I am reminded of why I grew so tired of this discussion before. Though I gave specific and careful objections to your argument, you haven’t really dealt with any of them. As such, I can’t take what you say very seriously, but I’ll give it a few minutes just for entertainment’s sake.

*legendary Christians…

What is that? Who qualifies? It seems that you are defaulting to “legend” because your view has no scriptural defense. Base your faith on legend if you like, but I choose scripture.

*”I’m not going to attend parties.”

Party goers everywhere will be happy to know that.

*”I’m not going to vainly talk about the things the world likes to talk about.”

What are you going to talk about? No matter what the subject, I’m sure there are at least a few non-Christians who really enjoy talking about it.

*I’m not going to watch the things the world enjoys watching…

Again, lots of non-Christians love watching birds, clouds, the ocean, the stars, etc. It is impossible for you to watch anything at all if you refuse to watch a thing simply because non-Christians like to watch it.

“That’s not self-righteousness, that’s an attempt at being holy.”

It’s probably both. Those who look to Christ for righteousness don’t usually proclaim their plan for being holy so loudly.

“If culture deems something disgraceful…”

You completely ignored my point. How did you determine that the culture finds it disgraceful. I think the culture finds uptight self-righteous people more disgraceful.

*”Not swearing in no way conflicts with Christian tenants.”

Actually, that is not entirely clear. I explained that under certain circumstances it could be a betrayal of the gospel. But more than that, it’s stupid. Try substituting some other activities in for the word “swearing”–it might help you to see how absurd the assumption is.

Not driving a car in no way conflicts Christian tenants.

Not wearing deodorant in no way conflicts with Christian tenants.

Not scratching your nose in no way conflicts with Christian tenants.

The assumption is that any activity which is not specifically commanded is only permitted if everyone likes it. Well, scripture doesn’t require you to give a stupid response, and I will find it quite disgraceful if you do, so I guess you guess you are obligated to give a better reply this time.

KWR

Show me ten legendary Christians that swore. The world should see Christians as uptight…..Christians have no part in this world, and SHOULD be viewed as vastly different from the world.

I’m not going to attend parties.
I’m not going to vainly talk about the things the world likes to talk about.
I’m not going to watch the things the world enjoys watching.

That’s not self righteousness, that’s an attempt at being holy, which is what we are supposed to do. There are still things we must do, and things you must avoid, you know.

“Your principle (that the church is bound by the perceptions of the culture)is wrong.”

No, it isn’t. Christians are supposed to follow the laws of a specific culture, right? If culture deems something disgraceful then we should do our best, when it doesn’t conflict with scripture, to meet that standard. (and the standard of the world is usually very low) I believe Paul’s letters to the Corinthians says as much.

Not swearing in no way conflicts Christian tenants.

You’ve been busy this morning! I see your have commented on several posts.

It’s great that you feel free to disagree. Too many people have the notion that it is somehow sinful to say that you think someone is wrong about something. Actually, people learn the most from one another when they are able to disagree respectfully.

On the issue of this post (so called “foul” language) I, of course, disagree with you. So far as I can tell, your point is that the only thing wrong with such words is that many people dislike them and look with contempt upon people who use them. And, since we don’t want to be an agent by which people might come to look with contempt upon the church, we should never utter such words–despite the fact that we know that there is nothing wrong with the words themselves.

There are several problems with such an approach. I’ll mention a three:

One; Even if we grant your principle that the church should be bound by the perceptions of the culture, how do we know that people in general perceive you better if you never curse? Aren’t people who never ever curse are more likely to be viewed as self-righteous and uptight? Is that how you want the church to be perceived?

Two; Your principle (that the church is bound by the perceptions of the culture)is wrong. In politics, the name of the game is to make people like you–because you need their votes. But the church is not a political candidate, and Christianity is not about getting people to vote for us. We don’t need the approval of our culture, and scripture never commands us to “go out and make everyone like you”. Jesus makes it very clear the that world will hate us–not because we fail to pander to it’s whims, but because it hates him and all who belong to him.

Three; If the culture does expect Christians to avoid cursing, it is likely because it thinks Christianity is about really buckling down and being a really decent people. To pander to that and to affirm it by silent submission is to betray the true gospel and proclaim a ‘gospel’ of self-earned righteousness.

KWR

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.

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

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?

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:

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.

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:

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….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.

and Fraiser wrote:

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….Love is what is to govern our speech, not a list that people made up.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?