Book Review, Part 2: The Gospel Comes with a Housekey
Why I CANNOT recommend this book
This is Part 2 of a review of The Gospel Comes With A House Key by Rosaria Butterfield. You can read Part 1 here:
As I said, last week, TGCHK is layered. It is convicting at many points but tragically obtuse and contradictory at others. I’ve already pointed out much of the good in Part 1. In Part 2, I will call out the bad, summarized by four characteristics: 1) the open door she leaves for spiritual abuse, 2) the emphasis that only ‘biblical’ Christians can do any good, 3) the Calvinistic theology she offers contradicts her call for hospitality, and 4) the Reformed theology she offers contradicts the gospel. I will offer alternatives to make the hospitality calling more complete.
Only ‘Biblically-Based’ Christians Can Do Good
Rosaria will layer this book with confusing, contradictory and exclusionary content, like her defined purpose for radical ordinary hospitality (ROH), “The purpose of radically ordinary hospitality is to build, focus, deepen, and strengthen the family of God, pointing others to the Bible-believing local church, and being earthly and spiritual good to everyone we know.” (31) By local church, Rosaria has something very specific and exclusionary in mind, “First, we must live under the authority of God and church if we are to call others to live differently. We must be active, tithing members of a Bible-believing church, under her covenant of church membership, and willing to receive instruction and rebuke if needed. We must be teachable. We have no business calling our neighbors to live differently if we don’t.” (32, emphasis mine) If our hospitality does not point people to her standard of ‘church’ then does it cease being ROH? Presumably and unfortunately, yes by her standard. A more complete alternative is to be hospitable because you are a good neighbor. Therefore, press on home churches, those who donate or give outside of the church, as well as those who don’t agree with her theological tradition.
Regrettably, there is an assumption that if you do not agree with Rosaria’s theological perspectives then you DO NOT belive the Bible. Rosaria makes a strong distinction between ROH practiced by ‘biblical Christians’ and everyone else. I’ve found this exclusionary language typical from her theological tradition. Unfortunately, it can be self-righteous, distracting, and disappointing. Her tone is surprising from someone skeptical of ‘theme Christianity,’ the exclusionary, self-righteous, and un-Christlike offshoots of Christianity (55-57, 60-61, 95, 97). In the same chapters that she criticizes various denominations she also espouses the same characteristics. Maybe it is justified to do when you are ‘right.’ I would also point out the historical hypocrisies from folks in her tradition treating peoples as ‘image-bearers of a holy God.’ Oftentimes, it is the ‘liberal churches and non-Christian mercy communities’ (whom she wants to separate herself from) that display the image-bearer principle best.
On what grounds does she have the authority to label ‘social-gospel practices’ as not Bible-based? Rosaria emphatically states, “Bible-believing Christians do not believe that a shave and a meal help people in the long run – or atone for the sin nature of us all” (32). Her own theology contradicts the hospitality calling she wants Christians to follow. This may be true if salvation is a singular event in which a person’s salvation depends on your singular encounter with them. That seems to be a very self-centered way of viewing God’s providence and the order of salvation. Is that how Jesus viewed helping others? When I read the Bible, oftentimes Jesus just helped people and that was it. Later on, Rosaria seems to agree, “Hospitality reaches across worldview to be the bridge of gospel grace. Jesus did not come with self-defense. He came with bread. He came with fish. So too must we.” (208)
The section titled “Don’t Accuse of Ill Will People Who Hold to a Different Theology” in Chapter 3 is a bit confusing considering Rosaria has already made distinctions between ROH within Bible-believing churches (with membership covenants) and everyone else. She may not be explicitly accusing you of ill will; yet, for those with whom ‘our differences are incommensurable and that our core difference is how we read the Bible,’ those folks are inferior to her tribe (57). On her paradigm, theological differences become the foundation with which people can disapprove of other’s practices and judge their effectiveness. For example, when referring to allies she makes clear that, “We are not extending grace to people when we encourage them to sin against God” (58). This theological criterion is subjective. I am willing to bet folks within her own denomination would have much disagreement with her on what this looks like practically (see page 120).
