[I've been wanting to blog on this subject for a while now and after reading Christopher Gates' comment on another thread, I felt compelled to echo and elaborate on some of the things he said.]
When I was growing up, I heard my mom use the word “crap” one time and only one time. My jaw dropped. “Those” words were simply never used in our house. I could not believe what I heard. After I decided that I heard correctly, I was ashamed of her (even though she only said it in front of another sibbling) and I was seriously worried that God was going to punish her severely for it. I carried this view with me even into adulthood (though I eased up on the idea that God would severely punish you for using them). I always thought them to be a sin. I don’t remember when I changed my view but I remember when it was solidified.
Years ago, I remember watching a documentary on the making of Shawshank Redemption. One of the former prisoners from the defunct prison where the movie was filmed was being interviewed and he was asked to sum up what it was like living in that prison. He paused for a moment. Put his head down, and then looked up at the camera and said, “You were f***ed.” I realized that that one simple phrase captured the entirety of his experience in a way that another phrase could not, simply because that phrase has so many conotations, and he clearly meant every one of them. It wouldn’t have worked if he said, “It was awful. The prisoners would rape you and the guards would beat you.” That one phrase said it all at once and said it better.
I can think of three arguments that I have heard over the years for never using curse words. I think the last one has the most merit, but still misses the mark.
The first argument centers around the idea that there is an agreed upon list of bad words, and that there is something sinful (we’re not usually told what) about using words from that list (and of course, the list isn’t as agreed upon as many would like to think. For example, “crap” made the list in our house, but it didn’t make Chuck Swindoll’s). The argument, rather simply, goes that the Bible says that we shouldn’t use foul language. The verse that’s usually pointed out to me is Eph 4:29: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth but that which is good to the use of edifying that it may minister grace to the hearers” (KJV). This is an unfortunate translation of this verse. The way it is translated implies that there is something inherently corrupt about the words used. But Paul is not speaking of words which are themselves corrupt but the words which do the corrupting of others. Many versions translate it the same as the KJV (NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASB to name a few). Ironically, they don’t translate the second half of the verse the same way. They say “that which is good for edifying”. If they were consistent with the first part of the translation they would translate it “edifying words” or something similar. This would imply that there are words that are inherently edifying, instead of words which have to be USED to edify. No one is edified simply be saying lots of Christian-associated words like “grace” “God” or “Jesus” (I’m sure you’ve seen the green and white bumper stickers which simply say “JESUS”. I always think ‘yeah, what about him?’ The sticker makes him look like he’s running for senate or something). These words are not inherently edifying, they have to be used in this way. We seem to understand this when it comes to encouraging someone, but somehow we don’t think the same about discouraging or “bad” words. Here, we have a list. And the mere mention of a word from that list at any time, according to many Christians, is tantamount to a sin. Why? Well, they’re just bad words and your not supposed to say them. Is there any biblical support for this? Of course, Eph 4:29. The circle continues…
Thankfully, the ESV gets it right. The translation reads: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” This translation discourages the reading that there are words which are inherently corrupt. The words are not spoken of as being corrupt in themselves, rather to qualify they have to corrupt somebody. Paul’s point is not: Don’t use harm words (i.e. words from the naughty list). Paul’s point is: Don’t use words to harm others. The difference (again) is between using words which are already corrupt vs. using words for the purpose of corrupting. How we decide what words these are depends on the effect they have on the listener not whether or not they are on an arbitrary, predecided list of words.
Understanding Eph 4:29 this way means that curse words like any other words can be used for harm or for edification. Suppose I am caught in a real bought of spiritual depression and am not looking to Christ but dwelling on my failures (a form of self-righteousness in its own right) and a fellow believer sees me in this state and says, “Damn it, John, quit trusting in yourself and look to Christ. What the hell do you have to be so down about when you have new life in Christ?” Is this not edification? Perhaps I have been shaken by the seriousness of his/her plea through the use of strong language in a way that I might not have without these words. Since I was not corrupted by what was said, but was encouraged and fled to Christ then what was said (curse words and all) qualifies as “words which are useful for edifying” and not “corrupting talk”.
Another argument I hear from time to time against using foul language goes like this: “If you wouldn’t want your children saying those words, then you shouldn’t use them either.” This objection is more easily dealt with. I don’t want my kids doing a lot of things I do, and this is not a double standard. I don’t want my ten-month-old daughter behind the wheel of a car; I don’t want her using a razor blade; I don’t want her crossing the street. The reason is not because I think there is something inherently wrong with these things, but because I don’t think she’s mature enough to know how to handle these situations. The same goes for cursing. Children lack judgment on when to use those words, and until they possess the proper judgment, I don’t want them using them at all. This is precisely what I will tell my daughter. While I probably won’t use much foul language around her, it is only because I don’t want her to naturally absorb that vocabulary and then use it without discretion.
One last argument that I have heard doesn’t really raise the issue of morality as much as it does tastefulness. Numerous times people have said that cursing is a substitute for a poor vocabulary and is an indication of an ignorant person. The idea is that if someone was clever enough they wouldn’t need to use those words. I’m sure this is true in some cases. The person who rarely uses another adjective besides “f***ing” could probably benefit from receiving dictionary.com’s Word of the Day. But the opposite can be said as well. These words can enhance your vocabulary. They can be effective means of communication at times when no other words seem to quite capture the idea (such as in the case of the prisoner I referenced above). Sure, the charge may still apply that a really clever person could find a way to convey the same idea using different words, but then this would apply to any word. Does someone really need to use the word “gregarious”? Couldn’t a really clever person find a way to convey the same idea using a different word? Perhaps. But why be handicapped if you don’t have to? It’s better to have more vocabulary choices than fewer. This is part of what makes language so rich and so powerful. Besides, I don’t think a clever person would find a way to say things without using foul language. He/she would find a clever way to use foul language.
The point I want to make is that curse words are simply one part of strong language in general (I have in mind phrases such as “shut up” “you suck” “piss off” “I hate you”, “I love you”, “will you marry me?”, etc.). I think we should exercise care in how we use foul language, just as we should use care in how we use all strong language (and to a lesser degree, words in general). But I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for total abstinence regarding these words.
I haven’t gotten into the issue of the motives of one’s heart. Motivation is really a separate issue which can make anything you do wrong — from eating a sandwich to preaching a sermon. But with regard to the question of whether cursing is inherently wrong, I cannot find a reason to think so. In fact, it may be in certain contexts entirely virtuous.
Martin Luther was known to use foul language when he spoke of sin and the Devil. This is entirely appropriate. What other words should we use to describe the foulest things than the foulest words we have available. If ever there was a purpose for using foul language this is it (as you probably know, some of our curse words — and also the very word “curse” — originated as religious pronouncements such as “damn”and “hell”). Perhaps you may be treating the Devil a little too politely. He deserves to hear foul language, and because of Christ you deserve to say it to him. Here’s a bit of a primer from Luther to get you started: “But if [the merit of Christ] is not enough for you, you Devil, I have also shit and pissed; wipe your mouth on that and take a hearty bite’ (Luther quoted in Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil [1982], 107).
There’s more that I want to say on this subject, but I’ll save it for the comments. Perhaps you’re aware of other arguments against using foul language and want to discuss those. If so, I’d love to hear them.
Right on, Fraiser. I don’t want to sound like a pundit or anything, but I always enjoy your blog. This post is no exception. I especially appreciate your use of Luther. Good stuff.
P. S. Feel free to delete this if its too retarded for such a sophisticated philosophy blog like Chaos. I have thought of yet another practical use foul language. I was watching the movie “The Kingdom” and trying to figure out if country music superstar Tim McGraw was one of the actors or not. I wasn’t quite sure (he’s a pretty good actor, and looks totally different without his hat). My epiphany came as he blurted out the F-bomb in the face of Jamie Foxx. I said to myself, “its definitely him; noone says the F-word quite like Tim McGraw.” So, if it had not been for the F-word, i may have never known. My appreciation for art and culture has been increased, all because of a word that some find offensive.
Since your point is that foul language in proper use is ok, I wonder that the “F” word is censored in your post. As you have pointed out, its use in these contexts is appropriate. Why then is it censored in its spelling? And why this word only? You have freely completely spelled all the other foul words in this post… (I know, you’re trying to keep your blog low on the cuss-o-meter.)
[...] Of language not fair but foul. [...]
Fraiser,
I’m surprised you did not cite Paul’s use of skubala in Phil. 3:8. It is not the proper word for excrement or refuse, but the slang word crap or more probably sh*t gets to the point.
I’m pretty sure this word would have been considered nice graffiti on the bathroom walls in Athens
.
I don’t think my speech will include any more cuss words as a result of reading this post, but you have spoken well here.
Meade
Good point about the F-word censorship. Thank God for wives (God’s #1 santifying tool in the life of a married man; gratuitous laughter
) . . . I had to check my use of the word in my comment. I discovered that I am off the hook since I used euphemisms such as “F-Word” and “F-Bomb” when I refered to the term. I suppose it falls to Fraiser to offer a defense of his own censorship.
We’re waiting . . .
Emily and Chris,
I have a couple of reasons for my censored use of f*** (and its cognates). First, I’m trying to get people who don’t already agree with me to read what I say. I’m not just preaching to the choir. Given my intended audience, I have to make a measure of concessions in order to have this readership. With a different audience I might make different concessions or none at all. Censorship doesn’t necessarily admit that what is censored is wrong or even wrong in the context in which it is used. Censorship may sometimes be done for purely pragmatic (vs. principled) reasons. My censorship in this case is one of those times.
Second, my reason for choosing that word rather than others is that it is clearly the strongest of the words on ‘the list’. I did not censor all foul language but only one word. I wanted to make the point without antagonizing those who don’t agree with me. Doing so doesn’t prove my point. It distracts from my argument because they are focused so much on their offense at my use of it.
Agree or not, those are my reasons.
Btw, Chris, saying F-bomb or F-word is censorship too.
Yeah, I know . . . I just wanted to hear you say it. I figured you would have a good response. Very scholarly. It’s too bad you don’t live in Shreveport. We could get our families together for some steak and grilled veggies, practice a little appropriate cursing, and enjoy an alcholic beverage (or two).
You know, it is RARE that someone even dares question the idea that cuss words are inherently sinful. I’ve also approached it from an entimological standpoint. Where did these words come from? Why are they considered bad? How did we arrive at the conclusion that certain English words are off-limits; especially since the Bible doesn’t say which English words are bad and which ones aren’t. There is an evolution of language that is rarely discussed, but needs to be if we’re going to be consistent in our teaching.
Here’s something else to consider, though: You said that there are many things you do that you don’t want your daughter doing because she is not yet mature enough to discern how to do/handle them. As a youth pastor and a father myself, I’ve often wondered how far I can take that principle. For example, I rented the movie Step Brothers, an R-rated flick starring Will Ferrell. Even though my wife and I didn’t think it was totally inappropriate to watch it, I was secretly hoping my youth wouldn’t ask me if I’ve seen it (and of course the next Sunday they asked me). That’s because if I said I did see it, they would immediately justify watching it themselves even though their parents wouldn’t want them watching it and furthermore, they are not mature enough to keep that movie from impacting their spiritual walk. So, my personaly conviction from this point on is to simply not watch R-rated movies unless I have a very good reason to watch it. Why? Plausible deniability. That and I don’t NEED to watch a raunchy comedy anyway. What do you think?
On a personal note, I did not realize that you responded to my first comment several months back. So, you DO remember me from Dr. Cabal’s philosophy class, eh?
I meant to ask you to post a comment to an entry I did (that is now several months old). Even though the conversation with the skeptics has dried up, I still get hits every now and then, so could you mosey on over to this link: http://pastordefalco.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/pushing-the-antithesis-2/ and give your two cents? It’s right up your alley.
I am glad I rediscoverd your blog. I’m certainly going to add it to my blogroll.
Meade,
You write above”
“I don’t think my speech will include any more cuss words as a result of reading this post, but you have spoken well here.”
Of course you are free to choose not to use “cuss” words if you wish, but you need to tell us why you make that choice. As it is, your statement is basically an admission of hypocrisy on your part. It could be paraphrased, “I see that you are right, but I don’t intend to act accordingly.”
KWR
Hey John, it’s Jeremy Woodruff from CCC. Love your blog. Enjoyed this post. Thought you might get a kick out of this link. A friend of mine sent it to me yesterday…go figure. I hope it contributes to the conversation.
Kevin,
I like the post-Victorian culture I live in, what else can I say. I think the charge of hypocrisy goes too far since Fraiser has basically made the issue amoral.
He has not argued that all should or shouldn’t cuss, but he has relegated cussing to the adiaphora (I know you love this word, Kevin
). It is an issue of preference, and as such, I don’t think it can be a matter of hypocrisy.
Meade,
Actually, I don’t have any particular attachment to that word–why would you think that I do?
Fraiser didn’t exactly argue that word choice is ‘amoral,’ but rather that no compelling reason (one which causes us to do something we otherwise would not) exists to honor or promote our culture’s absolute ban on those particular words.
I can see how you would take what I wrote as “a charge of hypocrisy,” but that is not how I meant it. My precise point was that “As it is, your statement is basically an admission of hypocrisy.” I wanted you to explain your choice rather than just stating it. Without explanation, your statement seems rather out of place–or even judgmental.
Fortunately, you didn’t leave it as is. You explain that you like the culture which upholds such a vocabulary ban. Fair enough, but you certainly could say more. Here are a few questions which occurred to me.
What is it about that culture which you find so appealing?
Is the cultural word ban really a part of the culture you live in, or is it a part of the culture you would like to live in? In other words, are you just trying to ‘fit into’ the culture which you so appreciate, or are you trying to steer our culture toward something you feel would be more to your liking?
Is the appreciation you have for that culture a purely personal and subjective matter? I.e., is there any moral, practical, or logical reason for others to share your affection for ‘post-Victorian culture’?
Do you recommend to others that they also observe the word ban? If so, why? For example, does doing so make speaking a more enjoyable or productive activity, etc.?
Do you see any potential negative consequences to rejecting the word ban in favor of ‘careful use of words’ which Fraiser has proposed?
Do you expect others to observe the word ban under certain circumstances even if they do not profess affection for ‘post-Victorian culture’? If so, under what circumstances?
KWR
Kevin,
To quote you, “You seem to be using “adiaphora” to give an ora [sic: aura] of authority to your point. Can I say “humbug” without ticking anyone off? If a person doesn’t buy it in English, why should he buy it in Greek?” from this blog http://chaosandoldnight.wordpress.com/2006/10/12/theres-humor-in-theology-13/.
Anyways, it was a small point, and maybe I was not quite on the mark with “amoral” as a summary of Fraiser’s post, but I think he argued that since Scripture does not have a word ban, it is a matter of discernment about when and where we are able to use these words if we prefer. So maybe your “no compelling reason” description is an apt description.
I’m not sure how my entire original statement could sound judgmental, just because no reasoning was given. I said Fraiser spoke well on the issue, but since his argument does not compel one to cuss, why would my choice not to cuss pass judgment on one who decides to? It’s like I don’t choose to drink alcoholic beverages, but does stating so without rational really pass judgment on those who do? Maybe, if I thought it was necessarily a sin, but I don’t. I thought that my affirmation of Fraiser’s argument was at least implicitly saying that I don’t think cussing is a sin, but I choose not partake in it. I don’t see how your interpretation of the evidence leads to the conclusion of judgmental.
Your final questions seem to assume that you don’t believe that our culture already has a word ban, but in your opening statements you affirm that our culture does have a word ban. What do you think on this matter?
I tend to think our culture certainly has a word ban as evidenced by the media restrictions on language and certain movie become restricted whenever the F-bomb is dropped etc.
I think this point is undisputed.
So to answer your question, I guess I like fitting into the culture in which we live, where using cuss words is associated with truck driving and other such pursuits.
Now this last comment needs a bit of explaining and this hits on the post at large.
Of course the proverbial “truck driver” does not use discrimination in his language. He simply cusses when he wants and this is usually in all of his sentences, clearly not what Fraiser had in mind in this post.
However, this brings me to a thought about John’s post in general. If cussing is one part of strong language and should be reserved for such occasions, is there is place for cussing and humor? Our culture oftentimes mixes these entities and Christians sometimes follow. But if John is right, then cussing is only rightly applied where strong language is warranted. There probably should be no laughing or lighthearted banter accompanying cussing it seems to me. What do you think?
Meade,
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that discussion (I still don’t remember what it was about). I have to wonder, though, how my pronouncement of “humbug” upon your use of a word conveys to you that I have a special affection that word. But on to the point.
I can’t determine whether you misunderstand Fraiser’s point, or you really don’t agree with him. He clearly argues that such strong words can be helpful for edification. If you see no sin in the use of such words, why would you choose, before the fact, to limit your ability to edify others? Are “post-Victorian” cultural preferences so important to you that you would never violate them even for good purposes?
I find your comment about humor bizarre. Though you claim that respect for cultural preference against using cuss words is your only reason for avoiding them, you somehow manage to condemn that same culture for preferring to use cuss words. You can’t have it both ways; either your culture prefers them or it doesn’t. And, either you are honoring cultural preference or you are condemning it. Please, make up your mind!
KWR
Kevin,
Sarcasm.
The main point was edification, yes, but edification at times that demand strong language.
I don’t know what you’re saying in your final paragraph. The culture condones a dirty humor at times, for which Fraiser’s post seems to deny a place. The culture itself knows that using cuss words at certain times is out of place and it uses it for humor, though even these words are restricted for some audiences by the same culture.
My point about humor, Kevin, is that if cuss words should only be used where strong language is permitted, then why do Christians who cuss feel free to use them in contexts of humor. Are you broadening the application of Fraiser’s post to simply edification, or do you believe that Christians should only use these words where strong and serious words are needed?
Meade,
Well, I’ll try to spell it out.
The first point that I made was that ‘humbug’ is not generally considered a term of approval. Most people would have concluded from that that I actually didn’t like the word rather than that I love it.
Second, when you determine in advance that you will not use ‘cuss’ words, you limit your ability to use strong language for good purposes as well as bad. If you will never use those words, then you can never use them to edify someone. So, are you more committed to post-Victorian preference than to good things like edification?
