Sep 17, 2008
The linguistic superstition of referencing swear words without saying them.
Why do we say, “S-word,” instead of…well…the S-word?
It’s like we think its very sound triggers a trapdoor to hell.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Beware! As we answer this question, let’s keep in mind that many readers have soap and are willing to use it. :)
Legalism and a lack of linguistic literacy.
And sometimes a kind accommodation for others’ sensitivities, perhaps.
Because it’s easier to let the middle schoolers at the back of the bus teach our little kids.
Because its considered rude. The same reason you didn’t type it out in your post.
I don’t know . . . but I like swords!
Abraham, yes, that’s true. That’s usually why I use a s-word (that is, substitute word!).
Alec, I’ll take swords for a thousand.
I’d say a combination of the second and third comments on here. We should be able to speak about the use of harsh language and hold a position on it in a non-legalistic way, while still being sensitive to the “weaker” brother.
Paul Tripp’s explanation of the use of harsh language was great (the video from the DG conference).
Perhaps it won’t open a trapdoor to Hell, but who’d want to risk being mistaken for a politician?
A tad more seriously, why use profanity when it can just as easily be avoided, even when it is being discussed?
I would say that when it’s being discussed it’s not profane.
Speaking of swords . . . all of you who miss the dashing days of youth–very young youth (Abraham), this is the season to stock up on hollow, plastic swords–wherever Halloween costumes are sold.
As a literature teacher (in a home-school co-op), I run into this dilemma when I read out loud to my students passages that contain profanity or, more often, the Lord’s name used in vain. Is it okay for me to speak those things when quoting someone else, or should I look for appropriate substitutes, even though the students can see the words on the page? I haven’t come up with a consistent policy, so I end up doing a little of both.
is there really an accomodation of others when everyone knows and thinks what the “substitute” is supposed to avoid?
Nathan,
When I talk about pornography everyone knows what I’m talking about. Chances are, being the visual people that we are, it even brings it to mind for some. That doesn’t mean I provide visual aids since they are thinking it anyway.
i doubt we’re going to find a rock-solid answer for this. it requires an awareness of your surroundings, your audience, and your purpose. quoting a swear word or using a subsitute seem to be the same to me, because you’re not using it with malintent. and there are fine reasons to use them in some situations (e.g. tony campolo talking about how we care more about cursing than dying children, or when speaking of the depravity of men).
however, most of the time the words are used needlessly by those who won’t take the time to come up with something better (more productive, more accurate, and/or more gracious) to say.
i’m excited to hear more on this sort of issue at the upcoming conference, particularly driscoll’s session.
substituting the “real” word by saying the “s-word” or the “f-word” is, in my opinion, just not cool. I believe there is a time and a place for “harsh” words. They are especially helpful in getting a point across that need to be taken seriously.
Piper, at his Seminar on Gravity and Gladness the other day, referred to his flesh as “brother ass” (an obvious reference to St. Francis’ name for his lust-filled, tempted, carnal body). Was I offended by what he said? Absolutely not. Point well taken.
My father used to tell me I was acting like an “Ass” when I was being stubborn and rebellious. I needed that, because I now realize that i was truly was acting like one.
Ephesians 4.29 tells us to let no corrupt communication come out of our mouths. I’m not a Bible scholar, but it seems to me that would have more to do with the motive behind why you are saying what you are saying.
Brandon, I, too, thoroughly enjoyed and was challenged by Paul Tripp’s video on harsh words.
Just offer me this assurance – because I’m now getting nervous about all the money I’ll be spending to attend the conference – the weekend will not be one big long session defending the use of coarse language by preachers and other Christians?
And Nick, forgive me if I don’t care much about not being cool.
HUH…that’s funny…I wasn’t talking about porn….but way to avoid the nuances of reality by going to the extreme…
lovely.
sheeesh.
It was just a question…about language
“Oh Fudge”
“Oh Shoot”
Abraham,
I don’t know you or your family…I like your blog a lot…and it’s probably not my place…but I will say this:
I’m praying your father won’t even acknowledge the tantrum going on in the blogosophere about that Tripp video.
Especially not the inquiries from that Steve Camp guy. He said on his blog that he tried to contact your organization.
