Here is another older piece, first published in the Chalcedon Report in 1988 (hence the dated bibliography and references), on the question of how Christians should talk about sex. Part of the point is that even non-obscene terms can be used in ways that undermine Christian sexual morals. Asterisking f-words is no guarantee that our speech will be pure.
I hope this article also gives a hint of why Christians should take an interest in the way way talk about sex, and should make an effort to develop a thoroughly biblical rhetoric and lyric of sex. Language about sex embodies judgments about the good and evil of sex, and we need to strive to make sure that our language embodied the proper judgments.
Though this article is nearly 2 decades old, I still agree with myself for the most part, though I’d be less enthusiastic if I had known at the time that Allan Bloom (if Saul Bellow is to be believed) was a homosexual.
In any case, to the article . . . .
In his widely acclaimed book, The Closing of the American Mind (1987), University of Chicago Professor of Social Thought Allan Bloom notes that the modern world has developed “an entirely new language of good and evil, originating in an attempt to get ‘beyond good and evil’ and preventing us from talking with any conviction about good and evil” (p. 141).
Bloom’s analysis assumes more generally that language plays a central role in morality and culture. He believes in what Richard Weaver called the “ethics of rhetoric.” He assumes, rightly, that our use (and misuse) of language, individually and culturally, is a key measurement of the moral health of modern man. Such wisdom is not a twentieth-century discovery. It is doubtless significant in this regard that Christianity presents Satan’s temptation of Eve as fundamentally a temptation about language: “Yea, hath God said?” Satan was able to twist God’s prohibition so that eating the fruit seemed the most natural and innocent thing in the world. Using the serpent’s distorted linguistic and moral categories, Eve was incapable of exercising correct moral judgment. Since then, undermining of the language of moral discourse has always been central to the deconstructive program of Satan and his minions.
Corrupt language is a signal of moral decay; Emerson said that man’s corruption is followed by the corruption of language. But this is not all. Amoral language also breeds further corruption. The more we employ what Bloom calls the language of value relativism, the more we are tempted to think that values really are relative. The more often we hear and speak about “chairpersons,” the more apt we are to succumb to the feminist delusion. The more we talk about “termination of pregnancy,” the more we are in danger of forgetting that human life is at stake. While the signs of this corruption are everywhere in our culture, there is perhaps no clearer example than contemporary language about sex. Few stop even to think about what “sex” means. Two meanings are in common usage. On the one hand, sex refers to gender, male and female. Apparently, this meaning is relevant only on job applications and tax returns. Most often, “sex” refers to sexual intercourse. As a rule, we rarely connect these two senses, either in speech or in thought. A “sexy” individual is not one who embodies the highest qualities of his or her sex, but rather, in everyday speech, someone who arouses lust in the opposite sex. A stripper is sexy; a mother nursing her child is not. An aerobicized torso is sexy; a pregnant woman is not. As George Gilder might say, to think in these terms is to impose male orgasmic sexual patterns on female sexuality, and thereby to cut the very roots of civilization.
As Bloom puts it, “students are comfortably unisexual; they revert to dual sexuality only for the sex act.” (Even this is changing under the pressure of militant homosexuals.) In this view, men and women magically become “sexual” when they enter the bedroom. The attitude is, “She’s just one of the guys.” Until she’s in bed, of course. This reduces the rich diversity and subtlety of sexual relationships to anatomical difference. Both men and women become “sex objects,” objects for intercourse. This attitude degrades women and, paradoxically enough, ultimately emasculates men.
Morally corrupt language is embedded in media coverage of AIDS. AIDS, it is said, is a threat to anyone who is “sexually active.” Without going into the details of the transmission of AIDS, a discussion of which would itself illustrate the media’s failure, we may ask what “sexually active” means. “Sexually active” is simply a polite way to say “promiscuous.” If you intend to have children, you’re not sexually active. If you have sex with your wife only, you’re not sexually active.
Specious euphemisms completely distort the issues. After all, who but a rank neo-Victorian — or, worse, a fundamentalist — can decry the sexually active? The phrase fairly bursts with connotations of health and vigor, making it appear that the only alternative to being sexually active is being sexually impotent or inert. The reasonable man, that unquestioned judge of the common good, would doubtless prefer activity to impotence. Such language induces moral paralysis and makes it exceedingly difficult to defend chastity in the public arena. The defender of chastity will be perceived as a champion of impotence.
Sex-speak has also been apparent in (you guessed it) the Bakker scandal. During their interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline a couple months back, Bakker and his wife both referred to Jim’s “relationship” with Jessica Hahn. In public at least, they have studiously avoided describing Jim’s act as “adultery.” He says he’s sorry for the relationship, but I’ve never heard him mention “sin.”
This carefully chosen word, “relationship,” has two effects on Bakker’s audience. The intended effect is to evacuate the discussion of any hint of moral failure, in order to leave the listener without a handle on what really happened. Who can fault Jim for having a relationship with a young secretary? How can you repent from a relationship? Where does the Bible say, “Thou shalt not have a relationship with thy secretary”? In choosing this morally neutral word, Jim has sought to avoid the public relations consequences of talking about adultery. If he talked about adultery, would anyone still be encouraging him to come back? (Well, maybe so, but that’s another story.)
The Bakkers’ sexual propaganda has an unintended effect as well, because it fills a sexually neutral word with sexual overtones. What are we supposed to think when Bakker says he had a good “relationship” with PTL’s Board of Directors, or the leadership of the Assemblies of God? The use of sexually neutral language to describe sexual activity ends up making every statement a double entendre. Much modern “humor” is based on this premise. It is the humor of the lockerroom. It is the humor of the gutter.
My Old Testament professor at seminary, Bruce Waltke, said that the Genesis description of the pre-Flood world refers to this kind of culture-rot. That culture had degenerated to such a degree that people could not think without thinking corruptly: “Every imagination of man’s heart was only evil continually.” The very fabric of language was interwoven with evil connotations. As we get closer to the point where we cannot speak or think without evil thoughts, can a Flood-like judgment be far away?