The issue of profanity in the speech of a Christian has come up several times this week from various directions, and I figured that it was high time that I express my views on the subject. My aim is not to convince you that your views on swearing, whatever they may be, are wrong; my only aim here is to expose my thought process and how I arrived at my personal decisions, and then hopefully give you something to think about the next time you're confronted with the issue of "to cuss or not to cuss"...because I really think that Christians today are making too much of a big deal about this and losing focus upon the root issues that are so much more important.
If you'd like to read up on one of the articles that spawned this essay, check out a posting from Relevant Magazine about why you should watch your mouth. Make sure to read through a good portion of the comments just to see the back and forth that is generated by the commenters.
Once you've done that - or if you decided to skip it and read it later - follow the jump to the meat of my article.
Let me first say that I view this particular topic to be one of those things that fall under the category of spiritual conviction - personally held beliefs in one's spirit that are derived from study of the Bible and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but which are not applicable to anyone else. For the one holding the conviction, it is sin to break it; however, it cannot be said that anyone else should be held to that same standard. In the Christian world, there are three types of issues: Biblical absolutes (those things which are specifically mandated by Scripture), spiritual convictions (personal spiritual beliefs that are based on interpretation of Scripture), and personal preferences (things one likes but that are fairly minor - like preferring tuna fish to chicken salad). More on this later.
Secondly, I want to differentiate between profanity and taking the Lord's name in vain. In my views, the latter is anything that either expressly uses God's name or seeks to (however innocently) call down a curse from God, for example seeking God's damnation on someone or something. I don't think that anyone would dispute that this category of oath is a biblical absolute - it is specifically forbidden in multiple locations in the Bible. What this discussion pertains to is the former - those words that are considered to be profane or vulgar in general speech, words which "proper" people just don't use.
And finally, I write this not as someone who has never uttered a swear word nor as someone who is looking to be given the green light to swear like a sailor (no offense to any sailors reading). I'm more interested in thinking about the underlying issues that make this such a big deal and keep this discussion constantly bubbling to the top of any discussion of lifestyle when Christians are involved.
The primary definition for profane is defined as "characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious", with a secondary definition of "not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred )". I would clearly put the God's-name-in-vain epithets in that primary definition, but I tend to think of "dirty words" in the secondary usage of the term. I've often wondered what makes them vulgar in the first place, and so anytime I hear a discussion about one Christian telling another how they should and shouldn't speak, it makes me wonder.
I went to a Christian school for all of my schooling before college, and in my time there I heard a lot of discussions (more like lectures, really) about euphemisms and all of the passages in the Bible that talk about how "out of the condition of the heart, the mouth speaks." But euphemisms are one of Christendom's dirty little double standards, where it's okay to say "p.o.'d" rather than "pissed off" and where "crap" is okay but "shit" is right out, and yet the intent of the statement is exactly the same. What is the difference between saying "I'm ticked off" vs. "I'm pissed off"? Is there any difference in intent behind either of those statements? I'm driving at the fact that the issue which is spoken of so much in the Bible is the intent of the heart, not the words that are used to express that intent. Anger is anger, and it doesn't matter if you drop an f-bomb or yell out "fluffy bunnies!", the anger is still there - and you're still condemned by your anger, not the words that you said. Why have we become so concerned with the words? Could it be legalism or yet another way we use to check off how spiritually superior we are?
And here we are at the nitty gritty about what I believe in regards using dirty words. Using them just to use them trivializes their meaning, nullifies their emotional value, and makes for lazy speech. I find movies that have a minimum of swearing in them much more interesting because usually it causes the dialogue writers to think a lot harder. It doesn't take much creativity to drop an f-bomb every other word, and it makes one sound uneducated to do so. That being said, I do believe that profanity has a place in some conversation in order to express extreme emotional depth and to get the listener or reader's attention that a euphemism like "fiddlesticks" just won't get. When I hear a relatively clean band (one who doesn't swear as a general rule) drop some profanity in a song, it makes me take notice because I'm interested to hear what has gotten the songwriter all riled up enough to use some strong language. A well-placed and well-timed cuss word does an amazing job at getting people's attention and, as is the case with several police officers I know, is sometimes the only way to command the respect of some of the less honorable citizens among us. Not swearing can be seen as a sign of weakness and can get someone injured rather than being a fine, upstanding witness for Christ. Feel free to disagree with me if you like, but it's true.
