In light of one of the current controversies going on in the world today (and considering how the media at large seems to enjoy pitting us against each other, is it any wonder we never get anything done because we're too busy fighting with our neighbors in the cul-de-sac, on Facebook, whatever?), it seems to me a good time to weigh in on the subject of the old Christmas tune "Baby, It's Cold Outside."
It's interesting how we hear songs for years and usually don't think much about them or really pay them any attention until, one day, somebody exclaims about how offended they are by it. I have to admit I had NEVER HEARD THE SONG until I was almost in my thirties, about the time radio stations began moving to all-Christmas-music at that time of the year. More versions seemed to start cropping up, from one of the old ones (where some one like Dean Martin sings the man's lines along with a chorus of unnamed women) to some more up-to-date ones (whether it was a jazzy version by Vanessa Williams and some guy named Bobby Caldwell or another version that ATTEMPTED to sound jazzy as sung by Dolly Parton and Rod Stewart [I'm sorry, but Dolly Parton and jazz? I don't see it!]). Yes, it sounded kinda titillating, I knew what the man in the song had on his mind (when the woman says, "Hey, what's in this drink?!?", he ain't thinkin' about Bible study, that's certain!), but I thought nothing much more of it: I was happily married and didn't have (or want) any women on the side with which to try that. And, believe it or not, I was rooting for the woman: "Leave!! Go home!! Do something, anything, to get away 'cause this guy does NOT have YOUR interests at heart!!!"
I don't plan to get into whatever level of lasciviousness this song seems to operate upon, but I want to look at it another way:
The church in Corinth had quite a few problems back in the first century, and Paul the apostle had to help them deal with them with three letters, apparently (we have transcripts of TWO of them in our Bibles today, but he mentions a third letter to them as well). One of the problems they had was with eating meat. Back then, other than hunting in the rural areas outside of the city or by raising cattle, the only way to get meat was from the pagan temples where they were sacrificing animals to please whatever gods were represented by the idols in that temple. Thing is, when you're sacrificing these animals, it's over an open flame...which is one of the better ways we have of cooking our meats!! (Who DOESN'T love a barbeque, right?) And when you went into the temple, you had a choice: you could bring your gift for the gods and THEN get some meat or you could just pick up some meat.
Paul did not see a problem with this. He had lived under the Law of Moses where you brought your meat sacrifice to the temple and, if it wasn't a completely burnt sacrifice and there was edibles leftover after the fact, you had something to take home to eat (and you left some for the priests who administered this service, so THEY had something to eat as well!). With the sacrifice of the Lamb of God upon the cross, there was no need for sacrificing under the now fulfilled Law of Moses. And these sacrifices to pagan gods were nothing but cooked meat since there is no other god besides Jehovah.
The problem, however, came in for these Christians who had recently converted from paganism. They had just come out of a cultural mindset where that sacrifice to the gods WERE in fact holy, and consumption was a way of paying homage and devotion to the false deity. Now they are getting acclimated to this new mindset where Jehovah is THE Lord God (Who sent His Son, the Anointed Jesus, to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins in order to reconcile us to Him, raised Him up to prove all He said was true, and sent His Holy Spirit to guide us in these latter days ever since that sacrifice, also known as the crucifixion). Thus, eating this meat from the pagan temple was paying homage to a competing god in their mind and they didn't want to make their new God angry.
NOW the problem for Paul was that he knew this animal sacrificed to pagan gods was nothing but meat, but eating it before one of these newly converted people could wreak havoc on their conscience. Thus, Paul says in verse 13 of 1 Corinthians 8, "[I]f food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."
What does this have to do with a Christmas song that is purported by some to encourage date rape?
Obviously there's a good number of people out there who have no problem with the song at all; they've heard it for years and it's a tradition for them. There are others (like me) who also have heard the song for years, do not think the lyrics are helpful at all, and thus do not pay any attention to them; it doesn't bother me. But there are some out there who have come to a realization that, in one way or another, sex is precious and should be shared by special people (whether you include consenting adults or even restrict it to people who are in fact committed to each other by marriage or some civil union) and therefore we should not be encouraging men to trick women into going to bed with them (I might add that we should have been instructing them to avoid this when they were boys, teaching them to be gentlemen and not over-amorous wolves; now we say that "boys will be boys" and wonder why we have adolescents in their thirties and even their forties!). These radio stations that are coming out and refusing to play the song fall into that category who "doesn't want to cause their brother to stumble by eating meat."
If you KNOW that nothing will happen if you and your friends listen to this song, good for you. Just remember that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1).
By the same token, if you KNOW that somebody listening to this song COULD BE enticed to do something less than upright, don't play the song! Again, remember: knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
In fact, Paul went on to explain the concept further in THIS way to the church in Rome: "The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Romans 14:6-8).
As I mentioned in the beginning, most of the disagreements we have about alleged controversies like this are stoked by the media at large and even by some people we hold as "leaders". It seems fitting to bring up some sage advice that Paul gave to his fellow worker Titus: "avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned" (Titus 3:9-11).
No comments:
Post a Comment