what was tweeted by victims of abuse in response to Josh's article. But you did not criticise the tweets which were made by (mostly) men who were dissing the folks on twitter who were outraged by Josh's use of graphic sexual description for the theology of salvation. These men were saying, "Don't these people know that the bible uses graphic sexual language?" (as if we outraged people are stupid, or as if we hadn't read the bible much). Their language was unkind and rude to all who were triggered by Josh's article. The tweets of those people only added to my pain and outrage. I felt that these people had zero empathy for victims of sexual abuse, zero understanding of abuse and trauma, and zero willingness to learn about abuse and trauma. So, Preston, I want to ask you: Why did you not criticise the people who were tweeting those kinds of things? Lastly, a plea to all involved in this debate: Can we please stop using the term 'icon' (icon of God, icon of temple, etc) when refer to human sexuality and marriage. Christians have long been comfortable using the term 'type' / 'typology' when interpreting scripture. Let's just stick to type / typology and leave the term 'icon' to the Eastern Orthodox churches, where it has its own particular meaning. Jesus was a metaphorical theologian, not an iconographer. The Bible uses types, symbols and analogies; but it forbids the use of icons / graven images. The 'icon' approach to interpretation of scripture has led to much harm. For example, asserting that the foremost purpose of marriage is to "DISPLAY the covenant-keeping love of God" has led to many victims of domestic abuse feeling they must remain married to their abusers. See my article on this if you want more explanation: cryingoutforjustice.blog/2018/12/10/what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-is-it-to-display-christs-love-for-the-church/
Ummm…I quite like the word icon. Just because you have only experienced perverted, twisted and violent sex, does not mean that sex isn’t a holy thing. I 100% agree with Josh that Christian’s have let porn and Me Too culture completely overshadow God’s original design for sex. It’s very troubling. He’s describing the sexual act in an analogous manner towards the joining of Heaven and Earth, the joining of Christ and His Bride, the joining of creator God to his creation when all things will be made new. The fact that you can only see dirtiness in this is your problem, not his. And I say this as a victim of sexual abuse. Grow up.
Gosh I just love Dr. Sprinkle 's gaslighting at the end there. Take weeks to think and have conversations face to face. Ok sure my dude....because I can just go talk to Josh Butler or anyone at the GC face to face like you can. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic but that excerpt (which was not helped by the entirety of the first chapter) affected me so strongly that I nearly lost 20 years of sobriety. The language caused me (and I later found other women saying the same thing) to feel as if I was being sexually violated by God. It was the grossest feeling ever and I was horrified that I found other women who had the same sensation. Im sad Dr Sprinkle doesn't seem to get quite how badly the article affected some victims of sexual violence/abuse. Yes he touched on it but then downplayed it.
He thought we women were objecting because of his language in discussing "bodily fluids" as if we are simply too squeamish and dainty. He totally missed the heart of the objections. We are objecting to representation of the man's o**** as "sacrificial. And that-THAT is an icon of Christ's sacrificial love? This chapter was devastating and I don't care if the rest of the book is great.
@@elisabethedwards5511 Exactly. He said in chapter 1 that Rapists use force to "give" their sacrifice....and that is what ultimately devastated me. No rapist gave me anything. They only took.
Just because you all have only experienced perverted, twisted and violent sex, does not mean that sex isn’t a holy thing. I 100% agree with Josh that Christian’s have let porn and Me Too culture completely overshadow God’s original design for sex. It’s very troubling. He’s describing the sexual act in an analogous manner towards the joining of Heaven and Earth, the joining of Christ and His Bride, the joining of creator God to his creation when all things will be made new. The fact that you can only see dirtiness in this is your problem, not his. And I say this as a victim of sexual abuse. Grow up.
@@janethorsman194 hey Janet I waited until my wedding night to have sex with the love of my life who I have been happily married to for more than 20 years. My sex life is great. But if you need to decide what my sexual experiences have been without knowing me whatsoever so that you can feel powerful online then you go right ahead.
