Is found here.
Update: Some back story on the song:
So I wrote that about 18 months ago. I was brand new to the blogosphere. It came to me while I was standing in the shower. I got out and thought, “Even though that song is supposed to be funny, I really would like to discuss seriously with someone why it is that we tend to be severe with those with whom Jesus was gentle and indulging of those with whom Jesus was severe.†I had heard that there was a chat room (I’d never been in one before) where a lot of reformed baptist ministers hung out. So I got out of the shower and surfed on over to JW’s place and shared my song.
Talk about not knowing your audience. While a few sent me private messages of appreciation, most lined up to rebuke me and to offer to revoke my ministry credentials. JW was personally “not edifiedâ€. Oh well, live and learn.
So maybe the BHT is the right audience for my song. Or maybe I am just a misfit and there is no place in the blogosphere for a scotch swilling reformed Baptist with a potty mouth.
113 Comments(+Add)
-cry-
My ears are defiled. Oh wait…I used my eyes…well maybe my ears too…my ears inside my brain…because I sang the song in my head. My brain is defiled. Argh.
Are you sure those words are okay though? I mean, dick? Oh crap, I just said dick. Uh, there I go again. Well…I suppose I’m hellbound now. That’s legalism, right?
-sigh-…At least I heard a good song first!!
Joe
I’m honestly quite disturbed at seeing that posted here.
Joe C,
I give you five awesome points for that comment. When you get to a 100 I’ll induct you into Team Awesome! Its an exclusive club. At least for now.
I couldn’t listen…website exceeded it’s bandwidth.
OMG…too freaking funny!
LOVED IT!
Inappropriate on any level. It substantiates what the legalists contend. Crass and base language is lazy and self serving and unscriptural even when it is used to demean your opponents.
Sorry, Tim, but I don’t see it, either…
Jesus noted that it was important that the inside of the cup should be clean, more importantly than the ouside. This does not mean, though, that the outside should not be clean, as well…
Sorry, but if htat language offends you, the Bible probably will too. The only reason anyone thinks the Bible is non-offensive is because its been sanitized by teachers and translators.
Also, there’s no endorsement of those sins, merely a preference for one over another if you have to choose. Which of course you don’t.
I hate to be “legalistic”, but the language makes it immediately disqualified from anything appropriate for this blog. And yes, I do get the point of the way the language is used in that song.
Matt. 12:34 or in other words, “dirty words come from a dirty heart.”
Not trying to fuss at you Tim, just my opinion.
That was excellent and very accurate. I think some people here could use a trip to the doctor to remove the sticks out of their butts.
I think the essence of legalism that’s being shown there is that if we cannot be righteous on every point of God’s commands, we should worry about our salvation. And that’s no way to live in Christ. Christ’s righteousness is all I need.
With that said,
Joe
That was . . . very blunt. I’m not sure Paul used that exact phrase, but okay. I pretty much agree with David Muller’s and Darren Sapp’s comments, though I think there’s a bit of a difference between being legalistic and just trying to be appropriate. Yes, the Bible uses very blunt language in some places to get a point across. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but I think too many times Christians use that fact as an excuse to try to cross a line or see how much they can get away with.
I would rather be a legalist than a post-modern, pre-pubecent, idiot.
Grow the hell up, boys.
i’m sure you’ve got that base covered chrisp.
I thought it was good. Why do we always lambast something that challenges us and makes us think? Would it have been more appropriate had he used the word “penis”? I think people would still complain that the word was used, but the song accurately communicates what Paul was communicating.
I am amazed at how cleaned up the Bible is by translators (although some of it is legit, so as to communicate the original intent). I was studying for a sermon and came across a phrase in the Hebrew that was translated as “male.” The phrase actually says “one pissing against/on a wall.” There is no other way to accurately translate the Hebrew but they put male because it was a euphamism. I like the original better.
The purpose driven drive by artist strikes again.
Also, were I a disciple of Team Pyro one could say, I suppose, of Chris P’s purpose driven drive by comment that the dog that barks is the one that was hit.
Don’t worry Chris… you already there… I would rather be a post-modern pre-pubecent idiot than be under the Law that leads to death.
And how does telling us to “grow the hell up” square with you being more mature? LOL! Once again you are a man of contradiction and have shown us that your theology does not meet you orthopraxy…
In plain words your actions negate your theology.
Paul stated that the ways of the Lord look foolish to men. I guess you prove him right again and say Paul was foolish for telling the legalist to go ahead and totally emasculate themselves… so… have you done that yet?
I keep stating these guys preach the ministry of death and condemnation in place of the ministry of reconciliation… but Chris P has given the perfect example of this himself! LOL!
iggy
i’m sure the more biblical option would have been to try to sing:
“The blessed apostle St. Paul was desirous of their autonomous excising of their phalluses.”
Is that so much better? Really?
Or,
“Paul entreated his opponents to take up a sharpened accoutrement and apply it to the members of their lower regions, thus disposing of their offending organs and rendering them a consistency of argument”.
Thoughts?
Tim,
I read the King James (and i can’t think of a more harsh version), so respectfully, it offends me little but that song was just plain vulgar.
That article posted used foul words to rail on our siblings in Christ whom, shock horror, we may have to spend eternity with EVEN if they are legalistic in some ways.
What this site needs is to post articles as draft and have other regular contributers check them so a consistant message gets displayed.
Galatians 5: 12. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Yep, Paul used foul words (telling them to go and mutilate their genitals) to rail on our siblings (those kind and gentle judiazers) in Christ whom, shock horror, we may have to spend eternity with EVEN if they are legalistic in some ways.
Would it have been less offensive if he used “Richard” instead?
iggy
Guys – it is a stretch to say Paul used anything but a Hebrewism that did not translate into what would be considered crass and vulgar. So if Paul used questionable language are you saying anything goes, and you are using the Apostle Paul as your excuse?
