sbc IMPACT! was recently created in response to what they see as negativity coming from the SBC Outpost. In their first post they wrote that it “is the vision of a group of Southern Baptist bloggers who desire to host a truly edifying, thought-provoking, civil community for the examination and discussion of issues that affect Southern Baptist churches.”
I cautiously added them to my blog reader. Mainly, and frankly, I think all this turmoil over the SBC Outpost is a bunch of codswallop. So, I added it to see what kind of “thought-provoking” content they’d be putting up. Frankly, I have been pretty bored with their stuff, it reminds me of going to Sunday Morning meeting to hear the same old sermon that everyone has heard before. But from time to time they put something up that I find interesting.
Well last Thursday they posted an article titled, The Potty-Mouth Pastor. My interest was peaked and I decided to read. What I found out is that it is a sin to use curse words and that those people who think it is not necessarily a sin to use a curse words have no regard for God’s Word.
Well, I took issue with this.
First let me explain who I am and who I was. When I was lost, I cussed like a sailor. I learned most of it from my Mother and the school-yard. By the time I was 23 I had swearing down to an art. I think I once made paint curl from cussing so much. When I was saved my vocabulary drastically changed. I stopped swearing altogether. One reason was that I thought Christians weren’t allowed to say words like “shit” but it was fine to say “shoot.”
As I grew in Christ and as my walk with him became stronger I realized how silly this was. All those Scriptures that were preached at me were taken out of context. Words are just words, they can be used to build someone up and put someone down. But sometimes words are used to do neither, like when you fall off the roof. You might say, “oh darn it” – or you might say, “oh damn it.” Neither builds up or puts down anyone around you.
Well, back to the original story. I took issue with the post, especially the boldness to make the blanket statement that swearing is a “sin.” So I wrote a little comment about my position and how I thought they had no real scripture to back up their position.
I pretty much got blasted from every end for my position.
My question to you is this, is it always a sin to use swear words? If not, when is it wrong and when is it ok?
Just an observation: I think that “pretty much got blasted from every end” might be a bit of an overstatement.
As I read the post and the comments, I see only one or two commenters that took issue with what you said.
I may not fully agree with their position (I think your comment has more merit than some were willing to give it), but I felt like they were trying to be gracious to you in their responses.
Steve,
Thanks for the comment. You’re right, it is a bit of an overstatement. I guess I used such strong language because I felt like they didn’t even consider what I was saying. Instead, I felt like they lumped me into a category called “wrong” and ignored the words I actually wrote. Even when I in their replies to my second comment they could not see past the fact that I was saying that words are just words. They completely ignored the fact that I said that we need to be careful with ALL language, not just cuss words.
I suppose I cannot place the blame entirely on them though, I probably am not very good at presenting my case.
I sensed some graciousness too, but I also sensed some disdain. Especially when one of them said my view on scripture was ‘defective.’ But overall, I think they did a good job at being gracious.
But you are right, I should not have used that phrase “blasted from every end.”
Thanks again!
God’s Glory,
Lew
Lew,
I felt like you might post a follow-up. “Blasted from every end” is overstated. Knowing the type of blog Impact is plus the nature of the collaborators, I have a feeling you knew how your remarks would be received yet posted anyway. I sense a bit of false humility and self-righteousness in your post here, however.
Nevertheless, I do agree that words are just words and and only carry worth insofar as what we culturally assign them. That is one point you failed to understand or take issue with (you overlooked Bowden’s comments, a collaborator on the blog, in which he addressed just that, by the way).
Nevertheless, I understand your position. I really do. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Words are words, but they are NOT amoral and they do matter, not just how they are said but also what you say.
Hey Tony,
Thanks a bunch of stopping by and commented. As I had said in my reply to Steve, the “blasted” comment was a little too dramatic given the situation. But I could not think of any other way to put it. Please do forgive me for my over-dramatization.
I had a sense that my comment would not be received well, but that was no reason for me not to comment. Especially since Impact is “edifying, thought-provoking, and civil.” I assure you this post had no intention in being either falsely humble or self-righteous.
I am not sure I agreed with every point that Bowden made. I had read his comment, but did not think he was speaking to me. In my reply, I chose to only reply to those who I thought were addressing me directly.
By the way, in my comment when I said that I was not going to reply again, I did that purely because I felt that it would become one of those endless debates. I did not see any sense in that, so I figured I would reply once and leave you all to reply in whatever way you deemed worthy.