Just because it is only used in a marriage bond, doesn't mean it is only speaking of sexual union. It means much more IN that marriage bond. Josh is stripping the meaning and making it mean only part of its meaning.
several thoughts... first i wonder at 1.8K views how few people have made comments...it would be interesting the data on who all watched - demographics - how long... 2. Its interesting as i try an listen to so many different view points that with in peoples on micro verses if they speak to how terrible trans people are - 2K will just comment on agreement... and as of this 13 engagements.... wonder why? Structurally speaking it took 53 min before the passage that this whole topic was being discussed, was actually addressed (either assuming audience knew - Which if that was case - no need to - but you did) - 3. I so appreciate Brenna's take - all of the people throwing out not only vitreous comments but actually impacting his job with out even reading the work? In your follow up, you said he approved the usage of the passage??? That suddenly made me think of his sincerity ... He knew it would cause this upheaval in order to spark these kinds of conversation? Bad press is better then no press? Was he being self serving? 4. Dr. Sandy as someone not in one of your classes, like Brenna not an intellectual scholar, the way you speak, with arrogance, is why people stay away from Christians.. and the Church.... You should re-watch this, and not only do you tell others that some person is the word on the subject and therefore out of the others league to even question (Speaking to other learned people) , but several times you SPOKE to the audience of what they did not know - "this audience would not know..." I was unaware you were so in-tune with Prestons audience... 5. As far as i know of the passage being the topic or even the book ... the part i laughed at was the line with the man gives his "gift".... not knowing all of the book, I wonder what man on the planet actually believes when they ejaculate it is a "gift"... and maybe that is where the push back comes from... I do not think any man that thinks his orgasm produces a "gift" for someone else... again.. prob out of context...
Good exploration of the issues. Now if we are to become the Bride of Christ …given Josh’s logic wouldn’t it follow that men need to be transgendered into being and becoming ‘female’ to become his bride? to be as John Donne puts it be ‘ravished’ by this three ‘personed god’ ? Do men need to be transformed to be more feminine as on the whole women tend to be more spiritual than men ! Or is that taking it too far? 🤔😉
Josh has zero humility! Yes Sandy! Paganism, magic, all of the above. I will not participate with that and I won't follow those who do or who push it, so TGC I will no longer follow your content. I'll pray for him. I will not follow his voice.
Josh Butler's thesis sounds very pagan to me. It brings to mind pagan myths, Aleister Crowley and Sex Magick, and Children of God Cult Flirty Fishing. We are made in God's image and are bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made, but his ideas have no place in mainstream Protestantism.
Well Brenna's thoughts from around 53 minutes to about the hour mark really dropped my jaw. I wasn't expecting that.
I really enjoyed this talk, super helpful to hear Sandy’s perspective, and Brenna’s thoughts were really helpful too. The post script was where I started scratching my head. If we all agree that the article was the worst 800 words of the entire book, and that’s all that we had access to so far, why put Twitter-cancel-culture on blast for reacting the way it did? The twitterverse was simply reacting to what was put in front of them.
Yes, exactly. The excerpt, as a stand alone piece, was terrible. Not only in its lack of context, but also because elements of the analogy were just plain false.
We should be commending people for recognising and calling out bad and potentially harmful writing.
I understand that those who have read the whole book and endorsed it want people to understand the article was not a good representation, but the blame for the misrepresentation lies solely with those who selected the excerpt.
He wasn't addressing twitter as much as Christians in general, and there's never an excuse for Christians to be like the twitterverse. We are supposed to be different. It's GOOD to ask questions and voice concerns, but in the body of Christ at least that should be bolstered by love and followed by some desire to seek clarity and understanding from a brother/sister in Christ we don't know personally... rather than quickly getting the pitchforks and torches and getting on the hate train. There are times hard measures need to be taken, but it's not via reaction to an excerpt posted on a website (even if that excerpt could have been more wisely chosen). We should be slow to anger, and we generally still suck at that as a whole.
@@MrLlamajockey Amen
I really appreciated this discussion. It was good to get to know Josh a little and also hear the opinion of a SA survivor who has read the whole book. I was disappointed Josh and Sandra didn't get to Ephesians 5 because I was really looking forward to their thoughts on that passage.
I read the excerpt when it was published online and was disgusted. Not because of the explicit language but because of the "glorification of ejaculation" and recognising the potential for enabling abuse.