Whatever happened to sweet and bitter water, or even moderation? We seem to be prideful in our liberty and using objectionable language in order to provide proof of such. Paul warned against that type of expression, lawful but not expedient.
Dave,
Frankly, if you were offended by that song, and not by the scriptures you’re not paying attention. Iggy’s reference was a good start but we haven’t even gotten into Paul’s use of the equivalent of 1 of the 7 words you can’t say on television in Philippians. Or how about translating Isaiah’s “filthy rags” which would be better translated as used tampons. Or perhaps the rather discreet use of the term “emissions” in Ezekiel 23.
Lets not forget that we’re dealing with a God that had one of his holy prophets marry a whore to make a point. Pretending that God particularly cares about the individual words that secular society has decided are naughty seems, to me, to cast God as the grandmother next door, rather than the God I see authoring the Bible.
Oh? What brothers were that aimed at? Perhaps you’d care to point them out, because if they’re fully the Law, rather than Christ that should be pointed out to them, in order that they may no longer be under the law which leads to death.
Did he use foul words? Yes, foul words to describe foul things. If indeed there are “brothers” out there who are legalists that is a foul thing beyond any words in any human language, much less the words the author used.
And that, I believe, sums it up perfectly. I’ve found the vast majority of people in churches are more offended by the words the FCC finds offensive than they are by cursing. It certainly seems a lot of people in this thread are.
Actually I use strong language to make a strong point. When I say Rahab was a whore, I use that language to break through the sanitized version of the Bible that has been taught for far too long. The church has used Noah’s story as a game at VBS to let kids see animals, when the whole idea is that He was pissed. Pissed off enough to wipe out almost everyone on the entire earth. It is absolutely impossible to use language strong enough to express the anger of God. Unfortunately there’s a far more people out there offended by my use of “pissed” than that get the point that God was pissed.
Not as an excuse. As an example.
Chris P likes to say hell a lot!
and he is one the “other” side…
actually I think he has stated some other words like “crap” also…
But as far as I see Imonk never said any one’s name unlike Chris P and others who WILL be surprised when i come over to their mansion and give them some of my angel baked cookies in the welcome basket I have for them…. LOL!
iggy
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? ”
I wonder how controversial, insulting, and unbelievably crass that epic attack was for that time period in history? I’m sure many non religious leaders in the audience were very offended too. I’m sure that just was the last nail in the coffin to absolutely PROVE to them that Jesus was a glutton and a drunkard a friend of tax collectors and ’sinners’! I say we crucify Him, how dare He speak like that?
We forget that culture determines what is ‘offensive’ or not, but God doesn’t change with culture, He doesn’t change at all. He tells it like it is, and we’d do well to remember this. Just think about that for a second. I cannot think of worse insults and harsh language used than what God says human beings are like in the Bible.
I personally swear very rarely, though it was a way of life for me, quite literally, before I was saved. Big cussing family, and I was swearing from the tender age of 3, religiously. It was one of the first things that left me by God’s grace when I was saved. Now I have my moments from time to time, I’m certainly not perfect, but I don’t agree with foul language, normally. With that said, I think Jesus speaks for Himself.
“…whoever claims to live in Him, must walk as Jesus did”
And sometimes you call a spade, a spade.
Love,
Joe
“Woe to you…” was sanitized. It’s cultural equivalent would have been “Damn you…”
But…
here we go again…round and round to the inevitable impasse on this issue.
I just wish people would explain why this is such a deal breaker.
Have we so been co-opted in truly deep and significant ways by the culture that these are the things we have to obsess over?
For me, language should be used with sensitivity, awareness of audience and their organizational culture, intentionality, etc.
The whole “selfish”, “lazy”, “trying to push the envelope”, “flaunt your freedom” objections are based on assuming things about people and their hearts, their motivations.
When I use language I do it intentionally, with purpose and with awareness of my audience. Hardly, lazy, selfish, etc.
It may surprise you, but I have been able to share Christ with people because I spoke in a way that someone related to…guess what? They follow Jesus now. And nobody gets to judge that. They follow Jesus, love him like crazy, just be happy for crying out loud. You weren’t there and have no place to say one way or another. Some might just have to trust God and their Christian brother. (On the other side, I don’t know anyone who gave their heart to Jesus because Christians didn’t cuss, go to rate R movies, dance, or whatever.)
Would I use such terms from the pulpit? Never, it’s too much trouble with the overwhelming sensitivities of a churched crowd.
bottom line:
1. unless you produce a scriptural list of actual prohibited words, 2. prove in their context that they refer to current North American useage, then
3. you have to concede out of the gate that the consensus on the status of “words” is driven by culture and time.
4. That’s conceding the “contingency” of language, it’s inherent fluidity of meaning that is demonstrable even in recent history,
and thus makes this a wisdom issue, not an absolute prohibition on particular words for all time and in every place.
Meaning…it must be driven by the conscience of the individual, balanced by loving deference, but fighting and standing against any and all attempts to absolutize a different personal conviction.
It’s not a matter of the “weaker” brother. All the people I know who make this such a major issue are NOT weak. They have a strong conviction they expect everyone else to share. So an absolute deference/abstention is not in the works.
Love to all…
Igs, do you know something we don’t? You seem pretty sure your ticket is gonna get punched first.
You watch Desperate Housewives, Ig?
“Welcome basket” sounds very Bree VandeKamp…
Again I ask is there boundaries for what language you use as a Christian? If everything is to push the envelopes lets hear some of you guys use the F word. Stop being so scared to do it….What are you waiting for?…Is that to over the top? What if a pastor was talking about sex…Is it “correct in context” to say the F word? As I have said before, if it is alright to talk like that let’s hear you guys just let it rip…
If you watch Desp. Housewives then just stop the madness and watch porn because it will be easier on your imagination! The end days are here!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not confident in myself but in my saviour who is quite capable to save even a wretch like me…
I have never watched DH
And Jonathan… dude… porn leaves nothing to the imagination… but it does delude one to think they are intimate when they are not. And I would not recommend anyone to watch it!
iggy
“For me, language should be used with sensitivity, awareness of audience and their organizational culture, intentionality, etc.”
nc – If that is true and a parameter, then why would anyone post that “song” knowing people like me and others are very offended? Even in the context that God doesn’t care the Scriptures are clear about carelessly tossing a verbal handgrenade in the presence of those who will be wounded.