It seems trifling to suggest, as I think she implies throughout TGCHK, that the difference between ‘help’ being right or wrong is theological tradition. One of the major takeaways from the book is “Christians cannot give good answers to bad questions.” One of the bad questions is “How can I love my neighbor without misleading them to think I approve of everything they do?” Rosaria’s response ‘love the sinner and hate your own sin (see Mark 9:50)’ (32). This should be freeing for us to engage as the hands and feet of Jesus. Quite a different tone from, “When we try to be more merciful than God, we put a millstone around the neck of the person we wish to help” (58). Rosaria seems to appreciate more nuance at other places in the book (see Chapter 6).
Her Calvinistic Theology Contradicts the Call for Hospitality
Rosaria knows how to treat people well. I appreciate how she emphasizes the appropriate balance and context of recognizing others, combined with a callout to fulfill God’s command of being hospitable (115). However, when proselytizing for her theological tradition, her words become convoluted and contradictory. It is folks from the Calvinistic tradition whom heavily assert that material benefit is of no good and only the spiritual and eternal matter. This correlates more with the gnostic heresy the early church vigorously combated. Folks from the Calvinistic tradition have been led to bifurcate the body and material identity from the spiritual. As Christians, we do not forsake the material, the body, nor deny who and what we are. We can hold multiple identities and truths at the same time. Otherwise, in the call for hospitality non-majority cultures are often demeaned, ignored, or other-ized. They are not treated as ‘inherently valuable’ but merely ‘instrumentally useful’ (96). It automatically sets up a paradigm of us versus them, spiritual purity and holiness versus those whom are lesser. This is antithetical to hospitality.
This false dichotomy ends up creating the thing Rosaria wants to avoid, ‘exclusion of people for arbitrary reasons’ which is ‘violent and hostile’ leading to ‘table fellowship of sameness’ based ‘on false understandings of personhood’ (33). See your homeschool groups, the Trad wife phenomenon, and your church. Oftentimes, folks from this theological background have 'strong words and a weak relationship with [their] neighbor is violent’ (35). In Christ, our identity is not in competition. We are made completely new, in which the old self now has a whole new set of purposes, boundaries, and freedoms. To use Rosaria’s words, we have three interdependent unions with Christ – immanent, transient, and applicatory – that do not erase the reality and goodness of our God-given distinctions and identities (59).
An offshoot version of Christianity says ‘God’s people were strangers once’ because we’ve all assimilated to looking and thinking alike, since all our identities are stripped and we’ve adopted the ‘right’ one.
True Christianity sees people and sees our differences.
This is true hospitality. We are not ‘colorblind’ Christians. Notwithstanding, while acknowledging our differences, Jesus has reconciled whatever was between us – whether we differ by gender, experience, class, race etc. This is harder, yet deeply more real, intimate, and satisfying. True reconciliation occurs when we both see each other for what we are and transcend those differences by uniting on Christ’s terms. For truly if God declared individuals as ‘male or female image bearers of a holy God,’ then he declared us African, Asian, tall, short, disabled, and multiple other identities as well.
Although the word complementarian is not used at all, the Butterfields are complementarians. To borrow her words, she conducts a sneaky Reformed theological raid (54) in suggesting complementarianism is the best model for ROH since the mom staying home is the magic and momentum that makes ROH work (102-103). Again, her theology is getting in the way of the call for hospitality. Rosaria fulfills the role of the traditional wife, which means being a stay-at-home mom. Her discussion and description of the traditional patriarchal system mimics typical conservative talking points yet she teaches in many churches (89) and even helps other women pursue higher education (105).1 First, many Biblical, ‘Bible-believing,’ scholars are egalitarian. Second, this discussion is only relevant to hospitality if you are trying to push your theological agenda. If a single mom, stay-at-home dad, or any combination of a non-traditional family pursues hospitality, is Rosaria suggesting their Holy Spirit-led, Christ-called, execution of hospitality is incomplete because mom doesn’t stay at home? This can easily be fixed by suggesting the traditional family as a model, one among many that Christ can use to maximize hospitality. Again, Rosaria’s theology gets in the way.
Third, I hear complementarian rhetoric all the time; however, their practical application is what matters. Generally, I see is a lot of nuancing, legalism, and nitpicking from the complementarian community on what is appropriate and when it is appropriate. For the complementarian men I’m around, I see a lot more disconnect from their words and their application, thankfully. Otherwise, there would be a lot of straight up oppression in many homes. I am much more curious as to what your home looks like practically and on a daily basis, which is not detailed in this book. This is not much of a critique but merely an observation. I hear you Rosaria, but what does it really look like in your home? I am positive there is more grace than what the complementarian rhetoric would imply.