Third. You say there is nothing wrong with cuss words, but then you say that someone is doing wrong because they use cuss words. This is a contradiction; it cannot be both ways. You say that our culture bans ‘cuss’ words, but then you lament that it uses ‘cuss’ words in humor. This is another contradiction. Further, you say that you want to ‘fit in’ to your culture’s preference regarding ‘cuss’ words, but you then condemn your culture’s preference regarding the use of ‘cuss’ words in humor. Yet another contradiction.
At this point, I have to wonder if honoring cultural preference really is your motive. It seems you have some other standard which you, for whatever reason, aren’t telling us about. This other standard is that by which you are really function. When our culture conforms to your standard, then you say you like post-Victorian culture and want to conform. When our culture doesn’t conform to your standard (as in humorous use of ‘cuss’ words), you condemn it. The question is, what is your standard? It cannot be scripture or morality, because you have already agreed that scripture is silent and that using such words is not sinful.
KWR
Got a blog now. Check it out if you gat a chance.
–Rainbolt
Rainbolt,
Don’t see any blog link.
Hey, dogg,
.
A chaplain I knew and respected in Florida shared with me one his thoughts on language, mirroring the third argument you outline above, the maturity/vocab issue. I see it with my troops all the time. Our unit’s new executive officer was giving us a briefing this afternoon, and was dropping the s**t word left and right. I’m so used to people saying that I gave it very little thought…I may not say it, but other people do regularly. It wasn’t until he dropped the G-D phrase that I really noticed (and another guy admonished him because I was in the room
So yeah…something like the conversation you and I had a couple of months ago.
I don’t think I’ll be using more than my typical damn crappy hellish vocab any time soon, but it’s good that you’ve given me an excuse now.
Jeremy,
Good to hear from you. Sorry to take so long to reply. I’ve been on vacation and without internet for a few days. Perhaps you can email me (find it on my about page)and let me know what you’ve been up to since I saw you last. Thanks for the youtube link. I enjoyed it.
Fraiser,
Sorry. Thought you could just click on my name…still getting used to this blog thing. The link is preparingforbattle.wordpress.com
–Rainbolt
Fraiser:
You raise some excellent points regarding the inherent sinfulness of words (or more precisely, the lack thereof), the notion of “harm ” as being a determinant of the rightness of speech, and the necessity of examining motivations of the heart when evaluating any human behavior. Still, I think you have reached a conclusion that is only partially true, and I would urge you to do the following:
1. Make a distinction between “cursing” and “cussing.”
2. Look at what Luther the pastor had to say about cursing/cussing, not just the curse/cuss words employed by Luther the polemicist.
3. Further develop the idea of the contextual use of “foul language” from the perspective of the Doctrine of Vocation.
Please permit me to explain.
1. “Cursing” is the process of vexing, insulting, or damning another person. Accordingly, “curse words” are those that communicate said intention. (”D*** you,” “F*** you,” “Go to H***, “A******” etc.) While there are a number of ways in which one could do this, the explicit curse words are understood socially to be particularly vile. They were designed to convey a sense of vulgarity and to express seething anger, resentment, and hatred in the harshest sense.
“Cussing,” on the other hand, is rude speech. It conveys a sense of indecency and impropriety. On one hand, “cuss words” can function in hyperbolic fashion to overstate a situation and draw emphatic attention to one’s thoughts or feelings in an offensive way. On the other hand, they can explain in crude terms human bodily functions, particularly those involving the “private” parts.
2. Luther the pastor viewed cussing and cursing in a decisively negative light. Indeed, he seems to have had no qualms about calling them sinful, and his ascertations have been confessionally codified in the Book of Concord within the Small and Large Catechisms.
Let’s take a look at a few examples (all from the Kolb and Wengert edition of 2000):
The Sixth Commandment
In his explanation of “You are not to commit adultery,” Luther writes, “We are to fear and love God, so that we lead pure and decent lives in WORD and deed, and each of us loves and honors his or her spouse. (Small Catechism, p. 353)
“But inasmuch as there is such a shameless mess and cesspool of all sorts of immorality and indecency among us, this commandment is also directed against every form of unchastity, no matter what it is called. Not only is the outward act forbidden. but also every kind of cause, provocation, and means, so that your heart, your LIPS, and your entire body may be chaste..” (Large Catechism, p. 414).
“[T]his commandment requires all people not only to live chastely in deed, WORD, and thought…” (ibid, 415)
Now, one might say that this does not refer to cussing and cuss words (I believe it does, just as I would maintain the Eighth Commandment forbids cursing and curse words). But let’s look at what Luther says in his “Short Order of Confession” (pp. 360-361):
“In particular I confess to you that I have not faithfully cared for my child, the members of my household, my spouse to the glory of God. I have CURSED, set a BAD EXAMPLE WITH INDECENT WORDS and deeds, done harm to my neighbors, spoken evil of them…”
Luther is describing both cursing and cussing as sins that need be confessed.
3. Luther instructed confessees to look at their sins in light of their vocations (p. 360): “Here reflect on your walk of life in light of the Ten Commandments: whether you are father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, servant…” He also instructed preachers to “Put the greatest stress on that commandment or part where your people experience the greatest need. For example, you must strongly emphasize the Seventh Commandment, dealing with stealing to artisans and shopkeepers…” (Preface to the Small Catechism, p. 349) He was saying the commandments should be preached to persons vocationally (contextually). The brief order of confession that was under No. 2 above was in the context of the vocation of master or mistress.
In summation, you are somewhat right that curse/cuss words are not inherently sinful and there doesn’t exist a list someone of proscribed words that cause us to sin when we use them. But I think it is important to remember that some words have been constructed entirely with cursing, offending, and being indecent in mind. Thus, in all but the most limited (and extraordinarily rare) uses, they must be regarded as sin that need be confessed. This is especially true in a society like ours, where coarse speech and licentiousness run as open sewers in the street.
Maybe your conscience was rightly offended by your mother’s choice of words after all.
In the sincerest expression of friendship and healthy debate,
Lutheryan
I stumbled across your blog today and enjoyed this post. I personally use curse words in my speech at times, but there is one point thatI wonder about. What about the perception it leaves people with? I mean cursing is (as you have pointed out) considered a sin by most. So, if a person were to hear me using foul language would it no hurt my witness as a Believer? I struggle with this myself. At what point do we quit worrying about “causing a brother to stumble” and live our lives? My thoughts are small but my point I believe is valid.
Ryan,
Yours is just the kind of comment I like to get on here. It’s insightful, well-articulated, challenging, and one I think I can answer.
I think your distinction between cursing and cussing is interesting, but I think it’s probably an idiosyncratic distinction of Ryan Travis. I don’t think most people make this distinction between the two and I’m not sure this conceptual distinction can be imposed on the language. Whether one says “cursing” or “cussing” is based mostly on that person’s linguistic culture. People in the deep South tend to prefer the term “cussing” (or “cussin’”). Cursing tends to be the proper term such as the way it is referenced in academics while cussing tends to be a slang term derived from cursing.
But even if you are right to conceptually distinguish these terms, I don’t accept the distinction you draw between them and how you define them.
You write: “They were designed to convey a sense of vulgarity and to express seething anger, resentment, and hatred in the harshest sense.” Not so. Damn you has it’s origins in religious language and was not vulgar (especially since such religious pronouncements were usually said in Latin). Paul for example uses a religious curse in Galatians 1: “Let him be anathema”. The Council of Trent used the same word many times in its pronouncements.
But the original design of these words matters little to none for how we use them today, and I can’t see that we make any conceptual or linguistic distinction between the list you mention as “cursing” and the list you mention as “cussing”.
About cussing you say: “It conveys a sense of indecency and impropriety.” But this is what I’m questioning. This needs to be demonstrated. Are these words always indecent or improper? An assertion that they are won’t do. You say they “draw emphatic attention to one’s thoughts or feelings in an offensive way.” Offensive to whom? What if my audience isn’t offended by those words and don’t find them indecent and improper? Is a person always right to be offended? Maybe there are times that a person’s offense is improper.
Also, I don’t see that you are keeping your categories conceptually distinct. You first identify “F*** you” as cursing, but then you identify cussing as terms of “human bodily functions, particularly those involving the ‘private’ parts.” But the phrase “f*** you” is a sexual reference involving private parts. Why then do you categorize it as cursing and not cussing?
I think the distinction between cursing and cussing is neither helpful nor accurate.
I’m surprised at how confident you are that Luther opposed cursing and cussing. It relies on another distinction that I don’t accept. Luther the polemicist vs. Luther the pastor. Do these categories never overlap? Is he never the polemical pastor or the pastoral polemic? If Luther himself curses and then condemns it as you say he does then he is nothing more than a hypocrit.
All the Luther quotations you give teach things with which I entirely agree.
I agree that we must “lead pure and decent lives in WORD and deed.” Sometimes this will mean that we should not use curse/cuss words and other times cursing/cussing will be a way to lead a pure and decent life in word and deed.
You also cite Luther’s Short Order of Confession “…I have CURSED, set a BAD EXAMPLE WITH INDECENT WORDS and deeds, done harm to my neighbors, spoken evil of them…” At times I have to confess that I have cursed (as I’m sure Luther did as well). Furthermore, I was clear in my post that there are ways to set a bad example with indecent words such as indiscriminately cursing/cussing in front of children. I don’t see where this confession indicates that Luther considered all cursing/cussing to be a sin.
To support the point further that Luther was not against cursing without qualification, I offer the following from both Luther the polemicist and Luther the pastor: “Luther allowed preachers to curse in order to defend God’s honor! He was especially stern with heretics and Schwärmer who, like the Anabaptists, rejected infant baptism; they must be exposed and cursed when they infiltrate congregations with their false teachings” (Eric W. Gritsch, The Wit of Martin Luther [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006] pp. 97-98. See WA 34/2 and LW 8:15-27).
I agree that the doctrine of vocation should further define the context of how we use our language.
“Maybe your conscience was rightly offended by your mother’s choice of words after all.”
Over the use of the word “crap”? I wasn’t offended because I deemed it an inappropriate use of the word in that context, I was offended because I considered that word always wrong to use in every case. I repeat: there is no biblical support for this belief.
Thank you for your interaction. You have challenged me to think more carefully about these issues.
Fraiser,
You are earning a master’s degree in philosophy, and I have no doubt that you are a fine scholar who could run circles around me in the realm of Plato and Wittgenstein. I appreciate very much your tolerating me up through this point and for not quashing me like a bug.
I used the language not of academics or renowned scholars–I dare say I don’t know how they speak of the subject–but of my teacher in the catechism, a man of God who was careful to explain to me the distinctions between “cursing” and cussing” so that I might better be able to evaluate my own behavior in light of the Ten Commandments and to know what was proper to confess. (I need not mention his name, for I have already told you who he was.) I appreciate this opportunity to learn from you. The closest thing I have to a scholarly resource about the topic on my bookshelf is Steven Pinker, who addresses it under the heading “Swearing.” He delineates swearing into five types, two of which sound very close to what I labeled “cussing” and “cursing.”
I will say, though, that your response leads me to believe you overlooked some points I made in my first post. Please permit me to refresh your memory about what I actually said:
1. “You raise some excellent points regarding the inherent sinfulness of words (or more precisely, the lack thereof).”
2. “[Y]ou are somewhat right that curse/cuss words are not inherently sinful and there doesn’t exist a list [somewhere] of proscribed words that cause us to sin when we use them.”
3. “Thus, in all but the most limited (and extraordinarily rare) uses, [the use of curse/cuss words] must be regarded as sin that need be confessed.”
I believe if you re-read what I wrote, I in no place said Luther understood cursing/cussing to be sinful in ALL cases, that there was no overlap in his vocation as pastor and polemicist, and that words cannot be part of multiple categories (curse words, cuss words, etc.)
Of course vocations overlap! It’s obvious in your own life: husband, scholar, salesman, teacher, etc. Of course words, phrases, and ideas fit into more than one category! As Lutherans, we distinguish between the Law and the Gospel but maintain that the same passages of Scripture can be both Law AND Gospel depending on context.
We agree that words in and of themselves are not inherently sinful. We agree that virtually any word can be sinful if employed in certain manners, and we agree that certain terms more often than others inflict harm on our neighbor. Where we appear to disagree is whether some words should be considered “off-limits” because of their perceived vulgarity and offensiveness.
I invite you to read this blog post. It pretty much summarizes how I feel about the topic: http://isaiah543.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/on-cussing-and-cursing/
P.S. You have inspired me to ponder another topic, something I’ll post on my blog soon: to what extent can we say we are free to do something as Christians because Paul (or Luther) did it? Also, I’d like to take up your question about if Luther would be considered a hypocrite if he taught others that something was sinful but then did it himself (it should be very interesting to evaluate his works in light of his admonitions about the Eighth Commandment). Thank you, Iron, for sharpening iron.
Elizabeth,
Thank you for stopping by and making such a useful comment and posing such an important question. After I wrote the post, I commented to several people that there was one other objection that I remember hearing over the years that I forgot to include when I wrote the post. I even planned to go back and edit the post to include it, but haven’t managed to do so. That objection is the very one you raise here: cursing is a poor testimony to unbelievers and can keep them from the gospel.
I have perhaps heard this argument more than any other but somehow forgot about it when I wrote the post (incidently it was from about 3:00-4:30 in the morning). I actually think its a pretty good objection. For one, it doesn’t insist that there is actually anything wrong with these words. And it doesn’t suggest that Scripture is necessarily against their use altogether. It says that if you use them then unbelievers won’t take your Christianity very seriously. Not a terribly bad argument.
Arguments like this are also offered against drinking alchohol, smoking cigars, driving expensive cars, living in expensive homes, even voting Republican or Democrat. Do these things and people won’t take your Christianity seriously or they’ll think you’ve done something a Christian shouldn’t do and this will keep them from the gospel.
Sometimes unbelievers might find it unfitting for a Christian to do things that they are under obligation to do. Perhaps more than all others many unbelievers think that Christians shouldn’t ever pass judgment on sin because, after all, the Bible says: “Judge not lest ye be judged” (This is usually thought to be the KJV wording, though it is not). Christians who call certain actions “sin” are considered to be hypocritical and doing something a Christian shouldn’t do.
But this accusation is based on a misreading of Scripture. Should we cater to those who think it’s wrong to say that a sinful behavior is sinful? Should we play within their rules and not do as God has commanded because they think we are being a poor Christian testimony? Of course, not. We can’t let that misunderstanding control our actions. We have to show them that they are misunderstanding what Christian behavior permits.
In the same way, I can’t let my language be controlled by a misunderstanding that someone has about whether a Christian is permitted to use strong language or whether a Christian is a poor testimony for Christ if they vote Republican, etc. We must kindly and gently correct the misunderstanding rather than act within the false parameters that it sets.
I have had unbelievers comment that I shouldn’t drink because I’m a Christian. And then I ask them where they got that idea. They reply that that’s what other Christians have said. But Christ doesn’t call me to act according to what other Christians say is the right way for a Christian to act. Rather, I am to act according to what his word says. Likewise, it is misinformed Christians who are behind the idea that Christians should never use a word from the “list”. Unbelievers accept the idea without examining it in light of Scripture, and just take it on the word of Christians who say that we should never use this kind of strong language.
If an unbeliever tells me that I’m no different than he/she is because I curse just like he/she does, my response is: no, I don’t curse just like you do. I seek to use these words in a way that conforms to God’s word. Yes, there are wrong and sinful uses of these words, but just as many in Scripture used strong language, sometimes it is appropriate for me to use it. The Bible no where says that we should never use these words. It teaches that we are to use words carefully whatever they may be.
The accusation gives me the opportunity to briefly share what Scripture actually does say. I find this far more fruitful than reinforcing the misunderstanding that the unbeliever has by simply catering to it. To follow the unbeliever’s misunderstanding is only to further convey that the misunderstanding is right.
Furthermore, I think it is probably true that for every unbeliever who is put off by a Christian cursing, there is at least one who considers that Christianity isn’t so restrictive after all. There is freedom in this area and I think it is positive for Christianity to communicate this to unbelievers.
Hope this answers your question.
Fraiser –
Do you have time to answer a short Q? If not, don’t bother to respond to this one.
I was reading in the Didache this morning, and I noticed that the Greek word aischrologia made it into the “way of death” vice list in 5.1.
The word is usually translated “obscene speech” or “dirty talk” (BDAG) and it is the word Paul used in Col. 3:8, a context which deals with vices Christians are to put off.
Though it seems to be the parallel expression to Eph. 4, I’m not sure we can say this, since edification is not in contrast in Col. 3:8. Even if it is the parallel expression, it seems that Paul has a certain speech in mind, a speech that may have been characteristic of the old man, which they are not use any longer.
What’s your interpretation of this verse?
Ryan,
Thank you for your reply.
You underestimate yourself and overestimate me with a statement like: “I appreciate very much your tolerating me up through this point and for not quashing me like a bug.”
I’m no bug quasher and you’re no bug. I don’t believe that I have this ability, and if I do, I don’t know that I have it so as to use it.
Regarding the cursing-cussing distinction, I am unclear on your reason for making it in the first place. It is not as though you consider one category (say, cursing) more acceptable than the other. You seem to have an equal attitude toward them both. You say, “Thus, in all but the most limited (and extraordinarily rare) uses, [the use of curse/cuss words] must be regarded as sin that need be confessed.”
The original point of my post was to make the case that, contrary to popular Christian opinion, these words are not sinful, but may, in fact, like all words, be used for either good or bad purposes. This determines what is right or wrong about these words. I can’t see how making a cursing-cussing distinction illuminates this issue any when you don’t make a moral distinction between your two categories.
Btw, dictionary.com defines “cuss” as: “to use profanity; curse; swear.” It’s definition includes “curse”. Regarding its origin, it says that came into use in 1765–75, and it is an “Americanism” and a “var.[iant] of curse, with loss of r and shortening of vowel”. I don’t see a distinction either formally or functionally between these two. So making such a distinction is quite artificial.