My personal opinion is that some cannot resist the temptation to parade their “freedom”.
Iggy, I didn’t assume you watched DH, but I assume nc does and I believe it is very wrong to watch garbage like that. Sorry if you thought I jumped at you.
I will say that watching porn is a sin which can be very addicting.
I am just at awe at the envelopes that are pushed over the edge. The church has so changed for the worse and I can remember the days when I was younger when people had reverance for the Lord and the things of him.
Jonathan,
reverence does not mean saved… in fact often it can mean self righteousness… this from someone who has see a lot of changes…
iggy
True reverance is from the saved…a lost person can’t show reverance toward something they deny. True reverance can be a fruit.
Define reverance. Define holiness. Is it trying to be flawless, and set apart by word deed or thought, or is it being used by God to do something for His Glory?
What’s your treasure guys?
Joe
Joe C, where is your heart? Then you will know your treasure! My treasure is in heaven…so is my heart!
Joe, good scripture reference!
So, I can’t Saul did not have reverence for God as he persecuted Jesus followers?
I think you might be a bit off on this Jonathan… sorry.
iggy
Jonathan,
Sorry, but I don’t allow something as important as how words are used to be determined by the FCC. Especially since large sections of the Bible would be censored if it were faithfully rendered onto video and broadcast during primetime.
Rick,
I can tell you that I didn’t post this to deliberately offend you, I found it edifying adn a great reminder that pride is deadly, and even less desirable than the sins listed.
Where do all of you draw the line? Would you cuss out a friend at church if you disagreed with them? Would you wait for a “more appropriate setting” to swear at them? Would you take the Lord’s name in vain? Would you scream profanities at your kids if you got mad enough? Somewhere in using strong language there has to be some self-control.
I honestly can’t think of very many settings where using bad language would be appropriate.
Johnathan,
Were you being sarcastic with me? I couldn’t tell, brother. lol honestly.
And merry, I think using ANY language to attack someone with anger and vitrol would be ‘cussing’ at them. Heck, using profanity, or any words, in unrighteous anger (which are the situations you seem to be bringing up), would be a sin. But I don’t think we’re talking about that here.
And you’re right, there always has to be self-control. It’s a fruit of the Spirit.
Taking the Lord’s name in vain? NO ONE is saying that. Hello Mr. Straw…meet Mr. Man. Just messin Merry.
Love, Joe
And there it is.
That’s the point I’m driving at. Every week people are shredded at church, and because they don’t use cuss words no one blinks.
Joe C, I wasn’t being sarcastic….I really liked the scripture reference.
Iggy, I think we have different views of reverence!
Hmmmm….
Not to be mean, but Jonathan, your tantrum doesn’t deal with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what I’m saying?
It’s actually quite measured and with a concern for deference.
Thanks for judging and making my point.
You might consider taking a cue from your father. He actually asked a pertinent question instead of going off the deep end.
To that question…
Rick, I would say that the parameter is there but not violated.
You don’t have to read the post, or go to Boars Head Tavern at all. It’s just like TV…if you don’t like it, or find a movie offensive, or whatever. Get a grip and just don’t see it, listen to it, etc.
Good on ya! Live your convictions!
And let me live mine without having to listen to some whining. (Which Rick is MOST definitely NOT doing…to be clear)
The post did have a language warning in the heading.
So despite it being linked to from here, anyone with a strong conviction on the issue of language should have just skipped it.
My issue has NEVER been “not swearing, etc.” my issue is absolutizing personal convictions for other people, regardless of the “strength” of your case. I’ve made my point above as to why it is inherently a wisdom issue.
It’s the same with “drinking”. I occasionally enjoy a glass of wine with a meal, a cold beer, etc. I don’t violate the explicit Scriptural prohibition to not get drunk. Thus, my conscience is clear.
No one with a different conviction gets to judge that and say I’ve violated Scripture. I may have transgressed YOUR understanding/interpretation/application, but I don’t live with you, hang around you, etc. and if I did I would refrain in front of you out of deference and love. BUT that doesn’t mean you have the right to get all worked up about it.
It reveals something in you that can’t graciously allow people their journey, their understanding, etc. It reveals a lack of trust in God that HE writes the story for others. Trust Him and Love your brother.
Language passages refer to “value judgements” about language but do not outline the actual language itself.
Because you can’t. Language is too fluid.
Just because the language does what it does…change and shift over time…does not mean any of us have the right to absolutize a specific set of words for everyone else.
It thus becomes part of context, setting, audience, and ‘WHAT YOU CHOOSE” to take in.
Again, it’s a wisdom issue.
reverence is not the same thing as holiness.
And I bet if we got into a discussion about holiness we would have a real eye opener on that one.
Jonathan,
I am pointing out that there is “true” reverence and false reverence and even misplaced reverence.
Paul before his conversion did have great reverence for God. His attack against Christians was out of that reverence for they (in his mind) went against doctrine so he went out to preserve his doctrine. Yet, that is false reverence… it is reverence in God by way of Doctrine and not His Person.
A person can also revere someone or something and not love them.
A person can also have misplaced reverence as they choose to revere creation in place of God.
True reverence is when one understands who the Person of Jesus is and what He has done.
If you take a moment and go and look at the definition it will show you that these things play out.
Reverence in the KJV often is the same word as fear…or dread or even terror… and in a sense we should have that also. But one who fears has not been perfected in love as John teaches, for fear has to do with punishment.
