BTW, I like the dog pics, I was missing those.

Personally, I think parents see things in children’s movies and TV shows that kids are never going to pick up on. I know my one aunt wouldn’t let my cousins watch the Smurfs, Tom & Jerry, etc. growing and tried to convince my mom that she should do the same for us. Fortunately my parent weren’t ever that uptight with us. The ironic thing is that my one cousin totally rebelled for a while when he was older and ended up getting into a lot of trouble. I’m not saying parent need to be completely hands off, but I think for Christians to make blanket judgement on these types of things is just useless. Let individual parents decide what’s right for their kids.

So much of modern Christianity is really no more than Phariseeism. We focus on these external things while ignoring the true heart of the matter. It’s exactly opposite of what Jesus told us to do.

Bugs bunny, now that was good TV watching, I will still check out Bugs from the Library for my “kids” (me) and watch it with them and laugh my socks off……

The second most significant concern in Ingrid’s list regarding Chuck Swindoll, was the whole section about the “whore” movie. I can’t imagine the men from my church getting together to go to a movie like that. And I can’t imagine giving public support to my husband for doing such a thing, as Swindoll’s wife did.

The most significant problem was the letter from Mrs. Swindoll in which the philosophy of do whatever it takes to reach out to real people is touted.

I’m not planning to be around to discuss this much if at all, so if anyone asks me questions, they probably won’t be answered.

I think Amy is talking about Swindoll’s commentary on the Clint Eastwood movie “Unforgiven”. It is on the Slice article, but I don’t think VS mentions it. The main gripe is that Swindoll is basically endorsing an R-rated movie, but even in his endorsement he says it serves as sort of a negative example.

He said, “You need to see the film. It is as pointless and meaningless and empty and torturous as you can imagine and then some because you get to a grave and even that is futile and the credits roll.”

Hey, at least he had the balls (snicker) to admit to watching an R-rated film. Most pastors keep those types of things hidden.

I would say “bemoaned” is just a tad bit of an overstatement. And as to why I didn’t answer um, maybe because it’s a foolish question.

*taking out my notepad*

O wow, Brendt; man do you mind if I use that?!

Much of what could be gained by a Scriptural uinderstanding of separation and a dialogue of the same is lost when one person is attacked. I believe Christian’s should at least avoid PG-13 movies, but I also know that many Godly men attend such movies and it doesn’t completely disqualify them from the ministry.

When you attach a face to an argument you suddenly lose the focus on the issue itself and it becomes a referendum on that person. Whether a believer is hindered in his testimony or his walk by attending Hollywood movies is a very legitimate issue, especially in our day. I would make the case never to go.

But if a minister such as Swindoll accompanies the discussion it becomes a dialogue about him and not the issue. Also women should never be in the place of a correcting or rebuking ministry except to their own children, certainly not Bibilcal office holders. That also dilutes the argument and makes it about the accuser rather than the issue.

JohnD,

Then it looks like I’ve done my job correctly. I’d say you’ll have to begin to grow up into the faith, if you’re in it. This is the real world and the real spiritual battle is going to be enjoined by genuine Christians who will have had their fill of men like Rick Warren.

It is absolutely beyond refutation that Rick Warren considers the apostate Roman Cathoic Church as a Christian denomination. The Reformers who were brutally murdered on orders from wiked Roman popes obviously did not. Time to wake up now JohnD.

ummm….

I’m tired of hearing one-sided complaints about murder in the name of religion….

to be sure, the roman church committed murder, but so did protestants. Humans are wicked and they pervert religion and faith for the sake of power.

To argue quantity of deaths as some kind of greater culpability is a distraction to serve an agenda.

ONE life snuffed out is too many…
This constant whining about the “murderous papists” is ridiculous. I could easily moan about Calvin and his treatment of the anabaptists and then say there is a necessary demonic quality to reformed theology because of it…and even the arminians would find that laughable, at best, and offensive, at worst. Besides…IT DIDN”T HAPPEN TO YOU!!!! Glad you know your history, but let’s stay on topic.

If we want to talk about the history of The Church, then let’s start a different thread.

Otherwise, on this thread, give it a rest and answer the questions put to you, please.

Is talking about urination and using scatalogical terms like “skybala” the same thing or not? If NO, then Why not? If YES, then own your mistake, turn from it and publicly commit to offload using such “phraseology”.