The Pharisees just can’t be allowed “to win” anymore.
Peace
i agree on two counts: when it’s being discussed it’s not profane, but it is also a kind accommodation for others’ sensitivities.
a third reason is that i’m not accustomed to saying such words in their profane contexts, and it’s difficult to flip the mental switch that says “it’s okay to say it right now.” i also subconsciously feel that if i start becoming accustomed to the sound of the word coming out of my mouth i may be more inclined to use it in profane contexts.
Nathan,
First, you’re right. My pornography example took it to the extreme. The principle is somewhat the same, however. Just because something you say will bring an image to mind, that doesn’t justify going ahead and presenting the image itself – whether words or an actual picture. I concede there are times that profanity might be justified (the Tripp video is probably one of those instances) but the instances should be rare indeed.
Second, it is not pharisaical to want pure speech. It is not pharisaical to seek to delight the Lord with our language. When might profanity glorify God? Can it? Something like the Tripp video might be one instance where it can.
What disturbs me in all of this is I know my own heart in these discussions. I used to argue for Christian use of profanity. I used to defend the occasional cuss word. And while my heart does not represent all hearts, I know what was really going on in my heart was a kind of delight to get away with things normally considered worldly. My motivation was not the glory of God but the delight in the flesh. In so much of the discussion in the blogosphere, people defending the use of profanity are saying many of the same things I said so I cannot help but think some of the heart behind the words demonstrate the same kind of heart I had at those times. I may be wrong, but we can only speak from our own experience.
Abraham,
That’s good s***… See, I can’t even do it. Shoot!
[...] Uncategorized Language and words are of significant concern to Pastor Piper (like father like son). It is fairly common to hear him say in a sermon something like, “I think it would be helpful [...]
Ah – thank you for this post! I was feeling really creeped out after reading about this topic on another blog (mentioned by another commenter). You and your wife are a breath of fresh air in a sea of icky bloggers. My 3 year old daughter came up to me yesterday and asked if it was ok for her to say sh** (we had a discussion a few days earlier about the word with our 6 year old, and apparently her younger sister was listening). I said “No, it’s not ok for you to say that” and she said, “Oh, right – that’s the gross word for poop. Ok, I won’t say that – I’ll just say poop.”
When I was an RA on my Christian campus, I had a terrible time dealing with guys who thought it was perfectly appropriate to yell “EFF” whenever they were the least bit frustrated. I doubt any of them actually meant to invoke the 6th letter of the alphabet.
To clarify, I’m not suggesting that we swear instead of euphemize.
I just want to draw attention to the peculiar linguistic phenomenon of superstitiously avoiding taboo language.
This reminds me of the tale of the beekeeper from the old town of Effan. (He was stung by a big Effan bee.)
My husband doesn’t swear. But, he says “eff” sometimes and it totally cracks me up. There’s a city in Illinois (or is it Indiana?) called Effingham. He loves to say, “All we eat is effing ham sandwiches,” or something like that.
I also think that bleeped out swearing (on t.v.) is funny. But actual swearing on t.v. is not funny. What gives?
I need to clarify that earlier i wasn’t saying that I believe it’s OK to say f*** or s*** . I was just pointing out that i don’t like it when the “christian” alternatives are used.
Christopher, I wasn’t using the word :cool” as in being socially “cool”. I was just stating that i didn’t like it when Christians do that.
I have a friend in the ministry who was upset about his children using the words “darn” and “shoot.” He thought they were only a small step from using real curse words and was worried about where they were heading. So he gave them a lecture about why they shouldn’t use vulgar and coarse language, and then gave them some different replacement words to use. True story.
What makes them bad words anyway? The “s-word” is the same as crap or crud or poop, isn’t it? What even makes it a swear word?
swear words are words not used in ‘polite society’ – therefore when we discuss them in public we euphemize them because, it seems, they remain rude and offensive regardless of how they are spoken of.
Would it be right to say, then, that context does not affect a word’s ‘level of offense’? Can a word be offensive simply in and of itself?
Sarah,
Nothing inherent makes it especially crass. It’s just that it’s been considered taboo for about 400 years.
Richard,
I would say that the only thing that words are in and of themselves is a string of sounds or letters.