I am aware – and was already aware – that you do not consider all uses of these words to be sinful (though I am unaware what uses in what contexts you do consider acceptable). But as regards the categories you employ, I can’t see that you draw a moral distinction between them qua categories.
True, you didn’t initially say that there “was no overlap in [Luther's] vocation as pastor and polemicist, and that words cannot be part of multiple categories (curse words, cuss words, etc.)”.They were more like necessary assumptions that you made for making your point.
So when you say “Luther the pastor” as opposed to Luther the polemicist “viewed cussing and cursing in a decisively negative light.” and also recommend that I “look at what Luther the pastor had to say about cursing/cussing, not just the curse/cuss words employed by Luther the polemicist” what else can I conclude than that Pastor Luther has one view, while Polemicist Luther has another, and that my error was only looking at what one Luther had said. If this distinction isn’t important for understanding Luther’s perspective then why not say that I do not consider all that Luther said about it, rather than say I only need to look at what Luther the pastor said. This assumes that there are two views in Luther here according to his two vocations which was the reason for my disagreement. I’m not just trying to be overly precise. I’m wondering if you thought that Luther did or said something as a polemicist that he objected too as a pastor. This is a different question than whether his vocations overlap. I understand that you think one person can wear multiple hats. But did he wear one hat and say and do one thing, and then put on a second hat and object to people doing and saying the very things he did and said while wearing the first hat? This is how I understood you.
You are right in your identification of our main disagreement. This is good in itself since many times people fail to reach clarity on their disagreement. Yes, we disagree “whether some words should be considered ‘off-limits’ because of their perceived vulgarity and offensiveness.” I consider that there will be uses and contexts in which these words are off limits because in these cases they are vulgar and wrongly offensive, but the words themselves do not make it so, but how we use them. But mere offense is not enough reason to not use them. Sometimes when we offend people we are wrong to do so, but not always. Sometimes the person who takes offense is wrong to have taken offense. I don’t propose to know a formula into which we can place the variables to determine when it is acceptable to offend and when it isn’t but suffice it to say that offensiveness is not a sin in itself. In fact, we may not be a Christian if we fail to offend in certain instances.
Love will set limits because we would rather choose to limit our freedom than give offense to the gospel. In this way, refraining from cursing in certain instances will be no different than refraining from eating shellfish in the presence of an Orthodox Jew. Eating shellfish is no more a sin in itself than cursing. We are free this instance. We should think about cursing what Paul thought about circumcision:
In a different context Paul may have just as easily told Timothy not to curse/cuss so as to gain a hearing among those who are not believers but may not give the gospel a hearing because (for whatever reason, it doesn’t matter) they cannot tolerate cursing. But Paul would hardly say (given that he’s thinking about it like he does circumcision) that the Christian is bound not to curse because some words are offensive to some. And like he did with circumcision he would perhaps tell the very people he is catering to on the matter that he is free in Christ not to be bound by the law of another. But that he chooses not to exercise a freedom that he has in the matter. The freedom to choose to not use our freedom is part of the freedom we have. So we are free to not curse but we are not free to believe that we are not free to curse.
Meade,
I’m against obscene speech too. Christians should be. But what makes for obscene speech isn’t clear. In some contexts it will include words like “idiot”, “poop” or “fart”. In other contexts it will include words like “f***” and “asshole”. But there’s no one-size-fits-all-contexts list that constitutes obscene speech. Yes, it’s easier to simply make a list and tell Christians not to use it since no one has to use discretion or think about how to use strong language, but this approach doesn’t wash biblically. As I’ve thought about it, this is how I would summarize the language issue: the only restraint I have on my speech is love. I am free in every other way with regard to how I speak. Sometimes it will be unloving to use a curse word in a particular way. Other times it won’t be. This transcends the issues of the offense it causes. Being offensive is not inconsistent with love and at times love will be the offense itself.
Love is how Paul sums up how we are to live – in word and deed – in Colossians 3:
Love is what is to govern our speech, not a list that people made up. This means that sometimes we will appear to be even stricter on our speech than those using the list since we will refrain using words in an unloving manner regardless of whether they are on the list. And other times we will appear to be highly immoral because people don’t like that we used words that they (for whatever reason) think are evil — all the while being governed by love.
So love will set limits on speech but nothing else. In all matters we truly are free from law.
I’m not saying that the list is irrelevant (even if I disagree with the concept of the list). The list exists whether I like it or not and it does to an extent (the exact extent I do not know) determine what is the loving thing to say. But I am not under compulsion to adopt the list myself and follow it. Rather, the fact that other people feel they are under compulsion to adopt the list and follow it will be a factor that I take into account in considering what is the loving thing to say.
As you’ve pointed out previously, Paul uses a word in Philippians 3 that some would consider “obscene” but this does not mean that the word is, in fact, obscene. Was his language used in an unloving way? No, it wasn’t. It was a powerful way of saying just how worthless his own righteousness is. I’m pretty sure many modern conversative Christians would be asking Paul to resign his ministry for using this word if he were a missionary today. But then again, maybe Paul wouldn’t have used that word if he was ministering in today’s context. After all, words are not static and do change their meaning and their effect. Shit is still shit, but shit may not offend the same way in all cases.
Paul does have “a certain speech in mind, a speech that may have been characteristic of the old man, which they are not use any longer”, but this certain speech is an unloving way of talking not a list that they are to follow. As I understand this passage it is completely complimentary to Ephesians 4. Throughout all of what Paul says about speech, he does not put a limit on speech beyond love, which is not really a limitation on speech in the sense of a law but something that someone who really has love desires to do anyway. It is what they want to do and it makes any command superfluous. Like commanding the sun to shine. In the same way Paul tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church without delineating a strict law. If they love their wives then love will set its own limits. It doesn’t look for how much it can get away with. Just as Christ was free in all things but only bound himself by his love for the Father, so also we are free in all things and free to bind ourselves to love for others.
Fraiser,
I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of Col. 3:8. You are trying to collapse this text with Eph. 4, which may be possible.
In Eph. 4 the point is edification, and therefore the corrupting talk works against this end.
In Col. 3:8, Paul seems to have a particular obscene speech in mind, which was characterstic of the way the believers used to talk and act. Now, Paul tells them to put off obscene speech. This seems like a whole category of speech, not just whether this category of speech would or would not be used for edification. Look at the items in Paul’s list: anger, wrath, malice, and slander. With the possible exception of anger, these things ought never to be in the Christian’s employment, either categorically or functionally. “Anger” may remain a possibility, but it would depend on the context of use and even this use of anger must be controlled and aimed rightly. Jesus demonstrates righteous anger, but James 1:19-20 says we must be slow to anger for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. Perhaps, James leaves open the option for Christians to have an anger that works the righteousness of God, but clearly if ever, it is to be used sparingly. Perhaps, here your anger “in love” may work, but I’m not certain. Christ does this perfectly, we most probably sin in our attempts to be angry in love.
Sure, there may be disagreement over what words are on the list, but you have admitted that the list exists. It seems that Paul knew of the list in his day as well. We may be wrong in our appeal to Phil. 3 at this point. Perhaps skubala is not on the list, and therefore Paul uses it. The translation of that word into English is on our list, but it may not have been on the list in Greek. This is a possibility. Very people if any are offended by the word refuse or feces or the like, and the word may simply have this import in Greek. I don’t know. Maybe I spoke to quickly in my previous comment on this verse.
Meade,
I’m not clear on why Paul seems to have a particular obscene speech in mind – something like a list. You call it a category of speech. I agree. But then you talk about a list which is where you lose me. I take the various ways that words can be used to be categories of speech.
A list has loopholes. A list can be manipulated so that you technically fly under its radar. So if I tell you in writing: “Go f*** yourself”, I have not used a word on the list and thus cannot be accused of doing so. But it functions no different than if I say “Go fuck yourself.” What makes the second statement wrong (given that it was spoken in anger to injure a person) is the same thing that makes the first one wrong and neither one has to do with the word being a word on the list. The former one isn’t on the list but is still being used in the same way and thus is just as wrong as the latter.
The kind of speech that I understand Paul to have a problem with is the kind of speech that relates to the other things he mentions: anger, wrath, malice, and slander. I find it interesting that you admit an exception regarding anger but have can’t imagine an exception when it comes to obscene talk. Why not? You say: “‘Anger’ may remain a possibility, but it would depend on the context of use and even this use of anger must be controlled and aimed rightly.” Why can’t the same be said of obscene talk?
Now, I lean toward the idea that Paul doesn’t have an exception regarding “obscene talk”, but, of course, I do not think that he is identifying a list of words that we cannot say in any circumstances.
But there’s not much difference between defining “obscene talk” as that which has no exceptions and is defined as improper use of language in the wrong context and “obscene talk” as a definite list of words and expressions but admits of exceptions based on how they are used and in what contexts. I find both of these closer to the Colossians text than what (I think) you are suggesting.
So why do you think Paul identifies a definite list of words and expressions that are off limits regardless of context when you don’t view anger this way? Wrath of course would have to make the list of exceptions to since God has wrath. It is possible for Christians to have a righteous wrath just as they can have righteous anger. The two are not that conceptually different. This makes the count two for two on which practices have exceptions and which do not, with “obscene talk” breaking the tie.
I agree Paul has in mind a way of talking “which was characterstic of the way the believers used to talk and act”, but how do you know it involves a list?
You are trying to limit me to “whether this category of speech would or would not be used for edification.” But this limitation is your creation, not mine. Sometimes words may tear down and yet they may be words spoken in love. Words may tear down what needs to be torn down before other words can be used to build up. I see Christ doing this with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. Sometimes what we say will not be taken as edifying and may not in fact be. We cannot edify someone in their sin. The preaching of the law simply does not edify, it simply does not build the person up. Speaking what is loving does not necessarily mean edification.
“Sure, there may be disagreement over what words are on the list, but you have admitted that the list exists. It seems that Paul knew of the list in his day as well.”
I don’t know that anyone on this thread ever denied the existence of the list. Yes, there has been disagreement over what words are on the list, but more importantly there has been disagreement over the legitimacy of the list. The list is unbiblical. It does not determine what constitutes the speech of the old man, but more importantly there’s no feasible way to weave in our contemporary list into Paul’s statement of obscene talk. But we can say that just as there are unloving ways of speaking in Paul’s day there are unloving ways of speaking in ours, and as Paul points out in Colossians 3, love is the goal.
But the bigger problem as I see it is your effort to bind people to a law that Christ does not. The old man’s problem isn’t that he used words that some people don’t like or think are bad. His whole approach to language was wrong. Words were used for self when self was Lord, but now Christ is Lord and he is our righteousness so we don’t have to use them for ourselves, we can use them for others. The only time the list is relevant is when it conflicts with our new freedom. Sometimes it conflicts because those words are employed to harm. Sometimes it conflicts because it seeks to limit this freedom in ways that have nothing to do with faith working through love. This last conflict is what I understand you to be pushing.
Meade,
It’s good to see you’re back in the discussion. Apparently you weren’t pulling the blog equivalent of flipping over the chessboard in frustration after all
You appear to have abandoned your former argument regarding “post-Victorian” cultural preference and are now proposing Col 3:8 as a scriptural command which implies that we must honor the current list of forbidden words.
You suggest that in that Paul meant to indicate a list of taboo words in the last part of that verse, because, except for anger, the things Paul forbids are impossible to practice without sinning.
I think we all agree that whatever Paul means by ‘obscene speech’ is universally unacceptable for Christians. It is not at all clear, however, that Paul means by that term to indicate a mere list of ‘cuss’ words. And, strangely, you don’t really offer a defense for your assertion to that effect. You write “this seems like a whole category of speech, not just whether this category of speech would or would not be used for edification.” Even if so, “speech used to harm or destroy” is just as much a “category of speech” as is a list of ‘cuss’ words.
However, I don’t see how your ‘category’ idea really fits into this list. Are you saying that slander is also a “category of speech” which indicates a specific list of words? If obscene speech indicates a list of ‘cuss’ words to avoid, wouldn’t slander also indicate a similar list of words which must be avoided?
Fraiser’s original argument is that such commands forbid the use of any words in a corrupting (or in this case obscene) way rather than merely the use of words on a specific list which happens to exist in one’s culture. Col 3:8 fits very well with this understanding.
Here again, it looks like your standard is neither clear scriptural teaching nor desire to honor a cultural preference. Perhaps you should just come out with it. What really is the standard by which you condemn your culture’s use of particular words (i.e. in humor)? You seem to have a clear understanding of what you feel should be condemned, but scriptural support for that condemnation is somewhere between extremely weak and completely non-existent.
KWR
Fraiser,
Can we agree that Paul is giving a command to Christians to put off these behaviors in Col. 3:8? that this is a law that binds all Christians?
There is a law for Christians, and one finds part of it right here. There is a morality for Christians to walk in, the morality of the new humanity, the the morality prescribed by Christ himself and his apostles. This is not some false morality or righteousness. It is a command from Christ, and therefore we need to understand its contents. I realize you are attempting to understand this also, but please, don’t charge me with legalism or setting up a law that Christ has not, since I’m trying to understand the command too. We are dealing with a command, a law, but we have different understandings at present about what this law calls us to do.
So Kevin, Scripture is my foundation or reason. I had not reflected on Col. 3:8 previously, so these are new thoughts. The culture aspect of this discussion is on hold, until we can understand this verse.
As Christians, we need to be careful in our understanding. If the command is to put off dirty talk or obscene talk and not simply “talk without love”, then there is a difference. The former, I would understand, is a whole category of speech. I use category and “list” together. Category is not simply a use of speech, but it is that part of language which is considered dirty, not necessarily by the culture alone, but by Scipture itself (Phil 4:8; another command).
Now you have raised an interesting argument appealing to my possible exception of anger. However, the only problem with my exception is that clearly all of these actions are unrighteous and sinful since we are being instructed to put them off and since they are characterizations of the old man and are at odds with who we are in Christ, the new man. So if Paul does believe that there is a righteous anger or wrath, this is not the text from which to prove it. Just by saying God has wrath, therefore Christians can also have wrath does not really say anything. God points his wrath at God, but we don’t. God presently points his wrath at sinners (Rom. 1:18ff), but we don’t. Instead Paul wants the wrath or curse of God on him for the unbelieving Jews (Rom. 9:1-5). So I’m not quite sure where you are going with this concept in this context. All of these vices in Col. 3:8 are to be put off.
I see that Paul has a type of speech in mind, not simply a manner of speech in mind from the verse itself. What are the fine distinctions in Paul’s list itself? The other word in Paul’s list seems to get more at what you are advocating such as blasphemy or defamation or slander, where average every day words are used for the tasks of the devil. These words are used without love and for the purpose of harm. Now if blasphemy or slander is already mentioned in the list, and this slander can employ all kinds of words for its evil purposes, why mention dirty talk or shameful speech afterwards? Is it because there is no proper context for such dirty talk, since this type of speech does not focus our thoughts on the things above where Christ is?
No matter in what context one uses these words, one cannot escape their meanings according to modern usage. These words conjure up thoughts which are not consistent with what Paul has called us to in 3:1ff or Phil. 4:8.
Where do you see that Paul is simply intending a negative manner of speech here (talk without love), and not the type of speech or vacabulary itself? I realize you are reading the latter context where love is mentioned. But in 3:14 “beyond all these things” surely refers to the virtues just mentioned, not the vices mentioned earlier. So Paul is not saying that there is a way to bind malice or slander in love. After the vices are removed, only the virtues remain to be bound.
Let me be clear about how this comment started. We are free from the law with respect to ultimate righteousness before God (Gal. 5:1). However, we are not free from Christ’s law (1 Cor. 9). Some may be free from mine or your interpretation of Christ’s law, but we are both trying to understand Christ’s law so that we can live as the new humanity in this present evil age. In my mind it is not an antinomian/legalistic controversy.
Meade,
Two things. You write:
So Kevin, Scripture is my foundation or reason. I had not reflected on Col. 3:8 previously, so these are new thoughts. The culture aspect of this discussion is on hold, until we can understand this verse.
1) If scripture were the basis of your condemnation, then you wouldn’t keep switching standards. You keep thrashing about wildly with regard to the reason for your condemnation of using ‘cuss’ words (first it’s scripture, then culture’s preference, then some strange idea of not being like truck drivers, then scripture, then scripture but with culture’s preference on hold). In fact, the only thing that has remained constant in your comments is your condemnation of using ‘cuss’ words. There is obviously some reason behind your condemnation, but if scripture were that reason, you wouldn’t be searching for some scriptural defense.
Perhaps it is that your mother taught you that those words themselves were evil (most of our mothers did), and your tendency is (as it should be) to stick with that training. I certainly respect someone who has that as a conscious motivation for wanting to find a list in scripture; so long as he recognizes that scripture is not his foundation, and he is willing to adjust his thinking by scripture rather than force scripture to support his thoughts.
2) Your argument that by ‘obscene speech’ Paul specifically intended to indicate a list of words which the culture holds to be ‘dirty’ is not getting you anywhere. So far the only thing that supports that idea is your bare assertion (the other points you bring up–category of speech, how it completes the list, etc.–do not eliminate the other interpretation) that Paul means a list.
You might have a better shot at arguing that obscene speech includes (but is not limited to) such lists, but then you would have to find some other scripture to support the notion that list words are necessarily obscene speech–and you don’t have many straws left to grasp at.
KWR
Meade,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. It’s easy for the comments to start taking longer and longer to respond to as they grow in their length and I don’t want to expect this of you when both Kevin and I are commenting. So I’ll try to keep my comment here uncharacteristically brief.
“Can we agree that Paul is giving a command to Christians to put off these behaviors in Col. 3:8? that this is a law that binds all Christians?”
Yes, we are to put off these behaviors and yes this is a law that binds all Christians. And, yes, we are under Christ’s law. The issue, however, is are we bound in the way that you say we are. You want me to take into account your good intentions to understand this text, but good intentions do not matter for whether you are compelling Christians to conform to something Christ does not expect. I did not call you a legalist and I would not. What I have said about you is nothing I wouldn’t say about myself sometimes. We all love to retreat to legalism (some more than others). We all like to put restricitons on something we are worried will get out of hand. This is a temptation we all give into at times (even those we might call antinomian). But in this case I can’t see that Christ has bound us like you say he has. So I have a problem with you resticting speech beyond Christian love.