Then I read the intro and first chapter that TGC posted for context. While this convinced me that Josh was probably a genuinely decent guy with good intentions, it did nothing to improve my opinion of his work. For example, framing prostitution as chiefly a woman's sin is so incredibly wrong. I also found reading it quite clunky due to all of the caveats he expressed and it left me thinking, "if you have to include that many caveats are you really on the right track?"
I completely agree with your opinion, Preston, that the first chapter should have come much later in the book, after the reader had the broader context of the theology of marriage. One of my chief personal criticisms was that both the excerpt and first chapter as a stand alone spoke of sex divorced from relationship. Of course it's going to sound ugly and crude without that broader context because sex is supposed to be an expression of that relationship. Of course, this selection also had the effect of glorifying male pleasure and dismissing female pleasure. Not only in its gross lack of context, but in framing ejaculation (which necessitates male pleasure) as a gift and sacrifice because in reality it is neither of those things. It can only be a gift if the couple wants to have a child, and in that case both are offering this gift to each other because the woman contributes just as much "seed" as the man. And the one who sacrifices their body for this to happen is the woman! Josh's theology here was completely out of step with biological reality. These are the issues I would really like to see discussed, because a broader context does not change the fact he is incorrect. I think we have to recognise that the imagery used in the Bible reflected the relatively poor understanding of biology at that time, which puts significant limitations on how we extrapolate it.
And Preston, the immediate, negative reactions you speak of don't only come from a place of pain, but primarily from a place of wanting to protect others from that same pain and suffering. They are the ones who immediately saw the abusive potential of the article - they see it a lot sooner than anyone else because they have experienced it - and they rightly wanted to sound the alarm. I think we need to recognise that too.
I am glad the article was pulled from the internet so quickly, as well as the first chapter. By themselves they give such a false impression and could easily be weaponised. I am sorry that Josh lost his position with TGC though. I feel he has been scapegoated by TGC to avoid addressing the issues that so desperately need to be addressed. I can't help suspect they chose that excert for the shock factor. Sex sells, right? At any rate, if Josh deserved to lose his position, so did lots of other people. But I would much prefer to see an open, respectful dialogue. Thank you for taking one of the first steps in this direction Preston.
@rachel Thanks so much for your cogent and balanced response. With the odd exception, I've found the discussion - especially the Josh-fandom - in this comment section lazy and disappointing. I'm grateful that Preston created the space for this conversation (I was ignorant of the controversy) but as you pointed out, some key issues are side-stepped. I'm frustrated by a lot of JRB's response. I think he doesn't show enough humility, with the exception of him hinting at hubris at the end of the i/view. Even if the excerpt was taken out of context, he still wrote it and it's still incriminating, whether or not there are mitigating factors elsewhere in the book. He needs to take responsibility for that and apologise. I find it disingenuous when he characterises critiques as mere prudishness. As Preston himself pointed out, the explicitness is not so much the issue as the phallocentric nature of that excerpt. Brenna is almost too charitable not holding JRB accountable for that enough. Dr Richter's contributions are thought-provoking although I think the pagan parallels are overstated. I am glad she read that quote from the egalitarian academic and I liked her hamster observation ;P
100% agree with Josh about porn culture making us squeamish about sex. Indeed, Sandy seems to be suffering from this. And the fact that ancient pagan cultures had an intuition about the symbolism of the sexual act is a feature, not a bug, in my opinion. Yes, they perverted it, it obviously did not belong in the temple. That’s exactly why God laws in Leviticus were so severe. But that doesn’t take away from the nested-ness of the symbolism. It’s just mind boggling to me when people refuse to see that we live in a symbolic world. Especially when Christians can’t see it. Christianity with out a symbolic lens is like living almost as an atheist would, just with some arbitrary story about my sins being forgiven by a a guy on a cross. No wonder Christianity seems so ridiculous to atheists!
I don't know when parts of the Christian church are going to wake up to sound biblical scholarship. The presuppositions, misogyny, cultural prejudice read into interpretation, lack of cultural context, and church history is astounding, not to mention the constant gaslighting. I'm thankful for Dr. Richter in this discussion.
This was greatly needed: Faces, Context, and Discussion. Thank you Preston!