Words can only be offensive if they offend. And to offend, someone must be there to be bothered. There must be a context before there is meaning.
Abraham,
I just hovered over the link in your last comment and saw a really bad word.
Just thought you’d like to know.
I’m not making an argument in favor of the use of profanity here, but to me this brings up the peculiar arbitrariness of most profanity.
“I have to poop.” OR “I have to s***.” Is there any real difference in meaning between the two? I don’t think there’s even a difference in connotation. The only difference, it seems, is a gut-level, knee-jerk reaction to the latter brought about by whatever societal/cultural rules tell us we should have this reaction to it.
To be more on topic though: I think the reason it’s more “okay” to say, “the s-word,” than it is to pronounce the actual profanity is that the former is a level of detachment from the vulgarity. For whatever reason (perhaps purely a subconscious, society-induced, Pavlovian conditioning – I don’t know), this detachment makes it less harsh on most listeners/readers.
I think this is just a lower level of detachment in the same vein as describing a vulgar situation without being explicit or detailed. The same thought is being conveyed, just with less chance of conjuring as many visuals or above-mentioned knee-jerk reactions.
An example of a higher level of detachment (used to comical effect) that comes to mind is the “yada, yada, yada” in Seinfeld.
jamsco – lol.
I grew up so afraid of those words that I just teach them to my kids to take the taboo fear out them.
I’ll say, “Shit means the same things as poop or manure but in most places it’s not considered polite so you shouldn’t get in the habbit of using it.” This is the explanation I use for all vulgarity.
Damn, Jesus Christ (as a swear word) and other religious swears (blaspheme) need to be approached a little more carefully, but I still don’t teach them anythign that will lead them to think that these words have talismanic power.
What’s the Tripp controversy? Do I even want to know, or will I only be andgry?
Chris…
I’m sorry for the bristling…
And I’m not advocating for anything in particular…
I just can’t get with what I’ve seen really amounts to an obsession with religious “form” and “image”–for some people.
It’s never been adequately explained to me why this language thing is such a deal breaker that people like that Camp person and others just demonize people–as if THAT’s wholesome speech.
I hope that makes sense…
peace
one more thing…
I say all that because I think people talking about John Piper with terms like he’s “drinking the Kool Aid” and being unduly influenced by Mark Driscoll, etc. etc. is really inflammatory and self-righteous.
There’s even the calling of names and then the justifying of it by means of “etymology” etc. but descriptive language that is colorful is somehow always verboten.
But name calling in the name of “defending” God’s glory is totally ok.
Frankly, that really chaps my hind end to no end.
That Camp guy even took this site to task for its format as an evidence of Abraham’s perceived immaturity.
Like I said before…I don’t know Abraham
(but I wish I did–this blog has been a great window into his and Molly’s life that reveals that some pretty quality people still walk the earth. Sorry…is that kind of cyber-stalk-ey? HAHA!)
What I do know is that I really hate self-important, unfair, petty, and spiritualized carping that poses as “admonition” and pastoral rebuke. Hence my itchy trigger.
Sorry.. this comment is way too long…but I want to be honest and make it clear my issue is not with you really.
again.
Peace.
I just learned more about s*** than I ever knew before. Thank you – I think.
But, Nathan, I think you’re right to bristle. And Chris, there might be something to the fact that someone bristes. You write:
“My motivation was not the glory of God but the delight in the flesh. In so much of the discussion in the blogosphere, people defending the use of profanity are saying many of the same things I said so I cannot help but think some of the heart behind the words demonstrate the same kind of heart I had at those times. ”
That’s a really disturbing line of thinking, and flat contrary to the spirit of Romans 14 (the context of which is a pretty clear parallel to this ‘issue’ of swearing).
“1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”
Maybe this is what you mean when you say, ” I may be wrong, but we can only speak from our own experience.”
But I would argue that we can speak from more than our own experience. We can speak from a dedicated position of respecting the freedom of him who eats do so without being judged as to his interior state.
Besides, as with many of Abraham’s posts, there is a socio-economic angle here. My grandfather used “shit” all the time in a purely descriptiver earthy way.