So?

They are both crass and careless. One is is used as a colloquialism, the other as hyperbole. Both should be avoided.

Well AN since I live on the edge of the woods I happen to find the sound of crickets relaxing.

But in deference for those who may not. No; I purposely didn’t use the more coarse words for those subjects. And it’s well known that people in the emerging church make argument for being able to use words more vulgar than I did.

iggy,

When did I ever use the f-word unless I was quoting Jones…

It is wrong for anybody to use vulgarity, even when quoting. It is enough to point out who does without quoting the word even with some letters missing. Although Ken’s letter missing usage is much less an offense than the guy who actually uses these words. It is unbelievable.

When I was a new Christian it was understood that you asked the Lord to clean up your language, today it is acceptable even from so called preachers. I remember when we would avoid using “heck” or “gosh” because it resembled other words. Boy, we were such starry-eyed legalists back then!

“Although Ken’s letter missing usage is much less an offense than the guy who actually uses these words. It is unbelievable.”

No, what is unbelievable is that we’re discussing a very well known and, in more and more evangelical circles, well respected “Christian” leader using this kind of language about God’s Word!

And what’s more unbelievable is that so many actually defend Jones’ inexcusable sin of using coarse language about the very Word of God itself. While I have no complaints that I’m being attacked over quoting him, you actually have zero here with which to legitimately bash me. Try discussing Tony Jones.

Chris,
You said, “Once again, this is a case of Ingrid focusing on externals, and you following in lock-step”

Chris I’ve had a relationship with Jesus Christ long before Ingird came along. I seriously doubt I would have ever watched that movie no matter who wrote the review. The more I’ve become sensitive to hearing and obeying the Holy Spirit, the less I am comfortable watching. It doesn’t mean that I close my eyes to the sins and pain of this world; it’s that I feel that that sin and pain grieves me in a way that it grieves God. Often Hollywood does a good job of presenting sin – but it can be done in a way that entices the viewer instead of in a way that makes the viewer look at it the way God looks at it.

Christians are “set apart” spiritually. I don’t make decisions about what I do based on some list of rules, but because of that reality of being set apart. My Father is with me, always. I believe that I can grieve Him by what I let into my mind. I believe that I can, by ignoring the still small voice, harden my heart and become less sensitive to Him. In the end that loss of sensitivity can affect many things, including my compassion towards real sinners in the real world, because it is also from “the still small voice,” the love of God that comes from the Holy Spirit, that I am drawn towards those people who love and do the very things I wouldn’t think to watch in a movie.

Chris,
I don’t see that Swindoll was concerned about what the movie was teaching to start with: “So, I thought, let’s go see a movie. And I thought about that great theological work, ‘Unforgiven’. So I said to the guys, and we agreed, that’s our kind of a film. It’s kind of a guy sort of thing…tough, rugged, unshaven, spittin, cussin, you know, yellin, smoking, big stuff like this. No Harley’s, but a lot of hard knockin stuff, bad stuff and I thought that’s a great kind of thing to do, we ought to do that. So we all agreed and I was filled with expectation, I thought this is gonna be terrific. . . . ” If you’ve read the rest of his comments, you see that upon looking at the film he doesn’t see that it has any merit.

Earlier you said, “Chuck wasn’t actually recommending the movie – there was a HUGE ‘if” he precluded the “recommendation” with, and it seems pretty obvious that it wasn’t an endorsement.” But according to Ingrid he said, “You need to see the film. It is as pointless and meaningless and empty and torturous as you can imagine and then some because you get to a grave and even that is futile and the credits roll.”

I’m not sure what you mean by the HUGE ‘if;” the way I understood it, he simply talked about negative stuff in the movie, was kind of worried that someone might see him there, yet just sat through the whole thing. Then he recommended others seeing it, because it represents hopelessness, I guess.

Joe,
Ingrid’s article was about the reasons for cancelling Chuck Swindoll’s radio program. My guess is that Ingrid’s main concern about the movie was that Swindoll showed no Biblical insight in how he made the decision to attend the movie in the first place. He showed no biblical reasons for continuing to watch the movie. Furthermore, he showed no biblical reasons for recommending the movie. Since VOA feels responsible for what the people they have on their program are teaching, I can see how she would feel that the way he approached this movie could just affirm what many Christians already practice: approaching entertainment without caution, and filling their minds with trash for entertainment purposes.

