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.

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!

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.

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.

““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.

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.

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

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.

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.

All in all I find it quite ironic. And it pains me that we even have to have this discussion.

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.

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.

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?