Here is something in the same spirit from Frederick Buecher’s THE BOOK OF BEBB:
“In face of such a sight and mystery as a girl can present when she walks toward you though the firelight in a moon-colored dress, it is possible for any one of us to be like whichever prophet it was who, when he beheld the Lord himself sitting high and lifted up among his angels, could only cry out, “Woe is me, for I am undone … I am a man of unclean lips…” Nor, Brownie would be pleased to note, was that the only reference to Scripture that this moment of seeing Sharon again at the barbecue recalls, because Bebb had come up behind me by this time and said softly into my ear as she approached, “Behold, I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven like a bride adorned for her husband,” and the next moment she was there holding out her good hand toward me saying, “Take it easy, Bopper. Herman’s mare threw me, and it’s taken till now to wash the horse shit off”– horse shit not as an obscenity but the way Bebb had used it once as a technical term for something that smells of grain and musk and sun and makes the vegetables grow.”
Nathan,
This is moving a bit off topic and perhaps into dangerous territory, but I’ve tended to find that little of what comes from Camp counts as wholesome speech.
As for Piper, there are few (no?) people I respect and look up to more than John Piper. That’s what has me a bit more emotionally engaged in this. I’m a bit skittish about my heroes of the faith after a few misleadings before. But I think we need people to treat like Paul who said follow him as he follows Christ. Piper is one of those I feel I can follow and I want him to move the right way on this issue.
Nick – I was at the Gravity and Gladness seminar as well. I thought that’s what he said, but hadn’t heard that phrase before. Thanks for pointing that out. And I too, was not offended.
From about 2nd grade up to high school I was pretty sure the use of these words ranked up there with the highest of sins. I’d repent if I even thought of a “swear” word. Thankfully, I developed a more biblical view of what sin is.
Abraham has a good point…I’m talking about swear words, but some reason I’m afraid to type one out. Point taken.
There is a lot to say on this topic, but I like Chris Roberts comment best: it is not pharisaical to want pure speech. It is not pharisaical to seek to delight the Lord with our language. When might profanity glorify God?
I get tired of people calling people who care about things that Jesus talked about and cared about legalists and Pharisees. And I get tired of people assuming that people who try to be faithful and careful about the seemingly little things (like speech) are neglectful of the more important things, like starving and suffering children. I don’t recall the source, but I remember a statistic quoted that 80 to 90 percent of the aid that goes around the world comes from Christians in America. I don’t think Christians should get on other Christians for caring. If you think swearing is okay, that’s fine, but it’s not fair to turn things around and call people who don’t weak, legalistic and pharisaical. Maybe that’s not what people are intending, but that’s how it seems.
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
12 Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
13 Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
“I get tired of people calling people who care about things that Jesus talked about and cared about legalists and Pharisees. And I get tired of people assuming that people who try to be faithful and careful about the seemingly little things (like speech) are neglectful of the more important things, like starving and suffering children.”
But there’s a thing here you might be leaving out … that speech matters, but not in the way we have taken it to matter in the degrated moralism of 20th century fundamentalists.
You can be careful and faithful in small things that really are important and you can be faithful and careful in small things that really are irrelevant. The first category is admirable so long as it doesn’t interfer with ‘weightier matters” of justice and mercy but the latter category is a complete waste of time and energy. For me, avoiding words like “damn” and “hell” and “shit” just fall into that latter category. Why bother?
Avoiding comedic speech that degrades women is WAY, WAY, WAY higher on priority list. Avoiding talking like Steve Camp? WAY, WAY, WAY higher on my priority list with speech. I just don’t get why, in the light of these things, anyone would care about ‘taboo words.’ It’s absurd. It’s probalby one of the worst legacies of the fundamentalism that still lingers in Evangelical faith.
“but it’s not fair to turn things around and call people who don’t weak, legalistic and pharisaical.”
I will call those weak who I think the Apostle Paul categorizes as weak (Romans 14). That is an important category to maintain. What I will try to avoid is what Paul cautions us against despising that brother.
However, where I think that someone is crossing the line and making their weakness a strength, or where they are going down a road that will enslave me again to the whole law, I say with the apostle, let them go the whole way and emasculate themselves. These discriminations are nothing more or less than biblical speech and biblical categories. Of COURSE one must be careful in how one applies them and evne more careful in living them, but I will not abandon them.
