The problematic lyrics in the popular Christmas song should lead to reflection on church and culture’s gendered language.
Baby…Wait, this is still a thing?
Every Christmas, the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” comes on canned music systems in stores everywhere, particularly Starbucks coffeeshops. And each season, discerning listeners perk up their ears and ask “how is this still a thing?”
It’s not an annoying Christmas song like “Santa Baby” or a sappy one like “Christmas Shoes.” No, the problem is the song’s lyrics, such as “what’s in this drink?” and the man’s repeated disregarding of woman’s desire to leave, are also present in rape culture and other denials of consent. In writer Frank Loesser’s lyrics, the characters are even named as “Wolf” and “Mouse,” implying a predatory relationship–or at least an unequal one.
So when we hear this song’s lyrics echoed in rape trials and police reports of sexual assault, people are troubled by it being part of pop culture.
Various online comedians and singer-songwriters over the past two years have made videos depicting the problems in the song. Here’s a sampling (some are rather crass, sorry):
Baby…Actually, look at the Context
But Christians are not of one mind on the appropriateness of the song.
Defenders of the song point to its original incarnation: a husband/wife duet who sang it at holiday parties. The song was made famous in a 1949 movie (watch the scene here) which is more playful than warning bells of rape-culture. The story is of a woman concerned about her social standing if neighbors or family notice she didn’t come home that night–a valid concern in 1940s America.
The argument is that understanding the context of the song and seeing what it looked like when it originally entered the public consciousness absolves it from blame at the way how language has changed over 70 years (this will be important later).
However, the context don’t justify the present out-of-context usage. The lyrics are problematic, and no matter the original context, the current context is quite different. Regardless of its origins, anything that affirms the idea that it is okay to ignore the words of a woman who is resisting men’s advances should not be acceptable to Christians.
Today’s covers of this song indicate they are aware of the problematic lyrics and try to re-frame them. Look at the 2014 version, sung by Idina Menzel (of Frozen fame) & Michael Bublé, which not only changes the lyrics (from “drink” to “wink”), but also resorts to using child actors in the music video to make the song “cute” and less creeptastic.
Knowing the origins of the song doesn’t redeem it for me. Language changes and perceptions of women change, and we should be mindful of that in deciding what language about women we will tolerate being broadcasted at Christmastime.
Lord…It’s about Language
While we can point to culture, the reality is that the Church itself needs to do more work on its own language.
And the most effective place to start…is the language we use for God.
For decades, Christians, particularly Christian women, have attempted to enter into the public consciousness how problematic it is to have masculine language for God, and discouraging use of “He” and “Him” language except when contextually appropriate.
One can imagine what an uphill struggle that is. Every Bible refers to God as “Him” or “He” and almost every Christian faith tradition uses similar language in their liturgy–even strongly progressive denominations like The Episcopal Church. Shocking that traditions that that began in patriarchal cultures used masculine language for the ultimate deity, I know!
While the Christ was in the form of the man of Jesus of Nazareth, there are a plethora of Scriptures that use feminine language and images for God, and extensive theological affirmations for why gender neutral terms like “God” instead of gendered ones like “Him” are more theologically appropriate.
Lord…Actually, look at the Context
One defender of the “Baby” song wrote on a friend’s Facebook wall “the way it was written is the way it was written.” As well, the primary Christian argument supporting masculine language for God and the Trinity is that Jesus himself used masculine language for God, calling God “Abba.” This “original context” justifies its traditional and current use. From a conversation on Facebook a few years ago:
We don’t need to rewrite everything for our contemporary context due to people misinterpreting its connotation (we don’t rewrite Scripture, we interpret and study). Education is important. When understand in its context, it’s actually very inclusive and reveals a key tenet of our Christian faith.
Like “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” since the original context was appropriate, then it is appropriate for contemporary use, and people who are offended just need education and context.
I know that inclusive language, when used without analysis, can sometimes lead us astray (Creator God is erroneous as the whole trinity participates in Creation, so it doesn’t work as a substitute for “Father”), but I’m equally aggrieved by keeping traditional language for tradition’s sake, and, like the song, I don’t think it justifies current usage.
Because ultimately, it’s more than language. It’s what language becomes. Author Toni Morrison said in her Nobel prize speech:
“Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge.”
Masculine language, which is patriarchy leading to complementarianism and gender roles, poisons the faith wells of too many traditions, and turns off people from knowing Christ. That’s what our past context was, what our current context has become, and what we need to overcome in a better future.