If you think that Ingrid is setting herself up as the Holy Spirit, or that I am setting up myself as the Holy Spirit, then I think a fair conclusion is that Chuck Swindoll, Mrs. Swindoll, are also playing the role of Holy Spirit.

Swindoll, as a teacher hopefully teaching under the power of the Holy Spirit, says, “So, I thought, let’s go see a movie. And I thought about that great theological work, ‘Unforgiven’. So I said to the guys, and we agreed, that’s our kind of a film. It’s kind of a guy sort of thing…tough, rugged, unshaven, spittin, cussin, you know, yellin, smoking, big stuff like this. No Harley’s, but a lot of hard knockin stuff, bad stuff and I thought that’s a great kind of thing to do, we ought to do that. So we all agreed and I was filled with expectation, I thought this is gonna be terrific. . . . ”

I must also conclude that the Holy Spirit is with Chuck when he describes the movie as “raunchy,” makes a comment about his wife knowing he’s there, looks around to see who might see him there . . .

I must also conclude that the Holy Spirit is agreeing that Chuck and his friends need to sit through this movie, and that the Holy Spirit through Chuck has recommended that I go watch this movie.

Then, if I believe that his wife is also speaking through the Holy Spirit, I must agree that being “real” being on the “edge” to reach people is biblical, without knowing what scriptures she uses to draw the line about just how far one goes.

Well, I don’t happen to think that Chuck’s reasons for going to go to the movie and recommending the movie were in line with Scripture. Neither do I think that his wife’s reasoning is biblical. But according to Joe, I can’t have those thoughts, because if I do, I’m playing Holy Spirit, saying that they are sinning.

So, my conclusion is that you think it’s fine for the Holy Spirit through Swindoll to present the idea that there was no sin in what he did, but it’s not fine for the Holy Spirit through me to say that the whole approach was unbiblical.

Chris,
The problem is, if people use this idea “if you have been in the Christian life so long that you’ve forgotten what life is like when it has no hope, you need to see the film” to decide what movies to go to, there would be no end to the rubbish they could put in their mind.

I am going to push back on the language argument for a second. I don’t want this to be a hearted debate, nor do I make this a big issue. Here are a few things to think about

1. Which words are “bad” and which words are “good”. I mean, which words, if the come out of your mouth, make you backslidden? It all seems too subjective to me,

2. “Bad words” change about every 50 years. As they become more socially acceptable, they loose their scandalous connotation. Do we then need to keep figuring out which words are the new “bad words” so that we don’t say them?

3. What about using “bad words” properly in sentences? Sorry for the awkward example, but when you say my dog took a poop or my dog took a s—, are you not saying the same thing? Does the difference of a one-syllable word really define if someone is away from God or not?

4. What about bad words in other languages? Should we learn those so that we don’t accidentally utter them? If the actual words are the issue, then we need to do that.

5. What about “bad words” used as an adjective, thus changing the definition of the word (as recognized by culture). For example, Tony Jones used the F word to replace the word “really” in his speech. The culture in which we live knows that Jones was in no way referring to sexual activity. So at that point, are we not arguing that uttering the syllables is the sin, not the content of what we are saying?

Look, I don’t use profanity because I have a post graduate vocabulary and I enjoy the English language. But I have never understood the Christian hype of certain words that make you less that godly. Just my two cents and some things to think about. I am pretty sure that God cares about the CONTENT of your speech more than the syllables themselves.

Nathan, you broach a subject that those who accuse seem to not want to answer. (Not you, Amy). It would seem it is ok for Ken to use foul language because he is “fighting the good fight” or because he is “one of God’s anointed teachers” but Chuck can’t. Why the difference, I’m unsure.

Nathan,
Your post says much more clearly what I was trying to say. I don’t God necessarily cares about the actual words – usages and forms of language are continually changing. God looks at the heart, which is not something any human can really do. We can see the Fruit of the Spirit in people’s lives, but unfortuately we would rather quibble about our four letter words.

Personally, I think when someone resorts to swearing a lot of the time, it tends to make that person look stupid. On the other hand, I have heard people swear who are bearing great fruit for the Kingdom. I come from a very conservative background, so for a while things like that would really offend me. Now I just am content to let God deal with His people.