So, Chris…
Are you saying that the lambasting of John Piper is merely some less than circumspect expressing of things that Jesus cared about?
Are you saying that the DG ministry doesn’t care about the things that Jesus cared about?
I mean…that’s the implicit claim. Especially in light of my own clarifying comments–those comments, by the way, are not freighted with all the extra baggage you added.
You just did a softer rhetorical version of taking something to the extreme, and implicitly asserting positions that have not been stated here.
Disappointed.
My position still stands:
No one has sufficiently demonstrated why this issue is such a deal breaker.
I’d honestly like someone to explain it to me.
For the record:
A. I don’t think people are weak “who don’t”.
B. I don’t think your necessarily legalistic/pharisaical if “you don’t”.
I do think you’re B if you make your personal conviction/interpretation of your preference and make it my moral imperative.
I respect your belief in your taboos. I’ll even be careful not to step in it around you.
But…
I don’t respect anyone expecting me to live by them as some kind of universal moral imperative.
And please spare me some flip answer about how then I’m obviously not obeying God, etc.
I’d really like to hear this explained without that rhetorical flotsam.
Why, oh why, has the issue of language become such a deal breaker?
Well, I just submitted a response to those of you who didn’t like what I said, but I don’t see where it went. I saw it still in the box and hit submit again, but a message came up that said it was a duplicate, so I don’t know what happened to it.
It’s one am here on the east coast and I don’t have the heart to try to put it down again. If I had a blog, it would probably have to be called 222 words. Abraham’s strategy is probably better since the Bible says, In many words sin is not absent.
I will try to condense the most important things, though:
I don’t know anything about Steve Camp and only just read what he said after you sort of put me in the same category that you put him in even though I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT JOHN PIPER OR DG.
I have probably listened to over 6 years of John Piper’s sermons in 2 years since I discovered DesiringGod and I would never speak ill of him or his ministry. My only complaint was about people who think people who don’t like profanity are legalists. He’s never said that, has he? Even if he did, I would not criticize him, but I would tell him that I don’t think that’s legalism.
All I did was read through the comments and reply generally to the ideas about legalism. I don’t even know who said them. The only person I quoted was the other Chris because I liked that comment best. I don’t have anything personal against anyone here.
I don’t tell anyone how to talk, but in a forum such as this where the topic is what we think about profanity (whether that was intended or not, the topic did come up), I think it’s perfectly okay to say what I think about it.
People have lost respect for me because of that? Now I’m disappointed.
But we’re still friends, right?
Have you been listening to Mr. Tripp? ;)
Koller Family, are you asking me? No, I haven’t listened to Mr. Tripp. My comments are not a reaction to anyone, just my two cents on profanity and legalism. The dictionary says that legalism is the doctrine of salvation by works. Nothing I said advocates that. When I say that I quoted the other Chris because I liked that comment best, I meant that I like the part I quoted best. Some beautiful scriptures have been shared here about the kinds of things Christians should be saying or thinking. I also think about the verse that says, “Whatever things are true, whatever things are lovely whatever things are pure…think on these things.” The Bible says that what is in our hearts comes out of our mouths. I don’t think it’s too good for Sh– to be coming out of Christians mouths or for sh– to be in our hearts. There might be a place for profanity in art that is expressing the real life that we live in, where there are characters who would represent a lifestyle that includes profanity.
I”m not saying that if someone uses profanity, he is not a Christian. I just think in this matter that person is wrong.
I didn’t realize this post was about Tripp or the conference.
As for the original question as to why we use replacements when talking about profanity. I think it’s just because people who don’t like to use it, don’t like to use it, or people who are sensitive to others’ feelings use replacements out of respect for others who are offended by it, and I appreciate that. I don’t think it’s superstitious.
I found the Tripp clip and listened to it. He just shared a conversation he had with his kids. I would have said the s-word; he actually used the word in the conversation. I wouldn’t have done that, but he did a really good job answering his child’s question.
