Sensuality, Sexuality, and Swearing

By Larry Bunnell

My mom used to tell me there are certain words Jesus didn’t like to hear. A long list. Bless her, mom was wrong (er, that time).

God does not have a list of bad words and good words in a big cosmic tome in the sky.

Someone’s apt to suggest the Ten Commandments instruct us not to take the Lord’s name in vain. Not quite. Consider:

First, Christians are not required to keep that decade of commands –or any set of rules for that matter. Read Galatians, paying particular heed – in context – to the fourth chapter which deals directly with that particular list of commands. In addition, throughout Galatians Paul uses the word "law" without an article. In the Greek this means that he is not speaking only of a particular law, but the concept of law. We are not under the burden of any law, but free.

Second, the command not to take the Lord’s name in vain refers, literally, to misusing – or using lightly – God’s covenant name (YHWH, usually spelled, "Yahweh.” That’s why the name is spelled in all caps in English translations; to alert us to the fact that it is the name of God.

We are warned not to swear, but that means we are not to make promises or curses like: "I swear to God if you don’t ..." or "I promise in God’s name ..." etc. We are to keep our promises free of such importunate additions. One’s simple, direct word should suffice.

My favorite epithet – which would not see the light of print in this or any other publication for general reading – is an Anglo-Saxon word that is objectionable in some circles. I wouldn’t say it in worship, not because scripture forbids its use, but because in our culture it is inappropriate. Odd, isn’t it, that when I say that word in French, German, or Latin nary an eyebrow is raised.

Culturally acceptable words change from generation to generation. Most of us think it silly that in the twenties the word "naked" was spelled, "n _ _ _ d" in newspapers.

I nearly forgot; there’s that other thing: Sex. The Church used to tell me sex was evil. Wrong!

What got me thinking along this line was a letter the Christian Journal printed from a person exercised about the paper recommending a particular movie that had bad words and, gasp, "sensuality."

I hope the writer meant "sexuality."

Sensuality has to do with our senses: hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. If our senses are evil, then there is something wrong with the God who made us with those wondrous sensual pleasures.

If sex is bad why did God allow the Song of Songs into scripture? Influenced by narrow and overly-cautious Victorian sensibilities, biases, and fears, this lovely sex poem has been made into a weak analogy of God’s relationship with humanity. But it is first and foremost a poem celebrating sex.

Insist on seeing it as an analogy? OK. But I learned as a college freshman in Elder Grove’s hermeneutics (the study of the interpretation of scripture) class that one must first understand scripture in its historical and cultural context. The context for the Song of Songs is first a love poem (that, by the way, likely predates Israel and remembers pagan spring rites).

It’s a shame that we post-moderns are more fastidious about sex and speech than the ancestors and forebears of our faith. Especially since Jesus was far more concerned about how we spend our money and how we treat others, especially the others hated, ignored, and pushed aside.

I said at the opening of this piece that there are no good words or bad words. I told you my mom was wrong about that.

I’m wrong.

There are words God does not want to hear, inappropriate words: Words that belittle, like "stupid." Words, lots of words, that push people into boxes, like the infamous "n" word, "faggot," words that marginalize women (my sister, wife, and mother), or calling Arabs "ragheads;" an evil epithet I heard a (supposed) Christian talk show host use.

God gave us bodies not only for pale, bloodless function, but for pleasure. Enjoyment. God gave us language to uplift and explain, yes, but also to delight and entertain.

Our reticence about our bodies and our strange (moveable) dividing line between what is and is not acceptable speech are cultural and have little to do with the faith of Jesus.

Most of my generation – baby boomers – is impatient with the obvious hypocrisy and nascent victorianism in the Church about words and sex. No wonder so many of them find other engagements any time the church is open.

Larry Bunnell writes from Klamath Falls, Oregon. wizrb@charter.net