Also, in the NT it can mean fear, but also gravity or honesty… and that is true reverence… to stand in total honesty before God about Who He is and who we are…
Be blessed,
iggy
Fear comes when confronted by an uncontrollable existentially relevant reality.
No one can accuse me of being a humorless Calvinist. But I have no desire for vulgarity even when it is descriptive. I would like to think I have enough vocabulary to intelligently address the issue while remaining above the lowest common denominator.
Favorite song? “Your Name is Lifted on High” (mine)
1 Peter 1:17 speaks of living “in reverent fear” of God and that is I believe what Jonathan is speaking of… I am not saying he is wrong in his definition… only narrow in it. I take a broader view which takes into account how the word is used throughout the bible.
But over and over we are told “do not fear”, which is the fear and reverence of one who is expecting punishment which is spoken of in 1 john 1:4… and the type of fear that shows the person has not come to know the Love of God and His Kindness…
All I am trying to express is that there is more than one definition and that reverence can have right motive but wrong execution. If out of ignorance or good intentions… as in the case of Saul/Paul…
Blessings,
iggy
nc,
I seem to get into trouble with people on my view of holiness… it is pretty simple though, God made us holy when we are place into Jesus because He is Holy… and if God made me holy, I cannot add anything more to make myself more holy… in fact whatever I add makes me less holy as I have fallen from grace to works!
One must remember that the standard of holiness is God Himself… and that is perfection… anything less than that is not holy.. that is why when we are placed into Christ Jesus, we are holy and perfect because He is holy and perfect. His body cannot be less than anything He is…
iggy
Tim,
I’m an Aussie, you’ll be hard pressed to find something secular that offends me – amongst my brothers and sisters however, I grow to expect more. I’ve read the scriptures listed and they are not offensive because they refer to things in either the proper sense or proving a point such as marrying a whore. Regarding Galations, once someone here bares the marks of Christ as Paul did, then feel free to use the language he did in the proper context.
firstly, this site is aimed at CRN/SoL so anything here without another context specified insinuates them. Second, I am hard pressed to imaging a legalist being won over with that song. To win those under the law, Paul became as them.
He used “foul words” (which aren’t really anyway in his usage) after he had visited them and freed them from the law. Paul had history and was as their spiritual parent.
How about Gen 6:6 “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” I think that’s much stronger and doesn’t need to resort to common words.
Joe C,
I can almost guarentee that God would never use the “F” or “S” word in a dream to a westerner, nor anything vulgar. Flesh is flesh and sin is sin, there’s no “That word’s OK to use since God doesn’t come from my culture”.
Pub language is not good.
nc,
and even the fact alone that a site like this needs such a heading is a sad thing regardless of reading the song.
I used to be an avid SoL 1.0 then CRN reader, but their strange posts and growing acid sarcasm drew me away. I was honestly starting to change my mind about the emerging church and other movements thanks to sites like this, but things like this post just show me that CRN have a valid point. Sometimes it seems like it’s all about finding an occasion for the flesh.
Rick, I don’t mean to be insulting, but how is this is not as prideful as the abuse of liberty? Taking your refusal to use a set of words as proof that you’re more intelligent than people who do use that set of words?
Then how do you account for Paul’s use of exactly that language in Phillipians?
I did not say I was more intelligent than others, just that I had enough intelligence to communicate without vulgarity. I’m not sure that is necessarily a high level of intelligence.
The implication is that those who do communicate in that way aren’t intelligent enough to do otherwise.
I’d rather be a repentant sinner, washed in the blood of the Lamb, than a self-righteous hypocrite.
I’d rather be a repentant sinner than a boastful, potty mouth hypocrite; who doesn’t understand repentance.
Or they choose not to use it.
Tim R,
an you give the reference to those words in Philippians? Just curious.
I heard Hal Lindsey do a teaching on Exodus and translated a word to mean the equivalent to “bitch”… he stated that “the Hebrews began to “bitch” to Moses about…” I was a bit shocked at the time and laughed for a while over it as it was on a very conservative Christian station. Yet Hal insisted that that was the best word to convey what was being stated in the original language.
But, I have not heard that Paul used such course language though it does not surprise me as Greek and Hebrew both are very blunt languages at times.
iggy
I choose not to use certain words as I was taught at an early age that “profanity is the attempt of an ignorant mind ot express itself.” I do think it has held me in much bondage over the years both with pride as i think I am doing well, and condemnation when I seem to think I am in competition to the whole navy and cna outswear them all!
To me it is the heart of a person. I have met bikers… hardcore ex Hells Angels type that have found Jesus… in fact there is one story of a pastor in canada who lead a group of Outlaws to the Lord. it is a great story, but the best part is when the head of the gang stood up and gave his testamoney in all sincerety, stated “God-d–mn it’s been a hell of a day, but praise God for all He has done…”
I see God does meet us where we are at. For me I am confronted with my pride and self righteousness at times by failing when I think I am doing so good… as I stated I used to feel condemned over it, now I am thankful that IF anything good comes out of me, it is of God and not of me.
Be blessed,
iggy
(I did not want to offend anyone by this comment, but as far as what I have seen out there, God still loves sinners.) = )
Igs,
Here’s a good summation:
Again, assumptions about the motivations and the heart–desirous to feed the flesh, indulge the flesh, etc. etc. etc.
This discussion is NOT about the EC.
It’s about a wisdom issue on language useage.
Let’s not conflate.
To the crooked things appear crooked.
Maybe if you personally can’t use certain words without it being fleshly, freedom flaunting, etc. then it’s about you.
I hear Rick saying he would rather comport himself without the useage of those words. In his context those words may impede his communication with people. Lawful, but no expedient. Wise choice.
But…(this is general for everyone here)….for cryin’ out loud. I don’t see people being insensitive in their comportment here…just read this thread.