Also, I’ve found on a whole, it seems that American Christians are the only people who get hung up on this sort of thing. I have some friends from the Netherlands who probably would wonder why I even waste my time talking about it. Same with some of the Christians from India I know.

SAnd since Ken did NOT “use foul or coarse language,” Rick is right, “that is a straw man.” Please feel free to continue your discussion but I believe even Chris L. will agree that I am not the subject of it and needn’t be included as such.

Thanks. And guys I’m really not that important and proud of it!

Rick, you said:

“If you want to make the issue nebulous about which words are “bad” then you dismantle the entire Scriptural principle. Obviously God believes there are curse words and most of them should be easily identified.”

I am not wanting to dismantle a scriptural principle at all. I am trying to dismantle a religious principle that I find incorrect. Like I said in my post, there is no list of “curse words” in the scriptures. You nailed it in your post. My very conservative mother would DIE if I said the word “crap” in public, using the same reasoning you have for the big four-letter-words. I just don’t see how crap or poop are ok, but s— (having the exact same definition) suddenly becomes ungodly. My dad thinks that “sucks” is cussing. Who is right, and which words really are “curses”. Actually, it would be very hard to argue that the F word in Jones’ article is a curse, due to the grammatical usage. It is simply an adjective, replacing the word “really”. Who exactly is he cursing?

Society, not God, dictates what WORDS are “socially unacceptable” and then the religious community uses the scriptures to keep people socially acceptable. God cares about the CONTENT of what is coming out…curses, abusive speech, gossip, slander, etc.

Again, I am not arguing for the right to cuss. I personally do not. However, all throughout youth group I spent SO much time and energy trying to not cuss. Cussing was up there with sex and smoking cigarettes. Looking back, I wish I had spent more energy on the content of my speech, rather than the meaningless syllables used to form the words of my speech.

To his defense, dead people. He said that someone (I honestly don’t remember who–but some emergent person) was urinating on the martyrs of the reformation.

Chris,
Swindoll was recommending the movie to those who have been immersed in Christianity so long that they have forgotten what “hopelessness” means. He says,”And if you have been in the Christian life so long that you’ve forgotten what life is like when it has no hope. You need to see the film. It is as pointless and meaningless and empty and torturous as you can imagine and then some because you get to a grave and even that is futile and the credits roll.”

Henry said, “We are engaged in a systematic redefining of all formerly accepted standards of behavior because we’ve seen legalism and hypocrisy, and probably more substantively we desire to make room for our lusts by constructing intellectual arguments that soothe the concience.”

I was once in a situation in which I was a guest in a former pastor’s home. A movie was put on and I thought it was pretty questionable for anyone to be watching, especially the four guys in the room. When one of the ladies in the film was suddenly topless, I left the room. The former pastor laughed at me, implying that something was wrong with me, that I couldn’t “take it.”

Convicted, Joe? Apparently the men in that room weren’t convicted. And I found it hard to believe that their thoughts were pure while watching the movie (and if they were somehow pure, then I wonder what else they’d been watching to make a topless woman seem like nothing.) Gradual acceptance of that which can harm one’s walk with Christ leads to hardening of the heart – there will be less and less conviction. Men will act as if stuff doesn’t really bother them; the reality is that even if something they see doesn’t bother them at one point, it’s there, stuck in their mind, free to come back at any time.

People need principles to live by, and they need to feel free to walk away from things and not be attacked by other Christians for doing so. And people need to be able to speak out about what they think without being labeled “legalistic” and “judgemental.” The reality is that plenty of “judgements” are being made about things, judgements that deem many things as absolutely acceptable and not to be questioned.

One of the men that was in the situation I just described just happens to go to Swindoll’s church. I can’t help but think of the situation I described above when I hear Swindoll’s way of talking about this movie – there’s a lack of regard for principles, a lack of regard for what he’s essentially “teaching” by his approach to this movie. The issue isn’t always whether one “feels” convicted.

Or maybe they were convicted but didn’t do anything about it. Either way, I’m not sure how that compares to unforgiven or his talking about his proctologist.

Amy you said, “Convicted Joe?” Were you asking me if I was convicted? And if so, of what?