As a woman who grew up in purity culture, I had a LOT to work through in my marriage because of so much nonsense I learned growing up- so, to put it plainly, I did not like the TGC article and the notable absence of female pleasure represented in it. However, I respect Brenna a lot, and I will give the book a chance. My tendency is to agree with Dr. Richter on the sacramental aspect, however.
This was great to watch. Loved Brenna's comments about needing to read the full book before making judgements about it. Only a bachelor's degree and she's outdoing the scholars on intellectual integrity, she's going places. Josh, what a well-defended thesis. I wish Sandy could have articulated some more of her own thoughts instead of name dropping ANE scholars and quoting other's criticisms... That was difficult to witness. Thanks, Preston for making this happen, way to walk in a different spirit than the (evangelical) world.
Excellent! Thank you for the wonderful dialogue. I really appreciate everyone’s posture in sharing their position. I was so disappointed that another podcast I have enjoyed did not show the same grace and willingness to read the book. Thank you Preston!
Josh came across beautifully. I’ve just preordered his book. Thanks Preston for doing a great job
Josh was constantly defensive with Sandy, waiting for her pauses to tee up his flurries of rebuttals. That is a strong skill that lacks humility. I'm sitting here thinking, "Josh, do you hear the seriousness of what she is saying about your theology"??? Are you sobered - at all - that she might be right"? No. He could not bear to even say, "you might be right, I. might be wrong on this, I'll think about it more, thank you". Secondly, I am thankful for Brenna's response and acceptance of the book, it was helpful for me to hear. But she does not represent the problem Josh needs to humbly face - a giant swath of victims, who also read the entire book, and who are still deeply offended by it, and who would be willing to confront him just as graciously as Sandy did. Therefore, there was not even the potential for Josh to say, "wow, I am so sorry, I don't know how I could have missed this, missed you and SO many others. I need to spend time looking deeper into how in the world I was so blind. That is on ME, not my review committee or TGC. I need to reflect more deeply on what I am not seeing in myself". Nothing. Why not? Apparently, he feels no need to step back and consider there was anything deeply wrong with his practical theology. Step Back, Take Time, and Reconsider Josh. Please.
Did we listen/watch
the same video did bre response not convict you at all in any way have you read the book yourself.
I think your comment shows the exact problem with evangelicals incapability to deal with controversial issues.
Christian like yourself want to stay angry and mad and don't even try to be compassionate or understanding and that's just not how theology should be done or how a Christian should be like.
This discussion is exactly what the church needed.
Lastly, and I will say no more. If this is his (Josh's) idea or TGC's idea of male leadership, they can have it and keep it. This is not leadership, it's selfishness. I cannot and will not follow men like this. I will pray for him and them. They are hurting real people and they are so intetested in making sure they are "leading" that they don't care and that is not leading at all. 😢
Excellent. Everyone was fantastic.
Thanks for putting this together. It's difficult to make a serious argument - when considering the whole body of Scripture - that one flesh isn't about the conjugal union in a fundamental and fully biblical way.
F.M. Cross is a heavyweight in this argument, to be sure, but having read John Paull II Theology of the Body, I move more in his direction. Dr. Sprinkle nuanced the conversation very well in every area. I also believe that the ancient pagan's misuse of the sacrament may be a broken signpost (ala Tom Wright) designed to point us toward union that only a thoroughly biblical framework can provide and redeemed. Candidly - I've been exploring the theology of the body for some time, though I am a Protestant. So, I tend to sense Josh's take is the right one.
"Marriage shows the shape of the Gospel. Singleness shows us the sufficiency of the Gospel." That is such a powerful quote.
I appreciate Dr. Richter's rationale that helps differentiate what it means to be Catholic and Protestant. I wonder if she is overreaching? - though others would say the same thing about Josh :^). I also love her expertise on the ANE!
I think that comment "we are all female in relationship to God" is from C.S. Lewis (That Hideous Strenght) - not sure about that.
The pornification of our culture is a real issue. We've run from eros because we've been distorted by pornea.