The post content wasn’t even ON this site. It was linked. with a disclaimer on the top of the page you went to.
Again, it’s on you that you didn’t turn your eyes away if you know that stuff offends you.
Some of you people read it and then blamed Tim for it…
nobody held a gun to your heads.
Yes, remember that not all of us are ‘emergent’. So blanket statements about how this site is a representation of the emergent church, I feel is false.
I like to play on both sides of the equation. You all make good points.
Who says that!?
Joe
By the way…
none of us are “emergent”.
Some of us have friends in a network of relationships called “emergent village”, but that’s all it is–friendships.
Yeah but Dave’s insinuation was that this site is a representation of the EC. So that’s what I was addressing.
And I am not sure if some people on this site, whether posting articles, or just posting comments, are emergent or not, because I don’t know everyone. So I was playing it safe.
Joe
There’s only a few E/Es on this site. Shocking the keningrids get that wrong too.
I am not saying a Christian cannot be carnal and prideful and say words that high schoolers giggle about, I am saying the Scriptures command us to refrain from such speech, not becuase you’re not a soldier, but because you are supposed to emulate Christ.
At least that is how it used to be.
Mike – how come your website is listed as this site?
Tim Reed,
you may like the song you linked to and completely agree with the sentiments expressed but it can’t really be your new favorite song, is it? Dave, the Australian brother, makes valid points in his last comment which in I think you should consider again.
This thread is heading downhill fast with the recent comment by Mike and I do not think that is what you intended – Robbo
From the Apostle Paul:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2 ESV)
Crude language is being conformed to this world. It is sin for a believer to be conformed to this world. It does not edify nor does it bring glory to God. It only defiles the one enslaved to its use.
If one is offended by someone pointing out that their song or a lyric or a post or comment is crude and inappropriate then that person should look inside at their own spiriitual condition because both the use of profain speech and the endorsement of it are the fruit of the flesh not fruit of the spirit and I assure you that pride is in control and that in itself is an affront to God.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
YIKES!
I will say, I might also let loose some really colorful and creative words if bombs were blowing up over my head.
Mike, if you are out there and going through that my prayers are with you!
iggy
Mike R,
You wrote:
That is a complete misunderstanding and misuse of “being conformed to the world” and is exactly the sentiment of the ’song’ being linked to (which I am on record as believing is unnecessary in its terminology, but not its sentiment).
Being “of the world” deals with buying into the systems and power structures of the world (kosmos), and you cheapen this by trying to add your own requirements to what “of the world” is and is not.
Each culture defines what it sees as “crude” speech, and it is important that Christians maintain a level of purity in their speech without self-righteously lording it over each other and over non-believers.
Going back to Jesus’ illustration with the cup – it is MOST important that the cup be clean on the inside, but that does not mean that we should allow the outside of the cup to remain tarnished once we clean out the inside.
Which is worse:
A) Daily slandering of Christian brothers and sisters (a la CR?N/AM/SOL), studiously and piously avoiding the FCC’s 7 words
B) Writing a song about legalism using base anatomical descriptions
By Jesus’ standards spoken to the pharisees, both are wrong, but A is worse than B.
A) Mike Marchese’s comment was a perfect example of complete lack of self control.
B) If some here seem to find nothing wrong with the use of bad language, then why even bother to edit Mike Marchese’s comment? We all know what he said anyway.
C) Never mind, I won’t judge anyone anymore. I just think words/communication is powerful and should not be misused, bad words or not. Why even bother using bad words? Too easy to offend someone. Plenty of other ways to get your point across.
No one is offended at someone pointing out that particular perspective, Mike R.
It’s not that people shouldn’t voice their opinion.
It’s a matter of recognizing:
1. unless you produce an explicit scriptural list of actual prohibited words,
2. prove, in their context, that they refer to current North American useages and terms, then
3. you have to concede out of the gate that the consensus on the status of “words†is driven by culture and time. That means your communities/workplace/families corporate consensus may be different than mine.
4. That’s also conceding the “contingency†of language, it’s inherent fluidity of meaning that is demonstrable even in recent history,
and thus makes this a wisdom issue, not an absolute prohibition on particular words for all time and in every place, for every person.
thus I refrain from certain terms here on this thread. Because I try to respect and show love to my Christian brothers here. (not always well, but I try) And then I get told that I’m not loving, flaunting freedom, ruled by pride. Wow. And I thought I was being intentional, responsible, deliberate and deferential.
Anyway, case in point, certain “word” used to be a polite term. It’s changed over the last 500 years. It is and will probably keep changing. You can do an easy google search to see that.
Conformed to the world? Language is a fundamental aspect of culture in the world. You can’t use it with out participating in it. You are inherently conformed to the world by its use.
this reminds me of a college where they forbid cargo style pants because they’re popular right now so that style is “of the world”. Culture is always changing, they can’t escape it, so they have to create arbitrary demarcations. This is not devotion, this is shallowness. “Cargo pants” are more worldly than chinos? gimme a break.
Based on your statements, Mike R., would we all have to speak an Elizabethan dialect or some other era’s form of speech to make you happy? There’s “colorful” phraseology from that era too, but is that ok since it’s not really understood or in use?
What about the heart? Is a Christian still sinning when he says “shoot”, but only to appease his listeners? Or darn, dang, dingbustit? “Oh Pooh”? “Freakin”? golly, gee, gosh? I bet you hear these kinds of phrases in Ingrid’s “youth group”, maybe not, but you get my point?
Do you see the holes?
What offends is the assumption that if I do not share your particular approach to this wisdom issue then somehow people get to make broad sweeping statements about the heart, the motives, etc. That’s not pride, that’s called injustice and lack of love. “Believe all things, hope all things, bear all things…”
You choose to abstain always,
I choose to be intentional in my useage where I deem it fitting.
You may believe it never fitting.
I believe in some circumstances it is. (but not with you or some here.)