Phil and Iggy, you use the obvious inconsistencies in others to justify using vulgar language? How does that work? If I say you shouldn’t curse everyone runs to obscure and question the meaning of cursing, even the f word. What an eye opener here.

I would have thought that no matter how sinful Calvin or Luther or MacArthur or anyone else was, we ALL would agree no one should use the f word, at least. But instead you give an etimology of the word and use others sins to call into question the Scriptural sinfulness of using that word. No matter who invented the word it is now understood by man and beast to be a vile and disgusting curse word. If that word can be used then anything is permissable especially if others who don’t are hypocrites and if the origin of the word was somewhat softer than understood in today’s parlance.

Just because Ingrid banned Swindoll, is that any reason for defending and minimizing people who use the f word? Wow, I have been awakened, I live in a dream world. I never in a thousand years would have thought that people who you describe as passionately pursuing Christ could also use any language they desired.

I am a dinosaur…and glad to be one.

Rick,

I would say that it has less to do with being a dinosaur and more to do with being indoctrinated with a man-made theology. If you can honestly answer and look at the questions I posed, I think you would see where I am coming from. This is a classic case of the church making social rules into biblical rules. It happens all the time. The only reason why we should refrain from using certain words is because it is socially awkward. It has little to do with spirituality.

By the way gentlemen, the f-word has many urban legend etymologies. It actually has German and Swedish roots, and was originally used as a synonym for sex.

“I would venture that a lot of people who are associated with “Emergent” churches have been hurt by legalism in the past, and that is why they are in a way, flaunting their freedom. ”

I would agree. But isn’t their behavior that is reactionary the same thing they despise in people like Ingrid? A person can point out error in others while remaining blind to their own, and conversely a person can exhibit a “take this” behavior without seeing that they grieve the Spirit?

Even some unbelievers don’t feel the need for profanity but believers have to curse because they can and still be saved? No matter how varied our spiritual journeys our language should reflect the sweet water of the Spirit. Or if people disagree with that Scriptural exhortation perhaps that defines the different journeys.

Joe,
I wasn’t asking if you were convicted, rather referring to your comment on convictions. I think you assume that Christians will be convicted if they’re in a situation that they shouldn’t be in. That’s what my illustration about the topless woman movie illustrated, that sometimes people aren’t. And even if, in that case, they were but did nothing about it, there are so many more examples of people watching things that can only hurt their walk with Christ. It’s just a “normal” lifestyle for many Christians. When Christians leaders in any way promote that lack of discernment, it can only do more harm. I imagine in many cases that Christians decide that the “conviction” that they used to feel about certain things, was simply “legalism.” They can feel justified about no longer being convicted, because, hey, Pastor Mike watches that sort of thing, etc, etc.

Chris, you are free to assume that Swindoll was being sarcastic, from the written presentation that Ingrid gave. I can’t assume that at all, anymore than I can assume that Warren was making a joke when he said he was Murdoch’s pastor.

I happen to have a great sense of humor. I would admit that having a pastor introduce going to a movie for the reasons that he did would put me in a serious mood, not a humorous mood, so I might miss any future humor on the topic.

I’m willing to admit that there may be sarcasm, and that I might have missed it. That doesn’t change anything I’ve said about the issue except that I would say he wasn’t recommending the movie if it were sarcasm. I would still have concerns about his talking about going to see this for the reasons he did and talking about staying there, etc, with no question about whether or not that was the right thing to do.

There are plenty of Christians who don’t realize how bad, hopeless, life is for many people . . . .

You state that Swindoll’s recommedation is sarcasm as if it is fact instead of opinion. That along with your negative assumptions/sweeping judgements about my own viewpoints, such as “Wow, amy. Maybe you should just move in with Ingrid,” the negative comments relating to a lack of sense of humor, etc or of no benefit to this conversation.

I suggest that you could learn something by studying the tone of Ken’s comment to you regarding the spelling correction.

Amy, you’re right I do assume that the Holy Spirit will convict those that are sinning. If He does not there is nothing I can do to convince them they are wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position

I don’t want to make this a long drawn out debate. Rick, I do believe the scriptures are incredibly relevant. In fact, I think that Christians fall WAY too short in the area of speech. I just do not see the scriptures concerned about a set of words that change from era to era and culture to culture. In 20 years I can almost guarantee you that a new set of foul words will replace the ones we have today. And, some of the “bad words” we have today will be common language tomorrow. And it isn’t because we are becoming more sinful, it is because language changes all the time

I see the scripture focusing on the the content of what you are saying. If your heart is evil, your mouth will speak evil. Slander, gossip, lies and hateful language seem to be the focus, not individual words.

