Dismantling Good

Has anyone noticed the dismantling of “good”? It's sad, but interesting to watch if you're paying attention. It is in our terminology and our perceptions of our terminology. Let's look at a couple of examples.

We use the term “love” in a variety of ways. One of the striking modifications to our language is in the use of the phrase “make love”. In days gone by, this term had a radically different intent. The original intent was closer to the obvious intent. To “make love” in its original form, a suitor would pursue a bride-to-be. This entailed an “other-centeredness”. He would have to find that which pleased the woman he wished to marry as well as her family, particularly her father. He would woo her, hoping to engender in her feelings of love. He would court her, hoping to gain both her approval and her father's permission. It required a lessening of self and an emphasis on others, designed to stir in another feelings of love. Today? Well, of course today it means having sex. Indeed, there is nothing in today's usage that even requires actual love. It is merely a euphemism for sexual relations. There may be passion, but there is no reason to think it is love beyond the momentary. It is merely sex.

In the same way, “lovers” used to indicate two people who were in love. They were noticeable by their romantic gestures toward one another. They would hold hands or look at each other in a certain way. He would be a grand gentleman, and she would be a fine lady, regardless of their state in society. Arm in arm they'd stroll down the avenue, and everyone would know that they were “lovers” ... that they were in love. Today, it is a simple term requiring only that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. This one often implies more than mere sex; it may be a prolonged sexual relationship. But as “make love” today is “have sex”, “lovers” are those who are engaged in a sexual relationship.

Now, having dismantled the language like this, what do we find in our perception ... of sex? Interestingly, perhaps, the general perception has gone the way of the language. Whereas sexual relations were original limited to married couples, declining to “couples in love”, today it is simply people who engage in the act. It is not assumed in most circles that a person who has sex with another necessarily has any sense of commitment, any deep feelings, any romance, any love. Sex today is simply viewed as a biological necessity, something “fun” in which to engage. And we are bearing the brunt of this decline in the forms of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and the like. All this is seen in the change of a phrase.

How about “marriage”? The original intent of marriage was two-fold: 1) companionship, and 2) procreation. We see the first in Gen. 2:18 - “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’” That's one reason - “It is not good for man to be alone.” The other is in Gen. 1:28 - “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. ’” Companionship and procreation comprise the primary functions in God's design for marriage. Look, now, at the evolution of thought. World War II came along. Men went to war, and women went to work. This was the first modern influx of women into the workplace. In the 60's, the daughters of these women decided they needed to be “free”, and the Women's Liberation movement was begun. At the same time, the cost of living increased, so these liberated women offered to help out by going to work. It wasn't enough to be a mother; they wanted careers as well. Eventually, with women pushing higher and higher into all areas of the workplace, the concept of “family” became optional. In days gone by, this would have been unthinkable. Women had children. Women who didn't have children were mocked, ridiculed, or sorely pitied. But with these changes a woman's career gained equal importance to having children. At the same time, “marriage” was being redefined. This, of course, had been a work in progress for some time. From its original footings as companionship and procreation, it moved to an expression of “love”. This concept is actually fairly recent in the history of Man. Marriages were (and still are in several societies) arranged by the families. This was perfectly suitable when one had to “make love” and when marriage was companionship and procreation. But in the evolution of the concept, it became more about “How I feel about him/her”. The mere suggestion that a marriage might be arranged for two people is considered today as actually immoral. Marriage is about love!

Of course, having moved from its original intent, we can see where we stand today. Having bought the notion that sex is a human necessity, that “love” and “sex” are not necessarily related, and that “marriage” is about “two people who love each other”, the notion of “gay marriage” is unavoidable. In previous times, it would be unthinkable simply because the definition of the purpose of marriage included an unmistakable procreative element to it. A marriage that had no children was valid, but pitied, not applauded nor even sought. So “gay marriage” would have been an oxymoron, since homosexual relationships produce no offspring. But to fight the concept today is nearly impossible because love doesn't mean what it used to, sex doesn't mean what it used to, and marriage doesn't mean what it used to.

By carefully and slowly dismantling the language and our perceptions, good has been carefully and slowly dismantled. It has become nearly impossible to defend good because the terms don't exist anymore, at least as they were originally intended, and the perceptions of those terms are lost to a completely foreign view. Our society is paying the price, and we will continue to pay because there is little defense left.