Your reason as I understand it is that it was part of the speech of the old man. I want to understand better what you mean here. The old man said a lot of things. He said “hello”. He said “I love you.” So it can’t be simply that these were things said before people became Christians. There must be something that they were saying that was wrong to say which we now ought to put off. But then we are back at the question of what makes it wrong in the first place. Unless it can be shown what was wrong about these words in the first place, I can no more consider them wrong than I do “Hello” and “I love you”.
The only way in which I see these words associated with the old man is that they were used at times to harm. But clearly they don’t have to be used that way. They don’t have to be used in ways that violate Phil 4:8 (Btw, I take it that Phil 4:8 is saying we should think on those things but not only on those things. Sometimes we have to think about the ugliness of death, or the awful truth of hell, or the suffering of those by disease and hunger).
What I’m looking for then is for you to demonstrate what makes these words wrong in all cases. Saying they were used by people before they were Christians won’t do.
I also want to point out that I’m on the side of Proverbs here as well.
“The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but a perverse tongue will be cut out.” (Proverbs 10:31).
What’s wrong with the perverse tongue is that it doesn’t do what the mouth of the righteous does. But there is nothing about the list of words that says that they cannot be used to bring forth wisdom. As it happens, many people do not use them to do this, but they also do not use words that you use everyday to do this either.
“Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Proverbs 12:18).
Here again, we have to be careful about how we use our words. The list of curse words no more damages than the list of acceptable words brings healing. What will pierce like a sword are words used to harm and what will bring healing are words spoken in love.
Fraiser,
I apologize that I won’t be able to have a full response for a little while. I need to check some primary sources before my next response, and that will take me a little while, since my time is short as it is.
I won’t quibble over whether you called me a legalist except to say that I assumed, “But the bigger problem as I see it is your effort to bind people to a law that Christ does not” was your definition of a legalist. This is my definition of a legalist, and I should have asked whether it was yours too. My goal has been to bind the Christian to Christ’s commands alone and not to man’s. You’re right to say that intentions alone are not sufficient. I simply wanted to clarify them. If my argument fails, then the intentions were not wrong as much as the argument for my interpretation of the command was wrong.
My concern is primarily exegetical. What does aischrologia mean? If it means foul language then I think I’m right, but if it means something like abusive speech then Paul is talking about employing dirty language in the defamation of others, and he is not prohibiting all dirty or shameful talk. The problem is that I have looked at very good lexica that go both ways. I’m not convinced by some of the secondary sources in BDAG that say aischrologia should be taken with blasphemia. On this reading the dirty talk simply “flavors” the derrogatory/defaming remarks towards others. The reason why I don’t like this reading is because it is too interpretive of the relationship between these words. Paul seems to have two independent ideas here. He could have related these ideas by the use of participles or prepositions to have said defamation with dirty talk or the like. The fact that he does not relate the words together but simply lists them side by side suggests two ideas, not one idea with an additional comment.
Of course the old man and the new man use the same words like hello and good by etc., but the question is whether Paul is talking about the old man’s dirty speech/vocab, i.e. speech that is complimentary on the semantic level to the earthly members (not deeds but members or desires, internal parts) i.e. immorality, impurity etc. (Col. 3:5), which we are commanded to put to death.
I don’t see an “either or” here necessarily. The Proverbs citations affirm the manner of speech and that is also true. I’m just not sure that’s all Paul is saying in Col. 3:8. He certainly intends this meaning with blasphemia, but I’m not sure he intends this with aischrologia as well.
I hope this clarifies things a little. I hope to have a little more to say in a few days, and then I will probably have to drop the conversation for the time being. Thanks for making me think about this issue more.
Fraiser,
I will speak my last on this piece and then give up the ghost.
You seem to deny that some words in the English language exist exclusively to express perversity, lewdness, or vulgar offense. (I think everyone would have to agree that if said words do exist, their utterance by Christian lips should be avoided.) I feel like I (and perhaps others) am telling you “The sky is blue,” only to have you reply, “No, you cannot say it is blue because it is red in the morning and evening, black at night, and green before a hailstorm.”
When someone maintains that it is incorrect to say “The sky is blue” (or anything else that is an obvious reality, such as the existence of words in English that were created and/or otherwise co-opted to be vulgar and profane) and instead offers endless qualification, I don’t know what more one can say.
The sky is blue, Frasier. And if that makes me a legalist, I’ll take my chances.
Blessings and hope for another warm day soon in St. Louis!
Lutheryan
Meade,
I suppose I should consider the chess board flipped?
Lutheryan,
Language just doesn’t work in the way you are assuming when you argue that “some words in the English language exist exclusively to express perversity, lewdness, or vulgar offense.” Words are never set in cement with immutable meanings or uses.
For example, the word ‘tree’ certainly means the kind of plant from which we get wood, but it would be silly to say that the word ‘tree’ exists exclusively to denote such plants. Though its denotation has nothing to do with such things, the word can quite effectively be used to refer to a very tall person, a very large plant, a device to hold coats, etc. In fact, it is quite possible for a person to use the word in a way that is clear and effective even if no one has ever used the word in that way before. And it’s even possible that, in time, that totally new use of the word could become the dominant use of that word so that it would seem ‘creative’ for a person to use the word to refer to the kind of plant from which wood is made.
What this means is that there is no such thing as a word that exists exclusively for any single purpose. What I think you are really getting at is that certain words have come to be considered taboo by our culture (i.e., there is a list). Of course, all are agreed on that. The question is, What is the relation of such lists to the general question of morality?
My position assumes that morality exists outside of and above the inventions of a culture (hence it is a standard by which a culture can be judged). Thus, a culture cannot make anything either moral or immoral by adding it to a list.
KWR
Meade,
You and I share the same definition of legalism. But I’d rather charge someone with the definition of legalism than assign the term legalist with no definition. The term, I’m afraid, has risen to the status of an insult and little more these days. I don’t think using that term would’ve clouded the issue. Furthermore, calling you a legalist implies that you are one unqualified. I think that whether you mean to be or not, you are wrongly binding Christians to a law Christ has not, but to call you a legalist in general is not accurate. As I have said, I may be legalistic about some issues too. I think we all are on various points.
I appreciate your careful study on the use of the word aischrologia. I can’t say that I’ve looked at it like you have, but there seems something ironic about you looking to find the meaning of the word based on its use when you hold that the meaning of this word identifies foul words that are foul independent of their use. Why shouldn’t we do a word study on the foul words to see understand their meaning based on use? I think that is what I have been doing in most of these comments.
“Of course the old man and the new man use the same words like hello and good by etc., but the question is whether Paul is talking about the old man’s dirty speech/vocab, i.e. speech that is complimentary on the semantic level to the earthly members (not deeds but members or desires, internal parts) i.e. immorality, impurity etc. (Col. 3:5), which we are commanded to put to death.”
I think you are missing the force of my argument here. How do you know that our modern-day curse words are fitting with what Paul has in mind here. You need a separate argument for what makes the words wrong and then you can say that these wrong words are the practice of the old man in a way that is different than his use of words like: “Hello”, “Goodbye”, etc. This is the argument I’ve yet to see, and until then its simply assertion and assumption that these words are the filthy ones that fit Paul’s understanding.
I’m glad that this post has helped you think more about this issue. Your contribution has helped me as well. That is the primary reason for this blog. For whatever reason, the people that visit and comment are usually quite insightful and we are able to hash out our thoughts on important issues. And at the times we disagree, the other perspective usually helps us nuance our view, and forces us to consider the challenges of opposing views.
I don’t see an “either or” here necessarily. The Proverbs citations affirm the manner of speech and that is also true. I’m just not sure that’s all Paul is saying in Col. 3:8. He certainly intends this meaning with blasphemia, but I’m not sure he intends this with aischrologia as well.
I hope this clarifies things a little. I hope to have a little more to say in a few days, and then I will probably have to drop the conversation for the time being. Thanks for making me think about this issue more.
Felix,
You are only partially correct. “For it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.” The heart does not exist in a vacuum but within a social context (actually, multiple contexts). Thus, the heart learns language to express its intentions from its environment. The heart learns English, and it also learns what you called “taboo” and I call “vulgar” speech. It sounds to me that you are, in essense, being a Platonist, that there exists somewhere a perfect form called “morality” independent of the human experience, and that the words we use are but “shadows” of what exists elsewhere and cannot, therefore, be moral or immoral themselves. (Maybe I am not hearing you clearly)
A society is nothing less than a collection of human hearts working in tandem with one another. We are naming creatures (as evidenced by the Genesis account). Thus, we label and name the thoughts, emotions, and ideas of the human heart. Though these thoughts, emotions, and ideas emerge from individual hearts, there is a shared human experience that necessitates we label these things in a social fashion (or we’d never be able to communicate).
There are undoubtedly wicked, evil, perverse, profane, vile, and vulgar thoughts and ideas. Collectively, we may identifiy these with the words we call “profanity.” Thus, human hearts working in tandem (society) labels a inner immorality with an external term meant to convey it. That term, itself, becomes immoral. You speakonly a partial truth when you declare, “morality exists outside of and above the inventions of a culture.”
A pure postmodern would claim that there are no two ideas exactly alike that are shared between humans–or if there were, we would have no way of knowing it–and so we label things in arbitrary social fashion, trying to deny an intersubjectivity we don’t seem well-equipped to deal with and establishing a false sense of certitude (thus no speech could ever be “moral” or “immoral” apart from social standards). This is not what I am arguing. God determines what is and is not immoral. But human beings, being unique creatures able to experience morality and immorality, have ways of labeling the immorality within them, ways that are collectively categorized and manifest themselves in the words they use.
Lutheryan,
“I will speak my last on this piece and then give up the ghost.”
I understand, but we wouldn’t be disappointed if we saw a resurrection in 3 days.
I love your analogy. It made me laugh (not AT you). I appreciate the reminder that the sky is blue. But it depends on the meaning of the word is (I couldn’t resist the opportunity to say this). I’ll hijack your analogy for my own purposes.
Yes, the sky is blue, so long as this statement is said when it is true that the sky is blue. But I feel like I’m arguing with people who want to say “the sky is blue” when it’s black at night and the stars are out, or when it’s purple and orange at sunset, or red in the morning, etc. The sky is not always blue and it is not needless qualification to point this out. Sometimes it is, but sometime it is not. So it’s only accurate to say “the sky is blue” when it’s blue.
Why is it that the only color of the sky that matters to you is blue? Suppose you go to paint a picture of the evening sky with your sky-is-blue belief. Your belief would taint your representation of your subject.
If you don’t know what more you can say, let me make a suggestion. How about you say, “Yes, you are right the sky is not always blue.”
I’m not sure your unqualified statement that the sky is blue makes you a legalist but it does make you a poor observer.
Yes, curse words can certainly be blue at times, but they are no more blue every time than the sky is blue every time. And saying it till you’re blue in the face doesn’t change their color either.
Lutheryan,
No, I’m not suggesting Platonism. Actually, you affirm what I am saying when you write, “God determines what is and is not immoral.”
You argue that the labels which society applies to immoral thoughts and actions themselves become immoral, thus the words on the list are immoral. Wouldn’t that mean that God only partially determines what is and is not moral…and that society completes the categories?
Also, why is the word “immoral” not itself profane? Certainly it is an external term which society has used to label the inner evils you mention. Of course, ‘profane’ and ‘evil’ would have the same problem.
Further, you must examine the words in question–most of them do not actually refer to immoral thoughts or actions. Urination, Defecation, Copulation, etc. (the things labeled by the most common of the list words) are not evil things of themselves.
KWR
Felix,
The difference between the use of profanity and the use of words like “immoral” is akin to the difference between the use of a nuclear bomb and a cap gun. One is designed to destroy and be used in only the most extreme of circumstances (hopefully never), while the other is something of ordinary use and harmless. That brings me back to what I said earlier: some terms are designed to be vulgar and lewd, while some are not.
When we label the inner vulgarity with terms socially meant to be understood to work that vulgarity outside of oneself, that hardly can be said to be only a “partial” determination on the part of God.
Lutheryan
Lutheryan,
I understand that there is a difference in the amount of impact some words have. That is not the issue. I was attempting to illustrate the inadequacy of the idea that words which refer to an evil thing are themselves evil.
My point was that, the way you portray it, God cannot finally say what is or is not evil, because after he has determined what thoughts and actions are evil, society must determine what words are evil. Thus–in your scheme–the standard of morality=God’s determination+the determination of society.
Also, I pointed out that most of the words in question do not actually label evil things. How can they be evil on the basis of what they are used to label when they label things like urination, defecation, etc.?
KWR
Felix,
I don’t know what it is that you are proposing. That human beings lack the God-given ability to discern whether their constructions are good or evil ? That human beings do not create and construct language? That human beings have no ability to ascertain anything they do (or say) is wrong? Certainly not! This isn’t a system of God+society = immoral or moral. It’s God determines, humans construct and discern what and how they use. That is unless we want to get hyper-Barthian here and all but deny general revelation.
Words do not only refer to things: they transfer them as well. Certain words have been crafted by humans to covey the vulgarity of their human hearts. If you doubt that certain words have not been crafted for this function, I invite you to go to the nearest street corner and utter aloud, “Fiddlesticks, Doggone, Shoot, and Beach.” Repeat the exercise with their vulgar counterparts. (The latter should not be sinful for you, as you would understand your own context and the words would be innocuous.) The reactions you get from persons will demonstrate people recognize that some words are crafted particularly to invoke offense and vulgarity upon others. They exist as outlets of the wickedness of the human heart. The vulgar terms for bodily functions are no exception–they exist to convey a radical sense of uncleanness
Yes, you might go onto a street corner in Greenwich Village or West Hollywood and get no reaction at all, but that in and off itself would not prove your point. I may just indicate a larger social degradation underway in particular subcultures.
Lutheryan,
Thanks for the interaction. I am enjoying it, but it seems we aren’t getting anywhere.
Everything you have said could be stated much more clearly and succinctly in two simple statements: 1)there is a list, and 2) using words on that list is evil. The first we all agree on. Your argument for the second seems mostly to be a) the observation people in our society often react negatively to words on the list–a fact that is implied by the existence of the list–in combination with b) the reassertion of the unproved assumption that the words on that list belong to a special category of words which exist exclusively for evil use.
As of yet, you have given me no reason at all (let alone a good reason) to agree with you. If you could demonstrate that scripture clearly teaches or implies the existence of such a group of exclusively evil words, I would be forced to agree with you. As is, what is there to commend your view to others?
KWR
I’ve the decision that I am going to recant. It’s not that I’ve been so persuaded by the arguments posted here, nor the lack of a biblical “list” so to speak (we are people of the spirit of the law, not the letter). It’s rather seeing the practical implications of my rather broad generalizations.
I spent time last night among a population where I have done ministry: those beginning recovery from substance abuse. Entering this raw, dark, underside of humanity where a life-and-death struggle is literally underway, I was reminded of the work God’s Word is doing to create and sustain faith and unbind the captives that they may be free. Placing a linguistic demand on them at this point would be only to set a legalistic, nit-picking stumbling block in front of them. If I have to make a concession here, I have to make a concession on the nature of the very words used in communication–even if they are understood largely as being vulgar and foul. The words they are using are conveying their experience and struggle, not their inner vulgarity. (It goes back to Fraiser’s point about the prison.)
I will maintain that for most of us in most circumstances, it is inappropriate to use these words due to the potential they have for harm and offense, but I concede there are cases where this is not a risk. They do not always reveal the wickedness of the human heart, though they quite often do.
Lutheryan,
I think I agree with most of what you have said, but I’m not completely sure I understand it. Recanting is not an easy thing to do, so I respect you for that.
You maintain that “for most of us in most circumstances, it is inappropriate to use these words due to the potential they have for harm and offense.” It is true that more care is required in the use of these words than most others, just as more care is required in the use of a backhoe than a garden spade. But I think it would be pointless to make broad assertions like “for most of us in most circumstances, it is inappropriate to use a backhoe.”
Thanks for your thoughtful interactions.
KWR
Felix,
Are you trying to get me to use a curse word against you? Certainly it is a temptation at this point, but fortunately it is one I can resist.
Sure, just do it carefully
KWR
Meade,
Here’s a group for you!
No Cussing Club!
You can get T-shirts, wristband reminders, and an official certificate!
I wish I could get one of those certificates! If anyone ever accused me of being unrighteous, I could whip it out and prove them wrong on the spot!
Ok, I really am being sarcastic now. Feel free to make fun of me now. I deserve it.
KWR
Kevin –
You totally missed the best part of the No Cussing Club – the “No Cussing Club Song.”
It’s sunday, the kids at church have a real treat in store for them; one of the members of the congregation has a wonderfully uplifting testimony about how he used to be involved with drugs and crime, but the police caught him and he went to prison, and found the Lord, and now he’s on the straight and narrow. He’s explaining this in sunday school and one of the kids interrupts and asks, “what was it like being in prison?”, he replied, “you were f**ked.”
You are sinning. Repent. The Holy Spirit never inspires “you were f**ked”!
Martin Luther was a depraved sinner who’s anti-Semitic writings are sick! “None are good but God”!
John,
Your point about using the phrase “you were f**ked” in front of kids, at best, shows that it’s a case of poor judgment on when to use words. It doesn’t prove that it’s always wrong to say “fuck”.
Apparently you didn’t read the entire post or read it very closely because I already made this point (and quite better than you did).
It would be poor taste for one to describe their bowl movements in church, too, but that doesn’t therefore make it wrong to ever describe bowl movements. It is perfectly appropriate in certain contexts, say, when talking with your doctor.
You telling me that I’m sinning doesn’t make it so.
You say, “The Holy Spirit never inspires ‘you were f**ked’!” Ok, I never claimed that he does. But the fact that the Holy Spirit doesn’t inspire that phrase doesn’t make it wrong. The Holy Spirit doesn’t inspire math books or comic books or the phrase “these fries are delicious” but that doesn’t make these things wrong.