Also, when I said that my position was neutral, I meant my theological position – not my being positioned against you.
Thanks again for stopping by, I hope you interact more on my blog!
God’s Glory,
Lew
Lew,
Words DO have meaning. Sometimes the hearer of the words we speak will place meaning to those words which we do not intend, thus clouding our message, whatever that may be.
During the last eight years of full time teaching eldership, I drove school buses for an income. I told the children, who were greater swearers than any adult I’ve ever known, that intellectual laziness causes us to copy the swear words used by others. We didn’t, personally make them up.
Because some words are culturally acceptable, doesn’t make them wise, especially for people who are representing the King of Kings.
I still say intellectual laziness causes us to use unnecessary words in writing or conversation. You would be surprised at the change in speech amongst the children on the school bus.
Lew. I applaud your willingness to challenge the stupidity of much of the status quo, but be humble and gentle. Don’t poke your chin out so far!!
Thanks John…
My wife says I have a big nose… I suppose it distracts from my big chin ;).
Dear Lew,
I very much appreciate you coming and commenting at IMPACT. The reason we brought together the collaborative blog “SBCImpact” is for the purpose of “spurring us to good works.” There are many blogs out there who seem to get notoriety by flaming others and creating “trainwrecks” for everybody to see and thus increasing their hit counters. Those who are part of our collaboration blog have agreed that at least at this one site we would attempt to be and do the opposite. If you are looking for fire works, we will have some interesting, thought inspiring, controversial stuff proffered by our collaborators, we will bring them in humility and a Christlike way in a Christ honoring atmosphere – without the language of course :-).
Since I was the one who called what I perceived your view of scripture as “defective” then let me be the one to respond to you here. My position by the way is based upon your three part series “Inerrancy.” Forgive me if I have perceived your position wrong, but I often hear your position from many who I would clasify as Kirkegaardian extetentialists or the neo-orthodox position. It is an argument like this: “Since we do not know which parts have been inspired by God in the Bible, then we must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us in His truth” which is vaguly similiar to your money comment on part three of your series: “The bible is reliable as far as it reflects the original authors work, which means we must rely on the Holy Spirit to not only determine the original intent and believe it as truth, but also to understand and interpret it properly.” Lew, the problem with the argument is that each of us comes to any work with human presuppositions of what we like and what we do not like shaded by our own experience. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman – He guides us to truth, and then allows us to choose. I would dare say that you have a presupposition against those myriad of Scriptures that was proffered to you in response to your first post. They do not fit into your template – thus the Holy Spirit did not inspire them to fit into your interpretive grid. You have rejected any caution from the Scriptures about wholesome words in the face of the limit to freedom that such observance would curtail.
Just a couple of other observations:
1) You make a good point about the hypocrisy of those who would use “sound like” words. Yet you miss the point that the hypocrisy of some does not invalidate clear teaching – it just makes most of us hypocrites.
2) I did listen to you – I heard your argument that “words just words.” I measured your argument – I found it wanting – I disagreed with it. Because I disagree does not mean I did not “hear” you. I did agree with you we need to watch everything we say, not just those words we consider out of bounds. I really do not think anyone disagreed with your point there.
3) How can you sense disdain by the written word? My brother, please note the clear limitations of this venue to communicate non-verbal cues. I did not disdain you – I disagreed with you.
I very much look forward in further dialogue. There is much we can learn from one another, okay?
Rob Ayers
Lew,
I appreciate this post and the comments on the other blog. Since I know you pretty well, I can tell where you are coming from and what point you were trying to get across. Choosing certain words, and calling them “curse” words, and refusing to say those particular words does not mean that the person is obeying God in the manner of his or her speech. God judges the heart, whether someone says “hell” or “heck”.
In some ways, this discussion reminds me of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus reminded his hearers over and over that keeping the letter of the law – as defined by the Jewish leaders – was not what God desired. Instead, God desired a changed heart. He still desires a changed heart, not simply a changed vocabulary. Changing our vocabulary from “hell” to “heck” may make us more acceptable in certain circles, but it does not demonstrate a changed heart to God.
Thank God for his grace and for the indwelling of his Spirit. He accepts us in spite of our sin (even sinful language and sinful heart) and he changes us from the inside out.
-Alan
Hey Rob,
Thanks for coming by and commenting.
I think it is very important for us to spur each other to love and good works. Obviously we all fail at that from time to time, I pray that God would lead us to consider one another more often.