Lord…Mission Over Tradition
The tiny change to do inclusive language should be a no-brainer when we think about it from a missional perspective.
When a missionary goes to Kenya, they learn Swahili and teach about Christ in that language. They don’t preach it in English and expect the people to do the work of translation.
Same concept here: if we do the translation work ourselves and present the Christian message in contemporary inclusive language, then we remove that impediment to receiving Christ. Hence, using language that doesn’t stop people at the door and invites them in to hear more, or to listen up if forced to be there for Christmas obligations, is at least a step in the right direction.
Since inclusive language, when done well, doesn’t change the meaning of the read biblical text or of spoken liturgy, then it should be an easy decision for churches that are serious about missions and not dismissive of half the sky being made in the image of God.
Your Turn
I hope stores like Starbucks remove “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” to remove an impediment to their customers, and I hope churches remove masculine language for God from appropriate parts of their liturgy and Scripture readings to remove barriers to today’s cultures seeking Christ.
You can help by making complaints to businesses when you hear it come on the radio (especially calling customer service and registering complaints with central offices), and by initiating conversation with pastors and worship leaders as to why gendered language for God is problematic. Together, we can bring our cultures to a new awareness.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and your shares on social media.
Not familiar with the movie. Do know the song. Not on my hit parade. Way before my time. Origin does speak intent. To find hints of rape culture in such lyrics requires a vigorous exercise of imagination. Those who wish to speak to issue of rape culture have a wealth of material available for them to use as evidence. They need only sample material, lyrics, etc. common to current rap music.
Language is dynamic. Over time, it changes. The apostolic preaching and teaching of Jesus was not well received by the power brokers and intelligentsia in the Temple, Sanhedrin or palace nor later by the crowd on Mars Hill. Happily apostolic preaching and teaching did not change to suit the whim of those who found Jesus hard to take. Untold multitudes came to Christ. God blessed. Nowadays some object that the image of God in Scripture is to masculine, or to pacifistic, or to … whatever. Happily the Church continues to preach and teach Jesus. Untold multitudes across the world are coming to Christ. God bless. Merry Christmas!
The blog says here that the original context has a different meaning. I don’t think so. I think that back then the sexual domination of women was far more socially acceptable and therefore seemingly “harmless” by the writer of this song and their audience. Even in the seminal movie clip that this song is featured you see some really disturbing body language, the grabbing of the arm, the violation of the woman’s personal space. It’s important to remember that when this song is used in a movie, it’s fictitious and even if the story ends up with the woman somehow ok with it, there is no reason to believe that should be seen as realistic. (Especially when you consider that the screen writer was a man. The fine arts industry/world has been the most sexist one you can find yet.)
For me its not a matter of language, it’s a matter of the actual practice of disregarding the consent of a woman that was prevalent, and socially (also legally in some cases) acceptable “back then.” The language is more harmful now because we are more aware. To me it seems analogous to the way that the statistically prevelant episodes of police brutality against black men seem like a new thing when, really, we are just more aware of it now than we have been before.
To me, this song wasn’t any less harmful back then since “back then” was a time when women were even MORE objects, even MORE trapped into gender stereotypes, and even MORE dominated than they are now.
My first thought was “you’re crazy!” but that is not polite so I will instead write about the shallow excuse for theology in the article.
“While the Christ was in the form of the man of Jesus of Nazareth” – this is heresy, just to let you know, condemned at the council of Chalcedon 454, if I am not mistaken. Then again, the UMC doesn’t do heresy anymore so you’re safe.
No, dear progressive, we can’t change stuff in the Bible just because we don’t like it or because we think it is outdated. There is a reason (or two) for the consistent but not exclusive use of male pronouns for God in the Bible and the Christian tradition. One of them being that, as you said, Jesus called the Father “Father”. We don’t have a mother God, although God is sometimes said to be like a mother. “Our Father” is not up for debate or discussion. Jesus was a male but he was pretty inclusive of women.
In the end I feel that you should take solace in the “I AM that I AM” and let it be.
No, you are not mistaken. I definitely didn’t write that bit about Christ and gender correctly.