Brenna, thank you, thank you, thank you! Your honesty about your lens and concerns about where modern Christianity is are so powerful!! Your point about the Gospel Coalition is valid, and they should be called to respond publically regarding the type of narrative they were trying to push. Based on what I heard here, everything about how the Gospel Coalition handled this is troubling. It would be nice to hear one of them respond to this podcast. I appreciate Josh owing his complicity in the problem as well.
Dr. Sprinkle, I also appreciate the final 20 minutes where you share your opinion regarding the entirety of the work and your concerns with the specificity or particularities, theologically speaking.
I just preordered the book. Look forward to reading it and reacting to the work as a whole!
Always learning and always growing.
Everyone, Thanks again!!
Very good podcast, thanks Preston for organizing this. We don't have agee
Thanks for this discussion. It was good to hear the nuance and the background. Keep up the good work.
Helpful discussion. I do think our current (and past) evangelical atmosphere has contributed to blindness. For example, a current publication in Christian marriage world actually uses the phrase “breast fairy” when describing a young woman’s early physical maturing and goes on to basically dismiss the sexual advances she received because of it. I think we need to do better.
Sandy Richter and Randolph Richards have been most impressive in your conversations. Confident in their spheres of expertise and not willing to push beyond the evidence.
35:00 are you sure? sandy's leading point was shown to be not supported by the evidence and it didn't make a dent.
@50:34. Yes BUT he doesn't argue that Song of Songs brings the sex act into the temple. The problem is that Josh brings it into the temple. The Bible does not do that anyway.
@the one hour mark Brenna says that very few people were willing to "teach" why it was wrong based on the context. To that I say, TGC did give us the first chapter and many many people taught about why this was wrong theologically. I'm glad Brenna felt seen and heard after reading the entire book, but that doesn't change any of the theological problems in the 1st chapter.
And at 1:10. Bro....it's not the language itself that was gross....it's that this ISNT a romcom...this isn't high school ....this is a depiction of the gospel. The language gave me a sensation for a brief second that I was being violated by God Himself.
It's like when Trump said that one thing and everyone was all..."oh you can't hear the word p***y?" NO BRO....it's the word GRAB. I feel like Josh did not take responsibility here whatsoever and that's a shame.
How, exactly, is Josh bringing the sex act into the temple? What a ridiculous perspective. The fact that ancient pagan cultures had an intuition about the symbolism of the sexual act is a feature, not a bug, in my opinion. Yes, they perverted it, it obviously did not belong in the temple. That’s exactly why God laws in Leviticus were so severe. But that doesn’t take away from the nested-ness of the symbolism. It’s just mind boggling to me when people refuse to see that we live in a symbolic world. Especially when Christians can’t see it. Christianity with out a symbolic lens is like living almost as an atheist would, just with some arbitrary story about my sins being forgiven by a a guy on a cross. No wonder Christianity seems so ridiculous to atheists!
@@janethorsman194 I am fully able to see symbolism Janet. Just because something is symbololic doesn't mean that symbol is good or Holy. Ancient Judaism and its Temple practices had ZERO sexual symbols or acts involved. None! This was vastly different then the pagan religions of its time. We cannot and should not now bring sex (actually or symbolically) into the Temple of God.
Let's look at Butler's wording:
"He is not only with his beloved but within his beloved. He enters the SANCTUARY of his spouse, where he puts out his deepest presence and bestows an OFFERING, a gift, a sign of his pilgrimage, ....." (Emphasis added). And later ..
"The bride embraces her most intimate guest on the THRESHOLD of her dwelling place and welcomes into the SANCTUARY of her very self. She gladly receives the warmth of his presence and accepts the SACRIFICIAL OFFERING he bestows upon the ALTAR within her MOST HOLY PLACE" (emphasis added).
If this is not bringing the sex act into the temple, (even the Most Holy Place) symbolic or otherwise, I don't know what is!?!
@@annlowry9841, you’ve just demonstrated that you CAN’T see symbolism. If Josh were saying this act should be done in the temple, then I would have a problem. He doesn’t. Good grief. Describing the sexual act in an analogous manner in relation to the temple is NOT bringing it into the temple!