“Martin Luther was a depraved sinner…”
Yes, he was. You are, too. So am I. So is everyone but Christ. What does that have to do with this issue? Martin Luther would not only agree with your accusation; he would tell you that he knows that he’s a depraved sinner better than you do.
“…who’s [sic] anti-Semitic writings are sick!” I don’t buy the charge that Luther wrote anti-Semitic works but let’s grant that he did. What does this have to do with this issue? It’s entirely irrevelant to the question at hand.
You haven’t engaged the issue at all with your little rant. Let’s hear a real argument for why it’s wrong to use these words. All you’ve put on display so far is your frustration. It may have made you feel a little better, but it proves nothing…other than that you know how to make yourself look like an ass.
You are sarcasic and you call people names like “ass”. You are not showing honour to your Christian brother when you do this. “Outdo one another in showing honour.” (Romans 12:10)
If it’s not good enough to be done in church, it isn’t good enough to be done outside church, Christianity isn’t just for sundays! The context in which I used “you were f….ked” was the same as the context in which it was used in the Shawshank Redemption – a prison scenario: Therefore the the meaning of the word in my scenario was exactly the same as in the movie. Your point about bowl movements was irrelevant.
“Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.”
“Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.”
Luther hated the Jews and it was not of the Spirit of God that he did so. By doing so he was railing against the command of the Lord.
My point was that you are not walking by the Spirit when you use words knowing they have vulgar connotations. We should walk by the Spirit at all times, and not say anything He would not prompt us to say. “My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs?”
John,
You’ve come a little closer to an argument in your last comment.
To make clear, I never called you names. I said that you showed that you know how to make yourself look like an ass. I never called you one. Furthermore, I don’t know that are a Christian brother. What you wrote in your first comment is anything that a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness or someone from an absurd Christian cult could have written. Perhaps you claim the name of Christ in some way but that’s not enough to go on. Perhaps you are a true believer, I simply don’t know. Even still, we should show graciousness to one another. When reviled we should not revile back, whether we are dealing with another Christian or not (1 Peter 2:21-23). Please consider that when you come onto a blog and don’t engage an issue, but merely bark about how sinful people are for doing something you don’t like, you make yourself look like a jerk (I’ll use a different word this time). Perhaps you aren’t a jerk. If not, don’t act like one. But I don’t think that pointing this out to someone is necessarily inconsistent with Christian love.
From what I know of myself I probably wasn’t acting in Christian love when I pointed out the way you were acting. For that I apologize to you, and request your forgiveness.
Now, regarding the matter of foul language…
“If it’s not good enough to be done in church, it isn’t good enough to be done outside church…”
Ok, now let’s apply this principle. Before I give a mass of examples that show this statement to be very wrong, can you really think of no problems with saying something like this?
There are all kinds of things that shouldn’t be “done in church” that are “good enough to be done outside church.” Here’s a list: throwing baseballs, wearing a swimsuit, eating a plate of nachos, taking your clothes off, bungee jumping, being candid about your bowel movements…the list goes on.
The principle you give simply doesn’t work.
“My point was that you are not walking by the Spirit when you use words knowing they have vulgar connotations.”
Help me follow your argument. Are you saying that because (in your view) Luther was disobedient in one area that makes him wrong in his views on another subject? I’m not sure what you are trying to say, here.
If you are interested in discussing Luther’s view of the Jews. There is already a post on that. http://chaosandoldnight.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/427/
Feel free to comment there. But with regard to this issue, Luther’s view of the Jews has no relevance to whether he was right or wrong to curse at Satan.
One last thing: you keep using the censored word: “f**k”. By the principle you stated above, we must be able to use this censored word in church. Otherwise, if it isn’t acceptable to use it in church (say, printed in a church bulletin), it isn’t acceptable for you to keep typing it here (outside the church).
So I ask: since you are using the censored version of the word, is it acceptable for others to use it? If not, why are you allowed to use it and others aren’t?
You’re implication was that I had made an ass out of myself. You did therefore call me an ass by implication. You are not forgiven because you have not said sorry. You can’t repent if you don’t believe you’ve sinned! You are an un-repentant sinner. God does not forgive those who do not repent: “repent or perish” – so I am not wrong in copying God and not forgiving you (though obviously I’m not saying you’re going to perish)
And I am not barking, I am rebuking. Those who LOVE you rebuke you, those who HATE you keep quiet.
About Luther – I was making a side point! – please, I don’t think you’re really trying very hard to understand me. But perhaps I wasn’t explaining myself well enough, so I’ll spell it out for you.
I said “good” enough to do in church. I was making a point about the morality of things that we do in church. It’s not a good idea to throw a baseball in church – but it’s not morally wrong. If the guy who has (”who’s [sic]” pedantic) become a christian, is explaining his testimony and is asked “what was it like being in prison?”, and he replies, “you were f**ked.” then we don’t say it’s wrong because it’s out of context with what he’s saying, we say it’s wrong because it is morally wrong. The only difference between sunday school and a movie is that we’re more used to hearing vulgar language in movies so we’re more desensitized to it. You can’t tell the difference between right and wrong anymore! Perhaps you’ve been watching too many worldly movies. Everything you do as a christian is supposed to be to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). You tell me how using the mouth God gave you to say “f**k” is to the glory of God?
And no, I would not mind if f**k were written in the church bulletin if for example the bulletin were talking about how it’s evil to use foul language. You are trying to say I don’t understand anything about how we use words in context but that is so totally patronizing (or haughty as the bible would say), you act as if people don’t understand you, but really you’re the one who doesn’t understand them.
“You’re implication was that I had made an ass out of myself. You did therefore call me an ass by implication.”
I’m not going to descend into sharing your obsession over name-calling. I stated that you made yourself LOOK like an ass. Perhaps you aren’t an ass. If not, don’t act like one. This subject is closed on my end.
“You are not forgiven because you have not said sorry. You can’t repent if you don’t believe you’ve sinned! You are an un-repentant sinner. God does not forgive those who do not repent: ‘repent or perish’ – so I am not wrong in copying God and not forgiving you (though obviously I’m not saying you’re going to perish).”
Haha. Apparently you require the use of the magic word “sorry”. How absurd of me to think that the phrase “I apologize” could stand in for it. I have apologized, and you can do whatever you want with it. That has nothing to do with me at this point. Feel free to pontificate on how saying “sorry” isn’t the same as saying “I apologize”, but I won’t take part in something so ridiculous.
“About Luther – I was making a side point!”
Yes, a side point that is irrelevant to the discussion. Take your side point to a post that addresses this issue. It doesn’t belong here.
“please, I don’t think you’re really trying very hard to understand me.”
So understanding you requires that one try very hard to do so? Why shouldn’t you make it easy to understand you?
“I said ‘good’ enough to do in church. I was making a point about the morality of things that we do in church. It’s not a good idea to throw a baseball in church – but it’s not morally wrong.”
Really? I would think that if I came into a church service throwing baseballs and disturbed people as they were worshipping then this would be a moral issue.
As odd as I find it, let’s grant your conclusion that this scenario is morally acceptable.
What about taking your clothes off? Is this morally acceptable to do in church? If not, then it isn’t morally acceptable to do outside of church. I’ll assume for the moment that this is something you do outside of church.
“If the guy who has (’who’s [sic]‘ pedantic) become a christian…”
A small issue, but I want to get clarity here. You apparently think that when I wrote [sic] I was being critical of those who use contractions. I have no problem with contractions (see my use of “I’ll” above). When I wrote “sic”, it pertained to your use of “who’s” as a possessive pronoun. So when you wrote: “…who’s [sic] anti-Semitic writings are sick!” It should be written: “whose anti-Semitic writings are sick!” “Who’s” is not a possessive; “whose” is. “Who’s” is fine in the sentence: “If the guy who has [who's] become a christian…”
“If the guy…is asked ‘what was it like being in prison?’, and he replies, ‘you were f**ked.’ then we don’t say it’s wrong because it’s out of context with what he’s saying, we say it’s wrong because it is morally wrong.”
Says you. But all you’ve offered is that principle: if it is morally wrong in a church service it’s morally wrong outside a church service. You’ve got a long way to go in defending this. Since I’ve shown this principle to be absurd, I recommend scrapping the principle and offering a different reason.
“You can’t tell the difference between right and wrong anymore!”
Nevermind the categorical difference between right and wrong. I’m asking you to show me that it is always morally wrong to use the list of words you don’t like. Mostly what you’ve done is distracted from doing this by making a lot of vehement pronouncements and commands to repentance.
“Perhaps you’ve been watching too many worldly movies.”
I have no doubt that you would consider many of the movies I watch to be “worldly”. But that counts for very little.
“You tell me how using the mouth God gave you to say ‘f**k’ is to the glory of God?”
God gave me a mouth to say “f**k”? I’m not sure I agree that this counts as a reason God gave me a mouth — not that I don’t think it’s morally acceptable to use that word in certain ways in certain contexts. I’m free to use it, but I don’t HAVE to use it. So I wouldn’t be comfortable with your statement that my mouth is one “God gave [me] to say ‘f**k’”. It doesn’t seem to be a reason he gave me a mouth. But it may (with qualification) be an acceptable use of the mouth God gave me. But I digress…
To answer your question, I suppose that the only way to glorify God with a mouth he gave to say “f**k”, would be to say “f**k”. Seems obvious to me. Perhaps you know of another way to glorify God with a mouth he gave you to say “f**k”. I’m open to suggestions.
“And no, I would not mind if f**k were written in the church bulletin if for example the bulletin were talking about how it’s evil to use foul language.”
So it’s morally acceptable in your view to use a censored version of the curse word so long as you talk about “how it’s evil to use foul language”? So if the note from pastor in the church bulletin said, “It would be evil if I said, ‘One of our members, Mary Smith, is a f**king idiot.’”, you wouldn’t mind. This is quite strange. I would have to object to someone putting this in the church bulletin. There are simply contexts in which it is inappropriate to use curse words (censored or not) – even if someone is condemning it (such as a children’s TV program, a presidential address to the nation, and I would add, a church bulletin).
“…you act as if people don’t understand you…”
When? Where? I can’t come up with anything. Perhaps you can tell me where I did this.
“…but really you’re the one who doesn’t understand them.”
If you are referring to yourself, then you are right: I often don’t understand you.
Oh dear, this is getting heated (and it’s probably my fault for starting it in a heated way – please don’t tell me you agree, if you agree just keep quiet, doing otherwise would be rubbing it in). Look, I’m sorry about coming on so strong. But I really don’t think you’ve understood a work I’ve said. I’m going to go through your response, like you did with mine, just pointing out what you seem to have interpreted me as saying, and what I actually meant. This seems like quite a small matter I know, but if we’re talking about whether something is a sin or not (even if it’s one of the least of the commandments, as Jesus would say) I still think it’s important: So I won’t give up on this discussion yet, even though I think you have treated me quite unfairly.
YOUR POST:
“You’re implication was that I had made an ass out of myself. You did therefore call me an ass by implication.” I’m not going to descend into sharing your obsession over name-calling. I stated that you made yourself LOOK like an ass. Perhaps you aren’t an ass. If not, don’t act like one. This subject is closed on my end.
MY COMMENT:
Forget about technicalities here, I got offended and you said something offensive. Whether you said I look like an ass or that I was an ass doesn’t really matter to me, I hope you can see that I was not wrong to find this a bit (not a lot) rude. I agree that this is just a silly misunderstanding – you probably didn’t intend to offend me, I just got a little hurt.
YOUR POST:
“You are not forgiven because you have not said sorry. You can’t repent if you don’t believe you’ve sinned! You are an un-repentant sinner. God does not forgive those who do not repent: ‘repent or perish’ – so I am not wrong in copying God and not forgiving you (though obviously I’m not saying you’re going to perish).”
Haha. Apparently you require the use of the magic word “sorry”. How absurd of me to think that the phrase “I apologize” could stand in for it. I have apologized, and you can do whatever you want with it. That has nothing to do with me at this point. Feel free to pontificate on how saying “sorry” isn’t the same as saying “I apologize”, but I won’t take part in something so ridiculous.
MY COMMENT:
This point about sorry/apologise was nothing to do with what I was saying. On this point though I will say that ‘apologize’ does come across a little cold, whereas ’sorry’ sounds a bit more meant. Anyway, I can understand why you said ‘apologize’ rather than ’sorry’ since I wasn’t exactly being warm towards you either (and for that, I’m sorry). Right, the point I was really making was that you apologized for “acting in Christian love” but you didn’t apologize for calling me names, which is what I was concerned with. So of course if you don’t think you were acting in Christian love, and because you’ve said sorry, you are forgiven. But I still think that you neither recognized, nor apologized (and this is why I said you hadn’t said sorry) for calling me the names (ass, jerk) I still believe you were calling me by implication. I still believe it because the sort of thing I’d do if I wanted to call someone a name, but I didn’t want to think I was doing anything wrong, would be to get around the situation by saying to someone, “you’re making yourself look like an -” -and then the name. If you weren’t doing this, I’ve very sorry for judging you so. Saying things like, I have an obsession with name calling, is just wrong. I actually don’t think twice most of the time. But since you are a christian, and since I did not (and still do not) consider you a scoffer, I wanted to point out to you that saying this sort of thing can be hurtful. As james says, the tongue is the hardest thing to tame; and we often don’t realize the hurt we’re doing when we say things. I just wanted to help you to see that in future, when you’re talking to other people, saying things like, ‘you’re making yourself look like an ass’ can be quite mean.
YOUR POST:
“About Luther – I was making a side point!” Yes, a side point that is irrelevant to the discussion. Take your side point to a post that addresses this issue. It doesn’t belong here.
“please, I don’t think you’re really trying very hard to understand me.” So understanding you requires that one try very hard to do so? Why shouldn’t you make it easy to understand you?
MY COMMENT:
I think the only reason I mentioned luther is because you seemed to be using him as a role model to justify using swear words sometimes, but I think he was a terrible role model, so this part of your justification was flawed. This particular flaw was only a side point in in my main criticism of what you were saying though, so that’s why I called it a side point. But I still thought it was relevant since it related to the article.
YOUR POST:
“I said ‘good’ enough to do in church. I was making a point about the morality of things that we do in church. It’s not a good idea to throw a baseball in church – but it’s not morally wrong.” Really? I would think that if I came into a church service throwing baseballs and disturbed people as they were worshipping then this would be a moral issue.
As odd as I find it, let’s grant your conclusion that this scenario is morally acceptable.
What about taking your clothes off? Is this morally acceptable to do in church? If not, then it isn’t morally acceptable to do outside of church. I’ll assume for the moment that this is something you do outside of church.
MY COMMENT:
What I was saying was that throwing a baseball in and of itself inside a church building is not morally wrong. For example, if the church is being used for games in sunday school and a kid throws the ball, this is not morally wrong. Compare this to using a swear word inside a church at any time – it just seems wrong to me. And I do go naked it church, when I go to the loo (not fully naked, but partial). So, if we can think of times (even if we have to use purely hypothetical examples that would never really happen in real life) when it’s fine in church to do this set of things (set A) but not that set of things (set B), then I would say, as a general rule (and there probably are some exceptions) the things that fall into set A are the things it would be fine to do outside of church, and the things that fall into set B are the things it immoral to do outside of church. Like I say, there are probably exceptions in special circumstances with this rule, but swearing isn’t a special circumstance. To swear is to use a term that is widely regarded as foul, or vulgar, when another term or phrase would suffice. Therefore, instead of saying “you were f**ked”, it could easily have been said, “it was bad in all sorts of ways, one of those ways was the rape that happened in prison”. This latter phrase is longer than the former phrase I know, but though this has bearing if our goal is to be as concise as possible in the way we speak, it has no bearing if our goal is to be morally good in the way we speak. I am saying that it really isn’t too much of an inconvenience to use our minds to think of phrases to express in non-vulger language what we know we could say using vulgar language. Even if it was a great inconvenience, since when has convenience had anything to do with doing the right thing? We are, as I know you know, called to be set apart from the world, to do things that are difficult because we know they are right. So why would a Christian use their mouth to speak words that are vulgar? I don’t think God wants us to do that. The law is gone, “all things are lawful to me”. We now obey the “law of the spirit of life” that is within us. The new testament is not a new law (like the old written law of the Torah), but it was inspired by the same spirit that is alive within us, so it is authoritative in telling us what God’s commands are. You can interpret the related verses whatever way you like. But I feel in my spirit that it is wrong to use foul language, there is no need for it, and God is not pleased by it – that is all I’m saying. And I want you to repent of using swear words because I think it is a sin that you have done. And like I’ve already mentioned, God does not forgive those who do not repent. But you can’t repent if you don’t know it’s wrong. And I feel God wants me to tell you that this language is wrong, so that you can repent and come into a closer relationship with him. I know all you have is my word for it (because passages in the new testament can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, and when we do not examine scripture with the guidance of the holy spirit, we usually just end up believing whatever suits us – I’m as guilty as the next person of this) but I hope that you will also ask God for guidance specifically on this topic, and I hope that you will meditate on what God wants for you.
YOUR POST:
“If the guy who has (’who’s [sic]‘ pedantic) become a christian…” A small issue, but I want to get clarity here. You apparently think that when I wrote [sic] I was being critical of those who use contractions. I have no problem with contractions (see my use of “I’ll” above). When I wrote “sic”, it pertained to your use of “who’s” as a possessive pronoun. So when you wrote: “…who’s [sic] anti-Semitic writings are sick!” It should be written: “whose anti-Semitic writings are sick!” “Who’s” is not a possessive; “whose” is. “Who’s” is fine in the sentence: “If the guy who has [who's] become a christian…”
MY COMMENT:
I called it pedantic because I was recognizing that I’d made a mistake but I thought it was such a small mistake that it didn’t really need to be pointed out to me. Also, I felt that from the general tone of your response that the real reason you were pointing this tiny thing out to me was because you just wanted to get at me in whatever way you could. If this is not true, I’m sorry for thinking that and I’m sorry for saying “pedantic”.