Regarding my position on Inerrancy. I agree, it looks very Kirkegaardian. I think though it is slightly less Kirkegaardian than even Kirkegaard probably intended (if that makes sense). With that said, I have to agree with you 100% when you say, “the problem with the argument is that each of us comes to any work with human presuppositions of what we like and what we do not like shaded by our own experience.”
But that is where I get off the boat. Just because we are flawed; and screw up our interpretation all the time, does not give us the right to create a skewed view of scripture. That, in itself, causes us to further misinterpret/misunderstand scripture – as we tend to rely on a doctrine rather than on God.
I think you may have misunderstood my position and any presuppositions I may have about the myriad of scriptures. In fact, I have only positive things to say about the myriad of Scriptures.
You said, “You have rejected any caution from the Scriptures about wholesome words in the face of the limit to freedom that such observance would curtail.”
I would disagree with that. I think the things that I have written here and on sbc IMPACT! will testify that I feel it is very important to use wholesome words. We just disagree what “wholesome words” mean and the context of which that is placed.
Regarding your points:
1) I agree 100%, except I haven’t missed the point. I am not saying that we should swear because you are doing something wrong too by saying almost words like “heck.” I am saying that both are wrong in certain contexts, and both are not wrong in certain contexts.
2) Okay.
3) Limitations of textual communication. Sometimes one senses something that is not there, such as sarcasm, disdain, seriousness, humor, etc. Perhaps a human flaw, forgive me for jumping to that conclusion.
Yes, there will be much more dialog between us. As I have since commented a couple times on other sbc IMPACT! posts. I am not “forsaking” you guys! :)
If you would like to take the time to discuss the inerrancy issue more, perhaps give your argument, I would love to see you comment on that post. Or if you write a rebuttal to my argument on your blog, I would be happy to point people to it from here.
Thanks again for the comment!
God’s Glory,
Lew
Alan,
“Choosing certain words, and calling them “curse” words, and refusing to say those particular words does not mean that the person is obeying God in the manner of his or her speech. God judges the heart, whether someone says “hell” or “heck”.”
Your philosophy which you have offered comes from one of Kierkegaard’s compatriots, his antecedent Kant. Kant opined that morality could only be determined by motive, and not by outcome. If one had a good motive from the heart, then the result of the “cause” would be morally right no matter how it looked, or what the result would be. This was the defense of those who stood in the bar at Nuremberg. Their motives were quiet good – defense of the motherland and following the orders of their superiors. The “effect” of their orders was mass murder. God will judge us both on the intent of our heart as well as the result of our actions – good or bad. All of the good motives and intentions in the world will not move mountains, feed the hungry, or share the gospel “…for faith without works is dead.” It requires us to put actions to our intent. Our intent and motives must also equal our actions and results – “…for out of the abundance of the heart our mouth speaks.”
Lew,
If “words are just words” then how can you determine intent such as “disdain?” I think you desire to have your cake and eat it too. You reserve for yourself the right to interpret words to your benefit (“pretty much got blasted from every end” which it seems you have walked back from) yet would quibble about what exactly “wholesome words” mean. Tony asked you something you did not respond to which I will copy here:
“You said, First, what is “coarse jesting” and “filthy talk” – How have your pressuppositions [sic] defined those terms? What does the context of those verses reveal to us? Indeed, what does context reveal? Obviously that Paul is not neutral concerning language. Paul is talking about exercising supernatural virtues as a regenerated individual, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and putting away natural vices, language included. Yes, it does matter how we say what we say, but also what we say – Do you seriously think there was no such things as coarse jesting and filthy talk during Paul’s time and that it really meant something different then than what it means now, brother? This is fascinating.”
Let hypothesize a little experiment. A street poll using a Rorschach test – saying a word, then asking the respondent to identify between two possible: “wholesome” or “profane” sneaking in some words that are everyday, and include some of those you have mentioned openly in this post. Part of the cultural argument which are are using from Kierkegaard’s position is that only the individual themselves understands what is “cursing” or “blessing.” And yet Paul could not be communicating very clearly if most in his audience would not understand what he was saying. I submit to you that most in our culture can differentiate between “wholesome” and “profane.” Because you wish to quibble with the terms does not take away from both their historical meaning, as well as the contemporary application of the Scriptural text. “The Scripture is of no private interpretation” flies in the face of Kierkegaardian existentialism.
I certainly will be thinking about a posting on this topic of inerrancy on by blog. Thanks for the inspiration.