I’ve come to the conclusion that you either perceive symbolism or you don’t. It’s like those old pictures that you stared at and another picture popped out. Some could see it, some couldn’t. I give up. 🙄
@@annlowry9841 by the way, you should read the passage in John 4 about the Samaritan woman at the well in Greek. Jesus uses very sexual language in the original Greek. That’ll really mess you up. 😂
@@janethorsman194 it does symbolically (and figuratively) bring it into the temple....unless you do not believe that our bodies are temples.
Love this convo🙏🏼
i was listening on my phone and had to pause to make this comment . One flesh in most of Christian Africa is seen as a euphemism for congujal rights and spiritual unity. i don't have any data for this but i don't know anyone who will say that it was just about husband and wife becoming kin.
Dr. Richter is wrong about F. M. Cross in that he does not have a "lifetime career" in studying "fictive kinship". That's really an idea that comes from anthropology. Its problematic also to refer to these concepts as rooted in "tribalism". The correct term is collectivism. But the deeper point is that it really doesn't matter how Genesis intends that phrase. What's at stake here is how Paul interprets the phrase theologically, and Josh is on target here as Paul does use the "one flesh" category to include interaction with prostitutes, which would have carried no obligation to include the prostitute in one's kin group.
My PhD traced the theiology of sacred space through the Pentateuch, from Eden to Tabernacle to Temple. In three years of reading I never once came across one single scholar who suggested the temple/tabernacle was symbolic of the female reproductive system. Not one book, not one article, not one scholar, because that theology simply isn't there in the OT. The "fruitfulness" and "productivity of the land" blessings at the close of Leviticus and similar texts are standard features of covenants in the ANE. To read human sexuality into these passages is incredible - but aparently it's the people interpreting Butler's work who are "pornified"? Good grief. And there's language remeniscent of the temple in Song of Songs? Ok, that merely suggests that the sex act between husband and wife is sacred, which every Christian would agree with. It hardly suggests that intercourse is a picture of the gospel. Dr. Richter is right to call this out as pagan. At the very least what I heard from Butler is eisegesis at its full height - and surprise, surprise - the results are damaging on all fronts. What we have here is a ringside seat into the reason why we should never go further than Scripture.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not simply sufficient, it is Complete. Sufficiency denotes lesser power not more. It is the most powerful message in the universe. The fact that I have to say this bothers me greatly. Singleness, divorce or widowhood do not make a person "sufficient in the Gospel." They are whole people b/c they are made by God and they are good, whole people under a complete, real, loving Gospel. Stop this foolishness. You are hurting and effecting real people! No wonder we have people with insecurity, those who don't feel good enough or think they aren't good! When the very centers of Christian thought like TGC and Mr. Butler are pushing such things masked as "the gospel" to itself and the world. Stop this while there is still time.
1. As a former RC, imho, Catholic clergy are the last people to ask about sex.
2. He wrote THE WORDS of the excerpt. Even if the context explains his view better, EVERY part of your thesis is important. He wrote this as a male. You are reacting to it as a male. I am reacting as a woman who has not been abused, not raised on purity culture & not being a prude. Solely as a female, this is upsetting. It's objectifying.
3. TGC = hard complimentarianism. He knew that. He knows how women are being disdained by a lot of Christian men right now. No "I didn't know, that's not my frame."
4. This is a "popular reading" book. Editors & authors know you need a "hook" right off the bat to get readers interested. This sex imagery was the hook & he knows it.
Could it all be a gigantic underhand marketing plan from the get-go? It is very possible that TGC selected that particular excerpt with the goal of sparking outrage among from victims of abuse, rile us victims up, rile up our suppporters, and thus generate a massive discussion in Christendom so that almost everyone hears about the book. It is also possible that the publisher has intentionally engineered this, and guided TGC to publish that particular excerpt in order to generate massive debate so that more people will buy the book. I am cynical about Big EVA, as you can see.
Preston, I am curious about what Sandy means about these pagan ideas that trouble her being all over Canterbury evangelicalism.
Preston, you acknowledged the triggered pain which victims of abuse felt when they read the excerpt of Josh's chapter one, specifically "women who have been abused by men" (your words). I want you to know that it wasn't just women abused by men who felt massively triggered. I am a survivor of sexual abuse. My rapist was female. The first occasion took place when I was nine, and I was asleep when she began digitally raping me. I was MASSIVELY triggered by Josh's article. It took me more than a week to process the trigger. About ten days after reading the article I realised that I felt like I had been in a massive battle with the pagan god Priapus. If you don't know what that means, look it up on Wikipedia.