And, while we're being honest, let me just say that I have, on rare occasions, even used societally "dirty" words (not the vain ones) in those times with God where I have been at the bottom of myself, been angry, hurt, or scared. In those times of brutal honesty, sometimes those words are the only words that I have left to describe how I feel. I'm not advocating that everyone do this, but for me it has been part of the ongoing healing process of learning to be completely and totally honest with God and not keeping up appearances like I've been taught to do for the first 33 years of my life. I honestly believe that God doesn't care what I say because he's looking at the state my heart is in and He knows what my heart is really saying and for me to sugar-coat that feeling by saying words when I'm really thinking something else is a dishonesty in my relationship with God that I do not want to tolerate anymore. For me, that is a first step in learning to care solely about what God thinks and not worry about anyone else's rules and checklists.
So, my position is that I am mindful of who I'm with and what their history might be, just like it is with smoking cigars, drinking, going to movies of a certain rating, music, bars, etc. I try to use my words and my vocabulary to communicate my thoughts without resorting to those words, but if I feel that they're appropriate or warranted, I'll use them. I don't hold anything against those who choose not to use them ever or who choose to use them all the time. I believe that Jesus and the authors of the Bible used what was considered very strong language for their time, and so I don't believe that God is incredibly concerned about how often I use the "Seven Dirty Words" - unless that use is eclipsing my testimony for Him. And, if I use them simply because they're considered dirty and solely for the feeling like I'm getting away with something or rebelling, then that's wrong according to my convictions and that's sin.
I write all that to say this: I believe that the words we use and don't use are a matter of personal spiritual conviction and that we, as Christians, need to stop making such a big deal out of what people say. When we spend too much time looking for dirty words or focusing on someone's failure to follow verbal protocol, we often miss what they're saying and then we miss an opportunity to minister to them. It's hard to live with other people that don't have the same convictions you do, but there are just so many other important things to talk about than who said what when to whom. You worry about following through on what the Spirit has convicted you to do, and let the Spirit do the convicting for everybody else. That's what I'm going to do, and I hope you join with me in it.
Score one point for messy spirituality....w00t!
I actually agree with all of this. I've always felt that it didn't really matter what the word was, just the meaning behind it. Whatever the emotion is, whatever the object is, calling it by a different name doesn't change it (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..right?). I think it is the same thing with emotions.
Good post.
Lame - now everyone knows it's me...anyways
I feel like part of this discussion comes from Jesus' attitude toward the Pharisees. As I read it, he told them that they looked the part and played the part--but they were phonies, imposters and charlatans.
If Jesus went to the woman at the well and said, "Hey, I can teach you to drive 55 and sound like a rerun of the Andy Griffith Show," I think she might have laughed at him, if the anachronisms didn't completely confuse her in the first place. She didn't need pimple cream, she needed heart surgery.
That being said, I feel like it would be a bit ridiculous to speculate that Jesus faced this issue by saying "Hey Father, I'm not convicted that I shouldn't drop F'bombs if I'm really angry, so..."
I think Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers because that's what they were, and he wanted to confront them on it and shake them out of their denial--not because it made him feel better. Paul calls our good works the 1st century equivalent of tampons, and I believe the word "skubalon" is used at least once in the New Testament (ask a friend who knows Greek). It's my understanding that these strong words are used for our edification, though. I can't think of a time I employed the Carlin list to edify anyone.