Nathan says, “And it isn’t because we are becoming more sinful, it is because language changes all the time”

Yes language changes. And language often changes because of social factors. And the social factor that seems to be affecting the use of “cuss” words for Christians is that some Christians are choosing to “make” certain words acceptable, that aren’t even allowed in some public schools.

Isn’t it a sin to treat scriptures about “coarse jesting” and purity of speech as if they have no relevance for today?

My husband and I both remember a time in our lives when we thought it would be so cool to have a foul mouth. We were both in junior high at the time.

Very true Amy, all I was saying is that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts. I saw Unforgiven when I was in High School or College (either way a long time ago) so I don’t remember it that well. I just believe there has to be some room for convictions. I don’t remember any naked people in this movie but like I said, it was a long time ago

i’m really over people assuming a certain level of maturity is necessarily not present in a person who uses certain terms.

When I use them, I use them intentionally, with purpose and to convey a particular force of emotion along with whatever point I’m making. It’s not all the time, gratuitous or indulgent. That is a rational, clear eyed decision. You can call it rebellion, but you don’t know my heart or my situation. So if you’re convinced it’s wrong, then get off your high horse and pray for me and be my friend. Even if you’re right, you’re not God and the scolding tone and the attitude of “swearing” being such a deal breaker really is overblown, self-righteous and pretentious.

If you’re right and show the humility of Christ, that’ll get a lot more traction with me because it will show you care about me being like Christ, not feeling powerful because you can win an argument….Now THAT is immature.

And to say it’s because I have a limited vocabulary is just silly.
Words can carry force and certain so-called cuss words can be useful. I’m not sorry about it and I’m not sorry to use it strategically and within certain contexts.

The forbidding of “filthy speech” is given within the context of instructions on the communal life of the Church. It is contrasted with that which “builds up”. Just because your sensibilities are tweaked doesn’t necessarily mean this verse has been contravened. It just doesn’t.

To me this means certain terms to degrade others is where this verse comes into play. It’s not a carte blance prohibition against whatever terms happen to be considered offensive by any particular sub-culture within our nation. It’s not about the terms themselves, but clearly from the biblical setting, it is about the use of certain terms within certain contexts and with certain audiences. This strikes me as common sense between the directives found in Ephesians and the undeniable historical FACT of the contingency of language.

For crying out loud…the PURITANS used the F word. It just goes to show that it’s not because people are choosing to make something acceptable that never was. This thread has already demonstrated that certain terms were actually NOT considered out of bounds for Christians even within the last 250 years. It’s ironic that “giving in to the culture” is the charge when a particular era’s moralistic outlook is being enshrined as the only way to biblically interpret christian living.
That’s not “giving in to the culture”…

Ultimately, these conversations do not represent things of eternal value, no matter how much certain people get into whipping the corpses of dead thoroughbreds.

To me it’s really just dumb to get this bent out of shape about this stuff.

There’s way more important things to worry about…

David C,
I don’t think that “coarse jesting” refers to “sarcasm” or “cutting invective.” But there are many scriptures which talk about speech, attitudes behind our speech.

It might be interesting for someone to do an objective study of “sarcastic retorts” and “cutting invectives” on this website. I think that an objective study would show that quite a number of times one person will make a remark about something that Ken Silva has said implying that it was mean, etc, and lots of other folks will jump in affirming that the remark was mean, sarcastic, whatever. Sometimes I can see the remark that was referred to, and agree that it would have been better left unsaid. But more and more I think, what are they talking about? I’ll be sitting here going “huh?” look back at the “awful” thing that Ken supposedly said and wonder what kind of game is being played.

I especially wonder what game is being played when others seem to be able to make sarcastic and cutting remarks, or remarks about grace and love that don’t seem graceful or loving, without having everyone jump on them. It would be interesting to make a comparative study of Ken’s remarks, classify them as “sarcastic,” “cutting,” “mean-spirited,” etc, then compare them to other folks remarks who write on here regularly.