Please, I beg you, do not think that only women abused by men were triggered by Josh's article. Do not speak that way either. By speaking that way, you are ignoring female victims of sexual abuse whose abusers were not male. And you are also ignoring male victims of sexual abuse.
I appreciate you conducting this discussion and I really liked Sandy Richter's remarks as they fitted with my feeling that I'd been in a battle with a pagan god of the penis.
You criticised a lot of what was tweeted by victims of abuse in response to Josh's article. But you did not criticise the tweets which were made by (mostly) men who were dissing the folks on twitter who were outraged by Josh's use of graphic sexual description for the theology of salvation. These men were saying, "Don't these people know that the bible uses graphic sexual language?" (as if we outraged people are stupid, or as if we hadn't read the bible much). Their language was unkind and rude to all who were triggered by Josh's article. The tweets of those people only added to my pain and outrage. I felt that these people had zero empathy for victims of sexual abuse, zero understanding of abuse and trauma, and zero willingness to learn about abuse and trauma. So, Preston, I want to ask you: Why did you not criticise the people who were tweeting those kinds of things?
Lastly, a plea to all involved in this debate: Can we please stop using the term 'icon' (icon of God, icon of temple, etc) when refer to human sexuality and marriage. Christians have long been comfortable using the term 'type' / 'typology' when interpreting scripture. Let's just stick to type / typology and leave the term 'icon' to the Eastern Orthodox churches, where it has its own particular meaning. Jesus was a metaphorical theologian, not an iconographer. The Bible uses types, symbols and analogies; but it forbids the use of icons / graven images.
The 'icon' approach to interpretation of scripture has led to much harm. For example, asserting that the foremost purpose of marriage is to "DISPLAY the covenant-keeping love of God" has led to many victims of domestic abuse feeling they must remain married to their abusers. See my article on this if you want more explanation: cryingoutforjustice.blog/2018/12/10/what-is-the-purpose-of-marriage-is-it-to-display-christs-love-for-the-church/
Ummm…I quite like the word icon.
Just because you have only experienced perverted, twisted and violent sex, does not mean that sex isn’t a holy thing. I 100% agree with Josh that Christian’s have let porn and Me Too culture completely overshadow God’s original design for sex. It’s very troubling. He’s describing the sexual act in an analogous manner towards the joining of Heaven and Earth, the joining of Christ and His Bride, the joining of creator God to his creation when all things will be made new. The fact that you can only see dirtiness in this is your problem, not his. And I say this as a victim of sexual abuse. Grow up.
Thank you Sandy!! ❤
If not "disagreements" perhaps theological "hesitations" would be a good way to state your thoughts.
Gosh I just love Dr. Sprinkle 's gaslighting at the end there. Take weeks to think and have conversations face to face. Ok sure my dude....because I can just go talk to Josh Butler or anyone at the GC face to face like you can.
I'm not trying to be overly dramatic but that excerpt (which was not helped by the entirety of the first chapter) affected me so strongly that I nearly lost 20 years of sobriety. The language caused me (and I later found other women saying the same thing) to feel as if I was being sexually violated by God. It was the grossest feeling ever and I was horrified that I found other women who had the same sensation. Im sad Dr Sprinkle doesn't seem to get quite how badly the article affected some victims of sexual violence/abuse. Yes he touched on it but then downplayed it.
He thought we women were objecting because of his language in discussing "bodily fluids" as if we are simply too squeamish and dainty. He totally missed the heart of the objections.
We are objecting to representation of the man's o**** as "sacrificial. And that-THAT is an icon of Christ's sacrificial love?
This chapter was devastating and I don't care if the rest of the book is great.
@@elisabethedwards5511
Exactly. He said in chapter 1 that Rapists use force to "give" their sacrifice....and that is what ultimately devastated me. No rapist gave me anything. They only took.