Someone asked what is the difference if you use this other word or that other word instead of sh–. I guess that’s because words and their connotations change. Looking at the etymology of the word in the dictionary, I guess if we were living centuries ago in the OE, Du, and Ger cultures where it was first used, it might just mean what the cow left in the field.
There is an interesting history posted at this site:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/17/messages/675.html
Over the years the word has taken on different connotations and has become associated with insult and ill will. Why doesn’t the vet ask us to bring a bag of Ginger’s sh– to her next appointment? Why don’t we tell our kids we are going to teach them to sh– in the potty? It’s because when we think of that word, we think of all the awful circumstances under which we’ve heard that word. So we try to use different words. If we use those substitutes with the same ill will, then it’s just as bad.
Oh, I better stop now. I guess my blog would have to be called 2,222 words. Yikes! I’m sorry I have taken up so much space. Usually people just pass right by my comments, but since questions were raised, I’m just trying to answer them.
If I understood Dr. Tripp’s video then I think the backlash at Camp’s blog in response is proof of what Tripp is saying. Case in point–the point of his video is lost because he chose to use the actual word instead of substituting it with a “cleaner” word. Therefore, it’s probably why not to use it because it typically does not edify. Furthermore, Dr. Tripp actually raises the bar (which would mean that it’s not okay to call someone a “pinhead”) on all of our language.
All in all I find it quite ironic. And it pains me that we even have to have this discussion.
I am a Physician, and I use the “real” word (and other words as applicable) in clinic sometimes, when it is clear that these are the most appropriate words to use with this particular patient. Some people don’t know the other words.
(one of the clues is when they use the words themselves, and seem puzzled if I use more technical words).
Chrs: “I think it’s perfectly okay to say what I think about it.”
Absolutely. And that’s fine. But the consequences of saying what one thinks are often being ‘bristeled at,’ disagreed with and occaisionally uprbraided. Right or wrong. That’s not a problem, it’s just discussion. (Something that is made a little less real and perhaps less charitable, in my opinion, by being carried on in a blog, but it’s still conversation.) I for one honor your right and freedom to say what you like. I don’t think you were uncharitable and it was a helpful contribution.
You also write: “People have lost respect for me because of that? Now I’m disappointed.”
I don’t think anyone lost respect for you. I certainly didn’t. Nor do I think that the category “weak” is a problem. I have relatives who left the strict anabaptist roots of our ancestry but couldn’t stop wearing the headcovering. They knew it wasn’t wrong, but their consciences were weak in this way and they didn’t want to violate them. I have areas in which I recognize the ‘weakness’ of my moral sentiments and don’t abuse those sentiments but diving in head over heals in order to be strong. Until I can practice something in faith, freedom and confidence I shouldn’t practice it.
And for your sake, I should probably write s*** in this forum. But what I bristle at is the inversion of stregth and weakness and the implicit judement in your assessment of other people’s motives on the basis of their argument.
I didn’t start slinging around swear words in college because I thought it was cool. I came to an adult realization that these taboos (beer, dancing, R-rated movies (no reference to content or distinctions for reasons), books with the F-word, s**t) had really screwed up the freedom for which Christ had set me free. REALLY screwed it up. And so I changed my perspective. I still don’t walk around dropping swear words and I think it has some practical disadvanates, but it’s just not a moral issue.
I would consider using such euphemisms for curse words to be nearly as harmful as the words themselves.
We know that we are called to be holy (i.e. separate, other), and we are to refrain from unwholesome talk and instead build each other up (Eph 4:29), yet by using such euphemisms we make clear what word was actually said. Is this really refraining from unwholesome talk, or are we still sticking out toe into the muck?
It would be dishonest to delete the word entirely (since we would be misrepresenting the quote), but is it better to give the reader enough info that they can fill in the censored letters on their own, or should we simply put EXPLETIVE or some gobbledygook like $%&#!.
I personally would pick the latter, because I continue to struggle with overcoming my own old habits of using curse words, and seeing these euphemisms which point me toward the actual words is not helpful for me.