So, yes, saying "golly" makes you sound ridiculous, and it ignores the fact that the shape of the emotion is basically the same. And yes, going full blast may be more authentic, but you may come off sounding like a heathen...or at least regretting what you said. I think, though, that they both represent a failure to handle anger, regret, fear, frustration or shame properly.
The book of Psalms is one place where the Bible seems to focus on emotion, but not once do I recall reading anything that made me blush. You would think that if the Hebrew had an F bomb that could be employed, it would be there.
Just a pile of thoughts :)
A Christian's life is to be striving toward Holiness as God is Holy. Therefore, the question to be answered about vocabulary emphasis or J-walking is, " Is it Holy (or God-like)?" This applies to everything!
Exactly - we should be striving towards holiness as GOD is holy, not as WE are holy. Therein lies the whole point of my embloggination above! After reading through the comments in the Relevant article I mentioned, and also being part of a couple of discussions about the subject in real life, it just really struck me that there is a whole lot of discussion about words and not enough about attitude. My only reason for posting what I did was to (in my mind) put the focus back on that so that I (and hopefully by extension, you, my readers) don't get caught up in the legalism of "say this, don't say that, do this, don't do that" which led to the pharisees becoming a "brood of vipers" in the first place!
I'm trying really, really hard to love people as they are and see them how God sees them and, for me, discussions of the likes of dirty words and to drink or not to drink only serve to distract me from that purpose. I find that in my own life, when I begin to concentrate on doing things "right" that it just serves to move me into a place where I'm solely surrounded by like-minded individuals and am sequestered away from the people to which I'm really supposed to be ministering.
I don't believe that God's holiness is a list of things that can and can't be said or done; it's His character, His being, and it naturally dictates Who He Is. Jesus came to shake things up by hanging out with the reprobates of society, and I'm sure that while he didn't do evil in order to fit in, he also probably didn't lecture them about cleaning up their mouths or lives. The Jesus I read about just was and He let people, in many cases, come to their own conclusions. Those he condemned most often were those who should have known better and who were too caught up in rules to see the truth.
I just want my character to be that of God's, regardless of what words come out of my mouth. My character will dictate my words, and it's not my job to tell anyone else to change their words because they're in a different place than I. That's the Holy Spirit's job.
I think Dr Smith's sermon yesterday comes into play about being a stumbling block as well. I had a discussion with BM about it today, and we talked about Ephesians 5:18 of not being drunk with wine, and how that was more than just downing the alcohol, and acting stoopid. It means to be driven by alcohol, influenced by it. Where you spend your time thinking "I wish I had a beer;" or "I can't wait to have a beer;" etc. But like Dr Smith said yesterday, it is more than beer; it's the movies you watch, the music you listen to, the clothes you wear, the words you say. The bottom line of Ephesians 5:18, don't be driven or influenced by anything other than the Holy Spirit!
What is driving you?
Sounds like we're all saying the same thing here. The only additional thing (that I think) I'm saying here is that it's only my place to say what is driving me - not anyone else's. Additionally, it's not my place to say what's driving anyone else and condemn them on it because their driver is different than mine, and I can't impose my driving convictions on them. I gotta learn to live with people that have different convictions than me about different things without getting all bent out of shape.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Drew, I disagree. It's not YOUR place to say what is driving you. Do you not know that you are the temple of the Holy Spirit? Personal conviction has nothing to do with it, being led by the Holy Spirit by submitting to Him on a moment-by-moment basis does. Do we always do this? No. And when we don't, we are outside of God's Spirit working in the flesh.
Personal conviction is crap, and has nothing to do with Christianity; unless you are taking those convictions in submission to the Holy Spirit (II Corinthians 10:3-7)! You are either walking in the Spirit, or you are not.
The good news is this, the times we don't walk in the Spirit; when we stand before the Lord in judgment; those things will be burned away and the only thing left in our life will be Christ and His works (I Corinthians 3:11-18).