Her Calvinistic Theology and the Contradiction to the Gospel
Rosaria conducts another sneaky Reformed theological raid in suggesting Calvinism is the best approach to relate to others. For example, in Chapter 3, she gives a rundown of TULIP without saying as much. She glosses over the inherent and obvious contradictions of Calvinistic theology with a dismissive, “The gospel call is for you and me and every person in the world” (56). Not all Calvinists are the same but at some point, there will be a contradiction between God’s love, God’s call and God’s opportunity regarding salvation for all. Rosaria only explicitly mentions the Reformed faith once to explain away this Calvinistic contradiction as a ‘kindness,’ “And this reveals the kindness of the Reformed faith, which compassionately knows that you are unable to save yourself, that to be deceived by sin means you have been taken captive by an evil force to do its bidding” (55).2 She would likely label you as ‘not Bible-believing’ if you interacted with the biblical text with the same flippancy on a different topic. Certain verses do not fit well within the theological system of Calvinism, and key verses are often disregarded or minimized. When it comes to the particulars, there is enough opposition in her theology that it’s impact often leads to behaviors that contradict gospel proclamation and practice.
As a good Reformed Theologian, Rosaria ends Chapter 4, “God Never Gets the Address Wrong,” placing heavy emphasis on Covenant, original sin, and the cross. You’ll see plenty of context on blood, death, and depravity (60, 87, 100, 116, 209) throughout TGCHK. Fortunately for us the Bible places more emphasis on Creation, freedom, and the Resurrection. We of course need both, but incomplete pictures or inaccurate starting points will lead to unhelpful or misunderstood destinations. In some ways, Christians have idolized the cross, making themselves the center of the story as saved sinners rather than keeping attention on Jesus who was resurrected. These theological implications can often affect behavioral outcomes in how we view and love our neighbor. The Calvinist preeminence of total depravity, viewing everyone as filth needing to be cleansed, often overshadows those same people whom reflect the image of the Resurrected God.
Folks easily become exclusive, dismissive, or detached from the same people they claim they want to help.
I get the sense from Rosaria’s testimony that, ‘Bible-believing Christians’ and their gospel are right. If someone rejects them then they are rejecting what is right, which includes the gospel and God Himself. Their adopted daughter is now estranged. From Rosaria’s perspective, when interrogated by others about the adoption, “Did it work out? Yes. Kent and I obeyed God. The gospel comes with a house hey, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. God makes the key – and the lock to fit it.” (98) Thus Samantha, ‘with all her problems and all the barriers to connection we had,’ did not work out because God? Or because Samantha?
I get the impression that any internal reflection by the Butterfields was overshadowed by their ‘obedience,’ resolving them from most responsibility in the matter. Maybe it was Samantha’s childhood trauma. Or maybe it was the paternalism that shows up in your Christianity. Maybe Samantha needed a home that was less commune-like and more restful. Thus, hospitality needed to adjust while Samantha was in the home. Maybe it was all the above. I hold it loosely, but I am at least open to idea that I could be wrong. We have 10 kids. If they all turn out to be jacked up, or different from my expectations, I don’t think I can chalk it up to “Well, at least I obeyed God.” I also won’t give you the false humility so typical of Christians as well. Such as, “No parents are perfect and they have to make their own choices.” True and yet deep down you are thinking its 98% them and 2% you since you ‘obeyed God.’