You believe it a clear cut prohibition.
I believe it is not.
I don’t want you to swear, cuss, whatever.
I don’t want people who do not know my heart, or my circumstance, presuming to know what is best for me.
You want people to honor God–in the way you understand. But you won’t admit that this is “your” understanding.
Why not just own the fact that for some of us here certain terms are not in bounds, it’s a personal conviction that rises from your best understanding of Scripture and your right and good desire to honor God?
If that was stated instead of extreme reactions and absolutizing statements that don’t hold water given reality then this wouldn’t even be that big of an issue…really.
oy.
i’m tired of this…
Mike,
If you are in harms way…blessings on you.
Merry,
It got edited out of love and respect for differing opinions/sensitivities. But I see your point.
Dave Muller,
“pub language is not good”
Outside the pub, maybe…
FYI – on the “emergent-ness” of this site:
The following folks have author accounts and have written articles for this site and (I believe, and they can shoot me if I’m wrong) have the following church background:
So, we have a grand total of one declared “emerging” writers here. Some might want to include Mars Hill, GR in that list, but they do not consider themselves ‘emerging’, and have a number of distinguishing characteristics which do not “fit” with common labels of “emerging/emergent”. If you include Mars Hill, two of our writers are from the ECM. Either way, that’s not a majority of the writers here…
Well, for the record, I am actually affiliated with the Assemblies of God. Officially, that probably makes me further removed from the EC (just look at their 16 “Fundamental” Truths), even though I am sympathetic with a lot of the EC’ers.
Also, for the record, I don’t know that some of the 16 “fundamental” truths are actually “fundamental”.
As to why I edited the words in Mike’s post, it was exactly because of respect to sensitivities, (and because I don’t want anything on this site that I would be embarrassed for my mother to read)…
Because as the accountable “General Editor” of this site, the only comment editing I allow is for legal reasons or to redact crude speech, specifically because I believe that the outside of the cup should be as clean as the inside…
I hope Tim posts last night’s podcast soon, as this was one of the topics discussed…
Sorry for messing that up, Phil!
Chris P’s church is AoG, as well, which may be why he keeps singling you out to pick on
I find it sad that some are more offended by what Mike M stated than they are that he is in a position where bombs are blowing up around him… what a screwed up notion that the words are more important than the person and even more screwed up that some are soooo offended by their own standard that they dismiss the person.
I am not saying it is wrong or right to swear… I am saying that in all cases the person should come first. If one has done any really hard counseling with people with real issues, swearing is second nature to them and often they need to express themselves that way to get past the garbage they are dealing with. If one just judges them at that point, you can lose them… so again the person is more important than the words…
Do we need be aware of our words? I think all agree that there are appropriate times and inappropriate time to even use “good” words… do I talk of my wife’s latest OBGYN exam with my 3 year old son? It seems that is not appropriate… but for gosh all fishhooks! (LOL!) if a bomb went off over my head and doom was everywhere… I think God would overlook a flying “f”word…
Now, to me God sees the heart… and if our righteousness, holiness and all are imputed to us by Jesus these things are already taken place… if I walk around holding my standard up… then I missed the boat completely and am worse off than if I let a swear word fly as I am replacing the righteousness of Christ Jesus with my own… or can you not see that some of you?
If one abstains… do not hold it over one who does not… for where does your own righteousness comes from?
I would prefer people to not use certain words… but to judge others as Mike Ratliff did, would also be judging Luther and others who used such words. But we won’t go into that double standard will we?
So, I wonder at all this as i am comment number 76 or so…
How does one like Mike R answer the question asked above?
iggy
Umm… they are “man-loving semi pelagian” in fact if Chris reads the by laws… he can lose his salvation if he does not maintain it! So, he has no room to speak against anyone here.
I was almost ordained in the AoG…
iggy
(I know some really great an loving people in the AoG who do not believe as such above, but the official by laws are so or were so when i was involved in it. Oh and he would be hated by team pyro!)
Iggy, sorry to say this but your comment made me laugh. If Mike M. really did have bombs blowing up around him, what in the world is he doing commenting on this site? It gives me a hilarious mental image in a warped kind of way. Of course I care about Mike M. and everyone whether they use offensive language or not. But when one uses offensive or disrespectful language whenever they want to, it shows me that they don’t really care about or respect other people, you know? They’re sort of putting themselves first in a funny kind of way. I don’t really know how to describe it.
For the record, I’m an ordained Southern Baptist Minister! You know how I want to make sure all labels are properly affixed!
And here we have the prime exhibit of the eisegeses hall of fame. If you don’t like something and you can’t find any scripture to back it up, just call it “worldly”. It works for anything really. Don’t like guitars, chairs, or jeans in church? Well just call them worldy, then viola a Biblical reason for your completely subjective bias.
Of course if you’re going to do that you have to deal with abusing the scriptures and completely missing the world/kingdom dichotomy, but that’s a small price to pay to slap a divine stamp on your personal pet peeves.
Dear Sir,
I hope I have understood your point in defence of the song; that it uses strong language as scripture sometimes does, that there is no command in the Bible against it, to rail against it is to be a legalist or a pharisee. But if you don’t mind I have a question, asked in sincerity.
How is your viewpoint any different from antinominianism?
If you do not know who the antonominians where and how this debate keeps on repeating in the church I would be happy to explain.
But please, dear Sir, how is your view different from theirs?
“Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving” Ephesians 5:4
Do you believe this scriptural command has any relevance to this discussion?
God Bless
Caution: Crude Language ahead!
Because I was interested I googled “etymology of swearing” and the online etymology dictionary came up.
http://www.etymonline.com
They have pretty much every swear (British, English, Aussie, etc…) It is pretty interesting stuff. On a simliar note have you ever looked up what the original intent of some nursery rhymes were. For instance look up “Peter Peter Pumpkin eater” No bad language but it may offend somes sensibilities.