YOUR POST:
“If the guy…is asked ‘what was it like being in prison?’, and he replies, ‘you were f**ked.’ then we don’t say it’s wrong because it’s out of context with what he’s saying, we say it’s wrong because it is morally wrong.” Says you. But all you’ve offered is that principle: if it is morally wrong in a church service it’s morally wrong outside a church service. You’ve got a long way to go in defending this. Since I’ve shown this principle to be absurd, I recommend scrapping the principle and offering a different reason.
MY COMMENT:
Dealt with above.
YOUR POST:
“You can’t tell the difference between right and wrong anymore!” Nevermind the categorical difference between right and wrong. I’m asking you to show me that it is always morally wrong to use the list of words you don’t like. Mostly what you’ve done is distracted from doing this by making a lot of vehement pronouncements and commands to repentance.
MY COMMENT:
Well, a lot of Christians (including me) can’t tell the difference between right and wrong. We HAVE been desensitized to the wickedness of this world because it surrounds us. And we don’t realize what an offense it is to God. God, of course, hates evil with a hatred stronger (yet purer) than any hatred we have ever come across. His hatred is powerful, and one day, in his hatred he will burn up the heavens and the earth (II Peter I think) and he put under eternal wrath everyone who has walked the broad road (which is “many” according to Jesus). And we think nothing of our sin! In Sodom they thought nothing of their sin, they just got carried away in it, and God gave them over to it and let it get even worse so that his fury would be stronger (I can quote you so many passages that talk about God giving people over to their sin, so that their doom would be worse, but I don’t want to stray off point, but if you do wonder, just ask). Even the smallest sin is a total offense to God and deserves wrath. So it is so important that we remember that God hates all sin, and if we are to love God we must keep his commandments (as Jesus said, “if you love me, keep my commandments”). So we must be alert so that we spot the sins we commit that perhaps we’ve done without even thinking we were offending the one we say we love, and the one who loved us so much that he died for us.
YOUR POST:
“Perhaps you’ve been watching too many worldly movies.” I have no doubt that you would consider many of the movies I watch to be “worldly”. But that counts for very little.
MY COMMENT:
Well, I used to be a movie fanatic! I’d watch about 5 movies a week (when I was about 18 – and yes, I was quite sad) and I can tell you that I found it very very hard not to sin. Even later when I only watched a few movies I found it very hard not to sin. But since I pretty much cut out all movies and all non-factual programs on TV (including cutting out the “documentaries” about sex, and breast enlargement and such, which men like to watch. Yes, indulging curiosity can be a sin.) what I have found is just amazing! I have found it so much easier to resist sins like anger, lust, laziness, coarse jesting, nastiness, vile thoughts about disgusting things, bitterness, envy, gossip (! for any women reading, and yes, it is mainly you, though men do gossip too of course), and a host of other sins. Jesus tells us not to put ourselves in the part of sin, that’s what the whole thing about ‘if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out’ mean (as you probably know). So it’s just a recommendation. But honestly, its done wonders for me. And even though for example violent films never made me violent, I did often find after watching stuff like the Godfather (which I have to admit, was awesome in terms of the qualities of the film, I and II at least) I did find that I fancied myself as a bit of a godfather figure for a few days afterwards, and I was probably a bit harsh to some people because of it.
YOUR POST:
“You tell me how using the mouth God gave you to say ‘f**k’ is to the glory of God?” God gave me a mouth to say “f**k”? I’m not sure I agree that this counts as a reason God gave me a mouth — not that I don’t think it’s morally acceptable to use that word in certain ways in certain contexts. I’m free to use it, but I don’t HAVE to use it. So I wouldn’t be comfortable with your statement that my mouth is one “God gave [me] to say ‘f**k’”. It doesn’t seem to be a reason he gave me a mouth. But it may (with qualification) be an acceptable use of the mouth God gave me. But I digress…
To answer your question, I suppose that the only way to glorify God with a mouth he gave to say “f**k”, would be to say “f**k”. Seems obvious to me. Perhaps you know of another way to glorify God with a mouth he gave you to say “f**k”. I’m open to suggestions.
MY COMMENT:
I just don’t understand what you are saying here. But I’m a bit tired so maybe if I read it again some other time I will.
YOUR POST:
“And no, I would not mind if f**k were written in the church bulletin if for example the bulletin were talking about how it’s evil to use foul language.”
So it’s morally acceptable in your view to use a censored version of the curse word so long as you talk about “how it’s evil to use foul language”? So if the note from pastor in the church bulletin said, “It would be evil if I said, ‘One of our members, Mary Smith, is a f**king idiot.’”, you wouldn’t mind. This is quite strange. I would have to object to someone putting this in the church bulletin. There are simply contexts in which it is inappropriate to use curse words (censored or not) – even if someone is condemning it (such as a children’s TV program, a presidential address to the nation, and I would add, a church bulletin).
MY COMMENT:
I just wouldn’t mind as long as it was censored with stars**. I don’t want to get into another disagreement, so maybe I shouldn’t mention this, but I do think there is a difference between saying something with one’s mouth, and saying something in writing. Anyway, as long as they used stars in the church bulletin and it was appropriate I wouldn’t mind children reading it – after all, they use swear words a lot more, or at lease they did when I was a kid, so they know the words. And as you’ll gather from what I’ve said, I think they should be told they shouldn’t swear. Of course, children probably wouldn’t read the church bulletin, but even if its just adults reading it, it would be a good idea to remind them too.
YOUR POST:
“…you act as if people don’t understand you…” When? Where? I can’t come up with anything. Perhaps you can tell me where I did this.
MY COMMENT:
It just seemed to me as if what you had written, was written with a sort of “you just don’t get it” tone. If it wasn’t, again, I’m sorry for accusing you.
YOUR POST:
“…but really you’re the one who doesn’t understand them.” If you are referring to yourself, then you are right: I often don’t understand you.
MY COMMENT:
I certainly maintain that I don’t think you understood may of my points. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but perhaps (just consider it) you weren’t making enough of an effort to understand me (which, incidentally, was what I meant when I said you don’t seem to be trying very hard).
CONCLUSION:
Okay, so I’m sorry, very sorry, that I’ve been so harsh. I know that a harsh word stirs up anger (Proverbs, somewhere). And I believe I sinned by not being gentle enough (as we are commanded to be in the new testament) so I am sorry for that. I ask your forgiveness. But as far as swearing is concerned, I hold to what I said before, it is wrong. Pray, ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, ask for wisdom, ask for understanding of God’s word. If you don’t ask, you will probably not receive. But, of course, ask and you will receive. Maybe I have made a mistake, but I really feel like God is telling me to say it is wrong. I seem to me to be a Christian brother, in which case I love you. If you are not truly a Christian then you are my enemy, and I still love you. God wants us to be united and all of one mind. I am sorry I have not honored you properly. I am sorry I pointed to the spec in your eye without first removing the plank from mine.
John,
Your conciliatory tone is much appreciated by those who have been watching the interchange. What we would really like to see now is some sort of basis for your assertion that use of swear words is necessarily morally wrong. All you offer is “I feel in my spirit that it is wrong to use foul language.” While that is an adequate basis for your to avoid such words, it does nothing for all the people out there who have no access to what your spirit is feeling. If you want to argue that something is morally wrong, you have to appeal to a standard that is avaiable to and accepted by those you seek to convince.
Scripture is the standard we should be consulting, and Fraiser has done a decent job of arguing that scripture supports his view. If you wish to challenge Fraiser’s view, you shoud offer arguments from scripture. At this point, you have not done so. Thus far, every time you get close to scripture, you launch into red-herring arguments about how bad sin is, how much God hates sin, how diligent we should be to avoid sin, etc. Though true, that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a given thing actually is sin.
Please, show us how scripture supports your view that ‘foul’ language is necessarily evil. If you can’t find it in scripture, you might want to consider changing your view.
KWR
Well this is of course this is a matter of interpretation. But it’s also a matter of spirit. Because it’s by the Holy Spirit that we correctly understand the scripture. And what I was saying was that because I feel the Holy Spirit has guided me in this (and I get the distinct impression it’s not just my mind doing the talking) I think the Spirit of God will also put that conviction on anyone who prays and asks God. The Holy Spirit as I’m sure you agree, is a standard that is available to all Christians and accepted by Christians, who happen to be the people I’m trying to convince. But what I gave as the basis for the for what I was saying was my in church/out of church argument, so I think it’s quite unfair to say that some spiritual inclination is all I offered. In fact, I only offered that later, after I had made my in church/out of church argument. So let’s look at the scriptures:
Ephesians 5:4 says, “Let there be no filthiness nor silly talk nor wittiness in telling coarse jokes, which are improper, but rather the expression of thankfulness.” Filthiness or shamefulness covers many things including shameful language. But more than that, it covers any thought, imagination, desire, word or deed of which a believer who is sensitive to God’s command and views himself as living constantly in God presence would be ashamed. Colossians 3:8-9 says, “But now you, too, lay them all aside: wrath, anger, malice, slander, shameful language out of your mouth.” As I’ve said in a previous post, swear words are totally unnecessary. Other than saying “you were f**ked”, one could easily say “it was bad in all sorts of ways, one of those ways was the rape that happened in prison”. To claim that one was only using “f**k” to save on words is a bit far fetched. We all know the connotations that word has. We know it’s a word people use when they want to say something in a crude way. How was your day? It was awful. How was your day? F**king awful. There is a reason people wouldn’t want this second response (though it means exactly the same as the first) to be said to children. Because it is coarse, we know it is coarse, even if we said it without thinking, we know we could have said it in a more gentle way. The scriptures call us to be gentle many times. But we also defile our mouths with these vulgar expressions. We are called to purity, yet we use words that we know are rude.
We would not teach our children that “f**king is a gift from God”, we would teach them that “sex is a gift from God”. Why, exactly, if you are so happy to say “you were f**ked” outside of church, would you not want to say it in church? You know in your conscience that it is unnecessary and filthy language.
But as I said before, a person can convince themselves of any interpretation of scripture they like. Human beings are great at suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, it comes so naturally to us. So you want scriptural support but scripture itself won’t solve this problem. The disagreement is over interpretation. And to understand the scriptures we need the Holy Spirit. So let us pray for wisdom in this matter, not just rely on our own understanding. The Holy Spirit has put the conviction on my heart that saying these foul things is sinful. So I say again, repent, “For you can be very sure, that no immoral or impure person – which is the same as an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God”
John,
You offer 3 arguments, none of them new. Here’s a quick summary.
1) If little-bitty Betty shouldn’t be sayin’ it, nobody else should be sayin’ it either.
—Fraiser answered this already. There are many things we don’t teach children. Not because they are sinful, but because children lack discretion. We don’t teach a 3 year-old that “Mommy is going to push a new baby brother or sister out of her vagina,” either. There is nothing evil or false about that information, but we avoid teaching her that because she can’t understand when it is or is not appropriate to blurt that out.
2) You don’t have to, so it’s wrong to…
—By that reasoning you would have to conclude that any non-necessary activity is evil. For example, walking is not necessary because we can move about by hopping. Therefore walking is evil. Are you seriously trying to convince anyone with that?
3) The Holy Spirit told me so.
—This is the same argument I pointed out before. There are at least three problems here.
a) How do we know that the HS tells you anything? Was there ever cult leader or false prophet that didn’t claim authority from God?
b) Even if he does, how do we know what the HS told you? You may be lying or deluded.
c) What if the HS told me otherwise? Are you telling us that we should trust you instead of the Holy Spirit? It seems your theology is a bit self-contradictory.
1. Why would anyone ever say “Mommy is going to push a new baby out of her vagina”? I can’t even imagine talking about a woman’s vagina to adult. But if a child asked me how a baby gets out of mommy I wouldn’t mind saying it comes out of a hole called a vagina. So your “There are many things we don’t teach children” argument is flawed – I would teach a child that! And your argument misses my point anyway since I am saying the reason we don’t swear in church isn’t because it’s not the right context or whatever, since there’s no difference between the context of inside a church and the context of outside a church when it comes to saying particular words, the reason we don’t swear in church is because we know it’s wrong to swear. But people suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And then they act like something on sunday and all the people they say hello to and have a tea with think they’re so lovely, but this is all just pretend, outside church they don’t act like that. So it’s hypocritical. They really know that is it wrong to use vulgar language, which is why they don’t do it in church, but the rest of the time, when they’re around their less committed or more secular friends, they will. So saying “it’s just the wrong context in church” is rubbish, it’s not the wrong context, it’s just that they don’t want to reveal their sin to the people in church, and they feel more ashamed in church.
2. You say “Are you seriously trying to convince anyone with that?” the answer is of course no. I don’t think that was what I was saying. I think I was trying to say was that we all realize certain words are rude, and so if we can say the same thing in a different way, why not? – this was another of my side points.
3. You say, “How do we know that the HS tells you anything?” but I thought I’d already answered this: you pray about it and if you too feel that the holy spirit is saying what I’ve said he’s said then you will know. And what was the point of mentioning cult leaders? We’re having a disagreement about swear words – are you equating me with a cult leader for disagreeing? And even if you’re simply saying that cult-leaders are untrustworthy and I might be untrustworthy too, I just don’t know where you’re coming from here. It should be clear from what I’ve said that I’m a christian, I love God, I love Jesus, and I’m not trying to deceive anyone here. To say I’m mistaken is one thing, to say I’m might be lying is unfair. I’ve given you no cause for thinking that’s what I’m doing. If you are a christian then I am your brother in Christ, and I think you should trust that I’m not intentionally trying to mislead you.
“What if the HS told me otherwise” the Holy Spirit wouldn’t tell you otherwise: if both of us are claiming opposite things from the Holy Spirit then one of us is mistaken, and we both need to pray more about it. Do you feel the Holy Spirit has told you it’s okay to say words like “f**k” sometimes?
Like I’ve said many many times, the scripture thing is a matter of interpretation: we both know the scriptures, reciting them again won’t do us any good. Now I’ve given my interpretation and Fraiser has given his, and it seems we disagree. Fraser has given his argument and I’ve given mine. There is only one thing we can do now, and that is pray. Pray pray pray. I say again as one who has been baptized into Christ’s death and now has eaten his body and drunk his blood and has him alive in me, the son of God, the lord to whom all authority has been given, to another christian who believes all these things and like me has accepted Jesus as the one who bore the punishment that brought us peace, I believe you are sinning, I recommend you pray about it and repent.
John,
Again, nothing new. You appear to have given up the first and second argument that I summarized in my previous comment and made your stand entirely on the third (the Holy Spirit told me so).
While that argument would be great fodder reductio ad absurdum, I am too weary of the subject to bother pursuing it solely for easy entertainment–which is the only benefit that I can see coming from further discussion.
Of course, I respect your desire to avoid sin, and I agree that you should be diligent not to transgress the dictates of your conscience. But unless scripture clearly commands it (you come very close to plainly admitting that it doesn’t), you have no business condemning others. “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” (Rm 14.4)
I rest my case with what I said in my previous comment.
KWR
“Do not steal” Oh yes, but we have to understand the context. When that was written they didn’t have big cooperate companies who pay their bosses mega salaries and give them bonuses for doing noting. These companies are being extortionate. They are stealing from the people. If you go into a CD store and take a couple of CD’s without paying for them it’s not really stealing at all.
Okay, that was me trying to demonstrate that the whole “but we have to see it in context” argument about scripture can be used to justify almost anything, even stealing or murder. Yes, I did tell you that we should be guided by the Holy Spirit and I hope you are praying about the matter as I am. But lets look at the scripture again, because you say I come very close to admitting it doesn’t command us not to use swear words. I don’t think that at all – all I was saying is that anyone can interpret the scripture any way they like (just look at all the protestant denominations).
Now Ephesians 5:4 says, “Let there be no filthiness nor silly talk nor wittiness in telling coarse jokes, which are improper, but rather the expression of thankfulness.” That means don’t use swear words! The scripture is clear for those who are not trying to suppress the truth. Saying, it isn’t clear is like saying “well, the scripture never clearly says we shouldn’t take crack” This verse applied to today means using language that is vulgar is wrong.
Am I saying you’re trying to suppress the truth? YES! It’s in your nature to do so, it’s something we all have to fight against! That’s why I keep banging on about the Spirit. You haven’t shown any sign of recognition that scripture doesn’t matter without the sprit. The scripture itself says so: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
So how are we to interpret the verse in Ephesians? YOU TELL ME HOW WITHOUT THE SPIRIT?
If two christians have a disagreement over the verse, the only way to know who is right is through prayer and waiting on God, using our minds (of course) but recognizing that our minds will just want to tell us that we are right already so recognizing that they are probably blinkered to a certain extent. We need to be humble so that we are fully prepared to admit we are wrong. Now some intelligent chap might come up with the best argument, but the not-so-intelligent chap who says the opposite could have been guided by the spirit and have it right. (and no, I’m not saying there’s no point in teachers or intelligent debate, of course there is, I’m just trying to emphasize the primacy of the Spirit of God)
You say things like “Again, nothing new.” but then you go onto say “You appear to have given up the first and second argument that I summarized” EVEN WHEN I HAD SAID that what you call the second of my arguments wasn’t an argument at all, ” this was another of my side points” I said. You aren’t listening and that’s why I keep repeating myself. So you act as if I’m being so dumb, “I am too weary of the subject to bother” you say, but I bet you don’t even understand what you call my first argument (which was in fact my only argument, the spirit claim being an assertion, not an argument) because you aren’t willing to engage your brian in considering it. AND HOW DO YOU FIGURE I HAVE GIVEN UP ON MY FIRST ARGUMENT? HOW?
Fraiser,
This is an interesting post and an interesting discussion. I have not read all the comments (mainly the discussion between you, Kevin, and Meade), so you may have addressed some of these things already.
Your main point seems to be that there are certain contexts in which it is appropriate to use foul language, which means an absolute ban on certain curse words is wrong. The first appropriate context that you gave was the answer given by the former prisoner. Anything other than what he said lacked the rhetorical punch to accurately communicate his life in prison. The second appropriate context is that there are times when foul language can be used to edify rather than harm. You indicated that to properly edify in certain contexts, foul language could be utilized to “shake” the person up in a way that could not be accomplished without those words. The third appropriate context is when we speak of foul things like sin and the devil. Foul things should be described with foul language.