It is your's and my place to say it to others if we are led by the Holy Spirit (read any of Paul's letters) because then it is not "YOUR" conviction(s), but the Holy Spirit within. The difference is, it will not be said to condemn; but in Agape to bring repentance.
The problem I have with the whole "It's not my personal conviction" thing is it sounds an awful lot like self justification. The only time "Personal Conviction" has any relevance is when it involves submission to the Holy Spirit to allow Him to conform us to the image of Christ. Again, I point back to Dr Smith this last weekend when he talked about being conformed into the image of God's Son (Romans 8:28-30). So again, I ask: in these "personal conviction" situations; can we truly say we do them because we are driven by the Holy Spirit to do them? 9 times out of 10, the answer is "Probably not!"
Yes, even the Congress of the United States "compromises." Sometimes, way too much and sometimes way too little. Some things are absolute, however, not to be compromised or just plain "played with." i.e. "There is one way under heaven whereby a man must be saved."
Judging others is not our lot. However, we must be amazed every day how poor (or lazy) speech seems to hurt our ears. Not just swear words or taking the Lord's name in vain but also constant harranging or griping. (In todays terms, bitching.)
When I consider these words (like this post) I am reminded once again how I "MYSELF" fall short of the goal. The goal - "avoiding all appearances of evil."
Whew!
Y'all are missing the point here, and I have a feeling there's not going to be any agreement - and that's okay with me. My whole issue is that too many of us worry about everyone else and not ourselves, and we try to impose our vision of spirituality on those around us, and I just think that's wrong because I believe that most of our visions of what spirituality actually is are wrong. When I use the term "my conviction", it wasn't in a selfish manner; it was assumed that there was an understanding that since it was a conviction, it is something that I and the Spirit have worked through together.
I find it interesting that the immediate response to my statements was based on an assumption that I wasn't being driven by the Spirit and that most of my convictions are really selfish, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. It seems like a lot of Christ-followers say, "sure, there's room for personal convictions - as long as they line up with the ones that I believe are what makes one spiritual. Otherwise, you're wrong because you clearly haven't studied as much as I have on this subject because you didn't arrive at the same conclusion I did."
Like I said, I'm not going to go out and swear like a sailor or really be any different than I have been. I wanted to just write down what I thought so that people would know, and now you do. This is how I perceive language based on my study of the Bible and my conversations with the Spirit. Who knows, maybe that will change the more I study, but hey - I'm a work in progress so I don't doubt that changes are comin' from somewhere. And, maybe, this current conviction will stay right where it is. Either way, my only judge in this is whether or not my conscience is clear before the Spirit and as long as I'm doing what He tells me to, I'm good.
And that, is all I have to say, about that.
This is has taken an interesting term, and I think it actually serves to prove Drew's point.
There is absolutely such a thing as personal convictions-- and we do make these decisions based on what the Holy Spirit has nudged us to do. The only way you could say that personal convictions are "crap" is if you look at it from (what I think is) the wrong way.
When a believer has an area in their life that has caused a struggle (and the area is not sin, but instead is on the verge of causing or has already caused sin) and the Spirit had to nudge them to control that area, that is a personal conviction. An example of this is something that is taking more time than God in a person's life- resulting in sin
Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." He is not threatened by your fishing, etc. unless it gets too much attention. We are to moderate our lives to put Him in the center. We are to be Christ-centered.
Problems arise when people take their convictions (say they spend too much time watching tv, fishing, shopping, etc.) and decide that the best way to fix the problem is to cut it out completely. Not only do they do that, but they start preaching to others that they should stop doing those things as well. I believe that's a little thing the church has struggled with for centuries called legalism.
This is where I think Drew's point lies. If it is a personal conviction for him to not say certain things, or do certain things because it causes him to sin, then he knows he should moderate/remove that behavior in his life, but it is not his job to tell other people that they should do the same, because what if they don't have the same problem?