Chris L.,
I beg to differ. You said that using profane language is not being conformed to this world. While part of your definition is right it leaves out exactly what I am talking about. Christians are to be separate from the world, in it, but not part of it. That means that our lifestyles are to reflect our new nature not that of our old nature because our old nature was conformed to this lost and dying world. Our new nature is conformed to Christ, therefore, we are to reflect Him to the world not be just like it. Did Jesus use profane language? He was not a sinner. He never did. Peter did when he denied Christ as he tried to make them see that he didn’t even know Jesus. The Holy Spirit made sure we understood that his use of that language was part of his sin.
Words convey meaning. We know which words are profane and which aren’t don’t we? Our Christian witness is damaged when we act like the world. It opens us up to ridicule and it diminishes our ministries. That is why we must be very careful with how we behave in all of our relationships. Drinking, carousing, cursing, sleeping around, etc. All of these things are being conformed to this world. We must work the Holy Spirit in His work to burn these things from us and conform us unto Christ. The Christlike believers are those who stand out in this world as “different” and will be those that God uses to draw people unto Himself.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Jesus did curse.
He said “Woe to you…”
The cultural equivalent would be “damn you…”
Saying “Woe” was a huge curse.
If I called someone a “son of hell”, there are people that would go anabolic and claim I cussed at someone.
gimme a break.
My Christian witness has only been damaged with other Christians who can’t let something go.
My witness was never hurt with the lost I’ve shared about Jesus with…over a pitcher of beer and some good food.
Again, all this stuff is how you choose to apply these principles.
And when did the use of certain terms become related to carousing or sleeping around?
They aren’t connected necessarily or causally.
Throwing that other stuff out is just obfuscation.
Wow. Can you not see the logical fallacy in that?
Cussing is a sin because Jesus didn’t cuss because cussing is a sin.
Hey, this is cool, you can pretty much endorse or condemn anything this way!
Getting married is a sin because Jesus didn’t marry because marriage is a sin.
Speaking English is a sin because Jesus didn’t speak English because speaking English is a sin.
Can you seriously not see that you’re begging the question?
You are not a serious person, you can’t on the one hand say that we are supposed to be separate from the world and then on the other use that same world as the standard by which we judge words. Which is exactly what you’re doing here. The culture at large has determined which words you think are “profane”, you can see this as determined by our secular government via the FCC.
You say that using these allegedly inherently profane words would make one “conformed to the patterns of this world”, but its a far more persuasive argument to say that the world has determined these words are profane and so to refuse to use them on the basis of that world, would be to be conformed to the patterns of the world.
Absolutely. And we see Jesus himself affirm that in Matthew 20:20, “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.”
Being of this world means exercising authority in this way. In Philippians 3 Paul refers to people who have as their god their appetites.
Using this ridiculous argument you’ve put forward you could claim that being Godly, means doing anything different from the world. That means hating your kids, promoting racism, deliberately destroying the environment, or promoting serial killing as a legitimate activity would all stand out from the world as being different. On the other hand if we actually dig into scripture to find out how we should be different we come to very different conclusions than “don’t say ‘dick’”.
Mike Ratliff,
Thanks for proving my point as to where YOUR righteousness comes from…
If you think sin holds you back then you are not dead to it yet… sin died on the Cross with Jesus or do you not believe 2 Cor 21?
It seems your theology is very flawed for though Jesus never sinned, He became sin for us… for cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree.
Jesus became sin… and in Christ sin and death were judged. Sin is not the issue… death is and the answer is Life and Life in the Son.
You seem to twist this so that we somehow have a perfect Jesus who never was around or had anything to do with sin… and in that unless YOU are perfect has nothing to do with YOU.
THAT is heresy if you ask me…
iggy
Owch…this convo got rough while I was in the air today.
Good points from all angles, but Jesus and HIS Righteousness and Righteous acts win again. None of ours. I’m saved by Jesus Christ’s blood, not my lack of swearing. Not that I swear anyways, as far as I can try to stop myself.
Love, Joe
[satire alert]
Oh, hey, check out my JIV (Joe International Version) translation of Eph 2:8-9:
Figured I’d lighten the mood.
Oh it’s ridiculously late…I forgot I didn’t land until 11pm lol. No wonder everyone’s so silent all of a sudden…
Well then, I hope this finds everyone well in the morning!
Joe
Well guys I’m sorry I misunderstood the emergentness of this site. Due to some of the conversations in the comments I was under the impression it was a high number.
Iggy, this isn’t a justification issue, and neither is being conformed to this world. If this post was made on a personal blog I would have cared a lot less – I’m just horrified that a watchman site made it!
IMHO Luther did some great things, but his conversation (KJ usage and modern) disqualifies his from holding a spiritual position.
But we are not one with Him yet as the wedding feast is yet to come. I’m not sure if I have understood you beliefs properly, but it almost seems to come across as though we can live as we like, or that even trying to good things is bad just in case we make it not a grace issue?
Dave M,
Is our righteousness of Jesus or of our own works… did God forgive our sins or not?
that is my point… as far as living, I agree with Paul. We are now free to pursue Christ’s righteousness…
and you really seem to have me all wrong..
So does any language disqualify us from salvation?
To me it is just that an issue of whether one depends on your own self righteous standard and place it on others or realizing we are all sinners saved by grace.
I might add that though we are not sitting at the wedding feast yet… in a way we are, for Paul states that we are already seated with Jesus in the heavenlies….Ephesians 2: 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
It will be and is now… and as you can see language and all are all a part of being dead in our transgressions and being alive in Christ. I do not personally condone swearing… that is why I bring up Luther to those who have raised him up as a standard then attack others they see as not meeting THEIR OWN standard of holiness and righteousness.