Rob
Rob,
I appreciate your concern regarding the source of my philosophy. However, since I have not read Kierkegaard or Kant (much to the dismay of some friends who love philosophy), I can assure you that my philosophy did not come from them.
Also, please notice that I did not say that it is right to say “hell”. Instead, I added that it is just as wrong to say “heck” if someone says “heck” with the same intent of the heart that someone else may say “hell”.
But, again, I promise that this philosophy does not come from Kierkegaard or Kant. Instead, I get this from a different philosopher. He explained it this way: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28 ESV)
Thus, just as Jesus says that adultery is an issue of the heart, not the actual act, I would suggest that “cursing” is the same. We can block our mouths from saying certain words, but if our hearts are not changed, then the sin remains – even if we say those safe words. God is not pleased with “quite good motives” – even motives that we can justify. Thus, my position is far removed from the defense at Nuremburg.
By the way, I completely agree that our actions should match our heart, and when we are living in obedience to Christ, our heart and our actions will bring him glory. Thus, again according to Jesus, it is possible to do things that seem to be very good (like prophesy, cast out demons, and mighty works) but still have a heart that is not in right relation with God (Matthew 7:21-22).
It is not my desire to condone cursing. That was not the point of my comment – please read it again if you disagree. Instead, my point was to recognize that sin is a heart issue. Yes, this heart issue usually results in “bad deeds”. But, fixing the “bad deed” does not always fix the heart.
Again, I thank God for his grace. I can change my action and my language… but only he can change my heart.
-Alan
Alan,
Since I have just finished a sermon series of the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, perhaps I can try with God’s grace to bring a little context. The Pharisees taught exactly the opposite of Kant – actions and behaviors would condemn, and yet the intent and motive of the heart would not. This came from their interpretation of the Law (specifically the Ten Commandments) that shared that indeed the ACT of adultery, murder, and blasphemy was sin and worthy of death (read here the philosophy of Moses). Jesus taught that thoughts and motives were exactly the same as the sinful behavior they preceded – NOT that “…Jesus says that adultery is an issue of the heart, not the actual act.” Sin’s origins is in the heart as James says, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” The example of adultery is such an example – it is not the fact that sin = the actual behavior thus the acting out of the behavior in the mind is just as damning since the beginning of all sin is in the mind in our own thought life.
Jesus expanded upon many of the laws of the Decalogue in such a way, including murder: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:21-22). Now there are some powerful words – Jesus was saying that whoever calls someone a “fool” regardless if it is in the heart or out loud – is as the same as stabbing them in the heart and deserving of hell fire. Words indeed mean something.
Rob
Rob,
I think you might be mixing categories a little bit. Yes, I do say that “words are just words.” However, that does not force me into a box where words have no meaning. Think of it like this. Words are like concrete blocks. Just as concrete blocks are made from sand, water, fiber, etc. words are made of things too, namely, definitions, cultural context, etc. If you have a bunch of concrete blocks you can build yourself a shed. This is similar to words, if you combine a number of them together, you get sentences, paragraphs, etc. These start to have their own cultural context, definitions, intent, etc.
So it is possible for a word to be just a word, but when placed in a context, with certain definitions, in the right order, for that word to start to show certain meaning, certain context, certain intent, etc. I believe we do this every time we translate from the Scriptures. Granted there are some who preach an entire sermon on one word, but in reality it is what surrounds that word that helps us understand what the writer is talking about.
Of course sometimes we mistranslate the word and the intent. Apparently I did the say when I said that I sensed disdain. Luckily I still have the authors alive and here to talk with and they (you) have assured me that there was on disdain intended.
“coarse jesting” and “filthy talk” are of course major issues. I agree with what Paul said. But it is the context that makes something filthy talk. For instance, I know a blog who recently did the Parental Rating thing online for his blog. He got an R rating: why? Because he used the word missionary. You and I both know that the word missionary can be used in different ways, one is sending out Christians to a lost word. Another is regarding sex. The rating just saw the word, regarded it as “filthy talk” and gave him an R. But the word is just a word – given its context it was not filthy talk. My position is the same with cussing. They can be used as “filthy talk” and “coarse jesting” but it is not necessary. (By the way, for what it is worth, I pretty much completely unsure of what “coarse jesting” actually is.)
If anything, we agree that, “the Scripture is of no private interpretation.”
God’s Glory,
Lew
Rob,
I also just finished studying the Sermon on the Mount. It sounds like we agree with one another. Sin is a heart issue that sometimes demonstrates itself in sinful actions. Thanks for the interaction.
-Alan