I never said "personal conviction is crap." I said it is crap when it is done outside of the Holy Spirit. And yes, Christians act on "personal conviction" outside of the Holy Spirit all the time, and if you really look at it "personal conviction" it is yours and nobody elses; which was the point I was trying to make; in that it is NOT yours but the Holy Spirit!
My response was never directed at any person either Drew; but rather a general response that when a reader read the comment, it is reflective to them. So I apologize for the appearance of singling you out and saying you are not driven by the Holy Spirit. I was trying to present a response similar to an inward reflection of "Am I being a stumbling block? Am I being driven by the Spirit?"
The other issue at hand is if we are being driven by the Spirit to be Christ-like; what does it mean to be Christ-like? Christ did not come to destroy the Law; but to fulfill the Law. So if we (as Christ Followers) are striving to become Christ-like; the natural action on our part is to be obedient in fulfilling the Law (loving the Lord with all your heart, strength, and mind; and loving your neighbor as yourself), not disregarding it! That is not legalism; but striving to be perfect as He is perfect; and that is evident by the Fruit we display (Matthew 7:15-20; Galatians 5:22-25). Legalism is obeying the Law with the notion that obedience of the Law will get you into Heaven. Obedience to the Law is nothing more than letting Christ shine out of our lives.
Another issue I have is this statement:
"It is not our job to tell other people that they should do the same, because what if they don't have the same problem?"
If it is not our job to tell other people, then where does accountability come in? We have the responsibility of asking and sharing with other believers "an appearance of evil." Not to condemn, but give them the opportunity to explain if they are being directed by the Holy Spirit; but as well as to inform them that it may be a stumbling block to us or someone else! How would we know if we are being a stumbling block to someone else without that approach?
The issue is not just having a clear conscience with the Lord; but also with your fellow believers! Are you doing these things with regard to how other people view it? If you are not even thinking about the other person; then you are sinning against them by causing them to stumble! And again, like Dr Smith pointed out this weekend, Jesus said, "It is better to die a slow death, than to cause another to stumble." The purpose should be a clear conscience before the Lord, AS WELL AS edifying your fellow believers in the Lord with Agape! It is the whole message of Christ! That is the point I am trying to make. Look beyond yourself; look beyond how you feel; do everything in consideration of the Holy Spirit and the edification of other believers!
Let me also clarify. I do think that people believe differently on issues concerning what the Bible says; and does not say; and live their lives accordingly. But that is not conviction, that is belief; and I think "personal conviction" is not the correct phrasing of what is trying to be expressed. Conviction comes from the Lord, and the Lord alone. Beliefs are how we tend to interpret those convictions.
I agree with you, "Drew." I also agree with Anna. Perhaps I didn't express myself as well as I should have. We really know what "leagalism" is and it's effect on believers and groups alike. Without the Spirit working in a person's life he will neither come to know God nor will he grow. One amazing thing about God is that he talks to His children separately and individually. His spirit works in and through us to do His good pleasure. We can get caught up in the do's and don't but that doesn't cut it a lot of the time. Keep on thinking and let the Spirit lead. I'm
pleased I got involved and I'm sure the Lord is, too.
Some thoughts. Christians should not expect non believers to act like believers. If their language is of the world, we should expect it. It shouldn't keep us from reaching out to them any more than any other aspect of their lives that is outside scriptural guidance, like cheating on their taxes or lying on their resume.
That said, if I look at Ephesians 5:4 I read "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." (NIV)
This chapter is addressing the command for Christ followers to be imitators of God.
To me this is very clear. It is a command for believers that our language should imitate the language of God. If someone can show me where God used language that was considered culturally obscene, foolish, or coarse, please do. I can't find any.
Should take this passage and confront a Christ follower who in my opinion is violating it?
A longer discussion would be in order. It's easy to go off on someone who violates a personal right or conviction of yours, so I think you really have to do a gut check about why you feel the need to confront them. Is it with the desire to help them grow in Christ, or an opportunity to be holier than thou? Or are you responding strongly because it is something you struggle with?