Just because the Bible doesn’t give us a list of words to avoid doesn’t mean that we are free to say what we want without bringing some spiritual harm to ourselves or others. We may not see the results of that for a long time, but that doesn’t mean it won’t affect the church or people’s spiritual lives if Christians just take the attitude that profanity is no big deal. I”m not even sure you’re saying it’s no big deal–you said it’s not a moral issue–but I think there is some spiritual significance to profanity. Anabaptist headcoverings don’t carry the connotations that profanity does, so I think that example might not be comparable.
Looking at the etymology of the s-word, if we lived centuries ago in the OE, Du, or Ger cultures where the word origninated it could probably just mean a cow dropping, but we don’t.
Yes, we do have to take the consequences for what we say. I just don’t think one of the consequences for caring about our speech should be being labeled a legalist by other Christians. I’m not sure you brought up legalism, but a few comments by others did. Legalism is a salvation by works theology. I did not say that swearing sends people to hell or that people who swear are not Christian. But I do think that using profanity has a negative effect on our lives and the people around us. And although Jesus did not give us a list of words, profanity does fall into the descriptions that he does give us based on the connotations that they carry today.
Someone did say they don’t respect people who–whatever it was–related to my comments. No, it wasn’t you, and I appreciate your explaining some of your other comments.
I’m not sure where you saw an assessment of other people’s motives in my comments. I think it is too hard in cyberspace to really talk about things. You can’t tell people’s tones of voice, or really get their feedback on what you said in a timely manner. Everyone reads meanings into people’s comments based on their own experiences. I’m sure I have done that, too, and I’m sorry–especially to you and Nathan who I seem to have bothered the most.
I realize that a lot of people grew up in churches where people were judged for everything they said and did. It sounds like it was pretty bad. We don’t need to be putting people out of churches for swearing, or for wearing sleeveless tops, or the kinds of movies they watch. And that is certainly not what I meant. I guess, as I’m thinking now after all this, what was I really trying to say? I’m trying to say that I don’t think the church is better off now because many kids in the youth group, some of the leaders in the church, and a lot of other Christians now use profanity casually. Not just in my church, but lots of them. And while I don’t think everyone who has used the word sh– instead of poop has necessarily sinned, I think a lot of people have let down a guard that has made them careless in their speech, and that many in fact sin by the profanity they use–although not ONLY the profanity. Does that mean what they’re doing is worse than someone who never uses profanity, but is haughty or prideful? Absolutely not.
Thanks to all of you who have read patiently through my wordy comments. I don’t want to have the last word about this, so if you comment further and I don’t respond, I think I’ve just said enough and taken up more space than is fair to others.
Thanks again for listening,
cd
Chris (CD),
Thank you for making clear where you are coming from.
It seems that I communicated I don’t respect you. That was not on my mind.
I think what I was saying was that in general I “respect” that people have their taboos. I’ll even want to demonstrate sensitivity to them when around them.
But I don’t respect it when people try to cast the issue the way that Camp person does and takes what is an issue of conviction/interpretation and asserts by force of will that those who do not agree with them have now “drunk the Koolaid”–whatever that means.
Thank you for wading through this with us…your willingness means a lot.
In general, to everyone on this thread:
I’d genuinely like to hear why this issue is apparently such a total deal breaker out there in Christian world?
peace.
Thanks, Nathan.
Where drinking the Kool-Aid comes from, for those who may not know. I guess it was actually Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid.
Was actually asking Abraham if he’d been listening to Mr. Tripp. LOL sorry bout the confusion
Chris, to be crystal clear about the motivation thing, here’s what you said:
““My motivation was not the glory of God but the delight in the flesh. In so much of the discussion in the blogosphere, people defending the use of profanity are saying many of the same things I said so I cannot help but think some of the heart behind the words demonstrate the same kind of heart I had at those times. ”
Here’s what I heard: Because my motivation in defending swearing was a delight in the flesh, and because many people who continue to do so say the same things I did, therefore they must have the same kind of heart issues I did.
That’s where I think we get into the problem, because Paul very clearly states that some actions (words) are in fact clean for some and not clean for others. In other words, they must be judged not according to the fact but according to the person. There is no uber-list of what should be done and said and what should not be done and said. There is only Christians (for whom all things are lawful) working out their freedom and their consciences in practice, striving for what is most profitable and what they can and should do in faith.