Do I always like what or how Ken Silva says things? No, but I’ve seen more and more, since this web-site started that a number of accusations against him are unfair.

hmmmm….

great point.
The bible portrays fratricide, incest, multiple rapes, sexual mutilations, genocide, child sacrifice, adultery, rampant fornication, degenerate political intrigues, addictions to power and sex, etc., fraud, spousal abuse and neglect…the list could go on and on…and WITHIN those very narratives reveals a history of redemption, mercy, unceasing love, the vulnerability of God, forgiveness, faithfulness, etc. Not “in spite of”, but “within”.

There’s another word for all that:

Reality.

So Amy, since this website does it, it’s okay for Ken to do it.

I see.

Rick,
Surely you are not saying that only “Emergents” are approving of swearing, as if good Church folk have had a perfect track record for years. I used to work for an older man from my parents church who had attended for eons, and let me tell you he didn’t seem to adverse to swearing while we were out working on the tree farm.

I mean, I agree with you that Christians should try to use clean speech, but to act like it is a new problem, or an “Emergent” issue is just ridiculous.

I think it all comes back to authenticity. Does it make a difference if a pastor use questionable language when he preaches verses when he is in private conversation? I guess one could say when he is preaching, he’s should be making an example, but seems like a weak premise to me. I guess a large part of the appeal of “Emergent” congregations is a call to authenticity. We should be the same on Sunday morning as we are during the rest of the week.

I mean if we are going to talk about fodder for criticism, I could give you stories all day about pastors from traditional, mainline, evangelical, charismatic, basically the whole spectrum living double lives. I for one would rather work with someone who admits that he struggles with profanity and slip up now and again, than someone who puts on a good act at church and is something else everywhere else. I’m not going to go as far as some and say we should intentionally use that language, but I’m not going to necessarily use it as a spiritual barometer.

Amy,
I have not seen anyone here resort to name-calling, or the mean-spirited comments that are prevalent on the watchdawggie sites. I’ve seen some comments that were sort of tongue-in-cheek, but honestly nothing as hateful as the other sites. If anything, I see people wanting to defend those that are being slandered such as Rob Bell, Rick Warren, etc.

Phil,
I haven’t read this discussion as closely as I could, but I didn’t think the issue was about people struggling with profanity. I thought it was about people pushing to have profanity accepted – people who would say that there doesn’t need to be a “struggle” with profanity, because there’s nothing wrong with it. Aren’t people in the Emergent church who are pushing that?

You say that Christians should use clean speech, yet talk about being “authentic” in speech, using unclean speech on Sunday if you use it the rest of the week, as if it’s some kind of spiritual asset. Is it the authentic “new man in Christ” that you value, or the authentic “old man?”

What if the issue were pornography? What if a pastor struggles with pornography during the week? Should he stand up on Sunday and show some of the pictures he’s been viewing, so everyone can see how “authentic” he is?

The issue isn’t about becoming “authentic” on Sunday – it’s about becoming a spirit-led obedient Christian all days of the week.

Amy,
Of course a pastor shouldn’t show pornography. However, if a pastor did struggle with that (which studies have shown that 50-75%, if not higher, of pastors do), it would be refreshing for him to admit it to the congregation without fear of having most of the church leave.

I am not saying I want a pastor to get up in front of people and swear. I’ve heard of and really only witnessed it a few times in my life. Again the issue isn’t swearing in and of itself. It is about judging whether people are in or out based on externals. It is not something Christians are called to do. It is one thing to exhort in love, but another to be a professional fault-finder.

Also, “unclean” can be a very vague term when it comes to speech, but I don’t want to go there again.

Amy,
I can see your point. I don’t think it is good for a pastor to get up and use swear words just for shock value, necessarily, but on the other hand I don’t think a pastor needs to speak as to not offend the most easily offended grandma in the room. If he is speaking truth, it will offend some anyway.

Again it all comes down to authenticity and openess. We don’t need to be cleaned from the outside-in, but from the inside-out. Perhaps we have gotten so used to treating the church building as a “holy” place that we forget that to God location makes no difference. In a way, then, if a pastor was dealing with porn it would be better for it to be on the screen for all to see. Again, not advocating that, just giving an example. God wants to gid rid our masks in all forms.