Rosaria, apparently, is now too enmeshed in her new reformed culture to see the paternalism that oozes from her ministerial standard, “... the purpose of radically ordinary hospitality is to take the hand of a stranger and put it in the hand of the Savior, to bridge hostile worlds, and to add to the family of God” (34). Thank you white savior for rescuing the infidels. In contrast, biblical imagery would resemble Romans 10; we, whom are Christians, are mere messengers bringing the good news so that the Holy Spirit can do the work of salvation. We must remember our place and His place. Let’s invite folks in our space, expecting Jesus to show up (if He’s not already there ;). Jesus will heal and help eternally, while He uses us to love and care practically. We cannot heighten our own sense of self-worth, placing ourselves at the center of gospel interactions rather than Jesus. Rosaria agrees with this later in the book, “The gospel says to fellow image bearers: “You are welcome here. Come as you are. Take my hand. I’m not leading, I’m following. Jesus is leading.”(86)
Mimicking the Pastor’s Family and an Open Door for Spiritual Abuse
In TGCHK, Rosaria tells her story transitioning back and forth from Fairfax Virginia in 2009 to Durham, NC in 2016. As she explains her story, she is also describing an aspirational evangelical family. The Butterfields are adopting their fourth child, whom is a teenager, they moved across the country for ministry, they sing the Psalms, have family dinners which are followed by family devotionals, they pray about lost dogs in the neighborhood, and bring meals to their sick neighbors after carefully accounting for their food allergies or preferences (45, 62). Her family is the type of family that pastors want to bring in front of the church for everyone to emulate. However, in reality, everyone is moved by their ministry, no one imitates it. Unfortunately, we are too overwhelmed or too busy living our lives. It is perfectly fine that your ministry for the Kingdom does not mimic the Butterfields’. I also believe that point needs to be clearer in the book. I too believe hospitality is not optional, yet we must allow the Holy Spirit to lead. We cannot implicitly or explicityly be guilt-tripped into living up to someone else’s unrealistic standards.
ROH does not have to look the same way Rosaria or her theological tribe prescribes. Rosaria begrudgingly admits other ministries are already instituting hospitality practices (32). When a minister’s family describes their lifestyle, it can easily be misconstrued to be a biblical expectation in which others should/must follow. I’ve seen many suffer because of this. Conversely, we are not a pastor’s family, and many of us engage in ‘full-time ministry’ in other ways.3 It would have been hopeful if Rosaria would have provided any examples of families who support hospitality as a model to follow.4
In Chapter 5 titled, “The Gospel Comes with a House Key,” ROH gets real as Rosaria talks through an experience of being robbed and yet still organizing and hosting the whole neighborhood and church the next day. It seemed to be their strategy to put their pain on display in the attempt to show God’s providence through Christian resilience, hope and trust (92). They used the anticipated inquiries from unbelieving neighbors as opportunities to ‘share the gospel with a new legitimacy because where God is in your loss matters more to a doubting and cynical world than where God is in your plenty.” (93) Rosaria is not explicitly saying, be transparently hospitable past all your vulnerabilities and comforts, but in my opinion, her example is setting that standard without providing enough context. This type of ambiguity can easily pave the way for church abuse and hurt. There is no end to the suffering for which some ministers can ask someone to sacrifice for Jesus. I continue to hear from many young families who are struggling or have left the church because of this type of manipulation and abuse.
A more complete hospitality calling understands that Jesus cares about your sanity, health, and personhood too. Finding the right balance takes spiritual discernment. If you are serving for a church staff that does not encourage you to prioritize your family by providing practical boundaries and limitations on your commitments, leave now. In our commercialized church culture, church staff often place a heavy emphasis on programs that maintain the system, which demand extreme sacrifice, without the proper foundations in place for deep-rooted community and faith. Again, Rosaria’s calling is not everyone's calling and that point needs to be made more explicit in the book.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, much of The Gospel Comes with A House Key is undermined by a lack of appropriate ministerial context, an unnecessary exclusivism that contradicts her encouragement, and a theological system that contradicts the call for hospitality and the gospel. The grace, kindness, and thoughtfulness from some sections of Rosaria’s work is not extended throughout the entire work. I wanted and expected more from Rosaria. At the end of the day, I cannot recommend this book.
TGCHK is not guidebook on how to encourage churches to create an environment of hospitality in their church and community. Nonetheless, I doubt Rosaria would feel it’s her place to discuss this and I feel it would be a more helpful conversation and very informative to hear her perspective.
Rosaria does mention the church she attends and her husband pastors several times, First Presbyterian Church of Durham, NC.
Of note, many families are forced to extend hospitality due to their lack of safety nets. Oftentimes, lower-income families offer much better examples of local hospitality than those whom are well off.
I appreciate how she offers SAFE Families, a license to bring people into your home, a ministry example that may be suitable for singles since many in foster care can only be place in single-sex homes or are in need of mentorship (112). When defining ROH, Rosaria does mention that, “If you are prohibited from using your living space in this way, it counts if you support in some way some household in your church that is doing it.” (31)