In some ways, this comes ALLLLL the way back around to Abraham’s orgininal context of ‘taboos.’ Christians simply shouldn’t think in categorical taboos (drinking, R-rated movies, swear words, etc.). We should have a robust ethics based in Christian freedom, faith, and profit for the Kingdom of God.
Personally, I find it far more profitable for the kingdom of God that I let go of the taboos (for which we are sometimes RIGHTLY mocked) and embrace true Christian freedom where it is not tabboo abstinence of forbidden foods, celebrations, words, etc that are the rule of the day but moderation, enjoyment, and profitable decision making.
One thing for me… If I see s*** , I immediately fill in the blank. It would probably be easier for me just to see it and get over it.
As a college student, I have gotten less aware of bad language, though I admit bad words can pop to mind when I don’t want them to.
Abraham – do you just lean back in your chair and wonder what you’ve started sometimes? :)
A couple of historical notes:
Chris, The idea that “It’s hard to think about pornography without THINKING ABOUT PORNOGRAPHY” was, I believe, first spoken by Mike Yaconelli.
The saying, “…thousands of people are dying every day and going to hell, and most of us don’t give a s**t. But the sad part is that more people are upset that I just said ‘s**t’ than are upset about the thousands of people going to hell;” was first popularized by Tony Campolo and Steve Camp; and was probably the first time many of us had heard the s-word used in a church or Christian concert.
Paul, it’s good that you told many of us more about those quotes. It is sad that we often get distracted from eternity. I was reminded of this one day when I was just complaining and complaining about Bill Clinton as president. Suddenly the Lord spoke to my heart (not audibly): If you prayed for him as much as you complain about him, he might be different. I still slip and complain about politicians, celebrities who are bad role models, etc., but I have become much more aware of the need to pray, not only for those we know personally, but for those whose faces we see and names we hear every day who need Jesus. Every time we think of them is an opportunity to pray and make a difference in their eternity.
If I have to refer to them, I say the ‘s-word’ or the ‘f-word’ because the “real” ones taste too bad in my mouth.
Because those with weaker consciences, especially new Christians, may have their consciences seared by the un-careful use of the actual word. There are reasons to watch what you say, and those younger and less mature in the faith may have trouble balancing out the difference between the profane and non-profane use. Same thing for alcohol or meat (see 1 Cor 10). The believer has the liberty in Christ to drink (1 Tim 5:23) if he doesn’t fall into drunkenness and sin. But the love of Christ and the desire to build up the body of Christ forbid him from drinking in front of a new believer who comes from a life of drunkenness and debauchery. “All things are lawful, but not all things build up.” (1 Cor 10:23)
If you’re going to cuss, cuss to the glory of God. If you’re going to abstain from cussing, abstain from cussing to the glory of God.
[...] Piper has a darn good question (irony [...]
So, if the trend continues and more and more christians start using “curse” words. At what point will they cease to be “curse” words?
Wow – you really stepped in “it” this time! LOL! Note to self – if you want lots of reader interaction on a topic, say something about feces or intercourse.
For those of us who are Reformed, we can always say “Well, Luther supposedly used the term ‘sheisse’ in describing our justification (snow-covered manure pile)”. Of course, Luther also wrote that wonderful tome, On the Jews and Their Lies so maybe we don’t want to go there!
Being the geek I am, I sometimes lapse into the BSG-inspired frak but am cautious when doing so. Referencing Shitake mushrooms too often raises eyebrows as well.
Actually, if one really wants to raise the temperature of the room, just start casually reading Ezekiel 23:19-21. Holy crap!
Wow.
It’s a bit much to say that words are only made of letters. Paul says there is such a thing as unwholesome language. I don’t think he meant only in Greek or Hebrew. And he didn’t explain it away by saying those unimportant words were really only a mix of letters. Words, as much as we might like to explain it away, are very important in the language in which they are expressed.
Every language has opportunity for unwholesomeness. We didn’t get a list of all unwholesome language in all languages from 60 AD to beyond. But we did get crude joking and unwholesome speech spoken of in the Bible … with a command regarding them.
But I think we all know, in our hearts, what it is. It’s not just only a “naughty” word. Unwholesome speech would encompass a whole lot more than we are comfortable with if we are honest with ourselves.