To me the Bible is clear on this teaching, but I consider it a minor issue that we probably have already given more air time to than it needs.
"If someone can show me where God used language that was considered culturally obscene, foolish, or coarse, please do. I can't find any."
Most evangelical scholars with some solid Greek language background would defend that anytime the word "dung" is used in the NT by one apostle Paul, it is referring to the Greek slang word that we would translate as 'shit'. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that there is "massaging" of language in many parts of the Bible. Do you really think Ruth only uncovered Boaz' "feet" to consummate? This is perhaps because of many time periods in which even talking about 'crude' things was deemed a crime. The Puritan Period comes to mind here.
One thing I'd like to point out here that I think Drew alluded to is that What God deems as pure, or holy, or spiritual has been much maligned, not only due to what we deem good translation of scripture, but also the friction caused over the last few centuries from fluctuation of academic studies on Scripture and the outside opposing philosophies that have backed our thinking into a proverbial corner. Seriously, there are way more important things to address here, like why we toss the OT aside when it clearly teaches us to be socially conscious about the fatherless, the widow, and the foreigner in our homeland?
Suffice to say, Drew, it is rather hard to draw a bead on what your getting at. I guess I can see where "If I have to change because of a personal conviction, then everyone around me should change too," is relevant. However I don't see it occurring as much in church communities where a healthy culture of education and openness to each other are not only cultivated but encouraged. Alas, I typically throw it in the same pile as the alcohol debate (which is silly in the first place), and other superfluous debates reside. I would say if you are reacting to recent events, then those folks need to be chatted with one on one with you. That's where real growth in groups begin.
The original reason I wrote this was to air my thought process after reading the comments to the original Relevant article I linked to in the post. They quickly devolved into what I perceived to be the holier-than-thou realm and that got me thinking. I've always wondered why such attention is paid to specific words when the crudity (is that even a word?) of them is changeable (e.g. there are words said on television and radio now that weren't said 50 years ago, and so therefore they seem to be now perceived by society as okay), and my intent of this post was solely to say that I'm not really interested in tracking word usage (or having mine tracked).
This wasn't any response to a particular event or anything like that, just kind of an overall response to an issue which has intersected my consciousness on multiple occasions in the last couple of weeks. Honestly, since I was just putting down my thought process and not trying to persuade anyone to change theirs, I was a little surprised to see the kind of debate that appeared. But, I suppose I should have learned by now...the ones I want discussion on usually go quietly into the night while the ones that I figure are just going to slip past the goalie get tons of comments.
Ah, the fickle web!
I got around to reading the article and some of the comments, and someone had already posited a part of my defense on the issue.
In one of your comments listed above, you say "it just really struck me that there is a whole lot of discussion about words and not enough about attitude." My comment about this being as silly as the alcohol debate still has merit. I find it fascinating that the bally-hoo over these things comes not from real, in-depth study of scripture, but how we reason scripture through presupposition. In other words, how we approach scripture with our own thoughts and feelings (however we come to their conclusions) and how we superimpose those thoughts into how we read scripture.
Sure it says to not use coarse language and such, but we have no idea what kind of language Paul is speaking of in this instance. Their society was much different than ours. We could suppose that the coarse language at the time can be transposed into what we deem taboo today; however, what we deem taboo today is manifested from prior [recent]periods of history where those words may not have had much weight at all. Even words we as Americans think are rude have completely different usage and meaning in other countries even today! Look at how we view nudity today versus the 1st century. They used to baptize in the nude. That would NEVER happen today.
Matt 11:18-19
18 For John did not come eating or drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."
Once again, we get our proverbial panties in a bunch over squabbles like this for no reason. I will say again, "Seriously, there are way more important things to address here, like why we toss the OT aside when it clearly teaches us to be socially conscious about the fatherless, the widow, and the foreigner in our homeland?"