I hoped you noticed I stated that for me to go at times without swearing that I can become prideful over that. I then sometimes expect those around me to maintain my standard…
This standard does nothing to add to their standing with God as it does nothing to add with my own standing with God… and as I fall and swear, God reminds me of my pride and humbles me by showing me His Kindness.
My point is not that one can just do as they please, but that they think about what they do in light of God’s perfect will for them. To stand in contempt and find offense in the person, misses that the person is of more importance than even my own standard of holiness which btw is as high as it can be, still way below God’s standard.
I look in the mirror and hope for what I do not see… and believe in the promise that I will be as He says.
When I read many of the people at CRN I do not see this, I see that they see themselves as holding to some standard that makes them in a better standing that others… as if God gave out merit badges to them for their great holy ways… and that is rubbish and an insult to grace and the blood of Jesus.
iggy
You realize, of course, that the “great things” Luther did were because he was holding a spiritual position. In effect, if you were in charge youd’ have prevented the reformation from happening because you didn’t like Luther’s use of language.
And that’s ultimately, why this discussion strikes me as so hilarious. Somehow the use of strong, coarse, crude, adult, or whatever euphamism you want to use language has been elevated by American protestants to the level of essential beliefs like the deity of Christ.
What is KJ usage?
Joe M,
King James usage… but that really is nonsensical as what is crude today, was still just as crude then…
Tim R,
I agree with you, I let that go as it negated itself. For it seems Luther held a spiritual position… it was that of The Great Reformer.
He was also a pastor… but now lets not let facts get in the way of a faulty theology OK? LOL!
Really for all that Luther did he has been so sanitized it is a wonder the Catholics don’t want him back to saint him to spite the Protestants! LOL!
iggy
Luther disqualified?
Nobody has made the case to me yet as to why this issue is such a deal breaker?
Tim,
this issue has to be elevated because at the truly deep, significant levels some american protestants are actually so in bed with culture in ways that actually matter they have to have arbitrary demarcations. (I would make a distinction between people like Rick who make principled arguments and stands, but do not kick people in the shins)
What I mean is this: uncritical participation in consumer capitialism (or being taught that pro-capitalism is the only “biblical worldview), divorcing higher than the rest of the country (belieing their pro-family stance), porn, uncritically accepting war–because American freedom and Christianity somehow go hand in hand, buying into certain political party and thus becoming their lap dogs because a guy said he liked Jesus, being driven by irrational hatreds, and the list could go on and on…
this shows a life constituted by fear, greed, resentments, anxieties, repression, dishonesty, denial, and this list could go on and on.
This is the compromise of the north american church, but sadly those who rail against compromise are sometimes the most deeply implicated.
When you are sold out to the cultural system–i.e. John’s ‘world’–then you have to become a modern day judaizer and point fingers about things like “special words”, worship styles, modes of dress, etc.
Just go to Pensacola Christian College’s website…they forbid the wearing of cargo pants simply because they are a popular style and thus reflect the world more than regular chinos or whatever.
when these discussions go from sharing of view points to finger pointing about the heart, motives and the true faithfulness of those with whom we differ, then it reveals the true truth in the heart of the one drawing the hard line. Because that’s what they actually did in response.
That would make Pope Benedict the second greatest heel in history right behind Ric Flair.
And this is exactly why all the little watchdoggies who point finger and complain we don’t take the Bible seriously are guilty of exactly that.
Pensacola Christian College is a cult. I’m working on some stuff right now. That is one of the most dangerous places on the planet right now. I know it sounds ODMish but they scare me. My niece goes there and the stuff she tells us is scary. She likes the place. Go figure.
But they have a bowling alley and never let you be alone…
Would you be willing to answer the question I posted earlier honored Sir?
1. How is your explanation different from antinomianism?
2. But isn’t it true that all who are justified are sanctified? If that is so, sanctified according to what standard?
3. Does Ephesians 5:4 have no relevance to this discussion?
God Bless
Tim, are you the “honored sir”?
Sanctified by being sealed by the Holy Spirit and set apart, once.
Sanctified by the ongoing work of being conformed to Jesus Christ.
Which one are you talking about there Jolly? Hey, are you from 16th century England? LoL, your language is pristine!! I’m very pleased with it.
And if we’re being conformed to the image of Jesus, does that demand perfection (not an excuse)? What about the guy who cusses every once and a while, but professes Christ and serves Him? Are we disqualifying him? Then I suppose Jesus would have been sinful, as his language was VERY strong sometimes, as I detailed much earlier in this thread.
Here’s a question NO ONE has answered…
WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN SAVED AND UNSAVED WHEN IT COMES TO SWEARING?
I dare you all to answer it.
This thread has become ridiculous. Go feed the poor some Word and chicken soup.
Joe
I don’t know. Maybe. But those are all questioned that have been answered.
1. The use of language that makes your grandma upset has nothing to do with following any sort of legitimate Christian ethic. Extreme language has its place in the case of extreme circumstances. In fact, failure to use extreme language in some cases would be antinomian, and, probably more commonly, being polite in describing reality is what is commonly called a lie. And that is commonly employed by Christians and watchdoggies alike in talking about scripture.
2. This question suffers from the logical fallacy begging the question. Resubmit it in a legitimate form.
3. Sure, in that Ephesians 5:4 applies to the motives, and actual content of the speech. This song is no more of a problem than say, “a mighty fortress is our God”.
I’m sure Rev. Gene Scott and Sam Kinison would have liked this thread.
Timothy Bell,
If you think that then you missed the point completely.
Tim Reed, I was just pointing out that they would like the justifications used to do swearing which is what I get from this. If I missed the point, I don’t care. Whatever.
Timothy,
It should bother you that you’re more worked up over the use of the word “dick” than you are over legalism.
Who’s “worked up”? I just made a humorous comment about Gene Scott and Sam Kinison because they are known to be pastors/preachers who swear (swore, in this case). Remember I called Iggy a damn fool three weeks back.
Kinison was a pastor?
I thunk so.