I would summarize them as such: (1) The rhetorical punch, (2) the edifying rhetorical punch, and (3) foul language for foul things.
The whole idea that foul language is appropriate at certain times implies that it is inappropriate at other times. But what are those inappropriate times? One explicit answer you have given is using any language, including foul language, to harm others. So, if language is used in an unloving or harmful manner it is inappropriate. At one point, you write, “So love will set limits on speech but nothing else.”
Interestingly, you still call the list of words “foul language” in a larger category of “strong language.” In calling it “foul language,” you seem to recognize that the list of curse words that our culture has made does have some influence on our usage of those words. For if the list was thrown out completely, there would be no “foul language” to use for foul things. But I am still thinking through how consistent this is with saying, “So love will set limits on speech but NOTHING ELSE” (emphasis mine).
The reason I bring this up is because I have an old friend/co-worker who curses with great frequency. However, it is his use of those words that has always been interesting to me. For example, if someone was really good at some activity, he may say, “You’re the shit!” In his mind, he is trying to edify and build up the other person. And back when I was working in the arcade/comic book environment, this was clearly understood by his peers. Or if someone did something funny, he may say, “You goofy fucker!” as he laughed. In saying this, his intention was to compliment the person. Or one time I was at his house and his dad came up to us and said, “What are you cock-suckers up to?” in a very casual way. My friend explained to me that in his family the term “cock-sucker” is a term of endearment, which his cousin immediately agreed with. Finally, he would use foul language for the purpose of being humorous (which is a good question that Meade brought up).
There have been numerous occasions in which I have shared the gospel with him over the years. If he became a Christian, what would you say to him about his use of language? Most often, he does not use foul language to harm or tear down. In fact, he uses foul language to build up, though not in the rhetorical punch kind of way that you have given. It seems as though he is basically denying (probably not consciously) that the category of foul language, in terms of a list of words, even exists, which explains why he can use the term ‘shit’ interchangeably with the word ‘good’ (for example, when he says “You’re the shit” he means “You’re very good at that”). I am still thinking through all of this, but I wonder if the only objection someone could make regarding his very frequent use of foul language is that he must conform, to some extent, to our culture’s arbitrary list of words that define what is and what is not foul language.
The reason I am asking how you would respond to my friend’s use of foul language is because it touches on a point in your discussion with Meade on Col. 3:8. If “obscene talk” only refers to the way we talk, namely, in an unloving manner, then is there any biblical proof that we are required to submit, in any way, to the arbitrary list of curse words that our culture has created? In other words, does the Bible recognize the category of “foul language” at all, in reference to the very words themselves? If not, then is there any morally binding reason that my friend would need to adjust his use of foul language?
Troy,
In the last paragraph of your comment, you ask:
Is there any biblical proof that we are required to submit, in any way, to the arbitrary list of curse words that our culture has created?
I would say that there is none whatever. The scripture simply does not require us to submit any silly pseudo-morality our particular culture might produce. From the standpoint of morality, we are free to disregard it. In fact, I think we should disregard it.
However, there is a pragmatic issue which concerns the list as well. Most people in our culture do subscribe to the somewhat pagan view that those particular words are special touchstones of genuine evil. Most people have not thought it out, but they seem to really believe that speaking the word “damn” releases a dose of evilness into the immediate environment (like an invisible poison gas). Speaking the word “shit” releases a larger dose, an speaking the word “fuck” releases a giant dose.
Silly? Absolutely. But, we have to live our lives around a lot of people who are unshakeable in that belief. Our interactions with such people will be smoother if we can avoid setting them off. So, in the particular circumstance of this time and culture, I think it is generally better avoid using the term ‘cock-sucker’ to communicate affection and the term ’shit’ to communicate appreciation for a skill. “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
But I must urge caution, fort such benevolent acquiescence can be dangerous. The danger is that we, being products of our culture, can very easily be drawn into following in the foolish beliefs that we are attempting to accommodate. Even if we avoid using certain words for the sake of peace, we must never let ourselves be duped into actually believing that we can make ourselves righteous in any sense by a simple matter of choosing substitutes for the few words on the list.
KWR
Troy,
Your summary of John’s “appropriate context” examples set my mind to thinking of other appropriate uses of the listed words. Here’s one. Mark Twain wrote said:
KWR
Troy,
I always appreciate your thorough interaction with a subject.
Your summary is a good one. Not only was I wanting to argue that foul language is sometimes permissible, I wanted to argue that sometimes using foul language may be the best thing to say (all else being equal).
Then you consider when it is not acceptable to use these words and you quote me to the effect that love is the only thing that should set limits on our speech.
But then you say that your friend isn’t using foul language in an unloving way but it seems that perhaps he should conform to some extent to the list that our culture considers foul. If not, you wonder if there is any moral reason that he should change his language?
I feel as though what I’m about to say I’ve already said to Meade but maybe I’ll elaborate a little more on it.
I take you to be assuming that they are loving since he doesn’t mean them to be otherwise. The fact that your friend doesn’t intend his comments to be injurious or unloving doesn’t make them harmless and loving. We can injure and do unloving things without meaning to.
Suppose your friend walked into a kindergarten class and taught them that today’s fun word is “c**ksucker”. He teaches them to say this word, and he is honestly unaware that this word is nearly universally agreed to not be appropriate in certain contexts (even if they don’t agree that it is always wrong to use). And suppose he believes that he’s helping these children by expanding their vocabulary. He honestly believes there is no harm in the word (though I doubt your friend really believes this), and that he’s done a positive thing in these children’s lives.
This has no bearing on whether he has in fact harmed these children in some way (however small we might think it is). A loving act requires not only a proper motivation but a worthy cause/act as well.
There are times when it is considered, even by people who do not ban these words altogether, to be in poor taste to draw attention to male genitalia or oral sex with the male genitalia. Thus, teaching children words that pertain to this will bring about scenarios in which these words are said in inappropriate times since children lack discernment regarding this kind of propriety. It is a matter that saying these words are in bad taste at particular times. Even if his heart is in the right place, your friend will eventually do something harmful and unloving if he has no control over his language.
On top of that, there are people who find these words wrong to use altogether at all times. These people are simply wrong. They have no biblical basis for claims like these but nevertheless their conscience condemns it.
As free as I am to use any word I please, I must, as a follower of Christ, have a greater concern than my own freedom – serving others. And there are times when this will require me to not use these words. But love remains the only thing that controls my use of them. It is out of love for people that find these words wrong that governs it. If they didn’t believe them to be wrong then there would be nothing to prevent me from using them. Even here though I can let them know that I am free to say what I please. What is a word? What is meat offered to idols? Nothing. But for the sake of my brother/sister I will not say something from their list/eat the meat offered to idols.
So I don’t see why anyone would need to tell your friend that there’s an extent to which he must conform to the list. The list is tangential. His duty to love one another and serve others is primary. Telling him that the list matters means that he is required to think that there is something wrong about these words. But there is nothing wrong with these words. There are people who are mistaken about what they are free to do and if your friend was a believer you could tell him that he should value peace with them more than he should value his freedom to say these words in front of them. But if he is required to conform to the list for the list’s sake then he has to agree with others that it is wrong to use these words. But he could/should let those who are offended know that though he is free to say what he pleases, he chooses not to for their sake. To agree with them that the list is wrong is to let another judge his conscience. And it is over conscience that their mistaken opinion can have no jurisdiction.
Most of what I’ve said here, I’ve already said in my conversation with Meade, but I realize that there is a lot of comments on this post to wade through.
Kevin,
Thanks for your response.
You said, “The scripture simply does not require us to submit to any silly pseudo-morality our particular culture might produce.”
What do you think of Paul’s teaching on head coverings (1 Cor. 11)? Paul says that women must wear head coverings in corporate worship. Should our wives be wearing head coverings in church today? If no, why not?
Often times conservative evangelicals like Tom Schreiner would say that head coverings are no longer binding today, though the underlying principle is. He writes,
“Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.”
In other words, the culture of Paul’s day thought that failure to wear a head covering communicated rebellion to proper authority, whereas in our day failure to wear a head covering does not communicate rebellion to proper authority. Thus we are not bound to it. Of course, this means that those things in our culture that communicate rebellion to the headship principle would be morally wrong.
If we take Schreiner’s approach to head coverings, then it seems like the culture does play a role in our morality at times. If we reject his approach, then it seems like we need to start requiring women to wear head coverings in church. Either the rejection of head coverings is inherently immoral and thus transcultural, or it is a cultural application of the headship principle.
I could see someone using Schreiner’s approach to say that “obscene talk” is morally wrong (with perhaps a few exceptions) much like a rejection of the headship principle. However, what is considered “obscene talk” is to some extent culturally defined (the banned list) much like head coverings were in Paul’s day.
What do you think?
Fraiser,
Thanks for responding. It seems like I frequently make you repeat yourself and for that I apologize.
In reference to my friend, you said that despite his good intentions, he may still harm other people with his words. I completely agree with this. Of course, this is also true with all of language, not just “foul language.”
You, then, gave an example of my friend teaching a kindergarten class the word “cocksucker.” You believe that the children will be harmed by this whether or not my friend had good intentions. I had a little difficulty understanding how you thought they would be harmed by this (not that I disagree, but for the sake of clarity). At one point you said that it would be in poor taste, but I am not sure if you are making that a moral issue or not. You conclude that it would be in poor taste because,
“…teaching children words that pertain to this will bring about scenarios in which these words are said in inappropriate times since children lack discernment regarding this kind of propriety. It is a matter that saying these words are in bad taste at particular times.”
It seems like you are saying that the children will be harmed by this in that they may now use this language at inappropriate times, thus bringing harm to others. Is this right? If so, what is the nature of the harm being done to the other people? Is it that they will be offended by it? If yes, then what is offensive about it? One possible answer is that the word “cocksucker” is on the banned list of words created by our culture, and thus they are offended upon hearing it because they think it is morally wrong. Another possible answer is not the word so much as the sensitive nature of the word’s referent, which is inappropriate for young children, and thus they are morally offended that children would be taught such things before it is appropriate.
If you adopt the first possible answer, then you may be saying that the banned list binds everyone in the culture at all times. Of course you explicitly deny this. You may also be saying that even though there is nothing wrong with these words and we are free to use them, you will not use them with people (or their children) you know hold to the banned list because they think the words are morally wrong.
If you adopt the second possible answer, then your example does not really deal with the issue we are talking about because if my friend taught them to use the term “oral sex,” people would still have the same problem, namely, inappropriate material for children, regardless of whether or not the word is on the banned list.
Given the second part of your last comment, I think you would choose some version of the first possible answer. If this is the case, then I have a few questions. Most of these questions are for the sake of clarification.
1. Let’s say my friend heeded your counsel to restrict some of his language at times out of love for others. So, when he is with people that would find his language morally repugnant, he refrains from using it. But what if he was with you and Kevin, and he knows that you two do not find the banned list morally offensive. Is there any other morally binding restriction on his language given this circumstance?
2. If you are with people you know hold to the banned list of words, do you ban yourself from using those words under all circumstances? In other words, what if someone asks you a question much like the prisoner example, in which no answer really accurately communicates what you need to say apart from cursing, yet you know they hold to the banned list. Do you curse anyway? Or what if someone is spiritually depressed and you know that a well placed curse word is needed to shake them up, yet you know they hold to the banned list. Do you curse anyway? Or what if you are with a group of people and you are talking about foul things like sin and the devil, and in order to drive home your point about the wretchedness of sin and the devil only a curse word fits, yet you know the people you are with hold to the banned list. Do you curse anyway? Or do some or all of these scenarios fit with your idea that sometimes the loving thing to do involves offending people?
3. When you argue for the appropriate uses of foul language, it seems like you have adopted the validity of the banned list, though you are arguing for a few exceptions. At other times, you seem to be arguing that the banned list is completely meaningless, if it were not for the people who hold to the banned list. In other words, at times you seem to argue that there is a legitimate divide between foul language and non-foul language, and at other times, if it were not for those who hold to the banned list, you seem to argue that there is no legitimate divide between the two. For example, the reason foul language has a rhetorical punch to it is because of the existence of the banned list. If our culture had no banned list, then using the word “damn” would have no rhetorical punch to it. This is clearly illustrated with my friend. If he became a Christian and he was going through a time of spiritual depression, and in order to “shake” him up I used a curse word, there would be no force behind it because he does not recognize the banned list. Cursing at him is like using everyday language.
So, when I hear you arguing for appropriate uses of foul language, it does not seem to make sense given what you have argued elsewhere. If there is no legitimate divide between foul language and non-foul language, and thus in a perfect world there is no banned list, why would you argue for appropriate uses of foul language that presuppose the legitimacy of the banned list? If you are trying to convince Christians that hold to the banned list, then you would want to prove to them that the banned list is all wrong, rather than argue for exceptional uses of foul language that assume the legitimacy of the banned list. Is this a tension in your thought, or am I missing something?
Troy,
Here I go.
“In reference to my friend, you said that despite his good intentions, he may still harm other people with his words. I completely agree with this. Of course, this is also true with all of language, not just ‘foul language.’”
Yes, it is true of all language. But particularly about strong language. Words that have power to evoke strong emotion because of the history behind them. Think of the difference in reaction you would get if you yelled out: “Nigger!” in a crowd of random people compared to yelling the word “Black!” or the phrase “Black person!” in the same crowd. There is something about certain words that often generate a strong reaction from most people (then there are those words that a certain minority of people dislike, such as: darn, gosh, jeez, butt, crap, etc. but which will not rarely generate a strong reaction from most people. Think of how many times Sarah Palin said “Gosh,…”, “darn…”. The biggest reaction she received from such language was that it was unprofessional. The morality of these words never came up in discussion.). So I don’t want to give anyone the impression that foul language has nothing unique going for it (I am aware that you never took me to be saying so). There are certain words which the mere mention of them evokes offense in certain contexts (Consider that if you yell “Nigger!” in a crowd of random people you will generate a strong reaction from most people, but if a black comedian yells it in a crowd of random people who have come to be entertained by him it is unlikely to offend). Yet, I want to correct the notion that there is something evil and awful about foul language qua foul language. I think I’ve been quite clear that any evil or awfulness that these words have come from how they are used and not from simply being used. Offending someone does not necessarily make these words wrong. I’ve chosen rather to use the term “harm”. While offense has the benefit of being easy to detect, it doesn’t tell us whether what offended someone was wrong. Harm has the drawback of not always being easy to detect, but it is a much surer guide for telling us what is right and wrong to say. Offense isn’t necessarily inconsistent with love; harm is.
“I had a little difficulty understanding how you thought they would be harmed by this (not that I disagree, but for the sake of clarity).”
You understood me correctly for the most part here, but I’ll elaborate a little more. Children need to be taught how to flourish in life. One aspect of flourishing requires knowing the context in which it is in poor taste to use words. It is not going to go well for people who are unaware of when to use words that greatly offend people. I’ll give you a personal anecdote illustrating my point. I grew up in Alabama and in a home in which the N-word was regularly employed. One day as my mother and I were walking through Service Merchandise (remember that store?) we passed a black family in the aisle simply going about their business. Holding my mother’s hand as we passed them, I shouted “Niggers!” Immediately my mother rushed me out to the car and locked the doors fearing that we might suffer some repercussion from my insult. As best as I can tell, I did not intend the word injuriously, but someone (or several someones) had not taught me the proper context in which to use that word. In fact, they had gone so far as to teach me the wrong context in which to use it. This is a way of harming someone. My use of the word wasn’t intended injuriously. I was simply a four-year old boy mimicking the adult behavior I had witnessed. Someone who instructs children to use words inappropriately is harming them because they are corrupting what is necessary for flourishing.
“…what is the nature of the harm being done to the other people? Is it that they will be offended by it?”
Hear is where you misunderstood me. Perhaps I was just unclear. My point wasn’t that the children are harming others. My point was that the children are being harmed. It is going to limit a person’s ability to flourish in society if they lack descretion in using foul language. One who teaches them to use foul language without discretion has harmed their ability to flourish. I can only hope this is clear to you now.
“Let’s say my friend heeded your counsel to restrict some of his language at times out of love for others. So, when he is with people that would find his language morally repugnant, he refrains from using it. But what if he was with you and Kevin, and he knows that you two do not find the banned list morally offensive. Is there any other morally binding restriction on his language given this circumstance?”
Since I have no conscience against words on the list qua words on the list, then the words themselves are not the issue. But of course there is other morally binding restrictions on his language in this circumstance. He can use those words in harmful ways. He could harm others with his speech even if he didn’t use words from some list. Words from the list fit under the category of strong language and so can be powerful in hurting people deeply. The command to love is the morally binding restriction on language. But there is no harm to my conscience by the mere mention of them. Perhaps I can speak for Kevin here and say that he would agree with this answer to your question. But one should always exercise caution in speaking for Kevin. So I cautiously say that he would agree.
“If you are with people you know hold to the banned list of words, do you ban yourself from using those words under all circumstances?”
I like this question. It is a good one. When I choose to use these words has to be a judgment call. It is not always wrong to use them in the presence of someone who you know is offended by them. A lot depends on that person’s reasons for having a problem with those words (and their reasons aren’t always clear to them, let alone, me). It is wrong to use words from someone’s list for the sole purpose of offending that person’s conscience, but if a curse word makes a point particularly well which seems to be lost if other words are chosen then I would probably use the curse word. But again, I can’t answer this question in a blanketed way. There are many contextual factors that influence whether or not I would use those words in the presence of someone who holds the words to be immoral in themselves. I’ll try to give you something as close to a rule as I possibly can. If I have good reason to think that the benefit from using the word is greater than any harm resulting from an offense to their conscience, I will gladly use foul language. How to determine when this principle can be satisfied is a multifarious and complex enterprise. But suffice it as an answer to your question that someone being offended in their conscience isn’t good enough reason in every circumstance to avoid using foul language.
“…do some or all of these scenarios fit with your idea that sometimes the loving thing to do involves offending people?”