Phil – My point is this simple. Anyone who uses the f word (and others) in any circumstance is wrong, period. So if its reformed members or gay church members, its still wrong. So if you bring up people who don’t curse but are mean, they are right not to curse and wrong being mean.

My point about the emergent issue is not that certain men have a problem and no reformed men have that same problem, no. I mean read Nathan’s comments, he defends and minimizes the use of the f word because Puritan’s used it. If I have ever heard a more ridiculous argument that ignores Scripture I cannot remember it.

I am not equating it with adultery or homosexuality or other serious sins, but it is sinful and unbecoming a believer. And you would think that with that statement everyone would say “amen” and that would be the end of it. But it rouses a complex argument especially from emergent leaning people.

Forget about Ingid, the Scriptures are clear, blessing and cursing should not come forth from the same mouth, period. I don’t care if it comes from a Puritan or John the Baptist, God says it is wrong unless you so contextualize the Scripture that it no longer has any absolutes. If Luther cursed, he was wrong. Same with anyone. That is my point, some cannot just say yes, I believe that. They have to bring up Ingrid and Luther and the Puritans and other more serious sins.

Whew, “becareful little ears what you hear”.

P.S. This applies to the conversation. The F.C.C. just allowed certain “bad words” on air as long as they are not referring to sexual activity and bathroom humor. So the words can be used with (and are recognized as) a different definition. Jone’s words can actually be said on television now because everyone knows he was not referring to sexual activity with use of the f-word.

If dropping the F-bomb is the best we can do to show “authenticity”, then we’re pathetic and pitiable and nobody should take any of us seriously.

I can’t believe this is hill worth dying on.

Amy wrote:

“The most significant problem was the letter from Mrs. Swindoll in which the philosophy of do whatever it takes to reach out to real people is touted.”

I do not understand the problem the editors of this site seem to have with Amy’s statement. You guys should start a T.V. show on MTV called “Balaam’s Ass” in which you could rival “Jackass.” That will show people how clever you really are and make them want to be a part of your clique!

Nathan,

Definitely in agreement with you on NOT making man’s laws into God’s laws. I seem to recall Jesus had a fairly strong opinion about that…

Swindoll’s comments were not cursing, they were inappropriate. There are some behaviors that can be spiritual, and in other circumstances carnal.

For example, if a person shares his crack cocaine with a friend that is not kindness, it is carnal kindness. But there are some behaviors that cannot ever be spiritual. Cursing is one of them.

But at the core of the f word discussion is an important principle. Any theology that attempts to accept sin is carnal. We all sin, every day. But a theology that teaches it is OK to sin is carnal theology and in essence, error. There are carnal and unkind people who do not sin, but that doesn’t legitimize cursing.

It is never right to sin, so our journey should be toward perfection which although is unachievable in this life, the pursuit pleases God. We must never be careless about sin as well as self righteous about the areas that we have by God’s grace experienced victory.

So although I do not curse, I still am far from being like Jesus in many, many ways. But my reading of the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul, teaches me that cursing displeases my Heavenly Father and is not Christlike. Ingrid is not my standard, the Puritans are not my standard, Driscoll is not my standard, God’s Word and the example of the incarnate Christ are my standard.

So Nathan, your observations, however accurate, about the self righteousness of some non-cursers, should not change our understanding of what pleases our Father in our own lives. I have known some sweet Christians who serve God and love souls who were a little careless in their language, but that still does not make it right. And I have known MANY Christians who would never curse but have a constant negative and judgmental tongue, but that doesn’t mean that not cursing is of no consequence.

Jesus said to the Pharisees, “These things you should have done but not left the others undone.”

Rick,

I think our difference does not lie in whether or not we should curse. I agree whole heartedly that cursing displeases Christ. Our disagreement is over what is cursing. I think it has little to do with certain syllables uttered from our mouths and more to do with content, intent and heart.

Phil,

I understand the comments were at a men’s retreat. And that is what it is — I’m certainly not going to expect a men’s retreat to cater to men and women. Perhaps, then, it would have been best not to run that as a radio broadcast, since it would no longer be in those confines. That’s just what I was thinking: it probably should not have been offered as a public broadcast if it was taught with a specific audience in mind.

And thanks, Rick. We all need to hear that once in a while.