Years ago when I purchased a “New English Bible”, it included the apocrypha. I found it so uplifting to discover the many female references within it. Often, the Holy Spirit is referred to as female. The lack of information on the lives of spiritual women within the Bible is a hindrance more than pronoun usage. I see the biggest problem as being the English language itself. If you try to combine the meaning of he, she and it into one all inclusive word, it doesn’t come out very well! As for songs, I have found a number of the “good oldies” that make me cringe when I pay attention to the lyrics. The same is true for a few of the old hymns. The lesson: we all need to pay more attention to what we hear, sing and say.
Andreas, thank you for your comments. I agree whole-heartedly.
I feel it would be a great comfort to be free of heretical opinions issued from the pulpit and from those who speak from the pulpit. Thankfully, many before us died to bring us the God-breathed word of God in a language we understand. Thanks be to God, I have read it.
“If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” – John 8:31-32 [NRSV]
While those reading Jeremy’s post might think otherwise, the holy mystery of God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is well established within Methodism. Also well established within Methodism is the authority of Holy Scripture. John Wesley, said that a “Methodist” was nothing other than a plain “scriptural Christian”. The God-breathed word of God says:
“. . . from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. . . “Preach the word! . . . you be watchful in all things . . . do the work of an evangelist, fulfill you ministry. – 2 Timothy 3:15-4:5 [NKJV]
I steer clear of using the label “Progressive” with respect to Christian because no one seems to agree on what a progressive Christian believes. Sadly, I feel that those who claim the label “Progressive Christian” would not claim the label “scriptural Christian” though Christ clearly affirmed and fulfilled Holy Scripture.
Speaking of categories of religiosity, I can’t help reflect upon the biblical accounts of Christ’s conversations with and about the Pharisees & Sadducees. Much as a father disciplines his own son but may ignore the misbehavior of another child, God chastised the misbehavior of faithful Jews. Christ strongly chastised the Pharisees. I’m told that the Pharisees rightly acknowledged the reality of miracles delivered by the power of God, the existence of holy and fallen angels interacting in our world, and the bodily resurrection unto eternal life for the righteous. Hence, they were “scriptural Jews”. However, much like the “politically correct” of today, most Pharisees seemed to exhibit self-righteousness rather than Godly righteousness. Sinful pride seemingly replacing the humility, contrition, obedience, and love that God requires. Christ’s conversation with one Pharisee informs us of the need to be born again of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s conversation with another Pharisee gave us the inspired words written by the hand of Saul of Tarsus, later know as the Apostle Paul. In contrast, I’m told that the Sadducees didn’t believe in miracles, bodily resurrection, eternal life, or angels. They did control the place of worship and the seminaries of their day. Christ seems to have had little positive interaction with them.
May God bless you
Jeremy,
Given some of the points that you make about Holy Scripture being taken in context, and given that Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the Christ prophecy of Psalm 118:26 (“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD!), would you agree that when one changes “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD! – Mathew 21:10” to “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord”, that one exchanges glorify Jesus of Nazareth for glorify woman?
May God bless you.
Andreas I completely agree. God is our Father. He is male. In this day of being overly PC it seems like people are looking for things to criticize or change.
As far as the song goes, ditto the feeling of trying to make something out of nothing. It’s a flirty fun song thay has been around for many many years and been enjoyed by millions.
People need to lighten up and start enjoying life instead of looking for new things to complain about. Merry Christmas everyone, even the scrooges
Do you know what? It is kinda tiring to read people’s different opinions about things. Some of them are exageratting about things, while others are too fanatics with their small-scope minds. A religion is not a sexy thing to discuss, because it will lead to miscommunications. Nobody should know to whom we trust, and we also have no right to tell people what to listen. This is the era when composers have their rights to compose lyrics, based on their inspiration.
Finally, we get to talk about sex in Church, not just SPRC Comm*!
Yes, this song can be creepy, depending on your inner dialogue (See Zooey Deschanel in Elf). But what about “Let it Snow”?
Your “flirty” song might be my “creepy” song. Check out the Pearly Bailey/Hotlips Page duet of Baby, It’s cold, and get back to me.
The new BESTEST Christmas song is SNL’s “Welcome to Hell.” I had to watch it twice to get the message! ;-D
*SPRC = Sex, Politics, Religion & Cash. The only things you can’t-yet-must talk about in Church. Copyright 2015, jo*******
Insisting on one image of the Divine, whether it be male, female, rock, or golden calf, is idolatry, plain and simple. But it’s a tough nut to crack, and no mistake. Scary, scary feminism!
PS My rewrite of Baby, It’s Cold Outside changes the context AND the lyrics!