From Root to Fruit - A Genealogy of "Radical" Hospitality

Chapter One, Pt.2

[Continued from Chapter One, Pt.1]

It is evident that Butterfield’s publication of TGH was motivated, in part, by her own views on immigration and the refugee crisis. These views happen to be in line with those of another “Christian” celebrity who opposes politicians “building walls.” As Reuter’s reported in February of 2017 —

Speaking at his weekly general audience, Francis spoke of a Christian calling “to not raise walls but bridges, to not respond to evil with evil, to overcome evil with good.”

He then improvised and added:

“A Christian can never say ‘I’ll make you pay for that’. Never! That is not a Christian gesture. An offense is overcome with forgiveness, by living in peace with everyone.”

Last year, in response to an answer about then-candidate Trump’s views on immigration and his intention to build a wall on the border with Mexico, Francis said a man with those views is “not Christian”.

He said in an interview last month that he would not form an opinion of Trump until he first had a chance to see specific policies the new U.S. president would implement.

As Trump was taking office on Jan. 20, Francis sent a message urging him to be guided by ethical values, saying he must take care of the poor and the outcast during his time in office.¹

Francis and Butterfield make it clear they believe true Christians must not build walls. True Christians must allow all refugees and immigrants into the country without exception. True Christians must take care of the poor. True Christians must take care of the outcast.

This is significant, for while Francis is recognized as an opponent of the social gospel, he is also recognized as “a pope of the social gospel” because of the stress he places on “the importance of jobs and environmental protection,”² undermining the distinction drawn by his defenders between himself and true socialists. It is also important to note because Francis has also been recognized as a critic of liberation theology who, nevertheless, supports “the theology of the people,” “a strand of postconciliar theology developed in Argentina” that is so close in substance to liberation theology that “there is no sharp delineation between [it] and…liberation theology.”³

What is more, the truth is that the social-gospel practices of the liberation theologians are not merely harmonizable with, or similar to the ethical teaching of Rome; they are part and parcel of Rome’s social, political, economic, and ethical teaching. As John W. Robbins explains, Liberation Theology

…began in Latin America in the late 1960s, following Vatican II, whose pronouncements, as well as the entire body of Roman Church-State economic thought, encouraged its development. The tradition of the Church demanded action for social justice.

[…]

The Vatican itself traces the origin of liberation theology to the Roman Church-State, specifically to Vatican II (1962-1965) and the 1968 Conference of Roman Bishops in Medellin, Colombia, a conference whose statements the pope himself approved. One of the influential figures at the Medellin conference was Gustavo Gutierrez.

Born in Peru in 1928, Gutierrez was ordained a Roman Church-State priest in 1959. His Theology of Liberation was published in Spanish in 1971. Despite those wishful thinkers who believe that the Roman Church-State has a fundamental economic disagreement with liberation theology, Gutierrez has never been reprimanded or defrocked for his publications.

The only disagreements the Vatican has had with some aspects of liberation theology are its secular elements, the insufficient obsequiousness of some liberation theologians to the pope, and their sometime advocacy of a systematic use of violence to achieve goals that the Roman Church-State has always approved: social justice, the common good, and the universal destination of goods. The Church-State has never criticized the economic views of the liberation theologians.

The distinction between catechically orthodox Romanism and Liberation Theology, in other words, is not primarily social, political, economic, or ethical, but theological.

This is something that Francis also shares with Butterfield, who recognizes that what she calls “radically ordinary hospitality” “…may resemble the social-gospel practices of liberal churches and non-Christian mercy communities,”⁴ and consequently attempts to minimize the resemblance by arguing there is a “big difference” between the two. What is this “big difference”?

Butterfield explains —

…radically ordinary hospitality practiced by biblical Christians views struggling people as image bearers of a holy God, needing faith in Christ alone, belief in Jesus the rescuer of his people, repentance of sin, and covenant family within the church. 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.⁵

Like Francis’ distinction between catechically orthodox Romanism and Liberation Theology, Butterfield’s “big difference” between her hospitality teaching and that of the liberal churches and social justice advocates is not social, political, economic, or ethical, but primarily theological. And given that the social-gospel practices of liberal churches are rooted in their false gospel which ultimately has its roots in the ethical teaching of the Roman Church, Butterfield’s “big difference” isn’t much of a difference at all.

A catechically orthodox⁶ Roman Catholic will heartily affirm that all men are made in the image of God, deserving of dignity, in need of repentance and salvation by faith in Christ alone, and that they must also participate in the communal/covenantal worship of God practiced by professing Christians. They will affirm these doctrines and simultaneously affirm the same social-gospel practices promoted by liberal churches (Protestant and Roman Catholic alike), as well as by non-Christian mercy communities that have no concern with maintaining an appearance of religiosity.

Given that she was “raised and educated in liberal Roman Catholic settings,”⁷ Butterfield is aware that at the level of ethics proper there is strict agreement between her concept of “radical hospitality,” the social justice ethic of Pope Francis, nominal protestants, and the masses of unbelieving men and women who are promoting “social justice” in virtually every corner of the world today. Put another way, Butterfield knows that TGH’s teaching on “hospitality” does not contradict or oppose what the world teaches, nor does it contradict what the apostate Roman Church teaches. Rather, her concept of “radically ordinary hospitality” is identical to them both — It is social justice ethics presented to protestants in language and images that they find more palatable.

While the world was protesting Trump’s immigration and refugee policies by burning down cities, Butterfield was doing so, it seems, with her writing. Rather than physically coercing Christians into supporting leftist immigration and refugee policies, Butterfield bludgeoned them with emotionally manipulative declamations.

[Continued in Chapter Two, Pt.1]

1. “Don’t Build Walls, Pope Francis Says”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-wall/dont-build-walls-pope-francis-says-idUSKBN15N1ZW. (emphasis added)

2. Allen, Jr. John L. “Pope returns to social Gospel, stressing jobs and ecology”, National Catholic Reporter, Sept 22, 2013, https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-returns-social-gospel-stressing-jobs-and-ecology.

3. See Løland, Ole Jakob. “The Solved Conflict: Pope Francis and Liberation Theology” in International Journal of Latin American Religions (2021) 5, 287–314.

4. TGH, 32. (emphasis added)

5. ibid.

6. i.e. a Roman Catholic who adheres to his catechism’s teaching.

7. “Five Lies Of Our Antichristian Age: With Rosaria Butterfield”, The Heidelblog, https://heidelblog.net/rosaria/.