Just because you all have only experienced perverted, twisted and violent sex, does not mean that sex isn’t a holy thing. I 100% agree with Josh that Christian’s have let porn and Me Too culture completely overshadow God’s original design for sex. It’s very troubling. He’s describing the sexual act in an analogous manner towards the joining of Heaven and Earth, the joining of Christ and His Bride, the joining of creator God to his creation when all things will be made new. The fact that you can only see dirtiness in this is your problem, not his. And I say this as a victim of sexual abuse. Grow up.
@@janethorsman194 hey Janet
I waited until my wedding night to have sex with the love of my life who I have been happily married to for more than 20 years. My sex life is great. But if you need to decide what my sexual experiences have been without knowing me whatsoever so that you can feel powerful online then you go right ahead.
Just because it is only used in a marriage bond, doesn't mean it is only speaking of sexual union. It means much more IN that marriage bond. Josh is stripping the meaning and making it mean only part of its meaning.
35:00 she should be embarrassed by that response. you are wrong sandy. so is harvard's best, apparently. own it.
several thoughts... first i wonder at 1.8K views how few people have made comments...it would be interesting the data on who all watched - demographics - how long... 2. Its interesting as i try an listen to so many different view points that with in peoples on micro verses if they speak to how terrible trans people are - 2K will just comment on agreement... and as of this 13 engagements.... wonder why? Structurally speaking it took 53 min before the passage that this whole topic was being discussed, was actually addressed (either assuming audience knew - Which if that was case - no need to - but you did) - 3. I so appreciate Brenna's take - all of the people throwing out not only vitreous comments but actually impacting his job with out even reading the work? In your follow up, you said he approved the usage of the passage??? That suddenly made me think of his sincerity ... He knew it would cause this upheaval in order to spark these kinds of conversation? Bad press is better then no press? Was he being self serving? 4. Dr. Sandy as someone not in one of your classes, like Brenna not an intellectual scholar, the way you speak, with arrogance, is why people stay away from Christians.. and the Church.... You should re-watch this, and not only do you tell others that some person is the word on the subject and therefore out of the others league to even question (Speaking to other learned people) , but several times you SPOKE to the audience of what they did not know - "this audience would not know..." I was unaware you were so in-tune with Prestons audience... 5. As far as i know of the passage being the topic or even the book ... the part i laughed at was the line with the man gives his "gift".... not knowing all of the book, I wonder what man on the planet actually believes when they ejaculate it is a "gift"... and maybe that is where the push back comes from... I do not think any man that thinks his orgasm produces a "gift" for someone else... again.. prob out of context...
Does anyone know I f the excerpt is still on the internet anywhere?
Catholic theology in a non-Catholic view. I don't get it. 🤷♀️
Your introductory remarks are much to long. Get to it!
Yes Sandy! Can we get away from mixing pagan religion with our Christian sex theology! Do your homework Josh. That's how I feel. 🤷♀️
You should read the book (;
Good exploration of the issues. Now if we are to become the Bride of Christ …given Josh’s logic wouldn’t it follow that men need to be transgendered into being and becoming ‘female’ to become his bride? to be as John Donne puts it be ‘ravished’ by this three ‘personed god’ ? Do men need to be transformed to be more feminine as on the whole women tend to be more spiritual than men ! Or is that taking it too far? 🤔😉
Josh has zero humility! Yes Sandy! Paganism, magic, all of the above. I will not participate with that and I won't follow those who do or who push it, so TGC I will no longer follow your content. I'll pray for him. I will not follow his voice.
Why is TGC pushing Catholic theology and why is he pushing tribalism in this book? 😵💫
I think staying away from Catholic theology would be a first thing to do. It is based in law and duty and ritual. Yes, how many vettings?
Josh Butler's thesis sounds very pagan to me. It brings to mind pagan myths, Aleister Crowley and Sex Magick, and Children of God Cult Flirty Fishing. We are made in God's image and are bodies are fearfully and wonderfully made, but his ideas have no place in mainstream Protestantism.
Josh could have smiled less, came across as smug.
i thought he was pretty restrained. he was doing laps on the old lady and she wasn't bright enough to recognize it.
@@jacquedegatineau9037 just could have acted a little more humble given his mistake
@@zzzaaayyynnn what was his mistake?
@@jacquedegatineau9037 Oh, the metaphors he used in his book ...
Please stop.