All of these scenarios can fit with my idea that sometimes the loving thing to do involves offending people. One needs to be careful with another’s conscience but one also must be careful that there conscience is not judged by another’s. So, in general, I will not use these words in the presence of someone who I know holds them to be sin. Cases in which I intentionally violate another’s conscience will involve my belief that the benefit of using the word is greater/more important than the offense to the other’s conscience. In these cases, I’m not insisting that they violate their consciences and use the word, but I’m exercising my freedom to use the word because I don’t think my use of it will be inconsistent with the command to love others.
“When you argue for the appropriate uses of foul language, it seems like you have adopted the validity of the banned list, though you are arguing for a few exceptions.”
I can’t see anywhere that I’ve done this. I think I’ve been quite clear that the list has no validity. I have repeatedly said that the command to love one another is the only restriction on our speech.
“For example, the reason foul language has a rhetorical punch to it is because of the existence of the banned list. If our culture had no banned list, then using the word ‘damn’ would have no rhetorical punch to it.”
I don’t buy your premise that the reason foul language has rhetorical punch is because of the existence of the banned list. Why can’t whatever makes the list just be considered strong language that can be used in unusually powerful ways (when compared to most other words)? As I pointed out in my post, there are words and phrases that most have no problem with that fit into the category of strong language: “I love you!”, “Fire!”, “You suck!”, “Rape!”, “Marry me!”, etc. So I don’t think you need a banned list in order for words to have rhetorical impact. Plenty of words not common on lists have rhetorical impact. Furthermore, even if the existence of the list was necessary for foul language to have rhetorical impact, how would this prove that I think the list has validity? I could think people need to drop the whole business but still take advantage of the fact that they don’t drop it. I don’t have to agree with the list in order to think it has rhetorical punch when used.
“If [my oft-cursing friend] became a Christian and he was going through a time of spiritual depression, and in order to ’shake’ him up I used a curse word, there would be no force behind it because he does not recognize the banned list. Cursing at him is like using everyday language.”
Two thoughts here. 1) I’m not sure you understand your friend as well as you think. You’ve perhaps sold him a bit short. I highly doubt that he has no awareness that these words are offensive to people. What he likely thinks is either/both: a) these words are not offensive to most of the people he runs with and thus he can freely use them around them, b) people should not be offended by these words, but unfortunately some of them are. He is likely aware that they are words that have more power than most words.
2) Supposing though that your friend is entirely unaware that a large number of people are offended by these words and that he views them in no way different than any other words, the reason they would have no rhetorical impact is because they are entirely commonplace in his mind. To come to have rhetorical impact all that would be needed is for him to come to believe that they are especially powerful words. He’d never need to know that people think they are evil words. To say it yet a different way, for these words to have rhetorical impact they need not supervene on the fact that there are people who think they are always evil.
“If there is no legitimate divide between foul language and non-foul language…”
I never said there wasn’t a legitimate divide between foul language and non-foul language. Of course, there is a legitimate divide, otherwise they couldn’t be put into the categories of foul and non-foul. I just don’t think that divide is a moral divide. The divide is along other lines. Calling it “foul language” is not my choice. This expression was on the scene before I got here, but I think one can use without admitting that foul = immoral.
“…why would you argue for appropriate uses of foul language that presuppose the legitimacy of the banned list?”
I think you need to make a better case that I presuppose the legitimacy/validity of any list. Everyone could adopt the view tomorrow that whatever words are on the list are just unusually strong words, and it wouldn’t require me to revise my view that these words have rhetorical impact.
“Is this a tension in your thought, or am I missing something?”
You are missing something.
Troy,
Your question is a good one…if it is cleared up a bit. I think it would be easiest to start at the end of your comment and work back to the head-covering issue.
I could see someone using Schreiner’s approach to say that “obscene talk” is morally wrong (with perhaps a few exceptions)…
Such an argument could only result from sloppy thinking about the concept of morality. If a thing is morally wrong, then there are NO EXCEPTIONS. The existence of exceptions indicates that a thing is not morally wrong, but rather contextually inappropriate. A similar argument might run, “Nakedness is morally wrong, with the exceptions of birth, bathing, marital relations, and medical procedures.” But, nakedness is not morally evil. Rather, in the context of many circumstances of life, nakedness would transgress real–unalterable–moral principles.
…then it seems like the culture does play a role in our morality at times.
This is one confusion built upon another. First, the phrase “our morality” appears to arise from an assumption that morality is a thing which we possess, create, or somehow determine for ourselves. Second, you suggest that the culture in general participates with us in that creating (or whatever) of morality. But, morality is not just another way of saying ‘public policy.’ No person or culture contributes to or in any way creates or changes morality. The context of a particular culture does in many ways affect what actions are consistent with morality, but they never, in any sense, change morality.
Now to the head-covering issue. I suppose I’m not completely settled on that passage; I think many Evangelicals dismiss it far too quickly, especially when Paul says things like “because of the angels…” and ” “Does not even nature itself teach you…”
But, it really is a distraction. However you take this passage, it does not help your argument with regard to ‘foul language.’ Possible approaches to this passage can be divided into: 1) Direct statement of a moral absolute, and 2) Contextual application.
If you take the first (a few Christians do), then this passage has no bearing on the issue of culturally defined lists of naughty words, because scripture does not (we all admit) tell us that the words in question are morally wrong. In fact, it tells us nothing at all about them in any direct way. That leaves only application.
If you take the second approach (as do most Christians), then Paul was commanding women to cover their heads because, in the context of that culture, to fail to do so would transgress a moral principle which stands outside of and impervious to changes in cultural context.
So, if you want to draw an analogy to the head-covering issue, you could only say that, in certain contexts, the use of ‘foul’ language would transgress some moral principle (NEVER that the culture has created a new item of morality). To do so, however, you would have to identify that moral principle and demonstrate how and in what contexts the use of such words would violate that principle.
But, that is exactly what Fraiser did in his post.
KWR
Kevin,
You wrote, “Such an argument could only result from sloppy thinking about the concept of morality. If a thing is morally wrong, then there are NO EXCEPTIONS.”
Do you think lying is morally wrong? If so, why does Scripture teach that there are some circumstances where it is okay to lie?
You wrote, “This is one confusion built upon another. First, the phrase ‘our morality’ appears to arise from an assumption that morality is a thing which we possess, create, or somehow determine for ourselves.”
I do not think morality is a thing which we possess, create, or somehow determine for ourselves. Although, in another sense, if Schreiner is correct, then the applications of Scripture’s moral principles are to some extent culturally determined. In Paul’s day, head coverings are required, and in our day, head coverings are not required. What accounts for the difference? The underlying moral principle is the same, but the application of the moral principle changes as the culture changes. This is all I meant.
You end by saying that no matter how someone understands the head covering issue, it does not really affect this foul language business. Given my clarifications above, I am not sure why you say this. If Scripture forbids “obscene talk” like it does with rebellion to the headship principle, then why could not someone argue that the application of these moral principles changes as the culture changes? In the case of the headship principle, one culture understands the lack of a head covering as rebellion to proper authority, while another culture does not. Likewise, in one culture certain words represent “obscene talk,” while in another culture those words do not. For example, using the words “bloody” and “arse” here in America does not have the same effect as using them in the UK.
Troy,
You write:
Do you think lying is morally wrong? If so, why does Scripture teach that there are some circumstances where it is okay to lie?
I think you can handle this one, Troy. Don’t expect others to do ALL your thinking for you. Make at least an elementary attempt to answer the question, and I will be happy to interact with you. I’ll get you started.
Before you can ever legitimately make sweeping statements like “lying is morally wrong” or “scripture teaches that there are some circumstances where it is okay to lie,” you have to define what, exactly, is a lie and specify what it is which makes a lie wrong. So, must a thing be verbal to be a lie, or do written words count as well? What about actions (like a head fake in basketball)? What about the performance of art (Was it a lie when Johnny Cash, knowing it to be untrue, sang “My name it is Sam Hall, and I hate you one and all!”)? What about espionage, etc.?
That should be enough to get you started. If you are careful in defining ‘lying’, you can avoid silly conclusions like the one you were trying to force me to grant (i.e. lying is an absolute moral prohibition to which scripture grants some exceptions).
I do not think morality is a thing which we possess, create, or somehow determine for ourselves. Although, in another sense, if Schreiner is correct, then the applications of Scripture’s moral principles are to some extent culturally determined. In Paul’s day, head coverings are required, and in our day, head coverings are not required. What accounts for the difference? The underlying moral principle is the same, but the application of the moral principle changes as the culture changes. This is all I meant.
This seems less like a clarification of your point than it does like a restatement of my answer to your point. I gave two categories—moral absolute and contextual application, then I explained that only contextual application can fit this issue. Here are my exact words:
My last sentence there is important. So far, you have only offered cloudy suggestions of a parallel to 1Cor 11. Such a parallel might be helpful, but you have to specify what is the nature of the similarity. So, if you want to use that analogy, it will look like this:
submission to proper authority IS TO women covering their heads while praying and prophesying
AS
avoiding obscene speech IS TO ___________________________________
But, the blank needs to be filled in legitimately. You cannot simply assert–without any evidence–that the analogy must be completed by: “observing your culture’s taboo on certain words.”
I can’t quite tell if your thinking about this question is sloppy, slippery, or a combination of the two. It reminds me of when my brother’s high school algebra teacher proved to his class that 1+1=1. He succeeded in this ruse by packing his proof with lots of superfluous mathematical equations–some simple, some complex–and working them out correctly. His students were so occupied checking his work on all the superfluous equations that every one of them missed the simple error (if I remember correctly, it was 1×1=2).
In this case, the error (yours and Meade’s) is the unsupported (and wrong, I think) assertion that Paul used the term ‘obscene speech’ in Col 3.8 specifically to indicate certain words which are somehow evil. Though Meade makes that assertion pretty blatantly, you seem to be trying to sneak it in (like my brother’s algebra teacher sneaked in 1×1=2). Here’s what you said about it in your comments above:
If “obscene talk” only refers to the way we talk, namely, in an unloving manner, then is there any biblical proof that we are required to submit, in any way, to the arbitrary list of curse words that our culture has created?
Here you actually speak as if you understand that there is a question to be answered (i.e., “What constitutes obscene speech?”)
I could see someone using Schreiner’s approach to say that “obscene talk” is morally wrong (with perhaps a few exceptions) much like a rejection of the headship principle. However, what is considered “obscene talk” is to some extent culturally defined (the banned list) much like head coverings were in Paul’s day.
Here you start by asserting the obvious–and uncontroverted–principle (obscene talk is morally wrong), but you seem to then smuggle in the assumption that ‘obscene talk’ means (or at least includes) the use of specific words which are somehow bad. You then finish by arguing (based on that assumption) that one’s culture is the source to which we must look in order to discover which words are the bad ones (i.e., the list). It seems much more reasonable to understand ‘obscene speech’ as referring generally to speech which corrupts. Certainly cultural taboos are relevant to the ways in which speech can corrupt, but that does not at all mean that the culture defines what is and is not moral.
If Scripture forbids “obscene talk” like it does with rebellion to the headship principle then why could not someone argue that the application of these moral principles changes as the culture changes?…Likewise, in one culture certain words represent “obscene talk,” while in another culture those words do not.
Here you foist your assumption off as if it comes from scripture, and proceed to make applications of it as if it were a revealed moral absolute. Yes, scripture does prohibit ‘obscene speech,’ and the application of most moral absolutes is affected by the culture. But, you had to assume that ‘obscene speech’ refers only (or at least primarily) to certain words which are bad in order to make your point that our culture determines which words those are. Remove that unwarranted assumption, and your argument just falls apart.
We (especially Fraiser) have, in the comments above, discussed the issue of what constitutes obscene speech. In one place, I wrote:
and Fraiser wrote:
This approach makes a lot more sense and takes Col 3.8 far more seriously than does the ‘list of bad words’ approach. I understand the concern you express regarding your friend, and I agree that obeying passages like Col 3.8 requires us to limit our speech. But obeying such commands/prohibitions is far more weighty than avoiding a few words that our culture deems ‘foul.’ Observing the cultural taboo on a small list of words is easy; anyone can do it. Obeying these scriptural directives, however, is beyond our power; for that we need God’s grace.
KWR
Fraiser,
Thanks for your response; it was helpful. I am not sure if there is any substantive disagreement between us. Let me briefly summarize my view.
When I came to this discussion my view was basically that it is morally wrong (or at the very least in poor taste) in most cases to use curse words. However, I also believed that there are certain circumstances where it is appropriate to use such words. So, when I read your post, I found myself in agreement.
In one sense, there is nothing inherently evil, strong, or offensive with combining certain symbols on paper like F-U-C-K, or making certain noises that correspond to that combination of symbols. There is no inherent meaning in any of those symbols. Those symbols in various combinations mean something, in a sense, because a group of people attached meaning to them. Language is a social convention. This means that there is no inherently evil language. There is no inherently strong language. There is no inherently offensive language.
How does a society of people come to have strong language or offensive language? I am not absolutely sure. Your examples of “strong language” seem to be strong often times because of the referent that it points to. For example, the term ‘rape’ is strong language because it refers to a violent act of forcible sex. There is nothing inherently strong about the combination of symbols R-A-P-E, but the referent we have attached to the word is. The term ‘shithead’ is offensive language because it refers to someone’s head in term of feces. Although, at other times it is more difficult to understand why a word fits into one of those categories given the referent. For example, the term ‘fuck’ refers to the act of sexual intercourse. In this case, it is not so much the referent, but rather the word is a crude alternative for sexual intercourse.
The fact that a society of people has words that are offensive, crude, abusive, etc., does not mean that they are doing something inappropriate by labeling them as such. Language is a tool used to communicate. If there are certain words in a society that have this effect, then Christians should not ignore this (I am not saying you have). Nor should Christians look down their nose at a culture that has words of this sort. Without these kinds of words there would be no foul words to describe foul things to give one example. So, if there are certain words in a society that have this effect, then seemingly we should avoid such words unless it is the case that we want to be offensive, crude, abusive, etc. Love should be our guide. This is where your post comes in. It describes certain circumstances where this kind of language is appropriate. While often times the use of such language would be unloving, it is wrong to put an absolute ban on those words, since some occasions call for it.
Do you have any major disagreements with this?
Troy,
Just a quick comment on your last response to John. You wrote:
Nor should Christians look down their nose at a culture that has words of this sort. Without these kinds of words there would be no foul words to describe foul things to give one example.
You are correct. The problem isn’t that the society words which tend to be reserved for strong use, but that people in the society (even Christians) tend to congratulate themselves as righteous for the simple reason that they generally choose synonyms or paraphrases in order to avoid the words on the list.
KWR
Troy,
I appreciate my interaction with you for two reasons. First, it has helped me formulate my view more substantively. Second, in part, because of your input we have set a record for the highest total comments on one post for this blog (78 with my comment!).
Here’s a few places where I might add some important qualifications to what you’ve said.
Although, at other times it is more difficult to understand why a word fits into one of those categories given the referent. For example, the term ‘fuck’ refers to the act of sexual intercourse. In this case, it is not so much the referent, but rather the word is a crude alternative for sexual intercourse.
Often, however, “fuck” simply isn’t used to refer to sexual intercourse at all. In these cases, were a word or phrase that strictly refers to sex to be substituted it simply would make no sense at all. So it is somewhat unclear why people consider the word crude in these cases. The best I can come up with is that because the same word does refer to sex in strong ways in some contexts, this stigma carries with it even when sex is clearly not in view. People have no problem with distinguishing between two uses of the same word in other cases. No one even entertains the thought that when someone inquires about the sex of the baby that this question should have something about sexual intercourse and a baby related together. Yet, even though “fucking” when used as an adjective in many, many cases makes absolutely no sense with a sexual conotation the same seperation between the uses of the word is rarely – if ever – made. It is also strange that the word “freaking” which is an obvious deritive of and euphemism for “fucking” enjoys much less social stigma. Put all of this together and here’s what you have. Our cultural generally finds it crude to use the word “fucking” even when it doesn’t refer to sex, but has little to no problem with “freaking” whose usage is strictly determined by and can stand in for the word “fucking” in almost every use (a similar issue can be shown in the case of other words such as shit/shoot.” There’s little to no good reason for this. It’s simply the way it is. And I’m not sure we should try to justify why many in the culture are right to think this way. There just doesn’t seem to be deliberative, rational thought behind it. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we don’t have to take seriously that so many think this way. Many times we will have to take this fact into consideration when evaluating how we should speak. But here is where I do look down my long nose at people who think this way. It is inconsistent and hypocritical (notice that when a particular expression of hypocrisy is wide-spread enough it is thoroughly acceptable and those who don’t play along are criticized).
I have no problem with having words that are taboo in certain contexts when used in certain ways. In fact, I uphold that there should exist such words and that it beneficial for our language that we have words that are relegated for use in strong ways. But it is not necessary for this that there be the many inconsistencies that there are in order for taboo words to exist. Conservative, English-speaking Christians are largely to blame for this, I’m afraid (I’m not just implicating conservative Christians today but the long history of them). Perhaps I’m selling you short here, but I suspect that we disagree that many in the culture are wrong to view foul language in such inconsistent ways.
So, if there are certain words in a society that have this effect, then seemingly we should avoid such words unless it is the case that we want to be offensive, crude, abusive, etc. Love should be our guide.
Here’s another place that we might disagree. I don’t think the adjectives you mention here belong together. I may be offensive without being abusive. Similarly, I may be crude without being offensive. It is of course never right to be abusive, but it may be right to be offensive (and may even right to be crude, though far less I suspect). Furthermore, what the culture considers to be abusive does not always line up with what is actually abusive. The same holds for crude, though what it determines to be crude and what is crude line up much better here, particularly because crudeness is to a great extent culturally bound. Offensiveness will always line up. When someone takes something to be offensive, it always is. But as you, Kevin, and I have pointed out on here several times, that doesn’t mean that someone is right to be offended or that someone is wrong to offend another person. I agree that we will often have to avoid using these words, but I don’t think that “we should avoid such words unless it is the case that we want to be offensive, crude, abusive, etc.” Sometimes we will be right to use them without wanting to create a certain effect and often they will be taken to create a certain effect that they did not in fact create. I suspect you’d probably agree with this.
Do you have any major disagreements with this?
Major disagreements? No, but a few minor ones.